HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-08-05; City Council; 6320; General Plan Amendment from NRR to TSCITY OF CARLSBAD
INITIAL
AGENDA BILL NO. (j> 3 3 O
DATE: August 5, 1980
DEPARTMEN" : Planning
Dept. Hd.Brt AB^\
Cty. Attv. V Pv
Cty. Mgr. <2^
SUBJECT: '
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROM NRR (NON-RESIDENTIAL RESERVE)
TO TS (TRAVEL SERVICES COMMERCIAL)
_ APPLICANT: ECKE _ CASE NO; GPA-50 (B)
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER !
The applicant requests a General Plan Amendment from NRR to TS on
15.31 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Palomar
Airport Road and Paseo Del Norte, adjacent to Interstate 5. The
applicant's intent is to provide a consistent land use designation
to rezone the property to CT (Commercial Tourist) to allow the
development of a motel, 2 restaurants, service station and related
commercial shops.
The Planning Commission found that the site was suitable In size and
shape to accommodate uses allowed in the T-S designation and that
uses allowed in this designation were compatible with surrounding
land uses. ;;
Through staff review and Planning Commission hearing, all issues
on this matter have been satisfactorily resolved.
EXHIBITS
1. PC Resolution No. 1653
2. Staff Report dated, June 19, 1980
RECOMMENDATION
Both the Planning staff and Planning Commission recommend that
this application be APPROVED and that the City Attorney be
directed to prepare documents APPROVING (GPA-50 (B) ) , per Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1653.
Council Action:
8-5-80 Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents approving GPA-50(B).
1
2
3
4
5
6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1655
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM NRR (NON-RESIDENTIAL RESERVE)
TO TS (TRAVEL SERVICES COMMERCIAL) ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
PASEO DEL NORTE AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD.
APPLICANT: ECKE
CASE NO: GPA-50(B)
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, generally
8
.located on the northwest corner of Paseo Del Norte and Palomar
9
Airport Road, has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred
11
10
to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as
.provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; andJLo
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of June,
.1980, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to15
consider said request; and
17
16
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering
all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be
heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the
General Plan Amendment and found the following facts and reasons to
18
19
20
21
22 Fir-dings:
.1
1) The site is physically suitable in size and shape to
^ accommodate uses allowed in the TS (Travel Services Commercial)
designation for the reasons stated in the staff report.<j4 i
2) The site is located so as to be adequatly accessible to
interregional traffic since it is adjacent to Interstate 5
and Palomar Airport Road interchange.
25
26
27 3) Uses allowed in the TS (Travel Services Designation) are
compatible to and consistent with surrounding land uses for
reasons stated in the staff report.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c
4) The project is consistent with all city public facility
policies and ordinances since:
a) Sewer service is not required for this project and
subsequent development of the property will require the
availability of sewer service to serve such development
or building cannot occur.
5) This project will not cause any significant adverse environ-
mental impacts since, based on the initial study and field
investigation of the site, the Planning Director has issued
a Negative Declaration on May 29, 1980, Log No. 707. Further,
subsequent development of the project will require environ-
mental review as part of the application processing procedure.
6) The applicant has provided sufficient information to justify
a change of the NRR designation to TS for reasons stated in the
staff report.
7) Precise location and intensities of land uses will be subject
to further review and controls through the requirements of the
zoning ordinance.
