Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1984/05/19 pg 6 missing MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Saturday, May 19, 1984 8:30 a.m. Council Conference Room ROLL CALL Councilmembers present: Mayor Cox, Councilmembers Scott, Moore, Malcolm, McCandliss Councilmembers absent: None Staff present: City Manager Goss, City Attorney Harron, Director of Planning Krempl, Director of Management Services Thomson, Principal Analyst Dave Byers 1. REPORT CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESSING SYSTEM (Director of Management Services) City Manager Goss gave a brief overview of the meeting and referred to the development processing system report stating various City staff have reviewed and made recommendations on this report. He suggested Council refer the report to the Planning Commission and the land development community for comment at the conclusion of the meeting. Director of Management Services Thomson stated the Policy Analysis and Program Evaluation (PAPE) staff received comments and suggestions from several developers in the community and the Business and Industry Development Steering Conmnittee and made the suggestion that the report could come back in a few months with additional comments. The recommendations were to: (1) refer the report to the Planning Commission for review, requesting comments to be provided back to the City Council by August 1984; (2) authorize the Mayor to appoint an ad hoc committee from the land development community for the purpose of reviewing the report and providing comments to the City Council by August 1984. (3) direct staff to prepare an outline of tentative implementation steps for the recommendations in the report, highlighting the issues requiring specific Council approval, for Council consideration by August 1984. Mr. Thomson submitted the following three suggestions to help improve the City's land development processing system be referred to the land development community for comment: Council Conference - 2 - May 19, 1984 (1) City staff to hold one or more training sessions for developers on the City's land development permit processing system and procedures. They would be willing to pay for the cost of such training sessions if they elected to attend. (2) For the City to notify them if processing time goals are being exceeded, with a brief explanation as to why the delay is occurring. (3) A lower processing priority for maps and plans submitted for an excessive number of rechecks. Based on the review PAPE feels the City is doing very well compared to other cities in the County. City staff tends to look at the development process as an individual function, i.e., tentative map as one item all by itself - developers look at the process as a whole project. Principal Analyst Byers stated he tried to develop a system envisioning "typical" development using median times and explained the overall process the developer goes through. He explained the time between the Planning hearing and the Council hearing is 30-34 days as the schedule is built around exceptions (what might prove to be difficult cases). Council discussion followed regarding: the process for a developer to go through a general plan amendment; the three rechecks required in the final map stage and grading and improvement plans taking developer and City staff's time; reasons for rechecking including developer's engineers not making the necessary corrections required after City staff checks; developers using the City for "quality control"checks; suggestion that after lO errors plan should go back to the architect; reason for checking is to insure conformity to the City standards regarding drainage and street conformance; after more than three rechecks it should take a lower priority; no firm written policy; the number of checks are determined by number of lots (a subdivision with 500 lots would require more checking than one with 5 lots); number of times plans should be checked and use of staff time; this problem could come back in August with a recommendation; building permits sampled were picked at random; suggest filing concurrent processing; building permit not issued until the final map is approved with the exception of models; typical development using recommended target times; amount of time between Planning Commission and Council hearings; developers indicate they do not like duplicate hearings; Council responsible for whatever decision occurs; hearings serve important purpose for citizens; percentage of E IR's going to the Planning Commission and those with joint submission; Council does not see EIR until the time it makes a decision on the discretionary process related to the EIR; Planning Commission certifies EIR and has a hearing when it comes back for adoption - part of the environmental process is to review the actual process; developers would like to know what their constraints are before submitting plan to the City; applicant can appeal to Council to establish a negative declaration; few complaints from developers presently but staff concern regarding major projects in the near future; contracting with outside people for the overflow staff will be receiving; additional staff to be added on a timely basis; takes I I · 'I i Council Conference - 3 - May 19, 1984 new employee six months to become familiar with the City manuals and