Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-10; City Council; 8661; Growth Management OrdinanceCITl JF CARLSBAD - AGEND/ JILL AB* fio (o 1 MTG. 6/10/86 DEPT.PLN TITLE: GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE DEPT. HD.M^44- riTY ATTY \/j^ CITY MGR. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and introduce Ordinance No. 9ft) ITEM EXPLANATION This is a request to approve the Growth Management Ordinance. The Ordinance has been drafted to reflect the direction provided by the City Council over the last several months regarding the overall Growth Management Program. OO I M-l O 00a (3•H•UCOO CO 0) 4Jni .sH OOI O On June 4, 1986 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public input, review the Ordinance and make a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Ordinance with several minor revisions to the section of the Ordinance dealing with exemptions. The attached memorandum to the City Manager from the Planning Director dated June 5, 1986 explains in detail the Planning Commission's recommendation. The changes recommended by the Commission have been incorporated into the Ordinance. The memorandum also includes suggestions made by individual members of the Commission regarding the Ordinance. These should be considered by the City Council. On June 5, 1986 the City Council directed the City Attorney to add certain exceptions to the Ordinance. That has been done. Attached is a Memorandum dated June 6 which explains the changes and points out other possible exceptions the Council may want to consider. FISCAL IMPACT The Growth Management Ordinance will put a hold on certain projects until a City Wide Public Facilities and Improvements Plan is adopted and, therefore, it will result in a temporary loss in developmental revenues. However, a financing plan will be prepared as part of the City Wide Plan which will help ensure that adequate funds are generated to pay for needed public facilities and improvements to serve new development. For this reason, the Ordinance will, in the long term, have a beneficial fiscal impact on the City. Z O O Z 3 O O ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Planning Director and has been submitted to the City Council for approval. The Ordinance will not result in any significant adverse impact to the physical environment. Impacts to the physical environment will be ' Page Two of Agenda Bill No beneficial Facilities as a result of the Ordinance. The City Wide Public and Improvement Plan will undergo environmental review, All projects exempted from the Ordinance have had prior environmental review. EXHIBITS 1. Ordinance No. 2. Memorandum to the City Manager from the Planning Director dated June 5, 1986 3. Environmental Documents 4. Memorandum to the City Council from City Attorney, dated June 6, 1986 5. Correspondence received on Growth Management Program 00in - O ill <0 M => :? O 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 ORDINANCE NO. 9808 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 21.90 ESTABLISHING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: That Title 21 is amended by the addition of Chapter 21.90 to read as follows: "Chapter 21.90 Growth Management Sections: 21.90.010 Purpose and intent. 21.90.020 Definitions. 21.90.030 General prohibition, exceptions. 21.90.031 Tolling of time for consideration of applications submitted before the effective date of this chapter. 21.90.032 Tolling of expiration of previously issued development permit. 21.90.033 Extensions of prior approvals prohibited. 21.90.040 Compliance with this chapter required. 21.90.050 Establishment of local facilities management fee. 21.90.060 Special provisions for building permits issued during temporary moratorium. 21.90.070 Finding of health, safety and welfare necessary for the fees imposed by sections 21.90.040 and 21.90.030. 21.90.080 Performance standard. 21.90.090 Citywide facilities and improvements plan. 21.90.100 Local facilities management zones. 21.90.110 Contents of local facility management plans. 21.90.120 Facilities management plan prepartion. 21.90.125 Facilities management plan processing. 21.90.130 Implementation of facilities and improvements requirements. 21.90.140 Obligation to pay fees or install improvements required by any other law. 21.90.150 Implementing guidelines. 21.90.160 Exclusions. 21.90.170 Council actions, fees, notice. 21.90.180 Expiration of chapter. 21.90.190 Severability. 1. sjS UJ Z O <O 5 2 onz O co o 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ^ H < t TKCO 77 _ _| J.J 16 < 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21.90.010 Purpose and intent. (a) It is the policy of the City of Carlsbad to: (1) Provide quality housing opportunities for all economic sectors of the community; (2) Provide a balanced community with adequate commercial, industrial, recreational and open space areas to support the residential areas of the City. (3) Ensure that public facilities and improvements meeting City standards are available concurrent with the need created by new development. (4) Balance the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of Carlsbad residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. (5) Encourage infill development in urbanized areas before allowing extensions of public facilities and improvements to areas which have yet to be urbanized. (6) Ensure that all development is consistent with the Carlsbad general plan. (7) Prevent growth unless adequate public facilities and improvements are provided in a phased and logical fashion as required by the general plan. (8) Control of the timing and location of development by tying the pace of development to the provision of public facilities and improvements at the times established by the citywide facilities and improvements plan. (b) The City Council of the City of Carlsbad has determined despite previous City Council actions including but not limited to, amendments to the land use, housing and parks and recreation elements of the general plan, amendments to City Council Policy No. 17, adoption of traffic impact fees, and modification of park dedication and improvement requirements, that the demand for facilities and improvements has outpaced the supply resulting in shortages in public facilities and improvements, including but not limited to streets, parks, open space, schools, libraries, drainage facilities and general governmental facilities. The City Council has further determined that these shortages are detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Carlsbad. (c) This chapter is adopted to ensure the implementation of the policies stated in subsection (a), to eliminate the shortages identified in subsection (b), to ensure that no development occurs without providing for adequate facilities and improvements, to regulate the pace of development thereby ensuring a continued supply of housing over a period of years and to continue the quality of life for all economic sectors of the Carlsbad community. (d) This chapter will further the policies, goals and objectives established herein by requiring identification of all public facilities and improvements required for development, by prohibiting development until adequate provisions for the public facilities and improvements are made by developers of projects within the City, and by giving development priority to areas of the City where public facilities and improvements are already in place (infill areas). 2. 3 8 - O 01 < § "- ? * li|l I- >- "J °. O co I- cc > o O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 g 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (e) This chapter replaces the temporary moratorium on processing and approval of development projects imposed by City Council Ordinance No. 9791. 21.90.020 Definitions. (a) Whenever the following terms are used in this chapter they shall have the meaning established by this section unless from the context it is apparent that another meaning is intended: (1) "Citywide facilities and improvements plan" means a plan prepared and approved according to Section 21.90.090 identifying those facilities and improvements required on a citywide basis to serve the projected population of the City as established by the general plan and providing an outline and budget for financing certain facilities and improvements which will be provided by the City. (2) "Development permit" means any permit, entitlement or approval whether discretionary or ministerial issued under Title 20 or 21 of this code and any legislative actions such as zone changes, general plan amendments, or master plan approval or amendment. (3) "Development" means any use to which land is put, building or other alteration of land and construction incident thereto. (4) "Facilities" means any schools, parks, open space, or recreational areas or structures providing for fire, library, or governmental services, identified in a facilities management plan. (5) "Improvement" includes traffic controls, streets and highways, including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, bridges, overcrossings, street interchanges, flood control or storm drain facilities, sewer facilities, water facilities and lighting facilities. (6) "Local facilities management plan" means a facilities management plan defined by Section 21.90.120 for a local facilities management zone which is established according to Section 21.90.100. 21.90.030 General prohibition, exceptions. (a)Unlessexempted by the provisionsof this chapter no application for any building permit or development permit shall be accepted, processed or approved until a citywide facilities and improvements plan has been adopted and a local facilities management plan for the applicable local facilities management zone has been submitted and approved according to this chapter. (b) No zone change, general plan amendment, master plan amendment or specific plan amendment which would incease the residential density or development intensity established by the general plan in effect on the effective date of this chapter shall be approved unless an amendment to the citywide facilities management plan and the applicable local facilities management plan has first been approved. 3. § o £ ^ CD* o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 d ? 3 | 14 £ i- < i 1 Rm r; _ _i J-° 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (c) The classes of projects or permits listed in this subsection shall be exempt from the provisions of subsection (a). Development permits and building permits for these projects shall be subject to any fees established pursuant to the citywide facilities and improvement plan and any applicable local facilities management plan. (1) Redevelopment projects. (2) Projects consisting of the construction or alteration of a single dwelling structure for a family on a lot owned by the family intending to occupy the structure. (3) Building permits and final maps for projects identified in Section 2(F) of Ordinance No. 9791 (projects for which construction had commenced and were designated on the map marked Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 9791 "as developing"). (4) Building permits for projects for which all required development permits were issued or approved on or before January 21, 1986. If all required development permits were issued for a portion of the project only, the exemption shall aPPly to that portion. (5) Building permits for projects for which all required development permits were issued or approved before July 20, 1986 and for which building permits could have been issued under Ordinance No. 9791. If all required development permits were issued for a portion of the project only, the exemption shall apply to that portion. (6) Commercial and industrial projects for which all final development permits had been issued on or before July 20, 1986. If all required development permits were issued for a portion of the project only, the exemption shall apply to that portion. (7) Projects by nonprofit entities for structures and uses for hospitals or youth recreational and guidance programs such as boys and girls clubs. (8) Zone changes or general plan amendments necessary to accomplish consistency between the general plan and zoning, to implement the provisions of the Local Coastal Plan or which the City Council finds will not increase the public facilities or services and which are initiated by the City Council or Planning Commission. (d) The provisions of this subsection apply to final maps and other development permits for projects with a tentative map approved before July 20, 1986 which are not included in the exemptions listed in subsection (c). (1) If a tentative map or tentative parcel map was approved on or before January 21, 1986 then, after approval of the citywide facilities plan, a final map or parcel map may be processed and approved before the adoption of a local facility management plan. The expiration period for those tentative maps shall be tolled until the citywide plan is adopted. The expiration of any development permits issued in conjunction with those maps shall be tolled until the applicable local facilities management plan is approved or, two years after the date the citywide plan is approved, whichever occurs first. 