8) This amendment is consistent with all other elements of the
General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That in view of the findings heretofore made and considering
the applicable law, the decision of the Planning Commission is
to recommend APPROVAL of GPA-50(B) as represented on the
attached Exhibit A, dated May 20, 1980.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Jof Carlsbad Planning Commission held on June 19, 1980, by the
;following vote, to wit:
AYES: Schick, Larson, Friestedt, Marcus, Rombotis and Jose
j NOES: None
ABSENT: Leeds
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:K,JR\,Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
--
JAMES C. HAGAMAN/ ^ec^Pefary
xCJVRLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
/ ^
PC RESO #1653 -2-
(
RM NRR
NRRN
PAL- AIRPORT RD
PLASi
FROM HFiFS TO ~P5
LOCATIOK MAP sr-20-80
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 19, 1980
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Bill Hofman, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: GPA-50(B) - ECKE - Request to amend the Land Use
Designation of the General Plan from NRR (Non-
Residential Reserve) to TS (Travel Services
Commercial) on property generally located on the
northwest corner of Paseo Del Norte and Palomar
Airport Road.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests an amendment to the Land Use
Designation of the General Plan from NRR (Non-Residential
Reserve) to TS (Travel Service Commercial) on 15.31
acres of land located as described above. The applicant's
intent is to provide a consistent designation to rezone
his property to C-T (Commercial Tourist) to allow
development of a motel, two restaurants, service station
and related commercial uses. The applicant has applied
for a zone change from L-C (Limited Control) to CT-Q
(Commercial Tourism) which will be heard at a forth-
coming Planning Commission meeting. If this General
Plan Amendment and. the subsequent zone change arl
approved, the applicant will be required to apply for a
Site Development Plan for the entire development and
two (2) Conditional Use Permits; 1) a restaurant serving
alcoholic beverages; and 2) an automobile service
station.
II. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1) Is the sire suitable in size and shape to accommodate
uses which are compatible with the Commercial
Travel Service designation?
2) Is the site located so that it is accessible to
interregional traffic?
3) Are the uses and zoning proposed for the site
compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning?
Discussion
The site is 15.31 acres in size and relatively flat.
As shown on the location map, there are two buildable
areas on the lot. The smaller of the two to the north
abuts the southern boundary of Car Country, and the
other located to the south is adjacent to Palomar Airport
Road. The applicant has submitted a preliminary site
plan indicating the use of the northern portion of the
site as a dinner oriented restaurant and the southern
portion as a 108 unit mote-l, a restaurant (Pea Soup
Andersons) and a service station* A preliminary site
plan will be on display at the Planning Commission
meeting for the Commission's information. Staff has
found that the site is suitable in size and shape to
accommodate the proposed uses.
With respect to the properties location, the site is
situated adjacent to a major arterial (Palomar Airport
Road) and an interstate freeway (1-5). Since most
interregional traffic runs north and south on Interstate
5, and since there is an off ramp at the junction of 1-5
and Palomar Airport Road, the site is highly accessible*
to interregional traffic. Also, Palomar Airport Road has
the capacity to serve as access for interregional traffic
from the east. Staff can find sufficient facts to make
the finding that the site is adequately accessible to
interregional traffic.
In terms of adjacent land uses, the Dixon Ford C^r
Dealership abuts the site to the north, a vacant parcel
and flower field are to the east, 1-5 and a mixture of
industrial and commercial uses are to the west, and a
restaurant and service station to the south. Most uses
in the vicinity of 1-5 and Palomar Airport Road are
travel service oriented, thus the proposed use of the
applicant's site as a motel and restaurant is compatible
with surrounding land uses. Surrounding zoning includes
C-2 to the north, R-A-10,000 to the east, C-2 to the
south, and ?-••' arid C-2 to the west. A C-T zone district
would allow uses which are compatible with uses allowed
in the surrounding -ones. Staff has found that the
zoning and land uses allowed under the TS designation
are compatible with adjacent land uses and zoning.
Given the information submitted by the applicant,
sufficient facts have been presented to justify a change
of the existing NRR designation to the TS designation.
-2-
III. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 1655 recommending APPROVAL of GPA-50(B)
to the City Council based on the findings contained
therein.
Attachments
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Form
Location Map
PC Resolution No. 1653
BH: ar
6/11/80
-3-
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET c
•CASE NO: GPA-50(B)
APPLICANT: ECKE (ANDERSON'S PEA SOUP)
REQUEST .AND LOCATION: General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from NRR
(Non- Residential Reserve J to Tt> (.Travel Service Commercial) located on the w/ side of
Paseo Del Norte, north of Palomar Airport Road.
LEGAL ESSCRIPTION:portion of Lots G § H of Rancho Agua Hedionda, Map No. 823,
County of San Diego, filed November 16, 1896.
