Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-11-12 - AGENDA REPORTS - GROWTH MGMT STRATEGY (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: UNFINISHED BUSINESS DATE: November 12, 1991 SUBJECT: Growth Management,Strategy DEPARTMENT: City Manager BACKGROUND George A. Caravalho At its meeting of August 13, 1991, the Council reviewed an agenda report on the implementation of the General Plan including the possibility of an ordinance for the City's growth management strategy. As part of the recommendation to the Council in that report, the staff was directed to hold community meetings on the subject of growth management. The purpose of this report is to summarize the City's growth management efforts to date, report on the recent community meetings, and describe for Council available options for further action on growth management. 1. Review and consider the attached report. 2. Direct staff to: a) Prepare a growth management ordinance at this time, including desirable components for such an ordinance; or, b) Not to prepare a growth management ordinance or other specific program at this time but continue to work on General Plan Implementation programs and other ordinances and programs implementing a comprehensive growth management strategy. ATTACHMENT Growth Management Update MAR:487 1.11P'0 E� GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE OPTIONS FOR DISCUSSION November 12, 1991 I. Is An Ordinance Needed? Several work efforts are already underway as priority implementation items of the General Plan growth management strategy. These include: • Unified Development Ordinance and Zoning Map • Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and Guidelines • Development Impact Fee Study and Ordinance • Joint City/County traffic model for the Valley • General Plan Implementation Program • Ongoing monitoring and participation in development in unincorporated areas The General Plan includes strong direction for preparation and guidance in these ordinances, including: • Maximum density limitations to mid -point or below • Pay -as -you go infrastructure • Annual growth monitoring reports • Study of an annual growth policy • Programmed public facilities • Open space districts • Job/housing balance • City/County cooperation • Overall emphasis on protection of the environment ALTERNATIVES The Council could: 1. Direct above work efforts to be completed and then have an assessment of impacts of all ordinances and General Plan on growth in the City be conducted prior to development of any additional growth management ordinance. (Timing - Spring 1992). 2. Find that a growth management ordinance is needed to augment above efforts and direct staff to.prepare.the ordinance selecting from options discussed below. iI. What Rinds of Growth Management Ordinances are There? Growth management ordinances take -many forms, as discussed.in the City's Growth Management Report. It is important that the Council consider what kinds of regulatory controls they wish to impose and their impact on private market place developments, to be sure the ordinance adopted addresses the concerns Council is trying to address. ALTERNATIVES 1. Should we put a limit on the annual number of building permits independent of other goals and objectives (e.g., adequate infrastructure, etc.)? 2. Should we tie development to infrastructure provision as directed in the General Plan (e.g., pay as you go) in ordinance format? 3. Should we identify a preferred rate of growth for the City to ensure orderly implementation of the General Plan and put this in ordinance format? 4. Should we enact a building moratorium while the ordinances in progress are completed, or while a growth management ordinance is being developed? 5. Should we develop a project development tracking and monitoring system that establishes criteria for an annual review of infrastructure demand vs capacity, and put the requirements of adhering to such a system in ordinance format? 6. Should any draft growth management ordinance be placed before the voters on the April 1992 ballot, before it is enacted into law? PROS CONS PROS AND CONS TO ADOPTION OF A GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE a. A positive statement is made to the community that. the City recognizes the need to comprehensively manage growth. An ordinance would call specificattention to this recognition. This could be particularly helpful where citizens groups are monitoring the City's efforts on this subject. An ordinance would show the City recognizes the need and will. commit to posing solutions to growth -related problems, even if the proposed' ordinance may differ in form from that which a citizens group may be advocating. b. Much of the work necessary to prepare an infrastructure -based ordinance is already underway. An ordinance could be envisioned as a logical conclusion to many existing work efforts. c. An ordinance would-be recognized as a major implementation feature of the City's newly adopted General Plan. d. Provides an assurance