procedures; Planning and Engineering are requesting additional staff; developers stated P-C zone is not specific enough; developer could submit final map along with tentative map but any changes would require resubmittal; improvement Ran usually not started until the tentative pl an has been approved; same person does not always look at the same plan when it is resubmitted; City staff needs to check plans each time they are submitted to ensure no other changes have been made; Development Service Coordinator be appointed to be responsible to the City Manager regarding approval of plans. In reviewing the Review of Land Development Permit Processing summary the Director of Management Services suggested the following recommendations: Steps Developers Can Take to Reduce Processing Time A. Concurrent Applications and Processing B. Quicker Filing of Final Map After Tentative Map Approval C. Reducing Number of Rechecks in Plan Check Recommendations to Reduce Processing Time A. Recommendations Regarding Pre-Application Phase 1. Planning Director establish more formalized policies and procedures for optional pre-application meetings 2. Planning Director develop a policy permitting preliminary joint City Council/Planning Commission workshops regarding large or potentially controversial projects. 3. Planning, Engineering and Building and Housing Departments update the written material available to applicants B. Recommendations Regarding Staff Review Phase 1. Staff be temporarily transferred to land development section for plan checking when Engineering plan check backlog reaches pre-established limits and design section's CIP projects be designed through contractual services or temporary personnel. 2. City Manager to designate a development services coordinator within City administration staff. C. Recommendations Regarding Lay or Public Official Review l. Planning Director ensure, for appropriate discretionary permits being processed concurrently for a project, that the related public hearings are held at a single meeting for Planning Commission review and at a subsequent single meeting for City Council review. Council Conference - 4 - Hay 19, 1984 Z, Planning Director ensure public beerings for zone changes end tentative maps for Planning Commission end City Councll be scheduled so City Coundl meetings follow Planning Commission meetings by not more then 20 days, 3. Planning Director develop a training program for new Planning Commission and Councilmembers. O. Recommendations regarding City's "Ground Rules" 1. Planning Director prepare report to City Council regarding appropriateness of providing nattower density ranges in new general plan to be prepared for City's Eastern Territories 2. Planning Director prepare report for City Council on possible modifications or alternatives to the City's P-C zoning ordinance E. Recommendations Regarding Automated Permit Tracking and Processing Systems 1. Forms provided by PAPE staff be used as basis for developing automated management information and tracking system. 2. Task Force to determine needs for a computer-based permit processing system. ALTERNATIVES NOT CURRENTLY RECOMMENDED A. Hearing officers or other Changes in Approval Levels Further delegation of approval authority from City Council and Planning Commission to hearing officers or staff boards B. Other A1 ternatives Not Currently Recommended Joint P1 anning Commission and City Council public hearings on master EIR's The recommended Council action is: 1. Refer this report to the Planning Commission for review. 2. Appoint ad-hoc commi tree for review purposes to provide comments by August 1984. 3.Request staff to provide implementation. MSUC (Moore/Malcolm) to accept the report and staff recommendations 1 and 3. MSUC {McCandliss/Scott) to circulate copies of the report and questions to the Planning Commission and members of the development community and staff to schedule another Council Conference to review the comments. The Council recessed at 10:50 a.m. and reconvened at ll:15 a.m. Council Conference - 5 - May 19, 1984 2. REPORT CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR A FOUR-FIFTH'S VOTE TO OVERRIDE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS (City Attorney/Director of Planning) City Attorney Harron stated the only time a four-fifth's vote is required in a planning action is for conditional use permits and variances Discussion ensued regarding the fact people feel the Planning Commission function is not as important because it can be overcome by a majority Council vote; however, Council ultimately is the responsible body that is accountable to the citizens. MS (McCandliss/Malcolm) to refer this issue to the Planning Commission for discussion and recommendation to the Council. Staff recommendations were made to (1) refer to Planning Commission for discussion; (2) for this item to come back to Council and (3) for the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the City Code. SUBSTITUTE MOTION MSC (Cox/Malcolm) to accept the staff recommendation. The motion carried with Councilwoman McCandliss voting "no". 3. REPORT STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BOOZ ALLEN AND HAMILTON REPORT ON THE PLANNING DEPAR1MENT Director of Planning Krempl explained the report was an update of the Operations Review of Chula Vista's Planning Department prepared in April 1978. However, this report is outdated and the recommendations currently made include following processing changes: 1. Make the Zoning Administrator rather than the Planning Commission responsible for acting on all variances. 