Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-07-17; City Council; 7822; REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT HEARING DATEc . AB#% TITLE: MTG. 7/17/84 AMENDMENT HEARING m. DEPT. PLN REQUEST EOR ADDITIONAL GENERAL PLAN DEPT. CITY I CITY I c 0 2 a c, 8 r! 5 8 4 PI 4 fd c % rl a c 0 -4 3 73 5 $4 %E % *rl rl rl -IJN cn OM :j 5a 88 -3 co a rl fi 4 4 3 h .. 2 0 F 0 a =! 0 2 0 s _* GITwF CARLSBAD - AGEND-ILL RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council schedule September 18, 1984 i additional General Plan Amendment hearing date. ITEM EXPLANATION By letter dated June 25, 1984, Mr. Stephen L'Heureux has requested on bet. the developers of the Kelly Ranch property that the city schedule an addi general plan amendment hearing in September. TPle next regularly wt. hearing is set for the second Council meeting in November. Their request general plan amendment missed the last scheduled hearing date due to a no error. By setting an additional general plan amendment hearing, the app will avoid a two mnth delay. One additional item could also benefit time-wise if the Council elec schedule a hearing in September. As the Council will recall you re directed staff to set to public hearing a general plan amendment for prop the north side of Agua Hedionda Lagoon near Snug Harbor. are anxious to have this matter resolved and a September hearing mule expedite the matter. Regarding this, a letter has been submitted by Nick ; requesting that the Council reconsider its decision to delete the recrea commercial designation for this area. Based on a meeting that staff helc property owners from the area and input from Coastal Commission staff, SI land use alternatives are available for this area. These include: 1) density residential; 2) medium density residential; 3) retaining the ex recreational corranercial designation but requiring a specific plan to lim: type and intensity of conmercial use: and 4) a cabination of residentii recreational commercial. If the Council desires, the September public h. could be noticed so that all the alternatives including reconsideration c recreational commercial designation could be considered at that time. IJ seems appropriate, an affirmative City Council action to reconsidel recreational commercial designation at the September public hearing pe Banche's request wuld be needed at this time. EXHIBIT 1. 2. The property Letter from Stephen L'Heureux dated, June 25, 1984 Letter from Nich Banche dated, June 21, 1984 I . e a -fL5 -4 STEPHEN M. L’HEUREUX ATTO R N EY AT LAW 702 FOURTH STREET POST OFFICE BOX 458 OCEANS1 DE, CALIFORNIA 92054 TELEPHONE (619) 722-1306 June 25, 1984 Mayor Mary Casler City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm. Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: GPA LU 84-8 Kelly Dear Mayor Casler: Kaufman and Broad would request that a special Gener Plan Amendment hearing date be set in September 1984 for tl consideration of GPA LU 84-8 (Kelly Ranch). Mr. Holtzmiller h indicated that staff will be prepared at this same time to a1 present to you a city-initiated GPA for the Hoover-Adams Stre area of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. As the timing of this GPA hearing is critical to Kaufm & Broad’s processing of their Tentative Map and Master PlI through other agencies, your favorable response to this reque will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, *’ STEPHEN M. SML/ck C.C. Marty Orenyak Mi chael Ho 1 t zmil le r Jon Friestedt Wayne Cal lahan e w ’. LAW OFFICES OF DAUBNEY AND BANCHE PROFESSIONAL CORPOWATIONS AmA CODE WILLIAM H OAUeNEY NICHOLAS C BANCHE 702 FOURTH STREET TEL-ONE 72 POST OFFICE BOX 390 OCEANSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92054 June 21, 1984 Office of the Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: ZC-303 (Oakley Parker) Dear Mayor and Council: Please be advised that the meeting between the property owners and neighborhood of the property involved in the above-referenced application, sponsored by the City, occurred c June 20, 1984. Placed in its most charitable light, the meeting accompli: little. Accordingly, I once again renew my request for I would suggest that an appropriate time for hearing the reconsideration of the denial of the above-referenced applicatl motion €or reconsideration would be at the meeting at which yo Staff reports back on the results of the meeting to which I ha alluded. Without being presumptious, I believe that the matter to addressed at that meeting, among other things, is the propriet embarking upon general