Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout25 - PA2004-028 - Appeal & Call for ReviewCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 25 June 8, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3235 palford (c- city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Revisions to Appeal and Call for Review Procedures — Code Amendment No. 2004 -002 (PA 2004 -028) ISSUE: Should the City revise the Call for Review procedures for use permits, variances, site plan review, modification permits, and Planning Director decisions? RECOMMENDATION: Introduce Ordinance No. 2004- (Attachment A) approving Code Amendment No. 2004 -002 and pass to second reading on June 22, 2004. DISCUSSION: Introduction: 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 by any interested person. In addition, decisions of the Planning Director and the Modifications Committee may be called up for review by the Planning Commission or by the City Council and decisions of the Planning Commission may be called up for review by the City Council. Presently, any one member of the City Council or Planning Commission may call an item for review. On June 24, 2003, the City Council discussed amending the Zoning Code to require two members to call for the review of a decision. The City Council initiated the amendment on January 27, 2004. Appeal /Call for Review Procedures June 8, 2004 Page 2 On April 22, 2004, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed code amendment with the provision that the procedures of the Planning Commission would remain the same. The Proposed Amendment: The stated objective of the proposed amendment is to ensure that decisions are not subjected to additional review unless there is substantial concern or interest on the part of the review body. Calls for Review The proposed amendment would revise Chapter 20.95 (Appeals and Calls for Review). The call for review provisions would be deleted. A review of a decision would be regarded as an appeal. Members of the Planning Commission could appeal the decisions of the Planning Director and Modifications Committee to the Planning Commission and members of the City Council could appeal decisions of the Planning Director, Modifications Committee, and Planning Commission to the City Council. Initiation by Two Members The proposed amendment would require that an appeal of a decision be initiated by two members of the City Council. This would be accomplished through a request to the City Clerk. The City Clerk would deem an appeal initiated upon the receipt of requests from two (2) members of the City Council. As stated above, the Planning Commission is recommending that their procedures remain unchanged. Only one (1) member of the Planning Commission would be needed to initiate an appeal of a decision. This would be accomplished through a request to the Planning Director. Other Provisions A new provision has been added that will require the Planning Director to report decisions to the Planning Commission and City Council at the next regular meeting or within 5 days of the decision, whichever occurs first. Alternatives: Two Member Option The City Council may wish to consider the amendment proposed to the Planning Commission. The original amendment required that an appeal would have to be Appeal /Call for Review Procedures June 8, 2004 Page 3 initiated by two members of the Planning Commission or the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting. Because appeals must be initiated by two members, the City Attorney recommended that the action be taken at a regularly scheduled meeting in order to avoid potential violations of the Brown Act. There will be times when the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission or City Council is scheduled more than 14 days after the date of a decision. For example, in 2005, there will be four occasions when there will be three weeks between regular Planning Commission meetings and three weeks between regular City Council meetings. The cancellation of regular meetings due to holidays or the lack of business will also result in additional times when a regular meeting of the Planning Commission or City Council is scheduled after the 14- day time limit for filing appeals has expired. In order to avoid such situations, the time limit for filing appeals would have to be extended to at least of 21 days if the appeal must be made at a meeting of the appeal body. Consequently, the effect date of the decision (i.e., a modification permit, use permit, or variance) would have to be extended to 21 days. It should be noted that extending the appeal period and effective date of the decision is contrary to previous actions intended to reduce the processing time for development applications. At the recommendation of the Economic Development Committee, the City reduced the appeal period from 21 days to 14 days in 1994, as part of an effort to streamline the development review process, and this amendment would eliminate that benefit. One Member Option The City Council also has the option of retaining the current procedure, which allows any member of the City Council to initiate the appeal. Environmental Review: The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: .�W Patrick J. Alford Senior Planner Attachments: Appeal /Call for Review Procedures June 8, 2004 Page 4 Submitted by: V Patricia LOTernple Planning Director A. Draft ordinance. B. April 22, 2004 Planning Commission staff report. C. April 22, 2004 Planning Commission minutes. ORDINANCE 2004- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR APPEALS AND CALLS FOR REVIEW (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2004- 002) WHEREAS, on January 27, 2004, the City Council initiated an amendment to Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code to require two members of the Planning Commission to call a decision of the Planning Director or Modifications Committee for review and to require two members of the City Council to call a decision of the Planning Director, Modifications Committee, or Planning Commission for review; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this code amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this code amendment to the City Council with the provision that the procedures of the Planning Commission would remain unchanged; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2004, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a duly noticed public hearing regarding this code amendment; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 6 SECTION 1: Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended to revise Chapters 20.42, 20.57, 20.61, 20.62, 20.64, 20.82, 20.86, 20.89, 20.91, 20.92, 20.93, 20.94, 20.95, and 20.96 of Title 20 as provided in Exhibit A. