Laserfiche WebLink
7A <br /> Page 20 <br /> or compromise of historic resources from the project because not enough relevant <br /> informa�ion has been dev�loped to determine that the proposed project will N�T <br /> result in a significant environmeutai impact. <br /> Update since the Feb. 10 hearing ; <br /> In April,the agplicant's historical consultant,Laura lones,submitted a r�port tv tae City <br /> entitled"Addendum: Historic District Investigation".In it,Dr.Jones anaty�ed the <br /> Wellesley Park subdivision in its entirety for po��ntial as an historic districk The analysis <br /> encompassed a very large area(over 5(}O lots)and did NaT inciude the Finger Park tract, <br /> which contains the project site,the Finger Farn�h.ouse historic landmark,and many of the <br /> impacted praperties.Because Dr.Jones' study area is so large and does not include the <br /> project site,we ques�on whether this report has relevancy to vur argru.ment.To address <br /> this issue,we cantracted wi#h�raravagiia.t�rchitecture,inc.fo revie�1,�is repari and at1 <br /> relevant data�n the public record,conduct a si.te recannaissance,pro�ride an assessme�nt <br /> of tihe adequacy of the work done to date and prvvide an opinion as to whether there may <br /> be the potential far a signifieant inapact on cuttural resources as a result of this project. � <br /> Their report(attach+ed)coneludes:"The informa�ion presented thus far do�s not <br /> adequate[y support the conclusions cancerning impacts that have been drawn b� <br /> the Appticant Based on what has been presen�ed for public review,Garavagiia <br /> Architecture,Inc.feels there are still areas that require further analysis�o determine <br /> the extent and nature of impacts on the environment(specifically cultural <br /> resources)resul�ing fram Che proposed projec�.Until these impa.c�s have be�n n�ore <br /> fully anatyzed,there is�he potentiai for sfgnifican�impacCs that may warrant further <br /> mftigation measures,or changes to the proposed proj+ect'T`liis includes impacts on <br /> known resources,such as the Finger Farmhouse,as vvell as potential resources <br /> including the enti.re iUU block of Finger Avenue(histvrically known as the Finger <br /> Tract.}•► <br /> We aiso note that the City now admits in the May 19 staff report(circle page 10) <br /> that"the City's histori+c consultant did mention dur�ng the peer revie�+v af the <br /> applicanC's historic report that there was the possibili�r that this area could con�ain <br /> a potentia�histor�c districC".In the fotlowing paragraph on the same page,the City <br /> also states:"It also should be noteci that the HRAC has indicated interest�n�he � <br /> passibility of establishing an historic dis�rict in this ar�a." <br /> rli�scussion <br /> In light of the new inforniation submitted fo the City,it is even clearer that our originai <br /> cancerns and assumptions are based on facts that experts bave now validated..'We st�nd <br /> by our original clai.ms that the MND does not adequatety adciress potential i.mpacts from <br /> the project on historic and cultural resources. We urg�the Commission to d�rect the City <br /> to properly evaluate t�ese potential unpacts by fo�lvwin�the rer,anvnendarians set forth <br /> in the report by Garavaglia Architecture,Inc.This should be done in the context of an <br /> EIR that also assesses�esthetic impacts as well.An E�R will help to guaran�e openness <br /> and ob�ectivity�the a�atysis,and require alternative plaas be evaluar.ted. <br /> fi.5 Geology and Soils(a(iv}�—�Egpose peopte or st.ructures to goi�en��i substantiai <br />