Loading...
PC 04-12-1993 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ` 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 252 -4505 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 12, 1993 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairwoman Austin Vice Chairperson Mahoney Commissioner Doyle Commissioner Bautista Commissioner Roberts Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Michele Bjurman, Planner II APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: Com. Bautista moved to approve the minutes of March 22, 1993, as presented. SECOND: Com. Mahoney VOTE: Passed 5 -0 POSTPONEMENTS OR NEW AGENDA ITEMS: - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - None CONSENT CALENDAR: - None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Application No(s): 1 -U -93 Applicant: Keith Martin and Renee Wise Property Owner: Tandem Computers, Inc. Location: 10869 N. Wolfe Road (Cupertino Village) USE PERMIT to operate a 1,424 sq. ft. pet store in an existing shopping center. Staff Presentation: Planner Bjurman presented the staff report dated April 12, 1993. She stated the request is to operate a pet store in Cupertino Village. She added a conditional use permit is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 12, 1993 Page 2 required to ensure compatibility with the existing uses. Staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions contained in the model resolution. Ms. Bjurman stated after the General Plan amendment is complete, an application such as this one could be considered and approved by the Director of Community Development, with referral to the Planning Commission. In response to Com. Roberts question, Ms. Bjurman stated the pet store is 350 feet away from residences. Chr. Austin opened the public hearing. Applicant Presentation: Ms. Renee Wise, 10869 N. Wolfe Road, stated this will be a bird specialty pet store. She noted they have signed a lease agreement and would like to operate this business as soon as possible. Chr. Austin closed the public hearing. Chr. Austin feels the conditions contained in the model resolution will cover any future uses which may be more intense. MOTION: Com. Mahoney moved to approve 1 -U -93 subject to the findings and subconclusions of the hearing. . SECOND: Com. Doyle VOTE: Passed 5 -0 NEW BUSINESS: 2. Presentation by the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consultants on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements related to the EIR. Planning Director Cowan introduced PRA consultants to the Planning Commission, Mr. Don Skinner, Leon Pirofalo, Don Woolfe. He noted this discussion will be about CEQA. Mr. Don Woolfe gave some background information about CEQA noting the Federal Environmental Policy Act preceded CEQA. He stated the original intent of CEQA was that it should only apply to projects initiated by public agencies as opposed to private projects. He stated a court decision in 1972 found that CEQA should apply to all agency decisions and actions which require permits and entitlements of any kind. Mr. Woolfe went on to explain CEQA as it relates to the EIR. Public agencies are forbidden from approving projects that have identified significant environmental impacts unless feasible mitigation methods are available. CEQA defines "feasible" as "a capable accomplishment within a reasonable time frame taking into PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 12, 1993 Page 3 account economic, social and technical considerations ". He noted what is feasible can be determined by each agency, following guidelines within CEQA. Most of the basis of CEQA emanates from court decisions. The key purposes of CEQA: 1. The EIR serves not only to protect the public, but to demonstrate that the public is being protected. 2. The process informs other agencies of possible environmental impacts. 3. The process demonstrates to an apprehensive public that the agency has indeed analyzed and considered the environmental implications of a project. 4. The process will enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials, allowing for appropriate action on election day. CEQA has three tiers: Tier 1. Definition of the project. Mr. Woolfe explained the difference between the ministerial and discretionary actions. He noted discretionary actions are covered by CEQA. He also explained categorically exempt, noting most minor projects are categorically exempt. If not categorically exempt proceed to tier 2. Tier 2. Find out what significant environmental impacts evolve from this project. Staff makes a determination through an initial study. If there are no significant impacts staff issues a Negative Declaration. If there are significant impacts proceed to tier 3. Tier 3. If significant impacts are determined and feasible mitigation measures are available a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be issued. He stated a Mitigated Negative Declaration can only be issued if the agency is convinced that there are mitigation measures available, which will reduce the serious impacts to lessen the significance. If there are several significant impacts or no mitigation the next process is the preparation of the EIR. Two types of Environmental Impact: Reports: 1. Focus EIR - concerned about noise and traffic. 2. Conventional General EIR. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 12, 1993 Page 4 4 Significant impacts are defined by CEQA as adverse impacts. An adverse impact is defined in CEQA as a substantial or potentially substantial change within the project area. What is the EIR? A public document used to locate, describe and analyze significant impacts identify alternatives to the project and to disclose ways to reduce or avoid environmental impacts. The EIR is the City's document and is a tool used to help the City make informed decisions on environmental impacts. The EIR and CEQA does not infringe on the Planning Commission's discretion. The EIR provides information to the general public and other affected public agencies. CEQA is a full disclosure statute and failure to provide full information to the public is contrary to the CEQA process and may cause harsh results. Regarding penalties for not complying with CEQA, the court will stop the process. Adequacy of the EIR: The precise contents of the EIR are specified in the EIR guidelines. Prior to the Planning Commission recommending approval or approving a project they must adopt a Negative Declaration and the EIR must be certified as adequate and complete. The agency is not compelled to approve a project if the EIR is certified as adequate and complete, but cannot approve a project if the EIR is not certified as adequate and complete. The first principal of determining adequacy is to look at the question of what constitutes reasonable feasibility. Disagreement among experts in a public hearing over an EIR does not render the EIR incomplete. Courts look for adequacy and not perfection. An agency does not have to conduct every test in order to reasonably determine the environmental impact of a particular project. The project should be reviewed in light of what the Planning Commission or agency views as reasonable. CEQA does not require an agency to precisely predict future impacts. When considering a draft EIR, the agency will gather all written and oral communications and respond to comments in writing. These comments then become part of the final EIR. Any recommendation for changes in the EIR must be noticed in a public notice of determination, but no further recirculation is necessary. Chuck Kilian, City Attorney, stated any alternative which has not been considered during the draft EIR needs to be re- circulated. He explained a reasonable alternative which would have to be re- circulated. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 12, 1993 Page 5 If an agency has a project which cannot be mitigated, it is not precluded from recommending or approving the project. In this situation a project can be approved through a balancing mechanism called the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The needs (social, economic) of a City may override environmental consequences, but there must be drafted findings of fact. The Notice of Determination, which is recorded with the County, must include the Statement of Overriding Considerations. There is a 30 day statute of limitation to challenge the EIR after it is recorded with the County. If mitigation and findings cannot be made for the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the project must be denied. The Commissioners discussed the value of an EIR when approving or denying a project. An action must be taken on the EIR before any action is taken on the project. Regarding the courts decision, Mr. Killian stated the precise standard the court uses is, is there substantial evidence to support the decision the public agency made? The environmental impact is very broad and pertains to both private and public facilities. The significant impacts are within the Planning Commission's discretion. There is a section in the EIR which discusses the long and short term benefits. The Commissioners discussed the balancing act in more detail and the findings that should be made. In response to Commissioners questions, if a mitigation measure created environmental impacts in another areal this is not good mitigation. In response to Mr. Cowan's question, Mr. Woolfe stated it is left to the Planning Commission's discretion as to how much public testimony is needed. State law requires the City to have a mitigation monitoring program. Regarding written and oral comments, staff and the consultant will respond to the comments and bring these back to the Planning Commission as part of the EIR. The Planning Commission can agree or disagree with the comments and can vote with one motion to accept staff's response to the comments, with exceptions, if necessary. Mr. Kilian stated the Planning Commission may decide to discuss the exceptions separately and follow -up with findings and sub - conclusions after a decision has been made. Mr. Woolfe stated an agency's findings must be reasonable. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 12, 1993 Page 6 1 3. Establish procedures for General Plan public hearings. City Planner Wordell reviewed the schedule of the proposed General Plan and DEIR, as outlined in the staff report. She noted the Council has set May 20th for a joint meeting. Mr. Woolfe outlined the procedure for the DEIR, noting that the Planning Commission will recommend approval of the DEIR and the City Council will hear comments at their hearing. If the comments heard at the City Council meeting were not addressed at the Planning Commission meeting, staff and the consultant will respond. These comments will be added to the Planning Commission's public comments. Chr. Austin suggested 10 minutes for corporations /organizations and three minutes for individuals. The Planning Commission agreed with Chr. Austin's suggestion if 1 time was extended for questions. Ms. Wordell stated the public should be asked to give a written summary of their comments on the forms provided. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Com. Doyle noted he attended the Affordable Housing Committee, no action was taken. Chr. Austin reported on a meeting she attended with representatives from the County. She noted Joint powers agreement and authority was discussed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting of April 12, 1993 Page 7 REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: - None DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: - None ADJOURNMENT: Having concluded business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 8:40 P.M. to the next Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r ;JCfit- -rL a , M A0 o-.' 4 Catherine M. Robillard, Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission at the Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993 • /s/ Donna Austin Donna Austin, Chairwoman Attest: /s/ Dorothy Cornelius Dorothy Cornelius, City Clerk