Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout30- Mayor J� City of San Bernardino INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TO: James F. Penman, City Attorney City Attorney's Office FROM: Tom Minor, Mayor DATE: November 5, 1993 SUBJECT: Colton Metromall COPIES: Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services; Shauna Clark, City Administrator; Roger Hardgrave, City Engineer; Lorraine Velarde, Executive Assistant to Mayor ------------------------------------------------------------------- Attached is a copy of the interoffice memorandum, from Al Boughey, dated November 3 , 1993, together with the attachments, regarding the Colton Metromall. The memorandum indicates that a courtesy copy was also forwarded to you; however, I have enclosed a copy of same for your convenience. Would you please let me know immediately if you will be able to assist us on this matter. Thank you. Tom Minor, Mayor TM:sa Enclosure r ' ti C! CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO x Planning and Building Services Department Interoffice Memorandum G' ; z Gs T14F Tfr TO: Mayor Minor FROM: Al Boughe irector, Planning and Building Services SUBJECT: Colton Metromall DATE: November 3 , 1993 COPIES: Jim Penma.i, City Attorney; Shauna Clark, City Administrator; Roger Hardgrave, City Engineer; Lorraine Velarde, Executive Assistant to the Mayor ------------------------------------------------------------------- As you are aware, in September we received a notice from the City of Colton that they intended to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for their Metromall. We felt that their Initial Study did not adequately address many of the environmental concerns and submitted a letter to them to that effect. We also asked to be notified of any meetings regarding the project. After receiving no response, we contacted Colton and asked for an update. We found out that the project was scheduled for action by their Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 9, 1993 . We were informed that the Planning Commission agenda was not available, that the item would not be a public hearing item and that a staff report would not be prepared. We were able to get a copy of the conditions of approval, attached. It appears that Colton is proposing to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and in effect, approve the project. The environmental concerns are being "resolved" through the conditions of approval, after the fact. I am very concerned because the environmental review was inadequate, not in compliance with CEQA, and will have major impacts on the City of San Bernardino. I request assistance from the City Attorney in preparing a letter to the Colton Planning Commission, requesting that no action be taken until adequate environmental review has been completed. I intend to send a staff member to the Planning Commission meeting to register our objections. CITY OF SAN BERNJ. :DINO - REQUEST F( Z COUNCIL ACTION From: Councilman Ralph Hernandez Subject: Colton Metro Mall DDA Dept: Council Office Date: January 4, 1994 Synopsis of Previous Council action: Recommended motion: To discuss action of the City Attorney in reference to the Colton Metro Mall Disposition and Development Agreement. Signature Contact person: Councilman Hernandez Phone: 5333 Supporting data attached: Correspondence Ward: 3 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: _ Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No. COLTON December 30, 1993 James F. Penman J;.r� -3 6 City Attorney City of San Bernardino 300 N. D Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 Dear Mr. Penman: I was surprised and dismayed that you would send your Deputy City Attorney CITY COUNCIL Henry Empeno to our meeting of December 21, 1993 regarding our DDA with Frank A.Gonzales Empire Metro Mall requesting our city to comply with the California MAYOR Environmental Quality Act. Connie-Paddy-Cisneros 1st DISTRICT Please be apprised that we have every intention of meeting all the requirements as 2ndDDISSTTRIC Rios we have in the past with all of our projects. We have always worked closely with Abe Beltran our sister cities, i.e., San Bernardino. You are aware we are in a joint venture on 3rd DISTRICT the RIX project with San Bernardino to alleviate our meeting our 3rd stage tertiary MAYOR PRO TEM Betty cook treatment in compliance with the state. 