AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

March 14, 2013 8.A. - Page 396 � � t' Page age 2 ? -AW wixIM 1.i.e EIR is not `significant' unless 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—that the project's proponents have declined to implement" CEQA Guideline 15088.5(a). See also Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Or v. County of Siskiyou (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 184, 221. Here, the FEIR does not add significant new information. Rather, it considers the revised application for a project that is smaller in scope and scale than the original application, covering less land area, and resulting in two fewer residences. Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that this smaller project will have the same or reduced environmental impacts when compared to the original project, which would itself not have had any significant environmental impacts. Where the new information reveals no new impacts and instead improves the environmental condition, no recirculation is required. Western Placer Citizens for an Agricultural & Rural Environment v County of Placer (2006) 144 Cal.AppAth 890, 904. There is no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from those originally analyzed that would clearly lessen the already insignificant environmental impacts of the project, all of which the FOR has already determined will be mitigated to a less - than -significant level through the adoption of mitigation measures. Nor are there additional mitigation measures that would reduce the project's less -than -significant environmental impacts. Finally, substantial record evidence demonstrates that the draft ETR provided ample opportunity for meaningful public review. The City solicited and received substantial public comment, to which the City and LW.TV responded. The City thoroughly responded to all comments on the EIR- LW -TV responded by reducing the scope and size of the proposed project. CEQA's broad public participation goals have been met, and even exceeded, in this instance. SMW states that the court in Mira Monte Homeowners Assoc. v County of San Buenaventura (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 357 required recirculation for "much less extensive modifications' than those at issue here. There is no reasonable 'reading of Mira Monte that would support such a statement. In that case, 'the lead agency discovered, after circulating the EIR, that the project would pave over wetlands that comprised habitat for rare or endangered plants. Under CEQA, this discovery required a mandatory finding of a new significant impact. In contrast, the Project here has been reduced in size and scope, thereby also reducing the already insignificant environmental impacts that the Project may have. Moreover, the Mira Monte case predated Guideline 15088.5, which articulated the applicable standard. Nor is there anything to suggest that the City has not or will not consider all comments received on the Final EIR. This Commission will be holding a public hearing on the Project and the Final EIR itself commits that the City "prior to making a decision on the project, will consider the Revised Final EIR, including public comments and responses to comments, in conjunction with the Draft EIR." To the extent that SMW or its clients had substantive comments on the Final EIR, they neglected to make them in their February 14, 2013 letter. (7.369-0002/00305711;2)