CC Min 1997-11-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

sector should be able to rely upon an improved Vesting Tentative Map prior to expending resources and incurring liabilities without the risk of having the project frustrated by subsequent action.' And that is one of the fundamental legal issues here. Councilman Claire asked the question at the last public hearing, whether or not the City had legal authority to rezone this property or adopt a moratorium given the fact that a Vesting Tentative Map had been adopted and approved. And I think the answer to that question is 'no.' Unless the City can make a finding as the City Attorney Mr. Schricker indicated at the last hearing, of something in the nature of a public nuisance. A public nuisance is not quite the standard under California law. What the standard is, is that this Council has to find that there is adequate evidence in the record that the immediate community would be put in a condition of danger to health and safety in the event this project went forward based upon the Vesting Tentative Map. Now that standard is not satisfied by normal land use changes or determinations such as density, or height, or things of that nature. That standard can only be satisfied when there is truly danger to public health and safety. The only Court in California that's ever addressed that issue as to what standard a City has to meet in order to stop a development after a Vesting Tentative Map said, 'The usual exercises of police power in the land use context are not directly related to danger or potential danger to the health and safety of the public. For instance, ordinances or regulations or changes downzoning from one use to another limiting subdivision densities or imposing height restrictions would not ordinarily be so related.' What I think the California legislature had in mind and what this Council has to find, and there has to be evidence in the record, is that there has to be some condition of danger to the health and safety in order to frustrate the legitimate approvals and expenditures of funds that have been made on this project. I would suggest that what is meant by that language is something in the nature of serious soil problems, such as landslides, toxics or hazardous waste situations, truly public safety matters, and not normal disagreements or changes in either the political context or in changes over what height or what uses should be permitted." Mr. Russell said, "There has been a suggestion in the staff report that the Architectural Permit could just be revoked or rescinded by this Council. I respectfully think that is incorrect. The ordinance that the City has adopted dealing with Architectural Permits provides that an Architectural Permit is to deal with matters like site planning, architectural features,... configurations, it is not to rezone properties. The Architectural Permit is not a replacement for a Rezoning process. It cannot occur here because a Vesting Tentative Map. Under the Architectural Permit ordinance in Redwood City the Zoning Administrator reviews the architectural matters and issues a Permit. A Permit was issued here. There was a seven day appeal period. There were no appeals filed. There were three or four hearings over the Architectural Permit and with all due respect to the City and the Council, there is no provision in your ordinance that provides for the City to review an Architectural Permit after the appeal period has expired, nor, to, on its own, rescind an Architectural Permit that has been issued." Mr. Russell said, "There was a reference in the staff report, a vague reference, that suggests that office use was not an approved use in the Specific Plan, and yet as Mr. Keech REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 NOVEMBER 17, 1997 MINUTES Page No. 046 PAGE 15