HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Text Amendment 95-4 - Amends Appeal Procedure - Ordin Council/Agency Meetin Held: /
f �t�
eferre�ontl ed o:
❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approvednied City Clerk's Signafure
Council Meeting Date: January 16, 1996 Department ID Number: CD 95-57a
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Admi ' a
PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALCON, Community Development DirectorX�«-� ��. .
SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 95-4 (AMENDMENT TO APPEAL
PROCEDURES FOR ZONING ENTITLEMENTS)
EmeEssue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue: �'n�- --- /��
Transmitted for City Council consideration is Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 which
represents a request to amend the procedure applicable to the appeal of a zoning decision.
The amendment will require a minimum of two City Council Members or two Planning
Commissioners to appeal a zoning decision without paying an appeal fee. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 and acted to
recommend denial of the request. Staff recommends approval.
Fundinq Source:
Not applicable
Recommended Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
"Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 with findings (Attachment No. 1)."
K.QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTkA
MEETING DATE: January 16, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-57a
Planning Commission Action on October 24, 1995:
THE MOTION MADE BY BIDDLE, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO DENY ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT NO. 95-4 WITH FINDINGS AND RECOMMEND DENIAL TO THE CITY
COUNCIL CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: LIVENGOOD, HOLDEN, SPEAKER, BIDDLE, GORMAN, KERINS
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: TILLOTSON
MOTION PASSED
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
"Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 with findings and adopt Ordinance
No. 3 3.a l ." (Attachment Nos. 2 and 3)
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may make the following alternative motion:
"Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 and direct staff accordingly."
Analysis:
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL:
In March 1995, at the request of Council Member Green, staff analyzed the number of
appeals to Planning Commission actions filed for City Council decisions since 1992. The
analysis included a review of fees not collected, possible impact on the City's budget, city
policy, and the appeal procedure of other cities (Attachment No. 8).
After reviewing the information, the City Council on April 17, 1995 (Attachment No. 7)
directed staff to examine amending the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to require a
minimum of two City Council Members or two Planning Commissioners to file an appeal to a
decision relative to a zoning entitlement when unaccompanied by the appropriate appeal
fee. Such entitlements include Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Tract Maps, and
Variances.
CD95-57A.DOC -2- 01/05/96 1:09 PM
*QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIuN
MEETING DATE: January 16, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-57a
Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 95-4 was subsequently prepared to address this issue.
The amendment proposes to change the appeal procedures to require a minimum of two
City Council Members or two Planning Commissioners to file, without fee, an appeal to a
decision of the Director, Design Review Board, Environmental Assessment Committee,
Subdivision Committee, Planning Commission, or Zoning Administrator.
Processing of appeals is currently governed by Chapter 248 "Notices, Hearings, Findings,
Decisions, and Appeals" of the Zoninq and Subdivision Ordinance adopted October 3,
1994. Section 248.28 subpart A states:
"A City Council Member or a Planning Commissioner may appeal a decision of the
Director, Design Review Board, Environmental Assessment Committee, Subdivision
Committee, Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator. The appeal shall be
processed in the same manner as an appeal by any other person but need not be
accompanied by the fee prescribed for an appeal."
The proposed language is as follows:
"A minimum of two City Council Members or a minimum of two Planning
Commissioners are required to file an appeal of a decision of the Director, Design
Review Board, Environmental Assessment Committee, Subdivision Committee,
Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator. The appeal shall be processed in
the same manner as an appeal by any other person but need not be accompanied
by the fee prescribed for an appeal."
In addition, Section 248.28.13 would be amended to be consistent with this change
(Attachment No. 4 - Legislative Draft).
CD95-57A.DOC -3- 01/05/96 1:09 PM
K...;QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTT%A
MEETING DATE: January 16, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-57a
B. BACKGROUND:
The following is an update to the March 1995 memo of the number of City Council Member
and Planning Commissioner appeals in table form. In addition, a history of appeal fees is
provided.
Appeals to Planning Commission Actions.-
The following matrix indicates the number of appeals of Planning Commission actions filed
to the City Council from 1992 through 1995:
Filed by Filed by Council Total Number of
Year Interested Party Member Appeals
1992 13 3 16
1993 4 5 9
1994 1 5 6
1995 4 5 8
Total 22 18 40
Over the last four years, 45% of all appeals have been by Council Members where no fee
was collected.
Appeals to Zoning Administrator Actions.-
The following matrix indicates the number of appeals of Zoning Administrator actions filed
to the Planning Commission from 1992 through 1995:
Filed by Council
Member or
Filed by Planning Total Number of
Year Interested Party Commissioner Appeals
1992 4 1 5
1993 3 2 5
1994 4 3 7
1995 3 2 5
Total 14 8 22
36% of all appeals over the last four years have been by Council Members or Planning
Commissioners where no fee was collected.
CD95-57A.DOC -4- 01/05/96 1:09 PM
KL`QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTT%jN
MEETING DATE: January 16, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-57a
Fees Not Collected/Budget Impact
The current fee resolution adopted by the City Council became effective on August 20,
1993, and it established separate appeal fees for Planning Commission action and City
Council action. This resolution changed the $200 fee for appeals to the Planning
Commission and the $500 fee for appeals to the City Council. Therefore, currently
appeals to the Planning Commission are $200 for a single family residential homeowner
appealing a decision regarding his or her own property and $650 for all others and the
appeal fees to the City Council are $500 and $1,200 respectively. These fees were based
upon a Management Services Institute (MSI) report identifying the cost/revenue for the
City's many service centers. This study included the cost/revenue associated with the
appeal process and indicated that during the period of study (1991) only 7.9% was
recovered. It suggested that the city require full cost recovery and recommended an
appeal fee of $1,600. The City Council, however, modified the recommended fee for
appeals as indicated in this chart.
HEARING BODY
APPELLANT PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL
Single family property owner $200 $500
appealing decision on its own
property
All others $650 $1,200
The current recovery rate is 31.4% for single family property owner appeals and 75% for
all other appeals except when an appeal is filed without fee by a Council Member or
Planning Commissioner.
C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
When an appeal fee is not collected, impacts to the budget occur. Staff report and legal
notice preparation require coordination of multiple departments and staff members. The
City must bear the expense of preparing and publishing a legal notice in the newspaper
(averages $60) and mailing legal notices to all property owners within 300 feet of the
property that is subject of the appeal (approximately $50). Appeals filed without the
accompanying appeal fee create economic impacts to the Department. Staff time must be
reallocated to allow the preparation and review of the report; therefore, the staff must delay
processing of other applications submitted with the appropriate filing fees.
