CC Min 1989-02-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item No. 6 (continued) 3. Portions of the Project site were formerly used as a solid waste dump. After cessation of such use, the site was filled and graded (FEIR, pp.1 -5 - 1 - 6). 4. After circulation of the DEIR for public review pursuant to CEQA and R.C. Res. No. 6882, the authors of the DEIR made reference to the Levine - Fricke study, which analyzed results of gas samples taken from four subsurface wells at the Project site in July, 1988 (FEIR, p. F -5). Similarly, as a response to comments, reference was for the first time made to the Tejima & Associates study, which was apparently required by the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District under provisions of State law. That study analyzed samples from six on -site and three off -site wells (id.). The FEIR discusses the results of those studies (FEIR pp. F -4 - F -9), and describes specific mitigation measures pertaining to the subject matter of the studies that would be incorporated into building and site design phases of the Project, based on further review of building and site plans (FEIR pp. F -7 - F -9). 5. Substantial portions of the foregoing response were included in the body of the FEIR and identified by underlining (FEIR, pp. 2 -20 - 2 -22; 2 -25 - 2 -26). 6. Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 provides, in pertinent part: "21092.1. When significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given ... and consultation has occurred..., but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again... ' and consult again ... before certifying the environmental impact report." 7. At the hearing on appeal the contention was made that discussion of the Levine - Fricke and Tejima and Associates studies constituted "significant new information" as that term is used in Public Resources Code Section 21092.1. 8. Reference to, and discussion of, the Levine - Fricke study and the Tejima & Associates study does not constitute "significant new information" under Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 because the DEIR did include discussions of the subject matter contained in said studies (see, DEIR, pps. 2 -18 - 2 -19; 2 -21 - 2 -22) and discussion of said studies in the FEIR merely added more detail to the prior discussion relating to that subject matter (landfill gases, leacheate and corresponding mitigation). Accordingly, the City was not required to provide notification and to consult again under said Section 21092.1 before certifying the FEIR . 9. Appellants likewise contend that Sections E and F of the FEIR constitute "significant new information" under said Section 21092.1 (Ltr. of App. para. 1, p. 1). Those sections contain written comments on the DEIR and responses thereto, respectively, which are required under CEQA. They are not, therefore, information of the type described in said Section - 21092.1 (State CEQA Guidelines SS 15087, 15088). MINUTE BOOK NO. 48 Page No. 308 Reg.Mtg. 2/27/89 Page 9