HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-05-02; City Council; 5432; San Diego County Consistency Zoning-c
AGENDA BI:LL NO.
• C i fvv- w v
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Initial:
Dept.
DATE: May 2. 1978 ~
City Atty /s/
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING K
City Mgr._JK
SUBJECT:
SAN DIEGO COUNTY CONSISTENCY ZONING
Statement of the Matter
The San Diego County Planning Commission on April 10, 1978, recommending the rezoning
of the South Carlsbad Subarea to T-40 as suggested by the City of Carlsbad (see letter
dated April 5, 1978). The T-40 Zone is a holding zone which permits subdivisions of a
minimum of 40 acres per lot. This rezoning was only for the land within the island
area south of Palomar Airport Road, west of El Camino Real. It did not include any
other island area or property within the Carlsbad Sphere of Influence outside of the
City boundaries.
The T-^0 Zone will promote annexation to the City of Carlsbad therefore the City Council
should endorse the County Planning Commission's recommendations. In addition, the City
Council should recommend that all areas within Carlsbad's Sphere of Influence that is
unincorporated should also be zoned T-40.
The County Planning Commission's decision or recommendation for the T-40 is consistent
with the policies developed between the City of Carlsbad and the County Board of
Supervisor's. However, such consistency is unusual since most recent decisions made by
the County Planning Commission or staff do not relate to the Board of Supervisor's
policies as it pertains to the City of Carlsbad unincorporated areas (see attached
memo to the City Manager for explanation of some of these inconsistencies).
Exhibits
Memo to Paul Bussey, dated April 17, 1978
Letter to San Diego Planning Commission dated April 5, 1978
Memorandum to Paul Bussey dated April 25, 1978.
Recommendation
It is recommended that staff prepare a letter to the Board of Supervisors that: (1)
supports the County Planning Commission's recommendation for T-40 zoning in the south
Carlsbad area, (2) recommends deletion from the San Dieguito Community plan those areas
in Carlsbad Sphere of Influence, (3) recommend that the County initiate rezoning all
unincorporated property in Carlsbad Sphere of Influence to the T-^0 zone. Also, it
is recommended that a letter to the Board of Supervisors be prepared per recommendation
contained in memo dated April 25, 1978.
FORM PLANNING 73
AGENDA BILL NO. 5432 -2- May 2, 1978
5-2-78 The Mayor and City Manager were directed to make an appointment
to meet with the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the
Supervisor from this district to discuss the San Diego County
Consistency Zoning as it pertains to Carlsbad; also staff was
directed to prepare a letter expressing the Council's position
on the Youth Hostel in the Ponto area to accompany the City's
representative at the public hearing.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
April 17, 1978
Paul Bussey, City Manager
James Hagaraan, Planning Director
Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Director
County of San Diego Consistency Zoning —
Reference letter dated April 5, 1978, to the
San Diego County Planning Commission
from Paul Bussey, City Manager
The San Diego County Planning Commission on April 10, 1978,
recommended the rezoning of the South Carlsbad Subarea to T-40,
as suggested by the City of Carlsbad. As I understand it, this
was over the objections of most of the property owners in the
area. The T-40 zone is a holding zone which permits subdivisions
of a minimum 40 acres per lot. The rezoning was only for that
land within the island areas south of Palomar Airport Road, west
of El Camino Real, known as South Carlsbad Subarea. It did not
include any other portions of County property within the
Carlsbad Sphere of Influence inside or outside of the San
Dieguito General Plan. LUER will send us a map showing the
Planning Commission recommendation on that land within our Sphere
of Influence in the "Batiquitos area".
Dennis Manyak, County Planner, suggested that the City of Carlsbad
follow through by writing a letter to the Board of Supervisor's
agreeing with the Planning Commission's recommendation for the
T-40 Zone and recommending that all other areas of San Dieguito
General Plan, within Carlsbad's Sphere of Influence, be rezoned
to T-40. Also, to suggest to the Board of Supervisors that re-
zoning be initiated for all other property within the Carlsbad
Sphere of Influence to T-40. If you agree, I will prepare these
letters. . :'.
