FULL PACKET_2005-04-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ALUC Minutes Page 3 March 18, 2004 Mr. Golden confirmed the Chairman's view that, with nothing occurring in the interim, no undue burden will be put on the City. Replying to Chairman Bresnahan about any amendment of his motion, Commissioner O'Malley stated his preference for the revised language recommended by staff. Commissioner Propst concurred with this change to the motion, as regards his seconding. Replying to the Chairman, Executive Officer Golding read the staff recommendation prepared for this agenda item, noting that the height criteria therein are essentially the same as those mentioned by the Assistant City Attorney. Responding to the Chairman, Assistant City Attorney Otto stated that the motion is agreeable in concept, but not in the spirit of cooperation. She reviewed the recent liaison between the City's and ALUC's staffs stressing the continuing effort scheduled for tomorrow, and noting that there is a level of frustration in taking this motion for 30 days, although structurally it does not change things. Chairman Bresnahan clarified that the motion softens the requirement, since the ALUC is operating under the belief that the 40' submittal criterion invoked by the ALUC in 1987 is still in effect, making the matter less stringent. Ms. Otto acknowledged the Commission's belief, and agreed with County Counsel's view of the handbook regarding the General Plan Element approved in 1987, stating that the ALUC should have followed with another action putting the onus back on the City. She admitted that the Element needs to be updated, and she stressed that the City is doing so with the first step occurring tomorrow and it just being a matter of time. She assured the ALUC that the City wants to work cooperatively, recognizing the ALUC's importance while suggesting the action might not be in the spirit of cooperation. Replying to Commissioner Harris, Ms. Otto said she carmot guarantee a time frame for, as Mr. Fregoso stated, tomorrow is the first step to modifying the Element. She noted that there had been several changes to the AELUP during the last 17 years and that a lot ofword-smithing has been done, although direct inconsistencies appear minimal. She conceded that although the City has taken some different views it is on the same plane and not in conflict with the AELUP, and she concluded the City will be happy to get the input from the ALUC staff who are experts in this area. Commissioner H. Beverburg recalled that during his chairmanship in 1987, the ALUC reviewed the City's plan, found a couple of needed corrections, and returned the documentto the City where it died. He asked what assurance ALUC has that results will be different this time. The Chairman stated that the history has been told correctly and although there isn't any guarantee, he wants to reassure the City of the ALUC's desire to reach a mutual determination and consistency for Santa Ana with its General Plan Element passing muster. He expressed his optimism, urging the City not to construe the AL UC action wrongly, and noting that individual Commissioners and staff are available to work toward that goal, asking Ms. Otto to convey these views to everyone at the City. On the motion and second of Commissioners O'Malley and Propst, the item was continued to the next meeting, with the understanding that the City of Santa Ana be notified that, pursuant to PUC Section 21676.5, the Commission reiterates that all future projects (not just General Plan/Specific Plan (Zoning) 75C-177