HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-16; City Council; 8253; Report of Citizens CommitteeOF CARLSBAD — AGENL BILL
AB#
MTQ. 7/16/85
DEPT. PLN
TITLE: REPORT OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE
FOR REVIEW OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN
O
§
.j
O
oo
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review Report of the Citizens Committee and direct staff to set
to public hearing an amendment to the Land Use Element based upon
the recommendations of the Citizens Committee approved by the
City Council.
It is also recommended that the City Attorney's Office be
directed to prepare an Interim Ordinance to apply the
recommendations of the Citizens Committee approved by the Council
to all projects submitted during the time the Land Use Element is
being amended.
ITEM EXPLANATION
This item is consideration of the Report from the Citizens
Committee for Review of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan.
In January of this year, the City Council appointed a Citizen
Committee to review the Land Use Element. General public input
was obtained through a series of public workshops and all
Committee meetings have been open to the public.
The Committee has analyzed the Element and where appropriate is
recommending revisions to strengthen the Element. Specific
findings and recommendations are contained in the Committee's
Report which was previously distributed to the Council.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Committee's Report at a
public hearing on June 19, 1985 and either endorsed the
recommendations or made further comments or suggestions. The
results of the Planning Commission's review is contained in a
report from the Chairman attached to this agenda bill.
In order to aid the City Council in reviewing the Citizens
Committee's Report, staff has prepared a topical index which is
also attached. The index indicates where each topic or issue is
addressed in the Citizens Committee's Report and in the Planning
Commission's Report.
The City Council should direct staff to set to public hearing an
amendment of the Land Use Element based upon the recommendations
of the Citizens Committee approved by the Council. Staff will
return with a work program based upon the Council's action.
Staff is also recommending that the Council direct the City
Attorney's Office to return with an interim ordinance which would
require all projects submitted during the time which the Land Use
Element is being amended to comply with the recommendations of
the Citizens Committee approved by Council.
Page Two of Agenda Bill No.
The City Council previously adopted interim planning policies
which would be in effect while the Citizens Committee was
preparing its report (Resolution 7872 - copy attached). These
policies technically expired on July 2, 1985 which was the date
that the Council was originally going to review the Committee's
report. If the Council believes that additional time is needed
to review the report (i.e, subsequent Council meetings) then the
interim planning policies should be extended.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
None required at this time. Any amendments or revisions to the
Land Use Element which result from the Citizens Committee
recommendations will require environmental review.
FISCAL IMPACT
To be determined based upon City Council action.
EXHIBITS
1) Citizens Committee Report - Previously distributed to
Council
2) Planning Commission Report dated July 2, 1985 with
attachment (summary of Minutes)
3) Topical Index
4) Resolution 7872 - Interim planning policies
EXHIBIT 2
Citj> of Cartebab
JULY 2, 1985
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Clarence Schlehuber, Chairman, Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE REPORT -
LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
On June 19, 1985 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
review the Report of the Citizens Committee for Review of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan. The members of the
Citizens Committee are to be highly commended for an outstanding
report and for the time and effort that they devoted to their
task.
The Planning Commission discussed each topic or issue for which
the Citizens Committee had prepared a finding or recommendation.
The results of the Planning Commission's review are explained
below:
I. Regarding the topics of Parks, Environmental Protection,
Redevelopment, Land Use Classifications7Architectural
Review and Parking, the Planning Commission agreed
unanimously (7-0)with the findings and recommendations of
the Committee with no additional suggestions.
II. Regarding the topics of Open Space, Agriculture,
Commercial, Special Treatment Area and Time Constraints and
Impacts of Growth, the Planning Commission agreed
unanimously(7-0)to support the findings and
recommendations of the Citizens Committee but some minor
changes or additions are being suggested. These are as
follows:
1. Open Space - The Planning Commission is recommending
that the City Council direct staff to prepare an
inventory of existing and future open space utilizing
the definition proposed by the Citizens Committee. The
Committee recommended a definition that includes four
categories of open space. The idea of the Planning
Commission is to inventory the areas in the city which
would fit within each one of the four categories.
These areas would then be mapped and the information
would be available when future projects are proposed.
Presently, this information is developed when a project
is submitted. The Planning Commission recommended that
this inventory be accomplished within a limited amount
of time.
2. Agriculture - The Planning Commission believed the
words "where feasible" should be added to the Citizens
Committee recommendation that "the city should permit
agricultural land uses throughout the city".
3. Commercial - The Planning Commission recommends that
Highway Route 78 be added to the Citizens Committee
recommendation to "orient travel service commercial
areas along the 1-5 corridor and in the downtown
core".
4. Special Treatment Area - The Planning Commission
recommends that the Special Treatment Area for the
beach area also include the portion of the
Redevelopment Area located south of Elm and west of the
railroad tracks. The Commission believed that this
area has the same problems as the adjoining beach area
including parking, circulation and compatibility
problems.
5. Time Constraints and Impacts of Growth - Because of
time constraints imposed on the Citizens Committee in
reviewing the Land Use Element, the Planning Commission
concurs with the need to appoint a subsequent, smaller
citizens committee to study and assess the impacts of
growth and to make a yearly report. The Planning
Commission believes, however, that this is one of the
functions of the Planning Commission and, therefore,
the Commission should be involved in some manner.
III. The remaining topics or issues addressed by the Citizens
Committee involving the Timing of Growth and Public
Facilities, Buildout Population, Density, Procedural
Recommendations and Industrial received considerable
Planning Commission debate and did not result in unanimous
recommendations by the Commission. An explanation and the
recommendations made by the Planning Commission regarding
these topics follows:
1. Timing of Growth and Public Facilities and Buildout
Population - There was considerable discussion on
whether the city should do something to manage the
location and rate of growth and to establish an
ultimate buildout population figure. Although the
Citizens Committee recommended that the city manage
growth to ensure the timely provision of public
1
facilities and to use a population estimate of 150,000
for public facilities planning purposes only, the
Committee did not pass a recommendation to specifically
regulate the rate or location of growth. By a 4-3
vote, the Planning Commission agreed with the Citizens
Committee's findings and recommendations on timing of
public facilities with the additional recommendation
that the city hire a project manager to coordinate the
timing and construction of public facilities as
suggested by the Chamber of Commerce.
2. Density - Several issues regarding the Citizens
Committee's recommendations on density were discussed
by the Planning Commission including a further
reduction of the density ranges, whether slopes less
than 40% should be excluded from density calculations
and whether significant riparian and wetland habitats
should be mapped and then excluded from density
calculations.
The Planning Commission determined by a 4-3 vote to
support the Citizens Committee's recommendation
regarding new density ranges with the suggestion that
the fractions be dropped so that the ranges would be as
follows:
0-1.5
0-4
4-9
9-15
15-23
The Commission voted 5-2 that a maximum 50% density
credit be permitted for slopes between 25% and 40% (the
Citizens Committee recommended full credit for 25-40%
slopes) but that all other recommendations of the
Citizens Committee regarding - net vs. gross density
calculations be supported as is.
Other recommendations regarding density approved
unanimously (7-0) by the Planning Commission included:
A) a recommendation to delete the exemption for 10 acre
parcels from the prohibition against developing on 40%
slopes; B) an exemption for RL (0-1.5 du's acre)
property so that density credit is given for slopes
exceeding 40% although these slopes cannot be buillt
upon; and C) a recommendation to include the word
"only" at the beginning of the policy on clustering so
that it reads: "Only encourage clustering when it is
done in a way that is compatible with existing,
adjacent development" (the word "only" was part of the
original motion approved by the Citizens Committee but
was left out in the final report).
3. Procedural Recommendations - The Planning Commission
discussed two procedural recommendations made by the
Citizens Committee. The most significant deals with
application of the recommendations to existing Master
Plans. The Citizens Committee passed a motion that
their recommendations not affect the land use
designations shown on adopted master plans. The intent
of this motion was unclear to the Planning Commission
particularly with respect to whether the proposed, new
density ranges should be applied to existing Master
Plans. By a 5-2, the Planning Commission is
recommending that all revised standards pertaining to
density, open space, parks and public facilities be
applied to existing master plans.
The other procedural matter deals with a recommendation
of the Citizens Committee involving city policy on
"mean" densities. By a 5-2 vote, the Planning
Commission believes that the following recommendation
of the Citizens Committee is not appropriate:
"The city should revert to its adopted policy of
requiring landowners to earn the potential maximum
density by meeting certain stated criteria. The
current interim use of the "mean" to control density
should be revoked as its use does not offer an
incentive to provide higher quality housing, which is a
committee goal."
4. Industrial - The Citizens Committee is recommending
that no concentrations of new industrial uses be
permitted outside the present boundaries of the
industrial corridor as shown on the existing land use
plan. The Planning Commission by a 4-3 vote is
recommending a study to refine the airport impact area,
especially as it relates to residential use and,
additionally, that the city consider possible expansion
of industrial usage into other areas of the city where
there are large enough sites.
As the City Council can see from the above explanation, the
Planning Commission generally endorsed most of the findings and
recommendations of the Citizens Committee. Probably the three
most substantial additions to the Citizens Report being
recommended by Planning Commission are as follows:
1) The inventory and mapping of existing and future open
space based upon the definition of open space
recommended by the Citizens Committee.
2) Only allowing a maximum of 50% density credit for
slopes between 25% and 40%.
3) Applying all the recommended changes including new
density ranges to existing master plans.
Regarding the Collateral Report prepared by the Citizens
Committee, the Planning Commission agreed unanimously (7-0) to
forward the Report with the addition of a recommendation for an
economic impact study which would analyze the fiscal impact of
the Land Use Element as revised and a recommendation for a
comprehensive review of parking standards throughout the city
except in the R-l zones.
Attached is a summary of the minutes of the Planning Commission's
deliberations on the Citizens Committee Report which provides
more detail on the Commission's discussion and specific motions.
Attachment;
Summary of Planning Commission Minutes dated June 19, 1985
CS/MJH/ar
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN,
REVIEW OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE REPORT
Chairman Schlehuber called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. In
reviewing the guidelines for the conduct of the meeting he
reassured the Citizens Committee that their report would not be
changed by the Planning Commission. It will be forwarded to the
City Council along with a report reflecting actions taken by the
Commission concerning the Committee recommendations.
For discussion purposes, the topics to be considered were divided
into four groupings.
Area number I consisted of Open Space, Agriculture, Parks and
Environmental Protection.
There were no questions of the Committee by the Planning
Commission on area number I.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Barbara Hallman, 3610 A Village Drive, Carlsbad,
(representing the Carlsbad League of Women Voters) thanked
the city for honoring the League request for a review of the
Land Use Element. The League urges an immediate
implementation for on-going citizen participation to more
thoroughly assess density, the amount of open space,
practical ways of protecting the natural environment,
support of a regional growth policy, and ways to minimize
urban sprawl.
Mignon Bowen, 2290 Nob Hill Drive, Carlsbad, stated that
quality of life in Carlsbad will be determined by the use of
Carlsbad's land. Ms. Bowen spoke in favor of the minority
recommendation of the four goals to be added to the Land Use
Element for timing growth and the two supporting policies as
shown on page 5 of the report. She further supported the
minority view that the Land Use Element is inadequate with
regard to open space, promoting protecion of the natural
environment, density ranges, agriculture and concern for
present citizens; and supported many of the minority
recommendations to strengthen all of those areas of the Land
Use Element. She spoke in favor of a further reduction of
the RM density ranges from 9 to 8; a population cap of
140,000 by the year 2025; the minority recommendations on
agriculture; and a representative citizens committee to
review the Land Use Element at least every 5 years, but
preferably every 3 years.
f
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE TWO
Bob Ladwig, 3289 Donna Drive, Carlsbad (representing the
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce Growth Management Committee)
stated that overall, they would endorse the Committee's
majority report and would urge the Planning Commission to
adopt the recommendations and forward them to Council. He
commended the Committee's efforts concerning Environmental
Protection; agreed that a definition of Open Space should be
added to the Land Use Element; stated that if there is to be
permanent agriculture within the city, those areas should be
acquired by a city-wide assessment district; and agreed that
park development should be accelerated.
Jim Courtney, 4914 Avila, Carlsbad, urged the Commission to
read the Committee's report as an overall document - not as
a document made up of majority and minority findings.
END OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON AREA I.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OPEN SPACE
Commissioner Smith stated that there is a need to identify
where open space is, under the proposed definition that is
recommended in the report.
Commissioner McFadden stated there should be an inventory of
open space, and then it should be put on a map. She noted
that streams were included in the definition, and that
Oceanside's grading ordinance includes streams. The
definition of open space is very broad. She spoke of
concerns about the definition of a minimum area that open
space could be, such as 12 sq.ft. balconies, in negotiated
open space. Would like to see something definite
established on what size area would actually be counted open
space. She questioned whether the city or the neighborhood
would own the parks under the proposed neighborhood park
plan obtained by an assessment district.
Commissioner L'Heureux referred to the second
recommendation on page 23 concerning parking, and suggested
that it might be appropriate to consider adding lagoon areas
where active or passive use is encouraged.
Commissioner Smith moved to accept the Committee's report on
open space, but that Council direct staff to prepare an
inventory of open space, using the open space definition
outlined in the Committee's report. This should be both a
written report and charted. It should be accomplished
within a limited amount of time. Second Rombotis. Motion
carried 7-0.
2
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE THREE
AGRICULTURE
Commissioner Marcus disagreed with Committee's
recommendation on agriculture. She doesn't feel the city
should be getting into the subsidy of agriculture. She
would prefer agriculture to only be considered as an interim
use.
Commissioner L'Heureux stated that he is not sure permanent
agriculture is beneficial to the city on a long-term basis.
There is a need to strike a balance between long-term and
short-term. The city should take a leadership role to
encourage agriculture as long as it is feasible.
Commissioner Smith does not see the city buying property for
agriculture, however he does see agriculture having a place
in Carlsbad. It can have an affect on growth and density.
He would like to see Carlsbad promoted as a horticultural
center. On page 25(c) should add "where feasible". The
city should promote participation with neighboring
jurisdictions as outlined in E at the top of page 26.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated he could support adding
"where feasible" on (c).
Commissioner McFadden moved to accept the Committee's report
as is, adding the words "where feasible" on page 25(c).
Second Smith. Motion carried 7-0.
PARKS
Commissioner L1Heureux requested a clarification on what was
meant by the Committee's finding regarding "sufficient
parks" - page 23(1). Does this mean at build-out?
Commissioner Rombotis responded that the Committee believed
that the Parks and Recreation Element provided for
sufficient community parks.
Commissioner McFadden questioned the recommendation for
increasing park dedications from 2.5 to 3.0 acres per 1,000
if there are sufficient parks.
Commissioner Rombotis clarified that it is the maximum
allowed under the Quimby Act, and that it also would provide
additional revenues through the park-in-lieu fees. He
further stated that ownership of the neighborhood parks
could be either by the city or the neighborhoods. The city
should provide the leadership and the vehicle to obtain
neighborhood parks.
/O
Ji.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE FOUR
Commissioner L'Heureux believed that the 3 policies being
proposed for parks are excellent.
Commissioner Rombotis moved adopting the Committee's rec-
ommendations on parks. Second McFadden. Motion carried
7-0.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Commissioner L'Heureux suggested the Commission consider the
addition of "ridgelines" on page 28, (the fourth
recommendation concerning development on hillsides).
Commissioner Rombotis stated he could not vote for adding
ridgelines.
Commissioner L'Heureux would like the minutes to reflect
that it was an area that was discussed and is an area that
needs to continue to be discussed. Significant ridgelines
need to be addressed.
Commissioner Rombotis moved the Committee recommendation on
Environmental Protection. Second McFadden. Motion carried
7-0.
Area number II consists of Commercial, Industrial and
Redevelopment.
Chairman Schlehuber mentioned for the record that a letter
was filed by the Chamber of Commerce and by Lightfoot and
Associates. Also position papers from Barbara Hallman and
Mignon Bowen were submitted.
Commissioner McFadden requested clarification on how the
Committee arrived at the wording on page 26, (Industrial) H2
regarding airport impact as it relates to residential use.
Citizens Committee Member Tom Flanagan responded that the
Committee felt the city should stay with the existing
industrial corridor.
Citizens Committee Member Jim Courtney further explained
that the Committee felt that the existing industrial
boundaries were basically good, as it provided a buffer
between airport and residential uses. But no expansion of
the airport should be allowed because it would further
impact residential areas. The nuisances created by the
airport (noise) are addressed in the Collateral Report.
Commissioner Smith feels that no expansion of residential
boundaries in this section of the city should be permitted.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE FIVE
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Bob Ladwig indicated that the Chamber of Commerce supports
the Committee recommendations concerning the airport. They
would also endorse the recommendations for the Commercial,
Industrial and Redevelopment areas. They agree with the
concept of seeking additional parking for the Redevelopment
area.
Don Hickethier, 3701 Haymar Drive, Carlsbad, Vice-President
of South Coast Asphalt spoke concerning the first
recommendation under Industrial, specifically that
concentrations of new industrial use shall not be permitted
outside the industrial corridor. He referred to the study
done by the Chamber of Commerce which endorsed additional
industrial use along Highway 78, and encouraged the Planning
Commission to pay attention to the Chamber study.
END OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON AREA II.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
COMMERCIAL
Commissioner Marcus raised a question concerning a possible
conflict between numbers 2 and 3 on the top of page 27.
Citizens Committee Member Don Dewhurst responded that the
term over-commercialization related to the over-abundance of
commercialization in designated areas.
Citizens Committee Chairman Jim Gaiser further clarified
that this related to avoiding strip commercial.
Commissioner Smith felt that motels or hotels should also be
considered along Highway 78, in addition to the Committee
recommendation on top of page 27.
Commissioner Smith moved accepting the recommendations of the
Committee as they pertain to Commercial with the inclusion
of Route 78 under section 2 on top of page 27. Second
Rombotis. Motion carried 7-0.
INDUSTRIAL
Commissioner McFadden would like to see a study to refine
the airport impact area. (Both in the southwest and
southeast areas.) She believes that there are residential
areas that are impacted by the airport. A study needs to be
done to see what other uses besides residential are
appropriate for these areas. It does not necessarily have
to be industrial use but something other than residential.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE SIX
Commissioner Marcus wondered whether the city could get some
sort of projection of increase in flights at the airport in
five or ten years - current and future uses?
Commissioner L'Heureux suggested an additional
recommendation that there are potentially other areas in
town, if properly master planned, that could be considered
for industrial use. (Provided that the area is large enough
to stand on its own.) He agreed that the area south of the
industrial corridor needs to be reviewed.
Chairman Schlehuber indicated that while he could support
Mrs. McFadden's recommendation, he could not support the
expansion of industrial use in the city.
Commissioner Smith has reservations about industrial. The
city could end up with more than we want. This could have a
definite effect on the population. He would prefer to
confine it where it is right now and take another look at it
in 5 years.
Commissioner McFadden moved to adopt the report of the Committee
on Industrial but that a study be requested to refine the
airport impact area, especially as it relates to residential
uses. It would define the effects of both current and
future uses. Additionally, that the city consider
Commissioner L'Heureux's proposal regarding possible
expansion of industrial usage into other areas where there
are large enough sites to permit them. Second L'Heureux.
Smith and Schlehuber said they could not support potential
expansion of the industrial area. Motion carried 4-3 with
Commissioners Schlehuber, Smith and Hall voting No.
REDEVELOPMENT
Commissioner L'Heureux moved adoption of the section on
Redevelopment. Second McFadden. Motion carried 7-0.
Area number III consists of Land Use Classifications, Special
Treatment Area, Parking and Architectural Review.
Commissioner McFadden asked about page 32 - last paragraph
under Residential, does the reference to "single family"
mean acreage or number of dwelling units?
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE SEVEN
Land Use Planning Manager Michael Holzmiller responded that
it referred to acreage and not the number of single family
units.
Commissioner Marcus asked for an explanation of the
language in the second paragraph at the top of page 33.
"Offer safe, helpful ... " - what is "helpful"?
Citizens Committee Member Claudia Stebelski responded that
the language was taken verbatim from the existing Land Use
Text.
Commissioner McPadden asked for clarification on the issue
of additional parking requirements.
Commissioner Rombotis stated there were three areas of
concern, beach parking, apartments and commercial.
Citizens Committee Member Eric Larson further clarified that
there was no specific recommendation regarding parking for
the city as a whole. (He reiterated the areas outlined
by Mr. Rombotis. )
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Bob Ladwig indicated that the Chamber of Commerce endorses
the Committee's recommendation. On the Land Use
Classifications, they agree that an emphasis should be
placed on a predominance of single family acreage in
Carlsbad. They totally agree with the recommendation on
the Special Treatment Area, and feel that the railroad
rights-of-way should be considered for parking in the beach
area. Parking and the Special Treatment Areas should be
considered as high priority items. There should be a
comprehensive review of the parking requirements especially
for the apartment areas. If the city is going to acquire
parking areas, they should be identified and put into the
CIP for future acquisition and development.
END OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON AREA III.
LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS
Commissioner L'Heureux moved adoption of the Citizens
Committee recommendation regarding Land Use Classifications.
Second Rombotis. Motion carried 7-0.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE EIGHT
SPECIAL TREATMENT AREA
Commissioner McFadden moved that additional language be added
to the Citizens Committee recommendation regarding a special
treatment area following the semi-colon in line 5 of that
section on page 33. The revised statement would read as
follows "excluding the present Redevelopment Area north of
Elm and east of the railroad tracks and open space zones
where they coincide." Second Smith. Motion carried 7-0.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Commissioner L'Heureux heartily endorses the recommendation
for architectural review. It will help to ensure the
compatibility of land uses, buildings, and projects. It
might be appropriate for the Council to implement it by
having a combination of Planning Commissioners and citizens
from the community, or to use the Planning Commission
itself.
Commissioner Marcus concurred and stated that the board
should be formed from other groups that have had experience
at this. She thinks the Planning Commission should play
some part in this process. She did not like the wording
that the principle charge of the Committee would be to
ensure quality and integrity of design. She felt the
principle charge should be compatibility of design.
Commissioner Smith indicated a concern about interpretation
of the wording of the charge of the board in the future. He
feels there needs to be a better definition of architectural
review and what is really meant by it.
Commissioner L'Heureux moved adoption of the Committee's
recommendation for architectural review. Second McFadden.
Motion carried 7-0.
PARKING
Commissioner McFadden believes the city needs to review all
of the parking requirements for all uses including
industrial.
Commissioner Rombotis stated that he doesn't think the city
needs to look at the parking requirements for R-l uses.
Perhaps the Commission could make a recommendation for the
city to review all the parking requirements as part of the
Collateral Report.
8
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE NINE
Commissioner L'Heureux moved to approve the two specific
references made by the Citizens Committee on pages 27 and 33
dealing with parking. Second Marcus. Motion carried 7-0.
Area Number IV consists of Impacts of Growth, Buildout
Population, Density, Timing of Public Facilities, Desires and
Concerns of Present Citizens, Time Constraints, and Existing
Master Plans.
Commissioner L'Heureux pointed out a typographical error
on page 30 under DENSITY. The last range should be RH and
not RM. Additionally, in the second policy statement under
#2 on page 30, the word only was contained in the actual
motion (May 6, 1985) . (The May 6, 1985 minutes were
correctly reported and the word "only" should preface the
statement.)
Commissioner McFadden questioned the composition of the
Citizens Committee recommended under #2 on page 9. It would
appear that what they are being appointed to do is a
function of the Planning Commission. Is it a standing
Committee/temporary /or permanent?
Citizens Committee Member Margaret Brownley pointed out that
this was a unanimous recommendation from the Committee. She
stated that her intent when making the motion was that the
City Council and Planning Commission might be helped by the
appointment of a temporary committee that would study and
assess the impacts of growth on citizens.
Commissioner McFadden asked about the background on the
amendment to Committee Member Hicks' motion on Master Plans.
What was the intention when the words "Land Use
Designations" were included in the motion. Does this mean
that the changes in the density ranges would now pertain to
existing and adopted master plans?
Citizens Committee Member Eric Larson responded that the
basic integrity of adopted Master Plans would stay as they
are today. There was an attempt to add "density" to the
motion so that the Committee's recommendations would have no
effect on densities in the existing master plans but that
failed. He believes the intent of the Committee was to
apply the density changes to existing master plans.
It.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE TEN
Commissioner L'Heureux asked whether the other
recommendations made by the Committee on open space, parks,
etc, also apply to existing master plans?
Citizens Committee Member Eric Larson responded that he
believes the intention was that the basic integrity of the
entire master plan would stay as it is, but not exclude them
from the specific changes the Committee recommended as long
as they didn't affect the underlying land use designations
provided for in the master plans.
Commissioner L'Heureux stated as he then understood it that
the city would not change the land use permitted by the
master plan but possibly the density ranges and how net vs.
gross density is calculated.
Commissioner L'Heureux asked about #1 on page 31 under
"exceptions". Why is there a feeling about the 10 acre
exception?
Citizens Committee Member Joe Gallagher stated that the
Committee felt that a 10 acre site was basically
insignificant in relation to an overall slope category. Did
not want to totally restrict the potential development on
any property and felt that a 10 acre site was a good
compromise.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Bob Ladwig stated that the Chamber of Commerce would
recommend that the Planning Commission approve the sections
of the report now under discussion, as presented by the
Citizens Committee. He would agree with the revisions to
the density ranges and the statement on top of page 34 which
has to do with mean density. The projected population at
buildout of 150,000 should be for planning purposes only. He
believed that before any changes are made to the current
planning policies and guidelines that a fiscal impact report
be prepared to address any potential changes. The desires
and concerns of the present citizens are paramount, but also
need to keep in mind the desires and needs of the future
citizens. Whatever recommendations are adopted should not
affect the Land Use Designations as shown on the existing
adopted Master Plans. On the timing of public facilities,
the implementation of the CIP, streets, parks, etc, the
Chamber is recommending that the city hire a project
10
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE ELEVEN
manager for all public and capital facilities and
improvement projects, to act solely as a contract manager
and administrator of these programs. The Council and
Planning Commission should hold periodic meetings (eg, twice
a year) to establish priorities and to review the priorities
of the previous meeting. The money that the city has
collected (through PFF, sewer fund, etc.) should be spent
now to address the major concerns brought out at the
Committee meetings. A project manager could also follow
through to make sure that the conditions of plans as they
were approved are carried out. (eg, when traffic count
reaches a certain level, the developer would be required to
make street improvements or install a traffic light, etc.)
Chairman Schlehuber asked if the purpose in bringing down
the higher density ranges was because there seemed to be
more concern about the higher ranges than the lower ones?
Citizens Committee Member Hank Litten responded that the
Committee had 3 concerns regarding density. That they were
too high in the 3 top ranges; that there were sufficient
ranges to provide a diversity in the types of housing
- which was one of the Committee's goals and that special
consideration should be given for senior citizen and special
housing needs.
Steve Bieri, 11300 Sorrento Valley Road, San Diego, stated
that he supported the Committee's work in general. On the
issue of not counting slopes of greater than 40%, he would
ask that properties in the RL - 0-1.5 du's/acre, be exempted
from this restriction. The density of RL lands has already
been lowered significantly due to its topography, and
keeping the restriction would be a double penalty.
A.J. Skotnicki, 3535 Bedford Circle, Carlsbad, indicated
that the issue of growth was not explored in-depth by the
Land Use Committee, due to time constraints and a 14 member
majority on the Committee that did not believe in controlled
growth. The result was a Committee opinion arrived at by
plurality, not consensus. By having the majority and
minority opinion reflected in the report, it gives the
Commission the opportunity to extend its deliberations on
this crucial issue and explore a compromise between
uncontrolled and controlled growth. The key is arriving at
a balance between private profit and the quality of life for
the citizens of Carlsbad.
11
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE TWELVE
Teresa McTighe representing the Construction Industry
Federation of San Diego stated that the Federation believes
concerns of future residents need to be addressed as well as
existing citizens. Developers are interested in parks and
other amenities within a city. These amenities help to sell
their product. They are interested in quality. They also
have to provide a variety of housing types for all income
levels. Measures such as the lowering of density ranges,
provisions on existing master plans, etc will significantly
affect the cost of housing.
Dale Schreiber, 1457 Crest, Encinitas (owner of Ponto
Storage), stated that the city should not adopt new
regulations where you can't bring in hotels and motels.
Tom Smith, 2303 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, stated that
developers are not going to run away because of actions
approved as a result of the Committee's recommendations.
They will simply pass along the costs to the buyers.
Jim Courtney, 4914 Avila Avenue, Carlsbad, indicated that
the problem is that too many people do not know what is
already in the General Plan. If the city would just
implement the programs they have already adopted and which
are already contained in the general plan, it would solve
99% of the problems associated with growth.
END OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON AREA IV.
GROWTH
Commissioner Smith feels that the Citizens Committee
comments are in order but he would hope that the
recommendation to the Council would be that the proposed
Citizens Committee to assess the impacts of growth would be
an adjunct of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner McFadden believes that the activity recommended
for a subsequent Citizens Committee is badly needed by the
city at this moment. However, she would like the addition
of the word "temporary" for the Committee. Agrees that
growth needs to be managed, but how?
12
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE THIRTEEN
Commissioner L'Heureux believes how the City manages the
timing and location of growth is a very difficult problem,
but something that must be addressed. It is very important
to have a statement in the General Plan as to where we are
going as far as population. He believes that language
should be added that we are looking for the city to
establish programs and policies to manage the location and
the timing of growth for a population of 140,000 - 150,000
people at buildout at 2025. The mechanisms that the city
actually chooses to implement that will be subject to much
further debate and work. Growth will occur, and the
question is how do we manage it to our best use. Could do
it by phasing master plans, parks, public facilities. Must
have a goal in mind. Perhaps this would be better to
discuss under the topic of public facilities or population.
Also, he believes that we must have some sort of economic
analysis. On the Citizens Committee recommendations, he
would suggest a committee of 9 instead of 7, consisting of 4
Planning Commissioners and 5 citizens selected by the
Council. This would provide a balance of citizen input,
plus have people who work with these problems on a regular
basis. A tremendous amount of staff time was put into the
Land Use Element review process.
Commissioner Marcus agrees with the idea of an economic
feasibility study. The City needs to know how much all of
this would cost.
Commissioner Rombotis believes it is important to have
the Planning Commission involved.
Commissioner L'Heureux moved that the recommendation
of the Committee on growth be adopted with the modification
that the Planning Commission be involved in the yearly
review and growth impact assessment in some fashion. Second
Rombotis. Motion carried 7-0.
BUILDOUT POPULATION (pg. 29 1F2)
Commissioner L'Heureux suggests a possible rewording which
would read "the city shall establish procedures and
mechanisms to manage the location and rate of growth so as
to ensure the timely provision of facilities and services to
accomodate a population of approximately 150,000 at
buildout. That the population figures should be monitored
closely and reviewed officially every five years.
Commissioner Rombotis states that there are other areas in
the report which call for public facilities concurrent with
need.
13
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE FOURTEEN
Commissioner L'Heureux believes that in order to make a plan
work, you have to know what you can expect within time
ranges. You need to know where we are going and where we
should be years down the road.
(No specific motion was made concerning buildout
population).
TIMING OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
Commissioner McFadden believes an economic assessment is
important. For planning purposes, she could go with
150,000, but she wants to make sure all four quadrants are
getting their fair share of housing mix.
Commissioner Smith states that the city is already committed
to 2/3 of the population potential. (He reviewed the data
contained in the staff report on Density and Population).
Commissioner L'Heureux still believes that something needs
to be done about the timing and location of growth and
public facilities.
Commissioner Rombotis moved to adopt the Committee's
recommendations on Timing of Public Facilities, and urge the
city to include the project manager as recommended by the
Chamber of Commerce. Second Hall. Motion carried 4-3 with
Schlehuber, McFadden and L'Heureux voting no.
DENSITY
Commissioner McFadden would like to see the proposed
densities changed. The Committee's recommendation appears
to increase density in the lower ranges. She believes the
other density ranges should be further reduced. Would like
to see 0-1.5, 0-4, 4-8, 8-14, 14-22. She agrees that
special housing needs should be established for density
above 22 for seniors, etc, by CUP.
Commissioner Smith concurs with the ranges proposed by
Commissioner McFadden.
Chairman Schlehuber states that he prefers the even figures.
He also likes the statement on the current policy of
guaranteeing only the minimum density. He doesn't feel the
statement on page 34 regarding the mean density policy is
necessary or appropriate.
14
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE FIFTEEN
Commissioner Marcus doesn't have any problem with dropping
the density ranges but wants to know what the impact will be
over a period of years.
Commissioner Rombotis states that the Committee has already
reduced the ranges. Can reduce these to the point where you
will basically be eliminating the possibility of
apartments.
Commissioner L'Heureux would be comfortable with dropping
the fractions, but leaving the numbers as the Committee
reduced them.
Commissioner Rombotis moved to adopt the density ranges of
0-1.5, 0-4, 4-9, 9-15 and 15-23. Second L1Heureux. Motion
carried 4-3 with Schlehuber, Smith and McFadden voting no.
Commissioner Rombotis moved that the buffering and transitional
methods (on page 30, Section 2) of the Committee report be
approved adding the word "only" to the section on
clustering, and further adding the density range above 23
du's for senior citizen and special housing needs. Second
L'Heureux. Motion carried 7-0.
SLOPES
Commissioner L'Heureux thinks there should be an exception
from the 40% slopes for the RL properties, that they would
be included for density calculations, but could not be built
on. He is uncomfortable with the Committee recommendation
regarding the range between 25-40%. There is a lot of that
property in town. He supports modifying the recommendation
to provide that for the slopes between 25-40% that there be
a maximum 50% credit for density calculation. There is a
need to build in more flexibility for staff within that
range. He would like to see less than 100% credit in that
area.
Commissioner L1Heureux moved that on slopes in excess of 25%
but less than 40% a maximum credit of 50% can be used for
density calculation. Second Schlehuber. Motion carried 5-2
with McFadden and Hall voting no. (This should be a 4th
exception under the exceptions listed at the top of page
31.) Commissioner McFadden indicated that she was voting
against the motion because she does not feel any credit
should be given for any slopes exceeding 30%.
Commissioner McFadden would like to see the section on
excluding 10 acre parcels deleted.
15
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE SIXTEEN
Chairman Schlehuber can possibly see a number of requests to
subdivide property into 10 acre parcels on a section of land
and then come back for development. He has a concern with
that.
Commissioner Smith voiced the same concern and feels that
all parcels of land should be treated equally.
Commissioner McFadden moved to delete exception #1 on page 31
and add "in the RL zone credit for slopes of 40% will be
given for density, but cannot be built upon. Second Smith.
Motion carried 7-0.
Commissioner McFadden felt that significant wetlands and
significant riparian habitat should be excluded from density
calculation. They need to be inventoried, identified and
designated open space.
Commissioner Rombotis stated that the Committee felt the
city has more leverage to negotiate for the preservation of
these areas with the developer if they were allowed to count
them as density.
Commissioner Rombotis moved approval of the Committee's recom-
mendation regarding what areas of a site cannot be used
for density calculations as contained on pages 31 and 32,
as is. Second Hall. Motion carried 5-2 with Schlehuber and
McFadden voting no.
Commissioner Rombotis moved approval of IF 2 on top of page 32
regarding discussions with neighboring jurisdictions on
compatible land use. Second Smith. Motion carried 7-0.
EXISTING MASTER PLANS
Commissioner L ' Heureux finds the language regarding
application to existing master plans to be confusing. He
understands the intention, but the wording does not come
through.
Commission discussion focused on the application of the new
density ranges to existing master plans and that if the
ranges were not applied to master plans, they would only
impact about one-third of the City.
Commissioner McFadden moved that the revised standards adopted
on density, open space, parks and public facilities be
applied to existing Master Plans. Second Smith. Motion
carried 5-2 with Marcus and Hall voting no.
16
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1985
PAGE SEVENTEEN
Commissioner Rombotis moved to accept the Committee's recom-
mendation on page 34 regarding the policy on mean
densities. Second Hall. Motion failed 3-4 with Schlehuber,
McFadden, L'Heureux and Marcus voting no.
Commissioner McFadden moved to recommend to the City Council to
disregard item 2 on page 34 which involves the policy for
mean densities. Second Schlehuber. Motion carried 5-2 with
Rombotis and Hall voting no.
Commissioner Rombotis moved to accept the Citizens Committee
report and to forward the changes recommended by the
Planning Commission to the City Council. Second Smith.
Motion carried 7-0.
COLLATERAL REPORT
PUBLIC TESTIMONY - NONE.
Commissioner Rombotis moved to pass along the Collateral
Report to the Council as submitted, with the addition of a
recommendation for an economic impact study and a review of
parking throughout the city except in the R-l zone. Second
Marcus. Motion carried 7-0.
Chairman Schlehuber stated that the Citizens Committee is to
be commended for doing an outstanding job and for submitting
an excellent report.
Commissioner Rombotis moved adjournment at 10:07 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
Carlsbad General Plan
BH/ar
17
c
|K5500.
o Ul UMMARY1INUTFJ3CO
IDATION£Ul
2OOUlE
, Ul
PAQEEFERENCE
UlO
Ul Zo m
Ul
E
CO
CM
00
—
«
CM
="£
o"in"
CO
'
—
CD
o"
O>"
•<*•
co"
CM"
»a>
CO
CM
in
•«*•
h.
CO*
—
CM
-
O)
CO*
*
—
CO"
•••
—
co"
CO
CM
CO
—
CO
CM
52
CM
2
CO•
CM
EXHIBIT 3
XuO
UJ
>
UJcc
H
Z
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
(0
KocO
Q.LUoc
LUs
oo
CO
I
o
ozuiO
in<o
"•2
UE
~E
Eoa>UlE
>
E
<
2
3
CO
,.
P
2°
ao z
— UlS: 2
U 2Ul oa. u
CO Ul
E
-1 COJ 0
£|> z
O u.
Ul
TOPIC/ISSUzUl
22
\Ut-Cut-u
Ul2is
UIL.Cwf-u
Ul O
"oUl Ul
£zE £Ul S&1go
ui p
Ul0s*
< U|a. u.Ul
E
UlozUl UlOE< Ula. u.
LU
E
Ulo
<£O.U.Ul
E
-^
52
in
CM"
CM
*>n
oo"
^
CM
CO
CM
in"
CM
CM
T™[AGRICULTURECO
-sin
CO•™
CO
CO
CO
[ARCHITECTURAL[REVIEWs.
N^
52
~
CM"
CM
~
Tf
^B
K
CM
co"
CM
CO
jam
[COMMERCIAL^>
N^
CO
m
~m
CO
m
of
CM
**
CO
CM
CO
CO
o"
CO
N.[DENSITYs
o
CM
in
in
m
m
u.
O
COz
£co
* ^ ^r
{DESIRES & CONC[PRESENT CITIZEIs.
\
52
in
m
•M
CO
°i
CM
Q
[ENVIRONMENTAL[PROTECTION\,
oCM
m
CO
in
CO
CO
CO
CO
[EXISTING[MASTER PLANSN
\,
o
CM
m
co"
m
CO
m
CM"
CM
*
0
O)
CM
CO
GROWTH\j,
CM
CM
in
<*
CO
CM
2
INDUSTRIALCO
in
CM
CO
K
CO
LAND USECLASSIFICATION\
\
00
5
in"
CM
CO
__
COCM
CM"
CM
*CM
^OPEN SPACEo
CM
m
in
CO
CO
CM
!£PARKING\
\>
CM
CM
oo"
~
m
CM
CM
co"
CM
CM
SMavdl\
\
o
CM
-s.in
m
co"
in
O)"
CM
•**•
CO
O3
CM
00
POPULATION\
\
in
*
CM
2
I—REDEVELOPMEN-CO
m
m
CO
CO
±
<(SPECIAL[TREATMENT ARECO
in
a
CM
CO
TIMECONSTRAINTS\
\
o
CM
in
£2
in
CM"
CM
en
oo"
CM
00
COLU
TIMING OFPUBLIC FACILITII
Q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14II15ffl. ,5 2 8 S 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 4
RESOLUTION NO.7872
A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING INTERIM PLANNING
POLICIES DURING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined a need to
review the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan to ensure
that the element establishes the general distribution, location,
and extent of land uses; and the desired standards of population
•-*
density and building intensity necessary to ensure that Carlsbad
develops as a high quality community which provides superior
economic, social, aesthetic and environmental benefits and
opportunities to present and future residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive review of the Land Use Element
is necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all
present and future residents of the City; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive review of the Land Use Element
will give the residents, developers and business people
confidence that the City of Carlsbad will develop according to a
well established, carefully considered plan; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive review of the Land Use Element
is necessary to ensure that the City is developing in a manner
which is consistent with the desires of the community, giving
consideration to the mandates of law; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires maximum community input
and has therefore established a Citizen's Committee to review
the Land Use Element of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires that the review be
accomplished as quickly as possible; and
t,
o
GO mco a** i
o-£S|VINCENT F. BIONIATTORNEY - CITY C1200 ELM AVEIARLSBAD, CALIFOFj_
- o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the Council desires that the professional
planning staff of the City devote a significant amount of its
time to the review of the Land Use Element; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that it is necessary to
establish interim planning policies to expedite the review of
the Land Use Element,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That a Citizen's Committee to review the Land Use
Element is established. The Committee shall be composed of a
sufficient number of persons to represent various viewpoints
throughout the community as the Council in its discretion
determines.
2. The Citizen's Committee shall review the Land Use
Element as directed by the City Council and shall make a written
report to the City Council by July 2, 1985.
3. The City Manager, Director of Building and Planning
and the Land Use Planning Manager are directed to give the Land
Use Element review top priority in the scheduling of the work
program of the Land Use Planning Office. The Land Use Planning
Manager is authorized and directed to establish priorities for
the review of applications for development projects in the City
according to the following guidelines:
a. Review of the Land Use Element shall be given
top priority.
b. Applications for projects in the redevelopment
zone which do not require any amendments to the General Plan
shall receive second priority.
-2-
a: 5
i*Il
>-K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. Applications for commercial, industrial, and
residential projects less than 50 units which do not require any
changes to any land use regulations and do not involve
significant planning or environmental issues as determined by the
Land Use Planning Manager shall receive third priority.
d. Applications for residential projects over 50
units, or commercial, industrial or residential projects which
require changes to any land use regulation or involve significant
planning or environmental issues, as determined by the Land Use
Planning Manager, shall receive last priority.
4. The following planning policies shall apply during
the review period:
a. No residential development projects shall be
approved above the mean density of the General Plan range if
there are traffic or circulation impacts which cannot be
mitigated.
b. No General Plan amendments will be processed
unless the Land Use Planning Manager first determines that the
amendment will not have an impact on the General Plan review.
c. No zone change which would increase residential
density shall be approved, even if the change would be consistent
with the density designation of the adopted General Plan. Zone
changes to increase residential density are deemed premature
pending the Land Use Element review.
d. No applications for new annexations shall be
processed.
e. Projects which require a master plan under Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and for which a General Plan
-3-
a
ca
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I 16
5 17o
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
amendment is proposed, or projects for a major quasi-public
facility to accommodate a public service use traditionally
provided by a city, may be processed concurrently with a General
Plan amendment,, notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph b.
The Land Use Planning Manager shall determine the processing
priority for these projects.
5. In order to ensure that the Land Use Element is
completed by the scheduled deadline applicants for all.,
development projects shall be requested to agree to extend the
time limits for review and action on a project. The agreement
shall be in the form shown on Exhibit A to this resolution and
shall be submitted with the application for the project.
6. This resolution shall be binding on all decision
making bodies which exercise decision making authority on land
use projects.
7. This resolution shall be effective as of January 1,
1985 and shall expire on July 2, 1985 unless extended by the City
Council or or before July 2, 1985.
8. A copy of this resolution shall be given to each
applicant for a development project.
9. Because the following projects were scheduled for
Planning Commission or City Council hearing prior to the adoption
of this resolution the projects shall be exempt from this
resolution. However, the Planning Commission or Council may
apply the policies established herein to any of these projects
after reviewing the merits of this project: CUP-255 (Villas de
Carlsbad); PCD-65 (Ardelco Apartments); PCD-75 (Hall); ZC-308/CT
-4-
-O
-i_ > Ul U
z S 2 QLU 2 5 <o 5 2 c"
>- o
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2 £ 5 2 1581 3 s 4 10
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
84-11/CP^283 (Ocean Vista); ZC-318/CT 84-35 (Falcon Hills);
PCD-ST (Weber).