4. COCO - O UJQ n =1 o Q" >- o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 <n 5 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (2) If a tentative map or tentative parcel map was approved after January 21, 1986 and before July 20, 1986, but the approval of final map or parcel map was prohibited by Ordinance No. 9791 then approval of final maps and parcel maps is prohibited until after preparaton of the applicable local facilities management plan. The expiration period of those tentative maps and tentative parcel maps, and any other development permits issued in conjunction with the maps shall be tolled until the local faciclities management plan is approved, or two years after date the citywide facilities and improvements is approved, whichever occurs first. (e) The exemption for projects listed in subsection (c) (3), (4), (5), and (6) shall expire on July 20, 1988. After that date all development permits for those projects shall be fully subject to the provisions of this chapter. The exemptions for projects listed in subsection (c) (3), (4), (5), and (6) shall apply only so long as the facilities and improvements required as a condition to the issuance of final development permits have been installed or are being installed pursuant to a secured agreement. Any breach of such secured improvement agreement shall subject any remaining building permits for the project to the provisions of subsection (a). (f) Final or parcel maps for projects listed in subsection (c) (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) which comply with all the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and Title 20 of this Code which were filed with the City before July 20, 1986 may be approved by the City Council, or City Engineer as appropriate, after July 20, 1986. Upon approval those projects shall be subject to the exemption of subsection (c). (g) The City Council may authorize the processing of and decision making on building perits and development permits for a project with a master plan approved before July 20, 1986 subject to the following restrictions: (1) The City Council finds that the facilities and improvements required by the master plan are sufficient to meet the needs created by the project and that the master plan developer has agreed to install those facilities and improvement to the satisfaction of the City Council. (2) The master plan developer shall agree in writing that all facilities and improvement requirements, including but not limited to the payment of fees established by the citywide facilities and management plan and the applicable local facilities management plan shall be applicable to development within the master plan area and that the master plan developer shall comply with those plans. (3) The master plan establishes an educational park and all uses within the park comprise an integral part of the educational facility. (4) Building permits for any residential portion of the project shall be subject to the provisions of subsection (a) and shall not be issued until the master plan developer has processed and obtained approval of the local facilities management plan. 5. 7 Q - O uj < O u_ =3 ^isiico0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 g 13 14 15 z £ o o 16w £ £> < J-^> H O 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (5) The master plan developer has agreed to participate in the restoration of a significant lagoon and wetland resource area through, among other things, the dedication of property necessary to accomplish the restoration. (h) After making the findings in paragraph 1 the City Council may authorize the processing of and decision making on master plans subject to the reguirements of paragraph 2. (l)(i) That the master plan will provide all necessary public facilities for the project and will cure any facilities deficits in the area affected by the project. (ii) That the approval will not prejudice the preparation of the citywide facilities plan and will improve the level of public facilities and services in the area. (iii) That by the dedication of land and the construction of. public improvements the project will make a significant contribution to the public faciities needs of the city and provide for the preservation or enhancement of significant environmental resources. (2)(i) The master plan shall include all of the information required by and implementing the provisions of Sections 21.90.090 and 21.90.110 for the area covered by the master plan. (ii) Development permits within the master plan area shall be subject to all of the provisions of this chapter including the provisions requiring preparation of the citywide facilities plan and a local facilities management plan. (iii) The applicant shall agree in writing that all facilities and improvement requirements, including but not limited to the payment of fees established by the citywide facilities and management plan and the applicable local facilities management plan shall be applicable to development within the master plan area and that the master plan developer shall comply with those requirements. (iv) The master plan applicant shall agree to participate in the restoration of a significant lagoon and wetland resource area. (v) Prior to the setting of the public hearing on the master plan before the Planning Commission the applicant shall dedicate or grant an easement over the property necessary for the lagoon restoration and the right-of-way necessary for the widening of La Costa Avenue. 21.90.031 Tolling of time for consideration of applications submitted before the effective date of this chapter. After approval of the citywide facilities and improvement plan and the applicable local facilities management plan applications for development permits which were accepted as complete before the effective date of this chapter shall have processing priority in relationship to the acceptance date. Until the approval of the plans all applicable time limits for processing the development permits shall be tolled. 6. VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR.CITY ATTORNEY - CITY OF CARLSBAD1200 ELM AVENUECARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 •i 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 21.90.032 Tollinq of expiration of previously issued development permits. If a discretionary development permit, other than a development permit issued in conjunction with a subdivision map, issued prior to July 20, 1986 has an expiration period within which building permits must be issued and the issuance of building permits for the project is prohibited by this chapter then the expiration period shall be tolled until the applicable local facilities management plan is approved, or two years after the date the citywide plan is approved, whichever occurs first. 21.90.033 Extensions of prior approvals prohibited. After approval of an applicable local facilities management plan an extension of the expiration date of any development permit shall not be granted unless the extension is found to be consistent with the plan. The decision making body considering an extension may condition the extension upon compliance with the citywide plan and applicable local facilities management plan. 21.90.040 Compliance with this , chapter. (a) No development permit shall be approved unless the approving authority finds that the permit is consistent with the citywide facilities and improvements plan and the applicable local facilities management plan. To ensure consistency the approving authority may impose any condition to the approval necessary or convenient to implementation of the plans, (b) No building permit shall be issued unless the fees required by this chapter, and any applicable local facilities management plan fees are first paid, and the permit is consistent with the applicable local facilities management plan. As a condition to the issuance of any building permit pursuant to Section 21.90.030(c) the applicant shall agree to pay the appropriate fees within 30 days of the date each fee is established, (c) The requirements of this chapter are imposed as a condition of zoning on the property to ensure implementation of and consistency with the general plan and to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that public facilities and improvements will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrently with need. 21.90.050 Establishment of local facilities management fee, (a) A local facilities management fee is hereby established to pay for improvements or facilities identified in a local facilities management plan which are related to new development within the zone and are not otherwise financed by any other fee, charge or tax on development, or are not installed by a developer as a condition of a building permit or development permit. The fee may also be used to pay for that portion of the facilities or improvements identified in the Citywide facilities and improvements plan attributed to development within the local zone which are not financed by other means. The facilities 7. cc 5: ~l O UJ < z !£ o QLU Z O < o 1 management fee shall be paid before the issuance of a building permit. The amount of the fee shall be determined based upon the 2 estimated cost of the facility or improvement designated as necessary to accommodate additional development within the 3 applicable local facilities management zone plus the estimated cost of facilities and improvements identified in the citywide 4 facilities and improvement plan attributable to the local zone. The fee shall be fairly apportioned among the new development. 5 (b) The fee required by this section is in addition to any other means of financing facilities or improvements 6 identified by a local facilities management plan or any other tax, fee, charge or improvement requirement which may be imposed 7 on the development of property under the provisions of state law, this code or City Council policy. 8 (c) The amount of the fee for a local facilities management zone shall be set by City Council resolution after a 9 public hearing, published notice of which shall be given according to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.060(2) and 10 Government Code Section 54992. (d) As a condition of any building or development 11 permit application submitted after the effective date of this chapter the applicant shall agree to pay the fee established by 12 this section at the time a building permit is issued. (e) The fee established by this section shall be levied 13 at the time of issuance of a building permit. 14 21.90.060 Special provisions for building permits issued during temporary moratorium. 15 (a) Applicants for projects for which building permits were issued after January 21, 1986 and before July 20, 1986 shall 16 pay the fee established by Section 21.90.050 within 30 days after the amount of the fee is determined by the City Council. Payment 17 shall be made according to the agreement executed by the applicant pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance No. 9791. 18 21.90.070 Finding of health, safety and welfare 19 necessary for the fees imposed by Section 21.90.050 and 21.90.060. 20 Ta) The City Council hereby declares that payment of the fee established and imposed by Section 21.90.050 and 21 21.90.060 and installation of the facilities and improvements identified in a facilities management plan are necessary to 22 achieve the policies established in Section 21.90.010 and to implement the City's general plan. If the fees are not paid or 23 the facilities or improvements are not installed the public health, safety and welfare will suffer because there will be 24 insufficient facilities and improvements to accommodate any new development. This finding is based upon City Council Policy No. 25 17, City Council Ordinance No. 9791, and the evidence presented at the public hearings on the ordinance adopting this chapter. 26 (b) If any condition imposed as a conditon of a development permit or building permit pursuant to this chapter is 27 protested then the permit shall be suspended during the period of the protest.28 CO03 - O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 13 I 14 § 15 "- ' -il_ >- LLI Z £! O 0L1J Z O <O (T C\J m 16 £ 5 17> o " 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (c) This section is adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.5 21.90.080 Performance standard. The City Council shall adopt general performance standards for each facility or improvement listed in Section 21.90.090(b) or 21. 90. 110 (c ) . Specific performance standards for citywide facilities shall be adopted as part of the citywide facilities and improvement plan. Specific performance standards for each zone shall be adopted as part of the local facilities management plan. If at any time after preparation of a local facilities management plan the performance standards established by a plan are not met then no development permits or building permits shall be issued within the local zone until the performance standard is met or arrangements satisfactory to the City Council guaranteeing the facilities and improvements have been made. 21.90.090 City wide facilities and improvements plan. (a) To implement the City's general plan by securing provision of facilities and improvements, and to ensure that development does not occur unless facilities and improvements are available the City Council shall adopt by resolution a citywide facilities and improvements plan. The plan shall: identify all facilities and improvements necessary to accommodate the land uses specified in the general plan and by the zoning; specify size, capacity and service level performance standards for the identified facilities and improvements; establish specific time tables for acquisition, installation and operation of the facilities and improvements correlated to projected population growth, facility and improvement performance standards, and projected nonresidential development; identify the financing method or methods for each facility and improvement; and establish a facility and improvement budget for those facilities or improvements which will be constructed or financed by the City. The plan shall encourage infill development and reduce the growth inducing impact of premature extension of facilities or improvements to undeveloped areas by establishing priorities for facility and improvement installation or financing. (b) The citywide facilities and improvement plan shall show how and when the following facilities and improvements will be installed or financed as specified in subsection (c). (1) Major sewage transmission systems and sewage treatment plants (2) (3) (4) interchanges, bridges or overcrossings (5) Fire facilities (6) Governmental administration facilities (7) Parks and other recreational facilities (8) Libraries 9. Major water transmission lines Major area wide drainage facilities Prime and Major arterials; freeway s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 § 13 siS 8 - O LiJ < "1 AO ., Z> ^ -i-^= u r_ -"i u i r*— r~ ^ ~ I r^CD 7; _ _i J.O l_ >- w Z !