Loading...
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.