Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-18 PC MINS MINUTES OF THE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION, DESIGN REVIEW, AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 18, 2005 Council Chambers Public Services Building 275 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALLI MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Design Review Committee Present: Alfredo Araiza, Jose Alberdi, Katherine Magallon Resource Conservation Commission Present: Doug Reid, Pamela Bensoussan, Terry Thomas, John Chavez, Juan Diaz,Stan Jasek Planning Commission Present: Marco P. Cortes, Vick Madrid, Russ Hall, Bill Tripp, Bryan Felber, Kevin O'Neill, Dan Hom Staff Present: Dana Smith, Assistant Director of Community Development Ken Lee, Principal Community Development Specialist Jim Sandoval, Director of Planning and Building John Schmitz, Principal Planner Marisa Lundstedt, Environmental Projects Manager 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration and recommendations on the formation of a 501 c3 Corporation to support the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. Chair Cortes called meeting to order at 7:20, opened public hearing and requested comments from the members of the various committee/commissions starting with the Design Review Committee. Member Araiza stated that the impact of the 501 c3 on the DRC is significant in that it reduces the committee's input in the review of projects. Therefore, it is the Design Review Committee's recommendation to the City Council that their role be left the same and that there be no changes. RCC Member Thomas recommends that the three committee/commissions' roles remain the same and would like to see a common statement from all three commissions sent to Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - May 18, 2005 the City Council to that effect. Member Bensousan stated she concurs with the statements made by the previous speakers. She further indicated that a few members put together a "Comments and Recommendations for CVRC" paper, which was distributed to the Commission and Committee members before the joint session was called to order. Item #8 of that documents coincides with the statements made by the previous two speakers and under (CVRC's Assumption of Commissioner's Duties) there is a recommendation to delete this language from the proposed ordinance. Item #8 further recommends that the ordinance clarify or restate the specific and primary purpose of the CVRC. Member John Chavez stated that he would like to place on record the following motion. MSC (ChavezlBensoussan) (5-1-1-0) that the Resource Conservation Commission finds the most recent staff report on the CVRC to be seriously flawed and unacceptable in its present form and further recommends that the City Council not approve/ratify the proposed CVRC bylaws and ordinances as currently proposed. Motion carried with Member Jasek voting against the motion. Member Jasek stated his reason for voting against the motion was because he does not agree with the language in the motion. Mr. Jasek further indicated that although there are parts in the documents where the three commissions don't agree, he does not believe that the entire report is seriously flawed. Member Reid clarified that although he voted for the motion, he wished to clarify that the majority of the EIR's that come before the RCC are primarily in the eastern territories, and understands that what would significantly be reduced would be the Negative Declarations and Initial Studies for smaller projects located within the redevelopment area. Member Araiza stated that he would like to see the three commissions come up with one recommendation similar to the one previously offered. Plannina Commission Verbatim Transcript of Commissioner Kevin O'Neill "As / understand, the desired recommendation out of this group would be that they adopt the operating agreement and the articles of incorporation. The operating agreement is the instruction of how things are going to work. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - May 18, 2005 There are two issues / have a concern with. One, CD is going to take over the planning side of everything within not just redevelopment, but they would actually have everything in the urban core. My concern is that CD has a split allegiance because their primary purpose is to attract developers to the community and act as a catalyst or booster for redevelopment. For them to wear the Planning hat; I'm not sure that its a good fit because their primary mandate is to go out there and bring in people. More importantly, is the efficiency of that. /n deference to CD; we have an excellent, well-trained, well-tried Planning staff within the City and we would have this redundancy, and is still subject to ups and downs in their capacity or their need for capacity as the east side is still going out and the west then starts to gear up and go. It doesn't allow us the flexibility and we have to build from scratch. What I would propose is the planning portion of this go to our existing Planning Department, but within that would be a Principal Planner, Senior Planner and Associate Planner that is dedicated to redevelopment. /n the meantime, you can shift these people back and forth, but more importantly, we haven't created two fiefdoms. Planning should do all of it because its all one community and there should be some uniformity of thought. It's a little different animal, but its still a mamma/ and that's why I propose that you have a planning group within Planning that is dedicated to redevelopment, and redevelopment acts as a liaison with them and works closely with them, but / think that is something we should spell out in the operating agreement. The second issue, which is equally important, is that the cost benefit analysis of any potentia/ redevelopment project should come in early. By that / mean; what is the tangible benefit to the community in terms of tax increment revenue. That's counter-balanced with what's it going to cost us to accommodate this; is there going to be any land acquisition to be done by the City; is there going to be any relocation that is born by the City; what are the offsets in fees that are asked for by the developer. Finally, there has to be some independent analysis, if this thing is built; is there a market for it, because the intent is not actually