CORRESPONDENCE - 11A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

manatt Santa Ana City Council December 16, 2019 Page 3 As noted by the California Supreme Court in Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, "the final FIR will almost always contain information not included in the draft EIR given the CEQA statutory requirements of circulation of the draft EIR, public comment, and response to these comments prior to certification of the final EIR. But `[rjecirculation was intended to be an exception, rather than the general rule."' (South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 Cal.AppAth 316, 328.) City staff and the City environmental consultant conducted a comprehensive review of the Original Project as compared to the Project in the Clarification. The Clarification evaluated every identified impact of the Original Project and compared the impacts of the October 2019 Project with regard to each impact. No significant new information meeting the requirements for recirculation was identified in the Clarification and substantial evidence supports that conclusion. The comments on the Final FIR, as supplemented by the Clarification, fail to identify any significant new information requiring recirculation pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. The only new measures referenced in the comments were set forth in an Arborist Report. City staff has considered this comment and provided a comprehensive response explaining why the Arborist Report is not significant new information. The Report was included in the Draft EIR and was circulated for public review and comment as part of the EIR The measures set forth in the Report are not new measures. Moreover, the potential impacts on the Western mastiff bat also raised by the commenter in connection with the implementation of the recommendations in the Arborist Report were also addressed in the Draft EIR. (See Response to Comment 9 at page I IA-113, Request for Council Action Staff Report, December 3, 2019.) 2. Is the October 2019 Project Consistent with the City General Plan? Yes The record of the proceedings includes extensive analysis and findings regarding the consistency of the Modified Project with the City adopted General Plan. In adopting the resolution approving General Plan Amendment 2018-06, the City Council made the finding that the following goals and policies set forth in the Housing Element, Land Use Element and Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan were supported by and implemented by the October 2019 Project: o Housing Element (HE) Goal 2: To provide a diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. o HE Policy 2.2, District Centers: Create high intensity, mixed -use urban villages and pedestrian -oriented experiences that support the mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities in the varied District Centers.