10. Because the following general plan amendments were
previsouly authorized for processing by Council the proposals
may continue to be processed for hearing, however, the impacts of
the amendments on the land use element review shall be
considered: GPA/LU 84-4 (First Darthon); GPA/LU 84-10 (Snug
Harbor); GPA/LU 84-7 (Kirgis).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the ath day of januarv 1985
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members easier, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
^Lee-v^-^
MARY H. CASLER, Mayor
J
ATTEST:
<Ji Jt *~J£j(JL . f\ \f(O Ljt^KJJLrt^-^
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZV City_jblerk
-5-
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TIME LIMITS
TO ALLOW REVIEW OF THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
In a desire to assist the City of Carlsbad to
expeditiously review the Land Use Element of the General Plan and
to ensure full and adequate review of the application for this
development project the undersigned agrees that the time limits
imposed by law to approve or disapprove this application shall be
extended. If a negative declaration is adopted for this project
the undersigned agrees that the time period for approval or
disapproval is extended for 90 days. If the project requires an
environmental impact report the undersigned agrees that the time
limit imposed by Section 21151.5 of the Public Resources Code is
extended for six months and that the project shall be approved or
disapproved within 90 days after the certification of the
environmental impact report. The undersigned understands that the
City will process this application according to City Council
Resolution No. 7872 and consents to processing the application
according to that resolution.
Signature of Applicant or Date
Authorized Agent
Name (print)Title (Applicant, Authorized Agent, etc.)
APPROVED:
Michael J. Holzmiller
Land Use Planning Manager
EXHIBIT A 7
•'•*-(* • /
!
JULY 9, 1985
TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Clarence Schlehuber, Chairman, Planning Commission
On the issue of the Planning Commission's recommendation on
master plans, most of the Planning Commission were contacted on
an individual basis by individuals within the community between
our meeting of June 19, 1985 and our meeting of June 26, 1985 to
see whether we would consider changing our recommendation.
After the meeting of June 19, 1985, Jim Hicks indicated to me
that he believed the intent of the Committee's motion, which he
supported, was to exempt the densities of the present master
plan, thus allowing those with master plans their present
densities but making them conform to new net density calculations
when adopted. I asked him why he had not presented this concept
in the public input portion of our meeting, he stated he had not
spoken as he felt he wanted to present this information as a
Committee Member and not under public input. Within the ensuing
week I presented this information to the various members of the
Planning Commission individually as it was possible for them to
make a minute motion for reconsideration. The members indicated
they had been contacted by various individuals on this subject,
and one member of the Committee stated they would like such
reconsideration, and one member voting in the minority to the
original motion indicated that if reconsidered, they would likely
support the original majority position. The remaining members of
the Commission were very specific on their thoughts stating in
general that since the master plans presently adopted and unbuilt
comprised approximately one-third of the city, it was very
important to apply new density ranges to existing master plans if
any significant density reduction are to be effected. In light
of the fact that it did not appear any Commission change from its
original position was likely, the Planning Commission did not
discuss this matter at its meeting of June 26, 1985.
With the exception above stated, there has been no meaningful
discussion on any other issue presented by the General Plan
Review Committee since our vote on their report.
Respectfully submitted,
CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER
CS/ar
WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE CITY FOR HONORING OUR REQUEST FOR A REVIEW
OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND COMMEND THE COMMITTEE OF 25 INDIVIDUALS
( WITH 25 DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW) FOR COMING UP WITH AN EXTENSIVE
REPORT IN A VERY SHORT TIME.
THE LEAGUE URGES AN IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION FOR ON-GOING'CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION TO MORE THOROUGHLY ASSESS;
1) DENSITY AND THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE
2) PRACTICAL WAYS OF PROTECTING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
3) SUPPORT OF A REGIONAL GROWTH POLICY
^) WAYS TO MINIMIZE URBAN SPRAWL
A MAILING SENT TO OUR MEMBERS ANNOUNCING THESE MEETINGS WAS INTERPRETED
BY A FEW AS MEANING THAT THE LEAGUE HAD COME TO A CONCLUSION REGARDING
THE MAJORITY, MINORITY OPINIONS IN THIS REPORT. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
ABOUT ALL WE COULD DO AT THIS POINT, BEFORE A MORE THOROUGH STUDY IS
POSSIBLE IS TO URGE OUR MEMBERS AS INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS TO HELP KEEP THE
MINORITY OPINION ALIVE, IF THEY FEEL IT ADDRESSES THEIR CONCERNS.
THIS ACTION IS BASED ON OUR DEEP COMMITTMENT TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.
WHEN THERE REMAINS A STRONG MINORITY, IT MEANS THAT ISSUES REMAIN UN-
RESOLVED. A CONTINUING EFFORT IS NEEDED TO FIND THE RIGHT ANSWERS FOR
ALL OF US, AND, IF THE LEAGUE COULD ASSIST IN THIS, WE HOPE THE CITf WILL
CALL UPON US.
July 15, 1985
City of Carlsbad
City Council
Dear Council Members:
Re: CT 8-13
311 Olive Ave.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
I have been working on the plans for a ten unit condominium
project for eighteen months. The tentative map approval
was given on December 12, 1984. We, ray architect and myself,
are now about to finalize on the final map and are questioning
item (6) of the conditions of the Planning Commission resolu-
tion dated as above.
We feel that there should be some very specific reference to
the time frame, such as a grand father clause, in which zone
changes could affect this project, as financial conditions
might not permit building to start right away. Item (6)
implies that "zoning ordinances and other applicable city
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance "
couli actually make invalid this project by new conditions
at any time up to the actual time of obtaining a building
permit. Since we cooperated fully on these plans we feel we
are justified in asking for some "time frame protection"
ni?tn il 1-y -concerning work on this project.
Our uhd-erstanding is that the final map is permanent. This
was verified by members in the Planning Department and En-
gineering Department. This final wor^ in this regard v/e
received from Clyde Wicham at a meeting this day, July 15-,
1985 and we would like a varification of this from the council,
Sincerely,
Dan Bearman
331 Olive Ave.
Councilwoman Kulchin RE: LAND USE ELEMENT COMMITTEE
CITY OF CARLSBAD Motion Clarification
1200 Elm Avenue "Master Plans"
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
Dear Councilwoman Kulchin:
This letter is being sent at the suggestion of the Chairman of the Planning
Commission regarding the clarification of a motion which I had originally
initiated as a member of the Land Use Element Committee. As noted in a
recent report by the Chairman, there was some uncertainity as to the intent
of the motion regarding Master Plans. Rather than bring the matter back
to the Planning Commission, a letter of explanation was felt to be sufficient.
As stated, the subject of the motion was Master Plans. The large majority
of concern which was voiced at the various public hearings by the citizens
of Carlsbad, had to do with the City's lack of public services and their
inability to provide these services commensurate with growth.
It is my belief that the best planning tool available to the City of Carlsbad
is the Master Plan process. Landowners should be encouraged to use this
method to provide a balanced and timely community with assurances from the
City, through the adoption of an Ordinance, that both sides will do their fair
share and support their mutual commitments to each other.
The landowner makes commitments to the City to provide many of those services
to the City which the City may have a difficult time providing to its citizens
independent of the landowners contributions. The City agrees to allow the
landowner the privilege of building a specific number of units in selected
areas as an encouragement to provide the services which would benefit all of
the citizens of the City of Carlsbad. The landowner's confidence in financially
obligating himself or herself to providing streets and utilities, as well as
locations for parks and schools, is supported by the Master Plan Ordinance
signed by the City.
I felt it was important to the City that the intent and integrity of the
adopted Master Plans be maintained and therefore, on May 13, 1985 I made the
following motion:
"Recommendations made to the City Council by the
Land Use Element Committee shall have no affect on
any future requests for discretionary approvals for
those lands which comprise all, or portions of adopted
Master Plans"
It should be noted that the motion passed quite comfortably by a vote of
16 in favor, 7 opposed and 1 abstention.
Of importance to this motion was an earlier motion I made which read as
follows:
"The Land Use Element Committee endorses the
existing Land Use classifications as shown on
the current General Plan"
The important word in this motion is "classification". This motion passed
Ayes 21, Noes 3 and no abstentions.
Subsequent to that meeting it came to my attention that the Planning Staff
had a problem with the motion relating to Master Plans. I spoke with Mr.
Holtzmiller who stated that it would be difficult for his staff to work
under two sets of rules,that is adopted Master Plans and new applications.
Therefore, I agreed to bring the motion back to the Committee.
I spoke with certain members of the Committee prior to the next meeting in
order to obtain their input. I proposed a new wording and the subject of
"dwelling unit count" was discussed. It was felt that as long as the current
Land Use Designation remained, the subject of dwelling unit count need not
be stated.
Therefore, on May 20, 1985 I introduced a motion to reconsider. It is inter-
esting to note that the motion to reconsider barely passed, Ayes 13, Noes 11
and no abstentions.
Committee Member Larson, with my support, amended the original motion to read:
"Recommendations made to the City Council by
the Land Use Element Committee shall have no
affect on the Land Use Designations shown on
the adopted Master Plans. Special attention
should be paid to preserve the integrity and
intent of the adopted Master Plan documents."
Committee Member Courtney suggested an amendment to the motion to add the
words "or density" after the words Land Use Designation. This amendment
failed slightly by a vote of Ayes 10, Noes 14 and 1 abstention. Again here
the feeling was that maintaining the Land Use Designations would preserve
the numbers necessary for the landowners to fulfill their commitments to
the City. If that were not the intent of the motion, then it served no
purpose.
More importantly however, are the last three lines of the motion which reads
as follows:
" Special attention should be paid
by the City Council to preserve the integrity
and intent of the adopted Master Plan documents."
Master Plans are the best vehicles available to the City to provide its
citizens, present and future, with the various services which the citizens
may feel are lacking now and, the Master Plans provide the quickest way
to set these facilities in place. It must however, be fair and equitable
to the landowner.
I will be in attendance at the City Council meeting of July 16, 1985 and will
be more than happy to discuss this issue with you should you have any questions.
Respectfully yours,
James M. Hicks
Committee Member
LAND USE ELEMENT COMMITTEE
Mayor Casler, members of the City Council,
ladies and gentlemen:
The Review Committee's Collateral Report is presented
to highlight issues that arose during citizen input which
aren't specific to the format or subject matter of the
Land Use review. They were considered important
enough to warrant your special attention for two
reasons:
First, to acknowledge citizen particpation by addressing
their concerns, and second, to increase the
effectiveness of the review by adding recommendations
for programs and procedures to further enhance the
quality of Carlsbad.
We present for your consideration six brief articles
included as separate Attachments to the Committee's
final Report.
The first deals with the review process itself. Our
competent and consciencious planning staff can only
accomplish the City's desired goals if they have
practical, specific, well-documented programs in place
to provide a framework for their performance.
The city's General Plan, and particularly the Land Use
Element are the foundation for that framework, and as
such will have maximum value to the extent they are
anaylzed, enforced, monitored and updated to address
changing needs as they occur. The Committee's
recommendations in Attachment 1 suggest ways to
maintain adequate planning tools on a continuing basis.
In Attachment 2, the Committee emphasizes the
importance of communication between citizens and the
agencies that serve them. Major issues, those which are
controversial or have significant financial impact are
adequately publicized because of their very nature. The
less spectacular decisions and programs, while being a
matter of public record, often receive relatively little
notice.
Citizens are interested in efforts being made to deal
with traffic circulation, recreational and cultural
facilities, public education, and the supply, quality and
conservation of water resources.
We urge governmental agencies and departments to
promote community involvement in these and other
issues through expanded public relations efforts and
opportunities for citizen input.
Attachments 3 & 4 respond to subjects the city must
approach in cooperation with other agencies.
In Attachment 3 the committee recommends regular
review of the impact on the affected area by operations
at Palomar/McClellan Airport.
Attachment 4 emphasizes the importance of coastal
resources to the character of Carlsbad. If solutions are
to be found that are in Carlsbad's best interest, the City
must assume responsibility for initiating methods to
address problems of conservation and improvement of
the beaches and lagoons.
40
The Committee encourages the City to adopt an
aggressive position in addressing the problems relating
to coastal enhancement.
Two other General Plan elements, one covering Noise,
and the other Scenic Highways, already address the
subjects of Attachments 5 & 6. The committee has
included those subjects in this report because they
strongly influence land use planning principles that
affect the overall quality of the community.
Attachment 5 reiterates the importance of efforts
needed to mitigate negative impacts on the comfort and
well-being of residents.
Attachment 6 focuses on the civic pride resulting from
aesthetically appealing, well planned development along
major arterials. The City is still in a position to exploit
the special opportunity for a uniquely attractive visual
identity for Carlsbad.
Your regard for these Collateral issues will be
appreciated by the members of the community who
showed their interest by participating in the public
input workshops, and by the Committee, whose efforts
have brought them to your attention.
Thank you.
Next, Mr Eric Larson will present the Committee's
overall findings, and our recommendations for revising
and reformatting the Land Use Element.
MODIFICATIONS REQUESTED IN REPORT BY LAND USE REVIEW COMMITTEE
Toi Members, Carlsbad City Council
Promt William C. Savage
Datei July 16, 1985
1. Add a general provisiom "Revisions in the Land Use Element
of the General Plan shall be applicable to all projects for which
tentative maps are filed after date said revisions are adopted
by the City Council."
Rationale!
a. No commencing; daxe is included in the Report.
b. In equity, projects should be processed on the basis
of conformance with the General Flan provisions existant
at the time the projects were planned.
2. On page 29, section 1.
Change "Manage growth" to "Monitor growth"
Rationalei
a. The proposed wording appears a bit contradictory.
The best way to "ensure adequate public services" would
be to manage public services, not manage something else.
b. Changing to "Monitor" would make this provision more
compatible with those in the previous topic, Timing of
Public Facilities (and "Services"), i.e. first two para-
graphs under section 2.
c. "Manage growth" has become a term which is interpreted
in so many ways as to not convey clear meaning. To a
"no-growth advocate", tnis wording could be considered
an invitation or even a mandate to stiffle growth in a
highly restrictive way. To a "pro-growth advocate",
it could be intrepreted superficially.
3. On page 30, at end of section "1"
Addi "The maximum density within each range shall be available
only to projects which demonstrate superior planning features
and development techniques."
Rationale! No provision in the Report speaks to the
issue of how potential densities are achieved, unless
it is to be inferred from paragraph 2 on page 3^.
MODIFICATIONS REQUESTED
Paee 2
4. On page 31. sections A & B
Move categories A-4 (Slopes) and A-5 (Open Space) to section B.
Rationalei
a. The practical limitations of steep slopes and desig-
nated open space have already been reckoned with when
the Council, Commission and Staff studiously selected
the appropriate land-use designations on each parcel.
The expectation was that the gross density awarded would
be allocated within the more buildable portions of parcel.
b. To deny one the construction use of certain portions
of his land (e.g. steep slopes & open space) is perhaps
justifiable in the name of "good planning".
c. To deny one his land and density would be confiscation,
with no hope of recovery through innovative
d. There is no end to how confiscatory the process could
become, if agencies first "take" developable status away
from successive portions of one's land, then compound the
problem by "taking" away his density also.
5. (Motet This modification to apply only if "b" is not adopted.)
On pages 30 & 31• addi "Net density calculations shall not apply
to any parcel for which the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan specifically
designates 'gross acreage' for density calculation."
Rationalei
a. With any such a property there currently exists harmony
between the General Plan and LCPt without the suggested
exclusion clause, we would be creating conflict.
b. There is reportedly only one such parcel in the
Carlsbad LCP.
6. On page 30, first paragraph
Retain the density ranges as they have been.
Rationalei
a. To arbitrarily take away i the utility of one's land
without compensation seems morally wrong and Constitutionally
questionable.
b. Such a tactic is not necessary to sustain and enhance
the quality of life in Carlsbadi quality planning within
the General Plan will best accomplish that goal.
ASSOCIATED BUILDING INDUSTRY ENGINEERING AND
GENERAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL CONTRACTORSOF AMERICA SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSOCIATION
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION
6336 GREENWICH DRIVE, SUITE F, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 (619) 587-0292
July 16,1985
Mayor Mary Casler
Members of the Carlsbad City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Honorable Mayor Casler and Councilmembers:
The Construction Industry Federation representing the Associated General
Contractors, the Building Industry Association, and the Engineering and
General Contractors Association has been following the activities of the
Carlsbad Citizen's Committee reviewing the Land Use Element. I would like
to commend City staff and the Committee members for the tremendous effort
and perseverance they displayed in pursuing this task.
While the Federation represents the development community, I believe in a
broader sense we also represent the concerns of many eiisting and future
Carlsbad residents. The builders in Carlsbad are not insensitive to the
quality of life in the community and it is to their advantage to maintain and
enhance that quality. Nothing sells houses better than adequate public
facilities, employment opportunities, and a quality environment. Obviously,
it is in the best interest of builders, eiisting residents and future residents to
provide for a balanced, well planned community.
But quality does not come without cost. Post Proposition 13, the cost of
providing schools, recreational facilities, open space, infrastructure (roads,
streets, sewer and water systems), have generally been financed by
development exactions or as conditions to develop. All of these costs, in
addition to reductions in allowable densities, have impacted the cost of
housing.
Council has the task of making some very difficult decisions. It is not easy to
decide what is a fair and equitable for both residents and future residents,
but surely providing sufficient and affordable housing must be a top priority
for the City, Both the Carlsbad Housing Element and the report of
recommendations from the Citizen's Committee endorse this concept.
The Federation believes that the recommendations of the Council appointed
Citizen's Committee reflect a balanced approach between the needs and
concerns of the community as stated in the four public meetings, and the
development community. In contrast, the modifications to the Committee
recommendations suggested by the Planning Commission will make many
projects economically infeasible Those projects which are developed will
consist of homes not affordable for all income levels. Simply stated, if more
and more public improvements are required and less density is allowed the
price of the units will increase.
GIF requests that Council adopt the slope restrictions regarding grading,
development and density credit proposed by the Citizen's Committee. These
slope restrictions reflect prudent planning and are consistent with the slope
restrictions in the Local Coastal Plan. The integrity and intent of eiistinc
master plans should be preserved and that any revisions to the Land Use
Element should not apply. The final issue of concern to the Federation is
that Council formally revoke the current interim use of the 'mean' to control
density, in light of the narrowed density ranges proposed by the Citizen's
Committee. To not allow developers to earn more density than the 'mean'
would limit Planning staff's ability to encourage quality development.
The Federation appreciates Council's consideration of these concerns.
Very truly yours,
Teresa McTighe
Legislative Analyst
TMCT/my
y/A ///
mi-: i wine HIM cc MINI NY CM in AND Ki-sour
July 15, 1985
Honorable Mary easier
Mayor
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Report of The Citizens Committee For Review of the Land
Use Element of the General Plan
Dear Mayor easier:
When the ominous task of the General Plan review began in January,
there was much skepticism, particularly considering the committee
of lay persons and the relatively compressed schedule. But the
challenge was met head-on and an impressive report resulted.
Of prime significance was the Citizen Committee's findings that
basically the City's current General Plan and methodology of doing
business was good and the goals of the community would be met with
this planning vehicle. The Citizen Committee is to be applauded.
The Planning Commission's recent decisions, however, regarding the
citizen's recommendations are very distressing. Of particular
concern is the decision which applies the General Plan
modifications to existing Master Plans and Master Plans in
process. The Master Plan technique is perhaps the City's most
important and innovative planning tool. But, paramount in the use
of the Master Plan process is the function of commitment for both
the City and the developer. Commitment is an essential ingredient
to facilitate well planned housing, orchestrated infrastructure,
community amenities (i.e., parks, Lagoon restoration, landscaping,
etc.) and a variety of other attributes not obtainable through
segmented development.
One of the prime distinguishing factors that Carlsbad can boast is
the large acreage ownerships that when developed give the
areas cohesiveness and stature not achievable with multitudes of
smaller ownerships. One only has to look to other North County
cities to see the results of segmented planning created by
developer's land plans with differing goals and schedules.
An important feature of Master Plans is the public examination
process achieved by the numerous public hearings at the Master
Plan stage and all subsequent tentative maps. Projects in the
coastal zone are held to an even more restrictive test with the
requirements of the State Coastal Act. Without belaboring the
point, I am confident that the Council understands the plight of
the business decisions that affect Master Plans when severe
changes are made while a project is either in process or approved.
7707 El CAMINO RF.A1 • C ARI SHAP. < Al IIOKNIA oipos • t III R ()1MKR 61<> 1'6 (W° • M° 416 0"07
Mayor easier
July 15, 1985 - Page 2
The integrity of the Master Plans must be maintained. To
compromise the City's commitment to the Master Plan concept is to
remove the developer's incentive to subject his land to the price
a Master Plan abstracts. If developer's commit to the expensive
and time consuming Master Plan process, recognizing the laws and
policies governing such an approach, vesting extensive planning
dollars to bring the plan to fruition, the City should likewise
encourage the beneficial process by maintaining the same rules and
policies throughout the lengthy process.
If changes are made to the General Plan which will affect Master
Plans, among the considerations that a land owner must evaluate
are:
o Are the project economics still valid?
o Should the proposed community amenities be altered?
o Does the proposed project theme still fit with the new
restraints?
o Would the project be more tolerable if processed in smaller
segments?
o What are the legalities of altering the General Plan and
affecting Master Plans while in process or approved?
o If developer commitments have already been made or paid for,
how can they be reimbursed or deleted?
The City must recognize the sizeable commitment that existing
Master Plans, and Master Plans in progress have already made to
the City of Carlsbad; and conversely the commitments the City has
made to the developer, which has encouraged the Master Plan. I
would hope that the City will value the significance of the Master
Plan process and approve the committee's recomendation, and
reiterate the original Council intent, which excluded the existing
Master Plans and Master Plans in process from the proposed new
General Plan modifications.
Mayor easier, I urge you and the City Council Members to consider
the importance of Master Plans and to preserve the essential
planning and economic considerations for which they were
conceived.
Thank you for your time in hearing my point of view.
Sincerely yours,
D. L. Clemens
DLC/nlp
cc: Council Members
City Clerk
THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY Cl.UB AND RESORT
Cttj> of Cartefcab
JULY 2, 1985
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Clarence Schlehuber, Chairman, Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE REPORT -
LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
On June 19, 1985 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
review the Report of the Citizens Committee for Review of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan. The members of the
Citizens Committee are to be highly commended for an outstanding
report and for the time and effort that they devoted to their
task.
The Planning Commission discussed each topic or issue for which
the Citizens Committee had prepared a finding or recommendation.
The results of the Planning Commission's review are explained
below:
I. Regarding the topics of Parks, Environmental Protection,
Redevelopment, Land Use Classifications, Architectural
Review and Parking, the Planning Commission agreed
unanimously (7-0)with the findings and recommendations of
the Committee with no additional suggestions.
II. Regarding the topics of Open Space, Agriculture,
Commercial, Special Treatment Area and Time Constraints and
Impacts of Growth, the Planning Commission agreed
unanimously(7-0)to support the findings and
recommendations of the Citizens Committee but some minor
changes or additions are being suggested. These are as
follows:
1. Open Space - The Planning Commission is recommending
that the City Council direct staff to prepare an
inventory of existing and future open space utilizing
the definition proposed by the Citizens Committee. The
Committee recommended a definition that includes four
categories of open space. The idea of the Planning
Commission is to inventory the areas in the city which
would fit within each one of the four categories.
These areas would then be mapped and the information
would be available when future projects are proposed.
facilities and to use a population estimate of 150,000
for public facilities planning purposes only, the
Committee did not pass a recommendation to specifically
regulate the rate or location of growth. By a 4-3
vote, the Planning Commission agreed with the Citizens
Committee's findings and recommendations on timing of
public facilities with the additional recommendation
that the city hire a project manager to coordinate the
timing and construction of public facilities as
suggested by the Chamber of Commerce.
2. Density - Several issues regarding the Citizens
Committee's recommendations on density were discussed
by the Planning Commission including a further
reduction of the density ranges, whether slopes less
than 40% should be excluded from density calculations
and whether significant riparian and wetland habitats
should be mapped and then excluded from density
calculations.
The Planning Commission determined by a 4-3 vote to
support the Citizens Committee's recommendation
regarding new density ranges with the suggestion that
the fractions be dropped so that the ranges would be as
follows:
0-1.5
0-4
4-9
9-15
15-23
The Commission voted 5-2 that a maximum 50% density
credit be permitted for slopes between 25% and 40% (the
Citizens Committee recommended full credit for 25-40%
slopes) but that all other recommendations of the
Citizens Committee regarding net vs. gross density
calculations be supported as is.
Other recommendations regarding density approved
unanimously (7-0) by the Planning Commission included:
A) a recommendation to delete the exemption for 10 acre
parcels from the prohibition against developing on 40%
slopes; B) an exemption for RL (0-1.5 du's acre)
property so that density credit is given for slopes
exceeding 40% although these slopes cannot be buillt
upon; and C) a recommendation to include the word
"only" at the beginning of the policy on clustering so
that it reads: "Only encourage clustering when it is
done in a way that is compatible with existing,
adjacent development" (the word "only" was part of the
original motion approved by the Citizens Committee but
was left out in the final report).
3
Regarding the Collateral Report prepared by the Citizens
Committee, the Planning Commission agreed unanimously (7-0) to
forward the Report with the addition of a recommendation for an
economic impact study which would analyze the fiscal impact of
the Land Use Element as revised and a recommendation for a
comprehensive review of parking standards throughout the city
except in the R-l zones.
Attached is a summary of the minutes of the Planning Commission's
deliberations on the Citizens Committee Report which provides
more detail on the Commission's discussion and specific motions.
Attachment;
Summary of Planning Commission Minutes dated June 19, 1985
CS/MJH/ar
AVIS
A California General Partnership
July 16, 1985
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Proposed density credit restrictions
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council:
The following is a brief summary of the views we expressed at
tonight's public hearing on the report of the Citizen's Committee
for the Review of the Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General
Plan relating to proposed density creit restrictions of residential
land.
Exclude R-L (Residential Low-Density) from further density restrictions
We ask that you SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION,
which they approved 7-0, to EXCLUDE the R-L (0 - 1.5 du/acre
density) from the density credit restrictions being proposed. The
Commission agreed, as we hope you do, that the land has already been
restricted and to further restrict it would be over penalizing it.
Full Density Credit for Slopes between 25% to 40%
Please ALLOW FULL DENSITY CREDIT in the areas of 25% to 40% slo^e
for the RLM and higher density land - you can restrict the density
at the project level if needed. If a project does not measure up,
give it the lower end of the spectrum - encourage good projects
with the higher end of the density. Please do not furhter restrict
a project's density without even seeing it. Without a project to
evaluate, the impacts of your actions are unknown.
Please do not artificially tie your hands in evaluating future
projects until they are before you. You still have the final
decision of project approval or denial and the actual density
constructed. Give us an opportunity to achieve high quality -
if we fail say no - but if we succeed - PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO
SAY YES.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration,
truly-^yours,
A. Bieri //Douglas M. Avis
11300 Sorrento Valley Road • Suite 101 • San Diego, California 92121
619/457-0777 619/942-0946
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a
resident of the County aforesaid; I am over
the age of eighteen years, and not a party to
or interested in the above-entitled matter. I
am the principal clerk of the printer of the
The Blade Tribune
a newspaper of general circulation, printed
and published daily except Saturdays and
holidays, in the City of Oceanside and quali-
fied for the City of Oceanside and the North
County Judicial district with substantial cir-
culation in Bonsall, Fallbrook, Leucadia, En-
cinitas, Solana Beach, Cardiff, Vista, and
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, and which
newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior Court of
the County of San Diego, State of California,
under the date of March 19, 1952, Case
Number 171349; that the notice, of which
the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not
smaller than nonpareil), has been published in
each regular and entire issue of said newspa-
per and not in any supplement thereof on the
following dates, to-wit:
. . July. .7
all in the year 1985.
I certify (or declare) under penally of per-
jury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Oceanside, California, this
of july , 1985.
_X
Signature
THE BLADE TRIBUNE
Legal Advertising
1722 South Hill Street
P.O. Box 90
Oceanside, CA 92054
(619) 433-7333
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
.*• ''•/•"•^ - • t. .,-.'••:•• :-' V-"' ' . - - . • t •• " \& •/; - .- • - - - i;; .City of CartsbadPUBLIC HEARINGThe Citizens Committee fpr review of the— ^
z
LAND USE ELEMENT of the GENERAL PLA•£
^' 1
re
.1 |
IB o»
"Q. p
I I- 3
u
7^
t/1
the Planning Commission recommendationand findings on July 16, 1985Committee recommendations addressDENSITY RANGES, PARKS, OPEN SPACE,GROWTH MANAGEMENT,,.,
COLLJ
CODo
-^lENTAL PROTECTION and AGRICULTURALSZo.tt
zUJ
•!F
mmm
2.UJ
CQ
<^IU
_j
CIL MEETINGS ARE HELD IN THE COUNC_jlL&Q(LP.M. ._.._ _^Z~i
Ou
£:
u
•••••
REPORT OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE
FOR THE REVIEW
OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
JULY 1985
July, 1985
City Council and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
A 25 member citizens committee was appointed by the City Council
in January to review the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
The date of July 2, 1985 was established for Council to receive
the findings and recommendations resulting from this study.
To prepare the Committee for the task at hand, a comprehensive
workbook was provided by City staff for each member, containing
the existing Land Use Element, background information, maps, etc.
Staff presented an overview of the eleven subjects contained in
the Land Use Element in two intensive and in-depth, highly
professional briefing sessions, including a tour of the City. An
excellent slide show entitled "Directions: A Look at Carlsbad's
General Plan" was also used as an educational tool for the
Committee and the general public.
To allow for even greater citizen participation, four public
workshop sessions were held in early March, one in each quadrant
of the City. The amount of participation by the citizens
demonstrated a populous interested in their City, and its future
growth and development. They are concerned about traffic
circulation, public facilities and the environment; and about the
quality of life, (whatever that means to each of us).
Large amounts of time were spent discussing parks, open space,
agricultural land use, residential density, and timing of growth
and public facilities. Also reauiring lengthy discussion were
the topics of a buildout population and environmental protection.
July, 1985
Page Two
The Committee was unanimous in its support of recommendations
concerning such matters as: 1) park design, 2) early provision
of parks in master plan developments, 3) a definition of open
space, 4) conservation and preservation of natural resources, and
5) the appointment of a citizens committee to study impacts of
growth. There were close votes on a number of other matters
which indicates that there was substantial concern on the part of
Committee members on how these issues should be addressed.
Time constraints imposed for the completion of this review
necessarily placed limits on the amount of in-depth discussion on
issues. The size of the Committee also had a limiting affect on
the length of debates.
Members of the Committee are to be complimented for their
faithful attendance and participation in this project. On behalf
of the Committee, I would like to thank the staff for the highest
degree of professionalism they exhibited throughout the process.
The Committee is pleased to present this report to you for your
consideration. The views expressed and the spread of votes on
issues is fairly representative of the diversity of viewpoints of
the Committee members, and of the citizens they represented. I
would like to commend the Council for undertaking this review
process and would strongly encourage the continuation of it by
the appointment of an ongoing Citizens Committee to study and
assess the impacts of growth in Carlsbad and report their
findings.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES M. GAISER, CHAIRMAN
JMG/bn
CITIZENS COMMITTEE
LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
1985
Chairman
Vice-Chairman
Members
Alternate
Members
James M. Gaiser
Eric Larson
Richard E. Andrews
Margaret Brownley
Robert Caggiano
Margie G. Cool
James A. Courtney
Ruth L. Coyle
Don Dewhurst
E.W. "Bill" Dominguez
Tom Flanagan
Joe Gallagher
Matthew Hall
William C. Harkins
James M. Hicks
Donald E. Jackson
Hank Litten
Linnea V. McDonald
Patrick N. O'Day
Bob Prescott
Jerry Rombotis
Anthony J. Skotnicki
Thomas W. Smith
Claudia H. Stebelski
Inez Yoder
Marylynn Brown-Bellman
Birchard B. De Witt
Melvin G. Grazda
Kip K. McBane
Joe Sandy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction 1
Section 1. Summary of Findings and Recommendations 2
Section 2. Specific, Detailed Recommendations
Part 1. Overall Land Use Goals & Policies 17
Part 2. Specific Recommendations 21
Section 3. Recommendations for Revision and 35
Reformatting of The Land Use Element
Attachments:
Collateral Report from Citizens Committee
Background Information - Summary Reports, Issue Reports
and List of Failed Motions
INTRODUCTION
The Citizens Committee report is divided into three
sections.
Section 1 is a summary of the findings and
recommendations made by the Committee. An attempt has been made
to highlight the major topics and issues i-lentified by the
Committee and to summarize the Committee's recommendation or
finding regarding the issue. There were a number of split votes
on key issues of consideration and, where applicable, a summary
of the minority opinion has been included.
Section 2 contains a specific, verbatim compilation of
the Conunittee's recommendations. Part 1 of this section is the
Committee's recommendation regarding the overall land use goals
and policies contained on pages 6, 7 & 8 of the present Land Use
Element. These have major significance because they form the
foundation for all other, more specific goals, policies and
programs contained in the Land Use Element. In fact, they should
establish the basis for all land use decisions made by the city.
Part 2 of tnis section contains all the other specific
recommendations of the Committee. For organizational purposes,
they have been grouped under topics or headings and identified as
to whether they should be incorporated into the Land Use Element
as a goal, policy or implementation program.
Section 3 of the report contains the Committee's
suggestions for revision and reformatting of the Land Use
Element. Primary concern was given to making the Element a
simplified, understandable document for both professional and
citizen use alike.
There are two attachments to the Committee's report
which are as follows:
1) A collateral report which identifies, analyzes and
makes recommendations on collateral or supplementary issues.
While these may not pertain specifically to the Land Use
Element, they were issues or concerns expressed by members of
the Committee or by citizens who attended the general public
workshops held by the Committee.
2) Background information which contains a complete set
of the summary reports from all the Committee meetings, a
complete set of the issue reports that were prepared by the
planning staff and which served as a starting point for the
Committee's discussions and a complete list of failed motions.
SECTION 1.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. OVERALL FINDING
As the result of intensive study of each segment of the
existing Land Use Element, input from four public workshops and
members of the Land Use Planning staff, the Committee endorses
the majority of the Element's concepts, goals and policies and
believes it has provided an excellent framework for the city's
future.
The Committee recognizes the citizens of Carlsbad's
concern regarding the rate, type, and quality of growth which is
occurring today within the city. The following are the major
areas in which concerns were noted and measures taken to mitigate
them:
1. The Impacts of Growth
2. The Timing of Public Facilities Construction
3. Protection of the Natural Environment
4. Open Space
5. Parks
6. Beach Community
7. Agriculture
8. Commercial
9. Industrial
The following is an overview of the Committee's rec-
ommendations in these areas:
THE IMPACTS OF GROWTH
The Committee recognized the citizens' concern for
quality growth within the city. The following recommendations
are made:
A) The density ranges should be modified to minimize
high density, except in special categories requiring a
Conditional Use Permit.
B) Implement all programs regarding public facilities
and growth monitoring.
C) Appoint a Citizens' Committee to continue to study
and assess the impacts of growth and make a yearly report to
the citizenry.
D) Appoint an Architectural Review Board to ensure
compatibility o-f design in the city.
E) The city should provide for a variety of housing
types and density ranges to meet the diverse economic and social
requirements of the citizenry.
F) An annual report should be made assessing the
impact of growth and the city's compliance with the General
Plan.
G) A special treatment area should be established in
the beach community.
H) The city's open space should be carefully
monitored.
THE TIMING OF PUBLIC FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
The Committee believes that it is essential to have the
public facilities in place when the facilities are needed to
serve future growth. To achieve this, it is recommended that a
growth monitoring system be adopted, the Urban Land Reserve
Program be implemented, and the present Public Facilities
Management Program be expanded. The Committee recommends that,
to assist the staff in planning for public facilities and
services, the city population at buildout should be approximately
150,000.
PROTECTION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The Committee recommends that protection of the natural
environment should be a high priority. A special group of
policies and goals are recommended to achieve this objective.
OPEN SPACE
The Committee believes that the amount of open space
provided for in the Land Use Element is adequate. To emphasize
this position, a definition, including four categories of open
space, should be adopted, in addition to three proposed policy
statements.
PARKS
The Committee supports the city's Community Park concept
and program. However, the program for developing these parks
needs to be expedited. Three definitive Park classifications are
recommended with the responsibility for construction and
perpetual maintenance identified.
To achieve the Parks goals, three policy changes are
recommended.
M Require Master Plan developments to provide the
parks sooner and to develop conceptual park plans as part of the
Master Plan application process.
B) Increase the paries requirement from developers to
the maximum permitted by State Law.
C) Prepare the Park design in advance so that the
development of parks can be started as soon as funding is
available.
BEACH COMMUNITY
The Committee agreed that the Beach Community is a
primary concern and recommends a Special Treatment Area be
established to achieve this objective. Additional
recommendations were made to improve parking and our scenic
corridors. A high priority should be placed on improvement of
the beaches and bluffs.
AGRICULTURE
The Committee believes that it is necessary for the city
to take a more positive posture in attempting to preserve
agricultural use. The Committee recommends seven specific goals
to achieve this, including a special emphasis on preserving the
flower fields east of Car Country.
COMMERCIAL
The Committee supports the existing goals, policies and
guidelines in the present Plan, with the exception that
commercialization be avoided in the downtown core and along
designated scenic routes, as well as limiting Travel Service
Commercial uses to the 1-5 corridor and in the downtown core.
INDUSTRIAL
The Committee supports the present goals, policies, and
programs of the Land Use Element. It recommends that no
expansion of the airport be considered and that concentration of
new industrial use not be permitted outside the present
boundaries along Palomar Airport Road.
MINORITY OPINION
There was a minority opinion on the Committee that the
Land Use Element required major modification to meet the concern
of the citizens regarding future growth. The minority believes
that the Element merely describes in general terms the land uses
- residential, commercial, etc. - to be permitted and in gross
terms the locations where those uses will be allowed. For
management purposes, such descriptions are inadequate, and must,
therefore be elaborated upon in the Element itself. The Element
has provided no tools for deciding when, in what quantity, and
specifically, where growth will occur.
The Committee denied the minority recommendation that
four goals be added to the Land Use Element for timing growth:
1. Adopt plans to build a city with an ultimate
population of 140,000 in the year 2025 and giving
primary emphasis to enhancing the residential,
beach and open space uses.
2. Achieve a population growth rate of no more than
3.18% per year until buildout in 2025.
3. Achieve at buildout an overall city-wide population
density of 3680 people per square mile.
4. By December, 1986 set in place an Urban Land Reserve
Program supporting population and density goals and
specifically designating the land in each quadrant
of the city's sphere of influence to be developed
during each of the 5-year periods beginning in 1985
and ending in 2025.
The Committee denied the minority recommendation that
two policies be added to the Element to support timing of the
goals:
1. Discourage all annexation beyond the city's outside
periphery and encourage annexation of territory
within the "hole in the doughnut" to meet the time
schedule of the Urban Land Reserve Program.
2. Control the location and rate of growth to ensure
maintenance and preservation of the quality of life
and the provision of public and commercial services
on an economical, timely and efficient basis.
The minority also believes that the existing Land Use
Element is inadequate with respect to the following matters:
1. Open space - more open space needs to be designated
in the Element;
2. Protection of the natural environment - a citizens
conservation committee needs to be established;
3. Density ranges - further narrowing and reduction of
the ranges is needed;
4. Agriculture - agriculture needs to be addressed as a
permanent land use in the city; and
5. Present citizens - the desires and interests of
existing residents needs to be paramount and have
the highest priority in any land use decisions.
2. LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS
The Citizens Committee supports the underlying principle
reflected in the present Land Use Element which is to have a
balanced mixture of land uses. In this regard, the Committee
endorses the present land use classifications contained in the
Element which provide for a blend of residential densities,
commercial and industrial park uses and open space.
3. DENSITY
The Citizens Committee supports the concept of having
residential density ranges and believes that a variety of housing
types and densities are desirable to meet the needs of all
economic segments of the community. The Committee feels,
however, that the present ranges need to be narrowed and that the
higher density ranges need to be reduced especially in the R-H
(Residential High Density) designation. The Committee,
therefore, recommends a revision to the density ranges as
follows:
Existing Proposed
RL 0 to 1 . 5 RL . 1 to 1 . 5
RLM 0 to 4 RLM 1 . 0 to 4.0
RM 4 to 10 RM 4.1 to 9.0
RMH 10 to 20 RMH 9.1 to 15.0
RH 20 to 30 RH 15.1 to 23.0
The Committee believes that the current city policy of
guaranteeing only the minimum density within each range should be
retained and that a category for senior citizens and other
special housing needs should be established for density above 23
units per acre.
The Citizens Committee addressed the issue of how
density is calculated (net vs. gross density) and is recommending
that certain areas not be counted in density calculations. These
areas include beaches, water bodies, floodways, slopes greater
than 40%, existing public rights-of-way and designated open space
areas .
Other Committee recommendations regarding density
include the following:
A) Requiring special attention (buffering and
transition) when reviewing projects on properties where
different residential densities are involved;
B) Directing staff to study and point out specific
areas where existing incompatibilities with respect to density
exist;
C) Discussing incompatibilities along city boundaries
with adjoining jurisdictions; and
D) Encouraging clustering only when it is done in a way
that is compatible with existing, adjacent development.
Minority Opinion
There was a minority opinion on the Committee that the
RM density range needed to be further narrowed by reducing the
maximum density from 9 to 8 dwelling units per acre and that a
more objective rating system was needed for determining density
which would assign points as a basis for justifying moving up in
the density range.
*****
4. BUILDOUT POPULATION
The Citizens Committee believes that the population
projections contained in the present Land Use Element are too
high and do not accurately reflect present city policies and
desires. The Committee, therefore, recommends that in order to
assist in the planning for adequate public facilities and
services, the city population at buildout should be approximately
150,000. The population figure should be closely monitored and
reviewed officially every five years.
Minority Opinion
There was a minority opinion on the Committee that a
more definite cap should be determined for the ultimate city
population which should then not be exceeded. There was also a
minority opinion that a buildout population of 150,000 was too
high and undesirable. The minority believed that an ultimate
population of 140,000 by the year 2025 should be adopted since
that figure has already been used in population predictions by
the city and others as the buildout level. Thus, the only
addition would be the date.
5. TIMING OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
The Citizens Committee believes that it is essential
that required public facilities to serve the growth that the city
8
is experiencing be in place when the facilities are needed. The
Committee supports the city's Public Facilities Management
Program as it provides an early warning as to the need for major
public facilities. The Committee recommends, however, that the
program be expanded or new programs developed so that the city
can insure that all public improvements, facilities and services
are in place in all portions of the city when they are needed.
The Committee also recommends that the city more effectively
coordinate the monitoring reports prepared as part of the Public
Facilities Management Program with the adoption of the Capital
Improvements Program (CIP).
The Committee identified several other programs already
contained in the Land Use Element which are available to address
the need for better coordination between growth and the city's
ability to provide adequate public services and facilities.
These include the urban land reserve program, a growth monitoring
program, mandated review of the Land Use Element and specific
plans. The Committee strongly recommends that the city implement
these programs.
*****
6. IMPACTS OF GROWTH
The Citizens Committee recognizes the citizens of
Carlsbad's concern regarding the rate, type and quality of growth
which is occuring today within the city. This is, in fact,
perhaps the most critical issue facing the city at this time.
The upswing in the economy, previous project approvals, and the
influx of new residents and businesses into the community has
resulted in a substantial amount of growth in a short period of
time. There is a concern as to whether too much is happening too
fast. Measures recommended by the Committee which will help meet
this concern and to some extent mitigate the condition are as
follows:
A) Recommendation for staff to prepare an annual report
addressing the impact of growth and the city's performance
regarding compliance with the General Plan;
B) Recommendation to appoint a seven member Citizens
Committee to continue to study and assess the impacts of growth
in Carlsbad and to keep the citizens informed of the facts. The
Committee would hold a yearly public hearing with the City
Council and, based on the annual report prepared by staff, would
focus on the impacts of growth, city services and the quality of
life;
C) Recommendation to modify the density ranges;
D) Recommendation to implement all of the programs
contained in "the present Land Use Element regarding public
facilities and growth monitoring;
E) Recommendation regarding the definition and
provision for open space;
F) Recommendation for application of a special
treatment area for the beach community; and
G) Recommendation to manage growth to ensure the timely
provision of adequate public services and to preserve the
quality of life of the residents.
Minority Opinion
There was minority concern about the impacts of growth.
The minority believed that adoption of a specific growth rate
(i.e, 3.18 percent per year until buildout in 2025) and a
definite population cap (i.e, 140,000) is needed in order to
preserve and protect the quality of life in the city. At the
very least, the city should establish procedures to manage and
control the location and timing of the growth that is already
forecast by regional predictions (approximately 85,000 by the
year 2000) in order to ensure timely facilities and services to
accommodate this high growth rate. The minority believes that
this is a critical issue and must be more specifically addressed
by the city.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
The Citizens Committee recommends that the protection of
the environment be a high priority for the city. Particularly,
attention should be given to protecting and conserving the
natural resources and habitats of the city. The Committee is
recommending goals and policies intended to accomplish the
following:
A) Preserve the natural habitats of rivers, riverbaoks,
streams, bays, lagoons, estuaries, marshes, beaches, lakes,
shorelines and canyons;
B) Require grading in hillside areas to be sensitive to
the natural topography;
C) With minor exceptions, prohibit the development of
natural slopes in excess of 40%; and
10
D) Require a physical constraints map to be submitted
with the application for a project whenever it is needed.
