city of encinitas city council agenda report

T\AdvPlng\GPComp\PC\Housing Policy Report\PC Final Housing Policy Report 1

CITY OF ENCINITAS

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: February 13, 2013

TO: City Council

VIA: Gus Vina, City Manager

FROM: Planning Commission

SUBJECT: Results of Housing Exercise, Survey of Tools, and discussion on Housing

Methodologies to Accomplish Higher Density.

BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is a group of appointed officials which oversees

city planning and considers issues of interest, such as reviewing and acting upon various

development permit applications issued by the City. The commission is the primary entity

responsible for long term comprehensive planning in the City, having the ability to formulate and

apply regulations to properly guide planning, land use, and development decisions in keeping

with City objectives. Specified powers, duties and functions of the Planning Commission are

specified under Chapter 2.34 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code.

As part of the extended outreach program for the Comprehensive General Plan Update, the Council

requested that a housing exercise be provided to the General Plan Advisory Committee, Element

Review Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and the public. Also, Council suggested

that the exercise be outreached to the youth, therefore the exercise was conducted by the Youth

Commission and other youth at the Youth Commission meeting on May 2, 2012.

The purpose of this report is to identify the recommendations from the Planning Commission

regarding the mapping exercise, the survey of tools to accomplish higher density housing along

with key strategies and policy recommendations developed by the Planning Commission.

Additionally, based on direction from council at their July 18, 2012 meeting, the Planning

Commission had further discussions on methodologies for locating housing. The results presented

in this report are based on work and group discussions by the Planning Commission completed at

their meetings of April 19, June 7, June 21, September 20, and October 18, 2012.

ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission initially completed the mapping exercise on April 19,

2012, and also conducted a general survey related to tools to accomplish housing. Additionally, at

their meetings of June 7, June 21, and September 20, 2012, the Planning Commission worked to

develop and finalize some housing strategies; the map was also further adjusted based on group

02/13/2013 Item #07


consensus. For review and consideration, the final Planning Commission map is found in

Attachment 1 and the results of the tool survey are found in Attachment 2.

Strategy/Policy Recommendations:

The following is a summary of the key recommendations that the Planning Commission developed

in order to implement the locations identified on the mapping exercise.

1. Strategy/Policy recommendation:

New density should be spread across all five communities in a manner that it can be

accommodated.

Reason: A general distribution of the higher density is reflected in the map. Density

should be dispersed throughout the City in appropriate areas with resources to

accommodate the increased density. Council should know that the allocation of dots was

not suggesting firm agreement to a specific number of units per grid specifically, but does

indicate the Commission’s opinion of the best areas of concentration. Most important is

the allocation to each community which can be implemented by various tools. When

making conceptual development density and location decisions Council should pay equal

attention to areas on the map void of dots as they are areas that higher density is not

recommended. While some neighborhood areas might account for some new residential

density, other areas are less suitable for new multi-family residential development.


Disperse new density by community as reflected on the pie chart as shown in Attachment

1. This distribution provides a slightly larger share of the allocation in the communities

of Old Encinitas (25%), New Encinitas (25%), and Leucadia (22.5%) and lower

percentage of the share in Cardiff (15%) and Olivenhain (12.5%).

Reason: Mapping results show dispersal through each community. All five communities

should carry some of the overall share. New density should not dramatically disturb

existing zoning or character.


Unit allocations should be spread along and throughout corridors, eliminating heavily

concentrated areas of new growth.

Reason: New density should be spread along certain areas instead of concentrating density

in one area. The new density should not dramatically disturb existing zoning or character

that is there today.

02/13/2013 Item #07



Tabulated results from the tools exercise identify preferences, and are ranked accordingly.

However the tools are not mutually exclusive. Many tools can be used in concert with one

and another.

Reason: There was clearly high support for some tools. Four tools listed in Attachment 2

recorded an average greater than 4. Five tools listed had an average between 3 and 3.7.

Five tools listed had an average less than 3 (1.7 to 2.7). While some tools may be viewed as

more important, many of the tools can be utilized together, increasing their effectiveness

and/or acceptability.

Methodology Discussion for Locating Housing:

Based on Council direction, the Planning Commission, at their meeting of September 20, 2012,

held a discussion on the pros and cons of housing methodologies. By consensus, the Commission

agreed to address the methodologies discussed by the ERAC and GPAC: near transit, available

supply of vacant/underutilized land, flex zoning overlay w/cap, near commercial, town center,

mixed-use and a hybrid method. However the Commission merged “near commercial” and “town

center” as one methodology and added “increase existing multi-family zoning to 30 du/ac, 3

stories” as another methodology for discussion.

At the end of the discussion, the Planning Commission agreed by consensus not to select a

preferred methodology; the Commission noted that a variety of methodologies is needed to

accomplish the housing goal. The pros and cons identified by the Planning Commission of the

various housing methodologies are listed below:

Near Transit:

Pros –

• Allows people to have the choice of transit.

• Transit in our city tends to be located near our commercial areas; transit and commercial

corridors tend to overlap so two methodologies are addressed at the same time.

• Transit corridors are streets that should be capable of handling more traffic vs.

neighborhood streets which would not be capable of handling additional traffic.

• Brings additional persons from outside of the city into the commercial areas via transit,

which assists in sustaining the tax base.

Cons -

• Limiting factor; assuming all will utilize transit; limits dispersal.

• Cannot just focus on where transit is now; need to address expansion of existing

corridors.

• Focussing solely on transit minimizes the ability to spread the density throughout all five

communities which is a high priority of the Planning Commission.

• Pushes you into mixed use redevelopment of sites on transit corridors, rather than being

able to address vacant or underutilized sites.

02/13/2013 Item #07


Available Supply of Vacant/Underutilized Land:

Pros -

• Ability to up zone underutilized parcels.

• More near term opportunity vs. other methodologies.

• Ease of development by outside developers; easier to develop vacant land rather than

developed sites.

• Underutilized sites may be appropriate to handle the higher densities.

Cons -

• We may end up with very little opportunity for other uses such as parks.

• City almost built out therefore not a lot available to address the issue of additional

housing.

• The vacant sites may not be appropriate for higher density (context sensitivity needs to be

considered).

Flex Zoning Overlay w/Cap:

Pros -

• Fixed area could be defined and people aware of potential/future land uses.

• Equitable to all property owners within the zone.

