Laserfiche WebLink
<br />IIUO I-..J '"'"'''' I VW. w~"'1II I VVV/ VV'" <br /> <br />RUTAN <br /> <br />.. ."TTO~'J'l1F\"~ A'r lA'*" <br /> <br />Mayor and Members of the City Council of <br />. the City of San Leandro <br />August 29, 2007 <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />Description of Unavoidable Significan.t Impacts <br /> <br />· CEQA requires that an EIR must describe any significant environmental effects <br />that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented. If unavoidable impacts cannot be <br />mitigated without changing the design of the project, the EIR must describe the reasons <br />the project is being proposed despite the unavoidable impacts. (CEQA Guidelines <br />~ 15126.2(b).) The EIRs discussion of unavoidable significant impacts fails to comply <br />with mandatory CEQA Guidelines including, but not limited to, its failure to describe the <br />reasons the project is being proposed despite the unavoidable impacts. This portion of <br />the EIR also cont&ns a highlighted "Note to City" indicating that determinations and <br />conclusions still need to be made based upon a forthcoming traffic analysis. <br /> <br />Inconsistency with Applicable Plans . <br /> <br />· CEQA Guidelines ~ 15125( d) requires that an EIR discuss inconsistencies with <br />applicable plans. The EIR has failed to properly discuss and analyze inconsistencies <br />which exist between it and certain applicable plans, including the City's General Plan, <br />Housing Element, and Zoning Ordinance, the Regional Housing Allocation Plans, <br />Hazardous Waste Management Plans, applicable plans of the San Francisco Bay <br />Conservation and Development Commission, and air quality attainment or maintenance <br />plans. <br /> <br />Statement of Overriding Consideralions <br /> <br />· The proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations is not supported by <br />substantial evidence in the reCord and otherwise fails to comply with applicable CEQA <br />standards. Further, the City has failed to eliminate or substantially lessen all significant <br />effects on the environment where feasible. <br /> <br />II. Objections To The Adoption Of Proposed Project <br /> <br />Generally, Norcal AI's Property is proposed to be located in the DA-I district. Under <br />Section 2-636 A, the DA-l district permits various retail uses and pennits residential under <br />certain circwnstanccs. However, the zoning proposed to implement the TOO Strategy has also <br />created a unique zoning designation (the '"SP-I") that is only applied to the 1.7 acre parcel of <br />Property owned by Norcal Al LLC. This zoning designation discriminates against the Property <br />because it creates an island of required mixed use development in a zoning scheme that <br />otherwise allows for a sea of ex.clusively retail development It would appear that under this <br />zoning designation, Norcal A1 could not make any use of its property unless it provides a land <br />use that has retail on the first floor and residential on the second floor. 1bis is particularly <br />problematic for Norcal Al given that the property is already developed with a single story <br />building. This zoning scheme suffers several flaws. First, it is a form of spot zoning which <br /> <br />2901023592-0015 <br />839931. 0 I .08129/07 <br />