HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-14; City Council; 6557; Zoning/General Plan ConsistencyCITY OF CARLSBAD
f/ INITIAL; MJH:ar
AGENDA BILL NO: Cff O «J I DEPT HD.|fcM4 -K T
DATE: APRIL 14, 1981 CTY. ATTY. \J f—/j)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING CTY. MGR. /) /S/
SUBJECT:
ZONING/GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER;
At a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop last year, the planning
staff was directed to review the matter of inconsistency between zoning and the
General Plan and to propose a program for eliminating the inconsistency
problem. The problem is that the city presently has several residential zones
which permit densities which exceed the maximum densities permitted by the Land
Use Element of the General Plan. After a thorough review of several
alternative ways of solving this problem, staff is recommending that the
Council direct staff to proceed with a comprehensive program to amend the
inconsistent zones but, at the same time, to work on developing a new, higher
density General Plan designation and implementing zone to be applied only to
very limited locations in the city where the Council definitely desires to see
higher density development. The reason for this recommendation is that while
it appears to be the desire to retain the basic framework of the General Plan
as it relates to residential densities, it appears equally desirable in certain
instances and at certain specific locations to encourage the construction of
units, especially apartments, at a higher level of density similar to what is
presently allowed in the Zoning Code.
A detailed analysis of the other alternatives which were reviewed by staff are
contained in the attached report to the City Manager dated February 27, 1981.
These can be discussed and considered should the City Council not wish to
create a new, higher density residential General Plan designation and new
implementing zone.
It should be pointed out that this is the first part of a two-part process to
gain complete consistency between the General Plan and zoning. The second step
in the process; which is being addressed as a separate project and which is
currently being worked on by staff, is establishing more specific criteria for
determining where within the density range of a General Plan designation
a project should be approved. A report on this matter will be presented to the
Council in a few months.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
None required at this time. Pny subsequent action to amend the Zoning Code or
the General Plan would require environmental review.
FISCAL IMPACT
Substantial commitment of staff time.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recormended that the City Council direct staff to initiate the
appropriate public hearings to eliminate the present inconsistency problem
between zoning and the city's General Plan utilizing a program consisting ofthe following:
1. £mend the Zone Code to reduce the maximum stated densities of the R-3L,
R-3, R-P, R-T and R-W Zones, so that they are consistent with the present
density designations of the General Plan.
2. Anend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by establishing a new
residential designation which permits a specified, higher residential
density range (i.e., very-high density - 30 to 40 dwelling units per
acre).
3. Anend the Zone Code to create a new zone to implement the new residential
designation of the General Plan (i.e., R-4 - Maximum 40 units per acre).
ATTACHMENT
1. Staff Report to City Manager dated, February 27, 1981
Council Action:
4-14-81 Council directed staff to initiate the appropriate public hearings to
eliminate the present inconsistency problem between zoning and the City's
General Plan utilizing the above recommended program.
AGENDA BILL PAGE TWO (2)
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 27, 1981
TO: Frank Aleshire, City Manager
FROM: James Hagaman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Zoning/General Plan Consistency
Discussion
At a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop last
year, staff was directed to review the matter of inconsis-
tency between zoning and the General Plan and to propose a
program for eliminating the inconsistency problem. Stated
specifically, the problem is that the city presently has
several residential zones which permit densities which
exceed the maximum densities permitted by the Land Use
Element of the General Plan. A review by staff indicates
that there are five such zones. These are the R-3L, R-3, R-
P, R-T and R-W Zones.