±! o QLLJ ^- O <( Z O *~ CO It ^> o 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (c) The plan shall include the following information with regard to each facility and improvement listed in subsection (b): (1) An inventory of present and future reguirements for each facility and improvement based upon the performance standard established for each facility and improvement. Cost estimates shall be included. The inventory shall be consistent with the general plan and zoning for the area. (2) A five, ten and fifteen year phasing schedule establishing the timing for installation or provisions of facilities or improvements in relationship to the amount of development activity (e.g. number of dwelling units, number of sguare feet of commercial space, within the service area of the facility or improvement) and the facility and improvement performance standards. (3) A financing plan establishing various methods of funding the facilities and improvements identified in the plan. The plan shall identify those facilities and improvements which would otherwise be provided as a requirement of processing a development project (i.e. reguirements imposed as a condition of a development permit) or provided by the developer in order to establish consistency with the general plan or Titles 18, 20 or 21 of this Code, and those facilities and improvements for which new funding methods which shall be sufficient to ensure sufficient funds are available to construct or provide a public facility or improvements when required by the phasing schedule. (d) The City Manager shall prepare and present the plan to the City Council not later than one year from the effective date of this ordinance. (e) Amendments to this citywide facilities and improvements plan shall be initiated by action of the Planning Commission or City Council. 21.90.100 Local facilities management zones. (a)The City Council shall divide the City into facilities management zones. (b) The boundaries of the zones shall be established based upon logical facilities and improvements planning, construction and service relationships to ensure the economically efficient and timely installation of required facilities and improvements. In establishing zone boundaries the City Council shall also be guided by the following considerations: (1) Service areas or drainage basins. (2) Extent to which facilities or improvements are in place or available. (3) Ownership of property. (4) Boundaries of existing zoning master plans. (5) Boundaries of pending zoning master plans. (6) Boundaries of potential future zoning master plan areas, (7) Boundaries of approved tentative maps. (8) Public facilities relationships, especially 10. o i g 9=5 § . O LU <O Q_ z> 5fi .-» 2 JS 5 b < § LL • _| 5l_ >- LUz "J o oLiJ Z O <O DC CM 2 Z 0 ^ c/j > 0 o 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 the relationship to the City's planned major circulation network. (9) Special district service territories. (10) Approved fire, drainage, sewer, or other facilities or improvement master plans. (c) The zones shall be established by resolution after a public hearing notice of which is given pursuant to Section 21.54.060(2) of this code. 21.90.110 Contents of local Facility Management Plans. (a) A local facilities management plan shall be prepared for each facility zone and shall cover the entire zone. (b) The plan shall consist of maps, graphs, tables, and narrative text and shall be based upon the general plan and zoning applicable within the local zone at the time of plan approval. The local facilities management plan shall be consistent with the citywide facilities and improvements plan and shall implement the citywide facilities and improvements plan within the zone. (c) The facilities management plan shall show how and when the following facilities and improvements necessary to accommodate development within the zone will be installed or financed as specified in subsection (d). (1) Sewer systems (2) Water (3) Drainage (4) Circulation (5) Fire facilities (6) Schools (7) Parks and other recreational facilities (8) Open space (d) The plan shall be consistent with and implement the citywide facilities management plan and general plan and shall include the following information with regard to each facility and improvement listed in subsection (c): (1) An inventory of present and future requirements for each facility and improvement based upon the performance standard established for each facility. Because improvement requirements for certain facilities and improvements may overlap zone boundaries a discussion of the need for coordination and a proposed coordination plan for facilities extending from one zone to another shall be included. Cost estimates shall be included. It must be shown that development in the zone will not reduce the facilities or improvements capabilities or create facilities or improvements shortages in other zones or reduce service capability in any zone below the performance standard which is established pursuant to Section 21.90.080. The growth inducing impact of the out of zone improvements shall be assessed. (2) A phasing schedule establishing the timing for installation or provisions of facilities or improvements in relationship to the amount of development activity (e.g. number of dwelling units, number of square feet of commercial space, etc.) for the facilities management zone. The phasing schedule 11. G Q<CD UJ <=> ^ |_ >- UJ I z 8 Q~o £ 2! CD ? g 3> i- a:< <> OH O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 g 13oCVJO) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 shall ensure that development of one area of the zone will not utilize more than the area's prorata share of facility or improvement capacity within that zone unless sufficient capacity is ensured for other areas of the zone at the time of the first development. The phasing schedule shall include a schedule of development within the zone and a market data and cash flow analysis for financing of facilities and improvements for the zone. The phasing schedule shall identify periods where the demand for facilities and improvements may exceed the capacity and provide a plan for eliminating the shortfall. In those situations when demand exceeds capacity and it is not feasible to increase the capacity prior to development, no development shall occur unless a time schedule for and a means of increasing the capacity is established in the plan. (3) A financing plan establishing various methods of funding the facilities and improvements identified in the plan fairly allocating the cost to the various properties within the zone. The plan shall identify those facilities and improvements which would otherwise be provided as a requirement of processing a development project (i.e. requirements imposed as a condition of a development permit) or provided by the developer in order to establish consistency with the general plan or Titles 18, 20 or 21 of this Code, and those facilities and improvements for which new funding methods which shall be sufficient to ensure sufficient funds are available to construct or provide a public facility or improvements when required by the phasing schedule. Where facilities or improvements are required for more than one zone, the phasing plan shall identify those other zones and the plan for each zone shall be coordinated. Coordination, however, shall not require identical funding methods. (4) A list or schedule of facilities requirements correlated to individual development projects within the zone. (e) The local facilities management plan shall establish the proportionate share of the cost of facilities and improvements identified in the citywide facilities and improvement plan attributable to development of property on the local facilities management zone. 21.90.120 Local facilities management plan preparation. (a) A local facilities management plan may be prepared by the City or by the property owners within the zone according to the procedures established by this section. (b) The City Council, upon its own initiative, may by resolution direct the City Manager to prepare a facilities management plan for any zone. The City Council may assess the cost of preparing the plan to the owners within the zone after a hearing ten days written notice of which is given to the property owners within the zone. The cost shall be spread prorata according to acreage and development potential. (c) All owners within the zone may jointly submit a facilities management plan. (d) For zones in which joint submission of a facilities management plan is shown to be not feasible any owner or group of 12. QQ CO - O UJ < mCO > O O 2 3 4 5 6 rj 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cooperating owners within the zone may petition the City Council to allow the owner or group of owners to prepare the plan. After a meeting for which ten days prior written notice has been given to the property owners within the zone, the City Council may permit the owner or group of owners to prepare and submit the plan. A limit based on the estimated cost of the plan shall be determined at the time of the hearing. The actual cost shall be determined when the plan is adopted and shall be assessed prorata based on acreage and development potential to property within the facilities management zone. The assessment shall be collected by the City at the time any application for a development project within the zone is submitted. The owner or owners who prepared the plan shall be reimbursed for the cost of the plan less the owner's or owners' prorata share. No reimbursement shall be made unless the plan is approved. Cost of preparation shall not include interest. (e) As an option to preparation by the owner or group of owners as provided in subsection (d) the City Council may decide to direct the City Manager to prepare the facilities management plan. The cost of preparation shall be advanced to the City by the reguesting owner or owners, assessed to all the owners and reimbursed as provided in subsection (d). 21.90.125 Facilities management plan processing. ( a) Facilities management plans shall be reviewed according to the following procedure: (1) A completed facilities management plan complying with this chapter, and accompanied by a processing fee in an amount established by City Council resolution, may be submitted to the Planning Director for processing. If the Planning Director determines that the plan complies with the provisions of Section 21.90.110 the director shall set a facilities management plan for public hearing before the Planning Commission within sixty days of receipt of a complete application. (2) The hearing shall be noticed according to the provisions of Section 21.54.060(2). A staff report containing recommendation on the plan shall be prepared and furnished to the public, the applicant, and the Planning Commission prior to the hearing. (3) The Planning Commission shall hear and consider the application for a facilities management plan and shall by resolution prepare recommendations and findings for the City Council. The action of the Commission shall be filed with the City Clerk, and a copy shall be mailed to the owners within the facility zone. (4) When the Planning Commission action is filed with the City Clerk, the Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be noticed according to the provisions of Section 21.54.060(2). (5) The City Council shall hear the matter, and after considering the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, may approve, conditionally approve or deny a facilities management plan. The City Council may include in the 13. /*> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 § 13 =; < °> - O UJ < -1/1 On ID =5 X*X ^ f- < t -icCD r; _ _i J-3 z <" o aIN Z O <o <c £! 