HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2004/05/27
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am ßV:~cr
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this
document on the bulletin board according to
Brown Act reqUìrements.~
Dated Çþ"'/olf Sign CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Ä AR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
May 27, 2004 ~:n CHA~?)
6:00 P.M. 276 FOURTH AVENUE
CALL TO ORDER ----- -----------_./--/-
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Padilla
1. DISCUSSION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WHITE PAPER
White Paper is an element of the Growth Management Program Top-to-Bottom review as
previously requested by Council. The White Paper provides background and analysis of
the current situation and identifies a range of growth management program reform
options for review and discussion as a basis for further action- (Director of Planning and
Building)
Staff recommendation: Council accept the report and provide guidance on reform
options and direction.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of June 1, 2004 at 4:00 p.m., in the Council
Chambers, thence to an Adjourned Regular Meeting immediately
following the 4:00 meeting, in the Council Chambers, thence to an
Adjourned Regular Meeting on June 2, 2004, at 4:00 p.m., at the Jolm
Lippitt Public Works Center, thence to the Regular Meeting of June 8,
2004, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, and thence to an Adjourned
Regular Meeting on June 9, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. at the Jolm Lippitt Public
Works Center.
COMPLIANCE WIlli AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who
may need special accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service to contact
the City Clerk's Office at (619) 691-5041 for specific information on existing resources or programs that may be
available for such accommodation. Please call at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days in
advance for scheduled services and activities.
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am
employed ,- the City of Chula Vista in the
OHice of thy ":ity Clerk and that I posted this
document on the bulletin board according to
Brown Act requirements.
CITY OF CHULA VW'ø\¡ 5-fif-oif Signed <;J"P/¡JP ~
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
May 27, 2004
6:00 P.M.
JOHN LIPPITT PUBLIC WORKS CENTER
1800 Maxwell Road
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Councihnembers Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Padilla
1. DISCUSSION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WHITE PAPER
White Paper is an element of the Growth Management Program Top-to-Bottom review as
previously requested by Council. The White Paper provides background and analysis of
the current situation and identifies a range of growth management program reform
options for review and discussion as a basis for further action. (Director of Planning and
Building)
Staff recommendation: Council accept the report and provide guidance on reform
options and direction.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of June 1, 2004 at 4:00 p.m., in the Council
Chambers.
COMPLIANCE WIlli AMERICANS WIlli DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americaos with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who
may need special acconunodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service to contact
the City Clerk's Office at (619) 691-5041 for specific information on existing resources or programs that may be
available for such accommodation. Please call at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days in
advance for scheduled services and activities.
COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
DATE:
May 20, 2004
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
/ 11. r'
David D. Rowlands Jr., City ManagerlJp.< 9 -1L1h
James D. Sandoval, Director of Planning and BuildingT
Growth Management Program White Paper
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
Last week you were sent a "City Council Agenda Statement" for the Growth Management
Workshop scheduled for Thursday May 27, 2004. Attached to the Agenda Statement was a
Growth Management Program White Paper. After some additional fine-tuning that paper is
being reissued (attached).
Please discard the version you received last week.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date ~
ITEM TITLE: Workshop: Review And Discussion Of Growth Management Program White
Paper
SUBMITTED BY: Di~tm ofPl~cing""" Bui1~
¡gÞ/ ~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager f1J '9 (4/5ths Vote: Yes _No.x...l
On April 15, 2003 the City Council directed staffto undertake a "top to bottom" review of the City's
growth management program. In response to this request, and because Growth Management is a
component of the City's General Plan, which is also being updated, an outside consultant was hired
to assist staff in the review process. The consultant, Walter Kieser from Economic and Planning
Systems, Inc., has extensive experience in growth management and is knowledgeable of growth
management practices throughout the state. The consultant has produced a White Paper with options
regarding the City's growth management program.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council accept the White Paper and provide direction to staff regarding further evaluation for
any of the options.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
In it's 2002 Annual Report, presented on June 12, 2003, the Growth Management Oversight
Commission supported the Council's call for the "top to bottom" review of the growth management
program.
DISCUSSION:
A White Paper (Attachment 1) has been prepared by the consultant and will be reviewed at the
workshop. The White Paper provides background and analysis of the current growth management
program and identifies a range of growth management program reform options for review and
discussion as a basis for further action.
Page 2, Item No.-
Meeting Date: 05/27/04
As stated on the last page of the White Paper, key policy questions include:
. Should the threshold standards be revised to recognize the emerging policy objectives within
Western Chula Vista versus the suburban new development focus of the existing threshold
standards? These revised thresholds will need to reflect the emerging urban character of the
Urban Core and other redeveloping portions of Western Chula Vista.
. Should citywide threshold standards be amended to reflect new service delivery,
measurement teclmiques, and review of their overall utility? Candidate updates include
traffic modeling teclmiques and congestion monitoring methods and fire and police threshold
standards.
. Should the City of Chula Vista establish criteria and teclmiques that allow additional control
of development activity including requirements above and beyond the current tentative map
conditions? Specifically should a growth "cap" that sets an upward limit upon the number of
residential building permits issued in any given year be imposed?
. Should regional and intergovernmental cooperation efforts be improved? A specific example
is a formalization of ongoing increased cooperation with the School Districts to assure that
their respective school construction programs are as timely as possible.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Growth Management Program White Paper
Eeono
PlannIng Systems
Il,./&ta'Eamami"
Il",ianol Eronomic,
/>"'kFinoa"
Landll,,/'alicy
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
WHITE PAPER
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
May 2004
EPS #14022
BERKELEY SACRAMENTO DENVER
2501 Ni,thSt..SuH,200 Ph"" 510-841-9190 Y Ph"" 916-649-8010 Ph"" JOJ-62J-Jm
'"k,l,y. CA 94710-2515 .." 510-841-9208 F", 916.649-2070 "xc JOJ.62J.9O49
www.'p,y,.,om
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
IN1RODUCTlON ..................................................................................................................1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ISSUES.........................................................................................4
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ........................................................6
MARKET ANDGROW1H TRENDS.........................................................................................9
Historical Growth Trends.....................................................................................9
Current Market Conditions and Forecast...........................................................10
GROW1H MANAGEMENT REFORM OPTIONS .....................................................................13
Establishing Threshold Standards for the Urban Core Area and
Other Urbanizing Portions of Chula Vista.........................................................13
Updated Citywide Threshold Standards............................................................17
Enhanced Growth Controls................................................................................23
Expanded Financing Capacity within the Urban Core and
Other Parts of Western Chula Vista...................................................................25
Intergovernmental Cooperation.........................................................................26
POLICY DIRECTION......................................... ..................................................................27
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
PAGE
Table 1: Summary of Growth Management Components.........................................7
Table 2: Chula Vista's Three-Tiered Development Review Process..........................8
Table 3: Population Growth in Western Chula Vista...............................................10
Table 4: SANDAG Growth Forecast for Chula Vista...............................................ll
Table 5: Past Residential Development in Chula Vista and San Diego Region.......ll
Table 6: Chula Vista Remaining Development Capacity .........................................12
Table 7: Chula Vista's Threshold Standards.............................................................20
Figure 1: City of Chula Vista Population and Housing Units.....................................9
Figure 2: Urban Core Specific Plan Study Area.........................................................14
Growth Monagement Program White Paper
May 19, 2004
INTRODUCTION
This White Paper provides a review and introduces change options for the City of Chula
Vista's Growth Management Program. While the Growth Management Program has
been effective at achieving many of its originally stated goals, and is nationally
recognized as an example of the effective use of "threshold standards" in growth
management, changing conditions in the City suggest that the time for reform, needed
to assure the fundamental objective of maintaining quality of life in the City, has arrived.
Chula Vista's Growth Management Program was initiated during the late 1980s and
evolved over the following several years into a comprehensive system that included
innovative ordinance-based "threshold standards," a General Plan Growth Management
Element, extensive development project-specific procedural, technical analysis,
development conditions, a special commission (the Growth Management Oversight
Commission), and service capacity agreements and coordination with other entities. At
the time of its inception, the City was experiencing a period of very rapid suburban
expansion in the eastern portion of the City (e.g., Otay Ranch). At the time there was a
significant concern that this expansive development would degrade the quality of life of
existing and future residents by not creating a corresponding complement of public
facilities and services. As stated in the Growth Management Program:
"The purpose of the Growth Management Program is to create and implement a
system to meet the General Plan goals and objectives as well as the Growth
Management Element goals and objectives. The Chula Vista Growth Management
Program will iffqiement the Cily's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance by ensuring
that development occurs only when necessary public facilities and services exist or are
provided concurrent with the demands of new development ".
The ultimate goal of the Growth Management Program is to achieve a high quality of
life for existing and future residents throughout Chula Vista. The threshold standards
that were imposed primarily to assure that adequate infrastructure and services were in
place as development in Eastern Chula Vista lie at the core of the Growth Management
Program. The Growth Management Program also recognized the distinctions between
the newly developing areas and the prevIously developed portions of the City (the area
west of 1-805); however, due to lack of significant development activity and potential in
this area at the time, oruya few accommodations were made to reflect these differing
circumstances.
While the Growth Management Program has largely achieved its core growth
management objectives (Le., infrastructure concurrency) since its inception 17 years ago,
it is now realized that certain changes may be beneficial as the City manages its future
development opportunities, especially the challenges associated with revitalizing older
portions of the City, and as it sustains the quality of municipal services and facilities for
the benefit of all the City's residents.
1 H,' 14022,'.t"""""'MPI,,I"""14022whi-.,Uoc
- --------------.------
Growth Management Program White Paper
May 19, 2004
The specific issues that have been identified by policy makers regarding the Growth
Managem ent Program include:
. There is a need to adjust threshold standards for the City's Urban Core area and
other more dense urban areas of the City. The strictly applied threshold standards
included in the current Growth Management Ordinance may frustrate desirable
redevelopment projects and revitalization in these areas.
. There is a need to reconsider and strengthen the Ordinancebased threshold
standards in view of emerging standards (e.g., Highway Capacity Manual 2000),
emerging technical analysis capabilities (e.g., traffic mmitoring and modeling), and
evolving service delivery methods and facilities. For example, Police and
Fire/Emergency services standards have technically fallen below the threshold
standard in recent years of rapid development but this may not actually reflect a
reduction in the quality of these services.
. There is a need for a more definitive growth control mechanism to limit annual rate
of development. The recent rapid rate of development has made achieving the
threshold standards difficult simply because of the lead time needed for mobilizing
services and planning and constructing key facilities such as parks, and road
projects.
. There is a need to reconsider the notion of "quality of life" in the City beyond the
existing numerical or facility-based threshold standards; it may be possible to
achieve all of the current quantitative threshold standards and still gain the
perception that quality of life in the City is diminishing.