41h DISTRICT Deirdre Bennett Based on the cooperation we have had amongst our two cities, I was very Stn DISTRICT disturbed that your office would feel the need to challenge a project in our David Sandoval community---Metro 2000. I would like to believe had you had a question am DISTRICT regarding our project you would have had the courtesy to call and we would have Mark Lewis CITY MANAGER answered your concerns. We have never interfered in San Bernardino's business affairs and/or policies relative to projects within your city. Hopefully, in the future if you have any questions regarding our business within our city limits or any type of development, you will give us the courtesy of setting up a meeting or giving me a call, and we will be more than happy to answer any of your concerns. However, I am pleased to have received a letter from the Mayor's office with his signature and yours agreeing wholeheartedly of withdrawing your previously stated objections to our development agreement concerning our project Metro- 2000. i Sincerely, v, � FRANK A. GONZALES Mayor FG/rrc cc: San Bernardino Mayor& Council San Bernardino City Administrator Colton City ouncil CNIC CENTER y 650 N.LA CADENA DRIVE Colton City Manager COLTON.CALIFORNIA 92324 (909)370-5099 (909)370-5154 FAX „ f- C * C I T Y O F r �n �.0 23 ,,, 9 Bernardino O F F I C 1 O F T H E N A Y 0 R December 23, 1993 T O M M 1 N O R Y A Y O R Mayor Frank Gonzales City of Colton 650 North La Cadena Drive Colton, CA 92324 RE: Resolution No. 617 Disposition and Development Agreement, Empire Metro Mall Redevelopment Agency / City Council Public Hearing December 23, 1993 Dear Mayor Gonzales : After further examination of the facts and issues regarding the above-referenced Disposition and Development Agreement ( "DDA" ) and after our recent discussions on this matter, I write to withdraw our previously stated objections to the DDA based upon the California Environmental Quality Act. We hope that the City of Colton will fairly and thoroughly address all of the environmental issues concerning the Metro Mall in the forthcoming Environmental Impact Report. We trust that the DDA will include additional language which will confirm Colton's commitment to complete an Environmental Impact Report that will achieve both of our Cities ' goals of protecting our environment. Sincerely yours, I agree wholeheartedly. �' 1 � -�”\ ✓!lam;n,!� � �^.�--s-Y.y.. Tom Minor, Mayor James F. Penman, � cc: City of Colton: City Attorney Councilmembers City Manager City Attorney City of San Bernardino Councilmembers Shauna Clark, City Administrator 300 NORTH 0 ' S T R E E T SAN 8 E A N A A 0 1 N 0 PRIDE CALIFORNIA 924 is - 0001 INPROGRISS (9 0 9)1 9 4 • 9 1 3 3 F A X -(9 0 9) 3 3 4 . 5 4 . 1 f, n I T r p f r - 5an bernardino L_L L2 S. 21 i A�O f f I C E 0 f T H E C I T Y A T T O Q N E Y -c c k. December 21, 1993 Hani W. Gabriel Economic Development Director Redevelopment Agency for the City of Colton 650 North La Cadena Drive Colton, California 92324 RE: Resolution No. 617 Disposition and Development Agreement, Empire Metro Mall Redevelopment Agency/City Council Public Hearing December 21, 1993 Dear Mr. Gabriel : We submit this letter on behalf of the Mayor of the City of San Bernardino regarding the above-referenced Resolution and proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (hereinafter "DDA" ) . We respectfully request that t!,,e Redevelopment Agency and the City Council for the City of Co-lton withhold certification of the Summary Report and adoption of the Resolution and the DDA until the Agency complies with the state-mandated requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" ) at Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. It is well accepted authority that the disposition of property by a redevelopment agency is a discretionary action subject to the provisions of CEQA unless a statutory or categorical exemption is applicable ( See California Code of Regulations, Title 14, S§15260 et seq. , & 15300 et seq. ) . CEQA specifically recognizes redevelopment as a special case because of the nature of the redevelopment process and in particular because of the general nature of a redevelopment plan. Public Resources Code 521090 states: "For all purposes of this division all public and private activities or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of a redevelopment plan shall be deemed a single project. " Clearly the Colton Redevelopment Agency's adoption of this Resolution and the DDA is a project under CEQA. Both the HE/js (Gabriel.Ltr] MIDE IN FROGSS 3 0 0 N 0 A T H 0 $ T A E E T S A N 8 E A N A A 0 1 N 0 C 4 1 r p N N i A 9 2 J 1 8 0 0 0 7 1 • i 3 S 4 • 9 3 { 6 Hani W. Gabriel Economic Development Director Re: Disposition and Development Agreement, Empire Metro Mall Page 2 Resolution and the DDA specifically reference the Redevelopment Plan for the Cooley Ranch Redevelopment Project which