My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 23 - First One -Year Extension for Site Plan Review No. 2020-03 and Variance No. 2020-06
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2022
>
12/06/2022 Regular
>
Item 23 - First One -Year Extension for Site Plan Review No. 2020-03 and Variance No. 2020-06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/2/2024 4:26:33 PM
Creation date
8/14/2023 7:49:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Clerk of the Council
Item #
23
Date
12/6/2022
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
230
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. <br />Specifically, the Appellant states that the "City failed to comply with <br />the CEQA by failing to prepare a project -specific EIR for the <br />project"; <br />II. The Appellant states that, "The City failed to comply with the <br />Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO) by failing to require the <br />developer to include affordable housing units in the project"; and <br />III. The Appellant states that, "The Planning Commission abused its <br />discretion by failing to read or consider comments submitted by <br />SAFER." <br />C. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41-645 (a), appeals can only be made on a <br />decision or requirement made by the Planning Commission. Of the above - <br />mentioned appeal reasons, the only action taken by the Planning Commission <br />was the action to adopt a resolution approving the addendum to the EIR for <br />the TZC. The subsequent appeal items do not satisfy the requirements of <br />SAMC Section 41-645 (a) and should not be considered as part of the appeal: <br />I. No decision or action was taken by the Planning Commission <br />regarding the HOO requirements because the HOO did not apply to <br />the project; and <br />II. Consideration of a public comment letter received does not <br />constitute "a decision or requirement made by the Planning <br />Commission". <br />Nonetheless, a comprehensive response and findings are provided below <br />on all appeal items received, <br />D. On December 1, 2020, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public <br />hearing on Appeal Application No. 2020-02 and found that: <br />The City complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) <br />requirements by preparing an addendum to the previously certified 2010 <br />Transit Zoning Code Environmental Impact report (EIR). CEQA does <br />permit the use of an addendum when the original EIR being relied upon <br />was a Program EIR. Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State <br />CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 clearly establish when an agency must <br />prepare a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR, and when an agency is <br />permitted instead to prepare an Addendum. If an agency determines <br />that one of the conditions described in Public Resources Code section <br />21166 or State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 is present, the agency <br />must prepare either a Subsequent EIR or a Supplemental EIR. When <br />none of those conditions are present, but it is necessary to make <br />changes to a previous EIR, the agency may prepare an addendum. This <br />process applies regardless of whether the original EIR is a Program or <br />Resolution No. 2020-093 <br />Page 2 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.