PC 071206 - Laserfiche WebLink

Draft EIR and the Council had agreed to the developer's request that the Council be involved in the scoping session, then Commissioner Sullivan, now Councilmember Sullivan commented that this was not the proper process and sets a bad precedent of taking away from the Planning Commission's function in that process. Mr. Sullivan expressed concern that this precedent expressed a lack of trust in the Commission's ability to complete the EIR process or suggested that the Council had a preconceived notion of what the EIR should look like. Commissioner Fox continued that since February 8, 2005, the Commission has not really had an opportunity to discuss this project with staff to come up with what the Commission might think would be a preferred alternative. She stated that the Alternative 4 the staff is recommending as the preferred alternative is something that the Commission is seeing for the first time. Mr. Pavan stated that based on his understanding of CEQA, the Commission can direct staff to look at another alternative and define what that alternative should be. He added that he did not see that process as being one of the criteria for extending the 45-day review period but that staff would look into the matter. Ms. Decker clarified that the answer to that is actually two-sided. She explained that through the CEQA process and the environmental review process, the Planning Commission and staff and the applicant aze provided with a document that has evaluated what the environmental impacts of the proposal is, and then look at preferred alternatives. Following that process, Alternative 4 is now the preferred alternative, which has not yet come before the Planning Commission as the project. She noted that at this evening's meeting, discussion is about the draft environmental document and how it arrived at finding that the fourth altema6ve was preferred in mitigating many of the impacts and concerns that the project had within the azea. Ms. Decker continued that as has been previously noted, there is always an opportunity for the Planning Commission to review and assess projects and determine what it likes and does not like, what it would like to condition or not. She proposed that the Planning Commission evaluate the Draft EIR this evening and added that the Alternative 4 plan can be brought back to the Planning Commission as a study session prior to its being presented as a project with the Final EIR for action and recommendation to the City Council. That meeting would provide a forum to have a detailed discussion on the project itself, which alternative would be preferred, and what changes, if any, the Planning Commission would like to discuss. Commissioner Fox noted that the pictures in the document were so tiny that she could bazely make out things such as trees. She inquired if staff will be providing lazger pictures of the photomontages as has been provided for other projects, possibly 11 inches by 14 inches. Mr. Pavan said that could be done. In response to Commissioner O'Connor's inquiry if the 700,000 cubic yards of fill that will be moved is in the 98-home proposal or the Alternative 4 proposal, Mr. Paean replied that it would be in the Alternative 4 proposal. Chairperson Arkin questioned if the prospect of putting the road in is not soil neutral but that the top of a ridge would be taken off and flattened when the road and homes aze put in.