Attached Exhibit "A" includes a chart showing the densities
permitted by all city residential zones and a second chart
showing the densities permitted by the land use designations
of the General Plan. Attached Exhibit "B" contains a matrix
which shows which zones are consistent with the General Plan
designations. These exhibits indicate that the R-3L, R-3,
R-P, R-T, and R-W Zones allow maximum densities which do not
correspond with the maximum densities permitted by any of
the density ranges of the General Plan designations. For
example, the uppermost residential density recommended by
the General Plan is 30 units per acre, however, the R-3 Zone
could conceivably allow up to 51 units per acre if dwelling
units are proposed and up to 96 units per acre if sleeping
units are proposed. What this means is that unless a devel-
oper wishes to voluntarily propose a project with less
density than the maximum that is permitted within these
zones or unless a subdivision map is required in conjunction
with the proposed project which legally requires a General
Plan consistency finding, the city could be faced with the
problem of approving a project which exceeds the uppermost
residential density recommended by the General Plan. The
matrix on Exhibit "B" also points out that except for the P-
C Zone, the city does not really have a specific zone which
precisely implements the density range permitted by the RH
designation of the General Plan.
There are several alternative ways to solve this inconsis-
tency problem. The most obvious is to 1) amend the Zoning
Code to reduce the maximum densities permitted within the
inconsistent zones. A similarly obvious alternative but one
which would be more complex and far-reaching in its impacts
would be to 2) amend the General Plan by increasing the
maximum densities permitted to reflect the inconsistent
zones.
From input which was given by members of the Council and
Commission at the workshop, it appears that neither one of
these alternatives independently would be desirable to the
city. While it appears to be the desire to retain the basic
framework of the General Plan as it relates to residential
densities, it appears equally desirable in certain instances
and at certain specific locations to encourage the construc-
tion of units, especially apartments, at a higher level of
density similar to what is presently allowed in the Zoning
Code. Therefore, staff would propose a third alternative
for addressing the inconsistency problem which would involve
somewhat of a combination of the first two alternatives. It
would consist of 3) amending the Zoning Code by reducing the
maximum stated densities of the existing inconsistent zones
so that they correspond with the present Land Use Element of
the General Plan. This would solve the immediate problem of
inconsistency. At the same time, staff would recommend that
the General Plan be amended to create a new higher density
designation and a new zone to implement the designation.
This new designation and zone could then be very restric-
tively and judiciously applied only to limited locations
where the city definitely feels that higher densities are
appropriate and desirable rather than the numerous, un-
restricted areas where some of the existing inconsistent
zones such as R-3 are located.
A final alternative, should the City Council not wish to
create a new, higher density General Plan designation and a
new implementing zone, would be to 4) amend the Zoning Code
to reduce the maximum densities of the inconsistent zones
and, at the same time, amend the text of the General Plan to
include wording which would permit a density increase (i.e.
50%) for the construction of permanent apartment units.
Staff does not believe that this approach is the best alter-
native from a comprehensive planning perspective and feels
that, if the city really desires to allow higher densities
than presently permitted by the General Plan at certain,
limited locations in the city, the third alternative listed
above is the most appropriate. Staff has, however, dis-
cussed this final alternative with the City Attorney and he
believes that the alternative is acceptable from a legal
standpoint.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council direct staff to
initiate the appropriate public hearings to eliminate the
present inconsistency problem between zoning and the city's
General Plan utilizing the third alternative discussed
above. This alternative would consist of the following
actions:
1. Amend the Zone Code to reduce the maximum stated
densities of the R-3L, R-3, R-P, R-T, and R-W Zones, so
that they are consistent with the present density
designations of the General Plan.
-2-
2. Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by
establishing a new residential designation which
permits a specified, higher residential density range
(i.e. very-high density - 30 to 40 dwelling units per
acre).
3. Amend the Zone Code to create a new zone to implement
the new residential designation of the General Plan
(i.e. R-4 - Maximum 40 units per acre).
MJH:jt
2/27/81
— 3 —
EXHIBIT "A"
CHART !CHART 2
20NING - GENERAL PLAN
Perm!tied
Designation Density
E-A
R-A
R-E
R-1
R-2
R-3L
R-3
R-P
R-T
R-W
RD-M
P-C
1 Unit/10 Acres
5.8 Units/Acre
1 Unit/Acre,-
5.8 Units/Acre
Less than 6,000 Sq.Ft.
