Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1996/06/25 (3)MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, June 25, 1996 6:10 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Council Chambers Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER Councilmembers Alevy, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Mayor Hotton. Commissioners Davis, Ray, Salas, Tarantino, Thomas, Tuehscher, and Willett John D. Goss, City Manager; Ann Moore, Interim City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 2. PUBLIC HEARING ADOPTING OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Staff recommends the Council and Planning Commission place the ordinances on first reading. (Deputy City Manager Krempl) A. ORDINANCE 2679 ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND OTAY RANCH, L.P., A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, TIGER DEVELOPMENT TWO, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY TIGERHEART INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ITS GENERAL PARTNER, VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP (first reading~ B. ORDINANCE 2680 ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND SNMB, LTD., JEWELS OF CHARITY, AND STEVEN AND MARY BIRCH FOUNDATION (first readine) C. ORDINANCE 2681 ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND UNITED ENTERPRISES LTD., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (first reading) D. ORDINANCE 2682 ADOPTING THE PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND GREGORY T. SMITH AND GEORGIANA R. SMITH (first reading) City Manager Goss stated that there has been a lot of interest in the development agreements from the property owners of the Otay Ranch. A lot of it centers on the fact that there is some major land use and jurisdictional issues that are occurring at this time. There has been a modification of our sphere of influence. Coming up next week before LAFC0 is further modification of our sphere of influence to basically include the entire western parcel as well as the annexation of that parcel into the City of C'hula Vista. The process has been streamlined considerably in order to meet the LAFCO deadline. Deputy City Manager Krempl presented the staff report. Acting City Attorney Moore stated that the only section of the development agreement that is effective on the first reading is the section which specifically deals with the owner's consent upon annexation, but the agreement itself becomes effective upon the effective date of the annexation. Minutes/Joint City Council/Planning Commission June 25, 1996 Page 2 Councilman Rindone asked if Mr. Krempl would review the key points on the Errata Sheet for the pre-annexation development agreements. Also, he asked if the Planning Department's recommendation regarding the length of validity for the tentative subdivision maps was also the staffs position? Deputy City Manager Krempl responding to Councilman Rindone's last question first, stated that staff did not come up with a recommendation. Staff was unanimous that they did not want the map to be co-terminus with the length of the term in the agreement. And they were unanimous that small maps did not warrant special exceptions; larger maps probably did. The Planning Department's position was defensible, and management would support it as well as having Council review maps after a specific period of time is viable, but whether that time is six years or longer, he was not sure. He personally did not have a problem with maps between 0 and 500 dwelling units coming under the standard Map Act time frames; for maps between 500 and 3,000 units, they might have a ten year term with the ability of going longer if it was larger than 3,000 units. Deputy City Manager Krempl stated that in terms of the Errata Sheet, the first change is regarding the Preserve Conveyance Plan; it deals only with the Greg Smith agreement. The language previously stated was that they would agree to a Conveyance Plan yet to be adopted since they do not currently have a Conveyance Plan. We agreed that the City and the developer would mutually agree upon a Conveyance Plan, and they would have to have a Conveyance Plan before they could get a SPA plan approved. Subsequent m that, the City shall in good faith consider for adoption such plan; but once adopted, the developer would be obligated to convey property and/or pay fees in lieu of land set forth in such plan. In terms of the Foundation agreement, the first change was clarification because previously we had a statement regarding the developer being able to request a transfer of units from Villages 3 to Villages 2, 4, and 8. Village 3 is the only village where them was a discrepancy between the City and the County. On the next one, the reason the Preserve Conveyance Plan is lined out in this provision is because Village Properties and Otay Ranch LP already have a Preserve Conveyance Plan. The others am not significant; they are basically clean-up language or eliminating some redundancies. Councilman Rindone asked what has been the common practice for Chula Vista in regards to the length of term for tentative maps? Planning Director Leiter replied that we have not had a map as large as 3,000 unit. The largest map, EastLake Greens, has been about 2,500. We have not extended the original period of the tentative maps beyond the Subdivision Map Act time frame. Sunbow was given the Map Act time frame of three years. It has been extended once. The legislature has enacted two extensions of maps in the last two years. So Sunbow was granted another two years by operation of law. They have had about six years on their map, and they have about another year before it is scheduled to expire. Councilman Rindone stated that he was trying to gain clarification as to the reason staff was considering ten years when we haven't approached that number even with a 2,500 unit map. Planning Director