Bud Plender,
Assistant Planning Director
1200 ELM AVENUE l"l X^ , II TELEPHONE:
. CARtsSS. di.?S? 92008 lLfi3/ *?/ I ' .. ' (714)729-1,8,
of Cartebafc
t
April 5, 1973 • .'•.'. . .. .
San Diego County Planning Commission
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, California 22101
SUBJECT: South Carlsbad Subarea Zoning Implementation Proposal.
f . ' •
Dear Commissioners': .t
The purpose of this letter is to formally express our opposition to the
proposed zone changes of the South Carlsbad Subarea of the San Dieguito
Community Plan. These unincorporated islands were the subject of an
April l*f, 1977i meeting between San Diego County Board of Supervisors and
the City of Carlsbad. The outcome of that meeting was that both governing
bodies agreed that the island areas belonged within the City's Sphere of
Influence for the purposes of general planning and Local Coastal Plan
preparation. On a motion by Supervisor Hamilton, seconded by Supervisor
;Bates, the Board directed County staff to review the Carlsbad General Plan
and take action to make the San Dieguito Community Plan coincide and make
appropriate zone changes to bring them into conformity. The motion also
.included the statement that "wherever possible, land should be annexed into
the City of Carlsbad where development.would occur."
First of all, we have identified two areas of the San Dieguito Community
Plan that are in apparent conflict with Carlsbad's General Plan. The first
.area is labeled Map Subarea No. !l on the proposed zone change sheet. This
area is designated as high-medium residential in the San Dieguito Community
Plan. The Carlsbad General Plan designates this are.'] as nonres ident i al
reserve because of the impact of palomar Airport and the heavy traffic along
Palomar Airport Road. The City, feels thai a general plan amendment is needed
for this area to make the land use designation of the'Son Dieguito Community
Plan consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan. The other area of conflict
is labeled Map Subarea No. 10 on the zoning sheet. This area is presently
designated as general commercial on the San Dieguito Community Plan, The
Carlsbad General Plan shows this area as medium density residential, h to
10 dwelling units per acre. It is unclear whether or not the proposed change
on this area is for a zone change to T-2 or a General IMan Amendment. The
City would encourage a General Plan Amendment to the San Dieguito plan to
bring it into conformity with the Carlsbad General Plan.
Secondly, the City is opposed to the whole concept behind the zone changes
presently being proposed. To be consistent with the Board of Supervisor's
policy of encouraging armoxation to the City of Carlsbad prior to development
San Diego County Planning tommission
.April 5, 1978
Page Two
of property, we would suggest' that q!l oftne property within the unin-
corporated islands be rezoned to T-^0. This temporary zoning is listed
as a consistent zone to all of the land use designations of the San
Dieguito Plan and at the same time would force properties to annex to the
City of Carlsbad prior to any development. This zoning should take place,
as 1 mentioned, on all of the unincorporated areas within the City, not
just the proposed areas to conform with San Dieguito Community Plan.
.Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review these proposed zone changes.
We hope our suggestions will be given consideration. We would appreciate
being informed of your actions on this matter prior to.'the time that it is to
be discussed by the Board of Supervisors.
t
Sincerely,
Paul Bussey -^ *
CITY MANAGER;
cc: Board of Supervisors,
Chairman Lucille Moore
Supervisor Tom Hamilton
Supervisor Roger Hedgecock
Supervisor Jim Bates
Supervisor Lee R. Taylor
Carlsbad City Council
PDB:ar
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 25, 1978
TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager
FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director'
SUBJECT: SAN DIEGO COUNTY - CITY OF CARLSBAD MUTUAL LAND USE POLICY
Approximately 10 square square miles of the City of Carlsbad planning area
is unincorporated, of which 8 square miles are islands completely surrounded
by the boundaries of the City of Carlsbad. In the past both the City of
Carlsbad and the County of San Diego have spend time and effort in planning
for these areas. This has been a duplication of effort and the plans unfor-
tunately have not been consistent. Since the area will more than likely be
annexed to Carlsbad, it seems logical that the City of Carlsbad should have
planning jurisdiction and the County should promote annexation.
