HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1988-2288 ORDINANCE NO. 2288
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA REGULATING THE PROCESSING OF LAND USE
PROPOSALS WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, on January 12, 1988, the City Council adopted
Resolution NO. 13413 approving Part Two of the Montgomery
Specific Plan; and,
WHEREAS, several of the zoning districts in Montgomery
which were originally established under County jurisdiction are
not consistent with Part Two of the newly adopted Montgomery
Specific Plan, and, therefore, need amendment; and,
WHEREAS, in the interim period between the adoption of
the Specific Plan and the amendment of the zoning, there is an
inconsistency between the two which must be resolved; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, on May 3, 1988, adopted
Ordinance No. 2266, entitled, wan Interim Ordinance of the City
of Chula Vista Regulating the Processing of Land Use Proposals
which are Inconsistent with Part Two of the Montgomery Specific
Plan, "for a period of 90 days; and,
WHEREAS, Section II of Ordinance No. 2283 provides:
"Upon a four-fifth's vote, this ordinance shall become
effective immediately and shall be effective for ninety (90) days
from its adoption. Within said period, the City Clerk shall
notice a public hearing for consideration of an extension of this
ordinance for a one-year period.", and
WHEREAS, the proposed one-year extension of Ordinance
No. 2283 is presently needed for the protection of the growth,
development, design, and conservation policies of the Montgomery
Specific Plan, as well as the interests of proponents of
development projects which have been substantially processed by
the City; and,
WHEREAS, staff believes that the rezoning of the lands
of Montgomery, as called for under Part Three, "The
Implementation Program," of the Montgomery Specific Plan, will be
substantially completed within the proposed one-year time
extension of Ordinance No. 2283, and that the need for its
interim provisions will then no longer exist.
-1-
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
ordain:
SECTION I: All development in the Montgomery area shall
be consistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan. Where existing
zoning is inconsistent with the Specific Plan and the developer
desires to develop the property in accordance with the existing
zoning, the developer must first submit a proposed amendment to
the Specific Plan. All such amendments shall be subject to
public hearings by the Montgomery Planning Committee, City
Planning Commission and the City Council. If the amendment is
adopted, the developer can proceed with the normal processing of
the development proposal.
Notwithstanding the above provisions, those projects
which have been substantially processed by the date of the
adoption of this ordinance may proceed without the prerequisite
Specific Plan Amendment, provided that the Zoning Administrator
issues, in each case, a Permit to Complete Processing based upon
the findings that the effectiveness of the Specific Plan, and the
order and amenity of the Montgomery Community would not be
substantially impaired by the issuance of the Permit.
Projects shall be deemed to be substantially processed
where the property owners have procured approved tentative
subdivision or parcel maps; building permits; conditional use
permits; or Design Review Committee approvals, in furtherance of
the proposed developments. The Zoning Administrator,
furthermore, may deed that projects have been substantially
processed where the involved property owners have submitted
tentative subdivisions or parcel maps or applications for design
review, but are awaiting consideration by the appropriate City
agency or official.
Appeals from the actions of the Zoning Administrator may
be filed, within 10 days after the dates of the said actions,
with the Montgomery Planning Committee. Further appeals to the
City Planning Commission and the City Council may be submitted,
pursuant to the provisions of Sections 19.14.100, 19.14.110 and
19.14.130 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
SECTION II: Upon a four-fifth's vote, this ordinance
shall be come effective immediately and shall be effective for
one (1) year from its adoption.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Planning
WPC 5571P
-2-
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, AT FIRST READING THIS 20 DAY OF December
19 88 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE, TO-WIT:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Malcolm, Moore, McCandliss, Nader, Cox
NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
o~~' ty~'3f Chu~la
Mayor i Vista
ATTEST
rk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I. JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chula Vista,
California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full,
true and correct copy of ORDINANCE NO. 2288 , and that the same has
not been amended or repealed.