Recognizing these issues the City Council called for a "top-to-bottom review" of the
City's Growth Management Program on April 15, 2003. The Growth Management
Oversight Commission (GMOC) has also acknowledged the need for a review of the
Growth Management Program. In its 2002 Annual Report, published in June 2003, the
GMOC highlighted the need for a better definition of its role as it related to the broader
quality of life issue and the observation that "the east and west are dIfferent and that
dIfferent quality of life standards and Implementation methods for each area would be
appropriate". The GMOC also found that the City" continues to experience
unprecedented growth. This growth reflects the prosperity of the region but if not
managed poses a threat to our quality of life".
This White Paper addresses the concerns regarding the Growth Management Program
issues raised by the City Council and the GMOc. As such, the White Paper is intended
to provide ideas and stimulate discussion leading to specific changes. While no
definitive changes have been selected at this time, the key ideas that have been
identified thus far are dIscussed in this White Paper and placed in the broader context of
the City's growth trends, emerging City policy reflected in the General Plan Update and
the Urban Core Specific Plan, and the growth management techniques being applied in
other communities around the Country.
2 ".'14022,'"{~i,"GMPI""",{114011""i{'I"'P"7.doc
Growth Management Program White Paper
May 19, 2004
Throughout this discussion it is also important to keep in mind the changing nature of
Chula Vista. While the Growth Management Program has served the City well over the
better part of the past two decades as the community has grown substantially, the
horizon of "buildout" in Eastern Chula Vista, when the area will be completely
developed, is nearing. The GMOC, in its 2003 Annual Report, estimated buildout of
Eastern Chula Vista to be as soon as 10 years (2015). Increasingly, maintaining "quality
of life" in the City will not be defined by how the remaining increment of typical
suburban growth is managed, Rather, defining the quality of life will use new
mechanisms which should take into consideration how the City maintains services in
already developed portions of the City; restores and rebullds existing infrastructure, and
redevelops and intensifies the older portions of the City including the Urban Core Area
and the aging commercial and residential areas along the major arterials such as
Broadway and Third Street, Current national and regional market trends towards
higher density mixed-use and transit-oriented development will propel this
transformation,
In many ways the emerging challenge of revitalizing existing urban areas and
maintaining and restoring infrastructure and sustaining high quality municipal services
is more difficult than achieving infrastructure concurrency with new development.
Assuring that new development "pays its own way" is relatively straightforward while
maintaIning service standards and infrastructure in a low growth environment can be
considerably more challenging given the considerable financial constraints and other
obstacles often facing redevelopment and revitalization projects.
The key ideas for reforming Chula Vista's Growth Management Program include:
. Creating service standards that recognize the emerging policy objectives within
Western Chula Vista, particularly in the Urban Core Area, versus the suburban new
development focus of the existing threshold standards,
. Amending citywide threshold standards to reflect new service delivery and
measurement techniques and a review of their utility and effectiveness.
. Establishing criteria and techniques that allow additional control of the rate of
development activity including requirements above and beyond the current
tentative map conditions.
. Establishing financing programs required infrastructure improvements in Western
Chula Vista.
. Improving regional and intergovernmental cooperation,
As an outgrowth from the discussions of issues and options outlined in this White
Paper, amendments to the General Plan Growth Management Element will be
developed. The emerging Growth Management Element will provide a policy basis and
instruction set for subsequent implementing actions including amendments to the
Growth Management Program and revisions to the Growth Management Ordinance.
3 H'II4022c'"I""'f"'MPI",",fl14022whi~7.Jæ
Growth Management Program WillIe Paper
May 19, 2004
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ISSUES
As noted in the Introduction, a range of issues has led to the need to reconsider the
City's Growth Management Program and to explore various reforms. This section
examines and elaborates upon the issues that have led to the need to consider reforms
the City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Program.
1. 11te precise tlrreslrolrl stmulllrds illcl1lrierl Í1t tire Growtlr MlI1IIIgemettt
Orrlimmce I1IIIY i1Úli6it rlesirerl reuitlllizlltiO1lll1lrl rerleuelopme1lt ill Westem
Ckulll Vistll.
The strictly applied threshold standards included in the Growth Management
Ordinance may frustrate desirable redevelopment projects and revitalization in
Western Chula Vista and other urban density areas within the City. The Growth
Management ordinance currently provides alternative standards west of 1-805 based
upon existing levels of service for traffic and parks and further requires that extant
levels of service for these facilities do not decline. It is likely that this requirement
will be difficult or impossible to achieve particularly for traffic, because these
improvements may be financially if not physically impossible. For example,
widening major arterials would likely require substantial "right-of-way" takes
eliminating existing businesses and homes located along the arterial. Such a project
would be very costly as well as disruptive.
2. Ckll1lges to tire Í1trlioidulIl tlrresltoltl stlllldards coultll1laKe tire Growtlt
MlIlIIIgemettt Pro.fTlll1ll1lore effictive IImI ejJicimt.
There is a need to reconsider and strengthen the Ordinance-based threshold
standards in view of emerging standards (e.g., Highway Capacity Manual 2000),
current technical analysis capabilities (e.g., traffic monitoring and modeling), and
evolving service delivery methods and facilities. As another example, Police and
Fire/Emergency services levels have technically fallen below the threshold standard
in recent years of rapid development, but this may not be a persistent problem or
reflect an actual reduction in service level or the quality of those services.
3, HigIt TIlles oj' growtlr 1IIII/æ llÓlÎe1JÍ1tg tlrresltold sfmNItmIs tH./JicIIlt mtd tltn!aten
0ZJe1'II1I 'f1HÚity oj'lift Í1I Cltum VisflZ
There is a need for a more definitive growth control mechanism that can limit the
annual rate or amount of development. Rapid rates of development make achieving
the thresholds difficult simply because of the lead time needed for planrúng and
constructing key facilities such as parks and road projects. The significant rise in
growth over the past several years has made achieving thresholds difficult for the
following facilities:
4 "'IUtJ22""/~i"aGMPI"fOrlIUO22whi"""""Uæ
Growth Management Program White Paper
May 19, 2004
. It is difficult for construction of public facilities to keep up with rapid
development even if financial resources are in place. The lead times for
designing, engineering, and constructing parks, libraries, and other public
facilities can simply be overwhelmed if growth is too rapid.
. In anticipation of SR 125 the City and several major developers have had to enter
into a building permit allocation agreement to assure that traffic threshold
standards on major arterials are not violated. While this ad hoc agreement has
temporarily resolved the matter additional development not subject to the
agreement are in the planning and entitlement process.
. The infrastructure requirements of individual projects are difficult to monitor
and ascertain when development occurs at a very rapid pace. Regarding the
tentative maps and related entitlements, their sheer sIze makes subsequent
regulation and growth management difficult.
. While the high school district is engaged in the most extensive construction
program in its history, it is still falling behind in the delivery of new schools,
because it has indicated that it cannot construct schools fast enough, given the
lead time and financial requirements involved, to keep up with the rapid pace
recent development. Despite the City's statutory restriction from conditioning
development on the basis of school capacity (SB-50) school crowding clearly
detracts from quality of life.
The Growth Management Ordinance and the provisIons of State law allow a city to
limit or stop development altogether if a violation of a threshold standard persists or
if a significant threat to public health, safety, or welfare, respectively, is identified.
The City of Chula Vista has not found the need to take these actions since the
inception of the Growth Management Program, largely because the Growth
Management Program has worked well during the early and mid-1990s. However,
over the past few years there have been increasing problems with meeting threshold
standards and these problems are largely associated with the high rate of growth.
4. Aclrieui1lg precise tltresltold stamlartls does 1Iot always, Í1I ami 0/ tltemselues,
IISSNre tlte Hrpmlity 0/ lift" soupt by tlte Growtlt MlI1Iagl!11le1lt Prosnzm.
The ordinance-based threshold standards are, by their nature, quantitative. "Quality
of life," on the other hand, is more qualitative and subjective; it may be possIble to
achieve all of the quantitative threshold standards and still affect quality of life in the
City. Moreover, as build out of the City nears, the City's mission will begin to
change. Rather than managing growth in the East the challenge will shift to
sustaining and restoring what already exists. Increasingly, restoring and revitalizing
existing neighborhoods will be the priority. Also, without substantial new
development as a source of funding, the City will need to operate, maintain, and
ultimately rebuild a substantial complement of urban infrastructure and public
facilities.
5 HcI140ZZeh,/,,""f4GMPI"P"'/1140Z2whil_,7.d«
Growth Management Program White Paper
May 19, 2004
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Chula Vista's Growth Management Program engages a highly systematic application of
the City's land use regulation, environmental review, and infrastructure financing
responsibilities and functions. One of the notable aspects of Chula Vista's Growth
Management Program is how well it has been integrated into the City's land use
planning and development regulation framework. While there are other growth
management programs that make use of threshold standards, few if any programs have
achieved this level of integration of growth management with land use regulation and
infrastructure financing.
Table 1 outlines the components of the City's Growth Management Program as it is
integrated into the land use planning and development regulation framework. The
function and status of each component is noted along with whether each is viewed as a
target for the reforms being contemplated as a part of the Growth Management Program
Review. While the individual growth management components may be modified and
updated as the result of the General Plan Update and the review of the Growth
Management Program, the overall framework is likely to endure and function much as it
has in the past.
The Growth Management Program threshold standards are integrated into the CIty's
development review process in a three-tiered manner as show on Table 2. Tier 1
involves preparation of a General Development Plan which establishes the basic land
use and development policies. An EIR is completed that provides a framework for
subsequent environmental review and actions. During Tier 2 detailed Sectional
Planning Area Plan (SPA) and a corresponding Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP),
consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Ordinance, is prepared.
The SPA and the PFFP are the basis of the land use designations (zoning) and the related
Development Agreement entitlements and responsibilities. Tier 3 involves creating the
Tentative Map and meeting key requirements such as establishment of financing
mechanisms and assurances that Threshold Standards can be met as development is
actually occurring.
While this regulatory framework has served the City well as it has managed rapid
suburban expansion in Eastern Chula Vista, a different approach to regulation will need
to be evolved to encourage and manage desirable development and redevelopment in
Western Chula Vista and specifically in the Urban Core Area given the unique
development challenges faced in this area. This revised regulatory framework will need
to account for the generally smaller size of urban infill projects as well as the financial
hurdles often facing infill and redevelopment projects (e.g., parking, hazardous
materials remediation, etc.) and the related need for public investments.
6 HI14021"'""""',GMPI"P"ri'14OZ2w1oil<I"I"'7.doc
--------.---------
Growth Management Program White Paper
May 19, 2004
Table 1
Summary of Growth Management Components
GMP Component Function Status Reform
Topic
Growth Management Establishes program Adopted in 1991 Yes
Program Report objectives and mechanisms
Growth Management Establishes policy linkage to Subject to revision as part of Yes
Element of Generai Pian General Pian GP Update
Growth Management Legaliy estabiishes threshoid Adopted in 1991 Yes
Ordinance standards, administration, and
compliance mechanisms
Growth Management Administers the Growth Established pursuant to the No
Oversight Commission Management Program GMO in 1991
Cummings Initiative Limits "up-zoning" to one Passed by the voters in Yes
higher level of density [1986]
Facility Master Plans Provide pians and preliminary Completed and regularly No
design specifications for major revised since 1987
infrastructure projects.
