Laserfiche WebLink
Appeal Application Nos. 2020-03 and 2020-04 — Central Pointe Mixed -Use Development <br />January 19, 2021 <br />Page 8 <br />while SAFER suggests that the MEMU EIR's analysis should only be applied to <br />projects that will become operational through 2020, the Subsequent MEMU EIR <br />was not prepared until 2018, and clearly indicated it was analyzing GHG impacts <br />based on a 2040 buildout year. Because GHG impacts from the entire buildout of <br />the entire MEMU Overlay, including the Central Pointe Project site, were already <br />quantified and analyzed in the MEMU EIR, SAFER's assertion that a new CEQA <br />document is required to analyze such impacts is incorrect. <br />c. SAFER alleges an EIR is required due to the existence of "new information" that <br />could not have been known when the MEMU EIR was certified. <br />Staff Response — As discussed above, when a project is within the scope of a <br />previously certified EIR (including a program EIR), a lead agency may require a <br />subsequent EIR only in one of the three situations set forth in Public Resources <br />Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. As none of the three <br />situations are met, including no new information that could not have been known <br />when the MEMU EIR was certified, this comment is incorrect. <br />Air Quality: SAFER alleges that the City is required to prepare a new CEQA <br />document to evaluate alleged "impacts related to indoor air quality, and in <br />particular, emissions of the cancer -causing chemical formaldehyde," and submits <br />a report from Francis J. Offerman PE, CIH discussing such emissions. SAFER <br />claims that because Mr. Offerman relies, in part, on a 2020 study, that such alleged <br />impacts constitute new information which "could not have been known with the <br />exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 2007 MEMU EIR or the 2018 <br />MEMU SEIR were certified." But Mr. Offerman's own CV (which was attached to <br />the comments) shows numerous papers and presentations on the alleged risk of <br />formaldehyde emissions from wood products that date prior to the MEMU SEIR, <br />as early as 2010. <br />In addition, Mr. Offerman's assertions regarding the alleged impacts of <br />formaldehyde emissions from building materials do not rise to the level of <br />substantial evidence, given that such emissions are already the subject of <br />extensive regulation at both the state and federal level, including stringent <br />emission limits that the U.S. EPA and California Air Resources Board have <br />determined are protective of human health. Furthermore, Mr. Offerman's analysis <br />appears to assume the same level of emissions will be present, year after year, <br />notwithstanding the fact that formaldehyde is readily biodegradable and complete <br />degradation of formaldehyde can be accomplished in less than 30 days. <br />Bird Collisions: SAFER argues that the potential for birds to be harmed by flying <br />into windows constitutes "significant new information" requiring the preparation of <br />a subsequent EIR, merely because new studies related to that issue and the extent <br />of bird decline in general have come out in recent years. SAFER submits <br />comments from ecologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph. D. The information submitted by <br />