Appeal of DSD Finding
on Navy Broadway
|APPEAL OF THE NAVY BROADWAY COMPLEX CEQA FINDING BY THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT|
On October 19, 2006 Robert Manis, Assistant Deputy Director, Development Serves issued a memorandum addressed to James T. Waring, Deputy of Land Use and Economic Development titled CEQA Consistency Analysis for the Navy Broadway Complex” 1 .
Manis found that the 1990 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Navy Broadway Complex (NBC) was sufficient for the proposed development of NBC by Manchester Financial Group LLC (MFG) and a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR (SEIR) was not required 2 . He asserted that none of the three circumstances that would trigger an SEIR, as described in CEQA Section 21166, existed. He also ruled that his opinion was “ ministerial” and not subject to appeal, as described in CEQA 21151 (c) even though the City Attorney issued a Memorandum of Law on October 4, 2006 3 stating in part “Any CEQA determination associated with CCDC’s consistency determinations is appealable to the full City Council”.
The Broadway Complex Coalition (BCC) strongly disagrees with the Manis findings that, taken together, were an outrageous attempt to reach the preferred conclusion by the Mayor’s Office in violation of Municipal Code §128.0103(b) and then prevent an appeal of the finding to the full City Council.
The Manis finding, that the 1990 EIR predicted all the changes in circumstances in downtown San Diego, is on the face patently absurd. This appeal will use specific concrete examples of how circumstances have changed and that new information is available such as changes in State law that could not have been predicted in 1990. Each of these findings require the preparation of a SEIR. In addition, some aspects of the project have changed sufficiently to independently trigger the preparation of a SEIR.
The appeal will also include examples of the many predictions in the 1990 EIR and Appendices that were incorrect.
Finally, the appeal will show why all other EIR documents referred to in the Manis document, that are claimed to update the 1990 project EIR for NBC, are irrelevant.
The environmental impact issues to be analyzed in detail include transportation, circulation and parking, cumulative impact, public participation, public services and utilities, physical environment (geology and hazardous materials), water and air quality, none of which were discussed in the Manis document.
We respectfully request the City
Council reject the DSD position and grant the appeal.