Item 18 - Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project

Home Browse Search

Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street) October 3, 2023 Page 8 Senate Bill (SB) 330 Application SB 330 became effective on January 1, 2020, and established a statewide "housing emergency" until January 1, 2025, which was extended until 2030 through the passage of SB 8. The senate bill amended Government Code Section 65941.1 with the broad goals of facilitating increased production of new residential units, protecting existing units, and providing for an expedited review and approval process for housing development projects through submittal of a "preliminary application." It is important to note that since the application was submitted under SB 330, the project is required to comply with the objective zoning code standards applicable to the property, but only to the extent that they facilitate the development at the density allowed by the General Plan, 90 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) per the District Center -Medium High (DC-3) General Plan land use designation and a decision on the project must be made in no more than five public hearings. On May 11, 2022, the applicant submitted a Senate Bill (SB) 330 Preliminary Application for the proposed project. The preliminary application was deemed complete by staff on June 9, 2022, and since then, the applicant worked with staff to address all development standards. Analysis of Appeal Appeal Application No. 2023-02 (SAFER) Pursuant to Section 41-645 of the SAMC, the appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision approving SPR No. 2023-01 and TTM No. 2023-03 based on compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the appellant states that: (1) The decision of the Planning Commission was in "violation" of CEQA; (2) The City's determination that the Project was analyzed in the 2010 Metro East Mixed Used (MEMU) Overlay Zone EIR and Subsequent EIR was incorrect; (3) The Project would have new and different significant environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the MEMU EIR; and (4) That a project - specific EIR should have been prepared to analyze the Project. Staff notes that the appellant does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in any new or more significant impacts than analyzed in the Certified EIR or that new mitigation is required. Moreover, the appellant does not provide information as to why they believe a project -specific EIR should have been prepared, or what new and different significant environmental impacts would result from the Project that have not already been analyzed in the EIR and Subsequent EIR. Nevertheless, a comprehensive response on the appeal items previously outlined has been prepared and can be found in Exhibit 10. City Council 18 — 8 10/3/2023