Item No. 1 - DEV2020-00125 - ocV!BE - From SAFER August 29, 2022
VIA EMAIL
David Vadodaria, Chairperson
Lucille Kring, Chairperson Pro Temp
Michael B. Mouawad, Member
Steve White, Member
Lui Andres Perez, Member
David R. Hywood, Member
Natalie Meeks, Member
Planning Commission
City Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
planningcommission@anaheim.net
Scott Koehm, Principal Planner
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
skoehm@anaheim.net
Re: Comment on OC VIBE Mixed-Use Project – Development Project No. 2020-
00125; Addendum No. 11 to Final SEIR No. 339; Planning Commission
Agenda Item No. 1
Dear Chairperson Vadodaria and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility
(“SAFER”), regarding the ocV!BE Project (DEV2020-00125) including Addendum No. 11 to
SEIR No. 339 and related approvals requested (the “Project”), listed as Agenda Item 1 on
today’s Planning Commission hearing agenda.
SAFER objects to the City staff’s reliance on the SEIR No. 339 and now 11 addendum to
the SEIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section
15162 for the Project. The City’s proposed CEQA review is inadequate because the Project was
not analyzed in the SEIR and addenda, and the project-specific impacts generated by the
proposed Project must be analyzed and mitigated in a project-level EIR. SAFER requests that the
Commission not take any action until an EIR is prepared for the Project.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to construct ocV!be, a world-class mixed use lifestyle,
entertainment, and residential neighborhood anchored by the existing Honda Center arena and
ARTIC transit hub, and including a new approximately 5,700 seat live performance theater,
1,500 residential apartment units, including 195 affordable units, two hotels with a total of 550
August 29, 2022
SAFER Comment on ocV!BE (DEV2020-00125)
Page 2 of 2
rooms, an approximately 4 acre public park, private parks and open space, office buildings,
restaurants and entertainment venues, and an approximately 6,000 seat outdoor amphitheater. At
the core of the Proposed Project is the Master Site Plan.
The Master Site Plan (MIS 2020-00751) includes the area around and including the
Honda Center, the ARTIC, and the ACC. The Master Site Plan outlines the proposed
development for the entire site and would be implemented through individual Final Site Plans.
The Master Site Plan contains the Transit District and the Arena District in the Platinum Triangle
Master Land Use Plan. The applicant has designated sub-areas of these districts for development.
The area north of Katella Avenue is proposed to be consolidated into one District – the Arena
District. The area south of Katella Avenue would be part of the Transit (currently ARTIC)
District, with the exception of the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road
(Ayers Hotel) which would remain in the Katella District, Sub-Area D.
The Project consists of the following:
• 1,922,776 square feet (s.f.) of commercial uses including entertainment and
commercial indoor and outdoor recreation venues (including new indoor and outdoor
live performance theaters, bars and nightclubs, bowling lanes, dancing venues, an
amphitheater and outdoor seasonal events), retail, and restaurant uses including the
existing Honda Center;
• 961,055 s.f. of office uses including the existing Arena Corporate Center;
• 250,000 s.f. of institutional uses including the existing Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC);
• 1,500 residential dwelling units including 195 affordable dwelling units proposed in
connection with a Density Bonus request;
• parks and open space including a new public park (Meadow Park);
• parking areas;
• pedestrian bridges crossing Katella Avenue and Douglass Road; and,
• changes to the roadway network (including a new public street between Katella
Avenue and Ball Road proposed to be named River Road, the abandonment of
Douglass Road between Katella Avenue and Cerritos Avenue and new private
streets).
The Project includes, inter alia, the following applications and approvals:
• General Plan Amendment (GPA2020-00532) to amend the General Plan Land Use,
Circulation, and Green elements to, inter alia:
o change the designation of parcels located north of Katella Avenue from Office-
Low (approximately 31 acres) and Open Space (approximately 8 acres) to Mixed-
Use Urban Core;
o modify the total amount of development permitted in the Platinum Triangle to:
increase the amount of residential development to 17,840 dwelling units,
increase the amount of commercial development to 6,195,019 s.f.,
decrease the amount of office development to 11,659,338 s.f. and
decrease the amount of institutional development to 250,000 s.f.;
• Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Amendment (MIS2020-00739) to, inter alia:
August 29, 2022
SAFER Comment on ocV!BE (DEV2020-00125)
Page 3 of 2
o expand the boundaries of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay
Zone by approximately 8 acres,
o change boundaries of the ARTIC (Transit), Katella Sub-Area D, Office and
Arena Districts; and
o modify the permitted amount of development within the PTMU Overlay Zone to
up to 17,840 residential dwelling units, 6,195,019 s.f. of commercial
development, 11,659,338 s.f. of office development and 250,000 s.f. of
institutional development.
• Reclassification (RCL2020-00333) to, inter alia:
o reclassify parcels to apply the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay
Zone to the existing O-L (Low Intensity Office) Zone on approximately 31 acres
and the existing C-G (General Commercial) Zone on approximately 8 acres
within the proposed Arena District north of Katella Avenue.
