HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-25; City Council; ; City Council discussion on potential time-bound development moratorium for Village Barrio Master Plan areaCA Review /'2-t(__
.
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
Subject:
June 25, 2019
Mayor and City Council
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Debbie Fountain, Community & Economic Development Director
debbie.fountain@carlsbadca.gov or 760-434-2935
City Council discussion on potential time-bound development moratorium
for Village Barrio Master Plan area
Recommended Action
Engage in a discussion on potential action regarding a time-bound development moratorium for
Village Barrio Master Plan area and provide direction to city staff as appropriate.
Executive Summary
On June 11, 2019, the City Council approved a minute motion to have a discussion related to a
potential development moratorium for the Village Barrio Master Plan area. The specific minute
motion was: "to bring back for discussion a time-bound moratorium on building and
development in the Village Barrio Master Plan area and to docket it for June 25, 2019".
If the City Council decides to further study a moratorium and/or move forward to adopt an
ordinance to implement a moratorium, city staff will need to return to the City Council with
applicable documents for further action.
California Government Code section 65858 (Exhibit 1) permits the City Council to adopt an
interim, urgency ordinance prohibiting a proposed use or uses or development which may be in
conflict with the General Plan or related zoning or other land use policies because the City
Council is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time revisions to
applicable land use or development regulations. An urgency ordinance requires a four-fifths
vote of the City Council. An urgency ordinance would be effective for only 45 days but may be
extended after required notice in a public hearing for an additional 10 months and 15 days and
thereafter could be extended for one additional year.
Discussion
The City Council indicated its intent to discuss a possible moratorium on development in the
Village Barrio Master Plan area on June 11, 2019. Cities may adopt interim, urgency ordinances
prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or
zoning proposal that the city plans to study within a reasonable time. Such a measure:
June 25, 2019 Item #13 Page 1 of 12
• Requires a four-fifths vote of the council;
• Must contain a finding that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health,
safety, or welfare; and
• May be adopted without following the notice and adoption procedures required for
other ordinances.
An interim, urgency ordinance that has the effect of denying approvals for projects with a
significant component of multifamily housing (one-third of the square footage) may be
extended beyond the initial 45-day period only if the City Council finds that approval of
multifamily housing would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety that
cannot be mitigated. Specific adverse impact means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards,
policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the interim, urgency ordinance is
adopted by the legislative body.
The legality of such a moratorium is generally determined by measuring its impact on the
affected parties. It is important to note, however, that in 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court held
that certain moratoria on property development may be unconstitutional takings, thus making
it more difficult for local governments to slow development in their communities (First English
Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S 304, 107 S. Ct. 2378, 96 L. Ed. 2d
250). Therefore, additional legal review and risk analysis will be required for any proposed
development moratorium to ensure that it does not result in an unconstitutional taking or have
other unintended consequences.
A summary of development activity since January 2014 and information on the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) in the Village and Barrio is included with this report as
Exhibit 2.
Once the City Council has had an opportunity to complete its discussion on any potential
development moratorium, city staff including legal counsel should be directed to study the
proposed moratorium with the specific details provided by the City Council and complete the
applicable legal/risk analysis and set forth the process for adoption of a moratorium ordinance
if there is a desire to proceed.
Fiscal Analysis
At this time, there has been no analysis completed of the potential fiscal impact on a Village
Barrio Master Plan area development moratorium. If City Council makes a decision to pursue a
development moratorium following its discussion, an analysis may be completed at the time of
the fiscal impact related to loss of development. It is anticipated that there will be substantial
expenditure of staff time required in studying and making recommendations on any revisions to
the Municipal Code and Village Barrio Master Plan that might result from a development
moratorium, if approved, and dependent upon the issues to be studied and/or addressed.
June 25, 2019 Item #13 Page 2 of 12
Next Steps
Based on the City Council direction, city staff will proceed with appropriate next steps towards
completing further study, legal and risk analysis and/or returning to City Council with an
ordinance for adoption of a development moratorium for the Village Barrio Master Plan area.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
This is a discussion item only. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21065, this action
1
does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of CEQA in that it has no potential to cause
either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment, and therefore, does not require environmental review.
