PC 11/18/81 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. 2100 was then entered and adopted recommending denial of the negative declaration prepared for case PUD-81-23. Assistant City Attorney Brian Swift stated that in taking this action the Commission is telling staff that an EIR must be prepared for the project prior to the Planning Commission recommending approval of the project to the City Council and that if the Planning Commission feels they will vote against this project regardless of the results of an EIR, it is possible to deny the project without taking action on the negative declaration and the project could then be appealed to City Council. Commissioner Doherty stated he has concerns with Item No. 7 of the Initial Study regarding traffic circulation and has no other problem with any other part of the initial study. Chairperson Getty asked Commissioner Doherty if he felt that conditions as recommended in the traffic study could mitigate his concerns. Com- missioner Doherty said he is not comfortable with the entire area as it relates to traffic and that perhaps an EIR would change his mind. He said he has no particular problem with the project, only with the negative declaration. Commissioner Lindsey said he agrees with Commissioner Doherty regarding traffic circulation and said he would like to see some solution to the problem and that he is not totally satisfied with the traffic engineer's study. He said he is uncom- fortable with existing traffic on Valley Avenue between Greenwood and Santa Rita Road and wouldn't support the initial study prepared con- cerning Item No. 7. Commissioner Lindsey indicated he would like a focussed EIR prepared addressing traffic only. Commissions Doherty and Jamieson supported this suggestion. Commissioner Wilson stated that if the Commission takes that position they should turn down any development in the area and that if the Com- mission doesn't believe the staff report that the street is at one-half capacity, he doesn't see any point in studying the issue. Chairperson Getty asked that in view of the no votes, would the developer and Commission be willing to delay this project for another traffic report until this matter is satisfied. Commissioner Doherty said he had no problem continuing this matter if someone can make him feel comfortable with the traffic problem as he is not particularly opposed to the project. Commissioner Wilson then made a motion to deny the project without prejudice. Assistant City Attorney Brian Swift explained the effects of the 'Pdotion to Deny,' a motion to request a focussed EIR, or a motion to require an additional traffic study. -6-