75C - PH MORTIMER MIXED USE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appeal Application No. 2020-02, ER No. 2018-13 & AA No. 2020-04 — 4th and Mortimer Mixed -Use Development December 1, 2020 Page 8 examples of the mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, exceeding current Title 24 requirements by twenty -percent, ensuring that landscaping includes a drought resistant plant palette, ensuring that the project's design features incorporate light-colored roofing materials for energy conservation, and that the building provides proper shielding for all new mechanical systems. Mitigation Measures are made enforceable through the project's conditions of approval. Further technical review of the appellant's findings regarding the substantial evidence that the project will have several new environmental impacts not analyzed in the 2010 EIR (e.g., significant indoor air quality impacts, significant adverse air quality and greenhouse gas impacts, etc.) has been provided by the City's environmental consultant, Rincon Consultants, Inc. Rincon's detail response letter can be found as Exhibit 3 of this report. The technical review concluded that building material manufacturer compliance and regulations combined with the characteristics of formaldehyde would limit the potential of human health risks to a less than significant level pursuant to the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance threshold of 10 per million. Therefore, health risks related to formaldehyde, including impacts associated with the project, would not result in a new significant impact. Moreover, the review concluded that air quality impacts were adequately assessed according to methodologies recommended by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the SCAQMD. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant risk from airborne pollution or result in new or more severe impacts related to air quality or greenhouse gas emissions. As such, the prepared addendum supports the conclusion that changes to the project would not result in new or more severe impacts, including those related to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Traffic, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures identified in the 2010 FEIR and included in the addendum discussion. b. The appellant contends that under Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.AppAth 1307 and Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.AppAth 1152, the fair argument test applies to the question of whether a subsequent EIR should have been used. Summary of Appeal Reasoning: The appellant states that CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR and that this presumption is reflected in the fair argument standard. The appellant further provides findings that the under the standard, a lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports fair argument that project may have a significant effect on the environment. Staff Response: Courts have held that the fair argument test applies only to "preparation of an EIR in the first instance." Once an EIR has been prepared for a project, CEQA Guidelines Section 21166 prohibits agencies from requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR unless substantial changes are proposed. 75C-8