Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 2008/04/09MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 6:00 p.m. April 9, 2008 Council Chambers 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 6:03:41 PM CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL /MOTIONS TO EXCUSE Members Present: Tripp, Felber, Moctezuma, Vinson, Bensoussan, Clayton, Spethman Member Absent: None INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Tripp APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 27, 2008 and March 12, 2008 MSC (Felber/Spethman) (5-0-2-0) to approve minutes of February 27, 2008 and March 12, 2008 as submitted. Motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 1. ACTION ITEMS: Planning Commission Chair's request to hold informational and impartial public discussion and to consider going on record in favor or opposed to Proposition E. Chair Tripp disclosed that since some members of the Planning Commission have publicly made known their position on Prop E, at the advice of the City Attorney and staff, the Commission will not be taking action or a vote on this item and will only be taking comments from the public and Planning Commission members. 6:13:14 PM Cmr. Moctezuma recused herself from the dais due to a conflict of interest. She also stated that due to the controversy of the topic, she wished to clarify that on this matter, as with all items that go before the Planning Commission, although she may have an opinion, she comes to these meeting with an open mind, and it is not until after she has heard all of the testimony and reviewed all of the documentation that she forms her conclusion to either support or opposes a proposal. Public Comments: 6:18:16 PMJim Peterson, gave an overview of the many public meetings that were held during the General Plan Update and the Urban Core Specific Plan in which there was an overwhelming support from residents to maintain a 45 foot height limit for buildings along Third Avenue between E and G Streets; the people have spoken and he too is in support of Prop E Planning Commission Minutes -2 - April 9, 2008 6:29:51 PM Peter Watry stated that people spoke their minds for the direction and vision they wanted their city to move forward to at the last General Plan Update The General Plan, although not perfect, is a document of compromise that for better or for worse, works for the majority of the people. He expressed concern that the City Council shows little regard for what the General Plan says and is readily willing to do a General Plan Amendment if a developer lobbies enough in order to accommodate his project. Because this, Prop E is an attempt to give back some control to the people and put it up for a vote. 6:43:23 PM Todd Hoff, Chief Executive Officer, Scripps Mercy Chula Vista Hospital, stated they are anon-profit health care system and campus development is funded by a combination of borrowing, net revenue and philanthropy. Prop E adds limitations to their ability to develop their campus making financing more difficult because it adds cost and uncertainty to the process. They have a limited amount of land and the proposed height limit further constrains their ability to plan a facility that will meet the health care needs of our community. He urged the commission to oppose Prop E. 6:46:03 PM Kevin O'Neill stated he is concerned with the imposition Prop E places on the hospital and smaller uses, in addition to its permanency; it would take another election and money to change it. Mr. O'Neill noted some irregularities in reasoning in the language of the Proposition, i.e. "...high-rise buildings should be located where transportation systems have been built to serve them...". This statement is incorrect because transportation systems will not be built without the necessary ridership already in place. Mr. O'Neill also stated that we need to be mindful of how our decisions will affect future generations. 6:57:19 PM Jennifer Lanzrath a resident of Chula Vista and parishioner of St. Rose of Lima Church stated their church received a Conditional Use Permit last summer to build a new school, hall and church, but construction has not yet begun. As anon-profit, they are concerned that their project would not be grandfathered in under Prop. E and would incur their project additional review and expense. 7:03:21 PM Peter Rullan, 98 Cook Ct., and has a practice at 256 Landis, stated he is the President and Founder of the Chula Vista Taxpayers and Responsible Planning group. Dr. Rullan stated he lives and works in downtown Chula Vista and is saddened to see it slowly deteriorating and dying; its time for a change to come to Chula Vista. We need an infusion of optimism and vision of what we want our City to develop into and we need to partner and support our City government to attract investment and development. Conclude Public Comments. 