Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/04/17 Item 10CITY CCU NCI L AGENDA STATEMENT ==f. - ~~- ~~ CITY OF CHUTAVISTA Item No.: ~U Meeting Date: 04-17-12 ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: REPORT: RESPONSES TO OCTOBER 18, 2011 COUNCIL REFERRAL REGARDING COMMITTEES AND COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECT SISTANT CITY MANAGER CITY MANAGE 4/STHS VOTE: YES ~ NO SUMMARY Staff has done preliminary research into questions raised by the City Council regarding the feasibility of establishing Community Planning Committees, reactivating the dormant Economic Development Commission, the potential of merging some Boards and Commissions, and proposals for initiating regular workshop meetings between the City Council and the City's Boards and Commissions. This report provides information about these items and seeks direction from the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378(b)(5) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves only consideration of a report regarding Commissions and Committees functions and therefore is an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environmental; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required. Item No.: Meeting Date: 04-17-12 Page 2 of 8 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council accept the report and provide staff with direction. Additional, more specific recommendations for various topics addressed in this report are presented in italics in the respective report sections. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION N/A DISCUSSION In October, 2011 the City Council raised questions about role and function of several of the City's existing Boards and Commissions. Specifically the Council asked that staff report back on: • The feasibility of establishing Community Planning Committees • The pros and cons of reactivating the dormant Economic Development Commission The pros and cons of combining/consolidating duties of some of the Boards and Commissions • A proposal to initiate regularly scheduled workshop meetings with all Boards and Commissions, some in combination The following report provides information about each component of the City Council's referral, and either includes a recommendation or requests direction from the Council. COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEES Establishment of a Community Planning Committee The Municipal Code currently addresses Community Planning Committees (CPC) in Chapter 2.48. To staff's knowledge the only CPC that has ever been formed was the Montgomery Planning Committee. It was formed after the Montgomery area was annexed to the City and was later absorbed into the Montgomery Southwest Project Area Committee (PAC). The PAC was sunsetted in 1997. The Municipal Code contains a detailed discussion regarding how boundaries are determined and how a CPC is established. Chapter 2.48 authorizes the "electors" (registered voters) of the community to create CPCs that are recognized by the City Council through submission of a petition that defines the boundaries of the CPC based on the criteria in the Municipal Code (demographics, geographic and community interests). The petition must affirm that at least 5,000 persons reside within the proposed community and it must be signed by 25% of the voting members within that community. The Council's consideration of and decision on forming the CPC is carried out through a public hearing. Appointment of the Governing Board of the CPC Chapter 2.48 also includes provisions for establishing a Governing Board (Board), which is also known as the Community Planning Committee. It is made up of 7 members who serve two year ~® ~~ ~ Item No.: ~ ~ Meeting Date: 04-17-12 Page 3 of 8 terms. The code allows the Board members to either be elected by the members of the community (residents and property owners) or by appointment of the City Council. Primary Duties The primary duty of the CPC is the development of those sections of the General Plan that pertain to the Community such as the Land Use and Transportation Element. In addition the CPC has the power to review and recommend on precise plans, zoning regulations, planned communities, proposed annexations, local street design, landscaping, grading and hillside development, open space, architectural review, variances, conditional use permits, and "all other police regulations affecting land use, e.g., animal regulations, trees, etc.". Administration of the CPC Section 2.48.090 of the Municipal Code requires that the Planning Department and Public Works Department transmit projects to the CPC. It goes on to state that it is the duty of the CPC to review the project and transmit their findings in writing or at hearings before the Planning Commission or the City Council to present their conclusions. Authority of the CPC The CPC provides recommendations only and does not have authority to make decisions. Their recommendation must be received by the City within 21 days of the transmittal of the project to them. If no recommendation is received the project proceeds through the process without a recommendation from the CPC. In some cases the recommendation of the CPC is considered along with all other public testimony and does not hold any greater weight. However, for variances and conditional use permits the CPC recommendation can only be overridden by a vote of 5 of the 7 Planning Commissioners. Outstanding Questions/Issues if the Council opts to move forward on establishing CPCs: Staff's research has raised several questions that need to be addressed by the Council if it directs us to go forward on establishing CPCs. Establishment of CPCs 1. Will all of the communities in the City have a CPC or only those that come forward to request one? 2. How will a "community" be defined? 