Staff Responses to CEQA Related - Agenda Item No. 28

Home Browse Search

The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project for monitoring by the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians and Project-specific MM TCR-6 is also included regarding resource identification, dispute resolution, and final disposition of any recovered resources. Response T1-7: The comment argues that pursuant to PRC Section 21082.3(c)(1), any information shared by tribes during consultation regarding sacred sites, locations, or cultural practices must remain confidential. The comment further claims that disclosed protected information was unlawfully shared and merged with the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians. As reflected in the Draft Supplemental EIR, the City properly contained TCR mitigation measures provided by the Kizh Nation and has kept all potential information pertaining to sacred sites, locations, or cultural practices confidential. No confidential information has been shared publicly or with other parties. As stated in Response T1-6, confidentiality was not breached as the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians commented directly on the information provided in the Draft Supplemental EIR. Response T1-8: The comment suggests the City neglects PRC Section 21084.3(a) and fails to avoid or minimize impacts by relying on third-party comments and failing to implement Kizh Nation’s avoidance-first measures. As stated in Response T1-2, the result of the consultation process with Kizh Nation was the incorporation of the Kizh Nation’s provided mitigation measures, as presented in the Draft Supplemental EIR. Additionally, the Native American Heritage Commission’s list for the project area includes the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians as a tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. Therefore, pursuant to PRC Section 21084.3(a), which states public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resources, the City is including Project-specific mitigation measures MM TCR-1 through MM TCR-6 which provide measures for monitoring, resource identification, dispute resolution, and final disposition of any recovered resources. Response T1-9: The comment claims that inclusion of the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians mitigation measures dilutes and disrupts tribe-specific mitigation required under AB 52; causes direct damage to ancestral sites and sacred areas by allowing unqualified entities to dictate treatment standards, and exposes the City to legal liability for failing to protect sensitive resources under CEQA. The City is acting in good faith as the lead agency to include mitigation measures that are the most protective of tribal cultural resources. As stated in Response T1-2, the result of the consultation process with Kizh Nation was the incorporation of the Kizh Nation’s provided mitigation measures, as presented in the Draft Supplemental EIR. Additionally, The Native American Heritage Commission’s list for the project area includes the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians as a tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. Therefore, pursuant to PRC Section 21084.3(a), the City is including Project-specific mitigation measures MM TCR-1 through MMTCR-6 which provide measures for monitoring, resource identification, dispute resolution, and final disposition of any recovered resources. Response T1-10: The comment provides a summary of alleged violations specific to CEQA and AB 52. Alleged violations include: failure to initiate meaningful consultation; substituting public comment for consultation; lack of substantial evidence to support mitigation; combining mitigation across tribes; confidentiality breach of tribal information; failure to prioritize avoidance of impacts; generic, non-enforceable mitigation; and late responses and neglect of consultation deadlines. City of Santa Ana September 2025 8