HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1996/05/01 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Council Chambers
7:07 p.m. Public Services Building
Wednesday, May 1, 1996 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Davis, Ray,
Salas, Tarantino, Thomas and Willett
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Special Projects
Manager Jamriska, Senior Planner Rosaler,
Associate Planner Luttrell, Planning Technician II
Matthews, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant
City Attorney Moore
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Tuchscher led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag and a moment of silent prayer.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Chair Tuchscher reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and
the format of the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
STAFF INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Mr. Jamriska referred to a memo stating that property owners were notified properly of the
hearing and why there may have been confusion on the issue. Staff had prepared three errata
sheets to the Phase 2 RMP, the Village Design in the Ranch-wide and the SPA I Affordable
Housing Plan. He noted that the presentation was organized to follow the table that had been
prepared and copies were available for the public. Mr. Jamriska advised the table followed the
agenda format, and staff would be dealing with those on a case-by-case basis. The table reflected
all the issues that remained to be decided upon by the Planning Commission.
PC Minutes -2- May 1, 1996
ITEM 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-95-09; CONSIDERATION OF SEVEN
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS TO THE OTAY
RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Continued from April 24, 1996)
Mr. Rosaler reminded the Planning Commission that they took final action on five of the
General Development Plan Amendments at the April 24 hearing. Freeway commercial and
transit right-of-way were being brought back to the Commission for final action.
Freeway Commercial
Mr. Rosaler indicated that there was no new information or change in any position.
MSUC (Davis/Ray) 7-0 to deny staff recommendation by allowing the freeway commercial
to develop independent of Planning Area 12.
Chair Tuchscher asked if public testimony should be taken after final action on each of these
items?
Mr. Jamriska suggested that public testimony should be taken after each item had been discussed
and before final action because this was a public hearing.
Chair Tuchscher asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished to address the
Commission on that particular item? If so, the Commission would vote to reconsider? There
was no one.
Transit Right-of-Way
Mr. Rosaler indicated that Commissioner Ray previously had a question about the wildlife
agencies' response and concerns on the transit corridor going through the area west of Paseo
Ranchero. The proposed corridor appeared to impact additional sensitive resources. As the
MSCP program had moved forward, the wildlife agencies had agreed that it was going to be all
right to take habitat in this area. The habitat issue was not going to prohibit the aliglnnent of the
right-of-way through that area west of Paseo Ranchero. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission adopt the alignment as proposed.
Chair Tuchscher opened the public testimony on everything and asked the public whether they
wished to address the Commission on any given matter.
MSUC (Davis/Ray) 7-0 to amend the General Development Plan to allow flexibility in the
transit alignment at the SPA level and to require transit line dedication as a condition of
the Tentative Map approval.
Mr. Rosaler indicated that it would be appropriate at this time, if the Commission was
comfortable, to present Planning Commission Resolution PCM 95-09 recommending approval
PC Minutes -3- May 1, 1996
of the General Development Plan Amendments to the City Council. All of their final actions
relating to only the General Development Plan Amendments were represented in the Resolution.
Chair Tuchscher asked for a brief rundown of the seven amendments.
Mr. Rosaler indicated that the first one dealt with master-planned communities. The Planning
Commission decided that there would be four or five exceptions to that where specific areas of
the Ranch could develop under their own SPA. The next one dealt with the transit corridor
alignments. There was some technical cleanup that needed to occur as far as when dedication
occurred, and there was also some flexibility built in for the modifications for Village One. The
General Development Plan prohibits additional agricultural irrigation. Baldwin proposed, and
the Planning Commission agreed, to give the authority for additional agricultural land irrigation
to the Preserve Owner/Manager. On solar heating, there was cleanup language to provide for
solar heating where it was practical. Updating the noise standard for residential, the Planning
Commission agreed to amend the General Development Plan to allow the City's current standard
for exterior noise. Two standards regarding the bird habitat--the first one with the Gnatcatcher
habitat allowing a 65 decibel performance standard, and the one for the grassland bird species
where the Planning Commission indicated that the population of those four species would be
maintained throughout the habitat.
MSUC (Salas/Ray) 7-0 to approve the amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan.
1.A. PHASE 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Ms. Moore made a statement, for the record, that staff had concerns with some aspects of the
conveyance plan; however, staff agreedwith the action that was taken by the Board of
Supervisors to approve the conveyance plan, but on the condition that it be amended prior to any
further development occurring in the Otay Ranch Project other than SPA One. Staff would like
to see the conveyance plan be approved on the condition that the developer enter into a
development agreement with the City.
Commissioner Ray asked if various multiple owners surface on the Ranch, staff wanted each of
those owners to have their own agreement?
Ms. Moore answered in the affirmative. Right now, staff was concentrating on the conveyance
plan as it applies to SPA One. The Board of Supervisors took the same action except for the part
requiring a development agreement.
Chair Tuchscher asked if any subsequent buyer would be subject to the development agreement?
Ms. Moore indicated those complexities would have to be addressed in the development
agreements.
PC Minutes -4- May 1, 1996
Commissioner Davis asked if the County was requiring development agreements?
Ms. Moore responded in the negative. The County approves the conveyance plan. The
development agreements would implement the conveyance plan.
Chair Tuchscher asked the advantage of a development agreement?
Ms. Moore indicated that the development agreements would solve a lot of the City's legal
concerns with the conveyance plan.
Commissioner Willett asked if the applicant is agreeable?
Ms. Moore indicated that staff had not had time to discuss this with the applicant. Their office
has been reviewing it up to the very last moment. The development agreement idea was not
something new to the applicant.
Commissioner Willett asked if there were three different development agreements?
Mr. Jamriska indicated that staff had been approached by Village Development (the applicant),
United Enterprises, the estate of the Foundation as well as the Foundation to do a combination
pre-annexation agreement as well as development agreements. It was just at a discussion stage.
Kim Kilkenny, Village Development/Baldwin Company, 11975 El Camino Real, Suite 104,
San Diego, CA 92130, indicated they had started discussions with the City Manager for a
development agreement tied to annexation. The estate of Patrick, one of the lien holders on their
property, wanted a development agreement before this property was annexed to the City of
Chula Vista. He thought it would be to the benefit of all the parties to have such an agreement,
and would be a common agreement throughout the region. Most major property owners would
have such an agreement.
Chair Tuchscher stated that the public hearing was open.
Gregory Smith, P.O. Box 2786, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 indicated that he did not know
development agreements could be required since it was discretionary under the Government
Code. The Board of Supervisors said the conveyance plan, as presented for SPA One, was okay.
They specifically refused to approve the rest of the conveyance plan. He wanted County staff
to come back with a concise, coherent program which complied with the original intent of the
Resource Management Plan (RMP) that would convey the center pieces that were contemplated.
Chair Tuchscher asked if the development agreement also incorporated the potential for an in-
lieu fee?
Ms. Moore indicated that the in-lieu fee would still be a part of the conveyance plan.
PC Minutes -5- May 1, 1996
Chair Tuchscher asked if there was any connection between these dollars collected in the way
of in-lieu fees and actual properties which would be acquired and preserved?
Ms. Moore indicated that they would have to be.
1.A.1. JOINT EXERCISE POWERS AGREEMENT
Mr. Jamriska indicated that the Joint Exercise Powers Agreement (JPA) was a requirement of
the General Development Plan that stated that a Preserve Owner/Manager should be selected
prior to the approval of the first SPA. On March 6, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved
a Joint Powers Agreement whereby they made a decision that the City and the County should
be the Preserve Owner/Manager for the first five years. After that period of time, they would
then review to see if they should continue on or name a third party as the Preserve
Owner/Manager. This Joint Powers Agreement would be presented to the City Council for
action. A Policy Committee had been established consisting of one member of the County Board
of Supervisors and one member of the City Council serving as policy directors to the
management team which would set broad policy guidelines, and review proposals to consider
everything from establishing an in-lieu fee to which property should be acquired in the future.
These would potentially require amendments to the RMP as necessary. The Preserve
Owner/Manager would have direct control of the flows of moneys coming in from the habitat
maintenance district as well as the disbursement of those funds for the maintenance and
preservation. They would also have the authority to seek additional funding for some of the non-
preservation activities. The Preserve Management Team will consist of the DCAO of the County
and the City Manager from the City of Chula Vista. They will then assign appropriate staff to
perform various functions under the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista or San Diego
County. There would be certain joint responsibilities that the Preserve Owner/Manager would
be required to implement. The Resource Conservation Committee of the City of Chula Vista had
taken action requesting that the City Council not appoint themselves nor the County Board of
Supervisors, but requested that an independent third party be selected. Staff did not agree with
that.
Commissioner Salas asked if the Preserve Owner/Manager was a political body and not a
person?
Mr. Jamriska answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Salas asked if the decision to make it a joint participation between the County and
the City was because, upon conducting a search, no one was found that met all the
requirements?
Mr. Jamriska responded in the affirmative.
PC Minutes -6- May I, 1996
Commissioner Willett stated that he sat in as an advisor to the members of the interview panel.
He verified Mr. Jamriska's statement that there was no one that had the expertise in all the
areas. He felt that the City and the County made the wise move.
Commissioner Salas understood they would not have anything to manage for three years?
Mr. Jamriska indicated there was not a three-year window anymore because conveyance would
occur as entitlements were given on a ratio of 1 acre of development to 1.188 acres of
conveyance at the time the final map for that particular parcel was approved. Therefore,
conveyance would come earlier.
Chair Tuchscher agreed that there was probably not a single private entity that could perform
all the requirements, but the private sector could do some of the tasks cheaper and more
effectively such as resource protection management, restoration enhancement, etc.
Mr. Kilkenny indicated that he agreed more with the Resource Conservation Commission than
the recommendation from staff. However, he felt the City and the County acting jointly were
best able to perform the functions of the Preserve Owner/Manager on an interim basis. But, the
sooner a third party independent agency could be retained to perform this task, everyone would
be better served. Village Development was uncomfortable because, with the City and County
acting as the Preserve Owner/Manager, they were hard pressed to complain to anybody if the
Preserve Owner/Manager was not working. Right now there were very few entities around that
can perform this task, but with the adoption and implementation of the MSCP program, there
would be entities with expertise in this arena.
Commissioner Ray asked what the rationale was for five years as opposed to three years or
something having to do with the level of development or any other criteria?
Mr. Jamriska indicated that the five year period was determined, primarily, as a result of when
land would probably be conveyed to the Preserve Owner/Manager in sufficient blocks where
they could begin the management of those lands. That would also permit the Preserve
Owner/Manager to have some track record to determine if they were indeed the proper agency
to be responsible.
Commissioner Ray commented that between the two of them, they had to agree that they were
collectively failing or collectively doing a good job. They were asking a bureaucratic group to
do that?
