75A - PH - EIR -1584 E SANTA CLARA AVE

Home Browse Search

Mayor Miguel A. Pulido and Members of the City Council February 27, 2014 Page 3 5, The Current Condition Of The Orchard Is Not Relevant Under CEQA. The Project proponents have argued that the Orchard is not in good condition, and therefore does not qualify for preservation. Under CEQA, the relevant baseline for the Orchard is the date of the Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") in 2011. The purpose of this requirement is to avoid exactly what has occurred here — destruction of valuable environmental resources by neglect or deliberate indifference. The letter from Arborgate Consulting ( "Letter ") was based on a 2013 site visit that, apparently, confirmed the age of the Orchard and the lack of watering and care for a number of years. It provided no useful information about the health of the Orchard in 2011 when the NOP was issued. The Letter is full of opinions which the author was not qualified to give, including opinions on the highest and best use of the property, public interest in citrus history and future objections to potential pesticide use. The letter also suggested the property could not "make a go" as an orchard unless it was enlisted in the Williamson Act, without acknowledging the property is likely eligible for participation in the parallel Urban Agriculture Incentives Zone Act for smaller urban properties. Although the Letter offered Arborgate's opinion that it was "unreasonable" to expect the property owners to make money growing citrus, the Letter gave no opinion on the value of the property for sale as part of the 50 -50 Alternative, or any other preservation alternative. It is therefore irrelevant to any of the issues under CEQA. 6. The Project Is Not Needed To Meet RHNA Housing Goals. The City's RHNA housing goals have recently been revised to reduce the total number of required units in all categories to 204 between 2014 and 2021. The number of "above moderate" or "move up" homes required over the next seven years is only 90. The City Planning Department advised the Planning Commission that the goal of 90 new "above moderate" units could easily be met without this Project. Reducing the number of units to 10 or 12, while preserving the Orchard, would have no effect on the City's ability to meet RHNA housing goals, and would also achieve the Project Objective of providing "move up" housing. 7. The Proiect Does Not Qualify For A Variance. The Project has applied for a variance in street frontage of almost 20 percent for one of the interior Lots. The need for a variance could be avoided by redesigning the lot layout or reducing the number of lots. The City attempts to justify the variance by arguing that the City's street standards are "a special circumstance applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings." There is absolutely no evidence of any "special circumstance" involved in applying the City's street standards to a flat rectangular five -acre lot. The findings for the variance do not identify any privileges or property rights that would be affected by strict compliance with the City's standards, except the potential loss of residential units. There is no evidence in the record that constructing the number of residential units proposed by the Project proponents is a property right or privilege, or that the City's standards cannot be accommodated by redesign. 8. The City's Findings Mitigation Monitoring Plan And Conditions Must Reflect The Actual Approvals. The documents presented to the City Planning Commission did not require preservation of the Farmhouse, did not identify timing or responsibility for restoration of the Farmhouse, and incorrectly described a number of factual items. These defects were described at the hearing, and should be corrected before any final approvals. 75A -173