HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-02; City Council; 8008; REPORT ON INTERIM GROWTH POLICIES DURING GENERAL PLAN REVIEW<
-4 2 8 k' $8 5 8 .;
E!!
6G
8,
$2
kO au
Oh @A ha
3 8 .g
$3
hf8
5 -3
$8
2 .El
48
85
-lJ -rl m ua am
$3
a
5k
-4 c K:
In a3 I nl I 4
2 9 t; 4
d 0 z 3 0 0
OF CARLSBAD - AGENWBILL $7'
I
DEPT. AB# TQor TITLE:
MTG. 1/2/85
DEPT. pm CITY I
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
GI@
REPORT ON INTERIM GROWTH POLICIES CITY, .. DURING GENERAL PLAN REVIEW.
Review attached report to the City Manager and direct staff implement any additional or refined policies as. the City Cou determines to be appropriate.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On December 11, 1984 the City Council adopted two interim gr
policies which are in effect while the general plan is being
reviewed. At the same time, the Council directed staff to r with a report listing possible additional policies. The-att report to the City Manager contains a list of possible addit policies for Council consideration. The report also explain staff is implementing the two policies already approved by Council.
EXHIBITS
1. Staff Report to City Manager dated, December 24, 1984
2. City Manager report on Growth Management, dated January
W a
STAFF REPORT ..
DATE : DECEMBER 24, 1984
TO : FRANK ALESHIRE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: INTERIM GROWTH POLICIES DURING GENERAL PLAN REVIEW
The City Council at its meeting of December 11, 1984 directed
staff to prepare a report listing possible interim growth
policies which could be adopted by the City Council while the
Land Use Element of the General Plm is being reviewed. The
Council has already adopted two interim policies: 1) No
projects shall be approved above the mean density of the genera plan range if there are traffic or circulation impacts which
cannot be mitigated; and 2) No general plan amendments will be
processed unless it is first determined that the amendment will not have an impact on the general plan review. The purpose of
this report is to present a list of possible additional policie:
and to explain how staff is implementing the two policies alreac
approved by Council. It should be emphasized that in preparing
the list of additional policies, staff focused on ones that cou be implemented immediately without requiring the establishment I new, detailed programs which could be very complicated and time. consuming in terms of required analysis.
I. Possible Additional Interim Growth Policies
1. No zone change shall be approved which would increase residential density even if the request is consistent with the present density designation of the general plan. Any zone changes to increase residential densit
would be deemed to be premature pending the general plan review.
2. No extensions shall be granted to previously approved
projects which are due to expire. There are a number of projects which were approved in the past but have not yet commenced construction. These pending project could be impacted by the general plan review. Residential subdivisions are given two years from the date of approval to final. The subdivision ordinance,
however, allows the city to grant two one-year
extensions. These are normally granted by the city ir a routine manner.
0 e
3. The .general plan review shall become the top priority
in terms of scheduling of the work program in the Lanl
Use Planning Office. This would mean rearranuing the
amount of time presently devoted by each planner to t
processing of current development projects so that a more substantial amount of time could be directed to the review of the general plan. One possible advanta of this policy is that it could shorten the total
length of time that it will take to review the genera
plan.
4. No application for new annexations shall be processed
Although many annexation proposals do not directly impact the general plan land use designations, they dl
involve a lot of staff time and are usually proposed
because of a pending development proposal.
11. Implementation of Existing, Approved Interim Policies
The City Council has already adopted the following two policies: "That development projects above the mean density will not be approved if it is shown that there is traffic impact which cannot be mitigated" and " No processing of general plan amendments until the completioi of the review of the land use element."
With respect to the policy on projects above the mean
density, staff will be requiring the application for any
project above the mean to be accompanied by a full-blown, detailed traffic analysis. Staff would use some judgemeni
in terms of requiring this for small, infill projects (i.e.! less than ten units) in an area where staff anticipates no possibility of traffic concerns. The
traffic study would be required to address not only on-sii
and nearby circulation impacts but also area-wide concerns
Also, the study would be required to look at intersection capacity problems as well as just looking at whether the ultimate width of the street can accommodate the traffic
generated by the project. A section will be included in
the staff report to address the traffic issue and to list
the mitigating measures proposed by the applicant and staff.