Staff supports the amendment because the lost revenue could be reduced if the appeal
procedure were changed to require a minimum of two Council Members or two Planning
Commissioners to submit an appeal. A change in the appeal process will require that the
appellants make a conscientious decision that an overriding public benefit will be derived
from the appeal hearing. Hopefully, it will reduce the number of appeals filed without cost
recovery and reduce the fiscal constraints and undue hardship on the Community
Development Department.
CD95-57A.DOC -5- 01/05/96 1:09 PM
h.QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACT1%A
MEETING DATE: January 16, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-57a
Sixty-two appeals were submitted from 1992 through 1995. Of these, 26 appeals (42%)
were without the required appeal fee. Lost revenue due to the processing of these appeals
submitted without fee since 1992 is over $22,000 as indicated below.
Year Number filed Total
without fee
1992 3 @ $500 $1,500
1 @ $200 $200
1993 5 @ $1,200 $6,000
2 $200 $400
1994 5 @ $1,200 $6,000
2 @ $200 $400
1 @ $650 $650
1995 5 @ $1,200 $6,000
2 @ $650 $1,300
Total 26 $22,450.00
Survey/Alternatives:
In the spring of 1995, Planning staff conducted a telephone survey of 11 Orange County
cities and the City of Long Beach. This survey (Attachment No. 6) indicated nine cities
waive the appeal fee for a City Council Member. Two of the cities that waive the appeal
fee do so only if two or more Council Members appeal. Since that survey was conducted,
the City of Irvine City Council preliminarily approved an amendment to eliminate the ability
of Council Members and Planning Commissioners to appeal land use decisions.
Long Beach provisions allow a Council Member to appeal but only if the member has
spoken at the Planning Commission public hearing or submitted written comment prior to
the Planning Commission public hearing. An amendment to the proposed zoning text
amendment to follow this procedure would require Planning Commission or City Council
participation in the public hearing process and may create a more political forum for
zoning entitlements.
Fountain Valley requires a minimum of 2/3 of the Council to submit the appeal in order for
the fee to be waived. Planning Staff believes that this process may constitute a violation
of the Brown Act. It may also necessitate a longer appeal period to allow the Council
Members or Planning Commissioners an opportunity to join in the appeal.
CD95-57A.DOC -6- 01/05/96 1:09 PM
h,LQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIuN
MEETING DATE: January 16, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-57a
D. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY:
On October 24, 1995, the Planning Commission acted to recommend denial of Zoning
Text Amendment No. 94-7 and forward it to the City Council for action. There was one
speaker in opposition to and no one in favor of the proposed amendment.
E. PLANNING COMMISSION ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission discussed the proposed zoning text amendment and
determined that the proposed zoning text amendment is not necessary. A procedure
exists in the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to allow appeals to be
filed by a City Council Member or Planning Commissioner to ensure that decisions are
consistent with objectives, policies, general land use decisions and programs specified in
the General Plan. The Planning Commission believed that a change to the process to
require a minimum of two City Council Members or two Planning Commissioners to file an
appeal to a planning and zoning decision would not reduce the number of appeals or
result in a significant savings in appeal processing costs.
F. SUMMARY:
The City Council may consider adoption, denial, or revision of the proposed zoning text
amendment. Findings for approval are also included with the report (Attachment No. 2.)
Adoption of the proposed ordinance will continue to offer the appeal process to ensure
that the decisions provide for the general welfare of the community and that the proposed
projects comply with zoning and planning regulations. The proposed ordinance will
require two or more City Council or Planning Commission members to agree to file an
appeal without the required appeal processing fee and require that the appellants make a
conscientious decision that an overriding public benefit will be derived from the appeal
hearing. It could reduce the number of appeals filed without cost recovery and reduce the
fiscal constraints and undue hardship on the Community Development Department.
Denial of the proposed amendment will continue to allow an appeal to be filed by a single
City Council or Planning Commission member without the required appeal processing fee.
This action may have an adverse fiscal impact on the City.
CD95-57A.DOC -7- 01/05/96 1:09 PM
h"QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIvN
MEETING DATE: January 16, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-57a
Environmental Status:
The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 20, Section 15322
pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4397.
Attachment(s):
NumberCity Clerk's
Page 1. Findings for Denial Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 (Planning
Commission recommendation)
2. Findings for Approval Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 (Alternative
Action)
3. Ordinance No. (Alternative Action)
4. Legislative Draft (Alternative Action)
5. Planning Commission staff report dated October 24, 1995
6. Surrey
7. Minutes of April 17, 1995, City Council meeting
8. Memo to Peter Green dated March 27, 1995
CD95-57A.DOC -8- 01/05/96 1:09 PM
ATTACHMENT 1
J�
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
October 27, 1995
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 95-4 (CONTINUED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 26, 1995, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
REQUEST: To amend the appeal procedures for zoning entitlements.
LOCATION: Not Applicable
DATE OF
ACTION: October 24, 1995
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 95-4:
1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance to require a minimum of two (2) City Councilmembers or two (2) Planning
Commissioners to file an appeal will not be in conformity with public convenience, general
welfare, and good zoning practices. It will make the appeal process more cumbersome and it
will not result in a reduction in the number of appeals. It will result in discussions on the
subject appeal between Commissioners/Councilmembers prior to the public hearing if they had
to lobby for another Commissioner/Councilmember. The current Huntington Beach Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinance allows only one (1) City Councilmember or Planning
Commissioner to file an appeal.
2. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 will not result in significant savings in
appeal processing costs. Almost the same number of appeals will occur if a minimum of two
(2) City Councilmember or Planning Commissioners are required to appeal. The current
appeal process will continue to require submittal of an appeal fee for appellants other than
City Councilmembers or Planning Commissioners to offset processing costs as identified by
the Management Services Institute report which addressed the City's revenues and
expenditures.
(pcc1042-1)
r ^F
3. The proposed zoning text amendment is not necessary. A procedure exists in the Huntington
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to allow appeals to be filed by a City
Councilmember or Planning Commissioner to ensure that decisions are consistent with
objectives, policies, general land use decisions and programs specified in the General Plan.