Area Deveiopment impact Provide financing for Originaily adopted in 1991 Yes
Fees (DIF) development-related and updated in accordance
infrastructure improvements in with updated Master Plans.
Eastern Chula Vista.
Intergovernmental Establish terms of cooperation Service agreements in place Yes
Agreements between the City and other related to water, sewage, and
public agencies providing school construction.
municipai services.
Development Review Process Implements City planning, "Three-tiered" system in place Yes
zoning, and subdivision map since 1991 (see Table 2).
regulations imposed on new
development.
Public Facility Financing Plans Describes pubiic facilities and Adopted for ail Sectional No
how they will be funded by a Planning Area Plans as
given development project. required by the GMO.
Environmental Impact Reports Provides for environmentai Conducted on ail No
review of development projects discretionary approvals
consistent with State law deemed by be "projects"
(California Environmental under CEOA
Ouaiity Act)
Development Agreements Negotiated and adopted for ail Adopted for ail Sectional No
Sectionai Planning Area Pians Planning Area Pians.
as required by the GMO.
7 HI 14022,'.'mm/oGMPI""",i 114022whil"""",7.doc
Growth Management Program White Paper
May 19, 2004
Table 2
Chula Vista's Three-Tiered Development Review Process
Threshold Tests feasibility of Demonstrates Project must
Standards project at buildout per consistency of each guarantee
Threshold Standards phase with Threshold conformance to
Standards Threshold Standard
prior to building
Public Facilities Allocates project share Locates and describes Construction of public
Requirements of public facilities at public facilities needed facilities guaranteed
buildout for each phase
Financing of Identifies financing Identifies cost, financial Specific financing
Facilities options responsibility, and mechanisms
proposed financing established
method for each public
facility
8 H.'I 1402Z,k."""W;MPI"I"'rll 14!J12wkil'l"'P"7.doc
Growth Management Program White Paper
May 19, 2004
MARKET AND GROWTH TRENDS
The Growth Management Program was conceived In the late 1980s at a time when
Chula Vista was experiencing very rapid urban expansion and growth associated with
the development of Otay Mesa and surrounding portions of Eastern Chula Vista. This
section addresses historìcal growth trends in Chula Vista and a look into the future.
These historical trends, current market conditions, and what is expected in the future
will playa large roll in considering reforms to the Growth Management Program.
HISTORICAL GROWTH TRENDS
During the past 20 years Chula Vista has grown at a rapid pace. While year-to-year
trends have followed the dominant state and national business cycle overall growth has
consistently placed Chula Vista near the top of the list for growth in the State and the
nation. Figure 1 shows growth rates over the past 20 years in Chula Vista indicating
development approvals, actual units built and the related increase in total population. It
is interesting to note that the Growth Management Program was conceived during a
period of rapid growth at the end of the 1980s. The spike of growth that has occurred at
the end of the 1990s has raised the issues that in turn have led to consideration of
reforms to the Growth Management Program.
Figure 1: City of Chula Vista Population and Housing Units
5.000 250.000
4.500
4.000 200.000
3,500
~ 3,000 150.000
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ 2.000 1DO.000 ~
1.500
1,000 50.000
500
~~#~~#####~~#~~##ø###~~~
Y...
9 HI14022".'rimGMPI"I"""l#J22w1ii"P'P<'Uæ
Growth Management Program WIllie Paper
MtlIJ 19, 2004
In addition to the substantial new development and related population growth
occurring in Eastern Chula Vista, another growth trend has been the increase in
population in Western Chula Vista Western Chula Vista is the portion of the City
generally lying west of the 1-805 Freeway including the Northwest, Southwest, and Bay
Front Planning Areas. This area was largely developed during the post-war period in
the 1950s and 1960s. It is characterized by its older residential neighborhoods and strip
commercial development along major arterials, including Broadway and Third Street.
During the past 20 years growth has occurred in this area without substantial new
residential construction. Census data reveal that household sizes in Western Chula
Vista are increasing, leading to this growth. Table 3 shows household population in
Western Chula Vista in 1980,1990, and 2000. Over this 20-year period overall
population increased by 22,000 while oruy 4,000 housing units were constructed. These
new residents increase demand for public facìlities and services as surely as residents of
new development (and in some cases even more); however, there is no way to regulate
such growth and few financìng mechanisms are available to fund new facìlities and
services that are required to serve this new population.
Table 3
Population and Housing Growth in Western Central Chula Vista
% Change % Change % Change
1980 1990 80-90 2000 90-00 80-00
Population 86,828 99,671 14.79% 108,907 9.27% 25.43%
Housing Units 34,607 37959 9.69% 38622 1.75% 11.60%
Persons per Housing Unit 2.51 2.63 4.65% 2.82 7.39% 12.39%
Source: U.S. Census, 1980, 1990, 2000
CURRENT MARKET CONDmONS AND FORECAST
It is expected that growth potential in the San Diego region will remam strong. Table 4
presents a development forecast through the year 2030 developed by the San Diego
Assocìation of Governments.
As can be seen in Table 5, Chula Vista represents a substantial portion of the regional
housing market. During the past five years housing prices remain strong. Regional
market conditions are expected to continue, although the pace of growth is likely to slow
as the amount of developabJe land diminishes over the next ten years. Major changes in
the national economy or finance market (e.g., interest rates) could also slow
development during this time frame. If history is any indicator, such a slowdown will
certainly occur during the next ten years as the City approaches its "buildout" condition.
10 1tIU022".""",¡"cMPI""",¡IU022w1oi,,,.,.,7doc
Growth Management Program White Paper
May 19, 2004
Table 4
SANDAG Growth Forecast for Chula Vista
2000 2010 2020 2030
Chlll~ Vi.t~
Population 173,556 247,885 268,970 278,183
Housing Stock 59,495 81,465 86,403 87,537
San Dieco Recion
Population 2,813,833 3,211,721 3,528,605 3,855,085
Housing Stock 1,040,149 1,166,094 1,254,647 1,354,088
Percent
Population 6.2% 7.7% 7.6% 7.2%
Housing Stock 5.7% 7.0% 6.9% 6.5%
Source: SANDAG DBta Warehouse
Table 5
Past Residential Development in Chula Vista and San Diego Region
New HousinQ Units Completed
Year Chula Vista San Diego Region Percent
1998 1,093 11,361 9.6%
1999 1,715 11,206 15.3%
2000 2,6S2 12,562 21.1%
2001 3,222 13,008 24.8%
2002 2,923 14,254 20.5%
2003 2,697 nfa
Cumulative 11,605 62,391 18.6%
Source: City of Chula Vista and SANOAG: San Diego Region Population and Housing Eslimales
11 ""1402Z"'ulAvi,tnGMPI"""rlI140ZZwloi_7d~
Growth Management Program White Paper
May 19, 2004
Table 6 presents estimates of development capacity in the City by comparing existing
development to that allowed under the existing General Plan. Chula Vista is expected to
continue relatively rapid expansion during the next few years. At historical average
rates of development the City will reach "build out" of its current municipal boundary
by the year 2015.
To"o'
Chu'oVlo.o "omo',',. D...~pmo",CopK'~
"..id"""""""";"' Commo~','Uoo,<A"..,
""" s""o',mlly Mo"'-',mlly T"""..id""'o' To"'Po"",,tloo(l) Ro"" om" ',do"h" V;,""-SoM',UOO'
Eu'.'""""",,,,""'
tm 7.520 12.152 19.672 59.724 24B.96 100.68 56.59 20.16
SW 7.712 10.565 18.277 55.489 245.06 19.91 332.7 6.04
E,,' 20.761 6.722 29.503 69,571 215.57 79.06 221 0.5
T"" 36.013 31.439 67,452 204.764 710 200 610 27
G""O~'PI""Co"">
tm 7,207 13.933 21.140 64.181 271.1 112.75 7629 20.16
sW 7.516 11.333 18.851 57232 291.49 16.62 417.13 5.71
Eæt 30.637 19.234 50.071 152.016 533.72 164.44 639.96 18.76
T"" 45.562 44.500 90.062 273.428 1.096 318 1.339 45
"~o;';"9 C",,>
tm -313 1.761 1.466 4.457 22.14 11.87 21.7 0
"" -194 768 574 1.743 46.43 -1.09 64.43 -0.33
Em 10.056 10.512 20.566 62.444 318.15 105.36 616.96 18.26
T"" 9.549 13.061 22.610 68.644 367 116 725 16
(I) Po,,"""" ",""""Io13.036..,hoo..hold (DO' J".I.20")
Soo~,C'>ofCho'oV;",
An emerging trend in the San Diego region, mirroring trends being experienced around
the nation, is the re-emergence of urban areas as a desirable place to live and work.
During the past several years thousands of housing units, primarily high-density
condominium and rental units, have been constructed in downtown San Diego. Chula
Vista's proximity to downtown San Diego and Western Chula Vista's mix of urban
amenities (transit access, Bay Front recreation facilities and open space, and
development opportunity sites) suggest that a similar development pattern (vertical
mixed use, etc.) is possible.
As has been experienced in other cities, increasing housing densities and bringing new
households into the Urban Core area of Western Chula Vista can be a key component of
the desired revitalization of the area, attracting other desirab1e urban development
including specialty retail, entertainment venues and office and professional services and
other employers.
12 ""UOllch.I",H'tnGMPI"P",IIU011wh""""",'.doc
Growth Management Program White Paper
May 19, 2004
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REFORM OPTIONS
As noted in the Introduction there are five general areas where changes to the Growth
Management Program may be considered by the City. These changes are oriented to
meeting future challenges faced by Chula Vista as it manages growth and development.
These areas include:
. Creating service standards that recognize the emerging policy objectives within
Western Chula Vista versus the suburban new development focus of the existing
threshold standards.
. Amending citywIde threshold standards to reflect new service delivery,
measurement techniques, and review of their overall utility.
. Establishing criteria and techniques that allow additional control of development
activity including requirements above and beyond the current tentative map
conditions.
. Establishing financing programs for infrastructure improvements in Western Chula
Vista.
. Improving regional and intergovernmental cooperation.
ESTABLISIDNG THRESHOLD STANDARDS FOR rnE URBAN
CORE AREA AND OrnER URBANIZING PORTIONS OF
CHULA VISTA
One of the concerns that has been expressed regarding the Growth Management
Program leading to the overall review currently being conducted by the City is that Ihe
strictly applied threshold standards included in the Growth Management Ordinance
may frustrate desirable redevelopment projects and overall revitalization In Western
Chula Vista including the City's Urban Core Area, along other developed commercial
corridors, and other urban density portions of the City that may be appropriate for
urban density development Figure 2 presents a map delineating the boundaries of the
Urban Core area of Western Chula Vista.
At the inception of the Growth Management Program, this problem was of little concern
since the western portion of the City was largely "buildout" and was not undergoing
significant redevelopment. More recently a number of changes have occurred that
require a reconsideration of growth management policies in Western Chula Vista. These
same considerations may apply more broadly to higher density areas of Eastern Chula
Vista as well. These changes include:
13 H'\14022,'"',,""""'MP\"I""\14022whi'P"P,,7.d~
~~i j;1 -II Þ . I vi
! ÏiJ Ij!~~h ~I --;-"1 ~I!