3. How many CPCs should there be? 4. What is the minimum/maximum area that a CPC should cover? There are a number of ways that the size and numbers of CPCs can be determined. They can be set by population as the current code establishes (minimum 5,000 voters) and established ~•~ _. Item No.: 1 ~ Meeting Date: 04-17-12 Page 4 of 8 only when the community comes forward; or the Council could determine the boundaries and set up a Committee for each defined Community. Duties/Operation of CPC What will the role of the CPC be in the development process? Will the CPC review include those projects that are now reviewed by the Zoning Administrator (ZA), as well as the Planning Commission (PC) or the Design Review Board (DRB)? Projects that are reviewed by the ZA are typically processed faster than projects that go to the PC or DRB. Allowing for sufficient time in the process for a CPC to review and comments (currently 21 days) may slow the process down. 6. Should the City's Public Participation Policy (PPP) be amended to designate the CPC as the body that would hold the community workshop? 7. Will CPCs consider non-planning related community items/issues? Currently Section 2.48.080(B) (7) allows the CPC to review and recommend on "all other police regulations affecting land use, e. g. animal regulations, trees, etc. " Administration of the CPC 8. Should the CPC be self-operating or facilitated by staff? 9. If the CPC is not staffed, what role will staff have in the overall administration? The City of San Diego 's model has certain administrative functions carried out by staff however the day to day operation of the Planning Group is taken on by the members. Staff's recommendation: Staff has reviewed Chapter 2.48 and is concerned that certain sections such as 2.48.030 (Formation Procedures e. g. boundaries, appointment of Governing Board, membership of Committee, etc.) and 2.48.080 (Powers and functions) are very complicated and difficult to follow. If it is the Council's desire to move forward on forming CPCs, staff recommends that the entire Chapter2.48 be reviewed and amendments brought forward to the City Council for consideration that would provide clarifications as needed in Chapter 2.48 and to ensure that Chapter 2.48 is consistent with all other sections of the Municipal Code including those section that pertain to the development process. If direction is given to establish a Community Planning Committee, staff will report back to Council with the cost to establish this committee as well as annual ongoing support costs. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION The Municipal Code addresses the Economic Development Commission (EDC) in Chapter 2.30. where it states that the Economic Development Commission was created as an advisory and coordinating body to serve as a resource to advise and make recommendations to the City ~~ Item No.: ~'~ Meeting Date: 04- 17-12 Page 5 of 8 Council. and City Manager on economic development issues and opportunities that would benefit the community. In 2003, the City Council adopted a comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (EDS). The EDS was the result of much public participation and collaboration, and has been the foundation of the City's business retention and attraction policies for the past nine years. While a great deal has changed in the economy since the EDS was adopted, the central focus of the plan to retain and grow existing businesses and attract new businesses with an eye towards expanding quality jobs and increasing revenues to fund vital City services remains critically important today. In January 2004, the City Council suspended the operation of the Economic Development Commission (EDC} until certain redevelopment structural issues were addressed. Once these issues were resolved, the Council reserved the option to reconsider the composition and future role of the EDC. The redevelopment issues were resolved with the formation of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRC), which was subsequently dissolved by City Council and state action. The State's position and policy on economic development tools are as much if not more in transition today as they were in 2004. The Economic Development staff is working through the City Manager's Office in collaboration with other City department and local business to develop the Local Business and Jobs Investment Policy. This set of policy programs responds to current economic conditions, empowers the public private partnerships envisioned in the EDS and updates them to provide the flexibility to respond to current and future economic challenges. These programs focus resources to build upon the extensive work of the EDS and act in a timely fashion to assist businesses and the creation of jobs in this challenging economic time. Staff anticipates bringing these policies to the Council for their review in late March or early April 2012. The City has tools such as the online business search tool, permit expedite program, expanded Enterprise Zone and marketing staff to implement and promote the EDS goals and objectives along with the proposed Local Business and Jobs Investment Policy. Staff from Economic Development, Marketing, Finance and Development Services is working extensively with industrial, commercial, research, medical, retail, construction and other business sectors in developing and implementing these tools. Staff will invest the next nine months in testing and implementing these new tools and the policy to work our way through these dynamic economic conditions and the new set of state policies to outline the potential role and benefits of an EDC. Staff's recommendation: that the EDC not be reactivated at this time. It is staff's opinion that the Department's limited resources be focused on the current direct collaboration with business sectors and the execution of the EDS, and more specifically the adoption and implementation of the Investment and Purchasing policies. COMBINED PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The City Council asked for a report on the pros and cons of combining/consolidating the duties of some boards and commissions We looked at all of the City's Boards and Commissions and the one we thought had merit was the Planning Commission (PC) and Design Review Board (DRB). Chapters 2.42 and 2.47 address the duties, function and requirements to serve on the PC and DRB. `~-.