Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-10-02; City Council; 6017; Master Plan Amendment for Carrillo Ranch" SUBJZCT : - REQUEST TO ALLOW AN APPLICATIOM FOR A t.!ASTER PLnN AMENDMENT FOR CARRILLO RANCH. Mi-. Don Wootiward, representing .the owners' of the undeveloped pwtion of Carrillo'Ranch, has requested that they be allolied to process a Master Plan Aineridinent, ivcl uding an environmental impact. report and economic report. There is an existing legal, non-conforming master plan for the. sub2ec.t property. .. \*!bile the planning moratorium (Section 21.491020(10) of the CK) 'provides for the processi'ng cf revisions to approved tentative subdivision maps, no pro?,isio:i is made for revisions to approved master plans. Other areas with non-con.forming master plans, La Costa and Carlsbad Oaks, had planning moratorian and are now being processed. Ca'rrillo Ranch is the' submitted applications for amendments prior to Bhe adoption of the only other master plan area in this pirticular situation. There is the pbtetitial 1iability.problem that was identified at the . time. the moratorium was codifizd (see attached memorandum). At that time, it was the City Attorney's opinion that to allow the planning process' to continue with the knowledge that due to a lack of sewer capacity tk project cannot be built would expose the City to substaniial liability. . One other problem with accepting this application needs to be identified. Master plans take a substa)itial amount of staff time, as was evidenced by the processing of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. With the master plans. already in process, plus the mjor programs adopted in this year's budget, staff is doubtful whether existing staff could .accommodate this additional work load. This problem is fu?ttier conpounded by the fzct that existing application fees fa.ll far short of-actual costs. Shz fee fw Mr. Woodward's request wouid come to $796. .. ExHIwrs "_ -. Letter from Dorl Woodward'dated September 13, 1979 Locztion I4ap shDwing: 1) subject property 2) area already developed 3) non-residential reserve area bkmorandum froln Plaking Director dated April 18, 1978 RECOMi~iNl)ATICN li the C-kir concurs, direct the City Attorney to prepare an amendnent to the planni!1g morstoriu:u to allow the processing of revisions to aW+oveCi Inaster plans. Also, direct staVf to prepare a re ort on all planning application .fees and return s$id report to Counci i; along with the proposed alwndiwnts to the nloratorluul. AGENDA BILL NO. 6017 Page 2 Counci 1 Action: 10-2-79 Council directed the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate amendment to the Planning Moratorium to allow processing of revisions to approved Master Plans. Council directed staff to return with a schedule of fees for revision to a master plan. ve Newport Beach, California 92660 (7l4) 955-2502 September 13, 1979 City Council of the City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Mr. Paul Bussey, City Manager Dear Council Members: This letter is on behalf of The Woodward Companies, The Meister Company and Daon Corporation who are the owners of the undeveloped portion of the Carrillo Ranch lying southerly of Palomar Airport Road comprising 496 acres. We are requesting that we be allowed to process a revised Master Plan, an Environmental Impact Report and an Economic Analysis that would make the proposed property use conform to the existing General Plan and give the City a better defined professional analysis of the future development of this portion of the City. We recognize that a moratorium exists and at this time we could not expect to process material for the actual development of the property. We do feel, however, that it would be in as the governmental agency, if we worked with the City Staff the best interests of ourselves as land owners and the City at this time to make our development plan consistent with the City's General Plan and the new P.C. Ordinance. Our property completely surrounds the old Carrillo Ranch House which is now a city park. Our engineering consultant, Rick Engineering, has contacted the Parks and Recreation Director at our request with the suggestion that as part of the overall planning, we would be willing to incorporate a plan for development of the park. The development of the property would extend Melrose from the La Costa Ranch to Palomar Airport Road and create a loop that would materially reduce travel time for emergency vehicles into the area. Also, Carlsbad City - Council -2- - September 13, 1979 the development of Melrose in all probability will incorporate Municipal Water District. The line would complete the water a major water line as part of the Master Plan of the Carlsbad circulation for the general area, provide better service and increased fire flow pressure. We have included an exhibit which outlines the Carrillo Ranch property we own and shows the alignment of Melrose when completed. Also, it shows the area included in the City Park and shows how Melrose would furnish access to this public facility. We feel it would be beneficial for all concerned if the City Council would permit us to proceed with the planning process and related matters so we could at this time complete the preliminary matters required for the eventual development of the property. ... ... .. : .. .. ., .. .. . ... .. .. .. ... ., ... .... .. .. \' : . -, TO:, Honorable Mayor Ronald Packara -. .. .. . " City Councilwoman Mary Casler ... ... .:. City Councilmen A. 3. Skotnicki ana Girard hnear ... .. ... .. .. BACRGiiOUND .. .... L ' ". , ~ -. - .. ., FROM: .. James C. Hagaman, Planning Dizeztor .. ... .. ... ST313JJ2CT: Planning bloratoriun; - Second Phase Sewer " .. . . Allocation System ... .. ... -.. ... .... . ,. . ... .. .. .. .. ... ... .... .......... ....... . . . , . - .. .. ... .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. ...... ..... ....... .. .. .. .......... ... . ... TI,& pla'nning msiatorj.um was' origincllly esEablished -by iihd City C0Linci.l. along with a moratorium on the.issuance of building permits last ApriL 26, 1977, and subsequently .extended on August 25, 1977. The planning inoratoriunl will expire on .April 26; 1978 un3.ess the City Cotinci.1 t.zkes an action to partially or fully extend the moratorium..' City Council, prior to zdopting the moratorium, was presented with .a - report which indicated that the City was approaching its capacity limits prohibiting both the issuance of Suilding permits cnless sewer was avail- in .the Encina Sewer Treatment Plank. Th'e Council adopted two moratoriuins able and prohibiting the acceptance of applications for new planning epprovals. The Council subsequently adopted a first phase sewer allocation systen to essentially take care of those persons, known or unknown, who were affected by the sewer moratorium while they were in the process of obtaining ap2rovals for developments at that time. The planning moratorium as it now stands essentially prohibits all processing qnd approvals of discretionary entitl.&ients within. the Cihy with 'the ... exception of those areas served by San Narcos and Leucadia County Eater Districts with specified exceptiqns;' i.e. , previous legal commitncnt to Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center, annexation of Palomar fiirport, approved alternate sewer system; approvals which are determined not &to ... increase Sewer demand, and more recently zone change reports. 1 A Council Committee was appointed, and after working with City staff developed the First Phase sewer Allocation Systcm which allocated the City's first sewer in December, 1977. A subsequent revision to the Firs-t Phase Sewer Allocation System allocated Scwer in April, 1978. Duriny the deliberations on the First Phase Sewer Allocation System . . _. .- .. . - -. *. .... ~ . . ;,. ~ ~~ .. ._, ., " t * ' .. .. ...... 1200 ELM AVENUE CAHLSDAD, CALIFORh'lA 02008 ..... .. .. , .. Page 2 City Council ..... .. .. :' . .. ._. .. .. .. .Apr.il 18 ,, .1978 ..... ... .. .. .~ ... ... .. .. current develobment processes in light of the reality that there in. . . all probability will not be sufficient sewer available in the foresee-. "able future to meet delrands. Staff work is continuing on this second . . phas.e sewer' system but as yet is not completed. .... .. '. '' The 'planning moratorium, which' is to expire on April 26th as prev.iously stated., can .under the State Planning Act be extended for one additional '., year. Staff has taken the steps necessary to notice this Hearing to .. .$ ' .. ... cohsider the matter for the City Council meeting of April 18, 1978. ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .~ . DISCUSSION .... .. ... .-.: .. ..... ... *. .. L .. .. ......... -, . .. ... .. .. ~ .. - -.. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. . . '-,As the staff views the planiing moratorium, there are &ever& 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 soine' of those effects to ,assist ... . the- Council in their deliberations on this matter.. The concern of what effect the total lifti.ng of the p1anni;ng moratorium ' planning matters is substantially reduced over the last month. New . employees have been arid are being hired to fill vacancies. So, although ._ ' . th,ere is a rush of applications , there is now available staff in the .. ' .Planning Department. A substantiaJ amount of activity in the CLrrent Planning Section is involved in sewer allocation explanations to land .: processing applications on regular basis for those projects in the ' . .. :. .. ..... ...... : - .. .. . will have on the City operating sections-.responsible"for.:proces.sing . .. r. . owners, citizens and interested.particip?nts in future allocations, .. , .Leucaiiia and San Marcos County Water Districts and working on some of .. a period of time when staff was not available. the various projects which have been backlogged in .the department over . .. ... .. .. The Planning staff has generallt taken the position in front 0.f Coancil ' .