Minority Opinion
A minority opinion on the Committee believed that the
city should establish a Citizen Conservation Committee which
would be responsible for protecting and conserving the city's
natural environment.
*****
8. OPEN SPACE
The Citizens Committee believes that it is necessary
to include a definition of open space in the Land Use Element.
The definition provides for four categories of open space and
gives examples of each. The four categories are as follows:
A. Open space for the preservation of natural:
resources;
B. Open space used for the managed production of
resources;
C. Open space for outdoor recreation; and
D. Open space for public health and safety.
The Committee recommends that all future master plans
address all four categories.
The Committee is also recommending policy statements
to address the following items:
E. Prohibiting development in designated open space
areas;
F. Ensuring public access and maintenance of access
to beaches and lagoons; and
G. Encouraging maximum parking accommodations to
enhance the use of beach areas.
Taking into account these additional recommendations
and the increase in open space since the existing Land Use
Element was adopted, the Committee believes that the amount of
open space provided for in the Element is adequate.
Minority Opinion
There was a minority opinion on the Committee that there
is not adequate open space designated in the Element. The
minority believed that more open space should be designated and
that the minimum requirement for future master plans should be
increased.
*****
11
9. AGRICULTURE .
The Citizens Committee believes that it is necessary for
the city to take a more active posture in attempting to preserve
agricultural uses in the city. The Committee is recommending
goals and policies to help prevent the premature elimination of
agriculture and to attempt to preserve land for agricultural use
when it is determined to be feasible. In order to accomplish
this, the Committee recommends that the city:
A) Support and utilize all measures available to reduce
the financial burdens on agricultural land;
B) Develop measures to ensure the compatibility of
agriculture with adjacent non-agricultural uses;
C) Permit agricultural land uses throughout the city;
D) Conserve the largest possible amount of suitable,,
undeveloped land for agricultural uses with the willing':
compliance of affected parties;
E) Participate with neighboring cities and communities
in preserving agricultural resources along mutual boundaries;
and
F) Finally, consider the acquisition of lands or
property rights for permanent agricultural uses through methods
such as trusts, foundations and city-wide assessment districts.
The Committee recommends that specific consideration be
given to the flower fields or lands east of 1-5 to the first
ridgeline between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road. The city
should attempt to preserve this agricultural area through
whatever method created and most advantageous to the city.
Minority Opinion - There was a minority opinion on the
Committee that the above recommended measures were not going far
enough in preserving agriculture in the city. The minority
believed that the city should take a much more active,
initiating-type role in preserving agriculture as a permanent use
even if it requires public acquisition. The minority also
believed that the lands in the city most suitable for
agricultural purposes (i.e, along Palomar Airport Road) should be
so designated in the Land Use Element.
*****
10. PARKS
The Citizens Committee supports the city's community
park concept and program, however, the Committee also believes
12
that smaller, neighborhood and pocket parks are still needed and
desirable. In order to provide for neighborhood parks, the
Committee is recommending the following:
A) Encourage developers to provide pocket parks and
common, active recreational facilities in all developments
including standard single family subdivisions. Maintenance would
be the responsibility of a homeowners association.
B) Allow individual communities within the city to
acquire, develop and maintain neighborhood parks. The funding
would be by special assessment districts approved by the voters
within the area benefited.
C) The development of special use facilities located
adjacent to schools wherever possible. Maintenance of these
facilities would be by the city preferably in conjunction with
the school districts.
With respect to the community park program, the
Committee believes the program for developing these parks needs
to be expedited and expanded by the following:
A) Requiring master plan developers to provide the
parks sooner and to develop conceptual park plans as part of the
master plan application process.
B) Increasing the park requirements from developers to
the maximum permitted by state law.
C) Having a design for parks in place so that they can
be started as soon as funding becomes available.
11. COMMERCIAL
The Citizens Committee supports the existing goals,
policies and guidelines contained in the present Land Use Element
regarding commercial land use with the following two
qualifications :
A) Avoid the over-commercialization of the city
particularly in the downtown core and designated scenic routes.
B) Travel service commercial uses should be oriented
primarily along the 1-5 corridor and in the downtown core area.
13
Minority Opinion
A minority opinion on the Committee believed that the
city needs to study the amount of available commercial along El
Camino Real to ensure that commercial is not at every
intersection of a major arterial or secondary street.
12. REDEVELOPMENT
The Citizens Committee supports the city's continuing
efforts with respect to the Redevelopment Area Program. The
Committee also concurs with the city's attempt to acquire
additional public parking areas in the Redevelopment Area and the
adjacent beach area, and to study the possibility of expanding
the Redevelopment Area.
*****
13. INDUSTRIAL
The Citizens Committee supports the present goals,
policies and programs contained in the Land Use Element regarding
industrial use in the city. In order to reinforce and strengthen
the policies, the Committee recommends that concentrations of
new industrial use not be permitted outside the present
boundaries of the industrial corridor located along Palomar
Airport Road. The Committee also recommends that no expansion of
the airport be considered since it would further impact
residential areas located adjacent to the industrial corridor.
Minority Opinion
There was a minority opinion on the Committee that the
city should leave open the possibility of expanding the
boundaries of the industrial corridor.
*****
14. SPECIAL TREATMENT AREA
The Citizens Committee believes that the beach community
which surrounds the Redevelopment Area and which is located
between Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista Lagoons, the railroad
tracks and the Pacific Ocean needs to be given special attention.
14
The area is in transition in terms of land use and is starting to
experience parking, circulation and compatibility of use
problems. The Committee recommends that this area be designated
as a Special Treatment Area and be considered for redevelopment
assistance. The Special Treatment Area designation would require
a specific plan to be prepared which would address the problems
that have been identified.
Minority Opinion
While the Committee was unanimous in its support for
designation of this area as a Special Treatment Area, a minority
opinion on the Committee was that the redevelopment process
should not be used as the mechanism to address the problems and
concerns identified for the area.
*****
15. PARKING
The Citizens Committee believes that there is a need to
comprehensively review the city's present parking requirements
particularly as they relate to commercial and multi-family
apartment uses. Once they have been analyzed and updated, they
should then be reviewed on a periodic basis (i.e, every two
years). Also, the city needs to study and encourage maximum
parking accommodations in the beach areas in order to enhance
the use of these areas.
*****
16. DESIRES AND CONCERNS OF PRESENT CITIZENS
The Citizens Committee believes that the Land Use
Element and any corresponding land use decisions made by the city
must attempt to balance the desires and concerns of existing
residents with the impacts of growth and the need to provide a
place for future residents. The Committee is recommending
several measures to address this concern particularly ongoing
citizen input, compatibility measures and ongoing programs to
monitor the impacts of growth in order to preserve the quality
of life of the residents.
Minority Opinion
There was a minority opinion on the Committee that the
desires and interests of existing residents should be paramount
and have the highest priority in any land use decisions. All
projects should first be reviewed in terms of their impact on the
quality of life of existing residents in the city.
*****
15
17. TIME CONSTRAINTS
The Citizens Committee believes that the City Council
should recognize the time constraints placed on the Committee in
reviewing the Land Use Element. This restricted the amount of
time the Committee had to discuss and recommend solutions to
issues and concerns which were identified. This is another
reason why the Committee feels it is important for the city to
appoint an on-going Citizens Committee to study and assess the
issues and to have an annual status report. More frequent
reviews are also needed.
*****
18. EXISTING MASTER PLANS
The Citizens Committee recommends that any revisions to
the Land Use Element which occur as a result of the Committee's
recommendations not affect the land use designations shown on
existing, adopted master plans. The Committee believes that
special attention should be given to preserve the integrity and
intent of adopted master plan documents.
Minority Opinion
There was a minority on the Committee that did not
support the recommendation to exempt existing master plans from
revisions to the Land Use Element.
There was also a minority opinion that existing master
plans should be totally exempted from any recommendations made by
the Committee and subsequently approved by the city.
*****
19. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
The Citizens Committee believes that in order to ensure
compatibility of design in the city, architectural review is
needed. The Committee recommends that a city wide architectural
review board be implemented as part of the compatibility
requirements. The principle charge of the board would be to
ensure quality and integrity of design and to enhance the unique
character of each neighborhood.
Minority Opinion
There was a minority opinion on the Committee that did
not support the establishment of an architectural review board.
The minority believes that the city does not need another
advisory board.
*****
16
SECTION 2.
SPECIFIC DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS
PART 1. OVERALL LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES
The Citizens Committee has reviewed the overall land use
goals and policies contained on pages 6, 7 and 8 of the existing
Land Use Element text. These are the goals and policies that
provide the foundation for the entire Land Use Element and which
set the framework for all subsequent land use decisions made by
the city. The Committee's analysis focused on whether these
statements still accurately reflect the desires of the community,
whether they conform to present city policy and whether they were
consistent with recommendations being made by the Committee. The
Committee felt that several statements needed to be added,
several needed to be deleted and several needed rewording. The
Committee also felt that the goals and policies needed to be
consolidated so that it would be easier to understand which
policies applied to each goal. "-
The Committee recommends that the following overall land
use goals and policies be adopted (existing goals and policies
recommended to be retained are in regular type, wording changes
are underlined and additions are indicated in bold type).
OVERAT.T. IAHD USE GQfrT.fi AMD POUCTKS
GOALS
A) Preserve and enhance the environment, character and image of
the city as a desirable residential, beach and open space-
oriented community.
POLICIES
1. Develop and retain open spaces in all categories of
land use.
2. The social, economic and physical impacts on the
community shall be considered in all development.
*****
B) Create a pleasing and unique downtown area designed to
attract the tourist and to provide the necessary amenities to the
permanent residents of the area.
*****
C) Prevent, the premature elimination of agricultural land and
preserve said lands Wherever feasible.
17
POLICIES
1. The City should support, and utilize all measures
available, including the Williamson Act, designed to
reduce the financial burdens on agricultural land,
not only to prevent premature development, but also
to encourage its continued use for agricultural
purposes.
2. The City should develop measures to ensure the
compatibility of agricultural production and
adjacent land uses.
3. The City should permit agricultural land uses
throughout the city.
4. The City should conserve the largest possible amount
of land suitable for agricultural purposes that are
now undeveloped, through the willing compliance of
affected parties.
5. The City should participate with neighboring cities
and communities in projects leading to preservation
of agricultural resources and other types of open
space along mutual sphere of influence boundaries.
D) Develop an industrial base of light, pollution-free
industries of such magnitude as will provide a reasonable tax
base and opportunities for employment of local citizens.
POLICY
1. Encourage planned industrial parks as the preferred
method of accommodating industrial uses.
*****
E) Generate the development of commercial enterprises that
support local industries, population and tourist trade.
POLICY
1. Discourage strip commercial development.
*****
18
F) Protect and conserve natural resources, fragile
ecological areas, unique natural assets and historically
significant features of the community and provide public access
thereto. Preserve and enhance a healthful and aesthetically
pleasing environment.
*****
G) Provide for an orderly balance of both public and private
land uses within convenient and compatible locations throughout
the city and ensure that all such uses - type, amount, design and
arrangement - serve to protect and enhance the environment,
character and image of the city.
POLICIES
1. Arrange land uses so that they preserve community
identity and are orderly, functionally efficient,
healthful, convenient to the public and
aesthetically pleasing.
2. Locate major commercial and industrial centers in
areas which are easily accessible to major
transportation facilities.
*****
H) Encourage future development to locate in those
areas where it will not adversely impact surrounding land uses
and where it can be supported in terms of adequate public
services and facilities.
*****
I) Manage growth to ensure the timely provison of adequate
public services and to preserve the quality of life of the
residents.
POLICIES
1. Permit the development of land only after adequate
provision for services such as transportation,
water, sewerage, utilities and public facilities.
2. Develop programs which would correlate rate of
growth with service capabilities of the city. These
programs could include the Urban Land Reserves, Non-
Residential Reserves and Special Treatment Areas.
*****
19
J) Provide for a variety of housing types and density ranges to
meet the diverse economic and social requirements of the
citizenry, yet still ensure a cohesive urban form with careful
regard for compatibility.
The Committee recommends that the following goals and
policies be deleted because they are no longer applicable or are
being replaced by a new or additional statement.
Deletions
1. Promote the economic viability of the agricultural
and horticultural industries.
2 . Consider those zone requests for local commercial
land use within the areas designated for residential use, only
upon approval of a site development plan and determination of the
following:
A)The adequacy and appropriateness of the proposal
itself and impact on surrounding land uses.
B) Consistency with the guidelines contained in the
General Plan.
C) Detailed site locations established through the
specific planning process; and
D) Conflicts between the Land Use Plan and Zoning shall
be resolved by the Planning Commission.
3. Consider proposals for medium-rise structures, up to
and including six stories, only upon the determination of the
following:
A) The public will receive substantial benefit from
such an action, i.e, increased open space,
floodplain preservation, slope protection, etc;
B) There will be no substantial detrimental impact on
the adjoining properties; and
C) The approval of a site development plan.
4. Specific Plans should be utilized to implement the
intent of this Element in regard to Urban Land Reserves, Non-
Residential Reserves and Special Treatment Areas.
5. Encourage the types of commercial and industrial
activities which will supply the city with a broad economic base,
provide for the social need and reflect all environmental
constraints.
20
SECTION 2.
PART 2. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
This part of the report contains all the specific
recommendations of the Committee. Verbatim wording recommended
by the Committee is indicated in bold -type. For
organizational purposes, the recommendations have been grouped
into topics or headings, with indications as to whether it is
applicable to incorporate the recommendations into the Land Use
Element as a goal, a policy or a program. Voting of the
Committee is indicated in parenthesis following the
recommendation.
OPEN SPACE
1. The Citizens Committee "approves the adequacy of
designated open space in the Land Use Element. (18-7-0)
2. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following
definition of open space be incorporated into the Land Use
Element:
""Open-space land" is any designated parcel of land or
water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an
open space use as defined below:
1. Open space for the preservation of natural resources
including, but not limited tos
a) areas required for the preservation of plant and
animal life, including habitat for fish and
wildlife species;
b) areas required for ecologic and other scientific
study purposes;
c) rivers, streams, bays, lagoons and estuaries;
d) coastal beaches, lakeshores, banks of rivers and
streams, and watershed islands.
2. Open space used for the managed production of
resources, including but not limited to:
a) forest lands. rangeland, agricultural and
horticultural lands;
b) areas required for recharge of ground water
basins;
21
c) bays, estuaries* marshes, rivers and streams
which are important, for the management of
srcial fisheries?
d) areas containing major mineral deposits,
including those in short supply.
3. Open space for outdoor recreation, including
but not limited to:
a} areas of outstanding scenic, historic and
cultural value;
b) areas particularly suited for school
playgrounds, park and recreation purposes,
including access to lakeshores, beaches,
lagoons, rivers and streams;
c) areas which serve as links between major ~
recreation and open space reservations, -
including utility easements, banks of rivers and
streams, trails, scenic highway and railroad
corridors.
d) areas which buffer between land uses and
separation from surrounding communities.
4. Open space for public health and safety, including
but not limited to:
a) areas which require special management or
regulations because of hazardous or special
conditions such as safety zones in the vicinity
of airports, earthquake fault zones, steep
slopes, unstable soil areas, flood plains,
watersheds;
b) areas presenting high fire risks;
c) areas required for the protection of water
quality and water reservoirs;
d) areas required for the protection and
enhancement of air quality. (23-0-0)
3. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following three
policy statements be incorporated into the Land Use Element:
" Future urban development shall be prohibited from
designated open space areas. (24-1-0)
22
" The city shall ensure public access and maintenance
of those accesses to lagoons and beaches.
(23-2-0)
" The city shall encourage maximum parking
accommodations to enhance the use of beach areas.
(24-1-0)
4. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following
implementation program be incorporated into the Land Use
Element:
* In all future master plans, all four categories
of open space must be addressed. (25-0-0)
PARKS
1. The Citizens Committee finds'that tlic city is providing
for sufficient active and passive parks in the community
park plan. (12-11-0)
2. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following
statement concerning parks be incorporated into the Land Use
Element.
"Community Parks
Recommend that the community park policy currently
adopted and implemented by the City be accelerated if
possible. The City Department of Parks and Recreation
will be responsible for the acquisition, development,
management and maintenance of the community parks
system.
Pocket Parks
Require the individual developers of master planned
communities to provide pocket parks and active
recreational facilities unique to each development.
Maintenance of pocket parks shall be accomplished
through homeowners association dues. Pocket parks shall
remain in private ownership.
Heighborhood Parks
A neighborhood park policy be adopted allowing
individual communities within the city to acquire,
develop and maintain a neighborhood park system. The
funding for the system will be accomplished by special
assessment districts approved by the voters within the
area of benefit. Where possible, development shall
occur adjacent to school grounds. (20-2-2)
23
3. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following three
policy statements be incorporated into the Land Use Element:
* Establish a policy where large, master plan
developers are required to provide community
parks up—front or at an earlier point in time
so that they are available when they are needed.
(23-0-0)
" Encourage developers to provide smaller, active
recreational areas (parks) in developments in-
cluding standard single family subdivisions. These
smaller parks would be maintained by a homeowners
association or through a property owners tax
intenance district. (22-1-0)
* In future regional, community and neighborhood
parks, there should be an emphasis placed on active
uses in their design. (12-7-4)
4. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following five
implementation programs be incorporated into the Land Use
Element:
* The city consider housing density, proximity to
schools, general public access, local resident
access, adjacent residential area traffic impacts,
and safe pedestrian access in determining pocket
park, neighborhood park and regional park locations.
Wherever possible these developed sites should be
placed in conjunction with or connected to schools
or natural areas. (15-6-2)
* Raise the park standards from developers to the
maximum allowed under state law, 3 acres per 1,OOO,
unless the law is changed. (18-7-0)
" The city create a method to accelerate the
development of Special Use Facilities. Whenever
possible, these facilities should be located as
close as possible to school sites. Special Use
Facilities would include but not be limited to:
tennis courts, swimming pools, hard courts,
(basketball, volley ball, active play areas), turfed
playing areas, (football, soccer, volley ball),
softball and baseball fields, and other recreation
facilities needed by the citizens of Carlsbad.
(22-1-1)
24
" The conceptual design of required parks snail be
prepared and submitted as part of the application
for all future master plans in the city.
(19-4-0)
• The design of community parks be accelerated so that
if funding becomes available and can only be
obtained if the design is in place, the city would
be able to qualify. (23-0-0)
AGRICULTURE
1. The Citizens Committee recommends that "agriculture not.
be considered only an interim use. (12-10-0)
2. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following goal and
policies be added to the overall goals and policies of the Land
Use Element:
• Goal
Prevent the premature elimination of agricultural
land and preserve said lands wherever feasible.
Policy Statements:
A) The city should support and utilize all measures
available, including the Williamson Act,
designed to reduce the financial burdens on
agricultural land, not only to prevent premature
development, but also to encourage its continued
use for agricultural purposes.
B) The city should develop measures to ensure the
compatibility of agricultural production and
adjacent land uses.
C) The city should permit agricultural land uses
throughout the city.
D) The city should conserve the largest possible
amount of land suitable for agricultural
purposes that are now undeveloped through the
willing compliance of affected parties.
25
E) The city should participate with neighboring
cities and communities in projects leading to
preservation of agricultural resources and other
types of open space along mutual sphere of
influence boundaries. (17-5-1)
3. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following two
implementation programs t>e incorporated into the Land Use
Element:
* The city should consider the acquisition of lands or
property rights for permanent agricultural uses
through methods or means such as trusts, foundations
and city-wide assessment districts.
(17-5-1)
" The city attempt to preserve the flower fields or
lands east of 1-5 to the first ridgeline between
Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road, through
whatever method created and most advantageous to the
City of Carlsbad. (17-5-2)
INDUSTRIAL
The Citizens Committee recommends that the following two policy
statements be incorporated into the Land Use Element:
" Concentrations of new industrial uses shall not be
permitted outside the present boundaries of the
industrial corridor as shown on the land use plan.
(12-8-2)
" The existing boundaries of the industrial corridor
along Palomar Airport Road reflect the impact of the
present size and operation of the airport especially
as it relates to residential type uses. Therefore,
no expansion of the boundaries of the airport should
be considered. (12-8-2)
COMMERCIAL
1. The Citizens Committee 'adopts the goals, policies,
guidelines and statements regarding commercial use presently
contained in the Land Use Element. (18-3-2)
26
2. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following goal be
incorporated into the Land Use Element:
" Orient travel service commercial areas along the 1-5
corridor and in the downtown core. (18-4-1)
3. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following policy
statement be incorporated into the Land Use Element:
" Avoid the over-commercialization of the city,
particularly. the downtown core and designated
scenic routes. (18-4-1)
4. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following
implementation program be incorporated into the Land Use
Element:
* Parking requirements for commercial areas shall be
comprehensively reviewed on a periodic basis (i.e.
every two years) to ensure adequate parking and to
address identified parking problems. (21-1-1)
REDEVELOPMENT
The Citizens Ccmnittee "concurs with the current city
plans to study the possibilities of expanding the Redevelopment
Area and acquire additional parking areas in the present
Redevelopment and beach area. (19-3-1)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
1. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following be added
as an overall goal of the Land Use Element:
• Protect and conserve natural resources, fragile
ecological areas, unique natural assets and
historically significant features of the community
and provide public access thereto. Preserve and
enhance a healthful and aesthetically pleasing
environment. (23-0-0)
2. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following four
policy statements be incorporated into the Land Use Element:
27
* The city shall make the preservation of the natural
habitat of the rivers, river banks, streams, bays,
lagoons, estuaries, marshes, beaches, lakes,
shorelines and canyons a high priority and develop
specific programs for these areas preservation.
(22-1-0)
* Slope disturbance will not result in substantial
damage or alteration to major significant wildlife
habitat or significant native vegetation areas
which do not present a fire hazard. (18-5-2)
" Grading for building pads and roadways should be
accomplished in a manner that would maintain the
appearance of natural hillsides. (19-4-2)
* Density and intensity of development on hillsides
should relate to the slope of the land in order to
preserve the integrity of the hillsides.
(19-4-2)
3. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following
implementation program be incorporated into the Land Use
Element:
* Require submittal of a physical constraint map with
an application for tentative map or master plan.
This requirement may be waived by the Planning
Director where applicable. (25-0-0)
TIMING OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
1. The Citizens Committee recommends that *the city
implement the IMPLEMENTATION outlined in the Land Use Element
(Pg.15) except that the words "incentive benefits" should be
inserted in place of the words "tax assessment relief" in the
last sentence of Section 5-c)-2). (22-2-0)
2. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following three
policy statements be incorporated into the Land Use Element:
* The Public Facilities Management Program shall be
refined and expanded to ensure that all public
improvements, facilities and services are in place
in all portions of the city when they are needed.
(24-0-0)
28
* The monitoring reports which are provided as part of
this program and which serve as an early warning
regarding public facilities needs shall be more
effectively coordinated with the establishment of
the Capital Improvements Program (C.I.P.)
(24-0-0)
* To assist the Public Facilities Program planning,
the city population at buildout should be
approximately 150,000. The population should be
monitored closely and reviewed officially every five
years. (14-10-0)
GROWTH
1. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following
statement be incorporated into the overall goals of the Land Use
Element:
* Manage growth to ensure the timely provisions of
adequate public services and to preserve the quality
of life of the residents. (19-3-2)
2. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following two
implementation programs be incorporated into the Land Use
Element:
" Appoint a Citizens" Committee of seven to study and
assess the impacts of growth in Carlsbad and to keep
the citizens informed of the facts. In January of
each year, hold a public hearing with the Council
based on an annual staff report containing data on
increases in population, dwelling units, traffic,
crime; on availability and cost of city services
including water; on the economic health of the
community and the industrial commercial and tourist
activity. The focus will be on city services and
the quality of life. (24-0-0)
* A yearly report shall be prepared which addresses:
1. The city's performance in complying with the
General Plan.
2. The city's progress in implementing the programs
contained in the Land Use Element.
3. The impact of growth on the goals and policies
contained in the Land Use Element.
(25-0-0)
29
DENSITY
1. The Citizens Committee recommends that the density
ranges be revised and incorporated into the Land Use Element as
follows:
RL .1 to 1.5
RLM 1.0 to 4.0
RM 4.1 to 9.0
RMH 9.1 to 15.0
RM 15.1 to 23.0
A category for senior citizens and other special
housing needs should be established for density
above 23 dwelling units by Conditional Use Permit
(CUP).
The current policy of guaranteeing only the minimum
density should be retained. (19-3-2)
2. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following
two policy statements be incorporated into the Land Use Element:
* Compatibility of adjacent land use along the
interface of different density categories shall have
the highest priority in reviewing future projects.
Special attention shall be given to buffering and
transitional methods* especially, when reviewing
properties where different residential densities or
land uses are involved. (23-0-1)
* Encourage clustering when it is done in a way that
is compatible with existing, adjacent development.
(24-0-0)
3. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following three
implementation programs be incorporated into the Land Use
Element:
* The City Council shall direct the Planning staff to
study and to point out specific areas of existing
incompatibility to be addressed. (23-0-1)
" Natural slopes in excess of 4O% — No development
shall be allowed to occur or density credit
available, except as noted below.
30
Natural slopes in excess of 25% and less than 40%
shall be reviewed by staff on a case by case basis.
Development and grading shall not be allowed to
occur if significant impacts are identified which
cannot be mitigated. If grading does occur, it must
be certified as to its stability by a registered
soils engineer. Density credit shall be allowed on
slopes 40% or less to provide staff the greatest
flexibility in determining the planning merits of
each application.
Exceptions: 1. Those parcels of less than 1O
acres.
2. If the area impacted by the
specific slope category comprises
an insignificant portion of the
site.
3. Streets, infrastructure, health and
safety, etc. (21-3-0)
A. The following areas of a residential site cannot
be used to calculate density:
1. Beaches
2. Water Bodies
3. Floodways
4. Slopes greater than 40%
5. Existing public rights-of-way
6. Open space as designated on the open
space element plan.
B. In the interest of preserving certain site
features the following areas of a residential
site can be used to calculate density:
1. Significant wetlands - after this feature is
identified and used for calculating density,
the area will be designated as open space on
the open space element plan.
2. Significant riparian habitat - after this
feature is identified and is used for
calculating density, the area will be
designated as open space on the open space
element plan.
31
3. Major power line easements - only when
enhanced and maintained as a passive green
belt, corridor. If density is calculated on
this feature this area cannot be used to
meet the open space requirements of a
project. (22-2-0)
* The City Council should enter into discussions and
negotiations with other cities, or the county, when
prospective developments in their areas are
incompatible with adjacent Carlsbad areas in
regards to density, type of dwelling or zoning.
Attention should be given to the use of transitional
methods to ensure compatibility.
(24-0-0)
LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS
The Citizens Committee 'endorses the existing Land
Use classifications as shown on the current General Plan.
Ul-3-0)
RESIDENTIAL
1. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following be added
as an overall goal of the existing Land Use Element:
* Provide for a variety of housing types and density
ranges to meet the diverse economic and social
requirements of the citizenry, yet still ensure a
cohesive urban form with careful regard for
compatibility. (22-2-0)
2. The Citizens Committee endorses the guidelines presently
contained in the existing Land Use Element which are as follows:
" A major principle in allocating residential land
uses is to provide for a variety of housing types
and density ranges to meet the diverse requirements
of the citizenry, yet still create a cohesive urban
form.
* Retain the present predominance of single family
residences throughout the community, while providing
a variety of housing types in the communities within
the city, including townhouses, condominiums,
apartments, mobile homes, modular and prefabricated
housing.
32
" Achieve a variety and choice of housing in all
economic ranges throughout the city.
* Offer safe, helpful, attractive residential areas
with a wide range of housing types, styles and price
levels in a variety of locations. (20-4-0)
3. The Citizens Committee recommends that the following
implementation program be incorporated into the Land Use
Element:
* The City Council direct the Planning Staff to review
and make recommendations for the purposes of
increasing the parking requirements for future
apartment units and to continue with a periodic
review every two years. (25-0-0)
SPECIAL TREATMENT AREA
The Citizens CcrrnuLttee reccsnmends that *the beach
area, ie., that area bounded by the railroad tracks on the east.
Pacific Ocean on the west, city limits on the north, and Agua
Hedionda Lagoon on the south, be designated a Special Treatment
Area and be considered for Redevelopment assistance; excluding
the present Redevelopment Area and open space zones where they
coincide. (18-6-0)
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
The Citizens Committee recommends that the following
implementation program be incorporated into the Land Use
Element:
* A city wide architectural review board be
implemented as part of the compatibility
requirements. The principle charge of the Committee
is to ensure quality and integrity of design. The
second charge is to enhance the unique character of
each neighborhood. (17-5-2)
PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Recommendations made to the City Council by the
Land Use Element Committee shall have no effect
on the land use designations shown on adopted
master plans. Special attention should be paid
by the City Council to preserve the integrity
and intent of the adopted master plan
documents . (21-4-0)
33
2. The city should revert, to its adopted policy of
requiring landowners to earn the potential
maximum density by meeting certain stated
criteria. The current interim use of the 'mean*
to control density should be revoked as its use
does not offer an incentive to provide higher
quality housing, which is a committee goal.
(13-11-0)
34
SECTION 3.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVISING AND REFORMATTING
THE LAND USE ELEMENT
Because of time constraints, the Citizens Committee was
not able to prepare and propose a complete revision to the text
of the Land Use Element. Instead the Committee focused on
issues, concerns or problem areas identified through public work-
shops and Committee observations. Recognizing that the next step
in the process will be for the city to formally revise the Land
Use Element to incorporate the recommendations of the Citizens
Committee approved by the City Council, the Committee offers the
following suggestions for revising and reformatting the Land Use
Element.
1. City staff should be directed to elicit and
encourage maximum citizen input in the revision process. Well
publicized public hearings should be held on all aspects of the
revision. Ongoing citizen participation is a must.
2. The background information in the existing Land Use
Element is in drastic need of updating. Tables, figures and
other technical information in the Element is outdated and does
not give an accurate picture of the current situation.
3. The Land Use Element should be better organized.
All goals, policies, guidelines, programs and statements for each
topic or area of consideration should be consolidated in one
place rather than being scattered throughout the document.
4. The Element needs to be simplified so that it is
more readable and easy to understand. The main body of the text
needs to be shortened. The Committee recognizes the need to have
background information and technical analysis to support the
conclusions of the Element, however, this might be more
appropriately placed in a technical appendix to the Element. The
wain body of the document should focus on goals, policies and
implementing programs. The Element should be something that the
public can read and understand. A suggested format would be to
list GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENT I iSFG PROGRAMS under the specific
topic or area of consideration.
TECHNICAL DATA AND ANALYSIS for each topic would be in a
technical appendix. Also, an updated population projection for
1990 based on the revision to the Land Use Element should be
obtained from SANDAG and be made part of the technical appendix.
35
5. Terms need to be better defined. The Citizens
Committee realized early on in its review that concepts and terms
mentioned in the Element meant different things to different
people. Clear, concise definitions are important.
6. Responsibility for implementing the programs
recommended in the Element is needed. The Element should contain
a section that assigns responsibility to the appropriate city
staff for carrying-out the implementation of the recommended
programs. The Committee discovered that the existing Land Use
Element contains several programs that had never been
implemented. Implementation of these programs might have
addressed some of the concerns, issues or problem areas which
were identified. If possible, target dates for implementation
should be established.
7. The Land Use Element has the broadest scope of all
the Elements that make up the General Plan. It overlaps and
synthesizes most of the issues addressed in the other Elements.
Once the Land Use Element is revised, staff should be directed to
prepare a "consistency report" which analyzes the impact of the
revision on the other Elements. If necessary, the other Elements
of the General Plan should then be scheduled for revision to
achieve internal consistency.
36
ATTACHMENTS:
COLLATERAL REPORT
SUMMARY REPORTS
.ISSUE REPORTS PREPARED BY PLANNING STAFF
LIST OF FAILED MOTIONS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
COLLATERAL REPORT
JULY 1965
COLLATERAL REPORT - LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
During the review of the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan various
associated problem areas were noted which were not considered to
be part of the specific charge of the committee. Some of these
problems were highlighted by various citizens during the four public
workshops. Others were defined during the course of the committee
meetings.
In either case, the problems are of such extraordinary nature that the
committee agreed to identify them as a collateral report, thereby
ensuring that each topic would receive appropriate attention.
Each of the recognized problems are covered in this report as individual
attachments to facilitate their identification, classification,
dissemination, etc.
The format of each attachment describes the problem or issue. Wherever
possible, comments give some insight to the source of the problem
and the committee's perception, intent and/or purpose. In each case,
one or more solutions are recommended by the committee.
The attachments are identified as follows:
1. Periodic Review of the Land Use Element
2. Public Awareness
3. Airport Operations
4. Beach & Coastal Resources Conservation/Improvement
5. Noise and Other Nuisances
6. Scenic Corridors
The committee recommends that the problems hereby identified be
considered with the objective being to accomplish their earliest
resolution.
COLLATERAL REPORT - LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ATTACHMENT *1
Subject: PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
Problem or issue identified: The current pace of development in the city
demands more frequent review of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan.
Comments/Analysis: The citizens of the community have shown a great
interest and sincere concern over many of the aspects of land use
planning in the city which impact their lives, e.g., open space,
residential density, timely provision of facilities, population
monitoring, etc. During public workshops they have expressed their
desires to have a LUE review and update more frequently than has
been conducted in the past, and they have shown a willingness to
participate in such reviews through public workshops, forums and
representative committees.
The Land Use Element is the tool with which city development is
molded and managed. Quality performance of this management
function is dependent on well documented, solidly defined programs
to guide the planning staff. The committee recognized the need for
a more timely analysis, review and monitoring by the planning staff,
of the rapidly changing influences on land use planning within the
city.
The current review has been exhaustive of staff resources,
demanding of the participants and expensive to the city. An ongoing
process of monitoring and analysis will make future reviews less
disruptive and more beneficial. A shorter interval between reviews
will enable greater control.
During appointed LUE reviews the Council should instruct the
committee to suggest procedures to ensure orderly progress is being
maintained and desired goals are being accomplished in specific
areas such as agriculture, urban land reserves, parks, etc.
(continued)
ATTACHMENT *1
PAGE 2
We are fast approaching the time when management of stated
objectives is in dire need of greater and more frequent attention.
Convening a review of the LUE once every three years will give the
city this essential management tool.
Recommendations:
1. The City Council should appoint a committee of 11-15 members to
review the LUE at least once every three years. This committee
shall be comprised of a balanced representation of the citizenry of
the community. The committee must be instructed to encourage,
promote and conduct public workshops during their review, and
instructed to remain sensitive to the desires expressed by the
residents. The City Council should require that review findings are
presented to the citizens of the community.
2. Provision needs to be made for ongoing analysis and review by the
Planning staff so that adequate criteria are in place and properly
monitored to assure that quality growth is maintained.
3. Consideration should be given in this review process to ensuring
necessary continuity, while at the same time promoting the infusion
of new ideas.
COLLATERAL REPORT - LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ATTACHMENT *2
Subject PUBLIC AWARENESS
Problem or issue identified: Some issues addressed during public input
may be more perceived than real, others are already being dealt with
either through other elements of the General Plan or by other
agencies. In either case, the underlying problem relates to the need
for more public information and the opportunity for public response.
The citizens need to be aware that their concerns have not been
ignored.
Comments/Analysis: Some topics mentioned in the Public Input workshops
were not specifically related to the Land Use Review. Others were
not fully discussed because they are covered elsewhere in the
General Plan. The Review Committee has identified the following as
deserving of some comment, since they were treated with
considerable interest by the public.
1. Circulation/traffic
2. Senior/Community Recreation
3. School-related issues
4 Water
Circulation: Citizen concerns regarding improved east-west circulation
can be relieved by the distribution of information regarding projects
that are coming on-line for construction, such as Cannon Road and
the completion of Elm Avenue.
Public input also indicated a wish for increased attention to the
issues of pedestrian safety, sidewalks, etc.
The review of the Circulation Element was being completed while
the public input meetings were held for the Land Use Review. Many
stated issues have already been addressed, though citizens may be
unaware of action being taken.
(continued)
ATTACHMENT *2
PAGE 2
Senior/Community Recreational and Cultural Issues: Members of the
public expressed a desire for such recreational amenities as a
Municipal Golf Course, community center/gymnasium, and a large
city or privately owned cultural center for the performing and
visual arts.
The creation of the new Arts Element to the General Plan, and the
recent reorganiziation efforts on behalf of the Senior Citizens are
also dealing with these issues. Options for providing a public golf
course need to be explored.
School Related Issues: Major concerns deal with the necessity for having
schools (particularly elementary) in close and safe proximity to the
neighborhoods they serve, and timely construction of schools.
Residents would also like the city to address the situation in the
south quadrants that finds families dealing with several different
school districts.
More cooperation between the city and the school districts is
desired as a means for addressing school related issues.
Water. People are concerned that the increasing demands and reduced
sources of water for the Southern California region will present
some critical burdens as growth continues. The public needs to be
kept informed of the current and projected status of water supplies,
and conservation measures being taken and proposed.
Recommendations:
1. Priority be given to enhanced, vigorous, ongoing efforts toward
publicizing of programs and actions.
2. An annual program of public-input workshops be conducted on
General Plan subjects in each of the four quadrants.
3. The City Council remain sensitive to changes in needs of the
community with regard to the issues noted above.
COLLATERAL REPORT - LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ATTACHMENT *3
: AIRPORT OPERATIONS
Problem or issue identified: There has been some anxiety expressed
regarding the impact of Palomar-McClellan Airport in terms of noise
and safety. While the airport itself is relatively isolated from
incompatible (residential) use by its location within the Industrial
area of the city, the concerns address the possibility of increased
number and size of aircraft using the facility, and the hours of use.
Comments/ Analysis: The discussion by the LUE Review Committee
relating to Industrial land use indicated no great concern over the
operation of the Airport as it presently exists, provided there is no
further expansion of the airport's boundaries, and no substantial
change in hours of operation.
Some apprehension was expressed over the proximity of designated
residential land use near the southeast end of the Industrial
corridor in that such use provides a potential for some future
residents' dissatisfaction.
Recommendations:
1 . The committee's motion regarding airport operation issues is stated
as follows: "The airport area shall be reviewed on a periodic
basis (approximately every five years), to provide for
appropriate general plan designations consistent with the
maintenance of the airport as it currently is used."
(Ayes - 21, Noes - 0, Abstain - 3)
2. Consideration should be given to integrating this review into the
three-year Land Use Element Review.
COLLATERAL REPORT - LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ATTACHMENT *4
Subject BEACH & COASTAL RESOURCES CONSER VAT ION/IMPROVEMENT
Problem or issue identified: There is considerable public concern over the
enhancement and protection of the natural features of the beaches
and coastal resources, including sand, bluffs, and lagoons, and the
improvement of access and parking.
Comments/Analysis: The Committee's primary report has addressed beach
area development through the special treatment area proposal.
There are also statements within the committee coverage of Open
Space dealing with access and parking as those topics apply to the
beaches and lagoons. Because of the persistence of the public
input and the magnitude of the beach issue to the essential
character of the city, the need for a concentration of effort to seek
solutions to the beach-related problems is further emphasized.
Planning decisions relating to the beach/lagoon areas must be
especially sensitive to the particular and unique attributes of these
locations.
Bluff erosion and sand depletion, lagoons, public access and parking,
while recognized as being a multi-agency responsibility, are not
beyond the City's power and resources to address, and solutions
such as master plans must be sought through any available means.
Recommendations:
1. The city assign a high priority to finding ways to approach the beach
issues.
2. Initiate and pursue cooperation among jurisdictional agencies to
address the sand and erosion problems.
3. Keep the public informed of available alternative programs so that
financial impacts can be addressed.
4. Explore the possibility of initiating master plans to protect coastal
resources so that standards for protection are in place before plans
are submitted for development of particular properties.
COLLATERAL REPORT - LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ATTACHMENT *5
Subject NOISE AND OTHER NUISANCES
Problem or issue identified: Citizens want attention paid to the problems
of noise and/or pollution problems around the airport and along the
freeways and arterials in the city. Where adjacent incompatible
land uses occur, mitigation efforts are essential to lessen impact.
Comments/Analysis: Quality of life is threatened in residential
developments located too close to the airport and major traffic
thoroughfares. Noise can also be a problem for residents living near
active recreational areas.
Other nuisances occur in connection with residential developments
adjacent to agricultural areas. Insect and rodent infestation,
blowing dust, hazardous chemicals and vapors, and noise from
tractors and other farming equipment are likely to be present to
some degree.
Recommendations:
1. Avoid residential development in the noise impact area of the
airport, and right next to freeways and heavily traveled streets. In
areas where development is allowed in proximity to these and other
nuisance areas, mitigate the noise and pollution impacts by
structural insulation, buffers such as setbacks, vegetation or open
space, and location and/or orientation of structures on the site.
2. Require developers and builders to give notice of these nuisances to
all buyers, and include a "Notice of Impact of Noise and Nuisances"
in their sales presentations and in all CC&R's. The buyer should also
acknowledge that he has been informed of such impact, and accepts
it as a condition when purchasing property.
COLLATERAL REPORT - LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ATTACHMENT *6
SCENIC CORRIDORS
Problem or issue identified: High density development (of all kinds)
immediately adjacent to freeways and arterials create a "wall"
effect that gives an impression of a congested and poorly planned
area. Residents also expressed a concern for creating a special
visual identity where people enter the city on the freeways and
other major roads.
Comments/ Analysis: The visual impact from the freeways and major
traffic routes through Carlsbad can be a major attribute of the area.
Scenic corridors should be encouraged, unhampered by endless rows
of strip commercial development.
Particularly suited for retention as visually attractive routes would
be Carlsbad Blvd., Interstate 5, El Camino Real, College Blvd., and
Melrose Avenue, all running north-south through the city. The
east-west corridors would be Highway 78, Cannon Road, Palomar
Airport Rd., Poinsettia/Carrillo Way, and La Costa Avenue. Special
effort should be made to create a very pleasant visual image upon
entering the city on any of the "scenic corridors."
Recommendations:
1 . The City of Carlsbad should create a "Scenic Corridor" overlay,
similar to the one created for El Camino Real, for each of the other
identified routes through the city. Special emphasis should be
placed on open space areas, and/or special landscaping at the
entrance to the city on those routes.
2. The city should also require that all future commercial shopping
centers be Master Planned, and not allow "strip" commercial centers
along major thoroughfares. Shopping centers should only be
allowed at the intersections of selected major arterials.
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Summary of the Thirteenth Committee Meeting, June 3, 1985.
The meeting was called to order at 6:05 P.M.
Committee members were all present. Member Dominguez arrived at
6:30. Alternates Grazda and McBane were present.
Member Rombotis moved approval of the summary report of May 20,
1985. Second Coyle. Motion passed. Ayes - 24 - Noes - 0 -
Abstain - 0.
Member Stebelski reviewed the changes to the Collateral Report
based upon the Saturday review.
Member Coyle moved adoption of the Collateral Report as
corrected. Second Harkins. Motion passed. Ayes - 22
- Noes - 0 - Abstain - 2.
Michael Holzmiller reviewed the changes to the Final Report,
based upon the Saturday review.
Following discussion on #10 of the Summary of Findings
- "Minority Opinion", Member Stebelski moved to change the
wording in two places on page five from "The minority
recommends that" to "The Committee denied the minority
recommendation that". Second Caggiano. Motion passed.
Ayes - 15 - Noes - 7 - Abstain - 2.
Member Litten moved adopting the minority opinion written
for Industrial, ending with the word "corridor", and
deleting the rest of the statement. Second Prescott.
Motion passed. Ayes - 21 - Noes - 1 - Abstain - 2.
Following discussion on Item 2 on page 3, Timing of Public
Facilities Construction, Member Rombotis moved "to leave the
wording as it is". Second Andrews. Motion passed. Ayes
-18 - Noes - 5 - Abstain - 0.
Member Flanagan moved removing the words "a reduction in"
from the minority opinion under Commercial. Second
Brownley. Motion passed. Ayes - 21 - Noes - 3 - Abstain
- 0.
Member Rombotis moved "That the Committee adopt everything
through page 16 of the final report as amended". Second
Harkins. Motion passed. Ayes - 23 - Noes - 1 -
Abstain - 0.
Summary of Thirteenth Committee Meeting
June 3, 1985
Page Two
Member Dominguez moved approval of Section 2, pages 17-33.
Second Skotnicki. Motion passed. Ayes - 24 - Noes - 0
- Abstain - 0.
Member Yoder moved "This Committee recommends that the City
Council direct staff to obtain the services of SANDAG to
provide Carlsbad with a 1990 population projection based on
the new approved Land Use Element. This SANDAG report
should be part of the technical data section attached to the
final Council approved report". Second Skotnicki. Motion
passed. Ayes - 21 - Noes - 2 - Abstain - 2.