I hereby certify that Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 was denied by the Planning Commission
of the City of Huntington Beach on October 24, 1995, upon the foregoing findings.
Sincerely,
Howard Zelefsky, Secretary
Planning Commission
by:
Scott Hess, C
Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT NO.2,
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 95-4
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 95-4:
1. The proposed zoning text amendment continues to ensure that decisions are consistent with objectives,
policies, general land use decisions and programs specified in the General Plan. It allows additional
review and action on decisions through the appeal process and additional evaluation of a proposed
project's consistency with the General Plan.
2. A community need was demonstrated by the Management Services Institute report to obtain cost
recovery for all service centers including the processing of appeals. The amendment to the appeal
process will continue to require submittal of an appeal fee to offset processing costs except when a
minimum of two City Council members or a minimum of two Planning Commissioners jointly submit an
appeal.
3. Adoption of Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 will be in conformity with public convenience; general
welfare, and good zoning practice. The Zoning Text Amendment continues to require processing of
appeals through the public hearing process and payment of appeal processing fees to offset any
financial impact to the general welfare of the City.
Attachment-8/8/95 (PcsRI55.6)
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVI N
ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 248.28 THEREO
RELATING TO APPEALS f'
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and 7ning Law, the Huntington
Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Coupell have held separate, duly noticed
public hearings relative to amending Section 248.28 of th untington Beach Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance, wherein both bodies have car lly considered all information presented at
said hearings; and
After due consideration of the findi s and recommendations of the Planning Commission
and all other evidence presented, the C' Council finds that the aforesaid amendment to Section
248.28 of the Huntington Beach Z ing and Subdivision Ordinance is proper and consistent with
the General Plan,
NOW, THEREFO , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
ordain as follows:
SECTION . That the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, Section
248.28, entitled ppeal by City Council Member of Plannning Commissioner, is hereby amended
to read as fo ows:
248.28 Appeal by City Council Member or Planning Commissioner
A. A minimum of two City Council Members or a minimum of two Planning
Commissioners are required to file an appeal of a decision of the Director, Design
Review Board, Environmental Assessment Committee, Subdivision Committee,
Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator. The appeal shall be processed in
the same manner as an appeal by any other person but need not be accompanied by
the fee prescribed for an appeal.
B. The City Council Members or Planning Commissioners appealing the decision
are not disqualified by that action from participating in the appeal hearing and the
deliberations or from voting as a member of the reviewing body.
1
g\4\Ord:zta95-4\RLS 95-734\12/08/95
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adopti d..,
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of untington
Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 199_
Mayor
f
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
f
City Clerk City Attorney
P
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
Administrator Director of Comm nity Development
2
g\4\Ord:zta95-4\RLS 95-734\12/08/95
ATTACHMENT 4
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
248.28 Appeal by City Council Member or Planning Commissioner
A. A minimum Of two City Council Members Membef or a minimum of two Planning
Commissioners $siener-may are required to file an appeal of a decision of the Director,
Design Review Board, Environmental Assessment Committee, Subdivision Committee, Planning
Commission or Zoning Administrator. The appeal shall be processed in the same manner as an appeal
by any other person but need not be accompanied by the fee prescribed for an appeal.
B. The City Council Members Member or Planning Commissioners Genwifissioner appealing the
decision are is not disqualified by that action from participating in the appeal hearing and the
deliberations or ner from voting as a member of the reviewing body.
ATTACHMENT 5
rm
:. ; . ...t,......:.. ..............,...... .................:...........:...............:.........::..n h ...... ......... ....n.. .......... .:...:....::x;v::w:::::..........•{:::........................::.v::.v:::::n:}}}}ii}i'ri}}}}Y::}Y•{r?i:W}:??{::?!?'::?i:4i:{:9}:?{:
Y.. .. r.r.... ..s...h.. ..�.Y .......:........... .. ... .} .i..}}:{-}:}}}:;:}:;;}{}}::.ii?}:;::;}}}:-?}};::?'}} :}:}+:i:•i}:d:;:>i::i::i::i'riii:{::}i:.}}i:•}:Y.':i}:::.::}:.}
.. .. ..::•. .v+.x:•Y•. .... .. .:. ..... {::: :4 r{{p :i: .:�. ..:: ii•fn..:}.v::i K::':::54:
.. ......a:.'...,.t Ott}.......: ...... .: {-: ... .. -. :.:: ..:::: .. .. ... .:.}i. -: .:� ::?ti:;d::::?;:::-:i:::::::::::?:5:::::::%:;::�.::'.. .}::i::}:::::::;:i:•`:}?c::';}>:•:'<::::{:::;::<:•}::
.. t ... ::h..:::...... .. ..� 'O :
.:....:..:..........................................
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Dir
BY: Susan Pierce, Associate Plann r
DATE: October 24, 1995
SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 95-4 (Continued from the September 26,
1995, Planning Commission meeting)
LOCATION: Not Applicable
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Zoning Text Amendment(ZTA)No. 95-4 is a request to amend the procedure applicable to the appeal of a
decision filed by a City Council Member or a Planning Commissioner. The amendment will change the
appeal procedures to require a minimum of two City Council members or two Planning Commissioners to
file, without fee, an appeal to a decision of the Director,Design Review Board, Environmental Assessment
Committee, Subdivision Committee, Planning Commission, or Zoning Administrator. ZTA No. 95-4 was
continued from the August 8 and September 26, 1995, Planning Commission meetings.
The Planning Commission may consider recommending adoption, denial, or amending the proposed zoning
text amendment which will continue to allow the processing of appeals to planning and zoning decisions.
The modified appeal procedure will minimize the processing of appeals without cost recovery.
OPTIONS SUBMITTED FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
1. Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 954 with findings and forward to the City Council for
adoption.
2. Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 with findings and forward to the City Council for final action.
3. Modify Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 and direct staff accordingly.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
PROPERTY
OWNER: Not applicable
REOUEST: To amend the appeal procedures for planning and zoning decisions.
DATE
ACCEPTED: May 25, 1995
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 is a request to amend the appeal procedures contained in Chapter 248
ofthe Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The amendment will modify Section 249.28 to read as follows:
24&28 Appeal by City Council Member or Planning Commissioner
A. A minimum of two City Council Eneffibe members or a minimum of two
Planning Gefrmniissienef Commissioners may are required to file an appeal of a
decision of the Director, Design Review Board, Environmental Assessment Committee,
Subdivision Committee, Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator. The appeal
shall be processed in the same manner as an appeal by any other person but need not be
accompanied by the fee prescribed for an appeal.