was approved by the Colton City Council on July 29, 1975 by Ordinance No. 148. Paragraph 101 of the DDA states: " [t]he purpose of this Agreement is to implement the Redevelopment Plan for the Cooley Ranch Redevelopment Project by providing for the development by Developer of certain real property in the Project Area. . . . " As stated in Public Resources Code §21090, previously quoted above, adoption of this proposed DDA is a public and private activity or undertaking pursuant to or in furtherance of a redevelopment plan, therefore the proposed DDA is a project subject to CEQA review. Although the DDA references the 1975 Redevelopment Plan, it fails to refer to the 1975 Environmental Impact Report. Your legal counsel, Mr. Sabo, in any event, agrees that the 1975 EIR is too outdated to function as a program EIR as permitted under Title 14 California Code of Regulations §15180. Because this proposed 70 acre mall will cause new significant adverse environmental effects not analyzed in the 1975 EIR, a new or subsequent EIR is required. The City of San Bernardino respectfully requests that you comply with state law and with CEQA prior to approving the proposed DDA that is before you tonight. Sincerely, HENRY EMPENO JR. , Deputy City Attorney cc: City of Colton: Mayor and Council City Manager City Attorney City of San Bernardino: Mayor Tom Minor Council Members James F. Penman, City Attorney Shauna Clark, City Administrator RE/is [Cabriel.Ltrl r F P ti �� 9i C I T Y p F an Bernardino 2: 317 O F F I C E O F T H E C I T A T T O A M E Y J A M E 5 F v E N M A N C I T Y A T T O R N E Y November 24, 1993 David R. Zamora Director of Community Development City of Colton 650 North La Cadena Drive Colton, California 92324 RE: City of Colton Redevelopment Agency Metro Mall Project, No D 52 93 Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1993 Dear Mr. Zamora: We submit this letter pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a public comment to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-referenced project; in furtherance of the City of San Bernardino's letters to your department, dated October 4, 1993 and November 22, 1993; and in reference to the revised Initial Study dated November 11, 1993, for which the comment period has been set by the City of Colton ( "Colton" ) to expire on November 26, 1993. Summary The City of San Bernardino believes that a project of this significance is not appropriately analyzed through a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the detailed reasons set forth below. This is especially true given the document's failure to specifically address mitigation measures and to include the necessary technical studies. Under CEQA, studies for mitigated negative declarations must be completed prior to approval of the negative declaration; otherwise the lead agency is unable to determine: ( a) whether the project causes significant environmental impacts and (b) whether any - such significant impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. HE/Js [Zamora.Url PRIDE ISS 3 0 0 N O R T H D S T R E E T S A N 6 E R N A R D I N 0 IN PROD C A L 1 F 0 R N i A 9 7 4 1 8 0 0 0 t 7 1 4 i 3 8 4 5 3 5 E David R. Zamora RE: City of Colton Redevelopment Agency Metro Mall Project, No. D-52-93 Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1993 Page 2 1. Technical Studies Must Pre-Date the Decision The proposition that technical studies must be prepared before approval of a mitigated negative declaration is well-established under CEQA. See, Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino ( 1988 ) 202 Cal .App.3d 296 and Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporation v County of E1 Dorado ( 1990) 225 Ca1 .App.3d 872. In those cases, the courts held that delaying technical studies until after project approval is inappropriate because it prevents the public from participating in review of the studies and it prevents the lead agency from understanding the project's impacts. In the Oro Fino case, delaying dust control, fire safety, erosion control and reclamation plans until after project approval was held impermissible under CEQA. The Oro Fino court also criticized the initial study's cursory discussion of noise, traffic, and water supply issues. The court held: "There cannot be meaningful scrutiny of a mitigated negative declaration when the mitigation measures are not set forth at the time of project approval. " 225 Cal .App.3d at 884 Likewise in the Sundstrom case, the court held that the delay of a hydrological study and sludge disposal plan until after project approval violated CEQA' s policy that project impacts be identified before a project 's momentum removes the agency's flexibility to change its course of action. In Sundstrom, the court held that the agency did not have sufficient data to determine that significant effects would not occur and, therefore, a negative declaration was inappropriate. The court in Sundstrom also explained that the agency should not be allowed to hide behind its failure to gather relevant data, as CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on the lead agency. 