SR-0 (88)
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE: May 8, 1991
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning staff
SUBJECT: CUP 91-012jVTTM 50249, Supplemental Staff Report
Address:
Applicant:
1138-1144 Yale Street
Stark Family Trust
On Tuesday afternoon, May 7, 1991 staff received a copy of the
letter to the Planning commission from the applicant's attorney,
Lawrence & Harding, stating their concerns with several standard
conditions in the staff report for the subject project. Although
staff had minimal time to respond to the letter, the following
discussion was prepared in response to the applicant's requests.
Condition No. 15 - Transportation Management Plan Fees
The applicant contends that Condition No. 15 relating to
Transportation Management Plan fees should be deleted because
there is no estimate or limit on fees, and that residential proj-
ects were not included in the Draft Transportation Management
Plan.
Response: Condition No. 15 is intended to notify applicants that
lithe City is contemplating the adoption of a Transportation Man-
agement Plan" and that when the plan is adopted, fees may be re-
quired. There may be fee requirements in two areas: a fee on
employers to fund city-wide trip reduction strategies, and a trip
fee on new development. Clearly, a condominium project would not
be subject to an employer fee. However, there is a possibility
of residential projects being subject to a new development fee.
To clarify when the fees would be applicable, staff is suggesting
to modify the condition to clarify the applicability of a fee on
employers, and to clarify that if no new development fee is adop-
ted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the project
would not be subject to such fees. Modifications to Condition No.
15 are underscored as follows:
15. The city is contemplating the adoption of a Transportation
Management Plan which is intended to mitigate traffic and
air quality impacts resulting from both new and existing
development. The Plan will likely include an ordinance
establ ishing mitigation requirements, including one-time
payment of fees on certain types of new development, and
annual fees to be paid by certain types of employers in
the City. This ordinance may require that the owner of
- 1 -
t:t'.e proposed proj ect pay such new development fees, and
~~at eIT-ploye~s, where applicable, within the proJect pay
such new annual employer fees related to the City's
~ransportation Management Plan. Development applications
shall not be subject to the potential new development fee
:. f no ordinance implementing such fees has been adopted
prlor to lssuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
project.
Reco~mer.dation: Staff recommends mOdifying the condition as pro-
posed above. 7he staff report template w~ll be altered cons~s-
tent wlth this new wording.
Condition No. 39 - Inclusionary Housing
The applicant contends that Ordinance No. 1519 is unenforceable
due to conflicts with Program 12 as revised, which established a
15% inclusionary requirement instead of a 30% inclusionary re-
quirement for new residential project of 2 or more units, and
that the fees in-lieu of providing the 30% requirement were in-
correctly calculated and are now unenforceable. The City Attor-
ney will respond to this issue.
Condition No. 37 - Validity of permits
The applicant contends that a time limit to "exercise" the condi-
tional use permit for the project has not been proposed. Condi-
tion No. 37 specifies a term of approval of two years from the
permit's effective date:
37. This determination shall not become effective for a period
of fourteen days from the date of determination, or if
appealed, until a final determination is made on the ap-
peal. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the
Zoning Administrator. The term of approval of this permit
shall expire two years from the permit's effective date,
unless a building permit has been issued for the project
prior to the expiration date.
Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval with the condi-
tion as originallY proposed.
Prepared by: Susan White, Assistant Planner
pc/sup91012
SW
- 2 -