Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - #27Flores, Dora From: Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 10:00 AM To: eComment Cc: 'Christine Miller'; 'Parker Shea' Subject: Item 27, City Council Meeting (1/16/24): Ordinance Amendment No. 2023-04 (Hotel - Related Zoning Amendments) Attachments: 2024.01.16_CC Comment Letter-ZOA Hotel Related Zoning Amendment.pdf Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged Dear Honorable Mayor Amezcua and City Councilmembers: On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (Local 11), please see the attached five -page comment letter on the above -referenced item involving various hotel -related Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2023-04 (ZOA). In short, Local 11 is concerned about the ZOA's hotel -related provisions given the following: 1. There has been no environmental review for the ZOA despite it being a project as defined by CEQA. 2. During a housing crisis, the ZOA would make it easier to build hotels than it would be to build multi -family housing in many parts of the City. 3. The Staff Report does not consider inconsistencies with numerous goals/policies under the City's Housing Element that calls for more than 3,000 new housing units by 2029. 4. The proposed hotel standards are weak and do not address many potential impacts that hotel projects can cause (e.g., displacing housing, low-income residents, increasing auto travel and associated environmental impacts, etc.), which can be addressed through carefully crafted measures as part of a discretionary approval process. 5. The ZOA would remove the discretionary approval process and less hotel development oversight by the elected City Council. In comparison, other cities see the need for more oversight to mitigate potential negative impacts, such as the City of Los Angeles, which recently passed a new CUP requirement (appealable to its City Council) for all hotels proposed in Hollywood and Downtown Los Angeles. Local 11 has a significant interest in this matter, with over 30,000 workers employed in hotels, restaurants, airports, sports arenas, and convention centers throughout Southern California and Phoenix —including hundreds of members who live and/or work in the City. For these reasons (discussed further in the attached comment letter), Local 11 respectfully requests the City strike and remove Sections 7 through 20 and Exhibits A and e of the updated ZOA included in the Executive Director's Memorandum dated January 11, 2024 (see IMe_rn_c.). City staff, please confirm receipt of this message and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any issues retrieving the attached document. Very truly yours, Jordan R. Sisson, Attorney Law Office of Gideon Kracov Los Angeles, CA 90017 Office: PRIVILEGED AMDCOIN HDEMTIAL:This e|ectronicnnessagecontains infonnat-ionfnzrntheLawDfceof6ideonKracovandisattorney work prodUCt confidenhiai or privdeged. The inforrnabon is intended so|e|y for the Use of the indMdLl20(s)or' ent-ity(ies) narned above. If YOU have received this transmission in error, p|ease destroy the originai transmission and its attachments withOLIt reading orsaving inany nnanner. GK LA LAND USE, EwiRoNMENTAL & MvNiciPAL LAwYERs January 16, 2024 VIA EMAIL: Mayor Valerie Amezcua City Council City of Santa Ana eComment@santa-ana.org Jordan R. Sisson Los Angeles, California 90017 Office: ( E-mail: www.gideonlaw.net RE: ITEM 27, CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 16, 2024; ORDINANCE AMENDMENT No. 2023-04 (HOTEL -RELATED ZONING AMENDMENTS) Dear Honorable Mayor Amezcua and City Councilmembers: On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 ("Local 11"), this office respectfully provides the following comments' to the City of Santa Ana ("City") regarding the above -referenced item involving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2023-04 ("ZOA") that would amend the Santa Ana Municipal Code ("SAMC" or "Code"), which would (among other things) change the zoning rules to allow certain hotels by right - without any discretionary approval from the City and without any environmental review - in various parts of the City. For purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the staff report dated January 16, 2024 ("Staff Report")z claims that adoption of the ZOA will not foreseeably result in a physical change to the environment and is not considered a "project" pursuantto CEQA Guidelines § 15378. Local 11 has a significant interest in this matter, with over 30,000 workers employed in hotels, restaurants, airports, sports arenas, and convention centers throughout Southern California and Phoenix —including hundreds of members who live and/or work in the City. In short, Local 11 is concerned about the ZOA's hotel -related provisions. As explained below, the ZOA is a project subject to CEQA that requires some level of environmental review. Additionally, Local 11 questions why - during a housing crisis - the City is making it easier to build hotels than it would be to build multi -family housing in many parts of the City. This runs counter to numerous goals and policies under the City's Housing Element, which is not considered in the Staff Report. So too, the proposed standards on hotels are weak and do not address many potential impacts that hotel projects can cause (e.g., displacing housing, low-income residents, increasing auto travel and associated environmental impacts, etc.). These and other issues can be addressed through carefully crafted measures as part of a discretionary approval process, which the ZOA would eliminate in many circumstances. Furthermore, while the Staff Report urges less hotel development oversight by the elected City Council, other cities see the need for more oversight to mitigate potential negative impacts, such as the City of Los Angeles, which recently passed a new CUP requirement (appealable to its City Council) for all hotels proposed in Hollywood and Downtown Los Angeles. 