CC Min 1996-04-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . I . - That's not addressed directly in the FEIR, but clearly the fundamental condition of the project approval as stated in the FEIR, is that the wetlands lnitigation program which includes and is based upon that land exchange, must be implemented....Ifthat doesn't take -- place, then we are talking about a different project.....You would have to take a look at what the alternatives are." Mayor Hartnett said "if the value being received was not sufficient based upon the appraised value of that which was being exchanged, then certainly there is ample opportunity for the consideration to be increased." Councilman Claire said Mr. Nobles' question was very appropriate. "The Charter says 'fair value'....The City of Redwood City can negotiate any better value they might wish....The Charter is very specific in saying that the 'fair value' shall be received for an exchange of property. But it doesn't preclude the City from receiving more than fair value." City Attorney Schricker said he had talked by telephone with Mr. John M. Sanger, Pacific Shores representative, earlier in the day, and Mr. Sanger had a question regarding the language used in describing traffic mitigation. The phrase used is "mitigated by condition and project approval upon construction of the following improvements the cost of which shall be borne, etc." City Attorney Schricker said the intent of this phrase was "to express that as a part of the approval process one would anticipate that those traffic mitigation matters would be addressed, and that prior to final approval all of those issues '----' would have to be addressed by agreements or conditions to permits and so forth." 1) MIS: CLAIRE/BUCHAN. TITLE READ. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING APPROVAL, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, OF THE PREZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 SEAPORT BOULEVARD IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS PERTAINING TO A PROPOSED PROJECT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, STATING OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM SAID PROJECT WillCH CANNOT BE MlTlGATED, AND AUTHORIZING FILING OF NOTICE OF DETERMINATION (PACIFIC SHORES CENTER PROJECT) Councilman Ruskin said he was pleased with the efforts of the proponent of the project to include a good deal of amenities, and offered the following amendment to the Resolution, page 32 (d) to read: "The economic stimulus from the Project will enhance the quality of life for the residents of the City and persons who work within the City through the provision of amenities at the cost of the proponent, including but not limited to public access to the waterfront areas of the City, extensive landscaping, outdoor park and recreation areas, and indoor recreation and fitness facilities, such as those offered by the proponent in their final drawings and proposals presented to the Planning Commission and City Council during the prezoning process." '----' MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 Regular Meeting Minutes Page No. 173 April 8, 1996 Page 5