3*2 3> P DC < <> o o 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 resolution adopting the facilities management plan any fees or facilities improvement requirements which it deems necessary to impose on development projects within the zone in order to implement the citywide facilities and improvement plan and the local facilities management plan. (b) A facilities management plan may be amended following the same procedures for the original adoption. (c) A local facilities management plan shall be considered a project for the purposes of Title 19 of this Code. Environmental documents should be processed concurrently with the plan. 21.90.130 Implementation of facilities and improvements requirements. (a) To ensure that the provisions of this chapter and the general plan are met the following shall apply: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter no development permit shall be approved unless the map or permit is consistent with the local facilities management plan and unless provision for all facilities and improvements related to the development project are provided or funded. (2) No building permit shall be issued unless all applicable fees, including but not limited to, public facilities fees, bridge and thoroughfare fees, traffic impact fees, facilities management fees, school fees, park-in-lieu fees, sewer fees, water fees, or other development fees identified in the citywide facilities and improvements plan and local facilities management plan and adopted by the City Council have first been paid or provision for their payment has been made to the satisfaction of the City Council. (b) The citywide facilities and improvement plan and the local facility management plan process is part of the City's ongoing planning effort. It is anticipated that amendments to the plans may be necessary. Adoption of a facilities management plan does not establish any entitlement or right to any particular general plan or zoning designation or any particular development proposal. The citywide facilities and improvements plan and the local facilities management plans are guides to ensure that no development occurs unless adequate facilities or improvements will be available to meet demands created by development. The City Council may initiate an amendment to any of the plans at any time if in its discretion it determines that an amendment is necessary to ensure adequate facilities and improvements. (c) If at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the City Manager that facilities or improvements within a facilities management zone or zones are inadequate to accommodate any further development within that zone or that the performance standards adopted pursuant to Section 21.90.100 are not being met he shall immediately report the deficiency to the Council. If the Council determines that a deficiency exists then no further building or development permits shall be issued within the affected zone or zones and development shall cease until an amendment to the citywide facilities and improvements plan or 14. CDW - O uj 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 § 13 O) I 14052?§°>oig<S 15 LL • _l O |_ >- LU Z "i O QLU Z O <O OC rvj S 523> F 5: 17< < •*• '>- o 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 O 16 applicable local facilities management plan which addresses the deficiency is approved by the City Council and the performance standard is met. (d) The Planning Director shall monitor the development activity for each local facilities management zone and shall prepare an annual report to the City Council consisting of maps, graphs, charts, tables and text and which includes a developmental activity analysis, a facilities and improvements adequacy analysis, a facility revenue/expenditure analysis and recommendation for any amendments to the facilities management plan. The content of the annual report shall be established by the City Council. (e) The City Council shall annually review the citywide facilities and improvements plan at the time it considers the City's capital improvement budget. 21.90.140 Obligation to pay fees or install improvements required by any other law. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as relieving a builder, developer or subdivider from any public improvement requirement, dedication requirement or fee requirement which is imposed pursuant to Titles 13, 18, 20 or 21 of this code or pursuant to any City Council policy. 21.90.150 Implementing guidelines. The City Council may adopt any guidelines it deems necessary to implement this chapter. 21.90.160 Exclusions. (a) Development proposals which consist of facilities, or structures constructed by a city, county, special district, state, or federal government or any agency, department, or subsidiary therof for governmental purposes are excluded from the provisions of this chapter. This exclusion shall not apply to development proposals to which a possessory interest tax would be applicable. (b) Tentative maps the application for which was accepted before August 6, 1985 may be approved without complying with the plans adopted pursuant to this Chapter but any other development permits or building permits for the project shall be subject to the requirements of the plans. The tentative map shall be subject to Section 21.90.030. 21.90.170 Council actions, fees, notice. (a)Whenever thischapterrequires or permits an action or decision of the City Council, that action or decision shall be accomplished by a resolution. (b) The City Council shall establish application and processing fees for the submission and processing of facililties management plans and for any other request made under Section 21.90.100, 21.90.120 or 21.90.140. (c) Whenever written notice is required to be given to property owners under this section the notice shall be mailed 15. 17 Q CO_l 1 O ' —' O>- 111 z 8 ° O 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 by first class mail to the owners shown on the last equalized assessment roll. 21.90.180 Expiration of chapter. This chapter shall expire on June 30, 2001 unless it is extended or reenacted on or before that date. 21.90.190 Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of the ordinance codified in this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance codified in this chapter. The City Council declares that it would have passed the ordinance codified in this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any part thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 2: The City Council makes the following findings: 1. Since January 1985, the City of Carlsbad has been undertaking a comprehensive review of the Land Use Element of its General Plan. As part of that review a Council appointed Citizens Committee prepared a comprehensive report and recommendation to the City Council. That report was subject to public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Included in the recommendations of the Citizens Committee were recommendations that no new development should occur unless adequate public facilities are available concurrently with need to serve the new development. 2. On August 6, 1985, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 9766, imposing certain temporary land use controls on property within the City, consistent with the recommendation of the Citizens Committee. On September 3, 1985, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 9771 which extended the restrictions of Ordinance No. 9766 until July 20, 1986. On December 10, 1985, the City Council approved in concept several land use proposals not contained in the Citizens Committee report. On January 21, 1986 the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 9791 imposing a temporary moratorium on development approvals based on the findings contained in that ordinance. On April 22, 1986 the City Council revised City Council Policy No. 17, based on the findings contained therein. On May 6, 1986 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 8107 establishing a traffic impact fee for the La Costa Area of the City. The City Council finds that all of these actions plus the adoption of Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code are necessary to ensure adequate public facilities are available to serve any new development in the City. Without Chapter No. 21.90 and the requirements imposed by it, adequate public facilities may not be available to serve new development or building. Development or 16. - O uj <- O £ £ O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 li 15 8§~ 16m 03 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 building without public facilities is contrary to the City General Plan and would be dangerous to the public health and safety. 3. This action of the City Council is consistent with long standing policies and objectives of the City to ensure adeguate public facilities within Carlsbad. This action will protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Carlsbad by ensuring safe streets, adeguate water, sewer and drainage facilities, sufficient fire protection and recreation facilities. 4. This action is consistent with the City's policy to provide housing opportunities for all economic sectors of the community, because sufficient opportunities for new housing continue to exist within the City and Chapter 21.90 does not affect the number of houses which may be built. In addition, development of housing for low and moderate income persons and families would most likely occur in areas of the City which are designated for highest development priority. By encouraging development of infill areas first, where the infrastructure is already existing, the cost of housing may be reduced. 5. Because any new development affects public facility availability it is necessary to impose the fees and charges which will be used to provide public facilities on any new building in the City. The Council finds that failure to impose the fees and charges on any new building in the City will adversely affect the public health and safety by reducing the safety of its City's streets, increasing the burden on water, sewer, drainage and fire facilities, and by overcrowding existing schools, parks and recreational facilities. 6. Adoption of Chapter 21.90 will enhance the regional welfare by ensuring that adeguate and safe public facilities and improvements will exist in Carlsbad because many of these facilities and improvements are used by persons residing in neighboring areas and cities their safety and welfare is enhanced. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its adoption. The fees created by Section 21.90.050 of this ordinance shall be effective as to building permits for single or 17. Q <0Q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 o o " S I 14 2 i- < st -IKCO rr _j J. *J ,_ >- lu ° g 111 16 ^ i 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 multifamily residential projects 60 days after the adoption of this ordinance. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the day of 1986 and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 1986, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR., City Attorney MARY H. CASLER, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk 28 18, June 6, 1986 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Attorney DRAFT GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE This memorandum is to report on and explain our efforts to present a draft growth management ordinance to the City Council that carries forward the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the Community Development Director and the City Manager as modified by the instructions given to staff by the Council at your special meeting of June 5, 1986. The ordinance in your agenda packet is as recommended by the Planning Commission with the following changes: 1. Page 4, Section 21.90.030(c) contains exceptions from the ban on processing pending adoption of the citywide and individual facilities management plans. The exception in subparagraph 7 for boys and girls clubs has been revised to also include hospitals. 2. Pages 5 and 6, Section 21.90.030(g) provides that the City Council may grant an exception to Sammis and any other similarly situated projects on certain terms and conditions. This section is as recommended by the Planning Commission. No residential building permits would be allowed until after adoption of the citywide and local facilities plans. The possible requirements discussed by the Council at your meeting of June 5, 1986 that the residential units in the first phase be constructed at the same time as the university buildings, that all of the lagoon dedications by the project be made at the same time, and that the residential units in the second and third phase not proceed until after adoption of the plans have not been included. If the Council decides to include those provisions revisions should be made to subparagraphs 4 and 5 as the Council determines appropriate. 