Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-06; City Council; 8616; Growth Management ProgramCIT^OF CARLSBAD — AGENDi'llLL AB#_ MTG._5/6/86 DEPT. PLN TITLE:DEPT. CITY ATTY RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT Resolution No.directing staff to proceed with the program as outlined in the attached memorandum to the City Manager dated April 25, 1986 and summarized below, and authorizing funding of the program. ITEM EXPLANATION On March 12, 1986 the City Council approved in concept the outline of the "Developmental and Community Facilities Management Program" and directed staff to commence a 30-day comment period. The comment period has been completed and staff is ready to proceed with the program as described in the attached memorandum to the City Manager. The recommended actions at this time are summarized as follows: 1) Direct staff, working in cooperation with the City Attorney's Office, to prepare an ordinance implementing the Growth Management Program. This would include satisfying environmental review requirements. 2) Authorize staff to retain consultant services and hire part-time staffing in order to fully develop and refine the program, to have the program critiqued and to put the program into a format so that it can be presented and explained to the public. 3) Direct staff, working in conjunction with the major developer of zone 9 (Sammis Properties), to finalize the pilot management program which could then serve as a format model for programs for the other zones. 4) Direct staff to commence work on the management programs for Zones 1-6 (Urbanized). 5) Until the pilot program is finished and work is completed on Zones 1-6, submittals for management programs in other zones will not be accepted. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Growth Management Program is presently undergoing environmental review. uz oo Page 2 of Agenda Bill No FISCAL IMPACT A budget appropriation of $40,000 is requested for funding of the program. Funds are available in the unappropriated fund balance in the General Fund. EXHIBITS 1. Resolution No. 2. Memorandum to the City Manager dated April 25, 1986 w/attachments 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 8549 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS OUTLINED, AUTHORIZING FUNDING OF THE PROGRAM, AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS. WHEREAS, the City Council approved in concept the outline of the "Developmental and Community Facilities Management Program" on March 12, 1986, and WHEREAS, staff conducted a 30-day comment period as directed by the City Council, and WHEREAS, staff is prepared to proceed with the program as outlined on Agenda Bill No. 8616 , and WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends and the City Council concurs that it is in the best interest of the City to develop and implement said program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City Council directs staff to develop and implement the Developmental and Community Facilities Management Program as outlined in recommended actions 1-4. 3. That a fund transfer in the amount of $40,000 on file in the Finance Department and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Carlsbad held the 6th day of May, 1986, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine NOES: None ABSENT: None /LA^L^^J & MARY H/ CASLER, Mayor ATTEST: .rrr^^r- PL.-..LS5?iM.>VW'A L E T H A I. K A U I ENKRANZ , (SEAL) Clerk APRIL 25, 1986 TO: FRANK ALESHIRE, CITY MANAGER FROM: Planning Director GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM On March 12, 1986 the City Council approved in concept the outline of the "Developmental and Community Facilities Management Program and directed staff to commence a 30-day comment period. Four public workshops were held, including one at the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1986. Several additional presentations were made by staff at the request of individual groups. The primary result of the workshops and presentations was that staff was asked to answer a lot of questions regarding the program. Over a dozen written comments on the program were submitted (copies attached). The written comments generally fell into two categories. The first group commented on the program itself. Many of the suggestions had merit and will be incorporated into the program. The second group requested amendments to the boundaries of the management zones or changes in the developmental status (i.e, urbanized, urbanizing, future urbanizing) of a particular zone. Staff has carefully analyzed these letters and has made a couple of minor revisions to the zone boundaries where staff believed it was appropriate. Staff did not feel any of the requests to change the developmental status of a particular area of the City were appropriate. With the concurrence of the City Council, staff is ready to proceed with putting the program into ordinance form. A timeline and format for the ordinance has been discussed with the City Attorney's Office. Based upon these discussions, it was determined that a permanent ordinance can be put into effect by July 20, 1986. Staff will need additional part time staffing and consultant help in fully developing and refining the program. Staff believes the program should be critiqued by outside agencies and professionals. The program should also be put in a format so that it can be presented and easily explained to the public. Staff is requesting a budget allocation of $40,000 to fund staffing, consultant services and materials needed to fully develop, publicize and put the program into place by the end of July. r Attached is a copy of the outline of the program approved by the City Council on March 12, 1986. A couple of refinements have already been made by staff since that time. These changes are underlined and in bold type in the attached outline. More refinements will be made over the next couple of months as the permanent ordinance is prepared and the program continues evolving. The major refinement that has been made so far has to do with requiring sufficient information to be contained in the management program for each zone so that it can be determined that development in a zone does not preclude development in a higher developmental status category (i.e, use all the existing capacity of a service or facility). For example, the management program for a zone in Category II (Urbanizing) must show that it will not use all the existing capacity of a service or facility so as to preclude development in a Category I (Urbanized) zone which would have to use the same service or facility. Likewise, the management program for a zone located in Category III (Future Urbanizing) must show that it will not preclude use of a facility or service that would be needed to serve development in a Category I or II zone. This is a key refinement of the overall program because like many other features of the program this encourages infill development. Staff has been working with Sammis Properties, Inc. applicants for the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park, to prepare a pilot program that could serve as a format model for the preparation of management programs for other zones. As you may recall, the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park was the most recent Master Plan approved by the City and everyone seemed to be impressed with the detail and comprehensive treatment of required public facilities associated with this Master Plan. The Master Plan is located in Zone 9 and Sammis has submitted a Community Facilities Management Program for the zone. This program was the first one submitted to the City and staff decided to use this as a pilot program. Much work has been done on the pilot program and the preliminary results indicate that Phase 1 of the Educational Park will not produce any unmitigated impacts on City public facilities and services (a copy of the draft program is attached). The educational park was ready to submit a Phase 1 final map when Council adopted the requirements for community facilities management programs. There appears to be some urgency for Phase 1 to have an approved final map. Given the preliminary results of the pilot program, staff feels comfortable that the Council could approve the final map for Phase 1 prior to final certification of the management program. Council could ensure facilities adequacy by conditioning future phases to complete or upgrade any deficiencies discovered when the final pilot program is adopted. Staff also needs to start working on the program for the Category I (Urbanized) zones. What staff intends to do is to inventory each one of these zones with respect to the ten services and facilities required to be addresed. If an existing facility is found to be deficient, staff will recommend a program for how each project in the particular zone will be required to participate in correcting the deficiency. It should be pointed out that since the projects located in most of these zones are smaller infill projects, staff will be recommending that they just pay their share towards correcting the deficiency rather than requiring a small, individual project to bear the entire responsibility for correcting the existing deficiency for the particular urbanized zone. Until the pilot program is completed and the programs are prepared for Urbanized Zones 1-6, staff does not believe that additional programs for other zones should be accepted for staff review. Recommendation Based upon the above, staff is making the following recommendations at this time: 1) Direct staff, in cooperation with the City Attorney's Office, to prepare an ordinance implementing the Growth Management Program. This would include satisfying environmental review requirements. 2) Authorize staff to retain consultant services and hire part- time staffing in order to fully develop and refine the program, to have the program critiqued and to put the program into a format so that it can be presented and explained to the public. 3) Direct staff, working in conjunction with the major developer of zone 9 (Sammis Properties), to finalize the pilot management program which could then serve as a format model for programs for the other zones. 4) Direct staff to commence work on the management programs for Zones 1-6 (Urbanized). 5) Until the pilot program is finished and work is complete on Zones 1-6, submittals for management programs in other zones will not be accepted. 