HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-14; City Council; 8473-1; Work Program for new land use proposalsOil OF CARLSBAD — AGEND BILL
4-1 OJ
CO M3 td•a p,a <u•H )-lP.T3
G OCO -U
cd <U•H Ca t-i^ O
oo >-,
<U -H
T) UaiH 0)O ^3C 4J•H
0 0)
1 I I ioT3 0)(11 MT3 -Hpj n3
0)
B i3
cd «^^w co
en -HB G cdcd o 4-1
)-l -H Q)
W) 4-1 T3o r** in B np. a) obd '1 I,vj m^ cno u-i cu
St O 4J
0)
rC
4-1 C
CO -H
-H B
T3 CU
01 0) 0)
> J3 W
O 4J >— '^1
CX C
CU -H •cd cn
CO 4->
-H 4-1 C
•H O Q)
U 01 S
fi v-> 33 O OO S-i OO
vO
00I
o
oo
MTG._
DEPT..
/14/86
TITLE:
LAND PROPOSALS
DEPT.
CITY ATTY.
CITY MGR..
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
City Council APPROVE the work program as contained in the attached
memorandum to the City Manager. Direct the City Attorney's Office
to prepare an ordinance to suspend the acceptance of new
applications and the approval of new final maps with certain
exemptions.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On December 10, 1985, the City Council approved in concept several
new land use proposals. Staff was directed to return with a work
program to implement the proposals. The attached memorandum to the
City Manager from the Planning Director dated January 8, 1986
provides background information on this matter and recommends a
work program.
If the Council approves the program, the recommendation would then
be to have an ordinance prepared which would suspend the acceptance
of new applications and place a hold on the approval of additional
final maps with certain exemptions until the land use proposals are
implemented.
EXHIBITS
1. Memorandum to the City Manager dated January 8, 1986
NOTE;
The purpose of this proposal is to identify the Planning Department
work program and to provide sufficient staff time to implement the
Council directed actions over the next six months.
This proposal would put a "hold" on 8000 units until Council
approved land use controls are in place.
It would "stop" new applications for large residential
projects.
It would allow residential projects already under construction
to go ahead.
- It would exempt commercial, industrial, redevelopment, public
projects, and residential projects of less than 4 units.
JANUARY 8f 1986
TO: FRANK ALESHIRE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: Planning Director
WORK PROGRAM FOR LAND USE PROPOSALS
On December 10, 1985, the City Council approved several new
growth management proposals. In developing a work program to
implement these proposals, staff took two major items into
consideration which staff believes need to be addressed:
1) Present work load
2) Present level of approved projects - to determine
whether and how they should be subjected to new
proposals
A) Present Workload
With the addition of the new growth management proposals,
staff is presently attempting to handle four major categories or
areas of work. These are as follows:
1. Current Development Projects - At this time, there are
65 projects for which applications have been submitted
and are pending review by staff and the Planning
Commission (attached Exhibit "A"). These include ten
major master plans or specific plans and a potential of
2,300 residential units. The majority of staff's time
is presently committed to current development.
2. Citizens Committee Recommendations - 26 tasks were
identified as a result of the 1985 Citizens review of
the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Attached
Exhibit "B" outlines the tasks and provides their
status. In summary, 3 of the tasks have been completed,
8 are in the process of being completed. There is much
more work to be done in completing the tasks and
additional priority needs to be given to this work
program.
3. Coastal Planning - With the approval of the LCP, coastal
planning needs to be assigned to the planning staff so
that it can be integrated with existing staff work. The
implementing ordinances will be prepared and adopted
and all planners will be trained on the LCP procedures
within the next six months.
4) New Growth Management Proposals - These include: a
review of all existing master plans four years after
their adoption (a list of the master plans is attached
as Exhibit "C") starting at this time with the La Costa
Master Plan; and the development of a 3-part growth
management strategy consisting of an urban land reserve,
phasing and public facilities adequacy program. The
details of these programs will be complicated and will
involve a substantial time commitment from staff.