~ver 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 Clurry 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) bloratoriums preclude many applications which would improve and creatc. better projects than those prcviously approved, and would not allow zonc changes cvcn 'though .. they would bc in conforrnancc with'thc General Plan. The staft ha..; gcncrnl1.y felt tllat cdnclitioriing Planning approvals on ttlc availab.ili.ty Of SCkIers would allow thc proccss to continuc. Onc rcason for this staff opinion was thc frustration fclt in constantly explaining the -. .. ,. . -2- ~__, .. ........ ,.~.-."-.I.._ .... .... ~ "__ .,,_I_" "__" r_C_ .".." yIz ". .- -, . , ' , ..* I. . ' 1209 'ELM AVENUE . CARCSUAD, CALlFOllNlA 92098 .... Page 3 .. .. ..... .. .. ... .. .... . city coundil 'April. 18, 1978 .se~qer dilemma to person afier person with no real pos'itive solution apparent. .. .~ased on the subsequent City staff's general research on this matter , . l?i.th 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 \,+-his, report are the City Nanager, the . .' : ' city Attorney, the Public Works Adininistrato? and the Planning. Dircct.or. 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 p1,anninq processes to. continuc 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 tha.t it is absolutely necessary t,hat the planning moratorium 'as it. vas originally adopted be extended until the Second Phase Sewer " Allocation system j.s fully developed a13 adopted. The staff2.h reachi.ng this conclusion has argued both sides of the issue. Ne -ake::presentiny argumen.ts on both sides of the -question .befo+'.you .for-.ydu~,'.b'eri~.~t: .- .: .. .._ . . - _. ... .. - . .. .. ... .. .. ._ . .. .. .- - .. -. . .- . .. t. !. ~ .. .. .. .. .- .. ! - " - .', in considering this matter. We concluded ,after considering ,them that . the leqal liability of tho 'City in processing planning matters could not be, ignored. .. .. .... .. .. : ... ..... . -. .. ...... - : . .. ' :. . .... .. ... . Argumen.ts for continuing the moratorium: .. . .i . .... 3 ~. .: .. .. ... .. : . .' . .. . .:. ... ............ .., . . ."1) . If the mo&to;ium.is terminated .and new applications. are accepted . -. ... ' 'by the City, a false so,nse of optimism may be created for those * . '. people applying where it pdssibly should not e.xist, s.incc there 1 . .- , is little or no guarantee they will.1~ able to 'pbtain sewer for . their particular project: .. ... .. . ... - 2) By openin? the permit process we essential.ly are encouraging the . apjjlicants 'to. spend large %urns of money on their applications without .' any established protection of a rdturn,on that expenditure if the .. . ' project is approved. .. . _r .... .. ... * 3) It is argued that valuable staff rcsources will be misused in handling new applications without knowledge of any capacity being avail.nblc. .. 4) It has been pointed out that therc .cvill' be a tendency for all '. al?plications to be constantly amended or changed to meet future City policies in terms of new proposed scwer allocation programs OI: il grotrtll management xxogram. . This will tend to again loncl tlic .. .. . .I ,. -3- .! .. ... "_... ~ . .".._ . ._....". .... ....""_... ... ....."..... ... ... ...... ., .. Citp of C;arlr;bab ' .. ' .. .. .. .... ... ... .. .. .. .~ . .. f .. . _. ... ... Page '4 -April 18, 1978 ........... ..... .. ... . .. ._ . ........ ., . . ..... . .~ .-. 1 . City Council .- - ... .... .. I .... .. ... .. .. ... ._ .. .. ... ... .. .... .. .... .. .. ..... ..... ... .. .. .. .- ... .. .. .:.. ~. . .. I . processing system on a regular basis as new allocatioa systems ... are developed. .. .. .. .. .. ._ .. . .I . . .-. .... .. .. ... .... .... The' opposite side 'of the' above arguments are: i. To drop the noratorium wouici allow proponents of projects to work .. with staff on a regular'basis pendinj sewer availability ana will .' tend to allow processing of these applications on a more roukine . '. . basis. .. .... .... .... . .. ... .. .. .. . .~ ; . : .. .. .. .. . ;: .. ... .. .: .. .. I- I .. .. " ' .I 2. Xi, is expected that the longer the moratorium is in effect, the -. .. ... . . more 'difficult it will be to proces's applications when it is, _. . terminated; .hdwever,. whenever a moratorium is' .lifted there will .. probably be ,an immediate surge of new applications .anyway. .'.I, 3. By'.accepting new applications it is expected that de,velnperr. will . .. ..... .. ...... I attempt to design their projects based on the rating ,system container? .. .. .. ... .. .. .. within the a,llocation system, and thezefore we can expett better. :. . developments. ... ....... ... 4: . By opening the process more people bili be 'able to. get in line' ana . .. . ..... .. . -. .. : _. .. - .. .. .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 .C.i.ty .cannot continue to. iirnik '. . access to' ava'ilable sewer in allocation systems to those persons who . ,. already have planning approvals as !$,as done in the First Phase Sewer .. Allocation System. 