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on June 8, 2004, and adopted on the 22nd day of June 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS uG •: ATTEST: CITY CLERK �P Page 20.95 -1 Appeals CHAPTER 20.95 APPEALS Sections: 20.95.010 Purpose and Authorization for Appeals 20.95.020 Rights of Appeal 20.95.030 Appeals of Decisions on Tentative Maps 20.95.040 Time Limits for Appeals 20.95.050 Initiation of Appeals 20.95.060 Procedures for Appeals 20.95.010 Purpose 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. 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. 20.95.040 Time Limits for Appeals Appeals shall be initiated within 14 days of the decision. 20.95.050 Initiation of Appeals A. Fi1bQ of Appeals. Except for an appeal authorized by Subsection C, the appeal of a decision of the Planning Director or of the Modifications EXHIBIT A CA 2004 -002 I Page 20.95 -2 Appeals Committee shall be made in writing to the Planning Director and 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. Exception: No fee shall be required for appeals filed under Section 20.95.050 (C). C. Appeals by Elected or Appointed Officials. Planning Commission. Any member of the Planning Commission may initiate an appeal of a decision of the Modifications Committee or the Planning Director to the Planning Commission by a request to the Planning Director. 2. City Council. Members of the City Council may initiate an appeal of a decision of the Modifications Committee, the Planning Director, or the Planning Commission to the City Council by a request to the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall deem an appeal initiated upon the receipt of requests from 2 members of the City Council. D. Effect on Decisions. A decision that is appealed shall not become final and effective until the appeal is considered and decided by the Planning Commission or City Council, as appropriate. 20.95.060 Procedures for Appeals A. Hearing Date. An appeal or call for review shall be scheduled for a hearing before appeal body within 30 days of the date the appeal is filed. The hearing may be scheduled more than 30 days after the appeal is filed with the consent of both the applicant and the appellant. B. Notice and Public Hearing. An appeal shall be considered at a public hearing and notice of the public hearing shall be given in the manner required for the decision being appealed. C. Hearing. The public hearing on an appeal shall be conducted "de novo" in that the decision that has been appealed has no force or effect as of the date on which the appeal was filed. The reviewing body is not bound by the decision that has been appealed or limited to the issues raised on appeal. The reviewing body shall hear testimony of the appellant, the applicant, and any other interested party. EXHIBIT A CA 2004 -002 D Page 20.95 -3 Appeals E. Decision and Notice. The reviewing body shall, after considering all of the evidence presented at the hearing and within 30 days after the public hearing is closed, approve, modify, or disapprove, in whole or in part, the permit or approval that forms the basis of the appeal and shall make the findings required by this Code in support of the decision. The Planning Director shall mail notice of a Planning Commission decision and the City Clerk shall mail a notice of a City Council decision. The notice shall be mailed to the applicant and the appellant of the decision within 5 working days after the date of the decision. EXHIBIT A CA 2004 -002 ki Related Revisions to Title 20 Section 20.42.070: 20.42.070 Rights of Appeal Appeals of decisions of the Planning Director or Planning Commission regarding the implementation of this Chapter shall be governed by Chapter 20.95: Appeals. Section 20.57.060: 20.57.060 Rights of Appeal Appeals of decisions of the Planning Director or Planning Commission regarding the implementation of this Chapter shall be governed by Chapter 20.95: Appeals. Section 20.61.040: 20.61.040 Rights of Appeal A. Appeals. Decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission and decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. B. Procedures. Procedures for appeals shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.95: Appeals. Section 20.62.100: 20.62.100 Rights of Appeal A. Appeals. Decisions of the Planning Director or the Modifications Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission and decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. B. Procedures. Procedures for appeals shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.95: Appeals. Section 20.64.090 (B): B. The City Council shall have a right to appeal as set forth in Chapter 20.95, as limited above. EXHIBIT A CA 2004 -002 '� Section 20.82.050 (E): E. Appeal. The decision of the Planning Director to approve or deny an application is final, subject to appeal by the Planning Commission or by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 20.95: Appeals. Section 20.82.080: 20.82.080 Rights of Appeal A. Appeals. Decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission and decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. B. Procedures. Procedures for appeals shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.95: Appeals. Section 20.86.090: 20.86.090 Rights of Appeal A. Appeals. Decisions of the Modifications Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission and decisions of _ the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. B. Procedures. Procedures for appeals shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.95: Appeals. Section 20.89.070: 20.89.070 Rights of Appeal A. Appeals. Decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission and decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. B. Procedures. Procedures for appeals shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.95: Appeals. Section 20.91.025 (C): C. Report to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Director shall report the discussion of the Planning Commission on a use permit or variance to the City Council at the EXHIBIT A CA 2004002 \ next regular meeting or within 5 days of the decision, whichever occurs first. Upon rendering a decision on a use permit, the Planning Director shall report to the Planning Commission and the City Council at the next regular meeting or within 5 days of the decision, whichever occurs first. Section 20.91.045: Use permits and variances shall not become effective for 21 days after being granted, and in the event an appeal is filed under the provisions of Chapter 20.95, the permit shall not become effective unless and until a decision granting the use permit or variance is made by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Section 20.91.060: 20.91.060 Rights of Appeal A. Appeals. Decisions of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission and decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. B. Procedures. Procedures for appeals shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.95: Appeals. New Section 20.92.060 (D): D. Report to the City Council. The Planning Director shall report the discussion of the Planning Commission on a site plan review to the City Council at the next regular meeting or within 5 days of the decision, whichever occurs first. Section 20.92.080: 20.92.080 Rights of Appeal A. Appeals. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. B. Procedures. Procedures for appeals shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.95: Appeals. Section 20.93.010: A Modifications Committee consisting of three members is hereby established for the purpose of passing upon requests for reasonable use of property not EXHIBIT A CA 2004 -002 1 permissible under existing regulations. The Modifications Committee shall have authority to grant, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission or City Council under provisions of this code, modifications as provided herein. Section 20.93.015: No permit or license shall be issued for any use or property modification until the decision shall have become final by reason of the expiration of time to make an appeal, which for purposes of modification permits shall be within 21 calendar days after the date of the Modifications Committee's decision. In the event an appeal is filed, the modification permit shall not become effective unless and until a decision is made by the Planning Commission or City Council on such appeal. Section 20.93.035 (E E. Report to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Director shall report the decision of the Modification Committee to the Planning Commission and City Council at the next regular meeting or within 5 days of the decision, whichever occurs first. Section 20.93.050: Modification permits shall not become effective for 21 days after being granted, and in the event an appeal is filed under the provisions of Chapter 20.95, the permit shall not become effective unless and until a decision granting the modification permit is made by the Planning Commission or City Council. Section 20.93.065: 20.93.065 Rights of Appeal A. Appeals. Decisions of the Modifications Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission and decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. B. Procedures. Procedures for appeals shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.95: Appeals. Section 20.94.040 (C): C. Denial by the Planning Commission. If the proposed amendment is disapproved, no further action shall be taken thereon, unless appealed to the City Council under the provisions of Chapter 20.95: Appeals. EXHIBITA CA 2004 -002 \ Section 20.96.040 (H): H. Rights of Appeal. Appeals shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.95: Appeals. EXHIBIT A CA 2004 -002 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 5 April 22, 2004 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3235 i)alfordecity.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Revisions to Appeal and Call for Review Procedures — Code Amendment No. 2004 -002 (PA 2004 -028) ISSUE: — Should the City revise the Call for Review procedures for use permits, variances, site plan review, and modification permits? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to the City Council by adopting the attached draft resolution. DISCUSSION: Introduction: 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 by any interested person. In addition, decisions of the Planning Director and the Modifications Committee may be called up for review by the Planning Commission or by the City Council and decisions of the Planning Commission may be called up for review by the City Council. Presently, any one member of the City Council or Planning Commission may call an item for review. On June 24, 2003, the City Council discussed amending the Zoning Code to require two members to call for the review of a decision. The City Council initiated the amendment on January 27, 2004. 15 Appeal /Call for Review Procedures April 22, 2004 Page 2 The Proposed Amendment: The stated objective of the proposed amendment is to ensure that decisions are not subjected to additional review unless there is substantial concern or interest on the part of the review body. Calls for Review The proposed amendment would revise Chapter 20.95 (Appeals and Calls for Review). The call for review provisions would be deleted. A review of a decision would be regarded as an appeal. Members of the Planning Commission could appeal the decisions of the Planning Director and Modifications Committee to the Planning Commission and members of the City Council could appeal decisions of the Planning Director, Modifications Committee, and Planning Commission to the City Council. Initiation by Two Members - The proposed amendment would also require that an appeal would have to be initiated by two members of the Planning Commission or the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting. Such an action would be deemed as filing an appeal in writing with either the Planning Director or the City Clerk. Because appeals must be initiated by two members of the