Loading...
CC MINS 19900226 ADJM I N U T E S CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 1994 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Mayor Melvin Hughes at Ridgecrest Intermediate School, 28915 Northbay Road, notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file. After the pledge of allegiance to the flag roll call was answered as follows: PRESENT: McTaggart, Hinchliffe, Ryan, Bacharach and Mayor Hughes Also present were City Manager William Cornett, Deputy City Manager Mark Rohloff, Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, City Attorney Ariel Calonne, Planning Commissioners Peter Von Hagen, Robert McNulty, Robert Katherman, Charles Hotchkiss, and Susan Brooks. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion was made by Councilmember Hinchliffe and seconded by Councilmember Bacharach to approve the agenda as presented. Motion unanimously passed. City Attorney Calonne explained the process of consolidation of the appeal process in the Development Code. Councilwoman Bacharach questioned the difference between permit issuance and permit renewal with regard to the issue of foliage removal. Director Benard summarized the Council's request that staff look at ways to streamline the permit review process, including the possibility of creating a Zoning Board, and announced that the purpose of the workshop was for the Council to provide direction to staff regarding creation of this Board or other new review authority, and to amend Development Code provisions regarding appeals, permit processing, fees and staffing for planning review. Mr. Benard then reviewed the City's existing permit review process, including permits which fall under the authority of staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council, and the timef rames for scheduling items for review by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Benard next outlined the permit application review processes that are used in the South Bay by other cities. He said it was determined that the cities surveyed allow for appeals from staff decisions to the Planning Commission and /or City Council. Rancho Palos Verdes has a double appeal process which is very time consuming. Mr. Benard stated that the City Attorney had prepared a memorandum to encourage consolidation of the appeal process in the City's Development Code. He reviewed the fiscal impact and effect of Proposition M on development processing, timing, fees, staffing, and discussed two options for reducing Planning Commission workload: creation of a Zoning Board; and, allow staff approval authority over certain categories of permits which presently require Planning Commission approval. Mr. Benard concluded by stating that staff is prepared to proceed, at Council's direction, with revisions to the city's fee structure and staffing levels to address the increased workload required by Proposition M. City Attorney Calonne explained that the authorization in Proposition M would add clarity to the time sequence referenced with respect to vegetation reviews. He added that these are jurisdictional issues and are not necessarily in sequence of events. The sequences may be adjusted through administrative guidelines and criteria. Projects can therefore be consolidated so as not to require undue staff and homeowner time. Mr. Calonne then reviewed the provisions of the Ordinance and the difference between the jurisdictional and administrative prohibitions. He agreed that this issue needs to be reviewed further. Mayor Pro Tem McTaggart questioned the methodology for inspection of trees that are assumed to cause view blockage. City Attorney Calonne noted that the absence of complaint may be analogous to no significant view impairment, and added that in terms of Proposition M regulations, his only comment about the staff report is that he sees no reason why there should be shortfall in the permit fees, and the Council has authority to authorize staff to implement the services. In the ensuing discussion, Councilman Ryan recommended making the procedure self-policing and self-enacting, Mr. Benard was of the opinion that the burden on staff and the applicant can be eased by not bringing grading applications before the Planning Commission. Discussion followed regarding whether control of grading permit applications represents a density control or a -2- FEBRUARY 26, 1990 topography measure to limit the size of developable areas. Planning Commission members were asked about the Commission's workload. The members concurred that they are not personally overworked, and they also were in agreement that certain items take an excessive amount of time through Planning Commission reviews. It was also felt that certain issues, such as sign permits, do not need to go before the Commission. Regarding increased staff authority, Commissioner Von Hagen stated that staff should be allowed authority over certain categories of permits which currently require Planning Commission review with minimal injury to public welfare. Councilmember McTaggart recommended the formation of a subcommittee of two staff members and two members of the Planning Commission to deal with issues such as height variation applications in order to eliminate large delays in time. Director Benard then reviewed the processes involved in issuing certain permits. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No,., one from the public wished to speak. Commissioner Katherman acknowledged that having a separate zoning administrator to review specific applications was a_ sound recommendation. He said the individuals could be familiar with the City's Zoning codes, have decision making authority, and could be either members of the City staff or contract employees, and would deal with routine procedures and applications that are not appealable. Mr. Cornett added his preference for a contract individual who could provide a broad viewpoint. In the discussion following, Chairman McNulty also agreed with the recommendation for a separate subcommittee to review certain items as long as the review is discretionary and each matter is taken on a case by case basis. He also recommended inviting two members of the public to join the subcommittee. Other recommendations offered were to change the subcommittee to a task force and report back to the Council in 60 days and that Mr. Benard and the City Attorney Calonne do an in -depth investigation to see where project reviews and code changes can be shortened. -3- FEBRUARY 26, 1990 Councilman Hinchl if fe said he was ±inclined to have staff, review processes to determine those areas where staff could be allowed additional control. Motion was made by ' Counc-i man Hinchl if fe , seconded -- by Councilman Hughes to , accept the � staf f conc l us ion to prepare revisionsF .to: the Development Code which' would result - in -a more efficient appl icationa review -procese - Motion unanimously passed.. , Director Benard recommended holding ­a workshop-regarding rezoning issues on-April 23, 1990. O There being o further : business,, = the-- meetin g g was duly adjourned tit 9:02P.-M-, t A-AYOR ATTEST* `)-k'JI4Jq ART M091-1 ?W0IT821UQ -4- FEBRUARY 26, 1990 sjr -4- FEBRUARY 26, 1990