• Greater flexibility allows you to combine it with other methodologies – the flex overlay

can be the tool that assists in accomplishing the other methodologies.

Cons -

• If too general or flexible adjacent property owners may not be aware of future or potential

land uses.

• Risk of concentration.

Near Commercial/Town Center:

Pros -

• Allows for mixed use.

• Combines jobs and housing.

• Could enhance certain areas with amenities.

• Concept addresses many goals; i.e. jobs, housing, transit, public places and reduced

traffic.

• Addressing projected need that shows that people want to walk to commercial services

from their homes – walkability.

Cons -

• Could require additional costs to the city to enhance areas or improve infrastructure.

• Limited horizontal and vertical space based on current zoning regulations (height, FAR,

lot coverage).

• Do not have appropriate zoning at this time.

02/13/2013 Item #07


Mixed Use:

Pros -

• As part of the strategy, helps us to achieve the goal with less change and impact to the

area.

• Creates vibrant areas.

Cons -

• Not feasible as a sole methodology/strategy – too limiting. Needs to be part of a broader

strategy.

• Specific Plans may be too restrictive.

• May limit commercial opportunities.

• Sounds good, but a lot of failed projects – that do not work, because of height restrictions

making the project financially infeasible.

Hybrid:

Pros -

• Encinitas is a hybrid city – allows you to select different tools for different communities.

• Allows us to pick the best attribute of each methodology and apply it to accomplish

housing.

Cons -

• Depends on the area – can not apply to every area.

Note: Design Guidelines would need to be modified to appropriately apply the method.

Increase Existing Multi-Family Zoning* to 30 du/ac, 3 stories:

Pros -

• Sites are already zoned at a higher density so there is less impact and it is more palatable.

• May be able to get more units if smaller unit sizes are considered as well.

Cons -

• In some areas three stories may not be enough.

• May not get very many units if it is the sole methodology.

*15 – 25 units per acre

Planning Commission member Kurt Groseclose will present an overview of the Planning

Commission’s work on the mapping exercise and tools survey at the City Council meeting and

provide initial recommendations relative to the CGPU work program. Please note, at their

meetings Planning Commission members discussed how to go about providing conceptual

feedback to City staff during the mapping/tool survey exercises. It was noted that mapping

exercise results are not intended to represent parcel-specific recommendations or predetermine a

commissioner’s position on potential future land use changes. At this stage in the planning

process, Commission members were careful not to discuss land use designations at a parcel

specific level and they did not prejudice or pre-determine the Planning Commission’s position.

Additionally, in order to avoid parcel-specific discussions, the Planning Commission limited the

methodology discussion to the pros and cons of the various methodologies and did not conduct

the scenario mapping exercises that were conducted by the ERAC and GPAC. The Planning

Commission understands that, ultimately, a series of formal public hearings will be held and the

02/13/2013 Item #07


Planning Commission will provide formal recommendations on land uses and the updated

Housing Element to the City Council. This step will occur after the project is defined and

analyzed for environmental impacts, as well as after the completion of the public review period

for environmental documentation.

RECOMMENDATION: Receive report.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Mapping Exercise Results*

2. Tools to Accomplish Higher Density Survey Results*

3. Minutes from Meetings

4. Additional Information

- Initial Planning Commission Mapping Exercise

- Tools Survey Results from April 19, 2012

- February 13, 2013 Powerpoint presentation

*Note: Individual maps and surveys are on file and available for review at City offices.

02/13/2013 Item #07


ATTACHMENT 1

MAPPING EXERCISE RESULTS

02/13/2013 Item #07

Encinitas Blvd

La Costa Ave

Leucadia Blvd

El Cam

ino Real Ranch

o Santa

Fe Rd

N El C

amino Real

Via Canteb

ria

Olivenhain Rd

Man

cheste

r Ave

Ran

cho

Sant

a Fe

Rd

Santa Fe Dr

Carlsbad B

lvd

Quail G

ardens Drive

Manche

ster

Ave

Villa

ge Par

k W

ay

N C

oast Hw

y 101

S Coast H

wy 101

Vulcan Ave

San Elijo Ave

S El C

amino

Real

Encinitas Blvd

Batiquitos Lagoon

San El i jo Lagoon

P a c i fi c

O c e a n

£¤101

§̈¦5

§̈¦5

£¤101

Source: City of Encinitas and MIG, Inc.Date: August 2011

N

20

50

Acres0 10.50.25 Miles

Cardiff Sports Park

Manchester Preserve

GlenPark

OakcrestPark

Encinitas Ranch Golf

Course

Beacon’s Beach

Moonlight Beach

San Elijo State Beach

Cottonwood Creek Park

Encinitas Community

Park

O L I V E N H A I N

L E U C A D I A

N E WE N C I N I T A S

O L D E N C I N I T A S

C A R D I F F - B Y - T H E - S E A

City Limits

Sphere of Influence/Planning Area

Community Areas

Parks and Publicly Owned Open Space

Planning Area and City Boundaries

Figure I-2

Encinitas Blvd

La Costa Ave

Leucadia Blvd

El Cam

ino Real Ranch

o Santa

Fe Rd

N El C

amino Real

Via Canteb

ria

Olivenhain Rd

Man

cheste

r Ave

Ran

cho

Sant

a Fe

Rd

Santa Fe Dr

Carlsbad B

lvd

Quail G

ardens Drive

Manche

ster

Ave

Villa

ge Par

k W

ay

N C

oast Hw

y 101

S Coast H

wy 101

Vulcan Ave

San Elijo Ave

S El C

amino

Real

Encinitas Blvd

Batiquitos Lagoon

San El i jo Lagoon

P a c i fi c

O c e a n

£¤101

§̈¦5

§̈¦5

£¤101


N

20

50


Cardiff Sports Park

Manchester Preserve

GlenPark

OakcrestPark


Course

Beacon’s Beach

Moonlight Beach



Encinitas Community

Park

O L I V E N H A I N

L E U C A D I A




City Limits


Community Areas



Figure I-2

c i t y o f e n c i n i ta s g e n e r a l p l a n 2 0 3 5 | i - 2 3

Introduction

PLANNING COMMISSION GROUP MAP

EXERCISE RESULTSFROM JUNE 7 AND 21, 2012

A B C D E F G H I J K

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

1

0.5

1 1 2

1 2

2 2 2

1.5 2 2

1 1

1 1 2

1

0.5 1

2

1

Notes:

1. Map shows results tabulated by field from a Planning Commission mapping exercise conducted on April 19, 2012, and as modified by the Planning Commission at their June 7 and June 21, 2012 meetings.

