Loading...
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