= 17 Units/Acre
More than 6,000 Sq.Ft.
= 14 Units/Acre
51 Units/Acre
51 Units/Acre for Dwelling
Unit..
96 Units/Acre for Sleeping
Units
Same as R-3
Less than 9,999 Sq.Ft.
= 43/Acre
10,000 - 14,000 = 48/Acre
15,000 - 19,900 - 54/Acre
20,000 - 39,900 - 58 Acre
40,000 + = 67 Acre
54 Units/Acre
Conformance with General
Plan
Conformance with General
Plan
Designation
Residential Low Density
(R-L)
Residential Low Medium
Density (RLM)
Residential Medium
Density (R-M)
Residential Medium High
Density (RMH)
Permitted
Density
Residential High Density
(RH)
0-1.5 Units/Acre*
0-4 Units/Acre*
4-10 Units/Acre
10-20 Units/Acre
20-30 Units/Acre
* 25% over maximum density permitted per
General Plan text.
EXHIBIT "B"
ZONING/GENERAL. PLAN CONSISTENCY
E-A
R-A
R-E
R-1
R-2
R-3L
R-3
R-P
R-T
R-W
RD-M
p-c
RL RLM RM RMH RH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X = CONSISTENT - The zone permits a maximum density which does not
exceed the maximum density permitted by the General Plan designation.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 7, 1981
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning Director J^/V'
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Resolution 5057, approved April 19, 1977, requires the Planning
Commission to review a coordinated list of proposed public works
for conformity to the General Plan. The list of public works is
compiled from information sent to the city by the special dis-
tricts within the city boundaries. Resolution 5057 also requires
the Planning Commission to report to the City Council on their
determination.
The list was reviewed by Planning Commission on June 10th and was
determined to be consistent.
Attached for your information is the report to the Planning Com-
mission.
JCH:JC:ls
Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 1813
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 10, 1981
f
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Proposed Public Works and General Plan Consistency
Hearing
Government Code Section 65401 requires the governing body.of any
special district or school district whose jurisdiction lies
wholly or partially within "a city with an adopted General Plan
to submit a list to the city of proposed public works recom-
mended for planning, initiation or construction in the ensuing
fiscal year.
On April 19, 1977 the Carlsbad City Council adopted Resolution
No.. 5057 requesting special districts to submit a list of pro-
posed public works every year to the City and directing the pre-
paration of a coordinated program of proposed public works. A
letter was sent on March 4, 1981 to fifteen (15) special
districts whose territory lies wholly or partially within the
City of Carlsbad. To date, responses have been received from
fourteen districts. Only the San Marcos Water District has not
responded.
The attached list of proposed public works has been prepared from
the information supplied by the districts. Some of the informa-
tion provided is very sketchy since districts have not as yet
finalized their plans. This is the best information available at
this time.
Also, prior to the acquisition of real property or construction
of new facilities, Government Code 65402 provides for a specific
review on a project-by-project basis for conformity to the
General Plan.
The attached list is being submitted to the Planning Commission
for review. A report to the City Council regarding conformity
to the Carlsbad General Plan will be prepared after the Planning
Commission acts upon this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A General Plan consistency finding is a statutory exemption.
(Section 15072 of CEQA). Each project approved will have
environmental review before the building permit is issued.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the following
projects consistent with the General Plan of Carlsbad.
ATTACHMENTS
List of proposed projects and maps
Resolution No. 1813
Section 65401 of the California Government Code
JCtwl
—2—
APPLICANT PROJECT REASON FOR
CONFORMITY
1) Costa Real Muni-
cipal Water District
2) Leucadia County
Water District
3) Leucadia County
Water District
Tri-Agency Pipeline
Extension; Extension
of a 14" pipeline
3000 feet west and
south to Squires Dam
Cost: $400,000
Transmission and
Pumping Facilities -
Phase III - Additions
and modifications at
"both the Leucadia and
Batiquitos pumping
stations to increase
pumping capacity.
