CORRESPONDENCE - 75C - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Santa Ana City Council December 1, 2020 Page 2 The Project is not subject to the HOO. The HOO was amended on September 1, 2020, and as amended, only applies toprojects that exceed the residential density permitted by the General Plan.(See Santa Ana Municipal Code \[“SAMC”\]§ 41-1902(b)(1)-(2).)Notably, the November 3, 2020, comment letter submitted by SAFER relies on language supersededby the recent HOO amendments. Here, the Project is consistent with the General Plan, and neither seeksnor requiresa General Plan Amendment to increase allowable density on the site. The General Plan designates theeastern portion of the Project site as “District Center” and the western portion of the Project site as “Urban Neighborhood.”Within these General Plan land use designations, the Project’s proposed density of 59 dwelling units per acre is permitted, so long as the Project site is located within a Specific Development (“SD”) Zone allowing for such density.(See General Plan, pp. A-24,B-6.) Here, the City’s adopted Transit Zoning Code (“TZC”) is anadopted SD, permitting this density.(See TZC\[Specific Development No. 84\],§§41-2000, 41-2001.5.) No amendment to the General Plan Urban Neighborhood or District Center land use designationis required. Under SAMC section 41-1902(b), the HOO does not apply where no General Plan amendment is required. Second, the Project does not rely on any State Density Bonus Law development concession or incentive. The Project instead seeks a zone change on one portion of the site to allow for development of a single, cohesive community across the entirety of the two-block Project site. The Project also seeks a Site Plan Review and Variance approval. These are not development concessions or incentives sought pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law. B.Reliance on an Addendum to the TZC Environmental Impact Report SAFER’s October 12, 2020,comment letter alleges that the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)does not permit the City to utilize an addendum to the TZC Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)in approving this Project. This is incorrect. CEQA unambiguously permits—and encourages—lead agencies to utilizean EIRaddendum, even when the original EIR at issue was a Program, and nota Project,EIR. Theonly instance under which a lead agency cannot rely upon an EIR addendum is where one of three specific conditions are present. These conditions are: (1) where substantial changes are proposed such that new significant environmental effects result that were not disclosed in the prior EIR; (2) where substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken have occurredsuch that new significant environmental effects result that were not disclosed in the prior EIR; and (3) where new information has come to light showing new impacts, or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid previously identified impactsand the project applicant declines to incorporate them. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21166; State CEQA Guidelines, § 15162.) The City-prepared Addendum to the TZC EIR considers these