Member Rorabotis moved "That the Chairman send a letter to
Council suggesting that appropriate steps be taken to
provide staff with additional help to reformat the Land Use
Element following adoption". Second Courtney. Motion
passed. Ayes - 24 - Noes - 0 - Abstain - 1.
Member Courtney moved "That the Committee adopt Section 3
with the additions to #4". Second Skotnicki. Motion
passed. Ayes - 25 - Noes - 0 - Abstain - 0.
Member Brownley moved approval of the summary report dated
June 1, 1985 as submitted. Second Coyle. Motion passed.
Ayes - 23 - Noes - 0 - Abstain - 2. (Members Dewhurst and
Larson were absent at the June 1 meeting).
Chairman Gaiser reviewed the presentation of the final report
to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
Carlsbad General Plan
BH/ar
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Summary of the Saturday Workshop, June 1, 1985.
The meeting was called to order at 8:04 A.M.
Committee members were all present with the exception of
Members Dewhurst and Larson. Member Hicks arrived at 8:06;
Dominguez at 8:15; and Harkins at 8:16. Alternate Grazda
was present.
Following opening remarks, Chairman Gaiser turned the meeting
over to Member Brownley for discussion of the draft final
report. Concerns were voiced over the wording of the
"overall finding". Members Courtney and Gallagher proposed
alternative language for Committee consideration.
A straw vote was taken after two hours of discussion on the
summary of findings and recommendations, to delete page 2 as
submitted, and replace it with Member Gallagher's
recommendations/combining his item #7 with item #2/and
adding a #10 itemizing points where there has been a
minority vote the Committee wishes to recognize.
Ayes - 20.
The Committee reviewed the draft final report and voted as
follows on various matters:
0 Delete the word "substantial" from the minority comment
wherever it appears in the report. (17-3-2)
0 Following discussion a straw vote was taken on #4 on
page 4 to accept it as it is written. (14-7-1)
0 A straw vote was taken to accept Section 6 as it is
written. (15-8-0)
0 A straw vote was taken on Section 6, page 5 - add a #7
"Recommendation to manage growth to ensure the timely
provisions of adequate public services and to preserve
the quality of life of the residents". (23-0-0)
Additionally to add a minority comment to the effect
that "building permits for residential purposes in
master plans will not be issued unless public
improvements and service standards are met". (11-12-0)
Summary of Saturday Workshop
June 1, 1985
Page Two
0 Straw vote on #7. (22-0-0)
0 On #8 as it is written. (21-2-0)
#9 (23-0-0)
0 #10 (23-0-0) on page 9, letter c, add "a conceptual" and
strike "the" from the sentence.
0 #11 as it is written. (21-2-0)
0 #11 with the addition of a minority report to the effect
that "the City of Carlsbad shall study a reduction in
the amount of available commercial along El Camino Real,
such that commercial is not at every intersection of a
major arterial or secondary street". (21-1-0)
0 #12 was accepted with the addition of language
concerning the possibility of expanding the
Redevelopment Area. (20-1-2)
0 #13 straw vote as it is written (20-1-0). Straw vote to
add a minority opinion to Section 13 - Industrial.
(7-10-4)
Following discussion, staff was asked to draft a minority
opinion for Industrial. It would read something to the
effect that "There was a minority opinion on the Committee
that felt the city should not limit the Industrial Corridor
to the existing boundaries". The Committee will review the
statement June 3, and vote on its inclusion in the final
report.
0 #14 straw vote as it is written (22-0-1)
0 #15 parking - add statement on encouraging maximum
parking accommodations to enhance the use of beach
areas. Straw vote to accept #15 as it is written with
the additional statement on beach parking. (23-0-0)
0 #16 as it is written. (17-6-0)
Summary of Saturday Workshop
June 1, 1985
Page Three
Following discussion the Committee voted to include a
statement in the majority report that would indicate the
Committee's desire to preserve the quality of life of the
residents. (19-0-4)
0 #17 as it is written. (23-0-0)
0 #18 strike the word "overwhelmingly" from the minority
opinion.
Straw vote, as it is corrected. (22-1-0)
Add a second minority report to the effect "There was a
minority that thought existing master plans should be
totally exempted from all actions taken by this
Committee". (16-5-1)
0 #19 as it is written. (20-1-2)
Add a minority opinion that the Council does not need
another advisory body. (13-9-1)
0 A straw vote was requested on adding separate headings
for the following:
Compatibility (7-13-2)
Slopes (7-14-1)
Net vs. Gross (4-16-1)
Member Skotnicki moved that the Committee adopt the overall
goals and policies as presented in Section 2, Part 1 of the
draft final report, with the deletion of Goal I and
substitution of a new Goal I which reads: "Manage growth to
ensure the timely provision of adequate public services and
to preserve the quality of life of the residents". Second
Litten. Motion passed. Ayes - 21 - Noes - 0 -
Abstain - 1.
0 Page 18 - under "Parks", the word "usable" was deleted
and "active and passive" inserted. A straw vote was
taken to accept the sections on Open Space, Parks,
Agriculture, Industrial, Commercial, Redevelopment, and
Environmental Protection. (21-0-0)
Summary of Saturday Workshop
June 1, 1985
Page Four
0 Page 24 - delete heading of Population. The paragraph
would then be under Timing of Public Facilities. Page
24, underline the word implement. (22-0-0)
Page 24 - Growth - (22-0-0)
0 Density (22-0-0)
0 Land Use Classifications (21-0-1)
Residential (22-0-0)
0 Special Treatment Area (22-0-0)
0 Architectural Review (21-1-0)
0 Procedural Recommendation (20-0-2)
Section 3
0 Straw vote to accept Section 3 as it is written.
(13-8-0)
0 A second vote was taken on Section 3, paragraph 1, to
leave only the first, second and last sentence, deleting
the rest of the text in that paragraph. (16-2-4)
COLLATERAL REPORT
0 Recommendations were made for the following changes or
corrections to the report as submitted:
- Attachment #1, page 2, recommendation 3, change to
read "Consideration should be given to establish a
mechanism" .
- Attachment #5 - insert the word "residential" between
"avoid" and "development".
- Straw vote to accept the Collateral Report with the
changes discussed. (22-0-0)
0 A suggestion was made to distribute copies of the
Collateral Report to affected agencies, eg. the school
districts and water districts.
Summary of Saturday Workshop
June 1, 1985
Page Five
Member Prescott moved to change the last word of a previously
passed motion on park standards, from "increased" to
"changed". The motion now reads: "Raise the park standards
from developers to the maximum allowed under state law, 3
acres per 1,000, unless the law is changed".
Adjournment at 2:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
Carlsbad General Plan
BH/ar
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Summary of the Twelfth Committee Meeting - May 20, 1985.
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M.
All members of the Committee were present. Member Courtney
arrived at 6:05; Member Dominguez at 6:15 and Member
Flanagan at 6:19. The alternates were all present. Mr.
Sandy arrived at 6:07 and Mr. McBane at 6:56.
Member Hall moved to accept the summary report of the May 13,
1985 meeting as presented. Second Coyle. Motion passed.
Ayes 22 Noes - 0 - Abstain - 1. (Member Rombotis was
absent at the previous meeting.)
Chairman Gaiser suggested the possibility of having an all day
meeting on Saturday, June 1 to go over the draft of the
Committee's final and collateral reports.
Member Skotnicki moved to reconsider the motion on park design
for future master plans which was adopted on May 13, 1985.
(See page 7, 1(3 of the May 13, 1985 summary report.) Second
Prescott. Motion to reconsider passed. Ayes - 25 - Noes -
0 - Abstain - 0.
Member Skotnicki moved that the Committee reconsider that
motion, to add the word "conceptual". The wording is
changed to read: "The conceptual design of required parks
shall be prepared and submitted as part of the application
for all future master plans in the city". Second Prescott.
Motion passed. Ayes - 25 - Noes - 0 - Abstain - 0.
Member Brownley reviewed the submittal from the "Final Report"
work group. Member Coyle moved the first paragraph of the
work group report dated May 16, 1985 under POLICIES,
deleting the last four words. The motion reads: "Slope
disturbance will not result in substantial damage or
alteration to major significant wildlife habitat". Second
Jackson. Member McDonald moved to amend the motion by
adding: "or significant native vegetation areas which do
not present a fire hazard". Second Harkins.
Vote on the amendment. Motion passed. Ayes - 14 - Noes
- 10 - Abstain - 1.
Summary of Twelfth Committee Meeting
May 20, 1985
Page Two
The original motion by Member Brownley (Second McDonald) to
adopt the three policy statements concerning slope
disturbance, grading and density, (Final Report Work Group
report dated May 9, 1985) which was tabled at the meeting of
May 13, 1985, was withdrawn with consent of the second.
Vote on the motion as amended. Motion passed. Ayes - 18 -
Noes - 5 - Abstain - 2.
Member McDonald moved the following policies:
"Grading for building pads and roadways should be
accomplished in a manner that would maintain the appearance
of natural hillsides.
Density and intensity of development on hillsides should
relate to the slope of the land in order to preserve the
integrity of the hillside."
Second Skotnicki. Motion passed. Ayes - 19 - Noes - 4 -
Abstain - 2.
TIMING OF GROWTH AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
Member Brownley moved the following recommendations:
"A) A yearly report shall be prepared which addresses:
1. The city's performance in complying with the General
Plan.
2. The city's progress in implementing the programs
contained in the Land Use Element.
3. The impact on growth on the goals and policies
contained in the Land Use Element.
B) The Land Use Element shall be comprehensively reviewed
every five years and shall include citizen input."
Second Rombotis.
Member Coyle moved to delete paragraph B. Second Skotnicki.
Vote on the amendment. Motion passed.
Ayes - 25 - Noes - 0 - Abstain - 0.
Vote on original motion as amended. Motion passed.
Ayes - 25 - Noes - 0 - Abstain - 0.
Summary of Twelfth Committee Meeting
May 20, 1985
Page Three
Member Coyle moved the following: "The Land Use Element
Review Committee recognizes the citizens of Carlsbad's
concern regarding the rate, type, and quality of growth
which is occuring today within the city". Second Dominguez.
Member Gallagher moved to amend the motion to include:
"Measures approved by the Land Use Element Review Committee
which will help meet this concern and to some extent
mitigate the condition are agreements reached such as:
1. Request to appoint a seven member Citizens Committee to
continue to study and assess the impacts of growth in
Carlsbad and to keep the citizens informed of the
facts.
2. Revision of the density ranges.
3. Adoption of a definition of open space.
4. Application of a Special Treatment Area for the beach
community."
Second Coyle. Vote on the amendment. Motion passed.
Ayes - 24 - Noes - 1 - Abstain - 0.
Vote on the original motion as amended. Motion passed.
Ayes - 24 - Noes - 1 - Abstain - 0.
Member Hicks spoke regarding the adoption of a motion he
submitted at the May 13, 1985 meeting concerning the affect
of Committee recommendations on land use designations in
adopted master plans. Member Larson moved to reconsider the
motion. Second Caggiano. Motion to reconsider passed.
Ayes - 13 - Noes - 11 - Abstain - 1.
The motion being reconsidered reads:
"Recommendations made to the City Council by the Land Use
Element Committee shall have no affect on any future
requests for discretionary approvals for those lands which
comprise all, or portions of adopted master plans". Member
Larson moved to amend the motion to read: "Recommendations
made to the City Council by the Land Use Element Committee
shall have no affect on the land use designations shown on
Summary of Twelfth Committee Meeting
May 20, 1985
Page Four
adopted master plans. Special attention should be paid by
the City Council to preserve the integrity and intent of the
adopted master plan documents." Second Rombotis. Member
Courtney moved a second amendment, "following the words Land
Use Designation - add or density". Second Coyle.
Vote on the second amendment - Motion failed. Ayes - 10 -
Noes - 14 - Abstain - 1.
Vote on the first amendment - Motion passed. Ayes - 21 -
Noes - 4 - Abstain - 0.
Original motion as amended. Motion passed. Ayes - 21 -
Noes - 4 - Abstain - 0.
Member Courtney moved "That this Committee not consider any
vote for reconsideration unless voted by 2/3 majority".
Second Coyle. Motion passed. Ayes - 15 - Noes - 10
- Abstain - 0.
Member Brownley concluded her report by elaborating on the
Committee's recommendation regarding net vs. gross density
as explained in the Work Group's report dated May 16, 1985.
ALTERNATE INPUT
Mr. De Witt encouraged the Committee to vote in the affirmative
for the motion to be presented by Member Skotnicki, which
would require a four-fifths vote of the Council to amend the
general plan.
PUBLIC INPUT - None.
FINAL REPORT - Cont'd.
Michael Holzmiller reviewed the sample portion of the Final
Report on Agriculture to determine if the Committee members
were satisfied with the format. The proposed report would
be as follows:
First section - Summary of the overall findings and
recommendations of the Committee. Some commentary would be
required. Minority comments would be included where
applicable.
Summary of Twelfth Committee Meeting
May 20, 1985
Page Five
Second Section - Specific recommendations for changes,
additions or deletions to the Land Use Element, with
verbatim wording of the motion. It would also include
overall goals and policies, as well as specific goals and
policies for each issue.
Third Section - Suggestions for reformatting the Land Use
Element, to better organize and simplify the plan.
Suggestions from Committee members included:
- use of different type style when taking verbatim
wording.
- name agency responsible for action in reformatting
process.
show vote on each goal, policy or recommendation.
Member Courtney moved to "Accept the final report format as
presented by the work group with vote tally on verbatim
inserts, with bold face type for verbatim comments". Second
Dominguez. Motion passed. Ayes - 22 - Noes - 1 -
Abstain - 1.
COLLATERAL REPORT
Member Stebelski stated that the Collateral Report will be in
the May 30, 1985 packet.
CONSISTENCY REPORT
Member Hicks reviewed the report from the Consistency Report
work group, dated May 20, 1985.
Committee members spoke in favor of the system of
writing the goal, followed by the policies for that
goal, rather than having all the goals listed in one
section and policies in another.
Member Yoder moved "The city shall hold current resident
citizen interests as paramount". Second Skotnicki. Motion
failed. Ayes - 12 - Noes - 13 - Abstain - 0.
Summary of Twelfth Committee Meeting
May 20, 1985
Page Six
Member Smith moved "It shall be a goal of the Land Use Element
of the General Plan that before any city approvals are given
for the development of land, the city shall have as its
highest priority the promotion of the highest quality of
life for all existing residents. All other priorities are
deemed special and shall be of secondary concern." Second
McDonald. Motion failed. Ayes - 8 - Noes - 17 -
Abstain - 0.
Member Caggiano moved the following goal: "The city shall
establish procedures to manage and control the location and
rate of growth and ensure timely facilities and services to
accomodate approximately 85,000 residents by the year 2000".
Second McDonald. Member Flanagan moved to amend the motion
by deleting the words "location and" change the number
"85,000" to "95,000". Second Rombotis. Motion to amend
failed. Ayes - 7 - Noes - 16 - Abstain - 2.
Member Skotnicki moved a second amendment to the motion "To
reduce the number 85,000 to 70,000". Second Smith.
Vote on the second amendment. Motion failed. Ayes - 4 -
Noes - 19 - Abstain - 2.
Vote on the original motion. Motion failed. Ayes - 11 -
Noes - 14 - Abstain - 0.
Member Andrews moved the following goal: "Manage growth to
ensure the timely provisions of adequate public services and
to preserve the quality of life of the residents". Second
Yoder. Motion passed. Ayes - 19 - Noes - 3 -
Abstain - 2.
Member Skotnicki moved, "The Land Use Element of the General
Plan cannot be amended except by a four-fifths vote of the
City Council". Second Harkins. Motion failed. Ayes - 8 -
Noes - 16 - Abstain - 1.
Member Cool moved, "This Committee recommends that the City
Council direct the Planning Staff to review and make
recommendations to up-date the parking requirements for
future apartment units and to continue with a periodic
review every two years". Second Prescott. Member Jackson
moved an amendment to the motion, "Delete the words 'to
Summary of Twelfth Committee Meeting
May 20, 1985
Page Seven
update1 and insert the words 'for the purpose of
increasing"1. Second McDonald.
Vote on the amendment. Motion passed. Ayes - 23 -
Noes - 0 - Abstain - 2.
Original motion as amended. Motion passed. Ayes - 25 -
Noes - 0 - Abstain - 0.
Member McDonald moved, "That we recommend to the City Council
that the population goal for the City of Carlsbad be 140,000
at build-out based on 2.54 persons per dwelling unit".
Second Skotnicki. Motion failed. Ayes - 9 -
Noes - 14 - Abstain - 2.
Member McDonald moved, "That we recommend to the City Council
to require a submittal of a physical constraint map with an
application for tentative map or master plan. This
requirement may be waived by the Planning Director where
applicable." Second Smith. Motion passed. Ayes - 25 -
Noes - 0 - Abstain - 0.
Member Litten moved, "That the Land Use Element Committee make
the presentations to the Planning Commission and the City
Council. The Committee should determine the format and the
presentation method." Second Prescott. Motion passed.
Ayes - 22 - Noes - 0 - Abstain - 3.
Comments were made that the public be informed of, and
invited to, the presentations before the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Chairman Gaiser reminded the Committee that the packet for the
next meeting will be available on the morning of May 30th.
Those packets not picked up by noon will be delivered to
the homes of the Committee members. The Committee agreed to
meet next, on Saturday June 1st at 8:00 A.M. in the Library
Conference Room.
Member Rombotis moved adjournment at 11:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
Carlsbad General Plan
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Summary of the Eleventh Committee Meeting - May 13, 1985.
The meeting was called to order at 6:05 P.M.
All members of the Committee were present with the exception of
Member Rombotis. Member Hicks arrived at 6:07; Member
Dominguez at 6:08; and Member Courtney at 6:09. The
alternates were all present. Mr. Grazda arrived at 6:06;
Ms. Brown-Bellman at 6:10 and Mr. McBane at 7:10.
Two corrections were made to the summary report of May 6.
1) On page two, 14, the wording is changed to read "Member
Stebelski moved the following goal". 2) Member McDonald
requested that discussion on a growth cap be included under
the Population Projection discussion on page six. Her
comments at the previous meeting included: "To say that the
quality of life is not affected by population is ludicrous.
1/3 of the city is built - at a population of 45,000; 1/3 is
committed - about another 45,000; and the remaining 1/3 of
about 45,000 - for a population of approximately 135,000. I
personally do not have any problem with putting a population
cap on the city of 140,000 considering the limited parking,
natural resources, etc." Member Coyle moved to adopt the
corrected summary report. Second Gallagher. Motion passed.
Ayes -24 - Noes - 0 - Abstain - 0.
Chairman Gaiser reviewed the contents of the packet, then
introduced Ralph Brown, the Special Assistant for Economic
Development from Supervisor Paul Eckert's office. Mr.
Brown presented an award to Margaret Brownley for her
outstanding public service record.
DENSITY RANGES
Member Coyle moved to "Adopt the revised proposal on density
ranges as proposed by Member Litten, dated May 8, 1985."
Second Jackson. Member McDonald amended the motion as
follows: "RM top would be 8 and the RMH beginning will be
8". Second Caggiano. Member Andrews offered a second
amendment - "To reduce the top end of RH from 25 to 23
du's/acre". Second McDonald.
Summary of Eleventh Committee Meeting
May 13, 1985
Page Two
Vote on the second amendment - Motion passed. Ayes - 19 -
Noes - 5 - Abstain - 0.
Vote on the first amendment - Motion failed. Ayes - 8 -
Noes - 16 - Abstain - 0.
Vote on the amended motion - Motion passed. Ayes - 19 -
Noes - 3 - Abstain - 2.
Member Litten moved that "The city should revert to its
adopted policy of requiring landowners to earn the potential
maximum density by meeting certain stated criteria. The
current interim use of the 'mean1 to control density should
be revoked as its use does not offer an incentive to provide
higher quality housing, which is a committee goal." Second
Hall. Motion passed. Ayes - 13 - Noes - 11 - Abstain - 0.
Member Cool moved the adoption of the following statement:
"Compatibility of adjacent land use along the interface of
different density categories shall have highest priority in
reviewing future projects. Special attention shall be given
to buffering and transitional methods, especially, when
reviewing properties where different residential densities
or land uses are involved.
The City Council shall direct the Planning Staff to study
and to point out specific areas of existing incompatibility
to be addressed."
Second Prescott.
Member McDonald moved to amend the motion - "That the
Committee recommend to the City Council that residential
units not exceed twice the density of the adjacent property
without proper mitigation". Second Dominguez. Vote on the
amendment. Motion failed. Ayes - 10 - Noes - 13 -
Abstain - 1.
Vote on the original motion. Motion passed. Ayes - 23 -
Noes - 0 - Abstain - 1.
Member Cool moved "The City Council should enter into
discussions and negotiations with other cities or the county
Summary of Eleventh Committee Meeting
May 13, 1984
Page Three
when prospective developments in their areas, are
incompatible with adjacent Carlsbad areas in regards to
density, type of dwelling or zoning. Attention should be
given to the use of transitional methods to insure
compatibility."
Second Courtney. Motion passed. Ayes - 24 - Noes - 0 -
Abstain - 0.
NET VS. GROSS DENSITY
Member O'Day moved:
" A. The following areas of a residential site cannot be
used to calculate density:
1. Beaches
2. Water Bodies
3. Floodways
4. Slopes greater than 40%
5. Existing public rights-of-way
6. Open space as designated on the open space element
plan.
B. In the interest of preserving certain site features the
following areas of a residential site can be used to
calculate density:
1. Significant wetlands - after this feature is
identified and used for calculating density, the
area will be designated as open space on the open
space element plan.
2. Significant riparian habitat - after this feature is
identified and is used for calculating density, the
area will be designated as open space on the open
space element plan.
3. Major power line easements - only when enhanced and
maintained as a passive green belt corridor. If
density is calculated on this feature this area
cannot be used to meet the open space requirements
of a project."
Second Flanagan. Motion passed. Ayes - 22 - Noes - 2 -
Abstain - 0.
3
Summary of Eleventh Committee Meeting
May 13, 1985
Page Four
Member Hicks moved, "The Land Use Element Committee endorses the
existing Land Use classifications as shown on the current
General Plan". Second Coyle. Motion passed - Ayes - 21 -
Noes - 3 - Abstain - 0.
Member Hicks moved, "Recommendations made to the City Council by
the Land Use Element Committee shall have no affect on any
future requests for discretionary approvals for those lands
which comprise all, or portions of adopted Master Plans".
Second Litten. Motion passed. Ayes - 16 - Noes - 7 -
Abstain - 1.
Member McDonald moved, "That the Committee recommend to the City
Council that a city wide architectural review board be
implemented as part of the building requirements". Second
Dominguez.
Member Caggiano moved to amend the motion by substituting
the word "compatibility" for the word "building" in the
last line. Second McDonald.
Member Gallagher offered a second amendment to the motion
"The principal charge of the Committee is to insure quality
and integrity of design. The second charge is to enhance
the unique character of each neighborhood". Second
Prescott.
Vote on the second amendment - Motion passed. Ayes - 20 -
Noes - 3 - Abstain - 1.
Vote on the first amendment - Motion passed. Ayes - 17 -
Noes - 5 - Abstain - 2.
Original motion as amended - Motion passed. Ayes - 17 -
Noes - 5 - Abstain - 2.
ALTERNATE INPUT
Ms. Brown-Bellman referred to the O'Day work group recommendation
adopted earlier on density credit. She cautioned against
allowing density credit for powerline easements since the right
to use the easement may be rescinded at any time by the power
company with a 30 day notice. The city could, in effect, lose
"open space" gained by this means.
Summary of Eleventh Committee Meeting
May 13, 1985
Page Five
Mr. De Witt spoke of a possible inconsistency in motions adopted
by the Committee. (Specifically the Hicks motion regarding
Master Plans and the previously adopted change in park standards
which would require 3 acres of park land per thousand population,
instead of the current 2.5. He felt the motion on master plans
would eliminate this provision in currently adopted master
plans.)
Mr. Grazda spoke in favor of a Citizens Committee to convene once
every three years to review the Land Use Element; the Committee
to be no more than 15 and no less than 11, consisting of a
stratified mix. (Builders, developers, planners, citizens.)
Mr. Sandy addressed the recommendations in the "final report"
concerning agriculture. He spoke against thinking of agriculture
as anything but an interim use of the land. His second comment
dealt with the Urban Land Use Program, as being an idea whose
time has come and gone. He spoke against a height limit of 30'
vs. 35' for building.
PUBLIC INPUT - None.
Member McDonald moved "That the Committee recommend to the City
Council that a growth-monitoring plan program be
implemented. The responsibility of the program will be to
forecast and monitor growth every three years, and compare
it to the demand of city services. The program will release
property for development only at such time as city services
and quality of life can be REASONABLY maintained." Second
Caggiano. Motion failed. Ayes - 8 - Noes - 16 -
Abstain - 0.
Member McDonald moved "That the Committee recommend to the
City Council that the height restriction be 30 feet."
Motion failed. Ayes - 5 - Noes - 19 - Abstain - 0.
Member Brownley moved "Appoint a citizens' committee of
seven to study and assess the impacts of growth in Carlsbad
and to keep the citizens informed of the facts. In January
of each year, hold a public hearing with the Council based
on an annual staff report containing data on increases in
Summary of Eleventh Committee Meeting
May 13, 1985
Page Six
population, dwelling units, traffic, crime; on availability
and cost of city services including water; on the economic
health of the community and the industrial commercial and
tourist activity. The focus will be on city services and
the quality of life."
Second Prescott. Motion passed. Ayes - 24 - Noes - 0 -
Abstain - 0.
COLLATERAL REPORT
Member Stebelski explained the proposed format of the collateral
report, and responded to questions from the Committee
concerning the report.
FINAL REPORT
Member Brownley spoke on the suggestions and recommendations of
the final report work group.
Member Skotnicki moved "To accept the Final Report work
group's report as presented". Second Yoder.
Member McDonald moved to amend the motion "To exclude the
portion on agriculture". Second Skotnicki. Member Flanagan
moved a second amendment "to pull all remaining items #2-6
for separate consideration". Second Coyle. Vote on second
amendment. Motion passed. Ayes - 15 - Noes - 6 -
Abstain - 1.
Vote on first amendment - Motion passed. Ayes - 20 -
Noes - 1 - Abstain - 3.
Vote on the original motion - Motion passed. Ayes - 16 -
Noes - 5 - Abstain - 2.
Member Brownley further explained the function of the Final
Report work group. The Committee reviewed the report and
voted on the following: Member Harkins moved to adopt the
recommendation of the work group that agriculture not be
considered only an interim use". Second Smith. Motion
passed. Ayes - 12 - Noes - 10 - Abstain - 0.
Summary of Eleventh Committee Meeting
May 13, 1985
Page Seven
Member Larson moved that "The Committee not endorse the
recommendation of the work group report concerning the
flower fields". Second Litten. Motion passed. Ayes - 18
- Noes - 5 - Abstain - 0.
Following discussion, no action was taken on the work
group's recommendation under the Industrial section.
Member Skotnicki moved to adopt the following: "The design
of required parks shall be prepared and submitted as part of
the application for all future master plans in the city".
Second McDonald. Motion passed. Ayes - 19 - Noes - 4 -
Abstain - 0.
Member Dominguez moved that "The design of community parks
be accelerated so that if funding becomes available and can
only be obtained if the design is in place, the city would
be able to qualify". Second McDonald. Motion passed.
Ayes - 23 - Noes - 0 - Abstain - 0.
Member Brownley moved the following goal and policy on
Commercial:
"GOAL
Orient travel service commercial areas along the 1-5
corridor and in the downtown core.
POLICY
Avoid the over-commercialization of the city, particularly,
the downtown core and designated scenic routes." Second
Dominguez. Motion passed. Ayes - 18 - Noes - 4 -
Abstain - 1.
Member Brownley moved that the Committee reconsider a
previous vote that "The City Council shall appoint a
Citizens Conservation Task Force which would develop an
inventory of Carlsbad's unique natural resources and report
back to the Council on measures to preserve and enhance the
resources". Second Andrews. Motion failed (required a two-
thirds vote for reconsideration). Ayes - 15 - Noes - 8 -
Abstain - 0.
Summary of Eleventh Committee Meeting
May 13, 1985
Page Eight
Member Brownley moved the following policy statement:
"Slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or
alteration to major significant wildlife habitat or native
vegetation areas.
Grading for building pads and roadways should be
accomplished in a manner that would maintain the appearance
of natural hillsides.
Density and intensity of development on hillsides should
relate to the slope of the land in order to preserve the
integrity of the hillside."
Second McDonald. Following discussion, the motion was
tabled until the next meeting.
Member Litten moved adjournment at 10:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
Carlsbad General Plan
BH/ar
3
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Summary of the Saturday Workshop, May 11, 1985
The meeting was called to order at 8:02 A.M.
Committee members present were: Chairman Gaiser, Members Smith,
Litten, Jackson, Hicks, Yoder, Brownley, Stebelski, O'Day,
Prescott, Cool, Courtney, Gallagher, Andrews, Coyle, Hall
and Flanagan. Alternates present were De Witt, Grazda and
McBane.
Chairman Gaiser opened the meeting by stating that one of the
main purposes for the Saturday meeting was to discuss some
of the remaining issues.
NET VS. GROSS DENSITY
Member O'Day presented a draft motion which resulted from his
work group's meeting. (O'Day, Hall and McDonald) -
(Attachment #2). "Some assumptions were made that a lot of
these features are desirable and should be preserved. We
should provide some incentive for preserving them. Features
become 'designated' when they are identified, for example,
in a master plan - they are excluded from development, then
when the master plan is approved they become designated as
green space on the open space element.
Both existing and future public rights of way were
discussed. The group felt that the incentive for developers
to build roads was density transfer.
There was a lot of discussion on how powerline easements
could he handled. With the lines radiating out from the
power plant throughout the city, there is an excellent
opportunity to take that open space and enhance it. Provide
some incentive to the developer to put some amenities into
these easements. Give density credit if developed into
passive greenbelt corridor.
The work group also considered two more categories:
1. isolated undevelopable areas - (too hard to identify at
this time). Leave to the discretion of staff to
negotiate.
2. significant vegetation - (very difficult to define).
Also leave to staff to negotiate.
'Designated' wetlands, open space or riparian habitats, are
those which are on the map Xoday. Anything which is found
to be in these categories in the future could be used for
density credit."
Discussion included:
- The way to protect special features which have not been
"designated" is to leave them off of the list/allow
density credits to encourage developer to preserve
them.
Will the specially designated areas that a developer is
required to set aside in the future (e.g, raparian
habitats), be included in the 15% open space?
- Should be same as powerline easement. They should get
their density credit and it should not be a part of the
15%. This would provide double the open space.
- Passive was defined as being the opposite of active. A
green "view area", for walking or a visual corridor.
- Who will maintain passive green spaces?
- Buena Vista Creek and Cannon Lake are not identified as
open space on the open space map, because no project has
yet been approved which encompasses these areas.
- Powerline easements are reviewed on an individual case
basis by SDG&E as to what can be allowed (e.g, plants,
grass, parking).
The city is going to develop one way or another.
Developers will do whatever is necessary to get a
project in. Don't have to give credit for powerline
easements.
If we want to protect sensitive areas, give incentives
to developers.
- Member O'Day said that basically this proposal is a
restatement of what cannot be counted for density
credit. The idea was to get everything in one place.
To clear it up, perhaps another paragraph is needed to
state what the intent was in doing this. It's to
preserve these places, so that once they are identified
on a master plan, they will be placed in the open space
designation.
In response, to questions Mr. Holzmiller stated that if the
Committee wants these areas left as open space, then that
should be so stated under the Open Space section. There is
nothing written right now which states that riparian areas
have to be left as open space/that is negotiated. If the
intent of this is to have these areas definitely preserved,
then that is what it should say. The proposal is not
sending a clear message.
- If we want to preserve these 9 areas, the statement
should read that "density credit may be given".
Put into two categories - (1) Could not be used to
calculate density, such as beaches, designated open
space, slopes greater than 40% and (2) another statement
that they can be calculated for density, "IF" .
Mr. Holzmiller pointed out a potential problem, on the net
vs. gross, for the development community, by including
"designated open space". He cited the Carrillo Ranch Master
Plan as an example. When the master plan was done, it was
determined which areas should be left in open space. Credit
was given in determining the potential maximum number of
units. The open space then was designated and put on the
general plan. If this isn't addressed in the Committee's
definition where it says designated open space, someone
could come in with a project in one of these areas and their
density on their project would be calculated not including
the open space. Where it may have been four units per acre,
by subtracting out the area because it is shown on the
general plan for open space, it may push their potntial
number of units up to a density range which exceeds the
general plan. This could apply on the La Costa Master Plan
and Calavera Hills. A master plan does not vest any rights
for future project approvals. Depending on the wording of
your statement, it could affect approved master plans.
Member Hicks stated that he will bring forward a motion Monday
regarding the status of current master plans and how they
are to be impacted or not be impacted by the recommendations
and suggestions that are made by this committee.
(Attachment # 3).
POPULATION PROJECTIONS/DENSITY RANGES
A question was raised about two submittals in the packet for May
13 on the density ranges. (One from Member Litten and one
from staff).
Mr. Holzmiller stated that the intent was the same - to narrow
the density ranges and lower the mid-point. The only difference
between the alternatives is how you get to that point. Some
zoning requires 2 1/2 acres per lot. That's a special
designation for very unique areas that are desirable to keep in
low density. (Should have the ability to take it down all the
way to 1 or less, or no development at all.) It may be such a
unique area it can't be developed. The entire piece of property
may be more than a 40% slope. In the special designation, maybe
nothing at all should be guaranteed.
A lengthy discussion on density ranges included:
Quality development is a concern.
- Broader ranges give staff more latitude.
The difference in 4-8 or 4-9 du's/acre is basically
product type.
In the 0-4 range the average (or mean) has been coming
in at 3.
- From a legal standpoint 0-1.5 could possibly be
challenged as not affording property rights. (Denies a
person the right to build.) With .1-1.5 this is not the
case.
In the various ranges for RL to RH, the difference in
each range from the minimum to the maximum is as
follows:
Holzmiller - 1.5, 4, 4, 7, 10
Litten - 1, 3, 5, 6, 10
When re-doing the ranges, need to define what they
mean.
- Citizens don't want high density units unless they are
serving a specific purpose.
Carlsbad is basically a single family community. Need
to leave lower ranges and reduce the high density to
23.
By taking out the 20-30 and replacing it with a top
range of 21, the Committee has de facto eliminated an
entire zone in the zone range. The Council would
effectively have to rezone the entire upper bracket.
- In the current ranges and those proposed by staff there
is an overlapping. The high end of one range is shown
as the low end in the next bracket. In Mr. Litten's
proposal, only one range overlaps.
Responsing to the questions raised on this issue Mr. Holzmiller
stated: "If you don't start off at the same point, you are
skipping a density. Theoretically, skipping increases density.
It is guaranteeing something more than is in the plan right
now" .
FINAL REPORT - WORK GROUP
Member Brownley spoke on the twelve suggestions from her work
group which will be brought to the Committee on Monday
night.
Comments included:
- Changing the wording of some of the motions could
possibly change the intent of the motion. Matters that
have been discussed and voted on have taken many
hours/don't think they should be brought up again or the
wording changed.
Close votes that failed could be brought back for
reconsideration.
Following comments from several Committee Members, Mrs.
Brownley stated that her work group will come back on Monday
night pointing out what they are recommending to fill a gap;
taking care of inconsistencies; and attempting to reconcile
close votes.
COLLATERAL REPORT - WORK GROUP
Member Stebelski distributed the report format draft. (Attach-
ment #4.) The full report will come back to the Committee
before it goes to Council for review.
- One additional suggestion for the list is "Project
Coordinator" to expedite and coordinate park program
planning and construction.
- City should take control over schools and water
districts, etc, within its boundaries, so citizens have
one school district and one water district.
Mr. Holzmiller stated that the final report format will consist
of three parts. The first part will be overall findings of the
Committee. The Council charged the Committee with reviewing the
Land Use Plan and seeing if there are any problems. (Summary
findings.) The 2nd part of the report will be the details. It
will go through each heading, showing what was done, motion
approved, etc. The 3rd part will consist of comments on how the
Council should go about incorporating the recommendations into a
Land Use Element revision. This would include some statement
about format, to make the plan more readable. The Chairman may
wish to appoint a work group on formatting.
POPULATION DENSITY
A concern was voiced that the Litten proposal on
density ranges adopted at the May 6 meeting would raise
the population.
Realistically the impact will be on only 1/3 of the
city's growth. 2/3 of that 1/3 is single family. The
impact of the higher ranges becomes minimal.
- One unit in the higher ranges affects much more than
one unit in the lower ranges.
- Need to pick a number to get facilities there.
- The population figure is going to be used as a tool in
guiding the PFF. Every expert who has studied
population has told us you cannot come up with precise
numbers.
- Should work with other cities and the county to get
compatible densities at adjoining boundaries so a low
density project in one city is not impacted by a high
density project on adjoining property in another
jurisdiction.
- It is not enough to just address the public facilities;
must also address the sociological impacts.
- The traffic generated by the people employed in the
industrial park will have a much greater impact on
circulation than the residential development.
- Have to have places for people to live who work here.
Should be in closer proximity to job site.
- Ordinance 2148 allows the building of high density
residential, through a conditional use permit, in the
industrial zone.
ALTERNATE INPUT
Mr. McBane encouraged Member O'Day to make his motion on the PFF.
- The Litten proposal raised the density by .75 in the
RLM. This could increase the population by 12,000
- 15,000 net. This will change the character of
neighborhood (proposal adopted May 6, 1985).
- Increased density does not lower housing cost.
Committee discussion continued.
- The least labor intensive use in the industrial zone is
warehousing.
Member Hicks stated that he will propose a motion on Monday
to endorse the existing Land Use designations in the General
Plan, even though there have been changes in the density
ranges. (Attachment #5).
- Developer costs were discussed. The buyer ultimately
pays the costs.
Member Litten gave an example of actual fees paid by an
individual building a home overlooking the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon - in an established neighborhood/all utilities
and streets in. The fees were:
$2,703 FFF
1,170 School Fees
1,000 Sewer Fee
800 Water Fee
523 Building Permit Fee
339 Plan Check
51 Plumbing Permit
2,500 Fire Hydrant
704 Parks & Recreation
100 Energize Street Light
1,250 Street Light
84 Grading Permit
$11,224 TOTAL FEES
- Member O'Day stated that the fees alone for the average
new house are $8,000 - $10,000.
35% of the cost of a house in the State of California
is due to government regulations.
Meeting adjourned at 12:00 Noon.
Respectfully submitted,
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
Carlsbad General Plan
Attachments #1 - Agenda - May 11, 1985
#2 - Report from work group on density calculations
#3 - Proposal on status of approved master plans
#4 - Collateral Report work group - report format
#5 - Proposed motion on Land Use designation
approval
#6 - Buildout population projections by
Richard Yoder.
BH/ar
8
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Summary of the Tenth Committee Meeting - May 6, 1985
The meeting was called to order at 6:04 P.M.
All members of the Committee were present. Member Smith
arrived at 6:06; Member Dominguez at 6:24; Member Dewhurst
at 7:10. The alternates all were present with the exception
of Mr. De Witt. Ms. Brown-Bellman arrived at 6:09; and Mr.
McBane at 6:45.
Member Litten moved approval of the summary report of April 29
1985, with the correction of a typographical error on page
seven, paragraph four, line two. The line should read
"regarding overall goals". Second Rombotis. Motion passed.
Ayes - 21 - Noes - 0 - Abstain - 1. (Member Andrews was
absent at the previous meeting.)
Chairman Gaiser thanked the staff for the assistance they have
given to the Committee. He then reviewed the contents of
the packet. A copy of the study commissioned by the
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce has been received and will be
available in the office for Committee members to read.
Member Brownley reported on the progress of her work group on
drafting the final report from the Committee. She reviewed
a handout which was distributed to the members, dealing with
content of the report and procedures to be followed. The
review of the work group will include close votes on motions
which both passed and failed. (e.g, 1/3 minority vote) With
a consensus of the work group, a motion may be returned to
the Committee for further consideration, or to possibly
strengthen the language. A straw vote indicated Committee
support of the plan of action.
Member Stebelski reported on her work group which will be
drafting a "supplementary" or "collateral" report dealing
with issues which are not within the scope of the Land Use
Element review. A request for Committee input was
distributed, with a return to be no later than the next
regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, May 13, 1985.
Summary of Tenth Committee Meeting
May 6, 1985
Page 2
DENSITY RANGES
Discussion included:
20-30 du's/acre is a real problem. Would like to see
20-30 completely eliminated. Maintain five categories.
- With current height limits, it is very difficult to plan
a project in the density range of 25-30. To realize the
goal of having a wide range of housing for all income
groups and all special situations, that some allowance
be made. (Senior citizen and student housing.)
- Senior citizen projects have very little impact on the
community/they have few cars/they are generally close to
transportation and shopping. Would like to see an
exception for senior projects and for student housing if
a college campus is established in Carlsbad.
Member Stebelski moved that the Committee endorse the following:
"Provide for a variety of housing types and density ranges
to meet the diverse economic and social requirements of the
citizenry, yet still insure a cohesive urban form with
careful regard for compatibility". Second Prescott. Motion
passed. Ayes - 22 - Noes - 2 - Abstain - 0.
Member Stebelski moved that "The referenced guidelines as
presented in her May 2 memorandum be endorsed as a means to
achieve the stated goal: They are as follows:
1. A major principle in allocating residential land uses is
to provide for a varity of housing types and density
ranges to meet the diverse requirements of the
citizenry, yet still create a cohesive urban form.
2. Retain the present predominance of single-family
residences throughout the community, while providing a
variety of housing types in the communities within the
city, including townhouses, condominiums, apartments,
mobile homes, modular and prefabricated housing.
3. Achieve a variety and choice of housing in all economic
ranges throughout the city.
Summary of Tenth Committee Meeting
May 6, 1985
Page 3
4. Offer safe, helpful, attractive residential areas with a
wide range of housing types, styles and price levels in
a variety of locations.
Second Rombotis. Motion passed. Ayes - 20 - Noes - 4 -
Abstain - 0.
Member Yoder moved, "Achieve quality and well designed
projects by a point system based on conformance with the
residential policies and criteria in the Land Use Element".
Second McDonald. Motion failed. Ayes - 8 - Noes - 15
- Abstain - 1.
Member Prescott moved to "Endorse the density ranges as
proposed in Member Litten's memorandum to the Commitee.
They are as follows:
RL .5 to 1. 5
RLM 1.5 to 4
RM 5 to 9
RMH 10 to 15
RH 16 to 25
A category for senior citizens and other special housing
needs should be established for density above 25 dwelling
units by Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
The current policy of guaranteeing only the minimum density
should be retained." Second Jackson.
Member Larson moved to amend the motion - "The RH density
range shall be changed from 16-25 to 16-21". Second
Andrews. Vote on the amendment. Motion failed. Ayes - 12
- Noes - 13 - Abstain - 0. Vote on the original motion
- Motion passed. Ayes - 15 - Noes - 10 - Abstain - 0.
Member Flanagan left at 7:30 P.M.
SLOPES
Member Litten moved to "Adopt Mr. Gallagher's memorandum of
May 2, 1985 in its entirety, beginning with the word
'Natural1 and ending with 'etc'." The memorandum reads as
follows:
Summary of Tenth Committee Meeting
May 6, 1985
Page 4
Natural slopes in excess of 40% — No development shall be
allowed to occur or density credit available, except as
noted below.
"Natural slopes in excess of 25% and less than 40% shall be
reviewed by Staff on a case by case basis. Development and
grading shall not be allowed to occur if significant impacts
are identified which cannot be mitigated. If grading does
occur, it must be certified as to its stability by a
registered soils engineer. Density credit shall be allowed
on slopes of 40% or less to provide Staff the greatest
flexibility in determining the planning merits of each
application.
Exceptions: 1. Those parcels of less than 10 acres.
2. If the area impacted by the specific slope
category comprises an insignificant
portion of the site.
3. Streets, infrastructure,
safety, etc."
health and
Second Coyle. Motion passed. Ayes - 21 - Noes - 3 -
Abstain - 0.
Discussion on the motion included:
- Oceanside Hillside Ordinance/similarities with the
motion and requirement of developers under the Oceanside
Ordinance. Oceanside requires a constraints map with
slope analysis, all significant vegetation, water
courses, any kind of significant natural feature. Also
geologic information on steeper slopes.
NET VS. GROSS
Member O'Day moved "Residential density will be based on the
exclusion of:
a) Beaches
b) Water Bodies
c) Designated Wetlands
Summary of Tenth Committee Meeting
May 6, 1985
Page 5
d) Floodways
e) Designated Open Space & Currently Designated
Significant Riparian Habitats
f) Existing Public Rights of Way
g) Major Arterials (Existing)
h) Slopes Over 40%."
Second Harkins.
Following lengthy discussion Chairman Gaiser appointed a
work group to study the matter and bring a report back to
the Committee for discussion. Member O'Day was appointed to
chair the group and work with members Hall and McDonald.