Mr. Jamriska indicated that this needed to be jointly approved by the Board of Supervisors and
the City Council. One could not disagree with the other. Otherwise, there would be a stalemate
and nothing would happen because this is required to be approved prior to the approval of the
first SPA.
PC Minutes -7- May 1, 1996
C~)mmissioner Ray indicated he would be more comfortable if the Preserve Owner/Manager was
determined based on a percentage of build-out or a number of acres or a number of dwelling
units or some number as opposed to some nebulous thing like five years.
Mr. Smith indicated that the RMP never contemplated that it would be a public entity that
administered the RMP program. It was always contemplated to be a third party. He was there
as an advisor to the interview panel, and he felt that the private interest groups that were
originally contemplated in the plan were intimidated out of the process. He would be tempted
to put a pretty short timeframe on it like three years, or something shorter.
Chair Tuchscher stated that he also liked the three-year timeframe.
Corn_missioner Ray asked if the Commission was going to take all of PCM 95-01 in one vote?
Mr. Jamriska recommended one at a time.
Chair Tuchscher was concerned about City monitoring County, County monitoring City, and the
fact that it was going to take an act of both City Council and the County Board of Supervisors
to change anything. He wanted to see a motion that the City and County remain as property
owner/manager for a period of not more than three years. He felt that the goal and objective
should be to get them out of that business and put it in the hands of the private sector so that
they can be an "employee" that is performance based and money, time, and effort could be
saved before a big staff was built up.
Commissioner Ray moved that the City and County remain as property owner/manager for a
period of not more than three years, with the goal and objective to put it in the hands of the
private sector so that they could be an "employee" that was performance based.
Commissioner Salas indicated that she was uncomfortable with the recommendation as it stood
because she did not believe that, once those two parties were acting as a Preserve
Owner/Manager, they would have the resolve to go out and look for some third party. She
would support the motion in that regard.
Commissioner Willett had a problem with three years because there would be very little property
in real land to take a look at.
Chair Tuchscher felt the motion on the table imputed that the Commission did not want them
in charge of a lot of property. They wanted them to be in place simply to facilitate this process
but to get out of the business of Preserve Owner/Manager before there was a lot of property
conveyed.
Commissioner Ray felt that the Commission should not give them any option to be the Preserve
Owner/Manager under the Joint Powers Agreement, and a third party should be found and the
City/County should be forced into hiring somebody. He felt the Commission should absolutely
PC Minutes -8- May 1, 1996
deny the staff recommendation and recommend the third party. However, in the interest of
getting this thing approved and moving forward on a consensus, he thought three years was
plenty of time for them to go out and actively pursue finding that third party that should be in
charge.
MSC (Ray/Davis) 6-1 (Willett against) that the City and County remain as Preserve
Owner/Manager for a period of not more than three years. The goal and objective should
be to put it in the hands of the private sector.
1.A.2. IN-LIEU FEE
Mr. Jamriska indicated that an in-lieu process should be added to the Phase 2 Resource
Management Plan (RMP). When the Phase II RMP was prepared, it was prepared under the
concept that one owner would be developing the entire 23,000 acres. There had been no
consideration of the possibility of a second or third party owning land that would not have any
habitat to convey. The County did adopt a conveyance plan and establish an in-lieu fee to take
care of those situations where a property owner would not have any land to be conveyed as part
of the open space preserve. Staff was recommending an in-lieu fee be established to collect fees
in-lieu of actual conveyance of land to the Preserve Owner/Manager. It would be payable upon
recordation of the final maps, and the fees should be used to acquire land and not to be used for
any other purposes.
Commissioner Salas asked if the in-lieu fee could work the other way around?
Mr. Jamriska responded in the affirmative. There were several other options.
Commissioner Ray reiterated his discomfort with the governmental agency being in charge of
the Preserve. He made a motion to approve the in-lieu fee.
Commissioner Davis seconded.
Chair Tuchscher did not have a problem with the in-lieu fee concept. He does not see any kind
of plan for acquiring properties within the sphere of Chula Vista. He was very uncomfortable
with the Preserve Owner/Manager handling the in-lieu fee. The City should have control over
this fee just like they have with every development impact fee since the City was the one taking
the impacts of the development, not a joint County/City bureaucracy that was going to be in
charge of land and sums of money.
Mr. Jamriska indicated that the errata sheet in the packet deleted all the exhibits that were part
of the original conveyance plan except for Exhibits 14A and 14B which dealt with the method
of conveying these parcels as part of the first SPA. Them were criteria given for the actual
purchase or conveyance of land on page 67 of the Resource Management Plan in terms of
priority given to high quality resources, the most vulnerable areas, certain keystone parcels and
where there was potential for restoration. Those were the criteria and the guidelines that the
PC Minutes -9- May 1, 1996
Preserve Owner/Manager would follow in terms of utilizing either the fees or to establish the
conveyance parcel for the next SPA. The second part dealt with land to be conveyed which
should be biologically viable, contiguous and economically feasible for management purposes,
and that future SPAs would have to submit a future conveyance plan. The properties would all
be acquired within the 23,000 acres.
Chair Tuchscher asked what element existed to force an owner to sell for a set price congruent
with those fees collected and/or if the owner/manager entity was going to use eminent domain
to do that?
Mr. Jamriska indicated that the Preserve Owner/Manager did not have any powers of eminent
domain. The Preserve Owner/Manager would begin to negotiate a price fair and acceptable to
all parties. That was probably how the fee would be established to determine what that in-lieu
fee would be.
Commissioner Davis hoped that the acquisition and exchange of land would be concurrent with
processing, and a fee was not built up that was not needed.
Mr. Smith suggested another way of doing it was to create a hierarchy of what should be
acquired or conveyed whether it was by dedication or by conveyance or in-lieu fee
Mr. Kilkenny indicated that this was an issue Village Development had been aware of. One idea
they suggested some time ago to try to solve that was to consider expanding the area of the first
conveyance to pick up other property so a marketplace of open space could be created. There
should be no money left over. If there was money left over, the system was wrong and unlawful.
The amount of money collected should equal the value of the open space.
MSC (Ray/Willett) 6-1 (Tuchscher against) to adopt the staff recommendation to create the
in-lieu fee program.
l.A.3 CONVEYANCE TIMING
Mr. Jamriska indicated that the County Board of Supervisors and City staff felt that thc land
should be conveyed at the final map stage, and the maintenance agreement be established at that
time. Therefore, it was staff's recommendation that thc Phase 2 RMP be amended pursuant to
the errata sheet on page 30 of the packet.
Michael Woodward, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, 555 South Flower Street, 23rd
Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371, representing West coast Land Fund, stated that they had
submitted a letter on April 10, 1996 suggesting that the conveyance timing occur upon the
recordation of the final map. They would meet the City's Code, the intent of the RMP 2, the
Final EIR which required conveyance within three years, not five years, and avoided the
problem of the City being left in the lurch. It seemed the City Attorney had come around to
some of the issues in their proposal for a development agreement. A development agreement,
PC Minutes -10- May 1, 1996
under the State Planning and Zoning Law, had to have a noticed public hearing and the
recommendation of the Planning Commission before it could get adopted by the City Council.
Also there was a requirement that the entitlements had to be consistent with the specific plan and
the general plan. It was a means of avoiding the nexus obligation of imposing a fee or to justify
the relationship between an exaction that the City was putting on someone. Regarding the in-lieu
program, State law required certain nexus findings to be made that establish the relationship
between the fee that you are charging and the benefit to the property that is being conveyed.
This should happen at the first master tentative map, not individual tentative maps which will
piecemeal the process.
Mr. Kilkenny indicated that Village Development supported the language in the staff
recommendation, endorsed by the Board of Supervisors, to require the conveyance of open space
upon approval of final maps. Every master plan developer in the City had done master f'mal
maps through which they sell land to builder developers to actually construct the homes and
generate cash. The actual performance happened at the final map, and there was always an
agreement between the developer and the home builder as to how those specific conditions were
going to be performed to ensure that actual performance happens. They disagreed with what
Coast Land Fund had offered. The second issue they thought was part of the County Board of
Supervisors' motion on this topic was that, for the initial round of conveyances, an easement
could be conveyed instead of fee title. The property owner would be obligated to maintain the
property until such time the Preserve Owner/Manager kicks into gear. Village Development was
asking two things: 1) the staff recommendation regarding the final map mean actual final map,
and 2) that an easement be allowed on the earlier round of conveyances to avoid that
maintenance problem.
Mr. Smith indicated that he thought the Board was very clear that they wanted fee conveyance
at final map.
Mr. Woodward pointed out that Otay Ranch did not have the typical open space and park lands
on-site or part of the developed area, but this whole vast area that is completely off-site that
Baldwin entities have some kind of unified ownership and control. He was suggesting that you
do not have your "typical situation". In his view, the sense was that what was good for Baldwin
was good for the City. Let them put their mouth where their land is.
Ms. Moore indicated that it was standard procedure for the City to require conveyances at the
implementing final map stage which is when parcels are actually going to be built on. Some of
the concerns that Mr. Woodward had brought forward would be alleviated by the fact that there
would be a development agreement, which would pretty much guarantee that the City would get
actual conveyance regardless of when the actual conveyance occurs. One of the purposes of the
development agreement was to guarantee that.
Chair Tuchscher was bothered about the conveyance issue and the in-lieu fee simply because
Baldwin controlled all the property to be conveyed. There was the potential for other owners.
The missing element was an agreement from Baldwin with the City to agree at a price per acre
PC Minutes -11- May 1, 1996
to then quantify the in-lieu fee and know what we are going to buy and alleviate all these
challenges to subsequent and potential new owners on the property. He would like to reconsider
the in-lieu fee issue and add that as an element. He asked Ms. Moore if that made sense.
Ms. Moore answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Davis asked if he was running the risk that the value of that land might change
between now and the final maps on different things?
Chair Tuchscher wanted to lock it in.
Commissioner Ray suggested tying in that price at the time that a final map was entered as part
of the development agreement.
Chair Tuchscher thought it was a number that staff and Baldwin should agree to. He was
concerned that the Preserve Owner/Manager controlled the in-lieu fee. It would make sense that
rather than pushing some new owner to either negotiate with Baldwin or fend for themselves or
pay ~/n in-lieu fee and let the Preserve Owner/Manager fend for themselves to simply tie down
a number to the property to be conveyed and get Baldwin to agree to that in exchange for
approvals and entitlements.
Mr. Kilkermy indicated that what Chair Tuchscher had described was what he had anticipated
would eventually happen. It was a rational approach. Before the City Council gots this action,
Village Development would formulate a formal position.
MSUC (Ray/Tuchscher) 7-0 to reconsider the in-lieu fee issue.
Chair Tuchscher wanted to add a recommendation to the previously approved motion, that a
mechanism be put in place whereby the in-lieu fee would be directly tied to an agreement with
Baldwin to convey the habitat area specifically designated to be conveyed in the SPA One
approvals at a set price congruent with the in-lieu fee.
MS (Tuchscher/Ray) that staff and Baldwin work out a value for drawing a nexus between the
in-lieu fee that is paid and acreage that is conveyed.
Commissioner Davis asked if the Planning Commission was getting too detail oriented? The idea
was to add the in-lieu fee so there were other options open and available. Now they were adding
that, but then requiring that Baldwin be the one to be willing to sell the land. What about the
other people? The details could be worked out later tying it to actually having Baldwin come up
with a contract to sell at a set value or whatever.
Ms. Moore indicated that the intent was for the City to explore that option among other options
to tie down this particular area.
PC Minutes -12- May 1, 1996
Chair Tuchscher indicated that was the intent. He would modify the motion to reflect that if the
second concurs.
Commissioner Ray concurred. He asked if the value would apply only to Baldwin or to any
landowner?
Chair Tuchscher responded, Baldwin-owned habitat open space. Baldwin owned enough open
space to solve the SPA One development. They were simply tying anyone that was going to
develop that. It did not matter who they are. They were going to pay a fee; the City would get
that land.
Commissioner Davis asked if the City was going to set Baldwin's value but anybody else could
charge whatever they wanted?
Chair Tuchscher responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Davis was comfortable with that.
Chair Tuchscher indicated that the intent was to revert back to exactly what they City had when
there was a single owner. The City knew they would get that conveyed as Baldwin developed
SPA One. They were creating the in-lieu fee to make sure that happened regardless of who the
owner was.
MSC (Tuchscher/Ray) 6-1 (Willett against) for staff to explore the potential of directly tying
the in-lieu fee to a value for property owned by Baldwin that is to be conveyed as
development occurs on SPA One.
MSUC (Ray/Davis) 7-0 to amend Phase II of the RMP to require a conveyance of land at
final map approval.
MOTION by Commissioner Ray for reconsider of item lA which was the approval of the
Preserve Owner/Manager. He would like to eliminate the joint powers as being the Preserve
Owner/Manager and force the City and County into finding a third party to be the Preserve
Owner/Manager.
Chair Tuchscher asked if that was lA, Resource Management Exercise Joint Powers Agreement.
Answering Mr. Jamriska's concern, Attorney Moore stated that the City had their own rules for
reconsideration. A Commissioner did not have to be on the prevailing side of a motion to
institute a reconsideration motion.
Chair Tuchscher seconded the motion for discussion purposes.
PC Minutes -13- May 1, 1996
Commissioner Ray stated that there was now a bureaucracy of two legislative bodies and he
doubted anything positive would be done as a Preserve Owner/Manager. The period of three
years would undoubtedly be extended. The intent that the Commission had three years ago or
more was that a third party come into place to be the Preserve Owner/Manager to avoid this
kind of a problem. Mr. Ray did not think the intent of how the preserve was envisioned would
be met. He would like the Commission to take a vote to reconsider that, deny staff's
recommendation and make a subsequent recommendation that a third party be found to be
Preserve Owner/Manager.
Chair Tuchscher stated that in previous meetings the Planning Commission was pretty clear on
the issue that they wanted this in the hands of a private sector. The only thing the Planning
Commission has is a recommendation, and he sometimes wanted to take the extreme view so
that Council paid particular attention. He thought the three years was a compromise just to
accommodate what had been discussed, what staff is doing, etc. Chair Tuchscher agreed with
Commissioner Ray that sending a strong message that this should be in the hands of private
sector was a good one and it was something the applicant had said they had been in favor of.
He did not feel the County and City would want to give up control after three years.
Commissioner Tarantino asked staff if there would be any ramifications.
Mr. Jamriska stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to
Council. Staff, however, would be recommending in opposition to this, but if Council did
accept the Planning Commission's recommendation, either the one that was before the
Commission at that point or the first one, it would have to go back to the County Board of
Supervisors for ratification. If the Board did not approve it, there would be a stalemate. The
SPA could not go forward until the City and the County agreed on the Preserve
Owner/Manager, because that indeed was a requirement of that General Development Plan.
Commissioner Ray said that was part of his uneasiness with the Commission's prior vote. If the
County and City were not comfortable enough handing over the reins before there was anything
out there to be managed, he doubted they would ever turn that over once they got control of the
land, with money coming in and the in-lieu fee.
Chair Tuchscher stated that the reality of the matter was that if Council chose to follow the
Commission's recommendation and it went forward to the County Board of Supervisors and
there was disagreement, the Council could easily modify its opinion and bring that back into
compliance with whatever the Board of Supervisors wanted. He assumed that could be done on
very short order.
RESTATEMENT OF MOTION
To reconsider item lA, which is the creation of the JEPA as Preserve Owner/Manager.
VOTE: 4-3 (Willett, Salas, Davis against)
PC Minutes -14- May 1, 1996
MSC (Ray/Thomas) 5-2 (Willett, Davis against) to deny staff recommendation and make
another recommendation that a third party entity be put in place as Preserve
Owner/Manager with no interim caretaking by the JEPA.
1.A.4. METHODOLOGY
Mr. Jamriska said the methodology currently within the Resource Management Plan looked at
several different alternatives, and one of the alternatives was that the amount of land to be
conveyed based upon the 1.888 factor should be based upon developable acreages. When this
issue was presented previously to the Planning Commission, Greg Smith initially opposed that
and he suggested it be based upon dwelling units. Staff prepared an analysis of that
methodology as well as several other methodologies based upon equivalent dwelling units and
sensitive habitat, and concluded that it still should be based upon the amount of developable
acreages. Mr. Smith was no longer objecting to the methodology that was in the RMP. And,
therefore, staff would recommend that the methodology to calculate the amount of land conveyed
to the Otay Ranch open space preserve be based upon developable acreages.
Commissioner Davis asked if that was different from what had been done at EastLake or Rancho
del Rey, and if they were based on dwelling units versus acres developed?
Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich stated that on the previous maps, those open space lots were
indicated on the tentative map as open space, and they were dedicated with the adjacent final
map that was filed. If there are multiple final maps, the City will get the open spaces as the
final maps are approved. Ultimately when the whole project is done, the City will have all the
open space that was indicated on the tentative map.
Mr. Jamriska said the statement had been made that was probably based upon the impact of the
habitat and not to the actual number of the lots being developed. Staff used that in the formula
in terms of developable acreage divided by 11,375 and came out with 1.188. There were
different methodologies that could be used based upon just the habitat.
MSUC (Tarantino/Willett) 7-0 that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council adoption of the Phase II RMP with conveyance based on developable acres.
1.A.5. MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Jamriska stated that this related to what happened after the property was conveyed in fee
to the Preserve Owner/Manager and if there was not sufficient lands conveyed at the time. Staff
was asking that a maintenance agreement be established between the developer and the City that
the developer would be responsible for maintaining that area until sufficient lands were conveyed
to the Preserve Owner/Manager.
PC Minutes -15- May 1, 1996
Commissioner Davis was concerned that not only was the applicant required to give land, but
then they had to maintain it, also. It was open space. Ms. Davis asked what kind of
maintenance there would be. It couldn't be touched.
Mr. Jamriska replied that one of the concerns of the Resource Agencies dealt with the
maintenance of the fences to insure that cattle were not permitted to graze upon this habitat; the
other was that they did not want people to trample upon the habitat, and so the fences would
have to be maintained. Since the Preserve Owner/Manager would not have sufficient revenue
at the time to maintain the earlier parcels that would be conveyed, staff asked that a maintenance
agreement be established with the Preserve Owner/Manager for this interim basis. Once
sufficient lands were acquired and the funds had been conveyed to the Preserve Owner/Manager,
the maintenance agreements would not be in place.
Commissioner Davis asked if this meant the Border Patrol would not be allowed to cross this
land?
Mr. Jamriska said they were very concerned about the Border Patrol destroying natural habitat.
They had not currently established a procedural process to correct it. It was a very serious
question.
Commissioner Davis commented that she would hate to be funding the bill to maintain it and
keep the illegal aliens out if the Border Patrol was not allowed across it.
Chair Tuchscher stated that it was common practice that anytime habitat area is conveyed to
satisfy Fish & Wildlife Agencies or municipalities for mitigation purposes that there is usually
a management plan, program or a finance mechanism to do that. This was not anything
uncommon.
Commissioner Davis asked if this was in addition to the habitat assessment district.
Mr. Jamriska replied that the habitat maintenance district would provide the funds to manage
and maintain the properties after sufficient revenues had been received. The entitlements would
be given before the revenue started flowing.
Commissioner Ray asked if, based on the staff recomanendation and if there was a third party
as the Property Owner/Manager, would the words that say "sufficient funding is available to the
County of San Diego" still apply?
Mr. Jamriska answered that it would not.
Commissioner Ray inquired if it be more prudent to say "to the Preserve Owner/Manager"?
Mr. Jamriska answered affirmatively.
PC Minutes -16- May 1, 1996
Chair Tuchscher stated that he wanted to make sure that in reference to the RMP that the
Planning Commission's previous motions relative to the JEPA, etc., were reflected. In other
words, that language that would be modified in their recommendation.
Mr. Jamriska responded to Commissioner Ray that the actual errata sheet relating to the RMP
Phase II did not mention the City nor the County. It just mentioned the Preserve
Owner/Manager. So that would indeed reflect Commissioner Ray's concern.
MS (Willett/Ray) that the Planning Commission support the staff recommendation.
With approval of the Chair, Greg Smith approached the podium. He stated that he had no
objection to the issue of the maintenance agreement, and no objection to utilizing the Habitat
Maintenance District, if that was the chosen device. He noted that the RMP talked about the
range of costs to maintain, and they were focusing only on the County part. The Habitat
Maintenance District contemplated that Otay pay its fair share of whatever regional programs
would be ongoing in the Otay River Valley Park, as well as a part of the RMP. He thought that
those elements had been arbitrarily stripped out by using the habitat maintenance district, which
is by State law limited to $25 per house per year, rather than using an open space maintenance
district or some other device which did not have the arbitrary cap. He noted the estimates of
maimaining just the habitat range, using the HMD device which had an absolute State law cap
of $25 per house per year may not even just maintain the land as contemplated in this document.
He thought the RMP was clear, it was very specific; the GDP was very specific, that there
would be botanical gardens, a cultural center, a nature interpretive center, a native plant nursery,
and all of those were left in this document to be dealt with at some other time with some other
funding source, and basically not dealt with. He did not think that was in the spirit of the
original adopted RMP and GDP.
Commissioner Salas stated that when the Planning Commission was originally discussing the
Resource Management Plan, a point that really struck her was that $25 cap regardless of the
value of the property. It her understanding at the time that that was something that was set by
the State and there was nothing that the City could do about it. She thought that was critical to
what the Planning Commission was trying to do.
