Laserfiche WebLink
9 <br /> <br />increases in the severity of previously identified significant impacts, or whether a new <br />mitigation measure or alternative would substantially reduce significant effects. No such <br />impacts were identified. Nor is any new mitigation measure or alternative required to <br />substantially reduce any significant impact. Thus, an additional EIR is not required. <br />Further, because the project is consistent with the DTPP for which an EIR was <br />prepared, and there are no significant impacts peculiar to this project or the subject site, <br />or any other circumstances which require an EIR, no further environmental review <br />is/was required. Accordingly, the City’s environmental review process complies with <br />CEQA, pursuant to sections 15168, 15162, 15163 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines. <br /> <br />Appellant asserts otherwise. In the following subsections, staff addresses Appellant’s <br />contentions and further explains why an EIR was not required. <br /> <br />b. Appellant Has Not Shown that the City Erred and Must Prepare an EIR <br /> <br /> Appellant’s Contention: There are substantial changes, as well as new information <br />that falls into various categories — including (1) land use and planning, <br />(2) transportation and traffic, (3) air quality, (4) population and housing, (5) public <br />services, (6) greenhouse gas emissions, and (7) cumulative impacts — that lead to new <br />significant impacts, substantial increases in the severity of previously identified impacts, <br />and require new mitigation measures and/or alternatives—and therefore an EIR is <br />required. (Appeal, pp. 2-21.) <br /> <br /> City Response: There are not substantial changes or new information, and even if <br />there were, Appellant has not identified a new significant impact or substantial increase <br />in the severity of a previously identified impact that would require an EIR. Nor has <br />Appellant identified any new mitigation measure or alternative that requires an EIR. In <br />the following subsections, staff explains why. <br /> <br />From a CEQA perspective, the rate of development is not an issue. Similarly, changed <br />circumstances, standing alone, are not an issue. Whether the Project will have a <br />significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified <br />impact is the ultimate issue. Appellant has not shown that that the rate of development <br />has triggered this standard. <br /> <br />1. The Project Will Not Create Land Use and Planning Impacts; Neither <br />the Rate of Development nor Development Patterns Require an EIR <br /> <br /> Appellant’s Contention: The DTPP EIR did not anticipate the rate of rapid <br />development and did not study the current pattern or development, and that the <br />assumed infrastructure improvements and mitigations have not occurred at the rate <br />assumed by the DTPP EIR. (Appeal, pp. 3-4, 8-9, 17-19.) <br /> <br /> City Response: The DTPP describes the vision for the future of Downtown, regulates <br />private development, and recommends potential future City projects. It was created for <br />the purpose of reviving the heart of Redwood City and sets forth the primary means of <br />8.A. - Page 9