• Anaheim Municipal Code Amendments (ZCA2020-00174) to, inter alia:
o Modify Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone);
Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations); Chapter 18.40 (General
Development Standards); Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) and, Chapter 18.62
(Administrative Reviews) to amend:
use classifications,
District names,
development intensities,
development standards, and
procedures to allow development within the Arena and Transit Districts in
the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone.
• Addendum No. 11 to SEIR No. 339.
II. DISCUSSION
a. The City Cannot Adopt a CEQA Addendum for the Project Because the
Project was not analyzed in the SEIR.
The City is wrong in concluding that the Project can be analyzed under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164 and 15162 because those sections are only applicable when a project has recently
undergone CEQA review. 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 Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County
Cmty. Coll. Dist. (“San Mateo Gardens”) (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 950.) Agencies can prepare
addendums for project modifications or revisions and avoid further environmental review, but
only if the project has a previously certified EIR or negative declaration. (See Save our Heritage
v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 667.)
If the proposed Project had already been addressed in the SEIR, the standard for
determining whether further review is required would be governed by 14 CCR §15162 and Pub.
Res. C. §21166, and an addendum could potentially be allowed under § 15164. These sections
are inapplicable here, however, because the proposed Project has never undergone CEQA
August 29, 2022
SAFER Comment on ocV!BE (DEV2020-00125)
Page 4 of 2
review. Neither an EIR nor a negative declaration was prepared for the Project, and the Project
was never mentioned or discussed in the SEIR. The SEIR did not analyze “ a world-class mixed
use lifestyle, entertainment, and residential neighborhood, including a new approximately 5,700
seat live performance theater, 1,500 residential apartment units, including 195 affordable units,
two hotels with a total of 550 rooms, an approximately 4 acre public park, private parks and open
space, office buildings, restaurants and entertainment venues, and an approximately 6,000 seat
outdoor amphitheater.” As a result, the City cannot rely on the subsequent review provisions of
CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 or 15164.
b. CEQA Requires the City to Prepare a Tiered EIR for the Project instead of
an Addendum.
The City has incorrectly applied the CEQA criteria for preparing an addendum when,
instead, the City should have applied CEQA’s tiering provisions. The City relies on CEQA
Guidelines section 15164, which applies to preparing an addendum to an existing EIR for a
project. However, the SEIR was not a project-specific EIR, which the CEQA Guidelines define
as an “EIR [which] examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project.” (14
CCR § 15161.) Rather, the SEIR was a Programmatic EIR (See SEIR, p. 1-4.) The CEQA
Guidelines define programmatic EIRs as:
. . . an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized
as one large project and are related either:
(1) Geographically,
(2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions,
(3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general
criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
(4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or
regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can
be mitigated in similar ways.
(14 CCR § 15168.) Thus, instead of proceeding under the provisions of CEQA Guidelines
section 15164, the City should have proceeded under section 15168 provisions for subsequent
analysis for a Program EIR rather than an addendum to an existing project-specific EIR.
c. The Addendum and SEIR Fail as an Informational Document under CEQA.
The Addendum states:
Since 1996, the City of Anaheim (City) Council has approved actions and CEQA
environmental documents relating to the Platinum Triangle and the Project Site. For the
purposes of the environmental analysis in this document, “Previous Analysis” includes all
of the CEQA environmental documents described in this section and incorporated by
reference.
August 29, 2022
SAFER Comment on ocV!BE (DEV2020-00125)
Page 5 of 2
(Addendum, p. 4.) It then lists eight separate EIR and MNDs it claims are part of the “Previous
Analysis” but never specifies what portions of which EIRs the Addendum is relying on. This is
made more confusing by the fact that the Addendum claims to be an Addendum to an entirely
different ninth EIR – SEIR 339.
The Addendum fails as an informational document. As an initial matter, it is unclear
whether the City is claiming that the Addendum is to SEIR 339, or is an Addendum to some
combination of other EIRs, MND, and prior addendums. Moreover, the Addendum lacks any
clarity as to what is actually being proposed, what portion of the Project the Addendum claims
has or has not already been analyzed under CEQA and in which CEQA documents the analysis is
located, and what portion of any of the previously studied projects have actually been built or are
still planning to be built. Without this information, the public and decision makers lack the
information needed to intelligently assess the Project’s environmental impacts.
d. An Addendum is improper because the Project will have new and more
significant environmental impacts than those previously analyzed.
The Project proposes to increase the maximum development within the PTMU Overlay
Zone from 17,501 residential units to 17,840 residential units. It also seeks to change the land
use designation for 8 acres of land from open space to mixed-use urban core. These and other
modifications and development proposed as part of the Project will have significant
environmental impacts that must be analyzed in an EIR. The Addendum does not include an
analysis of these revisions and others that may have significant environmental impacts.
CONCLUSION
For the above and other reasons, the City must prepare an EIR to analyze and mitigate the
impacts of the Project. The City may not rely on the SEIR which did not even analyze the
proposed Project.
Sincerely,
Rebecca L. Davis