CC Min 1988-07-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Consent Calendar - Item No. 17 (continued) "c. Determination of what constitutes the same subject matter and what date is the date of final action shall be made by the Zoning Adni ni str ator." 5) Arti cl e 46 of the Zon . Ord. , whi ch appl i ed to pl armed devel opment permits, includes the following: Section 46.7e. No use permit, otherwise required by the District regul ati cns, shal l be requi red f or uses or structures permitted pursuant to an approved planned development permit." 6) But for the height of the building of the Revised (and Original) project, a planned development permit for the Revised Project would not be required (see, Zion. Ord. Sec. 11.5 prohibiting building height in "PO" Professional Office Zoning District i n excess of 35 feet; see, also, Zon .Ord. Sec. 46.7 al l owi ng excepti on to maxi mum hei ghts for structures pursuant to planned Bevel opment permit ). Uses contemplated under the application for the Revised (and Original) Project would, but for the provisions of Zon. Ord. Sec . 46.7e (quoted above) require the issuance of a use permit (Zon. Ord. Sec.11 .4b .,c .,g ). 7) Arti cl e 46 of the Zon . Ord. ( pertai ni ng t o pl armed d evel opm ent s) does not i ncl ud e a n e xpress pro hi bi ti on upon rea ppl i cati ons f or pl armed devel opment permits simil ar to that quoted above (Zon . Ord. Sec.42. 7) pertaining to use permits. Sai d Arti cle 46 does, however, i mpl iedly requi re compl i ance wi th Zoni ng Distri ct regul ati ons pertai ni ng to the issuance of use permits because Zon. Ord. Sec.46.7 (relating to planned developmnt permits) allows only certain express exceptions to the Zoning District regulations requiring use permits, but does not exclude conf ormance wi th al l such regul ati ons . Nevertheless, Appellant argues that Zon. Ord. Sec.46.7e effectively eliminates any requirement for complying with Zon. Ord. Sec.42.7. 8) Interpretation of Zon . Ord. Sec . 46.7e , as urged by Ap pe l l ant, would allow mul ti pl a reappl icati ons f or pl arned devel opment permits wi thi n a year' s per od. That interpretation would nullify the provisions of Zon. Ord. Sec. 42. 7 (pertai ni ng to use permits), a subject matter i ncorporated within, or similar to, the subject matter of Zon. Ord. Sec.46.7 (pertai ni ng to pl armed dvel opment perm its). Such interpretation violates the rule of statutory construction that statutes relating to the same subject matter must be read together and reconciled whenever possible to avoid nullification of one statute by another (Kal i na v. San Mateo Community Colleqe Dist. 1982 132 Cal .App.3d 48, 53; 183 Cal . Rptr.12) . Moreover, it would be anomalous t o permit multiple filings of planned development permit applications within a short time period based upon a single structural variation, such as that pertaining to the Revised Project (the height limit) while denying a multiplicity of applications for use permits otherwise required but for that minor structural variation. Section 46. 7c merely relieves an applicant from applying for separate use permits when applyi ng for a pl armed devel opment permit. Reg.Mtg. 7/25/88 Page 10 MINUTE BOOK NO. 48 Page No. 141