N
~
:J
.2'
u.
Growth Management Program WhlÏe Paper
May 19, 2004
. Demographic changes wherein the existing older housing stock is occupied by
larger families causing population growth even without new development. As
documented above these larger familIes typically have more children who, in
turn, place demands upon schools and other facilities serving young people such
as parks and libraries.
. Regìonal market trends that support a more intensive "urban" envIronment.
Western Chula Vista was originally developed at relatively low density typical of
suburban development that occurred throughout California in the 1950s and
1960s. High prices of single-family homes in the regIon and a changIng market
preference toward high amenity urban neighborhoods have created
opportunities for more intensive development.
. Agìng of buildings originally built 50 years ago or more. As buildings age there
is often the need for substantial renovation or redevelopment that conforms to
current market demands and regulatory standards.
. Financial feasibilìty of development projects In Western Chula VIsta is lìmited by
high costs associated with redevelopment including land costs and structured
parking.
. CIty policy direction promoting infill development and revitalization.
. Creation of urban infrastructure and amenities including transit, Bay Front
recreation opportunities, and street front shopping and entertainment has made
Western Chula Vista a more attractive place to lìve and work.
The existing Growth Management Program equates" qualìty of lìfe" with achieving
specific "suburban" threshold standards. A more urban development form can also
offer "qualìty of lìfe" perhaps measured differently; however, publìc perception may be
that more "urban" threshold standards could be "lesser" than their suburban
counterparts. Accordingly, changes to the origInal threshold standards intended to
promote the desired urban revitalìzation and redevelopment must be considered in the
context of these different definitions of "qualify of life". For example, while roads and
intersections may operate at a lower service standard, access to transit rod convenient
pedestrian access to jobs and services is much greater.
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation (LOS) Threshold Standards strictly applied will limit revitalìzation and
redevelopment In the Urban Core Area and other portions of Western Chula Vista.
While the arterial road segments in Western Chula Vista were not required in the
Growth Management Ordinance to meet the threshold standard of LOS "C," they were
not allowed to worsen from then existing conditions. Given all the growth in the City
15 H,\UOZZ"'"/~i".cMPI""",'\UO22,"",_,1.d«
Growth Management Program Whde Paper
May 19, 2004
and the significant investment required to improve capacity of arterials within exIsting
urban settings this is a very difficult standard to meet. The following options are
available to address this problem:
1. Recognize differential trip generation from urban trixed use areas in traffic
modeling efforts. There is substantial evidence that higher density mixed-use
development generates considerably fewer automobile trips that the comparable
amount of suburban development. The City's traffic model, if not modified to reflect
this reduced trip generation, will exaggerate travel demand and the related impacts
upon roadway levels of service. Adjustments to the model or model results should
reflect the lower household sizes, the greater degree of "internal trips," and the
higher propensity to use transit or other alternative transportation modes.
2. Establish an "urban arterial'" street classification in the traffic threshold standards.
This new classification would allow lower speeds, recognizing the pedestrian and
transit orientation of key arterials in Western Chula Vista such as H Street and 3n1
Street.
3. Prepare corridor improvement plans for key Western Chula Vista arterials. These
corridor improvement plans would identify road improvements and establish a
basis for financing. Since travel on these roads is partly derived from Eastern Chula
Vista a proportion share of costs should be included in the Eastern Chula Vista
transportation impact fee. At the same time an impact fee should be established for
Western Chula Vista so that new development in the area pays its proportionate
share of road improvement costs.
4. Exempt portions of the City from traffic LOS threshold standards or lower
standards to an achievable level. Recognizing the urban context of certain portions
of the City (e.g., the Urban Core Area) specific arterial segments could be could be
given a lower standard (e.g., LOS "E") or exempted altogether from the traffic
threshold standard. While simple, this approach would need to be combined with
#3 (above) to assure that desirable and feasIble road improvements are identified
and adequately funded.
PARKS
Physlcallìmltations (lack of vacant land) in Western Chula Vista make It dIfficult to
achieve the neighborhood and community park threshold standard of three acres of
parkland per 1,000 population that is applied to new development in Eastern Chula
Vista This is especially true in the Southwest area where annexation brought a large
developed area into the City that was deficient in parkland. The following options are
available to improve parkland in the area:
1. Complete the Western Chula Vista Park Master Plan. The Master Plan should
emphasize maximizing the utility of existing open spaces and parks and connections
(trails, bikeways, etc.) between these parks. Linkage to the Bay Front area and its
recreation resources should also be emphasized.
16 HI 14022","""","'MP I """rl I 14022wkil'P"P'r7.doc
Growth Management Program White Paper
May 19, 2004
2. Enter into Joint Use agreements with School Districl Many cities around the
country have increased the effective amount of active park land by cooperating with
schools. The effectiveness of these programs depends, of course, upon a cooperative
effort by the City and the School District and an ongoing management effort to
resolve scheduling conflicts and other problems.
3. Consider privately held open space (plazas, etc.) as parkland. As redevelopment
occurs there will be opportunities to create plazas and other public spaces that can
serve recreation purposes. These opportunities should be sought in all such projects.
Projects that can offer recreational space and facilities meeting City standards could
receive credit against impact fees and mitigation payments that would otherwise be
imposed.
4. Seek opportunities to increase park acreage throughout the City. There are
opportunities to expand park facilities throughout the City to create a City-wide
system of parks. An example of such an opportunity is the reuse of the old land fill
site. Large community parks that include the full complement of features including
sports fields are particularly beneficial, wherever they are located. Such facilities can
raise overall park acreage and help achieve and maintain the parks threshold of
three acres per thousand population that has been applied to new development in
the City.
SCHOOLS
Increasing population driven by changing demographics in Western Chula Vista and
new higher density development will place pressure on existing schools in the area. The
School District's ongoing local bond and State funding backed construction program is
designed to alleviate these problems but continued efforts will be required (see
Intergovernmental Cooperation section, below). In any case the City's ability to
condition development, as noted above, is limited by State statute (SB-50).
UPDATED CITYWIDE THRESHOLD STANDARDS
The threshold standards, as part of the broader regulatory framework of growth
management, have generally achieved the purpose of assuring that infrastructure and
services necessary to serve new development was in place in a timely, concurrent
manner. However, as the City now has its buildout condition within sight (as
documented above) and new ways of measuring service standards have emerged, it
may be worthwhile to consider alternatives to the threshold standards that are currently
applied City-wide. Such alternatives would obviously need to be consistent with the
ultimate objectives of the growth management program - preservation and
enhancement of the quality of life for the City's residents.
1. Consider faålity construction -based concurrency standards. Given the fact that the
City is nearing its "buildout" condition in Eastern Chula Vista, the individual
Facilìty Master Plans could be amended to reflect the optimum facilities for the City
17 H" 14022,'.'wi,MGMPI"""rll 14022whi--,7.dx
Growth Management Program White Paper
May 19, 2004
at the point when major new development in the East diminishes substantially.
Under this approach the existing threshold standards for services (such as fire
protection) would become "desIgn criteria" for establishing the need for the specific
complement of facilities and the standard would be concurrency of these facilities
with related development projects. That is, the construction schedule for given
improvements would be matched to new development-driven demand. Otherwise,
the Growth Management Program, including development controls and
infrastructure financing requirements, would remain "as is". By changing to a
facility standard there would no longer be the need to track or measure thresh old
standards from year-to-year, although service levels (e.g., response times) could still
be monitored as a part of improvement scheduling and growth management
2. Refine threshold standards to reflect broader measures or new measurement
techniques. The response time threshold standards used for police protection may
not accurately reflect actual service levels.
. Traffic Threshold Standards. The Traffic Element of the Growth Management
Program requires bi-annual monitoring of the status of the transportation
thresholds. Currently, City staff conducts the subject field monitoring using
average speed as an indicator based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM). The subject method is technically outdated and should be replaced with
the latest monitoring methods based on the year 2000 HCM. It is recommended
that the current Traffic Monitoring Program methods be updated to employ
recent technological advancements in transportation monitoring. The intent of
these changes is to achieve consistency with current national standards and
technology. The nature and extent of the transportation thresholds except as
otherwise noted, shall rem ain consistent with the existing Threshold Standards.
. Police Threshold Standard. As noted above, the current thresholds for police
service may not accurately reflect actual service levels. For example, regarding
the responses to priority II calls, the quality of the response (crime arrests, etc.)
may be more important than a response time. It is recommended that this
subject be studied and options for a revised threshold standard identified.
. Fiscal Threshold Standard. The fiscal threshold standard should begin to
consider the cumulative and long term effects of growth and development. This
is especially true as the rate of development slows as "build out" in Eastern
Chula Vista nears. The ability to maintain and reconstruct infrastructure in the
long term without the financial resources associated with development will be a
challenge faced by the City in the future.
3. Alter threshold standards are not directly enforceable by the City. Several of the
threshold standards address issues over which the City has no direct control because
the services in question are under the jurisdiction of other agencies including
schools, air quality, sewer service and water service. In the case of schools, water
and sewer services effort should be focused upon long range planning and facility
development. Constraints imposed by capacity of these facilities should be reflected
in planning (physical development capacity) and growth control policies of the City.
18 HI 14022,'.I",,"""'MPI"f'O'1 114022wh,'-'7.d«
Growth Management Program White Paper
May 19, 2004
In the case of air quality, it may be reasonable to simply delete the Threshold
Standard.
. Schools. The school standard could be strengthened with a more definitive and
effective intergovernmental effort as outlined below.
. Air Quality. Obviously, while every effort should be made locally to reduce
emissions, it is difficult to draw a relationship between the impact of a given
project and overall air quality, which is influenced by regional market
conditions, technology changes, and climate, and regulated by a regional agency
and the State and federal government.
. Water and Sewer. Water and sewer services are provided by third parties
including special districts and a private company. Beyond meeting the State-
mandated as well as practical assurances that water capacity is available before
entitlements are granted these threshold standards serve little purpose. It may
be wise to consider conservation thresholds to minimize demands on resources
(water availability) and existing infrastructure (treatment capacity).
Table 7 summarizes the existing threshold standards and identifies how they might be
changed as part of reform of the Growth Management Program, consistent with the
above discussion.
ENHANCED GROWTH CONTROLS
Along with urban limit lines, regulating the absolute amount of annual growth is the
most common form of growth management. The City of Chula Vista's threshold
standard-based Growth Management Program does not offer a method to limit the total
amount of growth that occurs in the City. As noted above, even if the threshold
standards are technically met, rapid growth can cause a strain on the City making
infrastructure construction and service delivery increasingly difficult. Achieving
concurrency can be hard during strong market conditions because previously approved
tentative maps have contain a large backlog of development potential which lies beyond
control of the Growth Management Program.
