Loading...
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.