75C - PH MORTIMER MIXED USE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum October 12, 2020 Page 14 of 15 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. The evidence indicates that the project considered by the 2010 EIR has undergone significant changes to the project and its circumstances requiring substantial revisions to that 10-year old EIR. A. A New EIR is Required Because the Increase in Massing and Density is a Substantial Change from the 2010 Project and there is Substantial Evidence that the Project Will Result in Emissions of Formaldehyde to the Air that Will Have a Significant Health Impact on Future Residents. Even if the 201 EIR were somehow relevant to the current Project, the City would still be required to prepare an SEIR. The increase in massing and density, the failure to conduct a historic resource analysis, and zoning changes and variances required as part of the Project is a substantial change from the 2010 project. "The purpose behind the requirement of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration is to explore environmental impacts not considered in the original environmental document." Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 949 (quoting Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman (2006) 140 Cal.AppAth 1288, 1296). For example, in the case of Ventura Foothill Neighbors, a mere increase in the height of a building by 15 feet required a supplemental EIR, not an addendum. Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. Cty. of Ventura, 232 Cal. App. 4th 429 (2014). As discussed above, the expert opinion of Mr. Offermann constitutes substantial evidence that the residential component of the Project will result in a significant air quality impact to residential occupants of the Project. This impact is significant and new. It could not have been known in 2010 because the science in this area did not exist until 2015. Accordingly, the City violated CEQA by not preparing an SEIR to analyze and mitigate this new significant impact. There is no substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the Project will not have a new significant indoor air quality impact as a result of significant changes to the Project when compared to the project analyzed in the 2010 EIR. Accordingly, the City's decision to prepare an Addendum rather than an SEIR is not supported by substantial evidence, and approval of the Project based on the Addendum would constitute an abuse of discretion. For the above and other reasons, the Planning Commission should decline to recommend the City Council approve the Addendum, and instead direct Planning Staff to 75C-33