Member Larson moved to table the motion until the work group
returns with a report. Second Skotnicki. Motion to table
passed. Ayes - 24 - Noes - 0 - Abstain - 0.
ALTERNATE INPUT
Mr. McBane requested Staff to study the implication of Member
Litten's motion and the affect on the total population.
Member Dominguez moved "That Staff come back next week with
comparative contrasts of density ranges in the Litten
Memorandum with current density ranges and what affect this
would have on population". Second Yoder. Motion passed.
Ayes - 23 - Noes - 1 - Abstain - 0.
Ms. Brown-Bellman spoke in favor of creating a Special
Treatment Area along the beaches and not stop at Carlsbad
Boulevard, but go all the way to the ocean.
PUBLIC INPUT
Richard Yoder spoke on the method of projecting population.
He explained how he had arrived at the calculations he
presented the previous week.
Bob Ladwig addressed the disparity in Mr. Yoder's
calculations and those presented by Staff. The difference
that Mr. Yoder made is the assumption that the ingredients
dealt with in the past are the same as are being dealt with
in the furture. He encouraged the Committee to look at the
quality of life with more emphasis than population.
Population limits are an artificial way to control growth.
Summary of Tenth Committee Meeting
May 6, 1985
Page 6
Annetta Mauch strongly urged the adoption of a Special
Treatment Area in the beach area. She expressed concern
over the information in the packet which proposed that
designation or the creation of a new Redevelopment Area.
CLUSTERING
Member Courtney moved "To endorse the existing policy on
clustering, and to only encourage clustering when it is done
in a way that is compatible with existing, adjacent
development". Second Rombotis. Motion passed. Ayes - 24 -
Noes - 0 - Abstain - 0.
POPULATION PROJECTION
Member Coyle moved "To assist the Public Facilities Program
planning, the city population at buildout should be
approximately 150,000. The population should be monitored
closely and reviewed officially every five years." Second
Jackson. Motion passed. Ayes - 14 - Noes - 10 -
Abstain - 0.
Discussion included:
- Request that Staff return with a report on the
implications of the motion passed on density ranges.
Shoot for a range for the PFF - a realistic goal.
Like the idea of a range - 140,000 to 160,000.
- Increased population affects the quality of life.
- Projections should be reviewed on a much more frequent
basis than they have been in the past. Every three to
five years.
- Speak to a range rather than a specific number.
- Recommend to the Council that staff, by policy, be
directed to strive for lower figure to achieve desirable
level of public facilities.
Summary of Tenth Committee Meeting
May 6, 1985
Page 7
In response to a question Jim Hagaman stated, "The PFF is
based on the number of dwelling units - the standards used
to determine public facilities needs is based on
population. "
Member Yoder moved, "Carlsbad establish a yearly growth rate
not to exceed three times the yearly national growth rate".
Second McDonad. Motion failed. Ayes - 8 - Noes - 16 -
Abstain - 0.
SPECIAL TREATMENT AREA
Member Prescott offered a motion on the Special Treatment Area
which was amended by Member Jackson:
"That this Committee recommend that the beach area, i.e,
that area bounded by the railroad tracks on the east,
Pacific Ocean on the west, city limits on the north, and
Agua Hedionda Lagoon on the south, be designated a Special
Treatment Area and be considered for Redevelopment
assistance; excluding the present Redevelopment Area and
open space zones where they coincide." Second by Cool on
the Prescott motion, by Litten on the Jackson amendment.
The amended motion passed. Ayes - 18 - Noes - 6 -
Abstain - 0.
The Committee voted to hold a special meeting on Saturday,
May 11 from 8 A.M. to 12 Noon. Fifteen members indicated
that they could meet to further discuss unresolved matters.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
Carlsbad General Plan
BH/ar
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Summary of the Ninth Committee Meeting - April 29, 1985
The meeting was called to order at 6:04 P.M.
All members of the Committee were present with the exception
of Member Andrews. The alternates were all present.
Mr. McBane arrived at 6:08.
Two corrections were made to the summary report of April 22,
1985. They were: to include remarks by Member Hicks
"concerning the acceleration of parks - the community
parks issue. I would like it understood that it would
include design. That the design of the community parks
be accelerated so that if funding becomes available and
can only be obtained if the design is in place, the city
would be able to qualify. This can be put into a
summary report to the City Council."
The second correction was in the spelling of the last
name of a member of the public who spoke. The spelling
of the name is corrected to read "Bieri".
Member Rombotis moved approval of the corrected summary
report. Second Coyle. Motion passed. Ayes - 24 - Noes
- 0 - Abstain - 0.
Chairman Gaiser reviewed the contents of the packet. Member
Brownley stated that suggestions would be welcome from
anyone on the committee for the work group she is
heading on format of the final report, and
recommendations. The chairman appointed two additional
work groups. They are: DRAFT "SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT",
headed by Claudia Stebelski - with Bob Caggiano and Jim
Courtney. DRAFT "CONSISTENCY OF OVERALL LAND USE
ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES", headed by Jim Hicks - with
Bob Prescott and Eric Larson.
Chairman Gaiser requested that the committee discuss,
in-depth, the matter before the group in advance of any
motion.
Member Caggiano moved that "The Administrative Coordinator
hereafter record the votes of individual committee
members and that they be shown in the minutes". Second
Skotnicki. Motion failed. Ayes - 10 - Noes - 13
- Abstain - 1.
Summary of Ninth Committee Meeting
April 29, 1985
Page 2
DENSITY/POPULATION
Michael Holzmiller presented a staff report on population
projections. He discussed the three levels of
commitment. (What the city is obligated to in some
level of commitment for population.) There is no way of
telling if all of these units which are approved, and
the estimated population, will in fact occur.
1st LEVEL - Developed, Developing and Final Maps:
estimated 22,134 du's - estimated population 55,335.
(The city has no control over this group, since final
approval has been granted. The projects are already
there, or they are being built now.) The calculations
used to arrive at the population estimate was 2.5
persons per household. No vacancy rate was factored
into the projections.
2nd LEVEL - Tentative Subdivisions Maps and Site
Development Plans: estimated 6,527 du's - estimated
population 16,317. The projects represented in this
level have not been built, but have tentative approval.
Projects may not be built, but the city has no control
over whether they will be built. The developer can,
through obtaining extensions, keep his plan alive for
four years should he wish to do so.
3rd LEVEL - Master Plans: estimated 11,993 du's -
estimated population 29,982. Approved master plans are
less of a commitment than the first two levels, however
the city has given some form of a commitment to the
development of the property. Master Plans have a
maximum potential number of dwelling units. Staff
assumed that 75% of that maximum will be realized. (25%
reduction is a figure normally used in planning. It
takes into consideration constraints on the site.)
At present approximately 1/3 of the city is developed or
under development; 1/3 is covered by tentative maps,
tentative site development plans and master plans; and
approximately 1/3 of the city is totally uncommited.
Based on the above there is a potential 40,654 du's and
Summary of Ninth Committee Meeting
April 29, 1985
Page 3
a potential population of 101,634. The remaining
potential at buildout, in terms of du's (using the mean
density) would be 20,099 with a projected additional
population of 50,247. This would be a grand total of
60,753 du's for a possible maximum population of
151,881.
Many factors will determine the ultimate figures. The
trend is to develop more stringent standards for
projects. Projections have to be looked at from time to
time as factors cause the numbers to change. There
needs to be some sort of periodic monitoring program to
see how the city is moving toward its goal. If it
appears that factors have changed enough to drastically
affect the city's goal, then the city through the Land
Use Element could make some refinements.
NET VS. GROSS DENSITY
Mike Howes presented a staff report on net vs. gross density.
He reviewed various exhibits showing among other things:
undeveloped land in the city, approved tentative tract
maps, open space, riparian habitats, and 40% and 25%
slopes.
Slides were used to illustrate various areas not used to
calculate net density. They include beaches, water
bodies (including lagoons, and lakes), wetlands,
floodplains which are designated open space, and
riparian woodlands which are not presently designated
open space. No density credit is allowed for public
rights of way which have already been dedicated.
Density credit is allowed for streets which have not
been dedicated. Density credit is allowed in power line
easements, even though the property owner cannot develop
within the easement. Credit is also allowed on isolated
undevelopable areas. Significant vegetation (e.g, a
grove of eucalyptus, oak or a stand of chaparral) causes
staff to work with the developer, encouraging him to
cluster his development and preserve and incorporate the
plant life in the project design.
Summary of Ninth Committee Meeting
April 29, 1985
Page 4
Mike Howes showed slides of various slopes.
Theoretically any slope can be built upon if it is mass
graded or through the use of pole structures. Generally
staff and the developers attempt to avoid development of
steep slopes. He referred to Oceanside's hillside
ordinance. The planners from the city of Oceanside feel
that it has been a very effective ordinance. It
requires a constraints map with all projects submitted
for review. This map would show significant vegetation,
rock out-croppings, riparian habitats and slopes.
Carlsbad has no such requirement.
He reviewed the various alternatives presented in the
staff report.
DENSITY RANGES
Discussion included:
The range of 4-10 du/acre does not provide an
adequate buffer between projects of lower densities.
Compatibility is the biggest problem. Possibly
reduce range to 4-8 or 4-7.
Have to identify product type. If you take mid-range
would still give flexibility in the categories.
Possible categories would be 0-1 1/2; 1 1/2 - 5; 5-
10; 10-15; 15-20; 20-25; 25-30 and nothing over 40.
This would still give the planning staff and the
developer the range in which to incorporate todays
product types, with todays market and tomorrows
market.
- The General Plan guarantees the minimum. Why not
change the policy to say the city will only look at a
project if it comes in at the minimum. If the
developer wants anything above that, then staff could
negotiate some trade-offs. The current practice is
to try and achieve the mean.
- Density ranges are what creates the quality you now
see in Carlsbad. Density per se is not bad. The
most significant problem is compatibility, when
mixing densities. Compatibility is the issue.
Summary of Ninth Committee Meeting
April 29, 1985
Page 5
Mr. Holzmiller clarified the point on planning procedures when
considering a project. Only the minimum is guaranteed. There
aren't too many concerns raised as long as the project stays
below the mid-point. When it gets above the mid-point in the
density range, questions are raised regarding the feasibility of
the project.
- Under residential density, the second most frequently
raised point at the public workshops was to provide a
variety of housing types for a range of income
levels.
The high density along the beach is creating a major
problem. Need to attack density in the higher
ranges. Restricting ranges is a good way of dealing
with density. Care must be taken not to restrict
them so much that staff would lose the ability to
negotiate. Bring the mean-points closer together.
Possible ranges could be 0-1 1/2; 1 1/2-4; 5-9; 10-
15, then ranges of 5 or 6 and stop at 25. This would
cut down on the density and the population.
PUBLIC INPUT
Annetta Mauch spoke concerning the unique needs,
problems and conditions of the beach area. She
requested that the committee recommend a special
designation of the beach residential neighborhood as a
SPECIAL TREATMENT AREA with its own special plan for
site development. She spoke of the cumulative impact of
high density projects in the beach area with the
resultant traffic and parking problems. (A copy of the
full text of Ms. Mauch1s prepared statement is included
in the packet of May 6, 1985).
Janice Selby presented some slides of the beach area
and spoke on problems of parking, traffic circulation,
bicycle and pedestrian safety. She requested a design
review board, beach impact plan and a traffic and
parking study of that area.
Summary of Ninth Committee Meeting
April 29, 1985
Page 6
Bill Haughey spoke on the beach area also. He stated
that the beach area is changing. It is in transition
from a neighborhood of single family homes to a dense
urban neighborhood. The area of Carlsbad zoned for high
density consists of only 1.1% of the land area of the
city but most of it is in the beach area. At buildout
this land area will contain 7% of the city's housing
units. He compared height restrictions of La Jolla, Del
Mar and Carlsbad.
Susan Ottman addressed her concerns about retaining
single family homes in the beach area. Also the safety
aspect of children walking to school along Tamarack.
Richard McGaw spoke of the land use at the beach and how
density is impacting the traffic and parking problem.
He urged the creation of a design review committee and
special treatment area.
Richard Yoder issued a plea to consider populations as
one of the most important issues that the committee will
address. It needs to be addressed as a topic in and of
itself. He referred to the Land Use Mix Analysis
published in January, 1984, which contained the
tabulation of the actual attained densities in the
various categories of residential usage. Using his
calculations, Mr. Yoder arrived at a buildout population
of 198,658. He distributed copies of his projections to
the committee.
Steve Bieri stated that his comments should not be taken
in the context toward the beach area, but more toward
the larger white areas on the map - the undeveloped
areas. Issues that have come up are in three major
categories: product type, compatibility and visual.
These can be handled through design review and close
scrutiny of the project. You can have good high density
development and conversely poor low density development.
The real issues are quality, what the city actually
looks like, and the ability to handle the population
that you get -be it 100,000, 150,000 or 160,000.
Residential density does not necessarily impact the
Summary of Ninth Committee Meeting
April 29, 1985
Page 7
traffic. Industrial generates about 4-5 times what
residential does, and commercial even more. There are
four magnets in the city of Carlsbad. They are the
beaches, El Camino Real Shopping Center, Car Country and
the industrial corridor. Carlsbad is as well off today
as it is because of the commercial and industrial areas.
The city should be able to handle its buildout
population when the time comes and artificial limits
should not be used to limit the population based on some
arbitrary number. It should be based on the quality of
life, visual impacts and services.
Allan Kelly spoke on large tracts of land lending
themselves to better development. He requested that no
cap be placed on development. He further asked that the
committee not think of R-l-7,500 as a magic number for
appropriate life style. Clustering of development was
recommended.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Chairman Gaiser asked the committee members to bring up any
unresolved issues on the topics which have been
discussed in all previous meetings, beginning with OPEN
SPACE.
Member Caggiano asked about the informal survey
regarding overall goods which was done by the committee,
with appended comments. Mr. Holzmiller responded that
the survey would be looked at by the work group along
with all the recommendations that have been made by the
committee and see how it affects the Land Use Element
goals and policies. (Those upon which the survey was
based.) That work group would then bring back a
recommendation to the committee for further discussion.
Member Skotnicki requested consideration that the agenda
for the meeting of May 6 include discussion of a SPECIAL
TREATMENT designation for the beach area.
Summary of Ninth Committee Meeting
April 29, 1985
Page 8
Member Yoder moved to "Establish a Citizen Conservation
Committee which would be responsible for conserving and
protecting Carlsbad's natural environment". Second
Dominguez. Motion failed. Ayes - 10 - Noes - 12
- Abstain - 2.
AGRICULTURE - nothing additional
INDUSTRIAL
Member Jackson moved "that the airport area shall be reviewed
on a periodic basis (approximately every five years), to
provide for appropriate general plan designations
consistent with the maintenance of the airport as it
currently is used". Second McDonald. Motion passed.
Ayes - 21 - Noes - 0 - Abstain - 3.
COMMERCIAL - nothing additional
TIMING OF GROWTH AND PUBLIC FACILITIES/URBAN LAND RESERVE
Member O'Day moved "that the last sentence of section 5-c)-2)
on page 15 of the text of the Land Use Element be
reinstated, deleting the words "tax assessment relief"
and inserting in its place "incentive benefits".
The sentence would read, "Contractual provisions could
be utilized whereby the landowner would receive
incentive benefits if his land is included in the
designated Land Reserve Area". Second Rombotis. Motion
passed. Ayes - 23 - Noes - 0 - Abstain - 1.
OPEN SPACE
Member Flanagan moved that "In future development in both
commercial and residential zones, with the exception of
Highway 78 to Chestnut, that the city of Carlsbad
establish a 50' minimum open space setback, from the
curb, along the full length of El Camino Real and not
permit 6' walls within the 50' zone". Second Yoder.
Motion failed. Ayes - 6 - Noes - 17 - Abstain - 1.
8
Summary of Ninth Committee Meeting
April 29, 1985
Page 9
Member Prescott requested that staff develop information on
the disparity in figures between the staff report and
those presented by Mr. Yoder, and that the explanation
be available in the next packet.
Member Rombotis moved adjournment at 10:00 P.M. Second
Skotnicki.
Respectfully submitted,
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
Carlsbad General Plan
BH/ar
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Summary of the Eighth Committee Meeting - April 22, 1985.
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 P.M.
All members of the Committee were present with the exception
of Member Andrews. Member Smith arrived at 6:14, and
Member Dominguez at 6:20. The alternates were all present.
Mr. Grazda arrived at 6:07, Mr. McBane at 6:53 and Ms.
Brown-Bellman at 6:54.
Member Jackson moved to adopt the summary report as presented.
Second Litten. Motion passed. Ayes - 20 - Noes - 0 -
Abstain - 2. (Members Harkins and Rombotis were absent at
the previous meeting.)
Chairman Gaiser reviewed the contents of the packet. Two
additions have been made to the Library.
1. Copy of information from an INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
SEMINAR with emphasis on the Mello - Roos Community
Facilities Act of 1982.
2. Copy of an article from the February, 1985 Scientific
American Magazine - PREDICTING THE NEXT GREAT
EARTHQUAKE IN CALIFORNIA
AGRICULTURE
Member Larson discussed the proposal from the Agriculture work
group, which contains a new goal statement, to replace goal
"C", and five policy statements. The premise is to
encourage agriculture by creating an atmosphere where it
can survive as long as it is viable in the City of
Carlsbad.
Member Prescott moved "that the Committee accept the goals,
policies and recommendations submitted by the Agriculture
work group, dated April 18, 1985." Second Rombotis. Motion
passed - Ayes 17 - Noes - 5 Abstain - 1. (copy attached -
marked Exhibit "A")
Member Caggiano moved "to delete any reference to
agriculture as an interim use wherever appearing. (eg.
page 3 of the Open Space section of the workbook, item 8.)
Second Dominguez. Motion failed - Ayes - 12 - Noes - 12
Abstain - 0.
TIMING OF GROWTH AND PUBLIC FACILITIES/URBAN LAND RESERVE
PROGRAM
Summary of Eighth Committee Meeting
April 22, 1985
Page Two
Discussion included:
- Current Land Use Element provides a good mechanism to
monitor the timing of growth and public facilities.
More emphasis should be stressed on implementation of
the mechanism already in place.
Public facilities have not kept up with growth.
Member Skotnicki moved four goals for timing growth.
They are:
1. Adopt plans to build a city with an ultimate
population of 140,000 in the year 2025 and giving
primary emphasis to enhancing the residential,
beach and open space uses.
2. Achieve a population growth rate of no more than
3.18% per year until buildout in 2025.
3. Achieve at buildout an overall city-wide population
density of 3680 people per square mile.
4. By December, 1986 set in place an Urban Land
Reserve Program supporting population and density
goals and specifically designating the land in each
quadrant of the city's sphere of influence to be
developed during each of the 5-year periods
beginning in 1985 and ending in 2025.
Additionally he moved two policies to support timing of the
goals.
They are:
1. Discourage all annexation beyond the city's outside
periphery and encourage annexation of territory
within the "hole in the doughnut" to meet the time
schedule of the Urban Land Reserve Program.
2. Control the location and rate of growth to ensure
maintenance and preservation of the quality of life
and the provision of public and commercial services
on an economical, timely and efficient basis.
Second Smith. Motion failed - Ayes - 9 - Noes - 14 -
Abstain - 1.
Member Flanagan moved that "Community and neighborhood parks
within a master planned area should be fully developed
before 90% of the residential occupancy permits in the
development area are issued".
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of Eighth Committee Meeting
April 22, 1985
Page Three
Second Brownley. Motion failed - Ayes - 4 - Noes - 16 -
Abstain - 4.
Member Courtney moved to "Recommend that the city implement
the IMPLEMENTATION outlined in the Land Use Element (pg. 15)
with the exception of item 5. - c) - 2) called Urban Land
Reserve, and strike that section since it is no longer
relevant. To include 5 a), b), c) - 1), d) and e)". Second
Rombotis. Member Cool moved to amend the motion to include
5-c) - 2), deleting only the last sentence of 2). Second
Jackson. Amendment passed - Ayes - 23 - Noes - 1 -
Abstain - 0.
Member Prescott moved a second amendment to the Courtney
motion to read, "Council pursue a more rigorous course of
action in implementation of the PFMS". Second Stebelski.
Second amendment failed - Ayes - 10 - Noes - 12 - Abstain -
2.
The original motion by Member Courtney, as amended by
Member Cool, passed - Ayes - 22 - Noes - 2 - Abstain - 0.
Member Me Donald moved the following:
"The Public Facilities Management Program shall be refined
and expanded to insure that all public improvements,
facilities and services are in place in all portions of the
city when they are needed.
The monitoring reports which are provided as part of this
program and which serve as an early warning regarding
public facilities needs shall be more effectively
coordinated with the establishment of the Capital
Improvements Program (CIP)." Second Courtney. Motion
passed - Ayes - 24 - Noes - 0 - Abstain - 0.
Member McDonald moved, "Building permits for residential
purposes in master plans will not be issued unless public
improvement and service standards are met". Second
Dominguez. Motion failed - Ayes - 8 - Noes - 16 -
Abstain - 0.
Public Input
Steve Berry asked the Committee to recognize the difference
in land forms when considering density/net vs.
gross/location of development and density on the
land/slopes, etc. Recognize difference in density already
in place. That any further restrictions be sensitive to
the existing restrictions. Handle the various density
ranges individually.
Summary of Eighth Committee Meeting
April 22, 1985
Page Four
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
PARKS
Chairman Gaiser reviewed the neighborhood park analysis prepared
by staff.
Member Gallagher moved the following:
Community Parks
Recommend that the community park policy currently adopted
and implemented by the City be accelerated if possible.
The City Department of Parks and Recreation will be
responsible for the acquisition, development, management
and maintenance of the community parks system.
Pocket Parks
Require the individual developers of master planned
communities to provide pocket parks and active recreational
facilities unique to each development. Maintenance of
pocket parks shall be accomplished thru home owners
association dues. Pocket parks shall remain in private
ownership.
Neighborhood Parks
A neighborhood park policy be adopted allowing individual
communities within the City to acquire, develop and
maintain a neighborhood park system. The funding for the
system will be accomplished by special assessment districts
approved by the voters within the area of benefit. Where
possible, development shall occur adjacent to school
grounds.
Second Caggiano. Motion passed - Ayes - 20 - Noes - 2 -
Abstain - 2.
Member Flanagan moved "that the city consider housing
density, proximity to schools, general public access, local
resident access, adjacent residential area traffic impacts,
and safe pedestrian access in determining pocket park,
neighborhood park and regional park locations. Wherever
possible these developed sites should be placed in
conjunction with or connected to schools or natural areas".
Second Rombotis. Motion passed - Ayes - 15 - Noes - 6 -
Abstain - 2.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of Eighth Committee Meeting
April 22, 1985
Page Five .
Member Litten moved that "staff should be requested to prepare
a proposed outline of the format of the final report to be
prepared by the Land Use Element Plan Review Committee for
the City Council. The staff report, requested for submittal
at our April 29 meeting, should include all approved goals,
policies and recommendations that have been made by the
committee to date. The report also should include the
proposed format. A weekly updated report should be
submitted weekly thereafter. A three-person work group,
selected by the Chairman shall be appointed to work with
staff. Second Jackson - Motion passed - Ayes - 24 -
Noes - 0 - Abstain - 0.
Chairman Gaiser appointed Member Brownley to head the work
group. The two additional persons are Members Skotnicki
and Rombotis.
OPEN SPACE
Following discussion, staff was asked for information on a
transfer tax for the acquisition of open space and how much
the powers of imminent domain can be used to acquire parks.
PARKS
Member Courtney moved the following:
"That we recommend that the city create a method to
accelerate the development of Special Use Facilities.
(RE:City of Carlsbad, General Plan. Land Use Element.
Page 30, Item 10.) Whenever possible, these facilities
should be located as close as possible to school sites.
Special Use Facilities would include but not be limited
to: Tennis Courts, Swimming Pools, Hard Courts,
(Basketball, Volley Ball, Active Play areas). Turfed
Playing areas, (Football, Soccer, Volley Ball), Softball
and Baseball Fields, and other recreation facilities needed
by the citizens of Carlsbad."
Second Coyle. Motion passed - Ayes - 22 - Noes - 1 -
Abstain - 1.
INDUSTRIAL
Member Dewhurst moved to "Request staff to furnish a report
on impacts in sphere of influence of the Palomar Airport in
relation to the residential areas, based on existing
information". Second Courtney - Motion passed - Ayes -
18 - Noes - 5 - Abstain - 0.
Summary of Eighth Committee Meeting
April 22, 1985
Page Six
COMMERCIAL
Member Courtney moved, "To recommend that the city amend the
General Plan by creating one or more Commercial Zones
within the designated Industrial Zone". Second McDonald.
Motion failed - Ayes - 2 - Noes - 20 - Abstain - 0.
Chairman Gaiser raised the question of having an additional
meeting each week. The Library Conference Room is
available either Friday night or Saturday. A straw vote
was taken. Friday received 8 votes/Saturday 13 votes.
Various Members of the Committee suggested extending the
length of the Monday night meeting.
Member Litten moved adjournment at 9:42 P.M. Second Prescott,
Respectfully submitted,
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
Carlsbad General Plan
BH/ad
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Summary of the Seventh Committee Meeting - April 15, 1985
The meeting was called to order at 6:03 P.M.
All members of the Committee were present with the exception
of Members Harkins and Rombotis. Member Prescott arrived
at 6:10, Member Dominguez at 6:15. The alternates were
present with the exception of Mr. De Witt. Ms. Brown-
Bellman arrived at 6:20, Mr. Me Bane at 6:35.
The following corrections were made to the Summary Report of the
April 8, 1985 meeting. Page 3, lines 18 and 19, add "from
developers". The wording is changed to read "to recommend
raising the park requirement from developers from 2.5 to
3.0 per 1,000 population to the maximum allowed under state
law, 3 acres per 1,000, unless the law is increased". Page
3, line 31, the words size and design are to be corrected
to read sized and designed. The wording of the motion is
to read "delete any reference in the text to the City of
Carlsbad having any responsibility to provide parks or any
other recreational site, sized_ or designecl for regional
use". Member Flanagan moved approval of the Summary Report
as amended. Second Me Donald. Motion passed. Ayes - 21 -
Noes - 0.
Chairman Gaiser reviewed the contents of the packet. He
addressed a memo concerning the method to be used in
subsequent meetings to move through the agenda. An
approximate time limit will be established for each topic.
If it appears that concensus cannot be reached within the
time allotted the topic under discussion is to be assigned
to a work group. This group is to convene and bring back a
report or recommended alternatives to the next meeting for
discussion by the entire Committee.
AGRICULTURE
Member Larson commented on his proposal, dated April 15, 1985,
of a goal and policy statement on agriculture. Following
discussion, Member Skotnicki moved that goal "C" in
the present Land Use Element be deleted and the following
goal inserted: "Conserve the largest possible tracts of
land suitable for agricultural and horticultural purposes
in accordance with the standards of the California Coastal
Act that are now undeveloped in that area lying east of
Interstate Highway 5, between Cannon Road extended, and
Palomar Airport Road and east of El Camino Real along
Palomar Airport Road". Second Brownley. Motion failed.
Ayes - 3 - Noes - 13 - Abstain - 5.
Summary of Seventh Committee Meeting
April 15, 1985
Page Two
Chairman Gaiser appointed a work group on Agriculture, to be
chaired by Eric Larson. The two members of the group are
Bob Caggiano and Bob Prescott. They were asked to come back
to the next meeting with a report.
INDUSTRIAL
Member Jackson moved "A and B as written by Staff in the
Industrial report under Alternatives".
A) Concentrations of new industrial uses shall not be
permitted outside the present boundaries of the
industrial corridor as shown on the land use plan.
B) The existing boundaries of the industrial corridor
along Palomar Airport Road reflect the impact of the
present size and operation of the airport especially as
it relates to residential type uses. Therefore, no
expansion of the boundaries of the airport should be
considered.
Second Me Donald. Motion passed. Ayes - 12 - Noes - 8 -
Abstain - 2.
Questions were raised on the area south of Palomar Airport
Road which is currently designated residential. Certain
sections in this area are designated Non-Residential
Reserve, some are Open Space and south of that
- Residential. There are some approved Master Plans on
areas in question.
COMMERCIAL
Member Courtney moved to "Recommend that the City create an
additional commercial area in the planned industrial zone".
Second Hall. Motion failed. Ayes - 3 - Noes - 18 -
Abstain - 2.
Member Dominguez moved that "The Committee recommend to the
City Council that parking requirements for commercial areas
shall be comprehensively reviewed on a periodic basis (i.e.,
every two years) to ensure adequate parking and to address
identified parking problems". Second Yoder. Motion passed.
Ayes - 21 - Noes - 1 - Astain - 1.
Member O'Day moved to "Recommend that the commercial use
designation be increased in all four quadrants". Second
Courtney. Motion failed. Ayes - 2 - Noes - 19 - Abstain
- 2.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of Seventh Committee Meeting
April 15, 1985
Page Three-
Member Flanagan moved that "The City of Carlsbad study a
reduction in the amount of available commercial permitted
along El Camino Real, such that commercial is not at every
intersection of a major arterial or secondary street."
Second Yoder. Motion failed. Ayes - 8 - Noes - 11
- Abstain - 3.
Member Gallagher moved to "Adopt the goals, policies,
guidelines and statements identified in the Committee
workbook under the 'Commercial1 section, pages 1 - 11".
Second Litten. Motion passed. Ayes - 18 - Noes - 3 -
Abstain - 2.
REDEVELOPMENT
Chris Salomone spoke on the Redevelopment area. Recent changes
in State Law have made expansion of this area, no longer a
feasible alternative. The fiscal rules that govern
dividing up tax increment would not make it economically a
viable option. In lieu of expansion, the idea of creating
additional Redevelopment areas is being explored at this
time. A consultant will be hired to do a major study that
will include looking at other areas for Redevelopment as
well as at the land uses in the present Redevelopment area
including the circulation and parking.
He also addressed the downtown parking problems. Since the
establishment of the Redevelopment Agency in 1981, through
various means, approximately 172 off-street parking spaces
have been created in the area. Additional parking which is
being negotiated by Redevelopment at this time include:
65 spaces on Roosevelt between Elm and Grand
31 spaces just north of the depot
80 new off-street spaces across Grand Avenue from the
Twin Inns (40 for Twin Inns and 40 for the public)
Additionally, the plans are to enforce the two hour parking
limit in the business area.
Member Litten moved that "the Land Use Element Committee
concur with the current City plans to study the
possibilities of expanding the Redevelopment Area and
acquire additional parking areas in the present
Redevelopment and beach area". Second Prescott. Motion
passed. Ayes - 19 - Noes - 3 - Abstain - 1.
Summary of Seventh Committee Meeting
April 15, 1985
Page Four
Member Skotnicki moved that the present goal "B" as listed
in the Land Use Element be deleted. The new goal would read
"Create a pleasing Village-by-the-Sea downtown area designed
to provide the necessary amenities to the permanent
residents of that area, and that will only incidentally
foster the tourist trade". Second Caggiano. Member
Skotnicki amended the motion, with concurrence by the
Second, to read - "Create a pleasing Village-by-the-Sea
downtown area designed to provide the necessary amenities to
the permanent residents of that area". The motion failed.
Ayes - 9 - Noes - 14.
Alternate Input
Ms. Brown-Bellman recommended the following:
- A policy statement from the Committee that the airport
area shall be reviewed on a periodic basis
(approximately every five years), to provide for
appropriate General Plan designations consistent with
the maintenance of the airport as it currently is used.
That future commercial be developed as planned
commercial areas - of ten acres or more - to avoid
strip commercial.
Mr. Me Bane recommended:
- Encourage the creation of a goal which would emphasis
that the highest priority in the planning of the City
shall be to increase the amenities for residents who
now live in the City. Primarily the City should meet
the needs of the current residents; secondarily, meet
the needs of those who come here subsequently.
Mr. Sandy commented on agriculture and environmental issues.
He cautioned the Committee to couch their language
carefully in drafting policies on the environment.
Consider policies which allow some flexibility, but don°t
tie the hands of the Staff.
Public in-put - None.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Member Me Donald moved that "The City shall make the
preservation of the natural habitat of the rivers,
riverbanks, streams, bays, lagoons, estuaries, marshes,
beaches, lakes and shorelines a high priority". Second
Dominguez.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of Seventh Committee Meeting
April 15, 1985
Page Five .
Member Andrews moved amending the motion to add "and develop
specific programs for these area's preservations". Second
Jackson.
Member Brownley moved a second amendment, to add "canyons"
to the original motion. Second Me Donald.
Vote on the second amendment - Ayes - 14 - Noes - 8
- Abstain - 1 .
Vote on the first amendment - Ayes - 16 - Noes - 5 - Abstain
- 2.
Vote on the amended motion - Ayes - 22 - Noes - 1.
Member Yoder moved to "Establish a Citizen Conservation
Commission which would be responsible for conserving and
protecting Carlsbad's natural environment". Second
Dominguez. Motion failed. Ayes - 10 - Noes - 11 - Abstain
- 2.
Member Caggiano moved that the Committee adopt the following
goal: "Protect, conserve and provide public access to
natural resources, fragile ecological areas, unique natural
assets and historically significant features of the
community; preserve and enhance a healthful and
aesthetically pleasing environment". Second Prescott.
Motion passed. Ayes - 23 - Noes - 0.
Member Andrews moved to modify the previous Yoder motion to
establish a Citizen Conservation Commission, by stating that
members should be qualified by training. Second Dominguez.
Motion failed. Ayes - 11 - Noes - 11 - Abstain - 1.
Member Jackson moved adjournment at 9:28 P.M. Second Litten.
Respectfully submitted,
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
Carlsbad General Plan
BH/bn
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Summary of Sixth Committee Meeting - April 8, 1985
The meeting was called to order at 6:03 P.M.
All members of the Committee were present. The alternates
were present with the exception of Ms. Brown-Bellman.
Member Dominguez arrived at 6:07; Member Smith at 6:10;
Alternate McBane at 6:25; and Member Flanagan at 6:26.
Member McDonald moved approval of the Summary Report of the
April 1, 1985 meeting. Second Rombotis. Motion passed -
Ayes - 23 - Noes - 0 - Abstain - 2. (The Chairman and
Member Harkins abstained since they were absent for all or
part of the previous meeting.)
OPEN SPACE
Discussion was held on the additional staff report on open
space. Member McDonald moved adoption of the statement
- "Consideration shall be given in all future master plans
for addressing all four categories of open space". Second
Skotnicki. Following discussion, Member Jackson moved to
amend the language to read, "In all future master plans, all
four categories of open space must be addressed". Second
Courtney. (Vote on the amendment). Motion passed - Ayes -
25 - Noes - 0. The original motion and second were
withdrawn. Member Jackson moved the amendment as the
motion. Second Skotnicki. Motion passed - Ayes - 25 -
Noes - 0.
Member Courtney moved that the Committee approve the adequacy of
designated open space. Second Rombotis. Motion passed -
Ayes - 18 - Noes - 7.
Discussion included:
- the possibility of increasing the amount of open space
in the master plans.
under the existing general plan, plus action by the
Committee, open space would be approximately 38% in the
general plan sphere of influence area.
Member Caggiano moved that the seven items on open space
included in his March 25, 1985 memorandum to the Committee
be put to a vote. Second McDonald.
Summary of Sixth Committee Meeting
April 8, 1985
Page Two
#1 - Member Larson moved that a policy statement be added to
the Land Use Element that, "Future urban development shall
be prohibited from designated open space areas". Second
Dominguez. Motion passed. Ayes - 24 - Noes - 1.
#2 - Member Larson moved that, "The city shall ensure public
access and maintenance of those accesses to lagoons and
beaches". Second Dominguez. Motion passed -
Ayes - 23 - Noes - 2.
#3 - Member Jackson moved that, "The city shall encourage
maximum parking accomodations to enhance the use of beach
areas". Second Harkins. Motion passed - Ayes - 24 -
Noes - 1.
#4 - Withdrawn.
#5 - Member Caggiano moved a policy statement. "It is the
city's policy to require a minimum of 20% of Improved
Recreational (passive) and/or aesthetic open space in all
subdivisions. Second McDonald. Motion failed - Ayes - 3
- Noes - 22.
#6 - Member Smith moved adoption of the policy statement.
"The city shall ensure preservation of the open space
nature of its hills and ridgelines." Second McDonald.
Motion failed - Ayes - 9 - Noes - 16.
#7 - Deleted.
Further discussion on open space included:
- alternatives for obtaining open space, including
acquisition in fee and negotiated open space.
requiring 50 ft. setbacks along El Camino Real from
one end to the other.
Member Dominguez moved that "The amount of open space
provided in future master plans be increased from the
existing 15% to 20%." Second Skotnicki. Motion failed.
Ayes - 9 - Noes - 16.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of Sixth Committee Meeting
April 8, 1985
Page Three
PARKS
Chairman Gaiser reviewed the agreements reached on Parks issues
at the previous meeting. They were:
1. Parks needed sooner.
2. More usable parks.
3. Neighborhood parks needed.
Discussion included:
- possibility of having parks and/or areas for active
recreation in the Industrial area.
the Planning Commission has made a recommendation to the
City Council that the ordinance for Industrial and
Commercial areas be amended to require outdoor eating
areas for employees.
Member Hall moved as a policy statement that "In future
regional, community and neighborhood parks, there should be
an emphasis placed on active uses in their design". Second
Harkins. Motion passed. Ayes - 12 - Noes - 7 - Abstain - 4
(two members apparently did not vote.)
Member McDonald moved "to recommend raising the park
standards from 2.5 to 3.0 acres per 1,000 population".
Second Flanagan. Member Courtney moved amending the motion
to include "to the maximum allowed under state law, 3 acres
per 1,000, unless the law is increased". Second McDonald.
Motion passed - Ayes - 18 - Noes - 7. The amended motion
passed - Ayes - 18 - Noes - 7.
Under discussion, the City can take dedication or park-in-
lieu fees. With the increased requirement, the city would
get larger fees, not necessarily larger parks than are
already designated.
Member Skotnicki moved to "Delete any reference in the text
to the City of Carlsbad having any responsibility to provide
parks or any other recreational site, size or design for
regional use". Second Larson. Motion failed - Ayes - 6 -
Noes - 16 - Abstain - 3.
I
Summary of Sixth Committee Meeting •
April 8, 1985 "
Page Four
PUBLIC INPUT - None. •
The Committee discussed thhe possibility of moving the public
input time to the early part of the agenda. The Chairman •
read the portion of item 5 under Procedural Guidelines which •
states: "During the last half hour of each meeting the ~
public will be invited to make brief statements which may be
scheduled for future discussion." Public input is to I
remain as it is on the agenda - at 8:30 P.M. •
Parks discussion continued. •
Member Flanagan moved that the "staff study and bring back
recommendations on locations of neighborhood parks, or lack _
of, in primary residential areas". Second Rombotis. Motion I
passed. Ayes - 24 - Noes - 1. ™
AGRICULTURE •
Tom Hageman, of Research and Analysis, responded to questions
concerning: •
The LESA Program. (A Council appointed group in the
City of Vista which is studying areas which might be
suitable for agricultural uses.) •
- Local Coastal Program - definition of "in perpetuity"
changed from "forever" to "as long as feasible". With
the change in definition it is possible to come up with
some different approach to agricultural preservation
than the LCP states currently. The concept is to allow «
for mitigation of agricultural conversion through the •
payment of a fee. Paying into a fund which would ™
generate about $10 million. The city would then be in a
position to buy at market value those lands which the •
city felt could be maintained for the longest possible V
time/that were in the best location/etc., to be able to
maintain agriculture for as long as feasible. •
For the use of these funds there are three criteria that the
funds might be used for: _
1. Outright purchase of the land. *
2. Improvements fund - (agricultural loan or agricultural
improvements). H
3. Enhance other coastal resources such as lagoons.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of- Sixth Committee Meeting
April 8, 1985
Page Five
Property owners who wish to have their property placed
in an agricultural reserve under the Williamson Act
agree to do so under a ten year contract agreement.
This reduces the property tax liability.
Member Dominguez left at 9:03.
Member Skotnicki moved, "To establish a city-wide assessment
district to purchase all or part of rights to the flower
fields east of 1-5 to the first ridgeline between Cannon
Road and Palomar Airport Road". Second O'Day. Motion
failed - Ayes - 4 - Noes - 10 - Abstain - 10.
Member Larson moved that, "The city attempt to preserve the
flower fields or lands east of 1-5 to the first ridgeline
between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road, through
whatever method created and most advantageous to the City of
Carlsbad." Second Jackson. Motion passed. Ayes - 17
- Noes - 5 - Abstain - 2 .
Member Rombotis moved adjournment at 9:30. Second Skotnicki.
Respectfully submitted,
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
Carlsbad General Plan
BH/ar
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Summary of Fifth Committee Meeting - April 1, 1985
All members of the Committee were present with the exception of
Chairman Gaiser. The alternates were all present with the
exception of Mr. McBane. Member Dominguez arrived at
approximately 6:45. Member Harkins left the meeting at
approximately 6:45, due to illness.
In the absence of Mr. Gaiser, Vice Chairman Larson conducted
the meeting.
Member Rombotis moved approval of the Summary Report of the
March 25, 1985 meeting. Second Prescott. Motion passed.
Ayes - 23 - Noes - 0.
Vice Chairman Larson reviewed the two definitions of open space
submitted by members of the Committee. Following
discussion Member Jackson moved the definition of open
space shown on "Attachment 2" with changes outlined by
Member Litten (copy attached). Second Harkins. Motion
passed. Ayes - 23 - Noes - 0.
Member Courtney moved that staff be asked to re-compute the
projected open space based on adoption of "Attachment 2" as
the definition of open space. Second Rombotis. Motion
passed. Ayes - 23 - Noes - 0. When staff brings back new
computations, the Committee will consider the question of
adequacy of open space.
A discussion ensued on steep slopes. A staff report will be
forthcoming on this subject when the Committee considers
residential density. The Committee deferred making any
recommendations until they have had an opportunity to
review the report.
The Committee discussed parks. Questions and comments included:
How long it takes to bring a park on-line once the site
has been designated. (Factors include financing, how
the land was acquired, and access to the site.)
- It would be desirable to have developers put in parks
as they develop their projects. City should encourage
turn-key parks. (Possibly trade off a small portion of
the area designated as a park site for the developer
doing the work.)
Summary of Fifth Committee Meeting
April 1, 1985
Page Two
Member Courtney moved to adopt statement number 1 under
paragraph III in the staff report on parks. Second
Brownley. Following discussion, Member Coyle moved to
amend the motion by changing the word "mechanism" to
"policy". Second Jackson. The motion reads - "Establish a
policy where large, master plan developers are required to
provide community parks up-front or at an earlier point in
time so that they are available when they are needed".
Motion passed. Ayes - 23 - Noes - 0.
Member Dominguez moved adoption of statement 2 under paragraph
III in the staff report on parks, with the addition of the
following language after maintenance district, "because
they are creating the need". Second Hall. Motion failed -
Ayes - 9 - Noes - 14.
Member Courtney moved that the city is providing for sufficient
usable parks in the community park plan. Second Coyle.
Motion passed - Ayes - 12 - Noes - 11.
Member Prescott moved adoption of a policy statement (under
Paragraph III in the staff report on parks) as follows:
"Encourage developers to provide smaller, active
recreational areas (parks) in developments including
standard single family subdivisions. These smaller parks
would be maintained by a homeowners association or through
a property owners tax maintenance district". Motion passed
- Ayes - 22 - Noes - 1.
Member Courtney moved that the city develop more special use
recreation areas designed for sports, as a supplement to
the community parks system. Second Flanagan. Following
discussion, the motion failed. Ayes - 8 - Noes - 13 -
Abstain - 2.
Public in-put:
Allan Kelly requested that the public be allowed to offer
their in-put prior to the committee making a decision on an
issue.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of Fifth Committee Meeting
April 1, 1985
Page Three
Pete Mackoff - General Manager for Carlsbad Farms (Ukegawa)
4218 Skyline Road, Carlsbad - spoke on the preservation of
agricultural land. He stated, "you cannot legislate
agricultural activity". The policy should be to encourage
agriculture so long as it is economically viable. "Identify
those areas where the resources are the best. The Coastal
Commission has adopted an agricultural preservation program
which is backwards to what it should be from a resource
standpoint. It has created an artificial program that would
hold in agriculture vast areas of marginal land and is
allowing development on desirable farm land." He encouraged
creating incentives to get property owners to allow
development of their land for agricultural purposes.
Tom Escher, County of San Diego, Department of Agriculture
spoke of the LESA Committee as set up in Vista. He
recommended that a member of the planning staff be assigned
to work with the LESA group to address mutual problems. He
further advocated the use of reclaimed water for farming.
Desirable areas in Carlsbad which are agriculturally
suitable and buffered from adjoining uses are along
Palomar Airport Road to the raceway; north shore of the
Batiquitos Lagoon; Green Valley; behind Car Country; and
behind Alta Mira.
Public in-put closed.
Discussion continued on parks. The present standard for
Carlsbad is 5 acres per 1,000 population. Dave Bradstreet,
Director of Parks and Recreation stated that at buildout,
including lagoons and beaches, Carlsbad would have approx-
imately 14 acres per 1,000 population. The breakdown is as
follows: Mini parks - 6 acres; neighborhood parks - 73
acres; community parks - 320 acres; special use areas - 80
acres; special resource areas - 642 acre (Macario/Hub/
Carrillo); beaches and lagoons - 1,053 acres; open space
(San Marcos Canyon/Larwin) 336 acres. Grand total - 2,510
acres, or 10% of land area of Carlsbad. Member Flanagan
moved that the rough report be typed and provided in next
week's packet {Attachment 3). Second Rombotis. Motion
passed - Ayes - 23 - Noes - 0.
Member Skotnicki moved adjournment. Second Litten.
Respectfully submitted,
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
Carlsbad General Plan
BH/ar
Attachment 2
ATTACHMENT 2
DEFINITION OF OPEN SPACE
"Open-space land" is any designated parcel of land or water which
is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open space use as
defined below:
1. Open space for the preservation of natural resources
including, but not limited to:
a. areas required for the preservation of plant and animal
life, including habitat for fish and wildlife species;
b. areas required for ecologic and other scientific study
purposes;
c. rivers, streams, bays, lagoons and estuaries;
d. coastal beaches, lakeshores, banks of rivers and
streams, and watershed islands.
2. Open space used for the managed production of resources,
including but not limited to:
a. forest lands, rangeland, agricultural and horticultural
lands;
b. areas required for recharge of ground water basins;
c. bays, estuaries, marshes, rivers and streams which are
important for the management of commercial fisheries;
d. areas containing major mineral deposits, including those
in short supply.
3. Open space for outdoor recreation, including but not limited
to:
a. areas of outstanding scenic, historic and cultural
value;
I
b. areas particularly suited for school playgrounds, park
I and recreation purposes, including access to lakeshores,
beaches, lagoons, rivers and streams;
I c. areas which serve as links between major recreation and
• open space reservations, including utility easements,
banks of rivers and streams, trails, scenic highway and
I railway corridors.
d. areas which buffer between land uses and separation from
| surrounding communities.
m 4. Open space for public health and safety, including but not
limited to:
• a. areas which require special management or regulations
because of hazardous or special conditions such as
| safety zones in the vicinity of airports, earthquake
_ fault zones, steep slopes, unstable soil areas,
flood plains, watersheds;
I b. areas presenting high fire risks;
c. areas required for the protection of water quality and
| water reservoirs;
_ d. areas required for the protection and enhancement of air
• quality.
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT 3
April 2, 1985
TO: LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
FROM: Parks & Recreation Director
GENERAL PLAN INFORMATION (PARKS)
The following information regarding ratio of acres per population is forwarded
for your consideration.
A. City-owned or leased current developed sites based on 42,000 population:
Classification Acres
Mini 6
Neighborhood 73
Community *45
Special Use Area 47
Miscellaneous Landscaped Areas 38
Total 209
Ratio 5 acres/1,000 based on 42,000 population.
*Scheduled for development 85-86.
B. City-owned or leased all areas:
Classification Acres
All Landscaped areas from "A" 209
Special Resource Areas 642
Other Special Resource Areas 1053
Identified Open Space dedicated
to City to date 78
Total 1983
Ratio 47 acres/1,000 based on 42,000 population.
C. All sites City-owned or leased at build-out based on 160,000 population:
Classification Acres
Mini 6
Neighborhood 73
Community 320
Special Use Areas 80
Special Resource Areas 642
Other Special Resource Areas 1053
Open Space Areas 336
Total 2510
Ratio 15.6/1,000 based on 160,000 population.
(10% of all land within Carlsbad city limits.)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Land Use Planning Manager
April 2, 1985
Page 2
KEY
Classification
Mini
Neighborhood
Community
Special Resource Areas
Special Use Areas
Other Special Resource Areas
Open Space Areas
DAVID BRADSTREET
kaw
c: City Manager
Example
Small one to two acre sites,
(Pio Pico, Maxton Brown, Rotary)
Areas three to ten acres,
(Holiday, La Costa Canyon, Magee)
Larger areas 20-50 acres,
(Stagecoach, Calavera Hills,
Alga Norte)
Local amenities that have City
or potential regional signifi-
cance, (Macario, Carrillo, Lake
Calavera, HUB)
Small areas that have one to two
use functions, (Swim Complex,
school facilities, Chase,
Pine Fields)
Unique recreation areas, (beaches
and lagoons)
Undeveloped dedicated land owned
by City, (San Marcos Canyon,
Larwin, Levante Canyon, etc.)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Summary of Fourth Committee Meeting - March 25, 1985
All Committee Members and alternates were present.
Member Rombotis moved approval of the Summary Report of the
March 18, 1985 meeting with correction of one word on page
three, line 17. The statement is corrected to read
"Chairman Gaiser reviewed the overall charge to the
committee". Second Courtney. Motion passed - Ayes - 25 -
Noes - 0.
Jim Hagaman, Manager of Research and Analysis Group gave a
presentation on the Public Facilities Management System
(PFMS). Covered under his report were the Public Facilities
Element of the General Plan; Land Use Element - Growth
Monitoring Plan; City Council Policy #17; Sedway/Cooke -
Growth Management Report annd Public Facilities Fee (PFF).
Copies of material provided to the Committee were: The
Development of the Public Facilities Management System,
March 18, 1985; and the Public Facilities Management System
brochure WHY PLAN AHEAD?
Chairman Gaiser introduced the topic of Open Space.
Each community can develop its own type of open space. The
committee must decide what is desirable for Carlsbad, what
it wants open space to accomplish. Discussion included:
The plan presently calls for 26% open space in the city,
which includes lagoons and beaches.
- With all power line easements, etc., at buildout open
space could be 35-40%.
Member Rombotis moved that "any information to be distributed
to the Committee be in to staff by Thursday noon for
inclusion in the packet". Second Coyle. Motion passed -
Ayes - 18 Noes - 7.
Member Larson moved "that the Committee adopt a resolution
stating there is not adequate open space designated areas
in the Land Use Plan". Second McDonald. Motion failed -
Ayes - 12 - Noes - 13.
Member Courtney moved "that the Committee go back to the
original charge, adopt policy under page 8 of the Text of
the Land Use Element - item J. Endorse and proceed".
Second Prescott. Motion failed - Ayes - 3 Noes - 20
Abstain - 2.
Summary of Fourth Committee Meeting
March 25, 1985
Page Two
Member Harkins recommended that the Committee take a straw vote
of the individual goals, policies, guidelines, statements
listed under the open space heading of the workbook. The
majority of the committee agreed with numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 15. Majority opposed number 10.
Number 11 was skipped. Number 14 is no longer appropriate.
(Under the text of the Land Use Element delete 14d only on
page 33.) Number 16 - add San Marcos Canyon and the coast
highway (old Highway 101/Carlsbad Boulevard).
Respectfully submitted,
4^fri^_/ H *-<yu-^/
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
General Plan Committee
BH/ar
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Summary of Third Committee Meeting - March 18, 1985
All members of the committee were present.
The alternates were present with the exception of
Mr. De Witt.
Member Prescott moved approval of the Summary Report of the
February 18, 1985 meeting. Second by Member Litten.
Motion passed Ayes 25 - Noes 0.
Chairman Gaiser commented on the public input workshops.
Information in the packet from the workshops provides
complete detail - (verbatim transcription) from the flip
charts at the four meetings.
Robin Reid, who served as the facilitator for each of the four
public workshops gave his observations and an overview. He
summarized these key points and themes.
- turn out above average
key points - FUTURE GROWTH -
1. Future city growth and land use density most
heatedly discussed.
2. Opinions ranging from - stop growth now - to let
grow at natural rate.
3. Look at keeping controls.
4. Wide range of opinion on population numbers.
5. Questions on what is already approved.
6. Types of housing - ranging from "high end" - to
good mix.
7. Quality, and keep controls.
LAND USE DENSITY
1. Look at compatibility
2. Look at density ranges (expand or widen)
3. 4 du/acre
4. How is density calculated? Land Use Element
Committee look at how density is calculated.
AGRICULTURAL
1. Maintain
COMMERCIAL
1. Less of wide range in discussion
2. Types/location/cluster vs. strip/not enough in some
locations.
3. Motels/parking/circulation
Summary of Third Committee Meeting
March 18, 1985
Page Two
INDUSTRIAL
1. Most generally accepted.
2. Maintain current quality
3. Liked location
4. No airport expansion.
OPEN SPACE
1. More/more parks/preserve
2. Parks/better timing/fewer regional/more
neighborhood.
3. Interlink
4. Are lagoons open space?
5. Preserve/protect lagoons
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
1. Beaches/parking/save beaches
PUBLIC FACILITIES
1. Timing/coming in before, or concurrent with
development. Not lagging behind.
Chairman Gaiser asked each committee member to give their
observations. They included:
- land use planning basically alright
need more open space/visible and usable
- reduce or maintain current density
- preserve agriculture
people concerned about city as a whole - rather than
regionalized concerns.
- population number at buildout
timing of facilities/concurrent or before development.
people not against development if it is
good/controlled/follows theme.
general confusion or misunderstanding of "open space",
"density", "clustering".
save natural features / have access
architectural review board
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of"Third Committee Meeting
March 18, 1985
Page Three
height limitations
net vs. gross (how density is calculated)
need for low cost housing
keep Carlsbad from running "city to city"
no strip commercial
curfew on airport noise
address downtown, including parking
quality in-fill projects
citizens presented shopping list/more parking, streets,
water, public facilities. No one asked who will pay.
master plans
will there be enough water for future growth.
need for more public education. Continue
workshops/mechanisms of general plan and how
implemented. Have public education meetings at least
twice a year.
Chairman Gaiser reviewed the overall change to the committee,
and the goals and policies of the existing Land Use
Element. The Committee's goal is to review the Plan to see
if it needs to be modified or changed.
Discussion and questions included the following:
- Do policies on pages 6 and 7 of the existing Land Use
Element represent a complete list of policies?
Agriculture not stated. Are there others?
- Goals are general statements. Staff can do nothing
without policies to implement goals.
Staff indicated that they would research and return with an
analysis of whether there are any other policies that city
has which effect the policies on pages 6 and 7.
Chairman Gaiser opened the discussion on procedures and format
for future Committee meetings. He suggested the possibility
of categorizing topics into five areas having subcommittees
deal with, and report back to the entire committee for
discussion. (Exhibit A - attached - was distributed).
Following debate, Member Jackson moved "that committee act as a
whole on the topics as listed". Second by Member Coyle.
Vote 22 ayes - 3 noes.
Summary of"Third Committee Meeting
March 18, 1985
Page Four
Additional comments included:
Must follow a very structural agenda in order to reach
May 20th deadline. Each member must be prepared to
discuss only what is on the agenda.
It is incumbent on everyone to be informed.
Member Courtney moved prioritizing item on Exhibit A.
Second Member Dewhurst. Discussion on the motion included:
There should be some assurance that items brought up at
the four public workshops will be synthesized and
incorporated into the discussions, and items which are
not within the purview of the committee, be passed on to
administration.
- Should be able to add or delete items. Motion passed -
Ayes - 24 - Noes - 1.
Member Smith moved that population and density be addressed
last on the agenda. Second Member Prescott. Motion passed
- Ayes - 15 - Noes -10.
Member Prescott moved that Exhibit A be referred to staff
for synthesis and determination of specific issues and be
returned as an agenda item on next Monday1s meeting - March
25th. Second Member Brownley. Discussion on the motion
included:
- Use public input and compare with what's in place.
- Committee can synthesize as well as staff.
Motion failed - Ayes 7 - Noes - 18.
Member Rombotis moved that priority be established by
starting with "parks" as #1 and proceeding numerically to
bottom of page, making population and density last. Second
by Member O'Day. Motion passed - Ayes - 25 - Noes 0.
The presentation on the Public Facilities Management System
and Economic Factors of Growth will be postponed until a
future meeting.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of"Third Committee Meeting
March 18, 1985
Page Five
Chairman Gaiser opened the discussion on the letter from Member
Caggiano concerning seating the alternates. (For all
meetings/actions, except voting rights.)
Following discussion Member Caggiano moved that the
Alternate Members be seated along with the regular Committee
in all functions of the Committee except voting rights.
Second Member Skotnicki . Motion failed - Ayes - 6 - Noes -
19.
8:30 P.M. - Meeting opened for input from Alternates and public.
Dr. Nora La Corte, 2507 La Golondrina, Carlsbad, expressed
view that traffic, water and air quality have a direct
bearing on land use. Feels that purview of the Committee is
not as narrow as is perceived.
Public input closed.
The Committee discussed various concerns on items to be
covered at the next meeting. Included were:
- Definitions of open space. Include parks, beaches,
agriculture?
- Grades of steep slopes.
- Park standards.
Role of staff is to implement policies in the Land Use Plan.
If issue comes up, staff will come back and tell Committee
what is being done right now (what the programs are) and
alternatives if there is an issue.
Member Brownley moved that staff be asked to present orally, or
in writing, the problems they forsee on agenda items and
alternatives for solutions. Second by Member Cool.
Following discussion, Motion passed - Ayes - 23 -
Noes - 2.
Next regular meeting, Monday, March 25, 1985 in the Library
Conference Room.
Respectfully submitted,
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
Carlsbad General Plan
BH/ar
EXHIBIT "A"
A. Population
Density
B. Parks
Open Space
Agricultural
C. Industrial (Airport)
Commercial
Downtown (Special Treatment Areas)
D. Beach
Environmental Protection
E. Timing of Growth and Public Facilities
Urban Land Reserve Program
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Summary of Second Committee Meeting - February 18, 1985
All members of the committee were present, with the exception
of Members Harkins and Hicks. The alternates were present
with the exception of Mr. De Witt.
Chairman Gaiser clarified the following:
- The last name of each speaker is needed for the record,
since the proceedings are being taped. The Chair will
recognize speakers.
The Chair will recognize maker of a motion and the
person seconding a motion. All votes will be done by
hand count, to obtain a more accurate recording of the
votes.
- Alternates will have an opportunity to raise questions
and offer input during the last 30 minutes of each
regular meeting immediately preceeding the public input.
First regular meeting is March 18.
- Absence from regular meetings will be counted against
members, however, there are six functions members are
not required to attend, but are encouraged to do so.
These are: the bus tour on February 23; showing of the
slide presentation February 26; and the four general
public input workshops on March 4, 7, 11 and 14.
- Committee members are reminded to pick up packets each
Friday P.M., prior to the next regular meeting.
Member Litten moved approval of the summary report of
February 11, 1985 meeting. Seconded by Member Prescott.
Unanimous vote.
Catherine Nicholas elaborated on Section VII of the workbook -
Commercial/Office, reviewing the commercial land use
classifications, and professional and related commercial.
Commercial land uses interrelate to one another.
Mike Howes reviewed Chapter VHI/Industrial. Under the existing
general plan the city has a potential for 2,900 acres of
Industrial or Industrial/Office. 47% of this land does not
have a tentative map approval on it.
The general plan designated approximately 4,000 acres of
land as non-residential reserve in 1974. Approximately 450
acres remain in 1985. The majority of this land has been
converted to Industrial or Industrial/Office. A large
parcel was designated open space to provide for Macario
Canyon Park.
Summary of Second Committee Meeting
February 18, 1985
Page Two
Paul Klukas provided a staff report on the Open Space and Parks
and Recreation Eleinent. The city recently revised the Parks
and Recreation Element. The Land Use Element identifies
areas to be preserved as open space. Special resource areas
are listed on page 2. The three levels of open space
identified under no. 3 on page 3 were reviewed. 70% of the
city is either master plan or designated master plan. City
zoning, requires a minimum of 15% of a master plan area to
be designated as open space.
Park maps shown in Chapter 9 are not totally accurate. Map
in Chapter 12 is more accurate. Plans propose six community
parks at designated points throughout the city; one regional
park, mid city; and joint use agreements with schools.
Some issues about. Open Space that, the Committee may
want to discuss:
- the Land Use Element states that the City should
encourage cluster housing to provide adequate
open space around developments.
- the Land Use Element states that the City should
allow "density transfer" incentives.
— it is city policy not to use general plan open
space acreage to compute density, but. if not
designated open space in the general plan, it
can be used to compute density. (General
plan open space makes up about 25% of overall
land area on the land use map.)
Questions from Committee members included:
1. Do steep slopes still qualify as open space?
(A) Yes, but no bonus in terms of density credit above
the permitted density is given to the builder.
2. Does the city have any requirement or guideline for
open space?
(A) Requirements on a master plan but not on
individual projects.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of Second Committee Meeting
February 18, 1985
Page Three
3. Are the lagoons part of open space?
(A) Yes.
Beaches?
(A) Yes.
4. How many acres are designated for open space?
(A) Approximately 25% of city.
5. What other agencies besides city are involved with
designating open space within the city?
(A) Coastal Commission and Fish and Game.
6. How many units must be involved to be considered a
planned residential development?
(A) Can be 2 units. Master Plan area is usually 100
acres or more.
Charlie Grimm discussed material covered in the Governmental
Section of the workbook. Includes civic center, libraries,
fire stations and police facilities, Caltrans maintenance
yards and the airport.
Paul Klukas reviewed Chapter XI, Environmental.
The Land Use Element is its own environmental impact report
(EIR). It justifies this statement by saying that the Land
Use Element is such a broad policy document that detailed
environmental analysis is impractical. For immediately
identifiable impacts associated with the element see no. 6
under Environmental.
The population growth issue is mitigated through the "Urban
Land Reserve" and "Non-Residential Reserve" which are
designed to avoid premature development.
To mitigate the relative proportion issue, the element
states that the "physical location of various uses is based
upon environmental considerations".
Summary of Second Committee Meeting
February 18, 1985
Page Four
Other mitigating measures include:
The buffering of areas from incompatible land uses.
Location of circulation patterns and land uses which
decrease trip length between home, work, school and
shopping.
- Existence of four residential communities (multi-nuclei
concept).
Distribution of open spaces and recreational
areas/maximum benefits for all residents.
- Protection of populace from environmental hazards.
If this committee, and subsequently the City Council,
adopt substantive policy changes to the Land Use
Element, these changes would need to be considered
and a determination made as to the pot.ent.ial long
and short term environmental impacts.
Any project submitted to the city, (except a single family
home), must be accompanied by an environmental impact
statement. If Staff determines that the project could have
the potential to harm the environment, an environmental
impact report is required. A consultant is hired, who works
directly for the city to prepare report. Consultant is
paid by funds supplied by the developer.
Questions included:
1. Was an environmental impact report written in 1974 for
the general plan?
(A) Not for the Land Use Element.
2. Have we looked at end result of buildout?
(A) Staff starting to look at more long range impacts
An environmental impact report to the Land Use
Element might be very beneficial.
Charlie Grimm presented additional information on the Public
Services and Facilities portion of the workbook. A large
project may create needs for additional police and fire
facilities, widening of intersections, traffic signals, sewer
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of Second Committee Meeting
February 18, 1985
Page Five
treatment facilities, etc. Following Proposition 13, the
City found it increasingly difficult to provide these
facilities through the general fund. A Public Facilities
Fee (PFF) was put into place in 1979 to provide a new
revenue source. A 2% fee is collected on all new
development and the money is earmarked for new public
projects. It is an innovative way to help new development
pay for itself.
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a 5 year program
for public facilities, which is reviewed on a yearly basis
by the City Council. It allows the Council to set
priorities and allocate funding to implement major public
facilities projects.
The Public Facilities Management System (PFMS) identifies
seven public facilities or services to be monitored. They
are: water, sewer, parks, library, circulation system, fire
facilities, and administrative facilities. Monitoring
provides public facility demand information continually
based on existing facilities and recent approvals for new
projects.
Standards have been adopted for minimum acceptable levels
for each of the seven public facilities. They are:
Water - current demand and supply have to be equivalent with
a two-day storage capacity.
Sewer - average daily flow equals design capacity.
Parks - approximately 2 acres of developed community park
per 1,000 population.
Fire - 5 minutes maximum response time. If more than 1,500
units are in an area with greater than a 5 minute response
time, a new station is to be built.
Library - 0.6 sq.ft. per capita.
Circulation - when traffic volume exceeds 90% of the
capacity of a street or intersection.
Administrative Facilities - based on sq.ft. vs.
population.
Summary of Second Committee Meeting
February 18, 1985
Page Six
Most of the major policy programs regarding public
facilities and services have been implemented.
The Committee will have to determine if these policiei
and goals are still useful or if new policies and
programs should be added.
Michael Holzmiller concluded the staff reports with an over-
view of Special Land Use Designations. (Special Treatment
Area, Non-Residential Reserve, Urban Land Reserve, and
Planned Community Areas.) The mechanisms in the Land Use
Element which give the city the ability to take a special
look at these areas are: Specific Plans, Master Plans, and
Site Development Plans.
Specific Plans (SP) and Master Plan (MP) are quite similar.
Specific Plans are creatures of state law and Master Plans
are creatures of the city's Planned Community zone. Site
Development Plans are for smaller individual pieces of
property.
A number of Specific and Master Plans have been prepared
since 1974 in accordance with the policies and per the
direction contained in the Land Use plan. They include: La
Costa Master Plan; Carrillo Ranch Master Plan; Calavera
Hills Master Plan; Buena Vista Park Specific Plan; Plaza
Camino Real Regional Shopping Center Specific Plan; Hosp
Grove Master Plan; a specific plan for the downtown area; a
specific plan for the Agua Hedionda land use area; Kelly
Ranch; Koll Carlsbad Research Center Specific Plan; the
Signal Landmark Specific Plan; Altamira Master Plan. The
Encina Sewage Treatment Plant and SDG&E Power Plant were
developed under specific plans.
There are five pending master and specific plans. They
are: Bressi Ranch; Sunny Creek area; South Coast Asphalt;
Hunt Properties; and the Sammis Property. Much of the city
is covered by specific or master plans.
Three other minor items addressed in the Land Use Element
are: Combination Districts, areas zoned for hospitals and
churches, and a general statement about criteria for
reviewing development proposals.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of Second Committee Meeting
February 18, 1985
Page 7
The committee should discuss the Urban Land Reserve
program which began ten years ago. The program has
never really been utilized as explained in the Land
Use Element. A number of property owners in the
Urban Land Reserve now have projects being
considered.
Chairman Gaiser thanked the staff for their presentations.
All regular meetings of the committee will be held in the
Library Conference Room.
When committee members receive questions from the public,
they should encourage the citizens to make written inquiries
to the committee.
Next meeting will be March 18, 6:00 P.M. in the Library
Conference Room.
Respectfully Submitted,
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
Carlsbad General Plan Committee
BH/ar
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Summary of First Committee Meeting - February 11, 1985
All members of the committee were present, with the exception
of Member McDonald. The five alternates were present.
Opening remarks by Mayor easier included thanking the committee
members for volunteering to serve on the Land Use Element
review, and introduction of staff.
Chairman Gaiser, on behalf of the committee, thanked all the
members of the City Council for their appointments and
expressed appreciation for the confidence they have shown in
their selection. "The committee pledges to do its very best
to serve the 40,000 citizens of Carlsbad in this important
task. It will strive to be constructive, objective and
attentive so that all views may be shared and that the
greatest good for the majority will be accomplished." He
reminded committee members that time must be used
judiciously, as there is a lot to accomplish in a relatively
short period of time.
Chairman Gaiser asked all committee members to introduce
themselves.
City Manager, Frank Aleshire, introduced Marty Orenyak, Director
of Building and Planning; Frank Mannen, Assistant City
Manager; and Council Members, Chick, Pettine and Lewis.
(Council Member Kulchin was ill and unable to attend,
however wished to express her pleasure with the committee).
City Attorney, Vince Biondo, gave a legal overview concerning
the general plan and its update. He made available copies
of the Local Planning Act of the State of California which
was recodified in January 1985. The state has five basic
policies laid down by the legislature about planning and
land use, they are:
(1) Land is an exhaustible resource, not just a commodity.
(2) You must protect this resource to insure its
preservation in use in economically and socially
desirable ways to the end that we improve our qualities
of life.
(3) Decisions involving future growth should be guided by
an effective planning process including the local
general plan, proceeding within the framework of
approved statewide goals and policies.
(4) Active public participation is important in this
process.
(5) Land use decisions must be made with full knowledge of
Summary of First Committee Meeting
February 11, 1985
Page Two
He concluded his remarks by offering a personal word. The
committee is an advisory body. Advisors recommend, and they
should develop their reasons for what they recommend.
"Develop your visions of Carlsbad's future and come to some
consensus about it, whether or not it requires any changes
to the general plan, but develop your reasons, not just what
you recommend, but why."
Chairman Gaiser reviewed the overall charge to the committee and
the specific charge. (See Section II of the workbook). He
also reviewed the procedural guidelines. Two items were
clarified:
(1) Any member who misses 3 meetings will be replaced by a
designated alternate. The fairest approach to this
would be that if anyone missed 3, the alternate
appointed by the same Council Member would take the
place of the individual.
(2) Procedure number two indicates that only the Chairman
can speak to staff. He proposed having staff available
in the room designated for the committee use between
8:30 - 9:30 each Wednesday morning. Staff would also
be available by telephone during this time - 438-5651.
Member Brownley expressed concern over information to
questions which could benefit the whole committee, not
being available to the group due to matters having been
discussed during office hours. Member Flanagan
requested that the staff be available "on call" 20-30
minutes prior to the Monday meeting in the designated
room.
Chairman Gaiser recommended that a Vice-Chairman be selected.
Eric Larson's name was placed in nomination. Member
Skotnicki moved the nomination; seconded by Member Brownley.
Unanimous vote.
Concering agenda preparation, if any member has suggestions
or recommendations for inclusion in the next weeks agenda,
they should be presented to Chairman Gaiser by Thursday
A.M.
A question was raised about #9 of the Procedural Guidelines,
concerning membership on the committee by a member of the
Planning Commission. Following discussion, Member Harkins
moved that "any member of the above city government that is
appointed to this committee would be exempt from rule #9".
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of First Committee Meeting
February 11, 1985
Page Three
Following additional discussion the committee voted to amend
the rules. 22 ayes/2 noes.
Michael Holzmiller reviewed the tentative work program.
The role of staff is to assist the committee. Three types
of assistance:
(1) Assist in understanding what is presently contained
in Land Use Element.
(2) Assist in getting additional information when the
committee actually starts discussing the element.
(3) Assist in making a recommendation to the Planning
Commission and City Council; and in taking the
committee's recommendation forward to City Council.
He explained the purpose, organization, and materials
contained in the workbook. He reviewed the work program,
and the target date to go to Council of July 2. (See
Section II of Workbook)
Summary reports will be prepared on what's covered at each
meeting. Summary reports or any additional reports can be
picked up Friday afternoon until 5:00 P.M. in the designated
office. After 5:00 the packets will be available at the
Police Department. The Police Department desk is open until
6:00 P.M., seven days a week. (If after 6:00, ring the bell
by the front door, and someone will come out and answer
it).
The office in city hall - the contact center or headquarters
is the office behind the Building Department counter off the
lobby. The telephone - 438-5651 is the hotline. The number
can be used to call about time of meetings etc., and will be
made available to the public.
Staff is going to attempt a one week turnaround on
information requested by the committee. A glossary of terms
is being prepared, and should be ready at the next meeting.
The city's general plan was discussed. Eleven elements make
up the General Plan; the Land Use Element is the main one.
Nine of the eleven elements are mandated by state law. Two
optional elements in Carlsbad's General Plan are the Parks &
Summary of First Committee Meeting
February 11, 1985
Page Four
Recreation Element and Public Facilities Element. Those
elements mandated are Circulation, Housing, Open Space,
Conservation, Scenic Highways, Seismic Safety, Safety, Noise
and Land Use.
Staff member Holzmiller summarized overall land use
policies. Three basic, all encompassing, items are:
(1) Balanced community concept.
(2) The key to making the balanced community concept work.
(3) Arrangement of the city into four sections or
quadrants.
First, the balanced community concept is the most important
single concept in the Land Use Element - it serves as a
basis for all the other concepts such as those pertaining to
residential, commercial, industrial, parks and open space.
It means there will be a variety and diversity of land uses
in the city. Terms to help describe the balanced community
concept are - "full-service community", "full range
community" or "self sufficient community".
Second, the key to making the balanced community concept
work is to have a proper mix and blend of land uses, a
compatible mix. Must be balanced to protect the environment
of the city.
Third, the Land Use Element has divided the city into four
sections or quadrants. The balanced community concept
applies on a smaller scale in each quadrant. Quadrants are
divided by El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. The
center of the city is an industrial park corridor.
Mr. Holzmiller gave a presentation on residential use.
Residential makes up the largest percentage of all the land
uses in the city. (Approximately 60% of land use plan
area).
He reviewed the density ranges provided for in the Land Use
Element and covered in the workbook, and further described
the density range concept.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of First Committee Meeting
February 11, 1985
Page Five
The Land Use Element assumes that the overall densities when
the city is fully developed will approximate the mean point
of the various residential density categories as follows:
0-1.5 projects average out to 1 du/per acre
0 - 4 projects average out to 3 du/per acre
4 - 10 projects average out to 7 du/per acre
10 - 20 projects average out to 15 du/per acre
20 - 30 projects average out to 25 du/per acre
All residential densities allowed by the General Plan are
based on gross acreages. (Gross land area within the
property or project site.)
The City Council has asked the committee to look
at net: density vs. gross density. Council would
like a recommendation on whether the Land Use
Element, should be changed as it pertains to allow-
ing density to be calcuated using the gross acreage
contained in a property.
Catherine Nicholas reviewed the density report covered in the
workbook, along with the charts designated figures 1 -7.
The General Plan projects an overall city density of 5.9
du/per acre at buildout. The average densities are below
this projection in all quadrants except in the S.W.
Charlie Grimm made a presentation on population forecasting.
SANDAG has developed a methodology for projecting regional
and local population growth. Carlsbad provides SANDAG with
assumptions for these projections.
Population projections are dynamic, and are benchmarks.
They cannot take into account things like changes in the
economy or in city growth policies, which is why they need
to be adjusted periodically.
The buildout figure of 208,291 is important to the
committee. In 1974 when the General Plan was
developed, it was the anticipated figure that the
Land Dse Element would be taking us to. The
citizens committee will need to determine if this
is still a valid concept or not.
Summary of First Committee Meeting
February 11, 1985
Page Six
More recent studies by SANDAG using Series V computer runs
show a buildout of 158,000. Factors affecting buildout
includes:
Household size
Coastal constraints
Open space
Carlsbad Oaks (a 400 acre project converted from
residential to industrial)
Project approvals
Downtown area
Staff feels that barring any major shifts in city
policy or implementation of the General Plan, a
more likely buildout figure will be 14O.OOO -
16O.OOO persons. This is an item that the
committee needs to review.
Major concepts which should be addressed by the
committee are whether or not the Land Use Element
should continue to contain policies on forecasting
and its use. Also whether the buildout figures
contained in the existing Land Use Element should
be continued, modified or removed.
Member Flanagan requested staff to research whether there is
data on whether the number of cars per unit is increasing.
Should we consider going 0-3 du/per acre instead of 0-4
because there will be more cars out per unit.
Next meeting February 18, 6:00 P.M., Library Conference
Room. Library will be closed - please use doors at
southwest corner of the building (off of Elm).
Respectfully Submitted,
BOBBIE HODER
Administrative Coordinator
Carlsbad General Plan Committee
BH/ar
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OPEN SPACE
I. Issues Identified
1. A better definition of open space is needed.
2. Does the city have enough open space?
II. Analysis
A. WHAT IS OPEN SPACE?
A very general definition of open space is "any parcel
of land which is generally unimproved, uncovered, unenclosed,
unobstructed and essentially free of buildings and structures". A
more specific definition depends on the types of open space
included in a City's General Plan or the functions accomplished
by that open space. Each community decides what functions they
want their open space to perform. This is why it is difficult to
make quantative comparisons with other cities or to use the
percentage of open space in the Land Use Plan as the exclusive or
determining factor in whether the city has enough open space.
More important is to determine what the city wants to accomplish
by designating areas for open space; determining the functions,
and then have the Land Use Element adequately reflect those
functions. Once this is done, a more specific, functional
definition of open space can be established.
Listed below are a variety of possible functions served
by open space with a brief analysis of each one. Staff will also
have slides available at the next Citizens Committee meeting to
visually show some of the different types of open space. This
list may not be all inclusive and committee members may have
suggestions for adding to the list. The list reflects all the
ones that staff could think of.
Functions of Open Space;
1. Provide Recreational Opportunities
Virtually all communities make some provision for
recreational opportunities for their citizens. This may take the
form of "active" (e.g, athletic fields) or "passive" (e.g, nature
activities) parks and playgrounds. Such parks and playgrounds
are generally considered an essential public facility that
communities must provide.
The social advantages of providing these recreational
areas are readily apparent. They provide safe, centralized
locations for sporting activities, neighborhood interaction, and
civic functions. Children utilizing parks are less likely to
play in dangerous areas such as streets, canyons, etc.
Such recreation areas, however, usually require flat,
usable, easily accessible acreage in developed or developing
areas. Land costs in these areas are generally high.
Improvement, maintenance, and safety costs are a further economic
burden on communities.
2. Preserve Significant Natural Resources
Communities will often preserve their significant
natural resources by designating them open space. Such
designation provides protection from development of wildlife and
vegetation habitats, waterbodies, hillsides, beaches, and other
scenic areas. In Carlsbad's situation, the beaches, lagoons and
wetlands, lakes, creeks and riparian areas, steep slopes, and
other unique features would be candidates for such preservation.
This category also can serve many additional open space
functions. Passive recreation, land use buffers, pleasing visual
breaks in the urban landscape, and other beneficial roles can be
played by this one type of open space.
Acquiring land for this open space category is
generally not too difficult or costly. Much of this land is
buildable only with extreme and expensive construction
techniques. As such, property owners are more willing to
relinquish development rights in these areas. In addition,
state laws require cities to preserve significant resources from
development, putting the community in a good legal position to
designate them open space.
3. Buffer Between Land Uses
Open space is also used to provide a buffer between land
uses. It may consist of a small landscape belt to help
individualize residential neighborhoods, or it may provide a
substantial greenbelt separation of incompatible uses by
screening or blocking vision, noise pollutants, or other negative
aspects associated with some land uses.
Natural landforms (such as slopes or ridges) generally
provide the best buffers between incompatible uses. Wide,
heavily landscaped (may include walls or berms) flat areas can
provide adequate separation in many cases.
Acquiring such buffers from large landowners of vacant
property in undeveloped areas is perceived as "good planning" and
generally not difficult, particularly if the site is located
adjacent to an already-existing undesirable land use (such as a
factory or highway). Obtaining such buffers in an urbanized
infill area, because developable land is scarce, usually proves
difficult and costly.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. Break in Urban Form
Open space can function to provide a pleasant break in
the urban form .of a city. This open space break can consist of a
single lot in a downtown district, or an organized program of
landscape corridors running throughout the city. Particularly
effective adjacent to major roadways, these breaks can reduce
visual monotony, congestion, and clutter, which often become a
by-product of urbanization. From a planning standpoint, open
space breaks are a key element in helping to avoid undesirable
strip development and in creating a generally improved urban
environment.
Since open space breaks are of most value along major
roadways, or in urban areas, a community program to acquire them
may prove expensive.
5. Separation from Surrounding Communities
In order to create a distinctive entryway to a community
and to visibly separate individual communities, open space is
sometimes situated along city boundaries.
Most effective at major roadway entrances to
communities, this type of open space can serve to create an
immediate pleasing visual impression of the character of the
community. The fact that, in general, land use intensity is
lower toward the periphery of a city (and as a result, property
values are lower), the cost of such open space may not be high.
However, since this open space is associated only with specific
parcels of land (and not interchangeable throughout the city),
the value may tend to rise. Maintenance costs correspond
closely with the amount of acreage placed in this open space
category.
6. Hazards (Public Safety)
Communities often protect the public health and safety
by preserving natural and man-made hazard areas as open space.
Such areas include floodplains, landslides, airport crash zones,
high-power electrical easements, and others. Carlsbad contains
many of these features.
Besides being inappropriate for development, these areas
often serve a secondary function as passive visual amenities for
the community.
Allowing development in potentially hazardous areas is
clearly not in the public interest. Designating these areas as
open space is generally considered correct and legally
defensible. From the developer's standpoint, development of
these areas is often very expensive, probably requiring the
utilization of sophisticated techniques. As such, they may be
more valuable (even to the developer) as a visual amenity than as
developable land. The cost to the public of designating these
areas open space is generally relatively low.
7. Trail System Connection
Many cities criss-cross their community with open space
pedestrian or equestrian trails, linking many areas of the
community. While providing a pleasant passive environment, such
trail system also reduces pedestrian/equestrian conflict with
vehicles on public streets.
Since trail systems tend to be long but generally
narrow, seldom is a single landowner burdened with providing
large amounts of acreage for this use. The community cost of
acquiring such land is generally not high, however maintenance
and safety costs can be great, depending on miles of trail,
terrain, and adjacent land uses.
8. Agriculture
Communities may decide that the preservation of
agriculture is an important aspect of the character of their
city. As such, they may designate agricultural areas as open
space, to preserve these areas as a permanent, ultimate use.
Advantages of agricultural open space include
preservation of an important characteristic of the community,
food and flower production, and a visual break in the urban
landscape. Clean agriculture in urban areas may make
contributions to cleaner air and may aid improvements of water
quality.
On the negative side, pesticides and fertilizers may
make for an incompatible neighbor to residential areas. In
addition, many viable acres of land are required for agriculture
to be even marginally profitable. As such, the initial cost of
such land may be extremely expensive.
9. Historic Preservation
The cultural and historic heritage of a community is
often preserved by this type of open space. Historic
structures, archaeological sites, botanical sites, scientific
sites, etc, are the usual candidates for open space
preservation.
Not only does this open space type provide the
opportunity to perceive the activities of the past, it can also
make sense from an economic standpoint. Tourism, education, and
recreation often are associated with this open space. Since tax
laws often provide economic incentives for private investment in
historic preservation and historic areas are generally small in
scale (one or two buildings) the cost to the community for this
open space is generally relatively low.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B; THE PRICE TAG
The position that open space does not come for free is
generally true. Exceptions are that cities are allowed to
require dedications or fees from developers for public parks and
zoning ordinances can require that certain percentages of
developments be left in open space. The general principle that
is used in land use planning with respect to obtaining open space
is that it is o.k. to require open space for public purposes as
long as the land owner is not denied some reasonable use of his
property. To entirely deny a property owner the right to develop
his property usually requires compensation.
The cost of open space may not always be a financial
one. For example/ a mechanism most commonly used in planning to
preserve areas that are desirable for open space is to allow the
property owner to transfer his development potential (density
transfer) to one portion of the property (clustering) in order to
keep the other portion in open space. The cost is that there is
a higher intensity of use on the developed portion of the
property.
In determining what the city wants to accomplish by
designating areas as open space and in determining whether the
city has enough open space, the costs must also be taken into
consideration.
Most of the open space presently shown on the Land Use
Plan is the type of open space that is not very costly. It is
either already owned by a public agency or is the type that can
be obtained as part of the planning for a development project
(i.e., hazardous areas, natural resource areas). If the
Committee determines that more open space is needed, then it will
probably require some new alternatives for obtaining the open
space.
III. Alternatives for Obtaining Open Space (Paying the Cost)
There are two general alternatives or methods for
obtaining open space that staff is aware of which are as
follows:
1. Acquisition in Fee - This is where the city would
purchase property based on the fair market value in
order to retain it in permanent open space. Methods
for obtaining the money might include:
A) Voters approve a bond measure.
B) Voters o.k. a special tax.
C) An untested, new idea might be to require
developers to pay into a fund which would then
" be used to help purchase open space. In
Carlsbad, this would probably require the public
facilities management program to be changed to
include open space as a public service and
facility. The public facilities fee would then
be increased by an amount which would cover the
appraised value of the areas designated as open
space.
Negotiated Open Space - This is where the city
requires open space as part of the approval process
for a development project. It often involves
tradeoffs with a property owner for providing or
dedicating open space. Methods include:
A) The State Subdivision Map Act allows cities to
require the dedication of park land, or the
payment of a fee in lieu of dedication which
then must be used exclusively for parks, at the
time a subdivision map is approved. The city
presently uses this method.
B) Density transfer - in return for retaining a
portion of a property in open space, the
property owner is allowed to transfer the
density permitted for the entire property to one
portion of the property. The city presently
uses this method. This method could be taken to
a further extreme where, in return for keeping
an entire property in open space, the permitted
density could be transferred to another
property.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APRIL 4, 1985
TO: CITIZENS COMMITTEE
FROM: LAND USE PLANNING
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL REPORT ON OPEN SPACE
At your meeting of April 1, 1985, the Citizens Committee approved
a definition of open space and requested staff to determine the
amount of open space presently designated on the Land Use Plan
based upon the approved definition. The definition contains four
categories of open space which in summary are as follows:
Category 1 - Open space for preservation of natural
resources.
Category 2 - Open space for managed production of
resources.
Category 3 - Open space for outdoor recreation.
Category 4 - Open space for public health and safety.
The breakdown for the categories is as follows:
ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL LAND AREA
IN LAND USE PLAN
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Total
1,767
105
2,632
1,920
6,424
7.0%
.4%
10.8%
7.8%
26%
Staff will also have maps at your meeting of April 8, 1985, to
graphically show the amount of open space in each category.
Additional staff comments or remarks regarding each category are
as follows:
Category 1 - The 7% that is designated on the Land Use
Plan protects everything that has been
identified in this category by the city to
date. The percentage of this category may
increase when new information identifying
these areas is generated as part of the
review of future development projects.
Category 2 - This is a small percentage because it is
not a policy of the Land Use Element to
preserve many of the resources in this
category (i.e, agriculture and mining
areas) as ultimate open space uses.
Category 3 - This category comprises the largest
percentage of open space. The amount is
purely a reflection of the programs adopted
by the city to provide recreational
facilities.
Category 4 - The percentage in this category is based
almost entirely on preserving areas
identified as unstable or hazardous. These
areas are often identified through the
environmental review process conducted for
large projects. As environmental studies
are prepared for future projects this
category will most likely increase.
The Committee deferred its recommendation on adequacy of open
space until the above information could be supplied. As staff
previously pointed out, the open space presently shown on the
Land Use Plan does not constitute all the open space that there
will be in the city when it is completely developed. The easiest
way that staff can explain this is by saying that under current
city ordinances, standards and policies, there are three levels
of open space as follows:
1) General Plan Open Space - This is the open space that is
presently shown on the Land Use Plan and constitutes the 26
percent figure.
2) Master Plan Open Space - This is additional open space that
is negotiated when a master plan is considered. Once the
master plan is approved, the additional open space is added
to the Land Use Plan which increases the percentage of open
space. As staff previously indicated, it is anticipated
that the percentage of open space designated on the Plan
will increase by approximately two percent as a result of
future master plans.
3) Individual Project Open Space - This is open space that is
negotiated when individual projects are approved. This type
of open space is not shown on the Land Use Plan but is
required based on the existing policy contained in the Land
Use Element which states "Develop and retain open space in
all categories of land use". It would be almost impossible
to show this type of open space on the Land Use Plan because
the amount is constantly changing as individual projects are
approved and it is usually in small pockets which may not
really make a definitive statement or impact if shown on the
plan. It will add, however, to the overall amount of open
space in the city when it is developed. Staff's best
estimate is that this will add an additional 10 percent to
the total open space.
-2-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternatives
I 1) If the Committee believes that the amount of open space
' which results from the present Land Use Element as
described above is adequate, additional policy statements
I that the Committee may want to consider based upon the
definition of open space approved by the Committee could be
as follows:
A) Consideration shall be given in all future master plans
for addressing all four categories of open space. A
policy statement like this would allow the city to use
the definition of open space as a tool for determining
the amount and type of open space in future master
plans.
B) A more specific policy statement acknowledging that open
space provided in individual projects is part of the
overall open space program. The policy could also state
that in reviewing individual projects, priority shall be
given to providing open space that addresses the
categories contained within the definition approved by
the Committee. Like the alternative above, this would
provide staff with a tool to use in encouraging a more
substantial amount of open space in individual
projects.
2) If the Committee determines that the present provision for
open space is inadequate some alternatives for
consideration might be:
A) Recommend that the amount of open space provided in
future master plans be increased. The ordinance
presently requires a minimum of 15 percent.
B) Determine which category within the definition approved
by the Committee is inadequate and recommend that
category be increased or recommend that priority be
given to obtaining open space within a particular
category when future projects are reviewed.
MJH/ar
-3-
ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE INFORMATION
CATEGORIES
1) Approximately 25% of the total land area shown on the Land
Use Plan is designated for open space. The Committee
requested a breakdown on the types or categories of open
space included in this designation. The table below
provides the breakdown.
