HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-04-18; City Council; 9982; CONCURRENT PROCESSING OF LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLANS AND MASTER PLANS - ZONE CODE AMENDMENT (ZCA 88-09)NS - ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Coun Resolution No. %q e P&,l approving the Negati ve Decl arat i on i ssui Planning Director on November 9, 1988, and introduce Ordinance No. amending Section 21.90.030(c) by the addition of Section 13 which would concurrent processing of Local Facilities Management Plans with Master related actions.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On September 13, 1988, the City Council considered this Zone Code Amendn would allow for the concurrent processing of Local Facilities Managen (LFMPs) with Master Plans and related actions. At that time, the Cit referred this item to the Planning Commission for review. The Commission, at its November 16, 1988 meeting, considered the proposed
cr) Amendment and unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2797 (Exhi bit 2) re( approval of Zone Code Amendment 88-9. An excerpt of the minutes of thi is attached for reference as Exhibit 3.
Since adoption of the Growth Management Ordinance on July 1, 1986, received several requests to concurrently process LFMPs and Master P1 ans which have a substantial amount of land designated as Planned Communi The reasoning behind the request is that both documents are required in applications for development to proceed. The two documents serve coml purposes. The LFMP identifies the public facilities impacts whict mitigated, based on certain land use assumptions. The Master Plan givt
a specificity to the land use assumptions so that impacts can be more i assessed. Neither the LFMP nor the Master Plan grants any entitlement ti
a I rn z
a k 0
a 0, L) 3 a 0 Ll U d .d
d rd
rl hl rl I cn co
ro 2
a a, U a 0 a a
rl .rl 2 : V
cn co
co 4
\
-;t
1
I m a
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. c14&1
when appropriate. The major property owner in Zone 12 is presently worl both the Master Plan and a revised LFMP. Concurrent processing of tht documents when completed would be the most logical way to proceed.
This Zone Code Amendment will allow the City to ensure that compliance w public facility standards of the Growth Management Program is made an i part of the Master Planning process. This amendment will also require mu detailed planning during the preparation of Local Facility Management P1 will provide the City with a much higher level of detail in its facility
Criteria are needed to assure that concurrent processing is used only furthers the overall goals of Growth Management. It is recommendc concurrent processing be allowed only under the following conditions:
Concurrent processing shall be allowed only where the overall am intensity of development and its facility needs will not be ii beyond that allowed by the General Plan and the Growth Mal Program.
2. Actions which can be processed concurrently may include LFMPs Plans, General Plan Amendments, and Zone Changes as part of i P1 an.
1.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has issued a Negative Declaration on this Z( Amendment as filed on November 9, 1988. This action will have no adverse on the environment. This action will increase the amount of facility undertaken as part of the Master Plan process.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no direct or indirect fiscal impacts as a result of this Concurrent processing will not change the number of zone plans or mast processed, and it will not change the amount of staff time devoted to the:
EXHIBITS
1) Exhibit #1, Ordinance No. 6k4 aJ
2) Exhibit #2, City Council Resolution No. %?-/+$!-( 3) Exhibit #3, P1 anni ng Commi ssi on Resol uti on No. 2797
3) Exhibit #4, Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated November 1Z
Q+f’ 9
l B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12 n
m m 13 28 $% rn
,oZcr
022
I-LW - $282 16 o~ym
>5
Q.
N
gLLzz OW4 14
+e >FO
q 2 17
15
u ' -lu
t
e 0
ORDINANCE NO. NS-63
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.90 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR CONCURRENT PROCESSING OF CERTAIN MASTER PLANS.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, Ca
does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Title 21, Chapter 21.90 of the
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of subsection
Section 21.90.030(c) to read as follows:
"(13) Master Plans or General Plan Amend connection with Master Plans which do not increase the re: density or the overall development intensity or facilj established by the existing General Plan provided Facilities Management Plan must be prepared, processed and
concurrently with the Master Plan."
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effecti
days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certi:
adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published
once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days E
adoption.
0 18
19
20
21
22
23
241 25
26
27
28
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meetii 1 I
I Carlsbad City Council on the 18th day of April
and thereafter
...
...
...
...
...
...
*
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux
akkzkRQ&
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City' Clerk
L
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
0 0
RESOLUTION NO. 89-121
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZONE CODE
AMENDMENT 88-9.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad dj
, 1989, hold a duly noticed pr
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request: and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing
considering all testimony and arguments, examining the in:
study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, considc
any written comments received, the City Council considerec
factors relating to the Negative Declaration including Plai
Commission Resolution No. 2796 granting Planning Commi:
approval of said Negative Declaration; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council o
April 18
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Negative Declaration issued by the Pla Director on November 9, 1988 was prepared in compl with the California Environmental Quality Act and
19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
That there is no substantial evidence that the proje conditioned may have a significant effect on environment.
