The Village SantaAna SpecificPlanProject
RESPONSESTOCOMMENTS
This documentprovidesresponsesto the UNITEHERELocal11 (“Local11” or “commentor”) written comments (the “Letter”) receivedby theCity of SantaAna in advanceof theCity Council’s considerationof theproposedVillageSantaAna SpecificPlanProject. This response addressesthemaintopicscoveredwithin theLetter.
City of SantaAna September2025
1 55394.00067\\44182451.1
The Village SantaAna SpecificPlanProject
The Letter provides commentsregarding affordable housing, the appropriate level of analysisundertheCalifornia EnvironmentalQuality Act (“CEQA”), andtheappropriatenessof a hotel useas part of the proposedProject. As explainedin detail below, the Village SantaAna SpecificPlanProject (“Project”) contributesto thepotentialaffordablehousingproductionthrough theprovisionof in-lieu fees; appropriatelyandconservativelystudieda maximumbuildout with appropriatemitigation pursuantto CEQA; andincludedhotelusesasan appropriateusegiven theapplicableGeneralPlanLandUseDesignation.
I. The Project ProvidesIn-Lieu Feesthat Can Contribute to Affordable Housing Production within the City
The commenterclaims thereis “uncertainty” regardinghow theProjectwill contributeto affordable housingin the City. The Project contributes to SantaAna’s affordable housingby providingsignificantin-lieu feesaspermittedby theCity’s Affordable HousingandOpportunity CreationOrdinance (“AHOCO”).
The AHOCOgenerallyappliesto housingprojectsproposingfive or moreunits that are alsorequestingan increasein allowabledensityor arelocatedin certainsectionsof theCity that were “up-zoned,” suchasthrougha zonechangeor generalplan amendmentto allow additional residentialdevelopmentafter November28, 2011. As the Project is locatedin a sectionof the City thatwas “up-zoned” to allow for additionaldensitycapacity, theSouthBristol StreetFocus Area, (SBSFA), theApplicant’s requestis subjectto theAHOCO requirementsof productionof affordablehousingor paymentof in-lieu fees. Pursuantto Sections41-1903 (Exempt Projects) and 41-1904 (Optionsto Satisfy InclusionaryRequirements) of theSantaAna Municipal Code SAMC), theApplicant hasindicatedintentto selecttheoptionto pay in-lieu feesat a rate of $5 per squarefoot of habitableresidentialareathroughtherequesteddevelopmentagreement.
TheProjectwill providein-lieu feesat a rate of five dollars per habitablesquarefoot of residentialarea. As a result, City staff estimatesthe Project could generateapproximately7.1 million dollarsin in-lieu feesbasedon the unit mix and squarefootage of the proposed1,583 proposeddwellingunits. As setforth underSections41-1090 (Inclusionaryhousingfund) of the SAMC, the7.1 million dollarsin feeswill bedepositedin aninclusionaryhousingfundandwill be usedby the City to target production of extremelylow, very low, low, and moderateincome housingunits.
SantaAna’s RegionalHousingNeedsAllocation (RHNA) for the current General Plan HousingElementcycle (Sixth Cycle), which extendsfrom 2021-2029, includes3,137 housing units. This allocationis for housingunits to beconstructedto supporttheanticipatedgrowth in theCity overthis period. TheProjectwill provide1,583unitstowardstotal RHNA units, and the Project’s in-lieu feescanbeutilizedto targettheaffordablehousingcategories.
In short, theCity andtheProjectarenot missingan opportunityto encourageaffordable housingasstatedby thecommenter, but rathertheProject’s in-lieu feeswill beappropriately be allocatedtowardstheCity’s RHNA targetsfor extremelylow, very low, low, andmoderateincome housingneeds. Asthecommenternotes, the “AHOCO encouragesnewresidentialdevelopments to includeaffordablehousingunitsonsiteor offsite \[\] or in-lieu fees…” (Letter, pg. 2.) Here, the Projectelectsto encouragehousingbothon siteandthroughthe useof in-lieu fees.