Mr. Jamriska responded regarding Mr. Smith's comments regarding the General Development
Plan and the RMP II. He said he could not find any reference whereby a funding program
would be established or would be a responsibility of the applicant to fund those activities that
would be the City of Chula Vista's basic responsibility. The GDP/RMP stated that a funding
mechanism should be in place prior to the first SPA to take care of those functions. There were
two ways to fund those functions, either through the habitat maintenance district which was a
portion of State law that had initially a cap of $25 per parcel, with an inflator clause that could
be added every year as the cost of doing business increases. The GDP/RMP also stated that no
general funds of the City nor the County should be used to fund the required operations of the
Preserve Owner/Manager. They would have to develop their own funding program to fund
those activities. An open space maintenance district could be established, but at this time the
PC Minutes -17- May 1, 1996
only thing that was required for the Planning Commission to adopt was a funding mechanism
for those operations. If the Preserve Owner/Manager wanted to begin funding those programs
or construction activities for a nature interpretive center, they would have to develop their
funding sources.
Chair Tuchscher was concerned that the $25 a unit for 5900 units was $147,500. He thought
that was a lot of money to maintain an open space area. He did not know what the acreage was,
but that was quite a bit of money per acre.
Mr. Jamriska stated that 786 acres of land would be conveyed to SPA I.
Chair Tuchscher noted that it was $124 annually per acre to leave it the way that it had been for
500 years without the benefit of that.
Mr. Kilkenny stated that page 63 of the Phase II RMP indicated that total conveyed areas in SPA
I would be around 1186 acres. The document also had a cash flow analysis anticipated based
on phased development of the property to maintain the property to be conveyed concurrent with
that development and demonstrated that over time the $25 per parcel tax would cover the cost
of maintaining the open space land.
VOTE: 7-0
Mr. Jamriska stated that the last item under the Resource Management Plan was a proposed
amendment entitled Exhibit 3, and these were changes to the text portion of the Resource
Management Plan that changed basically the phaseology from regional benefit to regional
opportunities, relating to the creation of the preserve which established the location of
organization framework for which properties other than Otay Ranch or entities other than the
City of Chula Vista could contribute additional lands to preserve, and Exhibit 17. This was
primarily textual in changes and staff recommended approval of those editorial changes.
MSC (Willett/Davis) 6-0 (Commissioner Tarantino had left the meeting at 9:30 p.m.) to
accept the staff's recommendation on the changes.
1.B. TRANSDIF
Mr. Ullrich stated that the Commission had a concern at the April 10 meeting relative to an
indication of a shortfall in the TransDIF funding as indicated in the PFFP. He had presented
this report at that Commission meeting and had no further input. He was available to answer
questions.
Commissioner Salas noted that she satisfied with the discussion that had occurred at that
meeting, and it clarified everything she needed to know. She appreciated the rewording and the
enhancement of the explanation in the staff report.
PC Minutes -18- May 1, 1996
Commissioner Willett commented that Mr. Ullrich's presentation to the Council the previous
night had been straight forward and cleared up the confusion. Both Commissioners commented
on the good job.
1.C. SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA ONE MODIFICATIONS
SPA I Errata Sheets
Ms. Luttrell stated that the last series of modifications had been noted on the errata sheets in
their packet. These were essentially minor in nature and were mainly serving to correct
typographical and grammatical errors in the document. Staff and the applicant were in
agreement with the errata sheet and recommended approval of the SPA I errata.
MSC (Ray/Davis) 6-0 (Tarantino had left meeting) to approve the errata sheets relative to
SPA I modifications and direct that the corrections be included in the f'mal approved
documents.
1.D. TRIGGER POINTS
Associate Planner Luttrell stated that at the meeting of April 10, the Commission seemed
comfortable with the trigger points but was concerned with the adequacy of these trigger points,
should the phasing plan for SPA I be modified. Staff had reviewed three different phasing
alternatives in relation to the trigger points, which would be discussed in one of the next items
by Mr. Rosaler. Staff had also felt the trigger points were adequate in relation to the different
phasing alternatives, except for the phasing alternative that would begin all development within
Village 5. In this case, the trigger points for schools would have to be adjusted, since the first
elementary school was going to be developed within Village 1. Other than that, staff felt
comfortable with the trigger points in relation to the phasing plan proposed by the applicant, as
well as the alternatives analyzed. Staff recommended that the trigger points be maintained as
they were currently stated within the conditions of approval.
Chair Tuchscher asked staff if they were recommending that the Commission move forward with
this matter regardless of the phasing issue?
Ms. Luttrell concurred. She noted that if the phasing did happen to change so that development
began within Village 5, staff could then modify the conditions of approval to require construction
of the first elementary school within Village 5 rather than Village 1.
Chair Tuchscher clarified that, regardless of the phasing that the Planning Commission might
recommend, the trigger points all met general staff criteria with exception of the one just
mentioned.
Ms. Luttrell answered affirmatively.
PC Minutes -19- May 1, 1996
Chair Tuchscher said he was a little uncomfortable doing this before the phasing issue.
Commissioner Thomas suggested that the Commissioners go ahead and look at the phasing issue.
With staff's concurrence, Chair Tuchscher asked that the Commissioners move on to SPA I
Phasing, then follow with Trigger Points, and then move to the regular order.
1.F. PHASING
Senior Planner Rosaler mentioned that at the last meeting, the Planning Commissioners had
asked for West Coast Land Fund and the Baldwin Company and staff to try to reach some
agreement on the phasing of SPA I. The meeting had been held the week before, but not much
progress had been made. It was cordial; however, West Coast reiterated their position that the
City shouldn't be moving forward at all, but if they did, they felt that Village 1 should be the
first village to develop. Part of the discussion focused on if the development was focused in
Village 1, they would have additional time to do adjustments in Village 5 which they owned the
majority of. Consensus was not reached at the meeting. Staff had gone back and reviewed the
Baldwin Company's proposal for phasing, starting in both villages with Phase lA and lB, and
were comfortable that that phasing scenario would work with the Baldwin Company. They had
looked at several scenarios. Commissioner Tuchscher had previously indicated that he was
interested in seeing what a development off of La Media would look like with both villages
developing concurrently. That type of phasing may be able to bring the village core in Village
5 on-line sooner. Commissioner Ray had suggested that staff start on the west end of the project
and work towards developing to the east. Staff had looked at those. The trigger points that Ms.
Luttrell mentioned could be accommodated under any of those scenarios. The off-site
improvements were based on dwelling units, so however the project was phased, staff could
adjust the Public Facilities Financing Plan to require the improvements be shifted to whatever
phase was adopted by the City Council. Staff still supported the applicant's phasing plan.
Commissioner Thomas stated that the colored chart regarding traffic was very helpful to him.
Mr. Rosaler stated that there was a matrix for off-site traffic improvements and basically what
Mr. Ullrich was able to determine in coming up with the traffic improvements was that at each
phase of development, off-site improvements would be required, at the first final map at the
100th building permit, 300th, 500th, and 800th building permit in that phase. Based on the
capacity of Telegraph Canyon Road at this point, no off-site improvements were necessary as
part of the first initial phase. He showed the Commission an overhead and explained when the
improvements would be made and in which phases. He noted that if the Commissioners changed
the phasing at all, staff would go back and adjust the matrix. He reiterated that this was all
based on building permits and dwelling units and trips generated out of SPA I. It was not a
problem; it was just an administrative exercise.
Commissioner Willett asked if them were changes to Palomar for an on-ramp onto 805?
PC Minutes -20- May 1, 1996
Mr. Rosaler stated that this data represented the interchange improvements. The other option
was Alternative A which selected Palomar as the off-site improvement. The plan gave two
options. Staff believed that Orange Avenue would probably be the one to be improved, because
the interchange improvements would be easier to do than at Palomar.
Chair Tuchscher stated that the colored pictures indicated to him that there was a lot of on-site
improvements, and not a lot of off-site improvements for the first phases of the project.
Commissioner Davis asked if the Palomar Street interchange for 805 would come in at any point
in this project or later?
Mr. Ullrich said it depended on which alternative was selected. If Alternative B was selected,
it was not necessary to have a half diamond at Palomar at buildout of the SPA. If Alternative
A, the half diamond must be in. The matrix that was in the Public Facilities Financing Plan
covered both alternatives. He had looked at the trip generation that was indicated in the traffic
analysis and placed the improvements as required by that analysis. They were within 300 or 400
trips. He had to make a decision based on the break-down that he had at 100, 300, 500. In
probably every instance, these improvements more than likely could be more or less guaranteed
in advance of need. And that was staff's intent.
Chair Tuchscher asked if the traffic model used had taken into account the next SPA area of
EastLake.
Mr. Ullrich replied that on some of the runs it did; on some of the runs it did not. The South
Bay build-out had EastLake in it.
Chair Tuchscher questioned whether that included the last SPA area.
Mr. Ullrich stated it had all the General Plan development in it, and the 2010 had a portion of
EastLake in it.
Chair Tuchscher asked about the timing of the next SPA process as it was being processed by
EastLake?
Mr. Ullrich said they were just starting the process of preparing the EIR for SPA III of
EastLake.
Chair Tuchscher questioned the timing for bringing that project on line?
Assistant Planning Director Lee said to his knowledge they had not made a decision in terms of
actual timing of the project. They were still in negotiations with Western Salt, so he doubted
that they had a specific schedule yet.
PC Minutes -21- May 1, 1996
Chair Tuchscher commented that relative to the phasing issue, he was not happy with the
phasing that staff was recommending. He thought the recommendation that the Planning
Commission had made previously as a tentative recommendation was more like what he wanted
to see.
Commissioner Thomas was concerned about whether the ownership and the potential problems
of West Coast's involvement should stop the Planning Commission from holding that up. West
Coast had approximately 288 acres that impacted the whole center corridor. It would he a better
opportunity to be able to go down that center and develop both sides. Since there was such a
big fight, and Baldwin was apparently trying to raise the funds to purchase that back, it may be
unclear.
Chair Tuchscher stated that he had a conversation with Jim Baldwin the day before, and he
wanted to make that part of the record. There was not any new news or information to convey.
He felt he had an obligation to do what was right from a planning standpoint, separate from all
the issues associated with potential changes of ownership, etc. He was not happy with staff's
recommendation, but it would make more sense to focus on one village or the other, rather than
come in from both sides. He thought that was probably more satisfactory to the applicants,
including probably West Coast. If the off-site improvements were not going to be done, the
improvements on-site should be done, and staff should make sure that the City is prepared for
the future and that the City gets their share of infrastructure. He was still an advocate for the
La Media phasing program.
