Response to Comments - Agenda Item No. 35

Home Browse Search

social or economic impacts, which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not substantial evidence.”Additionally,CEQA Guidelines Section 15145 states that speculative analysis need not be included in impact discussions. The EIR Addendum identified that the previously certified General Plan Update Final PEIR concluded significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, GHGemissions, and noise. Significant changes related to VMT, and energy consumption would occur if the Modified Projectwould result in significant expansionsor changes to existing or former uses; these changes would deviate from the approved General Plan, the impacts of which would not be covered by the certified General Plan FinalUpdate PEIR. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development types in the City are proposed or required to implement the Modified Project. The Modified Projectis not adding any new land use, and reaffirms the conditions in effect at the time of the certification of the General Plan Update Final PEIR. Nothing in the comment letter based on fact, or in the analysis in the Addendum point to any facet of the Modified Project that would result in any new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the certified General Plan Update Final PEIR. No changes to the EIR Addendum and no additional CEQA documentation are required. The comment also claims that an addendum is inappropriate because the Modified Project constitutes a new project that has not been previously reviewed and warrants new environmental review. CEQA includes a presumption against requiring any further environmental review once an EIR has been prepared for a project. (Pub. Resources Code, 21166.) As the court explained in Bowman v. City of Petaluma(1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1073, “\[S\]ection 21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired \[21167(c)\], and the question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process.” (emphasis added.) As discussed above and in the Addendum, the Modified Project does not change or alter in any way the existing land use designations citywide set forth in the General Plan and analyzed in the GP Final PEIR. In other words, contrary to the comment, the General Plan Update Final PEIRoffers information value because it already analyzed the land use conditions within the City as contemplated and proposed in the Modified Project. Thus, there are no substantial changes being made to the project or with respect to circumstances that warrant major revisions to the previous GP Final PEIR due to the involvement of new or more severe significant impacts, nor is there new information of substantial importance that shows there will be new or more severe significant impacts. An Addendum to the General PlanUpdate Final PEIR is therefore appropriate. For the same reasons as discussed above and in the EIR Addendum, the Modified Project also fits within the Class 1 exemption. The Modified Project would not result in a significant expansion of existing uses or former uses, and instead reaffirms the existing law. The comment raises no substantial evidence to suggest that the Modified Project does not fall within Class 1, or that any of the exceptions to the Class 1 exemptionunder State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply here. The Modified Project is therefore also exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the Class 1 exemption. O1-Attachment AThis attachment states that the City’s environmental analysis of theModified Project is inadequate and reiterates the statements summarized in Comment O1-6. The attachment’s conclusion is based on unsubstantiated data and assumptions. The November 19, 2024 | Page 5