Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 12/06/04 <br />Minutes - Page 20 <br /> <br />while keeping a posItIve way. Mayor Klausing further <br />recognized the efforts of Ms. McGehee as the representative and <br />spokesperson for Friends of Twin Lakes, and thanked everyone <br />for their civil comments, reminding all that everyone was doing <br />what they believed was in the best interest of the City. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing noted that, while he was speaking in favor of the <br />motion to deny the petition as he didn't find the petitioners <br />arguments persuasive, he appreciated their perspective. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing quoted Ms. McGehee's comments from her <br /> <br />opening remarks during her presentation, noting their relevance <br /> <br />in evaluating the petition from both sides: <br />"This is not a legal game where clever arguments turn on the definitions of 'types <br />of development' and whether under the law they are interchangeable within a <br />given redevelopment area under an AUAR. This is not a linguistic game where <br />one spends time and effort speculating about the meaning of 'extraordinary relief,' <br />substantive impact,' or 'limited retail.' This is a discussion about the future of a <br />community, what a community values and whether or not that community is <br />entitled to protection from speculation by its government." <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing opined that the RGU's determination should not <br />turn on whether the proposed development was a carbon copy of <br />the AUAR; whether the subarea set out in the AUAR may <br />underestimate the type and amount of soil type; or based upon a <br />water quality rule that is not yet in force and may not be <br />enforced. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing noted that he had reached a different conclusion <br />as to whether the City Council as the Responsible Government <br />Unit's (RGU) determination should be made on whether the <br />community should be protected from irrelevant, unneeded, or <br />duplicative study, which would represent speculative and <br />arbitrary action; noting that the continuing redevelopment, <br />planning and land use process would subject the area to <br />substantial additional environmental study. Mayor Klausing <br />further opined that the question was, "Does the proposed plan <br />deviate from the findings upon which the AUAR is based in such <br />a way that the previous environmental studies are no longer <br />valid?" <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing further detailed his rationale and general <br />considerations for answering that question with a "no;" and <br />