1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., "p. #") or PDF-page location (i.e., "PDF p. #") 2 Inclusive of all associated Exhibits ("Exh-##") retrieved from City website. (See https://santa- ana.primegov.com/portal/item?id=52126.) Item 27 Comments RE. Hotel -Related Zoning Amendment January 16, 2024 Page 2 of 5 For these reasons (discussed further below), Local 11 respectfully requests the City strike and remove Sections 7 through 20 and ExhibitsA and B of the updated ZOA included in the Executive Director's Memorandum dated January 11, 2024 ("Memo").3 1. THE ZOA IS A PROJECT SUBJECT To CEQA The Staff Report claims the hotel -related zoning amendments are exempt from CEQA because (1) they will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and (2) they are not a "project" as defined under CEQA. (Staff Report, pp. 8-9.) However, under CEQA, a "project" is defined as the whole of an action that may include an amendment ofzoning ordinances and or issuance of permits, licenses, or other entitlements. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).) This includes general plans, ordinances, or regulations governing future activities by private parties. (Id.) Here, the ZOA would allow numerous types of hotels —by right —that would otherwise be prohibited or require discretionary entitlements. For example, ZOA §§ 10 and 11 would remove all prohibitions against new long-term stay business hotels or transient/residential hotels. (See Memo, p. 9.) Additionally, ZOA §§ 12, 14 through 20 and Exhibits A and B would allow by right full -service hotels that would currently be prohibited or need a Zone Change or Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") in numerous zoning districts (e.g., Professional, C1, C1-MD, C5, CR, C-SM, MEMU Office District, SD-8 Zone III). (Id., at pp. 9-15 and Exh. A & B.) Thus, it is reasonably foreseeable that the amendments will lead to the future development of these types of hotel projects by private parties (which will physically change the environment) and, therefore, this agenda item is a project subject to CEQA, which requires some level of environmental review (such as a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MNW) or an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR")). 2. THE ZOA MAKES HOTEL DEVELOPMENT EASIER THAN MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Local 11 questions why - during a housing crisis - the City is considering changing its zoning laws to make it easier to build hotels than it would be to build multi -family housing in many parts of the City. The ZOA acknowledges that hotels are quasi -residential use. (See Memo, p. 7 [proposed new SAMC § 41-199.5. j].) However, the ZOA would favor hotels over residential development like high -density, multi -family housing. For example, the proposed ZOA would allow developers to build full -service hotels —by right without any future discretionary approvals from the City or subject to environmental review —in many parts of the City (i.e., P, C1, C1-MD, C-SM, C-5, MEMU Office District, and SD-8 Zone III districts). (See Staff Report, p. 7 [Table 2]; see also Figure 1 on the following page [highlights added].) However, these areas prohibit multi -family projects without a zone change, CUP, or other type of discretionary approval from the City and such projects are subject to environmental review. The City should not prioritize/incentivize hotel development over multi -family housing. 3 Memo (1/11/24), https://pgwest.blob.core.windows.net/santa-ana/Items/52803/Attachments/21419/Me mo'Yo2 0-(Yo2 O(Yo2 32 7(Yo2 OU p date(YO2 0to(Yo2 0 Exhibit(YO2 0 3.pdf?sv=2 017-04-17&sr=b&sig=Ov81 FeUvO LGTSO UhoRu2mSfAgVt9NtQtWD3rVi2 HXgc(Yo3D&st=2024-01-14T20(Yo3A23(Yo3A21Z&se-2024-03-15T20(Yo 3A23(Yo3A21Z&sp-r&rsct=application(Yo2 Fpdf&rscd=attachment(Yo3B(YO20filename(Yo3DMemo(YO2520- (Y02520Ordinance(YO2520Amendment(YO2 520Update(%,2520to(YO2520Exhibit(YO252 03.pdf. Item 27 Comments RE. Hotel -Related Zoning Amendment January 16, 2024 Page 3 of 5 Table 2: ZOA INo. 2023-04 — Current amcl Proposed H'otelsfMotels and Frllll-Service Hotels Uses Permitted Zoning (Districts 114otelMotel Fulll-Service Hotel Diur�rent IPrn .aced IPra Deed F"rofesm,i eQP' CUF F Ccnvnvuwnitr Comirrerciat(,CI) 0I3P Pic;",banes P Corrimurnit+, Convnvercrak I/iiisetrrrn Clip No Change F District iC'P-IMD3 krtenial Com ierct'al 105, hdc l i7an�� F C ommerciak Resideant:ial .. Rl ...9I1F Clip .................. No Change ... P ........................................... Scour M2i17 :Street Conimercdal DBstruct _ Clip No Change P &S m, Metuo S'ast Mlir:ed Use Viiiage P P Ov..ruay Zone (MP.MU) Center Actiwe P P Drlaan �Jffice CI1F" P Harbor Corridor Mixed Transit P No Change Use Transit Corridor Node ITS esn Flay mS 1 ITMaiinPVace ......ITC©rridIT° IT ITITITITITITITpITITITITITIT ITITP IT ITITC6 a eITIT ............................. Specific Plan (SP4'i P No Change Specffic DeweUopnnent INo. 43 (Tlhe, P No Change - MacArthur Place (District Center) Specffic DeweUopnnent Transit P No Change No 84 (Transit Zo long Viila e Code4 ,. DovaniIown P NoChan e Urban P No Change - Center Corridor I P No Change Specific Development Zone III P P No Ci' Zone Ilk P CUPPermittedSubllect to Alpprovai of a conditional Use PermitITITITITITITITIT --------------------------- P:: Pernnutted Ihy-rights: Nlot. permitted. 