HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 94-01; Poinsettia Shores; Tentative Map (CT) (24)BY: XEROX TELECOPIER 7010 ; 6-23-94 11:19QM ;^^ '6194348367-?
23-94 THU 10:16 CITY >%RNEY FAX NO, 610-48367 P, 02
JUNE 22, 1994
TO: ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: City Attorney
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING/JULY 6, 1994
I have reviewed the staff reports for the above referenced meeting
and have the following comments:
U.S. WEST CELLULAR/CUP 94-04
1) Page three of the staff report references CMC section
21.46.020 as the ordinance which regulates the height of the
roof screen for the antennas. This section would not apply in
this case because the antennas are not one of the enumerated
items in this section. Referencing this section would set an
unwanted precedent by stating that there are no limits on the
height of the screen for an antenna as long as it is no taller
than necessary, This means a 100 foot antenna could have a
100 foot screen. The issue for CUP purposes is whether th'e
height is compatible with the neighborhood. ,/
2) Findings two, three and four in the resolution should be
amended to include facts rather than merely stating the
required conclusion without any reference to this particular
case. The legal principle is that findings must be supported
by facts. Otherwise, the court will disregard them.
POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER TENTATIVE MAP/CT 94-01/HDP 94-03
The staff report does not clearly explain the relationship between
the EIR and the mitigated negative declaration. The resolution
approving the tentative map does not condition the approval on
compliance with mitigation in the EIR. Did the EIR specify
mitigation for this area? If the EIR included an environmental
analysis of this area and concluded that there were no
environmental impacts which need to be mitigated or the mitigation
has already been completed, this should be stated in the staff
report.
If you have any questions or comments on this, please let me know.
tEN J. HIRATA
Deputy City Attorney
afd
c: Bobbie Hoder
W
^
JUNE 7, 1994
TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST HODER
ASSOCIATE PLANNER MUNOZ
FROM: City Attorney
PFF AGREEMENTS/KAIZA POINSETTZA CORPORATION AND SEA BLUFF
ASSOCIATES
At your request, I reviewed the above-referenced agreement. There
are several problems with the agreement. The agreement is signed
by Merrill Kirkpatrick but Mr. Kirkpatrick did not appear before
the notary public, instead an alleged "attorney-in-fact" appeared
before the notary. This is not a proper acknowledgment. The
purpose of a notary public is to verify that the person who signed
the document appeared before her and acknowledged that they
executed the document. In the alternative, a person can witness a
document by signing their name to it, and then bring the document
in and the notary public will acknowledge the signature of the
person as a subscribing witness. The subscribing witness must
state to the notary public that they witnessed the signatory
signing the document and also signed the document as a subscribing
witness. There is no procedure in the law for a person to sign a
document and then have someone else appear before the notary to
notarize it for them. Mr. Hackett cannot be an "attorney-in-fact"
for this purpose because the legal action is being taken by the
notary public who is making the acknowledgment, not Mr. Hackett.
However, we could accept the document based on the signature of
Terry Hackett as general partner for Hackett Management Corporation
because a corporation can be bound by the signature of only one
general partner. The letter provided by Mr. Kirkpatrick states
that Mr. Hackett has the authority to sign for Sea Bluff Associates
as general partner for Hackett Management, but it is not a power of
attorney to sign for Mr. Kirkpatrick and Mr. Kirkpatrick's
signature is not notarized. However, I would be willing to accept
it as authorization for one general partner to sign if the original
letter is notarized.
The blank on the first page cannot be filled in at this point
unless th« document is initialed and re-notarized because the
document cannot be changed after it is signed and notarized.
However, it would be permissible to draw a line or put xx's in the
blank so the county recorder will record it. This would not be
changing the document in any way. What the developer should have
done was write in "corporation and a partnership" in the blank.
The document and the notarization should also clearly state that B-
L 130, Ltd., is a general partner of Sea Bluff Associates.
However, in this particular case I think the attached letter makes
it clear.
Please inform the parties that all future documents must be
properly signed and notarized as explained above or they will not
be accepted. If Mr. Hackett wants to sign as attorney-in-fact for
Mr. Kirkpatrick as general partner of B-L 130, Ltd., Mr.
Kirkpatrick must submit a power of attorney in the proper legal
form (see Civil Code S 2475 attached) and Mr. Kirkpatrick's
signature must be properly notarized.
Also, please make sure that Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation and Sea
Bluffs Associates are both owners of the property as well as the
developers.
If you have any questions or comments about this, please let me
know.
IEN J. HIRATA
Deputy City Attorney
afd
attachment