The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-09-22; Growth Management Citizens Committee; ; Presentation SlidesMay 26, 2022Meeting 7 Sept. 22, 2022 Carlsbad -v-~ TOMOR Growth Management Citizens Committee {city of Carlsbad Call to Order & Roll Call Carlsbad-v-~ TOMORR W Approval of Minutes Carlsbad-v-~ TOMORR W Public Comment Carlsbad-v-~ TOMORR W Welcome &Introductions Carlsbad-v-~ TOMORR W COMMITTEE PURPOSE Promote balanced consideration of a range of perspectives on issues affecting the future growth and quality of life in Carlsbad and identify the key elements of a new plan to manage growth in Carlsbad in a way that maintains an excellent quality of life while also complying with state law. 11 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS •City Administrative Facilities •Libraries •Parks •Drainage •Circulation •Fire Response •Open Space •Sewer Collection System •Schools •Water Distribution System •Wastewater Treatment Orientation, background & history COMMITTEE PROCESS MAR –APRIL 2022 Information & dialogue on existing standards Discussion & recommendation development for future standards MAY –SEPTEMBER 2022 OCT –DEC 2022 Draft recommendations available for public reviewCommittee meetings are open to the public and livestreamed. Review & discuss draft recommendations for new quality- of-life standards DEC 2022 –JAN 2023 Discuss & finalize report for City Council FEB 2023 ••• ••• ••• ••• • • • • • • • •• ••• ••• ••• • •• ~--~ ~--~ ~--~ ~--~ aa ~--~ ~--~ ~--~ ~--~ ~--~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ► ► t ••• ~--~ ~ TODAY’S AGENDA Discussion items •Committee business –Open Space –Parks •Committee member requests for future agenda items •Public comment (continued if needed) •Adjourn {city of Carlsbad 1.Committee Business Carlsbad-v-~ TOMORR W Open Space Standard Eric Lardy, City Planner Carlsbad-v-~ TOMORR W CURRENT STANDARD Fifteen percent of the total land area in the zone [Local Facility Management Zone] exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable land must be set aside for permanent open space and must be available concurrent with development. APPLICABILITY OF OPEN SPACE STANDARD •Applies in facility zones 11-15 and 17-25 (in gray) •Does NOT apply in facility zones 1-6 and 16 (in white) M~AI WHERE: · H • ADDmONAIL PERMitJ!ilEN.T OP~H .... a! TO -fl'R'GYIDI! D ll!XCUl8JVE Of' UIIVfllllCINMENTAU. Y COHa'TRA:INUI I.NC FIGURE 14, OPEN SP:ACE a.11 P t,l!M ■.l!R 11, , oa,•e, JULY 1985 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS •Basis for growth management standards •No open space standard recommended •Determined there was adequate open space •Open space to be provided by master plans MAY 1986 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL •Staff identifies list of facilities to address in Growth Management Program •Open space not included in list MAY 1986 DEVELOPMENT STATUS MAP •Urbanized (developed) •Urbanizing (approved development/master plan) •Future Urbanizing (little or no development) ■cATE_GORY I: URBANIZED §CATEGORY II: URBANIZING ~ CATEGORY Ill: FUTURE URBANIZING 1986 –ADOPTION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM •June: Growth Management Ordinance -Directed staff to include a standard for open space •July: Performance standards -Including open space standard SEPTEMBER 1986 –CITYWIDE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN •Open space standard included in Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan •Specifies standard does not apply in areas that are developed or already meet the standard ■cATE_GORY I: URBANIZED §cATEGORY II: URBANIZING ~ CATEGORY Ill: FUTURE URBANIZING .1#11:Aa ~E. 11& .. ADDfflC)MAL PUu.tAMENT OPl!H •A<Z TO -fl'RGYl~D• pCU,:.1811/E Of' EJMl!IONMENTAl:i Y COHSff'MEI UM>- FIGURE 14 OPEN SPACE 8,E l'T EMB ER 1-11 , u ,a,,e LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT PLANS •Adopted for all facility zones (1-25) •Identified how the zone would