II. The Project is Compatible with Applicable General Plan Policies Cityof SantaAna September2025
2 55394.00067\\44182451.1
The Village SantaAna SpecificPlanProject
As courtshavedescribed, no projectcancompletelysatisfyeverypolicy statedin a City’s generalplan, andstatelaw doesnot imposesucha requirement. (Naraghi LakesNeighborhood Preservation Ass’n v. City of Modesto, (2016) 1 Cal. App. 5th 9, 18 citing SequoyahHills HomeownersAss’n v. City of Oakland, (1993) 23Cal. App. 4th704, 719-720.) Instead, a Project shouldbecompatiblewith, andnot frustratetheGeneralPlan’s goalsandpolicies. (Id.) TheProject’s SpecificPlanincludesanAppendixB whichdetailstheProject’s consistency and compatibilitywith theCity’s GeneralPlan. The commenteris referredto this appendixfor a full understandingof theProject’s compatibilitywith theCity’s GeneralPlan.
To theextentthecommentersuggeststheProjectis not compatiblewith theGeneralPlan becausetheProjectelectsto usein-lieu fees, sucha suggestionis inconsistentwith thepurpose of theCity’sAHOCO. As describedabove, theAHOCO appliesto housingprojectsproposingfive or moreunits andthat are locatedin certain areaswhereadditional residentialdevelopmentis contemplated. TheAHOCOestablishesstandardsandproceduresto encouragethedevelopment of housingthat is affordableto a rangeof householdswith varying incomelevels. As discussed above, oneof theproceduresis payingin-lieu fees, theproceedsof which willcontribute towards affordablehousing. Put simply, thepaymentof in-lieu feeshelpsthe City progresstowards its goal of increasingthe availability of affordable housing. Thus, the Project, as proposed, is compatible with the affordable and diverse housing goals noted in the commenter’s Letter.
Similarly, theProject’s proposed1,583unitsandprovisionof approximately $7.1 million in in-lieu fees are compatible with the housing development goals of the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/SustainableCommunity Strategy, which are also described in the commenter’s Letter.
III. The Project’s SEIR appropriately studied the Project ascontemplatedby the Proposed Specific Plan
TheProjectconsistsof a 17.2 acremixed-useurbanvillage. TheProjectwould permit up to 1,583 residentialunits, 80,000 squarefeetof commercialspace, 300,000 squarefeetof office space, and13.8 acresof public andprivateoutdoorandrecreationspace (of which7.5 acreswill bepublicly accessibleopenspace) throughimplementationof a SpecificPlan. Regardlessof any prior zoning for the Property or adjacent lands, the Specific Plan defines permissible and conditionally permissibleusesin theSpecific Planarea. There is no requirementfor a “vested right” to a specific useasthecommenteralludesto. As notedin the Specific Plan, a variety of commercialuses, includinga hoteluse, arepermitted.
TheProject’s environmentalreviewstudiedtheimpactsof theSpecificPlan’s commercial uses. The Project’s SupplementalEnvironmentalImpact (“SEIR”) conservativelystudied the potentialfull buildoutof theProjectwith intensiveuses. This analysisincluded the 80,000 sf of commercialspace, which was studied using more intensive permittedcommercialuses. The 80,000 sf of commercialspacewas assumedto include hightraffic retail anddining akin to a regionalshoppingcenter. Theseuseshavehigherintensitylevelsthanhotelusesand generate approximatelytwice asmanytrips per1,000 sf comparedwith a hoteluse. Givenhotelusesare significantly lessintensewhencomparedwith high-turnoverretail andrestaurantuses, impacts from a hotelareinherentlycapturedin theenvironmentalanalysis as a less intensive use than whatwasstudied.
Cityof SantaAna September2025
3 55394.00067\\44182451.1
The Village SantaAna SpecificPlanProject
Thus, impacts related to air quality and transportation uses (including vehicle miles travelled anda transportation demandmanagement (“TDM”) plan)— as studiedin the SEIR— reflectpotentiallymoreimpactful usesthana hotel. As a result, the commenter’s claim that the SEIR did not includetheappropriateanalysisis inapposite. By studyingthemaximumbuildout, the SEIR inherently studiesthe potential environmentalimpacts of lessintenseusessuch as hotel. TheSEIR studiedfeasiblemitigationto reducepotentialenvironmentalimpactsrelatingto air quality, transportation, andothersubjects. With respectto transportationimpacts and the commenter’s suggestionsfor additionalstrategiesandmitigation measures, theSEIR foundthat transportationimpactswouldbelessthansignificant. Accordingly, a TDM planis nota mitigation measurerequiredby theenvironmentalanalysis. Thus, requiringadditionalperformancemetrics as suggested by the commenter is not a CEQA issue. However, the City will take into considerationtheseadditional strategiesthat the commentersuggests. Given that the SEIR studiedpotentialimpactsof thepotentialmaximumbuildout, theproposedmitigationprovidedin theSEIR is appropriate.