plan revision hearings involving land t the City and Coastal Commission have already designted after s 7 years of continuous hearings. You are obviously aware that during those 7 years the lan In the event that the current situation continues, the la has been unusable. owners may well face a similar period during which their land absolutely no utility. L * e Office of the Mayor and City Council June 21, 1984 Page 2 Please advise me as to the date and time of hearing, Respectfully submitted, ec:BA&-- NCB: jp cc: City Manager City Clerk City Attorney Planning Director r e e 5 * 4 I m @ INTRODUCTION The Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element was adopted in 1974. This, in effect, established a City Council policy statement regarding how Carlsbad would look (and live, if you will) at buildout. In looking at the Land Use'Plan Map, one could imagine it as a "recipe" for the land within the sphere-of-influence. That recipe calls for certain combinations and mixes of land use types (ingredients) and development standards to result in a finished product - that is, a finished Carlsbad. Obviously, a "buildout" General Plan is not expected to remain static. However, if the recipe is changed too much, the results will not necessa- rily provide what is anticipated. In the last nine years there have been a substantial number of modifica- tions to the Land Use Plan. How have these incremental changes modified the 1974 policy (recipe) for Carlsbad? It must be assumed that the 1974 plan, at a conceptual level, represented changes, a determination of the original land use relationships must be establ i shed. At a very broad level ResearchjAnalysis Group staff has put together some numbers and relationships to reflect the land use mix of the 1974 Land Use Plan Map. This is not the map that is available currently to the public. The current map reflects nine years of changes to the original map. After establishing the 1974 "base-line" land use acres (the area within the General Plan's residential, non-residential and open space categories' staff has attempted to translate subsequent land use changes into the Sam1 format. This will allow a comparison of the total incremental changes to the original policy, Time constraints and difficulty in translating num- bers into common categories have been a limitation. ti vely re1 i ab1 e observations can be made. A reasonable question is: -4 the proper mix of land uses. In order to assess the nine years of However, some rela- 4 -1- w I w I r A 4 -l w m 1974 LAND USE MIX The following conclusions were drawn from 1974 Land Use Plan data: 1. The total acres of the General Plan area (sphere of influence) are about 23,700. That is about 37 square miles. (This should remain constant unless changes in the sphere-of i nf 1 uence are made. ) 37 square miles is about the size of: a. Glendale - L.A. County - 190,000 to 245,000, b. Huntington Beach - Orange County - about 200,000 bui 1 dout population. bui ldout popul ation. Oceanside - San Diego County - 150,000 to 319,000 bui 1 dout popul ati on. The predominant residential land use in acres is single family (SFR). The ratio of single family acres to multiple family (MFR) acres is about 60% SFR to 40% MFR. Of the anticipated total dwelling units, MFR is the predominant housing type. SFR. The "look" of the community (residential) will be relatively low density, because SFR development requires a large amount of land per dwelling unit. will live in multiple family dwelling units. Because MFR requires less land per dwelling unit, HFR units will be in concentrated areas throughout the residential acreage in the City. The predominant land use acreage in the City is residential. ratio of resi denti a1 acreage to non-resi denti a1 acreage (i .e. commercial, industrial and non-residential reserve) as part of the total General Plan area is about 58%' residential to 16% non- resi denti a1 . category (1974) is a holding category, Non-Residential Reserve (NRR). and placed in commercial, industrial or open space uses as dev- elopment is warranted. acreage within the NRR is not established until specific dev- elopment plans are made. As the community progresses to buildout, the acreage in NRR will drop and the acres in industrial, commercial and to a lesser degree, open space will rise. Eventually, there will be no NRR acres. c. 2. 