Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/07/26 Item 4b COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT I tern 4 b ITEM TITLE: Meeting Date 7/26/88 (A) Ordinance Establishing a Controlled Growth Ordinance in the City of Chu1a Vista to ensure the City's future Quality of Life OR me; S' (B) Resolution To Add a Ballot Measure on the Controlled Growth Ordinance to the Proposed Charter Amendments SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning all. REVIEWED BY: City Manager)f (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~) On March 8, 1988, a Noti ce of Intent for a Controll ed Growth Ini ti ative was filed with the City Clerk. On June 29, 1988, signatures were filed in support of the initiative. Those signatures have now been verified to be sufficient to require the Council to consider the matter. The ordinance would constitute an amendment to the City Code by adding a new section, Chapter 19.80 titled, IIControlled Residential Deve1opment.1I RECOMMENDATION: The Council can place the ordinance on its first reading without alteration or pass the resolution adding a ballot measure for the November election. The ordinance is not particularly deleterious nor is it viewed as highly desirable or necessary by staff. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: BACKGROUND The proposed initiative ordinance has 16 sections (19.80.10 through 19.80.160). Six of the sections relate to public facilities and services; one relates to rezoningjprezoning of land; and the remaining nine sections relate to administrative, legal, amendment and miscellaneous provisions. I. Public Facilities and Services The first major addressment of the initiative ordinance has to do with public facility adequacy and covers six sections (19.80.10 through 19.80.60) . The ordinance begins with five findings as to the pace of rapid development and then moves into a three paragraph statement of purpose and intent. The purpose of the ordinance is to control the rate and quality of growth so as to not overburden public services and facilities and to protect the existing quality and character of Chula Vista. Page 2, Item 4b Meeting Date 7/26/gg The third section mandates a "public Services and Facilities Element" as part of the revi sed General Pl an. The purpose of the element is to ensure that development doesn't degrade existing service and facility levels below acceptable standards. The element is to also ensure timely phasing and construction of public facilities in accordance with criteria for the capacity and need of the following: streets, drainage, water, parks and recreation, fire and police, schools, libraries, and sewer and waste water. The fourth section of the initiative says the Council shall require funds to meet the Public Facility Element needs in a timely fashion with the approval of a tentative map or any other discretionary approval. The constructi on assurance techni ques can i nc 1 ude bonds, reimbursement agreements, development agreements, assessment districts and community facility districts. The funds must be expended for the purpose they were advanced. The fifth section ties development phasing to the timely completion of facilities and the sixth section deals with exceptions. There are three classes of exemptions: 1. Single family dwellings on existing single family lots. 2. Rehabilitation or remodel or replacement of existing dwellings and condominium conversion not adding any units. 3. Any project that had a vested development right from July 1, 1988, or obtains one prior to the effective date of the ordinance. A vested ri ght is defi ned "where a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith on reliance upon a permit issued by the City." 11. Rezoning/Prezoni ng of land The second major addressment of the initiative ordinance has to do with the rezoning/prezoning of land. It can be examined in three parts, that which affects land within the City currently, that which affects unincorporated lands in the City's Sphere of Influence which might someday be annexed, and exclusions and exemptions. A. With regard to city lands, the proposed ordinance would allow rezoning within certain standard residential zones to only the next highest residential density category. This would apply to the A, Agricultural Zone; R-E, Residential Estate Zone; R-l, Single Family Residential Zone; R-2, One and Two Family Residential Zone; and R-3, Apartment Residential Zone. ~,' Page 3, Item 4b Meeting Date 7/26/88 Rezoning of commercial or industrial land to a residential category is permitted only to a density corresponding to the potential traffi c generati on pri or to the rezoni ng. A1 so, property rezoned from residential to commercial or industrial and then back to residential has to go back at a similar or lesser density. This would apply only after the effective date of the ordinance. B. With regard to unincorporated lands in the City's Sphere of Influence, the proposed ordinance has a similar two-year time frame for rezoning. The ordinance states that