Laserfiche WebLink
-rr . _ _ . <br /> 7A <br /> Page 12 <br /> � bothered to conduct any kind of objective evatuation of the potential for <br /> visua�or aesthetic impacts,nor did the initial Study discuss the private Ioop . . - <br /> .. road design at ali,choosing only to Iook at traffiic impacts external to the - <br /> project The City did,however,recognize that��ere would be aesthetics and <br /> . - traffic safety impact�.s:the Feb.10 Staff�teport�',in fact,recommended <br /> project modifications to partly address the�e concerns.This included a <br /> recommendation that the Commission deny the apptican�s request for a <br /> roadway e�ception based on safety concerns.These"mitigations"should <br /> have been included in the MNU. <br /> 'Foilawing the public comment period atthe Feb.iD h�aring,the Commission <br /> decided to continue Che item to a�uture date.in the time between the Feb.lU <br /> hearing and the cont�nuation on May 19,the app�ieant made several minor <br /> madifications to the pro�ect plan and submi�ted two addirianal consultant reports. <br /> �ne of these was a report of a trench investigation that BAGG conducCed on the <br /> creek bank�,and the other was a broad-scale evatua�ic�n of the potential for the <br /> Wellesley Park subdivision to be considered an histcsric distr3ictX.The project site,by <br /> the way,is not located within the V1Tellesley Park subdivision. <br /> One of the recent project modifica�ions eiimina�es the starm waCer outfall in <br /> Cordilleras Creek and�hereiore adequately a.ddresses our c�ncerns regarding Items <br /> 6.8(c)and 6.8(d);the remaining altera�ions,however,do not address the other <br /> issues we have raised.It is aur opinion that the new ronsultant reports either <br /> fi�rther support our clairns,or are irreievant to the issues at hand.�1Ve responded Cv <br /> this new infvrmatian by once again aslc�ing GEOINSITE to review BAGG's new study; <br /> we also contracted with Garavaglia Architecture,Inc.,to conduct a formal review of <br /> ali of the documen�s pertaining to historic resvurc�s and aesthetics issues,including <br /> a site evaluation of their own and a re`riew of the latest historic district evaluation. <br /> These reporrs are attached to this appeal letter. <br /> The resuits of the evaluations by GEOINSYTE,inc.and Garavaglia Architecture,Inc. <br /> only confirm ouz-earlier claims.Both reports,and�he Ma�19 testimony before the <br /> Commission of Mr.Wiiliam Cole,President of�EO�NSITE,and Ms.Becky Urbano, <br /> Preservation Services Manager For Garavaglia Ar.chitecture,Inc.,provide expert <br /> validation in support of Che substan�ial evidence we have identified to support a fair <br /> argument for significant irnpacts resulti.ng fram the proposed pro�ect <br /> �Q����a_� <br /> In adopting the MND far the Finger Avenue projec�,the Pianning Cammission took <br /> on the role of arbitrating fact-based disagreemenfis that exist among experts and _ <br /> have sided with City stafPs and the appiicant's opinions in regard to the significance - - <br /> of�e enviranm�ntal impacts discussed in th�variaus submissions.This�s clearly <br /> the.ease with r�spect to aesthenc degradativn,cultural resource impacts,and <br /> geologic issues rela�ed to creek bank instability,where there is clear disagre�:ment <br /> among experts as to the patentiai for impacts and th�adequacy of the information at <br /> , 4 <br />