202 Cal .App.3d at 311 . As stated in the Sundstrom case: "The requirement that the applicant adopt mitigation measures recommended in a future study is in direct conflict with the guidelines implementing CEQA . This procedure, we repeat, is contrary to law. By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible RE/is [Zamora.0 r) David R. Zamora RE: City of Colton Redevelopment Agency Metro Mall Protect, No D-52-93 Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1993 Page 3 stage in the planning process. " 202 Cal .App.3d at 306 and 307. In this case, Colton is violating the law which is stated in the Sundstrom case. In Colton' s Design Review Action Form on page 1 under the heading "Environmental Determination" its states: "Mitigated Negative Declaration with stipulation that site plan and elevations will precipitate an additional environmental review and determination if warranted after re ( emphasis added) uired studies are completed. " A list of the minimal technical studies necessary to properly evaluate this Metro Mall project are set forth below: Issue Expert Requesting Traffic Study City of Colton, Engineer Air Quality SCAQMD Hydrology City of Colton, Engineer Seismic-Geology City of San Bernardino, Planning Electricity Infrastructure City of Colton, Electrical Dept. Water Quality Riverside-Highland Water District Socioeconomics City of Grand Terrace In Colton' s response to the comment letter of the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health Services, Colton states: "The City of Colton is requiring a TIA and traffic study which has been contracted for as of this date. Other studies are also being required as part of the conditions of approval . " ( Letter from Colton to San Bernardino County, dated November 4, 1993 ) . What "other studies" are also being required as conditions of approval? Obviously, Colton is delaying all necessary studies until after project approval, which is inappropriate under CEQA. 2. Traffic Study is Required Before Approval As you know, numerous parties, including the City of Colton's own engineer and CalTrans, the County Department of Environmental HE/Js (Zamora-Ur) David R. Zamora RE_ City of Colton Redevelopment Agency Metro Mall Project, No D 52 93 Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1993 Page 4 Health Services, SANBAG, the City of San Bernardino and other cities, have requested that a traffic study be completed for this Project. Although Colton has, according to your letter of November 4, 1993, contracted for a traffic study, that traffic study has apparently not yet been completed. Colton's decision on this Project must await both completion, and circulation to the public and responsible agencies, of that traffic study, and its mitigation measures. Delay pf that traffic study until after approval of the project is unacceptable under CEQA, as the City will not be advised of the significance of the traffic impacts, or the applicable mitigation measures. The project 's failure to discuss the capacity deficiencies on Interstate 10 and 215 and the potential impacts of this project is also inexcusable. As pointed out in the SANBAG letter on this project, Colton must consider the capacity deficiencies in a deficiency plan. The response by Colton that the deficiency plan can be prepared after project approval is unacceptable in light of the Oro Fino and Sundstrom cases. Page 7, Section 13 acknowledges the possibility of substantial traffic impacts. Likewise, on page 10 of the Revised Initial Study, under Section 13, the Initial Study states: "The proposal will result in substantial, additional vehicular movement the project will have a substantial impact on existing transportation systems. " Despite this, a traffic study will not be completed until after the project approval and without any public circulation. That violates CEQA. 3. Air Quality Discussion is Inadequate. Of critical importance is Colton's failure to deal with air quality impacts and the necessary mitigation. As succinctly set forth in the South Coast Air Quality Management District's comment letter of September 30, 1993, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project