CCMIN040291 - Laserfiche WebLink

132 Mr. Tarver agreed with Ms. Mohr and Ms. Scribner. Ms. Acosta commented that if Council will hold separate hearings for the EIR and the project, the Planning Commission should do the same. Mr. Roush pointed out that if the Planning Commission forwards its recommendation on certifying the EIR to Council without acting on the PUD, the matter would have to return to the Planning Commission after Council certifies the EIR so the Planning Commission can act on the PUD. Mr. Mercer stated that his concept was that the Planning Commission would hold public hearings on the EIR and the project and send its recommendations to the Council. If Council decides not to certify the EIR, then the project would automatically be denied. Mr. Tarver commented that if the Planning Commission recommended that the EIR was insufficient but Council decides otherwise, then the Planning Commission could view the project from a different perspective. Ms. Scribner agreed with Mr. Tarver that the Planning Commission should consider the PUD after the Council has certified the EIR. Mr. Joe Ording, 5474 Hopkins Court, stated that the EIR and the project go together and should not be discussed separately. Ms. Mohr indicated that replacing the public hearings with written comments for the draft EIR is a good suggestion. Mr. Butler concurred. Mr. Tarver stated that he is in favor of public scoping meetings because they provide the opportunity to discuss alternatives and concerns for the EIR. Ms. Acosta commented that raising the scoping meetings to the level of public hearings would cause more confusion early in the review process. Mr. Roush stated that the scoping ~eeting is ~ ~re!iminary stage and that raising it to the City Council level could defeat the purpose of the scoping meeting. Ms. Scribner inquired when and where the scoping meetings take place. - 26 - 4-2-91