Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-03-02; City Council; 6017-2; Rancho Carrillo Master Plan AmendmentL /I3 &-OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 4~# 6017-2 I TITLE: Rmcm CARRELOMASTERPLAN MT& 3-2-82 DEPT. cA AI4NMNT (139-A) DEPT. HD. - CITY Am&t& CITY MGR. a RECOMMENDED ACTION: If the City Council concurs and desires to approve an xwndme&tothe Rancho Carrillo Master Plan 139-A, your action is to re-introduce Or- dinance No. 9611 as revised. I!I!EMEXPLANATION: The City Council, at your meeting of January 5, 1982, directed the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documen ts approving Pancho Carrillo Master Plan mdment 139-A. The Ordinance was prepared and introduced at your January 19, 1982 meeting. Prior to adaption on February 2, 1982 letters objecting to the Ordinance were received (that afternoon) frczn Costa Real Municipal Water District and the Carrillo Pancho Partnership (one of the master plan property owners). The letters are attached hereto. The City Council continued thematter anddirectedouroffice to report on the concerns expressed in the letters. Our report is also attached. As the report explains, we suggest two modifications to the Master Plan Ordinance. If the City Council concurs, your action is to re-introduce revised Ordinance No. 9611. EXHIBITS: 1. Letter of January 29, 1982 from Costa F&al Municipal Water District 2. Letter of February 1, 1982 frcxn Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership 3. Report franCity Attorney 4. Ordinance No. 9611 hi,. . 4’ - -r LAW OFFICES OF SWIRSKY8 SAUER I AN ASSOCIATION INCLUDING PAUL S. SWIRSKY WILLIAM N. SAUER, iR. A PROFLS5IONA.L CORPORATION-~ * PRorEssloi*L CORPORATION 2745 JEFFERSON STREET MAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE BOX It85 CARUBAD, CALLFORNIA 92008 TELEP"ONE 17141 72s- 1197 January 29, 1982 Honorable City'Council City of Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Honorable Sirs: @or and on behalf of the Board of Directors 'of COSTA REAL WATER DISTRICT, I have been instructed to write to you to your attention certain matters which should be considered MUNICIPAL call to by your body before taking action in reference to the following pending mat- ters: 1. The final adoption of the revised RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN (MP-139 (A)). 2. The approval of th'e tentative Tract Map A_ <* of TREETOPS UNLIMITED (MP-lSO(B)/CT 81 PUD-35). . The documents proposed to be adopted in reference to both projects now have a provision that water service will be provided by the City of . Carlsbad. Although the matter of water service has been.called to your attention in the past, the Board'of Directors of COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DIS- TRICT wishes to reiterate and place of record, prior to your final ac- tion on the above matters, that the property.on both projects is lo- cated within the retail water service area of COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT and that the COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT is willing and ready to serve retail water to the projects. In addition thereto, there are now existing master plans adopted by COSTA REAL MU- NICIPAL WATER DISTRICT for a distribution system to serve retail water to the areas wherein both of the projects afe located. The owners of the property involved in the projects are aware of these master plans and have made their initial investigation and plans for development upon the basis of the existing master plans and acquisition of retail water service. from COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT. . . a -.. .: _ i/‘_ ._ :- I.:--..il. ._. .‘-4.cI i. . . . rA__s”--.“. _ --.I_ -_.. -_ ____-.. -- , .* :’ Honorable City Council City of Carlsbad January 29, 1982 Page -2- . It is submitted that the proposed imposition of a condition that, water . service will be provided by the City of Carlsbad is an unfair restric- tion to be imposed upon the developer in attempting to develop his property in a timely and economical manner.. Although there have been some discussions in reference to an amendment to the existing retail water service areas of the City of Carlsbad and COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, nothing has been accomplished at this time, so that the retail water serv.ice areas exist as they have since the retail water service agreement of 1972. Since some of the existing staff and Board members of COSTA REAL MU- _ '.NICIPAL WATER DISTRICT participated in the retail water service agree- . -ment of 1972, hereinafter for convenience referred to as the "1972 Agreement" and none of the staff members or the City Council partici- pated in the development of the 1972 Agreement, it was deemed appro- priate to review the background of the Agreement so that.you might have this information before taking action.on the two pending matters. Prior to the execution of the 1972 Agreement, the COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (then known as CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT) raised the issue of retail water service. in reference to the Carrillo Annexation'tc the City of Carlsbad and the La Costa Annexation to the City of Carlsbad at the annexation hearing before the Local Agency Formation Commitision of San Diego (LAFCO), since COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT was then serving retail'water service in both of the proposed annexed areas at the time of the annexation hearings. One of the fundamental issues considered by LAFCO is whether an annexation will create any duplication of services. LAFCO continued the matter of both annexations until the issue of retail water service was set- tled between the City of Carlsbad and COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DIS- TRICT. The 1972 Agreement was the negotiated agreement that was sub- mitted to LAFCO to eliminate any duplication of retail water services in the proposed areas to be annexed. Upon the basis of the agreement, LAFCO found that there was no duplicationof services in the proposed annexation and, therefore, approved the annexation. I might point out that all annexations to-the City of'carlsbad since that time have been approved by LAFCO upon the basis of the 1972 Agreement in reference to the elimination of the duplication of any services as to retail water service. It is submitted that the imposition of a provision that water service will be provided by the City of Carlsbad on the two pending matters is an attempt to circumvent the facts upon which LAFCO based its deci- sion to approve the annexation of the property to the City of Carlsbad. 3. . -: s’ - .--- -1.. : - 3 . j -:* , 1 1.--x .~.-.i-_-_ .--..- _I- -. ..I’- - h Honorable City Council City of Carisbad . January 29, .1982 . . Page -3- .U During the recent election campaign wherein the City of Carlsbad at- tempted to take over COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT by a subsid- iary district proceedings, it was emphasized by the City Council on more than one occasion that the City Council was more "accountable" to the citizens of Carlsbad than the Board of Directors of COSTA REAL MU- NICIPAL WATER DISTRICT. In addition thereto, publicity by the City of Carlsbad and COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT indicated the exist- ing services of water, namely, that the City of Carlsbad provided re- tail water to a portion of the COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT and that COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT provided wholesale water to the City of Carlsbad, and also provided retail water to a portion of COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT. . . . - In addition, it was emphasized by presentations of members of the City Council. that the City Council "just wanted the voters to have a chance to vote on the matter". The voters did vote on the matter and, by an overwhelming vote, stated that they did not desire to have the City of Carlsbad'take over COSTA.REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT. It would seem logical to draw the conclusion from the election that elected officals who are naccountablet' to the voters and citizens of Carlsbad would abide by that decision. The discussion -by the Council to date would seem to indicate that the Council does riot desire to be "accountable". . or abide by the desires of the voters and citizens of Carlsbad. In- stead, the Council is attempting to develop a course of action that will carry out the desires of some individual members of the staff and some individual members of the City Council contrary to the expressed desires of the voters and citizens of Carksbad. . I must again point out that, irrespective of the development of the 1972 Agreement, the conditions upon which the property was annexed and ' the desire of the voters and citizens of the City of Carlsbad, the proposed course of action is an unjust burden upon individuals who de- sire to develop property within the City ‘of Carlsbad. Your proposed course of action can only cost the developers additional money and loss of time to develop their property and, for the City to secure ad- 'ditional development within &he City of Carlsbad. It is submitted that this is an unfair and costly burden to.impose. upon them for the sole purpose of carrying out individual .desires. It is, therefore, respectfully requested that, in considering the two matters that are now before you, the conditions in reference to retail water service be changed to provide that "the water service will be provided by the agency serving retail water in the area at the time that retail water service is requested". If in the future the retail water service areas are adjusted between the City of Carlsbad and . Lf -. - __ - . 3’ “ - * -. . - ___ ’ T‘clz .L s ~ ,,, s.,.. : _ ._ .* .*-. ., _ .- -.--..~ .I .‘,‘* :- -* -.- ,- -L. Honorable City Council City of Carlsbad January 2.9, 1982 ,Page -4- ._ . . COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, such condition would still allow the project to proceed without any delay or additional cost. In ref- erence to design of the improvements for the water'service for the project, there is no existing conflict, as the design is now reviewed by both agencies to eliminate any potential conflict between the existing systems, . I wish to point out that this letter was reviewed and approved by all members of the Board of Directors of COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DIS- TRICT prior to its delivery to you, so that the statements set forth . herein do constitute the viewpoint of the Board'of Directors of COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT and they stand ready to carry out their commitments set forth in this letter. Very-truly yours, L2iiicSSkk3 . Legal Counsel COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT _ . . . PSS:bcs . . 