CORRESPONDENCE - 75A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comments RE Caribou Industries Mixed -Use Project November 17, 2020 Page 2 of 9 For all these reasons, the Council should deny the requested discretionary entitlements. The required land use and CEQA findings cannot be made. The density bonus shell game, the impacts of the unanalyzed hotel conversion option - and the obvious land use plan inconsistencies they present - are not identified or properly analyzed. A. STANDING OF LOCAL 11 Local 11 represents more than 25,000 workers employed in hotels, restaurants, airports, sports arenas, and convention centers throughout Southern California and Phoenix, Arizona. Members of Local 11, including hundreds who live or work in the City of Santa Ana, join together to fight for improved living standards and working conditions. Making these comments to public officials in connection with matters of public concern about affordable housing and compliance with zoning rules is protected by the First Amendment, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and is within the core functions of the union. Unions have standing to litigate land use and environmental claims. (See Bakersfield Citizens v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1198.) Commentor also has public interest standing given the Project Approvals relate to the City's public duty to comply with applicable zoning and CEQA laws, and where Commentors seek to have that duty enforced. (See Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 914-916, n6 [noting that "the public interest exception applies where the question is one of public right and the object of the action is to enforce a public duty - in which case it is sufficient that the plaintiff be interested as a citizen in having the laws executed and the public duty enforced" and "promotes the policy of guaranteeing citizens the opportunity to ensure that no governmental body impairs or defeats the purpose of legislation establishing a public right."]; see also La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1149, 1158-1159 ["[o]ur Supreme Court has consistently recognized the importance of preserving the integrity of a locality's governing general plan for zoning" and that "the vindication of this significant policy benefits not only the persons living near the Project and the persons living within the geographical boundaries of the [area] at issue in this case, but also all residents of the City who benefit from the trial court's ruling that holds the City Council's zoning decisions to the letter and spirit of the municipal code."].) Indeed, California "courts have repeatedly applied the 'public right/public duty' exception to the general rule that ordinarily a writ of mandate will issue only to persons who are beneficially interested." (Weiss v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 2 Cal.App.Sth 194, 205-206; see also Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (2011) 52 Ca1.4th 155, 166, 169-170 [it is sufficient that he is interested as a citizen in having the laws executed and the duty in question enforced].) This comment letter is made to exhaust remedies under administrative law principles and Pub. Res. Code § 21177 concerning the Project, and incorporates by this reference all written and oral comments submitted on the Project by any commenting parry or agency including those of the Spurgeon Building owners. It is well -established that any party, as Commentor here, who participates in the administrative process can assert all factual and legal issues raised by anyone. (See Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 865, 875.) q�;: