HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-09; Rancho Carrillo Village N; Tentative Map (CT) (29)DECEMBER 6, 1999
TO: ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER BILL PLUMMER
FIRE CAPTAIN MIKE SMITH
PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER WOJCIK
FROM: City Attorney
DCC COMMENTS FOR DECEMBER 6, 1999 FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 1999
My comments for the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting are as follows:
WALKER RESIDENCE (CDP 99-42).
the staff report Environmental Review section, please delete the portion of the
second paragraph beginning "This potentially creates ..." through the conclusion of that
paragraph. In the next paragraph, please change "This project has been conditioned"
to read "This project has agreed to being conditioned", and make a commensurate
change to Finding No. 6 on page three of Resolution No. 4684.
In the resolution, please make the following changes: Condition No. 6, insert the name
of the appropriate school district; Condition No. 7, add "including but not limited to the
following:" and add some specific conditions and/or mitigation measures from the Zone
22 LFMP which are applicable to this project; Condition Nos. 15 and 17, please
consider combining them and making reference to the City Attorney approved standard
noise forms; Condition Nos. 20 and 21, please delete, but add the new "pay all fees"
standard code reminder (see the Village N Project Code Reminder No. 67).
2. RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE N (MP 139(HVCT 99-09/CP99-06).
.A Please clarify whether this project is one lot or a portion of one lot. The Background
Data Sheet and staff report and resolutions continually refer to it as Lot 164, but the
Assessor's Parcel number states that it is a "portion". Is there a lot line adjustment or
division of land also occurring with regard to this project?
Please delete the same portion of the second paragraph in the Environmental Review
section as was deleted for the Walker Residence report, but here, replace it with
discussion of the Council adoption of the Urgency Ordinance imposing a building peimjt
~~ gjnTFMP Zone 18, whi^h'ig qpplicahle to this project. TherTadd
gJEAR/FCR StPnf|ar<1 Condition to the Master Plan Amendment Resolution as
•• ^Condition No. 2, and insert the usual Standard Condition No. 1 regarding fixing the
exhibits in accordance with the final approval (this will make existing Condition No. 1
become Condition No. 3).
Please correct Recital No.. 2 in the Master Plan Amendment Resolution 4681 to refer toW/,
Exhibit X as set forth in Action Paragraph B (deleting it therefrom), instead of reference
to the project Exhibits A through BB. Although the amendment probably does
constitute a minor Master Plan Amendment (see CMC § 21.38.120) since we are not
treating it as a minor amendment and asking the Planning Commission to make such a
finding, it should probably be deleted, in order to avoid confusion.
Finding No. 4 incorporates all of the previous findings applicable to the adoption of the
last Master Plan Amendment (which may, in turn, incorporate by reference all the
findings with regard to the original adoption of the Master Plan?), but then Finding No. 5
makes no reference to any of the required findings, which might need modification as a
result of this proposed action, in response to CMC § 21.38.110(b)(1-9) required
findings. Is Finding No. 5 with regard to a "more interesting street scene" a necessary
or desirable finding for this project?
Please prepare and attach a draft City Council ordinance as Exhibit X with some
recitals relating to the existence of the original ordinance as establishing the Master
Plan and one or more subsequent amendments, and it is necessary and desirable to
further amend the Master Plan. Then section one would be "Ordinance ,
being the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan (as amended from time to time) and is hereby
further amended by adding the following special design criteria to page 163 to read as
follows: "14 Village N, etc.".
In the tentative map Resolution No. 4682: Finding No. 6, please use one of the f
standard language options. Condition No. 7, please insert the name of the appropriate •"*-<
school district. Condition No. 8, please add "including but not limited to", and add some /ic>
specificity with regard to some conditions and mitigation measures from the LFMP for
Zone 18. Condition No. 17, please delete reference to the placeholder exhibit in
item E and then put a period after "final landscape plan". Condition No. 28, please,^
delete, but use Code Reminder No. 67 instead.
Condition No. 37, the introductory standard language makes reference to the
improvements shown on the tentative map "and the following improvements" and the
insertion only says "sewer andjyater facilities". VVhich sewer and water facilities? Frorr^
where to where, what size? (Condition No. 38,~please amend to read "Prior to issuance*
of a building permit, Developer shall execute an agreement satisfactory to the Director
of Public Works and approved by the City Attorney as to form, along with an
appropriate bond, to design and construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Melrose
Drive and the project entrance. The agreement may be executed on behalf of the City
by the Director of Public Works, shall be recorded, and include provisions for automatic
termination if the Director of Public Works has not made demand upon the Developer
for design and construction within five years from the date of issuance of the first
building permit for the subdivision. The Director of Public Works is authorized to
execute and record an appropriate release of the agreement when satisfied or
terminated pursuant to those provisions."
Condition No. 39, please modify the introduction to read as follows: "The Developer
shall apply for and obtain a City Right-Of-Way Permit..."
Condition No. 40, are there any private streets and drainage systems in this project as
to which this condition could apply?
Condition No. 41, sub-item A. As discussed above, if there are other water and sewer \ (
facilities not shown on the tentative map, what are they? Please add a new Item D,
(the meat of current final map note 59 in the code reminders section on page 12).
Condition Nos. 42 through 49 appear to be the same old water conditions, most of
which, if not all, are probably already satisfied and, therefore, not applicable. Water
staff, please review these and delete and/or modify, as appropriate. In Condition No.
48, please utilize the format "Developer shall..." and specify what it is you want the
Developer to do in terms of making a dedication and/or construction that will ultimately
convey either land or facilities to the City or the Water District.
Condition Nos. 35 through 40 do nptappear to include any requirementJoiLdedication^ <^\
^ot tee or easementpf real propertyTBui condition No. 48 appears to~plTrequiring a 30- c
foot j/vTde lomt utility easement for water and storm drain somewhere. F-Whaps thilT
belongs in the dedications/improvements portion of the resolution? This condition also
implies construction to water district and/or City standards, of potable water (and
perhaps drainage?) facilities, within those easements; dedication of the facilities upon
completion and acceptance by the appropriate entity, for ultimate public ownership and
future maintenance, rather than private maintenance. Please clarify.
Code Reminder Nos. 51 and 53 repeats Code Reminders 56 and 54 respectively;
please delete one set. Code Reminder 52 appears to be a Fire Condition, rather than a
Code Reminder. If so, please move it to the Fire area on page 11 following Condition
No. 50.t/<cbde Reminder 59. A&previously discussed, please move the quoted portion
to become Condition No. 41 D. $^
3. THE REGENCY (CT 99-14/PUD 99-06).
Street Standards.
illThe staff report at page two discusses "traffic calming features" and at page five states -^
that the private driveways will be a 24-foot minimum paved with landscape pop-outs,
although the required standard is "30-foot minimum". Is less than 30 feet paved
roadway allowed by the existing City street standard at all? If it is allowed, doesn't it
require a City engineer and/or legislative decision-maker variance?
PUD Amendment.
The staff report at page four states that future room editions can only be approved with
an administrative amendment to the planned development permit. CMC section