Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 366 <br />B.A. - Page 124 <br />I I ICZI IC2Lt <br />Jim <br />Honorable mayor and Members of the City Council <br />August 15, 2411 <br />Page 13 <br />CEQA requires that mit on rnwwres be Wachve, feasible and fully moble and should <br />be listed, wnsidered and selected W reduce all potamdally significant impacts to leers of <br />insigni$caace. "An IMM should fucua an mitigation =mum that are feasible, practical, <br />and effeeftO OCus&a & Zoddre, Practice under the Califtnin Envit nmenta1 Quality Ad (2 <br />ed Cal CEB 20081 § 14.3, citing Napa Cfftiae o for Honeet Gav'r v. Napa Coin}+ Bd. of <br />SWervrsors (2001) 91 Ca1,App.4#h 342, 365.) The mitigation wase identified by flu E1R <br />and adopted by the Pkwdng Convnissioa are wholly innedapate to reduce the d90 ficant <br />impacts ofWs pmjod in say respect. <br />As a general matter, the LY duration Measuzaa, and the Mitigation Monitoring and <br />Reporting Finn (while rmfl ecting some of the outsized risks of the proposed <br />panject) are far fico detailed and ambitious for offedivc montane ing and <br />enforcameizt to occur. (Sse FMR, Appendix A: Mitigadw Monitoring and <br />Reporting Progum.) As stated above, they also mat the amount or <br />carpe of corrective action that would be required 0 counteract the destructive <br />effects of do pxojed. This is oat to say the MM" should not be ambitious; <br />rather, it reflects the disproportionate size and complexity of the project for flus <br />ea�viroamentally fragile area. Tho FEDI does xuo# mention the added complication <br />of monitoring 18 building projects being separately undertaken by numerous <br />individual owners. Nei#hex this hd nor tha apparent lack of feasibilitY of the <br />mitigation measures waa sddmed in the Elk or the fines of fife Commission. <br />We believe that the Commission's summary staW=W adopting the MMR? as <br />"enfornesble" and "Capable of being fully implameated" is inawnK . Absent <br />adequate mitigation measures, the Commission's conclusion that no sirdf rant <br />environmental impact will result is Similarly wit6oni basis. <br />The Commission finds #hat messw es such ae the plando$ of small replacement <br />trees and vcxftdon will sufficiea#ly miVWW the loss of five act of open apace, <br />ninety-one mahm tres, n&Ux lly fmmed watdrwsys and other aspects of tBoc <br />scenic area. (SW e.g.. FEM. MitiSWm Measure Biology -16) Howerva, the <br />projWet arta has been largely untouched for over 50 years (the hvw Fenn a WOPY <br />ova a curved dirt road), and no amount of aesthetic mitigation will reverse what <br />affecied residents have fittingly rcferred to as "strip azi»ing" of the area. <br />'Me FE1R nefirs too tie "tmpmary" nature of the signm cant air quality and noise <br />impad caused by project devdopment esti consructinn. The PEER omit <br />mesatioaing in this context that such consirumion is purposed to continue far up to <br />nogg years - although it does mention that tree removal and heavy oaastruction <br />will occur for the entire nine yen construction period. (See AER sea. 3: <br />