AgdaPkt 2013-01-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 22 In any event, the EIR concluded that the loss of the 90 live-aboard slips, as well as the loss of 173 recreational slips (263 total slips) was not a significant land use impact. (EIR, p. 4-25.) The EIR did not reach this conclusion through consideration of any mitigation plan. (EIR, p. 4-25.) Rather, the ultimate conclusion was that there was no slip loss and no impact. (EIR, p. 4-25.) The same is true here; the Pete's Harbor project would not result in any physical loss of slips, but rather a change in tenancy. The Project provides for 263 slips, the same number as currently exist. Moreover, there are slips at Westpoint. Thus, Addendum No. 2 concludes that there are no new significant land use impacts or increases in severity to a previously identified land use impact. (Addendum No. 2, p. 3-5.) With respect to population and housing impacts, the EIR thoroughly evaluated whether the termination of live-aboard rights would "displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of housing elsewhere." (EIR, p. 6-11.) The EIR also notes that approximately 110 existing on-site "mobile" residential units (including live-aboard boats, recreational vehicles, and a mobile home) would be displaced (EIR p 6-14). BCDC staff also noted that live-aboard houseboats displaced by the proposed project which relocate to the Bay without BCDC authorization may become a `serious enforcement issue' for BCDC. The EIR concludes that "neither of these issues would constitute a direct environmental effect under CEQA (see subsection 6.3.1) unless the displacement were to "necessitat[e] the construction of replacement housing elsewhere". While the EIR discussed the potential for other marinas to house live-aboards, it did not base its conclusion on this potential. Rather, even with options at other marinas, approximately 50 live-aboards would be displaced. The EIR concluded that displacement of 50 live-aboards would not be a significant impact "because there is no evidence that the displacement will "necessitat[e] the construction of housing elsewhere." (EIR, p. 6-17.) This remains true. The net-housing effect of the Project is positive, and there is no evidence that the residents of living on their vessels will need new housing constructed in order to find a place to live. 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. F. Sea Level Rise Issues Are Beinq Analyzed, and Further Review Is Not Required Prior to Approval of the Subiect Permits Appellant's Position: The Project is inconsistent with General Plan polices regarding sea level rise, which should be further studied. (Appeal, p. 12) Page 22 of 27