The County of San Diego agrees in general to this philosophy. The Board of
Supervisors on May 30, 197^, adopted San Diego Annexation Incorporation Policy
No. 1-55. One of the policies contained in 1-55 state that "the County will
cooperate with cities in bringing about mutually acceptable land use controls
within the sphere of influence."
In Carlsbad the planning area corresponds almost totally with the City's out-
side boundaries, where the planning area is outside the boundaries. LAFCO
has generally agreed that Carlsbad planning area is consistent with their
recommended Sphere of Influence area. Therefore, there should not be a
question of applying 1-55 within Carlsbad's planning area.
Also, the Board of Supervisor's met with the Carlsbad City Council on April
I'*, 1977, to discuss mutual land use concerns. Upon completing the discussions,
the Board of Supervisor's voted to (1) pursue annexation of the Palomar Airport
area and the remaining County owned islands within the City of Carlsbad, (2)
review Carlsbad Community Plan and take actions to make San Diego County
General Plan 1990 coincide, (3) make appropriate zone change^to bring them into
conformance, (k) wherever possible, to bring annexation into the City of
Carlsbad where development would occur (see attached letter dated April 28,
1977).
The Board of Supervisors have followed the policy wherever applicable.
However, the County Planning Commission and their staff have not yet fully
appreciated these policies and generally have not followed them as it pertains
to Carlsbad. This memo is to summarize how effective Policy 1-55 and the
County's commitment to Carlsbad are, and where better cooperation is needed.
The following is a synopsis of the more pertinent actions between land use
decisions that affect both San Diego County and the City of Carlsbad.
Local Coastal Planning. The Board of Supervisors directed the initiation of
a program that would give Carlsbad planning jurisdiction of the County island
areas within the Coastal Commission area for all areas of unincorporated land
except for that property south of the City boundaries (Batiquitos Lagoon Area).
The Board of Supervisors approved this policy on April 26, 1977, by Minute
Order No. 33. It states that the County will submit the Local Coastal Plan in
two segments. The first segment will be the island areas which will be done
by the City of Carlsbad. The second segment will be the San Dieguito Local
Coastal Plan done by the County planning staff. Carlsbad formally agreed to
this policy by Resolution No. 5270. On February 7, 1978, after its consideration,
the Board reaffirmed its intent of this matter and acknowledged Council Reso-
lution No. 5270 as an official Statement of Intent by the City of Carlsbad to
perform the staff work necessary to prepare the Local Coastal Plan for the
unincorporated items within the City. The Board ordered that the County
Integrated Planning Office initiate contact with the City of Carlsbad staff for
the purpose of developing a memorandum of understanding setting forth operational
details and coordination aspects of this interrelationship. Staff has attempted
on numerous occasions to meet with IPO to meet this order. As of this date the
County staff has not had time to work with us, except to submit an informal
outline for the memorandum of understanding. We understand that County staff
has been very busy and that they should have time to meet and work with Carlsbad
in the near future.
Candidate Growth Areas. The Candidate Growth Area Proposal as drafted by the
County staff did not take into account the unique circumstances of the 'island1
in Carlsbad. City staff did have the opportunity to meet with County staff
to review this draft before hearing. We were told at this meeting that it was
a draft only and that the City's input would be desirable and helpful for the
Board's final decision. Also, chairperson Moore did review this program
with the Carlsbad City Council. Carlsbad did not agree with the County's
recommendation and a letter from City Council to the Board, identifying our
desires was forwarded. City staff presented this letter with a verbal statement
at the Board's meeting in Vista on April 14, 1978. Although we understand the
large task in developing the County Growth Program, we feel that there should
have been more contact with the cities prior to its publication.
