HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - Staff Report PCM 09-12 & PCM 09-12AC H U L A VISTA
PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item• `I
Meeting Date: 11/12/14
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM -09 -12 and PCM- 09 -12A; Consideration of
amendments to the "Growth Management" ordinance (Chapter 19.09 of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code), and the Growth Management Program
Implementation Manual to replace the Threshold Standards and Growth
Management Oversight Committee Policy and the Growth Management
Program document.
Resolution PCM -09 -12 - Resolution of the Planning Commission of the
City of Chula Vista recommending that the City Council adopt an
ordinance approving amendments to the "Growth Management" ordinance
(Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code).
Resolution PCM- 09 -12A — Resolution of the Planning Commission of the
City of Chula Vista recommending that the City Council adopt a
resolution approving the Growth Management Program Implementation
Manual to replace the Threshold Standards and Growth Management
Oversight Committee Policy and the Growth Management Program
document.
SUBMITTED BY: Kimberly Vander Bie, Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kelly Broughton, FASLA, Development Services Director
INTRODUCTION
The City Council adopted the Threshold Standards and Growth Management Oversight
Committee Policy ( "Policy ") in 1987 and the Growth Management Program document and
"Growth Management" ordinance in 1991, establishing Chula Vista's Growth Management
Program. During the last high growth period in the early 2000's, questions arose as to whether
our Growth Management Program provisions, largely developed almost 20 years prior, were still
appropriate and effective. Council subsequently directed that a "top -to- bottom" review be
conducted. The proposed updated "Growth Management" ordinance and Growth Management
Program Implementation Manual are the outcome of that effort.
BACKGROUND
Chula Vista experienced a growth boom that began in 1999 and continued through 2005. During
that time period, City Council requested that a comprehensive review of the "Growth
Management" ordinance (Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code) and threshold
standards for eleven city services or topics be conducted to make certain that they worked "in
today's world." Therefore, staff undertook the process of comprehensively reviewing the city's
Planning Commission
11 -12 -14
Page 2
Growth Management Program from "top -to- bottom," and hired a consultant (Economic &
Planning Systems) to help work on an initial review of the Growth Management Program, which
resulted in a white paper with observations and suggestions that was presented to Council in
2004. (This was in conjunction with the General Plan Update that was occurring at that time.)
Council accepted the white paper and authorized a work program for undertaking a top -to-
bottom review, and the preparation of resultant revisions to the city's Growth Management
Program provisions. Some of the key policy questions in the white paper included:
■ Should threshold standards be revised to recognize the emerging urban policy objectives
within Western Chula Vista (Urban Core) versus the suburban development focus of the
existing threshold standards?
■ Should threshold standards be updated to reflect new service delivery, measurement
techniques, and review of their overall utility? Candidate updates included traffic
modeling techniques and congestion monitoring methods, and fire and police service
standards.
■ Should the city establish criteria and techniques that allow additional control of
development activity, including requirements above and beyond the current focus on
tentative maps? This included introducing building permit -based controls into the
threshold standards, and considering whether to add the prospective use of annual
development metering tools.
■ Should regional and intergovernmental cooperation efforts be improved? A specific
example was formalization of increased cooperation with the school districts to assure
that their respective school construction programs would be as timely as possible.
With input from the consultant, all city departments and a series of GMOC commissioners
(various GMOC annual reports since 2005 have recommended changes to the "Growth
Management" ordinance and threshold standards), staff drafted proposed changes to the current
"Growth Management" ordinance, which revises some of the threshold standards and adds or
modifies some of the goals, objectives and implementation measures currently outlined in the
Policy. Other proposed changes to the ordinance are discussed below, along with a discussion
on the Growth Management Program Implementation Manual proposed to replace the existing
Threshold Standards and Growth Management Oversight Committee Policy and Growth
Management Program document.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a
"Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to
Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no
environmental review is necessary.
Planning Commission
11 -12 -14
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt Resolution PCM- 09 -12, recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance
approving amendments to the "Growth Management" ordinance (Chapter 19.09 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code); and
2. Adopt Resolution PCM- 09 -12A, recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution
approving the Growth Management Program Implementation Manual.
BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
At their October 22, 2014 meeting, the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
recommended that the City Council approve the proposed changes to the "Growth Management"
ordinance and the Growth Management Program Implementation Manual.