The Growth Management Ordnance does (at Section 19.09.100) authorize the City, if it
determines that a deficiency exists, to stop development: "no further building or
development permits shall be issued within the affected area" until an amendment to
the applicable PFFP which mitigates the deficiency is approved by the City Council".
However, a constraint upon the use of this stoppage is the need to continue funding
needed infrastructure-the continuity of infrastructure construction is tied to the flow of
impact fees which are derived from new development. Without such funds construction
could be interrupted.
19 /i' I 14022<k.'",,"tøGMPI"P",tl 14022wkikp"p.,1.'oc
u
E :;; ~
ø ~ ~
ø ø ø .c~'" ~
.."C "C"C "'ø::; I!
g>" 'j¡" " ;;: '" "
~ ~ ~ ~ ~'õt: ~
0 ~ ~ ~ ~J!J~.§ C(
'" '" '" '" ~ " '" D.. ~
I!! ø ø ø ¡j~1ii ~
~¡¡ ~ ~ ~ 8~:;:; ~
.. .- (f) (f) (f) " S "3
ۋ. gu.c ~
::> 0 ~ ¡j
" ;
.2 - "0 'z'
- 0 0
u o.c
c " 2.cu
,g 08 Ée ð3~
g ~ ~~§ É~g :g,:g,
" "C uÜ:D.. ""'ij " "
g>:g :¡¡õ:;; <1:52 1!1 1!1
~ 8 ~J!J~ ...,8ê ~ ~
0 ø g:¡¡::; -:;;.98 Z Z
.. "C °E ='"
:!! :5 u,,'¡¡::¡¡
l- .~ ~¡d
õ I!! 0
"C
"C "C æ
æ ~ :;;"0 " "
-g~. -gø -E~.9~ ~
~E~ ~~ ~È":æ,,, [~
.. "CE." "c" u",o.!!!(f) ø ,,>
¡¡¡ ~~ê ~; ~8'§!~ ~ e,*
- ~~~ ~~ g88~~ê6
-'" ='" ",.c-a.u 0"
~" 'g 1!1~g.Q"O :;;2
zE LL >-:;;>-~o "",
<3¡d~~ :1!~
:!! 'tI '" '"
0.. ~ ~
",'5 ~ 'õ Õ « « «
:;; I!!:C to- '"
.. .c u
>- I- '"
..
~ "'~:g, '" 2 "C
-g 'tI þ~3:;~!!!.~ ~ ê-g ~ 02
aJ ~ :!~~~~~~$ ~ ~ @~g .8~~~
'tI ¡¡¡ ttto-lßiß~.5È to- .90 2:s:ïij -5,"C".::§
õ iñ 1!.s~"':¡¡-E.Ë ~ ¡¡;,¿ æ's~ã)§1i1!?
-::!! :¿¡~~~~.~~ ~ '5'5~ ~~8. ~-g.~~ ~
i: ~ ~~~~;,-g~ ~~ ~-~~ ~~g ~~:¡¡~ ~
':; I!! "'u.=Ë~~E ug¡ 5:g~ ~5-': ¡ij§<'1g¡ g
"'" ~ .9~.!!!~."2=.9~ g.~o g":;;"'E~Ø ":
õi ~ -g:¡¡.~~!::È3: -g~ ::"E ø1ija. .SE1::1@ ~
:> I!! 8.~Eoo˧ 8.~ ~8g ~1J¡¡ -E8ê~ i
.!!! O~ $~-g~~~~ ~~ .His ~[~ :¡g-g:s:'g¡ ~
::I ~ø",=",to-~ ~.- ~""" ~""" ~"""~
.c c
0 'tI ¡¡ æ
,..: .. rn J!J ¡¡¡ ¡ ~
".!!" ~ 0 ~ '" " E
:¡; ~.11 !,g !!! t:1:i g
{! Æ ~ ü: J! :¡:.ti. ~
20
-¡¡¡ ,æ i!! ~ iû ~
'2~ iJ .L.. ~ ~
~ Q) Q) ~ê'~?~ Éõ~ !!
æ g> g> ö=2:B "~g ~~';;.§ 1
c3 ~ ~ ~~~ ~,e~ ~~5~ Æ
g¡ ~ ';; ~,!!¡¡~]j!E~i!?~.g ~
.( z z ~i!?~2~~ g~€~ :"
~~ ,3'.sE 1TI"'Õ ßi!?::>() j
~ ~ u
::> 0 . .. ~
'"
c
.2
g :g, :g, :g, :g,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.. () () () ()
.c 0 0 0 0
t) z z z z
..
'0
1
õ
Q) - ~ ~
~'" ;,¡¡f1 §€,,-o
~* ~~~ :ì1~g?æ
~~ ~:n~ ~~~2¡¡
!: '~E~ ¡;~g,~ ~ ~~~~::
~ a.*~~~2i!? ~ -g.s8;m¡¡
õ1i5r¡ g~"Eg 1!!,æ¡,¡i;["
~-o'" Q) .c "'.oQ)~o'"
~ æ :~<,1 ~ g> ~~ .:q ~E
1:»" 1:()0 ~OQ)._Q)"
~ð~~.š ð"§8.g¡~g
:!i! '0
0 ..
~ ~ ~ ;¡: ;¡: ;¡: ;¡:
.. .c u
>-.... '"
'"
'E -0 .'" Ù ¡¡ b "in
.:!! Q) ~ - ~ õ ~ :"1: <5:- N ~w!:'5
:¡¡ 'E .~~ ~"'¡¡~ ~ ~ gJ1j ~gJ~ ~~~.o.
¡¡;.:!: :J:~ :ߧ~§~ .:¡¡ = ¿O'¡§~~æ Bg8gJ
... æ 1;;6, E..o.c~ ..",150 1J~~J! "'.c :50»-'
:g ¡¡; jõ~-5~~~:J: !d~1J .~¡¡~~[![~ ~~~g¡ ~
:¡ ~ dd ~~~I;;g ~.~~~~ ~~~~È~ :5J!1~~. ~
.i:.c ec."¡¡; ",»~~.c -o"'c~- O"""'!!!"'O>.¡¡"'-o"~ ~
I- ~ ~.~~ ~ð~~~ æJj~~~ ~~~~[~{J ~~~=~ :
.: ~ ¡¡-o,æ .g¡¡,",ê~ ~~'"~æ ~g¡~~g>'::~ g,*~~~ :
'üi ~ ~.~~ :g,1J~8.;:.i- .g';;~~-6æ~:g,:!J§§õ¡;;iH'§g ~
:> ~ ~gi!? ~~-ge:6'~ §a¡-g"E ""e'ê-OOi!! :J:-11.g1i= 1
'Š ð ~~~ ~gt3~§~ cí5~t3~~ ~~~~~~È ~:E¡£~~ ~
.c 0
<.> ~
..
,..; ..:g, ..
:Ë'~ s ~ .~ iË .~
~/}', ~ ~ ð ~ ~
21
" ~
~. ~
c ~ " .
'" c u "
:!:, -5 g æ ~
c: " 1J - 0
~ ~ 15 ~ ~
(.) >, " 0 C(
.. '" Q. U ::;
I!! ~ ~ 'õ ~
~g ~ '8 :; ~
.e~ ~ :¡¡ ~ ~
::> 0 (/).c ~
B ~
~ f
g :!2 :g .è
~ ~ g ~
0 I!! ¥ ~
:!:, ~ '5 E
c: " Iii >-
~ 1ii (/) 1!
'; .~ ~ f-
." = 0 .
.- w :¡¡ t::
~ ~
(.) ~
1::
" "
~ E
- "
~ :!2 ~
." C ~ C
" -- 0 '"
~ ~~: 11 ~
~ a.~5 ~ ~
g ~ ~ ð
13 a. ê ,; '"
¡: i- .§, ;Ë g
" -- " ~ N
(/) () ~ ~
"
£;
~ 1: .~
l'! -=.~ « « -~
'" ~ ~ "
" ~ ... ~
> f- < ~
~ ~
¡¡¡ 13" - §
." ~ ~ 1ii ~ ~
¡¡¡ 'E <.§ ~ ~,,- '"
¡¡¡.:!: E§ "~.æ:g ~
:!2 ¡ ,g13. .s~E!13~ ~
,g ûí ~~~ ~~~~'g :3 ~
In'" ._--'" --o.-E" "
"Õ ¡¡'O¡¡. ¡¡'~ro:::Q. ~ :¡:
.È ~ I!! e.!: 1!!~'5.¡¡¡,j '" "
f-:¡ t:: 10 '" t:: E! 1J E." !!! ':
.In ~ i5.8§ i5.~.,¡8"æ g j¡
~ 1:: I!!§~ I!!~§!!:g "fi ~
'-" ro--~ ro13""'~ (/) ..,
~ ~ ~~§, ~~~~~ -;; ~
:; (.) ..i&õ ..i.§ 8"æ I!! 1] -~
~ ! ê
(.) ~:¡¡ i!'
,.: 11 ~ -:¡¡ ~
:Ë'~ a :1 1! ~
{!:¡ ;;: ~; ~
22
Growth Management Program WhtÏe Paper
May 19, 2004
The following options are available if the City seeks to limit the amount of development
that occurs in any gIven year:
1. Establish an annual development cap. As noted above, setting annual limits on
development activity (e.g., a set number of building permits) is a common form of
growth management. The underlying notion of development caps is that the rate of
growth (apart from the total amount of development permitted) can be itself a
source of negative impacts. A key problem that occurs with growth caps is how the
available building permits are allocated, assuming that at least occasionally they will
be in short supply.
Typically these types of growth controls include allocation procedures that specify
criteria such as spatial distribution, housing prototype, or affordability categories.
This allocation provision could be an important part of Chula Vista's Growth
Management Program since the allocations would be directed as an incentive to
development projects meeting their threshold standards, concurrency requirements,
and related financing obligations. It is also common for these ordinances to allow
for some" carry over" of units not utilized in years where construction activity falls
below the cap due to unfavorable market conditions. The City has already adopted
a form of a cap, by agreement with key developers in Eastern Chula Vista, linked to
the completion of SR 125.
Development caps are relatively easy to administer; however, if set "too high" they
will have little useful effect. On the other hand, if set "too low," they can frustrate
ultimate development aspirations since housing markets are by their nature
distinctly cyclical. One way to arrive at a reasonable cap is to consider the historical
average rate of growth in the context of future regional forecasts (which tend to
"smooth" the market cycles). Such an approach in Chula Vista would yield a
number of residential units in the range of 1,800 to 2,000 annually. It will also be
important to assure that the growth cap selected is consistent with affordable
housing policies and infrastructure financing objectives.
The growth cap could also be targeted to particular areas of the City or alternatively,
portions of the City (e.g., the Urban Core) exempted. A number of jurisdictions
exempt certain types of development (e.g., affordable housing) or specified
geographic areas (e.g., downtown areas) from the growth cap set forth in the
ordinance.
2. Establish an annual population growth cap. Some local jurisdiction growth
management ordinances focus on population growth rather than new development
activIty, although in other aspects they are sImilar. The key disadvantage of these
population growth limit ordinances is that they encompass growth occurring not
caused by new development This growth is difficult to document on a year-to-year
basis.
