|
Item 27 Comments RE. Hotel -Related Zoning Amendment
<br />January 16, 2024
<br />Page 4 of S
<br />the ZOA (i.e., P, C1, C1-MD, C-SM, C-5, CR, MEMU Office District, SD-8 Zone III districts).10 While the
<br />Land Use Element generally designates these areas as appropriate for multi -family housing
<br />densities,11 the ZOA would effectively incentivize full -service hotel development (i.e., by right) over
<br />multi -family residential projects that would generally require zone change or CUP (as discussed
<br />above). This outcome runs counter to various goals and policies under the Housing Element,12
<br />which have not been addressed in the Staff Report. CEQA requires any inconsistency to be
<br />addressed. (See e.g., Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale (2011) 200 Cal.AppAth 1552, 1566; Friends of the
<br />Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.AppAth 859, 881.13)
<br />4. PROPOSED STANDARDS ARE WEAK AND DO NOT ADDRESS OTHER ISSUES
<br />The Staff Report suggests that new standards applicable to hotels, motels, and full -service
<br />hotels will promote hotel amenities and mitigate potential impacts. (See Staff Report, p. 6.)
<br />However, the ZOA definitions and standards are general and vague. For example, there is no
<br />performance standard to guide future decision -making to ensure impacts are mitigated (e.g., where
<br />and how often are shuttle services for patrons to be provided, what noise levels are acceptable for
<br />adjacent uses near hotel projects, etc.).14 (Memo, pp. 6-9 [proposed SAMC §§ 41-199.5 & 41-199.6].)
<br />Moreover, the proposed standards do not address numerous potential impacts that hotels can
<br />cause, such as displacing housing, green space, low-income residents, or mobile home parks. Nor do
<br />the standards address other impacts often caused by hotel development, such as increased vehicle
<br />miles traveled ("VMT"), associated mobile emissions that affect air quality and greenhouse gas
<br />("GHG") emissions, and removal of native plants and habitat (to name a few).
<br />Some of these issues can be addressed through the discretionary approval process via
<br />carefully crafted mitigation measures and conditions of approval that may include: contributing to
<br />affordable housing, utilizing environmentally friendly construction and operation practices and
<br />materials; providing public transit subsidies for workers; including affordable accommodations;
<br />offering community spaces; providing unused rooms for temporary housing; and providing public
<br />programming when and where possible. These and other issues can be addressed with more, not
<br />less, oversight of hotel development - as required by other nearby cities, as discussed below.
<br />10 Santa Ana Zoning Map (showing affected areas along Bristol, Main, 17th, Grand, Dryer, and Edinger streets
<br />[among others]), https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca/uploads/2022/03/2.-Zoning-FULL-
<br />CITY-2023-Feb.pdf.
<br />11 Santa Ana General Land Use Plan Designation Map (identifying areas where multi -family density would be
<br />appropriate), https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca/uploads/2022/03/General_-
<br />Plan_Land_U se_FAR_2 02 3.pdf.
<br />12 Housing Element, supra fn. 5, pp. 10-11 (Goal 2 [foster diversity of quality housing, affordability levels],
<br />Policies HE-2.1 (designated range of housing types), HE-2.2 (capitalize on TOD housing development), HE-2.5
<br />(facilitate diverse of housing types like mixed/multiuse housing], HE-2.8 [facilitate creative housing
<br />solutions]).
<br />13 See also CEQA Guidelines, Appen. G (conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation); Pocket Protectors
<br />v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 903, 929 (EIR required to analyze project's inconsistency with
<br />City land use ordinance for planned developments); Concerned Citizens v. Los Angeles Unified School District
<br />(1994) 24 Cal.AppAth 826, 838 (SEIR acknowledged significant adverse impact on affordable housing stock).
<br />14 CEQA requires mitigation measures to be performance based. (See e.g., City of Maywood v. L.A. Unified
<br />School Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 407 [CEQA mitigation must be performance based]; Save Agoura
<br />Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 665, 688-90 [invalidating MND where there was a
<br />fair argument that mitigation lacked specific performance criteria].)
<br />
|