CC Min 1996-06-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2) Open public hearing; Mayor Hartnett declared the public hearing open at 8:37 p.m. 3) Hear public comment; Richard Hammond, representing RMC Lonestar, expressed his ITustration and concern regarding the Pacific Shores project and the ErR related to it. He said the Port tenants had been told there had been no approvals of the project, yet the actions of the Council and the City necessitate "our going into CEQA litigation." Mr. Hammond stated that the City had chosen to deal with this issue by prezoning first and now was considering a General Plan amendment. He said "to sit and be assured that there is no implication of project approval, when CEQA requires us to bring our challenges to project specific documents strikes us as very unusual. It is the procedure by the City, equivalent to piecemealing.....we opposed.....In part we couldn't tel! by looking at the EIR how we were going to be protected, we the maritime industrial users and Port tenants. We took some consolation in the fact that you the City Council prior to approving the prezoning said that you were anxious to see development go forward consistent with light industrial zoning providing that protections could be given to the Port tenants and heavy industrial users out there. The only way that protection can come is in a development agreement....Once we filed our litigation and undertook settlement discussion efforts we (found we) were a very long way apart with Pacific Shores with what they were willing to do.....The port is a very long way apart on some issues that are paral!eI to the ones that we have relating to long term protections of industrial and maritime users." Mr. Hammond stated he believed Pacific Shores was not taking the discussions seriously "pending development agreement discussions with (the City)" and the City would have the same difficulties the Port tenants were having trying to get Pacific Shores to respond to the same concerns. Mr. Hammond said "we believe very strongly that these entitlements, the prezoning already brought forward to date, and the General Plan amendment approval that you contemplate this evening do in fact constitute a very strong grant to Pacific Shores, not withstanding project specific negotiations that stilI have to take place.....With great respect I fundamentally differ with the City Attorney, and urge you to consider our point of view in our correspondence in deferring the action on the General Plan Amendment until you have negotiated the development agreement, and in the fashion we believe is much more traditional and for a good set of reasons, do them both at the same time....Is there a disadvantage to your doing it that way?" MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 Page No. 276 MINUTES JUNE 10, 1996 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 12