2. A total of 40 dots were tabulated as part of the exercise.

3. Backshading is utilized to highlight tabulated fields.

4. A 0.5 was initially used to convey dots placed on the center of a line on the graph between two adjoining fields. However, fields were further modified based on group discussion.

Results broken down by community by percent:2

1

0.5 0.5

1

1.5

1

12345

Old Encinitas(25%)

Leucadia(22.5%)

New Encinitas (25%)

Olivenhain (12.5%) Cardiff (15%)

02/13/2013 Item #07

Encinitas Blvd

La Costa Ave

Leucadia Blvd

El Cam

ino Real Ranch

o Santa

Fe Rd

N El C

amino Real

Via Canteb

ria

Olivenhain Rd

Man

cheste

r Ave

Ran

cho

Sant

a Fe

Rd

Santa Fe Dr

Carlsbad B

lvd

Quail G

ardens Drive

Manche

ster

Ave

Villa

ge Par

k W

ay

N C

oast Hw

y 101

S Coast H

wy 101

Vulcan Ave

San Elijo Ave

S El C

amino

Real

Encinitas Blvd

Batiquitos Lagoon

San El i jo Lagoon

P a c i fi c

O c e a n

£¤101

§̈¦5

§̈¦5

£¤101


N

20

50


Cardiff Sports Park

Manchester Preserve

GlenPark

OakcrestPark


Course

Beacon’s Beach

Moonlight Beach



Encinitas Community

Park

O L I V E N H A I N

L E U C A D I A




City Limits


Community Areas



Figure I-2

Encinitas Blvd

La Costa Ave

Leucadia Blvd

El Cam

ino Real Ranch

o Santa

Fe Rd

N El C

amino Real

Via Canteb

ria

Olivenhain Rd

Man

cheste

r Ave

Ran

cho

Sant

a Fe

Rd

Santa Fe Dr

Carlsbad B

lvd

Quail G

ardens Drive

Manche

ster

Ave

Villa

ge Par

k W

ay

N C

oast Hw

y 101

S Coast H

wy 101

Vulcan Ave

San Elijo Ave

S El C

amino

Real

Encinitas Blvd

Batiquitos Lagoon

San El i jo Lagoon

P a c i fi c

O c e a n

£¤101

§̈¦5

§̈¦5

£¤101


N

20

50


Cardiff Sports Park

Manchester Preserve

GlenPark

OakcrestPark


Course

Beacon’s Beach

Moonlight Beach



Encinitas Community

Park

O L I V E N H A I N

L E U C A D I A




City Limits


Community Areas



Figure I-2

c i t y o f e n c i n i ta s g e n e r a l p l a n 2 0 3 5 | i - 2 3

Introduction

PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL “HEAT MAP”

EXERCISE RESULTS

A B C D E F G H I J K

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

1

0.5

1 1 2

1 2

2 2 2

1.5 2 2

1 1

1 1 2

1

0.5 1

2

1

Notes:

1. Map shows results tabulated by field from a Planning Commission mapping exercise conducted on April 19, 2012, and as modified by the Planning Commission at their June 7, and June 21, 2012 meetings.

2. A total of 40 dots were tabulated as part of the exercise.

3. Backshading is utilized to highlight tabulated fields in different tiers (ranked as upper, middle, bottom; i.e high to low preference for potential opportunity areas).

4. A 0.5 was initially used to convey dots placed on the center of a line on the graph between two adjoining fields. However, fields were further modified based on group discussion.

Results broken down by community by percent:2

1

0.5 0.5

1

1.5

1

12345

Old Encinitas(25%)

Leucadia(22.5%)

New Encinitas (25%)

Olivenhain (12.5%) Cardiff (15%)

Tabulation No. of fields Percent Allocation0.5 dots 4 5% Bottom tier1 dots 15 37.5% Bottom tier1.5 dots 2 7.5% Middle tier2 dots 10 50% Upper tier Totals 31 fields 100%

Upper tier (highest ranked areas) Middle tier

Bottom tier

02/13/2013 Item #07


ATTACHMENT 2

TOOLS TO ACCOMPLISH HIGHER DENSITY RESULTS

02/13/2013 Item #07

Tools to Accomplish Higher Density & Lower Cost Housing Total Average

12Increase existing density to 30 units per acre, 3 stories*"not just 101" 4 5 4 4 17 4.2

1 Disperse density throughout the City by community 5 4 3 4 16 4

6Near Transportation Opportunities*"induce transit changes" 3 5 4 4 16 4

7 Near Commercial Services 3 5 4 4 16 4

4Context Sensitive Locations*"mass transit and major arterieals" 4 2 4 5 15 3.7

10 Mixed Use/Residential 3 3 4 5 15 3.713 Accessory Dwelling Unit 4 5 1 4 14 3.53 Flexible Zoning Overlay 3 5 3 2 13 3.29 Standalone Residential 4 5 2 2 13 3.22 Greater concentration within certain areas 2 2 4 3 11 2.75 On Vacant Land 4 2 3 2 11 2.7

11 Greater Density - 45 units per acre, 4 stories 2 2 4 1 9 2.214 Limit unit size to reduce overall building size 2 1 2 3 8 28 Near Schools and Parks 2 1 1 3 7 1.7

* Most importantly we need to allocate the needs across all 5 communities. This should not be done on a straightline basis but skewed to the best "capable" areas. Also, we need to maintain the character of our "beach" and "rural" community by not allowing extremely high or "high rise" structure looks...

Total Surveys Completed (4)

TABULATED RESULTS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION TOOLS EXERCISE

SUMMARY OF WRITTEN PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS FROM SURVEY:

* Increase density in some areas to greater than 30 per acre. Strong emphasis on smaller higher density senior complexes. Increase building heights and FAR where suitable. Look at infill sites. Look at rezoning some parcels.* Need to include some mixed use type zoning in the focus areas, just not as much as shown in the original draft update. Needs to be dispersed throughout the city but focus areas can accommodate some mixed-use.

