According to today's San Mateo County Times, Councilman Galligan will ask at the Council meeting on Monday 20th night, to send the EIR back to the Planning Commission to take another look at the project. According to the article:

"Galligan — who says he has no problem with the size of the proposed store — says he wants the commission to take a second look at the project, and will ask the council on Monday to consider sending it back to the Commission. 'They said we don't have enough information to make a decision, and the answer is no,' Galligan said. 'I want to know after they certify the [EIR] are they still a 6-1 vote.'"

The article then quotes Mark Hudak:

"When it's all said and done, the [revised] EIR changes will probably not have an impact on the size, the orientation or the design of the proposed store, as some had hoped, Hudak said."

What this is all about, aside from any potential impact on the upcoming election, seems to be to word the motion in such a way as to change the "denied with prejudice" part of the Planning Commission's decision. The way it now stands, the Planning Commission could NOT review a revised Safeway plan unless it is a MATERIALLY DIFFERENT PLAN. In other words, Safeway cannot get another review of the project from the Planning Commission if it only makes relatively minor changes. Of course, the City Council can change this if it chooses.

But it is totally wrong to say that the Planning Commission did not mean what it said when it denied the project "with prejudice" or that this hinged somehow on refusing to certify the EIR.

This latest move is typical of the way this Council has operated of late. No adequate notice, no time for meaningful public discussion or input, and what looks like a hidden agenda camouflaged behind innocuous wording.

– Written by admin