to build a building that may be beautiful, but unused. The intent is that you're actually going to have it full and used. What / propose again is that there be ear/yon, prior to this thing going to the CVRC that there be a cost benefit analysis done, maybe paid for by the Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - May 18, 2005 applicant, but an independent consultant chosen by the City. We do this on a lot of other things in development, but that ultimately it is accepted by the City Manager and certified by him before it goes to the development board/Council. There is no sense in test-driving this new vehicle if we can't afford it or if its not going to be built. So, that's one of the things that we have to know early on, plus it's not fair to the developer if he thinks its going to happen and ultimately you say, "I can't pay that or I won't pay that." The sooner we know these things (what is it going to cost us vs. what are we going to get for it) is the better. Those are the two things that I think we should add to or amend in the operating agreement, because I don't think there is any place to do that later and it has to be done now. The rest of it; I'm pretty comfortable with. There are a lot of checks and balances that are not enumerated in it, but this is a little different animal than San Diego CCDC, which is totally independent. As I understand it, this body, in whatever action it takes, it is going to recommend to the Council and then Council takes ultimate action. You have all of the checks and balances that are inherent in any action that the Council takes. It may not be enumerated in the articles or it may not be specific in the operating agreement, but you do have it because it already exists in our body of law. So those are the two issues that I would like to see addressed." Dana Smith clarified that the attempt under this is to create a structure that broadens and provides expertise to the CVRC from the entire City staff in the various departments like Planning, Engineering, Parks, General Services, etc. Cmr. O'Neill - "I accept that, but what I'm saying is that, that's a little too vague for me and I want to tighten that up and I actually want to have our current Planning, and Planning Director; that system in place and that's going to be the primary. CD with their planners may act as liaison and they may introduce, but I don't want to have a whole second parallel; separate, but equal body created within CD. It doesn't make sense from efficiency and other reason of why you would have separate, but equal. If you have the separate, but equal, is that you end up with turf wars ultimately. Lets not just even worry about that and simply declare that we have an excellent Planning staff, by and large, and that we should utilize them as the primary planning arm of the City for that, which comes into redevelopment and the urban core. So just say it now officially and move along with it. " Cmr. Horn - Inquired if under Cmr. O'Neill's proposal, would the same current process apply and would the projects come to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - May 18, 2005 Cmr. O'Neill - "No, all I'm saying is that the existing planning mechanism now, with the exception of your three long-range planners, that that is the Planning arm and within that arm, under that single director is a group that can expand and contract, dependent on workload for those properties or projects that come into redevelopment and the urban core. That's all. Because they're in the same room and they're talking the same language, its just a more efficient way of going at it. If you think that regular Planners are not capable of thinking in terms of Redevelopment Planning, then I'm willing to listen to that argument, but I can't think of anything that regular Planners can't do within Redevelopment. I can think of a project that has not done well because it did not have any organized adult planning around it, that's caused a whole lot of grief It has nothing to do with Planning Commission because it doesn't subvert anything that might be planned in streamlining this process or changing the other things. I think that our existing Planning staff has a very good sense of what is appropriate to the community, what is acceptable to the community in terms of what is appropriate, both in height, breadth, color and everything else. If you want to streamline things, you get these guys talking to the applicant early and often and they can give them a better sense. There's no sense in designing something that isn't ever going to get built. If we want to make these things happen, lets try to streamline it by bringing them in early and telling them early whether this is an up-hill; you're either pushing or pulling a rope. I personally would want to know that information early. " Member Araiza stated he wished to clarify a statement in the report that indicates that the design needs to be reviewed before it gets to the design stage. Mr. Araiza pointed out that the DRC currently does a Preliminary Review of certain projects and they provide early input to the applicant and his architect through this process. Cmr. Horn inquired what the timeframe is for this going to Council. Ms. Smith reassured the commissions that throughout this entire process both CD and Planning have been working together on this endeavor and both departments recognize that those jurisdictions that have successful redevelopment programs are the ones where both of these departments work well together. Ms. Smith reaffirmed that the City of Chula Vista recognizes these dynamics and is firmly committed to doing the same. With respect to the timeframe, Ms. Smith indicated that this is going to the City Council on May 24th. At that time, if the City Council wishes to take action, they will direct staff Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - May 18, 2005 to file the Articles of Incorporation with the State of California. The CVRC would become effective once the City receives notification from the State that they have received and filed those documents, which could be just a matter of weeks. Cmr. Madrid stated that, in her opinion, it appears that either through a deliberate or an unintended act, the valuable input that these commissions provide in their respective roles has been greatly diminished and/or eliminated. Therefore, it would be her recommendation