CORRESPONDENCE - 75A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comments RE Caribou Industries Mixed -Use Project November 17, 2020 Page 4 of 9 (whether) new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted. C. THERE ARE Two DIFFERENT BUILDINGS, WITH DISTINCT FUNCTIONS ON TWO DIFFERENT PARCEL LOTS Critical to the density bonus calculations is that the Project includes two different buildings with two different functions (mixed -use residential and hotel), on two different parcel lots (the tentative map creating two separate lots already was approved), subject to two different Site Plan Review cases, as explained in Staff Report 10/20/20 page 75A-3: Table 1: Development Project Summafv Item Mixed -Use Development Parcel i Hotel (Parcel 2 VnitsJRooms 171 units 75 rooms Staff Report 10/20/20 page 75A-44 shows that the two lots combined equal 1.41 acres: Table 1: Project and. Location Information -Project Address 201 West Third Street Nearest intersection Third Street and Broadway General Plan Designation District Center (DC) Zoning Designation Transit Zoning Code (Specific Development No. 84), Downtown sub - zone Surrounding Land Uses (Exhibit 2) Site Size Commerdaf North Commercial Ea( st) _ Commercial and Parking and Residential South Commercial(West) 1.41 acres combined 4Parcel 1! l acres; Parcel 2: 0.52 acres D. THE DENSITY BONUS CALCULATIONS ARE WRONG -THE HOTEL LOT ACREAGE IS MISAPPLIED The City has erred and abused its discretion in using both parcel lots to calculate lot density at 1.41 acres, but then not including the 75 hotel rooms in the density calculation. As a result, and as confirmed in the expert comments of land use planner Michael Tharp attached as Exhibit A, the Project is receiving a free hotel and an extra six, out -of -scale stories on the residential parcel. This is unlawful. While planning agencies enjoy some discretion interpreting their zoning law - "deference has limits" - and courts are not bound by unreasonable interpretations. (Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 141, 156-57 [rejecting agency's attempts to "downplay the facial inconsistency" between a project and general plan designation].) The inquiry is whether there is a prejudicial abuse of discretion where the record shows the administrative decision "is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by substantial evidence." (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of LosAngeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-515.)