Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />/ <br />J <br />j <br /> <br />J <br />I <br />f <br />\ <br />\ <br />I <br />1 <br /> <br />~.~. <br /> <br />.. ..." <br />~/ <br /> <br />.. -. eo_ ----,--'"~---~-.. 6-..1 F .. <br /> <br />Page 12 <br /> <br />. '\ <br /> <br />Councilman Leipzig expressed concern that Council support of a voluntary agreement <br />would in fact, effectively stop all development on Laurel Way. Councilman Leipzig asked <br />that the staff andCoWlcil provide other options to the property owners. <br /> <br />Councilman Ruskin advised that the City did not have an obligation to pay anything <br />towards the BfR not even the 18%, and stated the other available options were not likely to <br />happen due to their complexities and the need for participation by so many property <br />owners. <br /> <br />Mayor Hartnett said the requirement of an ErR was the proper public policy not only for <br />Laurel' Way, but in many instances in the City, and said an EIR does not preclude <br />development. Mayor Hartnett said voluntary agreements can work, and reminded <br />everyone that five Laurel Way property owners had already voluntarily joined together to <br />propose rebuilding 'part of Laurel Way at a cost of $200,000. He added that the voluntary <br />agreement for an EIR described by staff appeared to be a fair and equitable way to go. <br /> <br />ITERATION OF THE MOnON <br /> <br />MIS: CLAIREIBUCHAN TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR A <br />VOLUNTARY EFFORT TO PRODUCE AN EIR WIlli CITY PARTICIPAnON OF A <br />MAXIMUM OF 18 PERCENT (PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PUBLIC RIGHI' OF WAY <br />WITHIN THE LAUREL WAY SUBDMSION) <br /> <br />APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />A YES: COUNCIL MEMBERS BUCHAN, CLAIRE, HOWARD, RUSKIN AND <br />MAYOR HARTNETI' <br />NOES: COUNCILMAN LEIPZIG <br /> <br />MINUTE ORDER NO. 96.267 <br /> <br />City Attorney Schricker made a recommendation to the Council: "Since this is <br />something of an unprecedented action, if indeed the occasion does occur and we go <br />forward with it, I recommend that ... any approval for contribution to the EIR not be <br />deemed a precedent with. respect to participation in any improvements that may occur <br />later. (There is a ) notion of fair share and pro rata con1ributions based on the area of <br />public property within this region, but it would be' quite unprecedented for the City to <br />contribute further in the context of public improvements, and that could add up <br />considerably. So I would assume that context was the true intent of the Council and you <br />may want to state that as a policy issue when it comes before you again. <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />Mayor Hartnett affumed that the Council "did make comments along those lines when <br />we were discussing the contribution to roads) and those comments would be equally <br />applicable in this context." <br /> <br />MEMO 10.29/96 <br /> <br />REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES <br /> <br />OCTOBER 28, 1996 <br />PAGE IS <br />