5 - PUBLIC COMMENT_DAVIS (SAFER)

Home Browse Search

SAFER Comments on Addendum to One Broadway Plaza EIR March 30, 2020 Page 9 of 11 projects, to justify their decisions based on counterbalancing social, economic or other benefits, and to point to substantial evidence in support.” (Id. at 124-125) Since the 2004 EIR admitted numerous significant, unmitigated impacts, a new EIR is required to determine if mitigation measure can now be imposed to reduce or eliminate those impacts. If the impacts still remain significant and unavoidable, a statement of overriding considerations will be required. IV. EVEN IF THE 2004 EIR WAS STILL RELEVANT TO THE PROJECT, A SUPPLEMENTAL OR SUBSEQUENT EIR IS NECESSARY BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES WILL RESULT IN NEW AND MORE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. Even assuming that the 2004 EIR has some relevance to evaluating the environmental impacts of this Project, numerous substantial changes in the development plans have occurred such as the inclusion of 402 new residential units, new information of substantial importance has arisen, and substantial changes in circumstances have taken place that require a wholesale revision of the dated 2004 EIR. When changes to a project’s circumstances or new substantial information comes to light subsequent to the certification of an EIR for a project, the agency must prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR if the changes are “[s]ubstantial” and require “major revisions” of the previous EIR. Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 943. “[W]hen there is a change in plans, circumstances, or available information after a project has received initial approval, the agency’s environmental review obligations “turn[ ] on the value of the new information to the still pending decisionmaking process.” Id., 1 Cal.5th at 951–52. The agency must “decide under CEQA's subsequent review provisions whether project changes will require major revisions to the original environmental document because of the involvement of new, previously unconsidered significant environmental effects.” Id., 1 Cal.5th at 952. Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162 “do[] not permit agencies to avoid their obligation to prepare subsequent or supplemental EIRs to address new, and previously unstudied, potentially significant environmental effects.” Id., 1 Cal.5th at 958. All of the evidence indicates that the project considered by the 2004 EIR has undergone significant changes to the project and its circumstances requiring substantial revisions to that 16- year old EIR. A. A New EIR is Required Because the Addition of 402 Residential Units is a Substantial Change from the 2004 Project and there is Substantial Evidence that the Residential Element of the Project Will Result in Emissions of Formaldehyde to the Air that Will Have a Significant Health Impact on Future Residents. Even if the 2004 EIR was somehow relevant to the current Project, the City would still be required to prepare an SEIR. The inclusion of 402 new residential units as part of the Project is a substantial change from the 2004 project. “The purpose behind the requirement of a subsequent