7 Submitted by: MICHAEL J. HOHZMILL Planning Director MJH/ar EXHIBITS 1. Written Comments 2. Outline of Growth Management Program 3. Draft of Pilot Program r A California General Partnership March 31, 1986 Mayor Mary Casler Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Growth Management Plan Please accept this letter as my public input relating to the growth management plan proposed by the City of Carlsbad. My suggestions are as follows: 1) THE CITY OF CARLSBAD BE OBLIGATED TO PUT IN FACILITIES IN VARIOUS REGIONS WHEN NEED EXISTS AND MONEY IS AVAILABLE PER PHASING PLANS. The phasing plans and annual monotoring report will clarify when and how facilities should be constructed. Some of these facilities can be accomplished through policy decisions of the City, such as location and design of libraries, parks and administrative facilities. This plan puts a great deal of responsibility on the development industry. It is my feeling the City should accept the same level of responsibility in areas where its decisions or lack of decisions is the key to success. I would ask the City Council to give consideration to including in the ordinance, an obligation on the part of the City to construct facilities for which they have collected fees in the appropriate region of the City. This would assure the facilities being available prior to the public need. 2) SOME AREAS OF SERVICE, POLICE, FIRE AND SCHOOLS, SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THIS SYSTEM AS THEY ARE GENERAL FUND SERVICES. Police and fire services being funded by development could create a dangerous cicumstance. During periods of non-growth already existing service levels would have to be abandoned. These services should be funded through the budget process out of general fund sources. The levels 11300 Sorrento Valley Road • Suite 101 • San Diego, California 92121 619/457-0777 619/942-0946 of service should compete with other types of service for available funds. As the City of Carlsbad does not make policy for the various school districts, to include school facilities within this system, is an inherent conflict. Determination of levels of service are made by each individual board. Subsequent funding to implement these assorted services is a decision for each. Including school services within this plan could create a confused division of responsibility. Under existing conditions, if a development project cannot secure a "school availability" letter, it does not move ahead. It should be the obligation of the school districts to set levels of service, fund required facilities, and make determinations of inadequacy. Existing conditions allow them to do so. Also, including schools in this program may create a perceived City obligation for school service problems. 3. THE NEED TO FUND FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PHASED DEVELOPMENT "UP FRONT" ELIMINATES THE ABILITY TO SPREAD COST WITH NEED AND SHOULD BE REWORKED. 4. REGIONS OF THE CITY WHO ARE EITHER CATAGORY II OR CATAGORY III SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADVANCE WITH THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF LAND USE APPROVALS, DEVELOPMENT STATUS AND PARTIAL OR TOTAL CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES. As prioritization of the City's involvement in capitol improvements depends upon what catagory a region is labeled, each should have the ability to advance to a higher priority. If a region is in catagory III indefinately it may never be able to reach a priority to receive assistance from Carlsbad's Capitol Improvement Program, eventhough it may have contributed to the funding mechanism. A system should be built into this program which would allow regions to move to a higher catagory with approvals or facility construction. Thank you for the opportunity to make input to you regarding this matter. IJoug Avis\s MARCH 31, 1986 TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: Finance Director COMMENTS - GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM I attended today's Growth Management Meeting and would like to share just a few comments based on the topics discussed during the session. 1. Operating Costs to be Funded by the Developer - the question of the funding of certain operating costs such as police, by the developer. As I understand the standards, the developer must submit a report showing that each standard will be met within a stated time period. If this is the case, then the developer would be expected to show that sufficient tax revenue will be produced by the proposed development to fund the operating costs associated with the standard. For example, Police staffing of 1.35 officers per 1,000 population could be funded from tax revenue generated by development. This has the advantage of being tied directly to the growth in population and places, no direct burden on the developer. If annual tax revenue is insufficient, the developer may form various types of benefit districts to provide for Police, Parks or other types of operating costs. 2. Credit for Public Facilities Fees or other Types of Capital Fees - If a developer is required to build an improvement that would have been a responsibility of the City in order to comply with the standards, the concept of giving credit against future fees is reasonable. The City should consider that a major issue in this type of agreement is the deter- mination of the fee credit to be given. As we all remember, the same concept was used in allowing credit to the developers of Calavera Hills for the Calavera Sewer Plant. A significant amount of rather expensive effort went into determining the value of the plant and the ultimate credit to be allowed. The City should safeguard its right to determine the value of an asset through audit of actual costs. The ground rules relating to what costs are allowed should be based on the costs we would experience if we were to do the project ourselves. In addition, credit for future fees is an excellent concept as long as the process of crediting developers is tied into the ultimate estimate of fees to be received through buildout. For example, the PFF assures a specific amount of fees and costs through buildout. As we revise the PFF model we should add a category of projects funded by developers through fee credits. 3. Economic Impact of Growth Management - This is more of a question than a comment. How will the consultant doing the economic impact analysis of the General Plan deal with the issues of the Growth Management Program? It appears that the Growth Management Program will not necessarily change ultimate land use, but it may substantially change the timing of development. Timing is a key portion of any economic impact and should be addressed by the proposed study. -2- 4. Public Facilities to be Provided by Special Districts - I have some concern for the adequacy of facilities to be provided by other entities. If the City accepts letters from special districts declaring certain facilities to be adequate based on fees paid by a developer, how will we deal with situations where that district fails to build the necessary facility in a timely manner? For example, if a developer pays school fees to obtain a letter declaring schools to be adequate and the school later decides the need in another area is greater, we will have a zone were school facilities are in fact inadequate even though the developer has a letter of adequacy from the district. I do not have a suggestion for dealing with this other than waiting until the district actually builds a facility prior to our approving the development. This solution is probably not acceptable, but the problem may become real in the area of water and sewer service unless we find an appropriate answer. I want to compliment your staff on the presentation and the way they responded to the questions from the public. JIM ELLIOTT JFErmmt J THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT April 3, 1986 -;:jsOi077 - --' Michael J. Holzrailler Planning Director CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Outline of Growth Management Program Dear Mike: Our office has reviewed the proposed Growth Management Program and finds that it is generally workable from a development perspective, and should provide the City with a more specific long range facility planning "tool" than they have had in the past. As I previously mentioned to you, we have anticipated such a facility adequacy program in our Master Plan Project, and are now making fine-tune revisions to comply more specifically to your draft program. As we are adapting this concept to the specifics of our zone, however, we are noting a few potential problem areas. In this regard, we offer the following comments: 1. The outline appears to be primarily a technical document, which is fine, however, there is a need to clarify how the concept came about and how the "tool" is to be used from a policy standpoint. For example, most zoning ordinances contain an "intent and purpose" section preceding the specific requirements. We recommend the inclusion of a cover document for the program which discusses the following: A. Why the process is being created. B. How the process is expected to be used as part of existing processes and how it will be expected to perform over time. This "purpose" discussion will help all involved to maintain a perspective of the program and evaluate its performance. 2. "Necessary" public facilities are constructed by two sources, one, the developer, and two, the City (or related public agency). Those provided by the developer will, by necessity, be constructed as part of the development construction at the time stipulated in the approved zone program. Those to be constructed by agencies, however, may not be translated from developer fees into "on-the- ground" facilities in such a timely manner. 7707 EL CAMINO REAL • CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 • TELECOPIER 619-436-6839 • 619-436-0907 3 Page 2 Mr. Mike Holzmiller April 3, 1986 It is conceivable, that although a developer may have constructed all facilities called for and paid all necessary fees, the facilities will not be available when expected. The implementation of the City's CIP is beyond the scope of the developer, but, as the program is written, could hold up development indefinitely. This could be a very effective way to stop development in certain parts (or all) of the City, even though the necessary front-end commitments have been made by the developer. It could also be a way for the City to call on the motivation of the developer to "front" the short-fall facilities not yet constructed by the City. If this is the intent of the program, this policy should be clarified. 