3. Limit number units through controlled processing and sbucturing of tentative
subdivision map¡. The City could limit annual development activity simply by
limiting the number of residential units it approves as a matter of discretion. The
23 HI14022ch.lmR.tuGMPI"1"rlll<O22wkit""",,7.dæ
Growth Management Program White Paper
May ]9, 2004
number of tentative subdivision maps processed, along with the residential units
they contain, could simply be limited. This limitation could be imposed
administratively (e.g. a budget and staffing decision to complete a defined number
of projects), although ordinance provisions would strengthen the policy.
Limiting the number of residential units included in tentative maps issued would
effectively limit development activity, although units included in tentative maps
issued would accumulate and, without additional controls on building permits,
could exceed the desired growth rate. Additionally, the City utilizes master
tentative maps to guarantee adequate infrastructure in master planned communities.
Under a master tentative map there would be a series of sub-maps (corresponding to
development phases) that would be "finaled" sequentially on the basis of meeting
certain pre-established criteria, including consideration of overall Citywide growth
rates and metering infrastructure needs.
4. limit the amount of annual development as a Development Agreement condition.
Development agreements, while conferring entitlements to developers, can set a
variety of conditions, including the phasing and maximum amount of development
in a given year. Such phasing and growth allocations are common parts of
development agreements around the State.
Development agreements can include "metering:' a growth allocation provision
(similar to the City's current Permit Monitoring Program) that would limit the
maximum number of units developed in any given year. While this is not a
comprehensIve approach to limiting the amount of development in a given year
since all development will not be subject to development agreements, most large
development projects in Eastern Chula Vista are subject to development agreements.
This may reduce the attractiveness of development agreements to large developers,
thus defeating the objective.
EXPANDED FINANCING CAPACITY WITHIN THE URBAN
CORE AND OTHER PARTS OF WESTERN CHULA VISTA
New development provides a dIrect source of funding for infrastructure and service
improvements. Financing such as impact fees, special tax bonds, or assessments can be
and have been successfully imposed as a condition of development in Eastern Chula
Vista. In fact, the development impact fee program and the related over-sizing and
reImbursement provisIons have largely mitigated a key shortcoming of impact fees-the
mismatch of facility needs and funding availabìlity.
In Western Chula Vista development potential, even with significant infill and
redevelopment activity, may not create enough financial capacity to fund desired
Improvements. Thus, in order to provide adequate funding for the range of public
facilities required a concerted effort involving both public and private funding sources
will need to be established.
24 HIU022""/~i,I.cMPI"",rlI14022whi_7.doc
Growth Management Program White Paper
May 19, 2-
As a part of plannmg for the Urban Core area it will be important to link changes in land
use (e.g., allowing increased density and mixed use development) to these financial
obligations much as the development Impact fees and other financial requirements have
been linked to development in Eastern Chula Vista. This will require precise
documentation of those facilities needed to provide desired levels of service. The
Facility Master Plans can be modified to address these facilities or special plans (e.g., the
Western Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan).
1. RedevelopmentAgency. The City has an active and successful redevelopment
agency. As development potential increases and is realized in the Urban Core area
the resources available to the Agency (property tax increments) will increase
proportionately.
2. Western Chula Vista Development Impact fees. Area development impact fees
similar to those created in Eastern Chula Vista can be created for the Western portion
of the City or sub-areas such as the Urban Core. Such a development fee program
could fund key infrastructure needed to achieve threshold standards including road
improvements, parks and recreation, libraries, etc.
3. Urban Core Chula Vista Parking District One of the key challenges to achieving
higher density mixed use development in the Urban Core Area will be parking.
Typical zoning ordinance-based parking requirements if achieved with surface
parking limit overall development density (site utilization) to 50 percent or less.
Accordingly structured parking will be required; however, the cost of structured
parking is high and often makes desired higher density development financially
infeasible. The creation of parking districts that have the ability to levy assessments
as well as charge for parking, along with other paid parking can resolve this problem
by providing public parking and offsetting the parking requirement that is otherwise
the responsibility of the individual development projects.
4. Voter-approved bond measures. Fee programs and assessments are appropriate
means for resolving the impacts and facility demands caused by new development.
The City could sponsor voter-approved bond measure such as a Community Facility
District to rise funding for projects that are sought by local residents.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION
Achieving key threshold standards currently involves cooperation with other local and
regional agencies including the school districts and water and sewer service purveyors.
1. Formalize intergovernmental relationship with the School Districts. Recent
interactions with the school districts (e.g., the ongoing Schools Ad Hoc Committee)
provide a basis for considering a more formal relationship, such as joint powers
agreement, to pursue mutually beneficial objectives. While the City is restricted by
statute (SB-50) from conditioning development on the basis of school capacity, a
25 H"14fJ22,'""""""GMPI""",fl 14022whif'I"P"7.d«
Growth Management Program While Paper
May 19, 2004
cooperative effort with the school districts can assist their efforts at building needed
schools. Items that could be included in such a JP A are:
. Forward identification of school sites and cooperation regarding the designation,
acquisition, and preparation of school sites.
. Traffic management efforts at existing and new schools to minimize impacts of
school upon general mobility and service standards.
. Joint use of playing fields. Such agreements have been used successfully around
the State to lower costs for schools and expand recreation facilìties available to
the general public.
2. Review existing sewer treatment and water service agreements. Existing
agreements with sewer treatment agencies appear to be working well. It will also be
important to assure that long term water resources (to meet "build out" condItions)
in the City are available and that sewage capacity is also available. Regional efforts
to promote conservation and reuse are also an environmentally sound and cost-
effective way to expand capacity without increasing resource demands.
26 "'1 14022c,"'wi,tnGMPI""""14022wh¡"P<P<'7.doc
Growth Manngement Progrnm White Paper
May 19, 2004
POLICY DIRECTION
This White Paper is intended to stimulate discussion regarding a range of potential
reforms to Chula Vista's Growth Management program that have been suggested in
response to a range of issues that have been identified by the City's policy makers
during the past two years. It is expected that given the policy direction that flows from
this discussion a set of specifications can be drawn that influence relevant components
of the City's Growth Management Program and land use regulatory framework.
Specifically, and as a matter of priority, the General Plan Growth Management Element
will be re-articulated as a part of the overall General Plan Update, consistent with this
policy direction. Similarly, amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance will
need to be defined and an amended ordinance drafted along with changes to the City's
growth management program and land use regulatory process for consideration by the
City Council.
Answering the following key questions will provide the policy direction sought
1. Should threshold standards be revised to recognize the emerging policy objectives
within Western Chula Vista versus the suburban new development focus of the
existing threshold standards? These revised thresholds will need to reflect the
emerging urban character of the Urban Core and other redeveloping portions of
Western Chula Vista.
2. Should citywide threshold standards be amended to reflect new service delivery,
measurement techniques, and review of their overall utility? Candidate updates
include traffic modeling techniques and congestion monitoring methods and fire and
police threshold standards.
3. Should the City of Chula Vista establish criteria and techniques that allow additional
control of development activity including requirements above and beyond the
current tentative map conditions? Specifically should a growth" cap" that sets an
upward limit upon the number of residential building permits issued in any given
year be imposed?
4. Should regional and intergovernmental cooperation efforts be improved? A specific
example is a formalization of ongoing increased cooperation with the School
Districts to assure that their respective school construction programs are as timely as
possible.
27
H: I 14022ckulwisfllGMP I reporf IJ4022wkifq7t1pU7.doc
May 25,2004
.\~
The Corky McMillin Companies
Realty' Mortgage' Land Development· Homes' Commerciel
I/:
~r7d
~ Célt0
'4 t ¿ /3,' $< í? "p c/
11701 0 ~'0
Honorable Mayor Steve Padilla and Members of the City Council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council:
We would like to take this opportunity to provide you with the attached report, "New
Development Benefits All of Chula Vista." Early in 2004, Sq.u\h County landowners Otay
Ranch Company, Brookfield Homes, and McMillin Land Development collaborated in
contracting former Chula Vista city employee, Marty Chase, to research and produce this
document. Our goal was to gain a tool to assist us and government officials in helping residents
to understand the citywide impact and benefits of development in the eastern part of Chula Vista.
All of these landowners hear frequent feedback from residents on the west side ofChula Vista
~ that most or all of the funds from east-side development goes directly into parks, roads, and other
facilities and infrastructure only in the east side ofthe city. We, as you, are aware that this is not
the case but felt that a report such as Marty has accomplished would be helpful in
communicating this message.
As previously stated, it is our hope that you will find this report a useful tool. Should you or
your staff have questions about the research and preparation of this report, Mr. Chase will be
available following his current extended vacation. In the interest of time and convenience,
should you or your staff have communication regarding this report, please use Lisa Johnson,
Director of Community and Governmental Relations at McMillin, as a point of contact and she
will disseminate questions and comments to all. Of course, you are always welcome to contact
any of us directly as well. Thank you, in advance, for your review of this report.
Sincerely,
~~r
Ken Baumg er
President/COO
The Corky McMillin Companies
On Behalf Of
Kim Kilkenny, Otay Ranch Company
John Norman, Brookfield Homes
.
cc: David Rowlands, City Manager
George Krempl, Assistant City Manager
..\\ Å\ ..\\ ..\\ Å\
McMillin Realty McMillin Mongage McMillin land Development McMillin Homes McMillin Commercial
Corporate Office . 2727 Hoover Avenue . Na!ional City, CA 91950 . Tel (619) 477-4117 . Fax (619) 336·3119 . www.mcmîllin.com
New Development
Benefits All of Chula
Vista
. . . . . . . . . .
·""*"'·"'_$';:'$";1\J¥9ØW¡W·:<:"'$;J"~0i,,0i1fj¡
New Development
Benefits All ofChula VISta
The City of Chula Vista is one of the most financially fit in California. Unlike many
other cities in the State, Chula Vista has been able to withstand recent economic
downturns and funding cutbacks caused by the state budget crisis. Much of the
City's success is attributable to revenues generated from new development in eastern
Chula Vista.
· New development has and will continue to generate surplus revenue,
greatly benefiting residents in established areas of the City.
· Surplus revenue generated by new development 'in eastern Chula
Vista enabled the City to increase its reserves 10-fold, between 1997
and 2003.
· All of the infrastructure costs associated with new development have
been, and will continue to be, paid for by fees and assessments
imposed on builders and new homeowners. No City tax dollars
support this development.
· Tax revenues generated by new development will fully pay for the
expanded City services needed to serve new residents.
· New development will pay over $133 million for citywide facilities,
such as the new police facility and the planned civic center
renovation.
· New development will provide critically needed sports fields, a site
and funding for a competitive swimming pool complex for use by all
City high schools, and a portion of the land for a 3,000-acre Otay
Valley Regional Park.
2
. Development will also pay for 60,000 additional square feet of
library space, and has already paid for 36% of the costs to construct
and equip the South Chula Vista Library.
