Planning Commissioners have their say at Plaza Amistad hearing
By Peggy Kelly
Santa Paula News
Published: March 18, 2009
The public had plenty to say at the Planning Commission hearing for Plaza Amistad, but Commissioners themselves, who twice defied City Council orders to cease and desist from land-use business, had comments of their own.
By Peggy Kelly
Santa Paula Times
The public had plenty to say at the Planning Commission hearing for Plaza Amistad, but Commissioners themselves, who twice defied City Council orders to cease and desist from land-use business, had comments of their own. Plaza Amistad garnered approval with a 3-1 vote at the March 10 meeting.
Last month the Council on a 4-1 vote directed the Commission to postpone decision-making until a fifth member could be named to replace Jesse Ornelas, dismissed from the panel by the Council who expressed concern that his employment with Plaza Amistad’s developer is a conflict of interest. Although Ornelas stepped down from issues involving Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation, the Council also expressed concern he might influence other Commissioners.
The March 10 meeting was the second time the Commission rejected the Council’s request to postpone business temporarily.
Proponents of the Plaza Amistad project, including developer CEDC representatives, housing activists and current or former CEDC tenants, outnumbered those who spoke against the project, whose comments largely centered on density of the 150-unit apartment complex as well making up the city’s loss of property tax.
Former Mayor John Procter tried to clarify the duties and responsibilities of the Planning Commission, noting the panel decides if projects fit applicable codes and standards under local, state and federal law. Projects outside that scope are automatically forwarded to the Council for a final decision after Commission consideration. It’s not the Commission’s “place to bring in opinions on affordable housing good or bad” as, he noted, bias entered into decision-making could render any such decision void.
Parking and fire safety of the three-story complex were also concerns of speakers, as was crime. John Wisda asked that CEDC produce statistics for their developments, after noting illegal activity is rampart in Saticoy’s Cabrillo Village; comments later rejected by the CEDC attorney after Commissioner Gary Nasalroad asked for clarification.
Barbara Macri-Ortiz noted that although CEDC principals were involved in the creation of Cabrillo Village prior to forming the company, they ceased managing the complex in 1981.
Nasalroad wanted to “offer a very brief” comment on the appearance of City Manager Wally Bobkiewicz, who read the Council letter directing the Commission to postpone business, as well as the failed motion made by Commissioner Steve Brown to adhere to the Council directive. “I have the greatest respect for Wally, I’m one of his biggest supporters,” but Nasalroad said he had to respectfully disagree with the Council request and Brown’s motion.
A new Commissioner should not consider the project, as they would not be informed, including the “important debate” on the issue. “I don’t want to be seen as an obstructionist” or defy the Council, but it would do no good, Nasalroad added, to delay the hearing for a new Commissioner.
Brown and other members of the panel questioned CEDC’s statement that a PILOT (payment in lieu of property taxes) would not be made. “It would not be a bad idea to revisit that,” said Brown.
Commissioner Mike Sommer said the panel, in “trying to do the right thing and following our integrity,” would agree that the project is good, but he would also be “very much in favor” of an annual payment to help offset public safety costs.
Density bonus guidelines would allow up to 253 units on the 6 1/2 acre property, and Brown asked if “there is anything in the bylaws” that would allow a Commission request to reduce the number of units. Told that the use of the property is mandated by the General Plan, but that the applicant could come in with a new proposal that would lead to rezoning, Brown asked if “we would rule yes or no,” and learned the Council would have the final say.
The original project required changes that would require a legislative act, and the current Plaza Amistad fits in the parameters of Commission adoption.
The reason a reduction in units “might be unworkable” is that CEDC paid more than $6 million for the property, predicated, said Nasalroad on the R4 zoning. Design and not density must be considered, he added, as should CEDC paying the PILOT.
“I’m disturbed by the whole problem of fees not going to be paid to the city for police and fire,” said Commission Chairman Paul Skeels. The Commission, he added, is not a political body, as the panel is charged with only following law and consideration of staff recommendations. “There are other forums where the deep political questions can be debated,” but not, Skeels thought, “here.”
Nasalroad suggested the Commission go on record that a PILOT was requested for the project, which “in terms of the staff report and what we had to look at, this is almost something that could be discretionary” and handled by the planning director.
Sommer said the “excellent” project passed on the parameters of Commission oversight, but “from your heart I encourage you” to offer a PILOT.
Brown said speakers “mentioned probably six times” that the same panel approved Plaza Amistad - then requiring a zone change - about 18 months ago with a “unanimous decision.” That meeting has been his first as a Commissioner, and Brown said if the vote had been two weeks later, “It would not have been unanimous.” Brown cast the lone no vote.
In August 2007, the Council denied a zone change for the project and CEDC later filed two lawsuits against the city. One suit was lost on appeal, and a second suit alleging housing discrimination is pending.
|
