Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Specific Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sends contested bluff‑facing house exemptions back to PLUM after court ruling
Summary
After a court found that the city improperly allowed one exemption’s rear‑setback scope, the council voted to send the matter back to the Planning and Land Use Management Committee for rehearing and ordered notice be given to interested parties
The City Council voted April 25 to send a contested planning decision back to the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee after a court concluded the city had not supported how far a height exemption could extend toward the rear of a property.
Petitioners told the council the developer had previously received two exceptions from a specific plan—one for height and a second allowing the rear of the house to extend farther toward the bluff than neighbors—which they said amounted to a special privilege. Petitioner Joseph Burberich read from the court opinion and asked the city to require the developer to return to the planning commission for full public review of the second exemption.
Deputy City Attorney John Cote replied that the court found substantial evidence supported the height exception but that the record did not support the extent of the rear‑setback accommodation. He recommended the matter return to the PLUM Committee (rather than to the planning commission) so the council could rehear the item with an opportunity for public evidence.
Councilmember Mike Hernandez moved the city attorney’s recommendation and asked that proper notice be served to the petitioners and other interested parties. The council approved the motion and directed rehearing at PLUM; the roll call was recorded as 10 ayes.
Councilmembers also requested the city attorney provide the judge’s ruling and the court opinion to PLUM members so they could review the court findings before the rehearing.
