Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-03-20; City Council; 5789; Evaluation of Projects During Planning MoratoriumCITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL NO: DATE: March 20, 1979 DEPARTMENT: Planning Initial Dept. Rd. r Cty. Atty U Cty. Mgr. SUBJECT: EVALUATION OF PROJECTS DURING PLANNING MORATORIUM Statement of the Matter , Attached is a letter from Mr. Ward requesting that City Council permit staff to work on "concept" plans for a.certain property during the planning moratorium, but prior to available sewers or completion of discretionary actions ("concept" plans mean establishing what discretion- ary actions are necessary, what facilities will be needed, what is An acceptable site plan, etc).. Staff has discussed in a general manner this project with Mr. Ward as we do any request of this nature. It has been City policy since the adoption of the planning moratorium not to accept plans for"concept" processing unless sewer or an alternate system is guaranteed. There are many citizens that may wish such pre- liminary review, which would take a great deal of staff time. Our work load is heavy in developing and administering the sewer allocations, doing CPO directives, Master Plans, Code Amendments, etc. Time working on "concept" plans may be lost if the projects are not per- mitted to be constructed in a relatively short period. In time, needs change, ordinances and policies are modified, and personnel change. Nevertheless, we do recognize Mr. Ward's concerns, and we are accumulating a backlog of work by not reviewing projects. Mayor Packard also recog-nizes this and has recently suggested a workshop to discuss this problem. Attachment Letter of Mr. Ward dated 3/1/79 Recommendation If the City Council wishes to permit staff to work on "concept" plans, staff recommends that the matter be set for workshop to determine limits of staff participation and types of projects to accept. March 27, 1979, is an open date. Council Action: )(:?mil( 3-20-79 Council directed that the matter be set to workshop on March 27, 1979. 3-27-79 Council directed that the Planning Moratorium continue and requested additional report from staff. (see minut es) J � V March 1, 1979 �hr ou 1--cc Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA. 92008 Re: Request the City Council to instruct the Staff (Planning and Engineering) to review, evaluate and make recommenda- tions on projects in the planning, and formulation stages Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council: By Ordinance 9518, the City Of Carlsbad enacted a moratorium on discretionary approvals - due to the unavailability of sewer. Section 21.49.020 of the Ordinance precludes processing of any request which would provide an entitlement for development. However, as you no doubt are aware, projects of any kind require several months of preparation prior to submitting a formal request to the City for approval or entitlement. During this period, direct discussion and interaction with local agencies ' is critical. In many instances, the "front end" work accom- plished at the staff level is fundamental in establishing a development program which is consistent with City ordinance and policy and at the same time is consistent with an overall f design and financing program. ! To that end therefore, we would request that the Council q 1 instruct � the staff to work with me and my consultants on the preparation of a concept of development for a 5.174 acre commercial busi- ness park on the property between Avenida Encinas and I-5, North of Palomar Airport Road. F; The present zoning, C-1, C-2 and RA-10,000, does not correspond totally with the general plan which calls for Regional Commer- cial with orientation to tourist trade (R-T). We recognize that at the proper time, the property will have to be rezoned to insure consistency with the City's General Plan. I would like to suggest that this project be developed under provisions of a Specific Plan with the necessary zone change to C-2 going concurrent with the Specific Plan. A March 1, 1979 Avenida Encinas Mayor and City Council Page 2 After reviewing the market and the needs of the City of Carl we wish to propose a combination use (all allowable under C- zone) of Retail Commercial. Land Uses contemplated would pri vide for basic service retailers, along with a major resta= operation to satisfy not only travelling public and the tour: trade, but also satisfy local needs, and the demand of a pro• posed business office structure. The general allocation wou: be approximately 8,000 square feet for the restaurant operat' 25,000 square feet of office and institutional uses and approxi- mately 45,000 square feet of "regional", tourist oriented retail trade facilities, i.e., a mini tourist oriented retail mall. There are many examples of similar type of successful develop- ments currently available to,use as guidelines. As you are aware, Carlsbad is lacking in first class office space. This is generally the case throughout the North County. We believe that this site would lend itself to a fine commercial office development both from exposure and locational viewpoints. As to sewer service, we believe that by the time this project is ; ready to be considered for discretionary approvals, there will be adequate sewer capacity to service this proposal. z, We also believe that this project would rate high on a sewer allocation program