HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-14; City Council; 9485; Open Space UpdateU i 0 z 3 0 0
L”- c-2. CI’ OF CARLSBAD - AGENI BILL \-.../
he#- I TITLE
MTG. 6/14/88
DEPT.R/AG
OPEN SPACE UPDATE
IDEPT. HDJ~
~
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
City Council to review and discuss the Council Committee’s
Report on the S.O.S. Initiative and take any necessary action
Council deems appropriate.
I”EM EXPLANATION
The City Council Committee on Open Space, Mayor Lewis and Council Member Larson met with the S.O.S. (Save Open Space) group on Monday, June 6, 1988. The Council Committee expressed concern with the S.O.S. Initiative, its accompanying map on
open space and the effect on the City’s Growth Management Plan.
The purpose of this Agenda Bill is to discuss those issues brought forward by the Council Committee from their meeting with the S.O.S. group. Council may also wish to discuss
alternate methods of ensuring the preservation of open space as identified in the City’s Growth Management Plan. Included for
Council’s review and discussion are hand out materials that
were presented to the S.O.S. group at the meeting of June 6,
1988.
EXHIBITS
1. Open Space Provisions of Growth Management Plan
2. Conflicts with Growth Management Plan and other Problems
with S.O.S. Initiative
3. Open Space Comparison between SOS Initiative and the
Growth Management Program
Open SDace Provisions of Growth Hanauement Plan
Open Spa ce Ordinance - Restricts the development of certain
environmentally-sensitive, open space lands including beaches, permanent bodies of water, floodways, steep slopes, wetlands, riparian and woodland habitats and other
significant environmental areas as identified in the
environmental review process. Prohibits density credit for
these lands.
Growth Manaaement Open SDace Performance Standard - Requires an additional 15% of the total land area in each undeveloped
facility management zone to be set aside for permanent open
space. The 15% cannot include any environmentally-
constrained land.
Hillside Ordinance - Greatly restricts the amount of grading that can be done on hillside property. Limits the overall volume of grading (maximum 10,000 cubic yards per acre), the height of cut and fill slopes (maximum 30 feet) and the
design of the grading (contouring, building setback from canyon ridges). Prohibits development of 40% slopes.
Requires a Hillside Permit for any project proposed on
hillside land (15% or greater slope).
Natural Resource Inventory - Shows the generalized location of significant natural resource lands in the City. The
inventory map is to be used as a tool for planning future open space areas, for identifying environmentally-sensitive lands and for updating the open space section of existing Master Plans.
Revised Planned DeveloDment Ordinance - Requires all Planned
Residential Development (PRD) projects to provide 200 square
feet of common open space area per dwelling unit for
recreational purposes.
a
Residential Park Land Dedication - Increased the requirement
for park land dedication from 2+ acres to 3 acres per 1000
population. Requires total park land dedication to be made with the first final map in a Master Plan area rather than incremental dedication.
Industrial Park Land Dedication - Requires developers in the
City's industrial corridor to construct or fund an open space
area(s) to provide recreational facilities for the employees working in the corridor.
General Plan Man - Shows generalized boundaries of presently designated open space areas. The map is not meant to reflect precise boundaries of open space areas and does not include
all the future open space areas that will result from the open space provisions of the Growth Management Plan. Some of the areas may be revised as part of meeting the Growth Management Open Space Performance Standard or as part of the City's program to update all the existing master plans.
Amount of ODe n Space - As a result of the open space provisions of the Growth Management Plan, it is estimated that there will be approximately 10,000 acres of open space in the City or around 40% of the total land area.
CONFLICTS WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND OTHER PROBLEMS
WITH S.0.S INITIATIVE
* 1.
2. Section 4(D) , Page 6 and 7, amends the Open Space and
Conservation Element to limit the uses to those shown Ifin the
maptf. What does this mean? No uses are shown on the map.
Section 5(E), Page 7 and 8 amends the Open Space Zone to limit
the uses to those "presently shown on the attached map". What
does this mean? While some of these uses do not seem
appropriate in environmenta.lly sensitive open space areas, the
uses appear to be limited to those referenced in Section 3 (A)
(17). Does the Initiative allow one of the lagoons to be
filled and developed with an R-V park or a cemetery?
*This item was deleted from the discussion between the City Council Subcommittee
and the S .O. S. representatives.
..
Page 2
3. The map contained in the Initiative is outdated and shows
areas which in fact are not the best, most environmentally
desirable open space areas. Based upon all of the new open
space ordinances and information generated by the Growth
Management Plan, the City is in the process of updating all
the existing Master Plans to reflect the new open space
provisions and to secure better, more environmentally
sensitive open space. The update will require the boundaries
of the open space areas presently shown on the General Plan
Map to be modified. Amendments to the existing open space
designations of the General Plan, will be necessary. Some of
the existing designations do not reflect the better, more
environmentally sensitive open space areas that are now
required by the Growth Management Plan. This process would
be severely hampered if not made impossible, by wording in the
Initiative (i.e. two-thirds vote). Why would a property
owner, or the City for that matter, want to spend all the time
and effort necessary to revise an existing Master Plan to
Page 3
provide a better, more environmentally sensitive open space
when it could all be for nothing unless it is approved by a
two-thirds vote?
4. The Growth Management Plan allows full density credit for the
15% Performance Standard open space. The reason for this is
that it cannot be environmentally constrained land and,
therefore, it is otherwise completely developable. BY
allowing the density credit, the City gets good, otherwise
developable additional open space without having to purchase
it. By not allowing full density credit for this additional
15% open space, the Initiative has the distinct potential of
requiring the citizens to acquire/purchase this additional
open space with no known funding source. It should be noted
that the density credit allowed for this additional open space
was calculated into the dwelling unit cap of Proposition E and
would not result in the cap being exceeded.