3. The inclusion of "police facilities" in the outline is an understandable decision. However, we feel that the suggested standard is unworkable. Officers per thousand is not a standard that fits the other "capital" facilities standards. Officers are not a capital expenditure in the traditional sense. The standard for library is not "library workers per thousand", nor is the school standard "teachers per thousand". The appropriate "capital" facility for policy may be square footage needed to accomodate the necessary officers and support, just as square footage is the standard for administrative facilities, or fire stations are the real basis for fire facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincere^, s~*~^tD.L. Clemens Vice President DLC/kp THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT j <-/ JAMES M. HICKS COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE April 4, 1986 Mr. Michael Holtzmiller Land Use Planning Director City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: The MacArthur Foundation Property Southwest Quadrant of Interstate 5 and Palomar Airport Road Dear Mike: Please accept this letter as a formal request to have the above referenced property (known locally as Bankers Life and Casualty) placed in Category I of the "Developmental Status Map" of the Growth Management Program. We have reviewed the criteria which was used in placing property in certain categories and we strongly believe that the MacArthur land qualifies to be placed in Category I. While we do not qualify as being in the "older developed areas of the City" , our neighborhood certainly developed before the Koll Research Park, as well as the developments north of Palomar Airport Road on Avenida Encinas, both of which are shown in Category I. Regarding Criteria #2 of Category I, "primarily developed or immediately contiguous or surrounded by developed areas", the MacArthur property has completed developments to the north with the Encina Water Pollution Facility as well as the various industrial/office buildings completed in that area. All of that is developed and has been for some time. West of our land is Interstate 5 with various land uses completed from Palomar Airport Road to Poinsettia Lane, all of which is shown in Category I. One-half of our southern boundary is contiguous to a recorded final map with approved hotels /motels and a hospital development. To our west are the railroad tracks, with the older Lanakai Mobile Home Park in place at our southwest corner and the Solamar Mobile Home Park at our northwest corner. Both of these parks have been in existence for a number of years, yet they are shown as being in Category III. 6994 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 208, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92006 (619) 438-2017 Mr. Michael Holtzmiller April 4, 1986 Page 2 With the existing developments surrounding approximately 75% of our land, we feel we easily qualify under Criteria #3 of Category I. As to Criteria #4, half the street improvements on Avenida Encinas have been brought to our northern and southern boun- daries. All of the necessary utilities are in place in these streets. The development of our land will complete the important Avenida Encinas connection from Poinsettia Lane to Cannon Road and that is the only infill requirement needed in terms of completing public facilities or infrastructure (Criteria #5, Category I). In summary, following the guidelines of the City, we firmly believe our property to be consistent with all of the criteria in Cateogry I and request that you place our property in that Category based upon City formulations. Respectfully submitted, James~HTHtcks JMH:j s Enclosures cc: Mr. Win Jones TO Lf ANGELES uitos Lagoo N DEVELOPED AREAS TO SAN DIEGO SITE LOCATION MAP CARLSBAD PROPERTY Carlsbad, San Diego County, Califorina ATTACHMENT 1 Developmental Status Map CATEGORY I: URBANIZED CATEGORY II: URBANIZING CATEGORY III: FUTURE URBANIZING ATTACHMENT 2 (Page 1) DEVELOPMENTAL STATUS CATEGORIES City divided into three categories based upon their overall developmental status, level of urbanization and existing level of adequacy of public facilities and services. The three categories and the criteria used as a guide for each one is as follows: I. Urbanized 1. Older developed areas of City. 2. Primarily developed or immediately contiguous or surrounded by developed areas. 3. Additional development considered infill. 4. Public facilities basically adequate for level of anticipated, additional development. 5. Infill requirements in terms of completing public facilities or infrastructure. II. Urbanizing 1. Some development in area. 2. Newer developing area of City. 3. Some level of planning already completed (i.e, existing master plan). 4. Adjacent to or considered a logical extention of a Category I (Urbanized) area. III. Future Urbanizing 1. Very little or no development. 2. Isolated from existing services and facilities. 3. Isolated from existing development (i.e, not immediately adjacent to or surrounded by a Category I or II area (Urbanized or Urbanizing). 4. No existing master plan or existing master plan outdated. APRIL 7, 1986 TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: Finance Director REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT & COMMUNITY' FACILITY PROGRAM - ZONE mRECEIVE \ Thank you for sharing the Sarnmis Community Facility Program. I am sure this is only the first of many programs. My comments are listed below. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. 1. The developer plans to make use of assessment districts to finance several important improvements. This plan may be complicated by proposed changes in the federal tax law which will make it difficult to issue tax-exempt debt. We will be looking at just this issue with the City's assessment district team on April 11. Should the assessment district prove to be unrealistic, the developer will have to find an alternative. 2. The Fire Station funding (p. 15) should be revised to show that public facilities fees will be used to provide adequate facilities. The state and local taxes indicated in the report will be used for operating costs, but are not part of the capital facilities funding plan. The PFF paid by the developer will offset a portion of the construction costs associated with fire Station No. 4. 3. Under the heading of administrative facilities (p. 21), the developer indicates that the payment of public facilities fees will satisfy the need for additional civic office space. If this is the position city staff intends to take, then the developer's answer is satisfactory. However, the payment of the PFF does not guarantee that any specific project will be constructed nor that facilities will be adequate within a zone. It is my position that it is precisely this case where the developer must meet with city staff and other developers prior to development occurring. The payment of PFF for civic buildings, libraries, signals, major arterials, schools and other projects is not a substitute for actual improvements in the ground when measuring adequacy. 4. Funding for Police facilities is shown as state and local taxes (p. 23). As with fire stations, the capital costs associated with police protection will come from public facilities fees. The operating portion of the Police budget is funded from state and local taxes. (City staff should remember when reviewing these types of programs that there are funding mechanisms available to the developer to pay on-going operating costs as well as the usual capital costs. By using one of several different types of maintenance districts or assessment districts costs for park or street right-of-way maintenance, police, fire or other types of services can be provided by the development.) JFE : mmt San Diego Gas & Electric April 7, 1986 Michael J. HolzmiIler Planning Director City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the City's "Growth Management Program - Draft Outline and Overview". The program provides in part that "new development .. is not permitted in any zone until a Developmental and Community Facilities Management Program (Phasing Program) is prepared for the zone." However, the program does not include development projects exempted by Ordinance 9791. A review of this ordinance reveals that these exemptions are: a.) minor subdivisions; b.) redevelopment permits; c.) governmental agency projects; d.) industrial or commercial projects; and e.) R-1 zone variances. The primary focus of Ordinance 9791 is to address "critical shortages in certain public facilities including, but not limited to, circulation systems and parks which must be remedied in order to accommodate any new residential development." Therefore, commercial and industrial projects should be al- lowed to proceed without requiring a zone phasing plan. This is not clear in the draft outline. Facilities necessary to serve a norr-residential project such as sewer, water and drainage are logical requirements. The other public facilities and services to be addressed in a zone phasing plan are based on population and are related to residential dwelling units. San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) was surprised to learn at the April 2, 1986 workshop that its property east of 1-5 and north of Cannon Road was included in the "Future Urbanizing" Development Status Category (Category III). Yet at the January City Council meeting you informed the Council that this property was included in the "Urbanized" category (Category I). SDG&E strongly disagrees with these changes, particularly since we were informed by your staff in January that the SDG&E property would be exempt from the phasing program. SDG&E was not informed of the subsequent change. POST OFFICE BOX 1831 • SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92112 • TELEPHONE: 619/696-2000 Mr. M.J. Holzmiller - 2 - April 7, 1986 The approximately 45 acre SDG&E parcel located east of 1-5 and north of Cannon Road is designated Travel Services in the Local Coastal Plan. This land use was fully supported by City Council and staff throughout the develop- ment and subsequent approval of the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Program segment. The City has adopted a specific plan for all of SDG&E's property in this area which identifies existing and proposed improvements and establishes commercial uses on the 45 acre parcel. Additionally, Cannon Road is fully improved along the entire frontage of the 45 acre parcel. The proposed "Development Status Category" for the 45 acres is "Future Urbanizing". However, based on the stated criteria, this property belongs in the Urbanized category (Category I). It is contiguous to an exis- ting fully developed area (Car Country) and public facilities have been installed that are adequate for anticipated development. Development of this property should be treated as infill since it is surrounded on three sides by areas in the Urbanized category and is the only designated Travel Services property in the area not yet developed. Additionally, the 45 acre parcel should be included in Zone 3, not Zone 13. Zone 3 includes Car Country to the south and property in the Urbanized category. Zone 13 covers property in the Future Urbanizing category. SDG&E believes that the remainder of its property east of the 45 acres should be included in either Category I (Urbanized) as originally pro- posed, or in Category II (Urbanizing). This area includes the City's proposed 90 acre "Hub Park" development that will link with Macario Canyon Park which is included in Category II. A master plan has been developed for Hub Park and the City is currently considering development alternatives for the Macario/ Hub Park area. Hub Park occupies the majority of SDG&E's land east of the 45 acres with much of the remainder of the property being used for existing high voltage electric transmission line structures. In summary, SDG&E requests that the following revisions be made to the draft Outline of the Growth Management Program: o Clarification of the program outline to identify the exemptions included in Ordinance 9791; o Inclusion of SDG&E's 45 acre parcel immediately east of 1-5 at Cannon Road in Category I and Zone 3; and o Inclusion of the remainder of SDG&E's property east of the 45 acre parcel in Category I or II. Mr. M.J. Holzmiller - 3 -April 7, 1986 Thank you in advance for your consideration of the above revisions. We appreciate the opportunity to comment at the workshops and at this time. If we can provide you additional information, please call me at 696-2480. Sincerely, F. Michael Dudley, Supervisor Land Management & Redevelopment FMD:dc cc: P.M. Stanfield Mr. Mike Holtzmiller ,J flfll ^« ^ April 7,1986 Planning Director City of Carlabad 120O Elm Avenue Carlabad,Calif. 