Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAV 91-12; Hill Residence; Administrative Variance (AV) (35), RCu BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 701g ; 4-12-93 9:53GM ; 4PR-12-93 MON 8 48 GI . rTORNEY - 1 6 19_4548367+ FAX NO, t ,48367 6 194380894 ; # t P, 02 APRIL 9, 1993 TO : ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: city' Attorney PLmmIm COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1993 I have read the staff reports for this meeting and have the following comments: Id. ZCA 93 - 02IOFFSITI REAG.ESTATB SIGN AMENDM Em Please delete references in the staff, report and Resolution No. 3508 to Civil Code section 712. This section does not apply to local regulation. 2) The proposed amendments mix the onsite and offsite requirements. C.M.C. section 21.41.050(3) only applies to signs on the lot being offered for sale. Therefore, the reference in the proposed amendment to real property owned by others should not be inserted in this subsection. I suggest that CMC section 21.41.050 (3) (E) be amended to read in its entirety: @'Information that the property is for sale, lease, exchange or rental by the owner or his or her agent, directions to the property, the owner's or agent's name, and the owner Is or agent's address and telephone number. 'I The proposed amendment which is designated as CMC section 21.41.050(4) should be deleted. The language in the proposed amendment to CMC 'section 21.41.070(4) (E) which restricts the number of signs to one per parcel must be deleted. The state statute states that the signs must be of @'reasonable dimensions and design" and must be "reasonably located." However, the state statute does not allow the city to regulate the number of signs. This should not be a problem because there is a city regulation on the maximum area of real estate signs. This has a limiting effect on the number of signs. 4) Exhibit "A'@ should make it clear that the second amendment occur. in CMC section 21.41.070(4) (E) 5) The title of the ordinance needs to be more specific to meet legal requirements. It should reference chapter 21.41 and state that the ordinance regulates real estate signs. 1) The reference in the environmental review section of the staff report to subsection 15305(a) of the @*California Environmental Quality Act" should be to the CEQA Guidelines instead of the Act 2) . Finding No. 3 on page 3 of the staff report and in.Resolution No. 3511 needs to have a factual basis. It is not adequate to merely state that it is materially detrimental because-it will set a precedent. If other properties are granted the same I RCU BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 7013i 4-12-93 9:54QM ; APR-12-93 MON 8 : 49 CI. . TTORNEY 6194380894; # 3 P, 03 privilege what will be the harm? I think the factual basis is that the structure which the Hills have erected creates an overly dense and massive look on the lot. This defeats the purpose of the setback requirements. Page 3 of the staff report states that the ordinance complies with the requirements of the senior citizen housing ordinance and CMC section 21.18.045 as shown in the staff report dated July 17, 1991. Tuesday night the City Council approved amendments to this section to make it conform with federal law. The 1991 staff report refers to requirements which are not in compliance with federal law and cannot be enforced as a condition by the city. Please amend the staff report to include this information and amend the condition to comply with newly enacted section 21.18.045. Condition No. 28 of Resolution 6267 must be amended to state the new age requirements. If the applicant chooses the "55 years of age plus amenities" rule under federal law, the condition should include a requirement that the applicant maintain the stated amenities for the senior citizens. The findings should also include a finding that the amenities are present. If the applicant chooses to limit the age to 62 years of age for all occupants, the amenities are not required. A discussion of the required amenities under federal law must describe features which are specifically designed for senior citizens. The 1991 staff report mentions easy access to services and facilities, This alone is not enough. The types of amenities described in the applicantts summary of proposal includes the type of features which are required under the heading "project description.'@ It must be clear that the applicant intends to provide a special place for senior citizens designed especially for them, which will provide them with special services and programs. This is the justification for the age discrimination which is prohibited by state and federal law. The city should require the applicant to continue providing these special services and programs as a condition of approval. If you have any questions on the interpretation and/or requirements of newly amended section 21.18.045 or federal law, please let me know. As soon as you have written the new condition, please fax it to me for revia This is something that is too complicated to be discussed at the planning commission meeting. ddbt J. HIRATA Deputy City Attorney RRB:KJH:afd c: Senior Management Analyst Hoder