75C - PH MORTIMER MIXED USE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum October 12, 2020 Page 7 of 15 construction and operation emissions are cumulatively considerable in excess of significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO and PM-10. (2010 DEIR 1-11). • Cultural Resources: The TZC area includes historic buildings and an historic district. "The feasibility of retaining a historic structure/resource is determined on a case -by -case basis." (2010 DEIR 1-12). • Noise: significant noise and vibration from pile -driving and nearby rail operations. (2010 DEIR 1-12). • Traffic: Significant traffic impacts, includoing at the 1-5 northbound off -ramp at Santa Ana Blvd. to an unacceptable level of service. (2010 DEIR 1-12). Since the overall program will have significant unavoidable impacts, the City must conduct project -level supplemental EIRs for specific projects proposed within the program area. The supplemental EIRs are required to determine whether mitigation measures exist to reduce the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the 2010 EIR. 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 phases of the project to ensure that those unmitigated impacts are "mitigated or avoided." (Id. citing CEQA Guidelines §15152(f)) The court reasoned that the unmitigated impacts were not "adequately addressed" in the first tier EIR since they were 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 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) The court specifically rejected a prior version of the CEQA guidelines regarding tiering that would have allowed a statement of overriding considerations for a program -level project to be used for a later specific project within that program. (Communities for a Better Env't v. California Res. Agency (2001) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 124, disapproved on other grounds by Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086.) Even though "a prior EIR's analysis of environmental effects may be subject to being incorporated in a later EIR for a later, more specific project, the responsible public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (Id., pp. 124-25.) 75C-26