CCMIN011607 - Laserfiche WebLink

permit and if in the future problems develop staff has the capability of dealing with those. With regard to the environmental review, staff has determined that it is categorically exempt and sees no reason to challenge that. He urged the Council to deny the appeal and approve the application. Sonia and Rohit Gupta stated the minutes of November 29, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting have not yet been approved due to significant pieces missing from the Minutes. She voiced concern with the Council not having all the significant information needed. She stated they are not against the project; they are only worried about the categorical exemption of CEQA. They requested a comprehensive EIR to analyze the future growth impacts of this project. She urged Council not to piecemeal this project and to look at it as a whole. City Attorney Roush commented that based on the various Councilmember's comments on past affiliations with CYO and the church, he sees no conflict of interest for any of them participating in the decision on the matter this evening. Hearing no further requests to speak, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Sullivan clarified the existing approvals on the site. He also clarified that there has been no CEQA review and the project has received a categorical exemption from staff. A discussion of CEQA and EIR processes ensued. It was noted what staff found, and the Planning Commission agreed that there was a categorical exemption from CEQA in 1989 when the project was originally approved, and again in 1998 when there was a modification. In the opinion of staff and the Planning Commission there is no new information of environmental significance to warrant a different conclusion; however, the Council is not precluded from making a different finding. With respect to the Planning Commission Minutes that have not been approved, it was noted one of the Planning Commissioners felt there was incomplete information or information not presented as someone felt it should be presented and wanted to have the tapes reviewed. Discussion ensued as to whether the eventually approved minutes might have new or additional information for the Council to use in their decision making process. Councilmember McGovern clarified the 12-acre site has an adopted master plan. There is nothing in state law that requires that a CEQA review be done on this project. She questioned the maximum height limit allowed for the church and commented on parking space requirements and use. Councilmember McGovern stated she is not in support of parking on Stoneridge Drive and is not in support of taking the bike lane, putting a car in it and having a City Council Minutes 9 January 16, 2007