Public Notification
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public
viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date. Email notification
was provided to stakeholders interested in or impacted by the Village Barrio Master Plan.
Exhibits
1. California Government Code Section 65858
2. Development Activity and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA} allocation in
the Village and Barrio
3. Correspondence from resident, Steve Linke
June 25, 2019 Item #13 Page 3 of 12
611412019
Home
Law section
ezd7£~ta, l LEGISLATIVE INFORMATIO T
Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites
Code: Select Code ,, Section:
1lR" < < Previous Next > > cross-reference chaRtered bills PDF I Add To MY. Favorites I Highlight I
GOVERNMENT CODE-GOV
TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE (65000 -66499.58) ( Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536.)
DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING (65000 -66210) ( Heading of Division 1 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536.)
CHAPTER 4. Zoning Regulations (65800 -65912] ( Chapter4 repealed and added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1880.)
ARTICLE 2. Adoption of Regulations (65850 -65863.13) ( Article 2 added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1880.)
65858. (a) Without following the procedures otherwise required prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance, the
legislative body of a county, city, including a charter city, or city and county, to protect the public safety, health,
and welfare, may adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict
with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission
or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time. That urgency
measure shall require a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption. The interim ordinance shall be of no
further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public
hearing, the legislative body may extend the interim ordinance for 10 months and 15 days and subsequently
extend the interim ordinance for one year. Any extension shall also require a four-fifths vote for adoption. Not more
than two extensions may be adopted.
(b) Alternatively, an interim ordinance may be adopted by a four-fifths vote following notice pursuant to Section
65090 and public hearing, in which case it shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption.
After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may by a four-fifths vote extend the
interim ordinance for 22 months and 15 days.
( c) The legislative body shall not adopt or extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this section unless the
ordinance contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or
welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other
applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that
threat to public health, safety, or welfare. In addition, any interim ordinance adopted pursuant to this section that
has the effect of denying approvals needed for the development of projects with a significant component of
multifamily housing may not be extended except upon written findings adopted by the legislative body, supported
by substantial evidence on the record, that all of the following conditions exist:
(1) The continued approval of the development of multifamily housing projects would have a specific, adverse
impact upon the public health or safety. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant,
quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety
standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the ordinance is adopted by the legislative body.
(2) The interim ordinance is necessary to mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact identified pursuant to
paragraph (1).
(3) There is no feasible alternative to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact identified pursuant
to paragraph (1) as well or better, with a less burdensome or restrictive effect, than the adoption of the proposed
interim ordinance.
(d) Ten days prior to the expiration of that interim ordinance or any extension, the legislative body shall issue a
written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance.
(e) When an interim ordinance has been adopted, every subsequent ordinance adopted pursuant to this section,
covering the whole or a part of the same property, shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect
upon the termination of the first interim ordinance or any extension of the ordinance as provided in this section.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.govlfaceslcodes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65858&IawCode=GOV 112
Exhibit 1
June 25, 2019 Item #13 Page 4 of 12
6/14/2019 Law section
(f) Notwithstanding subdivision (e), upon termination of a prior interim ordinance, the legislative body may adopt
another interim ordinance pursuant to this section provided that the new interim ordinance is adopted to protect
the public safety, health, and welfare from an event, occurrence, or set of circumstances different from the event,
occurrence, or set of circumstances that led to the adoption of the prior interim ordinance.
(g) For purposes of this section, "development of multifamily housing projects" does not include the demolition,
conversion, redevelopment, or rehabilitation of multifamily housing that is affordable to lower income households,
as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or that will result in an increase in the price or
reduction of the number of affordable units in a multifamily housing project.
(h) For purposes of this section, "projects with a significant component of multifamily housing" means projects in
which multifamily housing consists of at least one-third of the total square footage of the project.
(Amended by Stats. 2001, Ch. 939, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2002.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65858&1awCode=GOV 2/2 June 25, 2019 Item #13 Page 5 of 12
EXHIBIT2
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY AND
{city of
Carlsbad
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) ALLOCATION
IN THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO MASTER PLAN AREA
Development Activity
Since Jan. 2014, there have been 161 dwelling units permitted with building permits within the
Village & Barrio Master Plan area; these units are within approved residential-only
developments as well as mixed use developments. There have also been nine commercial
projects that have received building permits since Jan. 2014. The commercial development
projects include:
• State Street Mixed Use 30-commercial and timeshare portions of a
mixed-use building (under construction)
• Springhill Suites Hotel (under construction)
• JM Concepts -two cargo container restaurants (complete)
• Grand Madison -commercial space (nearing completion)
• Town House -office space (under construction)
• Blue Water -addition to existing restaurant (complete)
• St. Michael's -expansion to existing narthex (complete)
• Tuscan Office Suites -new office building (complete)
• Quonset addition -addition to retail (complete)
In additional to new construction, there have been 80 permits issued for tenant improvements for
either (1) establishing new businesses or (2) adding improvements to existing businesses and
community facilities such as St. Michael's or the Army Navy Academy.
Current development projects which are approved (but not yet built) or currently under review
are summarized as follows:
• Approved -15 residential or mixed-use projects were approved to add 261 dwelling
units, and 15 planning approvals for non-residential projects were approved to add a
variety of new businesses and restaurants or to make improvements to existing
businesses ..
• Under review -Eight residential or mixed-use projects which propose to add 108
dwelling units, and three non-residential projects that propose renovations to existing
businesses and add a new brewery and tasting room.
RHNA Allocation
To understand the anticipated potential for residential development within the Village & Barrio
Master Plan area staff reviewed the specific RHNA allocation for the Village & Barrio area and
Community Services Branch
Community & Economic Development 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I June 25, 2019 Item #13 Page 6 of 12
Page 2
Development Activity and RHNA Allocation -Village & Barrio
the related designated density. It is important to note that for Growth Management Plan
purposes, housing projects approved in the Village are subject to unit allocations from a portion
of the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB) specifically reserved for the Village. As of June 1,
the remaining EDUB allocation available for Village housing is 566 dwelling units.
The city's 2016 Housing Element sites inventory accommodates a portion of its RHNA within
the Village & Barrio area. After accounting for sites on which projects have been built, are in
construction or approved but not yet in construction, the remaining Housing Element sites
available for RHNA purposes are as follows:
Housing Element sites inventory available -April, 2019
Above
Very Low Low Moderate Moderate Total
Village 483 0 196 0 679
Barrio 250 2 0 30 282
Total 733 2 196 30 961
June 25, 2019 Item #13 Page 7 of 12
June 17, 2019
Re: Village and Barrio building and development moratorium
RECEIVED
JUN 19 Wt9
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City Manager Chadwick, Mayor Hall, and Council Members Bhat-Patel, Blackburn, Hamilton, and
Schumacher:
Summary
Please include this letter in the public record for the above-referenced item of business scheduled for
the 6/25/2019 City Council meeting. I am neutral on building/development moratoriums. However,
traffic data collected on El Camino Real in November 2018 indicate at least one vehicle level of service
(LOS) failure based on the Growth Management Program (GMP), the Citywide Facilities and
Improvements Plan (CFIP), and the General Plan Mobility Element. Thus, I believe the moratorium under
consideration for the Village and Barrio areas, as well as surrounding areas, are mandatory until either
(1) vehicle congestion is reduced on El Camino Real (and perhaps Carlsbad Village Drive), or (2) the City
Council creates another street facility exemption(s) from the vehicle LOS performance standard.
Detail
The Village and Barrio areas of Carlsbad are located in Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) #1:
I
1
ZONE 1
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
1
CJRCULA TION s l STEM
General Plan
Exhibit 3
June 25, 2019 Item #13 Page 8 of 12
The Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for LFMZ #1 (adopted 7/15/1987) includes the following
streets/intersections as being subject to vehicle LOS standards:
• Carlsbad Boulevard
• Carlsbad Village Drive
• El Camino Real
• Las Flores Drive
• Marron Road
• Monroe Street
• Tamarack Avenue
Section 21.90.080 of the Growth Management ordinance in the Carlsbad Municipal Code states:
If at any time after preparation of the local facilities management plan the performance
standards established by a plan are not met then no development permits or building permits
shall be issued within the local zone until the performance standard is met or arrangements
satisfactory to the City Council guaranteeing the facilities and improvement have been made.
