Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/05/18 Item 16r.+ I EM TI COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~(#X 16 1 Meeting Date ~ E: Ordinance / y'~sr Urgency interim ordinance under which the County Zoning Ordinance and Chula Vista General Plan would be applied to the Montgomery Reorganization area SUBMITTE BY: Acting Director of Planning (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No ) The Cit Council, meeting in regular session on April 27, 1982, commenced its considera- tion of a proposed urgency interim ordinance under which the San Diego County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would be applied to the Montgomery Reorganization Area fora period of 90 d ys. This item was continued twice in order to enable the Planning Department to study t e advisab ility of applying the County General Plan or the Chula Vista General Plan to the rea in question, and to report thereon. RECOMMENDATION: That Council: Approve a 90-day urgency interim ordinance which adopts the County Zoning Ordinance, but retains the Chula Vista General Plan for the Montgomery Reorganization Area. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSIION 1. The City Planning Department has reviewed the San Diego County General Plan uth Bay Community Planning Area) and the text and plan diagram of the Land Use Element the Chula Vista General Plan, and has found that the latter is actually more consistent with t land-use pattern and zoning plan of the Montgomery Area. 2. In light of the above factor, the retention of the Chula Vista General Plan for the guidance of the growth and development of the Montgomery Area would better enable the Planni g Department to initially review and administer development plans for the Castle Park, tay, Woodlawn Park, Broderick Acres, and Harborside subcommunities. 3. In the event the subject annexation is successful, the Planning Department propos s to work closely with the Montgomery Community Planning Committee in an effort to bri g the Chula Vista General Plan and Montgomery's zoning pattern into a closer state of con istency. 4. It is probable that the Office of the City Attorney and the Planning Department will s bsequently recommend that the 90 day urgency interim ordinance in question be extend d for a period not to exceed one year in order to provide the City essential planni g time. FISCAL DMP:hm • IMPACT: None Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79) -~L~ 9~ --~--~ C~~a Vt:~i;:~, 4:~..~s;~ia Datad s~~~-~~"