With respect to the policy on the processing of general
plan amendments, staff is not accepting any applications for amendments. Once an application is accepted, the citi is required under state law to process the application
within a specified period of time or the application is deemed approved. Based upon the Council's discussion when
this policy was adopted, it was understood by staff that
the only exception to this policy would be if it could be demonstrated to the City Council that the review of a specific general plan amendment would in no way impact the
general plan review. Staff is, therefore, informing
applicants that if they believe their amendment proposal would have no impact on the general plan review, a letter
-2-
0 e
explaining their reasons should be submitted to the
city. Staff would then schedule it for City Council
consideration. If the Council agreed with the applicant, the application could be accepted for
processing.
There are several large, major projects that could be
significantly impacted procedurally by this policy. These are
projects that staff knows will be submitted in the near future c for which preliminary plans have already been discussed and
reviewed by staff. The projects are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4. The Coast Waste Management project south of Palomar
5. The Samnis project for an educational park located
The Hunt project north of Batiquitos Lagoon;
The Bressi Ranch project south of Palomar Airport Road and east of El Camino Real;
The South Coast Asphalt project south of Highway 78 an east of El Camino Real;
Airport Road and west of El Camino Real; and possibly
north of Batiquitos Lagoon west of 1-5.
If the City Council is desirous of having staff continue to
process and discuss these projects with the applicants, it would
require further direction from the Council regarding the policy
of not processing general plan amendments. Possible alternative for policy direction are as follows:
1. If the project involves a master plan, a concurrent general plan amendment may be processed. All of the above-listed projects except for the Coast Waste
Nanagement project involve the processing of a master
plan. The purpose of a master plan is to provide more
detail, to refine, the land uses indicated on the
general plan. It is normal that a general plan
amendment will be proposed and processed concurrently
and as a companion item to a master plan.
2. Allow processing of general plan amendments which do
not involve increased residential use or densities.
Submitted by :
Land Use Planning Manager
MJH/ar
-3-
e a
January 2, 1985
TO : CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
On December 11, 1984 Council requested staff to prepare a report
giving a list of options which could be considered as an "interi
growth management policy". This report responds to that request
First let's review recent Council actions which have addressed the growth issue.
1. Density - Gross or Net
On December 4 council appproved a recommendation of Plannin
Commission that we change the method of calculating allowab
density by deleting "undevelopable areas".
The existing General Plan provides that, "All densities are based on the gross acre." (p. 24 Land Use Element)
Planning staff is preparing a report for the Commission
which would define "undevelopable areas" and would change
the zoning ordinance and amend the General Plan.
If adopted that change would reduce allowable densitities
by about 25%.
2. Density - Median
On December 11 Council adopted the following policy:
"That development projects above the mean density will not be approved if it is shown that there is
a traffic impact which cannot be mitigated."
Planning staff is requiring a special traffic study to
be included in the project report.
0 a
CITY COUNCIL
January 2, 1985
Page 2
3. General Plan Admendments
On December 18 Council adopted a policy which states:
... staff will not "process" projects which would
result in a General Plan amendment until completion
of the review of the Land Use Element.
As a result of that policy several large projects such
as, Hunt Properties, Bressi Ranch, South Coast Asphalt,
Coast Waste Management and Sammis are now on hold.
4. Growth Management
On December 11 Council asked for a report listing additiona
options for an interim growth management policy.
The Land Use Planning Manager has listed several options which Council might wish to consider. That report lists the following possibilities:
a) No zone change for increased density,
b) No time extensions for projects already approved,
c) Reassign staff to General Plan review, and
d) No annexations.
Two additional options should be listed:
e) Legal moratorium,
If the intention of the Council is to stop approving
projects which could conflict with future changes
in the General Plan then a moratorium would be more
legally defensible than a series of measures which
would accomplish the same result. The City Attorney
should be consulted on the propriety of the measures
contemplated.
More strict application of current policy on density.
The current General Plan sets up minimum and maximum densities. The minimum is the "guaranteed" density and the maximum is the potential allowable on discreti
of the City Council.
To grant above the minimum it must be found that the project meets various criteria. These criteria are checked by planning staff and are subject to review by Planning Commission and Council. (See attached staff check list.) Without changing policy Council
could more strictly apply the criteria for granting
medium and high densities.
f)
e e
CITY COUNCIL
January 2, 1985
Page 3
Excerpt from p. 24, 25
Land Use Element
"The density ranges established for the medium, medium-higl
and 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 stabil
compatibility with surrounding land uses, flood plain protc
adequacy of public facilities, on-site amenities and preser 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 designat
-
A review of the current General Plan and practices of the staff
and Commission appear to give Council ample discretion to deny
any residential project above the minimum "guaranteed" density.
So if density is the major concern we may not need a new policy.
If however the Council wants to deal with commercial-industrial
projects or is concerned about annexations, coastal projects,
lagoon management or public facility projects, then new policies
might be appropriate.
implemented policy that could get streets, parks, sewers, etc.
built prior to or concurrent with development. The general
practice has been to build public facilities after the need
is established. For example: schools are usually "doubled up"
until enough new children arrive to justify additional classroom
If Council wishes to study the possibility of expediting the
city CIP we could consider that as a growth management (public
facility) strategy. But such a policy would take time to develo
Summary
Staff at this time is havingdifficultyresponding to Council's
desire to "manage growth". It may be that the General Plan review committee will suggest major changes to the General Plan. At the moment that does not seem likely. The fact is that Carls
has many growth management tools already in place. The Public Facility Management System and developer fees assure the public that facilities will be available to accommodate growth. The
Sedway-Cook growth management study of 1981 concluded that a
public facilities management plan was the primary need for
adequate growth management. The PFMS is now in place.
We were unable to come up with a quickly
0 0
CITY COUNCIL
January 2, 1985
Page 4
As previously pointed out, Council can tighten up on densities
if desired.
In addition we are launching a major citizen review of the Gener
Plan. That review will focus on perceived problems and solution
So, what is needed to deal with interim problems? It would
be most helpful to staff if Council could more clearly identify
what growth problems we need to solve and what results we need
to attain. If we understand what Council wants done it will
be easier to suggest appropriate solutions.
The fact is that in the last six months development in Carlsbad
has slowed down partly because the Council and Commission have
been tougher on developers. At the same time the Council has
authorized a "speed up" in parks and street improvement projects
These actions should resolve some of the concerns felt by Counci
Members.
m
FRANK ALESHIRE
FA:b
Attachment
0 0
. CRITERIA-DENSITY DETERMINATION
I. Site Constraints
1. Topography
2. Lot Configuration Y 3. Environmental Resources
11. On-Site Amenities/Design
1. Overall Design
2. Recreational Facilities
3. Architecture __
111. Location/Off-site Amenities
1. Proximity to Recreational Resources
2. Proximity to Services - Shopping
3. View-Beach, Lagoon 4. Proximity to Employment Centers
IV. Land Use Compatibility
1. Density of Adjacent Projects
2. Proximity to Noise - Freeway
V. Public Facilities
1. Adequacy of Street/Access
2. Adequacy of Drainage & Sewer System
VI. Other
1. Implementation of Other Goals/Programs in General
Plan.
A. Affordable Housing
B. Rental Housing
C. Redevelopment
"Check list used by Planners to determine if
densities above minimum meet General Plan
criteria. Dec. 1984."
LL= i2/dF,8
I a 1) -3 ,- t-'r 1 **
i
LIGHTFOOT &# ASSOCIATES
LAND USE PLANNING CONSULTANTS
MEMBER. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PLANNERS
702 Fourth St 0 Oceanside, CA92054 0 (619) 722 0 1924
December 27, 1984
City of Carlsbad
City Council
1200 Elm Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: Consideration of General Plan Amendment Proposals Filed
in Conjunction with a Master Plan Study.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
We recently became aware of your resolution to evoke a moratorium
on all General Plan Amendments until such time that the City is
able to conduct an extensive review of land use policies and
goals. We commend you for your concern for the future direction
and type of growth in Carlsbad, and for your action, which will
result in a careful consideration of land use issues through a
community wide review process.
