HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-05-17; City Council; 3095-1; Discussion on Japatul's Request for General Plan AmendmentCITY 0, -ARLSBAD •
Initial :.
AGENDA BILL NO. <# f^X^ff^***^ / '. Dept. H?•
DATE: May 17, 1977' . City Atty_
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING "_' City Mgr. '
SUBJECT:
DISCUSSION ON JAPATUL'S REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER
REQUEST
On February 4, 1977, the Japatul Corporation" submitted an
application, for a General Plan Amendment and EIR for their
holdings on the west side of El Camino Real north of the Airport.
As explained 'in--'the attached memorandum to the City Manager, this
is a very complex issue and there is a question as to the proper
method of processing it. Japatu-1, however, has-made a request
that their application be processed as soon as possible.
Since this may not be in the best interests-of the City, staff is
requesting City Council discussion and idreetion on this matter.
EXHIBITS ' ...
Memo to City Manager from Planning Director dated May 9, 1977.
Synopsis of Japatul's Business Park dated May 9, 1977.
Location Map. " "
RECOMMENDATION • .
It is recommended that the City Council consider three methods
of- processing Japatul's requested General Plan Amendment for their •
industrial park. The methods are: -• ••
1. To process a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan arid other
Planning tools necessary to allow development of the .proposed •
project, thus allowing Japatul -to apply directly to the -
. Coastal Commission .for permits to- proceed-. . . '
2. Process Japatul's proposed development as a separate smaller .
LCP. This would require Coastal'Commission approval to consider
as a separate item from a larger area. '".-''•.'•''• ': :
3. Use the data prepared with Japatul1s requested project as a
resource and a development-of the City's overall LCP.
Council action , ••-..-. .
5-17-77 Staff was instructed to process., a General Plaji Amendment, Specific
Plan and othjar planning tools necessary to allow development of
•the .proposed* project,-thus-allowing,Ja^ra'tul ~to-apply directly to
the Coastal Commission for permits- to .proceed.'
MEMORANDUM - MAY 9, 1977
TO: PAUL BUSSEY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JAMES C. HAGAMAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,
JACATUL CORPORATION
The Japatul Corporation, a subsidiary of SDG&E, is interested in
developing an industrial/commercial complex on their holdings located
on the west side of El Camino Real, north of Palomar Airport (see
location map). The site has approximately 520 acres, of which 430 are
in the City and zoned C-M. The remaining 90 acres are still under
County jurisdiction. Annexation is necessary.
Japatul made application for annexation for the 90 acres to the
City Clerk in November, 1973 and subsequently to LAFCO. However,
LAFCO asked that it be withdrawn until preannexational zoning and
EIR certification were approved by the City.
Japatul began again to actively pursue this request in December, 1975,
when they made a presentation to the City Council on the concept of
their project. However, by this time the City had adopted a new
General Plan Use Element that makes zoning and annexation for
the property somewhat more involved.
The General Plan now designates this area as Nonresidential Reserve
(NRR) with Special Treatment. Generally, NRR means that the area is
reserved for future uses other than residential. The General Plan
suggests that the property in NRR cannot be developed until a General
Plan Amendment is adopted which reclassifies the land to appropriate
land use category. The appropriate land use categories are to be
determined by the City upon future analyses and studies of the area.
Staff interprets this to mean a study of future nonresidential needs
of the City and related surrounding environments. This has not been
done to date.
The Special Treatment Area in this area refers to the relationship and
identified problems with Palomar Airport. The General Plan indicates
that a Specific Plan for the entire influence area should be prepared.
It therefore appears that the General Plan encourages a special
study or specific planning is necessary by the City prior to approving
any requests in this area. However, the City Council appeared favorable
to Japatul's proposal, and staff's review of the project indicates
that at least the industrial portion appears to be a benefit to the
City in terms of types of industry, design and tax base. Staff believes
the City Council can make the decision that the proposal meets the
concerns expressed in the General Plan. If this is made, processing
of the applicant's requests can then go forward.
Page 2
Memo to Mr. Bussey
May 9, 1977
Re: Japatul Corporation
However, going forward only gets the processing moving, but does not
lessen the difficulties involved. The General Plan Amendment as sub-
mitted requests a land use that is not contained in the General Plan.
