5 - PUBLIC COMMENT_DAVIS (SAFER)

Home Browse Search

SAFER Comments on Addendum to One Broadway Plaza EIR March 30, 2020 Page 3 of 11 certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. DISCUSSION I. THE 2004 EIR HAS NO INFORMATIONAL VALUE TO THE RESIDENTIAL ASPECT OF THE PROJECT. As the California Supreme Court explained in San Mateo Gardens, subsequent CEQA review provisions “can apply only if the project has been subject to initial review; they can have no application if the agency has proposed a new project that has not previously been subject to review.” Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 950 (“San Mateo Gardens”). As the Supreme Court explains, “[a] decision to proceed under CEQA‘s subsequent review provisions must thus necessarily rest on a determination — whether implicit or explicit — that the original environmental document retains some informational value.” Id. at 951 (emph. added). Only if the original environmental document retains some informational value despite the proposed changes, changes in circumstances or new substantial information does the agency proceed to decide under CEQA’s subsequent review provisions whether such changes or substantial new information will require major revisions to the original environmental document because of the involvement of new, previously unconsidered significant environmental effects. 1 Cal.5th at 952. Reviewing the 2004 EIR, the City cannot reasonably claim that it addresses, i.e., provides some informational value regarding the potential environmental impacts of the 402 residential units proposed as part of the Project. The Project includes 402 units of residential housing that have never been analyzed in any previous CEQA document. A thorough review of the 2004 EIR confirms that no mention is made of any residential aspect of the project. Instead, the 2004 EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of an office tower, intended to be a landmark office project along Broadway at the center of the Midtown Specific Plan. Since the 2004 Project contained no residential element, none of the 2004 EIR’s discussion provides any information that would assist the City in determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 402 residential units. The project considered in the 2004 EIR simply has no relevance to the environmental impact of the construction and occupancy of 402 residential housing units.