As planners, we do have a concern about the far reaching
implications of such a generalized and all encompassing hault to
the planning process. We would ask you to consider a more
defined application of your policy and specifically that you exclude those General Plan Amendments filed concurrently with a
Master Plan proposal.
The Master Plan process as established by the City of Carlsbad,
is essentially a refinement of the General Plan and ensures that
the public, Planning Commission and City Council will participate
in an extensive review of goals, policies and standards for
implementation on large (over 100 acres) parcels of land. In a
sense a Master Plan is a privately initiated, but publicly
reviewed and approved "Special Study" such as those envisioned
through your 1985 Land Use Element review process.
Accepting applications for these more extensively documented
proposals would not constitute a deviation from your review goals, but instead would enhance your abilities to carefully
consider larger land areas in light of the planning and
environmental studies which must be prepared in conjunction with
an application for a combined General Plan/Master Plan action.
.- 1) e
t. ..
City of Carlsbad
City Council
December 27, 1984
Page 2
Our planning firm has been retained since May of 1984 to develop
a land use proposal for the 212 acre South Coast Asphalt Products Company property (151 acres in Carlsbad) at the southwest corner
of College Boulevard and Highway 78. We were originally hired
when your planning staff recommended that our client reconsider
their original application and hire a planning consultant to
study this complex site in more depth.
In addition to their pending application for a General Plan
Amendment concurrent with a Master Plan, the South Coast Asphalt
property is located in an infill area presently surrounded by
approved commercial and residential development. The property is
entirely visible from Highway '78 and has direct access from the
Highway 78/College Boulevard interchange. Major changes to the cities planned infrastructure will not be required in order to service this property.
Over the last year we have engaged experts to conduct conceptual
grading studies, a mine reclamation study, geology and soils
research, biology, hydrology, archaeological and cultural resource
studies, as well as marketing recommendations for the site. We
are ready to submit the results of our extensive research for
your review. However, as a result of your recent action,
your staff cannot accept an application for any part of our
proposal due to the general plan action necessary to implement
the proposal. In our view, it would be most beneficial for you
to be able to consider this application as well as other General Plan/Master Plan proposals in conjunction with your overall review process.
Thank you for your consideration.
LML/LAH/lam
b 37E;Gq 6
r. November 28, 1984 f?r ,vi,/- L 5 .-/&,&L- L
.i 5. :
TO : CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Councilmember Lewis
I would like the following topics listed 011 the agenda for Council
discussion;
1. Policy on density approvals during General Plan review. I am propc
that the Council adopt an interim policy limiting density to the
mid-point of the density range until the General Plan review proce:
is completed. I am concerned that the approval of density exceedii
the mid-point may adversely affect traffic circulation, create
pressure on other public facilities, and prejudice future decisionk
on revising land use densities during the General Plan review.
2. The Public Facility Fee should be reviewed to determine if it is
adequate to fund required public facilities.
Policy of Council should be to require dedication of park land
"up front" in master plan areas. Can the City admend master plans
to require dedication "up front" upon approval of master plans rat1
than as subdivision occurs.
3.
4. Appointment of a Blue Ribbon Committee to determine future senior
citizens program. Should senior citizens become a direct city proi
remain independent, or should some other alternative be considered'.
/ L
COUNCILMEMBER CLAUDE LEWIS (/'q-?/5 ,;'
CL:b J!
COUNCIL 12-4-84 The mtter was continued to the next meting.
ACTION: 12-11-84 Council determined during general plan review as fc Not to process any GPA's r not to approve projects nean density if traffic impacts cannot be mitigateC
and directed staff to prepare a report containing a on possible implemntation of an interim growth mar plan.