Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-24 PC MINS MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, March 24, 2004 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROll CAlU MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Madrid, Hall, Castaneda, Cortes, Hom, Felber Absent: O'Neill Staff Present: Luis Hernandez, Deputy Planning Director Jim Hare, Deputy Redevelopment Director Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney III PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Castaneda APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MSC (6-0-1-0) to approve minutes of February 11 and 25, and March 3 and 10, 2004 as submitted. Motion carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 04-12; Consideration of an amendment to the Eastlake III Planned Community District Regulations and land Use Districts Map to change the existing land Use Designation of 19.48 acres located south of Old Jamal Ranch Road and west of Lake Crest Drive from RS-2 to RS-1. Staff recommended that public hearing be opened and continued to the April 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Public Hearing Opened 6:05. MSC (O'NeilI/Hom) (6-0-1-0) that the Planning Commission continue public hearing to April 14, 2004. Motion carried. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment of Part II, Section E.1 of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Municipal Code Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - March 24, 2004 Section 19.48.020 to allow for the Submittal of Sectional Planning Area Plans on properties comprising less than the whole of a Village. Background: Jim Hare stated that the proposed changes are of a procedural nature, and the Commission would be considering and asked to recommend to the City Council that they adopt an amendment rescinding Municipal Code Section 19.48.0208 and to also adopt an amendment to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. Mr. Hare indicated that the Municipal Code currently requires that all property owners consent to applications within a PC Zone. When first processing the zone, this was initially a logical requirement ensuring that all property owners subject to it would be in agreement. The provision became unworkable because as communities, such as Otay Ranch, are developed, there are thousands of ownerships within a given PC Zone. The provision is also impractical and impedes progress in the General Development Plan Amendment that is also being considered tonight, as well as the overall General Development Plan and General Plan Update. With regard to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, the present provision requires that the whole of a Village be planned at the SPA level. The intent was that the master developer would plan whole villages in a logical sequence; under a single ownership, this would make sense. Currently, as development of Villages moves further south and east, specifically Village 7, there are four private property ownerships and one federal government ownership, therefore, the planning of this village in its entirety as a single application is problematic. There are different developers with different objectives in terms of the development pattern, and there are some developers that are prepared to move forward at this time, while others are not. The proposed amendment would provide the opportunity to submit an application for processing a SPA Amendment. The proposal also calls for the developer to plan to the SPA level their own property and to also submit a conceptual-level plan specifying how the remainder of the village would be planned. As a part of this process, they would be obligated to confer and inform other village property owners of their progress and to demonstrate that the village works on its entirety. The key rationale that supports the proposals is: . There is no proposed change in land use having to do with the GDP, and is strictly a procedural matter that won't affect the outcome of villages within the GDP. . It responds to the current and future ownership patterns of property. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - March 24, 2004 . It responds to the various development objectives of the property owner, both their readiness to develop as well as the opportunity to develop in a timeframe that suits their needs and purposes, and . It gives latitude to plan key uses and areas. For example, Village 7 is in the SPA Plan process in the interest of supporting an entitlement that would allow high school #13 to be built within the SPA, as well as the Eastern Urban Center. The proposed provisions have been shared with private landowners within Village 7 and a draft was circulated in December 2003. Subsequent to a meeting with the Otay Land Company in February 2004, language was added regarding the involvement of non- applicant village property owners. The Corky McMillin Companies submitted a letter, which raised questions regarding the administration of the involvement of non-applicant village property owners. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council adopt: 1. An ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 19.48.020, and 2. A resolution amending the Otay Ranch General Development Plan to allow applications to be considered for Sectional Planning Area plans not comprising the whole of a village. Commission Discussion: Cmr. Cortes asked for clarification as to the intent on the existing language in the Code with regarding to consent of all property owners to an application within the PC Zone. Mr. Hare responded that although he was not here when that language was adopted, his presumption is that it was designed to act on the initiation of the zone and applications associated with that initial wave of applications, as oppose to subsequent applications and modifications that may occur. Mr. Hernandez added that the idea was to have unified control and be able to manage the entire SPA. Cmr. Felber inquired how allowing SPA Plan applications not comprising the whole village, would affect the implementation of the land use, such as road infrastructure. Mr. Hare responded that the section requires that the entirety of the village be studied to a Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - March 24, 2004 conceptual level evaluating infrastructure needs that will be required. Secondly, there is the public facilities phasing plan on the SPA entitlement process. Thirdly, the actual infrastructure and timing of the roads are a function of subdivision maps, which may occur on a different timeframe. Mr. Hernandez added that all SPA's are required to have a Public Facilities Finance Plan, which establishes the sequence of development, as well as the timing. When adopting a SPA, the timing and specific threshold conditions are established in each individual category of utilities and/or infrastructure. If an applicant wishes to develop one of the parcels, they would have to abide by the adopted PFFP and establish or install all of the facilities that are prescribed for a portion of the development. Cmr. Madrid inquired if piece-mealing the development of the villages could adversely affect or slow down it's completion. Mr. Hare responded that there is a phasing plan that orders the development of villages within the Otay Ranch GDP, and the proposal that is being considered tonight will not change that in any way. Public Hearing Opened 6:35. Todd Galarneau, McMillin Companies, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, CA stated that the McMillin Company supports the concept of the segmenting proposal and believe that it's a logical approach to deal with the fractured ownerships that exists within the Otay Ranch Company. They do, however, have some concerns with the language, which they feel is somewhat ambiguous and could result in implementation problems. The proposed language includes statements, which are open-ended Le., "The initial SPA plan application shall not reasonably hinder, prejudice or adversely impact future development... .by other applicants in the village". This language would allow challenges by those in opposition to an application on the basis of individual interpretations of what is unreasonable or what might constitute an adverse impact to future development. Mr. Galarneau pointed out that in their comment letter, they offer suggested language. Paul Borden, President, Otay land Company, stated they are a landowner within the General Plan area and have spent a significant amount of time in discussions with the City in preparation for tonight's hearing, reviewing the proposed language and making some suggestions. Based on those meeting, they are supportive of tonight's motion. MSC (Hom/Madrid) that the Planning Commission adopt resolution recommending that the City Council adopt: Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - March 24, 2004 1. An ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 19.48.020, along with other amendments as may be necessary to achieve consistency, and 2. A resolution amending the Otay Ranch General Development Plan to allow applications to be considered for Sectional Planning Area plans not comprising the whole of a village. Motion carried. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: . Luis Hernandez reminded that the Planner's Institute in Monterey is coming up on March 31stthru April 2, 2004 COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: . Cmr. Castaneda submitted to staff for their review a couple of letters he received from the Environmental Health Coalition and The Bay Keeper regarding their comments on the proposed Environmental Review Procedures amendment. ADJOURNMENT at 7:00 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 2004. ~ - Diana Vargas, secreta;::-t:nning Commission