HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 98-06; Lantz Residence; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (6)MARCH 31, 1998
TO: ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: City Attorney
DCC COMMENTS FOR THE APRIL 6,1998 FOR THE APRIL 16, 1998 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
1. NEXTEL DIGITAL ANTENNA AT 1958 KELLOG (CUP 97-11)
A. Although not legal issues, the staff report does not say what these
antennas are for, and makes no mention of EMRs. The Planning
Commissioners will probably be interested in both of those subjects.
B. In Resolution 4272, first recital, please insert the legal status of the
developer (corporation, partnership, etc.).
C. Please renumber the Findings as there are two number twos.
D. There is no factual support in the staff report for Finding No. 4 with regard
to no additional traffic.
E. Condition No. 3 limits the CUP to five years. Why did we bother to obtain
Council approval to grant unlimited conditional use permits like all other
jurisdictions, except in certain cases for specific reasons, only to continue
to uniformly apply the five-year rule?
F. Thanks for including the "NOTICE", but no fees, dedications, reservations
or other exactions are imposed by the approval of this CUP. Please
delete.
2. MANN RESIDENCE (CDP 97-23)
A. SUBJECT
The "Subject" section of the staff report indicates that the Coastal Development Permit
will approve a consolidation of two lots and a variance. The lot consolidation is never
discussed in the staff report, and is normally administratively approved by the City
Engineer pursuant to Chapter 20.36. Why is this aspect before the Planning
Commission?
The staff report discusses two variances: one for a reduction of the required internal
dimensions of 20' x 20' for a garage; and the second for construction beyond the two-
story height limit. But, on page five, the staff report discussion of the "three full size
parking spaces, two of which are covered, which meets the development standards of
the BAO, but not the Parking Ordinance" discussion implies a third variance from the
requirements of Chapter 21.44. How many variances are required for this project?
B. VARIANCES
Please change the Staff Report Discussion and Findings in Variance Resolution No.
(4257) to properly address the requirements for a variance set forth in Government
Code section 65906 (and the special parking variance pursuant to Gov. Code, §
65906.5, if applicable).
C. CDP
Please change the second sentence in the second paragraph under the "Coastal
Development Regulations" discussion to read as follows:
"The property is designated Residential High Density (RH) in the LCP
(and General Plan), and is being developed consistent with this
designation and its basic zoning, R-1-7500."
Please clarify the requirements in the chart on page four to make more clear what is
required of this project, and what is actually being provided by this project. (Dedication
or not?)
D. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project does not include the construction of a single-family residence, cited as the
authority for exemption pursuant to Title 14 of the Regulations, Section 15303. This
project is probably eligible for exemptions as a minor alteration of an existing private
structure, if it meets the requirements of Section 15301(e). If the lot consolidation is
properly before the Planning Commission, that aspect may also be exempt under
Section 15305 as a minor lot line adjustment not resulting in the creation of a new
parcel, if it meets the other requirements of that section.
E. RESOLUTIONS
Again, you have included the Notice in both the CDP and Variance resolutions;
however, neither approval includes the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations or
other exemptions, and, therefore, the Notice does not apply. Please delete.
3. LANTZ RESIDENCE (CDP 98-06)
A. EXACTIONS
Neither this nor the two previous items include conditions imposing fees, dedications,
reservations or other exactions. Is this possible?
4. FAIRWAY CORPORATE CENTER (SUP 97-11)
A. STAFF REPORT
Please clarify throughout the staff report and the resolution that this is a project within
the "Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone", as opposed to other kinds of overlay zones,
controlled by the standards set forth in Chapter 21.40. Please delete reference to
Chapter 21.110 in the second recital of Resolution 4261, unless the Floodplain
Ordinance is applicable.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Please state in the staff report the basis for the Planning Director's determination of
prior compliance. Resolution 4261 appears to rely on the General Plan MEIR 93-01.
Was this project envisioned and adequately discussed in MEIR 93-01 (whether or not
listed as a "subsequent project")?
C. RESOLUTION 4261
In the legal description in the first recital there is a typographical error at the end of the
first line: it should be "of. There is another typographical error in Finding No. 5: all the
onsite improvements "have" been provided. On page three, please delete the condition
number from the "note", and make the note generic, as opposed to only applying to
engineering conditions. The engineering heading could occur after the note, and the
note could read as follows:
"Note: unless specifically stated otherwise in the condition, the
Developer shall satisfy all of the following conditions, prior to the
issuance of building permits."
In Grading Condition No. 8 there is no "or" following the "either" at line four. Something
is missing.
Conditions 12 and 13 sound like Water District conditions in that it appears that we have
not yet done environmental review of the potential damage caused by this project and
what drainage facilities are required to reduce that potentially significant impact to a
level below significance. Are the drainage facilities potentially necessary to make this
project work proper impositions under Chapter 21.40 (which generally relates to
preservation or enhancement of outstanding views, flora and geology or other unique
attributes and historical and cultural resources)? Or does Chapter 21.110 apply, and
provide the basis for those potential drainage exactions? If no other discretionary
approval is required for this project, and a (ministerial) grading permit is not required,
won't the requirements of the new Grading Ordinance require all the concerns