920O8 Mr. Holtzmiller: I wish to thank you and your staff for coming to the La Costa area to diacuaa the outline of the proposed Growth Management Program laat Wedneaday. Thoae of ua in La Coata would like to see more such public meetings held in the area, particularly on matters of such importance. I waa pleaaed to note that the turn out in La Coata compared favorably to that on monday night. You and your staff are to be commended for an informative and well organized presentation. It ia not easy to take a rather involved, complex topic auch aa thia one and to summarize it for the general public. As an individual just becoming familiar with the development approval process for the city of Carlabad, I found aome of the adquacy standards ,as proposed, appear incomplete. As I later diacuaaed the atandard for traffic circulation with you and your ataff, it became clearer that theae adequacy standards have to be viewed in the context of all existing standards to which new projects are reviewed. I suggest that the key requirements of exiating ordinancea alao be identified when presenting the "adequacy atandarda" in the future. The exiating requirement that a new development not worsen the traffic impact on a road segment within the same zone, which ia already at aervice level C or D, ia an important complementary requirement to the proposed circulation adequacy atandard. Following last Monday and Wednesday nights' presentation by you and your ataff, the La Coata Community Awareness Group discusaed the Growth Management Program at ita regular monthly meeting on Saturday, April 5. Some of my comments and those raised during the meeting are noted below. * Traffic impacts on Interstate-5 do not appear to be adequately addressed. A city-wide limit on the total population for Carlabad, would appear to offer thevmoat workable atandard. The limit would be derived by balancing the impact of tripa originating in Carlabad on 1-5 ,along with projections for the rest of north county, with the additional unused capacity available. Clearly ,to be workable, thia proposed limit to Carlabad'a impact would then have to be displayed and discussed with our neighboring citiea to obtain a regional concensus. Proposers of additional development would then be encouraged to begin the long process of improving the capacity of 1-5, if indeed that is possible. *The adequacy standard for parks is unclear. Is there a proximity standard to go along with it ? For example, if suitable parkland cannot be located within the same zone, what are the alternatives ? The needa of the residents within the zone, to have accessible parks should be considered. Parks located unreasonably far from the residents, benefits few. •Perhaps a combined standard, involving availabilty of open space and proximity of parkland would be most appropriate. Zones with large amounts of projected open space, would then have less restrictive proximity standards for the parklands that service these same zones. Conversely, those zones with little projected open space would then have more strict proximity standards for parklands. *The adequacy standard for schools is not very satisfying, since it contains no specifics. The biggest concern in this regard , is the desire to have neighborhood schools. Could not land be designated within appropriate zones to assure that neighborhood schools could be built when needed ? *The program's encouragement of infill building first, by focusing on facilities plans for zones 1 thru 6 first, is cause for concern for those of us living in the existing "urbanized zones". The proposed priorities for city involvement by developmental status category, do not seem adequate. The city council's recent decision to approve the Public Facilities Fees list of projects , provides an illustrative example. The construction of Cannon road would be in zones that are currently labeled future urbanizing. Construction or improvement of important freeway access .routes such as La Costa Avenue or Poinsettia Lane are instead tied to developers fees,almost - guaranteeing that any noticeable improvement will be hard to come by since, the burdens of additional development will also be imposed. The priorities established should more explicitly state that city involvement should be focused in areas where adequacy standards are not currently being met. Funding mechanisms tied to new development fees should be reserved for future urbanizing zones , where facilities can better await the normal process of phased development. It appears desireable to schedule the city's involvement in preparing plans for zones 7 thru 25. This schedule should be stretched out, but would still take some of the pressure off of the urbanized zones by letting the developers know, when they can expect developement to be permitted in the less urbanized zones. *There appears to be no mechanism to limit the rate of development in a zone once its facilities plan is approved. Such a feature is desireable to assure that city staff can assess the progress of ongoing development towards fulfilling the goals of the plan, and to make corrections as appropriate, before it is too late. In this regard, what is the city's avenues for revising a previously approved facilities plan, after a developer has already initiated a multi-phase development project on the basis of the original plan ? * I recognize the planning staff's desire to not change the boundaries of the 25 zones at this late date. My one concern involves the number of zones located along the Poinsettia Lane corridor between 1-5 and El Camino Real. Seems to me that this access route to the freeway is essential for effective resolution of the traffic problems in the La Costa area. So I leave you with this question; is this the best arrangement of zones to assure that this freeway access will be built, regardless of what happens to the Pacific Rim project ? When the city's plans for zone 6 and surrounding zones are to the point ,suitable for presentation to the public, please let me know. As Chairman of the La Costa Community Awareness Group, I would be pleased to help organize another such public meeting in the La Costa area to discuss the plan specifics. I received the one line summaries of the city's 16 land use programs and implementation program. Thanks to your staff for its quick responce to my request. Thanks again for this opportunity to provide input. Sincerely. Don Wakefield Chairman La Costa Community Awareness Group RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY I 3088 PIO PICO DR. . SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008 P.O. BOX 1129 . PHONE . AREA CODE 619 • 729-4987 April 7, 1986 Mr. Michael Holzmiller Planning Department CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: REQUESTED BOUNDARY CHANGE/ GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (JOB NO. 9618) Dear Mike: At the request of the Robertson's, I would like to request that the 21 acres at the southeasterly corner of Tamarack and El Camino Real be added to Area 2 of the proposed Growth Management Program. The reasons for our request are as follows: 0 The 21^-acre triangle is surrounded on two sides by urbanized zones (Areas 1 and 2). This parcel is adjacent to, and contiguous to, older developed areas and developing areas and could be considered infill. 0 There is a natural, steep slope separating this parcel from the balance of the Robertson's owner- ship. With this physical separation, there would be no further justification to add additional lands to the urbanized category. 0 There is a major drainage area which drains through this property and directly into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Development of this property would allow the City of Carlsbad's grading and drainage require- ments to be implemented, which would further pro- tect the Lagoon from any potential siltation from the undeveloped areas of this property. 0 Development of this property and moving it into the urbanized category will help complete the improve- ments on El Camino Real from Tamarack to Kelly along with the completion of these two important intersections. Mr. Michael Holzmiller April 7, 1986 Page Two RE: REQUESTED BOUNARY CHANGE/ GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 0 All public facilities are adjacent to this site and no major facility extensions would be required for the development of this property. We have reviewed the criteria for the Developmental and Community- Facility Management Zones in your Staff Report, dated March 6. The boundaries of the proposed change are consistent with the criteria spelled out in the City's requirements for the establish- ments of these zones. To further illustrate our point in request- ing the change in the Area-2 boundary, we have attached a series of exhibits that show the existing topography along with the General Plan and Zoning Maps of the City of Carlsbad and a recent aerial photograph showing the developed areas. We ask that you consider our request to add this additional 21* acres to Area 2 of your Developmental and Community-Facili- ties Management Zones. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you need additional exhibits or have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, -^- Robert C. Ladwig RCL:kd 4511C Attachments cc: Mrs. Virginia Robertson (with attachments) Mr. Jim Hicks, JAMES M. HICKS COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (with attachments) Mr. Brian Robertson (with attachments) Planning Commissioners, CITY OF CARLSBAD (with exhibits) JOHN D. LUSK & SON [SAN DIEGO DIVISION] a member of the Lusk Family of companies 5451 Oberlin Dr., Suite L • San Diego, CA 92121 • (619) 452-8551 April 7, 1986 Mr. Michael Holzmiller /;••; »DO IQfifi_ i • — * . ! ' f\ • ni i» iwvwPlanning Director "; ocrcr-TH City of Carlsbad \\ ^DUSE 1200 Elm Avenue U-, pUNN|f;G OFFICE Carlsbad, CA 92008 \b_s Re: Growth Management Program (GMP) Dear Michael: Per your recommendation at the March 31 GMP Workshop, I am writing to you regarding our property's developmental status category. The Lusk Company's ninety-five acres of property at Poinsettia Lane and Carlsbad Boulevard/Avenida Encinas is in Facility Management Zone 22 and has been designated "future urbanizing". We disagree with this designation for a number of reasons that will be outlined in this letter and attached exhibits. I have analyzed our property's status by looking at it two ways: 1. Its relationship in Zone 22 (see Exhibit A). 2. As part of the Occidental Master Plan - 133 (see Exhibit B) . As you stated at the workshop, I have used as the basis for my discussion ATTACHMENT 2 - DEVELOPMENTAL STATUS CATEGORIES of the draft Growth Management Program. I believe the Lusk property meets the criteria as established for the "urbanized" as well as "urbanizing" category. 