75C - PH MORTIMER MIXED USE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum October 12, 2020 Page 6 of 15 (14 CCR § 15168.) Thus, instead of proceeding under the provisions of CEQA Guidelines section 15164, the City should have proceeded under section 15152 provisions for subsequent analysis for a Program EIR rather than an addendum to an existing project - specific EIR. B. THE 2010 EIR HAS NO INFORMATIONAL VALUE TO 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, 1 Cal.5th 937, 950 (2016) ("San Mateo Gardens"); see also, Mattis Camp Cmty. Assn v. Cty. of Placer, 53 Cal. App. 5th 569 (2020). 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 2010 EIR, the City cannot reasonably claim that it addresses the Project that exceeds the density and massing analyzed in the 2010 EIR. Since the Project exceeds the density and massing analyzed in the 2010, and requires a variance, it has never undergone CEQA review, it is a new project, and the City must start from the beginning of the CEQA process under section 21151, conduct an initial study, and determine whether there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project will have a significant environmental impact. Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo, 1 Cal.5th at 951. The City Council should require CEQA review for the Project, and not approve the Project until CEQA review is completed. C. A TIERED EIR IS REQUIRED TO ANALYZE AND MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2010 EIR. The 2010 EIR admitted that the program would have significant unavoidable impacts in the areas of: • Aesthetics: shadows. (2010 DEIR 1-11) • Air Quality: inconsistency with 2007 Air Quality Management Plan; • construction emissions exceed significance thresholds; • mobile source emissions of VOC, NOx, CO and PM-10 exceed significance thresholds; 75C-25