CC Min 1996-09-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . I . - FACT THAT LAUREL WAY WOULD HAVE TO BECOME A DEDICATED STREET AT SOME POINT; THE PORTION OF THAT FUNDING SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE PORTION OF LAUREL WAY THAT WOULD BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY. City Attorney Schricker advised that "technically tabling the motion simply means to - defer action on it for an unspecified period of time, which I think essentially would be the effect of the motion, because the purpose was stated to provide the opportunity for interested owners and the City to see if they were motivated or interested in contributing towards the expenditure of an overall EIR. That raises practical problems, because someone would have to marshal the forces to determine if there is sufficient interest. Right now, technically, you have but one appellant before you. Legally the appellant is entitled to a definitive answer, so I would say that within the context of the motion, that would prevent a defmitive answer being made within a foreseeable period of time. You would have to hear from the appellant to see if the appellant would stipulate to that, because it does affect the appellant's interests. It is not a final decision, and they are entitled to a final decision." City Manager Everett suggested that if the Council would decide to deny the appeal, the Council could direct staff to work with the appellant and for him to work with the other property owners to develop an agreement as to cost. Councilman Claire further explained his desire for an EIR and his efforts to find a mechanism whereby the City could share in the cost of that EIR. He referred to the need for a public benefit for expenditure of City funds and said he was looking for a way to assist the applicant by basing City participation on a prorated basis of the square footage '--- of Laurel Way. Council and staff discussed how and where the road would begin and end and the issue of legal limitations based on when the appeal was filed and how it has metamorphosed into the current proposal. City Attorney Schricker advised that a "different" application could come back before a year and staff would determine if that application was sufficiently different to be considered, based on significant changes in the project. The maker of the motion, Councilman Claire, withdrew his motion and the seconder, Councilwoman Buchan, withdrew her second. MINUTE ORDER NO. 96-226 Councilman Claire said that if the Council denied the appeal and the applicant worked with the City staff and other property owners to go forth with the EIR, that new proposal could be transmitted to the Council and if the Council agreed, the Council could consider that proposal. City Attorney Schricker said that "in consideration of the intent of the motion, you may, if you were so disposed to deny the variance but as a condition of that denial.... provide that reapplication would not be precluded.... It shouldn't take too much ingenuity '--- to come up with an application" that would be acceptable. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO.54 SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 MINUTES Paqe; Ð. 482 PAGEl?