B. The City Council fnembe members or Planning Commissioners
appealing the decision is are not disqualified by that action from participating in the
appeal hearing and the deliberations nff or from voting as a member of the reviewing
body.
The amendment requires a minimum of two Planning Commissioners or two City Council members to file
an appeal in order for the appeal fee to be waived.
ISSUES:
General Plan Conformance:
The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with objectives, policies, general land use decisions and
programs specified in the General Plan.
Environmental Status:
The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 20, Section 15322 pursuant to City Council
Resolution No. 4397.
Staff Report-SM95 2 (PCSR155)
.e,
i Coastal Status:
An amendment to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Implementing Ordinances will be filed
with the California Coastal Commission for those properties within the coastal zone following adoption of
Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4.
Redevelopment Status: Not applicable.
Design Review Board: Not applicable.
Subdivision Committee: Not applicable.
Other Departments Concerns: None
ANALYSIS•
At the request of Councilmember Green, staff analyzed the number of appeals to Planning Commission
actions filed for City Council decisions since 1992. The analysis included a review of fees not collected,
possible impact on the City's budget, city policy, and the appeal procedure of other cities. After reviewing
the information,the City Council directed staff to examine amending the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance to require a minimum of two City Council members or two Planning Commissioners to file an
appeal when unaccompanied by the appropriate appeal fee.
Staff has prepared the ordinance as requested. It is being presented to the Planning Commission for
consideration without a recommendation by staff. Presented below is information relative to appeals.
Council Appeals:
The following matrix indicates the number of appeals to Planning Commission actions filed to the City
Council since 1992:
Year Filed b Interested Pa Filed by Council Member Total Number of Appeals
1992 13 3 16
1993 4 5 9
1994 1 1 5 6
1995 to date 3 3 6
Total 21 16 37
Fees Not Collected/Budet Impact
Appeal fees are set by City Council resolution. The current fee resolution became effective on August 20,
1993, and established a fee of$500 for single family residence owner appealing a decision of his or her
own property and $1,200 for any other decision.
Staff Report-8/8/95 3 (PcsR155)
Management Services Institute(MSI) prepared a report identifying the cost/revenue for the City's many
service centers. This study included the cost/revenue associated with the appeal process and indicated that
daring the period of study only 7.9%was recovered. It suggested that the city require full cost recovery
and recommended an appeal fee of$1,600. The City Council, however, modified the recommendation by
keeping the fee at $500 for single family property owners appealing decision on own property and
increased the fee for all other appeals to $1,200. The recovery rate is 31.4% and 75% respectively.
VA=an appeal fee is not collected, additional impacts to the budget occur. Staff report and legal notice
preparation require coordination of multiple departments and staff members. The department must bear
the txpense of publishing a legal notice in the newspaper(averages $60)and mailing legal notices to all
property owners within 300 feet of the property that is subject of the appeal ($50).
In addition to appeals filed for City Council decision, often appeals to Zoning Administrator actions are
filed by Council Members and Planning Commissioners without fee for Planning Commission decision.
These appeals also impact the budget by loss of revenue to offset the cost to process the appeal. This
report does not identify the number of appeals or loss of revenue resulting from appeals to the Planning
Commission.
Ci Policy:
Processing of appeals is governed by Chapter 248 "Notices, Hearings, Findings, Decisions, and Appeals"
of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance adopted October 3, 1994. Section 248.28 subpart A states:
"A City Council member or a Planning Commissioner may appeal a decision of the Director,
Design Review Board, Environmental Assessment Committee, Subdivision Committee, Planning
Commission or Zoning Administrator. The appeal shall be processed in the same manner as an
appeal by any other person but need not be accompanied by the fee prescribed for an appeal."
Appeal.procedures in the prior Zoning Ordinance(Division 9) stated in Section 9883 of Article 988
"Appeal'that
"...To cover the expenses of such notice, a fee, set by resolution of the City Council shall be paid by
the applicant. This notice fee must be paid at the time notice of appeal is filed. Nothing in this
section shall be construed to mean that a filing fee is necessary if the appeal is made by a member of
the City Council."
SMKE-
Plain ing staff conducted a telephone survey of several Orange County cities and the city of Long Beach.
This survey(attached)indicated 9 cities waive the appeal fee for a City Council member. Two of the cities
that waive the appeal fee do so only if two or more Council members appeal. Long Beach provisions allow
a Council member to appeal but only if the member has spoken at the public hearing or submitted written
comment prior to the public hearing.
i
SiaffRepm-8/8/95 4 (PCSR155)
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission may consider adoption, denial, or revision of the proposed zoning text
amendment. Findings for approval are included with the report.
The proposed ordinance will continue to offer the appeal process to ensure that the decisions provide for
the general welfare of the community and that the proposed projects comply with zoning and planning
regulations.
The proposed ordinance will require two or more City Council or Planning Commission members to agree
to file an appeal without the required appeal processing fee and, therefore, may reduce the number of
appeals filed without cost recovery.
Denial of the proposed amendment will continue to allow an appeal to be filed by a single City Council or
Planning Commission member without the required appeal processing fee. This action may have an
adverse fiscal impact on the City.
A revision to the proposed amendment may include requiring a majority of the higher approving body to
join in the appeal. This action is consistent with the appeal procedures of the City of Fountain Valley.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Findings for Approval
2. Legislative Draft
3. Previous Zoning Ordinance language
4. City Council minutes of April 17, 1995
3. Survey
SH:SP:kJ7
Staff Report-818/95 5 (PcsR155)
ATTACHMENT 6
SURVEY
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
City: Form to City Fee: Appeal Time: Waive Fee For
Clerk: Council Member:
Huntington Beach letter $500 for single 10 calendar days Yes
family resident
appealing decision
of own property
$1,200 all others
Anaheim letter $350 22 calendar days If 2 City Council
Members appeal,
yes; if 1 City
Council Member
appeals, no.
Buena Park standard form 1/2 of permit fee 10 working days Yes
Costa Mesa standard form I $195 comm. 7 calendar days Yes
$50 res.
Fountain Valley standard form 1/2 of permit fee 30 calendar days If 2/3 of the
Council Members
appeal,yes; if 1
City Council
Member appeals,
no.
