My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_1204
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_1204
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:43:26 AM
Creation date
12/19/2006 9:11:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
12/4/2006
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City Council Regular Meeting -12/04/06 <br />Minutes - Page 19 <br /> <br />Business Park for a potential field office for the Federal Bureau of <br />Investigation (FBI). Mr. Stark noted that completion of the <br />AUAR Update would a factor in their site selection process, <br />anticipated to be completed by February of2007. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust questioned whether it would be most <br />prudent for the City to complete the update by February, or simply <br />have made the commitment to complete the update. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark opined that, while not a defining criteria for their <br />selection of a site, when the GSA was doing their analysis, having <br />the AUAR Update completed would be one more thing in the <br />City's favor. Mr. Stark clarified that there was currently no <br />application from the GSA that had been submitted to staff. <br /> <br />Discussion included advantages of the third scenario in the AUAR <br />Update; cost allocations to future developments of the AUAR <br />Update; differentials, advantages and disadvantages, as well as <br />cost assignments for Environmental Assessment Worksheets <br />(EA W's) and Environmental Impact Studies (ElS's); and <br />provisions of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) in <br />prorating costs to developers for AUAR's and included in <br />development agreement language. <br /> <br />Further discussion included parcel-by-parcel versus systematic <br />and broad level environmental analysis, and levels of analyses; <br />City Attorney Anderson's clarification as to the detail contained <br />in each analysis document; and benefit of each option. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan expressed her surprise in seeing the item <br />back on the agenda, after it was tabled at last week's meeting; and <br />questioned the rationale for a systematic AUAR, with no plans on <br />the table at this time; and no opportunity as yet to hear from <br />attorneys regarding contract termination and condemnation status <br />and options. Councilmember Ihlan noted the Council's motion <br />authorizing hiring independent environmental counsel; the affect <br />of precluding other development scenarios; and potential findings <br />related to traffic sustainability and water quality impacts for that <br />neighborhood. Councilmember Ihlan further addressed the <br />expenses for the Update to-date over and above what was <br />authorized by the City Council. Councilmember Ihlan advocated <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.