Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 1992/04/20~«r, ~~ ~~ _~~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PERMIT PROCESS STREAMLINING SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMD'IENDATIONS In August 1991, the Chula Vista Economic Development Commission established the following Mission Statement: "To enhance the quality of life in Chula Vista through the promotion of a strong local economy offering employment and business opportunities, and a healthy diversified tax base vital to supporting City services." Among the six functional strategies the EDC identified to meet its mission are: "1) serving as a local business networking and fact finding resource group, 2) monitoring and evaluating programs and issues having a potential local economic impact and formulating recommendations to Council, and 3) advocating policies which create a positive business environment." Within this framework, the EDC selected "streamlinine the CitY's permit rocess" as its Jll priority. The Chula Vista Economic Development Plan was adopted by the City Council at a joint EDC/Council workshop on August 28, 1991. This Council-adopted Plan consists of specific Goals and Objectives to "promote a strong local economy." Goal IV calls for the City to "Develop a proactive business assistance program to encourage business retention, growth and expansion," and specifically calls for the Council to "Assess permit processing policies and identify streamlinine recommendations As a result of both Council and Commission prioritization, the EDC formed a "Permit Process Streamlining Subcommittee," co-chaired by Ms. Patty Davis and Mr. Pete Gerber, and including EDC Commissioner Penny Allen. The Subcommittee solicited outside expertise via "resource people" from local business (owners and managers); active residential, commercial and industrial development firms; architectural firms; and from Crossroads, a community-based, environmentally-oriented group (see attached Task Force membership list). Staff support was provided by the Chula Vista Planning Department, Building & Housing Department and Community Development Department, with Deputy City Manager George Krempl acting as management liaison. The Subcommittee's first meeting was held on in September, 1991. In November 1991, the Mayor's proposed Local Business Task Force was merged with the EDC's Subcommittee, adding additional local business representation. The Subcommittee divided into three "working groups" to address three key areas of concern: 1) Design Review 2) Advisory Bodies and Development Review Procedures and 3) Customer Service. These three groups met bimonthly through March 1992 to develop specific streamlining recommendations to present to Council. The underlying goal was to provide auser-friendly approach to development review and permit approvals in the City of Chula Vista in order to encourage business retention and expansion as well as new business development 276 FOURTH AVENUEJCHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5047 Revised: April 6, 1992 I. DISCRETIONARY LAND USE PERMITS AND APPROVALS A. CHANGE CERTAIN CONDITIONAL USES TO PERMITTED USES Discussion: Certain uses which currently require a conditional use permit could be allowed "by right," subject to meeting all other Zoning Ordinance requirements, and/or other specific performance standards which the City could apply administratively. B. ALLOW CERTAIN CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO BE ISSUED ADMINISTRATIVELY Discussion: Certain uses which currently require a conditional use permit could be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, and a CUP could be issued administratively, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. This approach would be most appropriate for such uses where the CUP is used primarily to apply specific conditions to a use to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, rather than where a use may or may not be acceptable depending on specific circumstances. In cases where a written or oral protest is registered with the Zoning Administrator regarding a proposed administrative CUP, and the concern cannot be resolved through conditions of approval which are acceptable to both the applicant and the party filing the protest, then the matter shall be referred to the Planning Commission. The costs of referring the matter to the Planning Commission shall be borne by the applicant. However, staff shall attempt to minimize these costs, and shall schedule such matters before the Planning Commission at the earliest possible date. C. ALLOW CERTAIN CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, RATHER THAN BEING AUTOMATICALLY REFERRED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION Discussion: Certain uses currently require a conditional use permit to be approved pursuant to a public hearing by the City Council, following a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission. For many of these uses, the Planning Commission could be given authority to approve the CUP, subject to appeal by the City Council or any other party. In accordance with current practice, the Director of Planning would provide written notification to the City Council of action taken by the Planning Commission in the next City Council packet, and the Council would be required to take any action to appeal such matter at its next regular meeting. Unless such appeal action were taken by the City Council at that meeting, the action of the Planning Commission would be final. I. PLACE A HIGH PRIORITY ON IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OUTLINED ABOVE Discussion: By implementing the changes outlined above, the City can continue to ensure high quality design in all new development which occurs in Chula Vista, while reducing the delays and frustrations which are often associated with the design review process. The City Council should assure that adequate staff resources are provided to institute these changes as soon as possible, and should appoint representatives of the Design Review Committee, the business community, design professionals, and other community interests to work with staff in implementing these recommendations. III. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES A. RESTRICT THE ROLE OF THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEES (PACs) TO THE SPECIFIC DUTIES REQUIItED BY CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW; DISBAND THE TOWN CENTRE I & II AND OTAY VALLEY PACs WITHIN ONE YEAR; AND DISBAND THE SOUTHWEST PAC IN THREE YEARS FROM ITS FORMATION. Discussion: The California Health and Safety Code requires a Project Area Committee (PAC) to be established within a Project Area where "...a substantial number oflow- and moderate-income families are to be displaced by the redevelopment project" and, further states that the PAC should be consulted regarding "...those policy matters which deal with the planning and provision of residential facilities or replacement housing for those to be displaced by project activities," and that, "The agency shall also consult with the committee on other policy matters which affect the residents of the project azea." These provisions apply for a three (3) year period after adoption of each redevelopment plan, and may be extended by the Agency by one-year intervals. However, the Rules and By-Laws adopted by each of the three PACs state that the PAC shall review "...all major proposals for the development, platting, conservation, circulation, or public service of the Project Area, and shall report its findings and recommendations to the Redevelopment Agency, Design Review Committee, or referring body." And, under current practices, the PACs review virtually all discretionary applications, creating additional layers of review and time delays for redevelopment projects, actually acting as a disincentive to development. Staff support demands are extensive and are not reimbursed by cost recovery fees. The three year periods have expired for TCI and II and Otay; Southwest will expire in July, 1993. This recommendation will require Council to adopt resolutions, PACs to amend their Rules and By-laws and the Redevelopment Project Area Procedures Manuals/Implementation Plans to be amended. The MPC currently reviews all major ]and use actions affecting the Montgomery Community (e.g., General Plan amendments, Montgomery Specific Plan amendments, rezoning) as well as other discretionary approvals (e.g., tentative maps, CUP's). The recommendation recognizes the short-term need for a community group to provide input into the remaining Special Study Areas land use decisions (e.g., Otay River and West Fairfield) and to continue to act as an advisory body concerning other issues delineated above (e.g., CIP and CDBG review), while considering the overall Baal of eliminating duplicative layers of review, minimizing related costs and delays to business applicants, and maximizing administrative reviews. Another consideration in narro^~ing this and other advisory bodies' land use-related responsibilities is recent action by Council instigating public forums for new planned community proposals and the extension of public hearing notices from 500' to 1000' from the proposed project site. The Southwest Project area is located within the Montgomery area. The City Attorney is currently reviewing the potential merger of the MPC and the Southwest PAC. Assuming the PAC's role is immediately limited, and the PAC is sunsetted by July 1993, per the Subcommittee's recommendation, it should be noted that two current PAC members are also members of the MPC. E. RESTRICT THE RCC'S ROLE TO REVIEWING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND SUBMITTING COMMENTS TO STAFF. Discussion: The RCC's role is defined in Ordinance No. 1928, (revised November 1980) to provide advice to Council "in the areas of energy conservation,, resource recovery, environmental quality, historic and prehistoric site protection and other related fields." The ordinance further calls fora "citizen's assessment" of, among other things, "the effects of individual projects being subjected to environmental review..." The Subcommittee's recommendation would allow the RCC to provide comments/questions to the EIR consultant and City Environmental Coordinator, while eliminating the need for applicants (and their costly consultants) to appear before the RCC either in a public meeting or public hearing format. The recommendation reflects the lack of any state legal mandate for a separate City committee to review or conduct environmental analyses. The review by Chula Vista's RCC is being undertaken in addition to that of the City's internal departments and Environmental Review Coordinator; the surrounding property owners routinely receiving the Notice of the EIR; the numerous public and private agencies/organizations routinely receiving Notice of the EIR; and the E'R 1~~: blic hearings before both the PC and the City Council. Again, the recommendation reflects the desire to streamline the process by eliminating unnecessary duplication and resulting costs and delays, while still insuring adequate public review. D. OMBUDSMAN Discussion: The policy of this city is to encourage responsibility development, especially commercial and light industrial development which adds to the tax base and provide jobs. One key to attracting this type of development is fair treatment by city staff during the planning process. There should be a staff person whose only job would be to assist applicants as they make [heir ways through the planning process, an "ombudsman." This would be especially valuable to those new to the process and to small businesses which may be less sophisticated in their approach to the process. The availability of an ombudsman would signal the city's commitment to economic development. It would also provide the assistance applicants need when they feel they have been treated unfairly, giving them an advocate. E. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Discussion: Planning Department personnel should approach their contacts with applicants as sale of a service. Service must be efficient, fair, and courteous. Anything less is unacceptable. The number of complaints about treatment by staff and the Design Review Committee indicate the current level of service is unacceptable. The staff position seems to be that this is due to unhappiness with results, that applicants always ask for more than can be granted and so will never be satisfied. However, discussions with past applicants indicates that their contacts with staff and the Design Review Committee are too often adversarial. Individual preferences should be removed from evaluation of projects, and staff and the DRC should concentrate on bringing each project quickly and inexpensively into line with City regulations. An acceptable project should escape modification. A project that does not meet standards should not be summarily dismissed. It is possible to say no, yet be helpful. The applicant should be informed of acceptable alternatives and given approval conditional upon submission of conforming plans. The applicant's concerns of time, money, pride of ownership (of design) should be given great weight. The means to achieve the above aze various. It is the responsibility of management, and managers should be made accountable. There should be better traini ~ of those who meet with applicants, both staff and commissioners. Senior planners should be available to assist their juniors; there should be an open door policy, with senior planners being available to meet with all applicants. This policy should be explained in all applications. Senior planners should make appointments with a sampling of applicants for candid discussions of their experiences with staff.