Type
Steep slopes
Lagoons
Flat (usable)
Wetlands
Golf Courses
Ploodplains
Beaches
Riparian Habitats
Heavily Forested
Lakes
Historical Sites
TOTAL:
Acreage
1714
1002
997
344
330
279
138
133
64
49
12
5*062
Percentage
33.8%
19.8%
19.7%
6.8%
6.5%
5.5%
2.7%
2.6%
1.3%
1.0%
.2%
100.0%
Note: These figures do not include schools, undedicated parks
and other governmental open space uses.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2) It is"estimated that the area designated for open space on
the Plan will increase by a minimum of 2% as a result of
future maater plans.
AGENCIES
3) The following are agencies which may have a say in how
specific open space areas are used. No area will be
affected by all agenices, but some open space areas, such as
lagoons/ are under the jurisdiction of many.
Army Corps of Engineering (U.S.)
- Endangered Spieces
- Navigable waters
- Oceans, beaches
U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Endangered Spieces
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.)
Water quality
Air quality
Coastal Commission (Cal.)- Coastal zone only
Resources, structures, agriculture, land uses
- Habitats, waterways, views, access, recreational
activities
Coastal Conservancy (Cal.)
- Resources
State Lands Commission (Cal.)
Any public lands
Fish and Game (Cal.)
- Stream alteration
- Endangered spieces
- Wildlife
Ecological reserves
Water Quality Control Board (Cal.)
Water discharge
- Dredge materials
Caltrans (Cal.)
- Activity in freeway right-of-way
Department Parks & Recreation (Cal.)
- Activities on state park lands
Department Boating & Waterways (Cal.)
Any boating facilities
City of Carlsbad
-Local Police power
County of San Diego
Police power in County areas
Health Department (Co.)
- Pest control in Open Space areas
Department Flood Control (Co.)
Areas in flood plains
Department Agriculture (Co.)
- Use of pesticides
- Regulates nurseries, bee-keeping
LAFCO
Regulates local government organizational changes
San Diego Gas & Electric
- Restrictions on easements
Public Utilities Commission
Regulated use of right-of-way of land owned by SDG&E
BOND INITIATIVE
4) In 1972, a bond proposition for $1,000,000 to be used by
the city to acquire land for parks and open space failed to
receive the required two-thirds vote.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APRIL 25, 1985
TO: CITIZENS COMMITTEE
FROM: LAND USE PLANNING
ACQUISITION OF OPEN SPACE
The Citizens Committee requested comments on 1) the use of a
transfer tax for the acquisition of open space as outlined in the
article submitted by Alternate Member McBane and 2) whether the
city's eminent domain powers can be used to obtain park land.
Transfer Tax
According to the City Attorney's Office, a transfer tax on the
sale of real property is illegal in California under Proposition
13. Local taxes on the transfer of real property are
specifically banned.
One alternative to having the acquisition of open space financed
by new development was presented in the initial open space report
prepared by staff. It would be an untested, new idea. The
concept would be to amend the public facilities fee program to
include open space as a public service and facility. The current
public facilities fee would then be increased by an amount which
would cover the appraised value of properties identified by the
city for acquisition as permanent open space.
Eminent Domain
The city can condemn property for park purposes under its power
of eminent domain. The property would then have to be acquired
by the city based upon fair market value of the property.
MJH/ar
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PARKS
I. Issues Identified
1. Parks needed sooner.
2. Provide more usable parks.
3. Neighborhood parks needed.
II. Analysis
In 1982, when the revised Parks and Recreation Element
was adopted, the concept of park development in Carlsbad changed.
Rather than having small neighborhood, pocket parks, the program
was revised to require the dedication and construction of larger,
more active community parks. A city survey indicated the people
wanted larger, more active, park areas. Developers are required
by ordinance to dedicate a certain amount of land or pay a fee in
lieu of dedicating park land. Larger, community parks which are
geared toward future development in Carlsbad take longer to get
and longer to build. David Bradstreet, Parks and Recreation
Director, will be present at the Committee's meeting of March 25,
1985 to explain the concept in more detail or answer questions
about the present status of the park development program if the
Committee wants additional information.
Smaller, neighborhood-type parks are not required by the
city. In a planned residential development (prd) where lots are
proposed that are less than the size required by the underlying
zone, common recreational areas are required under city
ordinance. The common area can be either passive or active or a
combination of both. The area is required to be maintained by a
homeowners association. For a standard single family
subdivision, no common recreational facilities are required by
ordinance.
III. Alternatives for Addressing Park Issues
1. Establish a mechanism where large, master plan
developers are required to provide community parks up-front or at
an earlier point in time so that they are available when they are
needed.
2. Require developers to provide smaller, active
recreational areas (parks) in all developments including standard
single family subdivisions. These smaller parks would be
maintained by a homeowners association or through a property
owners tax maintenance district.
I
I
APRIL 19, 1985
TO: CITIZENS COMMITTEE
FROM: LAND USE PLANNING
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ANALYSIS
I. Analysis
I
I
At your meeting of April 8, 1985, the Citizens Committee I
requested staff to prepare a neighborhood park analysis •
specifically addressing locations in the city which will not have
public park or recreational facilities within close proximity of •
residential neighborhoods. The attached map was prepared by •
planning staff and shows these locations based upon staff's best
estimates and projections (a larger, working map will be _
available at your meeting to provide more details of the •
analysis). The criteria and assumptions used by staff in • *
preparing the map included the following:
(1) Only publicly-owned and maintained facilities were I
included - city parks (all sizes) and public school
facilities (playgrounds, athletic fields). •
(2) Approximate locations of future, planned facilities
as shown on the land use plan were used. The exact
location of some of the future schools and parks •
have not yet been determined. •
I
(4) 1/2 mile maximum walking distance and no crossing «
of a major or primary street. I
(5) Industrial area excluded.
Based upon the above criteria, staff's analysis m
indicates that there are approximately thrity locations in the
city which will not have public parks or recreational facilities
within 1/2 mile walking distance. In order to provide these
facilities, approximately thirty-nine neighborhood parks would be
required. _
II. Cost Estimate* •
For thirty-nine neighborhood parks (average five acres I
per site): •
Acquisition - $19,500,000
Construction - $11,700,000 •
Maintenance - $ 1,521,000 per year •
*(1984-85 Dollars)
(3) Assumes all undeveloped, planned facilities will in
fact be constructed.
I
I
I
III. Other Background Information
I The 1982 revision to the Parks and Recreation Element
eliminated the city's involvement in neighborhood parks except
(for those which had been accepted prior to the adoption of the
revised Element. Applicable policy statements from the Element
I
I
I
I
I
are:
for community park land purposes."
(2) "Neighborhood level recreation shall be provided
by:
0 Special-Use facilities which may be developed
and maintained by private, public, or a joint
effort of both. Those facilities owned by the
city will be maintained on a regular basis as
per the use requirements.
0 Existing neighborhood parks prior to the
adoption of this revised Element."
(3) "Guide industries in the provision of recreational
facilities for their employees during the planning
review process."
On April 1, 1985, the Citizens Committee approved the
following recommended policy statement "encourage developers to
provide smaller, active recreational areas (parks) in
developments including standard single family subdivisions.
These smaller parks would be maintained by a homeowners
association or through a property owners tax maintenance
district".
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Land Use Planning Manager
MJH/ar
Attachment
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AGRICULTURE
I. Issues Identified
1. Should the city require the preservation of
agricultural land?
II. Analysis
People like the present, semi-rural appearance of
Carlsbad, with its large flower fields and active agricultural
areas. Many of the people that attended the citizens input
meetings expressed concerns about preserving the flower fields
and other agricultural uses within the city.
At the present time, the city's adopted policy is to
encourage the use and productive management of agriculture.
However, such agricultural activity, whether carried on by the
property owner or by a lessee, shall not in any way indicate that
the property will be zoned agriculture. The ultimate development
of land used for agriculture shall not be precluded provided that
the development is consistent with Carlsbad's ordinances and the
General Plan.
This policy basically acknowledges that agriculture is
an interim use in the City of Carlsbad. The primary reason for
the policy has to do with economic viability and feasibility.
Rising costs of water, fertilizer, labor and energy along with
competition from foreign agriculture have greatly reduced the
profit margin of farmers in Carlsbad. A secondary reason is that
agriculture is generally not compatible with urban uses
especially residential uses. Many of the pesticides used on
agricultural fields are toxic and should not be used in close
proximity to residences. At certain times of the year
agricultural areas may have odor problems, especially when
freshly fertilized. Pilferage of crops is another problem when
agricultural uses are located in close proximity to residences.
II. Alternatives for Addressing the Agricultural Issue
1. Purchase land to preserve agricultural uses. This
alternative would be expensive and the city presently does not
have any funds for this type of purchase. The price of the land
would probably be based on the existing general plan designations
which designate most agricultural areas for 0-4 and 4-10 dwelling
units per acre.
2. Establish a policy that requires agricultural
preservation until a definite determination is made that the use
is not feasible anymore. Definite criteria to determine when
agriculture is no longer viable on a particular property would
have to be established.
3. Amend the General Plan to designate a portion of a
large property being used for agriculture as open space and
allow residential development on the remaining portion.
This action would be strongly opposed by the affected
property owners and would probably have some legal, property
right ramifications. If property owners were allowed to transfer
density from the area being preserved for agriculture to the
developable portion of their property this alternative would be
more acceptable. However, this alternative still has the problem
of two incompatible uses, agriculture and residential, being
located in close proximity to each other.
4. Another alternative would be mixed agricultural -
industrial or commercial use. This would allow a portion of a
site to be developed with industrial uses while the remaining
portion was kept in agriculture. This alternative would probably
have less compatibility problems than would mixture of
residential and agricultural uses. One area this alternative
might be effectively used would be the large flower fields
directly to the east of Pea Soup Andersen's. A substantial
portion of this area is in the Palomar Airport Influence area and
is not suitable for residential development.
5. The city has made a proposal to the Coastal
Commission to collect a fee of $6500 per acre from property
owners who wish to develop their lands which are presently shown
on the coastal plan for agricultural preservation. This fee
could be utilized to purchase agricultural land in other areas of
the city. It could also be used to subsidize existing
agricultural uses as rising costs and foreign competition make it
difficult for coastal agriculture to survive.
6. A combination of the previously mentioned
alternatives. The city could attempt to preserve agricultural
land in proximity to future commercial and industrial uses.
Where agricultural uses are preserved in the vicinity of
residential uses adequate buffers should be provided between the
two uses. If it is not possible to preserve all agricultural
land in Carlsbad, attempting to preserve the existing agriculture
that is most visible from existing and future major arterials
might be an alternative to consider. Fees collected from other
agricultural land converted to non-agricultural uses could be
utilized to subsidize agricultural in these areas. This
alternative would preserve the most visible agricultural land and
still create the open, semi-rural feeling that people get while
driving through Carlsbad.
I
I CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: AGRICULTURAL POLICY
I Specific Subject: Interim Agricultural Policy
>olicy No. 29
Date Issued 9-2-80
Effective Date 9-2-80
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
Copies to:City Council/ City Manager, City Attorney, Department and:
Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File •
PURPOSE; . ,
To establish an interim policy for the use of land which is'not designated
as agricultural in the General Plan.
STATEMENT OF POLICY; . . . .
It is the policy of the City Council to encourage productive management of
Carlsbad's natural resources. This policy includes the temporary agri-
cultural use of land which is not designated as agricultural in the-
General Plan. Such agricultural activity, whether carried on by the
property owner or by a lessee, shall not in any way indicate that the
property will be zoned agriculture. This policy shall not preclude .the
ultimate development of land used for agriculture provided that development
is consistent with Carlsbad's ordinances and policies.
It is also the policy of the City Council that a Site Development Permit b<
required for all agricultural activities conducted on previously undisturb
land. This shall assure that grading and clearing operations do not distu
potentially valuable and.significant environmental resources.
This interim agricultural policy also encourages active enforcement of the
goals and policies now contained in different elements of the General Plan
which deal specifically with agriculture.
As an additional part of this interim policy an agricultural advisory com-
mittee shall be formed. This committee shall be comprised of citizens
from the agricultural community, Planning Commission, and City Council.
The committee*s purpose will be to document agriculture's problems in
Carlsbad, evaluate and select various solutions, propose incentives for
retaining farmland, and return a report to the Planning Commission and
City Council. This report would be considered as the basis for an
agricultural element to.the General Plan.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INDUSTRIAL
I. Issues Identified
1. Should the industrial area be enlarged?I
2. Airport expansion
II. Analysis
Everyone seems to be pretty satisfied with the
industrial component of the land use element. All of
the policies regarding industrial use in the element
(Part VIII of the Committee Workbook) appear to still be
applicable and are being implemented. The industrial
land use pattern relates very closely to the location
and impact of the airport and the non-residential
reserve designation that was established when the land
use element was adopted in 1974.
The only issue that staff has been made aware of is
whether the boundary of the industrial corridor should
be expanded on the southerly side of Palomar Airport
Road so the less residential use is impacted by the
airport. Except for some minor exceptions, the
industrial corridor corresponds with the Airport
Influence Area. This area was defined by the County
Airport Land Use Commission and adopted by the city.
There are a couple of residentially designated
properties south of Palomar Airport Road that are within
the Influence Area (refer to Airport Influence Map in
Section XIII of workbook). However, only very small
portions of these properties are in identified impact
areas. When development plans are submitted for these
properties, the city will require that residential units
not be located in the impacted portions of the
properties.
In determining whether an expansion of the southerly
boundary of the industrial area is a good idea, the
following factors must be considered:
1) Excellent physical buffers presently exist to
separate the present boundary between industrial and
residential use (slopes and canyon areas). A
southerly expansion would begin to negate these
existing buffers.
2) The large amount of acreage already devoted to
industrial use. The 1974 Element recognized the
substantial nature of the amount of acreage
designated for non-residential use. An expansion
would increase the already substantial amount of
acreage.
Regarding expansion of the airport, the city has already
officially taken the position of opposing any expansion.
Also, .there is a city ordinance that requires an
affirmative vote of Carlsbad citizens before the city
could approve an expansion of the airport boundaries.
Any expansion of the airport would impact the land use
pattern between residential and industrial use which is
presently reflected on the land use plan.
III. Alternatives
1) If the Committee agrees with the present goals and
policies of the Land Use Element regarding
industrial use, possible policies for strengthing
and emphasizing them include:
A) Concentrations of new industrial uses shall not
be permitted outside the present boundaries of
the industrial corridor as shown on the land use
plan.
B) The existing boundaries of the industrial
corridor along Palomar Airport Road reflect the
impact of the present size and operation of the
airport especially as it relates to residential
type uses. Therefore, no expansion of the
boundaries of the airport should be considered.
2) If the Committee believes that the industrial area
needs to be enlarged, a possible recommendation
might be to have the city prepare a detailed study
considering expansion of the southerly boundary of
the industrial area to further insure that no
residential areas are impacted by the airport.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DATE: APRIL 25, 1985
TO: CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE
FROM: LAND USE PLANNING
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA
The Citizen's Committee has asked for additional information
regarding residential areas within the airport influence area.
Exhibit "A" shows residentially designated areas within the
Palomar Airport Influence Area. The boundary of the airport
influence area was developed as part of the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan for Palomar Airport primarily using criteria related to
noise impacts and the relative probability of accidents.
Because a property is in the Airport Influence Area does not
necessarily mean that it is in an identified noise impact area or
crash hazard area. Exhibit "B", explains the letter designations
for the crash hazard zones shown on Exhibit "A". It also notes .
recommended development restrictions in these areas. Most of the
areas within these crash hazard zones in Carlsbad are designated
for non-residential uses.
Exhibit "C" shows land use incompatibilities based on the land
use designations of Carlsbad's General Plan. The area to the
east of the airport was redesignated to industrial several years
ago. The small area to the southwest of the airport was
recently given a pre-annexational zoning of O-S, Open Space.
Although not shown on Exhibit "C" there is a very small portion
of residentially designated acreage in the Sunnycreek area that
is within the C-1 crash hazard zone. Most of this area consists
of steep slopes and riparian habitat and has been developed at a
very low density.
The largest area of incompatibility is southeast of the
intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. The
northern finger of this area is presently designated for non-
residential development and open space. The remainder of this
area is designated for RLM, 0-4 du/ac. This general plan
density is usually developed with single family detached homes.
According to Exhibit "B" single family development can be
located under areas designated as C-1 provided there are some
development restrictions. Impact zone C-1 has a limited crash
hazard and a low noise impact.
In addition, this area makes up neighborhoods NW 1,3 and 5 of the
La Costa Master Plan. The La Costa Master Plan has designated
this area as a special treatment area requiring special noise
attenuation measures because of the proximity of Palomar Airport.
In addition to requiring special noise attenuation measures, the
City could require development in neighborhoods NW 1, 3, and 5 of
the La Costa Master Plan to cluster dwelling units in the
southerly portion of these areas so that none of the units were
underneath the area designated as C-1.
There has been some discussion of redesignating all residential
areas within the Palomar Airport Influence area to non-
residential designations. Staff could not support this proposal
especially to the south of Palomar Airport Road. The existing
bluffs and canyons along the south side of Palomar Airport Road
makes an excellent boundary between industrial and residential
uses. In the past the City has resisted all attempts to expand
the industrial area to the south of its existing boundary at the
bottom of the bluff.
The City has only approved one residential development within the
airport influence area, Sudan interior Mission. One of the
conditions of approval required that the applicant grant
appropriate easements or execute appropriate agreement documents
so that the City and airport would not be held responsible for
airport related noise impacts.
Staff believes that for the small areas of residential use within
the airport influence area it would be more appropriate to have
special sound treatment and enter into agreements not to hold the
City or airport responsible for noise rather than to redesignate
these areas for non-residential uses.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibits "A" - "C"
MH:bn
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UJoc<uio
UJ
UJ OC K-
OCQ OD£<OCC O.
•ou2
Is
SI
Si
S «Jo
II —uo «
M
a I
s-
V
is
40N3u
,-
U II
.£8
COCMT-CQCMr-COCM*-
< 03CD CQOOOQQQ
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COMMERCIAL
I. Issues Identified
1. Is there enough commercial designated in the Land
Use Plan?
2. Adequate parking in commercial areas.
3. Is there too-much visitor/tourist commercial use?
II. Analysis
The Land Use Element presently provides for a full-range
of commercial uses. Strip commercial is discouraged. Rather,
commercial centers at appropriate locations are recommended.
Commercial use presently makes up approximately 5% of
the total land area shown on the Land Use Plan. The question has
arisen as to whether this is enough commercial. The answer is
probably no and policy statements contained in the present text
of the Land Use Element recognize this. New commercial locations
are proposed when a sufficient amount of growth occurs in a
portion of the city so that a trade or market area can be
determined. The General Plan is then amended to show the new
location. Another way that commercial locations are determined
is when a master plan is considered for an area.
Simply stated, it is recognized under the existing land
use element that additional commercial areas, particularly
neighborhood commercial centers, will be added in the future and
the total acreage of commercial use will increase.
Although the standards have not been comprehensively
reviewed for a long time, Carlsbad's parking requirements for
commercial usage are pretty similar to what many other cities of
a similar size require. Parking problems in commercial areas can
be experienced not only if the number of required spaces is
inadequate but also because of other factors such as:
1) Design of parking layout.
2) High parking demand because of an extremely
successful business.
3) Existence of older businesses that were developed
without adequate parking prior to present-day
parking requirements.
4) Time of the year (i.e., Christmas season).
Staff believes that where parking problems are presently
being experienced in some of the commercial areas or individual
commercial developments in the city, it is more a result of one
of the above-mentioned factors and not the number of parking
spaces being required by the city.
There has been a significant upswing in commercial
development in the city directed at the visitor/tourist market
(i.e., hotels, motels, time-share, restaurants and resort
facilities). Staff has received numerous inquiries about
expanding or adding additional areas for this type of commercial
use. Some of the advantages of visitor or tourist-serving
commercial uses are as follows:
1) Strengthening the economic base of the city through
additional tax revenues (sales tax, transient
occupancy tax).
2) Image of the city as a desirable place to visit.
3) Support for the needs of the existing industrial
park and other business oriented land uses in the
city.
Concerns/issues that are raised regarding a substantial
amount of visitor-serving, resort-type land use in the city
include:
1) Traffic and circulation impacts.
2) Impact on public services.
3) Overbuilding.
Ill. Alternatives
If the Committee feels that additional policy
statements are needed to address the commercial issues addressed
above, there are several alternative statements that might be
considered such as:
1) All locations of commercial use shall be indicated
on the Land Use Plan. A study shall be conducted to
determine ultimate sites based on locational
criteria, population projections and anticipated
market areas. The study shall also address the
impact of visitor/tourist serving commercial uses
especially as it relates to the overall character of
the city.
2) Parking requirements for commercial areas shall be
comprehensively reviewed on a periodic basis (i.e.,
every two yaars) to ensure adequate parking and to
address identified parking problems.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REDEVELOPMENT
I. Issues Identified
1. Should the Redevelopment Area be expanded?
2. Downtown parking problem.
II. Analysis
The Redevelopment Area was indicated in the Land Use
Element as a Special Treatment Area. The city subsequently had
the area studied, a Redevelopment Plan was prepared and the Plan
is being implemented. Interest in the Redevelopment Area has
increased substantially over the past couple of years. A number
of major projects have been approved, buildings have been
upgraded and a number of public improvements have been made.
Last year, the City Council held a workshop to explore
the possibility of enlarging the Redevelopment Area.
Redevelopment experts told the Council that based upon changes
in Redevelopment law, political implications and financial
considerations, it would not be wise to expand or enlarge the
boundaries of the Redevelopment Area.
The City Council recently approved a staff request to
hire a consultant to do a feasibility study for the Redevelopment
Area to address a number of issues including:
1) Appropriate land use mix.
2) Enlargement of existing boundaries or creation of an
additional Redevelopment Area.
3) Amendment of the Redevelopment Plan to consider
financing of needed public improvements adjacent to
the Redevelopment Area boundaries.
4) Recommendations on improving the overall circulation
and parking situation in the area.
The parking problem in the downtown, Redevelopment Area
is a significant concern. Staff believes that the major problem
is that a number of the older buildings were constructed many
years ago at a time when on-site parking was not a requirement.
The requirement now is to require all new developments to provide
adequate parking meeting the city's standards. However, there is
an existing parking problem. This will be increased as new
development occurs. The city has initiated a three phase program
to address the parking problem which is as follows:
1) Acquire additional public parking lots. The city
has acquired and constructed a couple of public
parking lots in the area and is presently
negotiating the acquisition of an additional one.
2) Set a time limit on some of the parking to
discourage all-day or employee parking.
3) Restripe some of the parking areas to increase the
existing number of spaces.
Ill. Alternatives
If the Citizens Committee feels that additional policy
statements are necessary, alternative statements which the
Committee might want to consider include the following:
1) Consideration shall be given to enlarging the
existing Redevelopment Area or establishing a new
Redevelopment Area.
2) Improvements to areas adjacent to the Redevelopment
Area boundaries (i.e., the beach, the circulation
element) are essential to the viability of the
Redevelopment Area, therefore, the Redevelopment
Plan shall be considered for amendment to allow
improvements to these adjacent areas.
3) Adequate parking in the downtown area is a priority.
The city should consider all possible mechanisims
for insuring the adequate provision for insuring the
adequate provision of parking including:
1. Acquisition of public parking lots.
2. The establishment of parking district financed
by new developments.
3. Encouragement of the construction of public
parking structures.
Note: Chris Salomone, Redevelopment Area Manager,
will be present at the Citizens Committee meeting to
answer any questions regarding these issues.
-2-
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
I. Issues Identified
I 1. Overall quality of life
2. Protection of unique natural resources
II. Analysis
During the citizen workshops, many people expressed the
concern that the overall quality of life in Carlsbad not be
compromised as the city develops. This reflects a general desire
to live, work, shop, etc. in a pleasing environment, avoiding the
undesirable characteristics that many growing cities experience.
Obviously, this is a broad concept that encompasses many
different issues.
The Land Use Element currently makes some broad
statements in this regard such as; "it is a goal of the city to
preserve and enhance the environment ...of the city as a
desirable residential, beach, and open space-oriented community".
While many city programs work toward this goal, some (if taken
to the extreme) may work against it (e.g., city policies to
promote economic viability, encourage affordable housing, etc).
To "beef-up" the quality of life issue, the committee
may wish to add a policy that protection of the environment
should be the highest priority of the city, and all other issues
are secondary.
More specific environmental issues identified by
citizens include protection of natural features such as the
lagoons, beaches, hillsides, and canyons, and protection of the
community from undesirable man-made effects such as traffic
congestion and airport noise.
Again, the Land Use Element does make references to
these issues such as including a goal that "the city should
protect and conserve natural resources, fragile ecological areas,
unique natural assets,...".
A complete analysis of environmental effects as they
relate to the element would require extensive study, such as a
comprehensive environmental impact report. This environmental
impact report could discuss beach erosion, lagoon enhancement,
noise problems, and others, and could propose programs which
could mitigate environmental problems associated with these
issues.
Some environmental issues are presently covered by city
ordinances. The grading ordinance has regulations for hillside
grading, however, it primarily addresses stability and proper
drainage of slopes and not visual, aesthetic concerns of landform
alteration. The environmental ordinance requires preservation of
significant resources. On other issues, such as beach erosion,
the city has no adopted program for solution of the problem but
is exploring a number of alternatives.
Ill. Alternatives for Addressing Environmental Issue
If the committee feels that the present Land Use Element
does not address protection of the environment sufficiently,
there are several additional policy statements that might be
considered such as:
a) Protection of the environment should be the highest
priority of the city and all other issues are of
lesser priority;
or make statements on specific issues such as:
b) The city shall make protection of the beaches a high
priority and establish a long-term program to save
the sand, insure bluff stability and provide
convenient public access; or
c) The city shall identify all streambeds and riparian
habitats in the city and develop a specific program
for their preservation.
d) A hillside ordinance shall be prepared which limits
the overall alteration of the natural landform.
or, as another general alternative, the committee could propose
that a comprehensive environmental impact report on the Land Use
Element be completed, and a summary of the environmental data be
included in a separate environmental section of the element.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TIMING OF GROWTH AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
I. issues Identified
1. Timing of Growth
2. Timing of Public Facilities and Services
3. Urban Land Reserve Program
II. Analysis
Concern has been expressed about the amount and rate of growth
in Carlsbad. Although most people recognize that the city is
going to experience growth, concern has been raised about
whether the growth is occurring too fast. Are needed public
services and facilities keeping pace with the amount of
development? is the growth being well managed? Should it be
controlled? Is too much happening too fast? The timing of
growth can be a highly-debated issue because it crosses over so
many concerns including environmental, legal and economic.
The Land Use Element does not per se include any specific
provisions that attempt to regulate the rate or amount of
growth. When the present Element was adopted in 1974, a program
that was recommended was the "urban Land Reserve Program" which
would have allowed property owners to time or phase growth in
certain areas of the city. In return, the city would support
the owners request to have the taxes on the property reduced. A
map was included in the Element which showed possible urban
reserve areas (a copy of the map is contained in Section XIII of
your workbook). The intent of the recommendation for an urban
reserve program was to encourage certain lands not to be
developed until the development could coincide with the city's
ability to provide public services.
An urban reserve program as outlined in the Land Use Element was
never initiated by the city. Rather, in order to address the
issue of coordinating growth with the ability to provide public
services, the city created the Public Facilities Management
Program. This program was explained by Jim Hagaman, Research
and Analysis Group Manager, at the Committee meeting of March
25, 1985.
It should be pointed out that the city's Public Facilities
Management Program is not a mechanism to "control" or "time"
growth. Its purpose is not to identify areas in the city which
should not be developed for a specified period of time or to
limit by numbers or quotas the amount of development. Rather,
it is a mechanism to "manage" growth by 1) requiring new
development to help fund public facilities and services and 2)
monitoring the impact of new development on existing public
facilities so that it can be determined when new facilities are
needed.
III. Alternatives
1. If the Citizens Committee is satisfied that the city's
Public Facilities Manaqement Program adequately addresses
the issues identified with respect to the timing of growth
and public facilities, a statement could be added to the
Land Use Element which would recognize and support the
program. References to the Urban Land Reserve Program, could
be deleted. Recommendations could be made for improving the
Public Facilities Management Program such as:
A) The program shall be refined and expanded to insure
that all public improvements, facilities and services
are in place in all portions of the city when they are
needed.
B) The monitoring reports which are provided as part of
this program and which serve as an early warning
regarding public facilities needs shall be more
effectively coorindated with the establishment of the
Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
2. Alternative methods that have been used by other cities to
address the timing of growth and public facilities are
analyzed in the attached report which was prepared by
SANDAG at the request of staff.
NOTE: Staff (City Manager, Research & Analysis Manager) will
be available at the meeting to answer questions about
the Public Facilities Manaqement Program or explain
details of the program if the Committee desires.
-2-
I
I
I
I March 13, 1985
TO: Carlsbad's Citizens' Committee: Land Use Element Review
I FROM: SANDAG Staff
SUBJECT: Alternative Growth Management Techniques
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Introduction
The rate of population growth has long been a public issue in the San Diego
Region. Its effect on the "quality of life" continues to be widely debated and the
level and frequency of debate might increase again soon as the economy continues
to improve and, as a result, the growth rate accelerates again.
Population growth entails environmental and fiscal costs as well as economic
benefits.
Most local governments in the United States concerned with the issue of rapid
growth have concluded that the legal and economic consequences of attempting to
control the rate of growth are too severe to warrant the effort. Accordingly,
"growth management" programs have proliferated as alternatives to "growth
control." Using "growth management" programs, local governments try to ac-
commodate growth using planning and regulatory techniques without attempting
to reduce its rate.
Comparative Descriptions of Alternative
Growth Management Techniques
It has been estimated that there are about 60 techniques that could be and have
been used as part of municipal or county growth management programs in this
country. A partial list of these techniques is contained in Table 1, attached to
this memo.
The methods used most frequently by local governments to manage growth include
traditional zoning controls, fees and assessments charged to builders and residents
of newly developed areas to pay at least part of the costs of new or expanded
public services, time phasing of development, building permit quotas (usually for
residential permits).
These most frequently used techniques are desribed below, first as individual
planning methods, and then in the context of local governments which are using
them as part of growth management programs.
Zoning Controls; The most familiar growth management tactic. Besides the
obvious distribution of residential land use into various levels of densities, a
number of other zoning devices have been used to restrict housing supply. The
most prevalent of these restrictions has been large lot zoning; by reserving sub-
stantial portions of the area of a community (that has been zoned for residential
use) for low density, high minimum acreage (e.g., one dwelling unit/acre or more),
communities have been able to restrict housing supply to single-family large lot
development. This most popular technique is often complemented by other re-
quirements that would insure larger, more expensive single family detached units
(high minimum floor areas, non-multifamily zones, etc.). These efforts often have
been labeled as "exclusionary devices," i.e., designed to exclude unwanted
(income, ethnic, and racial) groups from a community and/or protect the status
quo. The exclusions were most often intended to prohibit high density, multi-
family, and/or mobile home dwellings in those rural and slowly developing com-
munities that stood in the path of urban development, or in the satellite suburbs
that served as bedroom communities for the larger, older central cities.
A variation of the zoning out of high density development has been the recent
"down zoning" practices that have been applied in a number of communities.
Under this technique, communities rezone substantial portions of their areas from
a previously designated higher density residential zone to a lower density resi-
dential zone. This most often occurs in those areas where residential development
has proceeded at a density level which is less than the allowable limit (e.g., single
family construction in a multi-family zoned area). As the residents in the existing
developments project a community character based upon the initial low density
development, pressure is generated to "down zone" the remaining undeveloped
parcels to a density level that is consistent with the existing development.
These devices, as controls on housing supply, have been rendered less effective by
the courts which have emphasized the housing needs of the region in which the
community is located. Other limitations of zoning techniques related to, but not
directly involving, housing restrictions (lack of a clear connection to the general
plan, parochial orientation, etc.) have resulted in the development of a number of
other housing limiting tactics that do not rely on local zoning powers.
Fees and Assessments; Can also be referred to as "urban service pricing
policies." This method is used by public agencies in allocating public service costs
to existing vs. new development. All of the faster growing jurisdictions in the
Region, including Carlsbad, have programs which shift most or all of the costs of
new development to the builders and residents of the newly developed area.
Carlsbad's Public Facilities Financing System will be described to the Committee
at the meeting of March 18, 1985.
Time Phasing of Development; A variety of techniques can be used to time-phase
development in a community, including public facility extension policies, zoning
controls (see above), and building permit quotas (see below). In summary, a com-
munity seeking to time phase development normally designates the area(s) to be
withheld from development as part of an amendment or revision of its general
plan. The area(s) so designated are then illustrated on the general plan map. The
general plan text describes the policies and conditions under which the designated
area(s) will be made available for development.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The City of San Diego, in its 1979 general plan update, designated areas to be
reserved from development until after 1995.
Building Permit Quotas; Quotas, when used, usually apply to residential permits,
rather than commercial or industrial buildings. They establish the number of
housing starts which will be approved by the local government during the pre-
scribed period of time. Court reviews of this method of growth management
(growth "control" is probably a more accurate term) have restricted their use and
application significantly. If attempted, a quota should be tied to estimates and
forecasts of regional housing needs, other elements of the local general plan, and
the quota must consider the low income housing needs of the community.
In the following section, these growth management techniques are described as
they are used (or were used, in some cases) in communities around the country.
1. Boca Raton, Florida. Boca Raton was one of the first communities in the
nation to enact population control measures. In 1972 the city's electorate
passed a referendum which imposed a "growth cap" of 40,000 dwelling units;
the intent was to stabilize the population at a maximum of 105,000. Although
the referendum did not prescribe the means by which these objectives were to
be implemented, the City Council took some steps in reaction to the issue:
(1) purchased $33 million of beachfront property to prevent development; (2)
imposed a moratorium on all residential development except single-family
and duplex construction; and (3) down zoned some portions of the com-
munity. As a result of these actions, a major corporation which had its
development potential reduced from 18,000 units to 8,000 units brought suit
against the city. In 1977 the court ordered the down zonings reversed but
ruled that the "cap" concept was legal with a caution that the actual cap
must be more rationally defined. Although the initial reactions caused prop-
erty values to dramatically appreciate, the long-range impact will be difficult
to assess since the caps apply oapply to residential development and impose
only numerical limits without defining the character of the acceptable units.
Following the court ruling, the city developed a growth control economic
model in order to study the impacts of the controls and compare the impacts
to alternative methods.
2. San Jose, California. The city implemented growth management based upon a
set of urban development policies that review the impacts of the projected
growth. The city was divided into three categories: urban service area,
urban transition area (eliminated later), and urban reserve. The management
of growth was extended by a moratorium on residential building permits
where school overcrowding could be documented and a development mora-
torium in two areas of the city. The major effect was to restrict devel-
opment (and issuance of permits) to areas where urban services and facilities
exist or would logically be extended (the urban service area).
The residential growth rate in San Jose continued to fluctuate with the
economy (as usual). One local economist estimates that 20-30% of the in-
crease in housing costs hi the City during the late 1970's resulted from San
Jose's growth management policies.
3. Petaluma, California. In August of 1972, Pet alum a established a Residential
Development Control System designed to slow the rapid growth that it had
been experiencing since 1970. The system was actually a detailed method for
evaluating building permit applications on the basis of public facility, school,
and transportation capacities as well as architectural excellence and the
overall quality of the development.
Goals were established which (1) limits growth to 500 units per year (one half
the annual average for 1970-72), (2) preserves the city's small town character,
(3) ties development to service capacities, and (4) addresses the distribution
of units, annexations, open space, downtown, and county cooperation
Another interesting feature of the Petaluma experience is that 10 percent of
the building permits each year must be reserved for the construction of low
and moderate income housing units.
The lower courts had declared the Petaluma ordinance invalid because it
violated the constitutional right of travel (travel was defined to include
travel to Petaluma to establish residence) and the 500 unit per year ceiling
was considered arbitrary. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court's position and upheld growth management by Petaluma as a
legitimate exercise of the local police powers.
4. Boulder, Colorado. Boulder's growth control system was also passed as a
voter initiative and is modeled after the Petaluma system. Dwelling units
were limited to 450 units per year (the city's growth rate has been 1,100 units
per year), with 175 units designated for the central core and 275 units for the
peripheral area. The plans for these units must be approvd by the merit
system which rates projects only as "Go"/ITNo Go." The growth management
system also restricted development based upon urban services availability,
annexation, and open space needs. The objective of the system was to pre-
serve the scenic mountains, control development, and separate Boulder from
the other suburbs of Denver. The city also included a requirement that
developers provide low and moderate income housing units equivalent to 15
percent of all housing development. The efforts also included pay-as-you-go
development fees and termination of Boulder Chamber of Commerce re-
cruitment of industry to the city. Since previously approved subdivisions had
been exempted by the controls, the number of units built in 1977 exceeded
1,100 units. However, by 1978 only 750 units were provided. The urban core
allocation was not realized and the continuing improbability of urban core
construction will reduce the overall limit to about 300 units per year. The
Boulder planning staff feels that the system has some problems, including: (1)
a development process of over 18 months to start of construction, (2) a wind-
fall profits for initial buyers of moderate income housing, and (3) deficiencies
in inadequate provisions for rental housing and imbalance between housing
supply and employment (especially in the face of an industry study showing
the need to employ 6,000 people within a couple of years).
5. Ramapo, New York. The planning experience that is most often cited with
regard to controlling growth is that of Ramapo. The city has now dropped
some aspects of its program. However, when adopted, the town's amended
zoning ordinance once prevented the development of land for new housing
unless a special permit was granted. These permits were granted only if the
development could be served by a. "sufficient level" of community facilities.
The development of these facilities (sewers, drainage, roads, firehouses and
I
I
parks and recreation) was explicitly scheduled on an 18-year capital im-
I provements program. If, for example, a developer wished to use a piece of
land that had "insufficient" community facilities at present, the developer
could install them and proceed with development. In any case, no part of
Ramapo would be unserved by "sufficient" facilities after the 18th year.
I Thus, the "timing ordinance" did not prevent development, rather it merely
• staged it. The land that would not be served for a specified number of years
was also taxed for that period at a diminished rate, reflecting in part its
• diminished market value.
The point system was intended to limit growth to a rate of five percent per
I year and direct the growth to those areas where services and facilities were
available. However, due to changes in major economic factors, the town's
capital improvements program fell behind schedule. Therefore, Ramapo's
requirements virtually stopped development of properties lacking points forIspecial permits. Many developers shifted their development activities to
adjacent communities.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Although the Ramapo system had the effect of limiting construction from
1,000 units per year to 350 units per year, total population was not reduced or
restricted. The same number of people would have been accommodated over
time; however, the full development of the community occurs in an orderly
fashion with less public and greater private expense. This greater private
expense factor implied an exclusionary tendency in such an ordinance and the
courts required that it must be augmented by .adequate provisions for low and
moderate income housing.
In 1972 the New York Supreme Court upheld the Ramapo ordinance. The
Ramapo decision was heralded as a major brakthrough in the gro'wth man-
agement field. In many ways this approach bridged the gap between the
community's general plan and its capital improvement program. Timing
controls have shown that coordinating the rate of growth with the availability
of facilities and services is a reasonable and practical means for imple-
menting the planning process and guiding orderly physical growth.
These five cases illustrate growth management techniques that control develop-
ment to varying degrees. In many cases these controls govern residential devel-
opment and not commercial or industrial development. Housing limits are
imposed largely in the context that "where there are fewer new homes, there are
fewer new people." However, population growth is reflective of a complex set of
factors that influences the character of a community. The isolation of one factor,
housing, should not be posed as the sole means to resolve the problems associated
with growth; rather, a complete approach that is well established in a compre-
hensive general plan presents a more logical context in which to manage growth.
I
o
jd
I
u
e
i
•BSS
1"oI
'i
01>
AaE
3
W3TVS a.
•OD OXN3WVHDVS X
vwmvxad •
H3<nhos •
S.3DHO3D SDNIMd
OD AH3WO01NOW
•OD Nnoanoi •
•OD XVJHIVH
OdVWVH •
•QD aava o
NO1VHVDOH
••
x
•
o • •
o • •
x
x
• o X 7 • •
• o o
•
• • • • •
**
g
5/5
U
BO_c
'«
o
a
S1
w c
-s •e-o-S g
I 4i ^2 +*eQ. (D
S
S
gl liiif
llpillll
llfila 2 S — ""|]|III
5 a U0 S 6 S
15-S5*^ *3 C *_« E O ;
3 jj C ga ao 5§_— -g -fi
"3 5 3 -i3
Bl*P
i !
8 «
S eo•a 2 c
M i: "~
* IS
1E a.
•G
It
Hill!SIS£11c c --J
S1
II
-100 B
II 8™ •*- e*3s
1-o-s? § * aS3 *rf • 9
1
I!
5'S
I
S-s I.3S IN « «•= ^
.
....,-._.--._._..... ^
.
-._.._<I,,„, ^, ^ >, ..^ ^. ., „ „^'in
«o ® O C 3
• o X — a.
xM
Su
i•3
I
!
X
'S
I
i
WHTVS
'OD O1N3HVMDVS
vwmviad
ancnnofl
S.3DHO3D 3^^aHd
OD AH3WOO1NOW
'oo Nnoanoi
'OD XVJHIVd
OdVINVH
'OD 3QVQ
NOXVH vooa
7*
•••••
X • X
•••••X
«xx
X» »X
Xx
V X • • X X X X • • • • eu
•••• X« «xx
xx x«xxx ••
x • • x ••
• • X XXX ••
• • • • • X X X •••
xox x •••
XXXX XXX
• X X ••• x • X • •
oooxXXX o X XX Xx °
x x • • x •
aI
i
enu
a> TjJ•3.^ aS•J853
IllsslI
fi S-^tS^J ISb<E S 'B%6las6
i+ 01 PS ^" in <o f» coaiOriMm^in
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DENSITY AND POPULATION
I. Issues Identified
1. Density Ranges
2. Net vs. Gross Density
3. Use of Clustering
4. Population Projections
II. Analysis
A. Density Ranges
Density and population are being addressed in the same
report because they are so interrelated. If changes are
recommended concerning density or the way it is calculated, it
will have a direct impact on population projections. These are
probably the two most critical issues to be discussed by the-
committee.
Density is the number of dwelling units or homes which
are permitted on an acre of land. As the committee is aware, the
city has five basic density ranges, 0-1.5, 0-4, 4-10, 10-20 and
20-30 dwelling units per acre. The ranges provide for a wide
variety of densities and housing types which is reflective of the
"balanced community" concept. No one seems to object to this
concept but the concern is: (1) to make sure that the different
densities and types blend-in and relate well to each other
(compatibility); (2) whether the density ranges are too broad;
(3) whether any of the density ranges are causing problems (i.e,
parking, circulation, quality of design); and (4) the end result
of the different density allocations (projected population) .
The density range concept of the Land Use Element is
where permitted densities are given in terms of a range rather
than a specific density. This is a unique planning tool and in
planning staff's opinion, the best planning tool the city has to
encourage quality, well-designed projects. The actual density
that is permitted on a property is determined on a project-by-
project basis based on conformance with the residential policies
and criteria contained in the Land Use Element. If a project
just complies with minimum standards and ordinances, it is only
"guaranteed" the minimum density within the density range. The
project must justify "moving-up" in the density range. This
provides an incentive for a well-designed, quality project that
complies with all the policies and criteria contained in the Land
Use Element. It also can provide a mechanism to insure that the
project is compatible with surrounding land uses.
The criteria that is used by staff in determining the
justification for a project "moving-up" in the density range is
attached to this report (Exhibit "A"). One of the criticism that
has been expressed to staff has been that the criteria is too
subjective. One alternative the committee might want to consider
is to recommend that more detailed criteria be established and
that an actual rating or point system be developed to support the
justification for moving-up in the density range. A checklist
detailing the criteria could be developed and points (relating to
higher density) could be assigned based upon compliance with the
criteria. The checklist and rating evaluation could be part of
the staff report on each project. This would provide more
information to the public, developers and the decision-makers.
The Land Use Element assumes that the overall densities
when the city is fully developed will approximate the mean point
of the various residential density ranges as follows:
0-1.5 - 1
0-4 = 3
4-10 = 7
10-20 = 15
20-30 = 25
In other words, some projects will be approved toward
the lower end of the density range based on the criteria
contained in the element and actual zoning and others will be
approved toward the high end. Overall, the approved densities
will average out toward the midpoint of the ranges.
