My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0723
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0723
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/21/2012 1:42:07 PM
Creation date
8/21/2012 1:41:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/23/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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
Regular City Council Meeting AND <br /> Board of Adjustments and Appeals <br /> Monday,July 23,2012 <br /> Page 38 <br /> At the request of Councilmember Pust as to that application specific to this pro- <br /> ject, City Attorney Gaughan responded affirmatively. <br /> Recognizing that he was not a legal expert, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Envi- <br /> ronmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) would be incorporated into an ap- <br /> proved Development Agreement, and serve to identify potential environmental <br /> issues and a mitigation plan. If an EAW is determined to be required through <br /> court action, Mr. Trudgeon noted that the project would need to pause for those <br /> mitigation efforts to be implemented. <br /> Councilmember Pust opined that, if the City had already executed a Develop- <br /> ment Agreement with the developer, it will have waived its rights by excluding <br /> this condition. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City typically collects costs from the developer, <br /> and would be compelled to amend the Development Agreement to address any <br /> mitigation requirements. <br /> Councilmember Pust opined that it would make sense to amend the Develop- <br /> ment Agreement now to address incorporation of any ordered mitigation re- <br /> quired as a result of litigation, no matter the timing of it, thereby removing any <br /> argument that could occur later. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would be amenable to such a revision; however, <br /> he was not sure if the developer would be in agreement. <br /> Councilmember Pust clarified that she needed to ensure that the best interests of <br /> the City were represented. <br /> Further discussion ensued, with Mr. Trudgeon pointing that Section III.0 of the <br /> draft Development Agreement addressed payment of those items. <br /> Councilmember Pust opined that this section proved her point should the court <br /> say something didn't work anymore (e.g. the 2007 AUAR), further proving that <br /> assumptions previously relied on may not be sufficient; and further opining that <br /> the clause as written didn't cover that eventuality. Councilmember Pust sug- <br /> gested adding a Section VI. Referencing the existing lawsuit and ending result- <br /> ing mitigation required. <br /> Mayor Roe and Councilmember McGehee concurred that this was a reasonable <br /> solution. <br /> At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Police Chief Rick Mathwig re- <br /> viewed the intended Security Plan, based on experiences in the redevelopment <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.