The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-06-22; City Council; 17688; SANDAG PresentationCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL ~ AB# 17,688 MTG. 6/22/04 DEPT. CM TITLE: DEPT. HD. REQUEST TO MAKE A PRESENTATION FROM TOM MULANEY, PRESIDENT, FRIENDS OF SAN DIEGO, REGARDING SANDAG’S REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY MGR CITY ATTY. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive presentation from Tom Mulaney, President of the Friends of San Diego, regarding the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). ITEM EXPLANATION: The City Council provides an opportunity for citizens and organizations to have an item placed on a City Council Agenda by submitting a letter to the City Manager. Attached is a letter (Exhibit 1) from Tom Mulaney, President, Friends of San Diego, requesting the opportunity to make a presentation to the City Council regarding SANDAG’s proposed Regional Comprehensive Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: Unknown at this time EXHIBITS: 1. Diego, dated June 3, 2004. Letter to Ray Patchett, City Manager, from Tom Mulaney, President, Friends of San JUN 0 4 2004 3636 4th Avenue, Suite 3 10 San Diego, CA 92 103 Dedicated to presening the environment and FRIEND DlEGO quality of life through Tel: 6 19-795-1 753 Fax: 6 19-795-1 756 effective growth management email: FriendsofSD@aol.com June 3,2004 City of Carlsbad Attention: Ray Patchett, City Manager 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949 Re: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA for June 22 Dear Mr. Patchett: As I stated in my non-agenda comments on June 1, there is an important matter that deserves the attention of the Council at this time. My group requests that an agenda item be scheduled for June 22, as follows: SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). To approve, disapprove or recommend modifications to the RCP and its final Program EIR. To consider the Resolution for Planned Growth and Local Control. The Friends of San Diego would like to make a presentation of about 10 minutes in favor of modifications to the plan, and in favor of the above Resolution. As background, the City of Carlsbad has participated in the RCP at the level of SANDAG director (Mayor Lewis, Councilmembers Finnila and Hall) and the technical committee (Dennis Turner and others). Mr. Turner submitted a letter of comment to SANDAG dated 5/13/04, detailing some of the short- comings of the draft EIR. Recent events make it imperative that the City of Carlsbad consider the RCP before an important SANDAG committee meeting on 6/25/04, and before the plan is presented for adoption by the SANDAG directors in July. The recent events which need discussion are these: June 3,2004 Page 2 1. The draft EIR that was released by SANDAG contained some startling elements. down the project description to the addition of 46,000 homes and 100,640 people, over and above existing general plan capacities. The justification is that this will reduce the number of people who commute to homes in Riverside and Imperial counties and to Mexico. This is claimed to reduce traffic in our region overall, while it is conceded that it will increase local traffic, air pollution, etc. near higher density areas. a. In place of the broad policy goals stated in the RCP, the EIR boiled b. The EIR stated that conflicts between the RCP and the local general plans will be resolved by the local jurisdictions amending their general plan. The “carrot and stick approach to induce general plan amendments needs further clarification. 2. The Chair of the UCSD Economics Department, Dr. Richard Carson, appeared before a SANDAG joint committee on 5/24/04, and explained why the “capturing” of cross-border commuters was not feasible. He testified that the beneficial claims stated in the draft EIR were not supported by facts or analysis. He wrote a comment letter that is attached. Summary: item for June 22. I would appreciate your contacting me to confirm the agenda Sincerely, Thomas G. Mullaney / President Attachments: Letter from Dr. Richard Carson dated 5/12/04 Resolution for Planned Growth and Local Control. TS-730 UCSD UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO \ BERKELEY - DAVIS - IRVINE - LOS ANGELES . RIVERSIDE * SANDIEGO * SAN FRANCISCO i SANTABARBARA * SANTACRUZ DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS Richard T. Carson Professor and Chair UNIVERSIlY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO 210 ECONOMICS BUILDING, 0508 LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA, 92093-0508 (858) 534-3384, FAX (858) 534-5592 Email: rcarson@ucsd.edu http://weber.ucsd.edu/-rcarson May 12,2004 Rob Rundle, Senior Regional Planner SANDAG 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92 10 1 Dear Mr. Rundle: The SANDAG’s “Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region [Draft EIR]” dated March 2004 (SCN 2004011141) has two serious problems which should be corrected before the report is accepted. The first problem is pervasive throughout much of the report. It is assumed that it is possible to take 46,000 dwelling units that are projected to be built outside of San Diego County (e.g., Baja, Riverside County) to serve San Diego County workers and build them inside San Diego