2. Make the City Engineer rather than the Planning Commission responsible for acting on requests for deferral of public improvements. Requests for waivers would remain with t~ing Commission. Decisions on requests T6'F"dTferral or waiver of the requirement to underground utilities would remain with the City Council. 3. Make the Design Review Committee responsible for review of precise plans in commercial and industrial zones in addition to their present authority in tile R-3 zones. It is recommended that this authority not be extended to the review of developments in the P-C zone at this time. Council Conference - 7 - May 19, 1984 In reference to the low-and-moderate housing program across the street, Principal Planner Lee stated there is no specific direction in terms of the desire of particular building materials on the part of Council. The location of the building and sethack on the "F" Street site were taken into consideration and goals have to be balanced in terms of cost of the building. Council discussion ensued regarding whether the Council should have a Design Review on major projects such as the Bayfront project; the cost of the tile on the north facing (on the building on "F" Street); type of material used fiberglass with resin finish simulating resin type of look reducing cost considerably. 3. Principal Planner Lee explained condominium plats go to Council when the site development has already occurred. The design is reviewed when the building permits have been taken out. Council may want to screen condominium projects because the City is getting too many conversions. (Presently there are approximately 14,000 multiple family units in Chula Vista and 80% of multiple family units are in rental apartments). Di rector of Planning Krempl stated this is a fairly significant number. It was suggested if the percentage falls below 75-80%, it could come back to Council for review of condominium developments. Councilwoman McCandliss stated Council has no opportunity to critique the condominium plan until it is completed. MSUC (Scott/Mal colm) for the P1 arming Department recommendation to delegate the "one lot plan" process to the Planning Commission. 4. Director of Planning Krempl discussed Design Review Committee make-up and quorum requirements and referred to the City Attorney for comments. City Attorney Harron stated the City Charter sets up the number of named Commissions. Council shall |lave the authority to name any other Boards/Commissions subject to some provisions set out by the Charter but did not envision ad hoc or Design Review Committees. The groups may only act on the majority of members of the Committee as opposed to a quorum. Council discussion followed including: interpretation of whether Council could set up any other Boards/Con~nission v~ith those conditions; should the Design Review Committee be an advisory arm of the staff; should the Charter be amended; if a Charter amendment was put out the provisions would not apply to every Commission appointed in the future. MSUC {Malcolm/Scott) to have Charter Review Committee called back into session reviewing Charter amendments to be placed on for the November ballot. Discussion ensued regarding personnel policies, middle managers, quorum of the Design Review Committee, ordinance states "prefer" majority of quorum and the policy on Industrial Development bonds. Council Conference - 8 - May 19, 1984 CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS a. City Manager Goss reported two bills in Sacramento (Cortese and Marks) which would provide more stable funding for local government. Regarding the Cortese bill, this would increase motor vehicle-in-lieu revenues by approximately $1.1 million, and Chula Vista would lose business inventory tax. Regarding the Marks bill, the City would receive far less in motor vehicle-in-lieu revenues. The City budget is not predicated on whether these two bills are passed. MAYOR' S COMMENT a. Mayor Cox noted(at the Mayor's Breakfast meeting) Chief Border Agent Alan Ellison made a presentation regarding the need for additional funding for 239 border patrol agents to the San Diego County area. MSUC (Cox/Moore) to direct the City Manager to send a letter to the San Diego Congressional delegation urging support of additional (border patrol } personnel. COUNCIL COMMENTS a. Councilman Moore, as a representative of the LAFCO Advisory Committee, stated he would like to see a plan implemented to ensure a quorum to represen~ Chula Vista. b. MSUC (Scott/Moore) for a staff liaison to keep Council informed to ensure things don't go wrong and report back to Council regarding the public housing across the street (Town Center Manor). c. Councilman Malcolm referred to the flooding of the City Hall building and requested proper action be taken to ensure the carpet does not mildew. ADjOURF~IENT AT 11:45 a.m. to the Navy Housing Tour scheduled for 1 p.m. to the regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, May 22, 1984 at 7 p.m. JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC City Clerk PATRICIA A. GUARDACOSTA Deputy City C1 erk WPG:pg -- 0435C T T · I '