75C - PH MORTIMER MIXED USE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum October 12, 2020 Page 13 of 15 Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA significance threshold of 10 per million. SWAPE also calculates that the Project will have significant greenhouse gas impacts. (SWAPE 23). SWAPE concludes that the Addendum fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project's air quality impacts. Exceedance of Air District thresholds establishes a significant impact under CEQA. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project's air quality impacts. See, e.g. Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 (County applies BAAQMD's "published CEQA quantitative criteria" and "threshold level of cumulative significance"). See also Communities fora Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-111 ("A 'threshold of significance' for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant"). The California Supreme Court recently made clear the substantial importance that a BAAQMD significance threshold plays in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 CalAth 310, 327 ("As the [South Coast Air Quality Management] District's established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact"). An EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project's significant air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. E. EVEN IF THE 2010 EIR WERE 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 2010 EIR had some relevance to evaluating the environmental impacts of this Project, numerous substantial changes in the development plans have occurred such as the increase in massing and density, new information of substantial importance has arisen, and substantial changes in circumstances have taken place that require a wholesale revision of the dated 2010 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 75C-32