My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004_1108_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2004
>
2004_1108_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 1:46:47 PM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:45:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
198
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
City Council Regular Meeting —10/25/04 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 15 <br />to decide on the need for an EAW; and if that RGU meet only on <br />a periodic basis, the time period could be extended by the RGU <br />for a one-time only, additional 15 days. <br />City Attorney Anderson noted that, with the existence of an <br />AUAR, the process becomes more complicated; and that the <br />AUAR would become the threshold for determining whether the <br />AURA was still valid and consistent with the development <br />assumptions in the documents. <br />City Attorney Anderson noted that the City Council would be <br />dealing with some complicated issues related to the petition and <br />their procedure to determine and answer the ultimate question <br />before the proj ect could move forward. Mr. Anderson <br />recommended that the City Council consider a motion applying <br />the additional fifteen days at tonight's meeting to allow them <br />sufficient time; and further recommended that the City Council <br />not go forward at this point with the originally-requested agenda <br />item for application approval for Rottlund Homes, the Master <br />Developer, pending resolution of this environmental matter and <br />outstanding petition. <br />Discussion included the intent of the petitioners; validity of the <br />AUAR; lack of standards or case law to-date to assist the City <br />Council through the process; the ultimate action of the City <br />Council as the RGU being subject to appeal or review by a <br />District Court; and whether to extend the 60-day rule for <br />approval or denial of the application and the status of such a time <br />being on hold during the environmental review process. <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that the length of time for the <br />RGU to make a decision would depend on the supporting <br />documentation provided by the petitioners as their evidence; the <br />information and knowledge available to the RGU from staff and <br />consultants; and other materials to a11ow the RGU to make a <br />determination as to the validity of the AUAR at this point in time <br />compared to the development being proposed. Mr. Anderson <br />reviewed various options available to the RGU: dismissal of the <br />petition based on the adequacy of the AUAR; denial of the <br />petition with findings; or allowing a period of time for public <br />comment, receipt of written or oral comments, and make a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.