|
the changing environment in the community. I think that that is what, you know—and then at
<br /> that point they would have to reapply for that continuation of their ordinance, and we would then
<br /> recondition it and then move forward according to the zoning that's been issued. Director Kern.
<br /> KERN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So outside of an administrative time extension, which is
<br /> generally allowed on most permits, we go—it's being implied by Mr. Van Pernis that we don't
<br /> allow public comments, that there is not a review process, that there isn't a recommendation
<br /> done by the respective planning commission, and there isn't something that goes on at Council, it
<br /> implies that it just,just happens automatically if somebody asks for it. And, I mean, you folks
<br /> see it all the time that's not necessarily the case. I know there has been some challenging
<br /> applications, but when it goes through, they, we have to look at how this, the Planning
<br /> Department has to look at how that request for a time extension of that zoning relates to every
<br /> single element that exists today, the current General Plan, the CDP, they have to send out notices
<br /> to surrounding property owners just like they would with a fresh application, they have to, we
<br /> have to send it out to all the agencies for comments; it goes through every single process that a
<br /> fresh application would. I'm just, I'm just confused on, I guess I'm perplexed of what the
<br /> additional requirements. I would get it if you just said, hey, it's only a time extension and every
<br /> condition is locked in stone and you can't change that and there is no public testimony now, sure,
<br /> I'd fully get it. But when it has to go through the same process—is it more of a notification to
<br /> the applicant as, and they are saying that if this expires,just be put on notice we are going to
<br /> review these conditions, like this is going to, we are going to take a fresh look at it? That's a
<br /> different story because that would never message—and it's more of a communication issue; it's
<br /> not change, it's not necessarily change in the process.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Commissioner Van Pernis, what, what procedural change do you think would be
<br /> needed in order to accomplish what you are trying to do? Commissioner Van Pernis.
<br /> VAN PERNIS: Well, first of all, let me say that the administrative extension privilege given to
<br /> the applicant and the planning director is limited by my suggested language, which can be
<br /> modified, of course, so we don't get into a situation with the administrative extensions of five,
<br /> 10, 15 years, three at a time, that don't add any conditions whatsoever despite the change in time.
<br /> Mr. Kern doesn't address that subject. We are talking about, he is talking about a new
<br /> application. I think the language should be utilized so that there is a limit on administrative
<br /> extensions without additional conditions and additional public input
<br /> VITOUSEK: Hold on a second there. For most cases, the commission or the Council who is the
<br /> approving authority, are in advance establishing when administrative time condition [sic] can be
<br /> issued, so that's pre-built into the permit—
<br /> KERN:
<br /> ermitKERN: And it's also, it's also the, it's inI believe it's codified and in practice—we can't issue
<br /> multiple time extensions on an ordinance or a Special Permit; the only thing we can issue
<br /> multiple time extensions on is like a subdivision because it's an administrative permit, that's
<br /> basically a right, entitlement to it. We are only allowed to issue one administrative time
<br /> extension, so if the zoning ordinance said five years, we are only allowed to issue one
<br /> administrative time extension up to five years; we can't say, oh, you know what, we actually feel
<br /> 6
<br /> EXHIBIT C
<br />
|