HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/12/20 Item 25
,I'
.
.
.
~/cC::~
e
\
e
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
,'.'
Item
Meeting Date 12/20/88
ITEM TITLE:
Ordinance Emergency measure for the reenactment
of an interim ordinance for the regulation of the processing
of Land Use Proposals which are inconsistent with Part Two of
the Montgomery Specifi c P1 an
Di rector of Pl anni ng ~ IC
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
City t~anager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes X No
--
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 substanti ally processed, or currently wi thi n the "pi pel i ne. II Council
after the conclusion of its consideration of the draft ordinance, referred it
back to staff, and requested that the ordinance be revised by the inclusion of
provi si ons whi ch wou1 d protect the interests of proponents of development
projects which have been substantially processed by the 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 Chu1a Vista Regulating the Processing of Land Use Proposals
Which Are Inconsistent \vith Part Two of the rilontgomery Specific Plan. II
Ordi nance 2266 was effecti ve for 90 days, and then expi red. On September 6,
1988, a similar interim ordinance, No. 2283, was adopted by Council.
The proposed ordi nance is simi 1 ar inform and content to Ordi nances 2266 and
2283.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached interim ordinance for a period of 90
days.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Montgomery Planning Committee had considered the original, draft
interim ordinance at their hearing of March 16, 1988. The Committee
approved the said interim ordinance, and recommended that it be adopted by
the City Planning Commission and City Council (vote 5-1, one absent).
~
.
.
.
. .
, \,
e
e
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 12/20/88
2. The City Planning Commission had at its meeting of April 13, 1988, voted
4-3 to recommend that the City Council not adopt the original said interim
ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
1. The proposed interim ordinance is designed to protect 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 even where the said projects
are not consistent with the Specific Plan.
2. While Ordinances 2266 and 2283 effectively provided the protection
di scussed in the above paragraph duri ng thei r aggregate, 180-day tenure,
this protection is still required.
3. To date, the interim ordinances have been generally well-received by the
pub 1 i c and have produced 1 i ttl e concern on the part of property owners.
On the other hand, they have directly protected owners of two residential
holdings in Otay Town, and the large commercial holding within the
southeasterly quadrant of Third and Orange Avenues.
4. Staff believes that the rezoning of the lands of Montgomery, as called for
under Part Three of the t'1ontgomery Specific Plan, will be substantially
completed in less than a year, and will then obviate the need for
additional interim ordinances. (Please see Exhibit A, Planning Consultant
Anthony Lettieri IS draft program for the rezoning of the Montgomery
Community.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
WPC 57U5P