Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1973/11/20 Item 03a,b,c' .. AGENDA t'TEM N0. [ 3 ] a,b,c CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: November 20, 1973 Public hearing - Consideration of amendment to Chapter 33 of City Code establishing "H" Hillside Modifying District and adoption of Hillside ITEM TITLE: Development Policy Ordinance - Amending Sections 33.302 and 33.601 of City Code to include "H" Hillside Modifying District - First reading Resolution - Adopting a Hillside Development Policy INITIATED BY: Director of Planning BACKGROUND This item has been on a number of Council agendas dating back to August 8, 1973. It was most recently considered on October 30, 1973 at which time Council set an additional public hearing for November 20 in order to allow additional testimony to be given. ANALYSIS 1. A copy of the October 30, 1973 report on this item is enclosed in Council's packets. That report and the previous report to Council (October 9) responded to the comments offered by developers in opposition to the ordinance. In again reviewing these comments, it seems to staff that they represent a shotgun approach designed to raise enough doubts about the ordinance to discourage its passage, but that they do not argue persuasively against the substance of the ordinance. Opponents view the ordinance as taking away some of the density conferred on them by the action of previous City Councils in approving the General Plan and the E1 Rancho del Rey General Development Plan. Certainly, the ordinance does have this effect. However, Council has previously acknowledged and it is staff's conviction that the densities previously approved in many of these areas are unrealistically high. In many cases, developers have found that they cannot use all the density contemplated by the General Plan, the zoning which has been granted, or the General Development Plan which has been approved on properties in the hill areas. 2. As detailed in the October 30 report to Council, several changes in the ordinance are recommended: (continued on supplemental page) ATTACHED: Resolution [X] Ordinance [X] Agreement [ ] Plat [X] See EXHIBITS [X ] No. 1,2,3 Financial Statement: Commission-Board Recommendation: The Planning Commission approved the Policy by a 6-0 vote and the ordinance by a 5:1 vote on July 18, 1973. Department Head Recommendation: Concur. Amore complete recommendation is presented at the end of this report. City Manager Recommendation: See attached sheet containing City Manager recommendation. ~~~g~ AGENDA Ifi~EM NO'. ~ 3 Supplemental Page No. 2 a. Deletion of the R-E zone category (column 3) from the nomograph. b. Change in wording to allow density credit for land required to be dedicated to the City under the Park Dedication Ordinance. c. Change in wording to allow additional grading for the creation of common recreational areas, at the discretion of Council. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt motions supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation (Resolutions PCA-73-3 and PCM-73-18). 2. Adopt a motion deleting the R-E category (column 3) from the nomograph. 3. Adopt a resolution approving the Hillside Development Policy. 4. Adopt a motion changing the wording of Section 33.601 A (6) (a) (bottom of page 2 of Resolution PCA-73-3) by deleting the following words in lines 3 and 4: ". in excess of that required by the Park Land Dedication Ordinance." 5. Adopt a motion amending the footnote to column 2 of the nomograph by adding the following sentence: "Areas graded in order to accommodate common recreation facilities may be counted as 'ungraded areas,' upon approval of the City Council." 6. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending the Hillside Modifying District as noted above to be brought back to the Council on November 27, 1973. 7. Refer to the Planning Commission the matter of rezoning and prezoning suitable areas to the "H" Hillside Modifying District. U~~ ti . ~ ,~ ~. Items 3 a, b, c Agenda of November ~0, 1973 Item TJo. 3 City Manager Recommendation: This package will provide for improved conservation of our natural topagraphy and regulate development density, bath proper goals of good planning. It will, however, result i.n further minimizing the capital investment return for developers and/or increase the cost of new housing. The impact. of this cost barrier on potential new home buyers may actually be directed more to the middle-income group than the low-income group. Z'his ma~T be the case since hilly areas al7:eady carry other built-in cost problems which minimize the practicability of building homes within the reach o:E law-.income families. 'T'his policy concern appears to be a response to the issue of. conservation versus provision o:L adequa.te housin<~ for a complete crass-section of income groups. However, as discussed by Council previously, the .real crux of the lack of low-.incoz~te housing lies in the area of subsidies. Since the F-~~TU approach is available as a means of deviating Pram the restructions of this ordinance and policy, I can administra- tively support this proposal. ~ ~ ~.