11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

of the review process for the Draft EIR. She reiterated that this is not the only opportunity to have these discussions. She noted that this is a look at the preferred alternatives from a lotting standpoint and how it impacts this particular site. She indicated that staff would bring back the information that the Commission is asking for as far as the cut-and-fill diagrams and with a smaller scale that would show Courts , 2 and 3. She stated that the Commission would then essentially move through that preferred Alternative 4 and then go through the formal PUD review process. Commissioner Fox stated that the review period could also be extended to 120 days for people on vacation who want to comment rather than having everything due by mid-August or in the summertime. Chairperson Arkin noted that Ms. Decker would look into the process to extend the review period since some other people have asked that. He stated that he was still a bit confused on the whole process because the actual scoping and the selection of different alternatives was not done by the Planning Commission. He noted that this is the first time the Commission has seen the materials and inquired at is what point in the process the Commission would provide feedback regarding what it really wants to see, for example, something different of between Alternatives 3 and 4. Ms. Decker explained that that part of the process would be evaluating the project; this portion that is before the Commission is the applicant's proposed project to the City, which is a 98-lot alternative. She stated that the course of the analysis for the Draft EIR presented several impacts; each alternative has something that improves the proposal in one regard or another, and to date, the preferred alternative is Alternative 4. She noted, however, that that does not mean the Planning Commission does not have the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR prior to the end of the review period. She continued that tonight is just the first part of the Draft EIR process, and through the study session and with the additional information that the Commission had asked for, the Commission would have a better idea of how the concerns are mitigated from the 98- to the 51-unit alternative or what other things the Commission may be interested in. She stated that after the Commission has heard all of the presentation from the EIR consultant, the Commission would direct the consultant and staff to bring back additional information to answer the questions, which would be a part of the Final EIR; the study session would then investigate more definitely how Alternative 4 has met many of the mitigation measures from the original project, and then move through the application process. Chairperson Arkin commented that the issue of doing some higher density within the project was not contemplated in any of the alternatives. He inquired if there would be a place in the process in which the Commission can say that it wants another alternative that has these particular characteristics. Ms. Decker replied that as with any other project, that would take place at a study or work session, where the Commission would have the opportunity to analyze, evaluate, and comment EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 12, 2006 Page 19 of 21