DISCUSSION
Overview of Main Aspects of Revised Growth Management Documents
1. New Growth Management Program Implementation Manual (see Attachment 1)
Currently, there is no one document that brings together all of the Growth Management Program
components and processes into one integrated reference resource. The Growth Management
Program document from 1991 has been outdated for several years, and primarily consists of
initial facility and service status evaluations, similar to the ongoing evaluations that are done
every year in the GMOC annual report. The document does not include information on
programs such as Development Impact Fees (DIFs), which were developed after 1991, or an
evolution of growth management considerations in the development process. The Threshold
Standards and Growth Management Oversight Committee Policy provides information on the
GMOC's and the city's responsibilities, in addition to outlining all the elements of the threshold
standards. The fundamental purpose of the Growth Management Program Implementation
Manual is to combine relevant information from both of those documents and create the
reference resource that is missing from the Growth Management Program. The Growth
Management Program Implementation Manual:
• Explains the structure and organization of the Growth Management Program;
• Outlines development review processes, standards and requirements as they relate to
growth management;
• Addresses the role of Facility Master Plans;
• Explains financing programs;
• Outlines implementation measures (such as issuing a "Statement of Concern" or
considering a moratorium)
• Includes content guides /requirements for Air Quality Improvement Plans, Water
Conservation Plans and Public Facilities Finance Plans in its appendices.
Planning Commission
11 -12 -14
Page 4
2. Changes to the "Growth Management" Ordinance (Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code (CVMC)) (see Attachments 2 & 3)
Primary revisions to the "Growth Management" ordinance include:
• Inserted the threshold standards' goals, objectives and implementation measures that are
currently part of the Threshold Standards and Growth Management Oversight Committee
Policy document. Significant changes were made to the goals for Traffic and Fiscal; less
significant changes were made to the goals for Schools, Sewer and Water.
• Implementation measures updated, for all of the threshold standards.
• Added references to Facility Master Plans in threshold standards for Fire and Emergency
Services, Parks and Recreation, Libraries and Schools.
• Made "Statement of Concern" available for any threshold standard, except Fiscal and
Parks and Recreation, which have other implementation measures more appropriate for
those topics.
• Established applicable moratorium considerations to building permit level instead of
tentative maps.
• Moved detailed PFFP content requirements to the appendices section of the Growth
Management Program's Implementation Manual.
• Refreshed and updated policy statements, findings and definitions to reflect current
context.
• Updated threshold standards to reflect contemporary considerations, as further described
below.
The following is an overview of the specific changes to each of the threshold standards:
Police — Priority 2
The Police — Priority 2 threshold standard has been out of compliance for 16 consecutive
years. GMOC's 2010 Annual Report reviewed the history of non - compliance and
concluded that a change was appropriate.
The current Priority 2 threshold standard requires that 57 percent of the Priority 2 calls be
responded to within 7 minutes and that an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of
7.5 minutes or less be maintained.
As part of the top -to- bottom process, the Police Department conducted research on the
origins of the city's Priority 2 threshold standard, and the standards of other police
agencies both in California and nationally. They discovered that the current Threshold's
response times may be a poor reflection of the actual real -world time for two reasons: 1)
Planning Commission
11 -12 -14
Page 5
a "normalization" calculation currently applied is not appropriate; and 2) the reporting
method is not consistent with industry standards. For example, the Chula Vista and San
Diego police departments are the only police departments in San Diego County that
calculate their response times on "route to arrive," which is the time from when the call is
routed from the call -taker to the dispatcher (for dispatch of an officer to the call), until the
time an officer arrives on scene. The other police departments in the County calculate
their response time averages by "received to arrive," which is the time from when the call
is initially received to when the officer arrives on scene. Consequently, those response
times are longer, and average between 12 and 13 minutes. The "received to arrive"
approach is better aligned with the user's experience of call response; being from the time
they made their call for service until officers arrived.
Based on this information, and in an effort to be more consistent industry -wide, the
proposed Police — Priority 2 threshold standard as proposed is:
Priority 2 Urgent Calls *. Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond
to all Priority 2 calls within 12 minutes or less (measured annually).
*Priority 2 — Urgent Calls are misdemeanors in progress; possibility of injury; serious non- routine calls
(domestic violence or other disturbances with potential for violence); burglar alanns. Response: Immediate
response by one or more officers from clear units or those on interruptible activities (traffic, field interviews,
etc.).
Police — Priority 1
The current threshold standard requires properly equipped and staffed police units to
respond to 81 percent of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes and maintain an average
response time to all Priority 1 calls of 5.5 minutes or less.