1 . Urbanized 1 . Older, Developed Area of the City A. Zone 22 - This is one of the older areas of the City. The existing mobile home parks and State campground both date to the pre-1970's era. Carlsbad Boulevard served as the primary north/south collector until Interstate 5 was built in the early 1960's. The Lusk property and others have been farmed intermittently for years. B. Occidental MP-133. One of the first master plans in the City. Unlike some master plans this is not a "paper" plan. Seventy-five percent of the original 368+ acres has been developed. The Lusk property is the only remaining undeveloped parcel. 2. Primarily developed or immediately contiguous or surrounded by developed areas. A. Zone 22. Zone 22 is surrounded by the following: North - Zone 3 (URBANIZED) East - Zone 4 (URBANIZED) South - Zone 9 (URBANIZING) West - (Pacific Ocean). The zone is approximately 50+% developed or designated undevelopable per the Citizen's Committee Guidelines. B. Occidental MP-133 - The Master Plan is 75+% developed. Our ninety-five acres represents the only undeveloped parcel. As a condition of the Master Plan that was mandated by the City we have contributed to the following: 1. Poinsettia Lane Bridge - the existing bridge was paid for completely by monies collected from the developers within the master plan. The Lusk Company paid for 75% of the total cost of $1.25 million. 2. Sewer trunk line in A.T. & S.F. railroad right-of-way. 3. Pressure reducing station at Paseo Del Norte. 4. Proposed fire station at Poinsettia Lane and Batiquitos Drive. 5. Desiltation basin and storm drain at Poinsettia Lane and Batiquitos Drive. -2- 6. Water trunk line in Paseo Del Norte and Poinsettia Lane. 3. Additional development considered infill. A. Zone 22. The zone is over fifty percent developed and this is distributed throughout the zone. The Lusk property constitutes the majority of the remaining undeveloped property. B. Occidental MP-133. As stated in 2B, the Lusk property (95+ acres) is the only remaining undeveloped parcel of a 368 acre Master Plan. 4. Public facilities basically adequate for level of anticipated, additional development. A. Zone 22. In all cases either the existing facilities are adequate or through payment of P.F.F. and service fees (required by utility and school districts) will provide for adequate levels of service. Also, the usual conditions (half width road improvements, drainage facilities, etc.) placed on any Tentative Map of the remaining vacant parcels will resolve problems. B. Occidental MP-133. The public facilities must be adequate because the majority of the master plan area is in Zone 4 - URBANIZED. As mentioned in 2B, the Lusk Company has contributed to facilities without ever having received any discretionary approval. Any development of the property would require the payment of P.F.F. monies and service district fees. 5. Infill requirements in terms of completing public facilities or infrastructure. A. Zone 22. The conditions of development required of the remaining vacant parcels in conjunction with the P.F.F. monies this project will generate, will help pay for infill requirements (i.e. completion of Avenida Encinas, completion of storm drain system). B. Occidental MP-133. With the Lusk parcel being the -3- last remaining parcel in the Occidental MP-133, we will complete the widening of Avenida Encinas adjacent to our property and provide a waterline connection to Carlsbad Boulevard. That, along with the payment of P.F.F. monies and district services fees will adequately address infrastructure and public facilities. We have a meeting with you on April 14 at 3:30pm. I would like to discuss our property's existing developmental status category and the possible revision of such as outlined in this letter. If you have any questions on this matter prior to the meeting, please call me at (619) 452-8551. Sincerely, THE LUSK COMPANY John Brand Project Coordinator cc: Mayor Casler Charlie Grimm Don Steffensen Gordon Dunfee Dennis O'Neil -4- PC PC \\ZONE 9 DEVELOPED AREA FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONES EXHIBIT A DEVELOPED AREA OCCIDENTAL MASTER PLAN \ \\PC EXHIBIT B ENGINEERING COMPANY 365 SO. RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD • SUITE 100 SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069 • 619/744-4800 ** APR RECEIVED S] LAND USE ft/ PLANNING OFFICE ^/ <•'! April 10, 1986 .. ..,-.^ Mr. Michael Holzmiller CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: MANAGEMENT PLANS (JOB NOS. 7495-R/-S/-0) Dear Michael: After reviewing in detail the draft copy of the above refer- enced plan, attending several workshops and meetings, and preparing at least two area plans, I would like to offer the following comments and suggestions. 1. Eliminate, as items to be mitigated, those items that developers have no control over. These would be Police, Administrative, Library and Schools. While these items should be addressed, it remains totally at the discretion of the City Council or District what level of service should be maintained. 2. Fire and Parks, while again under fiscal control of the Council, still allow the developers to affect the level of adequacy with participation. 3. The City is, with respect to Sewer and Water, an assortment of special districts. These districts have there own adequacy standards. I would hope that a particular district's indication that they can and will provide service satisfies the City. Mr. Michael Holzmiller RE: MANAGEMENT PLANS April 10f 1986 Page Two While Circulation is by far the most serious concern of the citizens of Carlsbad, every effort should be made to make the burden of improvements fair. At our recent meeting with you and Marty Bouman, there appears to be, at staff level, a clear understanding of the various levels of improvements and sources of funds for those improvements. The Traffic Impact Fee, Public Facilities Fee, Bridge and Thoroughfare District, and Developer responsibilities need to be identified. This appears to be on the way for the La Costa area, however, it should apply to the entire City. I believe most developers will support a Traffic Impact Fee but would like to see it City wide. The City will need to implement almost immediately a person or section to deal with analyzing the cumula- tive impacts of the Management Plans on the City and to provide sources of information (data base) to persons preparing these plans. The City needs to obligate itself to address, on a priority basis, the needs of the City as defined by the Management Plans. The utilization of PFF funds and the scheduling of capital improvements is an essen- tial City responsibility. This should be made a part of the Management Plan. I hope these comments will be of assistance to you in final- izing the Management Plan criteria. If you have any ques- tions, please call me. Sincerely, Barry C. Bender BCB:stc/4165A Copies to: Mr. William Hofman, WILLIAM N. HOFMAN COMPANY Mr. Robert Ladwig, RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY PLANNING CONSULTANTSAND CIVIL ENGINEERSI ENGINEERING COMPANY 365 SO. RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD • SUITE 100 SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069 • 619/744-4800 April 10, 1986 Mr. Michael Holzmiller CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANS (JOB NOS. 7495-U/-R/-S) Dear Michael: On behalf of the owners and developers of the Carrillo Rancho Master Plan, I would like to request that your office revise the category of Zone 18 from Future Urbanizing to Urbanizing. Zone 18 is an essential part of Zones 5, 6 and 10 in many ways, particularly circulation. Utilizing your own criteria for Urbanizing Zones we meet to some extent, all of the criteria. 1. Some Development in Area The City has acquired a 10i acre park and historical site, and is plannning on developing it. This facility needs funds and access to make it a working part of the community. 2. Newer Developing Area of City With the applications of both Scripps Hospital and Cal Fed's projects to be reviewed by Planning and Engineering prior to the Management Plans being required, should have a bearing on the area being an Urbanizing Zone. 37 Mr. Michael Holzmiller RE: GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANS April 10, 1986 Page Two Some Level of Planning Already Completed (i.e. existing Master Plan) I believe staff will agree this requirement has been met. Significant planning and engineering efforts have been made for this area. A Master Plan exists and projects are being developed in accordance with the Master Plan. Adjacent to or Considered a Logical Extension of Category I (Urbanized) Area As stated earlier this year, this is an extension of Zones 5 and 6. Both of these in Category I and are adjacent. essential Zones are I hope you and your staff will make to allow Zone 18 to be included (Urbanizing) area. Thank you for Please call if you have any questions. the necessary findings in the Category II your consideration. BCB:stc/4164A Sincerely, Barry C. Bender Copies to:Mr. Charles Grimm, CITY OF CARLSBAD Mr. Mike Howes, CITY OF CARLSBAD Ms. Dee Landers, CITY OF CARLSBAD Mr. Richard Jack, CAL FED ENTERPRISES Mr. David Resnick, PARTIN • BENNETT Mr. Byron White, WHITE & ROBINSON ATTORNEYS Mr. Don Woodward, THE WOODWARD COMPANIES Mr. Jim Leary, BROWN • LEARY ARCHITECTS Mr. Robert Ladwig, RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY THE WILLIAM N. HOFMAN COMPANY Planning Project Management Environmental m i3B§ April 10, 1986 --; R£C£WS) • \ UNO us ', fljtfBirS c: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Comments on the Public Facility Phasing Program portion of the city's Growth Management Plan. Dear Michael: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Public Facility Phasing Program of the city's Growth Management Plan. As you know, I am in the process of preparing some of these Programs for different areas of the city, so I have had a little experience with the implementation of the Program. Hopefully, these comments will be useful to you and to others who will work through this program. To begin, I have found the Program to be very workable and practical. I am convinced that the Program's objective of ensuring that public facilities will be available concurrent with need and that inadequate facilities will be upgraded to minimum standards prior to further development will be achieved. I have just a few comments on some areas where I believe it can be improved. These comments are the following: 1) The city's various Special Districts, sewer, water and schools, each have its own standards of adequacy that have been applied successfully over the last several years. Some of the standards of the Special Districts conflict with the stated standards of the city. One reason for this is that the PFMS standards were adopted based on general guidelines and standards which in some cases are outdated by new Special District regulations. In cases of conflict, I would suggest that the Special District's standards take priority. 2) Adequacy standards for Police, Library and City Administration Facilities are citywide standards 6994 El Camino Real • Suite 208-G • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (619) 438-1465 and, therefore, cannot be realistically applied to an individual Management Zone. If any one of these facilities are inadequate then the entire city is deficient, not just one or a few Management Zones. For this reason, I would suggest that these facilities be addressed citywide by the city and not within individual Management Zones by property owners. 