PC 09/14/77 - Laserfiche WebLink

onmental problems, specific reasons must be set forth as to why an agency feels they would be justified in overlooking such environmental effects. He told the Commissioners that if they make a negative declaration finding on this project, they would need to review and make findings regarding the distinction between EIR requirements and negative declarations under CEQA guidelines. At this point, the CEQA guidelines were read by the City Attorney at Commissioner Jamieson's request. Chairman Butler wished to point out before the vote was taken, that this plan provides the mechanism for maintaining the growth rate shown in the General Plan. Resolution 1558 was entered and adopted making the finding that the pro- ject will not have an adverse effect on the environment, that after re- viewing the requirements for negative declarations and environmental im- pact reports, and findings of significant impacts, the Commission deter- mined that the project would not have a significant impact upon the en- vironment and recommends that a negative declaration be prepared. Roll Call Vote Resolution: Shepherd Seconded: Butler Ayes: Doherty, Jamieson, Shepherd, Wood, Chairman Butler Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Review of Community Development Element Secretary Harris briefly summarized the Element. The Commissioners had questions on the following: Chairman Butler questioned Policy 8 on Page 6, whether it should be in the General Plan. Secretary Harris indicated that essentially, it means population growth can be adjusted each year, especially when City Council sets allocation each year, they should be cognizant of development which has taken place in a previous year. Chairman Butler talked about Policy 28, Page 18. He takes the approach that good City planning can go a long way toward alleviating extra vehi- cle miles traveled. He questioned if anything can resolve this problem. Secretary Harris indicated the intent here was to point up the problem of air pollution, and this is one logical way to help, however, he agreed that it will not have a great effect on eliminating the problem. The pro- blem is a national and in some cases, international problem. But staff and the Committee felt they had to address this problem. Next, Chairman Butler talked about Policy 35 on Page 20. He thought the statement should be better defined. Planning Analyst Brian Swift gave his interpretation of both Policy 35 and Policy 36. Commissioner Wood asked what the City would be losing if such a plan were not adopted. Secretary Harris explained several reasons for the Plan. The basis for it is the water and air problems in the Valley, plus Govern- mental funding conditions. Additionally, it is a good planning tool whose time has come. It has been adopted in many jurisdictions across the coun- try. The Residential Allocation Program would control timing for devel- opment. -4- _...7......._...-._.............,. ... _. ... ..._ ...