Cost: $700,000
Truck Sewer to Encina
2000' extension of
sewer line south from
Encina Water Pollu-
tion Control Facility.
Will parallel exist-
ing line.
All three projects
provide similar
types of services.
The statement of
consistency, there-
fore, for all three
is also similar.
The goal of the
Land Use Element
is to guide the
physical devel-
opment of the City
in an orderly, func-
tional and compati-
ble manner. The
Public Facilities
Element goal states
that adequate pub-
lic services and
facilities should
be available to
meet the needs of
the City. All three
projects are neces-
sary to ensure con-
tinued compliance
with these goals.
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1813
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OP THE
CITY OP CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, FINDING GENERAL •
PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR A PROGRAM OF PROPOSED
PUBLIC WORKS.
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
CASE NO: PCD 3(E)
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65401 provides
for the preparation of a coordinated program for proposed public
works, and
Whereas, Government Code Section 65401 provides that the
governing bodies of any special district or school district whose
jurisdiction lies wholly or partially within the city and whose
functions include remodeling, preparing plans for, or constructing
major public works, shall submit a list of the proposed public
works recommended for planning, initiation, or construction during
the ensuing fiscal year to an agency designated by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65402 provides that no real
property shall be acquired for public purposes and that no real
property shall be disposed of by a public agency unless such
property has been submitted to and reported upon by the planning
agency as to conformity with the adopted general plan; and
WHEREAS, ON April 19, 1977, the City Council resolved as
follows:
1. That special districts and school districts located wholly
or partially within the City of Carlsbad submit a list of proposed
public works recommended for planning, initiation, or construction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
during the ensuing fiscal year to the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad prior to May 1 of each year.
2. That the City Manager cause to be prepared a coordinated
program of proposed public works for submittal to the Planning
Commission.
3. That the Planning Commission review the coordinated
program for conformity to the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad
and report its findings to the City Council.
WHEREAS, a program of public works has been prepared and has
been submitted to the Planning Commission for review of conformity
to the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad.
' - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED hy the Planning Commis-
sion of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. The attached program of proposed public works is
consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan.
2. Said finding of conformity of the program of proposed
public works shall be reported to the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad Planning Commission on the 10th day of June, 1981 by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Marcus, Commissioners Rombotis, Farrow,
Schlehuber, Jose, Friestedt and L'Heureux.
'NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
25
ATTEST:
26
27
28
J-tfMES' '#. HAGAMM? Se£r e tary
ftCUS, Chairman
XCARLSBAD
PC RESO #1813
OCEANSIDE
HWY 78
BUENA VISTA
LAGOON^
\ .
SCALE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGUA HEDIONDA
LAGOON
LQARLSBAD
T»BATIQUITOS -^
LAGOON
PACIFIC OCEAN
TRI-AGENCY PIPELINE EXTENSION
TRANSMISSION and PUMPING FACILITIES
TRUCK SEWER TO ENCINA
§ 65401. Submission to official agency of list of proposed public
works recommended: Duty of official agency to prepare co-ordinated
plan: Review and report thereon
If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, within such time
as may be fixed by the legislative body, each county or city officer,
department, board, or commission, and each governmental body,
commission, or board, including the governing body of any special
district or school district, whose jurisdiction lies wholly or partially
within the county or city, whos« functions include recommending*
preparing plans for, or constructing, major public works, shall submit
to the official agency, as designated by the respective county board of
supervisors or city council, a list of the proposed public works
recommended for planning, initiation or construction during the
ensuing fiscal year. The official agency receiving the list of proposed,
public works shall list and classify all such recommendations and
shall_ prepare a coordinated program of proposed public works for the
ensuing fiscal year. Such coordinated program shall be submitted to
the county or city planning agency for review and report to said
official agency as. to conformity with the adopted general plan or part
thereof.
Added StaU 1965 ch 1880 §5; Amended Stats 1970 ch 1590 §5.