3) As currently written, the adequacy standards for circulation are not clearly defined nor is an adequate format available to review these facilities. This comment is not as pertinent since our meeting last Wednesday with yourself and Marty Bouman. At that meeting, we discussed a potential method of analyzing circulation using a standard format. I would suggest that this procedure be included in the revised Program format. This would ensure that all the data that will be collected by the city will be in a standard format for use in the city's annual review. A) Also regarding circulation, only limited data regarding intersection impacts exist in Carlsbad. Most of the data will have to be generated by new counts. As far as I can tell, the city is not prepared to process and store all the data that will be generated over the course of the Facility Phasing Plans. I would suggest that the city take immediate steps to purchase necessary equipment and to hire necessary personnel to be able to gather and assimilate all the data that will be generated by these Programs. If the city does not gear up for this new data influx, this process has the potential of requiring the developer or the city to generate the same data on a yearly basis. 5) Regarding the 'How', or the funding source portion of the program, no assurances are given that the City Council will implement the funding sources identified for a particular facility by a Phasing Program. The City Council could inadvertantly induce a stoppage of growth within any Management Zone simply by not approving the fundi.ng mechanism to pay for the facility. For example, if an area has a major offsite street that is required to be built prior to any new occupancy permits, and the funding source is PFF money, the Council could delay all development within the Zone by not adopting this particular improvement within the city's Capital Improvement Program for the current fiscal year. Should the developer elect to put in these improvements, there is no guarantee that he will be reimbursed. A suggestion is to categorize the various improvements that will be city funded and establish a priority list with a guarantee that the facility will be funded within a definite period of time. Also, a guarantee should be given to the developer who elects to build the facility up front that he will be reimbursed within a specific period of time. These are the extent of my comments on the overall program. As I mentioned, the Program is workable and will accomplish the stated objectives. The concerns expressed herein are relatively minor in nature and serve as suggested fine tuning mechanisms. I hope these are useful to you. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bill Hofman APRIL 14, 1986 TO: MICHAEL HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: VINCENT JIMNO POLICE CHIEF COMMUNITY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM / ZONE 9 The draft copy of Sammis Batiquitos Lagoon Education Park (Zone 9) appears to be presented adequately. The standard of 1.35 officers per 1000 population is a reasonable standard to employee throughout the city. However, it cannot be applied to each zone individually as an absolute benchmark to decide approval or denial of a specific project. Currently, the police department is servicing 48,660 people within the city with 62 sworn officers. This calculates to a current ratio of 1.27 officers per 1000 population. Each area of the city varies dramatically in its need for police services. These variances make it difficult with current technology and ability of the city to define the specific service level this development will require. Overall, I believe that the development should be able to provide the city with enough increased revenues to allow the city to acquire at least two police officers. VDJ:db CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE POST OFFICE BOX 1605 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619)729-5924 DOUGLAS A. YAVANIAN EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT April 17, 1986 Mayor Mary Casler and Council Members CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Casler and Council Members: After having had an opportunity to review the new Growth Management Program, the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce supports the Plan. However, we do have some recommendations which we feel need to be addressed by the Plan, and which are as follows: 1. Public facility fees should only be used for capital improvements. Public services, ope- rational and maintenance costs should be paid for from general fund revenues. 2. There must be performance standards specified in the Plan that apply to the City. The City's lack of compliance or implementation should not be a reason for the denial of a project. 3. The City should proceed as soon as possible with the completion of plans for Zones 1-6. 4. Adequacy standards for public schools should be determined by each school district affected. The City should not impose addi- tional requirements for school adequacy, as this could produce a multitude of conflicts between the planning process of the City and that of the responsible school districts. 5. Adequacy standards for utilities should be determined by the special utility districts or serving agency. The City should not impose additional requirements for utility adequacy which could either be in conflict Mayor Mary Casler and Council Members Page 2 April 17, 1986 with or be more restrictive than the existing special district's standards. 6. The City should retain an outside traffic consultant to monitor the cumulative effects of growth on the circulation system. The consultant should monitor tentative map approvals, final map approvals, building per- mits and occupancy permits, with a report coinciding with the Citizens Committee annual report. We believe that in order for the Growth Management Program to be effective and workable, the above items and recommendations must be addressed at this time. Thank you for your consideration and attention to this important concern to all of us in our community. Sincerely, Stephen M./t'Heureux President SMLrck c.c. Council Members Frank Aleshire, City Manager Mike Holzmiller, Planning Director Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS CONSORTIUM April 22, 1986 Mike Holzmiller City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE 15/REQUEST FOR CATEGORY II CLASSIFICATION OVERVIEW The primary goal of the City's Growth Management Program is to: A) Develop a system that provides public facilities concurrent with need, B) Develop a long term planning process that monitors and coordinates facility funding (ie fees, CIP & Private) and insures that the location and extent of growth does not create service deficiencies and, C) Guide the location and extent of growth in "urbanizing" areas. We represent a majority of the sub area 15 property owners in their effort to formulate the City's required facilities management plan. As a consequence of these efforts we believe that there is an inconsistency in their designation as a Future Urbanizing area. SUB AREA Sub area 15 encompasses approximately 1300 acres. In addition to the existing development within the area the City has recently approved development on over half of the total acreage. The City's recent approvals strongly indicate that this sub area or at least a major portion of it is currently urbanizing. In fact, in 1984, the City on its own initiative prepared and adopted the Sunny Creek Specific Plan which like a Master Plan, specifically outlines the type and form of development on over 70% of the property within this sub area. 2956 Roosevelt No. 4 • P.O. Box 2143 • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • (619) 434-3135 L/J' April 22, 1986 Page Two Ltr: Holzmiller The many project approvals and resultant conditions of approval have dictated the size and location of all major sewer, water, circulation and drainage facilities for this sub area. In fact, the continuing efforts of the property owners and City staff will culminate in an assessment district hearing early next month. The major facilities to be covered by the impending assessment district have been indicated as desireable for the City and also a logical extension of services in a developing area. An additional factor to consider in analyzing sub area 15 is not only the past and current developing status of the area itself, but also the strong influence of adjacent existing and ongoing development. The south and west borders significant industrial development while across the City boundary to the east is a large developed medium density project. It is obvious that the surrounding urban development and close proximity of services is a major reason why this area has developed over the past several years. SUMMARY The City's committment to low density quality urbanization of this sub area has been consistent over the years. We firmly believe that the adoption of projects on over 50% of the sub area, the adoption of the Sunny Creek Specific Plan land work that the City has done with regards to public facilities, clearly indicates that sub area 15 is urbanizing. As previously stated we support the City's facilities management efforts and will work within the program. However, we respectfully request reclassification to a category II, Urbanizing Designation. We feel that past City actions clearly support the urbanizing category. Attachment cc: City Council Frank Aleshire rt 5 3& Q-"8 2 < Ul (0 >§ tu vl 0 •ii vb Z <E 9 LU> ffi O ^ 5 <<e r u u 'CM I o 0» DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS CONSORTIUM April 23, 1986 Michael Holzmiller City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CHANGES IN DEVELOPMENTAL AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20 The purpose of this letter is to formally request that Develop- mental and Community Facilities Management Zone 20 be broken into sub-zones, 20A and 20B to reflect the Developmental Status Categories existinn within the current zone. Our proposal is shown graphically in Attachment I. D.C.C. has been retained by Summers Development, Cobblestone Sea Village and Laurel Tree Investors to prepare the phasing plan for Zone 20 of the City's Growth Management Program. This zone is designated as a Category III, "Future Urbanizing" area. The criteria used for Developmental Status Categorization is attached as attachment 2. Our analysis shows that the zone should contain two separate categories in individual sub areas. The zone divides logically along the east/west ridge projected as the extension of Camino de las Ondas (see attachment 1). The area marked 20A on the attachment should remain as a category III area. Analysis of the area based on Category III criteria reveals the following: 1) There is very little or no development in proposed zone 20A other than agricultural operations. There are no map approvals or indications of joint planning efforts. 2) The topography in the area requires it to sewer to the south across the HPI holdings to the Batiquitos Trunk line. This would require the construction of 3,000 to 5,000 lineal feet of line or the installation of interim pump stations (attachment 3). 