Parcel Spli tt ing. Parcel map processing is administrative at the County of
San Diego. In the Carlsbad subarea for the most part it consists of splitting
properties into one to five acre parcels. Since the County does not require
public facilities in parcel map processing, these lots are generally designed
without street access or public facilities. After development with a residence
there is little initiative to annex. Also, this type of haphazard land dev-
elopment reduces later land planning options to the City of Carlsbad if the
land is annexed. This is especially true where the City of Carlsbad's General
Plan indicates the property as nonresidential and the County is allowing lot
splitting for residential estate; this has occurred near Palomar Airport. Also,
the City of Carlsbad requires public streets to all lots to provide the nec-
essary urban services that citizens expect. This can only be effectively
accomplished if such consideration is given at the initial lot splitting stages.
Carlsbad has protested this parcel map processing to the County staff but the
County staff has not followed our suggestions. They have explained that not-
withstanding County policy on annexation or the understanding with the City of
Carlsbad the County staff has no jurisdiction except to approve parcel split
if it meets all County codes. The City is therefore placed in a position of
appearing before the Board of appeals in such cases as a protestant.
.2
Youth Hostel Ponto. The Board of Supervisors will hear on May 10, 1978, an
appeal of Planning Commission approval of a campground with accessory youth
hostel in the south east Carlsbad area. (P 77-169).
The County Planning Commission approved this youth hostel over the objections
of the Carlsbad City Council as well as property owners in the area. The City
protested this youth hostel on the grounds that it is the City's policy to
require annexation prior to development and we wished to be the approving
body in the Conditional Use Permit to insure compatibility with City planning.
It is our understanding that the County staff report recommended denial but
at the public hearing the County staff verbally changed this recommendation
to approval. The County Planning Commission recommended approval on a 6-0
vote on March 17, 1978.
The County staff is now recommending denial of the appeal. The action by the
County Planning Commission and County staff is not in keeping with County
Policy 1-55 and agreements with the City of Carlsbad. Carlsbad's position
and the inconsistent action of the County Planning Commission should be brought
to the attention of the Board of Supervisors.
Summary. The County Board of Supervisors have been consistent in promoting
Policy 1-55 and meeting agreements with the City of Carlsbad. There is a
problem however in implementing these policies by County Commission and County
staff. The City Council of Carlsbad may wish to bring these inconsistencies
to the attention of the Board of Supervisors. We should also reaffirm our
position on some of the issues, mainly the youth hostel and lot splitting in
areas of Carlsbad's Sphere of Influence. If the City Council agrees, staff
should be directed to prepare a letter to the Board of Supervisors indicating
such.
Attachments
San Diego County Policy 1-55
Letter dated April 28, 1977 from Deputy County Clerk
Letter to County Planning protesting Ponto R-V Park-Special Use Permit.
BP:ar
.3
County of San Diego, California
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY
Subject
San Diego Annexation/Incorporation
Policy
Policy
Number
1-55
Page
1 of 5
Purpose
It is the policy of the County of San Diego to encourage and assist
those urbanizing but unincorporated areas of the County to seek
municipal status through annexation or incorporation.
Background
Traditionally, county government in California has been regarded as
that level of government providing services to the residents of rural
areas. If that concept of county government was ever valid, it
certainly is not appropriate for county government in 1974. Today,
the county is the provider of a wide range of services to all residents
of the county whether they live in rural areas, or within incorporated
cities. As a matter of fact, the county spends more money providing
services to residents of cities than it does providing for residents
of the rural areas. The county is the only level of government that
has an elected board selected from the entire area of the county.
Under State law and local charter, county government has broad powers
to provide for programs meeting the needs of people throughout the
entire area of the county. In fact, county government is that level
of local government which provides services>on a regional basis.
