Laserfiche WebLink
Of the twelve (12) findings in the Grand Jury Report, the City agrees with findings F2, <br />F3, F6, F8, F10, F11 and F12. The City disagrees partially with findings F1, F4, F5, F7 <br />and F9, which require further clarification for accuracy or independent verification not <br />performed by the City. <br /> <br />The City is also required to report action on the seven (7) recommendations in the <br />Grand Jury Report. R1 and R7, relating to SLR outreach and advocacy, will be <br />implemented within six (6) months. R2 through R5 will require further discussion and <br />analysis by policy makers in all agencies required to respond to the Grand Jury’s <br />Report. These recommendations are not within the City’s scope to implement <br />independently as they require inter-agency discussion, analysis, and decision-making <br />that relate to the process of identifying an organization to undertake sea level rise <br />planning, determining its functions and scope, and identifying its funding sources. R6 <br />relates to a General Plan amendment, which would require further analysis and would <br />be undertaken by the City as part of a larger General Plan update process. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />1. Approve the letter responding to the Grand Jury Report with no changes. <br />2. Approve the letter responding to the Grand Jury Report with changes. <br />3. Do not approve the letter responding to the Grand Jury findings. This will place <br />the City in violation of the Grand Jury’s order. <br />FISCAL IMPACT <br />There is no fiscal impact from responding to the Grand Jury Report. <br />ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW <br />The proposed action is not a “project” for purposes of CEQA, as that term is defined in <br />CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and does not require environmental review. <br /> <br /> <br />VICKI SHERMAN <br />ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES COORDINATOR <br /> <br />RAMANA CHINNAKOTLA <br />PUBLIC W ORKS DIRECTOR <br />6.1.I. - Page 2