AgdaPkt 2013-01-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 19 time absent certain circumstances not at issue here (described below). Thus, preparation of an Addendum is proper. The EIR and Addendum No. 1 thoroughly analyze environmental impacts for a much a larger development in and around Pete's Harbor. Addendum No. 2 updates the environmental analysis in light of the scaled-down, revised proposal and the current facts and circumstances. (See, e.g., Addendum No. 2, Chapter 2, comparing the proposals.) As explained in Addendum No. 2, Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15164 provide the standards under which a public agency shall perform additional environmental review. Where an EIR has been certified for a project, the lead agency (i.e., the City) shall not prepare another EIR unless certain events occur, e.g., there are substantial changes, new significant information or circumstances that lead to a new impact or increase in severity to a previously identified impact. (Pub. Resources Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a); see also Addendum No. 2, p. 3-1, which quotes CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a).) If the conditions described above are not triggered, the lead agency shall prepare an Addendum to the EIR to analyze changes to the project, the circumstances, and/or new information. (CEQA Guidelines § 15164.) Addendum No. 2 includes analysis of changes and of potential new significant impacts and increases in significantly identified impacts. The analysis reveals that there are no new impacts or increases in severity to previously identified impacts. Table 1.1 summarizes the information. (Addendum No. 2, p. 1-7.) In addition, the responses to Appellant's contentions demonstrate the sufficiency of the environmental review. Thus, Appellant improperly contends that the City may not rely upon the EIR or Addendum No. 1. Rather, CEQA provides that a city shall prepare an Addendum to the prior environmental documents, and shall not prepare a new EIR, because the standards for preparation of a new EIR were not triggered. In addition, Appellant makes several contentions regarding the need for further environmental review, which are discussed below. B. The Content of Fill Has Been Thorouqhly Analyzed Appellant's Position: The City should further study the contents of the fill on the site because it might include hazardous waste. (Appeal, p. 10.) City's Response: The content of the fill, including the potential presence of hazardous material, was studied at Chapters 11 and 12 of the EIR. (See, e.g., EIR, pp. 11-5, 12-8.) Page 19 of 27