B) Present Level of Approved Projects
One of staff's major considerations in formulating a work
program was to address the projects which have already been
approved but haven't started construction. Staff's concern is
whether the development of these projects should be required to
comply with any new programs or conditions which might result
from the new growth management proposals. One of the results
will probably be new funding mechanisms or alternatives to
finance public improvements and infrastructure. There is a
concern that many of these approved projects might move forward
and start construction while the new proposals are being
implemented and, therefore, be exempted from any new
requirements. Staff will have a large-scale exhibit at the
Council meeting which shows the location of these projects. For
purposes of consideration, they have been grouped into four
categories: currently developing, final map, approved and
pending. In terms of residential units, the approximate numbers
are as follows:
Approximate Number of Units
Without Building Permits
Developing Projects - 2,000
Projects with Final Maps - 462
Approved Projects - 5,914*
Pending Projects - 2,302
* Does not include parcel maps (4 units or less) or
existing individual, single family lots still vacant
(estimation = 500 units).
This information confirms what staff has indicated on
several previous occasions. In terms of residential development,
the city is about one-third developed, one-third is in some stage
of developing or requesting approvals and one-third is vacant and
not yet seeking any development approvals.
C) Alternatives for Work Program
Staff considered a number of alternatives and variations
thereof for recommending a work strategy. These range from
putting everything on "hold" to the other extreme which would be
"business as usual" with staff working on new programs as time
allows (estimated time schedule - 1 year + )•
The problem with putting everything on "hold" is that
there are already a number of projects that are under
construction and commitments have been made for financing, fees
have been paid and infrastructure already built or bonded.
The problem with the "business as usual" approach is
that many approved projects could start construction and not be
subject to new programs or conditions.
Staff has developed an alternative that is somewhat of a
middle-ground approach to the two extreme alternatives listed
above. It would allow the projects that are already developing
to continue as well as some other exempted projects. All other
projects would be held-up until a phasing program could be
developed for the portion of the city in which the project is
located. Staff, possibly working with a consultant, would
identify the items which need to be addressed in a Phasing Plan.
The responsibility for technically preparing a Phasing Plan for
consideration by the city would be placed on the developers or
property owners in each area of the city. This would relieve
staff of the burden of doing all the technical work but it would
also leave the timing of the preparation of the Plan and
continued development in the hands of the property owners. No
new applications would be accepted for six months so that staff
could work on reducing the backlog of projects already submitted.
The strategy is outlined in greater detail below.
D) Recommended Work Strategy
1. No new applications accepted. Exemptions:
A) minor subdivisions (parcel maps)
B) redevelopment permits
C) governmental agencies projects
2. Continue to issue building permits for:
A) projects already under construction
B) redevelopment permits
C) minor subdivisions (4 units or less)
D) commercial & industrial projects
E) infill projects (northwest quadrant of city)
F) already approved final maps
If PFF revised, these projects would be required to pay new
fee when building permit is applied for.
3. Place a hold on all other final maps and building
permits until phasing program is developed for area of
city in which project is located.
4. Divide city into individual master plan, urban reserve
and community planning areas for phasing program
purposes.
5. Identify elements and items which must be addressed in
phasing program and urban land reserve program.
6. Allow property owners, developers, master plan
representatives to develop phasing program for their
areas based upon items identified by staff in step 5.
Once phasing program accepted by the city, final maps
and building permits could again be approved.
7. Staff would work on following:
A) General Plan Citizens Committee recommendations
(individual planners would be assigned all remaining
tasks).
B) Implementing ordinances for Local Coastal Program
and consolidation into normal planning review
process.
C) Review of Phasing Programs and Master Plans when
submitted by property owners.
D) Processing current projects for which applications
have already been accepted (priority established by
application submittal date).
Estimated time: 6 months
Staff will attempt to be prepared at the City Council
meeting of January 14, 1986 to address and answer questions
concerning other alternatives or variations if the Council
wishes to consider other strategies.
