Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 13 <br /> Moreover, the EIR thoroughly evaluated whether the termination of live-aboard rights <br /> would "displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the <br /> construction of housing elsewhere." (EIR, p. 6-11.) The EIR notes that approximately <br /> 110 existing on-site "mobile" residential units (including live-aboard boats, recreational <br /> vehicles, and a mobile home) would be displaced. (EIR p 6-14.) BCDC staff also noted <br /> that live-aboard houseboats displaced by the proposed project which relocate to the <br /> Bay without BCDC authorization may become a `serious enforcement issue' for BCDC. <br /> The EIR concluded that "neither of these issues would constitute a direct environmental <br /> effect under CEQA (see subsection 6.3.1) unless the displacement were to <br /> "necessitat[e] the construction of replacement housing elsewhere". (EIR, p. 6-17.) This <br /> is truer than ever as there are no live-aboards currently residing at Pete's Harbor.8 The <br /> net-housing effect of the Project is positive, and there is no evidence that those who <br /> formerly lived on board their vessels at Pete's Harbor will need new housing <br /> constructed in order to find a place to live. <br /> In sum, the EIR (including the Addenda) thoroughly considered the environmental <br /> issues, and there are no substantial changes, new significant information or <br /> circumstances that lead to a new environmental impact or increased severity of a <br /> previously identified impact such that a new EIR is required. <br /> 5. The City Sufficiently Considered Sea Level Rise <br /> Appellant's Position: The City has not adequately considered sea level rise. (Appeal, <br /> P. 5.) <br /> City's Response: The City has properly considered sea level rise issues, including as <br /> follows: (1) the Project complies with existing City regulations such as the Floodplain <br /> Management requirement in Chapter 41 of the Municipal Code, and the Conditions of <br /> Approval require this for the Project, (2) to the extent that the City has programs or <br /> regulations in place the Project is consistent with General Plan Policies relative to global <br /> warming and sea level issues, including BE 10.3, BE 22.2, BE 24.2, BE 24.11 see <br /> General Plan, pp. BE-67, 78, 80, 81), and (3) the Applicant designed the Project in <br /> consultation with BCDC's design review body to address climate change/sea level rise <br /> issues by incorporating project design features that respond to the need for adaptive <br /> management strategies consistent with BCDC's sea level rise projections as revised in <br /> their "San Francisco Bay Plan" policies (2011). <br /> Appellant comments that the BCDC has "not yet even completed its sea level rise <br /> guidelines". (Appeal, p. 5.) The Applicant has incorporated BCDC design review input <br /> according to BCDC's current policy and regulatory framework (see above). Currently, <br /> BCDC policy is that "risk assessments are based on the best estimates of future sea <br /> level rise" 9(San Francisco Bay Plan) and that estimate utilizes the California Climate <br /> 8 Moreover, while the EIR discussed the potential for other marinas (EIR, p. 6-16)to house live-aboards, it <br /> did not base its conclusion on this potential. Rather, even with options at other marinas, approximately 50 <br /> live-aboards would be displaced. <br /> 9 The San Francisco Bay Plan acknowledges that"scientific uncertainty remains" regarding the pace and <br /> amount of future sea level rise and that project applicants may use other sea level rise projections if they <br />