The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-03-09; City Council; 12098; REPORT ON PROPOSED MAJOR POLICY CHANGES AS A RESULT OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATEAB # 1 a, 0 Y K MTG. 3-+93 TITLE: REPORT ON PROPOSED MAJOR POLICY CHANGES As A RESULT OF GENERAL, PLAN UPDATE DEPT. PLN DEF CIT' CIT 4J k $' s u h a, a Q) JJ a Q) L) 0 (d 4 -4 L) 5 0 U z 2 I- o q i 0 z 3 8 *b3 CI~OF CARLSBAD - AGE* BILL $7 RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACCEPT Report on Proposed Major Policy changes as a result of General Plan Update ITEM EXPLANATION As part of the General Plan Update, the Planning Department recently completed the DI Revised General Plan. While revising the document a number of major policy chan developed in response to the issues that surfaced during the Update. The list of po changes was derived from information obtained from numerous sources. These sow include public comments from surveys, workshops, and forums; input from ( departments; and data from technical studies. A list of issues was first assembled i reviewed. Revisions were then made to the General Plan when such issues were already adequately or completely addressed in existing policies and programs. Staff will be making a presentation at the Council meeting this evening and explaining proposed major policy changes. Staff will be utilizing the attached list of major PO changes for the presentation. The Planning Commission has been invited to attend i participate in any discussion. If the Council concurs with the direction staff is tak regarding these policy changes, staff will proceed with the General Plan Update previously scheduled. flSCAL IMPACT None. EXHIBIT 1. Major Policy Changes - General Plan Update ‘*i 8 e E MAJOR POLICY CHANGES - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE A) FORM.AT/ORGANEATIONAL 1. Vision Statement 2. Consolidation 0 Conservation Element made part of Open Space Elemen 0 Historic Element incorporated into Open Space Element 0 Scenic Highways Element incorporated into Circulatic Element 0 Public Facilities Element incorporated into Land 1. Element as part of Growth Management Plan descriptio1 B) HOUSING 1. Included revisions agreed-to with HCD regarding allowing arc of higher densities within Master Plans and commitment to implementing ordinances for inclusionary program. C) OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATON 1. 2. Added sections addressing air quality and water quality protectic Incorporated major recommendations of the Open Space a Conservation Resource Management Plan. Incorporated references to habitat conservation planning effo 3. D) SAFETY 1. Added section to discuss EMF. Recommended that we moni research on this subject but not adopt any regulations at this til E) NOISE 1. 2. Established standard for residential use. Recommended, however, not having a citywide noise ordina and enforcement program. t *%t 0 e F. CIRCULATION 1. Added new and revised policies and program statements reference goals of Congestion Management and Traffic Demar Management planning efforts. G. LANDUSE 1. Reworked all the commercial designations (i.e, redefinitio consolidation). Updated the description of City form and function to bett explain how the City is developing (i.e, balanced communi1 quadrant concept, industrial corridor). Added statements regarding the need to have a full range residential densities and to achieve minimum permitted densiti in order to accomplish Housing Element programs. Added policies to increase compatibility of commercial wi residential and compatibility of higher density residential wi lower densities. Indicated that the Barrio, the Buena Vista Lagoon Watershed ;u the Commuter Rail Corridor as areas needing additional/spec~ planning. Added policies to require master and specific plans to provic commercial sites and areas for social/human service needs. Added policy to preserve and support ethnic heritage of arc around Walnut and Roosevelt. Added policy to encourage commercial support-uses in industr area. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Added several policies to strengthen focus on econorr development. H) G- 1. In numerous places in the General Plan (wherever possibl reference Regional Growth Management Strategy and need f regional cooperation on planning issues. 