3. The ratio of MFR to SFR is about 74% MFR to 26% 4. However, the majority of people in the City 5. The 6. Of the total non-residential acres, the predominant land use It is anticipated that land will be removed from NRR The mix of industrial to commercial 7. -2- 9 W 8. The "look" of the community (residential and non-residential) will be represented by SFR areas to the north and south, with pockets of MFR. non-resi denti a1 corri dor running eas t/wes t through the mi ddl e of the City. Open space (0-S) constitutes a substantial percentage of the total General Plan acreaqe. 0-S a.cres comprise about 26% of the total acres. For each open space acre there is about one half-acre in the non-resi denti a1 categories and about 2 acres in the resi denti a1 categories . at buildout will be balanced by a significant open space acreage. The predominant 0-S areas are the Pacific shoreline, lagoons, park sites, La Costa Golf Course, and drainage corridors (canyons). These areas will be separated by an extensive 9. 10. 11. The "look" of the residential and commercial/industrial "recipe" . - FIGURE 1A - 1974 GENERAL PLAN - LAND USE ELEMENT - % OF GENERAL PLAN AREA - 23700 Acres Total - - ACRES ACRES SFR: 8264 IND: 806 RES: 13660 MFR: 5396 NRR: 1968 NON-RES: 3822 COMM: 1048 OS: 6218 -3- m W - FIGURE 1B - 1974 GENERAL PLAN - LAND USE ELEMENT - % OF GENERAL PLAN AREA G E N E2 R3 A7 LO 0 P LA NR E R E -A AC -A s OF RES I DENT IAL SF SINGLE MULT I PLE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL NON- FAMILY FAM I LY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESERVE -4- w W - - W w CURRENT LAND USE MIX There have been a number of changes in the General Plan Land Use !lap desig- nations since 1974, Plan revisions. use mixes "today," one can see a comparison to the land use mix established in 1974. Have there been big changes? In what categories? Were the changes anticipated? Is the land use configuration still the way it should be? The following conclusions were drawn from the land use mix acreages which are represented by the ''current" General Plan. 1. Overall, the changes in acreages have not resulted in unexpected land use mixes. 2. The predominant residential land use in acres remains single family. approximately 60% to 40%. MFR remains the predominant dwelling unit, as antici- pated by the 1974 Land Use Plan, that is, about 74% MFR to 26% SFR. General Plan area at about 57%. This is down about 1% from the 1974 plan. 1% (about 17.5% of total General Plan area). The drastic change has occurred in the Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) category. NRR has dropped in acres from 1968 (8.2% of General Plan area) to 558 acres (2.4% of General Plan area). This is an expected trend as a result of the NRR concept. category was established to "hold" potential com- merci al/industri a1 and open space acres unti 1 specific land use plans were made. is occurring as planned. As a part of the non-residential acreage, industrial land has increased dramatically. The 1974 plan desig- nated about 806 acres as industrial. Currently, there are about 2541 acres shown for industry. They run the gamut from 5-acre changes to entire Master As mentioned previously, in showing the General Plan land The rates of SFR to MFR is still 3. 4. Residential acres remain predominant within the total 5. Non-resi denti a1 acreage has increased overall by about The NRR This process 6. 7. Open space (0-S) acreage has remained stable. About 26% of the General Plan area is devoted to open space. This is unchanged from 1974. about 150% of total non-residential acreas and about 462 of residential. 0-S acreage constitutes -5- m 8. The current "look" of the General Plan 'land use acreages has not changed much from the 1974 plan. The community will still be represented by substan- tial SFR development with pockets of MFR. A central east-west band of predominantly industrial (office park) acreage wi 11 separate the residential areas to the north and south. Open space acres will be present at about the same ratio and location as the 1974 plan. -6- G E N E R A L P L A N A R E A Fami 1 y Fami 1 y Resid. Resid. G E N E R A L P L A N A R E A Si ngl e Mu1 ti Commerci a1 Industri a1 Non-Resi d. Open Space Fami 1 y Resid. Resid. Fami 1 y Reserve 7 w w CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN - LAND USE ELEMENT PERCENT OF GENERAL PLAN AREA - 1974 Resi denti a1 . 