that a growth management and infrastructure monitoring system is put in place. a. Since the General Plan has been explained to the community as the City's guide to orderly growth and development, it may cause a perception that the General Plan is lacking if an ordinance is also needed to manage growth. b. Those who are satisfied with the General Plan's ability to manage growth may view a growth management ordinance as an unnecessary additional layer of controls. This could be viewed as cumbersome in the understanding of City requirements. c. Since additional development controls would likelybe created, it represents an additional layer of requirementsto conduct business in the .City of Santa Clarita. Business expansion and new business development' could be discouraged with "more rules for development and doing business" in the City. d. Some infrastructure and public services are beyond the control of the City, thereby frustrating attempts for a -comprehensive solution. e. May encourage increased development in the County, with resultant impacts upon the City. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the City Council review the report and attachments and either 1. Review and consider the attached report. 2. Direct staff to: a. Prepare a growth management ordinance at this time, including desirable components for such an ordinance; or, b. Not to prepare a growth management ordinance or other specific program at this time; but continue to work on General Plan Implementation programs and other ordinances and programs implementing a comprehensive growth management strategy., Attachment 1 CITY GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY SUMMARY OF ACTION TO DATE 1988 - 1991 Growth management has previously been a priority item identified by the City Council. In October 1990, the Community Development Department produced a comprehensive Growth Management Report that analyzed other cities experience and identified several methods of growth management. Upon receipt of this report in late 1990 in a special study session, the City Council directed that each of these measures be further reviewed by the Planning Commission in the contest of the General Plan, and that a growth` management strategy be developed within the General Plan. The Council further directed the measures reviewed be expanded to include. development in the County's territory and that populations projected be evaluated in the context of the 1990 Federal Census results. This action was completed and the adopted General, Plan includes strong policy direction for growth management in Santa Clarita as a result of the above direction. The incorporation of the City of Santa Clarita in December 1987 was a voter mandate that growth should be reviewed locally and approved by a local elected City Council. The Council has been active in its actions to develop a comprehensive growth management strategy. Highlights include: (1) December 1988 - The 23 -member General Plan Advisory Committeewas appointed and began work on a 12 -element General Plan incorporating a 254 square miles planning area that included the entire Santa Clarita Valley. (2) September 1989 - The City prepared the General Plan Amendment (45) Evaluation Study which evaluated '45 General Plan amendments proposed in the County area totalling 38,025 additional new units in unincorporated areas and began an aggressive effort to influence County decisions on these projects. (3) November 1989 - December 1990 - Extensive review and comment on the County's major General Plan update for the Santa Clarita Valley. County General Plan amendments were held in abeyance during this. time. (4) June 1990 - The City Council contracted with Reich Hausrath Associates to prepare a.Development Impact Fee Study and Ordinance. (5) Aucust 1990 - The..City Council contracted with J. L. Webb, Inc. to develop a Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and Guidelines. (6) October 1990 - The Community Development Department prepared a "Growth Management Report" presented to the City Council in December 1990, leading to direction to the Planning Commission for development of strong growth management policy in the new General Plan. (7) December 1990 - The County approved only 13,000 new units to their general plan as amendments, instead of the 38,025 requested. (8) January - April 1991 Community outreach and education began, with preparation of materials and small group presentations by staff. (9) January 1991 - A Public Information, Resources Group meeting was devoted to growth management. Articles on the topic appeared in several publications. (10) February 1991 - The Planning Commission began formal discussions on growth management as it relates to the General Plan. (11) March 1991 - A public opinion research study was completed that investigated image and identity issues in the Santa Clarita Valley. Included in the survey instrument was a question soliciting community residents' views on growth. The question posed was, "do you