when that system is approved and becomes effective. There are already two sewer services on the property. f, Calavera Hills anticipates the freeing of some 700 EDUs at Encina by the construction of the proposed Waste Water Treat- ment and Reclamation Facility. Other projects and solutions that will be proposed this year lead us to the conclusion that we should get this project ready so as to prepare ourselves for discretionary action at such time sewer capacity is released. Additionally, we must process through Coastal Commission. And as you are aware, we need to have all discretionary decisions made by Carlsbad before a Coastal Action can occur. Hence, our reasons for proceeding at this time. As a reminder, we are not requesting a City Commitment for sewer but asking your cooperation in "planning" our project. I would appreciate your comments on this proposal within two weeks as to the processing methods recommended. Since l,rrqy, RJW:paf Roy J. �/r / 1200 ELM AVENUE � 7ELtcPNOMB: 'CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 i +' .(714)729 C'Ctfp� of Carl�ba • Apr 1 18, 1978 { TO: Honorable Mayor Ronald Packard •., • City Councilwoman Mary Casler ' City Councilmen A. J. Skotnicki and Girard Anear FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director SUBJECT: Planning Moratorium - Second Phase Sewer Allocation System BACKGROUND - The planning moratorium was originally established by the City Council along with a moratorium on the issuance of building permits last ApriL 26, 1977, and subsequently extended on August 25, 1977. The 'planning moratorium will expire on -April 26-; 1978 unless the City Council takes an action to partially or fully extend the moratorium. City Council, prior to adopting the moratorium, was presented with -a report which indicated that the City was approaching its capacity limits in the Encina Sewer Treatment Plant. The.Council adopted,two moratoriums • prohibiting both the issuance of building permits unless sewer was avail- able and prohibiting the acceptance of applications for new planning approvals. The Council subsequently adopted a first phase sewer j allocation system to essentially take care of those persons, known or. unknown, who wera affected by the sewer moratorium while they were in the process of obtaining approvals for developments at that time. The planning moratorium as it now stands essentially prohibits all processing and approvals of discretionary entitlements within. the City with the exception of those areas served by San Marcos and Leucadia County Plater Districts with specified exceptions, i.e., previous legal commitment to Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center, annexation of Palomar Airport, approved alternate sewer system, approvals which are determined not to increase sewer demand, and more recently•zone change reports,. A Council Committee was appointed, and after working with City staff developed the First Phase Sewer Allocation System which allocated the City's first sewer in December, 1977. A subsequent revision to the First Phase Sewer Allocation System allocated sewer in April, 1978. During the deliberations on the First Phase Sewer Allocation System meot:ings and subsequent Council ;neetings, staff was directed to commence preparation of a second phase allocation system. The staff in their research on Second Phase Sewer Allocation System has evaluated the entire Goneral Plan and zoning ordinance as well as the current • 1200 ELM AVENUE ' _ TELEPHONE: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 9200a �� �j�Jr' r114)7T9t18t titp of earb%O Page 2 City Council April 18,.1578 current development processes in light of the reality,that there in all probability will not be sufficient sewer available in the foresee- able future to meet demands. Staff work is continuing on this second phase sewer system but as yet is not completed. The planning moratorium, which'is to expire on April 26th as previously stated, can under the State Planning Act be extended for one additional year. Staff has taken the steps necessary to notice this hearing to consider the matter for the City Council meeting of April`18, 1978. DISCUSSION As the staff views the planning moratorium, there are several possible ;.'directions available for the City at this time. The directions are a matter of policy and should be considered as such and weighted as. a' matter of possible effects on the future activities of the City. The • following discussion willexplore some of those effects to assist the Council in their deliberations on this matter'. _ _ The concern of what effect the total lifting of the planning moratorium will have on the City operating sections-'responsible"€or;processing planning matters is substantially reduced over the last month. New employees have been and are being hired to fill vacancies. :So, although there is a rush of applications,there is now available staff in the 'Planning Department. A substantial amount of activity in the Current Planning Section is involved in sewer allocation explanations to land owners, citizens and interested participants in future allocations, processing applications on regular basis for those projects in the Leucadia and San Marcos County Water Districts and working on some of the various projects which have been backlogged in.the department over a period of time when staff was,not available. - The Planning staff has generally taken the position in front of Council over the last year that we are not in favor of planning moratoriums for several reasons: 1) That they created an artifical dam which when lifted could well inundate the resources of the department in a flurry of instant activity. 