3 &f/a[* -fl I) w , Bow, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE &* ii: e A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPOR4TION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 AREA CODE 7 ALEXANDER BOWIE* JOAN C. ARNESON WILLIAM J. KADI TELEPHONE 85 1- FAX (714) 851-2 WENDY H. WILES ROBIBT E. ANSLOW ERIC R. DOERING KENNETH S. LEVY JANETL. MUELLER PATRICIA B. GIA"0NE REF OURFILE 3042 ART0 J NUUnNEN June 9, 1994 KIMBERLY A. McMURRAY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORA~ON VIA FACSIMILE & U.S . MAIL City Council City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: EIR 93-01/GPA 94-01 - City of Carlsbad General Plan Update Dear Mayor Lewis and Honorable Members of the City Council: This letter is submitted on behalf of the Carlsbad IJnified School District (the "District"), relative to the proposed comprehensive General Plan Amendment [GPA 94-01] (the "General Plan") for the City of Carlsbad ("City") and the related Environmental Impai Report [EIR 93-01] (the "EIR"). In this regard the General Plan states that one of its "Goals" is "A City which ensu the timely provision of adequate public facilities and services to preserve the quality of life residents" (p. 38, Growth Management and Public Facilities, A. Goals A.l). However, absent the designation of specific mitigation measures to fund the significant number of ne school facilities which will be required by future development in the City, that goal cannot ixet, ZIU J +n ~cs~\~LPI :Ci--p 9 bl ~c~1-0 :ilb c;*: biiy 3~1; rf Ji ' fnnn 1~i-b 2 A f!,?~:: i of a:,rercry&efi SC~IIQ] f?-cilities. The. District would respectfully request that the Local Facilities Management Plan ("LFMP") amendment approved by the City Council on December 14, 1993 relative to Zone 20, whii the Commission and the City Council has approved as a c:ondition of new development wil the City, be incorporated as part of the General Plan, in order to provide for an acceptablt means of addressing the need for future school facilities within the City. A. Imr>act of Future Development on the District. Implementation of the General Plan, specifically with regard to the General Plan's provision allowing for development of affordable housing units at densities higher than th: which would otherwise be allowed by an underlying land use designation, will potentially BAKW&G/AJh'/l2199 w I BOW, ARNESON, I(AD1, WILES & GIA"ONE City Council City of Carlsbad June 9, 1994 Page 2 generate a more new students than the District is presently able to house. The General Pla section on Residential Implementing Policies and Action Programs (p. 42), ("Residential Policy C.3") contemplates approving housing projects for affordable housing within the Cit through the processing of site development plans to increase densities "above the maximum residential densities permitted by the General Plan.. .either above the Growtn Managemenr Control Point or upper end of the residential density range(s)", which the General Plan currently places at 19.0 dwelling units per acre. The District has analyzed the student generation rate for an affordable housing projc to generate approximately twice the number of students than would be generated from a "standard" housing project @e. between 0.6 to 0.9 students per affordable housing dwellin unit, by comparison to 0.46 students per conventional residential dwelling unit. Source: Recht, Hausrath and Associates). Therefore , absent appropriate mitigation conditions addressing the potential for increased school facilities demands from the implementation of the General Plan, the District's school facilities needs will be unmitigated. B. School Facilities Impact Mitigation Provided in EIR. The EIR assumes that density increases above the maximum Growth Management Control Points will not result in unmitigated land use impacts. However, there is no deposit with the City's "excess unit bank" (i.e. the numbex of units representing developmc approvals within the City at densities lower than that which is permitted by the General Pli The desigaztlon of affordable housifig dwelling units in the excess unit bank has been put forth as a justification that no land use impacts will occur from the General Plan, since th( number of dwelling units within the excess unit bank for the City is purportedly sufficient allow the City to meet its affordable housing obligations without exceeding the General P1 residential buildout projections (see Responses to Carlsbad Unified School District Revieb City of Carlsbad Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report). evidence that affordable housing dwelling units will be limited only to those which are on However, Residential Policy C.3, which the General Plan suggests as being the criteria for determining approvals of affordable housing iin excess of Growth Management Control Points, contains no requirement that such units first be prioritized from the City's excess unit bank. Moreover, the EIR goes on to suggest that the facilities identified in thc District's 1989 School Location Plan will be adequate to accommodate new students. BAKW&G/hJN/12199 W W BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIA"0NE City Council City of Carlsbad June 9, 1994 Page 3 However, the 1989 School Location Plan, as pointed out by the District to the City during the public review period of the draft EIR and before your honorable Planning affordable housing (letter dated November 2, 1993 from John Blair to Adrienne Landers). Moreover, the EIR's conclusions regarding land use impalcts from afforaabie housing incorrectly presumes that affordable housing is characterized by lower, rather than greater. student generation rates than that characteristic of similar