CC Min 1996-06-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I . I . - ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS BUCHAN, CLAIRE, HOWARD, LA BERGE, RUSKIN AND MAYOR HARTNETT - NOES: COUNCILMAN LEIPZIG MINUTE ORDER NO. 96-129 ----------------------------------------______n______-_____n__________n______------------------------------------------ C. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 106 ACRES LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF SEAPORT BOULEVARD FROM "HEAVY INDUSTRIAL" TO "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL." (IIO) Affidavit of publication and mailing of notice of Public Hearing is on file in the City Clerk Department I) Staff report: REPORT: Planning Commission Report to the Council, June lO, 1996 Senior Planner Jany presented the staff report and stated that the action before the Council was to ensure conformance with the land use designation in the General Plan. Senior Planner Jany said "this action ...does not represent approval nor denial of the Pacific Shores project. This is a land use issue." In response to Mayor Hartnett's questions, City Attorney Schricker advised that the - Council was virtually compelled to amend the General Plan now. Once "the Council prezoned the property, the law requires that the zoning and General Plan be conformed....!t is a legally required act, which has as Mr. Jany said, no implication of project approval. As a matter of fact, in the context of entitlements, I would say prezoning constitutes a higher stature of entitlement than the General Plan does." In answer to further questions regarding delaying action until the development agreement is presented, City Attorney Schricker said "I see no legal advantage...There is no implication of project approvaL.! have read some of the correspondence....which indicated there was an element ofIeverage involved. I disagree. (The property) has to be annexed, and as a condition of annexation....there must be an annexation or development agreement, planned development permit; there is a plethora of entitlements that have yet to be considered or even applied for. There is no legal or negotiating or policy advantage in deferring action on the General Plan amendment." In answer to Mayor Hartnett's question whether deferring action on this amendment "to a time of consideration on the [mal development agreement would result in a deferral of legal action with respect to the ErR to that time as well, would provide any legal advantage to the City," City Attorney Schricker said "no." MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 - Page No. 275 MINUTES JUNE 10, 1996 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 11