that consideration be given to creating a hybrid commission of the three committee/commissions to be a decision-making board for the CVRC. Cmr. Hall stated that he, along with a group of citizens crafted the "Comments and Recommendations for the CVRC" document that was handed out earlier tonight. Cmr. Hall stated that it would be his recommendation that a motion be made by all three commissions forwarding this list of recommendations to the City Council and have it be included in their report for next week. Cmr. Hall stated that the expediency with which this whole process has occurred, in his opinion, he believes that doing anything else but passing along these comments and recommendations to Council would be premature. Cmr. Tripp gave an example of how the bureaucratic process can slow down projects and described a redevelopment project in another jurisdiction in which the developer worked with a community planning group for approximately two years to ensure they got their support. They then worked through the entitlement process with the City and encountered numerous hurdles that took much time and ingenuity to resolve. Cmr. Tripp concluded by stating that he supports efforts to streamline and speed up the process to get redevelopment done in a timely, cost-efficient manner. Cmr. Cortes stated that ultimately the City Council will make their decision and they will decide whether or not to take the commissions' comments and recommendations under consideration. MSC (HaIl/O'Neill)(7 -0) that staff be directed to: · Forward the written "Comments and Considerations for CVRC" to the City Council for the May 24th hearing. · Direct staff to include their responses and comments to the written "Comments and Recommendations for CVRC". · That Cmr. O'Neill's verbatim comments be forwarded to the City Council where he speaks about staffing and the need to conduct early cost-benefit analyses and market studies. · Include minutes from the joint meeting. Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - May 18, 2005 Motion carried unanimously. Cmr. Felber stated that not having had the opportunity to fully-digest and cross- reference these recommendations, he is somewhat uncomfortable making a blanket statement that he supports everything that is in the "Comments and Recommendations for CVRC" document. Cmr. Hall recommended changing the title of the document to read "Comments and Considerations for CVRC". Motion's) and comments by the Desian Review Committee. Member Alberdi stated that for the most part he concurs with the motion and comments made by the Planning Commission. Mr. Alberdi further indicated that the overall review process is not the issue, but rather, the lack of not having the General Plan in place. With guidelines in place, Le. the General Plan, it allows these Commissions to review projects with those guidelines and a clear understanding of where the City wants to go. MSC (Alberdi/Magallon) (3-0-2-0) that the Design Review Committee concurs with the motion made by the Planning Commission as stated above. Motion carried. Motion's) and comments by the Resource Conservation Commission. MSC (Chavez/Thomas) (6-0-1-0) that the Resource Conservation Commission concurs with the motion made by the Planning Commission as stated above. Motion carried. Member Chavez stated that staff was asked to provide evidence that the commissions have ever been a significant delay factor for projects moving forward, and that in the absence of such evidence, one would question the need to streamline, repair or replace the process. Additionally, the bylaws/ordinance states that the CVRC CEO would have the power to assign City staff, perhaps to the exclusion of others. Mr. Chavez indicated that, in his opinion, this gives too much power for that function or that position and there needs to be more checks and balances. Member Thomas recommended that the three commissions make one collective motion endorsing article 1 with respect to the composition of the RAC as stated under the "Recommendations for RAC" and forward that as a motion to the City Council. MSC (Thomas/Bensoussan) (6-0-1-0) that the Resource Conservation Commission recommends Article #1. of the "Recommendation for RAC" to the Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - May 18, 2005 City Council for their consideration. Motion carried. MSC (Araiza/Alberdi) (3-0-2-0) that the Design Review Committee recommends Article #1. of the "Recommendation for RAC" to the City Council for their consideration. Motion carried. MSC (Madrid/Hall) (4-3) that the Planning Commission recommends Article #1 of the "Recommendation for RAC" to the City Council for their consideration. Motion failed. Cmr. Hom pointed out that as stated in an earlier motion, he is in support of forwarding for the City Council's consideration the "Comments and Considerations for CVRC" document, which contains both recommendations for the composition of the RAC, however, he does not support Article #1 , and actually favors the Alternate Proposal for Makeup of RAC, therefore, he will vote against the motion. Cmr. O'Neill stated that, in his opinion, the recommendation in the motion is premature and believes that there is a process that is yet to come that will determine the composition of the RAC, therefore, he too will vote against the motion. Cmr. Felber stated that he concurs with Cmr. Hom and O'Neill's comments. Ultimately, he may end up agreeing with Article #1 , however, at this point, he would like the opportunity to make a more-informed decision by allowing the process to get to that point of soliciting input and/or hearing the recommendations from staff. Cmr. Tripp stated that in the spirit of cooperativeness, he is supportive of the earlier motions, however, he doesn't see the need to further drive this issue, which as previously stated, may be premature. Member Araiza stated that as a member of the Design Review Committee, for the record, he would like to state he is very disappointed in what he believes is a lack of support and solidarity on the part of the Planning Commission. Cmr. Chavez stated that as a member of the Resource Conservation Commission he echoes Member Araiza's previous comment. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. 1 ~~~~~ Minutes prepared by: Diana Vargas, Sec~tary to the Planning Commission J:\Planning\DIANA\PC Minutes 2-09-05\Joint Minutes PCDRC-RCC re 501 c3.doc