HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1979/01/23 Item 08t; ~ ^ ~°~ ^~ C I TY OF CHULA VISTA
<<~
', . ~ COUiVC I L AGE-VDA STATEME,yT Item No. 8
... ~, G
. ~ For meeting of 1/23/79
Public hearing - Consideration of amendments to the Municipal Code relating to
r General Plan and Specific Plan procedures and to the P-C Planned Community Zor
~ ITFM TITLE Ordinance - Amending Chapters 19.06, 19.07, 19.12, 19.14 and 19.48 relating
to General Plan and Specific Plan procedures and to the P-C Planned Community
Zone
Resolution 9fI G,~ Amending the Master Fee Schedule by adding fees for General
SUQMITTED BY Development Plan and Sectional Planning Area Plan
Director of Planning.'~'~
,`-_~
ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES NO X )
A. BACKGROUND
1. On August 15, 1978 the City Council adopted the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan/
General Development Plan, and enacted several regulations into interim ordinance. These
regulations substantially amend the "Specific Plan" and "P-C" (Planned Community)zonal
provisions of Chula Vista.
2. The interim ordinances in question ~vere enacted fora 90 day period and therefore
must be replaced by permanent amendments to the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The attached
draft ordinances are submitted as this replacement.
3. An Initial Study (IS-79-32) of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project
was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on December 7, 1978. The Committee
concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the
Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration.
B. AN~,LYSIS
1. During the past several weeks the Planning Department, in conjunction with the
City Attorney's office, has revised, modified, and restated the terms and provisions of
the interim ordinances. The changes to the text of these ordinances, however, are primarily
syntactical, and the proposed amendments which embody those changes do not alter the sub-
stantive content of the interim legislation adopted by the Council on August 15, 1978.
2. The said changes have expunged the ambiguities, redundancies, and confusing language
of the interim ordinances. Of greater significance, these changes have established a textual
order which should promote and facilitate the understanding, use, and implementation of the
proposed permanent legislation.
DMP:hm (continued on supplemental page)
EXHIBITS
Agreement Resolution X Ordinance X Plat Notification List
Other Res.PCA-79-10 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached X Submitted on
FINANCIAL IMPACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the Negative
2. Enact the proposed
3. Adopt a resolution
Declaration on IS-79-32.
amendments to Chapters 19.06, 19.07, 19.12, 19.14 and 19.48.
amending the Master Fee Schedule.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On December 27, 1978 the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to adopt the Negative Declaration
on IS-79-32 and to recommend that the City Council amend Title 19 of the Municipal Code and
the Master Fee Schedule in accordance with Resolution PCA-79-10.
COUNCIL ACTION
c
-,
c.
b~ ti..~~ - _ .:.~~_..- _..r - - -
!/ Form A-113 (Rev. 5%77)
AGENDA ITEM N0. s
Meeting of 1/23/79
Supplemental page No.
3. The proposed P-C zonal regulations address the form, content, and effectuation
of the general development plan, They also establish an interrelationship between
this plan and the adopted specific plan, which becomes the principal statement of
land use, circulation, townscape planning, and conservation policy in those P-C zones
where it is applied. While the new regulations would provide the property owner with
the option of accepting the adopted specific plan as the involved property's general
development plan, or of proceeding under the preannounced standards of conventional
zoning, the paramount position of the specific plan in either case would remain constant.
4. The proposed amendments also address the issue of "inverse condemnation." By
requiring future open space and public facility locations to be confined to the plan
diagram and text of specific plans, the proposed regulations make such locations a
matter of policy, and not legislation. These locations would not, without the consent
of the involved property owners, be made a part of the general development plan or the
zoning process.
In short, the specific plan, as policy, is the proper vehicle for the addressment
of future open space and public facilities. General development and zoning plans, on
.the other hand, constitute legislation, and their designation of future public land
uses could be interpreted as the taking of private property through the exercise of
the police powers.
"~~_. 5. The existing P-C zonal regulations do not make a distinction between incorporated
and unincorporated territories, and therefore do not prescribe a special prezoning
process. While this lack of prescription is not significant where standard zoning is
involved, it is important where P-C zones are in issue. The complex nature of the
planned community calls for careful preplanning at the prezoning state, and the process
for such is incorporated within the proposed amendments.
c~ y ~