Based on the discussion above regarding using the industry standard "Received to
Arrive ", the proposed Police — Priority 1 threshold standard reflects that change, and is
proposed as follows:
Priority 1 — Emergency Calls *. Properly equipped and staffed police units shall
respond to at least 81% of Priority 1 calls throughout the city within 7 minutes 30
seconds and shall maintain an average response time of 6 minutes or less for all
Priority 1 calls (measured annually)
*Priority 1 — Emergency Calls are life- threatening calls; felony in progress; probability of injury (crime or
accident); robbery or panic alarms; urgent cover calls from officers.
Air Qualit
The Air Quality threshold standard, as currently written, does not incorporate a
quantifiable benchmark or mechanism to measure whether or not specific growth
management goals are being met. Also, reporting on air quality conditions is done on a
subregional basis, and is influenced by factors outside of the City's control. The Air
Quality Annual Report required by the threshold standard is more of an informational
report to provide updates on Chula Vista's involvement with air quality issues. The
Planning Commission
11 -12 -14
Page 6
GMOC's 2009 Annual Report brought up this issue, noting that it is "difficult to
determine whether or not compliance is maintained."
"The GMOC also noted that because greenhouse gas emissions are influenced by a
variety of environmental issues, such as water use, energy consumption, transportation
levels and solid waste disposal, a more specific greenhouse gas emissions standard could
be especially useful for assessing cumulative growth impacts. A new quantitative
standard would also allow City staff to more effectively identify actions and resources to
address related air quality compliance concerns. This would also better align with the
City's other Climate Action Planning efforts.
The report recommended that the threshold standard should be revised to include
incremental, quantitative benchmarks, such as including a benchmark to attain a 20%
decrease in greenhouse gas emissions per capita, compared to the Climate Protection
Program's 1990 emissions inventory. And since Chula Vista has been actively
implementing the council- adopted Climate Control Program since 2008, combining
"climate protection" with the Air Quality threshold standard made sense.
The proposed Air Quality and Climate Protection threshold standard, below, establishes a
quantifiable benchmark that factors in greenhouse gas emissions:
"For each of the following types of new development, the city shall pursue a
greenhouse gas emissions reduction target consistent with appropriate city climate
change and energy efficiency regulations in effect at the time of project
application for SPA plans or for the following, subject to the discretion of the
Development Services Director:
1. Residential projects of 50 or more residential dwelling units or greater; or
2. Commercial projects of 12 or more acres (or equivalent square footage); or
3. Industrial projects of 24 or more acres (or equivalent square footage); or
4. Mixed use projects of 50 equivalent dwelling units or greater."
The existing threshold measure, which requires an annual report and distributing it to the
Air Pollution Control District (APCD), becomes an Implementation Measure.
Fiscal
Similar to Air Quality, the current Fiscal threshold standard does not incorporate
quantifiable benchmarks or mechanisms to measure whether or not specific growth
management goals are being met. Therefore, and the following two new threshold
standards are proposed:
1. Fiscal Impact Analyses and Public Facilities Finance Plans, at the time they
are adopted, shall ensure that new development offsets the cost of
development.
2. The city shall establish and maintain, at sufficient levels to ensure the timely
delivery of infrastructure and services needed to support growth consistent
Planning Commission
11 -12 -14
Page 7
with the threshold standards, a Development Impact Fee, capital improvement
funding, and other necessary funding programs or mechanisms.
The existing threshold standard provisions, which require that the GMOC be provided
with an annual fiscal impact report and a Development Impact Fee report, become
implementation measures.
Traffic
There are currently two threshold standards for Traffic. The first one is for citywide
maintenance of level -of- service (LOS) "C" on identified arterial and major roadway
corridors. The second one has been outdated for many years and is specific to certain
intersections "West of Interstate 805" that were not meeting the threshold when it was
adopted (1991); stating that signalized intersections that do not meet the first threshold
standard may continue to operate at their current LOS, but not worsen. As noted in the
threshold standard, the TMP which is used to measure traffic threshold compliance
analyses roadway segment performance, not intersection function specifically.
The other more substantive update regards the follow up incorporation of the 2005
General Plan Update's (GPU) "urban level -of- service" (ULOS) provisions. The GPU
alllows for a lesser vehicular LOS on a select set of arterial roadway segments primarily
within the city's Urban Core area, as identified therein. The intent is to slow automobile
traffic in favor of promoting pedestrian activity, bicycles and transit.
