Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1998/03/117:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 11, 1998 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL/MOHONS TO EXCUSE: Chair Davis, Commissioners Aguilar, Willett, Tarantino, and O'Neill Absent: Staff Present: Commissioner Thomas and Ray Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director Duane Bazzel, Principal Planner Beverly Blessent, Associate Planner Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney MSC (Tarantino/O'Neill) (5-0-0-2) to excuse Commissioner Thomas who called in to say he would be out of town. Motion carried. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Davis APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 11, 1998 MSC (Willett/O'Neill) (5-0-02) to approve minutes of February 11, 1998 as submitted. Motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-98-15; An amendment to the Otay Ranch Phase 2 Resource Management Plan to add additional lands in the Proctor Valley Parcel to the area currently designated as the first conveyance. Background: Beverly Blessent reported that the applicant, Otay Ranch Company, is proposing to amend the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan 2 to add lands to the parcels designated as the first conveyance in the open space preserve. The area they are proposing to add to the first conveyance parcels is in the Proctor Valley parcel and is approximately 800 acres in size and is located north and east of the reservoir and the resort site in Village 13, and is currently within their ownership. The RMP 1 was approved concurrently with the Otay Ranch General Development Plan Subregional Plan in 1993 and identified the open space boundaries for the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve. Both the RMP 1 and the GDP established guidelines for which lands are to be acquired early in the process and conveyed to the preserve; those being with high quality resources located in the most vulnerable areas with restoration potential, and conveyance should occur in an orderly manner beginning with keystone parcels. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - March 11, 1998 The County of San Diego was required to approve three parts of the RMP 2 which included the funding plan, establishment of the Preserve Owner Manager (POM) and conveyance plan, therefore, any amendment to the conveyance plan would also have to be approved by the County of San Diego. The RMP 1 and 2 require that 11,375 acres of private open space land be conveyed to the preserve and its purpose is to mitigate approximately 9,500 acres of development located within the GDP area. The conveyance criteria that are established in the GDP and the RMP 1 are also reiterated in the RMP 2 and additional specific parcels were identified and were to be conveyed with SPA 1 final map. The final maps are anticipated to be recorded sometime in April 1998. The specific parcels identified for conveyance within SPA 1 are the Salt Creek Canyon parcels and the vernal pools on Otay Mesa, which total approximately 1,248 acres as a measure to mitigate approximately 1,243 developable acres in SPA 1, of which Otay Ranch owns approximately 921 acres and McMillin Company owns approximately 322 acres. The specific Salt Creek parcels and the vernal pools on Otay Mesa meet the established guidelines outlined in the RMP's 1 & 2 and the GDP and were chosen since they are believed to be keystone parcels being a high quality environmental resource and vulnerable to impacts due to their location adjacent to developing areas. At the time of the RMP 2 adoption, most of the developable and preserve lands in Otay Ranch were under a single ownership. Currently, the identified first conveyance parcels of Salt Creek and the vernal pools on Otay Mesa are owned by the New Millennium Company and the Estate of Patrick. In order to meet their preserve obligation, an in-lieu fee is being developed for developers who do not own open space within the areas identified with the Otay Ranch open space preserve. The McMillin Company, who is currently developing in SPA 1 falls under this category. The Otay Ranch Company would have the option to pay the in-lieu fee, but they believe that this would be ar~ unfair financial burden since they already own open space land elsewhere within the preserve. Strict adherence to the conveyance schedule would require Otay Ranch Company to pay the in-lieu fee or negotiate solely with the two property owners of the first conveyance parcels. They are proposing to add 800 acres to the first conveyance area and staff believes their proposal meets the RMP and GDP guidelines. Gnatcatchers have been sited in the approximately 800 acre parcel they are proposing to convey and is also adjacent to property that is already within the National Wildlife Refuge and owned and managed by public entities. Throughout review of this proposal by Otay Ranch Company, there have been several meetings with property owners, Wildlife Agencies, and the County to discuss the in-lieu fee and conveyance issues. The County is still reviewing the proposal and is not stating an opinion at this point. The Wildlife Agencies have indicated their support of the proposal. McMillin Company has indicated that they are in favor of eliminating the priority guidelines which were established in the RMP's 1 &2 regarding acquisition of first priority parcels. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - March 11, 1998 Greg Smith, a property owner within Otay Ranch has indicated that he is in favor of retaining the guidelines within the RMP 1 &2. Staff is in favor of the proposal for the following reasons; it maintains the biologically sensitive Salt Creek area and the vernal pools in Otay Mesa as the first conveyance; the proposal simply adds to the first conveyance parcels and does not delete any priority guidelines which have already been established; and the lands proposed to be conveyed are believed to be of high biological quality and fall within the priority guidelines identified within the GDP and RMP 1&2. Staff recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM 98-15 recommending that the City Council approve the applicant's request to amend the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan Conveyance Schedule. Public Hearing Opened 7:15 William Til~pitts, Department of Fish and Game, 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123 stated