~ Item No.: ~ 0 Meeting Date: 04-17-12 Page 6 of 8 The PC serves as the planning agency for the City. It guides the preparation of the General Plan and makes recommendations to the City Council about the General Plan. It evaluates physical development in the City, conducts public hearings on significant planning, zoning, and land subdivision matters and it recommends action and policy to the City Council related to major land use matters. The DRB's purpose is to ensure that development within the City of Chula Vista is orderly and of a high quality. The DRB is responsible for ensuring that development is consistent with the City's design guidelines through its review of plans for the establishment, location, expansion or alteration of multi-family residential uses and structures and all non-residential uses and structures. Their review process is limited to site plans, elevations, signs, landscape areas and materials. The City Council created the DRB in 1977 to relieve the Planning Commission of certain routine functions necessary to the proper administration of Chapter 19.14, which governs the administrative procedure for permits, applications and hearings. The Council also wanted to intensify the City's efforts at that time to improve its townscape, and to promote orderly growth and amenity. Through the years of significant development in the City, the DRB and PC met twice a month and, for the most part, had very full agendas. With the decline in development, the level of projects being reviewed by both bodies has dropped. The implementation of Process Improvement amendments to the Zoning Code has resulted in the ZA now handling more of the projects that were previously reviewed by the PC or DRB. As a result, the frequency of the meetings and the number of items on the agendas for both the PC and DRB has declined. The membership requirements for the two bodies vary slightly. The requirements for membership on the PC are consistent with most of the other Boards and Commissions in the City. Members must be City residents and over 18 years old. The requirements for membership on the DRB are that members must be sensitive to design consideration and interested in townscape matters. Membership shall include architects, landscape architects, land planners, and other design professionals with suitable experience. If the City Council desires to merge the PC and DRB, staffs suggested approach would be to merge the membership of the two groups as they stand today under the title of the Planning Commission, and through attrition reduce the Commission back down to seven members that include the compliment of DRB type expertise. This would require amendments to the Municipal Code to require a certain number of Planning Commissioners have the same qualifications that the DRB has now. Staff's recommendation: that the Council provide direction to staff on whether to merge the PC/DRB, and whether to proceed with the above approach, or another desired approach. If Council directs us to move forward on this matter staff will go to the PB and DRB for their input and recommendation. ~~ Item No.: 1 fl Meeting Date: 04-17-12 Page7of8 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WITH BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS The Council has asked staff to submit a proposal for Council consideration to initiate regularly scheduled workshop meetings with all Board and Commissions. Section 2.04.050(D) of the Municipal Code includes provisions for the City Council to meet with all Boards and/or Commissions during a Workshop meeting. Currently the City has numerous Boards and Commissions. Only the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) together with the PC is required by ordinance to meet with the City Council annually to discuss the Growth Management Oversight Report. In addition, the actions of the several City Commissions are already reported to the Council through the Agenda process. These commissions are the: • Charter Review Commission • Mobilehome Rent Review Commission • Housing Advisory Commission • Planning Commission • Historic Preservation Commission • Safety Commission • Design Review Board. Since their actions are regularly reported to the City Council there would most likely not be a reason for the Council to meet with these Commissions (other than with the PC and GMOC as discussed above). The following other Commissions are involved with City-wide programs and often deal with major issues: • Board of Library Trustees • Cultural Arts Commission • International Friendship Commission • Parks and Recreation Commission • Resource Conservation Commission Staff believes there would be a benefit from the City Council meeting with those Commissions that deal with major issues on an annual or biennial basis. In addition, staff believes it would be beneficial for the Youth Action Council to meet annually with the City Council to report on their activities from the previous year and their plans for the upcoming year. Staff further recommends that the City Council meet in a Joint Workshop meeting with the following Commission if issues arise that the City Council determines would benefit from a joint meeting. ~~ Item No.: I `~ Meeting Date: 04-17-12 Page 8 of 8 • Veterans Advisory Commission • Board of Ethics • Board of Appeals and Advisors • Commission on Aging • Civil Service Commission DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT As this is only a report, there is no current year fiscal impact. Should Council direct the establishment of Community Planning Committees a fiscal analysis of that action would be considered when the item is brought back to the City Council. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT If direction were given to establish the Community Planning Committee, there would be ongoing support costs that have not been determined at this time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Groups/Committees In Other Jurisdictions 2. At-A-Glance Comparison of Community Planning Committee Models 3. Preliminary Review of Pros and Cons of Establishing Community Planning Committees Prepared by: Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi, Principal Planner, DSD -Advanced Planning /~ F Attachment 1 Board and Commission Agenda Statement Apri13, 2011 PLANNING GROUPS/COMMITTEES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS Other jurisdictions in the County, including the County of San Diego and the City of San Diego, also have established CPCs. They each operate under a slightly different model. The following is a brief summary of their models. A summary comparison chart is attached to this report. City of San Diego Appointment of members (election appointment) In accordance with Council Policy the community selects the members of the Community Planning Committee through an election within the Community. The City does not direct or recommend members. However, initial members and terms of each planning group seat and member must be submitted for approval by resolution of the City Council when the group is established. Duties The Planning Group makes recommendations to the City Council, Planning Commission, City staff and other governmental agencies on land use matters concerning preparation of, adoption of, implementation of, or amendment to the General Plan. The Planning Groups also advise on other land use matters as requested by the City or other governmental agencies. Administration Planning Groups are voluntarily created and maintained by the members of the communities. They have no legal authority to take actions on behalf of the City. Planning Groups are incorporated under the laws of the State of California and maintain corporate bylaws separate from the Planning Group bylaws. The Planning Group must have bylaws and they must be consistent with the City of San Diego's Policy on Community Planning Groups. The initial bylaws for each Planning Group must be submitted for approval by resolution of the City Council. City Staff is assigned to prepare and maintain Administrative Guidelines that are used by all of the Planning Groups. The individual Community Groups' bylaws must be consistent with the Administrative Guidelines. Meetings must be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act. Authority of Community Planning Group The Planning Group makes recommendations in an advisory capacity. Page 1 ,~-s County of San Diego Appointment of members (election/appointment) The members of the Community Planning Group Board are elected by voters within the Community Planning Area's boundary as part of the General or Primary Election. Duties The primary responsibility of the CPG is updating the County's General Plan and reviewing discretionary regulatory projects. Authority of Community Planning Group The Community Planning Group has an advisory capacity to the Director of Planning, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors and others involved with the County planning process. The County Policy specifies that Planning Groups are recognized as having a working relationship with the County on planning and land use matters. The policy also specifically states that issues not related to planning or land use are not within the purview of these groups. Administration Meetings must be held in accordance with the Brown Act. Staff provides limited support through training, on areas of concern to the group and by providing additional information on selected projects. The Department also provides a variety of administrative support to the group (budget, etc.) that are detailed in the County policy. County staff also mails out notices for CPG meetings including project specific notices when the CGP reviews a project. Page 2 ~'`°`,~~ Attachment 2 At-a-Glance Comparison of Community Planning Committee Models Selection of Duties Administration Recommendation Members or Advisor Chula Vista Ch. 2.48 Election by Review of Land Self-administered Advisory except Community or Use for variances and appointment by conditional use City Council - 7 permits members City of San Diego Selected by Advice on Land Individual groups are Advisory Community Use Matters self-administered 12-20 members with Staff providing overall support County of San Diego Elected through a Review of Land Individual groups are Advisory General or Primary Use projects self-administered Election - with Staff providing maximum 15 administrative members support (budget) ~ `~~ Attachment 3 In reviewing Section 2.48 and the City and County of San Diego models for Community Planning Committees, staff has identified some pros and cons that the Council may wish to consider in determining if the City should move forward with establishing CPCs. Preliminary Review of Pros and Cons of Establishing Community Planning Committees Pro Con Notes CPCs could facilitate the Duplicative Process Public Participation Policy (PPP) Community Meeting that is already informs the public about addressed in the PPP projects and gives the public opportunity to comment on a project early in the process; the PPP could be modified to allow the CPC to facilitate the Community Meeting. CPCs can provide an Smaller neighborhood group; not as opportunity for people in the intimidating as a PC or CC meeting community to connect with each other and get involved in their Community. CPCs would be formally As a formal group, membership would sanctioned groups, elected be solicited. area-wide so that it would by residents or selection by represent a cross section of the entire the City Council, as opposed community/neighborhood to a self selected informal community group. The CPC might Allow The Process Improvement for "another bite of the Amendments that were adopted last apple" beyond the year were intended to reduce the formal hearing process number of steps that a project went through during the entitlement process. The CPC could provide a forum that would lead to additional "bite of the apple". Additional City will need to ensure that all groups administrative burden on function the same with similar by-laws staff even if not and, if determined necessary by the routinely staffed City Attorney, Community Groups will need to function under the Brown Act Regardless of the role It is very likely that the CPC will want assigned to CPC, there is to address other issues in their a potential for their role community beyond proposed to extend beyond development projects. Plannin related efforts r~~