Laserfiche WebLink
and from increases to traffic more generally in the region. But the data does not show <br />that this Project at 601 Marshall Street will create new significant impacts or substantial <br />increases in the severity of previously identified impacts beyond that analyzed in the <br />DTPP EIR. Thus, the City is not required to prepare another EIR. <br /> <br />As to Appellants’ claim that the EIR is too old for the City to rely on, in-and-of-itself, the <br />date of the DTPP EIR is irrelevant. The issue is whether the analysis in the EIR <br />remains useful, which it is. <br /> <br />Finally, there is no requirement that the City adopt a new Statement of Overriding <br />Considerations. Rather, the City can rely on the Statement of Overriding <br />Considerations adopted for the DTPP, pursuant to Resolution No. 15056 adopted on <br />January 24, 2011. (See Pub. Resources Code § 21081(a)(3), CEQA Guidelines §§ <br />15091, 15093 (Statement of Overriding Consideration is required when the agency <br />certifies an EIR approves a project for which there are significant and unavoidable <br />impacts, which the City did in 2011).) <br /> <br />ix. The Project Will Not Create Shadow Impacts that Require Further <br />Environmental Review. <br /> <br />Appellants’ Contention: The Project will improperly create shadows of adjacent <br />buildings, including on 620 Jefferson Street where it will decrease the effectiveness of <br />solar panels. (Keyes Appeal, pp. 9, 11.) <br /> <br />City’s Response: Shadow analysis was already done as part of the EIR, which <br />considered a worst-case scenario of the entire downtown built out at the highest heights <br />allowed. Heights in the plan were then reduced near “shadow-sensitive” public places <br />(self-mitigating plan). <br /> <br />Applicant prepared a shadow analysis specifically pertaining to the solar panels on the <br />roof of 620 Jefferson, which analysis shows no impact. <br /> <br />As described throughout this report, and supported by information and evidence <br />attached hereto, the merits of the appeals are unfounded and the City appropriately <br />reviewed, processed and approved the proposed Project. Staff continues to <br />recommend approval of the Project as it is consistent with the DTPP and the certified <br />DTPP EIR. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />The City Council has broad discretion to approve a project that would best fit the project <br />site and location, and may be best served by identifying design aspects that are most <br />important, such as height, building disposition type, architectural style, etc. so long as <br />7.A. - Page 29