types of housing for the general population. Therefore, the conclusion that the impact on the school facilities of the Distric will be mitigated to a level of insignificance is wholly uns,upported by the proposed mitigar measures for the following reasons: Commission, did not take into account the City's current :inclusionary requirement for 1. Inadequacy of General Plan Policies Relating to School Facilities. The "Mitigation Monitoring Checklist" acknowledges that the school districts servii the City must acquire funding to obtain additional personnel and construct the planned facilities to accommodate growth in the City's student population (Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, page 62, "Education"), and discusses mitigation of incremental population growth as follows: "Require compliance with the following public facility performance standard adopted September 23, 1986, to ensure that adequate public facilities are provided prior to or concurrent with development: Schools "School capacity to meet projected tmollment within the zone as determined by the appropriate schocil district must be provided prior projected occupancy. 'I (Land Use ESlement, Growth Management an Public Facilities , C .2. ) . 'I This policy, however, does not provide for fundin,g of schools facilities to meet the needs of new development. The City and the District have, however, previously agreed upon a mitigation condition for Local Facilities Management Zone 20 of the City, which in essence assures BAKWG~G/AJN/IZISS W w Bow, ARNESON, KADI, WLES & GIANNONE City Council City of Carlsbad June 9, 1994 Page 4 developers will be required to submit evidence that school facilities are acceptably mitigatf prior to building permit issuance. Such mitigation (as set forth in the Zone 20 mitigation condition) can take a number of forms acceptable to the school district, including the formation of a Community Facilities District pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (the "Act"), but is not solely predicated on using CFDs It is recognized by most persons involved with school facilities that the availability a particular mechanism, particularly State funding, varies over time and that there needs tc a faiI-safe or fall back source of school capacity if the State will not provide such capacity Residential development should not be approved until the source of adequate school facilitj is identified and not merely speculated upon. Therefore, to ensure that developers throughout the City are subject to equal treatrr requiring acceptable mitigation prior to building, the District would respectfully request th mitigation condition approved for Zone 20. Such a policy would be consistent with the City's own requirement under its Growth Management Ordinance that all public facilities necessary to serve a development be available concurrent with their need, as a condition tc any project approval. the City Council approve an amendment to the General Plan which would include the 2. Inadequacy of Statutory School Fees to Fund New School Facilities. The District is currently authorized to levy school facilities fees ("Fees "), pursuant Government Code Section 53080, in the amount of $1.72 per square foot. Based on an average 1800 square foot DU, the District will collect $3,096 per DU, which is merely 47 of the District's currently estimated school facilities cost per DU of $6,616. It can be cle: seen that the Fees will not provide the District with the funds required to adequately how the students generated by population growth within the City. 3. State Fundine Can Not Be Assured for New School Facilities In the past, the State has provided supplemental funding to Fees. However, the st: wide need for school facilities far exceeds the ability of the State to fund such needs. It i! currently estimated that there is a backlog of four billion dollars in unfunded school facilit needs state-wide. Accordingly, the State is not a reliable source of alternate funding for t UAKW&G/AJA/lLl99 w w Bow, -SON, -I, 'WILES & GIANNONE City Council City of Carlsbad Page 5 June 9, 1994 school facilities needs of the District. With respect to general obligation bond measures, Proposition 170, which was on the ballot in November of 1993, would have lowered the v required to pass a school district general obligation bond measure from two-thirds to a sim majority. However, Proposition 170 failed, and a two-thirds majority is still required in order to pass a general. obligation bond Iizeasure within the District. Therefore, the Distric cannot rely on the passage of a general obligation bond measure to make-up the shortfall ii school facilities needs resulting from this Project and other projects within the District. Furthermore, the District disagrees with the conclusions stated at the April 6, 1994 meeting of the Planning Commission which concluded that the Zone 20 school facilities throughout the City, is incompatible with the policies of the City and should be considered only at the level of project