Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1979-9860,. ~ RESOLUTION NO. 9860 Revised 11-26-79 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DENYING THE APPEAL FROM THE GRANT OF A ZONING VARIANCE BY THE CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A VARIANCE FOR EXEMPTION FROM WEST TO EAST DEVELOP- MENT POLICY OF EL RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF 2.6 ACRE PARCEL ON NORTH SIDE OF EAST H STREET, APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET WEST OF OTAY LAKES ROAD The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, on September 12, 1979, after conducting a public hearing, the Planning Commission, by Resolution No. PCV-80-1, granted a variance waiving the west to east policy of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan to permit development of 2.6 acres north of H Street approximately 600 feet west of Otay Lakes Road, and WHEREAS, said grant of a variance on the direction of the City Council was appealed to the City Council and a public hearing thereon was duly conducted on October 16, 1979, and WHEREAS, subsequent to the said public hearing, the City Council voted to deny the appeal and upheld the grant of a variance by the City Planning Commission subject to certain additional con- ditions to be fulfilled at such time as the developer presents a precise plan for the development of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby deny the appeal from the variance heretofore granted by the Planning Commission by Reso- lution No. PCV-80-1 and does hereby modify said variance by adding thereto the following condition: 1. In order to carry out and Fulfill the basic goal of the west to east policy of the Specific Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey, i.e., the installa- tion and implementation of the necessary traffic circulation system, primarily, the completion of H Street and all of the basic infrastructure required to serve the E1 Rancho del Rey area, that all developments shall assume their fair and proportionate share of the responsibility for the financing and installation of said cir- culation system and basic infrastructure. There- fore, the development proposed by Chez Bonita shall be required to participate in any reimburse- ment, improvement or fee district that may be established to provide the financing for such improvements and said developer or any successor in interest shall participate in such a district at a point in time on or before the issuance of building permits for said development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the San Diego County Recorder. Presented and Approved as to form by George Lindberg, City Attorney -~"a 3 ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this loth day of November 197_2-, by the following wfe, to-wit: AYES: Councilmen-_ cox, Hyde, McCandliss, Scott, Gillow NAYES: Councilmen None ABSTAIN: Counciknen None ABSENT: Counciknen None w• +M :dj STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, GTY CLERK of the City of Chub Visto, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct Dopy of RESOLUTION N0. 9860 ,and that the some has not been amended or repealed. DATED (seal) CC-660 a ~~~ l City Clerk .~ ~' ---~ ~ C_ _ ~ ~- _ ~` _ _ l ~~ t .~ ,. -~ V`gtP OpH~t P b SLB/ECT PROPERTY ~~ ,~ u 0 ~~ _- . i -~_ ,. .- .- -~' _,- ; ,. (( ~ __. ~ , ~' /~~~ ~~ _ _ ;. i ~'~ , ` BOp~(P V`StP ~,r~, M b 1 /~ ~~ `,1 ~° p~ Op0 o~O O ~ O O o~ ~ p O` 00 ;- J ~T~ O q ` f~fs~Op~r _'_ ~ .~tE S LOCATOR' ~`~ __ Pcv-so-i ~ c'XEMPTION FROM WEST TO EAST DEV POLJCY NORTH t ,~~ R ~ ` -! > ~ ` ,V '~ ~,: _ ,~ tom ~ ~Ta w. i c r ~ .. A•y 3' ~ o ' a .. ,_. vAR1HNCt RESOLUTION N0. PCV-80-1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A ZONE VARIANCE WHEREAS, Chez Bonita (a California general Partnership) and Mr. Charles R. Lewsader and Mr. William P. Lee (general partners of Chez Bonita) have filed an application for a zone variance seeking a waiver from the west to east develop- ment policy of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan to permit development of 2.6 acres north of East "H" Street, approximately 600-700 feet west of Otay Lakes Road, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said application and notice of said hearing was given by the mailing of a letter to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place, namely 7;00 p.m., September 12, 1979 in the Council Chamber, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, the Commission found that in accordance with the Negative Declaration on IS-80-11 and the findings stated therein, this request will have no significant adverse environmental impact, and adopted the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA: That based upon the findings stated in the attached exhibits, A, B, C, D, and E, a variance is granted to Chez Bonita and Mr. Charles R. Lewsader and Mr. William P. Lee fora waiver from the west to east development policy of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan to permit the development of 2.6 acres north of East "H" Street, approximately 600-700 feet west of Otay Lakes Road. This variance shall become ineffective and void if the same is not utilized within one year from the date of this resolution in accordance with Section 19.14.250 of the Municipal Code. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Planning Commission of Chuld Vista, California this 12th day of September, 1979 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Commissioners G. Johnson, R. Johnson, Williams, Pressutti, O'Neill and Stevenson NAY: None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith ATTEST: ~ ~~~ Chairman o empore `="~~J Secretary EXHIBIT "A" The Chez Bonita property is in a unique location as compared to the neighboring E1 Rancho del Rey property. The property fronts on the already existing stub of east "H" Street and all utilities are also in. Virtually all of the other property in the E1 Rancho del Rey area which is affected by the west to east development policy currently lacks access to both the circulation system and to public utilities. The Chez Bonita property has access to both. The property's unique location and access is a relevant factor warranting a variance since the lack of street access and utilities has been the major justifica- tion for the west to east development policy. The hardship experienced in not being allowed to develop the Chez Bonita property at this time is peculiar to the property by virtue of the property's location within the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan area. ~Ir. Lewsader and Mr. Lee have spent over $2000 in revising a project that they planned for the property in order to meet the requests that were stated by Kenneth Lee in his letter dated February 16, 1978. (Attached hereto as E:;hibit "A-1" and incorporated herein by this reference.) The revisions were made i:i reliance on representations that if such changes were made, upon the lifting of the E1 Rancho del Rey moratorium development of the property would be allowed to proceed. Their actions were taken and their expenses were incurred before the west to east development resolution was formally adopted on August 8, 1978. (Cf., Allen v. Humboldt County Board of Supervisors (1956) 241 Ca1.App.2d 158, 162-62.) Practical difficulty in developing property may constitute ~~ ~~ a hardship sufficient to warrant the granting of a variance. Chula Vista Municipal Code § 19.14.190. Because of the west to ea~.t development policy, which is really directed at. a significantly larger parcel of land to the west of this subject property, Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee are prevented from putting their property to any use although streets, curbs, gutters, and all utilities are in and despite the fact that they have spent over $2000 in a good faith effort to comply with every change in their plans requested by the City as a condition of development approval. MS ~~ v' DG._.._....... F1LE..._.------• UEPAATMENT OF.~ PI.ANNINC Clfy ~~ CtiUYQ ~U(Sta _ _ _ CALIFORNIA February 16~, 1978 Mr. James Ashbaugh CEP Associated 5555 Magnetron Blvd. San Biego, CA 92111 Dear Jim: We have completed our preliminary review of the proposed apartment project located on the north side of "H" Street for the L & L Development Company. We offer the following comments for your cons de ration. ~As you aware, the subject area is located in an area subject to a moratorium as established by the Chula Vista City Council and, as such, no formal submissions for development will be considered by the Planning Commission or City Council until said moratorium is li/fted. ~f. The proposed General Development Plan designates a density range of 11 to 18 dwelling units er acre for this 2.6 acre site. This would allow a maximum of 46 dwelling units rather than the 48 as shown. X Parking will not be permitted on East "H" Street; therefore, all of the required parking for tenants and guests must be accommodated ~ on site. Forty e~qi- ~2-bedroom units would require a total of 84' ~''~ parking spaces to be located on site. A~ The density range of 18 units per acre corresponds very clc;sely to the R-3-G density as established in the zoning ordinance and, therefore, this project would require usable open space at a similar ratio. The open space requirement for the R-3-G use is 600 square feet per unit. In accordance with the Chula Vista Des_i.gn Manual a minimum of 60 square feet of private usable open space is to be designed for units above the first floor and increased to 100 square feet for the first floor units. The remaining open space may be utilized as common open space for all the residents. ".i In an attempt to minimize the impact of the three story buildings, you have chosen to place the buildings away from the street at a lower elevation. I believe this offers an excellent solution to lower the buildings and bring than more in scale with the streetscape; however, it does present a problem in allowing the parking area to EXHIBIT Q'^~ PAGE ~ 276 Fourth Aveoue, Chub Vista, CA 92010 (71~) 5~~5101 ..~_.