Laserfiche WebLink
_ minutes, the developer had requested the Council's involvement in the scoping session. <br />The Council had agreed with the developer's request. Commissioner Sullivan wished to <br />make a statement of protest that this was not the proper process and sets a bad precedent <br />of taking away from the Planning Commission's function in that process. He expressed <br />concern that this precedent expressed a lack of trust in the Commission's ability to <br />complete the EIR process, or suggested that the Council had a preconceived notion of <br />what the EIR should look like. <br />Chairperson Roberts agreed with Commissioner Sullivan's concern and did not believe <br />the scoping would take place properly. <br />8. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'SREVIEW/ACTION <br />a. Input on Chazacteristics of New Planning Director <br />This item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 2004. <br />b. Future Planning Calendaz <br />There were none. <br />c. Actions of the City Council <br />There were none. <br />d. Actions of the Zoning Administrator <br />There were none. <br />9. COMMUNICATIONS <br />There were none. <br />10. REFERRALS <br />There were none. <br />11. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S INFORMATION <br />There were none. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 9, 2004 Page 18 of 19 <br />