Garden Grove standard form $50 21 calendar days Yes
Irvine standard form $380 15 calendar days Yes
Laguna Beach standard form $330 10 calendar days Yes
for comm., 20
calendar days for
res.
Long Beach standard form and $900 to$1050 10 calendar days No*
letter
Los Alamitos standard form 1/2 of permit fee 20 calendar days Yes
Newport Beach standard form $278 to$876 14 calendar days Yes
Seal Beach letter to City 1/2 of permit fee 40 calendar days Yes
Council
Westminster letter to Secretary $250 to$510 5 calendar days Yes
of Planning
* The appeal of a Planning Commission action to the City Council may occur only if the following occurs: If a project
has either been approved or denied at the Planning Commission level, an appeal may be made only by an aggrieved
person who has "standing". The city of Long Beach defines a person who has standing as one who either has spoken for
or against a project at the public hearing or a person who has submitted a written comment for the record. The appeal
fee for an aggrieved person who has standing is$1,050.00 A City Council member may appeal a decision only if he/she
is aggrieved, has standing, and accompanied with a$1,050.00fee.
ATTACHMENT NO. ..
Attachment-8/8/95 (PCSR155-8)
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 21 -Council/Agency Minutes -04/17/95
(City Council) ORDINANCE NO. 3277-ADOPTED -SUB-LEASE OF MOBILE HOMES (640.10)
The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 3277 for Council adoptiotr':-Z'AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGT� BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ADDING NEW CHAPTER 17.38 THERETO REGARDING T PORARY RENTAL OF MOBILE
HOMES." Ordinance introduction was approved, as arreenthe
ed, on April 3, 1995. ,
After a reading by title, on motion by Dettloff, second following ordinance was adppted
by the following roll call vote: /
AYES: Harman, Bauer, Sullivan, Leipzig; Dettloff, Green, Garofalo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None /
City Council) ORDINANCE NO. 3267- MASSAGE LICENSING - DEFERRED FOR FURTHER
STAFF WORK (640.10)
The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 3267 for Council adoption- 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF-THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON
BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 5.24 THEREOF RELATING TO
MASSAGE LICENSING." Ordinance introduction approved, as amended, on April 3, 1995.
The City Administrator requested the massage ordinance be deferred for further staff work on the
languabe.
(City Council) Discussion Held Regarding City Council Appeals Of Planning!! Commission
Actions- Staff Report Requested Regarding Change In Appeal Procedure For City Council
and Planning Commission Members (120.10)
The City Clerk presented a communication to Councilmember Peter Green from the Community
Development Director via the City Administrator regarding Councilmember Green's request for an
analysis of the City Council's appeals of Planning Commission actions for the last three years.
The request also included an analysis of the fees not collected, possible impact on the budget,
current city policy, written or unwritten, and the practice of other cities.
Discussion was held regarding the number of Councilmembers needed to agree to file an appeal
and Deputy City Attorney DeLaLoza cautioned that the Brown Action must be examined as to its
possible impact on this issue.
r;T T G14MEIN1 hl0.
20,0
Page 22 -Council/Agency Minutes -04/17/95
Following discussion, on motion by Green, second Garofalo, Council directed that this matter be
referred to the staff to examine the feasibility of amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code
Section 248.28 Subpart A of Chapter 248 to include the following language: "That a minimum of
two Councilmembers or a minimum of two Planning Commissioners may appeal a decision of the
Director, Design Review Board, Environmental Commission, Subdivision Committee, Planning
Commission or Zoning Administrator." The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Sullivan, Dettloff, Green, Garofalo
NOES: Harman, Bauer Leipzig
ABSENT: None
*fCitv Council Procedure For Controlling Trash Scaven in -Continued to May 1 1995
(1 .10)
Counci ember Dettloff informed the Council and audience that she would like to address her
item rega ing the control of trash scavenging at a meeting at which it could be heard at an earlier
time.
(CityCouncil Res ution No. 6688 -Adopted - Opposes Oran a County Board of
Supervisors Pro os To Import Trash To County Landfills (120.70)
The City Clerk presented solution No. 6688 proposed by Councilmember Green- "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OPPOSING
THE PROPOSAL BY THE ORA Gc COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO IMPORT TRASH
INTO ORANGE COUNTY LANE) S."
A motion was made by Sullivan, secon arofalo, to adopt Resolution No. 6688 and transmit
said resolution together with a strong lette of opposition to the Orange County Board of
Supervisors. The motion carried by the follo 'ng roll call vote:
AYES: Harman, Bauer, Sullivan, Leipzig, De off, Green, Garofalo
NOES: None
?3SENT: None
(City Council Ordinance Code Regarding Adult Businesse - Community Development
Director To Report May 1, 1995 (640.10)
Councilmember Bauer presented a proposal that the ordinance wor iqg in the city's current
Planning and Zoning Code relative to adult businesses be returned to the wording which was in
effect prior to the rewrite and adoption of the new City Planning and Zoning Code.
The Community Development Director stated that her department was preparing a report on this
issue for the May 1, 1995 Council meeting. ( /
201
SURVEY
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
City: Form to City Fee: Appeal Time: Waive Fee For
Clerk: Council Member:
Huntington Beach letter $500 for single 10 calendar days Yes
family resident
appealing decision
of own property
$1,200 all others
Anaheim letter $350 22 calendar days If 2 City Council
Members appeal,
yes; if 1 City
Council Member
appeals,no.
Buena Park standard form 1/2 of permit fee 10 working days Yes
Costa Mesa standard form $195 comm. 7 calendar days Yes
$50 res.
Fountain Valley standard form 1/2 of permit fee 30 calendar days If 2/3 of the
Council Members
appeal,yes; if 1
City Council
Member appeals,
no.
Garden Grove standard form $50 21 calendar days Yes
Irvine standard form $380 15 calendar days Yes
Laguna Beach standard form $330 10 calendar days Yes
for comm., 20
calendar days for
res.