-PAGES. rr--~.; 1-,i. i ag~t~ ,- .. _ i ~• y Mr, James Ashbaugh February 16, 1978 Page 2 dominate the "H" Street frontage. The Design Manual states that it should be considered undesirable to locate offstreet parking between the building and the street and in those cases where it becomes necessary to do so, the parking area shall be heavily screened by a combination of planting material and decorative masonry walls. Parking is not to be allowed in the front setback area. Since the minimum setback in the R-3 zone is established at 15 feet from the front property line, the parking area would be located 17 feet from the edge of the sidewalk. Those park- ing stalls adjacent to "H" Street should be screened by a combination of a solid carport wall and freestanding wall in conjunction with landscape screening. As you may recall in our earlier conversations, it is neces- sary to design a~5~foot wide bike path adjacent to the parking area, which would reduce the lands~~aping wic!th to approximately 12 feet between the~idewalk and the bike path. 5. Additional detail should be shown on the easterly driveway which is being directed to "H" Street through excess right of way under the control of the City. Your client would be responsible for finishing that area as it relates to driveways, curb cuts, and landscaping. '/. The proposed regrading of the westerly portion of the property will be permitted only as it can be determined that it will contribute to the amenity and utility of the project (per Chula Vista Design Manual). This could best be determined by showing the proposed grading and relation- ship to the adjoininy property to the west and north in this vicinity. An overall grading concept would give us a better understanding of the finished product. ,8/ It would appear that the buildings have been arranged in such manner as to take advantage of the northerly view across the east leg of Rice Canyon. This view could virtually be eliminated by development of the property to the north. We therefore feel it is essential that you coordin- ate this design with at least same preliminary thinking on the development of that multiple family property to the north. Fragmented or piecemeal planning of this north area would, in our opinion, be detrimental to both pro erties. Lastly, but most importantly, the Design Manual emphasizes that an inviting atmosphere and appearance shall be created in the pedestrian oriented area through the use of landscaping, walls, fencing, plazas, statues, fountains, and other design features. These are details which you would want to address in the final design. If you wish to discuss any of these matters in further detail, please call me at 575-5101. Very truly yours, ,1 enneth G. Lee Current Planning Supervisor KGL:hm ~~~~ EXHIBIT "B" Development of the other property in E1 Rancho del Rey will be allowed when the lots thereon have been fully improved with curbs, gutters, streets, and utilities. The Chez Bonita property already has all of the required improvements. Develop- ment of the other property in E1 Rancho del Rey is apparently not prohibited until "H" Street is completed, but only until the west to east installment of improvements has reached the particular parcel. Granting this variance would, therefore, bring the Chez Bonita property into parity with the other property in E1 Rancho del Rey and would not constitute a granting of any kind of a special privilege. It should also be noted that, to the extent it was under consideration or in effect at the time, the west to east policy was ignored when the plans for a 57-lot subdivision, Bonita Haciendas, which is located west of the subject property, was approved. When Bonita Haciendas was approved, an opinion was expressed that the resulting traffic would go north to Bonita Road while traffic from Chez Bonita would go south to Telegraph Canyon Road. No one has been able to substantiate that hypothesis with documentary evidence. Subsequently, a commerical development to the northeast of Chez Bonita was approved. For these other projects, any west to east development preference has been waived on the basis that the Council felt that the existing circulation systems would support the resulting traffic burdens. The traffic that will result from the Chez Bonita development can also be accommodated by the existing circulation system. Granting this variance would, therefore, bring the Chez Bonita property into parity with these adjoining properties where development has been approved. (For a discussion of the traffic impact from the Chez Bonita development, see the discussion under Section 2, paragraph c, of this applica- tion.) ~~~ EXHIBIT "C" The granting of this variance will not adversely affect or be harmful to adjacent property or materially impair the intent of the Municipal Code or the public interest. This variance is requested only to allow Chez Bonita to develop its property now rather than at some indefinite time in the future. Chez Bonita is not requesting any variance from the zoning of its property other than the time at which it may proceed with development. The west to east development policy was intended to ensure that utility and circulation systems are provided for property before its development is allowed. The Chez Bonita property has adequate utility and circulation access. Another goal of the west to east development policy was to ensure that existing traffic routes would not become over- crowded to the detriment of the residents of the area. The City Council has, in the past, expressed its opinion that all of the traffic from a proposed Chez Bonita development would turn south on Otay Lakes Road to Telegraph Canyon Road. The applicants fail to see how any such opinion could have been formulated. Assuming, however, that