The current version of the CFIP, which apparently supersedes the LFMPs, states:
... Maintain LOS Dor better for all modes that are subject to [the] multi-modal level of service
(MM LOS) standard, as identified in Table 3-1 of the General Plan Mobility Element, excluding
LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council.
The above-referenced 2015 General Plan Mobility Element update eliminated numerous Carlsbad
streets from being subject to the vehicle LOS standard based on revised street "typologies," including
the following that are in the (now presumably superseded) Zone #1 LFMP list:
• Carlsbad Boulevard
• Carlsbad Village Drive (west of 1-5)
• Las Flores Drive
• Marron Road
• Monroe Street
• Tamarack Avenue
2
June 25, 2019 Item #13 Page 9 of 12
However, that still leaves El Cam ino Real (from the northern City Limit to Crestview Drive near Cannon
Road) and Carlsbad Village Drive (from 1-5 to El Camino Real) subject to the current vehicle LOS standard
within LFMZ #1 (see the orange and pink coded streets in the following map from the General Plan
Mobility Element).
I . J_
)---~~~-~ -----....=---~--~-•.>' i \ ' ~-·...,. J
l
\ I ~t __ _
-... ..;,•,..M ~
In the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Marja Acres Project dated 4/2019 (SCH No.
2018041022), Appendix J is a "Transportation Impact Analysis" dated 3/26/2019 reported by traffic
engineering consulting firm Linscott Law & Greenspan (LLG). The LLG analysis includes vehicle counts
collected on 11/13/2018 along El Camino Real between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road . Peak AM
volumes on southbound/eastbound El Camino Real were reported as follows (see Figure 3-2 of the
DEIR):
• Tamarack Avenue to Kelly Drive= 2,813 vehicles per hour
• Kelly Drive to project driveways= 2,901 vehicles per hour
• Project driveways to West Ranch Road/Lisa Street= 2,868 vehicles per hour
• West Ranch Road/Lisa Street to Cannon Road = 2,842 vehicles per hour
3
June 25, 2019 Item #13 Page 10 of 12
Carlsbad's new "Roadway Service Volume Table -Specific Corridors" (a.k.a. "Roadway Capacity Table -
Specific Corridors") indicates that LOS becomes a failing "E" at volumes exceeding 2,800 vehicles per
hour for that stretch of El Camino Real (see the value highlighted in yellow below). This LOS
determination method is compliant with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), which has been a
requirement since adoption of the General Plan Mobility Element in 9/2015:
Tab le 1: Roadway Capacity Table -Specific Corridors
Roadway P,eak Direction
N/SStteets Limits Classification A B C D E
City Llmlts to Marron Road 6/35/D .. .. .. ·•• 1400
Marron Road to Carlsbad Vl llage Drive 6/35/D •• 140 201'0 2S20 #U
Carlsbad vmage Drlv,e to T.amat ack Avenue 6/SS/D 1930 2850 2900 iw 1#1
Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road 6/SS/O .. •• 2400 280-0 #II
2/SS/D• NB .. 10 0 _860 ## ## Cannon Road to College Boulevard 3/5$/D •SB .. 2150 2900 #Ii 1#1
College Boulevard to Palomar Airport Road 6/SS/D 270 2750 2940 11'11 II# £1 Camino Reab Pal omar AJ,pott Roa d to Camino Vida Roble 6/55/D .. .. 1330 2510 2580
2/55/D• Nil .. 910 2020 2100 #II Camlno Vida Robl e lo Poinsel1l a Lane -3/55/D -58 .. 1470 2820 2900 #II
Poins.ettia Lane to Aviara Parkwav•Alga Road 6/5S/D .. .. 2100 2820 2900
3/55/0• NB .. 13.90 2580 II# #II Aviata Parkway-Alga Road to Lil Costa Avenue -"
2/SS/D •S!i .. soo 1920 U# 1111
La Costa Avenue to Leucadia Boulevard 6/55/D .. .. 1880 2820 2880
Therefore, at a minimum, El Camino Real between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road is currently
failing the CFIP standard for vehicle LOS, which should trigger a halt to development in LFMZ #1,
including the Village and Barrio areas, as well as LFMZs #8 and #14 that also include that portion of El
Camino Real. In addition, the LFMPs for LFMZs #2, #15, and #24 include intersection impacts in the
failing portion of El Camino Real, and the service volume table includes those intersections and takes
them into account for determination of LOS. So, the El Camino Real failures also should trigger a halt to
development in those zones.
Vehicle counts and LOS grades under the new service volume table have not been reported recently for
the more northerly segments of El Camino Real within LFMZ #1 (from the City Limit to Tamarack
Avenue). However, the 9/9/2015 Fehr and Peers Memorandum entitled "LOS Assessment of the City of
Carlsbad's Traffic Monitoring Program Study Intersections" shows multiple intersections in that stretch
at LOS D based on 2014 vehicle counts. Given additional development that has occurred in the area
since the 2014 vehicle counts were done, it would not be surprising if additional segments of El Camino
Real within LFMZ #1 also are now failing.
In addition, the performance of Carlsbad Village Drive is an open question. Even though it is still subject
to the vehicle LOS standard from 1-5 to College Boulevard (with an "Arterial Connector" street typology
in the General Plan Mobility Element), it is not included in the service volume table, and vehicle counts
have not been reported for many years, so it, too, may be failing.
4
June 25, 2019 Item #13 Page 11 of 12
Recommendations:
1. To stay in compliance with the GMP, place a moratorium on development in LFMZs #1, #2, #4, #8,
#14, #15, and #24 based on the vehicle LOS failures along El Camino Real between Tamarack Avenue
and Cannon Road.
2. Add entries to the "Service Volume Table -Specific Corridor" for Carlsbad Village Drive from 1-5 to
College Boulevard, because it is subject to the vehicle LOS standard, as well.
3. Calculate and report current vehicle LOS for the portions of El Camino Real and Carlsbad Village Drive
within LFMZ #1 from existing vehicle counts (or collect new vehicle counts first, if necessary).
Section 21.90.130(c) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires the City Manager to report this type of
apparent deficiency to the City Council, and, if the City Council determines that the deficiency exists,
then no further building or development permits can be issued until the situation is addressed.
Beyond the scope of the current matter, entries also should be added to the "Service Volume Table -
SpecificCorridor" for the other "Arterial Connector" streets in the Mobility Element, including Poinsettia
Lane (from College Boulevard to Melrose Drive) and Aviara Parkway/Alga Road (from Poinsettia Lane to
Melrose Drive), as well as all of the streets with the "Industrial" typology, because they are subject to
the vehicle LOS standard, too.
In addition, the new vehicle counts and resulting LOS grades should be released for the entire city to
determine where failures are occurring and where development may need to be halted in additional
LFMZs. In other words, release the latest Traffic Monitoring Report and Growth Management Program
Monitoring Report using the new HCM method that is compliant with the General Plan Mobility
Element.
I also think it would be advisable to add entries for other streets carrying higher volume of vehicles,
including the "Neighborhood Connector" and "Employment/Transit Connector Streets," such as
Carlsbad Boulevard, Avenida Encinas, Paseo Del Norte, Tamarack Avenue, La Costa Avenue east of El
Camino Real, Calle Barcelona, etc. Although these streets technically are not subject to the vehicle LOS
standard, it is a good idea to monitor their performance.
Sincerely,
Steve Linke
Carlsbad, CA
splinke@gmail.com
5
June 25, 2019 Item #13 Page 12 of 12
Zachary Markham
Chairman
Darcy Clevenger
Interim Vice Chair
Fumi Matsubara
Board Member
Heidi Willes
Board Member
Samantha Fauce
Board Member
Sherry Alvarado
Board Member
Jake Stipp
Board Member
Bryce Brigham
Board Member
Leading the continual
improvement of Carlsbad
Village, by promoting and
enhancing its business,
cultural, and community
vitality, making it a
premier destination.
300 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Suite 108A #135
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760.453-7076
www.carlsbad-village.com
info@carlsbad-village.com
June 24, 2019
Re: City Council discussion June 25, 2019 on potential time-bound development
moratorium for Village and Barrio Master Plan area
Dear City Manager Chadwick, Mayor Hall, and Members of the City Council:
It is our understanding that a discussion will take place at the June 25th council
meeting regarding a potential development moratorium for the Village of Carlsbad ·
and that the council will provide direction to city staff as appropriate. CVA is
hoping that through the course of discussion that clarity will be provided on a I number of issues to help dispel myths and rumors regarding the future of building
in Carlsbad Village.
We would like to leave the council meeting with a firm understanding of:
-What is the intent of this moratorium?
-What does "time-bound" mean in the scope of a moratorium?
-How projects in various phas_es of completion are affected?
-How this will financially impact existing Village businesses?
For example, we think it is safe to assume that projects under construction will
not be affected, however, how will an approved "shovel ready" project such as
the Carlsbad Village Lofts be affected? How will a time-bound moratorium affect a
project such as The Seaglass that is currently in the review proc;:ess?
With recent tenant improvement projects like Shorehouse Kitchen, Handel's Ice
Cream, and the newly-approved Pure Project turning a once dilapidated building
in the heart of our downtown into a seamless collection of businesses that fit well
with the look and feel of the Village, it is sometimes difficult to overreact to the ·
concept of future building. Will the moratorium affect Pure Project that just
received a 5-1 approval from the Planning Commission? Will it have ,an impact on
the restaurant remodel that was just approved for 264 Fresco?
The Carlsbad Village Lofts is a mixed-use project with a goal to revitalize a
gateway parcel to the Village with market-rate and affordable housing, ground-
floor retail, public plaza space and a new pedestrian-friendly street connecting
Carlsbad Village Dr. to Grand Ave. This project came to fruition after three years
of public outreach to incorporate the community's input and honor the City of
Carlsbad's sustainability, infill and affordable-housing goals. It has received
approval but ground has not yet been broken. Will it be halted?
In a recent article in .the San Diego Reader, the future look and feel of Carlsbad Village was compared, by the
author, to that of Orange County. However, the town the author likens us to is Manhattan Beach, located in
Los Angeles County. It is actua·lly a charming beach town that is home to 150 retailers, over 50 restaurants
including everything from family-owned taco shops to upscale ocean view dining, a weekly certified organic
Farmer's Market, and year-round events like beach volleyball tournaments, sidewalk sales, and trunk shows on
the stranp. A person interviewed in the article goes on to claim that all the new designs being proposed
for the Village seem to be similar and uninspiring, yet at a council meeting recently a member of
the audience argued that the designs were all inconsistent and "hodgepodge." The inconsistencies
in this article and others, as well as general public perception, are apparent.
Despite the adoption of the Village and Barrio Master Plan, a multi-year collaboration between city
staff, residents, business owners, and consultants, with dedicated engagement from the public,
there still seems to be a tremendous amount of consternation about the future of the Village
regarding its growth. However, it is our opinion that while a discussion to help provide clarification
might be worthwhile, that a time-bound building moratorium could create further frustration.
Thank you for helping us understand the factual elements of a "time-bound development
moratorium" so that we can speak confidently to our stakeh.olders about the future of development
in the Village and how it may affect the future of their businesses.
Sincerely,
Christine Davis
Executive Director
Carlsbad Village Association I Page 2 of 2
From: simon angel
Date: June 24, 2019 at 3:12:51 PM PDT
To: "barbara.hamilton@carlsbadca.gov" <barbara.hamilton@carlsbadca.gov>, "priya.bhat-
patel@carlsbadca.gov" <priya.bhat-patel@carlsbadca .gov>, "cori.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov"
<cori.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov>, "keith.blackburn@carlsbadca.gov"
<keith.blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>, "matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov" <matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: June 25,2019 City Council meeting, Item 13
Without regard to whether a moratorium within the scope of the Village and Barrio Master Plan
(VBMP) is appropriate I wish to submit additional information for inclusion in the discussion of
this matter for the Publi.c Record.
Because the report of the Coastal Commission has been issued and contains specific
"Modifications " and "Suggested Modifications" and provides commentary on matters within
the VBMP, it would be appropriate for some ofthis information to be addressed.
At page 19 of the Commission's report Section titled, A. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL,
indicates a failure to agree on "roadway modification projects" and the use of "L~vel of Service"
(LOS) as opposed to a "quantitative change in travel time" analysis. Coastal Commission staff
concerns are that, "An LOS calculation may not adequately capture potential increases in travel
time caused by projects other than roadway modifications that narrow or reduce lanes". While
the City's staff suggests that "using peak travel volumes is not common road engineering
practice" and would not like to require "summer traffic data analysis", the Commission staff
disagrees and believes this data is necessary in order to make fully informed decisions.
Additionally, Commission staff would include the time frame from Memorial day to Labor Day
and weekends to obtain a complete picture. These studies and analysis should be conducted
annually and /or for specific projects. The Coastal Commission report has not gone before the
City Council for Public Hearing but it should be considered in the discussion regarding a
structured moratorium for the Village and Barrio areas.
Since the Coastal Commission report presents flaws in the methodology regarding both traffic
and parking matters relating to the restriction of public coastal access by approval of some
projects, roadway modifications and others it is important to consider the Coastal Commission
Report in a moratorium discussion regarding new projects.
SIA'nOnlA~
. 13(i(¥vlo-C(i(¥4bad-C~y AdNocat-~
. i
Debbie Fountain
Community and Economic Development Director
June 25, 2019
Discussion on Potential Action
Development Moratorium for Village
Barrio Master Plan Area
City Council Request
June 11, 2019 City Council Motion:
“to bring back for discussion a time-bound
moratorium on building and development in the
Village Barrio Master Plan area and to docket for
June 25, 2019”
Moratoriums
•California Government Code Section 65858
•Permits adoption of an interim, urgency ordinance (45 days) to prohibit a proposed use or uses or development which may be in conflict with the General Plan or related zoning or other land use policies because the City Council is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time revisions to applicable land use or development regulations.
GMP Moratoriums
•Different than a moratorium under the
California Government Code Section 65858
•Unique to Carlsbad via a voter initiative
•Not noticed for consideration at this time
•City Council will consider GMP monitoring
report and related issues on July 9th and 16th
What is required to adopt a Moratorium?
(under California Government Code Section 65858)
•Four-Fifths Vote of the City Council;
•Must contain a finding that there is a current
and immediate threat to the public health,
safety or welfare;
•Urgency Ordinance may be adopted without
the notice and adoption procedures required
for other ordinances.
What if Moratorium includes
Multifamily housing?
–Government code allows a moratorium for a 45 day period only, unless the City Council finds that approval of multifamily housing would have a specific adverse impact on health and safety that cannot be mitigated.
–Specific adverse impact means: a significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date that the interim, urgency ordinance is adopted.
Housing Element Sites Inventory
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Total
Village 483 0 196 0 679
Barrio 250 2 0 30 282
Total 733 2 196 30 961
All City 912 693 1062 2332 4,999
Note: Highest densities are in Village Barrio Area due to close
proximity to transit and services; these densities accommodate
very low income affordability from a site inventory standpoint
Required Next Steps
•Preparation of an ordinance, if applicable and per Council Direction, to bring back to City Council for approval.
•Interim, Urgency Ordinance requires Four-Fifths vote of the City Council and is limited to 45 days
•Interim Moratorium Ordinance and Extensions requires legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare and that approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety or welfare.
Required Next Steps
•If the moratorium includes the development of
multifamily housing projects (one third of the
square footage or more), the interim
ordinance may only be extended (beyond 45
days) with findings of “specific adverse impact
on public health and safety that cannot be
mitigated”.
City Council Action
•Discussion of a time-bound moratorium on
building and development in the Village Barrio
Master Plan area
•No recommended action; discussion by Council
•Direction to staff on any next steps
Thank You