3 - The Bowery_PUBLIC COMMENT_RAMSEY

Home Browse Search

8.0 Cumulative Impacts Avion Project SEIR Page 8-3 8.1 Cumulative Effects Found to be Significant 8.1.1 Landform Alteration/Visual Quality The 1998 EIR identified cumulative impacts related to landform alteration/visual quality. The EIR concludes that individual and cumulative landform alteration impacts would be limited by future project’s compliance with the Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL; formerly Resource Protection Ordinance [RPO]) steep hillsides regulations and that implementation of the Subarea Plan Design Guidelines would serve to partially mitigate visual character impacts. As described in Section 5.4.2, the project would result in alteration of existing landforms. The project would be consistent with the City’s ESL steep slope regulations, and the majority of steep slopes would be preserved on-site within Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) open space. However, manufactured slopes would exceed 10 feet in height, and excavation or fill in excess of five feet from existing grade would occur around the perimeter of the development footprint. Furthermore, preservation of approximately 23.75 acres of natural vegetation on-site within the proposed MHPA open space and revegetation of manufactured slopes would not fully mitigate impacts associated with landform alteration. Therefore, implementation of the project would result in cumulatively considerable and unavoidable impacts related to landform alteration/visual quality. 8.2 Cumulative Effects Found Not to be Significant 8.2.1 Land Use The 1998 EIR identified potential cumulative land use impacts related to compliance with the RPO (now the ESL Ordinance). The 1998 EIR concluded that future projects may require deviations from the RPO that would result in cumulative impacts related to regulatory nonconformance. As described in Section 5.1.3, the project would be consistent with the City’s Land Development Code (LDC) ESL regulations relative to the issues of sensitive biological resources and steep slopes, and no deviations would be required. Therefore, the project’s incremental effect would therefore not be cumulatively considerable related to LDC inconsistency. No direct impacts to habitat within the MHPA would result from the project following the adoption of the proposed MHPA boundary line adjustment. The project would be consistent with the six biological factors required by the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) for a MHPA boundary line adjustment (BLA), and the approved BLA would transfer equal or higher biological values of impacted species and habitats into the preserve. All of the other projects presented in Table 8-1 are constructed and were required to comply with the LDC and MSCP prior to approval. Therefore, when considered with other cumulative projects, the project would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to LDC or MSCP conflicts.