They have requested a combination office park, industrial, commercial
and activity center land use category on their General Plan Amendment.
Since an activity center land use category does not currently exist
in the City General Plan, the City must either create one and have it
adopted prior to the amendment to the General Plan or apply three of
the existing land use categories as shown on their submitted plan, i.e.,
planned industrial, office and commercial. At this point the Planning
staff has not analyzed if such a combination district would be acceptable,
One of the concerns of an office district would be whether it serviced
the industrial community in the airport area or provided City wide
service, thus effecting other areas of the City.
Assuming the City did create such a category and it was placed on the
property, we still have a problem with zoning. The R-P, C-2, C-M, M
zoning (the P-M could only apply to that area indicated as industry)
would permit this combination district, but would also allow many
other uses that may be detrimental to the project and of course neither
of these zones contain modern industrial park development standards.
A Qualified Overlay could be attached to give some review of development,
but in itself it does not establish standards.
The City after Japatul had submitted their application in 1975 and
following lengthy discussions decided that a Specific Plan would be
a desirable method to accommodate various problems we could anticipate
with this project. The City would prepare a Specific Plan (per State
regulations) that would include new General Plan land use categories and
a new zone that would provide for a planned industrial park for the
City in conjunction with their proposal. This procedure was acceptable
to the City staff. Japatul has done some work on this matter.
However, this Specific Plan will take a great deal of staff time and
public hearings for adoption. This in itself is not bad, but it may
be a duplicate effort since the Coastal Commission is requiring Local
Coastal Plan (LCP) in this area before any development is approved.
Planning staff has discussed this matter twice with the Coastal
Commission. City Planning staff feels certain that coastal staff
will recommend denial of any development in this area prior to the Local
Coastal Plan. If this is true, then the proper sequence of events would
be: 1) Adoption of the LCP. 2) Creation and adoption of a land use
category and zoning district to implement Japatul's request. 3)
Approval of a General Plan Amendment and zoning with Q on the property.
4) Annexation of property. 5) Consider tract maps, site development
plan for actual development.
Japatul, however, does not wish to wait on this chain of events and
requests staff to act on their General Plan Amendment. They are
requesting the following processings: 1) Adopt a Specific Plan.
2) Adopt a land use category and zoning as required by the Specific Plan.
Page 3
Memo to Mr. Bussey
May 9, 1977
RE: Japatul
3) Approval of a General Plan Amendment and rezoning as requested.
4) Annexation of remaining property. 5) Approval of tract map and
building permits. Japatul with completion of all of the above City
approvals can then request Coastal Commission approval of their
proposed developments.
The City staff feels that there are three possible methods to
processing Japatul's request for a General Plan Amendment and EIR.
They are as follows:
1. Process the General Plan Amendment, EIR concurrently with a
Specific Plan and other planning tools necessary to implement
the proposal. This method allows Japatul to have a plan
approved by the City and they can then proceed to apply to the
Coastal staff for permits on individual developments. The
disadvantage of this approach is if the Coastal Commission requires
the City to prepare LCP for the entire area the City staff time
has gone into processing the specific application where it could
better have been used to process the entire LCP for all the
property owners within the area.
2. Work on this Japatul area as if we were preparing a separate LCP
for this project. The advantage of this method would be that we
must do the work anyway in the overall development of a LCP,
thus in doing any work on this portion of the LCP it would not
have to be duplicated at a different time. This would allow
City to approach the Coastal Commission with this portion of the
LCP to see if this would be acceptable. The disadvantage to this
is that other land owners in the LCP area would probably ask for
the same diversion of staff time from the overall LCP program for
the City.
3. This would defer any specific action on Japatul's General Plan
Amendment request until the City LCP is prepared. In this
preparation we would use the data submitted by Japatul as
base information for the preparation of the LCP.
JCHrs
5/12/77
SPECIFIC PLAN MAP
0 10OO
graphic scale: 1 = 1200 ft
owenmenard f. T TJ
r*"l—i
associates
Prime Major Arterial
Major Arterial
Secondary Arterials
2000 Local Street Intersection
Points
Bicycle & Pedestrian
Pathways
City Boundary
Fixed Base Operations
ActivityCenter
High Quality Industrial
Commercial Lot
Open Space
Landscape Screen
I —1 Project Boundary
•-'?• 77
May
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS PERTAINING TO JAPATUL
BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT COMMENCING JANUARY, 1977
January 7 - Meeting with Carlsbad Officials.
