Seeno Revised Description.pdf
Seeno Addendum.pdf
Seeno Staff Report PC 041008.pdf

Prior to acceptance by the City, the conclusory statements of the proposed EIR Addendum will need to be supported with data analysis. Alternatively, if it can be determined that revisions to the project involve new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of any impact identified in the EIR, a supplemental EIR could be required per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162.

§21166: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides for "Subsequent or Supplemntal Impact Reports: the conditions for such a report are:

• Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report.
• Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report.
• New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available.

A subsequent EIR shall be given the same notice and public review as required under §15087 or 15072.

A supplement to an EIR may be distinguished from a subsequent EIR by the following: a supplement augments a previously certified EIR to the extent necessary to address the conditions described in section 15162 and to examine mitigation and project alternatives accordingly. IT IS INTENDED TO REVIEW THE PREVIOUS EIR THROUGH SUPPLEMENTATION. A subsequent EIR is a complete EIR which focuses on conditions in that the changes to the original project are major and not discussed in the previous EIR.

For instance, the revised Seeno plan sets development back from creeks. However, the original plan filled the creeks and did not discuss runoff, erosion, riparian habitat or other functions of the creeks that could be affected by development. What are the appropriate mitigation measures to protect the now open creeks (surface drainage)? How will the creeks be managed? Who will be responsible for such management? Are there biological corridors necessary to connect the now saved creeks? What will be the effect of storm water in the creeks? What will be the storm water management Best Management Practices for the creeks? A reader would want to have answers to these questions.

These are easy questions. Harder questions are regarding traffic. What are the traffic patterns now? What material effect of the changed project layout and design? What makes this project more walkable than before? Hint, see LEED-ND (the language I thought should be included in the resolution for certification) for the metrics to determine walkability. Why doesn't the staff report provide helpful information to make these determinations of consistency with the General Plan.

Please keep in mind that LEED is for so-called "green buildings" which are for energy conservation, but does not make a project sustainable. What are the key factors to make this project sustainable? Are we to make this an ad hoc determination? Are there metrics that can inform and guide the decision makers?

Furthermore, there is no discussion in the certified EIR of greenhouse gas emissions and global climate changes. One could argue that the Seeno application was filed prior to enactment of AB 32 the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2007. But the Attorney General advises us that CEQA requires assessment of greenhouse gases with our without AB32. It should be clear that the current EIR is inadequate in this discussion and that the Council's adopted resolution anticipated a revised project that would be subject to an Initial Study and most likely a Supplemental EIR for public review.

An initial study for this new project description is essential to gain an understanding of what, if any, new impacts might exist as a result of the revised application. At the very least staff needs to provide the city with information that this project does indeed mitigate the impacts identified in the EIR. This discussion should include metrics for determination of mitigation.

§15126.6 (d) Evaluation of alternatives. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of the alternative may be used to summarize the comparison.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ci.benicia.ca.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={A4311CE1-A4D0-4963-8D57-C418BE58A3D7}

Note that color copies of all of the maps will be available in the Community Development Department, the Benicia Public Library, and the City Clerk's office.

Community Development
707-746-4278
707-747-8121 fax
geleccion@ci.benicia.ca.us