meet the open space standard (in applicable zones) •Open space proved concurrent with development in applicable zones GROWTH MANAGEMENT OPEN SPACE STATUS •Open space standard satisfied in facility zones 11-15, 17-21 and 23-25 (in gray) •Future development in facility zone 22 is required to meet standard (gray area with orange star) ME A8 'Mtll'IE 11, ~L ,..IUolA.NE NT OPEN ••01 TO -""°"'a.D oa.ue,w CW UfYJ~ENTAU. Y CONsmAINUI I.NC) FIGURE 14 OPEN SPACE 8EflTEMIEA 1t, 811 FUNDING GMP OPEN SPACE •Growth Management Open Space –private •Provided by developer •HOAs pay for cost to maintain FUNDING OTHER OPEN SPACE •Space acquired outside of the 15% standard •Acquisition fee -General fund, Proposition C, Developer fees •Negotiated open space -Development required dedication -Density transfer for more open space -Protect sensitive nondevelopable areas -Often a cost to city to maintain 1988 OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE •Staff report to committee stated: “…that the amount of open space now required under the Growth Management Plan can be achieved without having to buy it, but also that the city has pushed to the limit what can be achieved without a monetary acquisition program.” HOW CITY PROVIDES AND PROTECTS OPEN SPACE •General Plan –Open Space Map •Habitat Management Plan •Growth Management Open Space Standard •Growth Management Parks Standard •Trails Master Plan •Zoning regulations OPEN SPACE CATEGORIES #Category % of Total Open Space 1 Protection of Natural Resources 78% 2 Managed Production of Resources 3.5% 3 Outdoor Recreation 12.5% 4 Aesthetic, Cultural and Educational Purposes 6% ~ ::~Ooe 3p,>cc ana·v,::-~Cer-ces· Ope lpaoe c.ateQO •= :.cn11UOn a, :itun R~~e:~ aged Fn>ct'Jd:lcn o, e!.::>uru-~ o (~ -me~ roura c.d) .r...d EGUa tsan.t Fun>:t~es (__ City of Carlsbad Open Space Map Updated February 2021 WHY DOESN’T STANDARD APPLY TO ALL ZONES? •City Council determination in 1986 •Standard applied to areas where future master plans anticipated •Not applied to developed areas •Not applied where development or master plan already approved ■cATE_GORY I: URBANIZED §cATEGORY II: URBANIZING ~ CATEGORY Ill: FUTURE URBANIZING IS 40% OPEN SPACE REQUIRED? •No -there is no requirement for 40% open space •Misconception •1986 –35 -40% open space estimated at buildout •1986 –25% of city was estimated to be open space •40% = 25% + 15% open space standard (shorthand) •Today, 38% of city is open space POTENTIAL OPTIONS •Options limited due to challenges -Securing vacant available land -State housing laws limit changes to density/use •City seeks available land for open space -Utilizes Proposition C funds -Difficulty finding landowner willing to sell at fair market value DISCUSSION QUESTIONS •Is this standard important to quality of life in Carlsbad? •Should this standard be re-evaluated in any way? Parks Standard Kyle Lancaster, Parks & Recreation Director Nancy Bragado, Bragado Consulting Carlsbad-v-~ TOMORR W CURRENT STANDARD 3.0 acres of community park or special use area per 1,000 population within the park district (city quadrant). If a district falls into deficit, a community park or special use area must be scheduled for construction within a five-year period, beginning at the time the need is first identified. 1982 PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT UPDATE (GENERAL PLAN) •No longer to construct neighborhood parks •Future parks were to be community parks •Based on public input for larger, more active parks 1985 CITIZENS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS •Basis for Growth Management standards •Retain a community parks approach •Require developers to provide private recreation areas maintained by HOA o Providing recreation in closer walking distance 1986 CITYWIDE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN •Park standard = 3 acres/1,000 population •Scheduled for construction within five years o Allowed time for park planning •The