The City notes that the Specific Plan includes an Administration andImplementation Chapterwhichdetailstheadditionalfuture reviewof anydevelopmentwith theSpecificPlanarea.
Pursuantto this Chapter, anyfuturedevelopmentprojectmustobtainapprovalof a Development ProjectPlanReview. (See SpecificPlan, § 6.3.3.) Thus, to the extenta hotel is included in the buildoutof theProject’s commercialuses, thatusewill besubjectto furtherCity reviewduringthe DevelopmentProjectPlanReviewprocess.
IV. A Hotel Useis Consistentwith the Property’s General Plan Land UseDesignation As describedabove, the proposedSpecific Plan defines permissible useswithin the Specific Plan area. Under the Specific Plan, hotel usesare permitted by right or subjectto conditionalapprovaldependingon the number of other useswith onsite alcohol salesalready permitted. (SeeSpecificPlanTable4-1.) TheSpecificPlan’s usemix is consistentwith theCity’s GeneralPlan. Under the GeneralPlan Land Use Plan, the Property is designatedas District Center – High (DC-5), whichallowsa mix of usesconsistentwith newurban-scale development.
Usesincluderesidential, retail, commercial, office, andentertainmentuses. Takentogether, the proposedSpecificPlanwould amendtheCity’s zoningcodeto allow hoteluseson theProperty consistentwith themixed-useurbandevelopmentcontemplatedby theGeneralPlan.
TheCity’s diverseand variedmix of urbanandsuburbanenvironmentsallow for many land usetypesanduseintensities. As shownin theGeneralPlanLand UsePlan, thepatternand distribution of landusesdiffer dependingon thecharacterof thesurroundingenvironment. As a result, thecommenter’s reviewof landusesandhotelusesin otherareasof theCity isnot relevant to theProjectortherequiredfindingsthat theCity considerswhenmakinga determinationon the Project.
Evenso, thecommenter’s reviewprovidessupportfor anoppositeconclusion – there is precedentfor hotelspermitted “by right” in manyother areasof the City. Indeed, the commenter providesananalysisof theCity’s zoningcode, SpecialDistricts (“SD”), andSpecificPlansin an effort to showthata hoteluseis unwarrantedon theProperty. However, asthecommenterpoints out, hoteluseshasbeenpermittedin otherSDs andSpecificPlanareasdatingbackto 1977 and as recently as the 2019Main PlaceSpecificPlanand2024RelatedBristol SpecificPlan. (See Letter, pg. 15-16.)
Cityof SantaAna September2025
4 55394.00067\\44182451.1
The Village SantaAna SpecificPlanProject
RESPONSESTOCOMMENTS
This documentprovidesresponsesto environmental-relatedcommentsin a seriesof nearly identicalcommentlettersthattheCity of SantaAna receivedfrom thefollowingindividualsin advanceof theCity Council’s considerationof theproposedVillage SantaAna SpecificPlan Project (Project):
GabrielleRidley
DamarisSolis
VanessaChavez
Yuri Lara
RandeeTejeda
SarahMeza
NicoleOrtega
CenorinoGomez
JulioCastillo
RicardoCárdenas
Thesecommentlettersnotethat hotelswould bean alloweduseundertheproposedSpecific Plan andassertthat hoteluseswerenot evaluatedaspart of theenvironmentalreviewfor the project. Seetheresponseto theUNITE HERE Local 11 commentletter. In particular, sectionIII of that responseexplainsthat theProject’s SupplementalEnvironmentalImpactReport (SEIR) appropriatelystudiedtheProjectascontemplatedby theProposedSpecificPlan.
City of SantaAna September2025
1 55394.00067\\44182451.1
The Village SantaAna SpecificPlanProject
RESPONSESTOCOMMENTS
This documentprovidesresponsesto theGabrieleñoBand of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation’s KizhNation) written commentsreceivedby theCity of SantaAnain advanceof theCity Council’s considerationof theproposedVillage SantaAna Specific PlanProject. The letter and specific commentsarenumberedfor referencepurposes.