that the proposal to add 800 acres to the SPA 1 conveyance was acceptable to the Department, and also raised other issues regarding the conveyance process. Commissioner Willett stated that according to the Fish and Game letter, first priority is to be given to conveyance of most vulnerable areas, therefore, if there is no scheduled development for that area, why are we trying to acquire that land now instead of acquiring other land that is in the path of development. Mr. Tippitts responded that the open space areas are designated within the OtayRanch GDP so the areas that will be conveyed in the long-term will eventually occur, but there also exists a need to manage some of the high priority key resource areas. The sooner the full conveyance takes place, the sooner it will enable appropriate management of the preserve system. Kim Kilkenny, Otay Ranch Company, 11975 El Camino Real, San Diego commented on the significant accomplishments in the Otay Ranch Preserve, which is well ahead of what the San Diego region is trying to accomplish through their versions of the MSCP or NCCP. The 11,375 acre preserve has a management mechanism to insure that as property is acquired, it will be maintained with the biology being monitored and standards being upheld. Mr. Kilkenny further stated that they are in the process of establishing a funding mechanism to insure the management and monitoring program. A conveyance mechanism has been established which will insure that over the development of the project, all 11,375 acres will be conveyed to a public entity. At the time when the Phase 2 RMP was adopted, it made sense because Otay Ranch controlled the areas of the initial conveyance in Salt Creek and Otay Mesa. Otay Ranch Company no longer controls all 23,000 acres of Otay Ranch and their ownership is approximately 6,000 acres. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - March 11, 1998 It would be folly to negotiate acquisition from property owners who have not evidenced any desire to sell their property because they need open space for their own conveyance when they develop. It would also be folly to convey or acquire those properties when we are sitting on open space that meets the criteria identified by the City. Therefore, we have asked that the area of initial conveyance be expanded to include the resort site. This property meets the criteria; it is highly sensitive, of high quality, contiguous to publicly-owned property and is part of the Wildlife Refuge. You will probably hear testimony tonight suggesting that a broader solution to this problem be adopted. That broader solution was essentially our initial application; it was a textual application, that is, changing the text of the Phase 2 RMP so that any applicant could convey property within the Otay Ranch Preserve anywhere that the City and the County felt was appropriate, and the criteria greatly expanding flexibility to the property to be acquired. We could live with that action by the City and County, and with staff's recommendation, but what is difficult for us to live with is delay. We need to get this issue before the City Council and get this resolved because we have final maps we need to move forward on. Michael Beck, P.O. Box 1509, Julian, CA, representing The Endangered Habitats League, stated that they support Mr. Kilkenny's statement that Otay Ranch would support either action, (staff's recommendation tonight, or the original amendment to the RMP) with one exception. The mantra at the time was, "single ownership - that's what makes it so special". When that fell apart, it became evident that there was a fairness and logic issue. The fairness issue is; we identified what needs to be preserved and what is going to be allowed to be developed. The ownership pattern has changed. If somebody owns land that is going to be developed and they own land that needs to be preserved, it only makes sense to allow that to occur. The implications are quite obvious; that if someone owns land that is to be conveyed and they are not on the other side of the equation; they're not developing now, they can just sit back and play hard ball with the cost of the land. The fairness issue, which ties into the logic, simply says, we like this amendment that allows us to go out of the sequence because we own property here, and if you make that rule for us, that's fine, but if you change that rule and require other people to follow this priority guideline sequence; then its difficult to follow as a consistent policy. What is very important to the League is that it follows those two principles of common sense and fairness. That is, if you own land that's going to be developed, or you own land that's going to be conveyed, we will support allowing that conveyance to happen outside of the sequence. It is a grave mistake to require it to go in the sequence, when its out of ownership patterns. Craig Fukuyama, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, CA representing various owners of approximately 1,000 acres within Otay Ranch stated he was not at the meeting speaking against the amendment to the RMP, however, he is opposing staff's recommendation. Mr. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - March 11, 1998 Fukuyama is recommending the elimination of any mandatory acquisition or conveyance schedule. The present conveyance schedule may have been appropriate when there was a single owner, but is now restrictive since mitigation and developable lands are in different hands. To require a systematic conveyance of when land is to be acquired through the collection of a fee and a purchase by the POM extremely limits the flexibility and ability of the POM to acquire propem/at reasonable prices. If you have a captive market, you will see prices in land begin to escalate and inflate arbitrarily, and would be counter-productive to the intent of the POM who will be acquiring future properties. We support eliminating the priority schedule of acquisition of properties which was the applicant's original application. Eliminating the schedule seems to be the fairest and most equitable in keeping with the intent of the POM. As the situation exists today, we own no mitigation land, and have no incentive to purchase properties. If the fee program is in its evolving stages, we may be at a point in the future to determine if acquisition of properties would be more appropriate than paying the fee. Tying your hands with what seems to be an unreasonable conveyance schedule is counter-productive and not in the City's best interest. Frank Ormand, 11149 Red Cedar Drive, San Diego, representing one of the land owner groups in Otay Ranch commented on where you can mitigate for development without artificially inflating prices. Its not necessary if you amend the plan for 800 acres; there is other sensitive land in the Otay River Valley that can be considered more biologically valuable because it is riparian habitat and it needs to be purchased sooner because of the revegetation that is required. Also, in comparison to the 800 acres in question; the land just to the north of that is equally as valuable with coastal sage scrub gnatcatcher habitat. You are going to allow them to amend that property in, and in all fairness you should allow the remaining land owners around there to amend their property so it can be purchased first. It is unfair from the standpoint that it only favors a small number of owners within Otay Ranch right now. The original plan with one owner was an extraordinary plan, however, the way things are being proposed will make it confusing and difficult to accomplish the goals for creating the preserve, especially with having the conveyance schedule which depicts priorities and a limited number of land owners that know that market forces are going to inflate the prices. I do know that there are land owners in Otay Ranch that are willing sellers; I know that they are planning on selling almost 5,000 acres and that land will be available to help the City satisfy their in-lieu fee requirement. I wanted to speak to the unfairness of amending the plan for one property owner without considering all of them. William Tuscher, 3130 Bonita Road Suite 200, Chula Vista, CA 91910 stated he was there to advocate what was the first RMP amendment that was proposed by the Otay Ranch Company. We are talking about conveyance sequencing, not eliminating the guidelines that set forth the criteria associated with what the POM would accept. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - March 11, 1998 For clarification, the first amendment application will be referred to as Amendment #1; the one that is before the Commission as staff's report is Amendment #2. Amendment 1 would be a positive modification to the General Plan documents. It was never contemplated that SPA 1 developers would not own the first conveyance areas. The first order of conveyance as it currently stands, is archaic and obsolete; it is part of a General Plan document. Circumstances have changed and we should amend the General Plan to be fair and equitable to all parties. The original Otay Ranch Development Plan by the Baldwin Company agreed to this preserve conveyance and was somewhat arbitrary at the time; they owned 23,000 acres; and dedicating 11,300 acres. I'm not sure it mattered much to them whether they dedicated that conveyance sequence or another. The cornerstone of the conveyance and the preserve are the guidelines and this is what the environmental community, as well as the developers of the Ranch are focused upon. The question is, what is in the public's best interest. What is in the public's best interest is the dedication of vast areas of high quality habitat and open space preserve subject to the guidelines. A General Plan that will facilitate the most acreage sooner, rather than later, is what should be the goal, and the cost-efficient uses of public resources should be paramount to your decision. This should include the expenditure of staff time, City overhead and fees collected by the POM. The first order of conveyance is owned by New Millennium Homes. If you calculate at the ratio of 1.188 acres of preserve land to be dedicated for every acres of development land they have, give or take 30 acres of preserve beyond what their development will. They have said that they are a reluctant seller; that they have habitat land that they need for their development. It is my opinion that when you're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of development, a sale is not positive for them. The POM would have to buy from this reluctant seller; one buyer forcing itself to buy by virtue of this document from one seller. This is not cost-efficient; you have one seller with this property and a public entity that has to buy. This is not a good expenditure of public money and is not in the public's best interest. You should allow property owners who wish to dedicate right now, perhaps thousands of acres, to end maintenance concerns and stop paying property taxes, and allow them to dedicate early and satisfy their requirements. Commissioner Tarantino asked if it would be feasible to eliminate the conveyance sequencing and keep the guidelines as is. William Tippetts of Fish and Wildlife stated that relaxing some of the sequencing, as long as the guidelines are met, might be acceptable, however, he could not give a definitive answer tonight, but would check into it. Chair Davis stated that she felt that the Commission wants to see the guidelines followed and had concern with the in-lieu fee which could create an inflated market. The bottom line is that we want to make sure we get the land, however, what is the best way to accomplish it. One way may be by being flexible with the order in which we acquire it. Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - March 11, 1998 The Commission asked Mr. Kilkenny if he would be willing to continue this item for two weeks. Mr. Kilkenny stated that with the understanding that this item could go before the Ci~ Council on April 21st, he would not object to continue the public hearing to the Planning Commission meeting of March 25. MSC (Willett~Aguilar) (5-0-2) to continue the public hearing to a time certain of March 25, 1998. Motion carried. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Lee reported that the City Council approved the CUP for the Advocate school on East J Street, and also the amendment to Rolling Hills Ranch to allow the encroachment on the sideyard setback to accommodate trellis structures. A dinner workshop has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 18, and will have a presentation on mitigation programs throughout the City. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT at 8:00 to the next regular Planning Commission meeting of March 25, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Diana Vargas, Secretary 0 Planning Commission