Leiter responded that staffs recommendation was to not grant those kinds of extensions. That is why the options have been provided. Option 4, which the Planning Department favored, would give the City Council the option of granting extensions beyond the Map Act, but do it on a map-by-map basis. Commissioner Ray stated that the GMOC had quite a debate about not wanting to change those threshold standards without Council's direction. There were a couple of areas in which they were on the borderline with the threshold. He asked for clarification relating to the GMOC standards. Deputy City Manager Krempl stated that they would be subject to all the threshold standards. In terms of changes, we have included in that new rules, regulations, policies, ordinances, or standards which included growth management, would need to be applied generally to all private projects either city-wide east of 805 or within a specific benefit fee reimbursement district. In order to achieve a comfort level, it is stated that the changes to be made in the hture should be consistent with the preamble and intent of the growth management ordinance as stated in the present growth management ordinance. As long as changes are made consistent with the preamble and were Minutes/Joint City Council/Planning Commission June 25, 1996 Page 3 applied to all private development either east of 805 city-wide or in a specific benefit fee reimbursement area, you could make those changes. Commissioner Ray stated that the GMOC had some discussions relative to the first two phases regarding the accesses and impacts to the roadways. He felt that any changes that the City might impose needs to be contained in the language of the agreements since the GMOC has had some concerns regarding interim violations of threshold standards. Councilman Alevy asked if we can we change the threshold and require the developer to change midstream. Planning Director Leiter replied that it would depend upon the specific threshold standard. We do put conditions on all of the approved plans that say that if a threshold is violated, then the City can, even if a tentative or final map has been approved, withhold building pentits. The City does have the ability to enforce the existing thresholds. If you are looking at changing a park standard from 3 acres per 1,000 to 5 acres per 1,000, there are provisions in the Map Act and city ordinances that would make it difficult to apply it retroactively to an approved tentative map. This is a case where the Map Act would come into play. Acting City Attorney Moore stated that we typically enforce those types of thresholds by withholding building permits, and we place that as a condition of the tentative map that the developer agrees to the City withholding building permits. Commissioner Ray asked if the City is really limiting development based on withholding permits and is it having any real effect? Planning Director Leiter stated that the City has held up building permits with regard to traffic thresholds and did so with the EastLake project for a period of time. Since that time, them has not been any violations of the traffic threshold standard. What Commissioner Ray is referring to is that we also do forecasts and evaluate plan development and can predict if certain roadways are not completed in a timely manner, there could be threshold violations. The GMOC reports are looking ahead. Its the intent of staff to identify those problems early on and get the public facilities built so that the violations do not occur. As that system is implemented, there shouldn't be any violations. If there were, there are ordinances in effect which would cause the staff to report it to City Council and recommend that there be a moratorium on building permits until the threshold compliance problem is resolved. Councilman Moot asked what the affect a voter initiative could have on a development agreement? Could it override a decision of the City Council. Acting City Attorney Moore responded that in her opinion, it does not because of the Charter provision which basically states that the City cannot do anything to do away with the initiative process. So, it is her opinion, that an initiative could possibly impact a development agreement. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. ®Cindy Eldred, 401 "B" Street, San Diego, 92101, representing United Enterprises, the owner of the property on which the rock quarry operates. She requested that Council approve the agreement with United Enterprises with two modifications to the language. (1) Staff had recommended a term of 20 years for the development agreement; United Enterprises requests a term of 40 years. They are not in a position to immediately move forward with the ultimate development of its property. For this reason, United Enterprises is not in an immediate position to benefit from the advantages of annexation. Accordingly, United Enterprises would not now apply for annexation to the City of Chula Vista. Nevertheless, they are prepared to consent to and cooperate with the city's applications related to annexation provided that United Enterprises receives some benefit from the agreement. (2) The agreement, as presented by staff as it relates to the growth management ordinance, does not adequately protect the development of the property consistent with existing project approvals as they are defined in the agreement. The provisions of the last sentence of paragraph 5.2 of the agreement are inconsistent in regard to other provisions of the paragraph, and the protections of those other provisions. They requested that the last sentence of paragraph 5.2 be revised Minutes/Joint City Council/Planning Commission June 25, 1996 Page 4 accordingly to include language which has been stricken out in the other agreements. Finally, to address staffs discussion regarding the term of tentative subdivision maps for the property approved