CC Min 1996-04-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

In answer to Vice Mayor Howard's questions regarding whether these findings were written for any developer or this specific development project, City Attorney Schricker said that "under CEQA one has to describe a project, and we are really responding in these findings to the project as described by this developer....As far as prezoning is concerned, any developer could come in, but from the CEQA standpoint we have to deal with the project as described in the FEIR." In response to Vice Mayor Howard's, questions regarding the proposed Resolution confining the Council to accept a project as proposed, City Attorney Schricker advised "you would have flexibility. This Resolution deals with the project as described by this particular project proponent, and the reason is, simply, we are locked in by CEQA to that. If someone else wanted to come in later with the property already prezoned they would have to go through virtually the same process with a different project, and you would have the opportunity to review that project." Councilwoman La Berge asked the City Attorney if she voted "yes" on the proposed Resolution would that obligate her, if all the mitigations were met, to support a project of any size and scope that comes forward? City Attorney Schricker said "no, nor does it obligate any other Council Member....(What) these Findings do is simply address the Enviromnentallmpact of the project as proposed, and require certain kinds of mitigation. If the mitigation in later approvals conforms to this Enviromnental Impact Report and truly addressed the enviromnental impacts, then you can accept that as a fact, but that does not obligate you. It is simply one factual matter to take into consideration. It does not obligate you to render an approval." In response to Councilman Claire's concerns regarding not limiting the subject matter under Item (d), Councilman Ruskin's amendment, City Attorney Schricker stated "I don't believe it limits....It is preceded by the clause 'including, but not limited to'....and the clause 'such as those offered by' would indicate that it is by example as opposed to limitation." Councilman Ruskin agreed that was his intent. Mayor Hartnett asked if the mover and seconder of the Resolution accepted the proposed Amendment, and Councilman Claire and Councilwoman Buchan both said "yes." MINUTE ORDER NO. 96-072 ',,", Councilwoman La Berge expressed her concern that "given all the negotiations that are going to be take place....it is extremely important that we have a well-rounded committee to work on this with the proponents....(and) include staff members, the City Attorney and perhaps a couple of Members from the City Council." MEMO 4/9/96 Mayor Hartnett said the revision to the Resolution by Councilman Ruskin was an MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 Page No. 174 Regular Meeting Minutes AprilS, 1996 Page 6