total acres of Macario Canyon (Veterans Memorial) Park were planned to be divided equally among quadrants PARKS STATUS Quadrant Current Population Current Park Acres required Buildout Population Buildout Park Acres Required Current Park Acres 2022 NW 31,360 94.1 39,126 117.4 131.7 NE 18,189 54.6 22,741 68.2 68.7 SW 26,337 79.0 28,834 86.5 93.6 SE 40,140 120.4 42,548 127.6 138.3 Total 116,025 348.1 133,249 399.7 432.4 Robertson Ranch Park (NE 11.2 acres) Zone 5 Business Park Expansion (NW 9.3 acres) Cannon Lake Park (NW 6.8 acres) Southwest Carlsbad Coastline (SW up to 60 acres) POTENTIAL FUTURE PARKS CARLSBAD PARKS INVENTORY •42 existing community parks and special use areas ;-v,--J -------.... _ .. Carlsbad City Parks ._. ............ ./ '"---- J ' ' '----7 I \ "" ·--------t a>-~l -.(_-J---.. '; \\ •i ,, .;; ~ I \ ~I! \ ' I l I I I I I I l I ' I= ', ! l '5 ---_.....__,, l ,/' .,,.~ "' ~ ◊ COU.EG!'"Sl ,--.. ,..~ 01' ' ! '--/ , , I 1 ' r !__~ , l Community Park Special use Area Future Park ~/'. .. , L I ' ' l 1 ,'-----,' --------I \ Over 67 miles of trails Beaches Natural resource areas Lagoons Golf courses Private recreation areas RECREATION AREAS NOT COUNTED TOWARD PARK STANDARD PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING •Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan: park standard •Carlsbad General Plan: long range goals and policies •Parks & Recreation Department Master Plan: guides priorities, investments and programming •Individual park master plans: detailed design and plans •Trails Master Plan: framework for city’s trail system •Zoning Ordinance: requirements for recreation areas in private development Park in-lieu fees Developer contributions Community Facility District #1 General Fund PARK DEVELOPMENT FINANCING $ 0000 ~ VISITOR AND COMMUTER DEMAND •Visitors create demands, but also generate funds through Transient Occupancy Tax and sales tax •Commuters may create midday increase in park use •Facility use fees apply to visitors/commuters •Park mitigation fee available for nonresidential development HOW CARLSBAD COMPARES –PARK ACRES* 2,141.46 1,162.61 839.55 653.89 459.70 289.65 0.00 500.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 3,000.00 3,500.00 4,000.00 4,500.00 5,000.00 * Based on the Trust for Public Lands data and may include or omit elements that differ from other data sources 43,569.12 1111 PARK ACRES PER 1,000 RESIDENTS* 30.8 12.19 10.16 6.8 4.57 4.6 3.12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 * Based on the Trust for Public Lands data and may include or omit elements that differ from other data sources LAND DESIGNATED FOR RECREATION USE* 19% 14% 12%12% 9% 7%6% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% * Based on the Trust for Public Lands data and may include or omit elements that differ from other data sources RESIDENTS PER PARK* 2,830 4,149 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 Carlsbad Median of CA cities >2,500 people per sqm Carlsbad performs better than the median city and provides more parks for its population. * National Park and Recreation Association data Reference City Standard (acres per 1,000 residents) Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan City of Carlsbad 3 acres applied in each park district (i.e., city quadrant) General Plan: Recreation Element (amended 2003) City of Encinitas 0.25 -0.5 acres for Mini Parks 1 -2 acres for Neighborhood Parks 5 -8 acres for Community Parks 5 -8 acres for Special Use Parks No standard for Regional Parks 2019 Parks & Recreation Master Plan City of Oceanside 5 acres as a planning goal -40% public schoolground acreage credit -40% acreage credit for Guajome Regional Park developed acres 2021 General Plan, Parks, Recreation and Community Health Element City of San Marcos 5 acres -Provide opportunities for passive and active recreation -Includes parks, trails and recreational facilities -New infill development to provide plazas, mini parks or