3. INCONSISTENCY WITH HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES The Staff Report claims the hotel -related provisions are consistent with the City's General Plan by citing a few objectives under the Land Use Element (i.e., Goal LU-2, Policy LU-2.2, and LU- 2.4) but offers no discussion of consistency with the City's Housing Element. (Staff Report p. 8.) The Housing Element identifies that the City has a Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") of 3,137 new housing units needed during 2021-2029. (See Housing Element,4 p. 2.) The Housing Element acknowledges multi -family housing is important in meeting this housing goal and identifies various areas to focus new housing, including the Metro East Mixed -Use ("MEMU") Overlay Zone,5 Downtown Santa Ana, MacArthur Place, South Main Street Grand Avenue/17th Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard, 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, South Bristol Street, the Adaptive Reuse Overlay,6 Harbor Mixed -Use Transit Corridor (i.e., SP-2),7 Transit Zoning Code (i.e., SD-84), and MainPlace Specific Plan (i.e., SP-4).8 (Id., at pp. 9, B-6; see also Land Use Element,9 p. LU-27 [fig. LU-5 focus areas].) Within and just adjacent to these areas are zoning districts that would be affected by 4 Housing Element, https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca/uploads/2022/09/ Housing_Element_-Complete-9.16.22_Compressed.pdf. 5 MEMU, p. 3 (Memu Overlay Location), https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca/uploads/ 2 022/05/Metro- East- Mixed-U se-Overlay-Zone.pdf, 6 Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, PDF pp. 5-6 (showing incentive areas, including N. Main St., Midtown, Transit Zoning Code, First/Grand Corridor), https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca/ uploads/2 022/03/Adaptive-Reuse-Ord.-6.30.2 0.pdf. Harbor Mixed -Use Transit Corridor Plan, pp. 2-2 (Map), https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/ santaanaca/uploads/2 02 2 /0 3/Full- D ocument- H arbor- Mixed-U se.pdf. 8 MainPlace Specific Plan, p. 1-3 (plan area), https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca /uploads/2 022/06/MainPlace-Specific-Plan-SP-4.pdf. 9 Land Use Element, https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca/uploads/2022/OS/ May_2 02 3_General_Plan_Land_U se_Element.pdf. Item 27 Comments RE. Hotel -Related Zoning Amendment January 16, 2024 Page 4 of S the ZOA (i.e., P, C1, C1-MD, C-SM, C-5, CR, MEMU Office District, SD-8 Zone III districts).10 While the Land Use Element generally designates these areas as appropriate for multi -family housing densities,11 the ZOA would effectively incentivize full -service hotel development (i.e., by right) over multi -family residential projects that would generally require zone change or CUP (as discussed above). This outcome runs counter to various goals and policies under the Housing Element,12 which have not been addressed in the Staff Report. CEQA requires any inconsistency to be addressed. (See e.g., Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale (2011) 200 Cal.AppAth 1552, 1566; Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.AppAth 859, 881.13) 4. PROPOSED STANDARDS ARE WEAK AND DO NOT ADDRESS OTHER ISSUES The Staff Report suggests that new standards applicable to hotels, motels, and full -service hotels will promote hotel amenities and mitigate potential impacts. (See Staff Report, p. 6.) However, the ZOA definitions and standards are general and vague. For example, there is no performance standard to guide future decision -making to ensure impacts are mitigated (e.g., where and how often are shuttle services for patrons to be provided, what noise levels are acceptable for adjacent uses near hotel projects, etc.).14 (Memo, pp. 6-9 [proposed SAMC §§ 41-199.5 & 41-199.6].) Moreover, the proposed standards do not address numerous potential impacts that hotels can cause, such as displacing housing, green space, low-income residents, or mobile home parks. Nor do the standards address other impacts often caused by hotel development, such as increased vehicle miles traveled ("VMT"), associated mobile emissions that affect air quality and greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions, and removal of native plants and habitat (to name a few). Some of these issues can be addressed through the discretionary approval process via carefully crafted mitigation measures and conditions of approval that may include: contributing to affordable housing, utilizing environmentally friendly construction and operation practices and materials; providing public transit subsidies for workers; including affordable accommodations; offering community spaces; providing unused rooms for temporary housing; and providing public programming when and where possible. These and other issues can be addressed with more, not less, oversight of hotel development - as required by other nearby cities, as discussed below. 