Laserfiche WebLink
7A <br /> Page 10 <br /> Tentative Map,it is ctear that had the Commission been allovved to vote to deny the <br /> project at the ou�set,the project may we�i have been exempted from CEQA and no <br /> action wauld have been taken on the MND. <br /> ��V�PW,4�..�.�5� ' .. .. <br /> In the following paragraphs,we present a brief review of the record with respect to <br /> the evaluation of potential environmental impacts from the Finger Avenue project. <br /> This summary supplemen�.s a letter that was subrnitted to the P�anning Commission <br /> on May.29,20U9,where we present a mvre detailed review of the evideace reievant <br /> to the specific environmental impacts at issue.That partiicular Ietter and assvciated <br /> consultanC reports are attached to this appeal let�Cer. <br /> On November 26,Z008,city staffreleased an Initial StudyJMitigated Negatiae <br /> Declarationi,prepared by Impaet Sciences,Ir�c.,on the proposed 9-lot Finger Avenue <br /> subdivision. The MND's prescribed mi�igations did not require any physical <br /> modifi�a�ions to the praject;ins�ead most all of the mitigatians simpty required <br /> "l�es�practices"be followed during constructi.on.The MND triggered a very detailed <br /> comment letter from our neighborhood group�,dated Jan.5,20U9,that <br /> a� identified several potentialiy significant env�ironmental impacts no� <br /> previously recognized, <br /> b) identified a�teasti one praposed mitigation thafi was inac�equate to address <br /> potential impacfis,and <br /> c) pointed out at least ox�e instance where the Ini�ial Sfiudy-evaluation was not <br /> sufCcient to provide enough background from which to determine projeet <br /> impacts. <br /> Our January 5 comment letter also included a geotechnical e�at�auon from <br /> GE��NSITE,Inc.,dated December 23,2008�i�,that presented evidence for ex�ensiwe <br /> bank ero�ion and a Iarge creek bank soil slump no�identified or appropria�ely � <br /> addressed in the MND. <br /> The CEQA checklist items we found to be inadequately evaluated in the MND <br /> inciude; <br /> a) item b.1(c},degradation of�he existing visuai character or qualit3�of the site <br /> and its surroundings, . <br /> b) Item 6.5�a),substantial adverse change in th�significance of a historical <br /> resource, <br /> c� Items 6.6(a��iv),expose peapie or structures to potential substanr�al adverse <br /> effects...invalving Iandslides,and b.b(cj,be lc�cat�d on a g�ologic unit or soil <br /> that is uns�able or that would become unstable as a resuit of the�roject, <br /> d) Item 6.8(c),subst�ntialiy a�ter the:existing drai.nage pattern...which would <br /> result in substantial erosion or siltation vn or of�site, <br /> ej Item 6.8(d),substan�iall�alter the existing zirainage pattern...which wouid <br /> result in�Iaoding on or offsite, <br /> f� Item b.8�g),piace housing within a 1QQ-yea.r flaod ha�ard area,and <br /> 2 <br />