CC Min 1997-09-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

In response to Council questions, Mr. Keech advised that at the beginning of this development process they had a number of site plans including one for development of two 2-story buildings, but after meeting with adjoining property owners they found that a 4-story building provided the best buffered view between the 4-story apartment building and SBSA, and also the 4-story apartment building hid his 4-story building from surrounding residences. Councilman Ruskin echoed Vice Mayor Howard's recommendation that the Planning Commission should have been more involved. He said there was something remiss in the process. Councilman Ruskin said the developer had gone through the appropriate process, but the process hadn't worked as well as it should for the good of the community. He asked that the process be reviewed to see how "an evening like this could be avoided." Councilman Claire advised that in 1980 the Council had been convinced that the permit process was far too lengthy, and changed the duties of the Planning Commission to reduce that process. He said he agreed with that decision, but welcomed the review to make the system better. Councilman Claire said the Specific Plan and project had followed the appropriate procedures, and "CG" zoned properties are expected to be developed to their fullest use. He expressed his concerns regarding property rights. City Attorney Schricker said, "The Government Code provides that under vesting maps, a developer is entitled to develop a property consistent with the zoning in effect at the time of the approval of the Map. I think it is that statutory rule which Council Member Claire is referring. However, that affects the zoning. Suppose you were to rezone the property. One could say that doesn't change the zoning with respect to the development as proposed, as contemplated by the Map. The question is whether or not, irrespective of the zoning, the burden on the community by a proposed project is such that you have authority under the exercise of what we call the police power, to mitigate or prevent a nuisance, which is a term I used before, is a legal term. In other words, if the development, not withstanding what the zoning says, not withstanding what rights may have been acquired by virtue of submitting a map, if a proposed development is so contrary to the public health, welfare and safety of the public, the govemment does have authority to step in and to address those issues. What a moratorium does legally is allow a cooling off period, or a period during which, under the Government Code, the government may review a process and a project, and determine whether legislative action should be taken, whether it is through zoning or some other exercise of power, to address the problem. The legal issue of course, with respect to zoning, is true. But I don't think that ends, necessarily, the Council's inquiry if there is a true issue involving the impact upon the community that rises to a nuisance. And this is basically what you have to look at in the next 60 or 65 days." Mayor Hartnett, Candidate for the November 4 Council Election, said that the real issues involved in this proposed development are traffic impacts, and what the Council needs to know, "Is the traffic impact of this (proposed development) to such a degree greater than was planned for that it would entitle us to require some mitigations that are not now in place... We have an opportunity now to get some mitigations that are not now in place as well as to have the process open for a period of time to study to see if there REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 MINUTES Page No. 528 PAGE 12