Planning Commission or two members of the City Council, the action must be taken at a regularly scheduled meeting in order to avoid potential violations of the Brown Act. Appeal Period and Effective Date Under the current regulations, the time limit for filing an appeal or calling for a review of a decision is 14 days from the date of the decision. There will be times when the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission or City Council is scheduled more than 14 days after the date of a decision. For example, in 2005, there will be four occasions when there will be three weeks between regular Planning Commission meetings and three weeks between regular City Council meetings. The cancellation of regular meetings due to holidays or the lack of business will also result in additional times when a regular meeting of the Planning Commission or City Council is scheduled after the 14 -day time limit for filing appeals has expired. In order to avoid such situations, the time limit for filing appeals would have to be extended to at least of 21 days if the appeal must be made at a meeting of the appeal body. Consequently, the effect date of the decision (i.e., a modification permit, use permit, or variance) would have to be extended to 21 days. '(D Appeal /Call for Review Procedures April 22, 2004 Page 3 Extending the appeal period to 21 days would not necessarily insure that the appeal period would not expire prior to a regularly scheduled meeting. There is the potential that a cancelled meeting could result in a period between meetings greater than 21 days. To avoid this possibility, Section 20.95.040 could be revised to extend the appeal period to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission or City Council: Appeals by members of the public, other than members of the Planning Commission or members of the City Council, shall be initiated within 14 days of the decision. Appeals by members of the Planning Commission or members of the City Council shall be initiated within 14 days of the decision, or at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the respective body, whichever occurs later. This provision would apply to regularly scheduled meetings of both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Therefore, the appeal period, and consequently, the effective date of the approval, could be extended from -14-days to 21 days or more. Under certain circumstances, an appeal period of more than 30 days is possible. It should be noted that extending the appeal period and effective date of the decision is contrary to previous actions intended to reduce the processing time for development applications. At the recommendation of the Economic Development Committee, the City reduced the appeal period from 21 days to 14 days in 1994, as part of an effort to streamline the development review process, and this amendment would eliminate that benefit. Other Provisions The proposed amendment includes revisions to a number of sections of Title 20. to change the effective date of decisions from 14 days to 21 days or to delete references to calls for review. Also, a new provision has been added that will require the Planning Director to report discussions to the Planning Commission and City Council at the next regular meeting or within 5 days of the decision, whichever occurs first. Alternative: The Planning Commission could determine that extending a permit's effective date has a more adverse affect on the development review process than the potential for a higher number of appeals that may result from the current single member initiation process. If so, the Planning Commission could recommend that the amendment include the terminology changes while maintaining the single member initiation provision and the current 14 -day appeal period. Appeal /Call for Review Procedures April 22, 2004 Page 4 Environmental Review: The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: Submitted by: Patrick J. AlfqPd Patricia L. Temple Senior Planifer Planning Director Exhibits: 1. Draft resolution. 2. Proposed revisions (Exhibit A). Iq Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 Tucker noted the following: There is a great deal of effort made to do things right and to preserve the beautiful area that we all have. live here and have a goal for the community to be the issibie place to live. Commissioner Eaton noted his preference would be to vote on this tonight and leNItaff put together the areas that were unresolved. If we continue this it would be for only the purpose of reviewing those things where we asked staff to make changes and limit the public hearing to those things where we asked staff to make changes. Otherwise, my concern is there would be another three hours of testimony. `r Commissioner Selich agreed with 1:1- biggest thing we wanted to`see is the and I think staff can take care': of that. this tonight. previous comments. The private community language I would just as soon vote on Straw vote to vote on the LCP tonight: Commissioners Selich, Eaton, Cole, McDaniel IN Staff verified that there would be revised language on private communities. y Motion was made by Commissioner Eaton to recommend approval of the LCP with all the corrections and Errata as proposed plus the additional ones that were provided tonight. r s,. Chairperson McDaniel thanked Mr. Alford for all his work on this item. 4 4 Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, ser and Tucker Noes: Absent: Nonet Abstain: None None SUBJECT: City of Newport Beach (PA2004 -028) Revisions to Appeal and Call for Review Procedures An amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to review Page 31 of 34 ITEM NO. 5 PA2004 -028 Recommended for Approval 1) file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0422.htm 05/28/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 procedures for appeals and calls for review. Chairperson McDaniel noted the following: . If the City Council wants to do this, that is fine. . The Planning Commission should be separate from this action. . Zoning issues should come to us as quickly as possible and anyone who wants to bring them up, it should only require one person to do that. . I talked to the maker of the motion at City Council and he is okay with this procedure. Ms. Temple