MICHAEL J. UOLZMlfeCER
Planning Director
MJH/ar
Attachments
1 . Exhibit "A"
2. Exhibit "B"
3. Exhibit "C"
TKBBMPIVKU SCHBDOUP AS OF JMPMCf 10, 1986
PROJECT PROJECT
JMOMg 15, 1986
Design Review Board
HP/CUP 84-3 (A) (Carlsbad Inn)
• - JABOARY 22, 1986
CT 84-41/PUD-77 (Alga Hills)
GPA 85-13/ZC-342 (City of Carlsbad-Alga Hills)
ZCA-187 (City of Carlsbad-Parking Standards)
CUP-280 (Carlsbad School District)
CT 84-7/CP-276 (La Costa Racquet CLub)
(Information Item)
SP-186(A) (Economy Inns)
COP-275 (Pacific Bell)
AV (Loy)
SDP~~54"-8(A) (Brehm)
CUP-245 (Western Bankers)
5r 1986
Planning Commission
CT 85-23/CP-320 (Hosp Grove)
ZCA-189 (Hotel & Motel Standards)
Design Review Board
RP 85-18 (Carlsbad Inn Tennis Club)
FEBRUARY 26 , 1986
SDP 85-7 (Levante Properties)
Brian
Chris/Charlie
Chris/Charlie
Brian/Mike
Mike
Brian/Mike
Dee/Mike
Dee/MikeEd
Mike
Chris
Nancy/Charlie
Chris/Charlie
Nancy/Charlie
Nancy/Charlie
* MEETING CLOSED
APRIL 9, 1986
SDP 85-11 (Alicante View Apartments)
CT 85-16/PUD-85 (Lancaster Townhomes)
Dee/Mike
Dee/Mike
SUBMITTAL
DATE
11/15/83
11/15/83
5/23/84
5/10/84
1/9/85
1/4/85
1/22/85
2/13/85
3/19/85
3/14/85
4/25/85
5/3/85
5/10/85
9/19/84
8/9/85**/ */ w«*
8/5/85
8/23/85
8/21/85
8/21/85
9/10/85
9/1 1/85
9/3/85
9/9/85
10/1/85
10/4/85
10/17/85
10/24/85
1 1/6/85« « /•» /ae1 1/7/85
11/13/85
1 1/22/85
1 1/20/85
11/13/85
11/20/85
11/27/85
1 1/21/85
12/4/85
11/13/85
1 1/27/85
12/11/85
1/7/86
11/15/85
12/12/85
HOLDIBG
EIR 83-10/GPA/LU 83-1 9/
ZC-295 (Bressi Ranch)
GPA/UJ 83-18/ZC-294 (Bressi)
RP 84-7 (Town Square)
PCD-62 (Navarra Apts.)
CT 85-1/CP-307 (La Costa Townhomes)
ZC-324/GPA/LO 85-1/MP-176 (South Coast Park)
GPA/LU 85-2/MP-177/CT 85-35 (HP!)
CT 85-12/SP-198 (County - Faraday Business Park)
RP 85-7 (Pucci)
EIR 85-2/ZC-328/CT 85-25 (Rancho Del Cerro)
COP-274 (Hughes Tech. Center)
CT 85-17/ZC-331/SP-199 (College Business Park)
EIR 85-3/MP-179/ZC-332 (Evans Point)
OIP-261 (Pacific Coast Hotel)
GPA/H? ^^~4/SC»^^A (*T*jM"n1p1~q f"m'1^hi^)
PCD-88 (La Costa Village Apartments)
CUP-276 (Boys 6 Girls Club)
CT 85-27/POD-92 (Kelly Ranch - Area E)
CT 85-26/PUD-91 (Kelly Ranch - Area I)
CT 85-34/ZC-341 (View Point) (Formerly Mola)
CT 85-28/CP-321 (La Costa Valley Terrace)
RP 85-17 (Johnston)
RP 85-19 (California Builders)
CT 85-29/PUD-94/SDP-85-12/
CUP-278 (Poinsettia Village)
CT 85-32/POD-93 (CRC - Series 10,000)
MP-134(C)/CT 85-33/ZC-339/
SDP 85-14 (Scripps Manorial Hospital)
ZC-340/SP-200 (Carlsbad Airport
Business Center)
CUP-279 (Chevron)
GPA/IAJ 03—12 (Coast waste Management;
CT 85-36 (Carlsbad Ocean View Estates)
SDP 85-17 (Brodine)
CUP-281 (Jefferson House II)
CUP-205(A) (Crazy Burro)
SDP 85-16 (Robert Hale)
SP-25(C)/CUP-282 (Rockwell's)
SP-180(C) (Carlsbad Research Center)
CUP-283 (Union Oil)
SDP 85-20 (Forsyth)
CT 85-38/PUD-96 (BLEP - Phase III)
RP 85^22 (Trautman)
SP-201 (Ponto Drive Specific Plan)
SDP 85-1 5/CT 85-37/PUD-95
(Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park, Phase II)
CT 85-39/POD-97 (Laurel Tree)
Mike
Mike
Nancy/Charlie
Nancy/Charlie
Nancy/Charlie
Dee/Mike
Chris/Charlie
Nancy/Charlie
Ed/Mike
Nancy/Charlie
Nancy/Charlie
Chris/Charlie
Nancy/Charlie
Charlie
Dee/Mike
Chris/Charlie
Brian/Charlie
Mike
Dee/Mike
Dee/Mike
Nancy/Charlie
Chris/Charlie
Dee/Mike
Dee/Mike
Chris/Mike
Dee/Mike
Nancy/Mike
Brian/Mike
Nancy/Mike
Brian/Mike
Chris/Charlie
Dee/Mike
Nancy/Charlie
Dee/Mike
Dee/Mike
Dee/Mike
Nancy/Charlie
Chris/Charlie
Brian/Mike
Nancy/Mike
Chris/Charlie
Nancy/Mike
K
ffi
m
xLU
EXHIBIT "C'
APPROVED MASTER PLANS
MASTER PLAN DATE OF MOST RECENT ADOPTION
Batiquitos Lagoon Educational
Park
Carrillo Ranch
Calavera Hills
Kelly Ranch