That the City Council of the City of Carlsbad incorpo
into this resolution Planning Commission Resolutio
2796 including findings contained therein.
j 3.
4.
...
...
...
...
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
e 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
City Council of the City of Carlsbad held on 18th day
April , 1989 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Lz
NOES: kne
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
llJhAfA&L
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Cith Clerk
(SEAL)
i
2.
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
e 0'
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2797
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBP
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMEN
AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 90, SECTION .030(c), OF THE CARL%
MUNICIPAL CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF SUBSECTION (13) TO PROVI FOR CONCURRENT PROCESSING OF CERTAIN MASTER PLANS.
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
CASE NO.: ZCA 88-9
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of Novem'
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to cons
request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consid
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be hl
Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Code Amendme
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Comi
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public he; Commission recommends of ZCA 88-9, according to Exhibit November 8, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, b; following findings and subject to the following findings.
Fi ndi nqs :
1. This Zone Code Amendment is consistent with the General Pla of preserving the public's health, safety, and welfare becar ensure the adequacy of public facilities are made part of P1 an process.
2. This Zone Code Amendment is consistent with the overall in1 City's Growth Management Program.
This Zone Code Amendment will not cause any significant adve on the environment because a Negative Declaration was iss Planning Director on November 9, 1988 and recomnended for i the Plannning Comnission on November 16, 1988.
3.
////
////
/I//
,
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
e a
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of 1
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the
November, 1988, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES : Chairperson McFadden, Commissioners: Schramm, Sc
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Marcus.
ABSTAIN: None.
Holmes, Erwin and Hall.
None.
ATTEST:
~V\;t1,,-,Vx hjk\ ) w<;,,v\'-L!k ,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER'
P1 anni ng Di rector
PC RES0 NO. 2797 -2-
Commissioner Schramm would like to see the landscape plan
revised to retain the mature trees on the northwesterly
frontage.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt
Resolution No. 2790 approving the Negative Declaration
issued by the Planning Director, and Resolution No. 2791
approving CUP 88-16 based on the findings and subject to
the conditions contained therein, with the changed
conditions that all mature trees will be retained, that
slats may be omitted from the chain link fence, and that
pile asters will only be required at the ends of the wrought
iron fence.
4) ZCA 88-9 CITY OF CARLSBAD - Request for a Zone Code
Amendment to allow concurrent processing of Local
Facilities Management Plans and Master Plans.
Phil Carter, Assistant to the City Manager, reviewed the
background of the request and stated that ZCA 88-9 is being
requested to allow concurrent processing of Local Facilities
Management Plans and Master Plans. At the present time, the
Growth Management Plan ordinance does not allow for Master
Plans to be processed concurrently with Zone plans. Although
much of the city is P-C (Planned Community), developers are
required to prepare a Master Plan as part of their approval
process.
prepared on an existing General Plan;
prepared and brought before the Planning Commission for
public hearing and consideration, and then to the City
Council for approval, the developer is required to come back
In and do a Master Plan on the property which creates a great
deal of duplicate work. The City Council specifically
allowed the Pacific Rim Master Plan to be included for
concurrent processing with LFMP #19.
determined that the Scripps Hospital application could be
processed concurrently, however LFMP {I18 has since been
withdrawn by Scripps Hospital for additional work. Staff is
The city currently requires the Zone plan to be
once that plan is
The City Council also
Erwin
Hall
Holmes
McFadden
Schlehuber
Schramm
_r- e re MINUTES y
requesting that the ordinance be amended to allow for the
processing of Master Plans concurrently with the LFMP's.
Staff feels that this would allow for a more specific
planning document to come forward with the LFMP. At the
present time, development entitlements are processed
concurrently with the Master Plan but it is felt that if the LFMP and the Master Plan are processed concurrently, then
entitlements should come in during the second stage. This
would make for a much smoother process since all planning
would be done in one stage, with entitlements to follow.
Staff recommends approval.
Chairman McFadden inquired if this would also trigger an
amendment to the General Plan. Mr. Carter replied that the
land use would be refigured with the Master Plan.
Chairman McFadden doesn't see how this can be done without
changing the facility needs. Mr. Carter replied that it will
be much easier to ascertain compliance with the performance
standard because the LFMP and Master Plan would show a much
more accurate projection. LFMP's do not yet have Master Plans in place.
Chairman McFadden is worried about processing all of these
items together since she feels that planning decisions will
wind up being based on development. Michael Holzmiller,
Planning Director, replied that the reason the need for this
ZCA came up is that staff has been instructed by the City
Council to rereview all Master Plans in the city. It is felt
that the concurrent processing would create a more effective
planning process and staff cannot legally rereview these
Master Plan's unless a LFMP has been completed.