. In addition to enabling thousands of families to become first-time
home owners, developers also set aside 10% of all homes built for
low- and moderate-income households.
. /PA Y NG ¡:qR NEW ÞUSÜCFACILITIES
From the beginning of the first planned communityjp. eastern Chula Vista in the mid-
1980s, the steadfast policy of the City has been that-new development must fully pay
for itself. The costs for all public facilities in eastern Chula Vista are either funded
through development impact fees or constructed by developers as a condition of
approval.
Fees established by the City cover the full costs for building all new:
· Road s
· Community and Neighborhood Parks
· Sewer Systems
· Drainage Systems
· Libraries
· Recreation Centers
· Fire Stations
· Traffic Signals
· Police Facilities
Not only does new development pay for those facilities needed to serve such
development, but the City also imposes fees to ensure that new development pays its
fair share for common citywide facilities, usually built in western Chula Vista. New
development pays for between 48.5% to 76.4% of new citywide facilities, such as;
· The new police facility (developer cost of $57 million);
· The new public works yard (developer cost of$28 million); and
· The planned renovation and expansion of the civic center (developer cost of $48
million).
Development fees also helped pay for the City's first computer-aided dispatch
system. This system greatly enhanced the management of police and fire services.
3
'~!<r!"i.1 '·Ù>"'<Cp;J"S'cWC>:"""-'''''O''''t~-ò;"",,~,i',
In addition to City charges, non-City agencies collect fees and assessments to cover
the cost of:
. New Schools: All master planned communities in eastern Chula Vista are
contractually bound to fully mitigate the impact of new development on the K-12
school system, contributing three times the amount of funds required by State
law and typically paid for by developers in other communities.
. Water Capacity: Fees are paid to The Otay Water District to ensure that needed
new water storage and transmission lines are paj,d fõr by new development and
not subsidized by existing rate payers.
Chula Vista's fees are one of the highest in the County. By facility type, the City's
infrastructure fees break down as follows:
Fees on New Development Per Single Family Home
(Total Fees $47,698)
Drainage, $1,145
Police, Fire. Libraries
etc, 55,048
Parks, 57 ,Beg
In addition to infrastructure-related fees, developers fully reimburse the City's
general fund for all staff time involved in processing and permitting of new
developments. Permit-related fees on a typical single family home exceed $4,000.
In addition to direct fee payments, new development has donated significant amounts
of permanent natural open space land. In Otay Ranch, for example, for every acre
4
'_iim"";'~f,,,,%·:~,"''A~'''''N;,;!;'!¡.'~-:'II;;¡
developed, 1.2 acres are set aside for preservation in the Otay River Valley, Proctor
Valley, or the Otay Mountain area east ofOtay Lakes. Significant open space has
also been dedicated by Rolling Hills Ranch, San Miguel Ranch, EastLake, and
Rancho Del Rey. As a result, future generations of Chula Vista residents will enjoy a
Greenbelt open space surrounding the City on the south, east, and northeast.
Additionally, the provision of low- and moderate-income affordable housing is
another significant contribution that cannot be directly tied to a fee. When the cost of
the open space preservation and affordable housing are factored in, the true impact of
fees and dedications can be estimated at over $75,000 p.er new home.
. .
PAYING FOR CITY SERVICES , .
In addition, to paying for or constructing new facilities, all new communities must
generate sufficient ongoing revenues to pay for the operation and maintenance of
needed public services and infrastructure.
While service levels in eastern Chula Vista generally match levels provided in
established communities, new development generates substantially higher tax
revenues compared to existing neighborhoods. Chula Vista's general fund is largely
dependent upon two tax sources: property tax and sales tax. Each is discussed
below.
Property Taxes
The City received an average of $124 per household in property tax revenue, for
homes west ofI-805 in 2003. For homes east ofI-805, the City's property tax
revenue was an astounding 170% higher, averaging $335 per household. Thus,
newer homes generate almost three times the property tax revenue as an existing
home, for essentially the same services.
It is important to emphasize that these property tax figures only represent base
property tax revenue, which fund City services such as police, fire, libraries and
recreation. This comparison data does not include Community Facility District taxes
or other special assessments that are frequently levied in new communities.
The disparity between east and west property tax revenue continues to grow. In the
newest neighborhoods east of SR-125, the City's base tax revenue was well over 3
times higher than in the western established neighborhoods, averaging $397 per
household.
5
-':''''''''.'''''Ah''~w'*'*:'''''''~''\''~~'''''')~
Base Property Taxes Received by Chula Vista
By Geographic Area
East of 125
Eastof805
West of 805
,-
$50
$100
$150 $200 $250 $300
Property Tax Per Household
$350
$400
5450
New development generates higher property tax revenues than older communities
because of:
I. Higher assessed values in new communities;
2. Lower property assessments in the established communities, which are
often well below actual market value; and
3. A higher City allocation of total property tax revenues from the County
for Otay Ranch, as negotiated at the time of annexation of Otay Ranch to
the City.
Conservative projections indicate that over the next five years, new development will
generate $5.4 million more in property tax revenue for the City than is generated by a
similar number of current households_
Property Tax Reassessment Another factor plays a significant role in increasing the
City's property tax revenue in both the east and west, reassessment of existing homes
as residents purchase newer homes.
6
"P",~~j-r'>';'ifC ·f'>i""'WI!Hj"¡;~~''''~"iI;I';I0'P,,"1:!i'''''
More than 40% of new home buyers in Otay Ranch were previous Chula Vista
residents according to an April, 2001, survey of over 500 home buyers. A 2003
survey in Rolling Hills Ranch and Otay Ranch concluded that 67% of those new
home buyers were prior Chula Vista residents. New development is thus enabling
large numbers of existing Chula Vistans to purchase newer homes in newer
neighborhoods while staying in Chula Vista. This has opened home ownership
opportunities throughout the City as current residents sell their homes in established
neighborhoods. These older homes are then reassessed at current market values,
increasing property tax revenues, which greatly benefit the City's general fund.
Thus, new development has not only created a high~L)ax base in eastern Chula Vista
to support citywide services, but has also increased property tax revenues throughout
the City.
Sales Taxes
In 2003 the City ofChula Vista sales tax revenue was $98 per resident. Preliminary
Chula Vista General Plan update studies forecast that the City's sales tax revenues
will increase by 48% as the city builds out and more shopping options are created for
residents. Sales tax revenues associated with future residents are projected to reach
$140 per-capita (stated in current dollars), as more residents' expenditures are made
in stores here in Chula Vista.
Additionally, a national survey estimates that a new home purchase generates
approximately $10,000 in additional retail expenditures on home improvement items
such as new furniture and decorating and landscape features.
Accordingly, new development generates economic activity that translates into
significantly higher Chula Vista's sales tax revenues.
7
,·,D""·"""·~'.",,*"0~%.,0ij)1!"
Chula Vista Sales Tax Revenues Per Resident
Present Residents
. .
New Residents
SHO
,.
$20
,<0
060
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
Sales Tax Revenue Per Resident
Other Fees and Taxes
Although less dramatic and more difficult to qualify, development has also produced
per-capita increases in a myriad of other general fund revenues, including gas tax
funds, property transfer tax and utility user tax revenues. Here are some examples of
increases to the City's general fund that are quantifiable.
Permit Fees for Overhead Services ($9 million). All building and construction
activity is reviewed by the City's Planning and Building Department. Building
permit fees are established to cover all direct staff costs involved in the review
process, as well as a portion of the City's fixed overhead. Because of growth, the
City has been able to recover approximately $9,000,000 in citywide overhead costs
over the last ten years. These costs would have otherwise required funding from
other general fund revenues.
City Bond Administrative Fees ($1.7 million). New development sometimes uses
bonds to finance infrastructure needs. These bond sales do not place any legal
burden upon the City and are not considered City debt. The City does, however,
receive a fee when bond financing is used. Over the last ten years, this fee generated
nearly $1. 7 million dollars in general fund revenue.
8
'''K;"'1'·''h)'T"';¡''~·'"4;;p~~'n¡fN!ii,'~':''_"\C; .*"
Residential Construction Tax ($9 million), In addition to facility impact fees, the
City imposes a residential construction tax (RCT) on all new homes. These revenues
flow to the City's general fund, In the coming year, $9,000,000 ofRCT revenues
will be used to fund the City's $21 million Western Revitalization Project. The RCT
funds will renovate the 21 acre Eucalyptus Park as well as pay for the replacement of
a major storm drain line, principally serving western Chula Vista.
. " NEW DEVEi..bpMEN.T,BÙJlÓSA'HEAL TI;UER CITY
- -
The increased revenues generated by development have enabled the City to increase
its reserves ten-fold in just 6 years, from $3 million in 1997 to $30 million in 2003.
This growth took place despite the economic downturn in 2000-2002 and despite
reductions in city revenues due to the State's severe budget deficit. During the
period, Chula Vista avoided reductions in service levels as imposed in so many other
cities in San Diego County. To the contrary, during this period Chula Vista actually
increased service levels, primarily in police service and fire protection.
Chula Vista General Fund Reserve Balance
__ ~____._..._____ ._ ___.___._u_._..u_._u.... _.._.__.__...._.__..u..". .____..___.__..
1997
1995
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
$ Millions
For this fiscal year, Chula Vista's reserves represented 24% of its general fund
budget, a sign of good fiscal health rarely achieved anywhere in the State of
California.
9
"-1'"'¡···".V:·~:~"~" 'iP,,'w;o.,;-"="··· ,.....I'if;.._..,"'~
'BUILDING A BETTER CITY TOGETHER ·
," ,........"'.......,,'.. .......,.,.,;..,. ..,.¡.".."", '..".,. .......~... ....... ..,......."...:... ..... '..··.·,..c,.:..........'
President Kennedy was once asked how growth benefiting one area of the economy
would impact other areas. His simple response was that, "a rising tide lifts all ships."
The growth in eastern Chula Vista has provided and continues to provide a rising
financial "tide" which will help rebuild and improve services in older areas of the
City.
Has development caused short-term problems? Of cOUJ:se. Projects of this
magnitude always will. But in the long-tenn, Chula,Vista's development will put the
City on a more secure economic foundation. Working together, Chula Vista will
mature into an ever greater city, east and west, new and old.
New efforts in providing redevelopment and infill opportunities in the western
territories of the City will also bring the fiscal benefits of new development citywide,
and provide exciting new amenities to the original portions of the City. Chula Vista
will continue to evolve as a fiscally-sound jurisdiction, growing to meet the needs of
its citizens and the growing population.
10
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
New Development
Benefits All of Chula
Vista
. . . . . . . . . .
May 26, 2004
Prepared by Marty Chase
For The Otay Ranch Company, McMillin Communities, & Brookfield-Shea
New Develüp!l1ent
Benefits All ofChula VISta
The City of Chula Vista is one of the most financially fit in California. Unlike many
other cities in the State, Chula Vista has been able to withstand recent economic
downturns and funding cutbacks caused by the state budget crisis. Much of the
City's success is attributable to revenues generated from new development in eastern
Chula Vista.
