Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 - Calls for Review for Title 20CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 21 January 27, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department, James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210, icampbel l(a) city. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Initiation of a Municipal Code Amendment to Title 20 related to City Council calls for review of Planning Commission, Planning Director or Modifications Committee actions. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2004- initiating an amendment to Chapter 20.95, Title 20 of the Municipal Code related to calls for review. DISCUSSION: On June 24, 2003, the City Council discussed amending Section 20.95.050.0 to require two Council members to call an action of the Planning Commission, Planning Director or Modifications Committee for review. The previous staff report and minutes are attached for review. Presently, any member of the Council can call an item for review. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Council endorsed the suggested change. The change in procedure requires an amendment to Section 20.95.050, and therefore, pursuant to Chapter 20.94, the Council must first initiate the code amendment by adopting a resolution of intent. A draft resolution of intention to amend Chapter 20.95 is attached for consideration. Environmental Review: None required for the initiation of amendments. Public Notice: None required for the initiation of amendments. Prepared by: W rawd�ll •es W. Cam ell Senior Planner Submitted by: U44t, , P9tricia L. mple Planning Director Attachments: Code Amendment Initiation A. June 24, 2003 Staff Report B. Excerpt of Council Minutes from June 24, 2003 C. Draft Resolution of Intent to Amendment Chapter 20.95 January 27, 2004 Page 2 Pi E 0 9. Attachment A • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 25 June 10, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director (949- 644 -3228, ptemple @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: City Council and Planning Commission Calls for Review ISSUE: Should the procedures for City Council and Planning Commission Calls for Review be reconsidered? • RECOMMENDATION: Give staff direction on desired changes to the Calls for Review process, or determine that no changes are necessary. DISCUSSION: Chapter 20.95 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishes the procedures for the City Council or Planning Commission to call for review a decision rendered by the Planning Commission or staff (attached). Briefly, it provides for any individual Planning Commissioner to call for review any decision made by the Modification Committee or Planning Director, and any individual City Council member to call for review any decision of the Planning Commission, Modification Committee or Planning Director. All Calls for Review must occur within 14 days of the date of the decision. Prior to 1997, a majority vote of the City Council or Planning Commission was required to call an item for review. Because of this requirement, a call for review had to occur at a City Council or Planning Commission meeting. This could be accommodated because the appeal period was then 21 days, which was sufficient to cover the 4 times per year when there are 3 weeks between Council and Commission meetings. In 1997, the Code was amended to reduce the appeal period to 14 days. Because of the aforementioned times when there are three weeks between Commission and Council meetings, it was necessary to allow a Call for Review without requiring a 3 City Council and Planning Commission Calls for Review June 10, 2003 Page 2 • meeting. It was decided to allow a Call for Review at the request of any individual member of the City Council or Planning Commission. If the City Council wishes, the procedure for Calls for Review could be changed in one of two ways. One would be to require a minimum of two members to call an item for review at a regular meeting. The other would be to require a majority vote of the City Council or Planning Commission. Both could be accomplished without changing the current 14 -day appeal period by allowing for an extension of the Call for Review period by the Planning Director. The Call for Review period should be extended only when required to allow for a regular meeting of the City Council or Planning Commission to occur. Prepared by: Ll'(*'(� kl�-, Patricia L. Temple. Planter ing Director Attachment: Chapter 20.95 (NBMC) • • y CHAPTER 20.95 APPEALS AND CALLS FOR REVIEW Sections: Page 20.95 -1 Appeals and Calls For Review 20.95.010 Purpose and Authorization for Appeals and Calls for Review 20.95.020 Rights of Appeal 20.95.030 Appeals of Decisions on Tentative Maps 20.95.040 Time Limits for Appeals and Calls for Review 20.95.050 Initiation of Appeals and Calls for Review 20.95.060 Procedures for Appeals and Calls for Review 20.95.010 Purpose A. Appeals. To avoid results that are inconsistent with the purposes of this code, decisions of the Planning Director and the Modifications Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission, and decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. B. Calls for Review. As an additional safeguard to avoid results inconsistent with the purposes of this code, decisions of the Planning Director and the Modifications Committee may be called up for review by the Planning Commission, or by the City Council for review or referral to the Planning Commission. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be called up for review by the City Council. 