CC Min 1997-12-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- . , " ., ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING MORATORIUM UPON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE "CG" GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT PORTION OF PROPERTIES INCLUDED IN THE LIDO NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN AND - PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS OR OTHER ENTITLEMENTS PERTAINING THERETO; City Attorney Sehrieker stated, "By virtue of the settlement agreement, there would no longer be a need for it (above mentioned ordinance), in fact we would be obligated not to proceed with it. Accordingly your agenda included recommended action of terminating proceedings on the urgency ordinance. That urgency ordinance, of course, was introduced with the purpose of preventing development on the property and could only last for a short period of time." Mayor Howard requested that City Attorney Sehricker briefly present a sequence of events of the Lido Specific Plan and construction to bring everyone in the audience up to date on this issue. City Attorney Sehricker said, 'The Lido Specific Plan was approved in 1993 as a mixed residential and commercial development. Commercial development in this particular area was added as a litigation feature.... Its designation as commercial evolved out of the environmental review which is required prior to adoption of the Specific Plan. That environmental review raised the issue of the detrimental effect of the proximity of residential development to the SBSA sewage treatment facilities. Consequently, as a - mitigation element under the EIR review of the Specific Plan, the commercial development was proposed. It was agreed upon by the SBSA, because they withdrew their objection to the environmental review. The initial proposal under the environmental side indicated residential, and that is what raised the issue during the environmental review. Through agreement with the SBSA, development as commercial was added as a mitigation measure. "Examples of commercial use within the commercial area of the Specific Plan included low-rise research and development office structures. The closest fit for zoning for commercial property for a commercial designation of a Specific Plan was a "CG" Zoning District. "CG" Zoning District technically allows a 75-foot height limit on its buildings. Essentially, one could say, depending on what the definition of low-rise is, it is inconsistent with the low-rise designation of R and D in the Specific Plan. The law requires that zoning be consistent with a Specific Plan. Therein lies the beginning of a dispute because if the zoning is inconsistent with a Specific Plan, then the zoning is invalid. If it is consistent with the zoning, the Specific Plan is valid. The question is, does "CG" Zoning, is it really consistent with the Specific Plan?" City Attorney Sehrieker also said, "The EIR proceedings have already been completed. Subsequent to the approval of the zoning and the Specific Plan, the owners of the property presented to the City what is called a Vesting Tentative Map. The effect of a Vesting Tentative Map is to give the property owner or developer full right to proceed with the - assurance that the zoning will not change and that the entitlernents will be issued, provided ADJOURNED REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 DECEMBER 18,1997 MINUTES Page No. 113 PAGE 8