Laserfiche WebLink
impacts are going to be insignificant with regard to the Orloff site <br />they could see no reason to channel additional traffic to a resi- <br />dential street when it can go elsewhere. He said it would create <br />a lot of hard feelings. <br />Commissioner Wilson addressed the cul-de-sac and asked why it was <br />put in if it is not intended for use. Mr. Harris explained that at <br />one point it was on the general plan showing Alameda going through <br />to Santa Rita Road. <br />Chairperson Getty asked if the project is denied would the City put <br />in the worm diverter between Valley Plaza and Amador Center anyway. <br />Mr. Schaumburg indicated the City Engineer would take the matter to <br />the traffic committee and then on to City Council for review. Mr. <br />Harris stated that the City Council can make the street modification <br />(provide the worm diverter) any time it wished. <br />Commissioner Doherty said he didn't think anything could be done to <br />make the traffic impacts in this area insignificant and, therefore, <br />that he could not support a negative declaration. <br />Mr. Harris said he would like to speak on the negative declaration. <br />He confirmed that yes there is a problem and there will be greater <br />problems on Valley Avenue but that the Orloff project, at the most, <br />will add only 1200 trips per day to Valley Avenue and that 1200 trips <br />vs. 25,000 potential trips is insignificant. He said there is a <br />problem on Valley Avenue but not as a result of the Orloff project. <br />A motion was then made by Commissioner Wilson that the negative <br />declaration prepared for case PUD-81-23 be adopted inasmuch <br />as project approval would not have a significant adverse effect <br />on the environment. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindsey. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes: Commissioners Lindsey, Wilson and Chairperson Getty <br />Noes: Commissioners Doherty and Jamieson <br />Resolution No. 2116 was then entered and adopted recommending <br />approval of the negative declaration prepared for case PUD-81-23 <br />as motioned. <br />A motion was then made by Commissioner Lindsey, seconded by Com- <br />missioner Doherty that case PUD-81-23 be recommended for approval <br />subject to the conditions shown in the staff report with the <br />following changes/amendments: <br />1. Approval is recommended for 22 condominium units. <br />33. The apartments must stay as rental units for a <br />minimum of 10 years. <br />34. The colors of all structures must be approved by <br />the City staff. <br />-6- <br />__ _._.. __ ..__..__ _ ___.._ ._ __..~ _ __,__....--_ .. ... .. _..... _..,....._. _..__ .. _ _ . _ _ ., _.._ _ T <br />