'While it was appropriate in the first phase sewer a.llocation 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 .In 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 scwer and at the same time the person cannot apply for a sewer application without a final map . . approvaS. That situation now must be properly, addressed in the Second Phase Scwer Allocation System in ordcr to allow peoplc to Eirst apply for a sewer application and then once having received it proceed through an orderly planninq process. .. ... .... .. .. -4- ., .. .. .I '. i .. .. . . .. ... .... .. .. .. .. .. ... . . Eitp of CakXmb .... .Page' 5 . .City Council .... April 18, 3.978 .. .. .. .. .. .?. .. .. .. .. .. ' .: .. .. ... .. .. . : .I . .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 welS as your staff's best judgment. We €e-el that the Second Phase Sewer Allocation System . . should. consider these three elements of change in our land use processes, . . ' 11 A 'General Plan Amendment . ' "' . : , . 1:) A Zone Cdde Amendkent . ... ... ...._ ....... -. ...... .: .. ... .. .. _. . .. .. .. ' -:. : .... .... .. .. ... ... 'I ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .._ ~. .. .. - _. .. . - .. 1 3) Adoption of a Second'Phase Sewer Allocation System . .*.. -.. .. 1 .. s. ... .. .- . . :i .. ... .... .The General. Plan Amendment .. ... .. .. . .. .' ..~ . .. ... ! ..:, .An .amendment to .the General Plan would r.eflect the reality.of a lack .. '' 'of sewer capacity and indicate that all' land use approvals and develop- .. ments contemplated by the plan were conditioned by and subject to pro- vision of sewer service, sthe availability of which would be determined .: : iri accordance with such an allocation plan and/or growth management pSan .. .'as the Council night deveiop. The General Plan which details l10w our .. .experiencing so our planning and the developers expectations will con-imunity will develop must reflect the lack of capacity we are .. .... .. ''. reflect the reality of the situation.' ... .. .. .. * .' .. Ti1.e Zone Code Amendment ... .. ... ... ..... .... ..... -.: .. . The zone code amendment would carry forward the General Plan qualification by amendizg 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. The Second phasc Scwcr Allocation' Systcm would be substantially different fro111 thc First: Phase Scwer AllOC~tiOi1 Systcm. The .. . . *. .. -5- ... aliccation system would be the first step in processing a City - .development. Withou-t.a sewer allocation permit it wollld not be possible' ',to further process developmental approvals. The system would be much .. simpler tb administer than the first phase allocation system that ive'have now experienced arid would allow the Council to make specific judpents .on sewer allocations at the time sewer became available. The.Counci1 categories and under what qualifications the sewer would be allocated- the numbeir of permits for'any one individual and/or project during a qiven .year, providing sewer in only'certain areas of town in order to accomplish would consider how to alloczte. available sewer into various land use ... . Such qualifications as no expenditure of public funds or.limitin'g the , . certain comqunity goals, would tend to limit those applying. Dependjng ' . on' availability of sewer, allocation could be .made once or more times .. .a year as Council consider.s appropriate. Once the individual qualifies .. '. .in obtaining a sewer allocation, .a reasonable tima to secure all Planning ... '.'approvals would be allowed.. If the approvals are not. obtained within ' . go back into the City's original reserve or go to the next individual . in line,. whichever the Council considers appropriate. The 'c.i-iteria .. .. that time'(under AB 884 not over 'one year) ,, the sewer capacity could contained in the F!irst Phase Sewer Al.location System could Lie 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, . Agua Hedionda Lagoon plans and certain annexation could be allowed to rocess once the Council determined that in doing so the requirements of . ' tho .Pu.blic Facilities element of the General Plan are met. .. .. ... ... ......... ' ." 'STAFF CONCLUSION. ., .. .... ~. . .... . : .< ~. .. .. ... .. .. . ... .: '.: .. .. .. ... '~ . -_ . ' : ... . e. ~~ - .... .. ... -. .. .. ,. . ' .. .. The staff, has concluded that in light of the curxent and foreseeable .. .. -. .... ... '. sewer situation, a new approach by City Council should be explored, '. . Council cannot find. that sewer will .be available when in fact it is not, lve have concluded that the following steps should be taken by. the City Council: .. .... .. . .~. . . 1) Extend the planning moratorium. .. .... .. ... ... I ... 2) Amend the City's General ,Plan, Zoning Ordinance to reflect the curren . sewer situation and develop a Second Phase Sewer Al1,ocation System. If the City Council disagrees with these staff conclusions and wis1;es necessary to amend thc Public Facilitiee clement of the General Plan in , to makc the dctcrrnination not to extend the n\oratorium, it will be ' order to approve dcvclopmcnkal projects. : .. *. . .. 3c11: s ' . I. :.. ..... -6- .. .. ..