The county is the primary governmental agency responsible for the
criminal justice system -- law enforcement, courts and corrections.
County government provides health services to the residents of the
entire county. The county is the service delivery system responsible
for a wide range of social programs including welfare, drug clinics,
emergency medical services, hospitals and numerous other human care
programs. In addition, the Board of Supervisors has responsibility
for land use planning and zoning, for the unincorporated portions of
the County. It is well recognized that effective land use planning
requires cooperation between cities and counties because substantial
increments of urban growth occur in the fringe areas surrounding
cities.
Because of the need for coordination of regional decisions a compre-
hensive planning organization was created in San Diego County. This
organization is an effort to bring together the elected representa-
tives of the general purpose cities and the County in a voluntary
association to address planning issues which transcend Gity and County
boundaries and involve all of the governmental jurisdictions within
the region. There is considerable discussion and controversy over
County of San Diego, California
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY
Subject
San Diego Annexation/Incorporation
Policy
Policy
Number
1-55
Page
2 of 5
the proper role of CPO. There is a basic lack of agreement on the
policy and concept of what is properly a County responsibility and
what services and decisions reside with the individual city councils
throughout the region. There is a need for the general purpose
governments and the special districts to establish policies to
clarify the functions of various governmental agencies and to decide
which responsibilities should be delegated to which agencies.
Traditionally, city governments are formed to provide for the needs of
people within an urban area. A wide range of services and powers is
available to city governments and in California the doctrine of home
rule applies most directly to cities. The home rule concept says that
each area within the State which wishes to join together for the
purpose of self government and self determination in regard to local
affairs should be allowed to do so. Municipal corporations are given
the power to levy and collect taxes and to spend funds for the benefit
of the people within the incorporated area. By and large city govern-
ments in California have been successful in administering land use
programs fostering economic development of communities and providing a
wide range of housekeeping services in the field of parks and recrea-
tion, libraries, streets, sewers and other local service programs.
City government has proved to be effective in administering the home
rule power.
Various areas within the unincorporated portion of the County are
rapidly urbanizing into citylike communities. Though historically the
County has not taken an active role in encouraging annexations to
cities or incorporations, there is a growing need to assist these
new urban areas in achieving municipal status. As communities develop
higher population densities there is inevitably a desire for land use
control and decision making to be at the community level. Additionally
there is a need and demand for municipal type public services. Such
services include higher levels of police and fire protection, more
local parks and recreational programs, improved drainage and trash
collection and direct citizen access to local government services and
facilities.
In unincorporated areas these municipal type services are commonly
provided through a proliferation of special taxing districts or County
operated service areas. Experience of other counties shows that urban
counties and cities become more concerned about local control and
improved services and special district delivery systems become
County of San Diego, California
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY
O-
Subject
San Diego Annexation/Incorporation
Policy
Policy
Number
1-55
Page
3 of 5
increasingly unsatisfactory. In order to assist areas to address
their urban needs, it would be appropriate for the County to have a
policy relative to annexation to existing cities or formation of new
municipalities in those unincorporated areas which have developed an
urban density requiring high levels of service and which have expressed
a community concern for local control of such services.
From the standpoint of attaining municipal level services annexation
to a city often provides a superior alternative to incorporation.
However, each individual situation where a community seeks municipal
status must be evaluated independently and should not be prejudged
for either annexation or incorporation.
When citizens look toward annexation or incorporation they usually do
so because they are dissatisfied with existing public services or
because they feel they have little or no control over decisions made
relative to their area. Inadequate or overlapping service delivery
systems, the diffusion of political responsibility, the fragmentation
of local government agencies, frustration at dealing with a large
bureaucracy coupled with a community identity all tend to support the
need for municipal government.
Policy
In view of these concerns, it is the policy of the Board of Supervisors
that:
1. The County will encourage and assist those unincorporated areas
of the County which have urbanized to the point of requiring a
municipal level of public services to seek municipal status by
either annexation to a city or incorporation.
