Laserfiche WebLink
89 <br /> February 24,1988 <br /> Lir <br /> 1 <br /> lir <br /> � <br /> of material on what seems to be a straight forward issue. He said , I <br /> he hoped the staff would give the council some sense of what the <br /> precedencehas been in the past on tfe various individual issues a <br /> that seems to be the bane of contention, whether we are being <br /> consistent or not. i7'� <br /> she said then Mr. weaver will make his presentation on the appeal • <br /> 1l� <br /> entl the vacation,zits quea Clone following. The present aL ion py Or. <br /> rust will be last, Sth questions following. Each oP these w111 be <br /> 30 minuteOs. Then if there are <br /> any citizens that would like to <br /> testify <br /> ask questions theywill follow and be allowed three <br /> minutes. <br /> d.l <br /> After all questions have been dealt v1ih,each participant vile M1ave <br /> five minutes to make final comments. <br /> Jim Iles, City Attorney, suggested that it might be easier to have <br /> c <br /> the two public hearings running concurrently, with the <br /> understanding that the council does have to c take separate actions. <br /> That y therewould not have to be two openings and two closings, ��•.1'_ <br /> This has been done in the past, t{3 <br /> He said for this public hearing,the council hes been provided three <br /> notebooks. The notebooks consist of a staff Report to City Council, <br /> Applicants Submittal to City Council and one titled Submission of <br /> Nm. E. Brust. Additionally the council has received three letters 3 <br /> which are not in the notebook,one is a letter dated Feb,3rd to Bob <br /> Candles from Jlm Jonesthe second one La to the City Clerk fromI�. <br /> Jones dated Feb, 4th and the 3rd letter is to Dennis 0erickson from <br /> Jim Jones dated Jan.21,198. In addition in the packets under Item <br /> 13 and 14, the council has additional information from staff, He <br /> then presented the notebooks and letters to the City Clerk for the <br /> He also'asked the council if they had deceived any <br /> additional information aside from what he had Just described and <br /> they all answered no, <br /> President Niva then announced that the public hearing was open <br /> en for <br /> both the Appeal of Determination of Non-Significance for BillHeaver A <br /> alst end Colby project and the proposed alley vacation. <br /> Bob Candles of the Planning Department said there are two Issues <br /> b fore the .council on the Appeal of Determination of <br /> Non-Significance,the first is whether adequate information has been {�i�{� <br /> available upon which to base an environmental decision. Second ere <br /> the mitigation requirements set Porth in the DNS sufficient to <br /> educe impacts so that the proposed development will not have a <br /> significant adverse environmental impact?In <br /> considering the SOPA determination there are two procedural <br /> points that a important. First of all the responsible official's <br /> decision is entitled to be given substantial weight. It must be <br /> considered c rrect on the Pace of the decision. The burden of <br /> establishing the contrary is on the appealing party. Secondly under <br /> ERA policies, the city can require mitigation of adverse impacts <br /> only to the extent attributable to the project under consideration. �C <br /> A mitigation requirement must be based on adopted SERA policies. <br /> He said et .the conclusion of the appeal, council has Pe 'tom <br /> alternatives they take. Firstcan they c n corm the <br /> determination of Non- eres <br /> a1gnl41cence es issued by the responsible 1 fie <br />