2’ CARRILLO RANCH0 PARTNERSHIP c/o White & Robinson 600 "B" Street, Suite 2050 San Diego, California 92101 (714) 231-2721 February 1, 1982 Mr. Vincent F. Biondo, Jr. City Attorney City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan 139-A Dear Vince: As you know, we are general partners of and represent the Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership. This is a follow-up on our telephone call to you as of Friday morning, January 29, 1982, concerning Section I the proposed agency Bill Ordinance #9611 for the City Council meeting of January 5, 1982. Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership owns approximately 70 acres in the Master Plan area which comprises approximately 758 acres. Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership is a general partnership and none of the Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership's partners have any ownership interest in any of the other entities which own land in the Master Plan area. Further, none of the other entities which own land in the Master Plan area have any ownership interest in Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership. The ownership information in more detail is on file with the City as set forth in the Disclosure Statement. Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership is concerned about Section I of the proposed ordinance which contains a condition to the approval of the plan. We quote Section I of the proposed ordinance as follows: "I . Each applicant for this Master Plan amendment shall be jointly and severally responsible for the installation of public facilities required by this Master Plan. The applicant may make any private Mr. Vincent F. Biondo, Jr. City Attorney City of Carlsbad 1 February 1982 Page Two arrangements for distributing this responsibility among themselves, however, such private arrangements shall not relieve the individual applicants of their responsibility insofar as the City is concerned. This condition has been incorporated into the Master Plan as part of Section V.6." The Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership respectfully notifies you that it cannot accept the aforesaid condition. Such condition would pur- port to make the Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership and each partner thereof jointly and severally liable for public facilities required in a Master Plan of approximately 758 acres, 688 acres of which the partnership has no ownership in whatsoever. The cost of these public facilities could be estimated to be many millions of dollars. Respect- fully, the Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership does not accept a condition to an Amended Master Plan which purports to create any liability for any public facilities at the time the Amended Master Plan is approved. We are notifying you of this in advance of the City Council meeting so if you desire, you may advise the Council so they may take what- ever action they deem advisable concerning Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership's participation in the plan. We have explained to you by telephone Friday morning that it has always been the position of Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership that a Master Plan does not make a landowner liable for any public facilities which may be required in the Master Plan since no liability accrues at a planning stage. The liability of the landowner for any improve- ments, as the partnership has understood it, would arise in the event the Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership filed a subdivision map and finalized said map. The history of the Carrillo Ranch and its relationship to the City of Carlsbad, as you may recall, is as follows: During late 1971 and 1972 when the Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership owned the entire Carrillo Ranch, the partnership made an application to be annexed to the City. Extensive hearings were held in the City of Carlsbad and as a result, the land was prezoned PC (Planned Community). Later, based on this prezoning, the final annexation to the City of Carlsbad took place and still later, a Master Plan for the entire Carrillo Ranch was obtained pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 958 on September 11, 1973, Master Plan 139. 7 Mr. Vincent F. Biondo, Jr. City Attorney City of Carlsbad 1 February 1982 Page Three Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership owned the entire land included in the Master Plan at the time. A copy of Resolution 958 is attached. Condition 11 of said Resolution states as follows: "11. All public improvements shall be made in conformity with the Subdivision Ordinance and other City Standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, without cost to the City of Carlsbad, and free of all liens and encumbrances." Under the above Condition 11 language of Carrillo Master Plan 139, Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership has no liability for public im- provements unless it applies for, obtains and finalizes a Subdivision Map. With respect to the present proposed Amendment to the Master Plan 139-A, Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership has had no reason to believe that it would be subjecting itself to any liabilities for any public facilities because it owns land in the Master Plan area. It relied on the above Condition 11 and other applicable California law when the amendment process started. The Carrillo Ranch0 Partnership knows of no documents it has ever executed which would purport to make it liable for any public improvements other than the document entitled Agreement Between Developer-Owner and The City of Carlsbad for the Payment of Public Facilities Fee, executed by the partner- ship on August 3, 1981. This document obligates the partnership only if, as, and when a permit or permits are issued, and limits the obligation to 2% of the building permit valuation of the buildings or structures to be constructed in the development pursuant to the request. The partnership is not renouncing its obligations under this Agreement and intends to comply with its obligations therein. The partnership's position is that it is informing the City at this time that it does not accept the proposed condition Section I in Agenda Bill 1169 above and further, that it is the partnership's position that if the Master Plan is adopted and if partnership lands are a part of the lands in the Plan, notwithstanding the language in the condition that would purport to make Carrillo Ranch0 Partner- ship generally liable, that, in fact, the partnership is not liable. 