is inadequate because it does not identify all of the impacts and necessary mitigation related to air quality. Specifically, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to include baseline air data, fails to quantify air emissions from construction equipment and grading, fails to quantify operational air emissions such as vehicle trips, fails to compare HE/js [Zamora.Ltrl David R. Zamora RE: City of Colton Redevelopment Agency Metro Mall Project, No D-52-93 Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1993 Page 5 those total construction and operational emissions to the existing baseline and arrive at conclusions on the significance of the air quality impact, and fails to delineate any specific mitigation measures for air quality (which comment is true for virtually all mitigation areas) . The project clearly exceeds SCAQMD thresholds for significant impacts. [See SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Chapter 6, (April, 1993)] . In addition, page 4, item 1(d) of the Initial Study should be checked "yes", given that the construction activities will create additional erosion. 4_ Hydrology Study is Required Before Approval. Like in the Sundstrom case, Colton has improperly delayed a hydrology study and related mitigation measures. Such studies are rewired prior to project approval. In fact, Colton's own engineer's memorandum of September 23, 1993, specifically requires a hydrology study, with mitigation measures, although Colton's Condition of Approval number 11, under Public Works, requires that the hydrology study must be completed before, not after project approval. 5. Seismic Concerns Regarding seismic concerns, both the City of San Bernardino and the Riverside-Highland Water Company have pointed out that the San Jacinto fault lies either on, or very near, the subject site. Despite this, no geotechnical study has been prepared nor is there any response on this issue from Colton. Such a geotechnical/ seismic report must be prepared and circulated for public review prior to the decision by Colton, given the possibility of fault ruptures on the project site. 6. Utility Infrastructure Needs Analysis. Likewise, the demand for additional electricity and the related necessary infrastructure must be analyzed in detail in a CEQA document. Section 16a of the Initial Study, under Utilities, is checked "no"; however, that is inappropriate as Colton's own electrical department's memorandum dated September 20, 1993, indicates that the analysis of the electrical infrastructure is HE/js [Zamora.Ltr) David R. Zamora RE: City of Colton Redevelopment Agency Metro Mall Project, No D-52-93 Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1993 Page 6 inadequate and potential upgrades may be necessary. Thus, the Initial Study should have been checked "yes" under Section 16a, and the necessary studies or mitigation discussed in the document. 7. Water Quality Impacts. A national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES ) study and analysis should be conducted for this project. The Possibility of groundwater contamination to the wells of the Riverside-Highland Water Company is another reason to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for this project. Here, under the "other recommended studies" section of the "Design Review Action Form" , Colton recommends a groundwater contamination study, which would improperly post-date the project 's approval. In this case, Condition of Approval No. 3 under grading requires preparation of an erosion control plan. Under the Oro Fino case, that erosion control plan, and its related mitigation measures, must be circulated with the Initial Study. 8. Water Supply Impacts. The project's impacts on water pipelines have not been adequately addressed. For example, the City of Riverside's letter regarding the possibility of breaks in a 42" water pipeline and the Riverside-Highland Water Company's discussion of a 30" water line on the site, have not been adequately considered nor mitigated. The water supply impacts and the potential flooding of the site and downgradient properties are potential significant impacts that must be analyzed. 