Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />City Council Study Session <br />Monday, �uly 16, 2407 <br />Page 24 <br />the door," that they had provided due diligence in providing substan- <br />tiv� and adequate information and analysis to staff to allow them to <br />make an informed decision regarding the project. Mr. Stark ada- <br />mantly opined that his concern, specifically related io traffic studies, <br />was that the Council was being asked to condition Mr. Livingston's <br />project on an unapproved draft AUAR. Mr. Stark clarified that Mr. <br />Liv�ngston's traffic studies were submitted on AUA.R findings that <br />had yet to be approved. <br />Additional discussion ensued between Councilmember Ihlan and Mr. <br />Stark as to their individual perceptions and rationale. <br />13 John Livingston, Applicant <br />14 Mr. Livingston advised that h� had proactively submitted the EAW in <br />15 response to staff's request to the best of their ability. <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />Mayor Klausing questioned, whether from Mr. Livingston's perspec- <br />tive, if the EAW as submitted was thorough and complete. <br />20 Mr. Livingston responded that he was unable to make that determina- <br />21 tion and was the responsibility of the RGU; and advised that it was <br />22 not his intent to precipitate EAW requirements. <br />23 <br />24 Councilmember Ihlan opined that there were similar comparison <br />25 points on this application and that of Northwestem College and the <br />26 review and comment process. <br />27 <br />2S City Attorney Anderson attempted to clarify the specific applications <br />29 and process, and the requested direction for staff as to whether there is <br />30 consensus thai staff s recommendation for completion of the updated <br />31 AUAR or of a Discretionary EAW prior to approval of the requested <br />32 land use application was appropriate. City Attorney Anderson sought <br />33 clarification, which was not c�ea7r from submitted materials, if Mr. <br />34 Livingston was seeking to instigate environmental review; to wh�ch <br />35 Mr. Livingston responded, "no_" <br />36 City Attorney Anderson advised that the submitted EAW do�ument, <br />37 as submitted, represented the proponent's response to the RGU; and <br />38 as �heir first action, now the RGU will determine if the EAW is com- <br />39 plete, and if not complete, will send it back for additional information <br />