ABSTRACT: On the City Council Agenda of September 9, 2008 was an Order of Council to “Provide policy direction regarding the responsibilities of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board.” Although the Staff Report, written by Planning & Building Services Manager Sean Conroy, stated the Report was in response to a request to analyze the workloads of the Design Review Board (DRB) and the Planning Commission (PC), it became apparent that the DRB and PC are making inconsistent decisions with respect to each other. Statements by Mayor Sue McCloud, City Council Members Gerard Rose and Ken Talmage at the City Council Meeting illustrate some aspects of the current state of dysfunction. However, instead of having a discussion on the cause of the dysfunction and possible solutions, the City Council directed City Administrator Rich Guillen to prepare a proposal revising the Municipal Code to move responsibility for demolitions from the DRB to the PC as a mechanism to equalize the workloads of the DRB and PC. COMMENTS are made regarding Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Member Gerard Rose, the City Council's arrogation of the intended authority of a Community Planning & Building Director and a solution to inconsistent decision-making by the DRB and PC. REFERENCES, as links, are presented.
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
XI. Orders of Council
B. Provide policy direction regarding the responsibilities of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board.
Statements by Mayor Sue McCloud, City Council Members Gerard Rose and Ken Talmage:
Mayor Sue McCloud: It has ended up, all demolitions are going to the Design Review Board, “I don’t think that was what was envisioned in the beginning, I know is wasn’t what was envisioned in the beginning.”
“...we’ve got two bodies (Design Review Board and Planning Commission) that are working sometimes at cross purposes and they are aware of it...”
City Council Member Gerard Rose: “And the fact is, when we dreamt this whole concept of two separate commissions up, we thought that’s what the Planning Commission was going to do, was going to handle demolitions, I don’t know how that fell between the cracks and went the other way, that was the plan.”
City Council Member Ken Talmage: “...when I was on the Planning Commission, it was very clear there was venue shopping going on and that you could get a different result depending upon which of the commissions you ended up in front of and that’s what we don’t want to happen, but that has been happening.”
The City’s Municipal Code section 17.52 identifies the duties and responsibilities of the Design Review Board (DRB) and Planning Commission (PC). These responsibilities are summarized below, as presented in the Staff Report.
DRB: The Design Review Board’s primary responsibility is to review Design Review applications that do not require any type of land use permit. These include:
• Demolitions
• Construction of new homes
• Remodeling of homes and commercial buildings
• Signs
PC: The Planning Commission has a much broader range of responsibilities, including:
• Maintain and update the General Plan & Zoning Ordinance
• Develop specific plans and master plans
• Review Capital Improvements Plan
• Review environmental documents
• Review land use permits (variances, subdivisions, conditional use permits, etc.)
• Perform design review for projects that include land use permits
• Interpret land use regulations
• Review appeals of staff approved projects
The Staff Report listed 4 potential options for redefining the responsibilities of the two bodies, as follows:
1) Revise the code to give staff discretion to assign applications to PC or DRB. While this would allow staff to balance the agendas between the two bodies, this could lead to accusations of unfair or inconsistent treatment by applicants.
2) Revise the code to redefine the roles of the PC and DRB. The simplest way to redistribute the workload would be to require a use permit for demolitions. This would send all demolitions and rebuilds to the Planning Commission and leave the smaller projects to the DRB. This would increase the length of PC agendas and decrease the length of DRB agendas.
3) Dissolve the DRB and have the PC meet twice a month. This would require a larger time commitment from planning commissioners, but would avoid inconsistent decisions between the two bodies. If this option is taken, staff recommends adding several alternates to the Commission to cover for absent members.
4) Maintain the responsibilities as currently defined in the Municipal Code. Since the DRB and PC duties are part of the zoning ordinance, any proposals to modify these requirements would require an amendment to the Local Coastal Program. This would require hearings with the Planning Commission, City Council and California Coastal Commission.
COMMENTS:
• While Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Member Gerard Rose stated that it was their understanding that demolitions were to be the responsibility of the PC, neither McCloud nor Rose cited any references to support their contention. Moreover, given that the Municipal Code unambiguously states that the Duties and Responsibilities of the DRB are permit applications not reserved to the PC and projects not involving any land use permit, e.g. demolitions, and the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Housing Element specifically states that “Design study applications that do not require a Use Permit or CDP are reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB). Design Study applications that do require a Use Permit or Coastal Development Permit (CDP) are reviewed by the Planning Commission,” it is astonishing that five years have elapsed since certification of the City’s Local Coastal Program and both Sue McCloud and Gerard Rose only now seem to realize that demolitions have been the purview of the DRB, not the PC, for all these years. This state of affairs begs the question, if Sue McCloud and Gerard Rose do not grasp and comprehend the contents of the Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program as it pertains to this particular planning issue, what else do they not grasp and comprehend?
• Instead of placing a priority of the hiring of a Community Planning & Building Department Director with the background and expertise to make the best decisions with regard to the duties, responsibilities and operations of the DRB and PC, the City Council has arrogated the intended authority of the Director in an attempt to micromanage the City’s Planning & Building Department, specifically the duties and responsibilities of the DRB and PC.
• The importance of rectifying inconsistent decisions between the DRB and PC is much more important than attempting to equalize the bodies’ respective workloads through the transfer of demolitions from the DRB to PC. To wit, inconsistent decisions can most easily be rectified by adopting Option 3 on the Staff Report, as follows:
3) Dissolve the DRB and have the PC meet twice a month. This would require a larger time commitment from planning commissioners, but would avoid inconsistent decisions between the two bodies. If this option is taken, staff recommends adding several alternates to the Commission to cover for absent members.
For contextual purposes, it is important to note that the Planning Commission was once composed of seven members and met twice monthly. And the original concept in the Design Traditions Project was for design review to be accomplished by a subcommittee of the Planning Commission.
REFERENCES:
Regular Meeting Video
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
XI. Orders of Council
B. Provide policy direction regarding the responsibilities of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board.
(Beginning Time 03:53:50 – 04:09:32 Ending Time)
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 9 SEPTEMBER 2008
SUBJECT: PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION REGARDING THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD BACKGROUND
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
MUNICIPAL CODE
Division V. Processes and Authorities
Chapter 17.52
PERMIT PROCEDURES
17.52.050 Duties and Powers of the Design Review Board.
17.52.060 Duties and Powers of the Planning Commission.
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Housing Element
Design study applications that do not require a Use Permit or CDP are reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB). Design Study applications that do require a Use Permit or Coastal Development Permit (CDP) are reviewed by the Planning Commission.
No comments:
Post a Comment