Mr. Ullrich pointed out that the cost estimate for the widening of Telegraph Canyon Road was
$3.5 million, and the interchange improvements at $1.8 million.
Commissioner Thomas asked if La Media would cost $6 million?
Chair Tuchscher thought it would be between $6 million and $7 million.
Mr. Ullrich explained that the portion listed in the DIF was $2.2 million. He would have to
look elsewhere to see what the total was. The DIF currently had four lanes included, and it
would be updated when the western parcel was done.
Commissioner Salas commented that her concerns about the phasing remained and had not been
changed by anything that had been presented that evening. She thought there had to be a
commitment to the village concept and assurance that at least one village was built out as soon
as possible. She did not have a feeling about whether it should be focused on Village 1 or
Village 5, or the Chair's alternative. However, she did not like the spot development that was
being proposed by the applicant.
MS (Thomas/Ray) to change the phasing and start with the east of Paseo Ranchero to 2B
focusing on Village 1.
PC Minutes -22- May 1, 1996
Mr. Lee asked if staff could have some clarification. The Department shared some of the
Commission's concerns and had expressed that in the past in terms of looking at one village
versus the other, the phasing plan. That was carried forward to the Policy Committee, and that
was the phasing plan being included. If the City were to move into a phasing plan that
concentrated in Village 1, as an example, Mr. Lee thought the one thing that would be helpful
would be to leave the phasing element itself within that village more open than necessarily trying
to dictate phasing from west to east. He also needed clarification from the Commission as to
whether or not the temporary access on Telegraph could still be utilized. He thought the City
was still looking at potential cash flow, but the advantages of moving into that particular village,
at least, in terms of concentration of facilities--the school facility, the park facility, and trying
to develop that core certainly had an advantage. Whether or not the Planning Commission
wanted to tie the developer down in terms of not allowing the temporary access or specifically
starting the phasing from west to east, he wanted to make sure that was clear in the minds of
the Commissioners and that was the direction they wanted to take.
Chair Tuchscher said that from his perspective, La Media still made the most sense. He would
vote against the motion. For clarification purposes, he was against the temporary access. So
regardless of which way the motion went, that was his position on that particular small issue.
Commissioner Ray thought it was a common goal that La Media be put in one of the initial
phases. By voting for the motion on the floor and forcing the development from west to east,
would they still come upon this problem at the next phase, as far as La Media is concerned?
He and Mr. Tuchscher did not want to see two fragmented developments. They wanted them
to be tied together via La Media. The motion did not address 5, it was only addressing Village
1.
Mr. Lee stated that if construction moved from west to east, the phasing was switched, and the
temporary access was not allowed, La Media would have to come in at some stage. Basically,
at some point, when development moved into the second phase, La Media would have to be the
second point of access.
Chair Tuchscher clarified that if Phase 2B, as indicated on the map, became the first phase,
access would be gained by Pasco Ranchero into and toward the Village core and then phasing
north?
Mr. Lee stated that it would, in some manner.
Chair Tuchscher, looking at a cost issue, stated that he did not think anything was saved. It was
still a major infrastructure investment. The Planning Commission would have focused
development in one area and accomplished that goal which he felt was very important.
Mr. Lee stated that if the Planning Commission was not recommending the temporary access,
it was important to direct the phasing at either the west or the east end, or if they wanted to
PC Minutes -23- May 1, 1996
leave that open to the applicant to decide to bring development in from La Media and leave it
as phase 1, lB becoming lA and 2B becoming 2A.
Chair Tuchscher stated that if development started with 2B and did not allow a temporary access
point to build out subdivision-type homes, but put in some infrastructure and did some master
planned community in the traditional Chula Vista sense, from a development perspective, he
probably would rather build La Media and spur off of it in both directions as opposed to building
Pasco Ranchero, which would not give the entry statement and entry quality infrastructure that
was desired. The same property was being accessed, but the developer would be going about
it in a very expensive, convoluted manner by going around their ownership.
Mr. Lee replied that a different ownership may be involved, so there may be advantages to start
at the west end. He was asking the Planning Commission whether they wanted to direct it
specifically at the west end versus leaving it open at either the west or east, so that it could be
either Pasco or La Media. One of the major streets had to be put in with the first phase.
Chair Tuchscher felt that made sense, and asked the maker of the motion to see if that was
acceptable that the first phase be accessed via Pasco Ranchero or La Media without temporary
access from Telegraph Canyon.
Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification as to whether the first phase was 2B, or 2B and
lB.
Chair Tuchscher said that Mr. Lee was conveying that by going forward there may be an
advantage, especially in light of the potential for change of ownership, but that the Commission
might accomplish their goals by allowing some flexibility by access either off of La Media or
Pasco Ranchero, but not being specific as to which particular phase becomes Phase 1.
Commissioner Thomas said he was in concurrence that he did not like the temporary access.
Commissioner Ray stated that this way it forced the roadway to be put in, in any event, without
the temporary access.
MODIFIED MOTION
Commissioner Thomas modified the motion to add either thoroughfare.
Commissioner Ray concurred as the second.
Chair Tuchscher asked if there were any comments from the Commissioners or the audience.
Mr. Woodward said that they had come to somewhat the same view as the motion that was
before the Commission at their meeting with the staff the other day, and in their letter, that it
should be focused on Village 1. Excluding open space and road areas, the collateral was only
PC Minutes -24- May 1, 1996
10% of that village. It was 40% of Village 5. It made more sense; it would be less
controversy; still left plenty of land there for them to sell to the merchant builders, and it
advanced that infrastructure early. Mr. Woodward noted that the California Building magazine
had made the coinment regarding the newer traditional developments that "If homebuyers are
to be expected to forego their suburban American dream in exchange for a new urban
community, then the facilities that create the image of that community must be delivered when
the community opens." That would mean finishing one village before moving to another village.
He mentioned, for the record, that they had outlined in their letter that the City should wait until
the bankruptcy issues had been resolved. They were going to move the next week for relief
from the stay. In their letter, they had outlined the timing on that and hoped to have some kind
of resolution of this issue by mid to end of June, if all goes as they had indicated in their letter.
He urged that if anything was done to Village 5, that the Coinmission give it conceptual
approval and on concept basis.
Mr. Rosaler stated that staff had conferred and by focusing on Village 1, they did not see a
change in the trigger points. The neighborhood park and the community elementary school
would still come on line with the same number of dwelling units.
VOTE: 6-0 (Tarantino had left meeting)
Chair Tuchscher noted that the Planning Commission needed to go back to trigger points. There
was never a motion on that.
MSC (Ray/Salas) 6-0 (Tarantino had left meeting) to accept the trigger points as presented
at a prior meeting.
IE. SR-125 OVERCROSSING
Mr. Ullrich stated that at their April 10 meeting, the Planning Commission had tentative agreed
to delete the vehicular access to the EastLake Parkway from Village 5 to across the freeway.
One of the questions by the Commission was how to get funding for the overpass if the roadway
was not in place. Mr. Kilkenny had indicated to him that they had an agreement with CTV that
would provide for funding of that overcrossing if the plan shows the roadway. What the
Commission proposed to do by dedicating the right-of-way should suffice in obtaining funding
for the overcrossing. The only issue left was how to fund the remaining portion of the roadway
within Village 5. If it was a private street there would be no public funding that could be used.
If a public street, the fuming would be to use gas tax or some other funding that the City had
available, including General Fund, since it was not in the DIF program. Depending on whether
it was public or private, getting the surface improvements to the overpass might be a problem
in the furore. One way to get around that would be for the developer to dedicate the right-of-
way and put a letter of credit up or cash deposit to cover the improvements. The question there
would be how long to hold those funds.
PC Minutes -25- May 1, 1996
Chair Tuchscher asked if there was other development that might occur in the area that might
be a nexus to requiring that improvement; i.e., future EastLake SPA or something having to do
with the outparcels there owned by the water utilities or a later spire of the Ranch itself?.
Mr. Ullrich thought the problem would be having the nexus to require someone outside the area
to come in and pave that portion of the roadway. He thought it may be difficult to make that
connection.
Chair Tuchscher asked if there were other developments planned that would utilize that roadway
and/or that there would be a nexus?
Mr. Ullrich replied that potentially EastLake might, but he believed that EastLake would be built
out or very closely built out by the time SPA I went through, and so it would have to be a
condition early on. EastLake Greens already had their tentative map and that was not a condition
of it. It could not be added unless they agreed to it on a time extension.
Chair Tuchscher stated he thought everyone was satisfied with their previous action.
1G. OWNERSHIP CONDITION
Associate Planner Luttrell noted that two concerns were raised at the April 10 Planning
Commission. Staff had responded to those concerns by drafting two conditions, both of which
address the potential for multiple ownership within SPA 1. The first condition would give the
City the authority to deny subsequent development approvals and stop the issuance of building
permits within Village 5 of SPA I if the City felt there was any type of risk that the SPA would
not be implemented as approved. The second condition dealt with the provision of school sites
and would require the applicant to deliver an alternative site acceptable to the City and the
school district should they not be able to deliver the sites that are delineated on the SPA I plan.
Staff believed the two additional conditions would give the City adequate safeguards and
protection should the ownership within SPA I change at some point in the future.
Mr. Kilkenny stated that Village Development opposed the first condition. It was their intention
to retain title to the property. They thought it was inappropriate to place the condition there;
however, given the Planning Commission's prior action phasing first in Village 1 as opposed to
allowing development in Village 5, the condition may be of little consequence regardless. The
threat of a moratorium essentially in Village 5 was a very strong deterrent toward the ability to
sell any land within Village 5. Mr. Kilkenny said it was their hope to sell land in both Village
1 and Village 5 to be able to pay off their obligations to avoid losing title to property in Otay
Ranch. He felt the condition was hurtful to that goal and asked that it not be included.
Commissioner Ray asked why that would be a detriment.
Mr. Kilkenny replied that the language of the condition gave the City carte blanche authority to
impose a building permit moratorium in building in Village 5 if title was lost. The threat of
PC Minutes -26- May 1, 1996
losing title and the throat of imposing a building permit moratorium would be an obvious
disincentive for any merchant builder to buy any property in Village 5. Their near-term goal
was to sell property to be able to satisfy their obligations.
Commissioner Ray asked the City Attorney to commem on the actual intent of the condition.
Attorney Moore replied that it originated from the concern that the City Attorney's office had.
Originally, SPA I was based upon the assumption that them would be unified control of that
property. A party had now come forward to indicate that they intended to foreclose on a portion
of that property. A number of public facilities for Village 5 were to be located on the portion
on which they wished to foreclose. The Attorney's Office was concerned that if the foreclosure
occurred and West Coast, the new property owner, obtained possession of that property, the City
would not be able to look to Baldwin to provide those public facilities for Village 5. It would
be difficult to request West Coast to provide those facilities for all of Village 5. So the City
would be placed at a disadvantage in that they would not be able to obtain a number of those
facilities for the portion of Village 5 that would still be retained by Baldwin.
