Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2008/09/24MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 6:00 p.m. September 24. 2008 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California Chair Tripp stated there was question as to whether tonight's meeting was properly noticed and asked Asst. City Attorney Cusato if she could render an opinion based on the posting of the agenda on the City's website and at the kiosk electronically touch-screen. Ms. Cusato stated that electronic posting of agendas meet the Brown Act requirements according to the Attorney General of the State of California. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL /MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Members Present: Tripp, Clayton, Felber, Moctezuma, Bensoussan, Spethman Member Absent: Vinson MSC (Spethman/Moctezuma) (4-2-0-1) to excuse Cmr. Vinson. Cmr. Bensoussan asked if he gave a reason for being absent because; to her knowledge, he had a campaign event that she was invited to attend. Ms. Ladiana stated that he called her in the afternoon and stated he had a conflict and wouldn't be attending tonight's meeting. Call for the Question. Cmr. Bensoussan stated she made a mistake in the way she voted and asked that the motion be restated and a vote retaken. MSC (Spethman/Moctezuma) (3-3-0-1) to excuse Cmr. Vinson. Motion failed with Cmrs. Tripp, Clayton and Bensoussan voting against it. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Tripp APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MSC (Spethman/Felber) (6-0-0-1) to approve minutes of August 13, 2008 as submitted. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public input. INFORMATION ITEM: Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - September 24, 2008 1. Information Item: Planning Entitlement Process Improvements and Expanded Role of the City's Zoning Administrator. Mary Ladiana reported with the City' reduction in operational budget, the opportunity has arisen to re-examine entitlement processes with the purpose of reducing redundancy, administrative costs and processing timelines. Earlier this year staff met with each of the boards and commissions having a role in land use process and decisions (Planning Commission, Design Review Board and the CVRC, RCC and subcommittees of the RAC and CVRC) and presented their initial ideas and recommendations on modifying the existing process. Tonight's meeting will provide you with a more detailed strategy for changes for decision-making thresholds. Ms. Ladiana stated that the modifications to the CUP decision thresholds are recommended in order to improve process efficiency, which would allow projects to be handled more expeditiously with continuing public input through a more formalized hearing process, but at the same time reducing staff costs and time. Michael Walker reviewed the decision matrix for Conditional Use permits and the proposed expanded role of the Zoning Administrator/Hearing Officer who would serve as a hearing officer and conduct noticed public hearings to review and render decisions regarding certain discretionary permits i.e. Variances, minor Conditional Use Permits and minor Design Review Permits. Commission Comments: 7:05:42 PM Cmr. Bensoussan stated that she supports streamlining the process and her focus and concerns are centered more with uses that affect residential neighborhoods, as oppose to commercial or industrial. Cmr. Bensoussan also does not agree with the threshold of 20 residential units or less not going through the Design Review Board and approved administratively. In her opinion, the threshold should be a maximum of 10 units, but would be more comfortable with an even lesser threshold. Cmr Felber stated he supports and understands the need for streamlining. He would strongly suggest that the ZA hearings be as accommodating to the general public as possible by having them at an hour and place that is conducive to receiving as much public input as possible. Cmr. Spethman stated he shares Cmr. Felber's comments about public input and believes that the professional expertise the Design Review Board is of enormous value. He is particularly concerned with granting unilateral authority to one individual (the Zoning Administrator). Cmr. Spethman recommend that a joint brain-storming meeting of the Planning Commission, DRB and CVRC be scheduled to craft a collective recommendation for a sound policy that balances the best interest of all parties (citizens, applicant and the City). Cmr. Tripp stated he does believe there are some things the Planning Commission delegate to be handled administratively, however, he is not in favor of administrative decisions "behind dosed doors" and does not support putting too much authority in one office or individual. He would like to see the permitted uses in the zone codified and indicated that the City of San Diego has done it and they've also incorporated some project management Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - September 24, 