75C - PH MORTIMER MIXED USE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4th and Mortimer CEQA Addendum October 12, 2020 Page 11 of 15 15125(d); City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unif. School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 889, 918; Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, 874 (EIR inadequate when Lead Agency failed to identify relationship of project to relevant local plans).) A Project's inconsistencies with local plans and policies constitute significant impacts under CEQA. (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 783-4, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 177; see also, County of El Dorado v. Dept. of Transp. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1376 (fact that a project may be consistent with a plan, such as an air plan, does not necessarily mean that it does not have significant impacts).) Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food and Agriculture (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 ("[c]ompliance with the law is not enough to support a finding of no significant impact under the CEQA."). The recent Georgetown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 358 echoes Pocket Protectors. These both apply the fair argument standard to a potential inconsistency with a plan adopted for environmental protection. Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099 holds that an EIR needs to analyze any topic for which a fair argument of significant impact is raised. Since the proposed Project is inconsistent with the zoning code, and requires a zone change and variance, it will have significant impacts that must be analyzed in a tiered EIR. These impacts were not analyzed in the 2010 EIR. 3. The Project Will Have Significant Impacts to Historic Resources. The proposed Project may have significant impacts to historic resources, and the City has failed to implement applicable mitigation measures from the 2010 EIR with respect to this impact. The downtown zone is a National Historic District (2010 DEIR 1-5). The 2010 DEIR required development to be "context -sensitive infill development." (Id.) The Addendum admits that the Project site includes a historically significant building on the Built Environment Resources Directory ("BERD") database. (Addendum 3.3-3). The historic building is the Santa Ana Car Salon, located at 509-515 East 41h Street. (Addendum Appendix C, Cultural Resources, p.3, 8). The historic resource is a "rare example of the Western False Front Style in Santa Ana." (Id.) This historic building will be demolished as part of the Project, and the Project will therefore have adverse impacts on an historic resource. The 2010 EIR required a case -by -case historic analysis for future projects, and required that for each project an historic resource expert must be retained to conduct an analysis and to suggest measures to minimize impacts. (2010 DEIR 1-24). However, no such historic resource analysis was done for the Project due to "constraints surrounding COVID-19." (Addendum 3.1-1). Since the City has failed to implement mitigation measures required by the 2010 EIR, a subsequent EIR is required. If the agency fails to implement mitigation measures required by a prior EIR, this requires CEQA review, even for an otherwise ministerial project. Katzeff v. Dept. of Forestry (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 601, 611, 614; Lincoln Place Tenants v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1507-1508. The purpose of this requirement "is to ensure that feasible mitigation measures will actually be 75C-30