Chairman McFadden is curious who pays for the rereview's.
Mr. Holzmiller replied that the city would be responsible for
the cost because the the City Council has stated that every
Master Plan must be reviewed every three years. The cost to
rereview a Master Plan is approximately $50,000 each and
there are six Master Plans which are waiting for the three
year rereview.
Commissioner Schlehuber can support the staff recommendation.
Chairman McFadden doesn't think this ZCA is needed since
there are many zones where a Master Plan already exists;
could go along with it on those zones which do not already
have a Master Plan.
Chairman McFadden inquired if the fees would be recovered.
Mr. Carter replied that staff is currently reviewing the fee
schedule. However, growth management is somewhat different
in the way that costs are established and recovered. It is
felt that by allowing concurrent processing of the LFMP and
the Master Plan it will enable full recovery of the costs.
Commissjoner Schramm inquired if the plans are done
concurrently whether it would reopen the Master Plan for
public hearing again. Mr. Carter replied that It would. The
ZCA does not mandate that a Master Plan will be done
concurrently with the facilities plan but allows for the
property owner to have that option. Staff believes that it
provides a great amount of detail which the zone plan does
not always have. He referred to LFMP {/12 which took one year
to prepare. The Master Plan was required before the zone
plan could be completed; now the Master Plan is back in
being revised.
He showed on the overhead which
she
November 16, 1988 PUNNING COMMISSION Page 19
Commissioner Schramm inquired if the city now receives some
fees for processing the Master Plan. Mr. Carter replied that
the recovery process for a Master Plan is not the same as
that for the zone plan, since the zone plan provides for
dollar-for-dollar recovery. Much of the staff work is now
being duplicated without recovering all of the costs.
Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the
invitation to speak.
George Williamson, 702 Fourth Street, Oceanside, the
indicated plan preparer for Zone 25. The property owners in
that zone have desired to go on record that they concur with
the staff recommendation to process the LFMP and the Master
Plan concurrently. They have been unable to move their zone
plan forward due to an old Master Plan. He feels that the
public facilities can be more accurately projected when both
plans are processed concurrently.
There being no other persons desiring to address the
Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the
public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion
among the Commission members.
Commissioner Erwin asked staff to repeat the cost recovery
for new Master Plans and those being rereviewed. Mr. Carter
replied that the city is liable for the costs of a rereview
if it is city-initiated, i.e. three year rereview. When the
zone plan and the master plan are done concurrently, the
developer would pick up the fees since it is staff's opinion
that it would then be part of the growth management program.
Therefore, it could offset some of the costs for rereview of
Master Plans and would allow a more efficient way to recover
costs.
Commissioner Schramm feels that added Subsection (13) in the
ordinance is awkward and should read the same as the staff
report. Mr. Carter will check with the City Attorney to make
sure that it follows the staff report language.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt
Resolution No. 2796 recommending approval of the Negative
Declaration issued by the'planning Director on November 9,
1988 and Resolution No. 2797 recommending approval of
ZCA 88-9.
5) SDP 88-5 HENLOCK - Request for approval of Site
Development Plan to develop a four-unit apartment
project along the north side of Hemlock Avenue, between
Garfield and Washington Streets, in the Beach Area
Overlay Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the
request and stated that the applicant is requesting approval
of a site development plan to develop a four-unit apartment
project along the north side of Hemlock Avenue between
Garfield and Washington, however Washington does not exist as
a through street at this time. The area is in the Beach
Overlay Zone, LFMP lil, and the Coastal Zone. The proposed
project is in compliance with the provisions and conditions
of LFMP /I1 and also the Coastal Plan. However, the primary
issues which staff focused on in its review were the
development standards of the Beach Overlay Zone. There are
two main issues which were considered. This project consists
of two duplex units which forms a four-unit structure. The
total structure is three levels high with the garage on the
COMMISSIONERS 5
Erwin
Hall
Holmes
McFadden
Schlehuber
Schramm
e e
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ZCA 88-9
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of [Carlsbad will hold
hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at
on Tuesday, April 18, 1989, to consider a Zone Code Amendment to allow concurre
processing of Local Facilities Management Plans with Master Plans.
If you have any questions, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment in court, you may be limited to raisii
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in thii
or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Of
at or prior to the public hearing.
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PUBLISH : April 7, 1989 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
1) e
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will a 'pub1 ic hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, Cal ifor at 6:OO PM., on Tuesday, to consider approval of a Zone Amendment to a1 1 ow concurrent processing of Local Faci 1 i ti es Management P with Master P1 ans.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to at the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Plan Department at 438-1161.
If you challenge ZCA 88-9 in court, you may be limited to raising only 1 issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this nc or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or pric the public hearing.
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLISH:
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
CASE FILE: ZCA 88-9