CC Min 1995-05-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Council consideration of the Appeals of the Planning Commission's certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report on March 21, 1995, for the Pacific Shores Center Project, a 1.5 million square foot office, research and development center, on property described as follows: Case No. EA 10905-5: Pacific Shores Center Limited Partnership. Affidavits of notice of publication and mailing are on file in the City Clerk Department. 1) Staff report: Planning Commission, May 8, 1995 City Attorney Schricker discussed the procedural process governing the hearing on the appeal. The recent two pieces of correspondence submitted dated May 4, 1995 and May 5, 1995 may raise additional issues and appellants are aware of the requirements of the appeal and timing of submitting additional information. The fundamental issue is to determine the adequacy of the final EIR report. The standards are set forth in the state (California Environmental Quality Act) CEQA guidelines Planning Director Patterson stated that it is important to keep the issues of EIR impacts separate from the approval process of the project. There are basically 5 issues raised in the appeals: insufficient project description, failure to analyze several alternative sites, failure to address land use concerns, inadequate analysis of public services impacts and inadequate mitigation measures for land use conflicts. In a response to a question from City Attorney Schricker regarding the letter from Remy and Thomas, Planning Director Patterson advised that the paperwork was submitted to the state agencies in a timely manner. 2) Open public hearing Mayor Gasparini opened the Public Hearing at 8:49 p.m. All speakers on the public hearing were sworn in by Senior Deputy City Clerk Kiely. 3) Hear public comment The following people spoke regarding the Pacific Shores EIR: Richard E. Hammond, Attorney for Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe representing RMC Lonestar, provided documents and stated that the project description is inadequate because the project does not provide a detailed site plan, the project description should include the proposed land exchange between the project - proponent and additional properties. He also discussed site access and the errata sheet. Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTE BOOK NO. 53 May 8, 1995 Page No. 166 Page 7