3. Page 6, Section 21.90.030(h). The Planning Commission's recommendation did not include this additional exception which applies to Hunt's and other similarly situated projects. We have attempted to draft it in accordance with the Council's direction. The developer would be required to grant an easement for the lagoon and the La Costa Avenue widening concurrently with the noticing of their master plan hearing before the Planning Commission. You should satisfy yourselves that we have accurately incorporated your intentions in the matter. -2- 4. Possible additional exceptions. The City Council may wish to consider adding additional exceptions to Section 21.90.030 as follows: a. The "Hunt's" exception would allow the processing and approval of the master plan but would delay the processing and approval of any subdivision maps or building permits until after approval of the facilities plans. If the Council wants to consider allowing the commercial portion of the project to go forward prior to that time you should add an additional exception to Section 21.90.030(h). b. There is no exception for the northwest quadrant of the City. Projects that are able to obtain a final map in this area between now and July 20, 1986 under Ordinance No. 9791 will be able to pull building permits under subsection (c)(5). Otherwise, they would not be able to final their maps or otherwise proceed until after adoption of the citywide plan and the local plan for their area. c. There is no exception for minor subdivisions. d. There is no generalized exception for commercial and industrial projects. Again, projects which are able to obtain a final map under Ordinance No. 9791 prior to July 20, 1986 will be able to get building permits under subsection (c)(6). New commercial and industrial projects without discretionary approvals or projects with a tentative map or projects that need a specific plan would not be able to proceed until the facilities plans are adopted. e. The City Manager has told us he wishes to recommend an additional commercial and industrial exception. It would be added as subsection (9) to Section 21.90.030(c) to read as follows: "(9) Development permits and building permits for commercial and industrial projects on lots located within an area that has been previously processed and approved as an industrial or commercial project and for which a final map has been approved prior to July 20, 1986." This exception would allow individual lots who still need discretionary approval such as a site plan but are located in a master planned or specific planned industrial park that has previously been approved and subdivided, to proceed. -3- f. At least one member of the Council indicated some interest in the ability to grant additional exceptions for projects making a significant contribution to the City's public facilities needs. If that is of any interest to the Council our suggestion on how to accomplish it would be by the addition of a variance procedure which would allow the City Council to grant an exception upon the making of certain findings. One possibility in that regard could be added as an additional exception subsection (i) to Section 21.90.030 to read as follows: "(i) After making the following findings for a project the City Council may authorize the processing of and decision making on building permits and development permits subject to any fees established pursuant to the citywide facilities and improvement plan and any applicable local facilities management plan. (i) That the project will provide all its own public facilities and will mitigate any adverse impacts on facilities in the area affected by the project. (ii) That the approval of the exception will not prejudice preparation of the citywide facilities plan. (iii) That the project as completed will improve the level of public facilities in the area. (iv) That by the dedication of land and/or the construction of public improvements the project will make a significant contribution to the public facilities needs of the City and that it is necessary and in the public interest that these facilities be constructed prior to completion of the facilities plans." The Council might expect to receive a number of requests for an exception under this section should it be added. Whether or not to provide for such a variance and the terms under which it might be granted are, of course, policy questions for the Council. It was necessary for us to revise the ordinance and prepare this memorandum in the evening after your meeting of June 5, 1986 in order to give Randee enough time to retype, proof, and get it to the City Clerk in time to go out in your packets. Please understand, in the last few weeks we have done 28 drafts, sometimes two or three in one day. The program has been substantially changed on several occasions requiring complete redrafts of the ordinance. In one case that occurred only two -4- days before it was necessary for us to get the ordinance out to meet the deadline for the hearing before the Planning Commission. We have not had the time to circulate the ordinance in draft form for comment after the revisions have been made in order to ensure that everyone is in agreement that we have accurately incorporated the changes. That was the case with regard to the changes made by the Planning Commission at their meeting of June 4, 1986. The logistics of typing, correcting and duplicating this latest revision have also not allowed us to circulate it for comment on the revisions required by your meeting of June 5, 1986. Under these circumstances mistakes are unavoidable. We trust the Council will understand the time constraints under which our office has been operating and the difficult deadlines we have been attempting to meet. Please carefully review the ordinance and bring any problems, concerns or corrections to our attention. VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR. City Attorney rmh attachment c: City Manager Community Development Director Planning Director JUNE 5, 1986 TO: FRANK ALESHIRE, CITY MANAGER FROM: Planning Director PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE At their meeting of June 4, 1986, the Planning Commission received public input, reviewed and made a recommendation on the Growth Management Ordinance. 29 persons representing the development community presented testimony to the Planning Commission. Except for a few speakers, the testimony dealt primarily with adding exemptions particularly for industrial and commercial projects. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Growth Management Ordinance with several minor revisions to the exemption section of the Ordinance ( Section 21.90.030). Specifically, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0) that the Growth Management Ordinance be approved, that individual comments of the Commissioners be forwarded and that the exemptions be as follows: 1) Projects with final maps; 2) Redevelopment projects; 3) Developing projects (Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 9791); 4) Government projects; 5) Owner occupied single family residences; 6) Commercial/industrial projects which have all their final approvals by July 20, 1986; 7) Commercial/industrial projects tentatively scheduled as of May 23, 1986 which are as follows: a) PCD-90/CUP-293 - Finney-Pontiac b) CT 85-32/PUD-93 - Kol1 Series 10,000 since all staff work has been completed; 8) Projects returned to staff for revision by the Planning Commission or City Council which are as follows: a) CUP-291 - Hale b) SDP 85-17/V-373 - Brodine c) CT 85-16/PUD-85 - Lancaster Townhomes d) CT 85-43/CP-302 - Casa Loma Condos e) CT 85-28/CP-321 - La Costa Valley Terrace However, the residential projects would not be permitted to obtain building permits until a City Wide Facility Management Plan has been approved by the City Council; 9) Projects in the northwest quadrant which have all their final approvals by July 20, 1986 10) The Boys and Girls Club; 11) The educational, commercial and industrial portion of the Sammis project but not the residential. Based upon the City Council direction of May 27, 1986, the Planning Commission believed that the City Council wanted to place a hold on residential that did not have a final map; and 12) Two units where the owners and members of their family will occupy the two units. The Planning Commission did not believe that the Hunt Master Plan and the Scripps Hospital project should be processed since they both still had a significant amount of staff work to complete and were still in the early planning stages. Additional recommendations suggested by individual members of the Planning Commission included the following: 1) Solid Waste Management should be added to list of facilities that should be addressed - Section 21.90.090 - Page 7 (Commissioner McFadden); 2) Reasonable time period for owner or group of owners to prepare local facilities plan afer they petition to City Council - Section 21.90.120(d) - Page 11 (Commissioner McFadden); 3) Ordinance as drafted does not include a limit on the number of residential units to be built at given point in time - Perhaps, the Ordinance needs a lid or cap on number of units (Commissioner McFadden); 4) Ordinance should not include a "lid" or "cap" on number of units (Chairman Schlehuber); 5) Perhaps an exemption clause that provides some overall flexibility is needed (Commissioner Marcus); 6) Ordinance just addresses taking care of future facility needs and not present problems (Commissioner McBane); 7) Ordinance should not "encourage" infill development. Infill development should only be "accommodated" (Commissioner McBane); 2. 8) Use of the terms "facilities", "services" and "improvements" throughout the Ordinance is not clear, The use of the terms needs to be clarified and consistent throughout the Ordinance (Commissioner McBane) ; 9) Utilities such as energy and communications system should be added to the list of facilities to be addressed (Commissioner McBane); and 10) Police services has been deleted from facilities/services to be addressed. questioned (Commissioner McBane). the list of This should be Submitted by: MKHAtL J Secretary, Hjnrzprnrn Carlsbad T< Planning Commission MJH/ar 3. DEVELOPMENTAL. SERVICES LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989 (619) 438-5591 City of Cartebab NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT LOCATION: City of Carlsbad. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Developmental and Conmunity Facilities Management Program - This program is part of the City's overall Growth Management Program. The primary purpose of the program is to ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided and funded, concurrent with need, as growth occurs in the City. Approval of Community Facilities Management Programs are required before any additional development can occur in the City. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA., 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: May 3, 1986 APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH DATE: May 3, 1986 MICHAEL J. Planning Director ND4 11/85 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENTAL AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DATE: April 25, 1986 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008 Contact; Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? YES MAYBE NO YES MAYBE NO 2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -2- YES MAYBE NO 4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants}? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? 7. Light and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -3- YES MAYBE- NO 9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilit- ies, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transporation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? -4- YES MAYBE NO 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X_ b. Police protection? X_ c. Schools? X_ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X_ f. Other governmental services? X 15. Energy - Will the proposal have signif- icant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? -5- YES MAYBE NO 18'. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? 19. Recreation - will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? -6- YES MAYBE NO 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed project is part of the City's overall growth management program. The primary purpose of the "Developmental and Community Facilities Management Program" is to insure that adequate public facilities and services are provided and funded for concurrent with the need as growth occurs in the City. The project is not a physical project and, as such, will not impact any natural, physical features of the environment. It is a management program for correlating growth with an adequate level of public facilities and services in order to enhance the quality of life in the City and protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. By requiring adequate level of service to be maintained, the program will have positive environmental effects with respect to circulation and traffic, police and fire protection, water supply, drainage, sewer service, parks and recreation, and governmental administrative facilities. -7- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) The program will not have a significant, adverse impact on population, land use or the supply of housing for the following reasons: 1) The program does not affect the densities or population projections permitted by the City's General Plan. The program deals only with providing adequate public facilities to serve growth and not with levels of overall densities or population. 2) The program does not impact the type or variety of housing permitted in the City by the General Plan. 3) The program does not limit the number of building permits for residential development but requires that adequate public facilities and services be provided to serve the development. A showing of adequacy is required before development approvals will be given. Funding for facilities must be established before building permits are issued. 4) The program encourages infill development which is less costly to build. Infill development is closer to existing facilities and services and does not require expensive new infrastructure or extensions of existing infrastructure. As such, the program encouraces more affordable housing. 5) Because the program does not allow development to outpace needed public services and facilities, the program encourages a more continual balanced supply of housing. 