AgdaPkt 2013-01-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 20 The Applicant provided both Phase I and Phase II studies, which were considered in the EIR. Appellant offers unsupported speculation that the site could include hazardous material. Appellant refers to a letter from James Beeby, but that letter merely provides the writer's observation of apparently illegal dumping at the site (e.g., tires, scrap metal and a large household appliance). Thus, in sum, there are no substantial changes, new significant information or circumstances that lead to a new environmental impact or increased severity of a previously identified impact. C. Quality of Fill Relative to Construction Has Been Thorouqhly Analyzed Appellant's Position: The City should study whether the site would be subject to settling. (Appeal, p. 11.) City's Response: The EIR studied the environmental issues related to Appellant's contentions, including without limitation regarding the contents of the soil, topography, seismicity, and foundation and settlement impacts. (See Chapter 11 of the EIR, including at p. 11-12.) In sum, there are no substantial changes, new significant information or circumstances that lead to a new environmental impact or increased severity of a previously identified impact. D. The Visual Impacts Have Been Thorouqhly Analyzed (Appeal, p. 11) Appellant's Position: The view from the Villas will be degraded. (Appeal, p. 11) City's Response: In the EIR and Addendum No. 1, the City thoroughly studied the visual impacts of the Project, including at the Villas. (See, e.g., EIR, pp. 5-1, 5-4, 5-26, 5-27.) Addendum No. 2 updates this analysis and concludes that there is no longer any significant impact. Specifically, the EIR determined that originally proposed building heights for Pete's Harbor—up to 240 feet—was a significant environmental impact requiring mitigation. The current Project has buildings up to 75 feet tall, and the Addendum concludes the reduced height eliminates any significant impact. Now that the "reduction in building mass ... would substantially reduce visual impacts on surrounding views and vistas compared to the previous project," there is no significant impact. (See Addendum No. 2, p. 3-20 – p. 3-21.) Reasons include without limitation that the scaled-down buildings of the revised Project (maximum 75 feet, rather than 240 feet) result in no significant impacts both because the height is within the generally applicable 75-foot limit5 and 5 The height of the tallest buildings, 75 feet, is within the generally applicable height limit of the applicable Residential Combining District, the R-5 District Zoning. (RCZD §§10.5, 25.7(c). However, because the site is larger than 40,000 square feet, there is no height limit. (Zoning Code §10.5(B).) Page 20 of 27