55A - SAN LORENZO SEWER LIFT STATION

Home Browse Search

Mr. Steve Worrall January 13, 2012 Page 10 would result in the remainder of the property being non - conforming with respect to parking. To the contrary, the City's power of eminent domain, as well as access to City - owned land, suggests that alternative sites "may be more feasible, more often," when the developer is the City rather than a private party. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 574. This analysis is equally applicable to each alternative for which a significant parking impact is claimed. Mr. Dickson's report also notes that access from West Segerstrom and the north/south alley will be maintained, meaning sufficient emergency access will also, in fact, be maintained. Finally, as noted in Section V.B., parking below code requirements is not per se an environmental impact. Accordingly, Table 5 -1 must be revised to show that Alternative 5 is environmentally superior to the Project. 4. Alternative Site 7. The RDIER asserts that Alternative Site 7 would have a greater operational odor impact and a greater construction noise impact than the San Lorenzo site. However, no distance to sensitive receptors has been identified, and no specific area within the site has been proposed. There is thus no substantial evidence in the record to support these conclusions. The purported parking impact is not as severe as suggested. The operational deficiency, according to the Santa Ana Municipal Code, will only be 13 spaces during construction and 5 spaces during operation, based on a requirement of 401 spaces. This is a minor amount and Section 41 -638.1 of the Code recognizes that less than Code required parking will not always create a potentially significant impact by providing for minor exceptions to off - street parking requirements. This is equally applicable to any alternative for which a potentially significant parking impact is claimed. The analysis also asserts that the alternative would be "legally infeasible" because it would result in a violation of the City's Municipal Code requirements for off - street parking. This is incorrect. The Municipal Code provides for exceptions to off -street parking requirements and there is nothing to preclude the City from taking an action that would result in the remainder of the property being non- conforming with respect to parking. To the contrary, the City's power of eminent domain, as well as access to City - owned land, suggests that alternative sites may be "more feasible, more often," when the developer is the City rather than a private parry. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of 55A -143