CORRESPONDENCE - 65B - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Daisy Gomez June 16, 2020 Page 2 of up to 3 single family residences or apartments, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. (CEQA Guidelines § 15303(a), (b).). household size is 4.4 persons per household. The proposed project calls for the at least partial construction and operation of 200-250 beds. This well-exceeds the equivalent of six dwelling units. Further examples of the Class 3 exemption include a store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not exceeding 2,500-square-n urbanized areas, this example includes up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000-square-feet in certain circumstances. (CEQA Guidelines § 15303(c).) The Office of Planning and Research has interpreted this to mean a maximum total of 10,000- square-feet, not 40,000-square-feet. (See, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, p. 12, fn. 19 (December 2018) \[CEQA provides a categorical exemption for existing facilities, including additions of up to 10,000-square-feet.\].) Here, assuming Santa Ana intends to rely on the Class 3 exemption for the conversion of uses, the structure is described as 29,503-square-feet or nearly 3 times the size permitted in the Class 3 example. And the staff report appears to describe a 16,000-square-foot second-floor addition. This also exceeds the 10,000-square-foot maximum construction or addition described in the exemption. The Class 4 exempti vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural : grading; landscaping; minor temporary uses of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, such as sales of Christmas trees; minor trenching and backfilling; and the creation of bicycle lanes, among others. While this exemption may apply to a part of the proposed project, the staff report does not evaluate which part of the project this is intended to cover. In order to determine the project to be categorically exempt from CEQA, Santa Ana must analyze the project as a whole and identify a combination of exemptions that cover the project as a whole. (See, e.g., th Association for a Cleaner Environment v. Yosemite Community College District (2004) 116 Cal.App.4 629, 640.) As explained herein, Santa Ana has failed to do so. The Class 32 infill exemption applies to infill development projects that meet the following conditions: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The staff report makes no attempt to explain how the proposed project qualifies for this exemption, nor does The staff report provides a single conclusory sentence asserting that the project qualifies. Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns regarding the proposed project. The City of Tustin would appreciate a continuance by the Santa Ana City Council so that City staff can meet and discuss our concerns and they can be addressed prior to a decision by the Santa Ana City Council.