9. Noise Study is Required. Colton's Conditions of Approval No. 1, under Noise, requires a noise study. That noise study must be completed before, not after, project approval pursuant to the Oro Fino case. 10_ Cumulative Impacts. Obviously, a project of this magnitude can cause significant cumulative effects, as set forth in the letter from the City of Grand Terrace, in addition to the project's grown-inducing impacts, HE/js [Zamora.Ltr[ David R. Zamora RE: City of Colton Redevelopment Agency Metro Mall Project, No D 52 93 Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1993 Page 7 which require analysis in an EIR. 11_ Socioeconomics. Regarding socioeconomics, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration must discuss the potential visual impact caused by the Possible closure of stores along the Barton corridor, and the impacts to other nearby regional malls caused by this project, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15131 and Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. Coun of In o ( 198 5) 172 Cal .App.3d 151, 169. Page 6, Section 7(b) of Colton's Initial Study even acknowledges a potential impact on established commercial areas. " Again, the project's failure to provide specific analysis and mitigation measures regarding these socioeconomic impacts does not comply with CEQA 12. Lack of Attached Mitigation Measures to Initial Study. Many commenters have pointed out the lack of mitigation measures. Despite the fact that the Initial Study claims that there are mitigation measures attached (see page 13. of the Initial Study) , no such mitigation measures were attached to either the September 14, 1993 nor the November 11, 1993 Initial Study. In fact, the Conditions of Approval set forth in the Design Review Action Form are dated October 25, 1993; one month after the original Initial Study. Obviously, without such mitigation measures, it is impossible for the public and responsible agencies to adequately assess the potential impacts of this project [CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(d)] . 13_ An EIR is Rewired. Under CEQA, if a project may cause a significant effect on the environment, the agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report. 14 CCR S 15063(b) ( 1 ) . The Metro Mall project may cause significant effects, in the following areas, thus requiring an EIR; 1. Traffic impacts (See Section 2 above). 2. Air Quality Impacts (See Section 3 above). 3. Growth-inducement (catalyst for ancillary development) HE/j: [zamora.Ltr] David R. Zamora RE: City of Colton Redevelopment Agency Metro Mall Project; No. D-52-93 Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1993 Page 8 [Initial Study, page 3] . 4. Seismic/Geology ( See Section 5 above) . 5. Electricity ( See Section 6 above) . 6. Water supply ( See Section 8 above) . 7. Socioeconomics (See Section 11 above) . 8. Noise. (Construction and operations, given nearby residential projects, as heavy equipment can exceed State Department of Health suggested decibel levels) . 9. Biological Resources. (There was absolutely no discussion in the Initial Study of potential biological impacts, although the project site is predominately vacant land) . 10. Solid Waste. (See the letter from the California Integrated Waste Management Board concerning this project's generation of solid waste, both during construction and post- construction during operations) . 11 . Hydrology. (See Section 4 above, and Drainage impacts into the Santa Ana River and adjacent potable water well field) . 12. Historic Impacts. (We believe that the project is located in the immediate area of the Cooley Homestead, which existed in the 1800s) . This potential impact to historical resources has been totally ignored in the Initial Study. 13. The document lacks an alternatives analysis which is necessary to fully understand the impacts of the project. For example, a no project alternative, a smaller project, phasing+of the proposed project, etc. should be analyzed. 14. Cumulative impacts (including the impact of other proposed or pending projects) . The above items indicate that this project has numerous RE/is (Zamora.Ltrj David R. Zamora RE: City of Colton Redevelopment Agency Metro Mall Project; No. D-52-93 Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1993 Page 9 environmental impacts which all mandate preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Note that EIRs were prepared for: the Montclair Plaza expansion ( 1984) , the Tyler-Galleria expansion ( 1988 ) , the recent mall in Moreno Valley ( 1990's) , and an EIR is currently being prepared for the Inland Center Mall expansion project ( 1993 ) . That all four of the above projects required an EIR, clearly indicates that this Metro Mall project requires an Environmental Impact Report to comply with CEQA. Colton's original Initial Study, dated September 14, 1993, acknowledged on page 9, in its Mandatory Findings of Significance the possibility of significant impacts, thus requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The revised Initial Study's change of the conclusions of Sections 22(c) and (d) to answer "no" is not supported by the facts in this case. The revised Initial Study contains no analysis to support the changed conclusions. In fact, there is little factual information to support whether any of the relevant environmental impacts are or are not significant, given the limited information on all issues. Thus, with the possibility of such significant environmental impacts, and the lack of mitigation measures, this project must be treated as significant, triggering the need for an Environmental Impact Report. Finally, the numerous studies required by Colton's own Conditions of Approval for traffic, noise, hydrology, ground water contamination, erosion control, electrical loads, drainage, and geology are compelling evidence that this project requires an EIR That an Environmental Impact Report is required was also pointed out in the comment letters of San Bernardino County; the SCAQMD; the City of Grand Terrace; the City of Riverside; and the Riverside-Highland Water Company. 14. The Revised Initial Study Must Be Recirculated for Thirty Days. The Metro Mall is s regionally significant project because it will employ 5, 200 employees and encompass over one million square feet of floor space, which is five times the threshold of employees and over double the amount of floor space threshold set forth for a regionally significant project under CEQA. 14 CCR S15206(b)(2) . Regionally significant projects must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review. 14 CCR S15206(a) . The original Initial RE/is [Zamora.Ur) David R. Zamora RE: City of Colton Redevelopment Agency Metro Mall Project, No. D-52-93 Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1993 Page 10 Study for this project was circulated to the State Clearinghouse, however, the revised Initial Study must also be recirculated to the State Clearinghouse, because there has been a significant change in the conclusion given in the mandatory findings of significance. The change in the revised Initial Study of the mandatory findings of significance from "yes" and "maybe" to "no" , is a significant change in the conclusions and position of the Negative Declaration, which triggers recirculation. Therefore, the revised Initial Study must be recirculated to the State Clearinghouse for the required 30 day review period for Negative Declarations. Public Resources Code Section 21091(b) , 14 CCR SS15073(d) and 15106. Here, the proposed circulation period from November 11, 1993 through November 26, 1993, is only 15 days. Likewise, the original Initial Study of September 14, 1993, only had a 20 day review period through October 4, 1993 which was also insufficient. 15_ Alternatively, The Revised Initial Study Must Be Recirculated For At Least Twenty-One Days. Public Resources Code Section 21091(b) states: "The public review period for a negative declaration shall not be less than 21 days. . . . " Thus state law requires that the Revised Initial Study must be available for public review and comment for at least 21 days rather than the 15 day period provided by the City of Colton. The City's failure to comply with the public notice requirements invalidates a subsequent adoption of a Negative Declaration and its conclusions. Plaggmier v. City of San Jose ( 1980) 101 Cal .App.3d 842, 854. 16. The Project Cannot Be Divided. Under Citizens for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v Inyo County such splitting of a project into multiple phases is unacceptable under CEQA. 172 Cal.App.3d at 167. In the Bishop case, Inyo County approved two negative declarations, one for a general plan amendment and zoning charge and the second for a tentative tract map. 172 Cal.App.3d at 156. Although the record is confused, Colton may be attempting to HE/js (Zamora.Ltr] David R. Zamora RE: City of Colton Redevelopment Agency Metro Mall Project; No. D-52-93 Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1993 Page 11 divide the Metro Mall into two parts, a conceptual plan ( see Colton Design Review Action form p. 1 ) and a site and architectural review ( see Initial Study, p. l, Section 1 ) . For all of the above reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission require an Environmental Impact Report for this project. Please provide us with copies of any additional environmental documentation and notices of any applicable public hearings in this matter. Sincerely, HENRY EMPE 0 JR. , Deputy City Attorney cc: City of Colton: Mayor and Council Planning Commission City Manager City Attorney City of San Bernardino: Tom Minor, Mayor Councilmembers James F. Penman, City Attorney Shauna Clark, City Administrator SCAQMD HE/Js [Zamora.Ltr]