8 - I Mr. Vincent F. Biondo, Jr. City Attorney City of Carlsbad 1 February 1982 Page Four The partnership urges the City Attorney to recommend to the Council that Condition 11 of the original Master Plan 139, as set forth above, be adopted in place of Section I in Agenda Bill 1169. The partnership would be pleased to accept such language and it is submitted that this language is a traditional language used in such instances and protects the City of Carlsbad very well, and is a fair and just condition. If the substituted Condition 11 is not acceptable to the City, then the Carrillo Ranch0 partners will be pleased to discuss with the City Attorney and the other owners other possible methods which would be agreed by all parties to be satisfactory, just and equitable under the circumstances. We thank you for your consideration in this matter. Yours very truly, CARRILLO RANCH0 PARTNERSHIP , /5.wvwq3& Byrod F. White &&lk, Irl R. Robinson BFW:IRR/jh Enclosures cc: City of Carlsbad, Planning Department, Pat Tessier Daon Corporation, Jim Goff Rick Engineering, Bob Ladwig Tarntuzer-Hamilton Development Co., Mike Hunter The Meister Company, Terry Teeple The Woodward Company, Don Woodward; Kent Synder, Esq. 9 DATE: February 18, 1982 TO: Mayor andcity Council FFOM: City Attorney SUBTECT: F&port on Objections to Conditions of Appmval for the Pancho Carrillo Master Plan 139-A The City CouncilattheFebruary 2,198211~etingdirectedouroffice toreport on objections raised by the Costa Peal Municipal Water District and the Carrillo F&n&o Partnership to conditions of approval for the revised Pancho Carrillo !&s&r Plan 139-A. This is our report. Costa F&alMunicipalWaterDistrict The attorney for the Costa Real Mmicipal Water District in a letter dated January 29, 1982 objected to a rrraster plan condition that required water ser- vice to be provided by the City of Carl&ad. The letter sets out a nmber of reasons why, in the districts view, is batter for all concerned if they provide water service to the develmnt. We donotagreewith the accuracy of the facts or the law as discussed in the letter nor with the conclusions and ex- pressions of opinion it contains. Theexisting service agreemntbetween the district and the city will expire on March 11, 1982. At that time, there will be no service ag reemnt in effect and all areas within the city limits will be within the service territory of the City of Carlsbad. The City Manager has indicatedthatthere am efforts on-going tonegotiate a new service area agreement. Wz agreewiththe district in their suggestion that the condition should provide for the possibility of a new agreement which could provide for retail water service by the district in some areas of the city. It is there- fore our re cmmendation'thatthe condition provide as follms: "Water service shall be obtained fmn the City of Carlsbad unless scma other arrangement /O satisfactory to the City is approved by the City Council." This conditicol car- ries forward the Council's direction and expression of intention that water servicewillbeprovidedby the city, tiever, it reccgnizedthepossibility that the City Council at scnrke later time may de-e that sane other arrange- mantis in the public interestforaparticulardevelopraent. The condition would allm such arrangements to be approved without the necessity for an amndmentto themasterplan. Attached to this report is a draft of a letter which wa proposed to send in response to the district's letter of January 29, 1982. Our letter reflects the revisedcondition as discussed above. It does not, hover, containa point-by-point response to the other matters discussed in the district's let- ter. Itdidnotseemtousthatit~uldserveanyusefulpurposetodothat. If the City Council adopts the ordinance with the revised conditions as re- coarmended we will ass= that action includes your authorization to send the letter. Carrillo Ranch Partnership By a letter dated February 1, 1982 the Carrillo Ranch Partnership stren- uouslyobjectedtothemasterplanconditionwhich requireseachproperty owner within the master plan to be jointly responsible for the installation of the xaster plan public facilities. Sincewewere concerned that the let- .ter evidenceda funtitalmisunderstandingof the requirertlents of the city's planned mty zone we responded in detail. Cur letter in that regard dated February 2, 1982 is attached. Section 21.38.