review. The "Zone 20" policy (which is being applied through other zones within the City) is consistent with the City's own policies requiring public facilities to be available concurrently with their need as created by new development. In f permitting density increases within the City (as permitted by the proposed Amendment for development of affordable housing units at densities higher than that which would otherwi5 be allowed by an underlying land use designation) is inconsistent with the policy of the Cir which was enacted after approval of the City's qualified voters, which requires controlled growth within the City, and will generate more new students than the District is presently able to house. mitigation condition, if included as part of the General Plan and having application The District agrees that the State of California has the responsibility to finance schools. The reality, however, is that the State has not been fulfilling this responsibility, does not have sufficient funds to meet the need and, in fact, has indicated repeatedly that i intends to have schools increasingly built through local funding mechanisms. Under these circumstances, it would not be appropriate or prudent for the school district to assume rec of any state funds. The District certainly intends to pursue State funds but cannot safely embark on its planning with the assumption that such funds will be forthcoming, in regard to the City's apparent belief that "funding sources are the [Dlistrict's issue'' and "is a matter which the school district needs to pursue with the State" (Minutes, April 6, 1994, Planning Commission). The District's responsibility is to educate the children within its jurisdictioi If new housing is to be approved without school capacity as necessitated by such BAKW&G/AJN/I2199 W Bow, MSON, mI, WILES 6z GLA"oNE City Council City of Carlsbad June 9, 1994 Page 6 development, the entire existing community is degraded. It is not the duty of the District ( the City to subsidize the development industry or affordable housing by failing to provide adequate infrastructure, including schools. Such actions only degrade the existing level of service available to the present community. In this regard the EIR fails to consider or address the issue that there is no identifia source to make up the enormous shortfall in school facilities funding caused by new development. Therefore, the EIR fails to satisfy the requirement under the California Environmental Quality Act that significant impacts from a project be mitigated to a level o insignificance. (Public Resources Code Sections 21002, 21002.1, and 21081; Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15092). Accordingly, the City cannot approve its General Plan and certify the EIR absent the provision of additional school mitigation measures which specifically provide for funding to make up the identified shortfall. C. Amendments to General Plan Proposed by District. An LFMP amendment was approved by the City Council on December 14, 1993 relative to Zones 9 and 20, which has been applied by the City Council relative to new development within the City. The District would request that the following language from the LFMP amendment be included in addition to the mitigation language set forth in the General Plan: "Prior to the approval of any final map or the issuance of any permits, the applicant for the final map or permit shall submit evidence to the City that impacts to schpooi facilities have been mitigated in conformance with tne City's Growth Management Plan to the extent permitted by applicable state law for legislative acts. If the mitigation involves a financing scheme such as a Mello- Roos Community Facilities District which is inconsistent with the City's Growtl Management Plan including City Council Policy No. 38, the developer shall submit disclosure documents for approval by the City Manager and the City Attorney which shall disclose to future owners in the project, to the maximum extent possible, the existence of the tax and that the school district is the taxin! agency responsible for the financing district. " BAKW&G/AJN/I2199 i e a Born, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE City Council City of Carlsbad June 9, 1994 Page 7 D. Conclusion. Based on the current language in the General Plan and EIR relating to schools, the City’s stated goal of adequate school facilities and funding cannot be achieved, and student residing within the City will be forced tc attend overcrowded schools. Accordingly, we request that the City adopt the changes to the Policies and mitigation measures recommend by the District in order that all students in the City can be assured of a quality education starting with adequate schools. We would be pleased to provide the City with any additional information it may require. Very truly yours, BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE /---I By : cc: Mr. Michael Holzmiller Mr. Ray Patchett Mr. Ron Ball Dr. George Pdarmn Mr. John Blair Mr. Alexander Bowie EAKW&G/AJN/~Z~~~ * .?