Final

02/13/2013 Item #07


ATTACHMENT 3

MINUTES FROM MEETINGS

April 19, 2012 meeting minutes

June 7, 2012 meeting minutes

June 21, 2012 meeting minutes

September 20, 2012 meeting minutes

October 18, 2012 meeting minutes

02/13/2013 Item #07

Jo Ann ShannonCommission Chair

APPROVED on May 3, 2012

Regular Meeting of the -Planning Commission

MINUTESThursday, April 19, 2012, 6:00 P.M.

Tony BrandenburgCommission Vice-Chair

Virginia FelkerCommissioner

Kurt GrosecloseCommissioner

Glenn O'GradyCommissioner

Council Chambers50S South Vulcan Avenue

Encinit~s, California 92024A copy of the Planning Commission meeting packet may be viewed by the public in the

Planning &, Building Department lobby and on the city's web page at:www.cityofencinitas.org.

CALL TO ORDER

ROLLCALLComDUssioners Present:

ComDUssjoners Absent:Staff Present:

The Regular Planning Commission meeting of April-19, 2012 was called toorder by Chair JoAnn Shanon at 6:01PM

Chair Jo Ann Shanon, and Commissioners Virginia Felker, Glenn O'Gradyand Kurt GroseclosèVice-Chair Tony BrandenburgCity Manager GusVina, City Planner Tom Currden, City AttorneyRepresentative Gregory Lusitana, Administrative Secretary Deana Gay,Planning & Building Director Patrick Murphy, Principal Planner DianeLangager, Associate Planner Michael Strong, and Associate Planner J.Dichoso

- 1 -

02/13/2013 Item #07

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Led by Virginia Felker

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR BY THE PUBLIC/COMMISSION - None

CLOSING AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR

L APPROVAL OF MINUTES for Regular Planning Commission meetings of AprilS, 2012.STAFF CONTACT: Deana Gay, Administrative Support Coordinator

. (6:02PM)APPROVAL OF MINUTES MADE BY A SEPARATE MOTION - Shannon was absent fromthe April 5' 2012 meeting and therefore could not VOTE the CONSENT CALENDAR as a whole.

On MOTION by O'Grady, SECONDED by Groseclose, the MINUTES of April 5, 2012 wereAPPROVED ON CONSENT.VOTE: 3-0-1-1AYES: Felker, Groseclose, O'GradyNOES: NoneABSTAIN: ShannonABSENT: Brandenburg

SECOND MOTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR

2. CASE NUMBER: 11 -074MUPMOD/CDPFILING DATE: May 16, 2011APPLICANT: AT&T Mobility LLCLOCATION: 801 Birmingham Drive (APN 260-324-17 and 18)ZONING: The subject property is located in the Visitor Serving Commercial (VSC) zone in theCommunity of Cardiff-by-the-Sea and within the _ Coastal Zone and ScenicNisual Corrdor OverlayZone of the City of Encinitas. .SUBJCT: Public Hearng for a Major Use Permit Modification and Coastal Development Permit tomodifY an existing AT&T wireless telecommunications, 10"'panel antenna facility approved llnder CaseNo. 05-103 MUP/CDP (PC Resolution 2005-47 approved December 15, 2005). AT&T built 9 panelantennas under the 2005 approvaL. The proposed modification removes six 4-foot-7-inch panelantennas (leaving three 4-foot-7-inch panel antennas) and adding four 4-foot-7-inch panel antennasresulting in a total of 12 antennas hidden behind RF-transparent screens mounted to the existing self.:storage facility. Installation of accessory equipment include 18 new remote radio units (RRU s) and 10neW surge protectors with the panel antennas behind the RF-transparent screening, and 2 RRUs withinthe equipment room located inside the storage building. A new caged access ladder to the roof with 2bollards at its base is proposed to be located near the southeast corner of the buil ding, The applicationalso includes legalization of telecommunications equipment (related to the present application) locat~dwithin the equipment room and with the proposed panel antennas, and an existing GPS atenna on theeast elevation which were all installed without building permits outside of the original2005 approval orthis application.

- 2-

02/13/2013 Item #07

ENvmONMENTAL STATUS: The project has been determined to be exempt from environmentalreview pursuant to Sections 15302(c) and 15303(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. Section 15302(c) exempts the replacement or reconstruction of existing utilitysystems and/or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity. Section 15303(d) exemptswater mains, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planing Commission approve Case No.11-074 MUPMOD/CDP based upon the findings and conditions contained in the draft resolution ofapproval for the project provided to the Commission.STAFF CONTACT: 1. Dichoso, Associate Planner

(6:02PM)On MOTION by Groseclose, SECONDED by O'Grady, CASE#11-074 MUPMOD/CDP wasAPPROVED ON CONSENT.VOTE: 4-0-1AYES: Felker, Groseclose, O'Grady, ShannonNOES: NoneABSENT: Brandenburg

3. CASE NUMBER: 11 -209 BACC/CDPFILING DATE: December 19, 2011APPLICANT: Lux Ar InstituteLOCATION: 1502 and 1550 S. EI Camino RealZONING: The subject propert is located in the Residential 3 (R-3) Zone, Hilside/Inland Bluff OverlayZone and the Coastal Zone. 'DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing to consider a Boundary Adjustment and Coastal Development Permitand Certificate of Compliance the modify the property lines on the northeast comer of 1550 S. ElCamino Real and to record a Certificate of Compliance for a previous Boundary Adjustment (Case No.85-0063).

. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission CONTINE CaseNo. 11-209 BACC/CDPto the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of

May 3,2012 _STAFF CONTACT: Andrew Maynard, Assòciate Planner

(6:02PM)On MOTION by Groseclose, - SECONDED by O'Grady, CASE#11-209 BACC/CDP wasCONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 3,2012.VOTE:AYES:NOES:ABSENT:

4-0-1Felker, Groseclose, O'Grady, ShannonNoneBrandenburg

NOTE: THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY NOT BEGIN A NEW HEARING AFTER 10:00PM UNLESS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION.

- 3-

02/13/2013 Item #07

REGULAR AGENDA

4. CASE NUMBER: 09-001 CGPUAPPLICANT: City of Encinitas

. LOCATION: CitywideDESCRIPTION: Presentation and brief overview of Housing Element law, statewide and regionalhousing goals, and accommodating regional housing needs. Commissioners wil be asked to completea survey to identify the appropriate tools to utilize to accomplish housing and to paricipate in amapping exercise to help identify general locations appropriate for locating future- housingdevelopment.