Commissioner Ray said he was partially under the understanding that any subsequent landowner
would still be required to put in their fair share of those infrastructure improvements.
Attorney Moore replied that under a normal scenario, that would be tree. In this case, West
Coast would probably be coming in to request a SPA Plan amendment. There is the issue of
nexus as to whether or not the City could mquim them to provide facilities for all of Village 5.
To require West Coast to be obligated for all of the facilities for Village 5 would probably be
legally problematic. Under a normal scenario, a master builder would sell out portions of their
property to merchant builders. The merchant builder had a control over what property they buy.
In this case, West Coast was not in that same situation.
With the Chair's permission, Mr. Kilkenny poimed out that, assuming the worst case scenario
and Village Development retained title of the property, if West Coast had objected to the multi-
family and some of the public sector land uses, and not objected to any of the land uses in
Village 1. Village ! compared to what was in the GDP was very beneficial to West Coast, a fact
that had not been mentioned very often. West Coast had not objected to any of the land uses
in this portion of the property. Threatening to impose a building moratorium on this portion of
the property was very hurtful to Village Development, and there was no controversy there. Mr.
Kilkenny said that was a very serious blow to them. He emphasized that no one was advocating
that any property owner or any potential property owner had an obligation to put in facilities
more than their proportionate share. The number of facilities located on the West Coast
collateral was surprisingly close to their proportionate share of facilities they would have upon
buildout of that portion of their collateral in terms of number of schools, number of park
acreage, and DIF fees paid for roads on their property. It was not planned that way; it was a
coincidence. The City had the trigger points which is what the City should be legitimately
concerned about. Village Development was obligated to satisfy those. Mr. Kilkenny stated that
they had not required any other property owner or asked any property owner to assume an unfair
PC Minutes -27- May 1, 1996
share of different facility requirements. Those facility requirements were met through the
payment of DIF fees or pioneering those facilities. If Village Development got to a trigger point
where they had to pioneer facilities and it meant they had to go to another property owner to
pioneer those facilities, then that was their obligation. If they could not do that, they would be
stopped. They should not arbitrarily be stopped because of some landowner change. With those
kinds of conditions imposed on the project, Village Development would be prohibited from
selling property, and prohibiting them from selling made it far more likely that someone else
would retain title.
Attorney Moore added that the point of this particular condition was to allow the City to have
the discretion to take a look at Village 5 if there was a change in ownership and perhaps replan
Village 5 to accommodate two owners of that property. There was no mandatory language that
the City would stop the issuance of building permits. It was merely a tool in case this occurred.
Commissioner Ray asked what was the determining factor as to whether or not this would be
invoked.
Attorney Moore said it was basically an enforcement mechanism. The intent of the provision
was to give the City the discretion to require Village 5 to be replanned to take into consideration
that there were now two property owners in Village 5.
Commissioner Ray asked what would make the City use its discretion to replan Village 5? What
is the threshold? At what point would the City invoke this right.
Attorney Moore replied that the City would invoke its right to replan Village 5 if there was a
change in ownership which the City Council determined to be detrimental to the concepts that
were approved by Village 5.
Commissioner Ray said that as long as those landowners agreed to the existing General
Development Plan or the SPA approvals that were pending, there would not be an issue. If they
went ahead and took title to portions of SPA I, but they were in agreement that they would
develop it per those existing agreements as far as the City was concerned, there would not be
an issue.
Attorney Moore concurred.
Commissioner Willett did not understand what language the City had to protect.
Chair Tuchscher said that, basically, Mr. Kilkenny's fear was that any change of ownership put
the City in a position to stop development at its discretion. He asked the City Attorney if that
was accurate?
Attorney Moore stated that was accurate.
PC Minutes -28- May 1, 1996
Commissioner Ray asked if a comment could be included that stated if the plan was not altered,
it was to be developed per the existing agreements, or similar verbiage, that could possibly help
to augment some of Mr. Kilkenny's concerns?
Attorney Moore replied that it could be included.
Chair Tuchscher asked Mr. Woodward of West Coast Land Fund if he would like to comment.
Mr. Woodward felt the subject would be covered in the development agreement. That was the
whole purpose of a development agreement, for a developer to get some assurance that they
could go ahead and build. West Coast had some concerns about the condition. They thought
Attorney Moore's proposal was in the right direction, but preferred more flexibility. West Coast
was questioning why they didn't extend this to Village 1. They had heard the explanation, but
did not think it should be limited to the core. Mr. Woodward said they had given their
comparison based on their total ownership and how they stacked up with respect to the single-
family acreage, multi-family, community purpose, schools, affordable housing, parks, etc. He
disagreed with Mr. Kilkenny's calculations.
Chair Tuchscher asked Mr. Woodward his position on the issue of the multiple ownership
condition.
Mr. Woodward felt it would be broader, extending to SPA I. He said he would like it
acknowledged that there could be a problem and that the unified ownership or unified control
theory of development may not work, with two owners, one having 40% of the land, the other
with 60%. They may see things differently and there may be an occasion for the City to take
another look at how that village or how that area is planned.
Commissioner Davis thought the premise the Planning Commission had used was that it had
been decided what was going to be, where it was going to be, despite who owned it. She felt
that the City should proceed the way that it was intended. This was the best plan for the area
and it was there whether Baldwin owned it or somebody else. Those other things would be
worked out.
Chair Tuchscher could not imagine why anyone would want this provision in there other than
a City to use some kind of leverage. West Coast had purchased security interest in a piece of
property that was going through a process. They did their due diligence. They bought their
note from Home Cap/RTC at a deep discount. They ended up with some stuff that might not
be economically feasible, but he did not feel any obligation to encourage the replanning of that
at any time in the future. Those involved had worked hard to come up with a plan that made
sense, and he did not like the provision.
Commissioner Salas asked the City Attorney if the trigger points wouldn't give the City that
guarantee?
PC Minutes -29- May 1, 1996
Attorney Moore gave the scenario of using the trigger point to determine that at one point they
would not be able to provide the park now proposed for Village 5. The problem is that they
originally were supposed to provide the park on a property that they no longer own. So they
would have to find an alternative site on the property, and that may, in fact, change the
complexity of Village 5. So this condition was for the City's benefit to allow it to take a look
at Village 5, if there were going to be two property owners now on that site. That may change
the way that project looks.
More discussion ensued about the trigger points and development.
Chair Tuchscher asked if staff could comment on that from the trigger point standpoint, how the
trigger points were broken out, i.e., phases and/or villages, or if they were SPA I overall and
not tied down to the specifics per the City Attorney's concern.
Associate Planner Luttrell replied that the first park would probably be in Village I, although
the trigger points nor the conditions of approval stated that specifically. It just indicated that a
neighborhood park would be constructed at a certain number of building permits issued. In
terms of schools, it was more specific. The schools were identified per village and based on
school district recommendations as to where they wanted the first elementary school to be
located and where they wanted the second and third elementary schools to be located.
Chair Tuchscher stated that the trigger points and tying those down to specific phases or specific
areas within the various villages need be tied down and linked to the phasing plan directly, so
that Phase 2B could not be built out with a park in Phase lA and satisfy the conditions. He felt
that was where the City Attorney's concern was.
Attorney Moore concurred, and stated that it was another mechanism in order to alleviate that
concern.
Chair Tuchscher felt that in order to plan for this, it should be taken care of rather than putting
it off to some development agreement stage, or including a condition that left it absolutely
nebulous until the issue happened, which basically froze everything up and perhaps tied
Baldwin's hand from solving the problem.
Attorney Moore replied that it was something that staff would need to look at.
Chair Tuchscher noted that it was evident that it should be revisited and the trigger points
reconsidered after staff had an opportunity to examine how the trigger points could work in
relation to the Planning Commission's earlier recommended phasing plan. He thought this item
should be continued to another meeting.
Mr. Kilkenny was concerned about the item moving forward in a timely manner. The City
Council was scheduled to consider it on May 14, based on the assumption that the Planning
Commission would be able to complete deliberations at this meeting. The remaining issues on
PC Minutes -30- May 1, 1996
the matrix were issues that the Planning Commission had visited before and were not that
difficult. He understood this issue was complex, but was not as tough as it sounded. He
explained that schools were off-site and not in Village 1 at all, and were through a Mello-Roos
assessment district. They were not affected by this issue. There were two elementary schools.
The trigger point showed the first one started in Village 1. That was not an issue. The second
one did not occur until 3,500 units were built. The issues would have resolved themselves by
3,500 units of development. Regarding traffic-related improvements, staff's presentation had
shown how they work in some sequential manner and was a logical administrative exercise. The
City had the power to go ahead and condemn property for streets, sewer and drainage.
Regarding parks, the community park was off-site, not on West Coast property. It was on
Baldwin's property and taken care of through the payment of fees. Regarding neighborhood
parks, Mr. Kilkenny thought that if staff was directed to prepare a phasing schedule tied to
phases based upon the potential of West Coast receiving title with respect to neighborhood parks
and present that to the City Council, they would have the ability to solve the problem.
Attorney Moore stated that, in addition, there were two affordable housing sites located in
Village 5, and two located in Village 1. There was a requirement that they needed 10%
affordable housing requirement, which they had. They could probably meet that requirement
by using the sites just in Village 1. She believed there was a problem with the idea of having
affordable housing that dense located on just two sites versus four. And the problem was that
if Baldwin received its entitlements for Village 5 and went forward with development and met
their trigger points in Village 1, there was no way the City could really prevent them from
continuing to build the rest of the portion of Village 5 that they then owned.
Mr. Kilkenny said there was an R-29 multi-family site within Village 5 of sufficient density, and
if the multi-family opportunity sites were expanded to include that additional site, the opportunity
would be there to solve the problem regardless of ownership. These were solvable problems,
and keeping to schedule was imperative, because certification of the EIR was necessary to keep
the annexation on track before LAFCO, which was the critical path.
Commissioner Thomas was not happy with the requirements of the staff. West Coast lcnew what
they were getting into when they decided to go forward with their proposal. To try to tie up
Village 1 and tie the hands of Baldwin was not good. With the addition of a few words, phrases
or sentences, it could be resolved. He would be more inclined to get that talcen care of to keep
everything on schedule.
Attorney Moore added that the May 14 date to City Council was tentative, because the City had
been requested to obtain a relief from stay order.
Commissioner Willett asked if this would have an impact on the annexation process?
Mr. Jamriska stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission had approved and
certified the environmental impact report, as well as the findings and statement of overriding
considerations, as well as certain amendments and prezonings. That was done so staff could
PC Minutes -31- May 1, 1996
begin to facilitate the processing of the annexation. That was a natural component of it, because
the EIR contained an annexation element. That item could still proceed through the Council on
April 14, if that was the decision of management. As it related to LAFCO, because it related
to the landfill agreement and the property tax agreement, City staff and LAFCO staff were
aiming for a joint sphere and annexation action the first Monday in July.
