Reso 2013-043 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2. The revised MND was prepared and considered in a fully public process, consistent with all public notice and participation requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 3. Extensive comments were submitted on the revised MND but none of the comments constitutes substantial evidence of a fair argument of significant environmental impact, as further detailed in the Project application, supporting materials and studies, City staff reports, written responses to comments, and other materials and documents in the record, as summarized briefly below. Aesthetics. There are no public scenic views or vistas substantially affected by the Project. The Bay Trail is not adjacent to the Project site; the Project site is in the opposite direction of the bay and marshlands relative to the Bay Trail. The Project site is not in or adjacent to the bay and marshlands; it is inland of them. The "trail" adjacent to the Project site is a gated flood control maintenance area where public use and access are not authorized. Photographs in the record are among the factual bases for the revised MND conclusions on public views and vistas. The City recognizes that personal observations may be relevant on non-technical subjects such as aesthetics, however, the observations must still be based on facts. No factual evidence of public views or vistas substantially affected by the Project was presented. Many of the personal observations on aesthetics addressed private views from individual backyards. The number of affected personal views is limited to a few homes along the south Heron Bay boundary, over 500' away from the Project. This is not a substantial impact under CEQA as any potential impact is limited to a small number of private views. The revised MND conclusion of no potential for significant impact due to shadowing was supported by a technical study from an ESA expert on the subject. Paul Taylor, on behalf of the Association, shows no evidence of expertise on the subject. Biology. The revised MND was circulated to both of the public agencies primarily concerned with biological resources along the bayfront, especially avian species: The State Department of Fish and Game (now known as Department of Fish and Wildlife, or CDFW), and the East Bay Regional Parks District. Neither agency submitted any comments on the revised MND. The CDFW's recommendations were incorporated into the revised MND. The revised MND was further based on a technical study by ESA, a well-known Bay Area environmental consulting firm with experience in biological and avian resources in the nearby bay and marsh areas. The Association's purported expert shows no expertise in biological resources generally or avian resources or shorebirds; his evidence is not expert advice supported by facts. Aircraft navigational radar. The revised MND discloses the pertinent permit requirements from the ACALUC and FAA, which are incorporated as mitigation measures. The Project has since received clearance from the FAA, which clearance is included in the responses to comments. The Association's purported expert shows no RESOLUTION NO.2013-043 3