Assessors Parcel Nurrber:
15.31
211 021 _ 13 5 14
Acres No. of Lets
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
General Plan Land Use Designation NRR (to TS)
Density Allcwed
Existinc. Zone L~C
N/A
Surrounding Soning ard .L
Zonina
Use:
North
South
East
C-2
C-2
R-A-10
West p-M> C-2, R-A-10
School Distr r~ N/A
City of Carlsbad
City of Carlsbad
Density Proposed N/A
Proposed Zone _
Land Use
Car Country
Commercial
Agriculture
Industrial, Commercial
180 allocated per CC
EDU's Resolution No. 6102.
IMPACT ASSESSI4Et.T
Negative Declaration, issued
E.I.R. Certified, dated ___
5/29/80 log No.707
Other,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
GPA-50 (B)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Carlsbad City Council will
hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 5, 1980 at 6:00 P.M.
in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California
to consider approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the
existing Non-Residential Reserve zoning designation to a Travel
Service Commercial zoning designation on propery generally located
between Paseo del Norte and Interstate 5, north of Palomar Airport
Road and more particularly described as "That portion of Lots
G and H of Rancho Agua Hedionda, Map No. 823, County of San Diego,
filed November 16, 1896."
APPLICANT:ECKE (John C. White)
PUBLISH : July 26, 1980
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
PLAJ4
Hr^FS TO To
o
00 JO> e
-n <O m
§?
Of
3 O OJ
O CO C
H- O (?irt Hj
fa H, SCO H- P)
- O iq
(D Qi
O 0)
P» W H-MO fl>
H- X J3H» {*o .&.
H 00 (T)
3 c» o
10
NJ
O
M
gs1*
$505£r >
-n <O mTO zz cm
(^
&}*-t
to*cs«&
I o
01 nJ O
- CD 3
; n 0,0n> rt
u> r
to 25 lo O
! o H
' 00 ft
(D
r>>TO
Tl <O rn
z c
.cs*
i J
H-0
- O
voto •>
toco O*• s
5 (%73 «—••r *•*
J/J -4 CWOJ M ^*
o m
> ~
€3*
Wd O3 O PownH-n- ft3 P»
H-O W
(1- Hi
JB hh O
01 H-O* o 3(D'O
O P>5^ tXl 30*<X
VOto **
O 00
N) 00
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 12, 1980
TO: City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: ZONING CODE/GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
In response to concerns regarding zoning/general plan consis-
tency, staff has researched and provides the following
information as an update on the current circumstances
regarding this issue. Also, attached is a copy of a memo-
randum written by the City Attorney's Office dated June 16,
1980, addressing this problem.
Background
Concern regarding the issue of consistency dates back to the
adoption of the current General Plan Land Use Element which
occurred in October, 1974. State law clearly requires
zoning code/general plan consistency, and the Land Use
Element (p. 32) reflects this intention.
"Therefore, the city must make its zoning ordinance and
general plan compatible, and insure that future develop-
ment proposals are consistent with the adopted city
general plan."
This issue addresses two separate but interrelated areas of
concern:
1) The short-term need to take immediate action regarding
the problem of inconsistency between the multiple-
residential zone code designations and the General Plan
residential density ranges, as outlined in the City
Attorney's memo, and
2) The long-range need to begin discussing a comprehensive
revision of the zone code to provide consistency, and
to consider the variety of related planning activities
currently in process which will individually and cumula-
tively impact the broader issue of General Plan consistency
(i.e. Local Coastal Plan, General Plan Element revisions,
growth management, Master EIR).
This memorandum focuses discussion on the more immediate issue
of multiple-residential zone codes.
Multiple-Residential Zones
Discussion
The immediate need to take action on revision of the multiple-
residential zones, and the potential legal implications of
inaction in this area, are clearly defined in the City
Attorney's memo. In order to accomplish this objective, and
avoid legal action against the city, staff is recommending
that an interim consistency program be implemented to revise
the multiple-residential zones and meet the requirements of
the Land Use Element.
Another aspect of this issue which requires clarification
are the criteria necessary to review a given project proposal,
and justify a density higher than the General Plan minimum
range. The General Plan requires a project-by-project
review of residential development proposals, and the appli-
cation of certain amenities as justification for a density higher
than the lower end of the General Plan range. These criteria,
however, have never been clearly defined, and there appears
to be a need for policy guidance in this area to provide for
an equitable and consistent application of this requirement.