Chair Tuchscher concluded that it did not impede the annexation or hurt the critical path
associated with annexation.
Mr. Jamriska stated that if Council decided to hear it separately from the SPA, it did not
interfere with that process. He believed it would be staff's recommendation that the Council
would indeed hear those items on May 14 without the SPA, if the Commission did not make
their decision on the SPA at this meeting.
Chair Tuchscher believed Council was motivated to move the annexation forward quickly, so
there was probably no concern there. Mr. Kilkenny had gone through those items relatively
quickly with a relatively simple answer to each, and Mr. Thomas had alluded to the fact that he
felt the Planning Commission could, with some modification, tie those trigger points down that
would satisfy City staff. Mr. Tuchscher asked if staff agreed with most of the representations
that Mr. Kilkenny had made associated with solutions to each of those in relation to this issue?
Mr. Jamriska said that staff concurred. Attorney Moore said staff could look at it with the
applicant to see if they could tie down the trigger points, so that they would be more specific.
Chair Tuchscher concluded that from staff's perspective, Mr. Kilkenny's representations about
the modifications there could be implemented, and without benefit of having reviewed those, the
City Attorney wanted to hold back absolute opinion. From his perspective, Chair Tuchscher
thought that was the direction to go.
Commissioner Davis asked if the Attorney was acknowledging that they were under the one
ownership today.
Chair Tuchscher stated that, as he understood it, the intent of the motion would be to tie down
the trigger points to specifics that would allow for implementation of those trigger points and
all the infrastructure associated, while not putting a condition on approvals, that would allow the
City to have discretionary control at some point in the future; i.e., implementing some type of
arbitrary moratorium in reference to replanning the project.
Attorney Moore concurred.
Chair Tuchscher asked that Mr. Kilkenny repeat his representations on the trigger points and
tying those down to specifics, and make that in the form of a motion.
PC Minutes -32- May 1, 1996
Mr. Kilkenny stated that relative to parks, community parks was an off-site issue satisfied with
the payment of fees, with the trigger point to dedicate a park at a later date on property
controlled by the applicant.
With respect to neighborhood parks, the draft conditions of approval gave the Director of Parks
& Recreation the authority to determine the park location and improvements at the various
thresholds, so the City had within their power the ability to solve the neighborhood park
problem, should there be a park problem.
Attorney Moore interjected that the problem was that if Baldwin no longer owned property
where those parks were supposed to be located in Village 5, she did not know how the City
could require them at that point to find another site that was not designated as a park under the
SPA plan.
Chair Tuchscher asked the character of a neighborhood park from an acreage standpoint?
Mr. Kilkenny replied that except in SPA I, they were around 10 acres. The Village 5
neighborhood park was approximately 10 acres. The large one. There was also a second one
around 5 to 6 acres.
Chair Tuchscher asked Assistant Planning Director Lee to comment on that.
Mr. Lee stated that the property did not have to be in the applicant's ownership at that time.
The City could use powers of condemnation. Baldwin would be required to pay for that.
Chair Tuchscher said there would probably be no problem getting City Council to do something
like that on undeveloped raw land that would be designated as a park.
Attorney Moore noted that the City would pay for condemning the land.
Mr. Lee stated it would be at fair market value paid for with park fees.
Chair Tuchscher believed that since the applicant's development would have been stopped unless
they solved that problem, they would be motivated to solve that problem.
Commissioner Davis was concerned that if Baldwin had the permits and was ready to build,
there was no incentive for him to do what he needed to do at the trigger point until it got past
that. Another builder could be waiting for a permit and couldn't get it.
Mr. Kilkenny said that after the first 500 units, the requirement of the planning and the
conditions of approval was essentially that they were ahead of the park standard. They were not
allowed to go behind. It was not as if they received the benefit of the park and then built the
parks thereafter.
PC Minutes -33- May 1, 1996
Commissioner Ray stated that permit 501 did not get pulled until the park is in.
Commissioner Davis said the situation occurred once with thresholds, where traffic from one
project exceeded the thresholds. The other project couldn't pull permits, because the threshold
was exceeded.
Chair Tuchscher replied that the City had always operated on a first-come, first-serve basis. He
asked if that general promise did not apply here?
Mr. Kilkenny said the other developer had park land within their ownership, so the ability to
solve that problem was there. He did not think there was a problem in the real world. He
thought it was a theoretical concern. All parties were going to be motivated to meet and satisfy
the thresholds.
Regarding schools, Mr. Kilkenny said the high school and the middle schools were outside of
SPA I and were taken care of through a Mello Roos assessment district, which would pay for
the acquisition of the properties. The elementary schools were also addressed through an
assessment district which were going to pay for acquisition of the properties. The first
elementary school was in Village 1, the second elementary school was at 3,450 units at which
time he thought all the issues would be resolved and all applicants would be working towards
meeting that threshold in a timely manner. Mr. Kilkenny remarked that just because a school
site is in your ownership, you're not obligated to dedicate that school site. The school site is
acquired through a Mello Roos assessment district.
Traffic improvements is an administrative function and staff would be able to change the phasing
based upon the different phasing alternatives selected.
Mr. Kilkenny stated there was no problem with sewer and drainage.
If the affordable housing plan was modified to show as potential affordable housing sites those
under the control of the Baldwin Company in Village 5, Mr. Kilkenny thought it would satisfy
that potential problem. He had previously identified those sites.
Attorney Moore stated that their concern was with the trigger points. Baldwin was not required
to build those improvements in that particular village, so they could satisfy the trigger points,
for instance, for the parks in Village 1 by building a bigger park. Then Village 5 would be left
with no ability for the City to require Baldwin to put a park in Village 5 because they had
already received their entitlements, and then the City would have to look to West Coast to
provide the park. There would be difficulty for nexus reasons requiring the developer to provide
a park big enough for all of Village 5.
Commissioner Ray asked if Village 1 had the 12-acre park and they did not have to put anything
in Village 5, when Village 1 was completed and the developer wanted to pull permits for Village
5, the City could deny the permits.
PC Minutes -34- May 1, 1996
Attorney Moore said the problem was that if Baldwin received their entitlements for Village 5,
they would be able to proceed with development for Village 5, but they no longer owned the
property for the public facilities for Village 5.
Commissioner Ray asked if the SPA could be approved with the condition that they could not
get final approval or could not pull permits until the new thresholds were met? Stick to the
same plan, but go ahead and overbuild a park or whatever the concern may be on one village
and not going pull permits for the next village until the City is satisfied the amenities would be
there, whoever developed the property.
Attorney Moore said the condition that had been proposed did something like that.
Commissioner Ray said that whoever was there had to live by the plan, anyway.
Attorney Moore thought the problem was that a separate property owner for a portion of Village
5 could not be required by the City to build public facilities that go beyond the impact of their
particular project. That meant that they would have to build public facilities that would be
roughly proportioned to the impacts of their particular project, which was 40% of Village 5.
Chair Tuchscher commented that his problem with that argument, the nexus issue, was that in
this circumstance, the Planning Commission was not dealing with raw land that was going
through a process of development. They were dealing with some people that have financed a
piece of property that takes a swath through and bisects a project. He asked if the Attorney was
saying that the Planning Commission had to treat this just like a raw land parcel that was going
through a process or initiating its own new process? At some point in the future?
Attorney Moore stated that staff would have to look at the situation when West Coast came in
and asked for an amendment to the SPA Plan. Her concern was that the City would not be able
to require Baldwin to provide those public facilities for Village 5. Regardless of what the City
did with West Coast, the City would not be able to require Baldwin to provide the rest of the
facilities for Village 5, except for the trigger points. But the trigger points may be satisfied by
providing a number of facilities in Village 1. She thought it was worth staff looking into to see
if staff could tighten up the trigger points for some of the areas of concern.
Commissioner Davis said she understood Ms. Moore's concerns legally, but she thought the
Planning Commission had to make their decision based on the premise of one owner. In the
furore, the Planning Commission would have to make decisions that may be different based on
changes.
Chair Tuchscher was not comfortable with staff's recommendation; however, he was not sure
he had heard any solution that made any more sense than that. He said he had a tendency to
agree with Ms. Davis. The City had provisions, law and ordinances, resolutions, et cetera, that
allowed master planned communities under a wholly owned condition. The Planning
Commission did not have to look at the potential of change of ownership and, perhaps this got
PC Minutes -35- May 1, 1996
more complex if Baldwin sells off some major parcels of land. He was not happy with the
condition either.
Mr. Lee said it was not a lot different than areas where the City had multiple ownerships.
Subdivisions were developed. In some cases, the parks were built a little later because the City
was not to that area of development. The City was collecting fees; then proceeded to have
dedication and development of the parks. It was possible with this ownership issue that the
parks in Village 5 may come at a little later date. The City had Telegraph Canyon Estates on
the north side of Otay Lakes Road, which had no park facilities. The park fees were used to
develop parks in adjacent areas.
Chair Tuchscher asked if Commissioner Thomas had completed his motion.
Commissioner Davis stated she would like to delete the multiple ownership condition.
MS (Thomas/Davis) to deny staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the Planning Commission should include caveat to go back and
tighten up some of the trigger points, or just to turn it down?
Chair Tuchscher did not think they could. He thought it was evident that the Planning
Commission was not going to be able to do that at that meeting and satisfy the City Attorney and
the City staff. The choices were to either try and revisit this issue, tie it down that evening or
at some later date, or move it forward with simply a denial of that particular issue. Perhaps
another way to handle it was for the Commission to authorize the Chair to speak on behalf of
the Commission at the City Council evaluation of the project analysis. This particular issue
possibly would not be resolved that evening, but the Planning Commission could move forward
and then staff could assist him in articulating the Planning Commission's concerns and confusion
at the Council hearing.
Commissioner Thomas said that he would reword his motion to deny staff's recommendation on
the multiple ownership condition.
Commissioner Ray asked if the Planning Commission wanted to revisit trigger points and add
some verbiage that would tie this into a phasing item?
Commissioner Thomas said that the Chair would go ahead and meet with staff.
Commissioner Ray said all they had to do was to include words that say tie the trigger points
to the phasing plan, and leave it at that. The Planning Commission had already agreed on what
the trigger points were. Now it was just how they were applied.
Commissioner Davis stated that they were already tied to units.
PC Minutes -36- May 1, 1996
Commissioner Salas said she felt a trigger point may be needed and therefore the developer was
not obligated to do something elsewhere. She would vote against the motion.
Chair Tuchscher said the motion on the floor was simply to deny the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Thomas stated the motion on the floor was to deny the staff recommendation on
the multiple ownership.
