CC Min 1997-11-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Couneilman Hartnett said asked the City Attorney, "If the Council made a determination that it wished to change the zoning during a moratorium period, either because, we are changing the zoning to residential or we are changing it to a use more restrictive than residential. What Findings would we have to make in order to do that, or could we do that? And secondly, what does that mean in terms of the entitlements already garnered by the owners of the property?" City Attorney Sehricker said, "The determination of inconsistency between the zoning and the Specific Plan would essentially invalidate, if you found there is an inconsistency, it would essentially invalidate the entitlements. In other words, there would have been no rights to vest, because the zoning was invalid. That's what it comes down to. Now, the question then arises how do you fix that, and the answer is you either rezone, you come in with a different kind of zoning, or a zoning that carries out the philosophy of that which was originally intended. That is when I go back to say how do you make it consistent. You have to define the terms more precisely than they have been defined and described in the Specific Plan so far. And possibly come in with a new kind of zoning, it could be a "CG" overlay and so forth. If it is residential as you well know, I represent the SBSA, and I would have a conflict of interest, and I would have to cease advising you on this particular point." Couneilman Claire said the reason he was having such difficulty with this, "there is a General Plan out there, and it's been a planned community from day 1. I feel that I would probably end up going to jail if I said there was a plan out there, and we didn't follow it, because we did. The fact of the matter is, I'm on the horns of a dilemma on this one, because I have a great deal of empathy for the people within the community, and I am also, again as I said, sworn to uphold the state Constitution which pretty much tells me which direction I should be going in. With that, at this moment, I will probably have to vote no on this ordinance." Couneilman Hartnett said, "I have similar feelings to Councilman Claire. I frankly think that the reasons why we are here tonight is not because of an ambiguity between the Specific Plan and the zoning, the reason why we are here tonight is the same reason why we were here a couple of months ago, and that is, we are attempting to get the developer to do some things that the developer isn't obligated to do. We have to be real frank. We are attempting to create a situation in which the developer will throw in as much as possible to make some people, but not all people, feel more comfortable with the development. Then we have maximized what we could get under circumstances where the developer could otherwise simply proceed based upon the entitlements. That is what we are really doing. And that is what we will be doing in the next two weeks or 35 days or 45 days from now. "I think it is reasonable for us to attempt to put the developer in a situation where the developer has to give as much as possible, and I think there is more that we can get from the developer, frankly, than is on the table at the moment. The question really is what is the best way to do this without simply paying attorneys a lot of money to have some lawsuits, which will inevitably arise if we enact a moratorium, and attempt to take away REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 NOVEMBER 17, 1997 MINUTES Page No. 066 PAGE 35