Laserfiche WebLink
not authorized. Photographs in the record are among the factual supports <br />for the revised MND conclusions on public views and vistas. The City <br />recognizes that personal observations may be relevant on non-technical <br />subjects such as aesthetics, however, the observations must still be based <br />on facts. No factual evidence of public views or vistas substantially <br />affected by the Project was presented. <br />Many of the personal observations addressed private views from <br />individual backyards. The number of affected personal views is limited to <br />a few homes along the south Heron Bay boundary, over 500' away. This <br />is not a substantial impact under CEQA as any potential impact is limited <br />to a small number of private views. <br />The revised MND conclusion of no potential for significant impact due to <br />shadowing was supported by a technical study from an ESA expert on the <br />subject. Paul Taylor, on behalf of the Association, shows no evidence of <br />expertise on the subject. <br />Biology. The revised MND was circulated to both public agencies <br />primarily concerned with biological resources along the bayfront, <br />especially avian species. Neither agency, the State Department of Fish <br />and Game (now known as Department of Fish and Wildlife), and the East <br />Bay Regional Parks District, submitted any comments on the revised <br />MND. The CDFW's recommendations were incorporated into the revised <br />MND. The revised MND was further based on a technical study by ESA, a <br />well-known Bay Area environmental consulting firm with experience in <br />biological and avian resources in the nearby bay and marsh areas. The <br />Association's purported expert shows no expertise in biological resources <br />generally or avian resources or shorebirds; his evidence is not expert <br />advice supported by facts. <br />Aircraft navigational radar. The revised MND discloses the pertinent <br />permit requirements from the ACALUC and FAA, which are incorporated <br />as mitigation measures. The Project has since received clearance from <br />the FAA, which clearance is included in the responses to comments. The <br />Association's purported expert shows no expertise in radar, aeronautics, <br />airport operations or regulations; his evidence is not expert advice <br />supported by facts. <br />Noise. The revised MND finds no potential for significant impact, based <br />on the manufacturer's noise specifications showing noise levels would not <br />exceed 55 dB at the Project property line, which complies with City <br />standards for industrial (and residential) uses. The Association's <br />purported expert shows no expertise in noise analysis; his evidence is not <br />expert advice supported by facts. <br />4