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is quite clear in re- quiring in that all land within a proposed master plan rrmst be held in one ownership or be under unified control. This project does notmlywith thatrequirement. The only alternative which the code provides is an agree- mtbelmeen thepropertyawnerswhichis approvedbythe CityCouncil. A property clwner's agreemen tis necessary toensure thatthepublic improvements necessary to serve themasterplanas awhole are fundedandconstructedsince inrt-anycases the krprovenentswillbe separateandapart fromthose otherwise normally required for individual uimers subdivisions. Webecameawareofthe problemwhen theprojectwas broughtbefore thePlanningmssion. Despite our expressions of concern theprojectwas forwarded totheCitycoUncilwith- out a satisfactory resolution for the problem. The joint and several liability conditionwas an attempttomaetthe code requiremen t for the unity of awner- shiporcontrolby iqosingunityofresponsibility. A meting was held with the interest as property mers on February 11, 1982. Wewere relieved to learn thatthepropertyowners canteqlatedenter- ing into an agreement among themselves which would allocate responsibility for themasterplan impro~ts. That should have been acccqlished as part of the application process and presented to the City Council for approval prior to approval of themasterplan. However, we think that provided suchan agreer mt is acccxqlished and approved by the city prior to the approval of any subdivisions within themasterplan thatthecode requiremen t can be satisfied and the city can obtainthenecessary assurances that the public facilities will be provided. It is thereforeour r eoxnnendation that the joint and several liability conditimbe replacedwith the following: "For the purposes of this section all owners of property within the master plan area shall be considered 'developers'. Each avner, or futureowner shalluse anddevelop their respective property in accordancewith this plan, including theprovision of public facilities. Toensure unifieddevelopraentcontrol as required by Section 21.38.030 of the Car&bad Municipal Code, individual property awners shall cooperate with one an- other in order to acccqlish the orderly developnent of the property inaccordancewiththismasterplan. The individualpropertymners shallenterintoanagreement mng themselves which provides for the financing, right of waydedicationandconstructionof the public impmvemnts requiredby themsterplan. This agremzn t must be satis- factory to the City of Carlsbadandmustke approVeaby the City Council prior to approval of the first tentatim sub- division map for a develwnt within the master plan area." mershaveindimtedtousthattheymncur. Conclusion We have prepared a revised version of ordinance 9611which will amrove the new Rancho Carrillo Master Plan (MP 1394) subject b the tw conditions discussedakove inthis report. If the City Council concurs, your action is to re-introduce the ordinance. I3 -- - # 1. -- ._ -.~ - . I ._.l_ . . .._ -.. .- . ‘CITY OF CAR@AD 1200 ELM AVENUE CAiLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR. (714) 438-5531 CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL S. HENTSCHKE February 2, 1982 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY - . Ranch0 Carrillo Urtnership c/o Byron White, Esq. WHITE & ROBINSON 600 "B"' Street, Suite 2050 San Diego, California 92101 RE: Ran&o Carrillo Master Plan 139-A , Dear Mr. White: w This letter is in response to your correspondence dated February 1, 1982 concerning the requirement that each applicant for the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan shall be jointly and several- ly responsible for the installation of public facilities required by the plan. '. It is apparent from your February 1, 1982 letter that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the planned community zone and the purpose of a master plan adopted under that zone. As we have indicated to you in the past, a master plan is more than just a document designating the land uses for the area contained within the 'plan. It also is a public improvement and facility plan for the area. Contrary to the statement in-your letter that "a master plan does not make a landowner liable for any public facilities which may be required in the master plan since no liability accrues at.a planning stage," the master plan imposes certain obligations on the master plan applicant as a condition of the zoning approval. Although the installation of the facil- ities may be timed to coincide with the filing of final subdi- vision maps, the obligations of the master plan, including the installation of public facilities, are imposed as a condition of the zoning. . This was as true in 1972. and 1973, when the original master plan was approved, as-it is today. The original master plan estab- lished certain obligations for the developer, including the obligation to deed .a large parcel of land to the city for'a park site as well as the installation of a number of public improve- ments necessary to serve the master planned community. The Condition No. 11, which you refer to, is simply a condition designating the timing of the improvements and establishing the standards for the certain improvements. Although you may have perceived the,city's action in 1972 and 397.3 to be nothing more than a statement that the Subdivision Map.Act would. be used to . - Byron White, Esq. i2- February 2, 1982 require the installation of improvements,. that was not in fact what was occurring. As a condition of the 1973 master plan zoning approval, the city obligated Ranch0 Carrillo Partnership as the sole owner of the large parcel which was being master planned to install the facilities necessary to serve the project. Since 1973 the City has become more sophisticated in its approach to master plan communities and has amended its planned community zone. Section 21.38.060 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code estab- lishes the contents of a master plan and