Planning commission to review Accretive vote
September 10
Normally the adoption of minutes by the Planning
Commission is routine. But in the case of the Accretive Group’s
request for a PAA (Plan Amendment Author-ization) for its development
on Valley Center’s west side, it may be key to understanding
what’s ahead for them—and for residents in the neighborhood.
The Accretive Group’s CEO Randy Goodson
and his investors face “the lady or the tiger” early
in 2011 after the Board of Supervisors votes on the new General
Plan. This assumes that the board completes that 13-year task
on its expected schedule.
The 1,746 unit project that Accretive hopes
to develop on 416 acres of rolling farmland east of Old Hwy
395 and south of West Lilac Road will get yet another Planning
Commission hearing for its PAA if, in fact, the commission votes
to confirm the minutes of its Aug. 6 hearing.
Commissioner Adam Day, whose motion would have
extended the PAA’s consideration to next year, was absent
Aug. 20, which was the next meeting after the vote was taken.
He sent word he “needed additional time to study the minutes,”
and requested a delay in their adoption. His request was honored
and the vote on the minutes should come at their Sept. 10 meeting.
The bureaucratic processing of this PAA—normally
a preliminary step for developers—now looks increasingly
like a Russian babushka nesting doll, where you open one and
find another, even smaller, a possible fate awaiting the Accretive
project.
If the Aug. 6 minutes are approved, Accretive
faces the task of convincing the County to shoehorn its 1,746
units into acreage that would be allotted 82 units under the
new General Plan—a density increase of 2,025% —within
weeks of the Supervisors’ vote to codify its long-range
regional planning strategy, a process that has consumed over
$16 million in taxpayer funds since 1997.
The Planning Commission has held three hearings
so far on the Accretive PAA: March 5, June 12 and Aug. 6. At
the Aug. 6 meeting the Commission adopted Day’s motion
to continue the hearing until after “the Board’s
substantive determination on the status of the General Plan.”
The motion came with strings attached—“technical
studies requested on traffic, water, wastewater and schools”
which were requested, but not mandated by the commission.
Approving 1,746 homes on terrain designated
for 82 could prove more of an about-face than the Supervisors
would want to consider so soon after approving the new General
Plan. Day, citing “the fact that we’re at the eleventh
hour on the GP2020 process, and the Board’s vote on Merriam
Mountain and where the General Plan is, or is not” said
his “initial thought is to continue this hearing …
and in the meantime, to attempt to request—if possible—from
the applicant some additional studies that will put us in a
better position to consider this project after we hear where
the board’s going.”
Further, Accretive was given “fair warning”
by commissioners to return with a scaled-back project more in
line with density in the neighborhood, which is primarily agriculture.
Bryan Woods, a 17-year veteran on the commission,
stated in his first comment on the motion, “Speaking to
the applicant about this motion, I’m not going to support
the PAA unless when you do come back there are some changes
that I have suggested. I do believe that getting too close to
the cactus farm is wrong. I do believe that the number of units
is too high. If you can bring those more into line, I would
be much more amenable to supporting you and letting you go forward.
I’m not saying ruin your project, but your community character
is around—it’s one hundred and eighty (degrees)
off right now—and I think you need to rethink that to
gain my support.”
The issue of whether the studies were requested
or required resulted in the three week delay as members of the
public and Goodson himself sought confirmation from Mark Slovick,
Dept. of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) project manager. It also
resulted in Recording Secretary Cheryl Jones preparing a 53-page
transcript of the motion and the discussion by the commissioners
that followed.
“Requesting” but not requiring
that the developer provide technical studies may be a savvy
move by the commission. By not mandating the studies at this
point it prevents any claim by the developer that he has acquired
a vested right to approval based on expenditures “required.”
Extensive discussion by the commission on the
infrastructure challenges facing Accretive led Woods to state,
pointedly, “I do believe—to the maker of the motion—we’re
not looking for large studies, we’re looking for directive
studies to give credence.”
“Credence,” then, appears to be
the name of the game.
County staff is now setting up its protocol
for handling what could still be the same original project—1,746
units with no studies on traffic, water, wastewater and schools,
if Accretive wants to risk losing votes at the Commission next
year. (It needs four.) Or the project could morph into something
smaller, but less profitable. For developers, the question is,
“What’s behind the door—the lady, or the tiger?”
Official word from Rich Grunow, planning manager
for DPLU, is that “based on the draft minutes from the
August 6th hearing, the Planning Commission requested, but did
not require, the submittal of technical studies. If the applicant
chooses to submit technical studies, the studies would need
to analyze the proposed Land Use Designation, density and total
number of dwelling units (i.e., if the applicant reduces their
proposed density, the studies would need to reflect that).”
Grunow adds, “Staff would need to review
a revised proposal in order to provide a thoughtful recommendation
to the Planning Commission. We expect that the applicant would
submit any changes to staff prior to presenting them to the
Planning Commission.”
Grunow concludes, “A revised proposal
would be reviewed pursuant to the same criteria as the original
proposal, including consistency with existing and planned land
uses in the vicinity and in the community, including the goals
and policies of the Valley Center Community Plan, availability
of adequate infrastructure commensurate with the project needs,
comments from the Planning Group, known site constraint factors
such as, but not limited to, steep slopes or wetlands that would
make the request inconsistent with environmental conservation
goals and programs.”
The minutes will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission at 9 a.m. on Friday, Sept. 10 at the Dept. of Planning
and Land Use, 5201 Ruffin Rd. in San Diego.
