HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0088.048 1998-2000 0
QUESTIONS FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE BILL 250
COMMITTEE ON PLANNING MEETING
MARCH 8, 1999
RECEIVED a,
tlme- - -- - -- -.3 j-i / --
Y - j — �--
1. Yes. D - - -- Council P"P
2. Yes; due to changes in State law; the 40' shoreline setback is now carried in Rule 11 of
the Planning Department.
3. Yes for changes greater than 40'. Also a change in State law would be necessary if we
were to have to change the setback to less than 40'.
4. No. A special permit for State Agricultural District land is still necessary. An evaluation
against the General Plan is part of that process. Accepting an application does 1191 mean
approval.
5. There has been.= application for a prison. Any prison within Agricultural lands
would require either a Special Permit ultimately decided on by the State Land
Use Commission or first a Boundary Amendment decided on again by the State
Land Use Commission. The County can only recommend action.
6. This is possible. The process would be no different under either old or new code.
Conformity with the General Plan would depend on the specific situation.
7. Yes; with 5 acres it is possible that the Planning Commission would; with 25 acres
the State Land Use Commission would.
8. Subdivisions are governed by the subdivision code and is processed administratively.
A subdivision of Unplanned zoned lands could also have been subdivided into 5 acre
lots. In this respect there is no difference between the old and the new code.
9. Yes; and could have been under the Unplanned also.
10. Not true; only the body before whom the contested case will be changed; not the
State law.
11. No. Historic preservation has been a standard condition.
12. Effectively a notice is also required under either situation as this may clearly be
challenged.
o
Comm. No. `'' " • a
Hie No. Ff
CC: /Z N 6
Ref. To: Prese Pc
Ref. Date MAR 9 b'4a