(6:05PM)

(6:08PM)

(6:55PM)

SpeakersMichael Andreen

(7:00PM)

(7:01PM)

(7:03PM)

(7: 16PM)

CITY MANAGER, GUS VINA

PRESENTATION BY MICHAEL STRONG

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

PRESENTATION BY PEDER NORBY

SURVEY AND MAPPING EXERCISE

PATRICK MURPHY CONTINUE "NEXT STEP"

PLANNING COMMISSIONIDIRECTOR REPORTS: None

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to the Regular Meeting of May 3,2012 (7:26PM).

NOTES:

Final action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council accompanied by the requiredfiling fee within fifteen (15) calendar days (10 days for maps). The actions are not final until the end of theappeal period, or if appealed, the end of City Council review. Under California Governent Code Sec.65009, if you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only thoseissues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondencedelivered to the City of Encinitas at, or prior to, the public hearing. .

Items 2 .and 3 are located in the Coastal Zone and require the issuance of Coastal Development Permits

(CDP). The actions of the Planning Commission relative to those items may not be appealed to theCalifornia Coastal Commission. '

- 4-

02/13/2013 Item #07

APPROVED on June 21, 2012

,Regular Meeting of thePlanning Commission

MINUTESThursday, June 7, 2012, 6:00 P.M.




Kurt Groseclose

Commissioner


Council Chambers505 South Vulcan Avenue

Encinitas, California 92024A copy of the Planning Commission meeting packet may be viewed by the public in the

Planning & Building Department lobby and on the city's web page at:ww.cityofencinitas.org.

CALL TO ORDER 'The Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 7, 2012 was called toorder by Chair JoAnn Shanon at 6:00PM

ROLLCALLCommissioners Present: _ Chair Jo Ann Shannon, Vice-Chair Tony Brandenburg and Commissioners

Virginia Felker, Glenn O'Grady and Kurt GrosecloseNoneCity Planner Tom Currden, City Attorney Representative Gregory Lusitana,Administrative Secretary Deana Gay, Principal Planner Diane Langager,Associate Planner Michael Strong, and Facilitator Peder Norby

Commissioners Absent:Staff Present:

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Led by Glenn O'Grady


- 1 -

02/13/2013 Item #07

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR BY THE PUBLIC/COMMISSION- None


CONSENT-CALENDAR

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES for Regular Planning Commission meetings of May 3, 2012 and May17,2012STAFF CONTACT: Deana Gay, Administrative Support

(6:02PM)On MOTION by O'Grady, SECONDED by Groseclose, the MINUTES of May 3, 2012 wereAPPROVED ON CONSENT.VOTE: 4-0-1AYES: Felker, Groseclose, O'Grady, ShannonNOES: NoneABSTAIN: Brandenburg (absent at the May 3,2012)

(6:02PM)On MOTION by O'Grady, SECONDED by Felker, the MINUTES of May 17, 2012 wereAPPROVED ON CONSENT.VOTE: 5-0AYES: Brandenburg, Felker, Groseclose, O'Grady, ShannonNOES: NoneABSENT: None

NOTE: THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY NOT BEGIN A NEW HEARING AFTER 10:00PM UNLESS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OFTHE COMMISSION.

REGULAR AGENDA

2. CASE NUMBER:APPLICANT:LOCATION:DESCRIPTION:results.

09-001 CGPUCity of EncinitasCitywideDiscussion of the Planning Commission's mapping exercise and tool survey

(6:04PM) PRESENTATION BY PRICIPAL PLANNER DIANE LANGAGER ANDASSOCIATE PLANNER MICHAEL STRONG

(6:08PM) COMMISSIONER AND FACILITATOR DISCUSSION

(6:17PM) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN

- 2 -

02/13/2013 Item #07

Speakers:Duff PickeringOliver Can1er

Sheila Cameron

(6:28PM) COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION

PLANNING COMMISSION/DIRECTOR REPORTS: GPAC meeting June 18, 2012 to reviewcomments

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to the Regular Meeting of June 21,2012 (7:57PM).

NOTES:

Final action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council accompanied by the requiredfilingfee within fifteen (15) calendar days (10 days for maps). The actions are not final until the end of theappeal period, or if appealed, the end of City Council review. Under California Governent Code Sec.65009, if you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only thoseissues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondencedelivered to the City of Encinitas at, or prior to, the public hearing.

- 3 -

02/13/2013 Item #07


APPROVED on July 19, 2012

Regular Meeting of thePlanning Commission

MINUTESThursday, June 21, 2012, 6:00 P.M.


Virginia Felker-Commissioner

Kurt Groseclose

Commissioner



Encinitas, California 92024A copy of the Planning Commissìon meetìng packet may be vìewed by the public in the

Planning & Building Department lobby and on the city's web page at:Www.cityofencinitas.org. -

CALL TO ORDER

ROLLCALLCommissioners Present:

Commissioners Absent:Staff l'resent:

The Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 21,2012 was called toorder by Chair JoAnn Shannon at 6:00PM, ,-Chair Jo Ann Shannon, Vice-Chair Tony Brandenburg and CommissionersVirginia Felker, Glenn O'Grady and Kurt GrosecloseNoneCity Planner Tom Currden, City Attorney Representative Gregory Lusitana,Administrative Secretary Deana Gay, Principal Planner Diane Langager,Associate Planner Michael Strong, Associate Planner Andrew Maynard andFacilitator Peder Norby

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Led by Commissioner Brandenburg

- 1 -

02/13/2013 Item #07


ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR BY THE PUBLIC/COMMISSION _Item 2 removed by Commissioner O'Grady


CONSENT CALENDAR

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES for Regular Planing Commission meeting of June 7, 2012.STAFF CONTACT: Deana Gay, Administrative Support

(6:02PM)On MOTION by Groseclose, SECONDED by O'Grady, the MINUTES of June 7, 2012 wereAPPROVED ON CONSENT.VOTE: 5-0AYES: Brandenburg, Felker, Groseclose, O'Grady, ShannonNOES: NoneABSENT: None


REGULAR AGENDA

2. CASE NUMBER: 12.:037 Historical Resource Alteration PermitFILING DATE: March 20,2012APPLICANT: Des Properties, LLC.LOCATION: 221 Sunset Drive (APN: 256-411-61)ZONING: The subject property is within the Residential 3 (R-3) Zone and the Coastal

