CORRESPONDENCE - 75A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comments RE Caribou Industries Mixed -Use Project November 17, 2020 Page 8 of 9 F. THE DENSITY BONUS ERRORS AND PLAN INCONSISTENCIES VIOLATE THE SAMC AND CEOA Under CEQA, an EIR must fully identify, analyze, and mitigate any inconsistencies between a proposed project and the general, specific, regional, and other plans that apply to the project (See e.g., CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d); Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.AppAth 1552, 1566; Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.AppAth 859, 881.) There does not need to be a direct conflict to trigger this requirement; even if a project is "incompatible" with the "goals and policies" of a land -use plan, the EIR must assess the divergence between the project and the plan, and mitigate any adverse effects of the inconsistencies. (Napa CitizensforHonest Government y. Napa CountyBd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth 342, 378-79; see also Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 903 [holding under CEQA that a significant impact exists where project conflicts with local land -use policies]; Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 998 [citing Gov. Code § 65302, held county development and infrastructure improvements must be consistent with adopted general plans].) Here, the fact that the hotel can be converted to residential is never identified in the CEQA addendum - it is not the same project and has new, significant land use inconsistencies not identified or analyzed in the addendum. So too, an "'accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR."' (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v. Cnty. of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.AppAth 645, 654-655 [quoting Cnty. oflnyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 199] [emphasis in original].) As one court explained, "only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision -makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the 'no project' alternative), and weigh other alternatives in the balance." (Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City& Cnty. of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.AppAth 1036, 1052.) Hence, an accurate project description is an "indispensable component of a valid EIR." (Western Placer Citizens for an Agr. and Rural Env't v. Cnty. of Placer (2006) 144 Cal.AppAth 890, 898.) The hotel conversion option - unmentioned in the CEQA document - violates these CEQA stable project description rules. The Project before the Council now, therefore, is different than analyzed in the CEQA addendum, and with new, significant impacts. Pub. Res. Code § 15162 is triggered and the addendum must be updated and reconsidered. (Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura (2014) 232 Cal.AppAth 429, 436 [changes in project from approved CEQA document required new CEQA review].) The density bonus shell game, parking impacts of the unanalyzed hotel conversion option and the obvious land use inconsistencies they present are not identified or properly analyzed in the land use or CEQA findings. As a result, required findings on land use consistency and CEQA pursuant to SAMC 41-1607 and Pub. Res. Code § 15162 cannot be made, including findings on provision of affordable housing opportunities in economically balanced communities, consistency with the purpose of the underlying zone or applicable designation in the general plan land use element, that the deviations are necessary to make it economically feasible for the Applicant to utilize a density bonus, and whether substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. So too, the CEQA document and land use findings do not come to terms with the out -of -scale Project's undisclosed conflicts with the Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element including: Policy 2.10 (Support new development which is harmonious in scale and character with q�;: