Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-27; City Council; 13230; PLACE'S STUDY GRANT APPLICATIONk' al u u 2 a, 5 a al 4 .rl w -rl L) rl g 0 u z P o I- U $ 2 3 8 CITY II RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct staff to prepare and submit to SANDAG a proposal nominating lands arou Poinsettia Lane Transit Station as the study site for the application of the PLACE% energy system grant. ITEM EXPLANATION The California Energy Commission and CalTrans have granted SANDAG $150,000 to cs a demonstration application of the PLACE3S (pronounced: "places three") energy model s The grant would be used for two major activities. First, it would fund a consultant team by the Energy Commission to work with property owners and some form of citizen input F (to be defined locally) to formulate three land use/circulation alternatives at a single sit( region. Second, the consultants would use the PLACE% model to evaluate each alterna its possible energy, transportation, and air quality benefits. The study would take abo months to complete. Upon its completion SANDAG and the Energy Commission encourage the city with the studied site to undertake land use changes (general plank plan) to enable the implementation of that energy-efficient alternative which is most accc to the jurisdiction. SANDAG has invited its member jurisdictions to nominate sites forthe study, in effect gen a proposal competition. Several parties, including Council Member Finnila, have suggest the City should propose the area around the Poinsettia Transit Station (see map, Exhibit . area consists of about 120 acres of vacant properties controlled by Benchmark Paci Sammis Carlsbad Associates. The City is currently weighing options to acquire the S property for use, in part, by the Encina WPCF and CMWD. Staff concurs that these sites be highly suitable for the study, that because the sites lend themselves to transit-o development they could make for a very competitive proposal, and that a study condw this property could be of benefit to the City and the property owners. City staff will need to prepare and submit a formal proposal. SANDAG staff will revi nominations and provide a staff recommendation to the Technical Advisory Committec Regional Growth Management Strategy, which group will then make a recommendatior California Energy Commission. The Commission will make the final decision on the sit SANDAG intends to announce the formal RFP at the next meeting of the Technical AI Committee on July 13, 1995, with proposals due shortly thereafter. In order for a proposal to be successful, the City must identify specific properties and be to make a number of commitments and be bound by certain conditions. Before staff pr a formal proposal it will be helpful if the City Council could discuss these requiremer affirm that the City is willing to make the commitments and be subject to the conditions. 2 is a copy of the preliminary submittal requirements drafted by SANDAG, Exhibit 3 is i of key issues identified by staff, and Exhibit 4 is a letter from Benchmark Pacific regarc interest in the proposal. FISCAL IMPACT A requirement of the grant is that the local jurisdiction be willing to commit a minimum hours of staff time over approximately nine months working with the consultant and community input process. In addition, if the City agrees to follow up the grant with gene' I B 0 PAGE TWO AGENDA BILL NO. 13.23 0 changes and/or preparation of a specific plan, additional staff and possibly technical study would be involved in this work and the preparation of an appropriate environmental doa The magnitude of these costs is not known at this point and will depend upon subse Council decisions on: which land use alternative is selected, whether a specific plan is pre or not and by whom (the owners or the CQ), whether additional technical work is needec what kind of CEQA document is warranted (possibly an EIR). ENVD RONM ENTAL REV1 EW Conducting the study would be an activrty that is not a "project" under CEQA, and, theref exempt. Follow-up preparation and adoption of a specific plan and/or general plan ch would constitute actions that would require environmental review, possibly the preparatior EIR. EXHIBITS 1. 2. 3. 4. Location map of proposed properties to include in the study proposal "Potential Project Information", prepared by SANDAG, June 8, 1995 "PlaCE3S Grant Application Issues", prepared by Planning Department Letter from Benchmark Pacific, dated June 21, 1995. BENCHMARK PACIFIC @ PROPOSED PROPERTIES FOR PLACE3S GRANT EX E; a a POTENTIAL PROJECT INFORMATION Local Area PLACE3S Demonstration June 8, 1995 Location Map (page-size, on a County Base). Project Area Map (page-sized, showing streets and transit facility). Approximate gross project acreage (including streets). Current population and employment. Approximate number of property owners. Copy of the current adopted land use and circulation Plans for the area (General Plan, Specific Plan, Redevelopment Plan. Identification of any concurrent planning efforts. Description of existing or proposed community groups which would be used to develop the "local" land use and circulation alternative. Personnel (by name, position and experience and work hours) which the city/County would commit to the project. Description of the city's/County database for the project site. Specific project description: environmental constraints, availability of public facilities, streel adequacy (LOS if available) and services. e a EXHIBIT PLACE3S Grant Application Issues Study Summary: The Energy Commission's consultant team will review Carlsbad's existing land use designations for the site. It will then prepare two land use plans, one based upon the existii land use designations and a second based upon an "energy optimum" land use/circulation plan that might require changes to the existing land use designations. Both plans will be considered by the property owners and a community input process (which the City has latitude to define). third land use alternative may be formulated by the owners/community. All three alternatives will be energy-audited with the PLACE3S model. The three alternatives and the results of the audit will be discussed in a study report prepared by the consultants and presented to the City Council. The City will be asked to initiate land use changes (general plan/specific plan) to enab the implementation of the preferred alternative. Issues 1. Study Site. Need to identify the exact properties to be included in our proposal. Benchmark Pacific properties, the Sammis site (tentatively proposed for acquisition by tl City for use by Encina Waste Water Plant expansion/CMWD water reclamation), the transit station, other?. Target: 100 - 200 ac. Specific Plan. In the application do we want to state that, on completion of the study, we are willing to commit to: a) The preparation of a specific plan? b) Based upon the study's recommendations? Would the specific plan be prepared and funded by the property owners (of which the City may become one), or by the City alone? City Team. Proposal must include detailed City Team description and responsibilities. City must commit to a minimum of 400 hours of staff time directly to the study. (Excludes any additional time/$ for a later specific plan and associated CEQA review [EIR?]). Probably needs at least Planning, Engineering, GIs, CMWD, maybe City Manager (liaison with Encina WPCF?). This is a maior selection criterion. Community Participation Process. The City must describe its existing or proposed ' mechanism for citizen participation to formulate the "community alternative". (consider: site property owners, surrounding commercial interests, Encina WPCF, mobile home associations, other home owners, CalTrans, State Parks, Council?) Define/delimit roles. Another site selection criterion. Accept limited control over Consultant Team procedures and products - especially technical work (i.e. transportation analysis). We get what they give us. We may have to expandhe-do technical work for our later needs (specific plan). Consultant Team is predetermined by the Energy Commission and consists of a) energy, b) land planning, and c) transportation experts. 2 3. 4. 5. EX1 0 a La Costa Ranch House P 0 Box 9000-266 Carlsbad CA 92018 FAX 619/931/1946 6 19/93 11 l6i: June21, 1995 Dennis Turner Principal Planner City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 RE: 3. .\ SANDAG Demonstration Grant to Prepare a Specific Plan relating to Energy Savings. Dear Dennis, I am of the impression that you are presently preparing an agenda bill for review by the City Manager's office relating to the abovementioned matter. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that, as the property owner of the principal property being considered for a possible Carlsbad Application to SANDAG, I have no interest in pursuing the grant. As you may recall, I approached you and our project planner, Dee Landers. regarding two issues a few months ago. Chey were: 1. To let you know that we had optioned the 32 acres north of our property, 2. Ask if the City would consider a Growth Management density transfer and within the southwest quadrant of 500 unitsso that we might work to design a higher density, transit oriented, master plan community. The idea was passed on within Community Development, and a meeting was held which included the Community Development Director, Planning Director, Housing Director, Manager of the Carlsbad Water Department, and yourself. At that meeting City staff indicated that they desired to acquire the 32 acres for expansion of the Encina wastewater treatment plant, and other uses, and that it was premature to discuss a density transfer of any type. I was told that the matter was to be taken to an executive session of the City Council. I have never been told the results of the executive session, except that the City was going to pursue acquisition of the 32 acres. At that time I communicated to Frank Mannon and each of the City Council members in person that I had no intention of interfering with the acquisition of the property, eventhough I had it under option, but that I felt I had to return to our 4 0 a original plan. Since that time I have been preparing a Specific Plan which does not envision a density transfer, but through a conditional use permit would hold a portion of the property in single ownership for future consideration. The thought of entering into a lengthy planning process controled by a number of government agencies has absolutely no appeal to me, especially since I have already spent considerable time and resources preparing a specific plan for the property. We are only a few days away from submitting an initial draft of this plan to Dee Landers for her review. As you are aware, I am very committed to planning properties evenly remotely access to bus and rail facilities. Our work on the Kaiza Poinsettia project bears this out. adjacent to transit stations in a manner which allows future residents the easiest 9 Ms. Landers and I have agreed that one of the primary design goals of our project is to be transit orientation. In fact, we have both read and discussed the document i - Transit-Oriented Development Desim Guidlines prepared by Calthorpe and Associates for the City of San Diego and have agreed it is a worthwhile summary of planning goals for projects near a transit facility. In addition, we have agreed that we will involve planners from North County Transit District to help us evaluate the project. I have no doubt but that the proiect will be as transit friendly and fuel efficient without the grant as it would be with it, and at no government expense. In conclusion, let me again repeat that I am not interested in having our property become a part of the California Energy Commission demonstration grant as presented by SANDAG. If you have any questions please feel fi-ee to contact me.