10 Santa Ana Zoning Map (showing affected areas along Bristol, Main, 17th, Grand, Dryer, and Edinger streets [among others]), https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca/uploads/2022/03/2.-Zoning-FULL- CITY-2023-Feb.pdf. 11 Santa Ana General Land Use Plan Designation Map (identifying areas where multi -family density would be appropriate), https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca/uploads/2022/03/General_- Plan_Land_U se_FAR_2 02 3.pdf. 12 Housing Element, supra fn. 5, pp. 10-11 (Goal 2 [foster diversity of quality housing, affordability levels], Policies HE-2.1 (designated range of housing types), HE-2.2 (capitalize on TOD housing development), HE-2.5 (facilitate diverse of housing types like mixed/multiuse housing], HE-2.8 [facilitate creative housing solutions]). 13 See also CEQA Guidelines, Appen. G (conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 903, 929 (EIR required to analyze project's inconsistency with City land use ordinance for planned developments); Concerned Citizens v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1994) 24 Cal.AppAth 826, 838 (SEIR acknowledged significant adverse impact on affordable housing stock). 14 CEQA requires mitigation measures to be performance based. (See e.g., City of Maywood v. L.A. Unified School Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 407 [CEQA mitigation must be performance based]; Save Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 665, 688-90 [invalidating MND where there was a fair argument that mitigation lacked specific performance criteria].) Item 27 Comments RE. Hotel -Related Zoning Amendment January 16, 2024 Page 5 of 5 5. THE CITY SHOULD CONSIDER A HOTEL -SPECIFIC CUP, JUST LIKE THE CITY OF Los ANGELES While the Staff Report urges less hotel development oversight by the elected City Council, other cities see the need for more oversight to mitigate potential negative impacts, such as the City of Los Angeles, which recently passed a new CUP requirement (appealable to its City Council) for all hotels proposed in Hollywood and Downtown Los Angeles.15 This measure was passed by the Los Angeles City Council by a 14-0 vote and includes important provisions to help ensure hotels do not improperly displace housing and other conditions that help ensure sustainable and responsible hotel development (e.g., a sufficient market demand, reduce impacts to workers and housing needs, encourage hiring of local workers and reduced VMTs, supporting local business, etc.). However, the proposed ZOA does the very opposite by making full -service hotels (which are ubiquitous in today's market) permitted by right in many areas of the City in which such development currently would not be allowed without a zone change, CUP, or other types of discretionary approval from the City and subject to environmental review. Respectfully, this is simply the wrong direction for Santa Ana. In conclusion, Local 11 respectfully requests the City Council strike and remove the hotel - related provisions of the ZOAs—specifically Sections 7 through 20 and ExhibitsA and B of the updated ZOA included in the Executive Director's Memorandum dated January 11, 2024. Local 11 reserves the right to supplement these comments at future ZOA hearings and proceedings. (See Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.AppAth 1109, 1120 [CEQA litigation not limited only to claims made during EIR comment period].) This office requests, to the extent not already on the notice list, all notices of CEQA actions and any approvals, Project CEQA determinations, or public hearings to be held on the Project under state or local law requiring local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them. (See Pub. Res. Code §§, 21092.2, 21167(f) and Gov. Code § 65092.) Please send notice by electronic and regular mail to Jordan R. Sisson, Esq., 801 S. Grand Avenue, 11th Floor, LA, CA 90017 (Jordan@gideonlaw.net). Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We ask that this letter be placed in the Project's administrative record. Sincerely, LAW OFFICE OF GIDEON KRACOV . . an R. Sisson )) rney fot' UNITYTIERE Loca111 15 See Council File No. 21-0934 (showing Hollywood hotel CUP amendments made and adopted by Council on 5/3/23), https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfni?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=21-0934; see also Amending Motion 53B (showing CUP language), https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2021/21- 0934_misc_amd'YO2053B_kre_sm_5-3-23.pdf, Council File No. 22-0617 (same for Downtown hotel CUP), https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfni?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=22-0617; see also Amending Motion 54 D (same as above), https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2022/22- 0617_misc_amd(YO2 054 D_kre_price_5 -3-2 3.pdf/.