Long Beach standard form and $900 to$1050 10 calendar days No*
letter
Los Alamitos standard form 1/2 of permit fee 20 calendar days Yes
Newport Beach standard form $278 to$876 14 calendar days Yes
Seal Beach letter to City 1/2 of permit fee 40 calendar days Yes
Council
Westminster letter to Secretary $250 to$510 5 calendar days Yes
of Planning
* The appeal of a Planning Commission action to the City Council may occur only if the following occurs: If a project
has either been approved or denied at the Planning Commission level, an appeal may be made only by an aggrieved
person who has "standing". The city of Long Beach defines a person who has standing as one who either has spoken for
or against a project at the public hearing or a person who has submitted a written comment for the record. The appeal
fee for an aggrieved person who has standing is$1,050.00 A City Council member may appeal a decision only if he/she
is aggrieved, has standing, and accompanied with a$1,050.00 fee.
A iTTACHMENT N�?.'
Attachment-8/8/95 (PCSR155-8)
ATTACHMENT 8
H�
HCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
�`�� <
MUNT/vGTE)N$E CM
APR 19 1995
3
TO: Peter Green, City Council Member X'a�
VIA: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
FROM: Melanie S. Fallon, Community Development Director
DATE: March 27, 1995
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL APPEALS OF PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTIONS
City Council Member Peter Green has requested an analysis of the City
Council's appeals of Planning Commission actions for the last three years. The
request also included an analysis of the fees not collected, possible impact on
the budget, current city policy (written or unwritten), and the practice of other
cities. The following is a point by point analysis:
1 . Council Acoeals:
The followina is a breakdown of the appeals filed in the !ast three years.
1992: Sixteen (16) appeals filed, three (3) of the sixteen (16) appeals
were filed by Council Members.
1993: Nine (9) appeals filed, five (5) of the nine (9) appeals were filed by
Council Members.
1994: Six (6) appeals filed, five (5) of the six (6) appeals were filed by
Council Members.
1995: Two (2) appeals filed to date, both appeals were filed by Council
_ Members.
Totals: Thirty three (33) appeals filed, fifteen (15) of the thirty three (33)
were filed by Council Members.
1
Council Member Green
Appeals of PC actions
March 27, 1995
2. Fees not collected/Budget Impact:
The current fee schedule became effective on August 20, 1993. The fee
for.appeals of Planning Commission actions to the City Council are as
foilows; $500.00 for a single family residential owner appealing decision
of their own property and $1,200.00 for any other decision. The prior fee
was $500.00 for any appealable Planning Commission action.
The following is a breakdown of the appeal fees not collected for the last
three (3) plus years:
1995: 2 appeals @ $1,200.00 = S2,400.00 (as of 3127/95)
1994: 5 appeals @ S1,200.00 = 56,000.00
1993: 5 appeals @ S1,200.00 = $6,000.00 (all appeals filed after fee
increase)
1992: 3 appeals @ S500.00 = S1;500.00
Totals: 15 appeals/S15;900.00 in fees not collected
In addition to the fees not collected, the impact on the budget is also felt
in other areas. Staff time preparing the staff reports and legal notices
require the coordination of multiple departments and staff members. A
typical public hearing requires a cost to publish a notice in the local
newspaper (S60.00), and a cost to bulk mail legal notices to all property
owners within a 300 feet radius (S50.00).
The Management Services Institute (MSI) Report, dated June 1991,
identified the cost/revenue associated with processing an appeal to
the City Council. In general, the city recovers only 7.9% (loss of 92.1%)
of the actual cost to process the appeal when an appeal fee is collected.
3. Current City Policy:
The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, adopted October 3, 1994,
governs the appeals of decisions. Section 248.28, Subpart A, of Chapter
248; Notices. Hearings. Findings. Decisions and Appeals states: A City
Council member or a Planning Commissioner may appeal a decision of
the Director, Design Review Board, Environmental Assessment
Council Member Green
Appeals of PC actions.
March 27, 199G
Committee, Subdivision Committee, Planning Commission or Zoning
Administrator. The appeal shall be processed in the same manner as an
appeal by any other person but need not be accompanied by the fee
prescribed for an appeal.
The prior Zoning Ordinance (Division 9), Article 988, Section 9883, Notice
stated in part: Nothing in this section shall be construed to mean that a
filing fee is eecessary if the appeal is made by a member of the City
Council.
4. Other Cities:
Attached please find a survey conducted of eleven (11) Orange County
cities and one (1) Los Angeles County city. Of the twelve (12) cities
surveyed, nine (9) waive the fee if the appeal is pled by a City Council
member. The three (3) that do not waive the fee have the following
procedure. Two (2) of the cities do not waive the fee if a single City
Council member appeals the decision. However, one (1) city
waives the fee if two (2) members agree to appeal the decision (Anaheim)
and the other city waives the fee if two-thirds of the City Council agree to
appeal the decision (Fountain Valley). The third city (Long Beach) does
not waive the fee (please see survey notes).
ff-you need any additional information regarding this issue, you may contact
Herb Fauland, Associate Planner at X5438.
Attachment: Twelve (12) city appeal fee survey
xc: City Council
Planning Commission
Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator
Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director
Linda Niles, Senior Planner
Herb 'Fauland, Associate Planner
MTU:MSF:hf,y/
JWLIOW
(395hf 1) CII
3
ORANGE COUNTY SURVEY: CITY COUNCIL POLY. OF
APPEALS PROCEDURES
City: Form to Fee: Appeal Waive Fee
City Time: For Co+vr&W
Clerk: member:
Anaheim letter S350 22 calendar If 2 City CourLcil Members appeal,yes-,
days if 1 City Council Member appeals,no.
Buena Park standard 1/2 of 10 working days Yes
form, yp.emit
fee
Costa Mesa standard S195 7 calendar Yes
form comm. days
S30 res.
Fountain. V1v. standard 1/2 of 30 calendar If 2/3 of the Council Members appeal,;es;
1'0-1„ permit days if 1 City Council Member appeals,no.
fee
Garden Grv. standard S50 21 calendar Yes
fora. days
Irvine standard 5380 15 calendar Yes
farm days
Laguna Bch. standard 5330 10 calendar days Yes
fe/n for com n.,20 cal-
endar dams for res.
Long Beach standard form S900 10 calendar days SEE NOr-S ON lycXT PAGE
and letter to S10s0
Los Alamitos standard 1/2 of 20 calendar days Yes
form permit
fee
Newport Bch. standard S27S 14 calendar days Yes
form to S8 76
Seal Beach letter to 1/2 of 40 calendar days Yes
City permit
Council fee
Westminster letter to 5250 5 calendar dais Yes
Secretary of to
Planning S510
Abbreviations: Comm.=commercial res.=residential
Bill 6.Doc
Appeal Sway
Page Two
SURVEY NOTE&
Long Beach: The appeal of a Planning Commission action to the City Council
may occur only if the following occurs: if a project has either been approved or
denied at the Planning Commission level, an appeal maybe made only by an
aggrieved person who has "standing". The city of Long Beach defknes&person
who has standing as one who either has spoken for or against a project at the
public hearing or a person who has submitted a written comment for the record.
