Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports 2004/03/24 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chula Vista, California Wednesday, March 24, 2004, 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 CAli. TO ORDER: Castaneda Madrid O'Neill Hall Cortes Hom Felber ROll CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE PLEDGE OF AllEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SilENCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 11, 2004 February 25, 2004 March 3, 2004 March 10, 2004 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes. 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 recommends that public hearing be opened and continued to the April 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment of Part II, Section E.1 of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Municipal Code Section 19.48.020 to allow for the Submittal of Sectional Planning Area Plans on properties comprising less than the whole of a Village. Project Manager: Jim Hare, Dep. Redevplopment Director Planning Commission - 2- March 24, 2004 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSION COMMENTS: COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City ot Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations <it least forty-eight hours in Jdvance for meetings, and five days for scheduled sprvicf's and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: 1 Meeting Date: 3/24/04 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing - Amendments of Part II, Section E.I of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Municipal Code Scction 19.48.020, to Allow for the Submittal of Sectional Planning Arca Plans on Properties Comprising Less Than the Whole of a Village This item is to seek the recommendation of the Planning Commission on amendments to existing provisions within the Municipal Code and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (ORGDP) which, taken together, prevent the submittal of an application for a Sectional Planning Area plan if the applicant does not control the entirety of a village. ENVIRONMENTAL: Thc Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with thc California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as de tined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines: therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDA TION: That the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution (Attachment I) recommending that the City Council, adopt I. An ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 19.48.020 (Attachment 2); and 2. A resolution, amending the Otay Ranch General Development Plan to allow applications to bc considered for Sectional Planning Area plans not comprising the whole of a village (Attachment 3, with Exhibit A). BACKGROUND: Description of the Existing Zoning Provisions Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.48.020 requires that for a development application to be tiled within the P-C zone, the subject property must be under the unified control of the applicant- owner. The reason for this is readily apparent - the City does not entertain development applications without the consent of the property owncr to which those applications directly apply. Howcvcr, paragraph '8' ofthc Section extends further, and requires that the adoption or amcndment of an implementing general dcvelopment plan must meet a 'unified control' test of either. Pa~e 2 1. Being owned ou1right by the applicant; or 2. Through unanimous written consent, since, ""the written conscnt or agreement of all owners in a P-C zone to the proposed general development plan and general development schedule shall be deemed to indicate unified control" (Municipal Code Section 19.4g.020.B). The P-C zone associated with the ORGDP has hundereds of property owners -- the majority being homeowners of the many subdivisions approved sinec the adoption or the plan -- which argueably would require their 100% written consent to any GDP amendment. Description of the Existing General Development Plan Provisions Since its adoption in 1993, the ORGDP has contained provisions that require, o That a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan be completed at the village level prior to the consideration of development entitlements; and o That. with certain named cxceptions, the SPA for each village be "master-planned as a unit". At the time of the adoption of the ORGDP, the rationale behind master planning villages as a unit was a sound one. SPA plans are the increment of planning process established to assure that all of the uses within each village would be more precisely plotted and controlled. By master planning the entirety of a village, the uses broadly portrayed and described in the ORGDP would be refined and the layout and identity or each of the villages rormcd as a cohesive unit. Importantly, at the time of the adoption of the original ORGDP in 1993, all of the propcrty within Otay Ranch was under the unitied control of a single applicant. Thus, this provision of the ORGDP was intended to provide for unified planning within the various villages by a single owner. Since that time, the property within Otay Ranch has become fragmented amongst several owners and property ownership boundaries do not coincide with village borders. Taken together, the Municipal Code's unified control provision and the 'whole village' requirement of the ORGDP prevent SPA-level planning if ownership control or consent cannot be achieved ovcr the entirely or a village. This impediment in the regulations has been creatively overcome by two-party applicant partnerships in the cases of SPA's such as Village 6 and Freeway Commercial. In staffs opinion, it is more appropriate to address the lack of single owncrship in a comprehcnsive manner by modifying the Municipal Code and the ORGDP than relying on the ability of multiple owners to rcach an agreement regarding site planning. Perhaps the bcst example of a complex relationship between property division and villagc boundarics exists in Otay Ranch Village 7. This village comprises tivc ownerships, each or whosc interests differ in their objectives and readiness to develop at this time. In July, the City Council directed staff to proceed with a work program for Village 7, since it represcnts the dcsignated ORGDP location for thc next Sweetwater Union High School District high school. SPA planning at this time supports the availability of a school site meeting the District's development schedule. In order for the SPA for Village 7 to be completcd and set for hearing, Page 3 the contlict between the ownership pattern and the requirements to the ORGDP and Municipal Code needs to be resolved. DISCUSSION: Proposed Municipal Code Amendment Stall proposes to simply delete Municipal Code Section 19.48.020 8., as indicated in the attached ordinance amendment draft (See Attachment 2). This provision was once suitable to the consideration of adopting P-C zoning districts. However, once such districts cxist, the dlect or this paragraph is to prevent any modifications or amendments of the zoning or its implementing general development plans without thc consent of all property owners in the district, which is elcarly impractical. further, and even more problematic, the language arguably requires perpetual unitied ownership of the whole of such districts, which was clearly would not have been an intention of the regulation when tirst adopted. Proposed ORGDP Amendment Stall proposes that thc ORGDP be amended to allow tor SPA applications to be filed on portions of villagcs. if the Planning and Building Director finds good cause (see Exhibit 'A' of the proposed General Development Plan Amendment resolution, Attachment 3.). It provides: Co That the Planning and Building Director may accept a SPA application by an owner of less than the complete village, if that owner's property consists of 40 acres or more, or if the property is a logical and cssential initial component of the overall village; o That in processing such a SPA, the applicant will provide a conccptual plan for the entircty of the village, to prove that a cohcsive implementation of the ORGDP can be achieved on the applicants propcrty and on the remainder portion of the village not subject to the application; ,c That any SPA application that may be approved under this process will only actually be adoptcd for the portion ofthe village controllcd by the applicant: <) That prior to the acceptance or such an application j()r processing and during proccssing itself, other landowncrs within the village will be consulted and involved. if they so choose; and, o That subsequent applicants within that village will be obligated to submit amendments that add to and rcfine the initial SPA. This proposed ORGDP amendment would be applicable to the remaining Chula Vista villages within Otay Ranch (Villages 7,8,9, 10 and the Eastern Urban Center). Page 4 Analysis The proposcd amendments do not change the location or timing of ncw development per thc ORGOP. The timing of each village is still subject to the phasing provisions of the ORGOP. By requiring a conceptual plan for the entirety of a village, the ORGOP amendment maintains the requirement to assess the precise intensities and arrangement of land uses fiJr each village at the SPA level. The ORGOP amendment does, however, oner the limited procedural opportunity for the Director of Planning and Building to consider processing portions of villages to the SPA level, as described above. It responds to the dilemma posed by differences between village boundaries and ownership lines. Further. the first request for approval in a village would need to be accompanied by analysis of the whole of that village, in order to achieve the unified design anticipated by the ORGOP. It would retain SPA processing for those portions of villages not included in the initial application, allowing owners of those portions of the village the opportunity to amend the SPA and further tailor the plan at the time of their later submittals. The outcome of the SPA process, as it rclates to thc ultimate form, content and timing of village development will represent no change from current practice. The proposed ORGOP amendment is also a timely response to a current malter, the processing of the Village Seven SPA, due to the need to study and identify the location of the next Otay Ranch high school. Absent the urgency of this matter, staff would likely have awaited the completion ofthe pending update of the ORGOP to address this issue. Finally, the proposed Municipal Code amendment discards an outdated provision and allows this amendment of the ORGDP to be enacted. Comments to Proposals The proposed provisions were shared with private landowners within Village 7. A tirst draft was circulated in December 2003. Subsequent to a meeting with representatives of the Otay Land Company in February 2004, language was added regarding the involvement of non-applicant village property owners. The Corky McMillin Companies have submitted a letter regarding the proposed GOP amendment (Attachment 4). In addition to reiterating an earlier and more simply-worded proposal, the Ictter and its attachment raise questions regarding the administration of the involvement of non-applicant village property owners, the subject of the February 2004 added language. Staff embraces the new notitieation and involvement language because it is reasonable for non-applicant owners to be informed of the initiation and processing of Sectional Planning Area plans in villages within which they have holdings. Early and consistent communications is a means of resolving issues before the passage of time and process makes them intractable. No comment or objection has been received as of the time of this writing regarding the Municipal Code amendment proposal. Page 5 CONCLOSION: The offered amendments respond to regulatory process issues presented by the current land ownership pattern in Otay Ranch. Staff recommends that they be recommended for adoption by the City Council. A TT ACHMENTS: I. Recommended Draft Resolution of Planning Commission Recommendation 2. Draft City Council Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 19.48.020 3. Draft City Council Resolution Amending the Otay Ranch General Development Plan 4. Letter of Todd Galarneau, The Corky McMillin Companies. March 5, 2004 \\ci\y\'viUl:2\)\)\\\shared\PI"^ NNIN( i\limll\Sl:gl11entin!!PC\Sl:gMCAllleIHJAgl:nual'C032 4 f.UUl: RESOLUTION NO. PCM-04- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS OF PART II, SECTION E.t OF THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.48.020, TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANS ON PROPERTIES COMPRISING LESS THAN THE WHOLE OF A VILLAGE WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.48.020 ("Regulations generally - Minimum acreage - Ownership restrictions") requires unified control of a property subject to a PC-Zone application, as demonstrated by ownership or written consent to such application; and WHEREAS, in light of the entitlements and subdivisions approved and thc conveyance of numerous parcc1s which has occurrcd within thc PC zone applicable to the Otay Ranch that gaining full consent of all property owners within that PC zone district is impractical and a detriment to sound planning practice; and WHEREAS. the Otay Ranch Gcneral Development Plan, at Part II, Section E ("Implementation") says that, with certain named locations of exccption, "Each village must be master planned as a unit"; and WHEREAS, taken in conjunction with Municipal Code Section 19.48.020, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan would therefore rcquire the written consent of all other property owners of that village prior to consideration of any application heing made by the owner of a portion of a village for a Sectional Planning Area plan; and, WHEREAS, the current efforts to complete Sectional Planning Area plan for Village 7 of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan makes it nccessary to respond to these regulatory matters at this time; and, WHEREAS, staff has drafted an ordinance entitled, "Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista Amending Section 19.48.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Delcting Paragraph' B' to Eliminate the Requirement for Unified Control of Property within the P-C Zone," forwarded herewith; and, WHEREAS, statT has drafted a resolution entitled, "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista Amending Part II, Section 1:'.1 of the Otay Ranch General Developmcnt Plan to Allow for the Submittal of Sectional Planning Area Plans on Properties Comprising Less Than the Whole of a ViJ1age," forwarded hcrewith; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines and, therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelincs the aetivity is not subject to CEQA; and Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director set the time and place for a hcaring on said amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City as least ten days prior to the hearing and posting at not less than three locations within the City's jurisdiction, in accordance with Government Code Section 65090 el.seq, as those sections pertain to the issuance of notice wherc the proposed amendmcnt would otherwise rcquire the mailing of notices to grcater than one thousand property owners, and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the timc and place as advertised, namely March 24, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before thc Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closcd. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED TIIA T FROM THE FACTS PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, TilE PLANNING COMMISSION rccommcnds that the City Council that the City Council approve amcndments of Part II, Section E.I of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan and to Municipal Code Section 19.48.020, as shown in Attachments "A" and "8." BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT a copy of this resolution bc transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, C ALlFORNIA, this 24th day of March, 2004, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Steve Castaneda, Chair Diana Vargas Secretary to Planning Commission l\citywiJc2(1{)O\shafcdWI,ANNING\.liml-\\Seg.mcntingI'C\PCMCORtjDP Am032404 fduc ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 19.48.020 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE, DELETING PARAGRAPH 'B' TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR UNIFIED CONTROL OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE P-C ZONE WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.48.020 establishes ownership and minimum acreage restrictions regarding the establishment and modification of the P-C zone and implementing general development plans and general development schedules; and WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.48.020.B, states, in its entirety, that, "All land in each P-C zone, or approved section thereof, shall be held in one ownership or under unified control unless otherwise authorized by the planning commission, except as provided for in CVMC 19.48.060. For the purposes of this chapter, the written consent or agreement of all owners in a P-C zone to the proposed general development plan and general development schedule shall be deemed to indicate unified contro!."; and WHEREAS, as properties wi1hin a given P-C zone district are subsequently planned, subdivided and disposed, the number of property owners within such district makes unified control, as defined, a practical impossibility as a requirement for applications for modification of the P-C zone and implementing general development plans and general development schedules; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the proposed activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines and, therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activi1y is not subject to CEQA: and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 24, 2004 and has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments and additions. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista does hereby ordain: SECTION 1. That Section 19.48.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended as follows: 19.48.020 Regulations generally - Minimum acreage - Ownership restrictions. A- P-C zones may be established on parcels of land which are suitable for, and of sufficient size to be planned and developed in a manner consistent with, the purpose of this chapter and the objectives of this title. No P-C zone shall include less than 50 acres of contiguous lands. B. .'\11 laRe in eaCH P C zone, er approvee sectiell ihereof, shan Be hele ill eBe evmership or under Hnified control Hllless ethenvise authorized by the planniHg commission, e)[cept as ATTACHMENT 2 Ordinance Page 2 provided for in CVMC 19.1&.160. For tile pur]3oses of tRis eRaJ3ter, tRe ,'{ritteR CORsent or agreement of all o\'mem in a P C zone to the ]3roposed general development plan and general develo]3meflt schedule shal11Je deemed te indicate unified cefltrol. SECTION n. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Submitted by Approved as to form by James D. Sandoval, AICP Planning and Building Director Ann Moore City Attorney PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this XXth day of ,2004, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NAYS: COlillcilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Stephen C. Padilla, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) !, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. _ had its first reading at a regular meeting held on the XXth day of XXXX, Ordinance Page 3 2004 and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the _Ih day of , 2004. Executed this XXlh day of 2004. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk IICITYWIDE2000lsHAREDIPLA NN IN OIJ IMHISEOMENTlNOPCI I 948020AMENDRES00324F. Dor 19.48.020 Regulations generally - Minimum acreage - Ownership restrictions. ^" P-C zones may be established on parcels of land which are suitable for, and of sufficient size to be planned and developed in a manner consistent with, the purpose of this chapter and the objectives of this title. No P-C zone shall include less than 50 acres of contiguous lands. B. .^JI land in eaeh P C zone, or appr8ved seetion thereof, shall be held in one 8';;nembip or under unified eontrol unless otherwise authorized by the plar.ning commission, eJ[eept as provided for in CVMC 19.~g.leo. For tne ]3arposes of this ehaj'Jter, the written eonGent or agreement of all ow-aers in a P C zone to the proposed general development plan and general development schedale shall be deemed te indieate "nified ecntre\. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING PART II, SECTION E.l OF THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANS ON PROPERTIES COMPRISING LESS THAN THE WHOLE OF A VILLAGE WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.48.020 ("Regulations generally - Minimum acreage Ownership restrictions") requires unified control of a property subject to a PC-Zone application, as demonstrated by ownership or written consent to such application; and WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, at Part II, Section E ("Implementation") says that, with certain named locations of exception, "Each village must be master planned as a unit"; and WHEREAS, on July 15, 2003, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopted Resolution No. 2003-303, expediting the processing of Otay Ranch General Development Plan Village 7 Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Entitlements, in support of the acquisition and development of High School #13 by the Sweetwater Union High School District, as well as addressing other issues; and WHEREAS, Village 7 of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan comprises five separate property ownerships, whose owners are at various states of readiness to participate as applicants in a SPA planning process, plan their own property, or seek local development entitlements; and WHEREAS, the multiple ownerships of Village 7 makes unified control of the property a practical impossibility; and WHEREAS, similar fractional ownership patterns exist in all of the remaining villages of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, leading to the likelihood that partial-village applications will be desired and, in some cases, necessary for the fulfillment of the goals and objectives ofthe Otay Ranch General Development Plan; and WHEREAS, staff proposes to amend the Otay Ranch General Development Plan to allow for the submittal of SPA plans on properties comprising less than the whole of a village; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quali1y Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section l5060( c )(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment and at least ten days prior to the hearing notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and posting at not less than three locations within the City's jurisdiction, in accordance with Government Code Section 65090 et.seq, as those sections pertain to the issuance of notice where the proposed amendment would otherwise require the mailing of notices to greater than one thousand property owners; and ATTACHMENT 3 Resolution 2004-XXX Page 2 WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. on March 24, 2004, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the amendment of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan, namely 6:00 p.m. XXXX XX, 2004; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby amends the Otay Ranch General Development Plan at Pat II, Section E.l in the manner indicated on the attached Exhibit A, which is made a part of this resolution as if fully set forth herein. Presented by Approved as to form by James D. Sandoval Planning and Building Director Ann Moore City Attorney PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this XX day of XX, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NAYS: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ATTEST: Stephen C. Padilla, Mayor Susan Bigelow, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. XXXX-XXX was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the Sixth day of January, 2004. Executed this XXth day of XX, 2004. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk \ \citywide2000\shared\PLANNIN G\JimH\AmendReso0324 f.doc EXHIBIT 'A' Otay Ranch GDPjSRP .- Part II Section E - Implementation 1. Introduction This GDP/SRP will be implemented through the P-C (Planned Community) zoning in the City of Chula Vista or Specific Plan zoning in the County. A Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for areas in Chula Vis1a will be prepared to provide detailed design and development criteria. A Specific Plan for unincorporated areas will provide detailed design and development criteria. Any zoning, SPA, or Specific Plan subsequently adopted for Otay Ranch must be consistent with this GDP/SRP, and the General Plan of the applicable jurisdiction. This GDP/SRP will be used to evaluate development applications within Otay Ranch. This GDP/SRP will also be used by applicants to guide responses to changing market conditions, economic considerations and environmental research throughout the implementation period of the plan. o SPAs are required for all areas within the Otay Ranch GDP/SRPl o Each village must be master-planned as a unit, except the Inverted "L", the Ranch House property, the areas of Village One and Two West of Paseo Ranchero and the Freeway Commercial area of the Eastern Urban Center (Planning Area 12), which may have their own SPA Plan approved prior to the development of the particular area. A further exception will be made for instances when a Village is not under unified control as defined by Municipal Code Section 19.48.020 ("PC Zone Regulations generally - Minimunm acreage - Ownership restrictions"), in which case an application may be accepted and processed for a portion of a Village if determined necessary by the Director of the Planning and Building Department. In making the determination to accept the initial such application within a Villaf?e, the Director shall first make a written finding that the property comprises in excess of 40 acres or constitutes a significant and appropriate initial development area of the Village and that the application complies with the requirements of this provision, as follows: The entire Village shall be planned to a conceptual level to demonstrate the compatibility of the portion under the control of the first applicant and the remainder of the Village, including but not limited to the integration of land uses. infrastructure and grading. The initial SPA plan application should not unreasonably hinder, preiudice or adversely impact future development consistent with the GDP by other applicants within the Village. As part of any SPA application submittaL the applicant win be required to demonstate that it has met or made good faith attempts to meet, with all other Owners within the Village to disucss the applicant's proposal and to Except Planning, Area 19, if processed in the County of San Diego. comprehensively plan the Village. The decision of the Director of the Planning and Building Department with respect to the SPA plan application shall be final. Follwing application submittal, the City. the applicant and other owners within the Village who wish to participate will meet and confer on a regular basis regarding issues of integration and compatibility in an effort 10 avoid conflicts where possible Only that portion under the control of the applicant shall be adopted as a SPA plan. Subsequent applicants within such Village shall thereafer propose amendments of the intial SPA approyal. to expand its boundaries and development provisions for that land area under the control of the subsequent applicant( s ). o More than one village or planning area may be combined within a single SPA; and should demonstrate a logical connection. .\~ The Corky McMillin Companies Realty' Mortgage. Land Development. Homes' Commercial March 5, 2004 City of Chula Vista Planning Department Attn: Jim Hare, Special Projects Manager 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Segmenting Proposal Dear Mr. Harc, We have reviewed the wording of the segmenting proposal that is scheduled to go before the City's Planning Commission on March 20, 2004 and are concerned that the wording of the proposed amendment is somewhat ambiguous and could result in problems in implementation. While we rcmain supportive of the goal of allowing individual landowners to plan their ownerships in the Ranch. we believe it is important to ensure that this goal be met without opening the door to challenges from other non-participating landowners. The proposed language includes statements which are open-ended such as "The initial SPA plan application shall not unreasonably hinder, prejudice or adversely impact future development .. ..by other applicants in the village". Language such as this would allow challenges by other landowners or parties opposed to the application on the basis of individual interpretations of what is unreasonable or what might constitute an adverse impact to luture development. I have attached a list of potential concerns that we have identilied with the proposed amendment language. In September of last year, we provided suggested segmenting wording to the City. Our suggestion was to amend the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) to add the following language to replace the requirement for a village to be under unified control: "A SPA plan shall be prepared for a village whenever the village is under unitied control. When a village is not under unified control, the entire village shall be planned to a conceptual level, as determined by the Director of the Planning and Building Department, but only that portion under the control of the applicant shall be adopted as the SPA plan. Subsequent applicants within the village shall then amend the initial SPA to expand its boundaries and development provisions consistent with the land area under their control." A\. A\. A\. A\. A\. McMillin Realty McMllhn Mortgage McMillin land Development McMillin Homes McMi\lin Commercial rorporate Offit,;c . 2727 Hoover Avenue. National City, CA 91950 . Tel (619) 477-4117 . Fax (619) 336~3119 . www.mcmillin.com While much of this language appears in the City's proposed amendment, we are concerned that the additional provisions open the door to challenges based on interpretations of what appear to be somewhat ambiguous provisions. While we continue to support the segmenting proposal, we would like to scc the language simplified and we believe the language above, accomplishes the goal of allowing planning by ownership without being open to multiple interpretations as to its meaning. While the goal of the City's wording is to cnsure an open process and fairly balance the interests of the multiple landowners, the City's existing planning processes already accomplishes this goal by allowing participation in the process by all owners in the village. The City also alrcady has wide discretion in thc SPA planning process to require applicants to address land uses and circulation issues affecting adjacent ownerships. We had also expressed concerns that the segmenting proposal specifically address how off-site improvcments. such as roads and utilities, be constructed when required to serve full development of the ownership being planned. While the above provisions do not specitically address this issue. we believe that the existing requirement to prepare and implement a Public Facilities Financing Plan. which identifies the extent and timing of needed improvements, provides the link necessary to allow construction of oft~site improvements for the property being planned. Again, while McMillin remains supportive of the City's goal of allowing planning by ownership, we are conccrned the City's proposed wording is too generalized to be a workable solution to this issue, We believe a more straightforward approach that specifically addresses the issue to be preferable and would request the City and City Attorney's oftice review our concerns and suggested wording prior to docketing this item for public hearing. CC: (Jeorge Krempl. Assistant City Manager Ann Moore, City Attorney KenBaumgartner Dave Gatzke nary Cinti Attachment A Assuming you have a litigious owner in a Village, how does an applicant demonstrates that he has: ", p/anncd to a conceptua/ lcvel to demonstrate the compatibility.. "Who defines this level? "..shou/d not unreasonably hinder, prejudice or adverseZv impactfitture development.. " Who defines this? ",., the applicant will be required to demonstrate that it has met or made xood.f{lith attempts to meet, with all other Owners, " Who defines this? ", ,the applicant and other owners within the Village who wish to participate will meet and confer on a regular basis regarding issues ofintexration and compatibility..." Who controls this? If the applicant disagrees with the staff and the other owners is he in permanent limbo? Who Detines? 1. Planned to a conceptual level (What does that mean?) 2. Compatibility (Based on whose determination?) 3. Adversely impact future development (Unless a non-applicant gets everything they want, they will consider any proposal to adversely impact their development.) 4. Good faith attempts to meet (Who determines if a good faith attempt has been made?) 5. Mcet on a regular basis (What does this mean?) 6. Integration & compatibility (Vague!) 7. Other owners wish to participate (Who pays? Who controls?) Who pays for the processing if other owners wish to participate? What's the SPA Boundary for the High School in Village 7? Can roads, sewer, etc. be built without a SPA Plan! Ifso, how? Can the City impose conditions beyond the applicant's boundary? What's the appeal process if the Director of planning decision is final? -