FULL PACKET_2019-12-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 19, 2019 Page 7 shows this back-up increasing into the future, but it was not evaluated or mitigated in the report text. This is important especially considering the overly wide intersection being created with the project at Walkie Way. Once the FEIR is revised to include an accurate Project description, then additional substantive issues may be raised and addressed. PSNA reserves its right to submit supplemental information and evidence up to the final public hearing on the Project. g (See, e.g., Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management (1997) 60 Cal.AppAth 1109, 1119-1120 [applicant has right to present comments "prior to the close of the public hearing on the project."]; Coal. for Student Action v. City of Fullerton (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1194, 1197 [same principle].) 5. THE FEIR SHOULD BE RECIRCULATED BECAUSE IT INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION. An EIR must be recirculated if significant new information is added, in which case, further public and agency review is required. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1; 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15088.5.) The Public Resources Code says the following with respect to mandatory circulation prior to certification: When significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 and consultation has occurred pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153, but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1.) New information is "significant" where the EIR has changed 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 Cal.4th 1112, 1129 (hereafter "Laurel Heights 11")] ["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).)"].) 3917.101 / 8509864.1 11 A-92