NS-2967 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WHEREAS, the proposed Project is consistent with the MainPlace Specific Plan. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CEQA. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines, declares and ordain as follows: Based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to the 1983 EIR, the 1996 Addendum, and the 2019 Addendum, the City Council finds that an addendum is the appropriate document for disclosing the changes to the MainPlace Mall Property, and that none of the conditions identified in Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring subsequent environmental review have occurred, because: A. The MainPlace Project does not constitute a substantial change that would require major revisions of the 1983 EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. B. There is not a substantial change with respect to the circumstances under which the MainPlace Project will be developed that would require major revisions of the 1983 EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. C. New information of substantial importance has not been presented that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 1983 EIR was certified or adopted, showing any of the following: (i) that the modifications would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the earlier environmental documentation; (ii) that significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the earlier environmental documentation; (iii) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the applicant declined to adopt such measures; or (iv) that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed previously would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the applicant declined to adopt. SECTION 2. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY. Pursuant to California Government Code section 65867.5(b) and based on the entire record before the City Council, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the Development Agreement is compatible with the objectives, Ordinance No. NS-2967 Page 3 of 9