PC 090804 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson advised that the project added a small amount of traffic to intersections that had no feasible mitigations at this time, given the state of the General Plan Update. He noted that the Planning Commission had some key decisions to make about this project, which would affect other pending projects. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that any potential significant effect on the environment that could not be handled through a mitigated negative declaration must result in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In the past, if staff has generally found that any new traffic that would degrade an intersection or would add traffic to an already congested intersection at LOS E or F, that has been found to be a significant impact. He noted that the traffic study showed very little additional trips, and that they would add very little delay to the Level-of-Service classification. Mr. Iserson suggested that because of the minimal amount of traffic, the Commission may want to consider adopting some thresholds based on the number of new trips caused by this project at an intersection, a percentage increase at an intersection of new trips, or an increase in delay. He noted that finding may not require an EIR. On the other hand, the Commission may determine that any new traffic at a congested intersection (LOS E or F) automatically requires an EIR. He noted that the same question should be asked with respect to the General Plan consistency issue because some intersections will not be able to be mitigated back to LOS D. The Commission may wish to take a conservative approach and not be able to make the finding of General Plan consistency. On the other hand, the Commission may take a more flexible approach similar to that suggested for CEQA. Mr. Iserson noted that the Commission's options were detailed on page 15 of the staff report: 1. Find no significant impact and consistency with the existing General Plan policy; 2. Find no significant impact (CEQA) but find inconsistency with the General Plan policy; 3. Find a potentially significant impact but consistency with the General Plan; or 4. Find a potentially significant impact and an inconsistency with General Plan LOS policy. Mr. Iserson noted that staff had prepared a draft Negative Declaration which uses the minimal impact on delays, minimal percentage, and total traffic to conclude no impact. Staff also prepared conditions of approval if the Commission believed it could find there would be no significant impacts with respect to CEQA and General Plan consistency. He noted that public noticing was performed within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site and that one e-mail had been received from a citizen opposed to the project; that email was distributed to the Commission. Mr. Iserson noted that the design was attractive and that the applicant had been responsive to the Commission's direction. Staff recommended that the Commission determine whether the traffic impacts were potentially significant and either require a Negative Declaration or an EIR, and then determine if it could make the finding of conformance to the General Plan. If the Commission makes the findings for a Negative Declaration and General Plan consistency, then it may recommend approval of the design review, conditional use permit, and PUD modification to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 8, 2004 Page 5 of 14