2008 into it. This doesn't mean rushing a project through, but rather establishes submittal standards that are clear and people know what to expect. Additionally, our fee schedule needs to be looked at because it shouldn't take $7,000 to appeal a decision; the City of San Diego appeal fee is $100. Cmr. Clayton agrees that streamlining is an important consideration but we need to be cautious of diluting the effectiveness of the Planning Commission and the forum in which public hearings are conducted because of the knowledge that is acquired through public participation that is very important to our deliberations on projects. There is already a mistrust in government and the perception out there is that our front counter is not business- friendly; she's very uncomfortable handing over the decision-making to one individual. Cmr. Moctezuma stated she concurs with her colleagues' concerns with delegating too much authority to one person; is supportive of the various boards getting together and coming up with more stringent guidelines; and questioned how does the public know of their right to appeal Mary Ladiana stated that if anyone from the general public has expressed interest in the project, staff will send them a Notice of Decision and will inform them of their right to appeal the decision. Regarding the appeal fee; a reassessment of the fee schedule is going to be done and concurs that typically the filing fee for an appeal is nominal. Cmr. Moctezuma would recommend that whenever there is a ZA hearing that staff be cognizant of announcing at the beginning and end of the hearing what the appeal process entails and the timeline in which they have the ability to appeal a decision. She concurs that an update of the zoning code has to take priority in order to have consistency throughout and eliminate redundancies and time loss. Agrees with lowering the threshold for an administrative decision on multi-family residential projects from 20 to 12 units. Cmr. Tripp stated the appeal process is valuable, but unfortunately can be abused and used as a roadblock to prohibit the project from moving forward. The appeal process needs to have clearly defined timelines with definitive findings that must be met and not be cost- prohibitive to either the applicant or any person wishing to appeal a decision. Cmr. Bensoussan stated it's not surprising there are few appeals with the exorbitant fees that must be paid and agrees that a clearly defined codified appeal process will discourage frivolous appeals. Agrees that the changes staff is proposing need to be codified in a clear and comprehensive manner, similar to the way the UCSP is written, with enough detail that the proponents have clear guidelines and timelines of when they may expect to go to hearing. She expressed concern with short shrifting the public and the applicant by delegating too much discretionary authority to one individual. Cmr. Spethman encouraged staff to schedule ZA hearing in a setting and time that is conducive to receiving as much public input and participation as possible. Cmr. Tripp commended staff for their hard work and stated that in order for it to be done correctly, it will require an aggressive work program and possibly additional resources. He reassured staff that the Commission stands behind them ready to make any recommendation that may be necessary to the City Council informing them of the importance of this work effort and if need be to request the allocation of additional resources. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - September 24, 2008 7:49:38 PM MSC (Spethman/Moctezuma) (6-0-0-1) to continue this item to a date uncertain to allow staff to continue working on refining the proposal, incorporating the Commission's input given tonight 7:50:52 PM 2. Action Item: Appointment of Planning Commission representative on the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) and Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC). MSC (Spethman/Clayton) (6-0-0-1) nominating Bryan Felber to serve as representative of the Planning Commission on the GMOC. Motion carried. MSC (Felber/Moctezuma) (6-0-0-1) nominating Joanne Clayton to serve as representative of the Planning Commission on the Redevelopment Advisory Committee. Motion carried. MSC (Clayton/Felber) (5-0-1-1) nominating Mike Spethman to serve as alternate on the RAC. Motion carried with Cmr. Spethman abstaining. 7:53:14 PM Directors Report: Brad Remp gave an overview of the department's budget reduction that resulted in a staff reduction of 9.5 positions effective September 26. Because of these reductions we are needing to work smarter, more efficiently with less and the work that Mary Ladiana and Michael Walker are doing in the streamlining work-program is very timely. He also gave an update of the Planning Director and City Manager recruitment process. 8:00:34 PM Meeting adjourned to a regular Planning Commission meeting on October 8, 2008. Respectfully submitted, Diana Vargas Secretary to the nning Commission