Planning Commissioners play an important role in the public process. Not only are they charged with upholding Carmel-by-the-Sea’s land use laws, their public hearings provide residents of the village and the general public the ability to be part of the process.
Land use development applications begin at the staff level. A project proposal is submitted to Community Planning and Building along with the required information needed for staff to fully analyze project consistency with applicable policies contained in the City’s General Plan (GP) and Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the implementing regulations contained in the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code (CMC).
The major role of staff is to provide the technical information and analysis needed for the appropriate authority to make well-informed decisions. Subsequent to reviewing a project and prior to a Planning Commission hearing, staff prepares a report describing the project and location, identifying any applicable issues uncovered and providing the necessary findings, evidence and conditions of approval for the commission’s consideration.
Before approving an application, the commission should be able to answer the following questions in the affirmative: Is the proposal consistent with the general plan? Does it meet all applicable zoning and subdivision requirements? Are the environmental impacts reduced or eliminated by the conditions of approval, or are there overriding considerations? Is the commission’s decision supported by findings of fact based on substantial evidence in the record?
Decisions of the Planning Commission must demonstrate the relationship between findings and evidence and how the findings support the commission’s decision; it must document the “analytic route the administrative agency [Planning Commission] traveled from evidence to action.” (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515 (1974))
What is a Finding?
Findings are required for all quasi-judicial decisions. They provide written documentation explaining reasons for the hearing authority’s ultimate decision. Findings are legally relevant sub-conclusions, supported by evidence, that support the authority’s decision. The intent of findings are to “facilitate orderly analysis and minimize the likelihood that the agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusions.” (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515 (1974))
Title 17 – Zoning Ordinance, of the CMC identifies specific findings for numerous land use decisions. These findings may not be limited to the plain text of the code but must also show the vertical consistency of a project and the applicable GP/LCP policies and CMC regulations.
In order for findings to be legally adequate, they cannot be conclusory. They must include specific facts for which they are based upon. These facts are typically case, site and situation specific. Findings must bridge the analytical gap between “raw” evidence (e.g. project plans, technical reports, etc.) and a decision. Findings must be substantiated by fact, not opinion.
What is Evidence?
Evidence are specific facts that demonstrate whether a project is consistent or inconsistent with the GP, LCP, and/or CMC. Ultimately, the evidence must support the finding. Evidence can come in many forms.
Project Plans. These plans typically include many sheets depicting specific aspects of a project:
· Site plan. This is an illustrative graphic, from a bird’s eye view, showing the subject property, existing trees, required setbacks, proposed development. Additional relevant information can be included such as easements and topography.
· Floor plans. This plan shows all existing and proposed layouts for every floor of a structure from exterior wall to exterior wall. Changes in window and door sizes and/or location are also indicated on a floor plan.
· Exterior elevations. This plan shows all sides of an existing and/or proposed building, clearly indicating the structure’s size and height. Colors and materials are often identified on this plan.
· Civil plan. The plan includes the existing topography, proposed grading and resulting topography, infrastructure locations and vegetation.
· Landscape plan. This plans shows existing vegetation and areas where new plants and irrigation will be installed. A planting list/legend, irrigation location and information, water use calculation, and vegetation management for wildfire prevention is also part of this plan.
Expert opinions. These often come in the form of a technical report prepared by a qualified professional. GP/LUP policies and CMC regulations require submittal of specific reports depending on the development’s location. Below are a few examples:
· Historical reports.
· Archaeological reports.
· Soils/geotechnical reports.
· Geological reports.
· Biological reports.
Hearing records. Permit process requirements in the CMC often require multiple hearing bodies to render a decision on a single project. In these cases, the Planning Commission must consider applicable decisions made by the Historic Resources Board, Forest and Beach Commission, and/or previous Planning Commission decisions (e.g. Planning Commission decision on a Design Concept).
How Conditions of Approval Apply
Conditions of approval often are applied for two specific reasons: 1) ensure consistency with code and 2) imposing exactions.
Examples of the first instance would be incorporating conditions requiring submittal of a final landscape plan, exterior lighting plan or drainage plan for review and approval prior to issuance of construction permits. Regulations within the CMC require these actions without the need for a condition. Although not legally required, incorporating the requirement as a condition helps to remind the applicant of a necessary and required step imposed later in the development process.
The legal authority for the City to impose exactions is through the express authorization under state law (statute) and the police power held by the city. The intent of imposing an exaction is to ensure a development essentially pays for itself, and is not a burden to, or subsidized by, the public. Exactions fall within three main categories: dedication requirements (e.g. conservation and access easements, parkland, etc.), impact fees (e.g. school, traffic, etc.) and on- and off-site improvements (installation of infrastructure typically required for standard subdivisions or large-scale developments).
The type and amount of exactions must take into account nexus and rough proportionality to ensure there is no abuse of police power.
Nexus
In its decision on Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (483 U.S. 825, 1987), the United States Supreme Court determined what constitutes a required nexus, “no precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.” Simply put, there must be a reasonable relationship between a project and the need for an exaction.
Rough Proportionality
In its decision on Dolan v. City of Tigard (512 U.S. at 374, 1994), the United States Supreme Court held that when a condition of approval is applied, the burden on the applicant (property owner) must be roughly proportionate to the benefit for the government. For example, if a jurisdiction required the dedication of 50 acres to create a public park in order to approve a 6 lot residential subdivision, would that be roughly proportional? Standards of the Quimby Act allows a ratio of 3 acres of park area per 1,000 residents. Therefore, the example above would not be roughly proportionate and would be an abuse of police power.