Laserfiche WebLink
7.1.A. - Page 9 <br />it answers the recommendations; these are technical EIR related matters. So, Dr. Bell <br />explained that staff is just providing an update at tonight's Council meeting. <br />Council mentioned that there are many choices to make regarding this appeal and <br />asked clarification what are the consequences if Council denied the appeal. The City <br />Manager responded that the State Lands would still want to make sure that their five <br />requirements are met in the EIR and addendum, so they will have to contact the City to <br />resolve the matter, it would have to go to the Planning Commission, and essentially <br />back to the Council. <br />Staff was asked to clarify if Council is sending the project back to the Planning <br />Commission, then what is the Council asking them to do. City Attorney Thompson <br />responded that the Planning Commission would be looking at a revised project and that <br />they will be looking at all aspects of this project. Staff was also asked to confirm that <br />Council tonight is not judging on the merits of the project. Ms. Thompson confirmed and <br />stated that the primary function of the Planning Commission is to review the project in <br />total. She further stated that the City Council isn't required to send it back, but may <br />want to because the Commission didn't see all of the components of the project. <br />Therefore, according to the same Council Member, this does not mean that more EIR <br />work needs to be done, but rather the Planning Commission to look at the project and <br />that a remand does not mean that additional impacts are required. Instead, this means <br />that the Planning Commission needs to look at it anew. <br />As part of this discussion it was mentioned that hat typically the Planning Commission <br />reviews the Environmental Impact and all information is included in the EIR to protect <br />the City, the developers, and the community. Therefore, she opined that it is in the best <br />interest for the staff to review the EIR and provide any necessary information needed for <br />the State Lands Commission. <br />Council inquired what part of the revised project will need more focus or less focus. City <br />Attorney Thompson stated that the addendum to the EIR is still under review, and the <br />Planning Commission will again be looking at the entire EIR analysis to make <br />determination of what has been completed. It was her opinion that it would benefit the <br />City, community, and the developers if the State Lands Commission received all <br />information that they require and requested. The time frame for the additional analysis <br />was discussed. Dr. Bell responded that the staff has been working with the State Lands <br />and they do not move quickly. One Council Member also addressed the comments <br />about leadership and made it clear that the Council had not "passed the buck". In <br />addition, she added details about the delays in the process. She also urged staff to ask <br />the State Lands Commission to move quicker or for staff to explain to both sides why it <br />is taking too long. <br />One Council Member inquired if the Planning Commission had a checklist of what <br />needed to be studied in the EIR and what was the time frame if changes needed to be <br />made. Bill Ekern, Community Development Director, confirmed that there was a <br />checklist and hopes to meet with the State Lands Commission soon. With regards to <br />the time frame, Blake Lyon, Planning Manager, stated that there would not be a delay if <br />CITY COUNCIL May 6, 2013 <br />MEETING MINUTES PAGE 8 <br />