Zone.DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing to consider a Historical Resource Alteration Permit for an addition,decks, façade improvements and interior modifications to an existing historical residence under

theMills Act Contract.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning C.ommission approve Case No.12-073 HRAP based upon the conditions in the Mills Act Contract

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The project has been determined to be exempt from environmentalreview pursuant to 15301(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts from environmental reviewadditions to existing structures provided that the addition wil not result in an increase of more than10,000 square feet.STAFF CONTACT: Andrew Maynard, Associate Planer

(6:03PM) STAFF REPORT PRESENTED BY ASSOCIATE PLANNER ANDREW MAYNAR

(6:10PM) DISCLOSURES

- 2 -

02/13/2013 Item #07

(6:10PM) COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION/QUESTIONS

(6:17PM) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

Speakers:Brian Church - (applicant)

(6:20PM) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED


(6:20PM)On MOTION by O'Grady , SECONDED by Brandenburg, CASE#12-037 Historical ResourceAlteration Permit was APPROVEDVOTE: 4-0-1AYES: Brandenburg, Felker, O'Grady, ShannonNOES: NoneABSENT: NoneABSTAIN: Groseclose

3. CASE NUMBER: 09-001 CGPUAPPLICANT: City of EncinitasLOCATION: - CitywideSUBJECT: Follow-up discussion of the Planing Commission's mapping exercise andtool survey results.STAFF CONTACT: Michael Strong, Associate Planner

(6:22PM) PRESENTATION BY PRINCIPAL PLANNER DIANE LANGAGER

(6:29PM) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN

Speakers:Mike Andreen spoke

- (6:34PM) DISCLOSURES

(6:34PM) COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION & MODIFICATIONS TO DRAFT HOUSINGPOLICY REPORT. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTED STAFF COME BACK AT AFUTURE MEETING TO RECAP THEIR SUGGESTIONS BEFORE PRESENTING TO THECITY COUNCIL.

PLANNING COMMISSIONIDIRECTOR REPORTS: None

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to the Regular Meeting of July 19, 2012 (7:19PM).

- 3 -

02/13/2013 Item #07

NOTES:

Final action by the Planing Commission may be appealed to the City Council accompanied by the requiredfiling fee within fifteen (15) calendar days (10 days for maps). The actions are not final until the end of

theappeal period, or if appealed, the end of City Council review. Under California Governent Code Sec.65009, if you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only thoseissues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondencedelivered to the City of Encinitas at, or prior to, the public hearing.

- 4-

02/13/2013 Item #07

Approved October 18, 2012


MINUTESThursday, September 20, 2012, 6:00 P.M.




llurt CTroseclose

Commissioner

'Glenn O'GradyCommissioner



Planning & Building Department lobby and on the city's web page at:www.cityofencinitas.org.

CALL TO ORDER The Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 20,2012 was calledto order by Chair JoAn Shannon at 6:00PM

ROLLCALLCommissioners Present: Chair JoAnn Shannon, Vice-Chair TonyBrandenburg, and Commissioners

Virginia Felker, Glenn O'Grady and Kurt GrosecloseStaff Present: City Planner Tom Currden, City Attorney Representative Gregory Lusitana,

Administrative Secretary Deana Gay, Principal Planner Diane Langager,

Associate Planner Michael Strong and Facilitator Peder Norby

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Led by Michael Strong


- 1 -

02/13/2013 Item #07

CHANGES TO THE AGENDA - None


CONSENT CALENDAR

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES for the Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 6,2012.

STAFF CONTACT: Deana Gay, Administrative Support Coordinator

(6:02PM)On MOTION by Brandenburg, SECONDED by O'Grady, the Regular Meeting Minutes ofSeptember 6, 2012 were APPROVED ON CONSENT.VOTE: 5-0AYES: Brandenburg, Felker, Groseclose, O'Grady, ShannonNOES: NoneABSTAIN: None


CONSENT ITEMS REMOVED BY THE PUBLIC

REGULAR AGENDA

2. DISCUSSION of the pros and cons of the various methodologies for locating housing andreview of the Draft Planning Coinnission Housing Policy Report completed to date.The Planning Commission previously conducted a mapping exercise and completed a survey on thetools to accomplish higher density housing. The Council requested that ERAC, GP AC and PlanningCommission complete a discussion of methodologies of where to locate higher density housing. Thepurpose of this agenda item is to engage the Planning Commission in a discussion ofthe pros andcons of various methods to accomplish housing, i.e., near transit, near commercial services, TownCenter approach, mixed use, vacant land, combÌnation, etc. Peder Norby, along with staff, wil be

present to facilitate the Planning Commission's discussion.Note: The ERAC and GP AC have also engaged in scenaro mapping along with a discussion ofpros and cons of each method. However, due to the Planing Commission's legal role through thepublic hearng process with land use I zoning issues, the Commission should not engage in a process(i.e., scenaro mapping) that could result in the Commission making decisions prematuely about theland use designations and zoning for specific properties.STAFF CONTACT: Principal Planner Diane Langager

(6:03PM) REPORT PRESENTED BY PEDER NORBY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DIANELANGAGER AND ASSOCIATE PLANNER MICHAEL STRONG

- 2 -

02/13/2013 Item #07

(7:24PM) COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION/COMMENTS

Based on Council direction, the Planing Commission, at their meeting of September 20, 2012, held adiscussion on the pros and cons of housing methodologies. By consensus, the Commission agreed to

address the methodologies discussed by the ERAC and GP AC: near transit, available supply ofvacant/underutilized land, flex zoning overlay w/cap, near commercial, town center, mixed-use and a hybridmethod. However the Commission merged "near commercial" and "town center" as one methodology andadded "increase existing multi-family zoning to 30 dulac, 3 stories" as another methodology for discussion.Pros and Cons identified by the Planing Commission included in a final report to Council to be reviewedand approved by the Planing Commission at their October 18, 2012 meeting.

CONSENT ITEMS REMOVED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS - None

PLANNING COMMISSION/DIRECTOR REPORTS - The Regular Planning Commission meeting ofOctober 4, 2012 has been canceled.

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to the Regular Meeting of October 18, 2012 (7:37PM).

NOTES:

Final action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council accompanied by the requiredfiling fee within fifteen (15) calendar days (10 days for maps). Theactions are not final until the end of theappeal period, or if appealed, the end of City Council review. Under California Government Code Sec.65009, if you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you maybe limited to raising only thoseissues you or someone else raised at the public hearng described in this notice, or in wrtten correspondencedelivered to the City of Encinitas at, or prior to, the public hearing.