all such traffic did, in fact, turn south such traffic would not overburden any existing street. The following information has been extracted from the Draft Traffic Access and Circulation Report, prepared by James B. Hare, of MSA, Inc., as revised January 22, 1979: The traffic currently carried by East "H" Street is negligible. South of the East "H" Street intersection, Otay Lakes Road is improved, striped, and currently operates at between 41 and 71 percent of design capacity and will be operating at no worse than 75 percent of design capacity when all approved new projects are in place. The peak hour on Telegraph Canyon Road occurs between six and seven in the evening, which is about an hour later than that experienced by most residential streets in the area. This phenomenon has been explained by the predominance of college-bound ~~ traffic in the flow. The traffic resulting from development of the Chez Bonita property would be concentrated in the normal residential period from five to six in the evening and not in the college-bound peak period during which Telegraph Canyon Road is the most congested. Even during peak hours, volumes on Telegraph Canyon Road do not reach the maximum hourly volume which can be carried by a two-lane road. ~~~ -2- EXHIBIT "b" The granting of this variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the west to east development resolution. As the Directors of Planning and Public Works noted at the September 5, 1978, City Council meeting, the purpose of the west to east policy is to avoid development which would create additional demands for east-west travel in advance of the construction of east "H" Street. As emphasized in Section 2, paragraph c, of this application, no significant traffic burden would result from the development of the Chez Bonita property. As the City Attorney has pointed out, the usual basis for instituting a phased or sequential development schedule is to insure that utilities, including water and sewer, and road networks will be logically extended by virtue of the development, instead of irrationally mandated by leapfrog development, and that the cost to the public for providing services to newly developed areas will not be exorbitant because of their remoteness from established service areas. The City Attorney has also recognized that neither of these conditions pertain to the Chez Bonita situation. There is a total network of utilities and roads serving the Chez Bonita property and there is no reasonable expectation that the costs of serving that property will be any greater than costs already being sustained by the public for other adjoining and already developed areas further east. r~~~~ v6 EXHIBIT "E" The applicants believe that this variance should be granted to avoid injustice resulting to citizens who have honestly and in good faith worked with the City and have relied upon its representations to their detriment. Chronological Summary of Events In August, 1977, Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee, the two general partners of the Chez Bonita partnership, acquired their interest in the subject property. In the Fall of 1977, at a City Council meeting, Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee were told that a moratorium which had earlier been imposed on the E1 Rancho del Rey area would be lifted by April, 1978, and that development of the Chez Bonita property should then be allowed to proceed. In February, 1978, a site plan was submitted to the Planning Department. Subsequently, the above-referenced letter from Kenneth Lee was received in which Mr. Lee made several suggestions and comments. In excess of $2000 was expended in revising that proposed project to bring it into strict compliance with all of the City's requirements and suggestions. Specifically, the number of units was reduced to 45, and the applicants changed their plan to comply with the prohibition of parking on "H" Street, the open space requirements, parking set back requirements, including provisions for landscaping and a bike path, the need for eastern access, the problems with grading on the west side and the requirements of creating an inviting atmosphere. In the Fall of 1978, and after the adoption of a Master Plan for the E1 Rancho del Rey area, the moratorium was lifted. The Chez Bonita property was still zoned R-3 for multiple family residential use. Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee were ready to proceed with development, but were precluded from doing so by the Cit;~ Council's adoption of the west to east development policy. Upon several occasions, Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee requested the City Council to except their property from the west to east development policy. After some consideration had been given to ~~~~ the request, the Council denied it, but invited Chez Bonita to submit an application for a variance through the Planning Commission. The City Is Estopped to Prevent Development of the Property Consistent with its Zoning The doctrine of equitable estoppel has long been established in this State: "The vital principle is that he who by his language or conduct leads another to do what he would not otherwise have done shall not subject such person to loss or injury by disappointing