DATED
City Clerk
(seal)
CC ~ ' ..~ "' '
~ EXHIBIT A
CI'IY OF
CHUIA VISTA
PLANIHING DEPARTMENT
Montgomery Specific Plan Implementation-Schedule
* October 19 Work Program
Zoning Discussion
Questions Re: Approach
* November 16 - Subcommunity Priorities
Planning Committee Binder
a) zoning information
b) work program & schedule
c) graphics-zoning & specific plan
d) administrative information
e) subcommunity support documents
* Remainder of November-January will be devoted to:
a) workshop sessions with subcommunities
b) identifying zoning conversion problems
c) preparing graphics for public hearings
d) mailing list information
* January-February - First Public Hearing-Zoning Implementation
CItY OF
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Montgomery Specific Plan Implementation-Approach
1. Create zone-by-zone conversion table.
2. By land use within subcommunity, identify City zoning conversion
problems. Interface with other City departments and agencies.
3. Prepare draft proposal for zoning ordinance changes to implement
plan in special circumstances:
a) mixed uses
b) industrial/commercial
c) public/quasi-public
4. Prepare subcommunity by subcommunity implementation program:
a) identify subcommunity priority
b) determine neighborhood or sub-area units
c) prepare graphics by neighborhood
(1) existing land use
(2) lot size
(3) existing/proposed zoning
(4) Specific Plan designation
d) prepare preliminary proposals by subcommunity
e) schedule Subcommunity Workshop prior to any public hearings
f) schedule public hearings
g) prepare staff reports & exhibits
17. ORDINANCE 2283 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA REGULATING THE PROCESSING OF LAND
USE PROPOSALS WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN - FIRST
READING & ADOPTION (Director of Planning)
The City Council, meeting in regular session on April 26, 1988,
considered a proposed interim ordinance, which would require
proponents of land uses which are inconsistent with the Montgomery
Specific Plan to submit applications for the amendment of the
Specific Plan in conjunction with their applications for the
establishment of the proposed uses.
The City Council members, during this consideration, discussed the
equity of the proposed ordinance, and expressed concern over those
projects which have been substantially processed, or currently
within the "pipeline." Council after the conclusion of its
consideration of the draft ordinance, referred it back to staff,
agd requested that the ordinance be revised by the inclusion of
visions which would protect the interests of proponents of
4elopment projects which have been substantially processed by
~he City.
The requested, revised ordinance was prepared by staff, and, on
May 3, 1988, was adopted by Council as Ordinance No. 2266,
entitled "An Interim Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista
Regulating the Processing of Land Use Proposals Which Are
Inconsistent with the ~lontgomery Specific Plan." Ordinance 2266
was effective for 90 days and has now expired.
Section II of Ordinance 2266 anticipated a one-year extension of
its provisions, provided this extension was adopted by Council
during the interim ordinance's initial 90-day tenure. The
Planning Department inadvertently failed to apply to Council for
the extension, and Ordinance 2266 lapsed on August 2, 1988. The
proposed ordinance is substantially similar to Ordinance No. 2266
and is effective for 90 days.
eUBLIC HEARINGS AND R ~TED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDIN~.,,CES
16. PUBLIC HEARING PCM-88-22M: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING AN
INTERIM ORDINANCE PROPOSED FOR THE
PROCESSING OF LAND USE PROPOSALS WHICH ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH PRT TWO OF THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN (Continued from
meeting of April 26, 1988) (Director of
Planning)
INTERIM
ORDINANCE 2266 FOR THE PROCESSING OF LAND USE PROPOSALS
WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH PART TWO OF
THE MONTGOIIERY SPECIFIC PLAI~ FIRST
READING AND ADOPTION
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing
was declared open.
Principal Planner Pass reported the Interim Ordinance is designed
to protect the growth, development, design, and conservation
policies of the Montgomery Specific Plan, as well as the interest
of proponents of development projects which have been
substantially processed by the City (or in the "pipeline").
