PC 062707 - Laserfiche WebLink

A recess was called at 10:38 p.m. Chairperson Fox reconvened the meeting at 10:48 p.m. Mr. Roush reiterated the referendum procedure for the benefit of the public speakers who requested clarification. He noted that there was a 30-day window from the time that an ordinance was adopted. He advised that most Development Agreements, including the Agreement for this application, had language that provided that once the entitlements were vested, then a subsequent act by City Council or the voters to disenfranchise those entitlements would be considered null and void. He noted that this Agreement had a 10-year shelf life, and in response to Chairperson Fox’s question regarding whether that could be extended by the Planning Commission, he confirmed that it could be possible to make it a less lengthy process; however, the developer must be reasonably able to build out the project. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the process to be followed by the Planning Commission, Ms. Decker replied that was delineated in the staff report. Mr. Roush advised that if the Planning Commission were to certify the EIR as being legally adequate, it must determine whether the EIR has reasonably and thoroughly evaluated, has disclosed environmental impacts, has identified mitigation measures, and has adequately addressed comments made on the Draft EIR, and whether the proposed findings and determinations were supported by substantial evidence in the record. If those findings could be made, the Commission may certify the EIR and move ahead to the PUD development plan and Development Agreement. If those findings cannot be made, he believed it would be wise and helpful to the City Council to identify in what respects the EIR was not adequate and then take a vote on that action. Normally, if an EIR is not certified, there was no reason to move ahead with the PUD plan and Development Agreement. In that case, he recommended that the Planning Commission also make a recommendation to the City Council concerning the PUD development plan and the Development Agreement, so it would have the benefit of the Commission’s thoughts in the event it wished to certify the EIR, and whether the plan and Development Agreement should be approved. Commissioner Olson expressed concern that when he received the package, an updated development was not included. He did not believe he was in the position to opine on the Development Agreement or the conditions of approval because he would like to see some additional conditions. He was also concerned about some language in the Development Agreement. Mr. Roush noted that he could choose to certify the CEQA documents as the first step, and then approve the development plan either with the conditions or with different conditions or recommend that the plan not be approved. Commissioner O’Connor expressed disappointment that after the length of time that has passed, some of the items of concern to the Commission had not been addressed in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2007 Page 23 of 28