City of SantaAna September2025
1 The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
T1: Andrew Salas, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation,dated September5, 2025 (4pages)
City of Santa Ana September2025
2 The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
City of Santa Ana September2025
3 The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
City of Santa Ana September2025
4 The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
City of Santa Ana September2025
5 The Village SantaAna SpecificPlanProject
Response to ObjectionLetter T1: Andrew Salas, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, dated September5, 2025
Response T1-1: Thecommentintroducestheletter on behalfof theGabrieleñoBandof Mission Indians – Kizh Nation ( herein, Kizh Nation) regarding their review of the project Final SupplementalEIR. TheKizh Nationexpressesoppositionto theCity’s decisionto updateTribal Cultural Resource (TCR) mitigationmeasuresin theFinal SupplementalEIR basedon a public commentlettersubmittedby theJuaneñoBandof MissionIndians, AcjachemenNation-Belardes herein, JuaneñoBandof MissionIndians)As this sectionis introducingthetopicsto bediscussed in the commentletter, the commenteris referred to the responsesto eachdetailed comment below. Thecommenter’s specificconcernsareincludedin thesubsequentCommentNos. T1-2 throughT1-11. Refer to ResponseNos. T1-2 through T1-11 for specific responsesto such concerns. No further responseis required.
ResponseT1-2: The commentallegesthat the City substitutedthe views of a non-consulting entity (JuaneñoBandof MissionIndians) in placeof consultationwith theKizh Nation.
In compliancewith CEQA, theCity initiatedtheSenateBill (SB) 18 andAB 52 tribal consultation processon November18, 2023, whentheCity transmittedwritten notificationto a list of tribesto providetheopportunityto consultregardingtheproposedproject. In accordancewith Government CodeSection65352.3, thecontactedtribesincludedtribestraditionally andculturally affiliated with the project areaand tribes maintainedon the Native American Heritage Commission’s contactlist, which includedboth theJuaneñoBand of Mission IndiansandtheKizh Nation, as describedin Section4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, of theDraft SupplementalEIR. UnderSB 18, once the City’s notification is transmitted, tribes have 90 days to requestconsultation GovernmentCodeSection65352.3(a)(2)). UnderAB 52, tribeshave30 daysfrom receiptof the formal notificationto requestconsultation (PublicResourcesCodeSection21080.3.1). On March 8, 2024, the Kizh Nation respondedto the City’s notification with a requestto consult, which occurred via email. The result of the consultation processwas the incorporation of the Kizh Nation’s providedmitigationmeasures, aspresentedin theDraft SupplementalEIR. Thoughthe JuaneñoBandof Mission Indiansdid not respondto theCity’s invitation to consultunderSB 18 or AB 52, theJuaneñoBandof Mission Indianssubmitteda commentletteron June10, 2025on the Draft SupplementalEIR requestingmitigation measuresbe incorporated to provide for monitoringby theJuaneñoBandof Mission Indians. This commentletter was submittedduring thepublic reviewperiodfor theDraft SupplementalEIR in accordancewith CEQA. The Native AmericanHeritageCommission’s list for theprojectareaincludestheJuaneñoBand of Mission Indiansas a tribetraditionallyandculturallyaffiliatedwith theprojectarea. Based on comments receivedfrom theJuaneñoBandof MissionIndians, aspart of theFinal SupplementalEIR, the City addedProject-specificMM TCR-4 andMM TCR-5 to providefor monitoringby theJuaneño Band of Mission Indians. Project-specificMM TCR-6 is also included regarding resource identification, dispute resolution, and final disposition of any recoveredresources. These mitigation measuresare in addition to the measuresrequestedby the Kizh Nation anddo not changethesubstanceof themeasuresrequestedby Kizh Nation or resultin newor substantially moresevereimpacts.
ResponseT1-3: Thecommentarguesthat public commentsarenot a substitutefor consultation andcannotoverridetribe-specific mitigation measuresandalso suggeststhat by incorporating JuaneñoBandof Mission Indians’ mitigation measures, theCity ignoredits duty to reflect Kizh Nationconsultationoutcomesin theFinal SupplementalEIR.
City of SantaAna September2025
6 The Village SantaAna SpecificPlanProject
TheCity did notignoreKizh Nation’s consultationoutcomesin theFinal SupplementalEIR asthe mitigationmeasuresresultingfrom consultationthat wereincludedin theDraft SupplementalEIR werenot overriddenin theFinal SupplementalEIR. Theresultsof theconsultationwith theKizh Nation remain in place and the agreedto mitigation measuresbetweenthe City and the Kizh Nationremainin theFinal SupplementalEIR. Asstatedin ResponseT1-2, the JuaneñoBand of MissionIndiansis traditionallyandculturallyaffiliatedwith theprojectareabasedon the Native AmericanHeritageCommission’s list for theprojectarea. Basedon commentsreceivedfrom the JuaneñoBand of Mission Indians, the City added the additional project-specific mitigation measuresMM TCR-4 throughMM TCR-6 to theFinal SupplementalEIR.
ResponseT1-4: The commentsuggeststhe JuaneñoBand of Mission Indians did not provide substantialevidencedemonstratinghistorical or genealogicalconnectionto SantaAna andthe public commentviolatesCEQA’s substantialevidencestandard. As statedin ResponseT1-2, the JuaneñoBand of Mission Indians is traditionally andculturally affiliated with theprojectarea basedon theNative AmericanHeritageCommissionlist. As statedon p. 3-12 of the Final EIR, the “City’s consultationwith theGabrieleñoBandof MissionIndians-Kizh Nation andtheJuaneño Bandof MissionIndians, AcjachemenNation-Belardesdeterminedtribal cultural resourcesmay potentially be encounteredduring ground disturbing construction activities. The potential to encounterburied prehistoric archaeological sites exists for excavation in undisturbed soils.
Therefore, GPUPEIRMM CUL-6 andProject-specificMMs TCR-1 throughTCR-6 are proposed for implementationto requireNativeAmericanmonitoringduringanygrounddisturbingactivities ontheprojectsiteandto avoidpotentialimpactsto tribal culturalresourcesthatmaybeunearthed from projectconstructionactivities.”
ResponseT1-5: Thecommentsuggeststheindividual who commentedon behalfof theJuaneño Band of Mission Indians consistentlyprovides late responsesor neglectsto engagein timely consultationasrequiredby AB 52 becausethe individual cannotprovide substantialevidence demonstratingcultural affiliation or directlineal connectionto thegeographicareaor projectsite andusesthepublic commentperiodto avoidtherequirementsof AB 52. The commentprovides backgroundandexpressesthecommenter’s opinionsandpotentiallypastexperience. No further responseis required.
ResponseT1-6: The commentsuggeststheCity breachedconfidentiality andviolatedtheKizh Nation’s sovereignrights by incorporatingnon-affiliated partiesinto the mitigation framework whichneedto befeasible, enforceable, andspecificallytailoredto reducesignificantimpacts. The commentfurther suggeststhe mitigation suggestedby the non-affiliated commentersfail the standard.
As reflectedin Chapter3 Revisionsto theDraft SupplementalEIR of theFinal SupplementalEIR, theKizh Nation’s recommendedmitigationmeasuresdonot incorporateotherpartiesor state any confidentialinformation. Confidentialitywasnot breachedastheJuaneñoBandof MissionIndians commenteddirectly on theinformation providedin theDraft SupplementalEIR, which did not include any informationregarding the location, description, or use of sacred sites, cultural practices, or othertribal culturalresources,. Additionally, asstatedin ResponseT1-2, theJuaneño Bandof MissionIndianssubmitteda commentletteronJune10, 2025on theDraft Supplemental EIR requestingmitigation measuresbeincorporatedto provide for monitoring by the Juaneño Bandof MissionIndians. The Native AmericanHeritageCommission’s list for theprojectarea includestheJuaneñoBandof MissionIndiansas a tribetraditionallyandculturallyaffiliatedwith theproject area. Therefore, project-specificmitigationmeasuresMM TCR-4 throughMM TCR-6 wereaddedto theFinal SupplementalEIR. Project-specificMM TCR-4 andMM TCR-5 provide City of SantaAna September2025
7 The Village SantaAna SpecificPlanProject
for monitoringby theJuaneñoBandof Mission Indiansand Project-specificMM TCR-6 is also included regarding resourceidentification, dispute resolution, and final disposition of any recoveredresources.
Response T1-7: The comment argues that pursuant to PRC Section 21082.3(c)(1), any information sharedby tribes during consultationregardingsacredsites, locations, or cultural practices must remain confidential. The comment further claims that disclosed protected informationwasunlawfully sharedandmergedwith theJuaneñoBandof MissionIndians.
As reflectedin theDraft SupplementalEIR, theCity properlycontainedTCR mitigationmeasures provided by the Kizh Nation and haskept all potentialinformation pertaining to sacredsites, locations, or culturalpracticesconfidential. No confidentialinformation hasbeensharedpublicly or with otherparties. As statedin ResponseT1-6, confidentialitywasnot breachedastheJuaneño Band of Mission Indians commented directly on the information provided in the Draft SupplementalEIR.
