Loading...
PC Min 04/30/1997CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY APRIL 30, 1997 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Special Planning Commission meeting of April 30, 1997 (continued from April 22, 1997), was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chairwoman Keams, and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Susan A. Keams Dennis Lowe I. Alne Elizabeth Gibbons Brad Jones Mel Lindstrom Jane Meyer-Kennedy Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director: Associate Planner: City Attorney: Redevelopment Manager: Traffic Engineer: Environmental Program Manager: Reporting Secretary: Steve Piasecki Tim J. Haley William Seligmann Kirk Heinrichs Peter Eakland Bill Helms Corinne A. Shinn COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Memo from Steve Piasecki with responses to questions raised at last meeting. 2. Letter to San Jose Councilman John Diquisto 3. Consolidation of Findings and Conditions of Approval AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There are no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING Chairwoman Kearns read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. GP 96-03/PD 96-06/ TS 97-01/S 97-05 Neumeister, K. Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ken Neumeister, on behalf of WTA Development & Huettig & Schromm, Inc., for approval of the following applications for property located at 535 Westchester Drive (formerly the Winchester Drive-In Site) in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District and 571 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District: A. A General Plan Amendment (GP 96-02) to consider a change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Destination Commercial to Industrial. B. A Planned Development Permit (PD 96-06) to allow the construction of a 330,000 square foot research and development park. C. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS 97-01) to allow the creation of five lots. D. A Site and Architectural Approval (S 97-05) to allow the construction of two off premise signs and landscaping at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the site. E. Find that this project is consistent with the project previously described in the Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. F. A Supplemental EIR was prepared for this project and was certified by City Council at its meeting of January 7, 1997. Chairwoman Keams: Thanked those who spoke at the last meeting during the Public Heating. · Commended the polite and cooperative way in which everyone addressed this subject. · Asked if anyone present wanted an opportunity to address this item. There being no additional parties present to address this project, Chairwoman Keams closed the Public Heating. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director: · Provided highlights from his memo responding to questions raised at the April 22nd meeting. · How can the Conditions of Approval protect residents _from the Planned Development Zoning? The response is that the business that has caused the concern from Mr. Stermer at the last meeting was established 13 years ago with Conditions that did not adequately address the use. For this project, specific conditions including hours of operation, location of loading docks and the land buffer between residential uses and this site will help ensure that the residential properties are not impacted by this industrial use. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 3 · What will prevent paint booths and associated odors? There will be no auto repair permitted on this site with no paint booths. · Parking ratio - why the d{fference between projected employees and number of parking spaces provided? The number of spaces exceed the number of projected employees to allow for guest parking and visitors to the site. Staff has been conservative in developing the parking ratio and required more spaces as a safety measure. · Can Open Space be incorporated into this project? It is possible to incorporate open space on the site but to do so impacts the proposed site layout. The mobile home park residents are concerned about the placement of an active park on this site. · If the site is split intofive lots, how is reciprocalparking ensured? Reciprocal parking will fall under the control of the CC&Rs being developed for the site. Mr. Peter Eakland, Traffic Engineer: · Addressed two concerns from the April 22na meeting, the traffic impacts of this project and the impacts whether Cristich is improved or not. · Using a traffic model, it has been determined that two-thirds of the traffic for this site will come from Union Avenue and one-third from Curtner Avenue. Staff believes that the traffic volumes from this project can be handled on existing roadways. Staff is requiring that a signal be installed at Union and McGlincey Lane so that traffic will not be impacted on Union Avenue and that delays on McGlincey can be minimize. · All traffic concerns can be mitigated easily. Mitigation includes the traffic signal at Union and McGlincey, and improvements at the intersections of McGlincey/Access Road and CamderffCurtner. · The estimated increase in trips is 100 each a.m. and 100 each p.m. · This project represents only 27% of the traffic originally projected when the site was considered for large box retail. Commissioner Lowe asked whether the improvements on Cristich were merited if the increase in traffic is only 100 cars per day. Mr. Peter Eakland clarified that the total traffic generated by the project is 2,500 trips per day and that 100 trips represented those that represented travel during a peak hour either on Cristich or on McGlincey between Cristich and the project access road. The project was studied both with and without the Cristich Lane improvements and no additional mitigations would be created by "without Cristich" scenario. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy sought clarification that the traffic for this project is 73% less than in than the project considered in the early 1990's (large box retailer). Mr. Peter Eakland confirmed that fact. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 4 Commissioner Gibbons stated that from the SEIR the assumption is that Cristich will be improved. Are statistics or levels of service available in the event that Cristich is not available? Mr. Peter Eakland replied that the analysis has been done but was done after the completion of the EIR. The only difference in traffic levels will be at the McGlincey Lane entrance to the project site. Commissioner Gibbons stated that the documents assume that Cristich will be improved. However, there is no talk of cueing distances. Mr. Peter Eakland stating that queuing was reviewed and statistics are presented on the level of service sheets in the appendix but are not spelled out individually in the traffic study. No queuing problems are anticipated; only the problem areas were identified. Commissioner Gibbons asked what impact an additional 200 cars would have on peak traffic times in this area. Mr. Peter Eakland replied that the critical movement is left tums onto McGlincey in the p.m. peak hour, and the impact is projected at a 16-second delay per car at peak hours. Commissioner Gibbons commented on the possibility of restricting on-street parking along McGlincey and wondered where the vehicles would go that currently park along the street. Additionally, she mentioned the large amount of truck traffic on this street. Mr. Peter Eakland agreed that there is significant truck traffic on McGlincey but that it is not excessive. He added that the on-street parking was not proposed to be eliminated. He stated that on McGlincey a left turn lane and a short acceleration lane would be added. Commissioner Gibbons asked about the difference between the parking count and the projected occupant load. Mr. Peter Eakland advised that the estimates for employees and parking spaces were derived from different sources. Parking space requirements for this project are based on the City's Parking Standards. They cover a wide range of uses and reflect the need for parking not only by employees but by visitors as well as a realistic vacancy factor. It is a good idea to be conservative so as not to create parking impacts in the neighborhood. Commissioner Gibbons stated that some of the improvements recommended in the EIR have been installed. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Peter Eakland replied that some of the improvements are partially in place, namely at the intersection of San Tomas Expressway and Highway 17 southbound; however, a new eastbound thru lane is still pending. Commissioner Gibbons asked if any other improvements have been implemented. Are any projected for Campbell at Union Avenues? Mr. Peter Eakland answered that a southbound approach serving Pruneyard traffic was constructed at the intersection of Campbell and Union after the EIR process began. Commissioner Gibbons asked if any attempt will be made to remove parking on McGlincey Lane? Mr. Peter Eakland answered that he strongly recommends that on-street parking not be removed on McGlincey. To do so would have a heavy impact on existing businesses in the area. Commissioner Gibbons asked if there are any contingencies in place in the event that the traffic increases to more than 300 cars per hour? Mr. Peter Eakland replied that forecast traffic does not push the limits of any intersection. He is comfortable that a modest unforeseen increase would not change the extent of recommended mitigation measures. Commissioner Gibbons stated that the original EIR was prepared prior to the opening of Highway 85. Have numbers be redone? Mr. Peter Eakland replied that new traffic data were collected but that some of the projected traffic reductions on local streets have not been realized. Currently, there is no incentive to go onto Highway 85 due to the placement of ramp meters at on-ramps and between Highways 85 and 17. Traffic in the area was helped a bit by the widening of San Tomas Expressway at Camden Avenue. The fact that there is no full interchange for Highway 85 at Winchester hampers traffic flow. If the possibility of a full interchange could be revisited it would be worthwhile. Ms. Valerie Young, CH2M Hill: · Advised that she worked on both the EIR and SEIR for this project as the Project Manager. Stated that she is a Senior Planner with 18 years of experience, 10 years in the public sector. The last public sector position was from 1986 to 1989 for the City of Saratoga. · She joined CH2M Hill in 1989 and has worked on more than 50 projects. CH2M Hill is a environmental engineering and planning firm. She has managed the San Jose Office since the mid-1980's. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 6 · Explained the CEQA background and purpose which includes a role in informing decision makers and the public about how to avoid and reduce impacts. The report is to be objective and informative and the public agency must review the report prior to a project. Public policy and financial implications must be studied. It must be determined that the requirements of CEQA were taken into consideration while preparing the EIR. · McGlincey Lane was added to the Redevelopment Zone in 1991/92. At the time the site was being considered for a destination retail use and the EIR was prepared at a project level. However the box retail was never developed. · The EIR evaluates everything from traffic, air quality to noise. · If unmitigated impacts exist, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is prepared. · When it was determined that a Research and Development project would be considered for this site, new analysis was required. However, much of the EIR was still found to be valid. It was determined that an SEIR was appropriate. CEQA allows an SEIR when limited changes are needed to make an EIR current. · The EIR/SEIR was certified by Council on January 7, 1997. This confirms that the project as proposed is similar to the project evaluated under the original EIR. Chairwoman Keams asked if there were any motions. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy suggested a discussion regarding each Commissioner's viewpoint to this point. Chairwoman Keams advised that Commissioner Alne has a prepared statement. Attachment A is the text of Commissioner Alne's statement which runs four pages. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy: · Stated that she is in favor of the project. While some things can be worked on, basically it is a good plan. More open space is needed. Stated that she will support the project and feels that the project is ready for Council's review. Commissioner Lindstrom: · Stated that there have been many public hearings. · Said that the project is the way to go. · Agrees that open space is needed. · Said that overall, this project is worthy to go forward to Council. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 7 Commissioner Gibbons: · Stated that she has no problem supporting the project use. · Stated that she is in favor of approving the EIR document. However, she has comments about the subsequent proposals. · Advised that she is uncomfortable with the traffic information provided but this does not preclude her from accepting the EIR information. Commissioner Lowe suggested that each aspect be voted upon separately. Chairwoman Kearns agreed that this was the way to handle this project. Commissioner Lowe: · Expressed his disappointment with all parties to the project - the developer, the open space proponents and the mobile home park people. · No compromise has been offered by any of the parties involved. · It would be possible to have multiple uses of the site with underground parking. · Stated that he could not approve this project as it stands. Commissioner Jones: · Stated that he is in favor of the plan despite concerns that every plot of land is being crammed with as much building as possible. · Said that he has concerns about traffic impacts to the area. · Stated that this area is not the right area for a park. · Hopes to see less development of the site and more green. · Said that he supports industrial use but questions the projected 750 jobs and 1,200 parking spaces. · Less is better for the community. Commissioner Lindstrom stated that it appears the project has support from four commissioners but each has concerns. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that she is comfortable with the zoning but not the specific project. Commissioner Gibbons stated that she finds the project has lots of pavement. Chairwoman Keams: · Stated that she is in favor of more open space on this site, from three to four acres. · Said that she is not comfortable with recommending the project as it stands now. · Advised that she is comfortable with the certification of the SEIR and can vote approve it. · Asked that the developer be encouraged to go back to the drawing board to implement more open space into the project. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 8 Mr. Ken Neumeister, Project Applicant, WTA: · Advised that he has worked with the City on this development for one year. · Their proposed project is based upon the recommendations of Council and staff. · Their project includes a number of amenities that are not typically included in R&D projects, including more landscaping areas. Chairwoman Kearns asked if the applicant was interested in redesigning their site? Mr. Ken Neumeister replied that they were not. Advised that a lot of money has been spent in developing this project proposal. Motion: Commissioner Alne made the motion to return this project to staff to address all Planning Commission concerns and to resubmit the project when ready to do so. City Attorney Seligmann advised Chairwoman Keams that she must state that this motion has died for lack of a second. Chairwoman Keams stated that the motion has died for lack of a second. Commissioner Alne: · Brought to the Commission's attention all of the items included in Attachment No. 1 from the findings to Exhibit A (27 pages long). · The Winchester Drive-In site is the definition of a community park. · Expressed dissatisfaction with environmental reports, stating that CEQA has not been satisfied. Challenged that the SEIR does not represent an independent evaluation. Stated that to certify the environmental reports represents a disservice to the City. · Stated that this Commission is the last "bastion of review". · Asked the Commission to reconsider voting on this motion. Motion: Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by Commissioner Meyer- Kennedy, made a motion to adopt Resolution 3088 recommending that Council accept and certify the SEIR, including acceptance of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, for the former Winchester Drive-In Site located at 535 Westchester and 571 McGlincey Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy NOES: Alne, Lowe ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that it is apparent that the developer does not want to consider adding additional open space to this project. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 9 Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, advised that if the Commission wishes to require additional open space, their option is to recommend denial of the project. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked if they send comments to Council as to why they are denying the project? Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that they should articulate what they want and staff will use this information to develop findings and resolutions for adoption at the next meeting. So as not to delay the scheduling in place, this item can be pre-advertised for the May 20~h Council meeting. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked about the process. Do they recommend denial, send this back to staff, have the project come back to the Planning Commission and from there to Council? Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that findings must be developed that state that an all-industrial use of this site is not acceptable and that open space is desired. These findings will be developed into resolutions for denial for adoption by the Commission at its meeting of May 13th. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked if some items could go forward? Mr. Steve Piasecki replied that this was not feasible until a site plan is approved. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that it was advisable to continue recommending findings for denial. Commissioner Gibbons stated that the finding can be made that the site is not suitable for the density of the proposed development. Asked that the discussion continue regarding the individual elements of this project. Commissioner Lindstrom stated that a different design is desired for the site. Mr. Steve Piasecki stated that the finding could be made that the General Plan Amendment from Commercial to Industrial Use is not well founded and that open space uses should be included on the site. The same statement can be made for the Planned Development Permit denial, that an all-industrial use is unacceptable with insufficient open space. Added that he will need comments and problems with each aspect of the project for use in developing the findings for denial. Chairwoman Kearns asked for individual comments as to why the Commission is not in favor of the General Plan Amendment to change from Commercial to Industrial. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 10 Commissioner Lowe stated that a multi-functional use of the property is more desirable, including housing. Additionally, one-third of the site should be used as open space. Commissioner Gibbons stated that a requirement for open space is warranted. Mr. Steve Piasecki stated that if the intent was for more landscaping on this project, this would be a simple adjustment. However, if the Commission is seeking a four acre park, the Commission cannot approve the project because such a park is not in the proposal. Commissioner Gibbons suggested developing an RFP for the entire project creating more flexibility for the development of open space. Commissioner Gibbons asked how much flexibility is available. Who says what portion of the site can be used for what uses? Mr. Steve Piasecki stated that there is not much flexibility. Commissioner Gibbons stated that she could not support the discrepancy between the parking being provided versus the calculation of the number of employees for the site. Higher parking uses could increase traffic densities. On the other hand, an over-commitment to parking could create a white elephant. She is uncomfortable with both possibilities. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that this concern could be addressed by adding a Condition to the Planned Development Permit that limits the number of employees to no more than 1,000. Commissioner Gibbons asked whether the developer could be required to resolve future traffic impacts. Mr. Steve Piasecki said this is possible. Commissioner Gibbons asked about easement rights to use open space on the site. Stated that having recreational space for employees is an advantage to the developer. There is a reasonable opportunity for the developer to use open space and access that open space to the public. However, issues about who pays for improvements and maintenance must be addressed. Commissioner Alne asked why the Commissioners feel this conversation is necessary since they have already said this project is "dandy" by approving the SEIR. Commissioner Gibbons stated that they have accepted the SEIR for this project but that does not mean that they approve of the project itself as submitted. Mr. Steve Piasecki added that the SEIR adequately addresses this project. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 11 Commissioner Alne stated that he cannot approve anything that is not in concert with the General Plan. Asked why this project appeared to be treated in a quick manner. Is it a result of the Permit Streamlining Act? City Attorney William Seligmann stated that the Permit Streamlining Act does not pertain to General Plan Amendments. Stated that it is within the Planning Commission's and City Council's purview to recommend approval of projects conditioned upon a General Plan Amendment as long as there is consistency at the time of approval. Commissioner Alne reminded that this Commission is taking a legal action. Commissioner Gibbons stated that certifying the SEIR does not require a change in the General Plan at this time. City Attorney William Seligmann concurred. Commissioner Lowe suggested that comments on the other aspects of this project be made. Mr. Steve Piasecki asked the Commission what they want to see on this site. Are they looking for a four acre public access park? What would gain the Commission's support? Commissioner Lindstrom replied private open space enhancements. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy agreed that enhancements in the project provided by the developer would be nice. Commissioner Gibbons reminded that the zoning could not be industrial if public access is desired. Commissioner Lowe stated that he was not happy with the project. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that she wants open space available to the public. Commissioner Lowe stated that a minimum of one-third of the parcel, or seven (7) acres, should be open space. Commissioner Alne stated that the entire site should be open space. Commissioner Gibbons stated that one-third of the site is too much. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of the site is already proposed as landscaping. Commissioner Lowe suggested the industrial site appear like a college campus with underground parking. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 12 Commissioner Gibbons suggested less hardscape and more open space. Commissioner Gibbons stated that of the overall site a minimum of one-third be publicly accessible for the occupants, developer and the public. Suggested that the developer work with staff and the community. Mr. Steve Piasecki sought clarification. Twenty-seven (27%) or thirty-three percent (33%) of the site landscaped? Commissioner Gibbons suggested forty percent (40%). Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy wondered whether the open space should be maintained by the City. Commissioner Gibbons replied no. Chairwoman Keams suggested three (3) to four (4) acres of open space and suggested that forty percent (40%) is too much. Commissioner Gibbons reminded that the forty percent (40%) includes landscaping, hardscaping, etc. This is just thirteen percent (13%) more than originally proposed by the developers. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy said she could go along with that. Commissioner Jones stated that he agreed with Commissioner Lowe that seven acres be developed as open space. Continued by saying that it is difficult to plan out the uses of a 24 acre site "on the fly." Opined that there is too much blacktop for this the last large property in Campbell. Enough room for a baseball/softball field should be incorporated. This feature may actually draw tenants to the project. Recommended that the facilities be accessible to the public evenings and weekends. Commissioner Lowe stated that once the land is gone, it is gone forever. Commissioner Alne stated that after an honest assessment of all options open, done in a professional way with proper analysis, then he could even support one hundred percent (100%) heavy industrial uses. Reminded that the land has been open space while it has been unused the last fifteen (15) years. Commissioner Lindstrom stated that the Commission is not getting anywhere. Suggested a motion to approve the General Plan Amendment to change the Zoning from Commercial to Industrial uses. Commissioner Lowe stated that this is a disservice. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 13 Commissioner Lindstrom asked whether staff has enough information? Mr. Steve Piasecki summarized that the Commission is seeking from a three (3) to four (4) acre park to a seven (7) acre park. There is support for industrial use with more landscaping and publicly accessible open space. The common thread is open space from four (4) to seven (7) acres. Commissioner Jones suggested the elimination of Buildings D and E. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the Commissioners do not have to design the site. He added that the Planned Development is not consistent with the open space requirements. Advised that staff now has enough information to prepare findings for denial of all four applications. Commissioner Gibbons asked how to address public access. Mr. Steve Piasecki said the Commission should notify Council that it wants a four (4) to seven (7) acres of open space. Council will draw its own conclusions. The Commission is saying that the project doesn't work as proposed. Commissioner Lowe asked about incorporating housing into the site. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that this possibility was looked into in 1992. Commissioner Gibbons stated that the parking density versus occupant load is too large. This discrepancy has the potential to impact traffic. The use has merit with refinement. Commissioner Gibbons asked about the Cristich improvements. Commissioner Lowe suggested taking the $1.5 million and putting it into a park. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked if the possibility of higher buildings had been considered. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the developer prefers single-story buildings as they are easier to lease out. Chairwoman Kearns stated that Cristich should be improved to a public street as it is currently a very narrow street. Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that this is not required but it is the intent of the Redevelopment Agency to improve Cristich to a public street. Commissioner Alne stated that the applicant has the right to withdraw if Cristich is not improved. Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Page 14 Mr. Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Agency Manager, advised that this is not a condition of the DDA. Commissioner Alne questioned the budgeted costs for Cristich Lane upgrades and stated his belief that it could be twice as costly as evidenced by the City's recent need to increase funds for the Highway 17/Hamilton Avenue improvements. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom, the Commission unanimously voted to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of May 13, 1997, to allow staff time to develop findings for denial of this application. (7-0) City Attorney Seligmann reminded Chairwoman Keams that the Public Hearing should be reopened. Chairwoman Keams reopened the Public Hearing. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of May 13, 1997, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: ~'~~ Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ATTEST: Attachment A THE PROCESS The process by which we accomplish our work here is very straightfor- ward. The staff assembles the information developed by the applicant, reviews it to ensure that it complies the regulations and presents it to the Commis- sion along_ with the Staff's recon~nendations on the actions the Commission should take. There are regulations that dictate the areas that are to be covered and the questions that must be answered before the Commission can approve the requests that have been submitted. If pertinent information is missing or inadequate or if prerequisite actions have not been taken, the Commission's ability to proceed is limited. It is essential that all of these legally required building blocks be present before the Commission considers the merits of the application before it. In this instance, the Staff is both applicant and reviewer. Just as proud parents are inclined to exaggerate the beauty of their child, the Staff has over-estimated the quality of the documentation that it has presented to US. In most cases that come to us, the Staff has improved upon the appli- cant's submissions by identifying omissions or correcting mistakes. The result is an end product that has benefited from a review by interested and competent professionals. Authors don't edit books and policemen don't write Miranda decisions because we've found that the end product is better for having gone through a rigorous critique. The material in this application has had only the authors' attention and has not benefited from the purification of an independent review. As a result, it is inadequate and incomplete. There are many questions that must be answered in the course of select- ing a suitable land use for the Winchester Drive-in Site. Many of them are defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which has over 100 pages of detailed instructions backed up by 600 more pages of explanations. I found this statement in CEQA: The Supreme Court has stated that "CEQA should be scrupulously followed SO THAT THE PUBLIC WILL KNOW the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action and will be able to respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees." ~ requires that all significant environmental impacts be examined and mitigated if possible. Even if mitigation is not possible, it demands that the public be fully informed of all of the circumstances. Because we are being asked by the Council for Recon~nendations, not Deci- sions, it might be assumed that the rules that apply to us are less stringent than the rules that apply to government officials making real Governmental Decisions. Not true. California Code Section 18700 says we are public officials making Governmental Decisions if we belong to a Board or Commission that "-makes substantive recommendations which are, and over extend- ed periods of time have been, regularly approved with- out significant amendment or modification by another public official or governmental agency." Ail code or CEQA sections that call for public officials to conduct objective reviews and assessments of the issues before them therefore apply to us. We cannot, for example, be satisfied with a Staff declaration that legal requirements have been met; we must confirm that ourselves by question- ing the presenters and exsalining the information made available. The WDIS has been a matter of the concern to the Council for many years but the pace picked up when the Site was acquired by the City. The Council has had so much activity on this issue since that time that it takes seven pages (Appendix 6) just to list the public activities the Council has spon- sored that have addressed the Winchester Drive-in Site in the last three years. A great deal of information has been assembled and many decisions have been made. During the last five years, the Council has decided on the type of development that should go there, agreed to sell the property, selected a Developer, had a Supplemental EIR written, created the Overriding Considera- tions required when unmitigatable impacts were discovered and asked Staff to prepare statements reflecting the Planning Commission's "independent judgment." Ail of this without a single instance of coordination or collabo- ration with the Commission. This headlong rush to a predetermined goal has driven the issue to Superior Court. It is also here. At the behest of the Council, the Staff has prepared for us a number of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations that it hopes will reflect our views after digesting the 700 pages of information that it has given us. This could have been helpful because we were given only two working days to develop our views. Clearly we were expected to take a giant leap of faith and declare without too much examination of the data that Staff had correctly divined our collective observations and conclusions. It is obvious that the Council does not intend to have its plan of ac- tion modified in any way by the Planning Commission. Rubber stamping comes to mind. We have now taken an additional week to absorb the 700 pages and it is clear that Staff's expectations cannot be realized regarding our observations and conclusions. Not because we have come to different ones but because we cannot come to any at all. Too many Findings are so suspicious that drawing conclusions would be dangerous and too many elements required by law are missing or so sketchily addressed that it would be unacceptable to certify that they meet the intent of the law. The data package is not of professional quality and cannot be sanctified by our blessing. For example,where CEQA requires that alternative land uses be evaluated before a particular use is chosen, we find that the Council-preferred option has only good characteristics while all of the alternatives exhibit only bad qualities. Based on that information, the burden of deciding what to do wouldn't strain a five-year-old, let alone a whiz-bang Planning Commission. CEQA also requires that "-where a development project is constructed on raw land or land used at low intensity, the project's consumption of pre-existing open space can fairly be said to create a demand for new open space." How the demand will be satisfied is not revealed. According to Staff, the glories that will follow selecting Industrial land use are unending: the entire McGlincy area will be rejuvenated, the traffic impact is practically invisible (except where it's unmitigatable) and the cost to the City (according to the CIP) for the very poorly defined infra- structure improvements is solidly capped at manageable levels. On every issue addressed, a ferocious spin is put on Staff's position. Surely, there must have been at least one instance where a contrary input from the public had some merit or some evidence was found that this project was not designed in Planning Department heaven. At our last meeting, when asked if anyone had questioned the legal adequacy of the General Plan, our legal counsel said that no judge had found that our General Plan was inadequate. What he didn't say was that the matter had been submitted to a judge and that we should hear from him by 9 June. The last time I saw this much spin, Sonja Henie was on the ice. As a Planning Commissioner I will not be maneuvered into developing positions and decisions not of my own making just to accommodate the predeter- mined position of the Council. I insist that ALL of the information, pro and con that is available, be presented to the Commission, along with appropriate recommendations, so that I can help decide what is prudent and proper. To paraphrase President Bush, I'm a big boy now and a member of the Planning Commission; I don't have to be spoon-fed any more. For us to claim that a conclusion is valid when it is obvious that the information required to draw that conclusion is absent is an act of ultra yetis. (When applied to a public official this legal miscue can limit a public official's ability to move about freely.) The Findings written by Staff in support of the Resolution for a General Plan Amendment are specious, self-serving or wrong. The conclusion that this Amendment is justified is not supported by that evidence. Further, this General Plan is undergoing judicial review and may be found to be inadequate. Even if not found inadequate, it will soon be replaced by an updated General Plan, a rough draft of which will be available by June. It is not clear why it is necessary to amend a document with such a short life expectancy. Notwithstanding the 3-2 Council certification, the 1996 SEIR and its antecedents are incomplete. They are misleading and fail to provide the public with the objective review of environmental issues that the law re- quires. The documents appear to be giving evidence of compliance with the legal requirements while simultaneously dodging the obligation to provide for the public as much information as possible on environmental issues. CEQA demands more. Staff can provide more. A Resolution certifying that this SEIR meets all of the legal require- ments cannot be supported by the incomplete information provided. If the Chairman gives me an opportunity to make a motion, I will move that this application be sent back to Staff for completion and for Staff to resubmit it to the Commission after the Superior Court judge has announced a decision. This will allow Staff the time it needs to prepare a presentation of professional quality and give us adequate time to assess it. If I do not have the opportunity to make such a motion, or if such motion should fail, I will oppose motions to adopt the Resolutions to amend the General Plan and to certify the SEIR on the grounds that for me to do so on the basis of the incomplete information supplied would constitute a failure on my part to live up to my responsibilities as a Planning Commissioner. If these two Resolutions cannot be supported, it seems pointless to consider the other three. Although the majority members of the Council may want the response written by Staff, they deserve a response from us. I suggest that we give it to them.