Summary
In order to address this issue, staff suggests the following
approach:
1) Direct staff to investigate establishing an interim
consistency effort, establishing a program to accomplish
this, setting objectives and a time frame for action,
research the staff time/costs necessary to implement
the program and report to the Planning Commission for
further direction.
2) Initiate discussion directed towards articulating an
official city policy regarding the application of
specific amenity requirements necessary to justify a
project density higher than the General Plan minimum,
direct staff to research this issue and report to the
Planning Commission for further consideration.
PT: jd
MEMORANDUM .
DATE: June 16, 1980
TO: City Manager
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: ZONING GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Government Code Section 65860 provides in part, "County or City zoning
ordinances shall be consistent with the general plan...". This section
provides further that a zoning ordinance is consistent with the general
plan if:
"The various land uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible
with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs
specified in such plan."
Subsection (c) of Section 65860 provides:
"In the event a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent with the
general plan by reason of amendment to such plan, or to any
element of such plan, such zoning ordinance shall be amended
•within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general
plan as amended."
If a city fails to act as required to make their zoning and general
plans consistent, any resident or property owner of-the city may bring
an action in Superior Court to force the City to comply with the
consistency requirement. If successful the individual bringing such a
suit would be entitled to recover against the city for all of his
attorney's fees. This memorandum is to share my concerns about the
City's apparent failure to comply with the consistency requirements
under Government Code Section 65860.
The problem resulted from the last comprehensive revisions to the land
use element undertaken under the guidance of Lampman and Associates by
a citizens committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council. As
a result of that effort the concept of density ranges was introduced
into the City's general plan. The residential section of the land use
element provides in part as follows:
"Five ranges of density have been incorporated into the general
plan. Each of these categories is implemented by one or more zone
classification, which contain the specific site development
standards."
City Manager -2- June 16, 1980
The explanatory note on residential density on the following page of
the land use element indicates that the plan uses the ranges rather
than specified particular types of residential development by number of
units in order to allow flexibility in using zoning, implement the land
use element and promote cluster development where desirable. The note
contemplates that part of a project may be developed in high density
while the remainder is developed in a low density. The explanatory
note on density ranges specifies how they are to be implemented:
"The density ranges established for the medium, medium-
high density residential categories are NOT meant as
"minimums" and "maximums". The lower figure for each
of these categories represents a "guaranteed" density
and the higher figure represents a potential maximum
that could be located in each area if certain criteria
are met. The criteria shall be reviewed on a project-
by-project basis and shall include such things as slope of
land, soil stability, compatibility with surrounding
land uses, flood plain protection, adequacy of public
facilities, on-site amenities and preservation of .unique
and desirable natural resources. In other words, the
density allocation for any project starts at the low
'end and,, if a higher density is desired, the proposed-
development must prove itself worthy of the higher
designation."
The land use element clearly requires that any multiple family
residential project proposed for a density in excess 'of the general
plan minimum must be reviewed on a project-by-project basis. As a
part of such review, criteria such as slopes, soil conditions,
compatibility with surrounding land uses, adequacy of public facilities,
onsite amenities, etc. must be applied to the project in some unspeci-
fied manner justifying any densities in excess of the minimum.
Notwithstanding the statement in the general plan that the density
ranges would be implemented by zone classifications containing
specific site development standards, no such zones exist or were
adopted. Our multiple zones do not contain any provisions for the
project-by-project review required by the general plan. There are
no provisions for the application of any of the general plan density
range criteria and there are no standards by which those criteria can
be applied to a particular project in order to determine the permitted
density. Compounding the problem is the fact that the R-3 zone,
which generally corresponds to a land use designation with a density
range of 10 to 20 units, allows a maximum density of 53 units per acre.
On its face, a zone which allows in excess of 50 units per acre is
clearly inconsistent with a general plan designation with a maximum
of 20 units per acre. Even if we recognize, as we must, that the
City Manager ' -3- June 16, 1980
maximum R-3 density is only theoretical since the applications of
setback and parking standards reduce the maximum,, we are still faced
with a situation where the owner of an existing R-3 lot has a. right to
aPPly f°r ar»d receive a building permit for a project with a density
substantially in excess of that allowed by the general plan. The
inconsistency is compounded by a total lack of any mechanism to
implement the density ranges contemplated by the general plan.