specifies that the master plan shall include a program for provision of parks, schools and other public facilities based on the anticipated population of the community and the timing of its development. It is also required to include a phasing schedule indicating the timing for each section of the development and identifying what public facilities will be provided-for each phase.. Furthermore, the master plan is required to designate the locations for the public facilities necessary to serve the community such‘as schools, parks , governmental buildings, fire stations, roads, and other public facilities necessary to serve the project. The city, in adopting this provision of the code, contemplated that the applicant would be responsible for providing these facilities directly or ensuring their provision through other means. It is clear from the code that the obligations imposed upon a developer of a master planned community, when taken as a whole, are those which are reasonably necessary to serve the needs of the whole master planned community. Because in approving a master plan the city is indicating to the developer that a long term development scheme is acceptable and that if projects are consistent with the 'master plan they will be approved, the city must insure that all of the facilities are available when needed. *Because needed facilities may be over and above those required to serve indi- vidual subdivisions within the master planned project, it is necessary to place the obligation on all'the developers at the initial stage of the zoning approval rather than relying on the Subdivision Map Act as the basis for the exaction. The city thinks this is only reasonable considering the benefits that a * planned community master plan gives to the developer, As you know, the planned community zone provides that the intent of the planned community is to provide'for master plans for large . land holdings where there's a unity of ownership or development control. Because there are a number of land owners in this master plan ani! neighborhood and phase lines do not coincide with ownership boundaries it is necessary to insure that all the owners are jointly responsible for the public facilities neces- sary for the successful accomplishment of the master plan. It was the contemplation of the city that the developers would undertake to reach an agreement to spread a proportionate share of this facility requirement over the entire master plan. Our . -. ., _ _ . i- - ,. . ..I.__ .._- . .-.. . -CL Byron White, Esq. -3- February 2, 1982 office had advised the city staff of this requirement way back in February 1981. It is indeed unfortunate that it did not surface as a problem for you until the project was ready to go to the City Council. Assuming that you understand that the obligations for public facilities are obligations imposed as a condition of the zoning approval and are imposed up front by.the master pldn, we will try to work out an understanding that is acceptable to all the parties involved regarding obligations of each owner for the public facilities required for the various phases of the project. Since your letter seems to us to evidence a disagreement on a basic condition upon which our approval of the master plan would be based, the,City Council did not adopt the revised master plan at their February 2, 1982 meeting. The matter was continued until this problem can be resolved. We would appreciate hearing from you and the.,other property owners as to how you wish to proceed. '. . +. . . DSH/mla cc: City Manager . Assistant City Manager--Development Planning Director . . - 4 February 18, 1982 Swirsky & Sauer Mr. PaulS. Swirsky 2745 Jefferson Street Carl&ad, CA 92008 DearMr.Swirsky: The City Council has asked that I reply to your letter of January.29, 1982 expressing concernaboutconditions requiringdevelapers toobtainwater ser- vice fmm the city. As you knew, the existing agreexrent belxeen your district and the City of Carlsbad establishing service territories will expire on March 11, 1982. After that date all property within the city limits of the City of Carl&ad will be within the city's water service territory. The City Council has indicated their intension to exercise the city's right under the Constitu- tion and the laws of the State of California to provide retail water service withinthatterritory. The condition in question simply mrializes the City Council's intentions in that regard. We agree with your suggestion that the possibility exists in the future thatthecityof Carlsbad andyourdistrictmayenterintoanew serviceter- ritory agreemant which could provide for retail water service frcxn the dis- trict for sane properties within the City of Carl&ad. We agree that the condition shouldprwide for thateventualitywithoutrequiring the developer to go through the process of amending the master plan. We, therefore, have recoamended and the City Council has appmved that the condition read as fol- lcxE3: "Retail water service shall be obtained frcxn the City of Carl&ad un- less scxre other arrangmt acceptable to the City is approved by the City council". We think this condition will satisfy the substance of your concern and we thank you for your suggestion. Your letter discussed a nr&er of other matters relating to the relation- ship between the district and the City of Carl&ad. It did not seem to us thatitwould serve any useful purpose toreplyon apoint-by-pointbasis beyond indicating thatwe have aconsiderablydifferent~~rs~ingof the matters. We thinkwe are acting in good faithandin thepublic interest. As-g the district continues to cooperate by carrying out its obligations to provide wholesale connections to the city in a reasonable and non-discri- minatory way there is nothing in the steps taken by the city which will in any way delay or add to the cost of developxtent. We trustthatyourdistricttill continue tiworkwithusinproviding the best possible water service to our citizens. Very truly yours, VI3KENTF. E3ICN30, JR. City Attorney vFB:ars 1 '2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 .