CC Min 1996-06-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . , - In response to Councilman Claire's questions regarding the planned development agreement being the key to Council's control of this issue, Mr. Hammond said "I think that's where the details happen, but I do feel strongly that you would have given - away some of your critical bargaining leverage (by approving the amendment.)" Mark Adams, Manager of Environmental Affairs for SIMS-LMC Recyclers, said that all the Port tenants have tried very hard "to reach a concurrence with the Pacific Shores project." He said they have been in facilitation, but fundamental differences still remam. He added that his company and RMC Lonestar "have entered into private attorney-led discussions with Pacific Shores and their attorney....When we broke off those negotiations" the same issues remained on the table. Mr. Adams said "we feel that the General Plan amendment is a very key aspect of negotiating power that the City has. It has always been our view....that piecemealing entitlements out, lessen and chip away at your ability to ultimately get the kind of project that we understand that you want and that we fee! would also work in our favor out there." Since April "BCDC voted to change the Port Priority Use designation of this area, fundamentally changing the ability of anyone to put a project out there that did not fit into maritime/industrial use. We now realize....that a project similar to the one (that) is on the radar screen here, will probably go in and we are committed to making sure that the project is compatible with our existing businesses out there. However,....our recent filing of the CEQA lawsuit was precipitated by the fact that a 30-day clock was running and we basically had to file it....because at that point - negotiations with Pacific Shores were obviously going nowhere." Mr. Adams added, "If the concern of the City Attorney and City Council is that the second cause of action in the lawsuit that has been filed under CEQA which lists as a cause of action, a reason for bringing the suit, the inconsistency with the prezoning on one hand and the General Plan amendment not being passed on the other hand....we are offering to, if the City Council decides not to go ahead with the General Plan amendment to file an amended complaint or amended petition to our CEQA lawsuit which takes that out of a cause of action....Therefore we would not be seeking to win on that point." In response to Councilwoman La Berge's questions regarding the proposed amended complaint, Mr. Adams said "We'd be wiIling to amend the complaint....and to basically take out the risk for the City on the prezoning and General Plan amendment, disconnect them I suppose is a way to say it. We would entertain an offer to look at the possibility of putting a stay on our litigation. Of course, we would have to agree to that, the City would have to agree to that, and there is a real party of interest involved, Pacific Shores, which would have to agree to it....The court would look more kindly if all of the parties involved were to agree that we would put this on the back burner, go into the negotiating room, and see if we can come out with a project we could live with." MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 --- Page No. 277 MINUTES JUNE 10, 1996 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 13