The two threshold standards proposed separate Arterial Level of Service (ALOS) from
Urban Street Level of Service (ULOS), as indicated below:
1. Arterial Level of Service (ALOS) for Non -Urban Streets: Those Traffic
Monitoring Program (TMP) roadway segments classified as other than Urban
Streets in the "Land Use and Transportation Element" of the city's General
Plan shall maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel
speed on those segments; except that during peak hours, LOS "D" can occur
for no more than two hours of the day.
2. Urban Street Level of Service (ULOS): Those TMP roadway segments
classified as Urban Streets in the "Land Use and Transportation" Element of
the city's General Plan shall maintain LOS "D" or better, as measured by
observed or predicted average travel speed, except that during peak hours,
LOS "E" can occur for no more than two hours per day.
Parks and Recreation
The GMOC's 2009 Annual Report recommended that the existing threshold standard for
Parks and Recreation be changed to apply citywide. The existing threshold standard
specifies that three acres of neighborhood and community park land with appropriate
facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of Interstate 805. However, as
development in western Chula Vista occurs, population growth will require additional
park and recreation facililties in that area as well. In fact, the City's Parkland
Planning Commission
11 -12 -14
Page 8
Development Ordinance (PDO) already applies citywide, and all new development is
required to contribute to provision of parkland at the rate of three acres /1000 new
residents created by that development. Revising the threshold will make it consistent with
the PDO. Therefore, the following threshold standard is proposed:
1. Three acres of public park land, with appropriate facilities, shall be provided
per 1,000 residents for new development, citywide.
The 2009 report also recommended that it should be ensured that all parks developed
with funding from new residential growth west of I -805 be developed within this area.
This was in recognition of the fact that much of western Chula Vista was historically
developed absent contemporary parks standards, making it all the more important that
new development in the area provide for parks in the area. Therefore, a second threshold
standard is proposed:
2. Park demand created by new development in Chula Vista west of Interstate
805 shall be met by new park facilities in Chula Vista west of Interstate 805.
Since growth management is limited to ensuring that new development meets its needs,
it's important to note that the new threshold is not intended to remedy the noted pre-
existing, limited supply of parkland in older western Chula Vista (the current overall ratio
of parks to population west of Interstate 805 is just over 1 acre per 1,000 residents). Other
creative strategies for increasing overall developed park land west of Interstate 805 are
needed to build upon pre- existing park acreage levels, beyond just the responsibilities of
new development.
Libraries
The existing threshold for libraries requires construction of 60,000 gross square feet
(GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF total, in the area east of
Interstate 805 by build -out, phased such that that the citywide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000
population will be maintained. The library facilities are to be adequately equipped and
staffed.
The city has been unable to maintain the ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population for the
past ten years and is not expected to achieve compliance with the threshold standard for
several more. However, the standard of 500 GSF per 1,000 population is a commonly
used standard throughout the country, which was confirmed by the consultant who
worked on the library facility master plan. Therefore, the proposed threshold standard
does not change the existing ratio, but eliminates the section regarding construction of
new facilities because that is a statement of an end result, not a threshold standard.
The city shall not fall below the city -wide ratio of 500 gross square feet (GSF) of
library space, adequately equipped and staffed, per 1,000 population.
Planning Commission
11 -12 -14
Page 9
Fire and Emergency Services
The proposed changes to the threshold standard for Fire and Emergency Services are
minor, simply adding the words "at least" before "80 percent" (note why), and clarifying
how response time is measured:
Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall
respond to calls throughout the city within 7 minutes in at least 80 percent of the
cases (measured annually). Notes: For growth management purposes, response
time includes dispatch, turnout and travel time to the building or site address.
Drainage
There are two threshold standards for Drainage, and the first one currently specifies
complying with the subdivision manual. The proposed threshold standard states:
1. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed city engineering standards
and shall comply with current local, state and federal regulations, as may be
amended from time to time.
The words "with respect to the impacts of new development" have been added to the
second threshold standard to make it clearer as to focus:
2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the city's storm drain
system, with respect to the impacts of new development, to determine its
ability to meet the goal and objective for drainage.