feel growth of the area has affected the image of Santa Clarita--positively or negatively?" Among .local residents 46% felt growth has had a positive effect, while 50% felt a negative effect, and 4% felt there was no effect. (12) June 1991 - General Plan adopted on. June 25, 1991. The Plan contains comprehensive policies directly and indirectly related to growth management including the system of ensuring that development is monitored for adequate infrastructure ("pay as you go"), use of the midpoint density in.determining a responsible limit for residential projects, and striving to achieve a jobs/housing balance, among others. (13) July - Sentember 1991 - The Planning Commission reviewed and adopted the General Plan implementation program, identifying a series of actions needed to implement the General Plan. (14) July - present 1991 - Work began on the Unified Development Ordinance. (15) Se-ptember 1991 - Two community meetings were held on growth management, soliciting input from the public. (16) Sevtember - present 1991 - Community and developer meetings were held on the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and Guidelines; bearings begun. (21) October 1991 - Four community meetings were held on the Unified Development Ordinance; hearings begun. Attachment 2 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Two community meetings were held in September 1991. The first on September 16th at Hart High School, and the second on September 23rd at Sierra Vista Jr. High School. Between the two meetings, approximately 38 people were in attendance. Those commenting included: Alan Cameron, Vera Johnson, Bob Silverstein, Jack Mehterian, Pat Saletore, Don Wilder, Ed Johannes, .Gary Pinter, John Steffen, Ed Dunn, Kathy Phillipson, Joan Dunn, Jack Ancona, Malia Campbell, Craig Berardi, and George Stigile. Others spoke who wished to remain anonymous. The following is a summary of the comments made that specifically relate to growth management: (1) Need to catch up on infrastructure. (2) City must be guiding force in directing developers toward desired growth. (3) New development should make a positive contribution to the area. (4) School fees are critical to new growth. Many developers can be persuaded to contribute more than the statutory amount. (5) Manage growth by managing the General Plan. Be very discerning when requests for general plan amendments begin. (6) More community education is needed on growth management. (7) A balance of growth management and a financing plan is needed to provide infrastructure. It is felt that complete infrastructure needs will never be entirely paid for by new development. "Pay as .you go" philosophy won't entirely correct infrastructure deficiencies. (8) Must have coordination and cooperation with the County.to adequately manage growth. Much of the growth impacts will come from the outlying areas in the.County. (9) Water availability, water quality, and waste management are critical to growth; these concerns should be used to regulate growth. The City should explore acquisition of water distribution. (10) The concept of attempting to achieve a jobs/housing balance has never been successful. Santa Clarita always has and always will be a bedroom community. The City should plan with that scenario in mind. New jobs that are being created are low level, service and retail jobs. These jobs will only attract a small portion of local residents who are now commuting outside of the valley to other similar jobs. The City must pursue getting upper level and management jobs to effectively reduce the current amount of commuters. (11) Why doesn't the City staff support a growth cap? (12) Ordinances can be effective growth management tools if they can be adopted in a relatively short period of time. Palmdale has taken an inordinate amount of time to produce some critical ordinances. (13) if specific alignments were adopted for future rights-of-way and the rights-of-way could be acquired by the City; now, then this could serve as a growth management tool. (14) The City should consider limiting commercial and industrial growth, since so many vacancies in lease space seem to exist. At both meetings a form was made available to those in attendance so that written comments could be made. This enabled those who did not or could.not speak at the meetings to submit written comments or mail their comments in. Only three people submitted written comments; they were received from Craig Berardi, John Steffen, and Pat Saletore and are summarized as follows: (1) A lack of recreational opportunities exists. Examples cited were tennis courts and play facilities for young children. (2) School overcrowding was described with the need to balance school fees with the ability to accommodate more students. MAR:469 1 CD co V Attachment 3 nn m o � � N 0 m CD O o ^ O co A j � co Cl)2 .1 C) d w m 0 v O � a n � ..► to 3 a =� N w N m o 0. 0 m N Um~ O G o d O L CO a CL ;G 3 m. m L C O N a Q n ti A a Attachment 3 nn 1 C � � V O 7 w S A j v N CO .1 C)