Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-05-07; City Council; 3083; Preannexation ZoningTHE CITY O F CARLSBAD /^.' CALIF' OR MIA Agenda Bill No. Referred To: Da te - May 7. 197.4 Subject: Preannexation Zoning (Council Policy No. 16) Submitted By City Manager Statement of the Matter Effective August 21, 1973 the City Council adopted Council Policy No. 16 which dealt with development occurring in critical planning areas and preannexation zoning. The primary purpose of the Policy was to gain additional information through the General Plan process which was anticipated to be completed by January 1, 1974. The Local Agency Formation Commission's General Policy is to require preannexation zoning by all cities prior to processing annexation requests. Through negotiation with the staff, the City was able to obtain an agreement that the LAFCO Policy would not pertain to unincorporated land within the center of the City. LAFCO is now in the process of changing that Policy and has informally informed the City staff and various land owners that they will no longer process any land prior to the City prezoning the land. Mr. Allan Kelly is requesting that the City Council rescind the policy so that he can request preannexation zoning and proceed Exhibit with annexation of the land to the City. Letter dated April 26, 1974 from Allan Kelly. Council Policy No. 16. Staff Recommendations to the City Manager A-B No. Date: May 7, 1974 City Manager's Recommendation One of the primary staff concerns involved in preannexation zoning is the significant amount of staff time to work with the developer to determine what zone is appropriate for his land. This problem is particularly acute in the absence of the new General Plan. Additionally, the City is put in the position of bargaining with a developer over what type of zoning should be given to a particular piece of land. As we get closer to the completion of the General Plan, more data is available as to appropriate zoning. However, as in several recent cases, arguments can be made as to whether the City should rely on that data prior to the Public Hearing process on the General Plan. The decision for the Council is basically whether they will allow continued annexations. If so, the Policy must be amended unless we are successful in convincing the Local Agency Formation Commission that they should continue to allow lands in the central portion of the City's sphere of influence to annex without zoning. This seems unlikely because of recent court cases. It is my recommendation that rather than cancel Policy No. 16, it be continued until the adoption of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. In the interim the Council should instruct the staff to consider processing prezoning annexation requests where multifile zones are not requested or where they do not disrupt the existing- planning program. The request before you by Allan Kelly, where a single zone of RA-10 is being requested, would probably fall in this category. f Council Action 5-9-74 It was agreed by the Council that Policy No. 16 be extended to July 31, 1974, and preannexation zone requests will be handled on an individual basis. The Council further agreed that Mr. Allan Kelly's request for preannexation zoning be granted. -2- M..UP COUNCIL P_0'STATEME-RT General Subject: ADMINISTRATION, * !|j Specific Subject: Developmental Policy Relating to Critical Planning Areas Pol icy No. DC ,- Issued 'Aug. 23, 1973 Effective Date Auc.21,1973. Cancellation Date * Supersedes No. Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bui 1etin. Boards, Press, File BACKGROUND: Recently the City Council has had occasion .to deny applications for developmental entitlements because specific questions relating to circulation, flood control and density allocations arising in connection with the applications could not be answered due to inadequate -information available to the City. The City has under- taken an extensive General Plan revision to insure adequate information is available in evaluating applications and to insure a comprehensive and effective planning program for the City of Carlsbad. Certain areas of Carlsbad with one or more of the above problems have been identified by the City as "Critical Planning Areas". Critical Planning Areas are "defined as those areas of the developed portions of . the city having adverse circulation conditions, areas that may be subject to flooding and developments involving an increase in density or an alteration of land use from . those specified in the existing General Plan. The Council has determined that it is necessary to insure that appropriate solutions are available to problems presented by an application for development [within a Critical Planning Area prior to making a decision on the'application. PURPOSE: . To insure that adequate plans and programs are available and implemented within' the City of Carlsbad in processing developmental activity in order to protect the health, safety'and general welfare and insure an effective planning process. POLICY: : It is the policy of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad that before any decision is made on applications for developments located within a Critical Planning Area that satisfactory plans and programs be presented to insure the maintenance and development of an orderly, effective and comprehensive planning process and to insure that the health, safety and welfare of all the residents of the city is protected. In order to implement this policy, the City Council finds it necessary to encourage all applicants for projects located in any of the Critical Planning Areas to withhold their applications until the revised General Plan data is available to the City, In evaluating any such application submitted, the Council will be reluctant to give approval pending adoption of the revised General Plan and a resolution of the other problems discussed herein. The City Council also finds it necessary to discontinue the processing of all applications for pre-annexation zone changes for residential development not now scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission or City Council. The City contemplates that the General Plan revision will be complete by January 1, 1974. Therefore, until that date unless rescinded by council action this policy will remain in effect prior to that date.