AgdaPkt 2007-08-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 19 ATTACHMENT 2 Staff Reponses to Appeal Letter This document provides staff responses to the appeal letter submitted by the Redwood Village Neighborhood Association on June 26, 2007. The numbered items addressed in this document correspond to the numbered items denoted in the appeal letter in the right margin. PROCESS Item #1: At the joint Planning Commission/Zoning Administrator hearing held on June 19, 2007, the hearing for both decision-making bodies was opened when the Planning Commission's hearing was opened. The public was informed before this occurred that it was a Joint Public Hearing of both reviewing bodies. In fact, the hearing transcript (page 5) indicates that Planning Commission Chair Seybert spent some time at the beginning of the proceedings to discuss the format, and to tell members of the public that testimony could be given on both items. In addition, information regarding the joint public hearing format was previously provided to the public on several occasions. Most recently, at the workshop on June 6, 2007, a Redwood Village resident inquired about the format of the upcoming June 19th hearing. The joint hearing format was described. At the June 19 hearing, the Planning Commission closed their portion of the hearing before they entered into deliberations on EIR certification. The Zoning Administrator kept his Use Permit hearing open until after the Planning Commission had completed their action and he had an opportunity to ask clarifying questions of staff and the applicant. He determined that he did not need clarification of public comment and thus closed the public hearing based on the substantial record that had been provided to him that evening. The purpose of holding joint public hearings in these cases is a related to serving the public interest. Staff's experience is that it can be confusing to the public to try to separate and differentiate between comments on an environmental document and comments about a project. Therefore, it is staffs approach to encourage members of the public to comment on both items. The City's Zoning Ordinance does not allow for "call up" from the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission for Use Permits requiring environmental review. Thus, one body considers the adequacy of the associated environmental documents - the Planning Commission - and another considers the Use Permit - the Zoning Administrator. This joint hearing process has been used previously for projects with similar environmental review and use permit requirements. Regarding the Zoning Administrator as "sole decision maker" for Use Permits, this is a statement of fact: in Redwood City, the Zoning Administrator hears Use Permits. For this project, the Planning Commission's role is to review and certify the EIR and recommend adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Zoning Ordinance does not provide for the Planning Commission to act on Use Permits. Projects are not "certified," but EIRs are. Certification of an EIR does not constitute project approval. Because the Zoning Administrator's hearing was held jointly with the Planning Commission's proceedings, he is better informed about the specific aspects of the environmental review. All of the questions posed by the Planning Commission and