Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1997/02/19 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Conference Rooms 2/3 5:35 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, February 19, 1997 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tarantino, Commissioners Davis, Ray, Thomas, and Tuchscher (6:30 p.m.) COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Willett STAFF PRESENT: Deputy City Manager Krempl, Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Bazzel, Assistant City Attorney Moore PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tarantino led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer. MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Davis/Ray) 4-0 to excuse Commissioner Willett, who was out of state on vacation, and Commissioner Tuchscher, who had a conflict of interest on Item 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCES ADOPTING THE AMENDED AND RESTATED OTAY RANCH PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN: A. SNMB, LTD., AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; B. JEWELS OF CHARITY, AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; C. STEPHEN AND MARY BIRCH FOUNDATION, AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; D. GREGORY T. SMITH AND GEORGIANA R. SMITH, AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; E. UNITED ENTERPRISES, LTD. AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PC Minutes -2- February 19, 1997 Deputy City Manager Krempl noted that all parties had met and negotiated these agreements in good faith. The agreements had been previously approved by the City Council but had not been annexed by January 1, 1997, and therefore became null and void; however, Mr. Krempl believed that the fact that the agreements had lapsed did not, in surf's minds, negate the efforts that went into those agreements and the text and contents of those documents. Mr. Krempl proceeded to note the changes which had been made. He noted that the final step in the annexation process involved one of the landfill nuisance easements and its subordination by one of the lien holders, United Enterprises, for a nuisance easement which had been submitted by SNMB, Ltd. Commissioner Ray asked for clarification of that. Mr. Krempl stated that as a lien holder, the County counsel wanted to be sure that there was agreement to the terms of the easement by all of the parties who had a financial interest in the property. While the property was owned by SNMB, Ltd., there was a major lien on the property by United Enterprises. The County wanted to get both signatures. The same thing applied to Village Development, who owned land within the nuisance easement and had a lien holding by Bank of America. The Bank of America provided the subordination of their interest. This was to make sure that everyone was in concurrence with the terms and provisions that the nuisance easement would carry with it. Mr. Krempl noted that surf recommended approval of the restated agreements with the proviso that the final subordination be provided by United Enterprises prior to the second reading of the development agreement by Council or by March 4, 1997. He informed the property owners that if in fact there was no second reading by the Council or the County did not accept the subordination, the subordination agreements would be returned to the developers. He stated that there was a proviso that the City would agree not to change the terms of the development agreement between the first and second reading. Commissioner Ray questioned what repercussions there would be if the agreements were not approved. Mr. Krempl stated that the annexation would not be concluded and would expire by July 1, 1997 unless LAFCO extended it. The City would have to start over with a new annexation application with LAFCO. The annexation of the western parcel would be completed if these agreements are completed. That was unaffected by property ownership or the sutus of those property owners. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Kim Kilkenny, Village Development, 11975 El Camino Real, SD, stated that they supported surf's recommendation in the approval of the development agreements, so it can be taken to Council and the annexation completed. Village Development wanted to begin construction on SPA I. If the annexation did not happen on the near term and had to go back to LAFCO, they would have to start the environmental review and property tax negotiations with the County, LAFCO hearings, and Otay Water District negotiations over again. They were very anxious to PC Minutes -3- February 19, 1997 have development agreements move forward and had trailed their development agreements before the City Council so they would move forward concurrent with these and there would be no perception that one party or another had an advantage or disadvantage. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Davis/Thomas) 4-0 (Commissioner Willett excused; Commissioner Tuchscher- conflict of interest) to recommend Council approval of the ordinances adopting Agreements A through E. Chair Tarantino then proceeded with the workshop portion of the meeting. Commissioner Thomas left at 6:10 p.m. ITEM 2. UPDATE ON MAJOR PLANNING PROJECTS Planning Director Leiter gave an update regarding the major planning projects in the Eastern Territories, and there was general discussion by the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Tuchscher arrived at 6:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT at 6:45 p.m. to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting on February 26, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Nahcy Rit~ley,' Se~etar~7 Planning Commission (in:\home\planning\nancy\pc97min\pc2-19,min)