Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-05; City Council; Minutes- I 0 MINUTES 0 Meeting of: CITY COUNCIL (Special Meeting) Time of Meeting: 6:OO p.m. Date of Meeting: June 5, 1986 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers ~~~ ~ CALL TO OPDER: Mayor Casler called the Meeting to order at 6:OO p.m. ROLL CALL was taken by the City Clerk, as follows: Present - Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine. Absent - None. Mayor Casler announced that Cable Television was taping the meeting and it would be broadcast on 3une 9, 1986, at 5:OO p.m. Council Member Pettine questioned why this meeting was called. He expressed concern about the citizens not being aware of the meeting. He indicated that the subject matter being discussed was important to the citizens, and he felt that there was insufficient notice given to the citizens regarding the meeting. Mayor Casler indicated that four Members of the Council had agreed to hold the meeting. Council Member Pettine indicated he wished to go on record officially objecting to the meeting as he did not believe the people were noticed and did not believe it was handled appropriately. Council Member Lewis stated he had agreed initially to the meeting, but was primarily concerned that all Council Members would be able to be present for the discussion. (77) 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT. City Manager Frank Aleshire referred to his memorandum dated June 3, 1986 to the City Council, and the attached memorandum from the Community Development Director dated June 2, 1986. He stated that the original purpose of attempting to bring this item up off-agenda on June 3, 1986, was to have Council discuss the ordinance which would be considered by the Planning Commission. However, the Planning Commission considered the ordinance Wednesday night, June 4, 1986, and on 3une 10, 1986 the City Council would receive the ordinance on Growth Management at a public hearing. The City Manager then detailed the portion of his memorandum regarding Council action on January 21, 1986 and May 27, 1986, and staff's interpretation of that action. He concluded stating the Planning Commission did consider and make recommendations on the matters in the Community Development Director's memorandum dated June 2, 1986. Council Member Lewis stated that when he made the motion on May 27th, he was only referring to residential development. He indicated an assumption that the northwest quadrant of the City would not be affected by the action. 225 r 5 MEMBERS COUNCIL \y 3 % % $ - T I 1 e MINUTES 0 3une 5, 1986 Page 2 Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director, continued with the staff report referring to his memorandum dated 3une 2, 1986. He stated that the exhibit did not contain a complete list of all projects which would qualify under the nine categories of exemptions, however, the list of residential was substantially complete. The City Manager indicated that those commercial/ industrial projects which have cleared the Planning Commission could be exempt because they would not have a significant impact on Planning staff time. Marty Orenyak, for clarification, referred to the portion of the list titled "Projects Returned To Staff", and stated that they are recommending staff be allowed to complete the staff work, but not that they be exempt from the Ordinance. He indicated the exemptions would include approximately 3,000 residential units. Council Member Lewis stated when he made his motion on May 27, 1986, he was referring to the original Ordinance No. 9791, and was only referring to the residential element. Council Member Chick indicated the importance of the Growth Management Ordinance, and time demands, and indicated he would support an extension of Ordinance No. 9791 for 60 days in order to complete the Growth Management Program. For clarification purposes, City Attorney Vincent Biondo indicated that if the City Council desired to include exemptions contained in Ordinance No. 9791, they would need to amend their previous action. Council Member Pettine indicated his understanding of the May 27th action was that Council would look at those projects with final maps on a case by case basis, and nothing would be forwarded automatically. Council supported the staff's recommendations Nos. 1-9 as detailed in the memorandum from the Community Development Director dated 3une 2, 1986. The City Manager then continued the staff report by referring to his comments in his memorandum regarding possible exceptions for the Sammis and Hunt Master Plans. He stated that negotiations regarding the potential dredging project for Batiquitos Lagoon are still under discussion, and that lagoon enhancement project will require the use of lagoon property from Hunt and Sammis. He also indicated that if the Sammis and Hunt projects were stopped from processing, they may then not be desirous of providing the land. 22 Y - COUNCIL y 3 % MEMBERS % 9 Casler Lewis Kulchin Chick X Pettine - .T e 0 MINUTES 3une 5, 1986 Page 3 Mayor Casler referred to a letter dated June 3, 1986, from HPI regarding master plan processing and participation problems which could result. In response to Council query, the City Attorney stated that condemnation was always a possibility, and the actual determination of the value of the land could take a great deal of time, though it may be possible to acquire the right to use the property early in the process. He noted he would have to research the matter further if Council required specific information. Mayor Casler stated she had received a phone call today from Vern Hall of the Port of Los Angeles. Mr. Hall had indicated that Pacific Texas has to move on their project, but they need an easement over the Hunt land. He noted that Hunt would give an easement over their land so their master plan could proceed processing through the City, but they would not give the land until project completion. Mayor Casler indicated the importance of the lagoon enhancement to the City. As further clarification, Mayor Casler stated that if Hunt can process their master plan, they