* *.. j FRIENDS e CARRILLO RANCH, INa *I 2622 El Aguila Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92009 c] 619/r April 8, 1994 & -% Hon. Claude A. rrBudr' Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 , Dear Mayor Lewis: RE: Public Hearing - General Plan Revision Planning Commission Minutes of March 16, 1994 We realize, of course, that the Minutes of a Public Heari must be condensed and edited for practical reasons. However, s of the flavor of the remarks made by our representative on Mar 16 has been inadvertantly lost or misinterpreted in the summat provided to you. As you know, the County has removed Highway 680 from its traffic circulation map, shifted the available funding to High 56 and declared an alternate La Costa connection unbuildable. Furthermore, Enchitas has shown a distinct resistance to accommodating regional traffic loads. Thus, we believe it appropriate and timely for City Counc to take a second look at the construction of Melrose Avenue as prime arterial within the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. Our reasoning and potential benefits thereof are more clearly stated in the highlighted portion of the attached transcript of our March 16 presentation. We hope you will take the time to review this brief statement. The very existence of a major highway towering over Carri Ranch threatens its charm and general ambience - something tha will be lost forever if we don't take this one last opportunit to downsize or eliminate Melrose. The negative impact of the design of this arterial is not limited merely to the traffic passing by. The rewards of acting now are substantial and woul be a wonderful gift to the residents of this city. Cordially, 1 442 - Alan K. Kindle President C: Members of Council City Manager Parks & Recreation Director Board of Directors A 501 (c)(3) California Educational Corporation e 0 -? REMARKS TO PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 16, 1994. Chairman, Commissioners and staff: My name is Wes Radoycich. I live at 2620 El Aguila Lane, Carlsbad. I am representii the Friends of Carrillo Ranch, Incorporated. After a long fight by the Encinitas City Council, San Diego County recently agreed to remove Highway 680 from its traffic circulation plan. At the time a County staff member stated that an alternate route connecting the Del Dios Highway with Melrose Avenue in La Costa would be nearly unbuildable because of severe environmental problems. Hence, the entire 680 scenario was scrapped. That being the case, the Friends recommend that the Melrosc Avenue link from Palomar Airport Road to Rancho Santa Fe Road greatly downgraded or, better yet, deleted from the Traffic Circulation Element in the proposed Carlsbad General Plan revisio This ugly duckling will dump huge volumes of traffic from Vista, Oceanside and Fallbrook onto Rancho Santa Fe Road. Tens 1 * 0 0 thousands of cars will then flow to a congested bottleneck at El Camino Real that will surely be among the worst in the County. In the process this terrible road will do untold damage to the beautiful Los Quiotes Valley, home to historic Carrillo Ranch, an extraordinary educational and passive recreational resource. We believe connecting Melrose Avenue from its present terminus in Vista southward to Palomar Airport Road makes sense. NOW, however, extending it on to Rancho Santa Fe Road does not. We ask that the Planning Commission and City Council take anothei look at Melrose and elect to drastically downsize it or, hopefully, delete it altogether. This decision will do much to alleviate or avoid the complex problems that have been called "an environmental nightmare" withir the Valley. It will keep a 6-lane, high-speed prime arterial - 80 feet high in places - from towering over Carrillo Ranch and threatening the rancho's inherent charm. It will save many millions of dollars in questionable construction costs. It will create an opportunity for re- design of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan - about which many have 2 e e had such grave misgivings. It will please the state Fish & Game Department which early 0. recommended against this section of Melrose. It will help address tt obvious concerns of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It may reduce the amount of environmental mitigation required of the surrounding property owners. It will most certainly reduce noise, air pollution and future road maintenance and landscaped median expense. Let’s face the fact that Encinitas is not going to accommodate heavy inflows of regional traffic. The political risks are too high. Meanwhile, the deletion or major downgrading of Melrose across the Los Quiotes Valley will be a wonderful gift to the citizens of Carlsbad. It will demonstrate that we really do care about beauty, about the environment and about protecting a unique national landmark. And we will be doing what just makes plain good sense. Thank you for your attention. We will see you again at the Citj Council Public Hearing. 3