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