1983 -- - FIGURE 2B - -8- w w - * - w OBSERVATIONS - Assuniing the 1974 plan presented a "good" mix, or recipe, for land use, and recognizing from the broad review done here that no substantial changes have been made, the conclusion must be that the General Plan Land Use Map is sti'I7 functioning and reflective of Council policy. It is our opinion that in a developing City like Carlsbad, the "General Plan" is, for the majority of citizens, represented by the General Plan Land Use Map. specifics of elements such as Seismic Safety or Scenic Highways are details in implementation of the Land Use Map. Changes in the methods for carrying out the land use recipe will and should occur. if the overall land use mix is sound, the General Plan at a conceptual (policy) level is sound. At this point, one might ask - "Carlsbad at buildout" is no more than land use mix? The answer is obviously no, however, land use amounts and relationships play a large part. buildout is a difficult and complex situation to predict. Consider the communities mentioned at the beginning of this report. Glendale, Hunt- ington Beach and Oceanside have some quantifiable characteristics similar to Carlsbad. All will undoubtedly be unique communities (and very dif- ferent from Carlsbad) at buildout. The However, The "quality of life" in Carlsbad at GENERAL PLANS - CARLSBAD/GLENDALE/OCEANS IDE PERCENT OF GENERAL PLAN AREA . - FIGURE 3 - -9- W w There are three factors which allow one to conclude the buildout population; they are: . 1. Acreage in each residential category 2. 3. Dwelling units resulting (yield) from each category Persons per household or dwelling unit The acreage factor is easily quantified and remains stable, unless land use categories are changed. The other two factors are not as stable. a land use category. one project and 19 for another. Persons per household has been dropping since the 1930s. predict if it will stabilize or continue to change. The important factor is to recognize acreage as the most stable factor on which to base predictions. can be made as necessary. The following example shows the effect of changes in d.u. yield and household size: Consider the 1974 total residential acres of 13,660. Dwelling unit yield may vary within For example, a 10-20 d.u. range may yield 12 units for No one can reliably Adjustments to the d.u. yield and household size Assume : Average that to 7 d.u. per acre gesulting d.u. = 95,620 Assume : Resulting bui ldout population = 286,860 Now consider the same acreage - 13,660 As sume : 5 d.u. per acre Resulting d.u. = 68,300 Assume: 2.4 people per household Resulting buildout population = 163,920 4 dwelling units (d.u.) per acre SFR 10 d.u. per acre MFR - 3 people per househol d The 1974 General Plan predicted a buildout population of between 154,118 and 281,640. More recent predictions expect the low end of this range, if not 1( Our recommendations on the following page suggest establishment of a data ba: on which regular status reports can be made. Once long range plans, such as General Plan, are made, they should be regularly monitored and evaluated. M toring allows accumulation of information so that accurate evaluation can ta place. Evaluation should take place at the policy level and should address whether or not the plan is accomplishing what is desired. -1 0- - w - 1 * * .J a w .- W w . x RECOMMENDATIONS Direct staff to carry out and report on the following tasks: 1. * Determi ne precise "base-1 i ne" acreages for the enti re General Plan area for each General Plan Land Use cate- points for future analysis. Once the base-1 ine acreages are established, determine acceptable "statistical sub-areas" of the General Plan area. evaluation of changes in land use at a more precise level than the entire General Plan acreage. For exam- ple, a 100-acre change from SFR to MFR in La Costa will not reveal a substantial change within 13,000 acres. However, it may constitute a substantial change in the land use mix in La Costa. Re-evaluate the Public Facilities Fee (PFF) , and Pub- lic Facilities Management System (PFMS). The key to this re-evaluati on is reviewing the popul ati on fore- casts. The current PFF uses a buildout population of 160,000. assumptions were established. Given the preceding tasks, concurrent PFF/PFMS review would be timely. gory. These acreages would be used as fixed reference 2. The purpose here is to allow monitoring and . 3. It has been about three years since the P - 4. Continue to review and edit all General Plan Elements * for common format and organization. Research/Analysis Group has been working on this task since October, 1983. A part of this review is identification of those aspects of the various elements which need to be revised, recog- nizing current City Council land use policy. Develop a method of reporting to City Council on the impacts of possible (requested) General Plan amendments , using the data from tasks 1-4. 5. .. - . -11-