7:07:24 PM Cmr. Clayton asked how would the City go about exempting hospitals from the restrictions imposed by Prop E if it were to pass. Mike Shirey responded that the City Council can put it to a vote of the people through a ballot initiative. Additionally, under a Council-sponsored initiative, it would have to go through environmental review. 7:08:54 PM Cmr. Vinson stated the importance of casting an informed vote because the effect and permanency of this measure if it is passed. He urged everyone to get educated and involved in spreading the word on what exactly this means regardless of what side you are on. Planning Commission Minutes -3 - April 9, 2008 7:13:40 PM Cmr. Felber echoed Cmr. Moctezuma's initial statement and also stated that those who oppose Prop E don't necessarily want high rise building to be constructed, but are more in favor of providing flexibility to be able to get the highest and best use of land commensurate with the area. He also voiced the importance of casting an informed and educated vote. Adding to Mr. O'Neill's comments about future generations; he would like to invite the Youth Commission to be more involved and solicit their perspective and recommendations on major proposal to the Planning Commission, CVRC and City Council. 7:21:44 PM Cmr. Tripp asked the City Attorney to give an overview of the CEQA process and requirements. Mr. Tripp also inquired if any analysis had been conducted on potential financial impacts or losses as a result of Prop E passing. Mr. Sandoval responded that he is not aware of any economic studies, but stated that the Planning and Building Department conducted a land use analysis. 7:29:34 PM Cmr. Bensoussan stated she is concerned with the amount of misinformation that is circulating out there, i.e., that if Prop E passes, projects would not be subject to environmental review, therefore, she pointed to the City Attorney's Impartial Analysis, which stated, "...A project proponent affected by this proposition would be required to comply with all existing planning, design, and environmental review processes, but could not obtain final approval unless and until voters approved the project." 2, Permit Streamlining and measures to reduce cost and time for development entitlements, encouraging economic revitalization. 7:43:29 PM Mr. Sandoval stated that the City is looking at streamlining our entitlement processes and evaluating the function, scope of responsibilities and where there is a duplication of efforts in our seven land use boards and commission. Ms. Lytle will be giving a presentation on those recommendations and would solicit the Commission's input. 7:46:37 PM Nancy Lytle stated that CEQA and the Permit Streamlining Act function together to create a timeline for any development entitlement application in California, therefore, any streamlining efforts needs to be done within the constraints of State law requirements. Ms. Lytle indicated that the Planning and Building Department spends over $500,000 in support of seven commissions that make land use decisions; they are: Planning Commission. DRC, CVRC, RCC, RAC, GMOC and Board of Appeals. The RCC acts as an oversight role for CEQA staff functions, which adds an additional administrative step to the process. There is a potential to elevate the RCC to a policy- recommending role for such policy directives like the Climate Working Group recommendations, and no longer would be involved in formal review of CEQA documents, but focus on providing advice to the Planning Commission, DRC, CVRC and Council on environmental policy. RAC is advisory to CVRC and they act as a vehicle to obtain public input for quasi-judicial entitlement applications. We are in discussions with a subcommittee of the RAC and CVRC to look as the dual effort that they have. Planning Commission Minutes -4 - April 9, 2008 With respect to the Planning Commission, DRC and CVRC, there could be cost and time savings by delegating certain decisions that are currently made by these bodies to the Zoning Administrator. By delegating more decisions to the ZA, this official can hold hearings and decide on certain CUPS, variances, minor maps, design review and other common entitlements. Appeals to these decisions would be carried forward to the Planning Commission and CVRC. The DRC would handle major applications and the Chair could offcially advise the ZA on all delegated DRC applications, in or outside redevelopment territory. 8:05:34 PM Cmr. Spethman stated that the streamlining recommendations for the B/C/C's are good, specifically elevating the role of the RCC to apolicy-recommending role, delegating more oversight to the Zoning Administrator and having a representative of the DRC be advisor to the ZA. He expressed uncertainty about the effectiveness of the RAC for many reasons; the duplicity in their role; extending the review process; its make-up, i.e. three members of the Planning Commission wearing different hats: and their role in design review, when it is the members of the DRC that have the professional expertise to do design review. 