55A - SAN LORENZO SEWER LIFT STATION

Home Browse Search

Mr. Steve Worrall January 13, 2012 Page 11 Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 574. This analysis is equally applicable to each alternative for which a significant parking impact is claimed. Moreover, Table 5 -1 fails to account for reductions to other significant traffic impacts, even though reductions in those impacts are noted in the RDEIR. (P. 5 -44, 45.) In particular, as identified by Mr. Dickson, reducing West Segerstrom Avenue to a single eastbound lane for 25 weeks will not be required and construction in the intersection of West Segerstrom Avenue and South Bristol Street will be avoided. At the very least, these reductions in impacts must be considered as offsets in Table 5 -1. Mr. Dickson's report also explains how the RDEIR grossly overstates any construction challenges at this site relative to the San Lorenzo site. Additionally, 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 7 is environmentally superior to the Project. 5. Alternative Site 8. The purported parking impact is not as severe as suggested. Section 41 -638.1 of the Code recognizes that Iess 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 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. Table 5 -1 also fails to account for reductions to other significant traffic impacts, even though reductions in those impacts are noted in the RDEIR. (P. 5 -50, 51.) At the very least, these reductions in impacts must be considered as offsets in Table 5 -1. 55A -144