CC Min 1997-12-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

they meet the conditions necessary for the issuance of entitlements, and will proceed consistent with the laws in existence at the time of completion of filing of the tentative map. Consequently under the law, if at the time the Tentative Map was filed, the "CG" Zoning was valid and the Specific Plan was a consistent plan, then the owner has every legal right to proceed with the development in that context." City Attorney Sehrieker stated, "With that background, the developer presented the development, consistent with the Vesting Tentative Map comprised of 4-story building. The Zoning Administrator acting in his ministerial capacity reviewed the zoning of the vesting tentative map, the zoning of the Specific Plan, and came to the conclusion that they were consistent and the Vesting Tentative Map was properly filed. Accordingly, acting as Zoning Administrator, he then reviewed the matter with respect to the application for the issuance of an Architectural Permit. The Architectural Permit was issued. In other words, the Zoning Administrator concluded that there was consistency and that the Vesting Tentative Map was effective." City Attorney Sehrieker also said, "Subsequent to that through public knowledge of the project, a considerable amount of dispute arose. I should say a dispute, a public reaction. Basically, the reaction was that a 4-story office building is not consistent with the Specific Plan with the designation R and D. That caused the matter to come to the City Council and be reviewed. The question then arose, do we or do we not have consistency? The developer takes the position that he has every right to develop the property consistent with the CG Zoning. City Council said this was not so. The situation looks like we have an inconsistency with the zoning and the Specific Plan; therefore, we are going to impose a moratorium. And you did introduce a moratorium ordinance." City Attorney Sehricker continued, "Before that, by agreement, the developer agreed to withhold proceeding with the development for purposes of reviewing the issues, and we entered into a standstill letter which was proposed by the developer to allow... a cooling off period to review the contingents of the parties. During that period of time, some proposals were made to revise the project and the developer did agree in the standstill agreement to certain rnitigation measures in addition to those which had already been required under the Environmental Impact Report. However, the developer did not agree to revise the project, so it came back to the City Council as a 4-story office building. Consequently, the major portion of the dispute had not been resolved." City Attorney Sehrieker explained, 'The Council introduced the urgency moratorium ordinance which precludes the developer from proceeding much like the action Council took with respect to "TP" zoning. Consequently, the battle lines were drawn. We either go to court to resolve this matter, or we resolve it through a settlement agreement. The major aspects of the settlement agreement are to revise substantially the project to two 2-story office buildings with on-site parking and these other mitigation measures which were reviewed." ADJOURNED REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 DECEMBER 18. 1997 MINUTES Page No. 114 PAGE 9