- 3 -

02/13/2013 Item #07

APPROVED December 6, 2012


MINUTESThursday, October 18, 2012, 6:00 P.M.




Kurt Groseclose

Commissioner

Glenn 0 'GradyCommissioner



Planning & Building Department lobby and on the city's web page at:www.cityofencinitas.org.

CALL TO ORDER The Regular Planing Commission meeting of October 18, 2012 wascalled to order by Commissioner Glenn O'Grady at 6:00PM.

ROLLCALL, Commissioners Present:ComDUssioners Absent:

Staff Present:

Commissioners Virginia Felker, Glenn O'Grady and Kurt GrosecloseChair JoAnn Shannon and Vice-Chair Tony BrandenburgCity Attorney Representative Gregory Lusitana, Principal Planner DianeLangager, Senior Planner Roy Sapa'u, Administrative SecretaryDeana Gay,Associate Planner Todd Mierau, and Deputy Fire Marshal Kerr Berberet

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Led by Glenn O'Grady


- 1 -

02/13/2013 Item #07

CHANGES TO THE AGENDA - None


CONSENT CALENDAR

1. APPROV AL OF MINUTES for the Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 20,2012.STAFF CONTACT: Deana Gay, Administrative Support Coordinator

(6:01PM)On MOTION by Felker, SECONDED. by Groseclose, the Regular Meeting Minutes ofSeptember 20,2012 were APPROVED ON CONSENT.VOTE: 3-0-2AYES: Felker, Groseclose, O'GradyNOES: NoneABSENT: Brandenburg, Shannon

2. CASE NUMBER: 11-132 MUP/CDPFILING DATE: August 25,2011APPLICANT: Saint Katherine CollegeLOCATION: 679-681 Encinitas Blvd., Suites 203, 304, 305, 311 and 313 (APN: 258-122-38,-

39).ZONING: The project is located in the Business Park (BP) Zone and Coastal Zone oftheCommunity of Old Encinitas within Encinitas.DESCRIPTION: A public hearing to consider a Major Use Permit and Coastal Development Permitrequest to allow for a 30 person total (inch:iding students and staff) private college facility within anexisting commercial center. The school is proposed within multiple suites within the center.ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The project has been deternined to be exempt from environmentalreview pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelinés.Section 15301 exempts the permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alterations of existing privatestructures involving negligible expansion.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planing Commission approve CaseNo. '11-132 MUP/CDP based upon the findings and conditions contained in the draft resolution ofapproval for the project provided to the Commission.STAFF CONTACT: Todd Mierau, Associate Planer

(6:01PM)On MOTION by Felker, SECONDED by Groseclose, CASE NUMBER#11-132 MUP/CDP wasAPPROVED ON CONSENT.VOTE: 3-0-2AYES: Felker, Groseclose, O'GradyNOES: NoneABSENT: Brandenburg, Shannon

- 2 -

02/13/2013 Item #07


CONSENT ITEMS REMOVED BY THE PUBLIC - None

REGULAR AGENDA

3. CASE NUMBER: 09-001 CGPUAPPLICANT: City of EncinitasLOCATION: CityideDESCRIPTION: Review and final consideration of the draft Planing Commission Housing PolicyReport which includes the results of the Planning Commission discussion on the pros and cons ofvarious methodologies for locating housing.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide any final comments on the Planning Commission HousingPolicy Report, note appropriate revisions and accept the report as fial including any such revisions.

STAFF CONTACT: Diane Langager, Principal Planner


(6:18PM)ON MOTION by Groseclose, SECONDED by Felker, to ACCEPT the Planning CommissionHousing Policy report as revised at the meeting which includes modifications to the Pros and ConsDiscussion of Housing Methodologies related to Mixed Use as follows:

Mixed Use:Pros -

. As part of the strategy, helps us to achieve the goal with less change and impact to the area.

. Creates vibrant areas.

Cons -. Not feasible as a sole methodology/strategy - too limiting. Needs to be part of a broader strategy.

. Specific Plans may be too restrictive.

. May impact limit commercial opportnities to residenaL,

. Sounds good, but a lot of failed projects - that do not work because of height restrictions making theproject financially infeasible.

CONSENT ITEMS REMOVED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS - None

PLANNING COMMISSION/DIRECTOR REPORTS - None

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to the Regular Meeting of November 1, 2012 (6:20PM).

NOTES:

Final action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council accompanied by the requiredfiling fee within fifteen (15) calendar days (10 days for maps). The actions are not final until the end of the

- 3 -

02/13/2013 Item #07

appeal period, or if appealed, the end of City Council review. Under California Government Code Sec.65009, if you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only thoseissues you or someone else raised atthe public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondencedelivered to the City of Encinitas at, or prior to, the public hearing.

Item 2 above is located in the Coastal Zone of the City of Encinitas and requires issuance of a CoastalDevelopment Permit (CDP). The action of the City relative to this item may not be appealed to theCalifornia Coastal Commission.

- 4-

02/13/2013 Item #07


ATTACHMENT 4

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Initial Planning Commission Exercise

Tools Survey Results from April 19, 2012

February 13, 2013 PowerPoint presentation

02/13/2013 Item #07

A B c D E 'F G H I J K

1

2

3

4.

5

6

7

8

9

d~

PLANNING COMMISSION. DRAFT GROUP MAP

EXERCISE RESULTSFROM APRIL 19, 2012

CJ City limits

C:::J Sphere of Influence/Planning Area

Parks and Publicly Owned Open Spate

o Community Areas

Notes'

1. Map shows results tabulated by field for exercisenO.2.

2. A total of4 maps were tabulated.

3. Backshading is utilzed to highlight tabulatedfields.

4. A 0.5 is used to convey dots placed on the centerota line on the graph between two adjoining fields.

Results broken down by community by percent:

OldEncinitas

25%

23%

Leucadia

27%

New Encinitas

02/13/2013 Item #07

TABULATED RESULTS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION TOOLS EXERCISE (April

19, 2012)

Tools to Accomplish Higher Density& Lower Cost Housing Total Surveys Completed (4) Total

1 Disperse density throuohout the City by community5 4 3 4 16 42 Greater concentration within certain areas 2 2 4 3 11 2.73 Flexible Zonino Overlay 3 5 3 2 13 3.2Context Sensitive Locations

