HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-57; Roll Residence; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (4)e
I
,
JANUARY 20,1998
TO: ASS I STANT PLAN N I NG D I RECTOR
FROM: City Attorney
DCC COMMENTS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4,1998
My comments are as follows:
PAGENET TRAVELODGE FACILITY (CUP 97-O2ICDP 98-02]
A. THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
The staff report is not clear about the applicability of SP-186. It says that it "does not
specifically allow telecommunication facilities" but it does not say whether they are
prohibited, either directly or by implication. Nor does the staff report say what the
specific plan says with regard to the interplay between the provisions of the municipal
code and the specific plan itself. Is there some language in the specific plan that will
take us to the municipal code for provisions relating to any conditional use?
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
- 2.
A.
B.
What is the legal status of Pagenet? Please indicate whether it is a corporation,
partnership, or whatever, on the resolutions and the disclosure form.
Please add the "Exactions" finding to the resolutions.
Why limit the CUP to five years?
Please make Condition No. 5 of the CUP to be to enter into an agreement to
defend and indemnify.
Please add a cross-condition in the CUP making it conditioned upon CDP
approval.
Is the CDP final or does it go on to Council? Is it within the "appealable area"?
Please change the Subject and Introduction paragraphs to refer to the CDP.
Please change the reference in Resolution 4239, Recital 2 at line 16 from
"Chapter 21.201.040" to "Section 21.201.040".
ROLL RESIDENCE (CDP 97-571
Please add the "Exactions" finding to Resolution 4235.
Please add the school fees standard condition to Resolution 4235.
, c.
3.
A.
6.
C.
D.
E.
4.
In the staff report: page two, regarding the coastal overlay zone, states that the
project is subject to the chapter "which applies to all project sites in the City's
coastal zone", but says that none of the overlay zone "requirements" apply.
Please clarify whether the chapter applies or not. The next two items (the
Barelmann Home and white Residence) both say that those homes are in the
area which would otherwise be covered by the chapter, but that the chapter does
not apply because it does not have any of the characteristics which are
controlled by the chapter. (This affects the propriety of Finding No. 3).
BARELMANN HOME (CDP 97-56).
What does the specific plan say with regard to standards? The chart shows
zoning as "R-I-10,000 (La Costa Downs SP 201", but the specific plan is
nowhere mentioned in the staff report.)
Please add the "Exactions" finding.
Please add the inclusionary housing impact fee, if applicable (see the White
Residence report).
Please delete Condition No. 6 in Resolution 4237, since it is only appropriate in a
tentative map approval.
why is there no discussion in the staff report of the timing and reason for AV 97-
09, without which approval apparently this approval could not be recommended?
WHITE RESIDENCE 9CDP 97-53).
Please see the comments on the Barelmann Home. The same comments apply here.