CCMIN010891 - Laserfiche WebLink

11 Mr. Tarver concurred. He stated that he does not see any problem with the request since anyone interested would have 30 days to review the report. However, he would not want staff to interpret this action as a request to give priority to the project so it meets the Growth Management deadline. He added that while he appreciates the City Manager's recommendation that the Planning Director be designated to make these requests in the future, he would prefer that these matters come to Council for decision. Mr. Mercer commented that he does not recall having had a similar request in the past and that granting the request would not put the City in jeopardy. He added that making the Growth Management deadline does not mean that approval will be granted. He indicated that he would support the request. Ms. Mohr inquired how issues like this were settled prior to the effectivity date of AB 886. Mr. Swift replied that prior to January 1, 1990, staff could request the State Clearinghouse to grant a 30-day in lieu of a 40-day review period. The State Clearinghouse did not have any guidelines to determine approval of disapproval, and the matter did not have to go to the Council. Mr. Mercer suggested that Oak Tree Farm's request be considered separately from the process Council may want to follow for future requests. It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Mr. Butler, to shorten the review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for PUD-89-17/Oak Tree Farm, as set forth in the Staff Report. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Scribner, Tarver and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None It was then moved by Mr. Tarver, and seconded by Mr. Mercer, that future requests for shortened review periods for Draft Environmental Impact Reports come to Council for decision. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Tarver and Mayor Mercer NOES: Councilmembers Mohr and Scribner ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None - 11 - 1-8-91