In order to implement this policy, the County will carry out a
two stage effort.
a. Undertake a feasibility study with a principal emphasis
on economic factors when one or more of the following
criteria indicate that an area may be ready for annexation
or incorporation.
(1) Multiple public services are provided;
(2) Citizens of the area are requesting additional services;
County of San Diego, California
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY
Subject
San Diego Annexation/Incorporation
Policy
Policy
Number
1-55
Page
4 of 5
(3) The area falls within a sphere of influence of a city;
(4) Citizens have expressed an interest in local decision
making; and .a citizens group desires to sponsor a study
of the area.
b. Upon completion, the study will be presented to adjacent
cities for the purpose of considering annexation of the
area. If annexation is not a fiscally or politically viable
alternative and incorporation appears to be feasible and is
desired by the citizens of the area, the County will assist
in the filing of an application with the Local Agency
Formation Commission.
2. The County will be guided by the Local Agency Formation Commission
"Sphere of Influence" study as a means to identify the interests
of existing cities and areas to be considered for annexation.
3. The County will cooperate with cities in bringing about mutually
acceptable land use controls within sphere of influence.
4. Beyond the state-mandated criteria for establishing city bound-
aries, the following additional criteria will be supported by
the County in defining boundaries for annexation or incorporation
a.
b.
c.
d.
If a city is to provide water, sewer and/or flood control
services consideration should be given to including entire
drainage basins of streams (not necessarily of an entire
river) within the corporate limits.
If a city is to provide fire protection services, the area
should be a reasonable run time from fire protection
facilities.
When roads are on the boundary of a city, the entire right
of way should fall in or out of the corporate area.
Natural and mand-made barriers such as flood plains, freeways
ridgelines of hills, should be considered for logical
corporate boundaries.
e. Community identity attitudes concerning an area should be
C-O-County of San Diego, California
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY
Subject
San Diego Annexation/Incorporation
Policy
Policy
Number
1-55
Page
5 of 5
considered in boundary determination.
5. The County will support reorganization of jurisdictions providing
services when duplication arises due to annexation or incorpora-
tion.
Reference
B/S Action 5-30-74 (9)
............... ............. • ....... . • ........... '; ........ """ ............ 7 • '4COUNTY OF SAN DVEGO
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
nATF April 28, 1977
TO: Parks & Recreation (P29)
FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (A45)
Re: 4-14-77 (2)
The Board of Supervisors on April 14 at a joint meeting with
the City of Carlsbad considered the Calavera Lake Project in
the Carlsbad area and directed staff to:
Pursue annexation of the Palomar Airport area and the
remaining County-owned island within the City of
Carlsbad to the City of Carlsbad;
Review the Carlsbad Community Plan and take actions to
make the San Diego County General. Plan 1990 coincide
• and make appropriate zone changes to bring them into
conformance; and
Wherever possible, 'bring annexations into the City of
Carlsbad -where development would occur,
Discussion followed on the Lake Calavera Regional Park Project,
the disposition of properties surrounding it, the sources for
funding if the County considered its acquisition, its position
on the priority list of acquisition of regional parks, and it
was suggested that this Project be referred to the upcoming
conference on Regional Park Plans .
Further discussion followed on the importance of the cities
within the County being included in Growth Management meetings
and on the funding of proposed solid waste transfer stations.