ResponseT1-8: The commentsuggeststheCity neglectsPRC Section21084.3(a) andfails to avoid or minimize impactsby relying on third-party commentsand failing to implementKizh Nation’s avoidance-first measures. As statedin ResponseT1-2, the result of the consultation processwithKizhNationwastheincorporationof theKizh Nation’s providedmitigationmeasures, as presentedin the Draft Supplemental EIR. Additionally, the Native American Heritage Commission’s list for theprojectareaincludesthe JuaneñoBandof Mission Indiansas a tribe traditionally andculturally affiliated with theprojectarea. Therefore, pursuant to PRC Section 21084.3(a), whichstatespublic agenciesshall, whenfeasible, avoiddamagingeffectsto anytribal cultural resources, theCity is includingProject-specificmitigationmeasuresMM TCR-1 through MM TCR-6 which providemeasuresfor monitoring, resourceidentification, disputeresolution, andfinal dispositionof anyrecoveredresources.
ResponseT1-9: The commentclaimsthat inclusion of the JuaneñoBand of Mission Indians mitigation measuresdilutesanddisruptstribe-specific mitigation requiredunderAB 52; causes direct damageto ancestralsites and sacredareasby allowing unqualified entities to dictate treatmentstandards, andexposestheCity to legalliability for failing to protectsensitiveresources underCEQA.
The City is acting in goodfaith as the leadagencyto include mitigation measuresthat are the most protective of tribal cultural resources. As stated in ResponseT1-2, the result of the consultation processwith Kizh Nation was the incorporation of the Kizh Nation’s provided mitigation measures, as presentedin the Draft SupplementalEIR. Additionally, TheNative AmericanHeritageCommission’s list for theprojectareaincludestheJuaneñoBand of Mission Indiansasa tribetraditionallyandculturallyaffiliatedwith theprojectarea. Therefore, pursuantto PRC Section21084.3(a), theCity is includingProject-specificmitigationmeasuresMM TCR-1 throughMMTCR-6 which provide measures for monitoring, resourceidentification, dispute resolution, andfinal dispositionof anyrecoveredresources.
ResponseT1-10: Thecommentprovidesa summaryof allegedviolationsspecificto CEQAand AB 52. Allegedviolationsinclude: failure to initiate meaningfulconsultation; substitutingpublic commentfor consultation; lack of substantialevidenceto supportmitigation; combiningmitigation acrosstribes; confidentialitybreachof tribal information; failureto prioritizeavoidanceof impacts; generic, non-enforceablemitigation; andlateresponsesandneglectof consultationdeadlines.
City of SantaAna September2025
8 The Village SantaAna SpecificPlanProject
With regardto theallegedfailure to initiate meaningfulconsultation, thecommenteris referredto ResponseT1-2 which summarizesthe City’s compliance with the AB 52 and SB 18 tribal consultationprocess. With regardto theallegedsubstitutingpubliccommentfor consultationand combiningmitigationacrosstribes, thecommenteris referredto ResponseT1-3 which discusses theincorporationof thecommentletterreceived. For theallegedlack of substantialevidenceto supportmitigation, the commenteris referredto ResponseT1-4. For theallegedconfidentiality breachof tribal information, the failure to prioritizeavoidanceof impactsandthe useof generic, non-enforceablemitigation, the commenteris referredto ResponseT1-6. For the allegedlate responsesandneglectof consultationdeadlines, thecommenteris referredto ResponseT1-5.
ResponseT1-11: ThecommentexpressestheKizh Nation’s demandstheCity reinstateall Kizh Nation mitigation measuresaspresentedduring consultation; removalall languageoriginating from non-consulting entities; resumegovernment-to-government consultation with the Kizh Nation within 10 days; adopt enforceable, tribe-specific mitigation measuresthat prioritize avoidance; andissuea correctivenoticereaffirmingtheCity’s legalobligationsunderCEQA and AB 52. Government-to-governmentconsultationwith theKizh Nationhasconcluded, and the City is acting in good faith as the lead agencyto include mitigation measures that are the most protectiveof tribal culturalresources. Thecommenteris referredto ResponseNos. T-2 andT-3.
ResponseT1-12: The commentconcludestheobjectionletter andreiteratestheKizh Nation’s concernswith thetribal consultationandpublic commentprocessunderCEQA andAB52. The commenteris referred to the responsesto eachdetailed comment above. The commenter’s specific concernsareincludedin thesubsequentCommentNos. T1-2 throughT1-11. Refer to ResponseNos. T1-2 throughT1-11 for specificresponsesto suchconcerns. No further response is required.
City of SantaAna September2025
9