AgdaPkt 2017-04-03 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

26 (See March 20, 2017 Hexagon letter). Therefore, the project is not expected to generate additional vehicle greenhouse gas emissions associated with residential buildings beyond what determined in the DTPP EIR No further environmental review is required. 7. The Project Will Not Create Cumulative Impacts that Require a New or Supplemental EIR Appellant’s Contentions: The project has resulted in changed circumstances with regard to air quality, land use planning, population and housing, public services, and transportation/traffic that result in new and significant environmental impacts that require preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR with respect to the DTPP EIR and a project-specific EIR. (Appeal, pp. 21.) City Response: CEQA Guidelines section 15130 concerns the cumulative impacts analysis that is included in an EIR. The DTPP EIR included the required cumulative impacts analysis and the City is not required to prepare an EIR, for reasons discussed above. Further, the Initial Study Checklist that was prepared for the project at 1409 El Camino Real, along with all supporting technical reports and documents, show that there are no project-specific significant impacts to air quality, land use planning, population and housing, public services, or transportation/traffic. As such, the project does not have a considerable contribution to any potentially significant cumulative impact and no further environmental analysis is required. As discussed in depth above, the City has accounted for project-specific as well as cumulative impacts. 8. The Project Does Not Require New Mitigation Measures or Alternatives Analysis Appellant’s Contention: The City has failed to implement mitigation measures from the DTPP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, such working with Caltrans to implement improvements along El Camino Real, and thus cannot approve the project. (Appeal, pp. 10-12, 24.) City Response: Appellant has not identified any significant impact caused by the project due to the City’s failure to implement an associated mitigation measure from the DTPP’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. Also, even where there is a significant effect, the City may still approve a project where changes that would mitigate the effect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. The City made such findings with respect to certain facilities under the control of CalTrans. Thus, this contention is not an impediment to City approval. 9. The CEQA Findings for the Project Are Adequate Appellant’s Contention: Appellant has provided substantial evidence of significant impacts, and therefore the City’s findings are inadequate. (Appeal, p. 25.) 8.A. - Page 26