PC 092204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Sullivan advised that he had not changed his mind since the last meeting. He believed that this project fell under pazagraph 4.3 of the Negative Declaration stating: "Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable?" He believed that adding traffic to this intersection would cause traffic to be worse in adjacent intersections. He believed that when the full-service carwash proposed project returns, it would further degrade the traffic. Commissioner Arkin believed that the gas station was vital for the area but did not believe a carwash was equally vital. Ms. Nerland advised that the issue before the Commission was examining the impacts in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Commissioner Sullivan did not believe that any actions should be taken until the General Plan Update was completed. Chairperson Roberts noted that this project had been in process for two years and that the applicant has redesigned the station to address the design issues. She believed that the traffic issue should have been addressed first but that the City had not yet begun the General Plan Update process at that time. She did not believe that was fair to the applicant to ask the relatively small projects to be subject to a virtual moratorium because it may affect the extension of Stoneridge Drive. Commissioner Sullivan noted that at every meeting, he had expressed his concern about traffic regarding this project. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin regarding the wording of these motions, Ms. Nerland replied that if there were no interest in setting a numerical threshold, she believed that the explanation of why this is not a significant impact should focus on the traffic. She did not believe that whether the use was beneficial would be a major part of that decision. Chairperson Roberts believed that this project constituted a unique use and that only part of the use was retail. Commissioner Sullivan did not advocate performing an EIR; he supported not making the CEQA finding but not moving forward with the EIR, thereby denying the project. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Arkin, Fox, Maas, and Roberts. NOES: Commissioner Sullivan. ABSTAIN: None. RECUSED: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kameny. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 22, 2004 Page 6 of 14