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