HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 03-09A; Ocean Bluff; Tentative Map (CT) (33)JUNE 4, 1998
TO: ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: City Attorney
DCC COMMENTS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 17,1998
My comments are as follows:
1. OCEAN BLUFF TENTATIVE MAP REVISION fCT 93-09fA)/HDP 93-09fAW
CDP 97-54
A. Staff Report.
Old Tentative Map Condition No. 59 states that the Tentative Map expires within 24
months from City Council approval. The staff report states that the City Council
approved the previous project on April 2, 1996; accordingly, this Tentative Map expired
on April 2, 1998, unless it has been extended by some action not discussed in the staff
report (see CMC § 20.12.100(a)). An extension of the map is controlled by Government
= Code section 66452.6(e) and CMC section 20.12.110. It appears to be too late for the
applicant to apply for an extension and trigger an automatic extension of the map for a
maximum of 60 days; but even if it was timely filed and is being processed, that 60 days <
has already expired!! "
B. Extension Provisions.
S
If the map hasn't expired and the item should proceed for consideration, the list of
applicable regulations on page three, the staff report should include reference to the
subdivision map revision and extension provisions in Chapter 20.12, and there should
be some discussion in the staff report on page six with regard to the map aspects of
this project. \
C. Environmental
The discussion in the Environmental Review section on page seven of the staff report is
confusing. It states that the originally approved subdivision was conditioned to mitigate
3.9 acres of habitat and that impacts beyond what was analyzed in the final PEIR would
not result from implementation of the revised project, and, therefore, it is a subsequent
development eligible for prior compliance. However, the paragraph also states that the
proposed mitigation for disturbance to .35 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat and .45
acres of southern maritime chaparral (apparently arising only because of the expansion
of the project to include additional offsite areas) is to purchase from an offsite habitation
mitigation bank, and/or do offsite revegetation. These appear to be additional impacts
beyond those analyzed in the final PEIR, requiring a subsequent Negative Declaration,
Mitigated Negative Declaration, or some other environmental document. Or, did you
mean that the additional .35 acres and .45 acres are within the original 3.9 acres of
mitigation, because the actual impact of the project turned out to be less than originally ,
thought? - " -- ~*- *£&r>- V
D. Resolution 4318.
If the project is still alive, please insert(reyisiorKand/or extension, as appropriate in the
^second recital on page one and in the title, and specify which of Exhibits A through Z
v applied to the tentative map extension and/or revision. In Finding No. 1, please identify
rS^ for the reader where the modifications can be found by adding at the end of the last
^- sentence:
c^- ", by findings and ,
respectively."
In Condition No. 2, prior Planning and Fire conditions are preserved, except as
specifically called out, but Engineering and Water conditions are not mentioned/7 ""
Please cuniprahcHbHMBly address the impact of these conditions on all prior conditions
of the prior tentative map approval. For the reader, please identify where conditions
the prior tentative map approval which are being modified, are modified in this
Please add an additional sentence which states what the effect of this
approval is on the existing exhibits from the original approval (A through N, dated
12/20/95).
delete one of the two 0enticjP conditions relating to irrevocable offers (either 7
or 9). OK.trA*-*~«-
Please delete Note Two with regard to the effects of the new Engineering conditions on
the old Engineering conditions and include it in the comprehensive provision in
j) Condition No. 2. If this is impossible, please at least add a list of which old conditions
deleted and modified, and specify which new conditions modify which old modified
conditions, in the note.
,-^lease clarify Condition No. 23c. Is the DevetoperQequired to construct/install th
traffic signal at the specified intersections or not? The asterisk and its accompanying
text appearto negate the duty to construct/install, and require instead an agreement to
pay for or1iy"a portion of those traffic signals, at some future unspecified data What is
being required? What can be required is something which has a nexus to the impact of
this project and is reasonably proportional to the impact of the project. Is that what is
being required?
.is the impact of Water conditions 25 through 33 on the existing Water conditions/^
76 through 79? Please delete Water Condition No. 26, since there is a Site
Development Plan in these approvals and presumably that condition has
unsatisfied. Please delete or clarify Condition No. 32. It uses the phrase£Tchecked",
which would be appropriate for an administrative check list, but not for conditions in a
tentative map.
£/" Please clarify Condition No. 33. Is this an obligation to dedicate easements and/or
construct improvements similar to those set forth in that portion of Resolution 4318
within the Engineering section (Conditions 19 - 24); or is it a requirement to enter into
an agreement to pay for their fair share of certain water infrastructure,^ some time in
the future, or in advance, subject to reimbursement?
each of the other resolutions please specify which exhibits a
approval and the effect of those exhibits on the pre-existing
approval. C
cable to that
rom the pri
2. GUNTER RESIDENCE (CDP 98-17).
In Resolution 4397, please insert after reference to the husband and wife ancrprior to
"owner" the legal capacity in which they own the property (e.g., community property;
husband and wife as joint tenants, tenants in common?). Please delete Condition No.
5, since it restates Action paragraph B and portions of Condition No. 1 and is, therefore,
unnecessary.
3. LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER - (GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/
CT 97-09/PUD 97-13/SDP 97-07/CUP 97-03/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03
A. Staff Report.
^Please clarify the discussion of the General Plan Amendment with regard to whether
there is a need for a General Plan Amendment for the boundary adjustment for Open
Space. The note under Table 1 says there will be one in the future; the discussion
under paragraph three says one is not necessary at all: and Resolution 4309 seems to
say we are doing one now! <L
//tn Table 3 on page six in the zoning discussion, the chart says 442 parking spaces are
being provided by the proposed plan. However, one of the attachments (marked C-1, I
think the SDP exhibit) says there are 445 spaces being provided. Which is correct?
Please clarify the discussion under Table 5 with regard to a deviation from the sign
"standards" in the scenic corridor guidelines with regard to sign regulations (see CMC
§§ 21.40.115 and 21.40.117), as opposed to development standards imposed pursuant
to § 21.40.110 (deviations from which would require a variance). There seems to be
some sloppy usage here, and the resolution adopted by the City Council constituting