Schools
Minor modifications are proposed to the Schools threshold standard. The names of the
school districts are now spelled out, and "5- year" forecast replaces the words "12 to 18-
month" forecast because the existing language is outdated:
The city shall annually provide the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and
the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) with the city's annual 5 -year
residential forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate forecasted
growth, both citywide and by subarea. Replies from the school districts should address
the following:
1. Amount of current classroom and "essential facility" capacity now used or
committed;
2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities and identification of
what facilities need to be upgraded or added over the next five years;
3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities
identified; and
4. Other relevant information the school district(s) desire(s) to communicate to
the city and the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC).
Planning Commission
11 -12 -14
Page 10
Water
There are two threshold standards for Water, and the first one requires a service
availability letter from the water district for each project. To make the threshold standard
clearer, the sentence "Adequate water supply must be available to serve new
development" has been added to the beginning of it:
1. Adequate water supply shall be available to serve new development.
Therefore, developers shall provide the city with a service availability letter
from the appropriate water district for each project.
The wording in the second threshold standard has been changed slightly, and refers to the
growth forecast as a "5 -year residential growth forecast, rather than a "12- to18 -month
development forecast" because the existing language is outdated:
2. The city shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the
Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Municipal Water District with the city's
annual 5 -year residential growth forecast and request that they provide an
evaluation of their ability to accommodate forecasted growth. Replies should
address the following:
a. Water availability to the city and planning area, considering both short- and
long -term perspectives;
b. Identify current and projected demand, and the amount of current capacity,
including storage capacity, now used or committed;
c. Ability of current and projected facilities to absorb forecasted growth;
d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities;
e. Other relevant information the district(s) desire(s) to communicate to the
city and Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC).
Sewer
There are two threshold standards for Sewer, and the words "existing and projected
facility" and "current system and budgeted improvements" have been added to the first
one to make it clear. The proposed threshold standard states:
1. Existing and projected facility sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed
city engineering standards for the current system and for budgeted
improvements, as set forth in the Subdivision Manual.
The second threshold standard has been amended to include the possibility of wastewater
treatment sources other than the San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Authority and reads
as follows:
2. The city shall annually ensure adequate contracted capacity in the San Diego
Metropolitan Sewer Authority or other means sufficient to meet the projected
needs of development.
Planning Commission
11 -12 -14
Page 11
DECISION -MAKER CONFLICTS:
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site
specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Section
18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE CITY'S STRATEGIC PLAN
The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality,
Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. Updates
to the Growth Management Program maintain the threshold standards that support the Strategic
Plan's major goals, including the Fiscal threshold standard, which supports the Economic
Vitality goal, "encouraging policies, planning, infrastructure, and services that are fundamental
to an economically strong, vibrant city." The Air Quality, Libraries and Parks and Recreation
threshold standards support the Healthy Communities goal, promoting "an environment that
fosters health and wellness and providing parks, open spaces, outdoor experiences, libraries and
recreational opportunities that residents can enjoy." And the Police, Fire and Emergency
Services, Traffic, Sewer and Drainage threshold standards support the Strong and Secure
Neighborhoods goal, ensuring "a sustainable and well- maintained infrastructure to provide safe
and appealing communities to live, work and play" and maintaining "a responsive Emergency
Management Program."
CONCLUSION
Chula Vista's 27- year -old Growth Management Program has served the City well, and the
proposed changes to the "Growth Management" ordinance, threshold standards and the new
Growth Management Program Implementation Manual address contemporary situations and
provide updates that will allow the City to continue to maintain its quality of life as growth
occurs.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
Staff costs associated with the preparation of the proposed documents are covered within the
adopted budgets of the various participating City departments. Adoption of the updated
documents will not directly result in fiscal impacts.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
City Departments' monitoring efforts needed to report annual compliance with any revised
threshold standards will continue as they have in prior years. Actual field measured conditions
will now simply be reported in relation to the revised standards. Staff costs associated with these
monitoring efforts will continue to be included for Council consideration as part of each involved
department's annual City budget adoption process.
Any new project level requirements will be implemented through the development review
process which is funded by associated development through deposit accounts or fees. The fiscal
impacts from the new standards will also be evaluated through the City's fiscal impact reporting
process for future new development, which analyses are also funded by private development.
Planning Commission
11 -12 -14
Page 12
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Growth Management Program Implementation Manual and Appendices A -C
2. Draft "Growth Management" Ordinance (CVMC 19.09) - Strike -out Underline Version
3. Draft "Growth Management" Ordinance (CVMC 19.09) -Accepted Edits Version
Prepared by: Kimberly Vander Bie, Associate Planner, Advance Planning, Development Services Department