County without increasing the projected number of San Diego County workers (and associated impacts like traffic congestion and air pollution). From an economic standpoint, this is impossible. To understand the rational behind this statement, one needs to ask why someone who lives in Baja or Riverside works in San Diego? The answer here is straightforward. These workers are trading-off higher commuting costs against lower housing costs outside of San Diego County. The only way to change this is to be able to build housing of the single family detached type (favored in particular by those choosing to live in Riverside County) at a substantially lower cost than under the no projectlexisting plans alternative. While this is highly unlikely, lower detached housing cost would induce migration into San Diego from other parts of the country and hence the EIR should be redone with a larger workforce. More plausibly average housing costs might be lowered by a switch to a heavier multifamily mix. However, in this case there would be strong incentives to live in Riverside for those wanting detached housing and, hence, the RCP still would need redone with a larger workforce. The second problem has to do with the construction of the “No ProjectlExisting Plans” (EXISTING) alternative relative to the Proposed Project (RCP). The “No ProjectExisting Plans” should refer to what is allowed in terms of the number of dwelling units by the current plans of different jurisdictions coupled with whatever region wide transportation, air quality, and energy conservation plans are likely to be put in place independent of any decision on how many dwelling units are allowed above the current general plans. The consequences of the failure to correctly define the EXISTING alternative can best be seen in the main comparison Table 1.7- 1. Here making corrections for the same transportation, energy, air quality plan would make the EXISTING alternative have the best overall score. The “5” versus “3” rating for regional transportation is particularly egregious. Sincerely, Richard T. Carson Professor RESOLUTION for PLANNED GROWTH and LOCAL CONTROL Regarding amendments to the Regional Comprehensive Plan May 24,2004 1. The San Diego region has experienced significant problems in the past related to growth in population and development. 2. City and county leaders throughout our region have expressed their desire to retain local control over land use. A regional plan that calls for amending these plans would weaken local control. 3. The current draft of the RCP calls for the addition of housing units in excess of existing general plan capacities. The draft EIR estimates that this policy would lead to about 46,000 more homes and 100,640 more residents in the region, as compared to existing plans. 4. It appears imprudent to change from a policy of growth accommodation to a policy of growth promotion, and to intentionally add over 100,000 people to our region, in addition to 882,000 expected under existing plans. 5. The SANDAG staff has received credible professional commentaries that challenge the effectiveness of solving traffic and other problems by inducing more growth. There is a lack of evidence that adding more housing units would lower prices enough to prevent people from obtaining housing outside the region. Without considerably lower prices, there is no reason to believe that our region could meet the goal of “capturing” homes that would otherwise be built in Riverside County, Baja California and other nearby regions. 6. There is little convincing evidence that adding more housing units than in existing general plans capacities would produce superior results regarding housing affordability, traffic, air quality, energy, and other impacts. 7. There is a huge excess of industrially zoned land regionwide, compared to residentially zoned land, according to SANDAG reports. 8. This resolution deals only with the RCP and SANDAG’s regional efforts to encourage added development above existing plans. The resolution is not meant to restrict in any way a jurisdiction that wishes to increase development, to relocate development from outlying areas to more centrally located areas, or to coordinate planning with other jurisdictions. Therefore, it is resolved: The RCP shall be amended as follows: 1. To retain local government control and avoid growth inducement by deleting the goal of amending general plans to add housing units and increase population above existing general plan capacities. 2. To achieve a better balance of employment growth and housing growth by developing programs that reduce the intensity of industrial use, and that rezone land from industrial use to open space or residential use, where appropriate. (Not collocation, not mixed use) Prepared by: Friends of San Diego, a non-profit public interest organization. Tel: 619-795-1753. RCP-Resolution-F.doc 3636 4th Avenue, Suite 3 10 San Diego, CA 92 103 Tel: 619-795-1753 Fax: 6 19-795- 1 756 Dedicated to preserving the environment and quality of life through eff'ective growrh management email: FriendsoRD@aol.com All Receive-Agenda Item #& For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Asst. CM-CA-CC- J June 11,2004 To the Mayor and City Council: City of Carlsbad Re: Regional Comprehensive Plan Dateh- City Mna-7 This package contains new and revised materials. In particular, the Resolution for Planned Growth and Local Control has been revised. Thank you for your consideration. The regional plan will affect Carlsbad for many years to come. c Thomas G. Mullaney TS-746 I I W d 0 + Li w 4 w p-r 0 0 0 00 00 8 Ni 3 W a % 0 c, d id a * Q ”, Q ”, n m 8 Q .y E m a 9 v1 n I I I I \ \ I 1, 1 1 \ \ I s 0 lGtar (? 