during the term of the agreement, they requested that Council retain the language in paragraph 6.2 of the agreement pertaining to UE. That language now states that the tentative map for the projects up to 3,000 dwelling units would have lives up to 10 years, and tentative maps for projects in excess of 3,000 dwelling units would have lives of 10 years plus one year for each 300 dwelling units over 3,000. · Don Worley, 101 West Broadway, Ste 1300, San Diego, 92110, representing SNMB, LTD, Birch Foundation, and Jewels of Charity. He stated that they had some policy concerns: (1) growth management and (2) term of the agreement. One of the growth management techniques they are concerned about is building permit limitations. Growth management by building permit cap is becoming passe. While the growth cap has been the sledge hammer approach, growth management advocates now realize that the most effective way to stop growth is to change the standards for public improvements. They need protection against arbitrary, unreasonable growth management standards. They requested that Council preserve the language that they asked to be put into section 5.2. He also requested that Council give very careful consideration to a longer term for the development agreement. · Gwyneth Campbell, 555 S. Flower Street, 23rd Floor, Los Angeles, 90071, representing West Coast Land Fund, the senior secured creditor as to the Tiger Development II property. She requested a 30 day continuance of the hearing due to the bankruptcy of Tiger Development II pending in San Diego. They needed to give the bankruptcy court an opportunity to address issues of injunctive relief. The pre-annexation development agreement affects unique bankruptcy issues in at least two aspects: (1) violation of the automatic stay, and (2) requires bankruptcy court approval for certain debtors use of property of the estate if it is outside the ordinary course of business. The City Council, without bankruptcy approval, cannot adopt anything which affects the property such as dedication of land, granting of easements, payment of fees, or specifications or limitations on uses with respect to that property. She requested Council consider these pervasive bankruptcy issues that are going to undo what you seek to do which is to obtain certainty with respect to development of the Otay project area. · Kim Kilkenny, 11975 E1 Camino Real, San Diego, representing Village Development. Regarding the two policy issues, he stated they supported the longer duration of 40 years; relative to the issue of changes in growth management thresholds, they wanted to make certain that thresholds are not changed so that those thresholds could prevent development of the plans or unreasonably delay the plan. Regarding the duration of the tentative map, they have a tentative map which has 5,600 units. It will be the largest Otay Ranch tentative map. They were asking that it be vested consistent with the language in the draft agreement; that is for the first 3,000 units, it is vested for 10 years. It will be vested one year for every 300 units thereafter, so they will get a vesting of approximately 19 years for SPA I tentative map. He asked for language in alternative 6, which recognizes the smaller than 500 unit subdivision, be guided by state law and thereafter use the 300 units per year rule. He requested that Council go forward so that the project can succeed. · Jim Johnson, 31900 Foxmoore Court, West Lake Village, 91361, representing Baldwin Builders stated that unfortunately they learned about the meeting rather late. They noticed that they did not have a development agreement. Consequently, he had a meeting with staff and they think they have arrived at a solution that perhaps within the next 30 days they can work out a development agreement. On that basis, they were prepared to go forward with the recommendations of staff and with the annexation. · Bill Brasher, 19661 Quiet Bay Lane, Huntington Beach, representing Baldwin Builders. He stated that he has met with staff. As a result, they have agreed with staff on standards that they believe will work well for them. That is why they will recommend going ahead. He read them into the record as follows: (1) The City and Baldwin Builders agree to negotiate in good faith using due diligence to enter into a development agreement covering our property in order to have the mattar heard at the Planning Commission on July 24, 1996 and the City Council by August 6, 1996. Minutes/Joint City Council/Planning Commission June 25, 1996 Page 5 (2) Those matters that have been incorporated in the development agreements, between the City and the other Otay Ranch Property Owners will be incorporated in our development agreement to the extent they are applicable to our property. (3) The City is willing to reasonably consider land use changes or modifications in a similar manner as contained in Section 5 of the Foundation Development Agreement. (4) We will have the right to participate in the determination of the fair allocation of any shared obligations that affect or may in the fatam affect our property. (5) Any negotiations and conveyances affecting the 93 acres of additional developable residential property comprising approximately 460 units will be done, if at all, at one time. (6) We have not had time to study the current Conveyance Plan, and at this time are not prepared to agree to the requirement of SPA I that there be dedicated substantial open space acreage from our property. Deputy City Manager Krempl stated that this generally reflects what has been discussed. We indicated that they would be willing to negotiate and bring back a development agreement. Staff saw no reason why the standard provisions that have been applied to the other properties should not prevail on the property as well. If they wanted to process an application for some changes in land use, that could be done. * * * * * Commissioner Ray left at 7:37 p.m. * * * * * Special Projects Manager Jamriska stated that the Conveyance Plan only relates to SPA I. The general development plan requires that prior to any approval of any SPA, the Preserved Conveyance Plan be prepared and adopted. A Preserve Conveyance Plan was prepared, but the County and City could not agree upon the comprehensivehess of the Conveyance Plan prepared by staff and so both agencies adopted only a Conveyance Plan for SPA I with the stipulation being that prior to any other SPA be'me prepared, another Conveyance Plan for that particular SPA be prepared. As it relates to the Baldwin Builders issue, the land was initially under the control of Village Development and they proposed, and we agreed, that the Conveyance Plan for SPA I would be in the Salt Creek area for several reasons: (1) it met the criteria contained within the Resource Management Plan and the resource agency's desire that it would be the first area of conveyance because of the prime habitat which exists there. The issue today is that with the splitting up of the companies, Village Development,which controlled basically all of SPA I, Conveyance Plan impacts the Baldwin entity who controls the land in Salt Creek, so therefore, some discussions have to occur between now and when the development agreement is prepared for Council which addresses that issue. Commissioner Tuchseher asked if the specific property they owned was not within SPA I? Mr. Brasher responded that their specific property which they owned was not within SPA I. The total acreage was approximately 2,000 acres. Special Projects Manager Jamriska stated that the issue is the nexus between the ownership of the entitlemerits and the conveyance of the open space. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that we have a situation where we have off site mitigation requirements that are not owned by the same entity that is developing the project. How did Council deal with the in lieu of fee issue. Special Projects Manager Jamriska stated that there is a condition attached to the SPA that the obligation to convey land to the Preserve can either occur through the conveyance of land to the preserve owner/manager, the payment of fees in lien of conveyance of land, or an easement can be placed over a portion of land with all other liens on the property taking a subordinate role. The methodology of payment in lieu of fees has not been developed this for Council's consideration. Mr. Johnson stated that they had contributed land pursuant to SPA I. So when they did a SPA on their property, they have no land left to contribute. These are the types of things to be worked out. Minutes/Joint CityCouncil/Planning Commission June 25, 1996 Page 6 Commissioner Tarantino stated this was the first time that Baldwin Builders is now an entity on the Ranch. He was under the impression that they did not have entitlement on the Rancho, but now you are saying there is ownership. Is that because of the fact that up until you were appointed trustee that you had no entity? Mr. Johnson replied that there has been ownership on the Ranch prior to that time by Baldwin Builders. What happened was they were all controlled by the same parties, so basically everything was presented by the same entity, Village Properties. There was not a distinction between the two. Gregory Smith, P. O. Box 2786 Rancho Saute Fe 92067. Regarding the terms, he felt 40 years was perhaps too long, but the problem he has with 20 is that the annexation is forever. The open space that we going to convey in the agreements is for the full term of the development agreement. There is no 'out" in the agreements for that. He suggested that a longer term for the property owners would be more reasonable. Regarding the growth management language on paragraph 7.3, it states that we are subject to the existing growth management thresholds and you can stop the issuance of building permits. The language that we are asking for in 5.2 is that the amendments cause no unreasonable delay. All they were asking for is that the amendments not create a greater issue or problem. There b~mg no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification of section 5.1 for United Enterprises and how the past agreement with the rock quarry affected this. Deputy City Manager Krempl responded that he wasn't aware of any agreement with the City in the pest on the quarry. The applicant is asking that the quarry in the County predate a requirement by the County to have a use permit. It would come into the City and be annexed and retain its legal non-conforming status upon annexation for as long as the current operation of the quarry was not expanded and would exist until they ceased operation. If the quarry applies for new permits with the City, that would go through a Conditional Use Permit process and be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council. Commissioner Thomas asked if section 10.2 was a standard statement. He read that there were so many requirements that if a majority of the requirements are met, the other requirements are being satisfied. Attorney Peggy McCarberg stated that this was standard language because the details are so myriad that we do not insist that they review every single detail; but if we find substantial compliance which is the statutory requirement, then we do accept that. If staff has a particular question, then that question has to be addressed, but we don't make them go over every single detail. Commissioner Thomas in questioning section 7.5, asked if there was a debit to the undeveloped property when the new owners start developing the undeveloped property and there has been an assessment district or the City has advanced monies, will this be reimbursed back to the City. Public Works Director Lippitt stated that if there is an assessment district, then the debt is put on the property. Reimbursements are something where the developer may, with his funds, put facilities in that are not in the assessment district, then he would get credits. If the City does advance funds, then they are obligated to pay it or other parties would have to pay it. The City would then create a reimbursement district for the developer. Commissioner Tarantino stated that during the history of the GMOC, he could only recollect changes in the threshold standards for police, fire, and traffic only because they used a different way of calculafmg how traffic was going to be monitored. Planning Director Leiter stated this was basically correct. The traffic threshold was updated four or five years ago, and it was basically to change the methodology, not to change the basic standard. He did not believe that the police Minutes/Joint City Council/Planning Commission June 2.5, 1996 Page 7 and fire thresholds have been amended. There has been discussion about future updates once the CAD system is put into place, but City Council has not taken action to amend those. Commissioner Davis stated that her concern was that United Enterprises was going to look at expanding in the future. Will this be setting them up to have a hard time to do that. Would 20 years have an impact on this? Planning Director Leiter stated that they would have the opportunity, at any point, to come forward and request a zone change or for a general plan amendment to more directly reflect the existing land use. They could also request a conditional use permit to expand the uses. There is nothing in the development agreement to limit their ability to do that. They would have the ability to operate under the existing authority within the existing parameters of the quarry without regard to the terms of the agreement. Commissioner Tuchscher stated that he felt we should stay with the California Map Act standards. If some future Council chose to extend a map for some reason, they could do so. As far as the development agreement, he was comfortable with the 20 years. Commissioner Salas stated she would support the staff recommendation of a 20 year agreement because the City has to Preserve its flexibility in order to look at how the progress of the City is going. She felt the 40 year period was too drastic. C~mmissi~nerDavisstaatedshew~u~dagreewiththesta~rec~mmendati~n~nthetentativemapfurtenyears. She did not have a concern with the outdatedness, because a developer would not build a product that he would not be able to sell. She sew a problem when asking a commitment from the developer to put in a lot of infrastructure. If he has to put in East Orange upfront, he has to have the opportunity to compensate himself. She supported the staff recommendation of the ten years up to 3,000 units. Commissioner Tuchscher expressed his concern was the lack of infrastructure in the initial phases. Commissioner Willett concurred with the 20 year development agreement. M (Willett) that we forward the recommendation of first reading of Ordinances 2679, 2680, 2681, and 2682 placed before them as modified by the Errata Sheet and with the comments that staff has proposed. S (Tarantino) seconded the motion for discussion putposed. However, he was confused as to which comments were to be included. Deputy City Manager Krempl stated that the ordinance before them has a term of 20 years, has the controversial sentence on growth management stricken, and in terms of the length of the tentative map it has the 10 years for 0- 3,000 units, plus an additional year for every 300 units. Commissioner Willet stated that the option of 500 units or less should be subject to the Map Act, and between 500 and 3,000 have a term of 10 years with every additional 300 get an additional year. City Clerk Authelet read the motion: MS (Willett/Tarantino) for the first reading of the ordinances as amended: length of validity of the tentative map pursuant to Option 6, length of development agreement to have a term of 20 years, and to strike last sentence in section 5.2 in the Errata Sheet. VOTE ON MOTION: Approved 4-2-1 (Thomas and Tuchscher, no; Ray absent) CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Councilman Moot asked under the Map Act you get three years and then a three year extension. The right of that extension is controlled by the whom? What option gives us this affect? Minutes/Joint City Council/Planning Commission June 25, 1996 Page 8 Krempl stated that the City has the fight to approve that extension. The intent was to give an automatic six years and then have Council approval for a time period beyond that. This is Option 4. MSUC (Moot/Rindone) to support the Planning Commission's decision of the 20 year term, support the language regarding the GMOC stated in section 5.2 with the last clause stricken, and to support Option 4 which makes all tentative maps good for six years with a renewal after that with the Coancil's discretion. Ordinance Nos. 2679, 2680, 2681, and 2682 offesed by Herton, reading of text waived, and headings read. Motion approved 5-0. Mr. Brashaw stated that they did request, with staffs concurrence, that we get an expression by City Council that the request they made in regard to the six conditions. MSUC (Mootatorton) that Baldwin Builders and staff pursuant to the six conditions stated attempt to negotiate a devdopment agreement by August 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. OTHER BUSINESS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S): None 4. MAYOR'S AND CHAIR'S REPORT(S): None 5. COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: None The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Commission on June 26, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The City Council adjoumed at 8:20 p.m. to a Closed Session and thence to a special meeting/worksession on the budget scheduled for June 25, 1996 following the Closed Session. ~~uth;l~/~'~t, CMC/t~ City Clerk