January 11 - Meeting with Carlsbad Staff.
January 18 - Meetings with Carlsbad officials regarding
refiling of plan.
January 19 - Meeting with Executive Director of Coastal Zone
Commission regarding guidelines and their effect
on project.
January 24 - Meeting with County Chief Administrative Officer
regarding County's acquisition of Japatul Lands
needed for Palomar Airport Expansion.
January 26 - Meeting with City official regarding processing
of plan and schedule of events.
February 2 - Review of project by Japatul Management.
February 4 - Reapplied for General Plan Amendment, and authorized
City to hire EIR consultant.
February 6 - News Release - on re-activating plan.
February 16 - Meeting with County officials regarding Palomar
Airport Expansion plans affecting Japatul Business
Center.
February 17 - Provided several copies of Specific Plan and maps
to Carlsbad Planning Department.
February 22 - Meeting with County Staff concerning Palomar Air-
port Expansion.
2 May 17, 1977
February 24 - Meeting with Carlsbad officials and staff regard-
ing the processing of the Japatul Project. On same
date, letter transmitted to City reconfirming work
to be accomplished.
February 28 - Letter from City commenting on application and
advising City will move forward.
March 1 - Meeting of Japatul Management and Consultants to re-
view progress to date and to consider need for filing
amended plan.
March 4 - Meeting with City official regarding proposal to file
amended plan.
March 10 - Meeting with Assistant Planning Director, Consultant
and Coastal Commission staff regarding effect of new
Coastal Guidelines on project.
March 16 - Meeting with County officials concerning acquisition
of Japatul lands for Palomar Airport Expansion.
March 24 - Meeting with City official regarding processing of
project.
March 25 - Submitted testimony to San Diego Regional Coastal Zone
Commission and requested Japatul Business Center be
included in recognized area of development.
April 4 - Meeting with Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce Manager
regarding project.
April 7 - Meeting with IPO representatives and City Manager
regarding County area of Japatul Business Center being
planned by City per Coastal Zone Commission Guidelines.
April 15 - Refiled complete application for annexation of Japatul
Land.
3 May 17, 1977
April 19 - Engaged Soil Expert to prepare report on Japatul Busi-
ness Center soil conditions.
April 22 - Letter to City transmitting alternate plan and request-
ing application be amended to include 102 acres ad-
joining Airport.
April 26 - Meeting with Planning Consultant, Soil Expert regard-
ing additional data on soil conditions.
May 3 - Meeting with City official concerning status of project.
May 4 - Meeting with Assistant City Manager, Planning' 'Director,
Assistant Planning Director, Planning Consultant and
Japatul Representative regarding processing of the
Specific Plan.
May 12 - Meeting with City official concerning progress of Com-
pany requests for Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment
and Annexation.
May 13 - Discussion between City official, consultant and Japatul
representative regarding report by staff and City Manager
recommendations pertaining to May 17th Council meeting.
;- t**>\vi
CoL
speapfc pLcm SPECIFIC PLAN MAP
0 1000
graphic scale: 1" =1200ft
2000
owenmenard& associates
Prime Major Arterial
Major Arterial
Secondary Arterials
Loca| street Intersection
Points
Bicycle & Pedestrian
Pathways
City Boundary
Fixed Base Operations
ActivityCenter
High Quality Industrial
Commercial Lot
Open Space
Landscape Screen
Project Boundary
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
DATE 977
TO:Board of Supervisors (A45)
FROM: Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Integrated Planning Office (A650)
CARLSBAD AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONING CHANGES
During the joint meeting with the Carlsbad City Council on April 14, 1977 (2),
your Board gave several directives to staff. The directive to which this
report is responsive was stated as "Review the Carlsbad Community Plan and
take actions to make the San Diego County General Plan 1990 coincide and
make appropriate zone changes to bring them into conformance."
