AgdaPkt 2013-01-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 12 In 2012, the City prepared Addendum No. 2 for the current iteration of the development proposal for Pete's Harbor. The purpose of an Addendum is to describe the changes and additions to the previously certified EIR necessary to achieve CEQA compliance for the current proposal. A city shall not prepare another EIR if the analysis demonstrates that there are no new significant impacts or increases in severity to previously identified significant impacts. (Pub. Resources Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162(a); 15164, see also Addendum No. 2, p. 3-1.) The Addendum analysis demonstrates that the revised Pete's Harbor Project will not cause new significant impacts or increases in severity to previously identified significant impacts. Thus, the City properly relies upon the environmental analysis in the EIR and the Addenda and does not need to prepare another EIR (e.g., a supplemental or subsequent EIR). Addendum No. 2 was published for the Planning Commission meeting. (Addenda do not need to be circulated for public review and comments.) (Pub. Resources Code § 15164(a).) Section 2 of Addendum No. 2 (Attachment 4, including Errata Sheets, Attachments 5-7) describes the specific differences between the current Pete's Harbor Project and the version analyzed in the EIR. Section 3 of Addendum No. 2 describes how the differences affect the impact and mitigation conclusions of the EIR. Addendum No. 2 also identifies mitigation measures that have been removed as a result of the reduced project scope, mitigation measures that remain applicable, and any new mitigation measures (as applicable). A summary of the revised impacts and mitigation measures is included in Table 1.1 of the Addendum, which verifies that the revisions incorporated in the current Project would not result in new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of the significant effects identified in the certified EIR. In fact, due to the reduction in the scale of the Project, there are fewer significant impacts than had been identified in the EIR, for which the Council already adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (See Addendum No. 2, p. 1-6.) Approval of the Project The Project was first reviewed by the Architecture Advisory Committee (AAC), on September 19, 2012. It recommended approval of the site plan and basic massing, with recommendations regarding some details, which were incorporated into the Project. The Planning Commission reviewed the Project on October 16 and 30, 2012. Staff recommended approval of the Project, citing compliance with multiple General Plan policies. After considering the environmental review (including the EIR and Addenda Nos. 1 and 2), the comments from the public and staff, and the merits of the Project, the Planning Commission approved the PD Permit (including parking modifications Page 12 of 27