Opinion ID: 1199813
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Discussion of Night-lighting Glare

Text: The draft EIR does not discuss the potential visual effects of the use of project lights after dark. In response to public comments regarding the hours the lights were expected to be used in the building, the final EIR adds a discussion of the subject. The final EIR concludes that lighting of the project would add only incrementally to existing night lighting in the project vicinity and is not considered significant. Nevertheless, the final EIR also adopts a mitigation measure to reduce any effects of night lighting even further: design and position interior and exterior light fixtures to minimize light intrusion upon adjacent land uses. (12) The Association contends that this newly recognized impact is potentially significant and that public comment on mitigation measures should be obtained. We conclude, however, that addition of the discussion of night-lighting glare is an insignificant modification to the EIR that does not disclose a new adverse environmental impact. Under the circumstances of this case, we do not fault the draft EIR for failing to discuss the potential effect of glare from night lighting at the project. The area in which the project is located is urbanized. A substantial number of street lights surround the project and the adjacent shopping area. Headlights from traffic also diminish the darkness. Moreover, the project building has always been an office building. It is not uncommon for office buildings to be lit in whole or in part after regular business hours. Thus, the Regents could reasonably conclude that any extension in the hours of use of the building would have a de minimis effect on the environment. Based upon the entire record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports a determination that the effect of night lighting would be insignificant. (Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (g) [definition of effect].) An insignificant modification to an EIR does not require recirculation for additional public comment. Although the Association claims that the public should be provided the opportunity to comment upon mitigation measures for the potential glare, mitigation measures are not required where the environmental effect is insignificant. Moreover, it is clear in this case that the mitigation measure adopted by the Regents will not cause additional adverse environmental effects. Further, the Regents did not decline to adopt any suggested mitigation measures. None of the purposes of CEQA will be served by solicitation of further public comment on this subject; only needless delay will result. The decision makers and the public were both adequately informed by the final EIR about the consequences of the project with respect to night-lighting glare.