2956 Roosevelt No. 4 • P.O. Box 2143 • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • (619) 434-3135 April 23, 1986 Page Two Ltr: Michael Holzmiller !n addition, 20A drains to the south into the San Marcos Creek (Batiauitos Lagoon) Water shed (attachment 4). Finally, access into the area is extremely limited, with only a small portion of the property directly accessible via Poinsettia extension (attachment 5). These statements are all easily verifiable through the sewer, drainage and circulation plans of the City from which the attachments are taken. 3) Only a small portion of 20A is adjacent to a Category I area (attachment 6). Sewer and drainage services are only available thTough the Category III area to the south of this zone. 4) As a result of Coastal Commission designation, 20A became known as Site III. This area had the least potential for development in the near future and as a result, very little planning was done for the future of the area. Analysis of the four Category III criteria support a Category III designation and separate sub area for the area shown as 20A on attachment 1. Our analysis indicates that area 20B is closely related to Category I, zones 4 & 5, and that the logical Development Status Category for this area is Category II, "Urbanizing". Our analysis of the Category II & III criteria concluded as follows: 1) There is some development in the area as evidenced by the completed Sudan Mission Retirement facility, Cobblestone Sea Village approvals, Seagate Village construction, Ukegawa Industrial, Kelly Industrial Park, Birtcher Business Center (Palomar Oaks), Sea Pines, Lincoln Properties, and Alta Mira (see attachment 7). 2) Given the number of projects approved, under construction or constructed, this portion of zone 20 is certainly a newer developing area of the city. 3) Planning activities have been undertaken for the northern portion of zone 20. The most recent coordinated activity involved the property owners efforts to formulate a comprehensive plan for the area. The goal of the plan is to cluster physical development on a portion of the land area and provide integrated development of sewer, water and circulation facilities. This planning effort is known as the Site II plan & program. Annexation and rezoning were completed by the City and acknowledged as the first step in providing for comprehensively planned development of the area comprising most of proposed 20B. April 23, 1986 Page Three Ltr: Mfchael Holzmiller 4) Category I properties are immediately adjacent to the north, west and northeast boundaries of the site. The Lincoln Properties, Alta Mira and Grupe projects are all immediately adjacent to 20B on the west. The north and east boundaries of the site are adjacent to approved industrial development which is currently under construction. These areas provide logical service exten- tions to the site (attachment 8). Facilities have been installed to provide sewer, water, drainage and circula- tion to the northern 2/3 of the zone. Camino de las Ondas & Lagoon Drive are completed to the zone boundary. A sewer trunk line exists to provide service to property along College Avenue. As a result of adjacent service availability the Kelly, Cobblestone and sudan Interior Missions projects have been approved and the Summers & Laurel Tree projects are pending. We support the City's Growth Management Program and feel that it is workable. Granting our request will enable us to deal with our facilities planning efforts in a manner that will ensure that facility requirements will be compatibly phased with growth perepheral to our zone. Please advise us as to when our request will be considered. If you need additional information please contact me at your convenience. Thank you. Very truly yours, (Jack Henthorn JH:cr cc: Mike Howes Gary Wayne ATTACHMENT 1 ZONE 20 PROPOSAL SOURCE: CARLSBADInterceptor and trunk sewer system Master DEVELOPMENTAL STATUS CATEGORIES City divided into three categories based upon their overall developmental status, level of urbanization and existing level of adequacy of public facilities and services. The three categories and the criteria used as a guide for each one is as follows: I. Urbanized 1. Older developed areas of City. 2. Primarily developed or immediately contiguous or surrounded by developed areas. 3. Additional development considered infill. 4. Public facilities basically adequate for level of anticipated, additional development. 5. Infill requirements in terms of completing public facilities or infrastructure. ... '. ., ' .... : . . .-..,... , • ' ••..-•'. • . .: • II. Urbanizing 1. Some development in area. 2. Newer developing area of City. 3. Some level of planning already completed (i.e, existing master plan). 4. Adjacent to or considered a logical extention of a Category I (Urbanized) area. III. Future Urbanizing 1. Very little or no development. 2. Isolated from existing services and facilities. 3. Isolated from existing development (i.e, not immediately adjacent to or surrounded by a Category I or II area (Urbanized or Urbanizing). 4. No existing master plan or existing master plan outdated. ATTACHMENT 2 SOURCE: GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ATTACHMENT 3 SEWER SERVICE BASINS » TRUNK LINE LOCATION SOURCE: Take from II Developmental Status Map CATEGORY I: URBANIZED CATEGORY II: URBANIZING CATEGORY III: FUTURE URBANIZING ATTACHMENT 6 RELATIONSHIP BETOEEN 20A & CATEGORY I&II PROPERTIES SOURCE: CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN _ I f^ ^ ' -If \ ..ortl /V ~^"1-• ,! V • ti fe / / 27/W' /B 3 ATTACHMENT 7 SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT RELATIONSHIP TO 20B SOURCE: SEC #1 and add County Assessor Records - City of Carlsbad Files ^ ' EXHIBIT 2 Outline of Program 1. City divided into three Developmental Status Categories: I - Urbanized, II - Urbanizing and III - Future Urbanizing. Boundaries of the areas are shown on Attachment 1 and a description of the categories and criteria is provided on Attachment 2. A larger map showing more precise boundaries of the areas is available for review in the Planning Department. 2. City divided into 25 Developmental and Community Facilities Management Zones. Boundaries of the zones are shown on Attachment 3 and a description of the zones and criteria is provided on Attachment 4. A larger map showing more precise boundaries of the zones is available for review in the Planning Department. 3. New development (additional project approvals or building permits for approved projects not exempted from Ordinance 9791) is not permitted in any zone until a Developmental and Community Facilities Management Program (Phasing Progam) is prepared for the zone. The required information and a sample format for the management program is provided on Attachment 5. Staff will prepare a community facilities inventory and recommend a program for the zones located in Developmental Status Category I (Urbanized). As soon as this is completed, additional development will be permitted to proceed in these zones. For all other zones, the zone developer or property owners shall prepare the management program for City review and approval. 4. Public Services and Facilities required to be addressed in the Developmental and Community Facilities Management Program are contained on Attachment 6. 5. In order to develop the phasing schedule part of the Developmental and Community Facilities Management Program for each zone, community wide facility performance standards are being recommended for adoption. Recommended standards and a description are contained on Attachment 7. 6. An annual monitoring report shall be prepared for each zone. The information required to be provided in the annual report is contained on Attachment 8. If it is determined by the City Council that facility inadequacies exist, additional development shall not be permitted in the zone until the inadequacy is corrected. 7. The annual monitoring reports shall be reviewed at the same time that the City reviews and adopts the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the general budget, the formation of any new assessment districts, and a Public Facilities Fee (PFF) budget (a new budgeting process being recommended by staff). In this way, these financing sources and methods can be coordinated and the City Council can decide the City's involvement and participation in correcting inadequacies in public facilities and services, thereby, determining where additional growth will occur. Priorities for City involvement shall be as follows: 1st Priority - Capital Projects in Developmental Status Category I 2nd Priority - Capital Projects in Developmental Status Category II 3rd Priority - Capital Projects in Developmental Status Category III 8. The annual monitoring reports for each zone shall be consolidated and coordinated with the annual "Impact of Growth" report prepared by the ongoing Citizens Committee as recommended by the Citizens Committee for Review of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 9. A summary of the key features of the Growth Management Program and a an information directional flow chart is provided on Attachment 9. 10. The framework of the program implements the intent of the three part growth management proposal approved by the City Council on December 10, 1985 as follows: Urban Land Reserve - The program encourages infill development by: A) Staff preparing the program for areas in Category I (Urbanized). As soon as this is completed, new development will be allowed to proceed in these areas; B) Priority for City involvement and capital facilities programming is given to areas in Development Status Category I (Urbanized); C) The Developmental and Community Facilities Management Programs for zones located in Developmental Status Categories II and III (Urbanizing and Future Urbanizing) will require more detailed and longer-term planning. The program for these zones will also require more cooperation and concurrence from the property owners in the zone. If a program cannot be agreed-upon, additional development cannot proceed in these zones; D) In order to meet certain of the performance standards, facilities and services in Developmental Status Categories II and III which require longer-term planning must be scheduled for construction within a specified period of time. Additional development would not be permitted in these areas unless the construction of the facility starts within the specified time period. B) The Management Program for zones in Categories II and III must show that development in these zones will not preclude development in Category I. Public Facilities Phasing - The program requires a Developmental and Community Facilities Management Program (Phasing Program) for each zone in the City. This will require more "upfront" planning and decision-making to ensure that needed public facilities and services are provided concurrent with the level and amount of approved development. It will also help to ensure that a funding source is available to finance the public improvement by requiring the integration of public and private financing and where applicable, by requiring developer funds to be deposited with the City as development is approved. Public Facilities Adequacy - The program recommends community-wide, quality performance standards. If these standards are not being complied with, development can be stopped in the zone until the inadequacy is corrected. An informational and monitoring system is proposed to determine compliance with the standards. ATTACHMENT 1 Developmental Status Map CATEGORY I: URBANIZED CATEGORY II: URBANIZING CATEGORY III: FUTURE URBANIZING ATTACHMENT 2 (Page 1) DEVELOPMENTAL STATUS CATEGORIES City divided into three categories based upon their overall developmental status, level of urbanization and existing level of adequacy of public facilities and services. The three categories and the criteria used as a guide for each one is as follows: I. Urbanized 1. Older developed areas of City. 2. Primarily developed or immediately contiguous or surrounded by developed areas. 