· New development has and will continue to generate surplus revenue,
greatly benefiting residents in established areas ofthe City.
· Surplus revenue generated by new development in eastern Chula
Vista enabled the City to increase its reserves 10-fold, between 1997
and 2003.
· All of the infrastructure costs associated with new development have
been, and will continue to be, paid for by fees and assessments
imposed on builders and new homeowners. No City tax dollars
support this development.
· Tax revenues generated by new development will fully pay for the
expanded City services needed to serve new residents.
· New development will pay over $133 million for citywide facilities,
such as the new police facility and the planned civic center
renovation.
· New development will provide critically needed sports fields, a site
and funding for a competitive swimming pool complex for use by all
City high schools, and the land for a 3,000-acre Otay Valley
Regional Park.
2
. Development will also pay for 60,000 additional square feet of
library space, and has already paid for 36% of the costs to construct
and equip the South Chula Vista Library.
. In addition to enabling thousands offamilies to become first-time
home owners, master-planned community developers in eastern
Chula Vista also set aside 10% of all homes built for low- and
moderate-income households.
PAYING FOR NEW PUBLIC FACILITIES
From the beginning of the first planned community in eastern Chula Vista in the mid-
1980s, the steadfast policy of the City has been that new development must fully pay
for itself. The costs for public facilities in eastern Chula Vista itemized below are
either funded through development impact fees or constructed by developers as a
condition of approval.
· Roads
· Community and Neighborhood Parks
· Sewer Systems
· Drainage Systems
· Libraries
· Recreation Centers
· Fire Stations
· Traffic Signals
· Police Facilities
Not only does new development pay for those facilities needed to serve such
development, but the City also imposes fees to ensure that new development pays its
fair share for common citywide facilities, usually built in western Chula Vista. New
development pays for between 48.5% to 76.4% of new citywide facilities, such as;
· The new police facility (developer cost of$57 million);
· The new public works yard (developer cost of$28 million); and
· The planned renovation and expansion of the civic center (developer cost of $48
million).
Development fees also helped pay for the City's first computer-aided dispatch
system. This system greatly enhanced the management of police and fire services.
3
In addition to City charges, non-City agencies collect fees and assessments to cover
the cost of:
. New Schools: All master planned communities in eastern Chula Vista are
contractually bound to fully mitigate the impact of new development on the K-12
school system, contributing three times the amount of funds required by State
law and typically paid for by developers in other communities.
. Water Capacity: Fees are paid to The Otay Water District to ensure that needed
new water storage and transmission lines are paid for by new development and
not subsidized by existing rate payers.
Chula Vista's fees are one of the highest in the County, typically over $47,000 per
home. By facility type, the City's infÌ'astructure fees break down as follows:
Fees on New Development Per Single Family Home
(Total Fees $47.698)
Drainage, $1,145
Police, Fire, Libraries
ete, $5,048
Parks, $7,869
In addition to infÌ'astructure-related fees, developers fully reimburse the City's
general fund for all stafftime involved in processing and permitting of new
developments. Permit-related fees on a typical single family home exceed $4,000.
In addition to direct fee payments, new development has donated significant amounts
of permanent natural open space land. In Otay Ranch, for example, for every acre
4
developed, 1.2 acres are set aside for preservation in the Otay River Valley, Proctor
Valley, or the Otay Mountain area east of Otay Lakes. Significant open space has
also been dedicated by Rolling Hills Ranch, San Miguel Ranch, Eastlake, and
Rancho Del Rey. As a result, future generations ofChula Vista residents will enjoy a
Greenbelt open space surrounding the City on the south, east, and northeast.
Additionally, the provision oflow-and moderate-income affordable housing is
another significant contribution that cannot be directly tied to a fee. When the cost of
the open space preservation and affordable housing are factored in, the true impact of
fees and dedications is estimated at over $70,000 per new home.
PAYING FOR CITY SERVICES
In addition, to paying for or constructing new facilities, new communities in eastern
Chula Vista must generate sufficient ongoing revenues to pay for the operation and
maintenance of needed public services and infrastructure.
While service levels in eastern Chula Vista generally match levels provided in
established communities, new development generates substantially higher tax
revenues compared to existing neighborhoods.
Chula Vista's general fund is largely dependent upon two tax sources: property tax
and sales tax. Each is discussed below.
Property Taxes
The City received an average of $124 per household in property tax revenue, for
homes west ofl-805 in 2003. For homes east ofl-805, the City's property tax
revenue was an astounding 170% higher, averaging $335 per household. Thus,
newer homes generate almost three times the property tax revenue as an existing
home, for essentially the same services.
It is important to emphasize that these property tax figures only represent base
property tax revenue, which fund City services such as police, fire, libraries and
recreation. This comparison data does not include Community Facility District taxes
or other special assessments that are frequently levied in new communities.
The disparity between east and west property tax revenue continues to grow. In the
newest neighborhoods east ofSR-125, the City's base tax revenue was well over 3
times higher than in the western established neighborhoods, averaging $397 per
household.
5
Base Property Taxes Received by Chula Vista
By Geographic Area
East of 805
east of 125
Weat of 805
$.
$50
$100
$150 $200 $250 $300
Property Tax Per Household
$350
$400
$450
New development generates higher property tax revenues than older communities
because of:
I. Higher assessed values in new communities;
2. Lower property assessments in the established communities, which are
often well below actual market value; and
3. A higher City allocation of total property tax revenues ftom the County
for Otay Ranch, as negotiated at the time of annexation of Otay Ranch to
the City.
Conservative projections indicate that over the next five years, new development will
generate $5.4 million more in property tax revenue for the City than is generated by a
similar number of current households.
ProPerty Tax Reassessment. Another factor that plays a significant role in increasing
the City's property tax revenue in both the east and west, is the reassessment of
existing homes as residents purchase newer homes.
6
~
More than 40% of new home buyers in Otay Ranch were previous Chula Vista
residents according to an April, 200 I, survey of over 500 home buyers. A 2003
survey in Rolling Hills Ranch and Otay Ranch concluded that 67% of those new
home buyers were prior Chula Vista residents. New development is thus enabling
large numbers of existing Chula Vistans to purchase newer homes in newer
neighborhoods while staying in Chula Vista. This has opened home ownership
opportunities throughout the City as current residents sell their homes in established
neighborhoods. These older homes are then reassessed at current market values,
increasing property tax revenues, which greatly benefit the City's general fund.
Thus, new development has not only created a higher tax base in eastern Chula Vista
to support citywide services, but has also increased property tax revenues throughout
the City.
Sales Taxes
In 2003 the City of Chula Vista sales tax revenue was $98 per resident. Preliminary
Chula Vista General Plan update studies forecast that the City's sales tax revenues
will increase by 48% as the city builds out and more shopping options are created for
residents. New shopping centers located in eastern Chula Vista will keep sales tax
revenues in Chula Vista rather than flowing to National City, the City of San Diego,
or other communities. Sales tax revenues associated with future residents are
projected to reach $140 per-capita (stated in current dollars), as more residents spend
more in stores in Chula Vista.
Additionally, a national survey estimates that a new home purchase generates
approximately $10,000 in additional retail expenditures on home improvement items
such as new furniture and decorating and landscape features.
Accordingly, new development generates economic activity that translates into
significantly higher Chula Vista's sales tax revenues.
7
Chula Vista Sales Tax Revenues Per Resident
Present Residents
New Residents
$140
.-
$20
$40 $60 $80 $100 $120
Sal.. Tax Revenue Per Resident
$140
$160
Other Fees and Taxes
Although less dramatic and more difficult to qualify, development has also produced
per-capita increases in a myriad of other general fund revenues, including gas tax
funds, property transfer tax and utility user tax revenues. Here are some examples of
increases to the City's general fund that are quantifiable.
Permit Fees for Overhead Services ($9 million). All building and construction
activity is reviewed by the City's Planning and Building Department. Building
permit fees are established to cover all direct staff costs involved in the review
process, as well as a portion of the City's fixed overhead. Because of growth, the
City has been able to recover approximately $9,000,000 in citywide overhead costs
over the last ten years. These costs would have otherwise required funding from
other general fund revenues.
City Bond Administrative Fees ($1.7 million). New development sometimes uses
bonds to finance infrastructure needs. These bond sales do not place any legal
burden upon the City and are not considered City debt. The City does, however,
receive a fee when bond financing is used. Over the last ten years, this fee generated
nearly $1.7 million dollars in general fund revenue.
Residential Construction Tax ($9 million). In addition to facility impact fees, the
City imposes a residential construction tax (RCT) on all new homes. These revenues
8
flow to the City's general fund. In the coming year, $9,000,000 ofRCf revenues
will be used to fund the City's $21 million Western Revitalization Project. The RCT
funds will renovate the 21 acre Eucalyptus Park in western Chula Vista as well as pay
for the replacement of a major stonn drain line, principally serving western Chula
Vista.
NEW DEVELOPMENT BUILDS A HEALTHIER CITY
The increased revenues generated by development have enabled the City to increase
its reserves ten-fold in just 6 years, fÌ'om $3 million in 1997 to $30 million in 2003.
This growth took place despite the economic downturn in 2000-2002 and despite
reductions in city revenues due to the State's severe budget deficit. During the
period, Chula Vista avoided reductions in service levels as imposed in so many other
cities in San Diego County. To the contrary, during this period Chula Vista actually
increased service levels, primarily in police service and fire protection.
Chula Vista General Fund Reserve Balance
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
$ MIllions
For this fiscal year, Chula Vista's reserves represented 24% of its general fund
budget, a sign of good fiscal health rarely achieved anywhere in the State of
California.
9
BUILDING A BETTER CITY TOGETHER
President Kennedy was once asked how growth benefiting one area of the economy
would impact other areas. His simple response was that, "a rising tide lifts all ships."
The growth in eastern Chula Vista has provided and continues to provide a rising
financial "tide" which will help rebuild and improve services in older areas of the
City.
Has development caused short-term problems? Of course. Projects of this
magnitude always will. But in the long-term, Chula Vista's development will put the
City on a more secure economic foundation. Working together, Chula Vista will
mature into an ever greater city, east and west, new and old.
10
I
2
3
4
..-11
."",..,..--
æ-~
QOWTHMANAGfil41'.N1'PRoGiAM
WHli'I{l'.AP£\R
jo,~ï....
Qij"'tb.þ'hb.
ho1Wldlif:
~"'~"""""'iio-
M,oy~
tl\l'i'i~
E.S:~~~
..-....
""_......
.. .~~~!:?!:::;=
5
Growth Trends
·Growth has varied over the past 20 years (see Fig. 1).
·Current high rate of growth driven by regional market conditions
and financial markets.
·At current rapid rate of development current General Plan build-
out of Eastern Chula Vista could occur in as few as 8 to 10 years.
·Substantial population growth has occurred in Western Chula
Vista without a corresponding amount of new development.
·Market conditions will remain strong for the foreseeable future.
·Market conditions are favorable for desired redevelopment and
revitalization of the Urban Core and older commercial corridors.
6
.
7
8
9