Mr. Jamriska clarified that there were two items relating to multiple ownerships. One was the
multiple ownerships that had been dominating the conversation, which related to the potential
stopping of issuance of building permits within Village 5. The second portion of staff's
recommendation basically said that if the applicant was unable to deliver any of the school sites
required through the conditions, applicant shall at the time that such site is required take such
actions necessary to deliver an alternate site. He asked if it was the Planning Commission's
intent to deny both of them.
Mr. Kilkenny said that he did not address specifically in his testimony the second multiple-
ownership condition, with which he had no problem. It they could not deliver a school site,
they would have to deliver an alternative site satisfactory to both the City and the School
District. There were other conditions in the project relative to trigger points and phasing that
said essentially the same thing in other words.
Commissioner Thomas thought they needed to vote on them separately. He wanted to make the
motion that the Planning Commission deny the multiple ownership that they had been talking
about, which was what?
Mr. Jamriska stated that 1D was the condition relating to the issue of stopping permits in Village
5.
Commissioner Thomas clarified that the motion was to turn down staff's recommendation
on ID.
VOTE: 5-1 (Salas against; Tarantino had left the meeting)
MS (Ray/Thomas) 5-1 (Salas against; Tarantino had left meeting) to make a motion that
under Item IG, article 9E of the conditions, that the Planning Commission deny staff's
recommendation, recognizing the multiple ownership condition.
IIt. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Commissioner Davis asked if that was the temporary road?
Ms. Luttrell stated that she was going to suggest in her presentation that that condition be
deleted. It was condition number 4C under street right-of-way and improvements. Based on
PC Minutes -37- May 1, 1996
the Planning Commission's discussion previously regarding phasing, she believed that condition
should be deleted from the conditions of approval. In the packet was a red-line/strike-out
version of the conditions which reflected their discussion and tentative action taken at the April
24th meeting. Ms. Luttrell noted that at the suggestion of the Planning Department, an
additional condition had been placed on the dais, noted as Exhibit 4 in the memorandum,
concerning the provision of a private sector project manager being appointed to deal with all of
SPA 1. Regarding park credit, she noted that any parks located within gated communities would
not receive park credit.
Chair Tuchscher asked for an explanation of a note on the matrix, under Other Positions, that
staff and applicant agree except as identified in this paper.
Ms. Luttrell replied that it referred to issues that were discussed previously that might have been
conditions of approval, such as the two that were just discussed regarding multiple ownership,
specifically.
Commissioner Ray asked if issues such as small park credit criteria, gated communities,
affordable housing, have to be approved or voted on prior to approving the SPA 1 conditions
of approval.
Ms. Luttrell stated the Planning Commission was for the 25 to 50 percent and that was reflected
in the conditions of approval.
Commissioner Ray asked if it changed, because the motion failed 3 to 4 to allow the minimum
the Planning Commission had voted to approve, it could be revisited, because those were only
tentative actions.
Ms. Luttrell concurred. Staff could change the conditions of approval to reflect any action that
the Planning Commission might make.
Commissioner Ray stated that they would then have to go back and re-vote on conditions of
approval.
Chair Tuchscher decided to leave the conditions of approval to the end. He asked staff if they
were prepared to move on to the on-site project manager condition.
On-Site Project Manager Condition
Ms. Luttrell said that, again, this was at the request of the Planning Department and it was
related to the possibility of multiple ownerships. They were requesting that the services of a
private sector project manager be employed to provide review and coordination processes for
SPA I, and a private sector manager review submittals prior to submittal to the City of Chula
Vista.
Mr. Lee added that this would be no different than the way EastLake presently operates, or
Rancho del Rey, or any of the major developers. Staff's concern was that there may be several
PC Minutes -38- May 1, 1996
owners and staff did not want just a series of subdivisions submitted to the City and no point
person and no one coordinating from the private sector.
Chair Tuchscher stated that regardless of the number of ownerships in this SPA area, one focal
point would act as a master developer, even if perhaps there were multiple ownerships. He
asked if that was what staff was trying to achieve.
Mr. Lee said it was not so much a developer, but it would be the coordinator of the plans from
the private sector.
MSC (Willett/Ray) 6-0 (Tarantino had left meeting) to approve staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Davis suggested that, due to the lateness of the hour, the staff presentation be
skipped unless the Planning Commission needed it, since they had been through this before?
Small Park Credit Criteria
Commissioner Ray asked the City Attorney if Parks & Recreation came back with a policy that
changed that credit, did that automatically get changed within this context, or if this was a stand-
alone vote, irrespective of what the Planning or the Park & Recreation Department did.
Chair Tuchscher said he understood that the Park & Recreation Department had a
recommendation, and the Planning Commission had a recommendation. Council would make
a decision, and would implement a program for this particular item.
Commissioner Ray was concerned that there would be a citywide standard implemented at some
point that would then override anything the Planning Commission was voting on.
Attorney Moore said it would not.
Commissioner Salas said she had voted against the motion that the Planning Commission had
put forth because she wanted to go with the recommendation of Parks & Recreation for 25 %
percent and the maximum of 50%, and her vote would stay that way.
· Ms. Luttrell stated that the Planning Commission had approved the 25% to 50% range. The
first motion for the greater percentage failed.
MS (Thomas/Willett) to approve the 25% to 50% range.
Commissioner Ray clarified the Planning Commission discussion had led them to say they did
not want to exceed what the Park & Recreation Commission had approved.
Ms. Luttrell said that at the last meeting, the Department had recommended zero. The
Commission recommended 25 % to 50%. The Planning Commission's first motion was 50% to
100%. That failed. The motion that passed was 25% to 50%, which upheld Parks &
Recreation Commission action.
PC Minutes -39- May 1, 1996
Commissioner Davis asked if there was a tag-on about exceeding the park recommendation?
Commissioner Ray answered negatively. The discussion was that the Planning Commission did
not want to recommend something that was higher than the Parks & Recreation Commission.
VOTE: 6-0 (Tarantino had left meeting)
Timing of Credit For Neighborhood Parks
Commissioner Thomas stated his only concern had been the warranty on the parks. Who would
be responsible if anything was wrong? It had been indicated that it would go back to Baldwin,
and Mr. Thomas said he was okay with giving them credit at the beginning and not wait several
months.
MSC (Thomas/Davis) 6-0 (Tarantino had left meeting) to reconfirm the Planning
Commission's previous motion on this matter, with credit upon completion.
Park and School Located Adjacent to Each Other
MSC (Davis/Ray) 6-0 (Tarantino had left meeting) to approve staff's recommendation.
Access to EastLake Parkway
MSC (Thomas/Davis) 6-0 (Tarantino had left meeting) to deny the staff recommendation
and reaffirm the Planning Commission's previous vote.
Gated Communities
MSC (Ray/Thomas) 6-0 (Tarantino had left meeting) to reaffirm the Planning Commission's
prior motion.
Additional Village Design Plan Modifications
MSC (Ray/Davis) 6-0 (Tarantino had left meeting) to approve the errata sheets and their
corrections to be included in the final approved document.
Ranch-Wide Affordable Housing Plan Modifications
MSC (Ray/Davis) 6-0 (Tarantino had left meeting) to approve the errata sheets and their
corrections to be included in the final approved document.
SPA-Wide Affordable Housing Plan Modifications
MSC (Ray/Davis) 6-0 (Tarantino had left meeting) to approve the errata sheets and their
corrections to be included in the final approved document.
PC Minutes -40- May 1, 1996
Chair Tuchscher then returned to consideration of the following:
ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CM-95-01; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE
OTAY RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) ONE PLAN
INCLUDING THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS;
OVERALL DESIGN PLAN; VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN; PUBLIC
FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN; PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE
AND TRAILS PLAN; REGIONAL FACILITIES REPORT; PHASE 2
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN; NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY
CONSERVATION PLAN; RANCH-WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PLAN; SPA ONE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN; AND
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (Continued from April 24, 1996)
1H, SPA 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
MSC (Ray/Thomas) 6-0 (Tarantino had left meeting) to approve the staff recommendation
with the noted changes from the discussions during the meeting.
PCM-95-01 SPA Plan
Attorney Moore requested that the Planning Commission consider staff's suggestion to
recommend approval of Phase II RMP with respect to SPA 1 and require an amendment to the
document before any further development can occur, as approved by the Board of Supervisors,
and that the Conveyance Plan be approved on condition that a development agreement be entered
into with the City.
Chair Tuchscher asked if the applicant was in agreement with that. The applicant indicated he
was.
MS (Ray/Thomas) to recommend approval of Phase II RMP with respect to SPA 1 and
require an amendment to the document before any further development can occur, as
approved by the Board of Supervisors, and that the Conveyance Plan be approved on
condition that a development agreement be entered into with the City.
Mr. Jamriska, for the record, noted that this was Resolution PCM-95-01. that dealt with the SPA
I Plan and all the other documents that had discussed in various stages of issues, not only that
evening, but previously.
VOTE: 6-0 (Tarantino had left meeting)
PCM-95-01B, PC District Regulations
Mr. Jamriska stated that was a resolution that basically sustained all their previous actions.
PC Minutes -41- May 1, 1996
Commissioner Ray noted that it was inclusive of that evening's actions, for the record.
MS (Ray/Davis) 6-0 (Tarantino had left the meeting) to approve PCM-95-01B on the PC
District Regulations with the aforementioned changes from that evening's meeting and
previous meetings on the same subject.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Assistant Planning Director Lee requested that the Planning Commission meeting of May 8th
be cancelled. It had been held open in case the Ranch needed to be continued. However, staff
would like to cancel that meeting, and have the workshop on May 8th at 5:30. The MSCP
program needed to be brought before the Commission prior to going to City Council on May
14th. It would also mean that the regular workshop would be canceled for May 15th. May 8th
would be a dinner workshop.
He also noted that there was only one item scheduled for the meeting of May 22. If the
Commission wished to cancel that, it would place their next meeting on June 12.
MSC (Ray/Thomas) 6-0 to cancel the regular meeting of May 8, schedule a workshop for
5:30 on May 8, and cancel the regular workshop of May 15 and regular meeting of May
22.
Chair Tuchscher noted that he and Commissioner Salas had conflicts on June 12.
ITEM 3: UPDATE OF COUNCIL ITEMS
Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that, regarding the issue of the limitation of speaking three
minutes versus five minutes, the Commission had a letter from the Attorney's office.
Commissioner Tuchscher asked if that could be moved to another meeting. Mr. Lee thought
it could be discussed as part of the next workshop. The Commissioners agreed.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS - None.
ADJOURNMENT AT 11:45 P.M. TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1996, AT 5:30 P.M. IN CONFERENCE ROOMS
2/3.
Planning Commission
(m:\home\planning\nancy\pc96min\pc5-1 .min)