CORRESPONDANCE - 60A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council January 21, 2020 Page 5 problem. This is particularly true when added after Council formally closed the public hearing on the Project. 3. COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE RECIRCULATED THE FEIR INSTEAD OF ADDING SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION AFTER FORMALLY CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. An EIR must be recirculated if significant new information is added. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1; Guidelines, § 15088.5.) New information is "significant" where an EIR changes in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment. (See Spring Valley Lake Assn. v. City of Victorville (2016) 248 Cal.AppAth 91, 106-109 [finding the revisions to the air quality analysis and hydrology and water quality impact analysis "problematic"] (hereafter "Spring Valley") [citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1129 (hereafter "Laurel Heights If')] ["the California Supreme Court held that new information is 'significant,' within the meaning of section 21092.1, only if as a result of the additional information 'the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.' (Accord, [Guidelines], § 15088.5, subd. (a).)"].) Ultimately, the Spring Valley Court found that certain revisions to the EIR constituted significant new information because their "breadth, complexity, and purpose" deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on an ostensibly feasible way to mitigate a substantial, adverse environmental effect. (Id. at pp. 108-109; see also Save our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.AppAth 99, 107 (hereafter "Save our Peninsula") ["We conclude that the EIR in this case did not comply with CEQA in its treatment of several critical water issues. Because of these inadequacies, the Board's action certifying the EIR and approving the project constituted an abuse of discretion."]; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 CalAth 412, 421, as modified (Apr. 18, 2007) [finding that the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated for public comment].) Similarly, here, the FEIR incorporates substantial and significant new information and analyses that must undergo further public review. For example, the FEIR was not recirculated despite the following significant new additions or revisions to the Project: 1. Impacts from the new offset intersection configurations and proposed curb cuts, which will add significant backup traffic to existing traffic and which may block existing intersections; 2. Impacts from the new shared parking agreement with the Discovery Science Center: and 4516.101 18600269.1