When the general plan was amended, the Planning Department was advised
on several occasions of the need to undertake a program of rezoning to
make the zoning map consistent with the newly adopted general plan. A
number of these hearings were held and some properties rezoned (for
example: the Ponto area was rezoned multiple residential in conformance
with the new general plan). However, no steps were taken to amend the
City.'s multiple zones in order to implement the density ranges nor to
amend the zones to make the maximum allowable densities consistent with
the reduced general plan maximums.
The multiple zones inconsistency falls under Subsection (c) of
Section 65860 which does not contain a specific time limit for achiev-
ing consistency. The section does require, however, that the City act
within a reasonable time. Planning indicated they were working on the
.matter and intended to take the necessary actions within a reasonable
period consistent with their other priorities. I think it is extremely
unlikely I would be successful in persuading a judge, even considering
the sewer moratorium,that the approximately six year period since the
general plan was amended was a reasonable time.
I have delayed calling this matter to the City Council's attention
because there has been substantially little or no apartment construction
in the City in the last two years due primarily to the sewer moratorium.
-For the reasons discussed below, and in view of the fact of the rerating
of Encina and the contemplated lifting of the moratorium will substan-
tially increase developmental activity, I am compelled to call the
matter to your attention.
It is a matter of state law and city ordinance that tentative subdivision
maps, planned unit developments and condominium permits must be found to
be consistent with the general plan before they can be approved. The
Planning Department in processing such approvals have attempted to
implement the density ranges. However, there is no clearly articulated
set of standards which they apply in determining where a particular
project should be placed on the density range. The Council may recall
that in recent months substantially all of the multiple projects coming
before your'body have been paroposed at or very close to the maximum
density range. "Jawboning" is an inappropriate and, apparently,
ineffective substitute for the implementing ordinances required by
the general plan. Staff discretion cannot be exercised in a vacuum
and the total lack of the required standards renders the process
essentially meaningless and subject to legal challenge.
Manager June 16, 1980
Density is controlled by zoning, particularly where the property
has been previously subdivided and no additional discretionary approval
is necessary. The Planning Department in these cases has also been
attempting to implement the density ranges by "jawboning" developers.
However, in that case, such efforts are totally without any legal basis.
•This creates a situation where some developers build at lesser densities
while others who don't take Planning's "advice" are free to build in
excess of the general plan limits. The basic unfairness of that approach
seems apparent. Our current situation, aside from the fact that it
doesn't meet legal requirements, creates some problems. One recently
brought to my office involved a piece of property which could be
developed in excess of 30 units as apartments, but at less than 20 for
condominiums since the density ranges were applied to condominiums but
not to the apartments.- We are aware of no facts which justify such
disparagement treatment of a single piece of property. Another .problem
involved a condominium subdivision approved for 16 units in accordcince
with the zoning. A condominium permit is now required which, under
the general plan, can only be approved at a lesser density. The
problems are exactly what the Section 65860 consistency requirement
was designed to correct. ' '
There are two basic ways to solve a' consistency problem. The general
plan can be amended to conform to the zoning or the zoning can be
amended to conform to the general pl^n. The general plan amendment
solution would involve an elimination of the density ranges for multiple
family projects and the attendant requirements for project-by-project
review. The density ranges would be replaced by a more traditional
designation of particular densities by number of units. Regulatory
needs could be met by the addition of better development standards
to the multiple zones. The other solution requires some extensive
amendments to the Municipal Code. In particular, the multiple zones
^such as R-3 must be amended to reduce the maximum permitted densities
to the maximums allowed in the corresponding general plan land use
designations. In addition, the multiple' zones will have to be amended
or a new chapter added to the code to provide for project-by-project
review. The ordinance making those.changes should provide for in-
dividual discretionary review of each project and some mechanism,
including specific standards, for determining whether or .not a project
qualified for densities in excess of the general plan minimum
densities.
The decision as to how to resolve the inconsistency is, of course,
a' policy question. This memorandum is to point out the necessity
that it be resolved in some manner. As it now stands, the City's
planning processes as they apply to multiple family projects simply
do riot have the proper legal foundation and- are violative of state
law; ' • f
VFB/mla
cc: City Manager
Plann.inci Director
VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR,
City Attorney