CC Min 1997-05-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

result of the mitigation there are no adverse environmental effects. If you were to find that there was an adverse environmental effect of the project that has not been addressed by the mitigation measures proposed by this Negative Declaration, then you must uphold the appeal, and an Environmental Impact Report or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report must be prepared for the project. If you find that the mitigation measures specified in the Negative Declaration do address adequately the environmental aspects of the project then you must deny the appeal and find that the Negative Declaration should be upheld." In response to Councilman Claire's questions regarding the subjects cited as the basis for the appeal, found in the staff report (Page 8 A.9. of the May 12, 1997 agenda packet), City Attorney Schricker said Council Members could vote to deny the appeal if they believed that none of the subjects cited warranted further mitigation. City Attorney Schricker said, "In general the issues have been raised on the environmental side relate to visual impacts, parking and traffic." He added that the sewerage question was satisfactorily answered and the project would not be impacted by the problems on Carson Street. (Improvements to Carson Street sewer system are scheduled to begin this year.) In response to Councilman Ruskin's questions regarding his vote on the Negative Declaration in light of his intent to offer a different set of mitigations later in the discussion, City Attorney Schricker said that all votes should be consistent. "What you are describing is a different project than what is addressed by the Negative Declaration (being appealed.) Once the project which is described in the Negative Declaration, which is a 26- unit project, once you deviate ITom that project then you have to take into consideration the effects that that change makes with respect to your other decisions. For instance, if reducing the density of the project... essentially creating a new project, you must take into consideration the environmental effect of that new project, a 24 or 20-unit whatever it may be that is put before you, and if this Negative Declaration is not adequate to address that, then the environmental aspect should be revisited as well." Further, City Attorney Schricker answered, "Remember we are talking about a Negative Declaration for 26-units. If we describe a new project, then I would recommend that the environmental aspects of that new project be revisited by further analysis, and recommend that you not make a decision on a different project tonight. You are dealing with a 26-unit project with respect to the review of the Negative Declaration." Councilman Ruskin said he intended to "support a project other than is now before us," and asked, "then am I obliged to vote 'no', or obliged to uphold the appeal on the Negative Declaration." City Attorney Schricker said, "Yes. It would be a reasonable conclusion that the adverse environmental effects are not being mitigated properly by those mitigation measures described in the present Negative Declaration.... CEQA requires you to describe a project, and the project that was described in this Negative Declaration was 26-units." Mayor Hartnett explained that "one could deny the appeal, saying the environmental review has been appropriate, yet still not wish to change the zoning, or not wish to change the General Plan, or not wish to approve the Tentative Map for other valid reasons." City REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 MAY 12, 1997 MINUTES Page No. 314 PAGE 8