would give the land to the state. If they can not process, the land would have to be condemned, which means they would be paid for the land, and there will still be the costs associated with enhancing the lagoon. She also indicated Hunt had expressed agreement to move forward with the commercial core, and delay the residential. Council Member Chick referred to the lagoon enhancement, and expressed his concern about loss of the project. He stated that Pacific Texas could mitigate their environmental obligations on a project elsewhere. Council Member Kulchin indicated that she could agree if they would only work on the commercial and the golf course, and no residential. She indicated she did not wish to lose the funding source for enhancing the 1 agoon. Council Member Lewis questioned whether Hunt could be conditioned for other things to benefit the City such as improving La Costa Avenue. The City Attorney informed Council that the Planning Commission had considered the City Manager's memorandum at their meeting the night before, and suggested that Council wait until after the public hearing and receipt of public testimony. 423 1 COUNCIL \p 5 % s' MEMBERS % 4 - e e MINUTES a 3une 5, 1986 Page 4 The majority of the Council Members indicated their desire to proceed with the discussion. Council Member Lewis stated Hunt should be required to dedicate the additional land for the lagoon upfront, and the land necessary for the widening of La Costa Avenue. Council determined that an exception be granted to HPI to allow their master plan to complete processing and that it be included on the list of exceptions; that Hunt be required to dedicate the land necessary for the widening of El Camino Real at the corner of La Costa Avenue and also the land to widen on the north side of La Costa Avenue and to consider the dedication of the lagoon up front when their plan is adopted. For clarification purposes, Mayor Casler indicated that the motion did not mean that Hunt was assured of any approvals or that they could build anything. The motion merely means that Hunt may finish their processing so Council could see their plan. Council Member Pettine questioned how Council could attach conditions to a project which had not yet been presented to the Council. In response, Mayor Casler indicated that Council was informing the staff to attach the conditions. The City Manager then reported on the activities and status of the Sammis project. He stated that Sammis has a master plan approval and has been in the process of bringing a final map for Phase I before the Council. That map was stopped after Council action on May 27, 1986. He indicated that the question for Council is whether the map should be processed and brought before Council. Mr. Aleshire also stated the overall master plan of all three phases includes a southeast park site, La Costa Avenue improvements at 1-5, and Batiquitos Lagoon dedication. The two issues to consider are whether they should finish their final map, and should they be allowed to continue to process the commercial/ industrial in Phases 1.1 and 111 from tentative map to final. Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director, stated that Phases I1 and I11 have received completed staff work. In response to Council questions, John Briggs, representing Sammis, addressed Council. He stated that all parts of the project are related to one another. He stated they were ready to start on there entire project and it is important that it all works together. He also indicated that they do have the final map in Area "A" which includes 354 residential units as an alternate. He noted they would take those units off Area "A" and allow them to revert to acreage. 222 - COUNCIL \v 5 % Q' MEMBERS % q Casler Lewis x Chick Kulchin Pettine - . >. * MINUTES I) 3une 5, 1986 Page 5 - c 3ohn Briggs stated in response to Council questions, that the portion of the lagoon between 1-5 and the railroad track was required for dedication with Phase I, and their portion of the lagoon west of railroad track was required for dedication with Phase 111. Mayor Casler questioned whether Sammis would be willing to give an easement over all of their ownership in the lagoon in Phase I, and Mr. Briggs responded stating that he would have to ask that the processing on the other phases would be allowed to continue. Council questioned Mr. Briggs regarding the possibility of tying the Law University with the residential so if the University does not proceed, than the residential does not receive, and Mr. Briggs indicated agreement with that restriction. Mayor Casler inquired whether Sammis would be willing to give easement rights over their entire portion of the lagoon in conjunction with Phase I. In response, Mr. Rriggs indicated that was an important issue, and it would have to be discussed with the lender before a response could be given. Council indicated the need for the information before action could be taken on the patter; therefore, it would be discussed on 3une IO, 1986. The City Manager concluded with the staff report referring to the memorandum dated 3une 3, 1986, and the question of whether an exemption should be provided for Scripps Hospital. Marty Orenyak responded to Council question stating it would take a significant amount of staff time for continued processing of a site plan for this project. He stated it would take approximately five months before the EIR is certified, and staff would anticipate devoting no additional time to the project until completion of the EXR certification. He indicated staff would continue to meet with Scripps Hospital towards EXR certification but would provide no staff work on the site plan during that process. Council concurred with the proposal, and directed that an exception for hospital or similar non-profit public agencies be included in the ordinance. AD3OURNMENT : By proper motion the Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, w UL @- ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ City Clerk ALR : tc I aa, I COUNCIL \p % 9 % MEMBERS % 4 Casler Lewis Kulchin Chick Pettine x: 1 1 1 I 7 I