IPO has reviewed this matter and has conferred with staff of the City of
Carlsbad, the County Department of Land Use and Environmental Regulation, and
the County Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. Current planning activities
affecting the subject areas and various alternatives for carrying out your
Board's directive have been considered and it is my
RECOMMENDATION:That your Board
1. Direct staff to proceed pursuant to alternative 2, as set forth
in part C of the discussion, and
2.Direct staff to support the recommendations of the City of
Carlsbad relative to applications for rezoning, special use
permits, subdivisions, and land divisions and to the alignment
and construction of circulation element roads within subject
unincorporated territory, to the extent that such recommenda-
tions are not incompatible with County ordinances, policies
and standards.
Discussion:
A. Existing Characteristics of Area in Question
Staff has assumed that the area subject to your Board's directive is that
unincorporated territory which is included in the Carlsbad General Plan.
On 7-19-77 (37) the Board took the actions recommended.
, PORTER D. CREMANSf Clerk of the Board of .Supervisors
By
Deputy
JUL 1 2 1377
Board of Supervisors
June 29, 1977
Page 2
It comprises some 6300 acres of typical coastal mesa and canyon land,
plus the Batiquitos Lagoon and its associated lowlands. There are three
separate areas involved (see attached map), the largest of which is an
irregularly shaped island of about 4800 acres, labeled 1 on the map, and
of which Palomar Airport is a part. Area number 2 is a smaller 390 acre
island adjacent to El Camino Real and located between Palomar Airport
Road and the Lagoon. The third area is that including the lagoon and
surrounding lands and bounded by the south city limits, El Camino Real,
La Costa Avenue, and the Pacific Ocean. The latter area, about 1080
acres in size, is not an island, but abuts the unincorporated community
of Leucadia to the south.
The territory in question is predominantly vacant land interspersed with
scattered single family residences and a number of significant areas
devoted to agricultural production. Palomar Airport represents the only
intensive development.
Existing zoning consists primarily of large alternating areas of E-I-A.
one-half acre estate, and eight acre agricultural zones. Palomar Airport
is zoned M-2, industrial, and there are four other small areas of M,
• industrial, zoning abuting the city boundary to the north of the airport.
There are also four small areas zoned commercial along Palomar Airport
Road and along El Camino Real. One small and one larger area of R-4,
multiple residential, and an A-l (1), agricultural, zone of about 40 acres
complete the existing zoning pattern.
There is little development activity in the subject areas, although some
of the nearby areas within the city have experienced significant activity.
Over the past 12 months, there have been no rezoning, special use permit
or subdivision applications. For the three years 1974-1976, there were
five TPM's processed for an average of one every seven months. So far
this year, no TPM applications have been filed.
B. Concerns of the City of Carlsbad
Quite justifiably, the City of Carlsbad considers that the unincorporated
islands surrounded by city territory will eventually be annexed to the
City. The ultimate location of the City's southerly boundary and, there-
fore, the future jurisdictional status of the Batiquitos Lagoon area, is
still open to question. However, if for no other reason than adjacency to
the present city boundary, Carlsbad has a legitimate interest in what
happens in the lagoon area.
Conversations with Carlsbad staff indicate that the city's concern with
these areas are both general and specific in nature. The general and broad
concern is that nothing occur in these unincorporated areas that would
foreclose the ability to implement the City General Plan as annexations
occur. The more specific concern is that they do not inherit, upon annex-
ation, developmental situations that would be seriously non-conforming
under the city's development ordinances and standards.
Board of Supervisors
June 29, 1977
Page 3
These concerns could be eliminated by immediate annexation of the ter-
ritory to the city or they could be alleviated to one degree or another
by county holding actions pending eventual assimilation of the areas by
the city.
Action Alternatives Considered
The following.alternative courses of action for carrying out your Board's
directive were identified and investigated by staff.
1. County Initiated Annexation: The most obvious solution would be
annexation of the territory in question to the City of Carlsbad.
It would also, in our opinion, be the most completely satisfactory
solution from the standpoint of both jurisdictions. To accomplish
this now would require county initiation of the annexation proceedings.
This option was explored briefly by the County's Office of Inter-
governmental Affairs. Conversations by OIA staff with the Carlsbad
City Manager's Office and with LAFCO indicate that such an effort
would have little chance of success at this time due to anticipated
opposition of area property owners and residents.
