HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-23; City Council; 8253-1; Possible Growth Management ProgramOF CARLSBAD — AGEN 3ILL
1
AP^ / ef. Ol?~ /
MTO. 7/23/85
PLNDEPT.
TITLEl rriMCTrvK'D ATTONT c\f? DHQQT RT P fiROLvFTH
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. REVIEW CITIZENS
COMMITTEE COLLATERAL REPORT AND
DT aKTMTMr* (TiMM T Q Q T(~)M RPPfTRT AND
HFPT HD. f#
CITY pmrf&>
CITY MGR._2^
-H
-P
en
g
RECOMMENDATIONS.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discuss and consider possible growth management programs.
If Council determines it wishes to adopt any of these
measures, refer the matter to staff for documents.
Review Citizens Committee Collateral Report. Based upon
recommendations, refer to staff for documents and/or
implementation.
Review Planning Commission report and recommendations on the
Citizens Committee review of the Land Use Element. Based
upon recommendations, refer to staff for documents and/or
implementation.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
IT)
00
™ FISCAL IMPACT:
r~
Council took action on the Land Use Element Review Citizens
Committee recommendations at their special meeting of July
17, 1985. Councilmember Lewis requested that Council
discuss information obtained from the Land Use Planning
Manager concerning possible growth management programs, and
requested that it be placed on the agenda of the next
meeting.
The Collateral Report presented by the Land Use Element
Review Committee was not addressed specifically when Council
acted on the Citizens Committee report. The recommendations
contained therein require Council action.
Due to time constraints the Planning Commission report to
the Council was not discussed. To finalize the review of
the Land Use Element the recommendations should be
considered.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
None required at this time.
To be determined based upon City Council action.
EXHIBITS:O
O 1) Memorandum to Councilmember Lewis
2) Citizens Committee Collateral Report (previously
distributed)
3) Planning Commission Review of the Citizens Committee
Report (previously distributed)
OO
EXHIBIT 1
JULY 12, 1985
TO: COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS
FROM: Michael J. Holzmiller, Land Use Planning Manager
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON CITIZENS COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION
It appears that the concern with rapid growth is
twofold. The primary concern relates to having public facilities
and services in place when they are needed. People start
complaining about the rate of growth when they have to wait at
congested intersections, when the schools are crowded or when
there are no parks for their kids to play in. The timing of
needed public facilities, services and infrastructure must keep
pace with development. When development precedes the provision
for adequate public facilities, the rate of growth is then
considered "unmanaged".
A secondary concern is the belief by many citizens that
growth should be more gradual. Even if public services and
facilities can keep pace with development, many citizens feel
that the transition from a small city to a large city should be
more gradual and at a smoother pace so that existing citizens can
adjust to it. The concern is whether there is too much happening
too fast.
The following growth management proposal is aimed at
addressing both of these concerns. The primary emphasis is on
the adequate provision of public services and facilities
concurrent with need. The proposal also attempts, however, to
address the concern about having a more gradual, phased level of
growth in the community. The proposal consists of three parts or
programs which when used together address the timing of growth.
The programs do not set a specific, numerical quota on
development rather they attempt to stage or time phase the level
of growth based upon adequate community facilities.
Time Phasing of Growth
I. Urban Land Reserve Program
II. Master Plan Phasing of Development Program
III. Public Facilities and Services Adequacy Program
I. Urban Land Reserve Program
1. In place by June, 1986.
2. Set aside areas of the city which should be held in
reserve for future development.
3. Time increments - 10, 20 and 30 years.
4. Areas would be designated for urban reserve based
upon a set of criteria including the following:
A. Existing and anticipated urban infrastructure
(i.e, roads, sewer, water).
B. Anticipated financing of needed capital
facilities (C.I.P).
C. Provision of public services (i.e, schools,
fire, police).
D. Soil classification.
5. At least 1/3 of the total land area in each quadrant
of the city should be placed in urban land reserve.
6. Zone all urban land reserve properties to permit
agricultural uses and encourage these properties to
be leased to farmers.
7. Support tax breaks/incentives for all properties
placed in reserve.
II. Master Plan Phasing of Development Program
1. In place by June, 1986.
2. Amend all existing Master Plans and require all new
Master Plans to indicate phasing of development over
a 20 year period.
3. Allocate total number of units or remaining number
of units in existing Master Plans to 5 year phasing
increments. Example:
1st 5 years = x number of units
2nd 5 years = x number of units
3rd 5 years = x number of units
4th 5 years = x number of units
Total number of units
4. Correlate construction of infrastructure, public
facilities and services to 5 year time increments.
3
Ill. Public Services and Facilities Adequacy Program
1. In place by January, 1986.
2. Each quadrant of the city broken down into "public
service and facilities zones".
3. Each zone inventoried for adequacy of facilities and
services (i.e, roads, sewer, water, schools, police,
fire and parks).
4. "Adequacy" standards determined for each facility
and service.
