CC_Minutes_2011_0926 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 20 tiations for such an agreement. Mr. Dorso opined that this was not a fair way for the City Council to treat people in its community; who were in a worse position than they were ten (10) years ago, with lost taxes, impeded development, and fur- ther deterioration of the area due to City actions, not those of property owners or developers in the Twin Lakes area. In conclusion, Mr. Dorso asked that, if the City Council chose to use this process, that they do so taking into consideration the tremendous losses already having been suffered by property owners and/or developers in the Twin Lakes Redeve- lopment Area. Roe moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1417 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Establishing a Zoning Overlay District for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area." Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion; and agreed with Mr. Dorso that this was a bad plan; opining that she had thought so all along; and fur- ther opining that it would not encourage development or get the City what it would like. Councilmember Pust asked that the City Attorney address Mr. Dorso's point re- garding the appeal process and the City's basis for the 180 day; and provide in- formation on the accessibility of registered traffic engineers. City Attorney Bartholdi advised that the provision to bring action is only with re- spect to base trips (Section 1022.03E) and contesting of those base trips, as is their right. Mr. Bartholdi advised that there was nothing magical about the 180 day time frame; and discussions with staff had indicated that this was a reasonable time frame for such an appeal; and that it set up an administrative procedure if someone wanted to have reconsideration given to their base trips, by providing a method for them to do so. Mr. Bartholdi advised that, as far as the cost of such a study,he would defer to staff. Mayor Roe sought clarification in terms of the process to determine trips incurred by a particular development; and if that was something the developer would be doing. City Attorney Bartholdi noted that, first, that is not part of the base trips in that particular situation; and that in working through City, they would retain a traffic engineer to determine if the City's assumptions as to the number of network trips when the property is developed were correct, and if found different, a change would then be made on that basis. Mr. Bartholdi advised that the intent was to confirm what a particular development will generate in network trips based on a particular, industry-wide and accepted methodology.