75C - PH MORTIMER MIXED USE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Santa Ana 4th and Mortimer Project Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 were met to trigger the need for these documents. Although the project did not require a public review period (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c)), the project was presented to the public during a Planning Commission meeting held on October 12, 20201 and the Addendum and 2010 FEIR are considered by the City in making a decision about the project. Furthermore, although not required under an addendum, the City is responding to this public comment letter and any other public comments related to the project. Response 4 The commenter summarizes the proposed project, including the project's location, zoning, massing, density, and associated discretionary actions. In particular, the commenter summarizes the project's inconsistency with the Urban Neighborhood 2 subzone (UN-2) requirements studied in the 2010 FEIR. This comment is an introduction and summary of the project and does not pertain to the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Addendum. Response 5 The commenter provides a summary of CEQA requirements through references to case law and statutes related to use of an addendum and tiering an analysis under CEQA. The intent of this comment is to provide a regulatory background and does not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR Addendum. Response 6 The commenter states that CEQA requires the City to prepare a tiered EIR, which is governed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 (Tiering) of the CEQA Guidelines, instead of an addendum, which is governed by CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164. The commenter notes that the 2010 FEIR states "This EIR will be used to tier subsequent environmental analysis for future development included within the Transit Zoning Code boundaries, as allowed by Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines." As described in Response 1, the project did not require a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration because none of the conditions described in PRC Section 21166 and CECA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 were met to trigger the need for these documents. Therefore, the City is within its discretion to proceed with an addendum as the appropriate environmental document for the project under CEQA. Response 7 The commenter states that, based on references to case law (i.e., Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 944) and subsequent Supreme Court rulings, that subsequent review provisions under CEQA are dependent on the determination that the original environmental document retains "some informational value" despite the proposed changes. The commenter adds that the City cannot claim that the 2010 FEIR retains informational value or addresses the project's impacts since the project exceeds the density I Planning Commission Agenda. Monday, October 12, 2020. Open Meeting. httos://santaana.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.K)ho?view id=2&clip id=2999. 75C-288