The appeal fee for an aggrieved person who has standing is $1,050.00. A City
Council member may appeal a decision only if he/she is aggrieved, has
standing, and accompanied with a $1,050.00 fee.
Council/Agency Meeting Held:
Deferred/Continued to: h r�/&116
El Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑Denied City Clerk's Signature
Council Meeting Date: December 18, 1995 Department ID Number: CD 95-57r1
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administr 'T`�.
PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director"
SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 95-4 (AMENDMENT TO
APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR ZONING ENTITLEMENTS)
F-----s:t-.-ent of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for City Council consideration is Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 which
represents a request to amend the appeal procedure applicable to the appeal of a decision
filed by a City Council member or a Planning Commissioner. Community Development
requests a continuance of the application to January 15, 1996, to allow inclusion of
additional analysis.
Recommended Action:
Motion to:
"Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4 to the January 15, 1996, City Council
meeting."
t
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE /
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, December 18, 1995, at 6:30 PM in the City
Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public `
hearing on the following planning and zoning item: i-4KI67
❑ 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 95-4: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, WkJA4f
Department of Community Development - Request: To amend the appeal procedures for
zoning entitlements to require a minimum of two City Council members or two Planning S
Commissioners to file, without fee, an appeal. Location: Not applicable. Pro-ject Planner:
Susan Pierce
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above item is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will
be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after December 15, 1995.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit
evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's
action 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. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at
536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk.
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Huntington Beach, California 92648
(714) 536-5227
(cc1g11218)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, December 18, 1995, at 6:30 PM in the City
Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public
hearing on the following planning and zoning item:
❑ 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 95-4: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach,
Department of Community Development - Request: To amend the appeal procedures for
zoning entitlements to require a minimum of two City Council members or two Planning
Commissioners to file, without fee, an appeal. Location: Not applicable. Project Planner:
Susan Pierce
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above item is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will
be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after December 15, 1995.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit
evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's
action 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. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at
536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk.
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Huntington Beach, California 92648
(714) 536-5227
(cc1g11218)
r
PUBLt_ HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST"L
MAILING LABELS - 4/3/95
President 1 Huntington arb POA 10 Edna Littleb 17.
H.B. Chamber of Commerce P. O. Box 79 Golden St. Mo Owners Leag.
2210 Main Street,Suite 200 Sunset Bea A 90742 11021 Magn Blvd.
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Garden Gr e,C 92642
Judy Legan 2 Pacific Coas Arch ological 18
H.B./F.V. Board of Realtors Society,Inc.
8101 Slater Ave. P.O. Box 1092
Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Costa Mesa, A 9 27
Attn:Jane Gothold
Preside 3 William D. Holman 11 County ok40
EMA 19
Amigos Bolsa ica Pacific Coast Homes Michael Din
P. O. Box 3 8 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250 P.O. BoxHuntington ch,CA 92605 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 Santa An02-4048
Cha s Gr it 4 Mr.Tom Zanic 12 Planning epartment 19
Frien he HB Wetlands Seacliff Partners Orange Co ty E
21902 wa Lane 520 Broadway Ste. 100 P. O. Box 40
Hunt' gto Beach,CA 92646 Santa Monica,CA Santa An A 2702-4048
President 5 Pres.,H.B. Hist. Society 13 County of range/EMA 19
Huntington Beach Tomorrow C/O Newland House Museum Thomas Mat ew
411 6th St. 19820 Beach Blvd. P. O. Box 404
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana A 2702-4048
Julie Vandermost 6 Chairperson 14 County o Or ge/EMA 19
BIA-OC Historical Resources Bd. Bob Fisher, in
9 Executive Circle #100 Comm. Services Dept. P.O. Box 4
Irvine Ca 92714-6734 2000 Main St. Santa A ,CA 702-4048
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Richa Spic r 7 CouncilXnA
g 15 Planning Di 20
SCAG 1706 Ore. City of Costa e818 Vest th, 12th Floor Huntingh,CA 92648 P. O. Box 120
Los Ang es, A 90017 Costa Mesa, A 92628-1200
E.T.I. Corral 100 8 DominXHowners
no 16 Planning ir. 21
Mary Bell Seacliff Assoc. City of Fou tain ley
20292 Eastwood Cir. 6812 S Lane 10200 Slate ve.Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntinh,CA 92648 Fountain alle CA 92708
Tom Ryan, Environmental 9 Seacli HOA 16 Planning ,reelie
22
Board Chairman Jeff Met 1 City of We m8852 Luss Drive 19391 Sh Harbor Circle 8200 Vestm' Blvd.
Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntingto each CA 92648 Westminst683
g Tables\phnlbls
PUBLi,- HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST"b
MAILING LABELS - 4/3/95
Plannin Di for 23 James Jone 30 OC Coun Harbors, each 35
City of Se each Ocean View lement and Parks ept.
211 Eight . School district P. O. Box 40
Seal Bea ,CA 0740 17200 Pineh st ne Santa An ,CA 2702-4048
Huntingto Beach CA 92647
CA Coastal Commission 24 Ron Frazie 31 Cheryle B wning 36
Theresa Henry VVestminste cho istrict Meadowlar re
245 W. Broadway,Ste 380 14121 Ceda d Avenue 16771 Roose t Lane
Long Bch, CA 90802 Westminste A 2683 Huntingto ea h,CA 92649
California Coastal Commission 24 Patricia Koch 32 Sally Graha 36
South District Office HB Union High School Disrict Meadowlark a
245 W. Broadway No. 380 10251 Yorktown Avenue 5161 Geld irk
Long Beach,CA 92802-4458 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntin n Beach,CA 92649
Robert Jose 25 David Hagen 32
Caltrans Dist *ct 2 HB Union High School district Koll Company 37
2501 Pullma 10251 Yorktown 2213 Main Street,Suite 32
Santa Ana, A 92 05 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Director 26 Huntington each all 33
Local Solid \ ast nf. Agy. Attn: Pat Rog r - aude
O.C. Health C e Agency 7777 Edin ve. #300
P.O. Box 35 Huntingt n Bea h CA 92647
Santa Ana CA 92702
New Grow Coo inator 2 7 CSA 33
Huntington Post Office 730 El Ca no ay#200
6771 Warn A Tustin,CA 0
Huntingto Beach,CA 92647
Marc Ec r 28 Goldenw t College 34
Fountain lley Attn: Fred we
Elementary of District 15744 Gol west St.
