Laserfiche WebLink
Resolution No. 2023-xx <br />Page 2 of 10 <br />the Planning Commission’s decision because the Project was in “violation” <br />of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, SAFER <br />states that: (1) The decision of the Planning Commission was in “violation” <br />of CEQA; (2) The City’s determination that the Project was analyzed in the <br />2010 Metro East Mixed Used (MEMU) Overlay Zone Environmental <br />Impact Report (EIR) and Subsequent EIR (SEIR) was incorrect; (3) The <br />Project would have new and different significant environmental impacts <br />that were not analyzed in the MEMU EIR; and (4) That a project-specific <br />EIR should have been prepared to analyze the Project. <br />C. On May 3, 2023, Mitchell M. Tsai, on behalf of the Southwest Mountains <br />States Carpenters (SWMSRCC), also submitted an appeal application <br />(Appeal No. 2023-03) pursuant to Section 41-645 of the SAMC requesting <br />that the City Council reconsider the Planning Commission’s decision <br />based on the following reasons: <br />a. Requirement of a Local Workforce. Specifically, the appellant states <br />that, “The city should require the use of a local workforce to benefit <br />the community’s economic development and environment.” <br />b. Training Requirements To Prevent Community Spread Of Covid-19 <br />And Other Infectious Diseases. Specifically, the appellants states <br />that, “The City should impose training requirements for the Project’s <br />construction activities to prevent community spread of Covid-19 <br />and other infectious diseases.” <br />c. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance. <br />Specifically, the appellant contends the following: <br />i. That CEQA mandates preparation of an EIR for projects so <br />that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be <br />understood and weighed; <br />ii. That there are new transportation impact methodology <br />requirements, not analyzed in the Certified EIR; <br />iii. That the Project requires new feasible mitigation measures <br />to mitigate greenhouse gas impacts; and <br />iv. That the Project may have significant land use impacts <br />which were not analyzed in the Certified EIR. <br />d. Inconsistency with the General Plan. Specifically, the appellant <br />contends that the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan <br />because there are no onsite affordable units. <br />D. On August 17, 2023, Mitchell M. Tsai, on behalf of the SWMSRCC, <br />submitted a supplemental appeal letter, outside of the 10-day appeal <br />period, as outlined in Section 41-645(b) of the SAMC. Nonetheless, staff <br />provides a comprehensive response below on all appeal items received. <br />The subsequent letter reiterates certain points outlined in the appeal letter <br />dated May 3, 2023. However, SWMSRCC makes several new points in <br />their request that the City Council reconsider the Planning Commission’s <br />decision, including the following reasons: