Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1990/01/17 II . . Tape: 306 Si de: 2 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CIWLA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, January 17, 1990 Council Chambers Public Services Building ROLL CALL COMI~ISSIotJERS PRESENT: Chairman Tugenberg, Commissioners Cannon, Carson, Casillas (5:08), Fuller, and Shipe Cot1MI SSI ONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Commissioner Grasser - with notification Deputy City Manager Kremp1, Director of Planning Leiter, Principal Planner Lee, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of all egi ance to the f1 ag was 1 ed by Chai rman Tugenberg and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. At Deputy City Manager Kremp1 's suggestion, both items IA and IB were considered concurrently. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Development Agreements for: A) EastLake II - Greens (PCS-88-3) B) EastLake III - General Development Plan for EastLake Trails, Vistas, and Woods (GP^-90-5) Deputy City r.1anager Kremp1 stated that much of the content of both draft development agreements had been seen previously by the Commission in July 1989 when they looked at the development agreement for EastLake Greens. At that time the Commission took a conceptual action of approval on that agreement. Since some items have been added to the agreement, Council wanted to have some feedback from the Commission. He stated the considerations were as follows: 1. Removal of all contingencies with respect to the Olympic Training Center, including the clearing and omission of the 154-acre Olympic Training Center site, the $3 million capital contribution, and the $8 million infrastructure that wou1 d be provi ded by the EastLake Development PC MINUTES -2- January 17, 1990 Company. Council has established a timeline for that to happen within a certain number of days after the annexation of the property. The annexation has been approved by LAFCO, and will probably go to Council for their final action on February 6. This would be the annexation of the balance of EastLake III property. 2. Advancing $1.3 million in development impact fees for the construction of the new branch library. This was one of the shortfalls identified by the Growth Management Oversight Committee. 3. Advancing $3.6 million of park acquisition and development fees, either in a monetary fashion or equivalent park improvements, and the advance funding and compl etion of Phase II park improvements on EastLake Greens, including the community center and gymnasium. Any additional money would allow more park facilities quicker than normal and, most likely, turn-key facilities. 4. Advanced wi deni ng of Tel egraph Canyon Road. other mitigation requirements at this point EastLake would widen it to six lanes. Where the EIR anq all the woul d di ctate four 1 anes, 5. Payment of drainage fees, with a ceiling of $6,000 per acre, in consi derati on of the Tel egraph Canyon Channel whi ch benefits downstream property owners. Thi s woul d not normally be an exacti on to the EastLake Development Company. 6. Full dedi cati on of the ultimate freeway ri ght-of-way for SR #125 and the interchanges. Deputy City Manager Krempl said that in return for those considerations, EastLake was asking for vesting density in land use, credits for pioneering facilities in advance of need, some reservation of capacity to the extent the Ci ty coul d provi de that for overbui 1 di ng of publ i c faci 1 i ti es, and in the context of the EastLake Greens agreement only, the idea of a safety net insofar as growth rate. Mr. Krempl said that staff disagreed with the developer in terms of the amount of development that shoul d be protected and the 1 ength of time that those units shoul d be protected, the possi bl e extens i on of the agreement to 10 years, and how the number of units are set out in various years. He said that staff felt comfortable with the 1250 units, broken down to 450, 450, and 350, respectively, in years 1990, 91, and 92. EastLake is trying to move forward with the enti re Phase 1, the Greens, of 1645 units in 1990-91. Then they \~oul d 1 i ke to proceed with 484 dwell i ng units in 1992, and all subsequent years by the terms of the agreement. Mr. Krempl said staff felt that any conceptual consideration had to be a very conservati ve approach and one whi ch was goi ng to fit in in a number of respects: .r . PC MINUTES -3- January 17, 1990 1. It had to clearly fit in with the Transportation Phasing Plan which the Council and Pl anni ng Commi ss i on had adopted, and the mil estones as to which facilities would be in place and when; 2. Any cons i derati on shoul d not go beyond the threshol d of when SR 125 is needed; 3. Growth rate; 4. Community character, quality of life, thresholds; and 5. Assurance that a bad precedent would not be set for other developers. . He said that the Planning Commission should be sensitive to the school districts, the outside agencies, and utilities. Regardi ng densi ty transfer in the EastLake Hi 11 s and Shores, ~1r. Kremp 1 said 2384 dwell ing units were authorized. EastLake transferred that property and sold those properties to merchant builders; for various reasons the merchant builders did not build to the maximum. The residual is approximately 156 uni ts. EastLake wou1 d 1 i ke to recapture that 156 units and sti 11 keep the 2384 total and transfer those units back into the Vi 11 age Center whi ch is undeveloped and includes 405 dwelling units. Staff response was to not judge the merits of that transfer positively or negatively at this time, but to simply state that it is an issue under another process. Staff did not agree with EastLake that thi s was mi nor in nature, that it shoul d be handl ed administratively, or that it should be in the context of these agreements. It should be handled \~ith a SPA plan amendment; there should be additional environmental review and a precise plan; and staff's evaluation and recor.1mendation shoul d come forward during the normal publ ic hearing process and evaluated with that information at hand. Deputy Ci ty Manager Krempl sai d that the recommendati on of staff was that EastLake Greens Agreement be approved subject to the development agreement, and staff recommendation (Exhibit 2, Schedule A). In terms of the EastLake II I Agreement whi ch is an agreement at the general development plan level, therefore more generalized, staff recommended approval subject to four conditions. 1. Delete Section 4.4.1, the exclusion on Low or ~10derate Income Housing provisions. 2. Add a third provision to Section 4.9.1 which states that project timing and phasing is sUbject to the City's transportation phasing plan as finally adopted, in addition to the Threshold Standards and the Growtll Management Plan. tilt 3. Change Section 12.8, the term of the agreement, from 10 years to 7 years. PC ~lINUTES -4- January 17, 1990 4. Change Section 4.4, Permitted Density and Intensity of Development, i nserti ng a peri od at the thi rd 1 i ne from the bottom after the word "therein" and the balance of that section deleted. Commissioner Cannon questioned whether there might be a problem with other developers requesting minimum guarantees on an annual basis. Mr. Krempl agreed the developers may request that. He thought the difference would be that, at that point, the City would have a General Plan Growth Management El ement and a General Pl an Growth Management Pl an. However, the City may prefer to establish some phasing for those projects to make sure it is going to fit in with the rest of the phasing that will be enumerated in the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Cannon stated the minimum rate assurance did not extend beyond the timing for SR 125, and in no event beyond three years. Mr. Krempl concurred. Commi ssi oner Carson asked if there woul d be a certai n percentage of housi ng allowed for each developer. Deputy Ci ty ~lanager Krempl answered that there was not, but when staff comes back with the Growth Management Pl an, the phasi ng issue woul d be addressed comprehensively. He stated that the threshol d standards are i nvi 01 ate. There would be a building moratorium if they were not met. Commissioner Carson asked about the rationale behind changing the 10 years to 7. Mr. Krempl said that staff was not comfortable with a 10-year agreement because it is an extremely long duration to waiver some of the City's police powers. This being the time and the place advertised, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bob Santos, Presi dent, EastLake Development Company, 900 Lane Avenue, Suite 100, Chula Vista 92013. ~'r. Santos said EastLake had committed to the City that they would live by the thresholds, the implementation plan increments, etc. He said that not knowing what the Growth r'lanagement Plan woul d say, EastLake wanted some "safe harbor" provi si ons regarding the growth management plan, voter-sponsored initiatives, changes in policies, rules, etc. He asked that the Commission adopt the staff recommendation Schedule B. Exhi bit 1, Schedul e A, shoul d read under Col umn A "Time Peri od" Through December 31, 1991, instead of 1990. In respect to the EastLake III Development Agreement, Mr. Santos stated that EastLake agrees wi th staff except for Recommendati on No.1, Excl usi on of LOI'/ and i10derate Income Housing. He said if the City desires low and moderate income housi ng in that area, that \'/oul d be cons i dered in the future, and possibly the density might be actually increased. , ! . . . . PC MINUTES -5- January 17, 1990 Regarding the 10-year development agreement, Mr. Santos said they would most likely not develop in the area until 5 years from now. EastLake felt if the City extended the agreement to 10 years, they would actually be able to utilize it in relationship to the development phase. He requested that those two provisions be put back into the agreement or that the City Planning Commission suggest to the City Council that they give strong consideration to putting those into the agreement. Other than that, EastLake was in agreement with the staff report. Commissioner Casillas asked what impact changing 10 years to 7 years would have on the sale of the bonds for development, etc., and if Mr. Santos had any empirical evidence that the term would impact the sale or the price. l~r. Santos ans\~ered that they had no empi ri cal evi dence, but wi th a bond certifi cate of 25 years, the marketabil i ty of those bonds is a functi on of what the investor feels the revenue stream will be. If we have a 5- or 10-year revenue stream, it is relatively sure those bonds are very marketable. If it's a 1- or 2-year revenue stream, it would make those very difficult to sell. Commissioner Fuller asked if an agreement originally was set at 7 years and expired at the end of 7 years, couldn't an agreement be extended? Mr. Santos answered that the agreement coul d be extended by mutual consent. They woul d 1 ike to avoi d the situati on where there may be more requi rements for commitments or concessions. Chairman Tugenberg questioned staff regarding the saleability of bonds with 7 years versus 10 years. Deputy City Manager Krempl answered that he did not know how to measure what the degree of impact would be. Craig Beam, Attorney for EastLake, said that the investors look at, among other things, the timeframe during which the development will occur. What was bei ng provi ded was the timeframe for the development to commence 5 years hence, whi ch, from an investor's standpoi nt, is ri sky to begi n wi th. They don't anticipate physical development for 4 or 5 years in any event. The development agreement would lapse, in effect. There would be no protection beyond that, hence the 10-year term. He said that, based on personal experience working with major underwriters, it's a tough sale. Chairman Tugenberg asked I~r. Santos why he thought there would be a 5-year hiatus before anything occurred at the Olympic facility. He understood the Olympic facility would be open in 1991-92, and he thought there would be pressure for housing for the Olympic facility. Mr. Santos sai d he bel i eved they had made a commitment to City Council that there would be no residential development in that area. EastLake understood there would not be any development there for at least 5 years. It is their PC MINUTES -6- January 17, 1990 intent to be focused into the EastLake Greens neighborhood. The real question is \~hether or not the City would like for them to initiate some of the development in the EastLake Trails neighborhood prior to finishing the EastLake Greens. Deputy City Manager Krempl stated staff would be comfortable if the Commission desired and would support the notion that if there is no development in EastLake III for five years, that the term of the agreement would be 10 years. Commissioner Casillas asked Mr. Santos about low- and moderate-income housing. Mr. Santos said they had originally proposed low- and moderate-income housing in both the EastLake Greens and the EastLake III areas. In the context of the discussions that ensued regarding development intensity in those areas, in the case of the EastLake Greens area, EastLake voluntarily withdrew five parcels, or downzoned to medium densi ty, wi th the caveat that if EastLake puts back low- and moderate-i ncome housi ng, it woul d be done in those fi ve parcel sand there woul d be some increase in density. He sai d there is no comm.i tment by the City to allow that to happen, but they needed to have the high-density parcels to be able to provide 10\~- and moderate-income housing. In the EastLake III area, the City is asking EastLake to take the minimum number of dwellings that they possibly could to allow the whole process to result in the Olympic Training Center to come to the City of Chula Vista. EastLake's caveat in agreei ng to the 1767 uni ts was the understandi ng that those woul d be economi cally vi abl e uni ts, that they woul d not be low- and moderate-i ncome uni ts, whi ch means that ei ther the 1 and or the rents woul d be subsi di zed out of operating income. He said it would be their hope that they could still build low- and moderate-income housing. They think that is a social obl i gati on as a 1 and developer. They ask that they be gi ven the abil i ty to ask for additional units to be able to do that. He was asking for acknowledgment from the City that it anticipates that there will be no low- and moderate-income housing requirement against those units; that what EastLake did receive vesting on are economical units; that the Commission understands that if the developer comes back and asks for additional years to build low- and moderate-income housing units and it isn't approved, the City won't also require 10% of the units already approved to be low- and moderate- income units. Chairman Tugenberg asked if there has been any low- or moderate-income housing built at all so far in EastLake. Mr. Santos said EastLake I is obligated to build 5% low-income housing and 5% moderate-i ncome hous i ng. The moderate-i ncome housi ng has been \~ell exceeded and they are working now to analyze data to determine how many of the units which have been sold in EastLake I to date are low-income units. There will be 119 units required in EastLake 1. The balance would be in the apartments that will be built in the EastLake Village Center area. Chai rman Tugenberg asked if the 156 density transfer to the Vi 11 age woul d be added to the apartment building they are planning on constructing. J . . . PC MItJUTES -7- January 17, 1990 14r. Santos said the zoning provides for 405 units and they would be evaluating what they would be. The analysis is 90in9 on which will give them the data they need to make the business decisions to segment those units into the correct categories to ensure that the low-income housing units are provided to the City's requirements. The density transfer would give the additional flexibility to do that. Mr. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista 92010, on behalf of CROSSROADS, spoke of caps being put on developments in various jurisdictions in 1985, 86 and 87. The developers thought that was an irrational way to control growth. From that evolved the thresholds concept in Chula Vista which was an attempt to keep the pace the same between private development and public development. No caps were involved. He said that now EastLake is asking for minimum caps. He said that minimum caps are not a rational way to protect the public interest. CROSSROADS is asking that the Commission reject Section 4.14. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commi ssi oner Cannon commented that he di dn 't see anythi ng wrong with ml nl mum caps as long as they are coupl ed with the GrO\~th t1anagement threshol d standards. In the event we authorize any number of units, if we reach a threshold standard, we are still protected by those standards so long as they are enforced properly. He also said he didn't have a problem running Section 12.8, the term of the agreement, to 10 years. He was vehemently opposed to density transfers. Regarding the low- and moderate-income housing provisions, in the event that low- and moderate-i ncome housi ng units are proposed or required in that area, it should be handled at the time they come up; therefore, leaving in the exclusion may very well be in order. The remainder of the conditions that staff had suggested were appropriate. MSUC (Cannon/Casillas) 6-0 (Grasser absent) to recommend that the development agreements be accepted based upon the conditions within the staff report, subject to the following: 1. The changes that were recommended by r.1r. Krempl pursuant to 4.4, the last part from the semicolon forward beginning with the word "provided" would be deleted. 2. 4.4.1 would be allowed to remain in the agreement. 3. Section 12.8 would remain as is at 10 years. The remainder of staff recommendations would remain as they were \/ritten. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Di rector of Pl anni ng Lei ter stated the Comni ssi on appoi nts one of the 9 members of the Growth r~anagement Oversi ght Commi ttee. The Commi ss i on was being requested to appoint a member for the Committee \~hich will be starting January 25, 1990. PC MmUTES -8- January 17, 1990 MSUC (Shi pe/Carson) 6-0 (Grasser absent) to nomi nate Commi ssi oner Full er to the Growth Management Oversight Committee. Cot~MISSIONER COf1MENTS - None. ADJOURNMENT AT 6:00 to the Planning Workshop Session immediately following. '\ ~ I?~a~ a y Ri ey, Secret y Planning Commission WPC 7l72P