75A - PH HAMPTON INN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Selena Kelaher December 7, 2017 Page 2 Since a "negative declaration ends environmental review, the fair argument test provides a low threshold for requiring an EIR." (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Monlecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 399; County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.AppAth 1544, 1579.) If the record supports a fair argument that a project will result in significant environmental impacts, the required remedy is to order preparation of an EIR. (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 CalAth 310, 319- 20.) Under this standard, "deference to the agency's determination is not appropriate and its decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary." (Id. [emphasis added]; see also Rominger, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th at p. 713.) The CEQA Guidelines require that if a lead agency is "presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect." (CEQA Guideline 15064(f)(1); No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) The MND provides no analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the loss of parking attributable to conversion of the Project site to a hotel. While parking is not considered a direct environmental impact under CEQA, CEQA requires that indirect and secondary impacts must be analyzed. (Refer to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(d)(2), 15358(a)(2).) The loss of parking, combined with the inadequate amount of parking that the Hotel Project would provide (see below), will cause significant indirect and secondary traffic impacts associated with motorists driving on local streets looking for parking spaces. Neither the MND nor the traffic reports attached to the MND discuss or even mention that potential significant traffic impact. We also object to the proposed parking variance sought by the applicant of the Hotel Project. During the City Council hearing held on May 2, 2017, for the purchase and sale of the subject property, Hassan Haghani, Executive Director Planning and Building, stated that the proposed concept plan for the Hotel Project proposes to meet all "required" parking on site. At the request of Councilman Jose Solorio, the item was continued to May 16, 2017 and staff was directed to report back on the availability of other public parking options in close proximity to the existing parking lot. Yet no report with a solution has been provided to the community. The proposed 135 -room hotel requires one parking space per guest room plus one space for every 10 guest rooms for a total of 149 spaces. The proposed 2,627 square -foot restaurant requires 21 parking spaces and the proposed 922 square -foot bar requires 8 spaces. Thus, the Applicant must provide 178 parking spaces. Instead of providing those 178 required parking spaces, the applicant for the Hotel Project seeks a variance to provide only 128 spaces, which would be a 30% reduction from the required number of parking spaces. In reviewing the file for the application for the Hotel Project, it appears that the applicant has provided no parking demand or other study to justify such a substantial reduction in the number of required parking spaces. 75A-156