4 *2 Surveys noted "mass transit" 4 2 4 5 15 3.75 On Vacant Land 4 2 3 2 11 2.7Near Transportation Opportunities6 *1 Survey noted "induce transit chanaes" 3 5 4 4 16 47 Near Commercial Services 3 5 4 4 16 48 Near Schools and Parks 2 1 1 3 7 1.79 Standalone Residential -4 5 2 2 13 3.2Mixed Use/Residential

10 *1 Survey noted "State disincentivizes this" 3 3 4 5 15 3.711 Greater Density - 45 units per acre, 4 stories 2 2 4 1 9 2.2Increase existing density to 30 units per acre, 3 stories12 *1 survey noted "notjust 101" 4 5 4 4 17 4.213 Accessory Dwellno Unit 4 5 1 4 14 3.514 Limit unit size to reduce overall buildino size 2 1 2 3 8 2

Average

INPUT RECEIVED UNDER "ADDITIONAL COMMENTS" PORTION OF SURVEY:

* Increase density in some areas to greater than 30 per acre. Strong emphasis on smaller higher density senior complexes.Increase building heights and FAR where suitable. Look at infil sites. Look at rezoning some parcels.* Need-to include some mixed use type zoning in the focus areas, just not as much as shown in the original draft update. Needs tobe dispersed throughout the city but focus areas can accommodate some mixed-use.

* Most importantly we need to allocate the needs across all 5 communities. This should not be done on a straightline basis butskewed to the best "capable" areas. Also, we need to maintain the character of our "beach" community by not allowing extremelyhigh or "high rise" structure looks...

02/13/2013 Item #07

PC

(Planning Commission)Housing Policy Report

February 13, 2013

Presenter: PC member Kurt Groseclose

Role in "Re-start/

. Where Should the Housing Go?

- Mapping Exercise

. Ways to Accomplish Housing

- Tools Survey

. Develop Housing Strategies

. Discuss Methodologies - Pros/Cons

PC Background/Role

. 5-member commission

. Primary role - review and act on various

development applications

. Conducted exercises and developed the

Housing Policy Report over the course of 5meetings

Critical Priority of PC Report

The Planning Commission agreed by consensus

at the end of the exercise that the followingitems are critical priorities:

1. All 5 communities will share in the needed densitygrowth opportunity

2. There is no single methodology that should drivedecision-making, but they work 'in concert'

3. Due to the role of the PC, no discussions nor

decisions were made 'parcel specific'

1/31/2013

1

02/13/2013 Item #07

Key Observations - Mapping

. 4 ma ps (independent maps from 4 Commissioners)

. PC worked over several meetings to discussresults and finalize map

. Critical point is the general dispersion ofhigher density housing to all 5 communities

PLANNING COMMISSIONFIN,'JTMM

EXRClSERESUlS

1/31/2013

Mapping Exercise Results

. Percentage of Dots Within a Community- Olivenhain 12.5%

- New Encinitas 25%

- Leucadia 22.5%

- Old Encinitas 25%

- Cardiff 15%

2

02/13/2013 Item #07

Tools Survey Categories

. How to Disperse Housing at 30 Units/Ac

. Where to Locate Housing at 30 Units/Ac

. Tools to Accomplish Housing at 30 Units /Ac

. Other Tools

Key Observations - Tool Survey

We reviewed 14 tools and ranked in priority

Preferences (top 4 tools):

. Increase density to 30 units per acre (4.2)

. Disperse density throughout the City (4.0)

Locate near transit (4.0)

" Locate near commercial (4.0)

1/31/2013


. 4 surveys completed (independent surveys from 4Commissioners)

. Highest rated tool:

-Increase existing density to 30 units per acre/3

stories - 4.2*

. Lowest rated tool:

- Near schools and parks - 1.7*

'" Average Preference i (low)'- 5 (high)

Key Observations - Tool Su rvey

Preferences (middle 5 tools):

. Context sensitive locations (3.7)

. Mixed use/residential (3.7)

. Accessory dwelling unit (3.5)

. Flexible zoning overlay (3.2)

" Standalone residential (3.2)

3

02/13/2013 Item #07


Preferences (bottom 5 tools):

. Greater concentration within certain areas (2.7)

. On vacant land (2.7)

. Greater density - 45 units/acre & 4 stories (2.2)

. Limit unit size to reduce overall building size (2.0)

. Near schools & parks (1.7)

Housing Policy Strategies

4 Strategy Recommendations

1. Spread Across all 5 Communities

2. Disperse New Density

3. Spread Along Corridors

4. More than One Tool in the Toolbox

1/31/2013

Discussion on Methodologies

. To avoid being parcel specific, PC did not

participate in the mapping scenario exercise asother groups did

. Established general pros and cons for different

methodology options:- Near transit

- Vacant land

- Near commercial!town center

- Flex zoning w/ cap

- Mixed use

- Hybrid option

- Increased zoningto 30 units/ac

1. General Dispersion

. New density should be spread across all 5communities in a manner that it can beaccommodated

- No agreement to a specific number of units per

grid

- Mapping exercise results indicate a general

opinion of the best areas of concentration

4

I

i.

02/13/2013 Item #07

2. Disperse New Density

. All five communities should receive some shareof RHNA allocation

- Distribution may be implemented by various tools

- Olivenhain (12.5%) - Cardiff (15%)- Old Encinitas (25%) - Leucadia (22.5%)- New Encinitas (25%)

4. More than One Tool in theToolbox

. Tools are not mutually exclusive and manytools can be used in concert with one andanother

- increase their effectiveness and acceptability

1/31/2013

3. Spread Along Corridors

. New density should be spread along andthroughout corridors, eliminating heavilyconcentrated areas of new growth

- Néw density should not impact existing zoningor character

Critical Priority of PC ReportAgain. . .

The Planning Commission agreed by consensus

at the end of the exercise that the following

items are critical priorities:

1. All 5 communities will share in the needed densitygrowth opportunity, spread along corridors andmaintaining each community's unique character

2. There is no single methodology that should drivedecision-making, but they work 'in concert'

3. Due to the role of the PC, no discussions nordecisions were made 'parcel specific'

5

02/13/2013 Item #07

1/31/2013

Conclusion

. Receive Report

. Questions?

6

02/13/2013 Item #07

city of encinitas city council agenda report

Documents