:',bject to the Zoning Administrator's determination of the
escribed findings, projects that have tentative map, conditional
use permit or Design Review committee approval could proceed. In
the case of projects for which applications have been filed but
not yet acted upon (at the time the ordinance becomes effective),
the Zoning Administrator would be empowered to render a compliance
determination with possible appeal to the Montgomery Planning
Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. This would
obviate the need for a Specific Plan Amendment for those
projects. At the present time, there are five developmental
proposals within the City's pipeline according to the Planning
Department's survey.
Lee Estep, 2257 Front Street, 92109, representing Castle Park
Enterprises whose property is in the "pipeline" questioned where
this property falls within the stated purview. Principal Planner
Pass reported that the subject property is reflected as being
substantially completed and that, in the opinion of the Director
of Planning, the status of the project is included in the second
paragraph of the Interim Ordinance.
There being no others to speak for or against this item, the
public hearing was closed.
"'~ ~I!~cCandliss/Noore) to adopt the Interim Ordinance, the reading
the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved.
(Councilman Malcolm out)
23. PUBLIC HEARIIIG PCM-88-22M: CONSIDERATIO~J OF ADOPTI~JG AN
INTERIM ORDINANCE PRn'~OSED FOR THE
PROCESSING OF LAND USE P. POSALS WHICH ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH PART TWO OF THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN {Director of
Planning)
INTERIM
ORDI~IANCE FOR THE PROCESSING OF LAND USE PROPOSALS
WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH PART TWO OF
THE MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox declared
the public hearing open.
Director of Planning Krempl reported the origin of the proposal on
January 12, 1988, at which time the Council adopted Parts One and
Two of the rlontgomery Specific Plan, and requested recommendations
on potential interim land use regulatory measures which could be
adopted by the City Council pending implementation of the Plan.
The City Attorney's Office and the Planning Department jointly
reviewed this matter and recommended adoption of the interim
ordinance which meets the objective of Council. The proposed
interim ordinance is not a "moratorium," and does allow Council d
public hearing to review a project and decide whether or not the
Specific Plan should be modified and amended, or to remain as is
and the project not moved forward.
nirector Krempl further explained the process to implement a zone
lange including the fees involved; and elaborated on the
vreference of some developers to proceed at their own risk to
possibly effect cost savings on materials and processing.
Lee Estep, 2257 Front, San Diego, CA, representing Castle Park
Enterprises, stated the concern of his client whose property is
presently in escrow with plans to proceed with commercial
development. Mr. Estep referred to the added burden placed on a
developer to get a specific right to build and that property now
zoned for medium density burdens are "insufferable" to the
public.
Frank D. Fernandez, 737 Third Avenue, Suite I, 92012, representing
landowner, Mercedes Castro at 321 Montgomery Street, referred to
his project submitted to Planning Commission which qualified for
12 units. After discussion with the Planning Commission the
project units were down to lO, and under this ordinance, the
number of units allowed is down to 4. The owner now feels it is
not feasible to build the project, a'nd Mr. Fernandez stated ne
feels this action represents a "taking".
Frank Symons, 5865 Kapp Street, 92042, representing the landowner,
designer of the project confirmed the facts as stated by Mr.
Fernandez. Mr. Symons reminded Council that the area could use a
~oost" with housing, and requested some definite direction ~e
rived at for the sake of all.
Patrick Barajas, 375 "J" Street, requested more public hearings on
this irerim ordinance to inform the public.
,iI~.~UFES - ~ - April Zo, luoc
There being no others to speak for or against this item,
public hearing was closed.
Councilman Nader agreed with the need for more public i~earings
benefit the community stating that the ability to ameno tile Pla~
is built into the process and, that while not desiring to bloc~:
any particular project, Council's intent is to block replacing lo~
density neighborhoods with i~igh density apartment neighbornooOs
for the protection of the community.
Councilman Moore discussed the County zoning for units per acre,
what is being proposed and his preference that Chula Vista nave an
established low and a high density, emphasizing that good plan
review and design would control the developers between now arts
when the Specific Plan is completed.
Councilman Malcolm questioned the need for an emergency ordinance
at this time, which action did not receive a support in January.
Director Krempl explained that in January 1988 it was conceptual
and staff needed time to properly consider formulation
consultation with the Attorney and others.
MOTION
MS (Malcolm/McCandliss) to refer the item back to staff for one
'eek and have Staff come back outlining their proposals and
3rrecting the Ordinance.
Councilwoman i,lcCandliss agreed with the motion on tile floor,
stating her questions had to do with equity and giving definition
to those "in the pipeline". Assistant City Attorney Rudolph
offered the possibility for staff to come up with proposals
without changing the subject ordinance by removing the "emergency"
and to introduce this ordinance for First Reading. Additional
changes can be accomplished with approval of the Second Readin~
and Adoption.
Councilman Moore stated he would vote against the motion on the
floor, stating Council's commitment to pursue the Montgomery
Specific Plan.
VOTE ON THE MOTION
r~o~on carried. (Councilman Moore voted no)
EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1988
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-88-22M CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL CONSIDERATION OF
INTERIM ORDINANCE PROPOSED FOR THE PROCESSING OF LAND USE
PROPOSALS WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH PART TWO OF THE
MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN
Principal Planner Pass stated that several of Montgomery's zonal districts were
taken intact into the Chula Vista Municipal Code. As a result of the new Specific
Plan some of these zones are in conflict and inconsistent with the Specific Plan
and consequently the General Plan. Council was of the opinion that some property
owners having territory within the zones which are inconsistent might submit
proposals contrary to what the General Plan sets forth. The Council, therefore,
asked the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Planning Commission to propose
interim regulations which would protect the Plan from these inconsistent proposals.
The proposed interim ordinance says that any proposed land use that is inconsistent
with the Specific Plan would have to be accompanied by a proposed amendment to
the Specific Plan. This interim ordinance would have a 90-day time frame and then
could be amended for a year. One advantage of the interim ordinance over a
moritorium is there is no delay except the processing matter. The Specific Plan
can be amended as many times as thought proper while a General Plan can be amended
only four times yearly. There is some doubt whether a moritorium if extended too
long might not be regarded by the Courts as a "taking". Therefore the City
Attorney advises this approach of coupling the proposal and the Specific Plan to
that of a moritorium. The Montgomery Planning Committee, at their meeting of
April 6, 1988 recommended approval.
Commissioner Casillas asked what time frame is being considered in extending the
processing time by adding this requirement that the amendment come before the
Planning Commission and the City Council. Principal Planner Pass replied that
depending upon the environmental status the time frame could be from 6-9 months
with the cost to the developer ranging betwe'en $2,500-$3,000 additionally and the
exact number of applications is not known.
This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened.
Anne Collins, 5942 San Miguel Road, P.O. Box 753, Bonita, 92002, spoke in
opposition to the ordinance on the basis that it implements downzoning without
specific notice to affected non-resident owners; the Montgomery Specific Plan study
might delay any use of the property for months~ it was a blanket implementation
without review of individual property; and she did not receive a notice regarding
the hearing. She requested (and gave a written copy of the request to the
Secretary) that if the ordinance were passed, that she be permitted to retain the
"existing lO0 percent C-36 zoning which ~as been consistent with t~e General Plan
and also within each parcel". Ms. Collins stated that if the ordinance were
approved, each parcel would have "split-zoning on it and be hung up in a study"
and that she objected to 2/3 of it "getting this park-type study on it".