the expectations upon which he acted. Such a change of position is sternly forbidden." Seymour v. Oelrichs (1909) 156 Cal. 782, 795. In February, 1978, the City, by its conduct in submitting its comments and revisions that would have to be made before its approval of the then proposed project would be granted, impliedly represented that plans could be submitted for final approval within the following few months. Apparently the City has had a preference for west to east development for several years, such preference being expressed in the General Development Schedule of the General Development Plan. Formerly, this "preference" was simply that and was not imposed upon developers as a requirement for approval of developments. Developments were in fact allowed to proceed in derogation of this preference despite the fact that the City expressed its dislike for some developers' lack of cooperation. (See letter from George P. Lindberg, City Attorney, to Mr. Jacob Shearer, August 16, 1977.) We think it probable that the City knew, or should have known, that a mandatory west to east development policy was in the works at the time it made the aforementioned representations to Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee. Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee iiad no reason to disbelieve the City's representation that they would be allowed to proceed with development of Chez Bonita once the moratorium on E1 Rancho del Rey was lifted. The foregoing facts satisfy the test for determining when an estoppel will be found. [7 Witkin, Summary of California Law (8th ed.) ~ 132.] ~~~ -2- The party to be estopped must have intended that his conduct be acted upon, or must have so acted that the party asserting the estoppel had a right to believe that it was so intended. [City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Ca1.3d 462, 489.] Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee reasonably believed that they were to act upon the City's list of recommendations and revisions to their development plans if they wanted to ensure that the project would be approved. Implicit in the City's specific and detailed delineation of each required modification to the submitted development plan was the intent that those modifications be made before the final plan was submitted. in reliance upon the City's representations that the Chez Bonita development would be allowed to proceed once the E1 Rancho del Rey moratorium was lifted during 1978, and that compliance with the list of recommendations made by Kenneth Lee would speed project approval once the moratorium was lifted, Mr. Lewsader and Mr. William Lee expended over $2000 revising and redesigning their project to conform with the recommendations. This money would not have been invested had Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee known that approval of their development might be indefinitely delayed as a result of the adoption of a mandatory west to east develop- ment policy. The doctrine of equitable estoppel will be applied against a public agency when the interest of justice clearly require it. (City of Long Beach v. Mansell, supra, at 495.) Estogpel may even be invoked against the government when its application will defeat the effective operation of a policy adopted to protect the public, so long as the injustice which would result from a failure to uphold the estoppel is of sufficient dimension to justify the effect upon the public interest or policy which would result from raising the estoppel. [City of Long Beach v. Mansell, su ra, at 496-97i Pettitt v. City of Fresno (1973) 34 Ca1.App.3d 813, 820.] In applying such a balancing test to this situation, it -3- ~~ should be noted that while the City may have a legitimate intere~` in the goals of the west to east development policy, i.e., the orderly development of the area and the regulation of traffic volumes, it really has no interests which would be adversely affected by allowing development of this property. while applying estoppel in this situation would be in derogation of the west to east development policy, it would not adversely affect to any significant extent the protectable interests of the community in orderly development and traffic control. (See Section 2, paragraph c, of this application, above.) Besides the lack of detriment to the community from applying estoppel in this situation, the City will actually benefit from the additional moderate income housing that will be provided by Chez Bonita. The creation of such housing is one of the general objectives of the Specific Development Plan of E1 Rancho del Rey. The unfairness to Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee if estoppel is not applied is of a significantly greater magnitude than any possible detriment that may result to the community. Not only has an amount in excess of $2000 been expended in complying with the City's design recommendations and requirements, but Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee have also spent over 18 months anticipating the commencement of development of their property, only to be repeatedly disappointed by postponements. Accordingly, the City should be estopped from denying Mr. Lewsader and Mr. Lee their right to develop the property at this time. -4- ~~