AgdaPkt 2013-05-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 3 The State Lands Commission, as a Trustee Agency, relies on the environmental assessment of a project by the Lead Agency, which in this case is the City. On April 18, Ms. Kato raised five questions of staff that the SLC would look to have answered in the environmental assessment: • Inclusion of an explanation in the Addendum 2 (2013) of the decision not to prepare a Subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. • Determination of whether any of the changes in the environment caused by the project will not cause a `new significant environmental effect of a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.' • All new activities associated with the project are covered in Addendum 2 (2013), not only those impacts to water quality. • An assessment of any potential impacts to Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the use of the boom truck and barge in the project. Cite specifically where in the 2003 EIR these assessments are located. • Identification of any potential impacts to Biological Resources from the introduction of Aquatic Invasive Species. (An email discussion is included with this report as Attachment 8.) The City wishes to assure that the questions of the Trustee Agency are adequately addressed in the environmental analysis. That evaluation is underway but will not be completed before the May 6 hearing. Ms. Kato also asked a series of project specific questions relating to the removal of pilings and docks from the Bay. Staff is working with the Applicant to obtain this additional information. However, it is important to note that other agencies are vested with the authority to issue permits for work anticipated in the Bay including removal of the pilings as anticipated by the 2003 EIR. In summary, the Applicant has revised the Project that was considered by the Planning Commission. Those revisions have necessitated an update to the Addendum No. 2 previously considered by the Planning Commission. Because of those revisions, SLC has requested additional information relating to the Addendum No. 2 and the Project as revised. Consequently, staff recommends that the City Council exercise its discretion and remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the Project and environmental review, as revised. Such further vetting by the Planning Commission would allow the Planning Commission to exercise its authority with respect to the revised Project. Such action would also allow for an additional opportunity for public involvement and discussion of the Project and environmental effects for a unique project that has seen a high level of public concern. The Planning Commission would review and consider the revised Project anew. The Commission's role remains the same in terms of evaluating the proposed Project in relation to the Zoning Ordinance, considering the environmental analysis, and acting on