HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-05; City Council; 18827; Presentation by Mario MonroyCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB# 18,827
MTG. 12/05/06
DEPT. CM '
Receive a Presentation
From Mario Monroy
DEPT. HEAD (,^—
CITY ATTY. c^-
CITY MGR. ^a>
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive the presentation from Mario Monroy.
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 Mario Monroy, a resident of Carlsbad, requesting the opportunity to make a
presentation to the City Council regarding the land use of "Old Carlsbad."
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
EXHIBITS:
1. Letter to Ray Patchett, City Manager, from Mario Monroy.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Courtney Enriquez 760-434-2958 cenri@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COUNCIL ACTION:APPROVED
DENIED
CONTINUED D
WITHDRAWN D
AMENDED D
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC D
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D
RETURNED TO STAFF D
OTHER - SEE MINUTES D
Exhibit 1
QCI2005
Oty ManafctjofCatlsbad
Mario R. Monrpy
749 B Magnolia Avenue
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
October 6. 200$
Ray Patchett
City Manager
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Ray,
Several weeks ago, Socorro Anderson and I met with Mayor Lewis and Councilman Matt
Hall to review land use in what we call "Old Carlsbad," an area encompassed by the south
boundary of the redevelopment area on the north; I-5 on the east: the railroad tracks on the
west and Magnolia and Carol to the south.
After reviewing some of the data with the mayor and Matt, the mayor indicated he wanted
us to review our analysis at a City Council meeting. Would you please schedule our
presentation as soon as possible.
For your information Ray, we have reviewed 265 lots, the majority non-conforming, which
break down as follows:
Single residences 49%
Latino Owners 29%
Owner Occupied 43%
Local absentee Owners 23%
Non-local absentee Owners 34%.
One partnership owns 23 lots.
Sincerely,
Old Carlsbad:An Old Communityin Need of a New Plan
Introduction of SpeakerMichael Hedrick, B.A., B.S.• Scientist, Marine Science/Biology• Authored 20+ publications in scientific journals• Legislative Chair of the Jefferson Elementary PTABoard of Directors, 2005-2006• Carlsbad Village resident/property owner• Father of 2• Representing property ownersin a portion of Old Carlsbad,commonly referred to as the Barrio
Location of Properties
Property Owner DemographicsSurvey based on the area of 265 lots*76% of parcels developed prior to 198049% are single residences29% are Latino owned43% are owner occupied23% local absentee owners34% non-local absentee owners*Data effective as of 2/16/06
Old Carlsbad Planning GroupGrass roots workshops organized by property ownersFormed to address community needs, not adequately addressed by city leadersInvitation extended to all property ownersto take part in decision making process5 Meetings held among property owners(June 15, 29, Aug. 3, 24, and Oct. 5, 2006)Presentation reflects views and opinionsof the majority of participating owners asdetermined via a democratic process
Description of PropertiesZONEPERMITTED USESArea Width Front Side Rear Height CoverageR-2Duplexes, R-1 uses, 7,500 sf 60-80 ft 20 ft Interior: 10% 2X 30 ft and 2 stories 50%Two-familyin limited cases,of lot width sideif roof pitch >3:12 orResidential tri- and four plexesStreet: 10 ft setback 24 ft and 2 stories if<3:12 roof pitchR-3Multi-family dwellings, R-2 7,500 sf 60 ft 20 ft Interior: 10% 2X35 ft60%Multiple-family uses, in limited casesof lot width sideResidentialpublic parkingStreet: 10 ft setbackRD-MAll dwelling types, 7,500 or 60 ft 20 ft Interior: 5 ft 10 ft35 ft50 orResidential Density- broad range 10,000 sfStreet: 10 ft60%Multipleof densitiesR-PLow intesity businesses 7,500 sf 60 ft 20 ft Interior: 10% 20% lot 35 ft60%Residential and professional officesof lot width widthProfessional and all dwelling typesStreet: 10 ft(>20ft.)DEVELOPMENT STANDARDSLOT (minimims) SETBACKS (minimums) BUILDINGS (maximums)Properties in area are zoned either R-2, R-3, RD-M, and RPNo properties within area are zoned R-1(single-family)Development is based on lots 25 ft wide by 140 ft deep and multiplesof 25 ft with the average residential lot size being 50ft x 140 ft. ????
