General Plan UpdateStatus Report

Presentation to HOA Presidents January 29, 2008

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

Why Update the General Plan?• State Law – Housing Element must be updated

every 5 years; due in July 2008.• State Law – Overall General Plan should be

updated no less frequently than every 10 years; Current plan is 13 years old.

• Some aspects of the 1995 General Plan have become obsolete.

• Calabasas needed a plan for a brand new city in 1995; now it requires a plan for a city that is fully functional and continuing to innovate.

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

What is GPAC?• City Council created the General Plan Advisory

Committee (GPAC) by Resolution on September 27, 2006.

• The purpose of the GPAC is to serve as an ad hoc, temporary, advisory body to the Planning Commission and City Council in the preparation and adoption of an updated General Plan, consistently with the California Zoning and Planning Law.

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

Who are GPAC?

The 20 appointed members to GPAC are as follows:

– 2 appointed by each Council member (10 total)

– 2 appointed by Council at-large– 2 appointed by the Planning

Commission– 1 each appointed by other City

Commissions (6 total)

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

Staff & Consultants

Rincon Consultants– Joe Power– Stephen Svete– Mike Gailketsis– Eric Justesen – RRM Design

Group– Diane Bathgate - RRM Design

Group

City Planning Staff– Maureen Tamuri– Tom Bartlett– Isidro Figueroa

Sub - Consultants– Scott Schell – ATE (Traffic)– Joyce Parker-Bozylinski

(Code update)– Karen Warner (Housing)

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

Progress Thus Far

• Phase 1: Public outreach, assessment, and land use alternatives development

• Phase 2: General Plan Policy/Element Development

• Phase 3: General Plan Update Completion

• Phase 4: Development Code Update

Four phases over 21 months(Jan. 2007-Sept. 2008):

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

Upcoming GPAC Meeting Schedule

Jan. 17 Complete Land Use & Safety Elements

Feb. 7 Open Space, Parks/Recreation, Conservation, & Cultural Resources

Feb. 21 Circulation Element

Mar. 6 Community Design Element

Mar. 20 Housing & Services/Infrastructure/ Technology Elements

Apr. 3 Review of complete draft General Plan

NOTE: The Noise Element has already been completed

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

Community Outreach• Ten GPAC meetings (to date)• Two public workshops• Two-day visioning charrette• Community telephone survey• Stakeholder discussions/interviews• 4th of July information booth• City website

Follow Progress on City’s Web Site

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

1995 General Plan Build-out Analysis

 Dwelling

Units Population  Commercial

AcreageGen. Plan Baseline, 1995 8,357 19,857 Gen. Plan Baseline, 1995 173

Projects since 1995 Projects since 1995Oaks/New Millennium 557 1,323 Kilroy/Commons 67.0Shea Homes 48 114 Offices on Agoura Rd. 44.4Highlands/Old Topanga 33 78 BMW 11.0Others/Misc. 160 380 Volvo 24.1

Total 798 1,896 Total 146.4

Projects in Process Projects in ProcessMalibu Hills Senior Condos 60 143 Dollinger/Maddy site 7.5Standard Pacific 86 205 Lincoln Properties 14.0Highland/Old Topanga 11 26 (CL retired to OS)Miscellaneous 25 59

Total 235 559 Total 21.5

Grand Total 9,390 22,312 Grand Total 340.9

’95 General Plan Buildout 11,305 26,860 ’95 General Plan Buildout 387

Remaining anticipated growth per 1995

Plan: 1,915 4,548 Remaining anticipated growth per 1995 Plan: 46.1

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

Current v. GPAC-Recommended Map Land Use Breakdown*

Current Land Use Map

Business/Commercial

Mixed Use

Open Space

Public Facilities

RuralResidential

UrbanResidential

Working Draft Land Use Map

Business/Commercial

Mixed Use

Open Space

Public Facilities

RuralResidential

UrbanResidential

* Breakdown within existing City limits

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

What Have People Told Us?• Environmental policy

deemed very important• Citizens prefer clearly

understood rules for development (72%)

• Limit City’s growth and live within established limits (more than 60%)

• Protect a ‘rural lifestyle’ (79%), & protect existing neighborhoods (56%)

• Most (65%) said they prefer a balanced development approach

• Most citizens desire a ‘balanced’ transportation system (58%)

• Affordable housing was generally not supported (just 42%)

• Preserve open space (80%)

* The complete detailed survey results are available via City’s web site.

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

Housing Element:RHNA Compliance

• Per State law, all cities must provide their fair share of future housing capacity and affordable housing programs (see CGC 65580 et. seq.)

• In Southern CA, SCAG administered the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process (for cycle covering 2006 – 2014)

• The RHNA for Calabasas was originally 870 new housing units, but was appealed and reduced to 521 units.

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

Regional Housing Needs (RHNA)Income Level 2007 Income

(4 person hh)Units Percent

Very Low(<50% AMI)

$37,000 137 units 26%

Low(51-80% AMI)

$59,200 86 units 17%

Moderate(81–120% AMI)

$67,800 93 units 18%

Above Moderate(>120% AMI)

> $67,800 205 units 39%

Total 521 units 100%

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

RHNA and DensitiesIncome Level 2007 Income

(4 person hh)Units “Default

Density”

Very Low(<50% AMI)

$37,000 137 units Min. 20 du/acre

Low(51-80% AMI)

$59,200 86 units Min. 20 du/acre

Moderate(81–120% AMI)

$67,800 93 units Min 12 du/acre (est.)

Above Moderate(>120% AMI)

> $67,800 205 units 39%

Total 521 units 100%

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

Preliminary Land Use Map

• More Open Space• More mixed-use• Mobile Home Park –

unchanged, but rezone to match the Plan

98%Unchange

d

Remaining2%:

The Preliminary Draft Land Use Map

Calabasas Road and Craftsman’s Corner

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

•

Las Virgenes/Agoura Road Area

HOAs – Progress Report

Jan. 29, 2008

General PlanEnvironmental Impact Report

• Required under CEQA• Must analyze potential impacts to air quality,

noise, aesthetics, historic & cultural resources, traffic, geology & soils, biology (flora & fauna), water availability and water quality

• Must consider alternatives and compare potential impacts against impacts from the recommended alternative