AgdaPkt 2009-08-03 spc, clsd and jnt

Browse Search

7A area would or would not contain an historic district. Page 5 • Aesthetic lmpacts: Finally, the Finger Avenue Pride CQmmittee also raised the possibility of massing and densify impacts the praject may have on the neighborhood. They believe that these aesthetic impacts cannot be mifiigated and thus would require an EIR. The Committee recommended an analysis ofthe entire developmenfi within the context of the entire neighborhood including bui�dings, streetscape, and vegetation as opposed to simp(y comparing against individuai lo# zoning requirements. By adopting the iS/MND, the Planning Commission concluded that tnere would be no significanfi aesthetic impacts. Indeed the project would meet mos# of the R-1 zoning requirements. In order to determine whether a fair argument has been established, staff directed the Planning Commission to consider the fvllowing questions at its May 19 mee�ing: • Does the information presen#ed at the public hearing point out a potentially significant en�ironmental impac�/effect? And; • Does the e�idence demonstrate that even after mitiga#ion the Project may stiil have a potential significant ad�erse effect on the environment? According to CEQA even if there is disagreemenfi among expert opinion supported by facts vver the significance of an effect on the en�ironn�ent, t�ie �ead Agency shall treat the effect as significanfi and prepare an EIR. The fair argument test creates a low threshold requirement for initiai preparation of an EIR and refiects a preference for resol�ing doubts in favar of en�ironmental review when the question is whether any such review is warranted. UVhen the e�idence presented by a project opponent is credible and points to a potential�y significan�environmental effect, the low threshold of the fair argument standard encourages the preparativn of an E1R. At its May 19th meefing the Planning Commission adopted the IS/MND. It was able to make a!I the required findings as to why an IS/MND should be prepared, more specifically that there was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significan# effect on the environmen# and provided reasons for its conclusion. Please refer to Attachment 1 (Revised Recommendations and Findings)to the May 19 Planning Commission staff report'. 2. The Plannrng Cammission acted inappropria�ely when i�acc�pted the apinion of staff and the applican�'s consultants fhat fhe �ro�ect woulc�not present signifrcant impac�s, even fhough other qualified experts presented fact based interprefations and opinrons fo the contrary; A Mitigated Negative Declaratron should be prepared when the Initia( Study identifies pofientially significant effects on the environment, bufi{1) revisions in the projecfi plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negafiive declaration and initial study are released for public review would a�oid the effects or ' The applicant also made some improvements to the project following the February 10;" Planning Commission meeting�They included making the 22 ft.wide priva#e roadway one way instead of fwo way; including a designated pedestrian pathway within the roadway; meeting the 40% required lot coverage; having no homes encraach within 15 ft. from the top of bank; eliminating#wo guest paricing spaces, and other modifications. These improvements are discussed in the May 19�'Pianning Commission staff report.