2) We are spending a significant amount of time talking to and working with potential builders and developers explaining the current situation on sewers on an on -going basis. 3) Moratoriums preclude many applications which would improve and create' better projects than those previously approved, and would not allow zone changes even 'though they would be in conformance with the General Plan. The staff has generally felt that conditioning Planning approvals on the availabilit of sewers would allow the process to continue. One reason for this staff opinion was the frustration felt in constantly explaining the M 2 , 1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONE- —CARLSBAD• CALIFORNIA 92006 (114)721.1181 page 3 - • ' ; ti .City Council Apr').l 18, 1978 Ar -sewer dilemma to person after person with no real positive solution -apparent. Based on the subsequent City staff's general research on this matter with other cities and their problems with planning moratoriums, sewer moratoriums, etc.,'we have concluded that it is just not' reasonable to ;maintain a business as usual basis attitude. 'The staff involved in the research and conclusions of this report are the City Manager, the , City Attorney, the Public Works Administrator and the Planning Director. The primary reason for the above conclusions can and will be explained.' 'by•the City Attorney. In summary, it is his opinion that to allow „_•;,the planning processes to continue with the knowledge that due to a lack of sewer capacity the project.cannot be built would expose the City to substantial liability.. 'This was a common finding in other cities ',-..in similar situations. Based on this specific finding, It is staff's position that it is absolutely necessary that the planning moratorium y as it was originally adopted be extended until the Second Phase Sewer Allocation system is fully developed and adopted. The staff -in reaching this conclusion has argued both sides of the issue. We.a)ce.presenting • irguments on both 'sides of the -question •before' -you •for"your kieriefit -in considering this matter. We concluded -after considering them that i the legal liability of the'City in processing planning matters could not be ignored. `Arguments for continuing the moratorium; ; 2) If the moratorium -is terminated.and new applications are accepted 'by the City, a false sense of optimism may be created for those ' people applying where ii pcssibly should not exist, since there IS little or no guarantee they will- be able to obtain sewer for their particular project: 2) By opening the permit process we essentially are encouraging the applicants'to,spend large sums of money on their applications without any established protection of a return on that expenditure if the, project is approved. 3) It is argued that valuable staff resources will be misused in handling new applications without knowledge of any capacity being available. ' 4) It has been pointed out that there will be a tendency for all applications to be constantly amended or changed to meet future City policies in terms of new proposed sewer allocation programs or a growth management program., This will tend to again load the •• 3 •- 1200 ELM AVENUE ' TELEPHONE_ �•' (724) 729.1181 c CARLSDAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 F' ,.. .. . "_ . "• ' �C�tp of �ar%�a� . , , .. _ , ; : • . • '� Page 4 City Council �• " April 18, 1978 t.. processing system on a regular basis as new allocation systems are developed. The opposite side of the above arguments are: 1. To drop the moratorium would allow proponents of projects to work with staff on a regular'basis pending sewer availability and will tend to allow processing of these applications on a more routine `basis. _ 1 . 2. It is expected that the longer the moratorium is in effect, the more difficult it will be to process applications when it -is • terminated; •however, . whenever, a moratorium is' ,lifted there will probably be an immediate 'surge of new applications anyway. 3. By accepting hew zpplications it is expected that developers will attempt to design their projects based on the rating system contained within the allocation system, and therefore we can expept better i developments. . . 4.• By opening'the process more people will be able to get in line and =compete for any allocations of sewer that may become available. After staff analyzed the above points and other' considerations,, we ' reached our conclusion that it was necessary to extend the Planning Moratorium. ' The staff has also •concluded that the City.cannot continue to limit access to available sewer in allocation systems to those persons who already have planning approvals as was done in the First Phase Sewer Allocation System. 