PORTER D. CREMANS
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(^Deputy
DETrrs
cc: Frank Mannen, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Ave., Carlsbad 92008
Community Services Agency (A249)
Intergovernmental Affairs Office (A247)
Chief Administrative Officer (A6)
Integrated Planning (A650)
1 A 1077
1200 ELM AVENUE if jS^X . I 1 ' TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 ^UfcW(y/J (714)729-1181
Citp of Carbftafc
February 28, 1978
Paul M. Koenig, Chief Project Planner
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
9150 Chesapeake Drive
San Diego, California 92I23
REFERENCE: P77-I69 ' '
Dear Mr. Koenig:
The referenced case is on land within the Carlsbad Sphere of Influence and
the City of Carlsbad desires annexation prior to development on property
.so designated. The applicant, however, believes the time restraints of
annexation would not permit time for annexation and subsequent City approvals
to meet the upcoming camping season, and therefore has asked the County to
process a Special Use Permit prior to annexation. Your office has requested
a review by the City of Carlsbad in compliance with County Policy I-55 and
County directives given by the Board on April 19, I977.
To faciIitate'our review, Mr. Dale Schreiber, applicant for this Special Use
Permit has been in contact with the City of Carlsbad at the initiation of the
request. At the same time the City of Carlsbad has been in contact with Steve
McGiI I, County Project Planner assigned to this application. With background
information supplied by Mr. McGiI I and plans submitted by Mr. Schreiber, our
City Council was able to review this project relatively thoroughly in preparing
this report.
In our review we first noted that the "youth hostel" is not the main issue of
the request. Youth Hostel is permitted in the Carlsbad Zone Code by right in
this area. The problem is that the American Youth Hostel is only a small
portion of the request, the major activity will be the campground, especially
for RV'S. The Carlsbad City Council generally agreed that the youth hostel
would be a desirable use for the area, but felt that the total application
could create problems in the area and create a demand on servicing from the
City of Carlsbad. The City Council noted the following:
1) The property is within Carlsbad's Sphere of Influence and is adjacent to
City boundaries.
2) Carlsbad's General Plan indicates residential in the area, and if the
requested use is not properly conditioned or time limitations applied,
it could be an inappropriate use in the future.
Paul M. Koenig, Project Chief Planner
February 28, 1978
Page Two (2)
3)' Generally most uses existing in the area are non-conforming and some have
. time limitations. The City expects that the non-conforming uses will be
removed through amortization and the area will be residential in the future.
4) Police and fire service would be required by the City of Carlsbad since the
area is logically an extension of the boundaries of Carlsbad, and the City
a.l ready services the immediate developed area. The City Council felt that
police problems could be initiated from outsiders as well as people camping
in the campgrounds.
5) Septic failures with this many people would require sewer hookup in the City
system.
6) The City would have no control or ability to condition the application
.without annexation.
7) :There is need to get input from residents in the area especially the mobile
home park east of the railroad tracks.
Recommendation
The Carlsbad City Council recommends that the County DENY Special Use Permit
P77-I69 thereby requiring annexation to the City of Carlsbad. After annexation
Carlsbad would process the permit and have jurisdiction on its operation and
servicing needs. The City Council of Carlsbad recognizes that County Policy 1-55
and a subsequent directive on April .]fj> 1377, are guidelines for City and County
cooperation. If the County chooses to override these policies and wishes to
approve this request, the City Council of Carlsbad suggest the following be
considered:
1) The hearing be continued so that the residents of the mobile home park on
.the east side of the railroad tracks and all business in the Ponto area be
notified of this request, (occupants as well as property owners).
2) The following conditions be applied to the Special Use Permit:
a) Annexation be initiated by the applicant prior to occupancy in the park.
b) Septic System be initiated by the applicant prior to occupancy in the park.
c) Approval be granted for a period of time endi-ng April, 1983, but can be
extended by the Carlsbad Planning Commission for an additional 5 year
increments if it is found that the use is not a nuisance to the surrounding
area or creates a City servicing problem.
3) This memorandum be submitted to the hearing body for their information.
.2
Paul M. Koenig, Chief Project Planner
February 28, 1978
Page Three (3)
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions please call
Bud Plender of my office at 729-1181, Extension 25.
Sincerely,
dS^Ls-VUto L - MrtL^f?<&ML6.
mesCThiagama
lanning Director
JCH:BP:ar