21 ATTACHMENT 05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Process: • Should the additional economic data be brought back to the Economic Vitality Committee? Staff did not believe that bringing this matter to the EVC was necessary. i~Vhen it previously reviewed the project, the EVC commented more generally on the project. Ho~~~ever, staff has sent the economic reports to Committee members. for their comments. • Is the City required to modify the PUD and/or grant a conditional use permit to allow a large scale retail store on this site? A PUD nzodif cation to allow a broad range of retail uses is part of this application. The Home Depot itself does not require a PUD modification but only a conditional use permit since the existing PUD for this site allows lzard~~~are/home improvement stores as a conditional use. A grocery store would also require a conditional use permit. A different type of large retail store may require a PUD modification, depending on the type of use involved. Any business locating in this development must abide by the conditions of approval; any use not able to comply with the conditions would have to apply for a PUD modification. • Clarify why an EIR was not required for this project. Will the new information impact the Negative Declaration? As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff prepared an initial study for the proposal and determined, based on this analysis, that either the identified potential impacts firom the project ~~~ould either not be significant or could be mitigated to a less than significant level. The traffic report was part of this revie~~~. As a result, staff recommended that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be approved fo~° the project. The Planning Commission agreed. They°efore, an EIR ~~~as not p~°epared. Staff does not believe that the Negative Declaration will be affected by the new information assembled since the City Council hearing. The economic analysis and the traffic study both support staff's original conclusions and do not represent ne~~~ information. • Clarify the Plamling Commission's ability to consider revenue/fiscal issues in making a recommendation on a project. Both State law and City code provide b~°oad discretion to the Planning Commission in its functions, including implementation of the General Pla~z and making decisions/ recomJnendations on land use matters. There is nothing that precludes the Commission fi~om considering fiscal issues as part of its decision on land use matters or development projects; to the contrary, the use of land and the construction of 17