ProblemsArea beset with problems common to older downtown areasArea lacks comprehensive plan. No overall planningdocument to guide development, growth in neighborhoodLack of investment in the development of propertyOlder properties are not being maintained adequatelyBlighted conditions. Dilapidated buildings, graffiti, andunkempt properties prevalentPedestrian friendly vision of Village not being realizedProperties are underutilized in terms of zoningDowntown businesses and retail shops, competing with otherretail magnets, are lacking in available foot traffic fromneighborhood City not capitalizing on increased property taxes newdevelopment would provideInadequate low income housing
What Can Be DoneIncrease the desirability of the neighborhood by creating aPlan for the area to attract and encourage investmentCreate a more pedestrian friendly Village by establishingChestnut Ave. as a primary east-west pedestrian thoroughfareRe-establish beach/Pine Park access to the community via apedestrian access across rail line at ChestnutContinue to introduce traffic calming measures via medians and landscaping to support pedestrian travelIncrease development investment in the area by conservativelychanging ordinances dealing with height and setback restrictions,parking requirements, and limitations imposed on the definitionof “underground” parkingContinue the revitalization of the Downtown area by increasingfoot traffic to downtown businesses from surrounding areaIncrease number of affordable housing units
Chestnut Pedestrian ThoroughfareTo El Camino RealCarlsbad Village Dr.Chestnut Ave.Tamarack Ave..C arlsbad B lvd.PineParkChaseFieldTheBeachSwimComplexCarlsbadHSMagnoliaElemValleyMiddleJeff.ElemSeniorCenterHolidayPark
Chestnut Avenue Pedestrian CrossingPresentation made to City Council 7/26/05City made verbal commitment to pursue funds to conduct feasibilitystudies“What we are going to do is proceed with trying to securefunds to do the initial study(ies) through SANDAG…once we have those funding sources acquired we would convene another group meeting to talk about how to kickoff those initial studies.”Marshal PlantzCity EngineerPoint man for Chestnut CrossingRecorded phone message 9/20/05
Chestnut Avenue Pedestrian CrossingCurrent status as of today - ???Fence continually cut open - repaired - cut open - repaired -cut open - repaired - cut openStill primary pedestrian access to beachNow is a primary thoroughfare for people walking to Pine Park fromthe westHealth and safety of children still at risk due to persistent openingin rail fence
Provide Economic StimulusThe San Diego Union-Tribune. September 24, 2006
Provide Economic StimulusThe San Diego Union-Tribune. September 24, 2006In order to continue Downtown’s economic revival we must:Increase foot traffic within the downtown area by increasingdensity in surrounding Village neighborhoods Address developer concerns: “…rising coastal land prices andconstruction costs…mean projects won’t pencil out under the city’scurrent requirements for parking, setbacks, height, andhousing density.“One of the key strategies the city should adopt is greater housing density downtown.”Bill OstriePresident of Carlsbad VillageBusiness Association
Development StandardsZONEPERMITTED USESFront Side Rear Height CoverageR-2Duplexes, R-1 uses, 20 ft Interior: 10% 2X 30 ft and 2 stories 50%Two-familyin limited cases,of lot width side if roof pitch >3:12 orResidential tri- and four plexesStreet: 10 ft setback 24 ft and 2 stories if<3:12 roof pitchR-3Multi-family dwellings, R-2 20 ft Interior: 10% 2X35 ft60%Multiple-family uses, in limited casesof lot width sideResidentialpublic parkingStreet: 10 ft setbackRD-MAll dwelling types, 20 ft Interior: 5 ft 10 ft 35 ft50 orResidential Density- broad rangeStreet: 10 ft60%Multipleof densitiesR-PLow intesity businesses 20 ft Interior: 10% 20% lot 35 ft60%Residential and professional offices of lot width widthProfessional and all dwelling types Street: 10 ft (<20ft.)SETBACKS (minimums) BUILDINGS (maximums)DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS*Parking Requirements*
Proposed Changes: SetbacksRecommendations from property owners on modifications todevelopment standards with regard to setbacks:Front setbacks:Current:Maintain 20 ft front setback.Recommended:Decrease front setback to 15 ft. (82%of property owners in support)Side setbacks:Current: Maintain 10% lot width setback. Street: 10ft (R-2, R-3, R-P). Recommended:Decrease side setback to 5ft. on all properties(87%of property owners in support)
Proposed Changes: SetbacksRear setbacksCurrent:Maintain current rear setbacks (2X side setback for R-2, R-3, 10ft for RD-M, and 20% lot width (<20ft) for R-P)Recommended:Decrease rear setback requirement to 1X sidesetback on all properties unless property has alley access. If so, maintain current standard.(88%of property owners in support)
Proposed Changes: BuildingsRecommendations from property owners on modifications todevelopment standards with regard to building maximums:Building Heights:Current:Maintain 35ft height limit in zones R-3, RD-M, andR-P, and 30ft and 2 stories if roof pitch >3:12 or 24ft and 2 storiesif pitch is <3:12 in zone R-2.Recommended:Increase height limit to 40ft on all properties.(88%of property owners in support)Lot Coverage:Current:Maintain current lot coverage standards (50% for R-2,60% for R-3, R-P, and 50 or 60% for RD-M).Recommended: Increase lot coverage to 70% on all properties.(88%of property owners in support)
Proposed Changes: ParkingRecommendations from property owners on modifications todevelopment standards with regard to parking requirements:Parking:Recommended:Decrease parking requirement by 20%. R-2 requirements for parking would be reduced from 2.5 to 2.0 parking spaces per housing unit. A two-unit property would be required to provide four spaces as a opposed to five which is the current standard(82%of property owners in support)
In SummaryWe respectfully request that the city council instructs staff to studyproposals and to recommend a specific plan for the continued development of the area discussedThe specific plan should include a plan to make Chestnut a primaryeast-west pedestrian thoroughfare, with a pedestrian access toacross the rail line a primary focus of the route.Introduce additional traffic calming landscaping and mediansThe plan should incorporate changes in the ordinances dealing with allowable density, such as setbacks, heights, parking, etc.We are not requesting for any changes in the city’s general plannor the zoning map for this area