20.95.020 Rights of Appeal Appeals may be initiated by any interested party, unless otherwise prescribed in the individual chapters of this code. 20.95.030 Appeals of Decisions on Tentative Maps Notwithstanding other provisions of this Chapter, procedures and time limits for appeals of decisions on tentative tract maps and tentative parcel maps shall be as specified in Chapter 19.08 of the Subdivision Code. 0 11/20/01 5 Page 20.95 -2 Appeals and Calls For Review Time Limits for Appeals and Calls for Review Appeals. Appeals shall be initiated within 14 days of the decision. Calls for Review. Calls for review shall be initiated within 14 days of the decision. 01- 11/20101. 0 Page 20.95 -3 Appeals and Calls For Review 20.95.050 Initiation of Appeals and Calls for Review A. Filing of Appeals. Appeals of decisions of the Planning Director or the Modifications Committee shall be made in writing to the Planning Director. Appeals of decisions of the Planning Commission shall be made in writing to the City Clerk. B. Fee. Appeals shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council. C. Calls for Review. Calls for review by the Planning Commission or the City Council may be initiated by any member. D. Effect on Decisions. Decisions that are appealed or called up for review shall not become effective until the appeal or review is resolved, as provided in Section 20.95.050. 20.95.060 Procedures for Appeals and Calls for Review A. Hearing Date. An appeal or call for review shall be scheduled for a hearing before the appellate or reviewing body within 30 days ofthe filing of the appeal unless both • applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date. B. Notice and Public Hearing. An appeal or call for review hearing shall be a public hearing if the decision being appealed or reviewed required a public hearing. Notice of public hearings shall be given in the manner required for the decision being appealed or reviewed. C. Plans and Materials. At an appeal or review hearing, the appellate or reviewing body shall consider only the same application, plans, and project related materials that were the subject of the original decision. D. Hearing. At the hearing, the appellate or reviewing body shall review the record of the decision and hear testimony of the appellant, the applicant, and any other interested party. E. Required Findings. At an appeal or review hearing, the appellate or reviewing body shall make the findings prescribed in the individual chapters of this code when affirming, modifying, or reversing the original decision. F. Decision and Notice. After the hearing, the appellate or reviewing body shall affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. When a decision is modified or reversed, the appellate or reviewing body shall state the specific reasons for modification or 1120101 Page 20.95 -4 Appeals and Calls For Review reversal. Decisions on appeals or review shall be rendered within 30 days of the close of the hearing. The Planning Director shall mail notice of a Planning Commission decision and the City Clerk shall mail a notice of a City Council decision. Such notice shall be mailed within 5 working days after the date of the decision to the applicant and the appellant. 0 11!20/01 0 :110 Ll City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting June 24, 2003 INDEX Attachment B carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan,�Pre r Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Bromberg Noes: None Abstain: None 31. CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING REVIEW. Mayor Mayor Bromberg stated that he originally felt that every council member should have the right to call up for review any decision of the Planning Commission, but he has since changed his mind and feels that needing two council members is acceptable too. Motion by Council Member Webb to change the Calls for Review process by requiring two council members to call for review any decision of the Planning Commission. Council Member Heffernan stated when a decision of the Planning Commission is called up, it means that the entire matter is reviewed by the City Council. Council Member Heffernan suggested that it would be more efficient to only review the items that the council member is contesting. He stated that it focuses staff and the City Council's time on the items that are at issue, but that requiring two council members to call up an item for review might make it difficult to agree on the limit of scope. Council Member Adams asked if this would preclude any two council members from calling up an item de novo. He expressed his concern for this right being taken away. Council Member Heffernan stated that he couldn't conceive how an appeal would be so broad based that it would require the entire hearing again. City Manager Bludau stated that it might occur when the Planning Commission denies a request and no conditions are attached to the denial. Council Member Proctor suggested that it might be better to adopt Council Member Heffernan's suggestion as an option. City Attorney Burnham stated that currently a council member does not have to express the reason for a can up. He stated that in some cases, it might work and in others, it wouldn't. He suggested that it could be done on a case by case basis and that part of the call up process might include a discussion on the rationale for the call up. He stated that this might help staff focus on the particular issue and limit the amount of staff time spent on call ups. Council Member