8' 5 0 00000000 y(v I 1 mTt-mcvy 3 RESOLUTION for PLANNED GROWTH and LOCAL CONTROL Regarding amendments to the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) June 9,2004 (revised) Whereas: 1. The San Diego region has experienced significant problems in the past related to growth in population and development. 2. City and county leaders throughout our region have expressed their desire to retain local control over land use. A regional plan that is based on amending these plans would weaken local control. 3. The current draft of the RCP calls for the addition of housing units in excess of existing general plan capacities. The draft EIR estimates that this policy would lead to about 46,000 more homes and 100,640 more residents in the region, as compared to existing plans. - 4. It appears imprudent to change from a policy of growth accommodation to a policy of growth promotion, and to intentionally add over 100,000 people to our region, in addition to 882,000 expected under existing plans. 5. The SANDAG staff has received credible professional comments that challenge the effectiveness of solving traffic and other problems by inducing more growth. There is a lack of evidence that adding more housing units would lower prices enough to prevent people fi-om obtaining housing outside the region. Without considerably lower prices, there is no reason to believe that our region could meet the goal of “capturing” homes that would otherwise be built in Riverside County, Baja California and other nearby regions. 6. There is little convincing evidence that adding more housing units than in existing general plans capacities would produce superior results regarding housing affordability, traffic, air quality, energy, and other impacts. 7. There is a huge excess of industrially zoned land regionwide, compared to residentially zoned land, according to SANDAG reports. 8. There is no plan for a comprehensive open space network that is based on the many needs for open space, including recreation, visual relief, community separation, watershed protection, as well as habitat. 9. This resolution deals only with the RCP and SANDAG’s regional efforts to encourage added development above existing plans. The resolution is not meant to restrict in any way a jurisdiction that wishes to increase development, to relocate development fi-om outlying areas to more centrally located areas, to create affordable housing, or to coordinate planning with other jurisdictions. Resolution, page lof 2 Therefore, it is resolved: The RCP shall be amended to meet the following intent: 1. To retain local government control and avoid growth inducement: a. by deleting the goal of “capturing” housing units from outside our region, and b. by deleting the goal of amending general plans to add housing units above existing general plan capacities. 2. To achieve a better balance of employment growth and housing growth by developing programs that reduce the intensity of industrial use, and that rezone land from industrial use to open space or residential use, where appropriate. This is not an endorsement of collocation or mixing industrial and residential uses in any way that could create health hazards. 3. To add the goal of creating a comprehensive, interconnected regional open space system that meets the myriad needs of the region for open space. This should include a regional system of parks, walkways and bikeways. 4. To enhance housing affordability without inducing growth by exploring the expansion of rental vouchers, down payment assistance and similar programs that make existing and planned housing more affordable. - Prepared by: Friends of San Diego, a non-profit public interest organization. Tel: 619-795-1753. RCP-Resolution-Gdoc Resolution, page 2 of2 Dedicated to preserving the envtkonment and quality of life through effective growth management 3636 4th Avenue, Suite 3 10 San Diego, CA 92 103 Tel: 619-795-1753 Fax: 619-795-1 756 email: FriendsofSD@aol.com WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE RCP 1. LOCAL CONTROL is threatened Coronado +National City +La Mesa +Lemon Grove +Santee 2. GROWTH PROMOTION “Ideal” goal: 93,000 more homes and 200,000 more peopl Target figures: 46,000 more homes and 100,000 more peopl 3. EXISTING PLANS-- HUGE CHALLENGE I 200 schools 3 14,000 new homes, 882,000 more people 4. WON’T PREVENT SPFUWL 4400 acres - parks police, fire, roads No permanent rural preservation No urban growth boundaries No link between density and rural preservation 5. “CAPTURING” HOMES WON’T WORK Prices much less in Riverside, Imperial, Mexico Can’t lower price enough, if at all More induced growth if prices were lowered. Detached homes vs. attached homes 6. “CAPTURING” ISN’T NEEDED Riverside will add job centers Housing prices will rise in Riverside, Imperial & Mexico 7. SEVERE IMPACTS-- DRAFT EIR NO HELP Impacts grossly underestimated --3 3 of 39 “below significance” Lack of modeling