Laserfiche WebLink
7.1.A. - Page 11 <br />the data. Dr. Bell also added that staff does reach out to other agencies for input, but it <br />takes time to get responses from them. <br />Another Council Member wanted clarification that he heard throughout the meeting <br />whether or not a lot of organizations won't accept or look at the development until some <br />EIR work is done. Mr. Ekern replied that with regards to the State Lands Commission, <br />the commission is relying on the EIR assessment. City Attorney Thompson added that <br />the City is acting as the lead agency and so has the responsibility. One Council <br />Member wanted to know how ready this is to go forward. Dr. Bell answered that they <br />needed to review the addendum. The Council Member then added that he too would <br />like to see a committee to work on some guidelines on how to handle these issues. One <br />other Council Member thanked staff for working with other agencies and would like to <br />also see guidelines, because it's hard to staff and confusing to the community. <br />Vice Mayor Gee mentioned that it is a complicated matter when land touches water, <br />because there are multiple agencies involved. He recapped what was said in the <br />meeting: the State Lands Commission has a stake in that they want to know if this is an <br />appropriate land use project and can it be transferred; staff has to respond; the Planning <br />Commission has a role to meet; and all has to be done in a timely manner. Vice Mayor <br />Gee also applauded the applicant for revising the application. <br />M/S Bain/Pierce to adopt the staff recommendation and make the appeal moot. <br />After the motion, a Council Member commented that he didn't' want to drag this on, but <br />the issue with the State Lands Commission was not resolved. He addressed the <br />matters of the questioning of the Council's vision and leadership by remarking that that <br />the Council was doing their due diligence and that they are protecting the City. He said <br />that he was hopeful to resolve this issue quickly and he trusted staff to resolve the <br />issue. <br />Mayor Aguirre said that this Council had the privilege and the responsibility of having <br />water and land that meet and there are a lot of challenges. She reiterated that tonight <br />was not about the merits of the project. She also thanked the developer for revising the <br />project. She said that this would give the Planning Commission the opportunity to <br />review the project and it would allow better coordination with the State Lands <br />Commission. <br />One Council Member opined that this was frustrating to the Council and knows how <br />hard it was to get answers from the State. Nonetheless, he believed that the Planning <br />Commission has a responsibility to review this project for the safety of the community. <br />He supported the motion and acknowledged how hard the City Manager and City <br />Attorney had worked. He further stated that he would like this to be a priority. <br />Motion carried 7/0 unanimously by electronic vote. <br />Recommendation: <br />Hold public hearing and adopt a Resolution setting aside the Planning Commission's <br />action of October 30, 2012 (Resolution No. 12-23) and remanding the application to the <br />CITY COUNCIL May 6, 2013 <br />MEETING MINUTES PAGE 10 <br />