8:13:30 PM Cmr. Moctezuma stated she believes the role of the RAC is valuable and wished to clarify that the RAC #2 meeting is not a mandatory meeting; oftentimes everything is covered or fast-tract at the RAC #1 meeting; this is a topics she would like to discuss further when the RAC and CVRC meet to discuss their roles and responsibilities. She also pointed out that projects in the redevelopment area do not go before the Planning Commission and is supportive of delegating more responsibility to the ZA. 8:15:50 PM Cmr. Tripp stated he agrees with elevating the RCC's role to a policy advisory body and delegating more to the ZA. It would also be useful in expediting the process to have an updated Zoning Code to provide specific, straightforward guidelines, even to the point of defining design elements that may or may not be allowed. With regard to alcohol CUP's ,the ZA can handle them administratively unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as ari over- concentration of businesses with liquor licenses and/or crime in a certain census tract. 8:21:50 PM Cmr. Bensoussan stated that although she supports elevating the RCC, it is very important that the make-up of this Commission be qualified professionals who have expertise in environmental sciences, conservation and the like. With respect to entitlements for minor projects, it is important, after public input is received, to define those thresholds, i.e. projects under a certain size can be ministerially approved by the ZA. The design guidelines of the UCSP are sufficiently detailed that if the applicant adheres to them, the design review aspect of the RAC would be greatly reduced and their focus could be on other elements of the project. Another way to cut down on costs would be to use community groups, like the City of San Diego does, to serve as the vanguard instead of having staff-sponsored outreaches at venues such as schools. 8:30:12 PM Ms. Lytle pointed out that Cmr. Benousssan's comment on using community groups is excellent because there is cost savings anytime you can eliminate Brown Act public meetings because of the notification requirements. 8:31:44 PM Cmr. Clayton asked how all of this streamlining helps reduce cost for the applicant. By reducing the cost for the applicant, we will attract more of their business. Ms. Lytle stated that the more we streamline our process and make it less costly and more efficient, the more we save the development community. Right now they have to reimburse us 100% cost recovery for entitlements. Other Cities of similar size who are our competitors for 5 April 9, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes economic investment do not require 100% cost recovery, especially for smaller, straightforward entitlements. 8:34'.17 PM Cmr. Vinson stated that streamlining is good news to any developer because time equates money; he would also like to see what the development community has to say about our process. Cmr. Vinson inquired what is the cost savings to the City with the proposed cuts in staffing the B/C/C's and streamlining the process. Ms. Lytle responded that we are cutting a management position and an administrative support position out of the Administrative budget, which is a cost savings of approximately $200,000. 8:42:33 PM Cmr. Felber stated he disagrees with some of the comments that have been made about the RAC doing predominantly design review. The RAC was created in an attempt to streamline the review of projects in redevelopment areas that previously went through the DRC, RCC and Planning Commission. He agrees that there should be a one-shot review by the RAC and favors upgrading the Zoning Administrator to do ministerial approval of minor projects. 8:58:36 PM Cmr. Bensoussan stated that because the UCSP is a specific and detailed document and has also gone through exhaustive environmental review, if a project complies with this document, the EIR process for the redevelopment areas ought to not be as onerous, particularly if the project is compliant with the UCSP. 8'59:46 PM Cmr. Tripp responded that if a project complies with the UCSP, then it ought to be made a ministerial project and moved forward to the CVRC, eliminating the need to go to the RAC. 9e O prelPm nary andlwould like to see it come back onceast ff has had atchalnce to ncorpo ate ry the Commission's comments and have a more concrete plan. 3 Debrief of the March 29~h field trip to the business district tour. The commission consensus was that the tour was very beneficial and thanked Cmr. Spethman for recommending that it be organized and staff for putting it together. 9:03:50 PM Adjourned to a regular Planning Commission meeting on April 23, 2008. Submitted by, Diana Vargas Secretary to the PI nning Commission.