6) The program regulates residential and non-residential development, thereby ensuring that a balance is maintained between housing supply and local jobs and services. -8- IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed by the Land Use Planning Office) On the basis of this initial evaluation: X i find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date -9- R.B. COLLINS, INC. June 5, 1986 The Honorable Mary easier Members of the City Council 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Request for Exemption of 3-Story Office Project Located at 5963 La Place Court (Carlsbad Research Center) from City Council Resolution Adopted May 27, 1986. Dear Mayor easier and Members of the City Council: On December 27, 1985 an escrow was opened for the purchase by the Radnor/Carlsbad Partnership, of which we are one of two general partners, of an approximate 3 acre "M" zoned parcel located within the influence and environs of the Carlsbad Research Center. The lot location is depicted in Exhibit "A". For reasons that we do not fully understand, the Koll Company was unable to acquire title from the owner, H.G. Fenton, Incorporated, at the time that the map for the Carlsbad Research Center was in process; hence, the parcel is shown on all maps as "Not A Part" of the Research Center. The parcel was graded concurrently with the Research Center, takes it's only access off of La Place Court via the Research Center, and for all intents and purposes is a part of the Research Center. Upon opening the escrow, an extensive "due diligence" period was commenced wherein all issues affecting development of the property were carefully examined. Obviously, growth issues were of significant concern, however, our concerns were largely ameliorated by the adoption of Ordinance 9791 in late January, which exempted commercial-industrial projects from the "temporary" moratorium affecting residential development. Between ourselves, our architects (Buss Silvers Hughes and Associates), and our partner (Radnor Corporation), numerous visits were made to the Planning Department for verification of development criteria, including assurance on each visit by planning personnel that commercial projects were indeed exempt from the moratorium. 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 208 San Diego, California 92121 (619)453-9320 The Honorable Mary easier Members of the City Council Page Two We were told on each visit, and I sincerely believe that we were told in the best of faith, to anticipate 6 to 8 weeks for processing. Not once did any person employed by the City express anything other than total confidence that our project would be permitted to go forward in a timely manner. We were in fact assured on every occasion that the project, because of it's commercial character and location "within the Carlsbad Research Center", would go forward more or less in conformance with the above schedule. We were told those things, I am certain, because they believed it to be true. On March 25, 1986, while the property was still in escrow, my partner and I attended a seminar sponsored by Founders Title, having Mr. Holtzmiller as the featured speaker. Mr. Holtzmiller represented the City very capably. During his presentation, the analogy was drawn that Ordinance 9791 was much like a basketball game wherein the home team was falling behind, and a brief "time out" was called by the coach. He also emphasized that commercial-industrial projects were exempted from 9791, and that these projects would be processed in a customary manner. A copy of the Daily Transcript article relative to the seminar is attached as Exhibit "B". Very early in the escrow period, the Planning Department advised us that a Site Development Plan application would be required due to the location of the site within the "Airport Influence Area". If the project were located outside of the airport environment, the site would require no discretionary approval due to it's "M" zone. Because of the location, however, a complete Site Development Plan was submitted and fees paid on April 24, 1986. On approximately May 12th (2% weeks after submittal), Mr. Lance Schulte was assigned as project planner. I have had but one meeting with Mr. Schulte, but our architects have had numerous telephone conversations and meetings with him. In all cases, he has been absolutely outstanding to work with, and we have, in the process, received a positive direction and resolved a variety of minor planning concerns on the project. The architects have also worked at length with Mr. Dan Clark, Engineering Department, and I have heard nothing but positive comments. In short, because of the close liaison that has occurred to date, we feel that the planning time remaining is minimal and that the project has been designed in such a manner as to satisfy the Planning Department, including a parking ratio of 4:1,000 on the gross building square footage in accordance with recently adopted regulations. The Honorable Mary Casler Members of the City Council Page Three Perhaps as importantly as our meetings with the Planning and Engineering Departments, we have met on two occasions with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") in Los Angeles and once with the local SANDAG office. Our application has been filed with the FAA/ and we do not anticipate any problems nor were we advised of any this morning in a telephone conver- sation with the FAA, due to the precise planning inputs that were given in the meetings with the FAA and the subsequent design of the project, including setback from the airport, in strict compliance with FAR Part 77. Additionally, SANDAG reviewed the project on a preliminary basis in May, and indicated that they were quite content with the attention to FAA criteria. A letter from the project architect summarizing the meeting is attached as Exhibit "C". While these matters may appear extraneous, I mention them because of the fact that the only reason that our project requires discretionary approval (i.e., Site Development Plan) is due to the location adjacent to the airport requiring SANDAG and FAA approval, and we have meticulously resolved planning issues relative to the airport location. We anticipate approvals from the FAA within the near future. Due to the circumstance that our project is located within the Carlsbad Research Center (but is not technically a part of the Center), considerable dialogue has been exchanged with the Koll staff regarding the design and compatibility of the project to Koll guidelines. As a result, the project has been designed for maximum compatibility to the Koll project. On April 18th, our partnership closed escrow for the purchase of the land at a cost of slightly over one million dollars. As this letter indicates, this was not done lightly, or with- out a great deal of due diligence inquiry. At the time that escrow closed, we had gained a thorough understanding of all engineering, soils, title, FAA and, presumably, City parameters affecting the project. Without question, we relied, possibly to our detriment, on the representations made to us by staff, by published articles, and by the wording of Ordinance 9791 itself, that commercial-industrial projects would be exempted from the moratorium process, and would be permitted to go forward through planning and permitting. Likewise, it is also without question that we would not have closed escrow had we been told that the City would place a moratorium of seemingly indefinite duration on our project little more than four months the adoption of Ordinance 9791. Our only fault in the entire process has been that we believed that we could rely on men and women of character to do v/hat was fair and proper, that they would do what they said they would do. When actions The Honorable Mary Casler Members of the City Council Page Four that are unacceptable to society and people of good conscience when done by individuals become somehow conscionable and socially acceptable when done by groups of people, such as a City Council, I question whether our democracy will survive the rigors of self government. I cannot believe that any individual sitting on the Council, acting as an individual, would tell us in January that our project could go forward, would observe our reliance on the representation and, indeed, reaffirm the representation, and then, after we had expended over a million dollars on the reliance, arbitrarily and with- out substance or warning change position and tell us: "Too bad, we've changed our minds". Why, then, is it acceptable for those same individuals acting as a City Council to deny us the promised opportunity, and to cause us to incur untold tens of thousands of dollars in additional expense? We have acted in good faith throughout the process, we have relied on everything that the City has told us, and have done everything that the City has asked of us. All that we ask in return is that the City Council honor the intent of Ordinance 9791 and exempt commercial and industrial projects from the present stay on processing. As I find it difficult to accept the apparent change of position by the City Council, as evidenced by actions taken by the Council on May 27th, I find it equally difficult to believe that the electorate is truly opposed to the development of commercial- industrial projects. Our project, and those of other commercial- industrial developers, represents jobs, not temporary jobs during construction but lasting jobs. Our office project will provide a place of quality where the citizens of Carlsbad will find employment and opportunity; a place of quality to fulfill hopes and aspirations. I cannot believe that this is a bad thing. I sincerely believe that this project, along with the other well-planned commercial industrial projects, should go forward, and I urge the Council to return to the intent of Ordinance 9791. Before closing, it is appropriate to express from one who has been "on the firing line" that the planning staff in Carlsbad ranks among the top of the many planning departments with which we have worked. In discussing the subject with our architects this morning, I was again reminded of the exceptional courtesy, good will, and technical expertise that has been consistently demonstrated by every planner with whom we have interacted. They have done their collective best to make a difficult situation as smooth as possible, and we appreciate it very much. The Honorable Mary easier Members of the City Council Page Five Your consideration of the matters presented in this letter is appreciated. Sincerely, RADNOR/CARLSBAD PARTNERSHIP Roy B. Collins General Partner RBC/as cc: Mr. Bill Laugaland, Radnor Corporation CARLSBAD AIRPORT PLAZA 5963 La Place Court, a* H A Talifnrnia SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT TUEt-.AY.MAY6.19S6 3B Planning Director Explains Carlsbad Building Moratorium Just 'Short TimeOut'For City Calling the City of Carlsbad's interim building moratorium "a short time-out," Michael Holzmiller has told 80 developers that the city council and planning department are addressing the quality of Carlsbad's development — not just the quantity. Holzmiller, Carlsbad's planning director, spoke at a recent one-hour seminar, the ninth in a series hosted by Founders Title Co. for San Diego's real estate industry. He discussed the events and philosophies that led up to the Carlsbad council's declaration of a six-month moratorium that will expire July 20, and he explained the growth strategies being devel- oped by the planning department to bring the city out of the interim moratorium. He also fielded ques- tions on the effects of the morator- ium on the development communi- ty. "Declaring the interim morator- ium was something like calling a short time-out," Holzmiller said. "We are using the time to catch our breath and devise new plays. He said that growth became a major issue in Carlsbad last year. "In 1984, we experienced a nine percent population increase," he said. "That was the largest in- crease for any city in San Diego County and 10th largest in Cali- fornia." Also, over the past few years Carlsbad has been averaging more than 2,000 building permits per year for residential develop- ment.. In January 1985, the Carlsbad council reviewed the city's General Plan, which had been adopted -in 1974, and appointed a 25-member citizens' committee to recommend refinements to the plan. That committee met for six mon- ths, Holzmiller said, and the coun- cil accepted its report in July 1985. Based on that report, the city's planning staff then wrote a work program consisting of 26 tasks. "In a sense, these tasks were the 'fcew rules of the game," Holzmiller said. "We focused, for example, on reducing densities, requiring more open space in developments and increasing the city's development standards." 