5. Section 4(A), Page 5 of the Initiative deletes the following
statement from the Land Use Element Where feasible, the City
should exchange excess vacant lands for more useful oDen sDace
areas". The deletion of this statement takes away a useful,
basic planning tool.
or flexibility to exchange unproductive, non-usable excess
land for better, more useful open space?
Why would anyone not want the ability
Page 4
6. Section 4(c), Page 5 of the Initiative deletes the following
statement regarding Buena Vista Lagoon, "The mouth of the
lagoon has long been closed to the ocean and there is no need
for it to be opened". Buena Vista Lagoon is a State
preserved, fresh water ecological preserve. Is the intent of
deleting this statement to change the ecology/biology of the
lagoon? Does the deletion of this statement give the
authority to alter this protected preserve?
7. The Initiative does not specifically address hillside
protection. The hillsides are one of the most important open
space features in Carlsbad. The Hillside Protection Ordinance
is a key feature of the Growth Management Plan. Why doesn't
the Initiative specifically address and protect this key
element of the open space environment in the City?
8. The Initiative is inconsistent with the Local Coastal Program
(LCP) in several locations. The LCP is a State approved
document. Which one supercedes? The Attorney General has
recently rendered the ruling that any new planning program
which allows uses other than those permitted by the LCP must
obtain State Coastal Commission approval.
9. One of the crosshatched "open space" areas shown on the
Initiative map at the northwest corner of El Camino Real and
Page 5
Alga Road would make it impossible to develop the proposed
Plaza Paseo Real commercial center, which is presently being
processed and reviewed by staff. This project includes a
shopping center, post office and the 58,000 square foot
southern Carlsbad Library. The design of this project
requires the library to share parking and driveways with the
shopping center. The City is purchasing a part of the site
from the developer for the library. If the developer could
not build the shopping center the whole project would probably
fall apart and the City would not be able to construct the
much needed southern library. In addition, the major portion
of this site that would be preserved by the Initiative
consists of a previously graded shopping center site. If the
Initiative was passed the City would end up with a barren
graded site at Alga and Dove along El Camino Real, a
designated scenic corridor.
10. The boundaries of the open space areas shown on the map in the
Initiative comprise approximately 6,500 acres or 25% of the
total land area in the City. Under the open space provisions
of the Growth Management Plan, about 9,800 acres of open space
or 39% of the total land area in the City will be provided.
Do the citizens of Carlsbad want 25% or close to 40%. If the
citizens vote to approve the Initiative, is it an indication
that they are satisfied with 25%?
,
Page 6
11. This analysis has not attempted to address all the fiscal
implications of the Initiative or its impact on the Housing
Element or the Circulation Element or its legal flaws. It has
only attempted to address the major problems associated with
its impacts on open space.
bj n
OPEN SPACE COMPARISON BETWEEN SO8 INITIATIVE
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND
The table below shows the the open space acreage which will be
preserved in the recently adopted Local Facilities Management Zone
Plans as a result of the Growth Management Program as compared to
the open space which would be preserved as shown on the SOS
Initiative Map.
Zones sos Initiative Growth Mat. Proaram Difference
11 188 716 +528
12 95 157 + 62
19 797 978 +180
Total +770
There are three bar charts attached which depict these comparisons.
Buildout Comparison between the 8.0.8. Initiative and the Growth Manacrement Procrram.
At buildout, the Growth Management Program will guarantee a minimum of 9,893 acres while the S.O.S. Initiative only guarantees 6,477
acres. In comparison, Growth Management will preserve 38.6% of the
City as open space. The S.O.S. Initiative guarantees on the preservation of 25.3% of the City as open space,
Buildout Acreaue % of City
Under Growth Management 9 , 093 38.6
Under S.O.S. Initiative 6,477 25.3
Difference 3,415 13.3
Attached are two pie charts which highlight these comparisons.
Green Vallev or Local Facility Manacrement Zone 23
As a starting point, the Growth Management Program will set aside a minimum of 143 acres of land within the zone for open space. The
City gets this automatically.
Under the S.0.S Initiative, there is no land shown as open space.
It appears the entire zone would be developable.
The S.O.S. Initiative would allow for the development of a 9.8 acre
site at the northwest corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue.
The Pacific Rim Master Plan proposed to build. a Hotel/Restaurant at this location. Due to its sensitive and environmental
constraints, the site was preserved as open space under the Master Plan and Growth Management Prgram.
The passage of the S.O.S. Initiative could allow this area to be considered for development.
2
OPEN SPACE COMPARISON
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11 800
71 6
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
528
GMP sos DIF.
In Zone 11, 716 acres of open space is guaranteed by the
Growth Management Program.
guaranteed by the S.O.S. Initiative. The Growth Management
Plan gugrantees an additional 528 acres.
Only 188 acres would be
1 OPEN SPACE COMPARISON
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 12
180 1
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GMP sos DIF.
In Zone 12, 157 acres of open space is guaranteed by the
Growth Management Program.
guaranteed by the S.O.S. Initiative. The Growth Management
Plan guarantees an additional 62 acres.
Only 95 acres would be
OPEN SPACE COMPARISON
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19 1.2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
GMP sos DIF.
In Zone 19, 977 acres of open space is guaranteed by the
Growth Management Program.
guaranteed by the S.O.S. Initiative. The Growth Management
Plan guarantees an additional 180 acres.
Only 797 acres would be
OPEN SPACE PRESERVED
FROM THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
i
IOPEN
I 9,893 acres
3,415 acres more
than the S.O.S. I I Initiative)
SPACE (38.6%)
IR LAND USES (61
OPEN SPACE PRESERVED
FROM THE S.O.S. INITIATIVE