AgdaPkt 2014-03-24 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 12 Appellant's Position: The EIR is "out of date" and the addenda to the EIR do not adequately address changes to the marinas or the discontinuation of live-aboard opportunities. (Appeal, pp. 4-5.) City's Response: The environmental review is up to date and sufficient. The age of the EIR is not the issue. (See e.g. Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 192 [upholding a 2009 addendum to a 1998 FIR]; Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515 [upholding a 2009 addendum to a 1994 FIR]; Concerned Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301 [upholding a 2011 finding of no supplemental CEQA review based on reliance on a 2002 EIR].) Where a public agency is considering a modified version of a project for which an EIR was previously prepared, the issue is the sufficiency of the environmental analysis with respect to the current circumstances and project. The California Environmental Quality Act provides the applicable standards. 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 Revised 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 address changes to the project, the circumstances, and/or new information. (CEQA Guidelines § 15164.) Here, Revised Addendum No. 2 (Attachment 9) includes analysis of changes to the project, the circumstances, and new information. The analysis reveals that there are no new impacts or increases in severity to previously identified impacts (Revised Addendum No. 2, p. 1-7). Table 1.1 summarizes the information. Thus, the City properly prepared Revised Addendum No. 2 to update the EIR, and the EIR is not out of date. Indeed, the environmental review is proper and sufficient with respect to Appellant's specific claims regarding modifications of the marinas and the discontinuation of live- aboard opportunities. Both the original EIR and the Revised Addendum No. 2 addressed the inner harbor marina reconfiguration. (See, EIR, p. 3-31 ; Revised Addendum No. 2, p. 2-37.)The original EIR also 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.) In addition, Appellant's concern about the discontinuation of live-aboard opportunities is a social, economic and policy issue, not an environmental issue. The purpose of CEQA is to address environmental impacts. (See, e.g., CEQA Guidelines §§ 15360, 15378, 15382 (discussing projects, environment and significant effects of projects on the environment.) Accordingly, Appellant's contention that the EIR did not adequately study this issue is misplaced.