71 ""Holzmnier"™ eXpialne'd' thaf~the"" moratorium ordinance consists of two parts covering new applica- tions and those already submitted or approved by the city council. "No new applications are being accepted until the .ordinance ex- pires," Holzmiller said, "with'ex- emptions for minor subdivision projects, redevelopment projects, public agency'projects such as schools, and commercial/industrial projects." -." ,•, If a developer already had sub- mitted an application prior to the advent of the interim moratorium, the project is held up until a man- agement program is completed for the area of the city in which the project lies. "There are some exemptions here, too, Holzmiller explained, "including minor subdivisions, in- fill in the northwest quadrant of the city, and projects already under way with building permits alreadypulled." The management program to which Holzmiller referred is a De- velopment and Community Facili- ties Management Program which will be required for 25 zones through out the city. "This is a program to phase de- velopment and public facilities, such as roads and parks. I call it the 'what, when and how' pro- gram," Holzmiller said. "We're looking at what will be needed, when it will be needed, and how it will be financed. As each zone's program is developed, that zone is released for development." What are the ramifications for developers? "I call these the "smores," Holzmiller joked. "The city is requiring some more — more up-front planning and teamwork between developers and the planning staff, more areawide planning in terms of the larger pic- ture of how a particular develop- ment project affects the need for public facilities and services, more citizen involvement in the plann- ing process and more costs associated with development as the city looks for increasingly in- novative ways to finance needed public facilities. "Arbitrarily limiting develop- ment is not necessarily a good planning approach," Holzmiller cautioned. "We are seriously ad- dressing the quality of develop- ment, not just the quantity." "The fact that 110 people turned out to attend the seminar — our largest crowd ever — is a measure of the intense interest the devel- opment community has in the North County area," said Mervyn Morris, Founders Title Co. senior vice president and San Diego County manager. "We see that proven every day in our North County title office in Vista. The whole area is hot." EXHIBIT "B 3'_ss SEVERS HUGHES 4 ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNINGINTERIOR DESIGN 1375 THlRD AVENUE PO BOX 950SAN DIEGO CA 92112-2692 619/239-2353 June 5, 1986 Mr. Roy Collins R. B. Collins 5703 Oberlin Drive Suite 208 San Diego, CA 92121 Subject: Dear Roy: Carlsbad Airport Plaza Sandag Review Project No. 86758.00 I have presented our initial site plan to Jack Koerper at Sandag for a preview reading before a formal submission. At this time, it would seem that we are doing what we would be normally requested to do; namely, moving the building as far north as possible from the airport, keeping the building low, and meeting local requirements for parking, landscape, etc. While this is not a formal approval, I feel we are in agreement with Sandag on the site design and do not see any problems in our site plan as it is now configured. Sincerely, BUSS SILVERS HUGHES & ASSOCIATES An an M. Turner AMT:llf EXHIBIT JAMES LONGTIN cnAttorney at Law ,<cUtUi-.o 5655 Lindero Canyon Rd, Suite 401 Westlake Village, CA 91362 (818) 889-0738 May 23, 1986 Vincent F. Biondo, Jr. City Attorney CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 RE: Growth Management Ordinance Dear Vince: That you for the opportunity to review the Growth Management Ordinance. These notes are real quick and rough in view of the short time frame. I hope they are useful. First, I want to commend you on the excellent job in p5£paring a very sophisticated, well through out program. It seems like a meaningful and intelligent solution to the admittedly serious problem of sometimes unmanagable community growth. Validity. In General. The ordinance appears to pass legal muster in all respects relative to the zoning police power. The major criteria is that the ordinance be reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Griffin vs. Oxnard (1985) 39 C. 3d 256. The community's purpose and intent as set forth in Section 21.90.010, is clearly a legitimate public purpose. Construction Industry vs.Petaluma (1975) 522 F. 2d. 897. In this regard, your findings are excellent. The ordinance seems clearly reasonably related to the governmental purpose. Cities have broad discretion in methods used to deal with serious land use problems. Young vs. Mini-Theaters 98 S. Ct. 2440. A good example is Associated Homebuilders vs. Livermore (1976) 18 C. 3d 582, where the court upheld a building permit moritorium until education, sewer and water standards were met. General Plan Support. If you have not already done so, I suggest that the land use, circulation and public facility elements be amended to set forth necessary needs, goals, and policies to support the ordinance. Vincent F. Biondo, Jr. May 23, 1986 Page Two Time Limitations. I see no time limitations in the ordinance and perhaps it is unnecessary. Certainly the growth management process could go on indefinitely. However, you might want to consider a time limitation (the Ramapo plan was 18 years). A time limitation may give additional protection from taking and due process oppresiveness claims. A temporary restriction is more liberally construed than a permanent restriction. Metro vs. El Dorado 222 Ca^. 2d 508, 516. There may also be some concern for the timing necessary to the adoption of the facilities management plan. The ordinance appears valid on its face. However, if the city oppresively delays the adoption of the plan, you might face an invalid "as applied" attack. v Regional Housing Welfare Findings. It does not appear that these findings (Government Code 65863.6) are necessary since the ordinance imposes no numerical limitation on the number of housing units to be approved. Even if the section did apply, your findings are probably adequate to pass muster. Hearing For Designation of Development Status Category. The last sentence of section 21.90.100 provides that the council may reassign property and facility zones without a hearing. This seems like an important property rights item and may require due process hearings. See Pacifica vs. Camarillo (1983) 149 C.A. 3d. 168, wherein the court held that the growth control allotment process was adjudicative, not legislative. I noticed also that the facilities management plan adoption (Sec. 21.90.140) requires a hearing and adoption by ordinance. Why an ordinance? A resolution may be handier and less cumbersome. Facilities Management Fees. Sections 21.90.050 and 21.90.100 provide for a facilities management fee to be established in various development status categories. I am concerned that such "community infrastructure" type fees must be fairly apportioned (between existing users and new users) to pass legal muster. No case as yet considered this question in California but other states have imposed this fairness requirement. This would especially be necessary in category one where there will be a mix of new and existing users of the new public facilities to be developed. See portion of enclosed memorandum on this issue. Vincent F. Biondo, Jr. May 23, 1986 Page Three Vince, as I mentioned to you, I am going on vacation for a few weeks and will return about June 9 or 10. If you want to discuss this matter further, please call me at the above telephone number or City of La Quinta (619) 564-2246, or at my home (213) 459-8783. Very truly yours, 3S LONGTIN S/JL:mc Enclosure In costfl nnncH CD. June 5, 1986 Honorable Mayor Mary Casler City Council 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: City Council Workshop - Consideration of Special Exemptions in the La Costa Area. Dear Mayor Casler: The following information is provided to you to give the City Council basis for the exemption of properties in the La Costa area which significantly contribute to the resolution of existing problems in this area. As you are aware, these problems include street improvements/traffic, parks and schools which their lack of severely detract from the quality of life in the La Costa area today. The proposed Growth Management Ordinance does not address the means of resolving these problems. It is the intent of this letter to provide information to you which would give a basis for the resolution of these problems. The following is a list of current problems which need immediate attention by the City: Street Improvements/Traffic 1) Rancho Santa Fe Road - Inadequate Width 2) La Costa Avenue 1-5 to ECR - Inadequate Capacity 3) Olivenhain Road - Inadequate Width A) El Camino Real/Olivenhain Intersection - Inadequate Capacity 5) Rancho Santa Fe/Melrose Intersection - Inadequate Capacity 6) Melrose Avenue/Alga Road - Inadequate Width = 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 202 • Carlsbad • California 92008 • (619) 438-8226 = Parks 1) Stagecoach Park - Poor and Dangerous Access with present Road Conditions. Schools 1) La Costa High School - Site Needed for Future School 2) Second Elementary School - Site Needed for Future School The above problems have the mechanisms in place to be resolved but are threatened by current Council actions. The following is an explanation of how these problems would be resolved if current Council actions did not take place or if related projects in the La Costa area were given an exemption status: Street Improvements/Traffic 1) Rancho Santa Fe Road; A. As a condition of previously approved tentative maps that are near final map recordation, this needed street improvement from Olivenhain Road to La Costa Avenue will be built before any occupancy of these approved units. B. As a condition of previosly approved tentative maps that are near final map recordation, the improvement of Rancho Santa Fe Road from La Costa Avenue to Melrose Avenue will be provided through an Assessment District which has already gained City Council approval. The La Costa Ranch Company has signed a petition to enter into the Assessment District which would have provided for this road. 2) La Costa Avenue/I-5 Intersection: By virtue of the recently approved La Costa Traffic Impact Fee, previously approved tentative maps would have contributed approximately 1.5 million dollars to this improvement. The proposed Growth Management Ordinance does not provide mechanisms for the improvement of this intersection. The intersection will remain inadequate for an indefinite period of time which will continue to reduce the overall quality of life of the La Costa residents. The rest of the improvements listed above(items 3-6) will also be indefinitely delayed if the Growth Management Ordinance is adopted in its present form. Parks Stagecoach Park: The access to this community park will remain dangerous without the improvements of Rancho Santa Fe Road as described above. Schools 1) La Costa High School: Current negotiations with the San Dieguito High School have been processing smoothly over the last year. These negotiations will be forced to halt if the Growth Management Ordinance is adopted in its present form. 2) Elementary School Site: Current negotiations with the Encinitas Elementary School District for the dedication of the Vista Santa Fe school site would be postponed for the reasons described above. Proposed Solutions The approved tentative maps in southeast and southwest La Costa would solve the existing problems described above. The following is a list of these tentative maps: Project Units 1) Southwest Phase I 789 2) Park View West 131 3) Meadowlands 112 4) Vista Santa Fe 154 5) Park View East 35 If -allowed to proceed, these five projects would solve the majority of these problems prior to any new homeowners occupying these units. It should be noted that these units would take several years to build out. It is impossible for these units to build out all at once. The Council should feel secure that the exemption of these units will not open the floodgate nor create the La Costa Land Rush. Also, the majority of these units are single family detached units. The net result of the development of these units and the provision of the above mentioned improvements would be to reduce the impact on streets, schools and parks in the La Costa area. The City Council needs to recognize that these problems exist today and will become worse as continued development in surrounding communTties continue, whether or not any other further development proceeds in La Costa. Only by paying immediate attention to these problems will the quality of life begin to improve for the residents in La Costa. The La Costa Ranch Company and other parties owning property in this area are willing to go the extra mile in solving these problems today. The present Growth Management Ordinance as currently written will at a minimum delay these vital improvements for at least one year and more likely will delay them for several years down the line. We urge you to consider the importance of providing these improvements to the La Costa residents and request the projects listed above be exempted from the Growth Management Ordinance. Sincerely, Tim Roberts Project Manager cc: City Councilmembers Frank Aleshire, City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Planning Director La Costa Remaining Property As of May 1, BCHON ^^^^^^^^^B ^H ^^ ^^ •••^^H ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^ -IIIULLILC^n PROPERTIES INC. 5820 Miramar Road, Suite 200 • San Diego, CA 92121 (619>4551900 June 5, 1986 Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Growth Management Ordinance and Elm Avenue Extension Project Carlsbad Tract 83-20 Ladies and Gentlemen: We are the developers of Carlsbad Tract 83-20, which has an overall land use density of 5.36 units per acre and which requires extensive public improvements, such as .6 miles of additional traffic lane for El Camino Real and the 2500 ft. four-lane construction of Elm Avenue, toward which the developer is contributing the entire cost for the 1200 ft. onsite portion, and is contributing $502,000 for right-of-way and construction of the 1300 ft. offsite portion, with the City having agreed to contribute $285,000 for the offsite portion. It would be foolish to risk the completion of this project by a growth limitation ordinance whose primary objective is to insure that the kind of public improvements which are a commitment of this project are provided. Fortunately, the project is exempt, per the recommendation of the Community Development Director to the City Manager per memo dated June 2, 1986, under the second unnumbered paragraph, subparagraph 9. This recommendation has been carried forward in the City Manager's recommendation to the City Council dated June 3, 1986, and the Planning Commission also supports the subparagraph 9 (i.e., northwest quadrant) exemption. Our remaining difficulty is the ambiguous significance of the deadline of July 20, 1986. Imposing a deadline, particularly one whose significance is not well under- stood by the applicants of various projects in the City, is likely to be self- defeating, in that it will cause pressure for deadline interpretations and process- ing deadlines, and thus create additional short-term workload pressure in the Planning, Engineering and Building Departments, which can be avoided. We request that you eliminate this deadline and simply rely on the deadlines which already exist in the various projects being processed. Sincerely, Helmut Kiffmann HK/hc June 5, 1986 LAW OFFICES OF C. SAMUEL BUCK. