5 - PUBLIC COMMENT_DAVIS (SAFER)

Home Browse Search

SAFER Comments on Addendum to One Broadway Plaza EIR March 30, 2020 Page 8 of 11 during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015)9 found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016)10 found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5- story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016)11 searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities. Here, there is ample evidence to support a fair argument that the Project will result in many collision fatalities of birds, and that this may result in a significant impact. Yet neither the 2004 EIR nor the Addendum make any attempt to analyze this potentially significant impact. An EIR is required to fully analyze and mitigate this impact. III. THE CITY MUST PREPARE AN EIR BECAUSE THE 2004 EIR ADMITS SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVAILABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. An EIR must be prepared for the Project because the 2004 EIR determined that the One Broadway Plaza Project would cause significant and unavoidable impacts on aesthetics, air quality, transportation/traffic, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, and cultural resources. Addendum, pp. 13-14. In the case of Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 122-125, the court of appeal held that when a “first tier” EIR admits a significant, unavoidable environmental impact, then the agency must prepare “second tier” EIRs for later projects to ensure that those unmitigated impacts are “mitigated or avoided.” (Id. citing CEQA Guidelines §15152(f).) The court reasoned that the unmitigated impacts was not “adequately addressed” in the first tier EIR since it was not “mitigated or avoided.” (Id.) Thus, significant effects disclosed in first tier EIRs will trigger second tier EIRs unless such effects have been “adequately addressed,” in a way that ensures the effects will be “mitigated or avoided.” (Id.) Such a second tier EIR is required, even if the impact still cannot be fully mitigated and a statement of overriding considerations will be required. The court explained, “The requirement of a statement of overriding considerations is central to CEQA’s role as a public accountability statute; it requires public officials, in approving environmental detrimental 9 Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, Glass, and Bird–building Collisions in an Urban Park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94. 10 Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west- coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144600. 11 Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus. PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652