AgdaPkt 2013-01-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 21 because the smaller buildings do not negatively affect vistas or views. (Addendum No. 2, pp. 3-6, 3-7, 3-20, 3-21.)6 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. E. Slip-Loss and Displacement of Live-aboards Has Been Thorouqhly Analyzed, Beyond that Required by CEQA Appellant's Position: CEQA review is inadequate because circumstances have changed since the EIR was certified. Appellant asserts that the EIR "relied upon a silver bullet— the coincidental approval for a brand new marina at Westpoint Harbor," which does not presently have capacity to accept residents that could not live-aboard their vessels at the subject Project. (Appeal, pp. 11-12.) City's Response: The EIR thoroughly studied potential environmental impacts related to the termination of live-aboard opportunities at Pete's Harbor (as was proposed in the prior iteration of the project). (See, EIR, pp. 4-2, 4-23 through 4-26, and 6-14 through 6- 16.) The EIR explained that there were approximately 90 vessels used for residences at that time, and that none would be permitted to stay. (EIR, pp. 3-34, 4-2, 4-26) With respect to land use impacts, a project which physically changes a community (e.g., by building a highway through an existing neighborhood) may create a significant impact. Here, the Project is not physically dividing the community. New construction within the community is planned, keeping the physical community in tact. In addition, a project which is inconsistent with land use regulations may create a significant impact. The Project is consistent with the City's land use regulations. Thus, there is no land use impact. Appellant also contends a third land use impact criterion is "whether the Project will "displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere." (Appeal, p. 11.) This is not a land use impact criterion; it is a population and housing impact criterion and is thus discussed in the population and housing section below. Moreover, the purpose of CEQA review is to address environmental impacts. (See, e.g., CEQA Guidelines §§ 15360, 15378, 15382 (discussing projects, environment and significant effects of projects on the environment). Appellant's concern about displacement of live-aboards is not an environmental issue, but is a social, economic and policy issue. 6 Moreover, Appellant implies that the visual impacts are an issue relative to the property rights of owners at the Villas at Bair Island. CEQA concerns environmental impacts, not property rights. (See, e.g., CEQA Guidelines §§ 15360, 15378, 15382 (discussing projects, environment and significant effects of projects on the environment). Page 21 of 27