Loading...
12-21-2010 - Public HearingCode Amendment No. 09-06Recycling Fa - Item 13 attach 3 (2).doc PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 09-06 GENERAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: City of West Covina LOCATION: Citywide I. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION On December 8, 2009, the Planning Commission initiated a code amendment related to revocation standards and recycling centers. The proposed code amendment consists of certain amendments to Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal Code related to recycling facility standards and procedures for hearings, revocations and appeals. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 09-06 to the City Council. III. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed code amendment is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines in that it consists of a code amendment, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. IV. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission initiated Code Amendment No. 09-06 to modify standards for recycling facility standards and revise the current standards for revocation and appeal procedures. The Planning Commission held a study session pertaining to the recycling facility standards on June 8, 2010. For your review staff has included the table that was presented to you at that study session (Attachment 5). The table includes the following revisions as discussed at the June 8, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting: Rename Recycling Centers to Small Collection Facility (Terminology) Increase Small Collection Facility distance standards when adjacent to Residential uses Add Recycling Center categories to the use matrix Remove “Administrative Modification” application process Modify weekend hours of operation for small collection facilities Prepare visual screening guidelines Delete 24-hour drop off for small collection facilities Delete Mobile Recycling Unit Modify location standards for small collection facilities At that study session, the Planning Commission gave direction to staff to research potential visual screening guidelines that could be required of recycling facilities. Staff has noted that recycling facilities come in various forms and locations, so the type of screening that might be required in a commercial area might not be required in a manufacturing area. In addition, in researching other city codes, staff did not find any specific standards for screening. However, staff did find that some cities include a requirement that screening be installed per review of the application, allowing for a case-by-case review for screening. Staff has therefore included that standard in the proposed code amendment. In addition, since the June 8, 2010 Study Session, the City Attorney’s office has prepared code language for notices, appeals and revocation procedures. These proposed standards have been developed to comply with current law, clarify and simplify hearing and appeal procedures and add unified revocation procedures. The additional changes to procedures for hearings include the following: Add requirement that the public hearing notice be mailed to the applicant or his/her agent, and the property owner. Add standard for notification of utilities and agencies that provide facilities and services to the subject property. Add text allowing the City Council the ability to determine if they desire to hear appeals of Planning Director or Subcommittee appeals from the Planning Commission. Include language specifying appeal deadlines in cases where the City is closed. Increase the number of days to hear an appeal by the City Council from 30 days to 45 days from the date of filing of the appeal. The additional changes to the Revocation Procedures include the following: A requirement that the Planning Commission will be the hearing body for all permits approved by the Planning Director and the Planning Commission. Grounds for revocation. Process for initiating revocation proceedings. Guidelines for notice of hearing for Conditional Use Permits and Administrative Use Permits. Standards for hearing notice content. Hearing procedures and standards. Requirements for notification of a decision by the hearing board. Procedures for appeals of the decision of the hearing board. Procedures and guidelines for decision of the City Council on appeal. Limiting the number of appeals. Limiting the appeal to review of the decision rather than a new hearing. Procedures for preparation and payment for the record on appeal. Standards for terminating revocation procedures. A representative from the City Attorney’s office will be at the public hearing to answer any questions on the proposed code changes for the notices, appeals and revocation procedures. If the Planning Commission approves the proposed code amendment, it will be presented to the City Council for their review and approval. Based on the work completed on the code amendment, there are two outstanding questions that staff is requesting the Planning Commission’s direction on. Is the Planning Commission comfortable with the case-by-case review of screening for recycling facilities? Is the Planning Commission comfortable with the proposal to allow the City Council the discretion to determine if they would like to hear an appeal of Planning Director or Subcommittee appeals for the Planning Commission? Conclusion The proposed changes include clarifying requirements, revising location standards, and clarifying the entitlement process for recycling facilities. Additionally the changes also include establishing procedures for notices, appeals, and revocation proceedings that are consistent with current law. The proposed code text is attached to the resolution for your review (Attachment 1). VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 09-06 to the City Council. PREPARED BY: ________________________________ Ron Garcia Planning Associate REVIEWED AND APPROVED: ________________________________ Jeff Anderson, AICP Acting Planning Director Attachments: Attachment 1 – Code Amendment Resolution Attachment 2 – Summary of Proposed Code Changes October 12, 2010 Attachment 3 – Summary of Revisions to Notices, Appeals and Revocation Process October 12, 2010 Attachment 4 – Planning Commission Staff Report, June 8, 2010 Attachment 5 – Table for Recycling Centers Code Amendment, June 8, 2010