other civic spaces as a part of parkland requirement Reference City Standard (acres per 1,000 residents) General Plan 2030: Resources Conservation & Sustainability Element City of Vista 2 acres for Neighborhood Parks 3 acres for Community Parks 4 -4.9 acres overall average park standard 1991 General Plan Public: Facilities Element City of Poway 2.5 acres for Neighborhood Parks 5 acres for Community Parks 2018 Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update City of Chula Vista 3 acres -Includes community, neighborhood, special purpose mini and urban parks. Strategy varies for eastern (new growth) and western (infill) Chula Vista. 2021 Park Master Plan and associated General Plan Amendments City of San Diego “Value-based” standard of 100 points per 1,000 people in place of its prior standard of 2.8 acres. Points are awarded based on land, experience and equity and access. City Residential Type –Fees per dwelling unit General Rural Single-Family Multi-Family Mobile Home City of Carlsbad Varies by quadrant: NE, SE, NE, SW $5,728 (NE, SE, SW) $7,649 (NW) $4,804 (≤4 units) (NE, SE, SW) $4,636 (>4 units) (NE, SE, SW) $6,414 (≤4 units) (NW) $6,190 (>4 units) (NW) $3,696 (NE, SE, SW) $4,934 (NW) City of Oceanside $4,431 City of Vista $8,086 $8,035 $5,410 City of San Marcos $6,251 $6,251 City of Poway 50% reduction for an ADU $4,562 $4,562 $3,594 $3,318 City of Encinitas Other fees for Open Space, Trails, and Community Facilities $10,751: (0.125-8.0 DU/Ac) $7,180: (8.0-25.0 DU/Ac)$6,838 City Residential Type –Fees per dwelling unit Rural Single-Family Multi-Family Mobile Home City of Chula Vista Varies by west of I-805 and east of I-805 $13,684 west $21,366 east $10,157 west $15,858 east $6,404 west $9,999 east City of San Diego Ranges from $11,333 to $17,989 scaled to unit size Ranges from $8,800 to $13,968 scaled to unit size, •Lower fees in transit priority areas and for senior housing •Certain other reductions related to environmental justice, affordable housing or sustainability goals County of San Diego Varies by community from $5,457 to $11,217 •Fallbrook: $7,624 •Bonsall: $8,010 •San Dieguito (includes Rancho Santa Fe): $10,245 Varies by community from $4,503 to $12,144 •Fallbrook: $8,719 •Bonsall: $6,999 •San Dieguito (includes Rancho Santa Fe): $ 11,039 POTENTIAL OPTIONS Tiered System •Tier 1 –maintain existing system for remaining new development •Tier 2 –apply to all growth not accounted for in 2015 General Plan. Tier 2 growth could only occur through a General Plan amendment. Flexible or modified standard for Tier 2 •Maintain 3.0 acres/1,000 and allocate some park fees to a fund for opportunistic purchases, and •Provide more options for how acreage standards can be met •Or create a new standard that considers recreational value or other factors POTENTIAL OPTIONS Broader Park Districts •Combine or eliminate quadrants/districts •Broader or citywide districts allow fees to accrue and be programmed faster •Consider slower pace of infill development opposed to large subdivisions Addressing Concurrency •Don’t link Tier 2 development to a defined list of projects •Use Tier 2 fees to support unfunded CIP park projects •Fund investments in existing parks per park master plans •Construct new parks as funds are secured OTHER CONSIDERATIONS •Consider equity and environmental justice •Consider if co-benefits can be achieved and whether diverse funding sources could be used to support park-system investments •Explore pros and cons of expanding implementation of a park mitigation fee for industrial development •Review user fee recommendations from P&R Master Plan update DISCUSSION QUESTIONS •Is this standard important to quality of life in Carlsbad? •Should this standard be re-evaluated in any way? Committee Member Requests for Future Agenda Items Carlsbad-v-~ TOMORR W Public Comment Carlsbad-v-~ TOMORR W Adjournment Next Meeting: Oct. 12, 2022 Carlsbad-v-~ TOMORR W Break Carlsbad-v-~ TOMORR W