Principal Planner Pass noted that her land has not been zoned for open space since
to do so would be tantamount to eminent domain. He said he had endeavored to
explain to Ms. Collins that there is some high ground to the rear of her property
that goes down into a drainage area and appears to be a good park site and a
notation had been placed there for open space. If Ms. Collins filed an application
utilizing the entire parcel, then the City would need to determine whether it
wished to purchase the land from her. She was not being placed in an Open Space
Zone nor was the interim ordinance injurious to her interests.
Mr. A. Lee Estep, 2257 Front Street, San Diego, Attorney-at-Law representing Castle
Park Investment Group, noted that all of Third Avenue is commercial except the
small stretch of property owned by his client at Third and Orange, and that there
had been discussion at the time of the adoption of Phase 2 of the Montgomery
Specific Plan whether this parcel was to remain in a proposed medium-density
residential zone. He maintained that the proposed interim ordinance is in reality
a moritorium that forces the land owner to go through a complete rezoning process
prior to development of property. He declared that the referenced property is
in escrow and its value has dropped $640,000 because the proposed medium density
is not considered realistic in an otherwise completely commercial area; that
Council, rather than waiting for implementation of the Montgomery Plan, and
allowing all parties to speak at a full hearing on its implementation, is
presenting a way to avoid what they consider inconsistencies that now exist in
the area, which is, in his estimation, unconstitutional, a violation of the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments and is taking property without due process of law; that
adoption of the proposed ordinance constitutes downzoning of the property
necessitating requesting what amounts to a change in zoning through the Montgomery
Planning Committee, City Planning Commission and the Council; and that to try to
enact the interim ordinance is a disservice to the Community.
Mr. O.E. Underwood, 46 Minor Street, 92010, commented that it had taken him 20
years to get his Quintard Street property (across from where Fedmart was located)
from R-P to C-Zone (Heavy Commercial) and he was shocked to discover (on looking
at the map displayed) that it now shows apartment zoning. He had been out of
State; however, his tax bills had reached him so the address was known, but he
had never received any notices regarding this subject. He objected very much to
the City of Chula Vista back-zoning his property from Heavy Commercial to
Multiple-Family Zoning. Mr. Underwood emphasized that there should be some sort
of relief for people who are out of State and who are not receiving notice that
their property is being downgraded or downzoned. He expressed a wish to speak
with Mr. Pass regarding the situation and was advised to contact the Planning
Department the next day.
NO one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
In reply to Commissioner Cannon's request for a statement referencing Mr. Estep's
comments on potential problems the City may confront in passing the ordinance,
Deputy City Attorney Moore stated that the City Attorney had reviewed t~e ordinance
favorably; that it is not a moritorium which freezes development but is a require-
ment for a Specific Plan Amendment prior to development proceedings in these areas
where zoning ordinances differ from the Specific Plan; and that the City can change
zoning within the City without it being a "taking" which is basically when a
government entity takes away all reasonable use of property, which is not the case.
Commissioner Casillas expressed concern about the zoning issue presented by
Mr. Estep based on his belief that long-range plans usually preceded commercial
ventures and that the ordinance puts an onerous burden on those property owners
for an unspecified period of time and he would vote against the ordinance.
Commissioner Fuller also expressed concern saying that she had felt uncomfortable
about that portion of the Plan during the public hearing process but had considered
that the actual implementation of the Plan would permit discussion on the zoning
of this portion of Third Avenue which was not commercial. In reply to her concern,
Principal Planner Pass stated that this was one of the areas identified as
potentially appropriate for accommodating mixed-use commercial with medium-density
residential and was so indicated in the text. However, the land is now in escrow
and discussion includes bowling alleys and high-intensified commercial uses. He
indicated the location of the parcel on the map pointing out that for all intensive
purposes the parcel on Third Avenue, south of Orange, is the frontage to the mobile
home area and presents a linear problem between residential and a commercial area.
Both the persons residing next to the area and the property owners must be
considered and further study is planned under Part 3 of the Specific Plan (the
implementation portion) as well as under the rezoning portion.