2. Application of Holding Zone/Use of Existing Planning Programs; There
are a number of planning activities currently underway that will affect
all or parts of the subject territory. The most significant of these
are the program for zoning implementation of the San Dieguito Community
Plan (the portions of the territory lying south of Palomar Airport
Road and west of El Camino Real are included in the San Dieguito
Community Plan); the preparation of the Local Coastal Program (all
of the subject territory west of El Camino Real is in the coastal zone);
and the County effort to revise the Land Use, Open Space and Circula-
tion Elements of the County General Plan. This option would propose
to make use of this work which is already programmed in carrying out
your Board's directive.
This alternative would be composed of the following actions.
a. LUER would initiate hearings for rezoning of the territory in
question to an appropriate holding zone or zones, as part of
their San Dieguito zoning implementation schedule. Such
rezoning would have the effect of preventing any significant
development activity without annexation to Carlsbad and would
minimize the effect of inconsistencies between County ordin-
ances and standards and those of the City.
b. By common agreement, Carlsbad will be doing the Local Coastal
Program for the unincorporated territory within their planning
area and the County is committed to adopting this work as part
of the County's coastal program. It is still undetermined
whether Batiquitos lagoon and vicinity will be done by
Board of Supervisors
June 29, 1977
Page 4
Carlsbad or the County. In any case, the Coastal Program
efforts will result in a new land use plan for the 70-75%
of the subject territory that lies within the Coastal Zone.
The Land Use Plan portion of the Coastal Program is expected
to be ready for hearing in 1978 and, if adopted by your Board,
will result in a land use plan common to the County and
Carlsbad for the portions of subject territory within the Coastal
Zone.
c. The remaining 25-30% of the subject territory which is not
within the Coastal Zone is proposed to be dealt with as part
of the County's General Plan revision project, with guidance
from City of Carlsbad staff. It is currently anticipated that
the proposed revisions of the Land Use, Open Space, and Circu-
lation Elements will be in public hearings as part of GPA 79-01.
.3. Modification of Alternative 2: This alternative would be identical to
Alternative 2 except in the method and timing of amending the General
Plan for those portions of the subject territory lying outside of the
Coastal Zone. It would involve initiating a general plan amendment for
those areas as part of GPA 78-01 instead of dealing with them as part
of the General Plan Revision project which, as indicated above, is
anticipated to be in GPA 79-01. This would involve some $7,000 in
additional costs to the County and, since the key to satisfaction of the
Carlsbad concerns is the application of the holding zone, there would
be little to be .gained by this approach over that of Alternative 2.
4. Carlsbad Sub-Area Plan: This alternative would involve initiating a
project to do a Carlsbad sub-area plan similar to the Escondido Sub-
Area Plan which was adopted in December of 1975. Such a project would
be duplicative of the coastal planning effort which covers most of the
territory in question and would offer no advantage in terms expediting
a General Plan revision for the area. Therefore, this alternative is
not recommended.
It is believed that all reasonable alternatives have been explored for carry-
ing out your Board's directive, and Alternative 2 is recommended as your
direction to staff in this matter.
' CONCURRENCE:
[L DUMAM James Gilshian, LUER
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Integrated Planning
June 29, 1977
Page 5
FISCAL DIPACT STATEMENT;
Programs: County General Plan
Plan Implementation
Remarks: If the recommendations of this report are accepted, there will be
no additional costs to the County that are not anticipated in the FY 1977-78
IPO work program, the FY 1977-78 IPO proposed budget, and the FY 1977-78 LUER
proposed budget, since it is intended that the objectives of your Board
directive be accomplished through work already programmed.
ADVISORY BOARD STATEMENT;
The IPO Advisory Board will consider this letter at their regular meeting of
July. 7, 1977, and will forward any recommendations or comments separately.
ND:RE:lrw
Attachment
cc: City of Carlsbad
Chief Administrative Officer
Community Services Agency
LUER
DOT
OIA
ATTACHMENT
Unincorporated Territory Covered By
Carlsbad General Plan
:_. .LiTX -,
•,. -?:••—-rv^^""Bufrtii.
'7***$ "ffTJ r:?/Tv^r*<1 "
•sSi /tf.Ri*^
R A N.-j H
O24 ••" !
>•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:••.'-*•: ^
.^
H- V ^J*M. ***,,
1 .-W i If3 ,•
Unincorporated
,
T 12 S
Carlsbad General