3. Additional development considered infill. 4. Public facilities basically adequate for level of anticipated, additional development. 5. Infill requirements in terms of completing public facilities or infrastructure. II. Urbanizing 1. Some development in area. 2. Newer developing area of City. 3. Some level of planning already completed (i.e, existing master plan). 4. Adjacent to or considered a logical extention of a Category I (Urbanized) area. III. Future Urbanizing 1. Very little or no development. 2. Isolated from existing services and facilities. 3. Isolated from existing development (i.e, not immediately adjacent to or surrounded by a Category I or II area (Urbanized or Urbanizing). 4. No existing master plan or existing master plan outdated. L, ATTACHMENT 2 (Page 2) The significance of the categories is as follows: A) Required degree of detail and level of the sophistication for preparation of a Developmental and Community Facilities Management Program (see Attachment 5). Additional detail and planning will be required in order to prepare a management program for the category in which an area or property is located. Specific Public Facility/Service Requirements (WHAT) Phasing - Timing of Public Facility /Service Require- ment (WHEN) Funding Source/ Mechanism For Requirement (HOW) Category II Category II Category III X - Detailed Planning Needed B) City staff to prepare proposed management program for Category I (Urbanized) areas. Priority for preparing and reviewing management programs for other categories is proposed to be as follows: 1st Priority - Category II (Urbanizing) 2nd Priority - Category III (Future Urbanizing) C) Priority for determining City involvement and level of participation in providing facilities or correcting inadequacies (i.e, capital facilities programming, assessment district formation, bond financing) is proposed to be as follows: 1st Priority - Category I (Urbanized) 2nd Priority - Category II (Urbanizing) 3rd Priority - Category III (Future Urbanizing) (R) and (C) above will tend to favor and encourage infill development. ATTACHMENT 3 Developmental and CommunityFacilities Management Zones ZONES 1-6 URBANIZED ZONES 7-12 URBANIZING ZONES 13-25 FUTURE URBANIZING ATTACHMENT 4 DEVELOPMENTAL AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE BOUNDARIES For developmental and community facilities management and planning purposes the City was divided into 25 zones. These would be similar but on a smaller scale to what some cities call community planning areas. The criteria that was used as a guide for determining the boundaries of the zones was as follows: 1. Boundaries of existing master plans 2. Boundaries of pending master plans 3. Boundaries of potential future master plan areas 4. Availability of public facilities and services 5. Public facility relationships especially the City's planned major circulation network 6. Special district boundaries where appropriate 7. Location with respect to the three developmental status categories (urbanized, urbanizing and future urbanizing) ATTACHMENT 5 (Page 1) INFORMATION FOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM A Development and Community Facilities Management Program shall be prepared for each zone. The zone developer or property owners in Developmental Status Categories II and III (Urbanizing and Future Urbanizing) shall prepare the Program for City review and approval. The program shall cover the entire zone and shall consist of maps, graphs, tables and narrative explanations in a format sufficient to provide the following information: What When How Specific improvement requirements for each facility and service. Specifics for all ten facilities/services must be provided. Improvement requirements for certain facilities may overlap and, therefore, may have to be coordinated with other zones (i.e, circulation). Estimated cost of the facility shall be provided when applicable. It mast be shown that development: in the «>ne will not preclude development: in zones with a highef~ i. status category. Maximum amount or level of developmental activity (i.e, number of units) which can be considered before specific requirement must be satisfied (Phasing). In some cases, an anticipated date for providing the facility may be required. Specifics on the mechanisms to provide the facilities (i.e, funding sources or methods). This must be provided in sufficient detail to show that the mechanisim is adequate to provide the facility concurrent with the approved phasing. Although it is recognized that certain specific improvements will be made in conjunction with a specific development project (conventional subdivision process), other mechanisms for providing overall, community or zone facilities must be addressed. Possible methods or sources of financing include direct developer funding and construction, reimbursement agreements, assessment districts, PFF, impact fees. Where developer contributions are required to finance facilities which are to be constructed at a future time, the funds should be deposited with the City beginning with the initial unit of development in an amount sufficient to fund the facility when it is required by the phasing program. ATTACHMENT 5 (Page 2) One of the key elements in the Developmental and Community Facilities Management Program is in setting forth the methods and sources for the financing of all required facilities and services and in correlating the financing with the amount or level of permitted development (phasing) so that adopted adeauacy standards are never exceeded. In this regard, the underlying premise is that new development will pay for required facilities with a method that guarantees that the funding will be available to provide the facility when it is needed. A simplified example of an outline for the format of a Developmental and Community Facilities Management Program would be as follows: Developmental & Community Facilities Zone NO. Management Program Developmental Status Category: Facility/ Service Specific Requirements Estimated Costs Phasing Funding Source ATTACHMENT 6 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES TO BE ADDRESSED Services 1. Sewer 2. Water 3. Drainage 4. Circulation 5. Fire 6. Police 7. Administration (General Gov't) 8. Parks 9. Library 10. Schools ATTACHMENT 7 (Page 2) TABLE 1 Facility Sewer Water Drainage Circulation Fire Police Performance Standard 1. Adequate trunk line capacity to meet demand for entire Developmental and Community Facilities Management (DCFM) Zone must be provided for prior to any development. 2. Sewer plant capacity is deemed adequate for at least a five year period. 1. Adequate line capacity to meet demand for entire Developmental and Community Facilities Management (DCFM) Zone must be provided for prior to any development. 2. A minimum 10 day storage capacity in overall system. Adequate drainage facilities must be provided for as required by the City in the approved Master Drainage Plan. No road segment or intersection in the zone or impacted* by development in the zone shall exceed a level of service C during off-peak hours, nor level of service D during peak hours. * Impacted - 20% or more of the traffic generated by the Developmental and Community Facilities Management (DCFM) Zone will use the road segment or intersection. No more than 1500 units outside a five minute response time. 1.35 officers/1000 population To be measured according to the long range plan prepared by -the Police Department: and dated ATTACHMENT 7 (Page 3) City Admin. Fac, Parks Library Schools 1500 sq.ft./1000 population must be scheduled for construction within specified time period (i.e, five years) 3 acres of park/1000 population Tn park district must be scheduled for construction within specified time period (i.e, five years). .8 sq.ft/person must be scheduled for construction within specified time period (i.e, five years). School capacity to meet projected enrollment as determined by the school district. Where an performance standard is not being met in a zone and the City or other public agency involved decides not to participate in providing a needed facility, the developer may elect to front the cost of the facility in order to meet the standard and request future reimbursement or credit. ATTACHMENT 9 (Page 1) Developmental & Community Facilities Management Program For Each Zone Annual Monitoring Report For Each Zone Growth Impact Report from On-going Citizens Committee Formation of Assessment Districts ft G aoption of eneral Budget Adoption of Capital jjnprovement Program Adoption of PFF Budget Public Facilities Adequacy Program Individual Project Review And Ongoing Informational Source and Data Base ATTACHMENT (Page 2) KEY FEATURES OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM I. No new development in any zone until Developmental and Community Facilities Management Program adopted for zone. II. Annual growth monitoring and facilities analysis report required for each zone. Adequacy of facilities and services reviewed. III. Review of annual reports for each zone consolidated with annual review and adoption of capital improvements program (CIP), public facilities fee budget, general city budget, assessment districts, impact of growth report from citizens committee, and public facilities management system (PFMS) report. In this way. City can more directly manage and guide growth. 7J NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will nold a public hearing at the City Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, p.m. on Wednesday, May 28, 1986, to consider of a zone code amendment establishing a growth which would be effective within the of the City of Carlsbad. Council at 6:00 approval management pi an incorporated area Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions please call the Planning Department at 438-5591. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 28, 1986, to consider approval of a zone code amendment establishing a growth management plan which would be effective within the incorporated area of the City of Carlsbad. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions please call the Planning Department at 438-5591. If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: ZCA-193 APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLISH: May 17, 1986 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION