My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 75A (COMMENT)
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2019
>
10/15/2019
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 75A (COMMENT)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2019 12:29:49 PM
Creation date
10/14/2019 12:51:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Item #
75A
Date
10/15/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />Petitioners Santa Ana Needs Equity (SANE), William Conklin, Karina Rangel Conklin and <br />Yoon Hee Choe (collectively, "Petitioners"), allege the following: <br />I. <br />The City of Santa Ana, along with the developer, have attempted to evade <br />environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") by analyzing <br />and approving a project in piecemeal fashion. In 2016, the developer initially applied to obtain <br />changes to the general plan and zoning (for multiple properties) so the developer could demolish <br />all existing uses on 301 and 325 N. Tustin Avenue and build a new gas station, convenience store <br />and retail building (the "Original Project"). The City was required to adopt a Mitigated Negative <br />to comply with CEQA and granted the approvals requested. The City was required to <br />adopt an MND because absent mitigation measures the Original Project would have a substantial <br />impact on the environment, including due to hazardous materials released during demolition of the <br />existing structures and due to Native American cultural and historical resources during grading <br />and construction. In 2019—at the last minute before development —the developer submitted a <br />"revised plan" which proposed to "replace" the proposed retail building on 301 N. Tustin with a <br />massive automated car wash (the "Revised Project"). The City proceeded to ignore the portions of <br />the project that had already been implemented --including the general plan and zoning changes — <br />determined the Revised Project was categorially exempt from CEQA (which was not available <br />because of, among other things, the general plan and zoning changes) and abandoned the <br />adopted MND as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") <br />21 adopted to implement the mitigation measures. Such a scheme is prohibited by CEQA. <br />22 2. CEQA requires the City to conduct subsequent environmental review following the <br />23 MND based on the substantial changes to the project by the addition of the car wash. CEQA does <br />24 not authorize the City to abandon the MND previously adopted. Moreover, even if CEQA <br />25 allowed the City to evaluate the Revised Project anew, the City is required to include the entire <br />26 project in the review, including the portions already completed such as the general plan and zoning <br />27 amendments. When the entire project is included, the City is precluded from invoking the <br />28 categorical exemption selected. Further, the addition of the car wash would have substantial <br />2 <br />PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.