Laserfiche WebLink
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is consistent with the MainPlace Specific Plan. <br />NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA <br />DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: <br />SECTION 1. CEQA. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, <br />determines, declares and ordain as follows: <br />Based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not <br />limited to the 1983 EIR, the 1996 Addendum, and the 2019 Addendum, the City <br />Council finds that an addendum is the appropriate document for disclosing the <br />changes to the MainPlace Mall Property, and that none of the conditions <br />identified in Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines <br />section 15162 requiring subsequent environmental review have occurred, <br />because: <br />A. The MainPlace Project does not constitute a substantial change <br />that would require major revisions of the 1983 EIR due to the <br />involvement of new significant environmental effects or a <br />substantial increase in the severity of previously identified <br />significant effects. <br />B. There is not a substantial change with respect to the circumstances <br />under which the MainPlace Project will be developed that would <br />require major revisions of the 1983 EIR due to the involvement of <br />new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in <br />the severity of the previously identified significant effects. <br />C. New information of substantial importance has not been presented <br />that was not known and could not have been known with the <br />exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 1983 EIR was <br />certified or adopted, showing any of the following: (i) that the <br />modifications would have one or more significant effects not <br />discussed in the earlier environmental documentation; (ii) that <br />significant effects previously examined would be substantially more <br />severe than shown in the earlier environmental documentation; (iii) <br />that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be <br />feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce <br />one or more significant effects, but the applicant declined to adopt <br />such measures; or (iv) that mitigation measures or alternatives <br />considerably different from those analyzed previously would <br />substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the <br />environment, but which the applicant declined to adopt. <br />SECTION 2. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY. Pursuant to California <br />Government Code section 65867.5(b) and based on the entire record before the City <br />55394.00053V2005772.1 <br />11 B-5 <br />