CC_Minutes_2007_0618 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, June 18, 2007 Page 32 some for their performance of the purchase agreement with the seller and preliminary franchise agreement negotiations, with any required environmental issues that may surface handled economically under the applicant's own contingencies between them and the seller; and projected time needed by the applicant to submit their revised traffic study in accordance with the scope requested by staff (estimated at one month), and followed by staff s and city consultant review of the information. Mr. Livingston reiterated his frustration with the redundancy of the request; staff s lack of timeliness in clarifying the scope of the infor- mation being sought; and additional time delays being encountered and jeopardizing negotiations. Mr. Stark noted, during the discussion, that staff was not simply seek- ing information they could obtain by reviewing the standard manuals themselves, but needed to determine whether Cleveland Avenue could accommodate the projected trips by the applicant's demonstration to staff that the transportation system, current or proposed, was sufficient to accommodate the proposed project, and related to future develop- ment in the area. Mr. Stark advised that it was standard operating procedure for their traffic consultant to review and present the infor- mation to staff, and in turn, the City's traffic consultant would cor- roborate the information or make additional comment and recommen- dation. Mr. Stark further noted that staff had been offering for some time to sit down with the applicant's traffic engineer, reiterated as a line item within the last 10 days to the applicant, even though that was not something staff typically did. Additional discussion included items addressed in the applicant's nar- rative. Councilmember Pust opined that it appeared the applicant had two op- tions: 1) complete the traffic study by August 3, 2007, specifically ad- dressing the right-in/right-out according to regular standards and in accordance with the scope requested by staff; or 2) voluntarily delay the application until the AUAR update has been completed and rely on that information, understanding that additional traffic studies may need to be completed once the AUAR update is received and ana-