La Costa
October 15, 1985
January 5, 1982
February 21, 1984
September 18, 1984
October 5, 1982
NOTE: This list does not include old Master Plans which have no
real large vacant areas remaining to be developed.
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
3088 PIO PICO DR. . SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008
P.O. BOX 11 29 . PHONE . AREA CODE 619'.'729-4987
January 14, 1986
City Council
CITY OP CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: AGENDA BILL ITEM NO. 2 - WORK PROGRAM
FOR NEW LAND-USE PROPOSALS
Dear Council Members:
Tonight the Council will be considering a very important work
program for the Planning Department of the City of Carlsbad. In
reviewing the Agenda Bill, there are some excellent items that
your Planning staff needs to address.
As I understand, the intent of the Council's action tonight is to
allow some breathing room for your Planning staff to carry out
the work programs as addressed by the staff and the Council. I
agree with the majority of the work program items, as listed in
the Agenda Bill, but would like to discuss some of them.
However, before that discussion, I would like to comment that I
think the Council needs to make a conscious effort over the next
3-6 months to not overload the Planning staff with new items
requiring their attention. In the recent past, the Council has
directed the Planning staff, collectively and individually, to
provide reports for them and to work on other time-consuming proj-
ects. If we are truly trying to generate time for the Staff, I
think we need to all be consistent and not overload the current
Staff with new projects.
The following comments are directed to Paragraph D, Recommended
Work Strategy, starting on Page 3:
I agree entirely with Items 1-7, with the exception of
Item No. 3. I do not see that placing a hold on all
final maps and building permits until the phasing pro-
gram is developed for the area of the city in which the
project is located would generate extra time for the
Planning staff. These are basically engineering and
building functions and do not take a significant amount
of Planning staff's time. I would also like to add a
section to D-l: "D. Non-residential applications."
Council Members
January 14, 1986
Page Two
RE: AGENDA BILL ITEM NO.
Currently your Planning staff is extremely over worked. I
suggest that the following items be considered:
0 Immediately hire two outside planners who recently
left the employ of the City of Carlsbad. These two
people are Bill Hofman and Tom Hagaman. Both have
excellent qualifications and both have worked for
Mike Holzmiller in the recent past. I would sug-
gest that you hire these two individuals, or people
of similar qualifications, for a period of 60-90
days to work directly for Mike Holzmiller in com-
pleting the work program that the Council is direc-
ting.
0 Request developers to voluntarily withhold applica-
tions for a period of three months while the
Planning staff is completing their work program.
0 Agree that the Council not request the Planning
staff perform any additional work projects, that
are not necessary to be started, until after the
work program is completed.
Again, the basic intent of Agenda Bill No. 2 tonight is to gener-
ate time for the Planning staff to implement the Council-directed
work programs. We think the program suggested above would accom-
plish this and that a period of three months or less should be
adequate. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. If
you have any questions, I would be happy to address them for you.
Sincerely,
<obert C. Ladwig
RCL:kd-l