Valley Roadrunner Online Search

SEPTEMBER 1

 

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.

Copyright© 2010, The Valley Roadrunner