17210 Oa t et Hunting Beach CA 92647
FountaJ alley CA 92708
Dr. Duane Dishno 29 Country *ew Es tes HOA 35
HB City Elementary School Dist. Carrie Tho
PO Box 71 6642 Trotte ive
Huntington Beach,CA 92626 Huntingt Beac CA 92648
Jerry Buchanan 29 Country Jew/Estes HOA 35
HBCity Elementary School Dist. Gerry Cha m20451 Craimer Lane 6742 Shire '
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntingto e h CA 92648
g Tables\phnlbls
CITY COUNCIL AND/OR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT: '-t/ MEETING DATE:
CONTACT: PHONE: ,�S
N/A YES NO
( ) (tom ( ) Is the notice attached?
( ) (•� ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council (and/or
Redevelopment Agency)hearing?
Are the date, day and time of the public hearing correct?
If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice?
(✓) ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, does the notice include appeal language?
Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council?
Is a map attached for publication?
Is a larger ad required? Size
Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the
mailing list?
Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels?
Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels?
If Coastal Development Permit, is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing
labels?
If Coastal Development Permit, are the Resident labels attached?
Is the 3343 report attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only)
Please complete the following:
1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date / y
2. Number of times to be published
3. Number of days between publications -- �
Connie Brockway,City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Clerk ;• �• •` `�q ,
P.O. Box 190
r
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 t LEI
a c 7�..X i._c•�I t?_?:'i.1�•;•y.L}.,�?}`,'�` 1j1.?j_: t �� __ � :Y i �
Doll Company 37
INGjp 2213 Main Street,Suite 32
O� `NGOAP0441FO dF Huntington Beach,CA 92643
_ y
FkOLL213 926461010 iC94 12/11/95
FORWARDING TIME EXPIRED
KOLL REAL ESTATE
7711 CENTER AVE 4215
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-3069
CF `Fe jgp9.� \� RETURN TO SENDER
�paNTy ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
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 PUBLIC NOTICE to raising only those issues
ou or someone else
y
NOTICE OF raised at the public hearing
entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of PUBLIC HEARING described In this notice,or
BEFORE THE CITY in written conesCppoondence
the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT a COUNCIL OF THE Prio teothepublic hearing.
i CITY OF prior
are any further
newspaper of general circulation printed HUNTINGTON BEACH questions please call the
g , p NOTICE IS HEREBY planning Division at 536-
GIVEN that on Monday,De- 5271 and refer to the
and published in the City of Huntington cember 18, 1995, at 6:30 above Item. Direct your
BeachCounty of Orange State of in the City Council written communications to
, , Chambers, 2000 Main the City Clerk.
Street, Huntington Beach, Connie Brockway,
California, and that attached Notice is a the City Council will hold a City Clerk
public hearing on the fol- Clty of Huntington
true and complete copy as was printed lowing planning and zoning
item: Beach, 2000 Main
and published in the Huntington Beach 1.ZONING TEXT AMEND- Street,2nd Floor,Hun-
MENT NO.95-4:Applicant: tington Beach, Callfor-
City of Huntington Beach, We 92648, (714) 536-
and Fountain Valley Issues of said Department of Commundy 5227
Development-Request:To Published Huntington
newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: amend the appeal proce- y Beach-Fountain Valle In-
dures for zoning entitle-
ments to require a mini- dependent December 7,
mum of two City Council 14,1995.
members or two Planning 121.619
Commissioners to file,with-
out fee, an appeal. Loca-
1995 tion: Not applicable.
December 7, Project Planner: Susan
Pierce.
December 14, 1995 NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that the above item
Is categorically exempt
from the provisions of the
California Environmental
Qual' Act.
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that ONIILE: a copy of the
roposed r uest is on file
the foregoingis true and correct. I'n the Cny�lerk's Office,
2000 Maln Street, Hunting-
ton Beach, California
92648, for Inspection by
the public. A copy of the
staff report will be available
Executed on December 14 5 to Interested parties at the
19 9 City Clerk's Office after De-
at Costa Mesa, California. cALLeINTER 15.STED PER-
SONS are Invited to attend
said hearing and express
opinions or submit evi-
dence for or against the
application as outlined
above.If you challenge the
City Council's action in
�. court, you may be limited
Signature
,T z --- --
REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMITTAL OF RCA
Department: RCA r
Title � C '
Council Meeting Date: _ 9 =: Date of This Request: _ _y
REASON (Why is this RCA being submitted late?):
EXPLANATION (Why is this RCA necessary to this agenda?):
C� v C,
CONSEQUENCES How shall delay of this RCA adversely impact the City?):
Signature: O Approved M Denied 0 Approved O Denied
Initials
Required
Department Head Ram Silver Michael Uberua a
Request for Late Submittal
Requests for Council Action (RCA's) are due and considered late after
the City Administrator's deadline which is 5:00 P.M. Wednesday ten
days prior to the Council meeting at which the item is to be heard. This
deadline reflects the time needed prior to Agenda Review for
Administration staff and the City Administrator to review all RCA's and
their support material prior to forwarding them to the City Clerk for
placement on the preliminary agenda. It also provides time for the City
Clerk's office to review the item and add proper wording for the item to
the preliminary agenda for discussion at Agenda Review the following
Monday.
The Request for Late Submittal form provides a vehicle for RCA's to be
submitted after the Wednesday, deadline when there are extenuating
circumstances which delayed the item and when action on the item is
necessary at the upcoming Council meeting.
Late items can agendized only with signed authorization on the Request
for Late Submittal form by the Assistant City Administrator or the City
Administrator.
RCA ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment No. 95-4
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 16, 1996
RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable
Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable) Attached
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached
EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS
REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED
Administrative Staff
Assistant City Administrator Initial
City Administrator Initial
City Clerk �—
EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM:
SpaceOnly)