Subjective scoring Total scores too close to be meaningful TS-741 5 4477 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, C4 92 10 1 - 423 1 Fax (6 79) 699 - 1905 (679) 699-1900 March 26, 2004 l.VM4Msandag.org MEMBER AGENCIES ' Cities of Cadsbad Chub Vista Coronado Del Mar El Capn Encinitas &ondido lmperiel Beach La M& Lemon Grove National City Oceanside San Diego San Mam Santee SO/ana Bmch Vista and County of San Diego ADWSORY MEMBERS California Deparfment of rransporratbn Metropolitan liarnit System North San Diqo Counry Transit Develomnent Bead United Siates Departmenr of Defense San Diego Unified Port Dkrria San Diego Counly Water Authority Raja CalifornialMerco TO: FROM: SANDAG Staff SUBJECT: Interested Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Errata to the Regional Comprehensive Plan Program Environmental Impact Report - A correction to the column headings in Table 5.2-3 has been made. Table 5.2-3 appears on page 5.2-4 of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. The corrected version of the table is provided below. TsMe 53-3 kI~8 RtP Regional Growth Forecast With and Witbut RCP MCBttX W (''Induced service employment increase resulting from the additional 46,000 househotds under RCP is calculated at 0.264 service jobs per additional household (SANDAG 2004). Following RCP policies to amend general plans would add: 46,000 more housing units RR 100,640 more people Or double this number if the goals were met completely. 100,000 people is equivalent to the population of Poway and La Mesa combined. DO WE REALLY NEED THIS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO UCSD BERKELEY * DAVIS * IRVINE - LQSANGELES RIVERSIDE SANDIEGO * SAN FRANCISCO SANTABARBARA SANTACRUZ DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS Richard T. Carson Professor and Chair UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO 210 ECONOMICS BUILDING, 0508 LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA, 920934508 Email: rcarson@ucsd.edu http://weber.ucsd.edu/-rcarson (858) 534-3384, FAX (858) 534-5592 May 12,2004 Rob Rundle, Senior Regional Planner SANDAG 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92 10 1 Dear Mr. Rundle: The SANDAG’s “Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region [Draft EIR]” dated March 2004 (SCN 200401 1 141) has two serious problems which should be corrected before the report is accepted. The first problem is pervasive throughout much of the report. It is assumed that it is possible to take 46,000 dwelling units that are projected to be built outside of San Diego County (e.g., Baja, Riverside County) to serve San Diego County workers and build them inside San Diego County without increasing the projected number of San Diego County workers (and associated impacts like traffic congestion and air pollution). From an economic standpoint, this is impossible. To understand the rational behind this statement, one needs to ask why someone who lives in Baja or Riverside works in San Diego? The answer here is straightforward. These workers are trading-off higher commuting costs against lower housing costs outside of San Diego County. The only way to change this is to be able to build housing of the single family detached type (favored in particular by those choosing to live in Riverside County) at a substantially lower cost than under the no project/existing plans alternative. While this is highly unlikely, lower detached housing cost would induce migration into San Diego from other parts of the country and hence the EIR should be redone with a larger workforce. More plausibly average housing costs might be lowered by a switch to a heavier multifamily mix. However, in this case there would be strong incentives to live in Riverside for those wanting detached housing and, hence, the RCP still would need redone with a larger workforce. The second problem has to do with the construction of the “No ProjectExisting Plans” (EXISTING) alternative relative to the Proposed Project (RCP). The “No Project/Existing Plans” should refer to what is allowed in terms of the number of dwelling units by the current plans of different jurisdictions coupled with whatever region wide transportation, air quality, and energy conservation plans are likely to be put in place independent of any decision on how many dwelling units are allowed above the current general plans. The consequences of the failure to correctly define the EXISTING alternative can best be seen in the main comparison Table 1.7- 1. Here making corrections for the same transportation, energy, air quality plan would make the EXISTING alternative have the best overall score. The “5” versus “3” rating for regional transportation is particularly egregious. Sincerely, Richard T. Carson Professor ~/~rtc. pdf 7 Executive Summary Table 1.7-1 Comparison of Impacts by Alternative Comparison is made in terms of the Proposed Project. 1 = No Impact 2 = Less Impact 3 = Comparable to Proposed Project 4 = Greater Impact 5 = Much Greater Impact the same level as the Proposed Pa b = Ranking established as 3 due compared to the Proposed Projec housing demands compared to tl c = Ranking established as 3 due compared to the Proposed Projec Go n 0. 0 6) E! 0 z 4 0 0 E E 0 4 z 4 v) n 0 2 .I.I c1 0 w P( b 0 0 c, k 0 0 8 0 clr 0 0 .. s. 0 It II 03 3 ph 03 3