CORRESPONDENCE - 60A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Santa Ana– First American Mixed-Use Project [114 and 117 East Fifth Street] – Comments to City Council November 18, 2019 Page 7 of 13 supplemental EIR rather than an Addendum, which again can only be used to make minor modifications or additions. See 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15164. The City must prepare a project-specific EIR and circulate it for public comment before it could contemplate approving the Project. C. The Addendum Provides Unenforceable Transportation/Circulation Mitigation Measures The Addendum admits that “two [transportation/circulation] mitigations require the approval/cooperation of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).” Addendum, p. 3.8-1. The Addendum cites to Mitigation 4.11-4 of the 2010 FEIR but does not even cite to the second mitigation measure which required Caltrans’ approval for implementation. CEQA requires that mitigation measures must be an enforceable condition of approval and part of the Mitigation Measure Reporting Program (“MMRP”). A lead or responsible agency adopts mitigation measures described in the EIR when it approves the project. The mitigation measures that are adopted must be enforceable through conditions of approval, contracts or other means that are legally binding. Pub Res C §21081.6(b); 14 Cal Code Regs §15126.4(a)(2). Incorporating mitigation measures into conditions of approval is sufficient to demonstrate that the measures are enforceable. Pub Res C §21081.6(b); Gray v County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1116. Contrary to CEQA requirements, the mitigation measures are not enforceable because the mitigation measures require discretionary action by another, independent agency, Caltrans. As a result, they cannot be used to support a conclusion that the Project’s transportation/circulation impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. See Addendum, p. 2-7. D. The Addendum Fails to Adequately Analyze, Disclose and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Air Quality Impacts According to Mr. Hagemann and Mr. Rosenfeld, the Addendum failed to adequately analyze the Project’s air quality impacts based on various grounds, which are explained in full in their comment letter, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and accompanying exhibits. Those points are briefly summarized below.