Commissioner Fuller then said that because of the time and thoroughness already
manifested in the preparation of the Montgomery Specific Plan, she would concur
in the need for the ordinance as it does continue the planning process and is still
following the due process already in place.
MS (Cannon/Casillas) to move to not approve the proposed interim ordinance.
Commissioner Cannon stated that he feels a moral obligation to the City property
owners to ensure a public hearing specifically addressing individual properties.
He expressed a belief that implementation of the Specific Plan will exceed a year's
time; that time is money in commercial ventures; that high-intensity commercial
uses in the areas will normally be placed in previously commercialized zones rather
than residential~ and that he did not like doing things in a backdoor fashion.
Commissioner Tugenberg said his belief included a moral responsibility to the
entire Community of Montgomery, not just this piece of property. He agrees with
Commissioner Fuller regarding the amount of organization involved in the Montgomery
Plan and that there will be recourse for these persons in the future; that his
responsibiltiy was to the entire Plan and, therefore, he could not agree with
Commissioner Cannon.
The motion to not approve the interim ordinance passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Grasser, Cannon, Casillas, Shipe
Noes: Fuller, Tugenberg and Carson
Abstain: None
Some confusion ensued over whether the motion had passed or not and the motion
was made by Commissioner Tugenberg and seconded by Commissioner Fuller to approve
the attached interim ordinance and recommend the City Council adopt such. The
Deputy City Attorney, however, interposed and pointed out that a 5/7 vote was
needed to override the Montgomery Planning Committee only wnen the subject involved
conditional use permits or variances and that the vote to not approve the interim
ordinance had passed by a vote of four to three.
MEETING OF MARCH 16,
4. PUBLIC HEARING
PCM-88-22M: Consideration of an interim ordinance of the City of Chula
Vista regulating the processing of land use proposals which are
inconsistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan.
Dan Pass, Principal Planner, presented the staff report (Exhibit "C"
attached).
The Committee inquired as to how the proposed ordinance would affect the
Pacific Scene project on Palomar Street. Staff advised it would have no
impact. The Committee further discussed other impacts of the proposed
ordinance, and the Committee's prior advice to property owners regarding
zone changes and the rights of property owners to use their property under
existing zoning regulations.
Committee member Fox stated he believed that the Committee was to be
presented with alternatives. He also discussed the question of whether
the Committee was reneging on past promises to property owners. He
concluded that adopting the interim ordinance would not be reneging on
prior Committee position statements.
Principal Planner Pass noted that the City, in reality, had two options.
One of these options was the enactment of the proposed interim ordinance,
and the other was the adoption of a moratorium. He observed that the City
Attorney's office, as well as the Planning Department, favored the interim
ordinance option, since it was more equitable to property owners, and did
not place the municipality under the risk of liability for the "taking of
private property for a period of time without just compensation." He
concluded his response by observing that the City Attorney's concern over
the possibility of moratoria being interpreted as acts of eminent domain
was motivated by the U. S. Supreme Court's recent decision in the First
English Lutheran Church Case.
The Committee further discussed the need for the interim ordinance to
preclude development in derogation of the plan during the period between
adoption of Part three of the Montgomery Specific Plan and the adoption of
those zone changes necessary to achieve consistency between the plan and
zoning.
Committee member Castro stated that he believed the Committee had given
tacit advice to property owners that they could rely on the existing
zoning until such time as it was changed through normal due process.
Bill Harter, Montgomery property owner, stated that the Committee had made
prior agreements with the public that the existing zoning would stand
until it was changed through the regular rezoning process.
The Committee discussed specific situations such as how the proposed
ordinance would impact building permits which have already been issued,
and the pending project on Dorothy Street.
HS (Patton/Fox) to approve the Montgomery Interim Ordinance and recommend
that the City Planning Commission and the City Council adopt such. Vote
5-1 (Castro opposed)
WPC 4916P