75E - PH 2525 MAIN ST - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 26, 2018 Comment on Environmental Impact Report, 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-34 page 8 3. The EIR Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Project's Significant Traffic Impacts. CalTrans has submitted at least two comment letters concluding that the EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project's significant traffic impacts. In particular, CalTrans expressed concern over the Project's impacts on nearby 1-5 and 10 SR22. In CalTrans' second comment letter, the agency concluded that the FEIR failed to adequately respond to CalTrans' initial comments. The FEIR's dismissive response to an expert agency's comments itself renders the EIR legally inadequate. Furthermore, the EIR improperly abrogates responsibility for mitigating the Project's traffic impacts. The EIR states that CalTrans has authority to adopt certain mitigation measures, and as a result, the City of Santa Ana would not adopt or impose mitigation. CEQA does not allow the lead agency to abrogate its responsibility to mitigate significant impacts, even if those impacts are within the jurisdiction of another agency. The lead agency is responsible for ensuring that impacts are mitigated, even if it is necessary to cooperate with other responsible agencies. In Lexington Hills v. State of Calif. (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 415, the court held that a CEQA lead agency cannot delegate responsibility to develop mitigation measures to a responsible agency, even if the responsible agency has more expertise in a particular area. The lead agency must use its authority to analyze the entire project and to devise mitigation measures. Id. at 433-435. See also, Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443 (Lead agency cannot refrain from considering means of exercising its own regulatory power simply because another agency has general authority over the impacted natural resource. City could not delegate mitigation measure development for project impacts to wetlands to US Army Corps of Engineers). 4. The Project Lacks Affordable Housing in Conflict with the General Plan. The Project does not include any affordable housing units, in complete disregard of the applicable General Plan policies. All of the rental units will be market -rate, and none will be designated or deed -restricted for low or moderate income residents. This is of particular concern to LIUNA members who are increasingly priced out of the area. 75E-252 11 12