CORRESPONDENCE - 75A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PALMIERI HENNESSEY LEIFER, LLP Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of the City of Santa Ana October 20, 2020 Page 10 CEQA does not permit governmental agencies to play fast and loose with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program obligations. Mitigation measures are not aspirational statements they are supposed to be specific and enforceable and are to actually be enforced. Here, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program falls far short. The "if it's convenient we might do something" approach is not permissible. The Spurgeon Building Owner's comments are timely submitted. Lest the claim be made that our comments are somehow untimely, the following quote from Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.0 1184, 1201, amply rebuts this claim: City appears to have thought that the public's role in the environmental review process ends when the public comment period expires. Apparently, it did not realize that if a public hearing is conducted on project approval, then new environmental objections could be made until close of this hearing (§ 21177, subd. (b); Guidelines, § 15202, subd. (b); Hillside, supra, 83Cal.App.4`h at p. 1263.) If the decisionmaking body elects to certify the EIR without considering comments made at this public hearing, it does so at its own risk. If a CEQA action is subsequently brought, the EIR may be found to be deficient on grounds that were raised at any point prior to close of the hearing on project approval. Conclusion Based on the foregoing and incorporating any and all objections and comments to this Project made by others during the environmental process, the owners of the Spurgeon Building requests that the City Council deny certification of the Addendum, not approve the various Project approvals before it and instead direct Staff and the Applicant to conduct a further analysis and full EIR concerning the impacts from this Project. Enclosures cc: Clients