after property is annexed, the approved prezoning cannot be amended or changed for two years. Any annexati on of 1 ands shall conform to the purpose, intent and requirements of the ordinance. C. With regard to automatic compliance or exclusions, the ordinance addresses several issues. Fi rst, property in the Ci ty zoned or proposed to be zoned as part of a planned community shall be deemed in compliance with this section. Second, property in the County prezoned for annexati on as part of a pl anned community shall be deemed in compliance with the section regardless of the prior County zoning. Third, the provisions do not apply to rezoning from a residential to an agricultural zone. Fourth, property previously zoned where a change in unit configuration results in the same or less density is not considered a zone change under this section. III. Administrative, Legal, Amendment, and Miscellaneous Provisions The last nine sections are quite straight forward. They indicate that future ordinances must be consistent with the policies of this ordinance and that where existing ordinances conflict with the chapter they are repealed. If an alternative measure is placed on the November ballot, the one with the most votes prevails. Anyone wishing to challenge the initiative ordinance has 30 days to do so and any legal challenge shall be defended by the City. If parts of the ordinance are found invalid, the remainder of the ordinance shall remain in effect. The ordinance shall be codified and published within 15 days of its passage in a newspaper of general circulation; and the ordinance shall become effective on the date the vote is certified by the City Clerk. Perhaps the most significant section has to do with modifications. The ordi nance may be amended fo 11 owi n9 a pub 1 i c heari ng only by unanimous vote of the City Council and only if the amendment in in keeping with the intent of the Ordinance. Otherwise, by majority vote, the Council may place a proposed amendment on the ballot. ~ Page 4, Item 4b Meeting Date 7/26/88 ANALYSIS I. Public Facilities and Services The initiative ordinance calls for a Public Services and Facilities Element as part of the revised General Plan. The City of Chula Vista is currently under contract to do just that wi th En9i neeri ng Sci ence, JHK and Associates and P&D Technologies, Inc., the three General Plan consultants. The element will be completed in draft form this summer and be available for public review in the fall. It will address public facility and service needs and their phasing. The City is also under contract wi th George Simpson and Wi 11 dan and Associ ates to prepare a Growth Management Element of the General Plan. The element will address the rate of growth, development phasing tied to completion of public infrastructure and standards to protect the qual ity and character of Chula Vista. Also, financing mechanisms for implementation are to be assured. The element will be completed this winter. With request to development standards, phasing and financing, the City already has several certain mechanisms in place. In November 1987, the thresho 1 d/ standards were adopted by the City Counci 1. These cri teri a, formulated by a coalition of concerned residents and developers, define the very standards and criteria referenced in the initiative. The threshold standards cover the initiative items of streets, drainage, water, parks and recreation, fire and police, schools, libraries, sewer and waste water plus two additional items, air quality and economics. In addition to defining the standards, they also established an implementation action for each item. A monitoring mechanism, in the form of a Growth Management Oversi ght Commi ttee was estab 1 i shed. The Committee members have just been appointed by the Council and will convene shortly. Another interim mechanism in place to assure funding of facilities is the City's "Interim Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for Streets II passed in December 1987. It establishes a fee, collected at the building permit stage, to pay the cost of future roadways needed in the developing area east of 1-805. Finally, to assure facility phasing and completion consistent with need and the pace of development, the City has implemented public facility finance plans, threshold building permit levels and development agreements with all large scale planned communities. Most recently, these include EastLake and Rancho Del Rey. EastLake permits were on hold from November 1986 to March 1987 pending the start of construction of the constructi on of East "H" Street. EastLake permits, as of June 1988, were again on hold pending the start of construction of the widening of Telegraph Canyon Road. In general, the City has a pay-as-you-go philosophy on the financing of new development so as to not impact the older parts of the City. /3706 Page 5, Item 4b Meeting Date 7/26/88 In sum, the City has been doing many things in keeping with the purpose and intent of the initiative ordinance. Many other things are