* MEMORANDUM April 26, 1974 TO: PAUL D. BUSSEY FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE The attached letter from W. All' Kelly 1s self explanltory. If there Is any reason that this matter can not go on the May 7th Agenda Mr. Kelly would like to be notified. If you would like the Clerk's office to prepare the aoenda bill with a copy of the Policy -H6 olease so Indicate. '</. Smith TH TH RAISTCHO AGUA HEDIONDA P. O. BOX 463, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92OO8 TEL. 729-3066 April 26, 1974 Mrs Margret Adams City Clerk 1200 Elm ^ive. Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 Dear Mrs. Adams: This is a formal request that I be put on the City Council agenda for May 7, 1974• I will ask the council to take one of two actions, cancel Council Policy No. 16, which refers to preannexation zoning or give us special permision to commence preannexation zoning proceedings on 246 acres which lies northeasterly of the Rancho Carlsbad mobil home park. We will be requesting zoning of RA-10. I have been told by the Local Agency Formation Commission that they are requesting that the cities be the "lead agencies in all new annexations of residential property. Council Policy No. 16 stopped preannexation zoning to Jan. 1, 197^, but this policy is still in effect. LAFCO is asking for preannexation zoning, Carlsbad says no pre- annexation zoning and we are caught in the middle. In order for the council to take action this item must be on the agenda. I therefore request that the agenda bill or whatever heading it will have be written in a manner that will allow the council to take affirmative action, if they choose, at the May 7» 1974 meeting. Sincerely yours, W. Allan Kelly enclosure: 1 copy of letter dated 4/4/7 4 Mimrtii ij u AGUA HMDICXBTDA P. O. BOX 463, OAKLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92OO8 TEL. 729-3O66 April 4, 1974 Mr. Paul Bussey, City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Paul: We need your cooperation and that of the city council! As you know froia our discussion Friday, March 29, we have an offer to purchase all of our land which lies northeasterly of Rancho Carlsbad Mobile 'Kosia Park. To make the sale we need to annex to the city and obtain the desired zoning. To be brief, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) now needs an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with every annexation. The buyer is apparently an investor because he has done, and intends to do, no planning of the land before purchase or annexation. All he needs is annexation and zoning of RA-10. Therefore, the only basis for an environmental impact study is the zoning change that may be made. There lies the rub, LAFCO wants an EIR but one cannot be made unless we have the preannexational zoning approved. Carlsbad says no preannexation zoning may be approved, per council policy No. 16, and LAFCO wants zoning. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? LAFCO does not have the staff to make the environmental impact study; therefore, it will be done by the county Environmental Review Board. Now we are faced with city approval at sometime, Environmental Review Board and LAFCO approval all requiring more and more time. We may even need separate EIRs; one for the City, another for the county. What this really does is take decision making authority away from the local authority, and puts it at the county, LAFCO level. Why should they get involved in planning in Carlsbad through the devise of the EIR? As I understand the procedures, if the city grants preannexation zoning, the environmental impact study and EIR would be approved here, not in San Diego. Then LAFCO would make a decision on the basis of an EIR approved by Carlsbad and should -t»a-W their findings on the approved report. This would hopefully limit LAFCO's review to Carlsbad's ability to service the area, which is their basic duty. May I point out some items about Council Policy No. 16. First, it was supposed to have remained in effect until January 1, 1974. If the Mr. Paul Bussey -2- April 4, 1974 effective cancellation date is really the complete revision of the General Plan, it is unfair because that is an uncertain date, now estimated to be July 1974. Secondly, when this policy was discussed at the council meetings, the talk was about the land along the lagoons, flood plains, poor traffic circulation and developed portions of the city. The land we wish to annex was never designated as a "Critical Planning Area". The only point the policy has to stand on is that we want RA-10 zoning, rather than what is shown in the outmoded General Plan which calls for estates. The fact is that the present tentative density for this area as proposed to the Land Use Committee is 0 - 4 dwelling units per acre which is what we need. In view of all these problems we are asking that you allow us to make application for preannexation zoning. The facts about the zoning would be approved or dissapproved through the usual procedures. We make this request for the following reasons. 1. The land is now inside the boundaries of Carlsbad, or in the "hole in the donut". 2. A portion of this property is already in the city limits. We would like to point out that we did not fight the small annexation many years ago. It is only by this narrow neck that all the land as far as La Costa was attached to the city until recently. 3. This land was never contemplated as a "Critical Planning Area" when policy No. 16 was approved. 4. The estimated cancellation date of the policy is already three months past. 5. The desirability from the city's point of view and that of it's citizens is to have the decisions effecting local problems be made locally. 6. By far the most important reason is that someone, LAFCO or the city, must change their policy. If not, no correctly zoned annexations can take place, which would mean most annexations. LAFCO is restricted by County Council and a court decision, so some accommodation by the city needs to be made. We are as the saying goes, "between a rock and a hard place". Would you please take whatever action is necessary to resolve this problem so we can get going in some manner. Mr. Paul Bussey -3" April 4, 1974 Our buyer wants a ninety day escrow for investment reasons of his own. If everything goes like clock work it can't be finished in less than 5-1/2 months. He can wait for a period of time but as the contract says "time is of the essence". Thank you for your help. Sincerely yours, W. Allan Kelly