11hile it was appropriate in the first phase sewer allocation system to limit access since the Council efforts were to provide immediate relief to those persons that had been caught in the pipe line by the moratorium, that has essentially now been accomplished_ ln=the'future, however, it is apparent to the staff there are simply too'many individuals who are in a "Catch 22" situation. For instance, a person cannot obtain a final map without- sewer and at the same time -'the person cannot apply for a sewer application without a final map approval. That situation now must be properly addressed in the Second Phase Sewer Allocation System in order to allow people to first apply for a sewer application and then once having received it proceed through an orderly planning process. r • ' •1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONE- • (714) 729.1lat • CARLSBAD• CALIFORNIA 9200a h[ �Cctp of arr�ab .Page 5 -City Council April 18, 1978 The First Phase sewer Allocation System denied some individuals of a chance to obtain a share of the City's available sewer capacity, and -denied the City possible benefits of projects which might be desirable .`-but which had not yet been approved. Staff, in order to resolve the above dilemma within the legal, constrains, recommends that an individual be allowed to apply for sewer allocation without all planning approvals. 'The details of the process will be worked out in the Second Phase Sewer Allocation System.. In order to accomplish this it is important, ; that the planning moratorium be maintained. This conclusion contains the most recent knowledge available on the subject as well as your staff's best judgment.. We feel that the Second Phase Sewer Allocation System should.consider these three elements of change in our land use processes. 1J A General Plan Amendment :2) A Zone Code Amendment 3) Adoption of a Second'Phase Sewer Allocation System ^*, The General -Plan Amendment An amendment to the General Plan would reflect the reality of a lack of sewer capacity :.nd indicate that all: land use approvals and develop— ments contemplated by the plan were conditioned by and subject to pro— vision of sewer service, -the availability of which would be determined in accordance with such an allocation plan and jor growth management plan as the Council might develop. The General Plan which details how our • community will develop must.reflect the lack of capacity we are experiencing so our planning and the developers expectations will reflect the reality of the situation. The Zone Code Amendment The zone code amendment would carry forward the General Plan qualification by amending into the zoning code a qualification on all -the City's zones. That qualification would essentially indicate that in addition to the development standards contained within the zone, it is not possible to build until a sewer permit is obtained pursuant to an adopted sewer allocation system. Second Phase Sewer Allocation System The Second Phase Sewer Allocation System would be substantially different from the First Phase Sewer Allocation System. The 1200 ELM AVENUE y + TELEPHONE: -CARLSMD. CALIFORNIA 92008 r i (714) 729.118t :Page 6 ; City Council :.Apri1� 18, 1978 • '� r y allocation system would be the first step in processing a city -development. Without•a sewer allocation permit it would not be possible #.'to further process developmental approvals. !rhe system would'be much .:simpler to administer than the first Fliase allocation system that we have .now experienced and would allow the Council to make specific judgments _,on sewer allocations at the time sewer.became available. The Council would consider how to allocate available sewer into various land use categories''and under what qualifications the sewer would be allocated. ,'Such qualifications as no expenditure of public funds or limiting the the number of permits for any one individual and/or project during a given year,` -providing sewer in only'certain areas of town in order to accomplish •...,certain conounity goals, would tend to limit those applying. Depending ••-on availability of sewer, allocation could be,made once or more times :a'year as -Council considers appropriate. Once the individual qualifies — in obtaining a sewer allocation,,a reasonable time to secure all Planning -.approvals would be allowed.' If the approvals are not.obtained within that time'(under AB 884 not over one year),, the sewer capacity could go back into the City's original reserve or go to the next individual in lir-e,,whichever the Council considers appropriate. The ci:iteria •contained in the First Phase Sewer Allocation System could be modified and used. The'skeletal outline of.the points above describing process could take care of all owner -- developer initiated projects; -however, City initiated projects such as General Plan Amendments, -Aqua Hedionda Lagoon plans and certain annexation could be allowed to process once the Council determined that in doing so the requirements of the Public Facilities element of the General Plan are met: 'STAFF CONCLUSION } -The staff has concluded that in light ,of the current and foreseeable :server situation, a new approach by City Council should be explored. -Council cannot find.that sewer will be available when in fact it is not. We have concluded that the following steps should be taken by the City -Council: 2) Extend the planning moratorium. '2) Amend the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance to reflect the current sewer situation and develop a Second Phase Sewer Allocation System. if the City Council disagrees with these staff conclusions and wishes to make the determination not to extend the moratorium, it will be necessary to amend the Public Facilities element of the General Plan in order to approve developmental projects. t .701: s