Loading...
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