- ORDINANCE NO. 9611 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE RANCH0 CARRILLO MASTER PLAN (MP 139-A). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad did hold a duly noticed public hearing on December 9, 1981 to consider a request to approve a revised Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP 139-A); and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said hearing the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1897 recommending approval of Master Plan No. MP 139-A based on certain findings and subject to certain conditions contained in that resolution; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City Council on November 17, 1981 and the mitigation measures identified in the report have been incorporated into the revised Master Plan or otherwise addressed by the revised Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad did hold a duly noticed public hearing on January 5, 1982 and after hearing and considering the testimony and arguments of all persons desiring to be heard, made the following findings: 1. That the findings made by the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 1897 shall constitute the findings of the City Council. 2. That this Master Plan is consistent with provisions of Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 3. That in order to satisfy the General Plan requirement that public facilities be available concurrent with c 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 2 3 .ii g 13 54 8 . is%ZE l.u: 14 ' Q$ EiTj 2 15 u:, fa ;gi; I-> ,rn 16 20 “5 $ 17 > " k 0 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 need, it will be necessary, as a condition of this zoning approval, for the developer to provide public facilities according to the approved Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: SECTION 1: That the revised Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan (MP 139-A) marked Exhibit A, dated January 5, 1981, on file with the City Clerk, and incorporated herein by this reference, is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. For purpose of this section all owners of property within the master plan area shall be considered "developers". Each owner, or future owner, shall use and develop their respective property in accordance with this plan, including the provision of public facilities. To ensure unified development control as required by Section 21.38.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, individual property owners shall cooperate with one another in order to accomplish the orderly development of the property in accordance with this Master Plan. The individual property owners shall enter into an agreement among themselves which provides for the financing, right of way dedication and construction of the public improvements required by the Master Plan. This agreement must be satisfactory to the City of Carlsbad and must be approved by the City Council prior to approval of the first tentative subdivision map for a development within the Master Plan area. This section shall be added to Section V G of the Master Plan. 2. Water shall be obtained from the City of Carlsbad unless some other arrangement satisfactory to the City is -2- . c 1 '2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 h approved by the City Council SECTION 2: This ordinance supersedes Ordinances No. 9332 and No. 9365 which adopted and amended a Master Plan for Ranch0 Carrillo. The Master Plan established by those ordinances shall be effective only for that area described as Carlsbad Tract CT 73-29. CT 73-29 is also subject to the provisions on Specific Plan SP-132. SECTION 3: That the provisions of Section 20.44.110 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code are specifically invoked. The provisions of the Ranch0 Carrillo Parks Agreement, dated February 15, 1977, shall apply insofar as it determines the credits to be given for park land which has been dedicated to the city pursuant to that agreement. SECTION 4: Approval of Master Plan MP 139-A is based upon the availability of public facilities at the time of approval. If it becomes apparent that public facilities will not be available to provide for the needs of the community in the future, City Council may preclude further development under the Master Plan until facilities are available or impose other conditions to ensure that public facilities will be available concurrent with need. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its adoption. /// /// -3- -- 1 -2 3 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the 2nd day of March , 1982, and thereafter 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of said City Council 5 held on the 16th day of March I 1982 by the following 6 7 9 vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT Councilkribers Packard, Casler, Anear, Lewis and Kulchin a None ‘. . None 10 11 12 9 ii .2 8 13 E$ o) - UJs 14 g"o=G.T =u 1 i55;g mZ, ? u: ,3a 15 I->. ,G- '1s wZ?a.. V fK m. :' RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor ATTEST: (SEAL) '; 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-