CORRESPONDENCE - 75D - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MainPlace Transformation Project City Council Agenda Item 75D June 4, 2019 Page 4 effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. DISCUSSION I. THE 1983 EIR HAS NO INFORMATIONAL VALUE TO THE RESIDENTIAL ASPECT OF THE PROJECT. As the California Supreme Court explained in San Mateo Gardens, subsequent CEQA review provisions "can apply only if the project has been subject to initial review; they can have no application if the agency has proposed a new project that has not previously been subject to review." Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo (2016) 1 Ca1.5th 937, 950 ("San Mateo Gardens"). As the Supreme Court explains, "[a] decision to proceed under CEQA`s subsequent review provisions must thus necessarily rest on a determination — whether implicit or explicit — that the original environmental document retains some informational value." Id. at 951 (emph. added). Only if the original environmental document retains some informational value despite the proposed changes, changes in circumstances or new substantial information does the agency proceed to decide under CEQA's subsequent review provisions whether such changes or substantial new information will require major revisions to the original environmental document because of the involvement of new, previously unconsidered significant environmental effects. 1 Cal.5th at 952. Reviewing the 1983 EIR, the City cannot reasonably claim that it addresses, i.e., provides some informational value regarding the potential environmental impacts of the 1,900 residential units proposed as part of the Project. The Project includes 1,900 units of residential housing that have never been analyzed in any previous CEQA document. A thorough review of the 1983 EIR confirms that no mention is made of any residential aspect of the redevelopment project. Instead, the 1983 EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of the rehabilitation and redevelopment of the Santa Ana Fashion Square site as a mixed -used commercial center with 1,600 square feet of retail space, 1,500,000 square feet of office space, and 1,200 hotel rooms. Since the 1983 Project contained no residential element, none of the 1983 EIR's discussion provides any information that would assist the City in determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 1,900 residential units. The project considered in the 1983 EIR simply has no relevance to the environmental impact of the construction and occupancy of 1,900 residential housing units. Since the residential element of the Project has never undergone CEQA review, it is a new project, and the City must start from the beginning of the CEQA process under section 21151, conduct an initial study, and determine whether there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project will have a significant environmental impact. Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo, 1 Cal.5th at 951. The City Council should require CEQA review for the Project, and not approve the Project until CEQA review is completed.