Projections that are made in the general plan concerning
population, public facilities, parks, circulation and other items
are based on this assumption. In order to track the accuracy of
this assumption, staff reviewed the files for projects approved
over a ten year period since the present Land Use Element was
adopted. The results of this study were presented to the
committee at one of your briefing meetings. It showed that when
taken together, the projects were resulting in overall densities
averaging out at the midpoint and, in some of the ranges, below
the midpoint. However, in order to insure that the midpoint of
the existing density ranges are not exceeded and to insure that
all the projections and studies are accurate, cautious and
represent a worst-case situation, an alternative would be to
reduce the present density ranges to make the existing midpoint
of the multiple density ranges, the maximum density as follows:
Existing Alternative
4-10 4-7
10-20 7-15
20-30 15-25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Staff has been asked whether any of the density ranges
of the Land Use Element are of concern to staff or whether
problems are anticipated in locations where they have been
applied. The answer is yes. Where larger pockets of the 20-30
density range has been applied, problems regarding parking,
circulation, intensity of use have been experienced or are
anticipated. These larger pockets are located in the Bristol
Cove area, the area along the south side of the golf course at La
Costa and the beach area located between Carlsbad Boulevard, the
railroad, Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Redevelopment area
boundary. Both the Bristol Cove area and the area to the south
of the La Costa golf course are pretty much developed out and
they are experiencing the problems mentioned above. The largest
pocket of higher density is the beach area which will experience
a lot more development and redevelopment in the near future. As
the Committee will recall, concerns were expressed by citizens at
all the general public input workshops ragarding lack of parking
and congestion in the beach area. Alternatives that might be
considered for the beach area include:
(1) Reducing the density range from 20-30 to 15-25.
(2) Reducing the size of the area shown for 20-30.
(3) Doing away with the 20-30 density range.
(4) Requiring increased standards for development in
the beach area (i.e, more parking, more access, more open space
on each lot).
B. Gross vs. Net Density
In Carlsbad, the allowable number of units on a site is
determined by multiplying its acreage times its general plan
designation or density range. This would give the site's gross
density, that is the density based on the site's gross acreage.
As an example, if a 10 acre site had a general plan designation
of RM, Residential Medium, 4-10 du's/acre, forty to one hundred
units could be located on this site, based on the design of the
project, the amount of amenities provided and the other criteria
contained in the Land Use Element.
Some jurisdictions may subtract the area taken up by
wetlands, riparian habitats, steep slopes or public right of way
from a site's acreage and then calculate the number of units
allowed on the site. This would give the site's net density or
density calculated on the buildable area only.
Staff has contacted a number of cities throughout the
state to find our how they calculate density. Approximately half
calculate a site's density based on its gross acreage similar to
Carlsbad. Other cities subtract certain items then calculate the
number of units allowed based on the site's net acreage. In the
appendix of this report there is a list of cities that calculate
density based on a site's net acreage and the items that they do
not give credit for when determining density (Exhibit "C").
The next portion of this report will discuss possible
items that may be deducted from a sites acreage to determine the
number of units permitted based on the sites net acreage. This
report will also attempt to describe how the elimination of
density credit for each of these areas would effect development
in Carlsbad. The following list represents items that may be
eliminated when calculating a sites net density:
(1) Beaches
(2) Water bodies
(3) Wetlands
(4) Floodplains
(5) Riparian habitats
(6) Public right-of-way
(7) Powerline easements
(8) Isolated undevelopable areas
(9) Significant vegetation
(10) Slopes
Beaches
A beach can be defined as the zone of unconsolidated
material that extends landward from the low water line to the
place where there is a marked change in material or physiographic
form or the line of permanent vegetation, usually the effective
limit of storm waves.
Private ownership ends at the mean high tide mark on a beach. In
the past, there often was a substantial portion of the beach
above the mean high tide mark. Due to recent coastal erosion,
high tides now usually go to the bottom of existing bluffs or
seawalls. There are relatively few, less than have a dozen
undeveloped, buildable parcels within the City of Carlsbad that
include beaches. These parcels are located in the older portion
of the City and almost all of them are less then one acre in
size. In the past some projects along Ocean Street may have used
beach area to calculate their allowable density. If no credit
were given for beaches in calculating density it would have a
very minor effect on only a few parcels in Carlsbad.
Water Bodies
Other then the lagoons there are no significant natural
water bodies in the City of Carlsbad. Small seasonal ponds exist
in a few isolated low-lying areas throughout the City. Two large
reservoirs exist within the City; Squires Dam and Lake Calavera.
Both of these reservoirs and the land surrounding them are
designated Open Space by the General Plan.
All of the lagoons are designated Open Space by the Land
Use Element. Even though portions of the lagoons are under
private ownership their acreage has not been used for density
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
calculations for any of the major projects proposed adjacent to
the lagoons. - For example, when the allowable density was
calculated for the Kelly Ranch Master Plan, no credit was
given for the portion of the lagoon or wetlands owned by the
Kellys. No density credit will be given for the portion of
Batiquitos Lagoon owned by Hunt Properties when that area is
developed. In the past a few smaller projects located adjacent
to Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista Lagoons may have included
portions of the lagoon when calculating their allowable density.
Since all of the lagoons are presently designated as O-S (Open
Space), they cannot be used for calculating density.
Wetlands
Wetlands could be defined as an area where water is
retained for a portion of the year and unique vegetation has
adapted to this area. In the case of salt water wetlands, unique
vegetation has adapted to being periodically covered by salt
water.
Wetlands provide valuable habitats for many species,
especially birds. Almost all of Carlsbad's salt water wetlands
are presently designated OS (Open Space) on the General Plan and
are not used for calculating density.
There are a few freshwater marsh areas scattered
throughout the City that are not designated as Open Space at the
present time. If density credit was not given for these areas it
would effect relatively few projects.
Floodplains
A floodplain is a relatively flat area contiguous to a
stream whose elevation is higher than the normal water level, but
equal to or lower then the projected 100 year flood elevation. A
floodplain would be completely covered with water by a 100 year
flood. A 100 year flood is the water flow of a stream that is
created by a very large storm that is expected to occur on an
average of once every 100 years.
Some of the 100 year floodplains within the City of
Carlsbad are not designated O-S (Open Space) and are presently
being used for calculating density. Most of the floodplains in
Carlsbad have the F-P, Flood Plain Overlay zone. This alerts
staff that a special use permit is required before any
development can occur in these areas. A special use permit
assures that the proposed development will be safe from flooding
and the alteration of the floodplain for the construction of that
particular project will not adversely affect other properties
within or adjacent to the 100 year floodplain.
If density credit was not given for areas within the
floodplain it would effect relatively few projects in Carlsbad.
Riparian Woodlands
Except for lagoons and wetland areas, riparian woodlands
are the most valuable wildlife habitat in the City. Riparian
woodlands are the heavily vegetated areas adjacent to streams.
Riparian areas are generally characterized by a thick growth of
willows, coast live oaks, sycamores, bulrush, sedge and nettles.
Riparian woodlands were once common throughout Calfornia
lowlands, but have undergone extreme reduction in distribution
and deterioration in quality as a result of flood control
activities, sand and gravel mining, harvesting for fuel, upstream
urban development and other urban activities. Well developed
riparian woodlands provide excellent wildlife habitat,
particularly for bird species, many of which are restricted to
riparian habitats. Dense riparian thickets trap large quantities
of flood transported silt, thereby reducing downstream siltation.
This is especially important in Carlsbad where almost all
riparian areas eventually drain into lagoons.
A large portion of the riparian areas within the City of"
Carlsbad are not designated as Open Space and are used for
calculating density. Often it is quite difficult for staff to
convince developers to preserve riparian habitats without
allowing them to be used for density calculations especially
since they are not designated Open Space on the Land Use Plan.
The City of Oceanside does not allow riparian areas to be used
for density calculations.
If the City did not allow riparian areas to be utilized
for density calculations, it would effect a substantial number of
properties in the City of Carlsbad.
Public Right-of-Way
Public right-of-way is the area taken up by a public
street along with sidewalks and the utility easement area
immediately behind the sidewalks. Generally public right-of-way
extends back at least 10 feet from the face of curb. Some cities
do not allow public right-of-way to be used for density
calculations. The City of Carlsbad does not allow density to be
calculated on already dedicated public streets, but does allow
density to be calculated on public streets that have not been
dedicated. For example, if a developer had to construct and
dedicate a portion of a major arterial through his property he
could utilize the area occupied by the future road and right-of-
way for calculating his density.
If the City adopted a policy not to allow future right-
of-way to be utilized for density calculations it would effect
all large projects and many smaller projects. It would be
especially hard on projects that were bisected by a major
arterial, not only would the developer have to dedicate and
construct a major arterial, but he would not be allowed to
I
I
calculate density on the portion of his property that he had to{dedicate. In addition, if credit was not given for public right-
of-way/ developers would be encouraged to build extensive private
street systems to avoid losing density. This could become an
• expensive maintenance problem for future homeowners.
If the City decided not to give density credit for
I public right-of-way it would be best just to do this for major
I arterials shown on the General Plan. Then developers would still
" be able to create public streets within their project and not
lose density.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Powerline Easements
There are a number of powerline easements radiating from
the San Diego Gas and Electric power plant, see Exhibit "F".
These easements vary in width from 100 - 200 feet. San Diego Gas
and Electric does not own the land under the powerlines, but
restricts what the property owner can do with this portion of
their property. Permanent structures can not be located in-
powerline easements, but parking and recreational facilities may
be permitted with the approval of S.D.G.& E.
If the City did not allow powerline easements to be
utilized for density calculations it would effect a substantial
number of properties in Carlsbad.
Isolated Undevelopable Areas
Occasionally a portion of a site will be isolated from
the buildable portion of the property by a powerline easement,
riparian habitat or public street. Even though it may not be
feasible to access and develop this isolated portion of the
property it can still be utilized for density calculations on the
buildable portion of the site. It is impossible to determine how
many properties would be affected if the City did not allow
density to be calculated on isolated undevelopable areas.
Significant Vegetation
This category is highly subjective. Some people believe
that a healthy stand of chaparral should be classified as
significant vegetation. Others believe that a mature stand of
Coast Live Oaks or Eucalyptus trees represent significant
vegetation. At the present time when staff believes that a site
has significant vegetation, staff will encourage a developer to
cluster his units to save as much of the significant vegetation
as possible. If the City did not allow density to be calculated
on areas with significant vegetation it is impossible to
determine how many properties would be affected. First the City
would have to come up with a specific definition of significant
vegetation. Then each development proposal would have to be
evaluated on a case by case basis to determine the extent of
significant vegetation on the site.
7
Slope
Members of the Committee have often expressed concerns
about slopes and density calculations on slopes. Slope can be
defined as ground that forms a natural incline either upward or
downward. Most of the undeveloped residentially designated land
in Carlsbad contains slopes of varying steepness. These slopes
help to create the character of Carlsbad and when preserved in
their native state serve as natural breaks between residential
developments.
Slope can be measured in three manners:
Degree of slope 27°
Percentage of slope 50%
Horizontal distance compared
to height 2:1
All of the above describe the slope illustrated below.
Generally percentage of slope and horizontal distance
compared to height are the two most commonly used methods of
measuring slope. Exhibit "E" gives some of the limitations and
characteristics of various slopes. Theoretically any slope can
be built on either by flattening the slope through mass grading
or by development with pole structures or other specialized
foundations. In addition, the type of soil in a slope can have a
significant impact on slope stability. Some soils are stable at
a slope of 2:1 while others are not even stable at a slope of
4:1.
Often development on steep slopes is avoided due to
stability problems and the cost of grading to create buildable
pads. Most developers will attempt to avoid steep slopes and
cluster all of their development on the flatter portions of their
site. In addition, whenever possible staff attempts to get
developers to avoid steep slopes which helps to preserve the
character of Carlsbad. This often results in a rather dense
looking development surrounded by a large amount of open space in
its natural state in an area that is designated for low density
development.
Oceanside does not allow density to be calculated on
slopes with a steepness of 40% or greater and requires a detailed
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
soils report for development on slopes of 20-40%. Oceanside's
staff has informed the City that not allowing density
calculations on 40% or greater slopes has relatively little
effect on projects since most sites have relatively limited
amounts of naturally occurring slopes of 40% or greater and often
developers attempt to avoid developing these areas.
Another problem that occurs with not allowing
development on steep slopes or allowing density to be calculated
on steep slopes is the instance when a relatively flat site is
bisected by a small steep sided gully. If the slopes forming
this gully can not be graded it may make the entire site
unbuildable. This situation is addressed by Section 1401.52 of
Oceanside's Hillside Development Regulations. This section of
the ordinance allows for exceptions to the ordinance subject to
approval of the Planning Commission or City Council.
If the City did not allow density to te Ccilcnlated on
steep slopes it is im possible to determine how many properties
would be affected. First the City would have to determine what
was an unbuildable slope, 25%, 40%, 45%? After slope categories
were chosen a slope analysis would have to be done for each site.
It is impossible to create an accurate slope map for the City of
Carlsbad on a map sheet the size of the General Plan. A map of
this size showing all of Carlsbad does not have enough
topographic detail to accurately determine all of the existing
slopes.
However, staff estimates that if no density credit was
given for slopes of 40% or greater relatively few properties
would have their density significantly decreased. If no density
credit was given for slopes of 25% or greater a significant
portion of the vacant hillside properties in Carlsbad would have
their allowable density reduced. Another possibility is to give
no density credit for slopes of 40% or greater and 50% density
credit for slopes of 25% - 40%.
Attached to this report is a copy of Oceanside's
Hillside Development Regulations. Planners from the City of
Oceanside have informed staff that they have had relatively few
problems implementing the Ordinance.
A good feature of Oceanside's Ordinance is that it
requires the submittal of a detailed constraints map with all
applications. These constraints maps must show all slopes over
20%, the location of significant vegetation, riparian habitats
and other significant features. This type of map would make it
much easier for a staff member to determine whether or not a
proposed project is sensitive to the existing natural features.
Generally, it is very difficult for staff to get this type of
information up-front from developers. Oceanside's Hillside
Development Regulations could be easily modified for use in
Carlsbad if the Committee believes Carlsbad should have this type
of ordinance.
Staff has reviewed a number of projects calculating what
their gross density is and what their net density would be if
density credit was not given for various items discussed in this
report. Each project could have a variety of densities depending
on which items were eliminated from density calculations.
Several small scale maps have been attached to this report
illustrating the above mentioned concept.
Exhibit "H" designates undeveloped residentially
designated areas in various shades of zip-a-tone. These
undeveloped residential areas can be divided into four
categories:
(1) Areas with no plans pending
(2) Areas with projects under review
(3) Areas with approved roaster plans
(4) Areas with approved tentative tract maps
Any change in the method of calculating density from
gross acreage to net acreage will be opposed by the owners and
future developers of these vacant areas. The strength of the
opposition will be determined by what items were eliminated from
density calculations and what areas were affected by the revised
method of calculating density.
The City can apply a revised method of calculating
density to the first three categories listed above. It would be
easiest to just apply it to Category #1. However, as shown by
Exhibit "H" this would effect a relatively small portion of the
undeveloped land in Carlsbad. Developers with projects under
review, Category #2, would strongly oppose any change in the
method of calculating density since they are in the process of
developing plans for their property based on calculating gross
density.
Any attempt to revise already approved master plans to
base their density on net density rather then gross density would
be strongly opposed by the owners of these areas. Many of the
owners of these properties believe that they already have a
guaranteed method of calculating density because they have gone
through the master plan process even though they do not have any
approved tentative maps. If the City decided to calculate net
density rather then gross density in areas with approved master
plans it would require the revision of all of the City's master
plans since their densities have all been based on gross acreage
rather than net acreage. This would be a rather lengthy process
and as mentioned previously would be strongly opposed, possibly
with the threat of legal action by the developers of the master
plans.
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
When considering net versus gross density and areas not
to be used for .density calculations the Committee should consider
what they really want to accomplish (i.e., preservation of
significant environmental features, prohibition of unbuildable
areas or a reduction in resulting density).
At the next Committee meeting there will be large scale
exhibits of a number of projects showing gross and net density.
At this meeting staff will also present a slide show with
examples of all of the items discussed in this report. This show
will also have slides showing slopes of various steepness in the
City of Carlsbad.
C. Clustering
Another density issue that has been raised involves
clustering. The advantages of allowing cluster development have
been previously addressed by staff. Clustering can be used as an
incentive to a developer for innovative planning and to preserve
more environmental sensitive areas in open space. This iff.
acceptable to most developers because the permitted density is
not sacrificed. The major disadvantages that staff has heard of
is from adjoining property owners because the portion of the
property where the density is clustered to has a higher resultant
density which may not be compatible with adjoining development.
Policy statements in the Land Use Element presently encourage
cluster-type housing. A statement could be added or the existing
one modified to only encourage clustering when it is done in a
way that is compatible with existing, adjacent development.
D. Population Projections
A number of different figures have been given regarding
the buildout population of Carlsbad per the existing Land Use
Element. The reason for this is that the projections are just
best guess estimates which are based on a number of factors that
are subject to change over time. Some of these factors include:
(1) Household size
(2) Coastal constraints
(3) City policies
(4) Increases in non-residential land uses.
(5) Actual density of projects which have been
approved
(6) Economic and market trends
(7) State-mandated density programs
11
There are more factors that could be listed but the
point is that it is difficult to establish a precise buildout
figure. It is more appropriate to establish a general figure
that can be used as a goal or a buildout range that the Land Use
Element is working toward.
The buildout or ultimate population figure in the
present Land Use Element was obtained by multiplying the number
of acres in each residential category by the minimum and maximum
number of units permitted in that category. The resulting
figures were then multiplied by household size which was 2.6
persons per household. The result was a buildout range of
154,000 to 281,000. An actual anticipated buildout figure of
208,291 was established by using midrange densities.
In the last few years, there has been some question as
to whether the Land Use Element will really provide for up to
208,000. More recent studies by staff, by consultants and by
SANDAG indicate that the 208,000 is way too high because of some
of the factors mentioned above. All of these studies have shown,
that a buildout figure between 140,000 to 160,000 persons is much
more applicable. Staff just recently completed another study
concerning buildout population which will be explained at the
next committee meeting. It was based on actual project
approvals, master plan projections and estimates regarding the
remaining undeveloped areas. This study again confirmed the
140,000 to 160,000 range. Although 160,000 is a possibility,
staff believes that something closer to 140,000 is more
accurate.
Another background question concerning population that
has been asked is just how much population is the city already
committed to. Part of staff's recent population study attempted
to address this and this also will be explained by staff in more
detail at the next committee meeting. Again, this is an
estimate. The estimate involves different levels of commitment
on different types of projects some of which may not get built.
A summary is as follows:
(1) Developed or projects being developed = 55,335 Population
(2) Approved tentative map = 16,317 Population
(3) Approved master plans = 29,982 Population
TOTAL: =101,634 Population
Put in more simple terms, the city is about 1/3
developed, about 1/3 has some form of commitment on it, and about
1/3 is undeveloped and uncommitted.
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternatives
Any changes that are made concerning density or how it
is calculated will affect the ultimate buildout population. If
changes are proposed, the committee needs to decide whether these
changes should just be applied to undeveloped, uncommitted areas
of the city. In terms of committed areas, changes would not
apply to approved tentative maps unless they expire. Although
approved master plans have been given some level of commitment
from the city, changes could be initiated by action of the city
certainly with objection from the master plan developers.
Alternatives which the committee might want to discuss
and consider regarding density and population are as follows:
1. Density Ranges
A. Reduce the density ranges
B. Narrow the density ranges
C. Eliminate the High Density 20-30 range
D. Recommend preparation of a rating system which more
specifically establishes the process for determining
where a project is approved within a density range.
2. Gross vs. Net Density
A. Calculate density based on net acreage excluding
beaches, water bodies, wetlands, floodplains, riparian
habitats, public right-of-way, powerline easements,
isolated undevelopable areas, significant vegetation,
slopes
B. Calculate density based on net acreage excluding any
variation of the items listed above - Example: exclude
environmentally sensitive areas but allow public right-
of-way, powerline easements and isolated areas to be
counted.
C. Calculate density based on gross acreage but only give
partial credit for the items listed above - Examples:
1) No credit for slopes over 40%, partial credit (50%)
for slopes between 25% and 40%; 2) Give partial credit
(50%) for preserving environmentally sensitive areas.
NOTE: Areas that are presently shown on the Land Use
Plan as General Plan Open Space (i.e. lagoons, parks,
beaches) would not be given any credit.
3. Clustering
Recommend a revised policy statement to encourage clustering
but only where it does not result in a density that is
incompatible with surrounding, existing or proposed
residential development.
13
4. Population
Again, any changes regarding density will affect the
Committee's recommendation on population but some
suggestions for thought which would recognize population
studies corresponding to the current Land Use Element
include:
1. Establish a buildout population range of 140,000 to
160,000
2. Establish a buildout population goal not to exceed
140,000.
The Committee might also want to consider with any
alternative regarding population, that the city
establish a program to closely monitor growth and
population with periodic reports updating project
approvals, trends and relationship between existing
population and remaining vacant land.
Attachments
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
"A"
"B"11 c"
"D"
"E"up..
"G"
"H"
9) Reduced Maps
Criteria for density determinations
Summary sheet regarding net vs. gross density
List of cities that determine net density
Slope relationship
Slope Limitations
General slope map and powerline easements
City of Oceanside Ordinance
Approve and pending residential development in
Carlsbad
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT AI
I ; CRITERIA-DENSITY DETERMINATION
I i. Sit* Constraint*
I I. Topography
2. Lot Configuration
3. Environmental Resources
I XX. On-Site Amenities/Design \
1. Overall Design
1 2. Recreational Facilities
3. Architecture
III. Location/Off-site Amenitiee
I 1. Proximity to Recreational Resources
2. Proximity to Services - Shopping
1 3* View-Beach, Lagoon
4. Proximity to Employment Centers
• IV» Land Use Compatibility
" 1. Density of Adjacent Projects
2. Proximity to Noise - Freeway
I V. Public Facilities
I I. Adequacy of Street/Access
2. Adequacy of Drainage fc Sewer System
VI. Other
I 1. Implementation of Other Goals/Programs in General
Plan.
| A. Affordable Housing
B. Rental Housing
• C. Redevelopment
I
•
"Check list used by Planners to det«rmine if
densities above minimum meet General Plan
criteria. Dec. 1984."
I
I
I EXHIBIT A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT "
SUMMARY SHEET
If no density credit was allowed for the following items
relatively few properties in the City would be effected.
Beaches
Water Bodies
Wetlands
Floodplains
If no density credit was allowed for the following items a
substantial number of properties in the City could be
significantly effected.
Riparian woodlands
Public right-of-way
Powerline easements
If no density credit was given for the following items it is
impossible to determine how many properties would be effected
and how substantial the effect would be. It would have to be
determined on a case by case basis.
Isolated undevelopable areas
Significant vegetation
Depending on what steepness was chosen to define unbuildable
areas that could not be used for density calculations slope
could have anywhere from a very minor effect on a few properties
to a significant effect on the majority of the undeveloped
properties in Carlsbad.
EXHIBIT B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Oceanside
Burlingame
Santa Cruz
EXHIBIT
NET DENSITY CALCULATIONS IN OTFER CITIES
No density credit for slopes over 40%,
riparian areas, rivers, intermittent or
perennial streams or lakes and their
associated vegetation.
No density credit for slopes over 40% and
riparian areas.
Laguna Beach
Poway
San Rafel
San Marcos
San Diego
San Bernardino
Escondido
Palm Desert
Scottsdale,
Arizona
Santee
No density credit for slopes over 30% or
riparian areas.
No density credit for slopes over 45%.
No density credit for slopes over 45%.
No density credit for wetlands.
No density credit for public right-of-way.
No density credit for public right-of-way.
No density credit for public right-of-way.
Roads only in areas with slopes over 30%.
Special regulations for development of slopes
steeper than 10%, maximum of one dwelling
unit per acre.
No development on slopes steeper than 15%,
with density transferred to the flatter
portion of the site.
Limited grading on slopes steeper than 25%.
EXHIBIT C
TVr—
I
I
I
c
I
I
I
U.O
<0
CO
2
CO
EXHIBIT D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT
4:1/25%
2.5:1/40% -
2:1/50%
1.5:1/67% -
SLOPE LIMITATIONS
This represents about the absolute maximum grade
that a normal vehicle can go up. It is the start
of slope steepness that requires special planting
and erosion control measures. This is the criteria
used by the Coastal Commission to define
undevelopable areas. However, the Coastal
Commission does allow these areas to be used for
density calculations on the flatter portions of a
property.
For other then abnormal slopes this represents the
lower limit of maximum slope steepness for grading.
Oceanside does not allow density to be calculated
on slopes with a steepness of 40% or greater.
This is the maximum steepness of man made slopes
allowed by the Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. This
also represents the steepest naturally occuring
slopes except for rocky areas.
In the past the City has allowed some slopes to be
graded to this steepness upon submittal of a
detailed soils report. Some of these previously
approved slopes suffer from surficial slump and
erosion problems. Rocky slopes steeper than 1.5:1
suffer from continual minor rock falls and present
and continual unacceptable maintenance problem. At
the present time the City will not approve slopes
this steep unless there are exceptional
circumstances. Often it is difficult to establish
and maintain landscaping on 1.5:1 slopes.
EXHIBIT E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SLOPE
•III power he
EXHIBIT "F"
Location of Major power line
Easements and a General
Slope Map of Carlsbad
EXHIBIT F
I EXHIBIT "G"
I
ARTICLE 14.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Section 1401.50: PURPOSE AND INTENT. The purpose and
intent of this article is to assure that development in hillside(areas results in minimum disturbance of the natural terrain and
features, and does not result in soil erosion, silting or
degradation of water courses, flooding, landslides, and severe
(cutting and scarring of the natural terrain. To achieve this
purpose, criteria and development standards have been
established.
I Section 1401.51: APPLICABILITY. The Hillside Development
Regulations shall apply to all lands within a natural sJ.ope of
20% or more with a minimum elevation differential of fifty (50)I feet excluding lands proposed to be developed for manufacturing
or industrial uses or as regional or sub-regional commercial
centers as defined in the Development Guidelines for Hillsides.
. Where any other provisions of this article conflict with any
I provisions of the Comprehensive zoning Ordinance, the provisions
* of this article shall prevail. Previously approved and legally
valid Development Plans, Tentative Maps, Conditional Use Permits,
(Parcel Maps, Variances and existing single family lots shall not
be subject to the standards and requirements of the Fillside
Development Regulations.
I Section 1401.52: EXCEPTIONS AND MODIFICATIONS.
(a) At the request of the applicant, the City Council or
I Planning Commission, as applicable, may grant
i exceptions from, and modifications to the specific
requirements and standards of this article upon the
finding that (1) such exceptions or modifications
fulfill the purpose and intent of this article, and (2)
the exception demonstrates a superior and more
compatible relationship to preexisting surrounding
uses. The finding shall state the reasons for the
exception or modification, and shall be included in the
resolution approving the application or permit.
(b) At the request of the applicant, the Planning Director
may defer or waive any of the "Additional Information
Requirements", if the information is otherwise already
available in the records of the City or if the
information is clearly premature or irrelevant for the
processing of the application or permit. The Planning
Director shall consider the advice of the Public
Services Review Committee in reaching his decision and
his decision on such a request shall be final. The
reasons for such deferment or waiver shall be stated in
14.5-1
EXHIBIT G
the Staff Report to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Section 1401.53: LANDS NOT TO BE DEVELOPED. In order to
achieve the purpose and intent of this article the following
lands shall not be developed:
(a) Lands in slopes over 40% with a minimum elevation
differential of 25 feet.
(b) Riparian corridors or rivers, intermittent or '.perennial
streams or lakes and their associated vegetation. As a
minimum riparian corridors shall include channelways
and banks. An exemption may be granted for stream
crossings provided streambeds and banks are preserved
to the maximum extent possible.
It is the policy of the City's Land Use Element of the
General Plan that the above described lands have been determined
to be undevelopable and shall not be included in the calculation
of the overall development potential of the project.
Section 1401.54: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS.
Every application shall be accompanied by such drawings, maps/
plans, specifications and graphic or written material as may be
required by the Planning Director to describe clearly and
accurately the proposed work and its effect on the terrain and
existing improvements.
The following information shall be submitted to the Planning
Department in addition to that which may be required for the
subject application(s) by other provisions of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance:
(a) Slope analysis showing lands in slopes of 20% to 40%
and over 40%.
(b) The location of all significant trees or clusters of
trees, outcroppings, watercourses, lakes, ponds, and
other significant natural features.
(c) An engineering geologic report shall be required on all
lands of 20% to 40% slope. This report shall be based
on adequate field observations and/or tests prepared bya certified engineering geologist and an onsite soils
report prepared by a soils engineer registered with the
State of California. Reports shall, as onsite
conditions dictate, be prepared in accordance with
guidance for practice issued by the California Division
of Mines and Geology.
(d) Preliminary landscaping plans which show areas to be
replanted and areas to remain in a natural state.
Preliminary plans shall follow the informational
14.5-2
I
I - requirements and plan specifications of the City
Landscape Manual.
I (e) Preliminary drainage plans which clearly reflect the
location on natural and artificial drainageways to be
included in project plans.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(f) Preliminary grading plans containing such information
as may be required by the City Engineer.
Section 1401.55: PROCEDURES FOR PLAN REVIEW.
_ (a) On all parcels which are subject to the Hillside
I Development Regulations, preliminary landscaping,
• grading, and drainage plans shall be processed
concurrently with the Specific, Master, and/or
• Development Plans, Tentative Maps, Conditional Use
Permits and/or Tentative Parcel Maps.
(b) Final landscaping, grading, and drainage plans shall be
in substantial conformance with approved preliminary-
plans. Final landscaping plans must be approved in
accordance with procedures established in the City
Landscape Manual prior to issuance of grading and
building permits.
(c) The Landscape Planner shall determine that landscaping
is reasonably capable of successful establishment,
prior to occupancy in accordance with procedures
established in the City Landscape Manual.
(d) Any application or plan shall be denied if it:
(1) Fails to contain all the information required by
this article or any other article of the Zoning
Ordinance as being necessary to process the
subject application or plan.
(2) Fails to comply wibh any provision of this
article.
(3) Conflicts with the intent and purpose of this
article.
Section 1401.56: HAZARDS TO PUBLIC SAFETY CRITERIA.
Portions of any site having a 20% to 40% slope shall not be used
for the placement of structures for human occupancy unless the
required geologic and soils engineering reports clearly
demonstrate and certify that any proposed structures will not
create nor contribute to the creation of on-site or off-site
instability related hazards to persons or property nor contribute
to the worsening of any such existing hazards.
14.5-3
Section 1401.57: GENERAL CRTTERTA. The fnllot. I
design and improvement techniques are ali^nfi fol}°Wing sit--"
conflicting zoning regulations. Commoiw^ and s
structures, structural and street Tesians ^h
improvements to the natural terrain, zero sfde ^ard^andsaces for co yards andspaces for compact cars
14.5-4
LJ1IUI* »ILJ
I
Plan Designation 0-1.5 du/ac
Acreage 194.3
Units 138Gross Density .71 du/ac
No density credit for 40% and steeper slopes
Net density - .77 du/ac
.No density credit for 40% and steeper slopes ar
50% credit for slopes of 25% - 40% du/ac
Net Density - .80 du/ac
density credit for 25% and steeper slopes
Net Density - .83 du/ac
I
I
I
I
H ^ EXHIBIT I
NOTE: A large scale copy of this map with a detailed slope «T|
analysis will be available at the April 29th Committee it£
Meeting.
III
I
I
TVMCAL tnor MCTIOM
CT 84-35
FALCON HILLS
General Plan Designation RLM 0-4 du/a^
Acreage 85.51 ,;5si
Units 248 -I";
Gross Density 2.9 du/ac ^'-"
No density credit for 40% or steeper slopes "Z.,
Net Density - 3.16 du/ac rH
No density credit for 40% or steeper slopes .7".,
and 50% density credit for slopes of 25% - 40%•—
Net Density - 3.50 du/ac rJ-L!
»1W. *•1» -*«. I
No density credit for slopes over 25% """'"
Density - 4.09 du/ac
I
I
NOTE: A large scale copy of this map with a detailed slope
analysis will be available at the April 29th Committee
Meeting.
EXHIBIT K
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I U U C3
R3
0>
•H
jQ
(0
&
O•H
0)
>
0)•oc o
•O 3
0) -O-P
<0 CN
rH I-*
O •w m
•H
14
O >i
4J 0}
•H Ct3 4)
QJ Q
O -U
4)
•H
W
Ca>
"O
o2
(0s
«M
O
en•H
•a(0o
o03\4) 3M-UC <0
O r-lC tt) 00C rH •(0 J3 fn
U <0
14 0
O r-l
<W 0)
a>
0) Oc w
(1) •!-(-a •oo cz BJ
i
EXHIBIT L
I
I
MAY 2, 1985
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TO: CITIZENS COMMITTEE
FROM: LAND USE PLANNING
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON POPULATION ISSUE
I. Population Projections
The Citizens Committee requested a response from staff
I regarding the discrepancies between different population
I projections which have been presented to the Committee. As staff
• previously pointed out, precise population projections are
extremely difficult to make. It is not simply a process of
(multiplying residential acreage figures by average densities and
household size although that certainly is a starting point..
There are many other factors and assumptions that must be taken
I into consideration. For example, when SANDAG makes their
population projections for the San Diego Region, the most
knowledgeable staff persons for each city are consulted to
determine what assumptions, factors and constraints should be(used for each area within the city. Additional factors are then
plugged-in such as birth rates, death rates, migration and
vacancy rates. Differences in population projections especially
| over different periods of time can be attributed primarily to the
I assumptions interjected into the base data.
_ Some of the major factors or assumptions that staff has
I used in making or providing information for recent population
• projections include the following:
I (1) Actual project approvals - Examples: how many
units were actually approved for a project or a
master plan area?
(2) City growth or density policies - Examples: a
large area in the city designated for 0-4 du's/acre
was restricted by specific plan to a maximum of 2
du1s/acre.
(3) The 1974 acreage figures for different land use
categories (as indicated in the Table on Page 17 of
the Land Use Element) have changed - Examples:
increase in open space, commercial and industrial
with a resulting reduction in residential acreage.
(4) Coastal Commission constraints - Examples: lower
density permitted in some areas of the city,
requirements for visitor-serving commercial uses.
(5) Master Plan refinements - Examples: master plans
have restricted density in some areas of the plan
below General Plan permitted density, open space
areas have been added, commercial areas have been
added.
(6) Developmental constraints - Examples:
environmentally constrained properties, actual
zoning of property, public roadways and easements
(acreage figures in the Land Use Element do not
account for these items).
Discrepancies in population figures can vary based upon
the comprehensiveness, the accuracy and the nature of the
assumptions that are included in the process. Staff feels
comfortable that the most recent population projections which
predict a population range of 140,000 to 160,000 are reflective
of existing city land use policies and are as accurate as they
can be at this point in time.
II. Need For Population Projection In Land Use Element
Although it does not have to be considered a precise or
"guaranteed" population figure, staff believes that it is
important to have a buildout population projection in the Land
Use Element. At the least, there needs to be a "target" figure
or goal that the Land Use Element is working towards. This is
especially important in terms of the Public Facilities Management
Program, in terms of determining the adequacy of the Public
Facilities Fee and in determining the ability to provide for the
maximum theoretical demand for public services and facilities.
In addition, there is a need to have a target figure for all the
other planning studies that are conducted such as circulation
studies.
III. Population/Growth Monitoring
Staff also believes that it would be good to have an
ongoing program to monitor growth and how the city is moving
toward the buildout population projection. If problems are noted
as a result of updated information or assumptions, refinements to
the Land Use Element or additional policies can be recommended.
An outline for such a program as it relates to public services
and facilities is provided on Page 12 of the existing Land Use
Element text (copy attached).
MJH/ar
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. Growth Monitoring Plan
I
I As a consequence.of Carlsbad's bi-nodal development, it is essential
that a program be established which can monitor growth and relate it
to the city's ability to provide service.
I As already pointed out, the transition period between what the city
is today and what the ultimate, desired character of the city will be
is most critical. An area of primary concern is the capability of the
I city to adequately serve growth as it occurs.
One of the inherent problems with the "multiple-nuclei" development
concept (see previous section) is the difficulty of providing for the
I efficient expansion of public utilities and services. Because of
• this, methodology must be developed to monitor the city's growth and -
compare this growth with the city's capability to serve that growth.
I This monitoring system will require regular attention to two essential
procedures. These are Forecasting and Comparison.
I a) Forecasting; Periodically updated surveys of the "in-place",
* "approved^and "planned" capacity of the city's various services
should be made. It is important that these surveys be
I supplemented by a comprehensive projection of sources and uses of
capital improvement funds. The calculation of a "maximum
theoretical demand" for each service (based on city-recognized
population projections) will be essential in planning and
scheduling capital improvements allocations.
It is fundamental to this General Plan that the city's growth
must be managed in relationship to the city's capability to
provide essential services.
b) Comparison; The changing demand for city services which results
from actual and approved changes in land use should be regularly
evaluated. These effects should then be compared with the city's
"in-place", "approved" and "planned" services.
Excesses of or shortages of service capacity should thereby be
identified.
As a result of the service demand/availability comparison, it may
be logical for the city to develop a program which would release
property for development only at such time as service can be
reasonably provided.
Charting techniques should be developed and systematically used which
facilitate the graphic or tabular display of both forecast and
comparison data. (See examples next page).
12
I
I
I
I CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
I
I Development that allows the reduction of lot sizes below the
• zoning ordinance's minimum requirements and the concentration of
the development potential (density) on a portion of the property
• rather than spreading the development over the entire site.
I The benefit to the community is that the portion of the site not
built-on is left in permanent open space. The benefit to the
(developer is that often the portion of the site left in open
space is constrained for development (environmentally sensitive
areas) or unbuildable (very steep gullies or floodplains). By
using cluster development, the density permitted by the zoning
I for the site can still be achieved by the developer.
If used correctly, to achieve a good design, cluster development
I can be an effective planning tool for both the community and the
city. Cluster development is sometimes called "performance
zoning" and the attached exhibits from a book on the subject
_ demonstrates in simple graphics the concept of cluster
I development.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Reference - Performance Zoning by Lane Kendig, American Planning
Association.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c60
• i-H
CD0)
D
uIa;
O
O
U
13c
ca>
O
U
£
5
u
V
. r —T
rH L 1,
•—!P—Ij_j_iiii—I
o
I
o•o•os
il •'!—l—H fi—I 11—'—"i —i—'
rut-,..
•Jf-Td
Himip£ L
j :I±T db
i—i
•8
IMn
I r
r* I
l!|il|ijl!.•!•«: §5^1 it •- TJ - •§
1111
§.^JS^->SES«5a-s 11l:§ Ss sgog-s g^S|I|S!-§^^| Hill?B ll* ^l2-»"2^-*ll
I'flHsi^T"0"9*'
i f I a e 1 s! I««? & I £ .2 I a g iJJ 2S1? E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
00
tfl0>
Q
O
O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
I1!*£ i a
« 4J *.| oi
11 i .•x E c —9 23 S
Jill
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f lilllo
Jtlflff
ji (ft*
— "9
1 S
I •§ 1
O
Sz
ON
2O
1u
ON
u
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITIZENS COMMITTEE/LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
Following is a list of motions that failed, arranged by topic:
PARKS
Adopt statement 2 under paragraph III in the staff report on
parks, with the addition of the following language after
maintenance district, "because they are creating the need".
(9-14-0)
The city develop more special use recreation areas designed for
sports, as a supplement to the community parks system. (8-13-2)
Delete any reference in the text to the City of Carlsbad having
responsibility to provide parks or any other recreational site,
sized or designed for regional use. (6-16-3)
Community and neighborhood parks within a master planned area
should be fully developed before 90% of the residential occupancy
permits in the development area are issued. (4-16-4)
OPEN SPACE
The Committee adopt a resolution stating there is not adequate
open space designated areas in the Land Use Plan. (12-13-0)
Adopt a policy statement: "The city shall ensure preservation
of the open space nature of its hills and ridgelines." (9-16-0)
The amount of open space provided in future master plans (shall)
be increased from the existing 15% to 20%. (9-16-0)
The Committee go back to the original charge, adopt policy under
page 8 of the Text of the Land Use Element - Item J. Endorse
and proceed. (3-20-2)
Adoption of a policy statement: It is the city's policy to
require a minimum of 20% of Improved Recreational (passive)
and/or aesthetic open space in all subdivisions. (3-22-0)
In future development in both commercial and residential zones,
with the exception of Highway 78 to Chestnut, that the City of
Carlsbad establish a 50' minimum open space setback, from the
curb, along the full length of El Camino Real and not permit 6'
walls within the 50' zone. (6-17-1)
AGRICULTURE
Delete any reference to agriculture as an interim use wherever
appearing. (e.g, page 3 of the Open Space section of the
workbook, item 8.) (12-12-0)
Establish a city-wide assessment district to purchase all or part
of rights to the flower fields east of 1-5 to the first ridgeline
between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road. (4-10-10)
Delete Goal "C" in the present Land Use Element and insert the
following goal: "Conserve the largest possible tracts of land
suitable for agricultural and horticultural purposes in
accordance with the standards of the California Coastal Act that
are now undeveloped in that area lying east of Interstate Highway
5, between Cannon Road extended, and Palomar Airport Road and
east of El Camino Real along Palomar Airport Road. (3-13-5)
COMMERCIAL
The City of Carlsbad (shall) study a reduction in the amount of
available commercial permitted along El Camino Real, such that
commercial is not at every intersection of a major arterial or
secondary street. (8-11-3)
Recommend that the city create an additional commercial area in
the planned industrial zone. (3-18-2)
Recommend that the commercial use designation be increased in
all four quadrants. (2-19-2)
Recommend that the city amend the General Plan by creating one
or more commercial zones within the designated industrial zone.
(2-20-0)
REDEVELOPMENT
The present goal "B" as listed in the Land Use Element (would) be
deleted. The new goal would read "Create a pleasing Village-by-
the-Sea downtown area designed to provide the necessary amenities
to the permanent residents of that area. (9-14-0)
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Establish a Citizen Conservation Commission which would be
responsible for conserving and protecting Carlsbad's natural
environment. (10-11-2)
I
I
Modify the previous motion to establish a Citizen Conservation
(Commission, by stating that members should be qualified by
training. (11-11-1)
I Establish a Citizen Conservation Committee which would be
responsible for conserving and protecting Carlsbad's natural
environment. (10-12-2)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TIMING OF GROWTH & PUBLIC FACILITIES
Four goals for timing growth.
1. Adopt plans to build a city with an ultimate population of
140,000 in the year 2025 and giving primary emphasis to
enhancing the residential/ beach and open space uses.
2. Achieve a population growth rate of no more than 3.18% per
year until buildout in 2025.
3. Achieve at buildout an overall city-wide population density
of 3680 people per square mile.
4. By December, 1986 set in place an Urban Land Reserve Program
supporting population and density goals and specifically
designating the land in each quadrant of the city's sphere
of influence to be developed during each of the 5-year
periods beginning in 1985 and ending in 2025.
Two policies to support timing of the goals.
1. Discourage all annexation beyond the city's outside
periphery and encourage annexation of territory within the
"hole in the doughnut" to meet the time schedule of the
Urban Land Reserve Program.
2. Control the location and rate of growth to ensure
maintenance and preservation of the quality of life and the
provision of public and commercial services on an
economical, timely and efficient basis. (9-14-1)
Building permits for residential purposes in master plans will
not be issued unless public improvement and service standards are
met. (8-16-0)
Recommend to the City Council that a growth-monitoring plan
program be implemented. The responsibility of the program will
be to forecast and monitor growth every three years, and compare
it to the demand of city services. The program will release
property for development only at such time as city services and
quality of life can be REASONABLY maintained. (8-16-0)
The following goal: "The city shall establish procedures to
manage and control the location and rate of growth and ensure
timely facilities and services to accomodate approximately 85,000
residents by the year 2000". (11-14-0)
Amend the motion by deleting the words "location and" change the
number "85,000" to "95,000". (7-16-2)
A second amendment to the motion "To reduce the number 85,000 to
70,000". (4-19-2)
DENSITY
Achieve quality and well designed projects by a point system
based on conformance with the residential policies and criteria
in the Land Use Element. (8-15-1)
Change density ranges as follows: top of the RM range would be 8
and the beginning of the RMH range would be 8. (8-16-0)
The RH density range shall be changed from 16-25 to 16-21.
(12-13-0)
Recommend to the City Council that the height restriction be 30
feet. (5-19-0)
Recommend to the City Council that residential units not exceed
twice the density of the adjacent property without proper
mitigation. (10-13-1)
POPULATION
Carlsbad establish a yearly growth rate not to exceed three times
the yearly national growth rate. (8-16-0)
Recommend to the City Council that the population goal for the
City of Carlsbad be 140,000 at build-out based on 2.54 persons
per dwelling unit. (9-14-2)
OTHER
The city shall hold current resident citizen interests as
paramount. (12-13-0)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It shall be a goal of the Land Use Element of the General Plan
that before any city approvals are given for the development of
land, the city shall have as its highest priority the promotion
of the highest quality of life for all existing residents. All
other priorities are deemed special and shall be of secondary
concern. (8-17-0)
The Land Use Element of the General Plan cannot be amended except
by a four-fifths vote of the City Council. (8-16-1)