in progress vis-a-vis the General Plan Update which will further the aims of the initiative and are completely consistent with it. The terms of the initiative in these sections of the ordinance do not appear onerous and in fact, reflect landable objectives. II. Rezoning/Prezoning of Land The single jump in rezoning designation within a 2-year period would have some effects. The acreages and percentage of zoned land in the city in the various affected categories is shown below: Category Acres Percentage of City A, Agriculture 464 3.16 R-E, Residential Estate 460 3.14 R-l, Single Family 3,726 25.47 R-2, One and Two Family 199 1.36 R-3, Apartment 841 5.74 TOTAL 5,690 38.87 Source: City of Chu1a Vista Land Use Inventory, Planning Department, September 1986 The "A" zone is comprised of almost 90% in utilities, transportation and communication facilities, recreation, and park areas and public and quasi-public uses and not a likely candidate for great rezoning efforts. Likewise, the R-E zone is almost exclusively located in two areas of the City, north of "W Street and east of Hilltop Drive and in the Bonita area around Allen School and easterly of Otay Lakes Road south of Bonita Road. This area should also not be a likely candidate for higher density rezoning requests. The R-2 zoning is only 199 acres existing, of which 70 acres is vacant, and could be rezoned in any event to R-3 and be consistent with the ordinance. This then leaves only the R-l category. Thi s compri ses 25% of the City and before someone coul d rezone to R-3 they waul d have to fi rst rezone to R-2 in any two-year peri ode Of the 3,726 acres zoned R-1, 286 acres or 7.68% are vacant. The net effect is to constrain about 7% of the City's lands from going from single family residential to apartments for a two-year period of time. Most of the potential for said rezoning is in central Chu1a Vista In some locations there already is a preponderance of multi-family zoning and the City1s General Plan Update will likely suggest some scaling back of residential densities and more limited residential categories. In other locations, however, the City may very well want to intensify the land use in order to facilitate certain planning objectives, i.e., mixed use, intensification of a transit corridor, or redevelopment. In those instances, the proposed ordinance could retard such development for two years or more and set an artificial constraint on the planning process. - /37 OJ Page 6, Item 4b Meeting Date 7/26/88 As mentioned, property zoned or prezoned P-C, Planned Community, is deemed to be comp 1 i ance with the ordi nance. About 1/3 of the Ci ty or 5,000 acres, is currently zoned P-C. As virtually all of the vacant unincorporated land in the City's Planning Area and Sphere-of-Influence are controlled by six property owners and are in 1 arge 1 and ho 1 di ngs, the expectati on is that they would be prezoned P-C, Planned Community. These would include Sunbow, Otay Ranch, EastLake, UNOCAL, Bonita Meadows and Salt Creek Ranch properties. Having deemed a planned community to be in compliance with the provisions of the ordinance provides the City a great deal of flexibility and an incentive to continue land development in a planned community mode. With respect to commercial and industrial rezonings to residential, they have been few. In the past five years, there have been only two requests to rezone land from commercial or industrial to residential. Both of these were along Broadway where there was a very deep commercial parcel. The ordinance would allow this rezoning if the traffic generation of the residential is not beyond what the commercial or industrial would have generated. This is not likely to be an issue although the traffic generation for commercial/industrial zoning can vary considerably based on use. III. Administrative, Legal, Amendment, and Miscellaneous Provisions Staff is not aware of any existing provisions of the Charter or City Ordinances which would be in conflict with this proposed initiative ordinance. Nor are we aware of any proposed ordinances, resolutions or policies or anything involved with the General Plan Update or Growth ~1anagement Plan that potentially would confl ict with these provisions. While the "modification" requirements are stringent, it is possible to make amendments. The most difficult ambiguity might be in interpreting whether or not any further proposed amendments are "cl early in keepi ng with the intent of the ordinance" or not. There appears to be flexibility on that point. IV. Conclusion While the proposed ordinance does not appear onerous, it also doesn't seem to add many meaningful tools to what is already in place or contemplated with the General Plan Update, Growth Management Plan, Thresholds and Growth Management Oversight Committee. The artificial limit on rezoning changes could in some cases impede desired planning objectives but would generally have a moderate impact. FISCAL IMPACT: Unknown. WPC 5376P thB City Council of Chula Vista, CJlifornia ,..- 137 OJ Dated t' ,. ,