MO 96-072 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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." 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 Members....(What) these Findings do is simply address the Environmental Impact of the project as proposed, and requires certain kinds of mitigation. If the mitigation in later approvals conforms to this Environmental Impact Report, and truly addressed the environmental 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."