noted that if the Commission wishes to give this direction to staff then they will proceed with it. Making that part of the motion we will amend the resolution and forward this item to City Council. Commissioner Selich noted his support of the Chairman's views. Commissioner Tucker supports the comments as well. He added that the way it is written now, it appears you actually have to be at a meeting in order to be a participant in a call up so if you were a person who wanted to call it up and was going to be missing the meeting then you could not be a person to call it up. I also don't have the phobia about the Brown Act. Mechanically one of the ways to get around that is to limit the time frame to the same number of days and if it is not called up at a meeting, leave the language where you could call it up at a meeting, but anybody on the Council could send a letter to staff saying they wanted to call this item up. Staff would then copy all the other Councilmembers and if there was a mirroring further filing by one of the other Councilmembers within the timeframe then it would be called up. That way you do not have to have the formality of going on a meeting. You are not really deciding anything, you are only saying you want to review it. If the written notice merely says I would like to call this one up for review and another councilmember within the timeframe concurs, then it is done. The way it is set up it isn't going to work because you have to be at a meeting to call it up. Commissioner Eaton noted he would not like to see the appeal period go to 21 days. Ms. Clauson noted the concern is the tendency for one member to go around and get another member to call it up. Commissioner Tucker's idea is a good one. The only way that might be a problem Page 32 of 34 )C file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0422.htm 05/28/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 is if one councilmember determined on the last day they wanted to call it up there might not be enough time to notice all the others that they had called it up to see if anybody else agreed. It would have to be just an independent thing. If the Council knew that two people need to call it up and if two came in independently to request it within the appeal period then you would have a call up. Following a brief discussion it was proposed to send this along to Council for their action that would not change the Planning Commission routine. Motion was made by Chairperson McDaniel to recommend the adoption of Code Amendment No. 2004 -002 (PA2004 -028) whereby we leave the procedures of the Planning Commission as is and the revision of Council appeals to 2 members while retaining the 14 day appeal period. Ms. Clauson noted that it is an appeal of a decision. Rather than give it two names we decided to call it an appeal. If you have a court reviewing the various levels of appeal through to the City Council it is better to call it appeal. That is why we have decided to eliminate the concept of call for review. Commissioner Kiser noted that the motion to leave our procedures the way it is, the terminology will be changed from call up to appeal. Nevertheless, the procedure for any one Planning Commissioner and the timeframe for the appeal would remain the same. Ayes Noes: Absent: Abstain: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker None None None AbDIT ONAL BUSINESS: a. City Council- Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that the Council heard the call forte leview for the Zinc Cafe and market amendment and they sustained the decision of the Planning Commission; they considered "thejr policy manual update for 2004 and within those policy chang'esayere K1 which is the procedures for the adoption and amends ent,of General Plan Amendments - eliminated the process of initiation for,p perty owner or developer requested amendments, and the policy file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0422.htm Page 33 of 34 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 05/28/2004 A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Code Amendment No. 2004 -002 (PA2004 -028) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of the City of Newport Beach for Code Amendment No. 2004 -002. An amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to revise procedures for appeals and calls for review. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 1378 of the CEQA Guidelines). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 8th day of June, 2004, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. I-Z-� Z1- LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach `i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Code Amendment No. 2004 -002 (PA2004 -028) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of the City of Newport Beach for Code Amendment No. 2004 -002. An amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to revise procedures for appeals and calls for review. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 8th day of June. 2004, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. LaVonne MHarkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds includin,a public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Oran.e County, California. Number A -6214, September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that .attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: May 29, 2004 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 29 2004 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature NOME GF F'IR♦11( HURNG (O& kNBIFINId No. 2004-002 (Pil o2el NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of the City of Newport Beath for Code Amendment No. 2004 -002. An amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to revise procedures for appeals and calls for review. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 8th day of June, 2004, at the hour of 7:00 p.m, in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boule- vard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written corre- spondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. /S/ Cathy Fisher, Deputy City Clerk for LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beath Published Newport Beach /Costa Mesa Daily Pilot May 29. 2004 Sa644