5. Each project proposed in a zone shall be reviewed in
terms of "adequacy" standards for that zone. If
adequate, project can be approved. If inadequate,
project proponent must provide or guarantee adequate
level for entire zone prior to occupancy of units.
If adequate level cannot be guaranteed, project is
denied as being premature.
MJH/ar
RESIDENTIAL UNIT QUOTA APPROVAL PROGRAM
1) Determine number of residential units and corresponding
population city is already committed to.
2) Subtract committed number of units from remaining number of
potential units based on buildout population projection.
3) Divide remaining number of units by projected buildout
population date (i.e, 2025) to determine number of units to
be approved each year. Example:
Years to buildout (45) divided by remaining potential units
(32,092) = numbers of units to be approved each year (713
units)
4) Establish guidelines or rating system for which units get
approved i.e:
A. Location of project with respect to existing
infrastructure.
B. Provision of public facilities and services.
C. Set maximum size of project.
D. Set maximum number for each quadrant.
E. Quality of project design.
The advantage of this quota program over a building permit quota
is:
1) Eliminates problem of developer getting all his
discretionary approvals, spending substantial amounts of
money to have his plans engineered and designed and
obtaining his financing only to be told no when he applies
for building permits.
2) Permits the state of the economy to still be somewhat of a
factor in determining growth rate. For example:
If the economy is slow or bad, developers could still get
project approvals but hold up on getting building permits.
Once the economy picks up, they could come in and get
permits for all the units that were approved in the
preceding years.
EXHIBIT 2
City 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 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.
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
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.
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
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
COLLATERAL REPORT
JULY 1Q85
CITIZENS COMMITTEE
LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW
CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
1985
CHAIRMAN
VICE-CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS
ALTERNATE MEMBERS
James M. Ga'ser
Eric Larson
Richard E. Andrews
Margaret M. Brownley
Robert R. Caggiano
Margie 6. Cool
James A. Courtney
Ruth L. Coyle
Don Dewhurst
E. W. "Bill" Domlnguez
Tom Flanagan
Joe Gallagher
Matthew Hall
William C. Harklns
James M. Hicks
Donald E. Jackson
Hank Lltten
Llnnea V. McDonald
Patrick N. O'Day
Bob Prescott
Jerry Rombotls
Anthony J. Skotnlckl
Thomas w. Smith
Claudia H. Stebelskl
Inez Yoder
Marylynn Brown-Bellman
Birchard B. DeWItt
Melvin G. Grazda
Kip K. McBane
Joe Sandy
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 *l
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.
Recommendat 1 ons:
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
Subject: 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
BEACH & COASTAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION/ 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/ Analysts: 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.
Recommendat i ons:
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: NO ISE AND OTHER NUIS ANCES
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
Subject: 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.
23 July 1985
Mayor Casler, Members of the City Council:
At the beginning of my activity as a member of the Land Use Review
Committee., I distributed over 30 letters to neighbors and acqaintances
describing the process, and asked for a response from those who would
like further information or who whould care to discuss their opinions with
me. I received no replies. This enforces my conviction that there is no
urgent concern by the majority of citizens about our present growth and
development policies.
The Review Committee worked hard over more than 1400 hours, not
including subcommittees, caucuses and conferences, studying and debating
the issues of growth and the present and desired future quality of
Carlsbad. i think in that time, we gained a very clear understanding of
the issues and the options for addressisng them.
The committee did what you asked us to do reviewed the LUE and
came in with solid recommendations for policies., concepts and guidelines
that address identified issues and concerns. Fifty-five specific
recommendations were made in an effort to further enhance the criteria by
which Land Use planning decisions are made. You have endorsed those
recommendations and will now be directing their implementation.
I believe (the Review Committee's Final Report) is an excellent proposal
for growth management.
Vou have before you an additional proposal for growth management
programs.
The Committee purposely omitted artificial constraints or arbitrary
limits such as urban land reserves or time phasing, because the majority
of us were not convinced that those are the best methods to achieve the
quality we want for our City, i do believe there is some merit in the
facilities zoning concept outlined as item 3 in the proposal, if it is used
as a tool to accomplish the Committee's recommendations on Growth and
the Timing of Public Facilities. I do have one reservation: It should not
impose an undue or unrecoverable burden on the first development
proposed for a particular zone.
(continued)
Page 2
! request, that action on Agenda Bill 8253-* 1 be deferred until the Land
Use Committee's recommendations have been put in place and the impact
review outlined on page 29 of the final report has been set into action. I
believe the recommended programs are capable of providing the desired
results for the city without the more drastic features of the proposal
before you.
I ask that the Committee's recommendations be allowed to stand on their
own for now., including the means to get the suggested programs on-line in
the shortest possible time. Establish the systems for monitoring and
review and test them by performing the first impact review in January,
1986. At that time, if the present, recommendations are in fact
insufficient for growth management goals, then would be the appropriate
time to take further action in terms of additional programs.
Respectfully,
Claudia H. Stebelski
3974 Park Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008