Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-2016 Item 11, HudsonCOUNCIL MEETING: Wl JCS 6 ! Z.t7 < <o ITEM NO.:—k j Council Memorandum Date: September 6, 2016 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager 15 SUBJECT: Item No. I 1 - General Plan Amen ent. Regarding Luneta Dr. RE EIVE4 SEP.0 6 2016 SLn CITY e1,ERK City staff has received two pertinent questions regarding Luneta Dr. The questions and responses are provided below. 1. The recommendation calls for us to take a total of $25,000 from the general fund to pay for the staff costs associated with processing this amendment. At the same time, we are processing a development application on the adjoining property that has prompted reconsideration of this existing policy. Why can't the City merely add the costs of this general plan amendment to the development plan processing fees for this project? Isn't there a nexus here? It is highly doubtful that this issue would be raised were it not for the 71 Palomar project. The applicant for the 71 Palomar project is only required to satisfy existing plan and policy, any changes to that plan and policy initiated by the City would be the City's responsibility. Because any removal of this connection from the General Plan would not be driven by any impact of this development that has been disclosed by any City traffic study or project specific review of the 71 Palomar project to date, staff does not believe there to be a defined nexus between this General Plan amendment and the proposed project at 71 Palomar. Rather, this review and any subsequent action would be triggered by generalized neighborhood sentiment and Council policy decisions. 1. On page 176 of the Council Agenda Package, it states that "In 1995, the bollards that exist today were installed at the request of the fire department as part of a work order." Why did the Fire Department make that request at that time? Was it authorized by the Council? The records we have from that time only include the who, what, and when of the request. Unfortunately, we do not have any record of the why. We did contact retired City staff that were around during that time, but no one recalled. During that time work orders typically did not go to Council for approval and we were unable to locate any documentation of associated Council action.