Adams stated that it's an appealing suggestion, but if the item was noticed and the City Council was limited to discussing only certain conditions, it might present a problem. City Attorney Burnham agreed that there could be situations where City Council & Planning. Commission Calls for Review (68) Volume 56 - Page 269 Q City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting June 24, 2003 INDEX the nature of the hearing could present a problem. Per Council Member Heffernan's question, City Attorney Burnham stated that a council member might also have to discuss his rationale for wanting to call up an item if he needs a second council member to concur with his decision. Council Member Heffernan confirmed with City Attorney Burnham that if he was not successful, he would have the option of appealing the item as an individual and paying the appeal fee. City Attorney Burnham added that if there is the desire to limit the number of call ups, the City Council could also consider allowing the call up of approvals but not denials, which used to be the rule. Council Member Adams stated that the objective is not to limit the number of call ups, but to limit the number of indiscriminate and foolish call ups. He stated that requiring two council members to call up an item would achieve that. In response to Council Member Heffernan's question, City Manager Bludau stated that approximately six call ups have occurred during the current fiscal year. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that he remembers previous years having no call ups. Council Member Adams stated that in fairness to the applicant, if an item is called up, the entire issue should be heard. He stated that requiring two council members to call up an item could save quite a bit of time and that he supports the suggestion in a practical sense, but that he does have a problem with changing public policy to address the actions of one individual. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Proctor, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Mayor Bromberg Noes: Heffernan Abstain: None Absent: Nichols 2. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT INITIATION - AMEND CHAPTER Res 2003 -31 20.93 (MODIFICATION PERMITS) TO REFLECT CITY COUNCIL Zoning Code ANCE [PA2003 -080]. Amendment 1(94) Planning Di or Temple stated that the current standard used by the City for mode ion permits is to find that there is no detriment to the neighborhood. She stated that most communities have begun requiring that applican ts s ustcation as to why a deviation from the development standar s necessary for their project. Planning Director Temple stated tha is information combined with the City Council's direction at the Stu Session of April 22, 2003, staff is recommending that the Ci onsider three replacement findings for the modification permit p ss. She stated that these are listed in the staff report. Volume 56 - Page 270 0 Is r Attachment C • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.95 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO CALLS FOR REVIEW. WHEREAS, Chapter 20.95 of the Municipal Code identifies a procedure that allows the City Council to officially review actions of the Planning Commission, Planning Director or the Modifications Committee; and WHEREAS, an amendment to this procedure should be considered to require a minimum of two Council members to call an action of the Planning Commission, Planning Director or the Modifications Committee for review; and WHEREAS, Title 20 requires that any proposed amendment to the zoning regulations be initiated by the adoption of a resolution of intention by the Planning Commission or City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby initiates a Code Amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to consider amendments to the call for review procedure. • This resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on January 27, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: ATTEST: CITY CLERK • AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR RESOLUTION NO. 2004 - 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.95 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO CALLS FOR REVIEW. WHEREAS, Chapter 20.95 of the Municipal Code identifies a procedure that allows the City Council to officially review actions of the Planning Commission, Planning Director or the Modifications Committee; and WHEREAS, an amendment to this procedure should be considered to require a minimum of two Council members to call an action of the Planning Commission, Planning Director or the Modifications Committee for review; and WHEREAS, Title 20 requires that any proposed amendment to the zoning regulations be initiated by the adoption of a resolution of intention by the Planning Commission or City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby initiates a Code Amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to consider amendments to the call for review procedure. This resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on January 27, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS None ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS None ATTEST: I � �- W , h� CITY CLERK MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I, LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2004 -9 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 27th day of January, 2004, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 28th day of January, 2004. (Seal) Il7L� Vl�, /yZCW�/yI City Clerk Newport Beach, California