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION P. O. BOX 8O25 FAIRBANKS RANCH PLAZA RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIFORNIA 92067 (619) 756-5994 LOS ANGELES (213) 587-4755 ORANGE (714) 857-O464 RIVERSIDE (714) 359-5489 Mary Casler, Mayor City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Carlsbad Oaks Business Center; CT74-21 Map No. 10372 Honorable Mayor: This firm has been retained by Mr. Paul Tchang and Mr. Ted Gildred, T & G Investments of San Diego, who are the owners of 185.5 acres of property located on the north side of Palomar Airport Road approximately 1/2 mile east of El Camino Real. Although this commercial/industrial project is almost completely graded pursuant to an approved Final Map, it may not be exempt from the proposed Growth Management program, entitled Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Exemptions have been proposed for the commercial/industrial areas by the staff and City Manager, however, these proposed exemptions provide that if discretionary permits are required, commercial/industrial projects will not be processed. This, in effect, provides no exemptions for these projects since discretionary approvals in the form of site plans for each commercial or industrial lot are required even though a Final Map may have been approved and grading is complete. Whether this is an oversite or otherwise unintentional, it should be clarified. The Carlsbad Oaks Business Center is a project that has been in the pipeline since 1974 and subject to an approved Final Map since 1982. This project provides substantial public facilities, including a significant portion of Palomar Airport Road, and is certainly the type of development the City is eager to endorse. Nonetheless, this and other projects will be stopped and the substantial investments made by landowners pursuant to approved Final Maps will be forfeited unless the City Council clearly exempts them from the Growth Management Moratorium. We would urge you to exempt commercial/industrial projects, and specifically Carlsbad Oaks Business Center, from the Growth Management Moratorium and not condition that exemption on no further discretionary approvals. In order to avoid confusion and provide clarification of these exemptions, we would request you specifically determine that Carlsbad Oaks Business Center may be processed, that building permits may be issued and that occupancy be permitted despite the pending moratorium. I AW OFIItLS Ol C. SAMUEL BUCK. A I'KOI-ESSIONAL CORPORATION Mayor Mary Casler June 5, 1986 Page Two Please consider this request for clarification of the pending Growth Management Moratorium and if you have any questions, we will be in attendance at the City Council meeting of June 5, 1986. CSB:lmw cc: Paul Tchang Offic ,'4he President Scripps Memorial Hospitals June 4, 1986 (6i9i 457-611 Mayor Casler and City Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Carlsbad, California Brown Leary Project No. 8436.10 Dear Mayor Casler: As you are aware, Scripps Memorial Hospital has had an application on file with the City of Carlsbad for a Hospital Overlay Zone and a Tentative Map since October 10, 1985. We are presently about a week away from a Screen Check E.I.R. Scripps Memorial Hospital obtained a Certificate of Need for the Carlsbad location in December of 1985, from the State of California. On January 1, 1987, it appears that the Certificate of Need law will sundown in the State of California, allowing a rush of hospital development in California. In anticipation of the law change, the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development will receive construction drawings for non-certificated projects on September 1, 1986 for plan check. Meanwhile, it appears from review of draft versions of Carlsbad's Growth Management Ordinance (Draft 5-30-86, 1:30 p.m.) that development of the Scripps project could be delayed for one year while Citywide Facility and Improve- ment Plans are prepared. Scripps must be in a position to proceed with their project by September 1, 1986 to preclude a competing hospital from entering the process in a neigh- boring city and accelerating past Scripps in establishing a North County location. Scripps Memorial Hospital, a Non-Profit, Public Benefit Corporation, respectfully requests that its project be Mayor Casler and City Council Members -2- June 4, 1986 exempted from the Growth Management Ordinance requirements in accordance with Section 21.90.030(C) (Draft Ordinance 5-30-86). If we are not exempted, we will have no other course of action but to pursue other options outside of Carlsbad. This would be regrettable, inasmuch as Carlsbad is our first and best choice for a North County location. Sincerely, President ASErkb A MEMBER OF THE SEARS FINANCIAL NETWORK COLDWeiL June 5, 1986 COLDWELL BANKER COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES 5130 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 438-8500 Ms. Mary Casler Mayor CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Request that the Planning Process not be stopped for the NWC of El Camino Real and Alga Road, Carlsbad, CA Dear Ms . Casler : The City of Carlsbad requires revenues to finance their day-to-day operations as well as provide the services and adequate roads to satisfy the needs of our current and future population. The commercial discipline of development, more than any other discipline, provides substantial revenues to the City in the form of public facility fees, traffic impact fees, sales tax and real estate tax that help finance current and future needs. The 9-3 acre parcel at the northwest corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road should be exempt from any slow down or stopage of site plan processing for the following reasons: 1. The parcel needs to be developed because it is at the visual window into the La Costa area. 2. The parcel has an existing recorded map. 3. A coastal permit is in place. 4. The parcel has been graded to the specifications of an approved grading plan. 5. Improvement bonds have been paid. 6. The frontage roads have been improved on El Camino Real (major arterial) and Alga Road (secondary arterial). 7. The property had an approved site development plan in place through mid-1 985. 8. The developer was unable to proceed with his development plan because the City realigned the extension of Alga Road to Freeway 5 which caused the major tenant to lose interest in the site . June 5, 1986 Page 2 9. The developer has a new major tenant commitment from a 52,000 square foot major user who would anchor the site. 10. The developer, starting in December 1985, has met several times to discuss the new site plan with members of the City staff (Mr. Lance Schulte - Assistant Planner and Michael Howes - Senior Planner) to make adjustments to the site plan which were requested by the staff. 11. The developer has tried to process his application for site plan review and pay his fees, but was told he could not until the La Costa traffic study was completed. It is felt by the developer and myself that the planning process for commercial property should not be stopped because of the disproportionate share of revenues it provides for the operation of the City as well as the employment opportunities for its citi zens. We have worked with your planning staff and in attempt to proceed with development based on the January 1986 moratorium that commercial would not be included. We would like to proceed with the planning process and utlimately gain a building permit to improve this property. If you should have questions regarding this letter, please call me. Respectfully, COLDWELL BANKER COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES Hilbert Mercado Senior Sales Consultant (619) 438-8533 HMrcL3 THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT June 3, 1986 Honorable Mary easier Mayor CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor easier: We share your concerns expressed at the May 27, 1986 City Council meeting regarding the Council's direction to stop all work on projects in the planning and engineering 'pipeline'. As you may know, the past week has been chaotic, with the planning staff making wide ranging interpretations of the Council's actions; but, through the confusion the message has resulted in at least one definitive action -- all staff work on development projects has stopped. We have acted in good faith. The moratorium imposed in January, though restrictive and confusing, allowed The Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort to proceed to our first public hearing in July. We have relied on this schedule to synchronize our Master Plan schedule with the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Plan. The recent Council action destroys the synchronized tandem processing of the integrated components of The Pacific Rim Master Plan and the Batiquitos Lagoon; favorable simultaneous disposition of both parts is essential to our participation in the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Plan. If the development processing of the Master Plan is terminated, the Lagoon portion necessarily terminates. Legally, and economically, we are not in a position to reach independent conclusions on our development plan and Lagoon acreage. 7707 EL CAMl.NO REAL • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 02008 • TELECOPIER oia-436-6839 • ol"-43o-0007 Honorable Mary easier June 3, 1986 Page Two We still encourage resolution of the Lagoon Plan with the interested proponents, but will not be able to participate if the City's actions split the Master Plan and Lagoon into separate processes and timetables. We urge you to reconsider your recent actions to terminate processing of projects so as to allow the Batiguitos Lagoon Enhancement Plan to proceed to its intended conclusion as a preserved and enhanced natural resource of Carlsbad. Sincerely, 7- Thomas J. Curnes President The Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort a project of HPI Development, Inc. TJC/js cc: D. L. Clemens THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT PACIFIC RIM RESORT & COUNTRY CLUB REMAINING PLANNING DEPARTMENT TASKS A. EIR 1. Process EIR responses and comments 2. Review minor design changes in 6 planning areas to ensure EIR mitigation 3. Make any Master Plan text changes to ensure EIR mitigation B. OTHER 1. Review remaining Master Plan chapters Estimated Time a. Chapter V (Dev. Standards) I week b. Chapter VI (Pub. Fac. & Phasing) (* Mostly Eng. Review) 1 day c. Chapter VII (GP/LCP Consistency) 1 day 2. Write staff report 1 week 3. Incorporate department conditions into resolution 1/2 week 7707 EL CAM1NO REAL • CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA ^2008 • TELECOPIER ol«-43o-o83<3 • 610-43o-OO07 THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT PACIFIC RIM RESORT & COUNTRY CLUB OVER-RIDING PUBLIC BENEFITS OF PACIFIC RIM A. Lagoon Enhancement/Sand for Beaches B. Provide East-West Arterial Link (Alga Road) Resulting In: 1. Reduced congestion over the southern part of City, particularly at La Costa Avenue; 2. Improved level of service (level of service F to level of service B) at La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection. C. Provide 30-acre Park Land 1. Southern part of City currently below adequacy standard D. Provide school site for Carlsbad Unified Students in southern part of City E. City-Retained Analyst Reports project to have a sizeable positive ($400,000 to $500,000) fiscal impact on City F. Hotel T.O.T. projected to be over $1,000,000 per year * No other project in City is providing any of these needed items. 7707 EL CAMINO REAL • CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 02008 • TELECOPIER 619-436-6839 • 619-436-0907 BRIAN SMITH ENGINEERS, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 2656 STATE STREET • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 • PHONE 729-8981 June 4, 1986 RECEIVED City of Carlsbad r Development Processing Services 1200 Elm Avenue / Carlsbad, CA 92008 Building Department Attention: Marty Orenyak Community Development Director SUBJECT: HEMLOCK CONDOMINIUMS (11 UNITS) J. N. 6038 C.T. 83-39 - C.P. - 286 Dear Mr. Orenyak: The Hemlock Condominiums project CT 83-39/CP-286 tentative map was approved by the City of Carlsbad on March 28, 1984 and was to expire on March 28, 1986. The final map, improvement plan and grading plan were prepared and processed through plan check. The final map was checked and ready for council docket on October 9, 1985, pending posting of bonds and paying fees. The grading plans were signed by the City Engineer on May 8, 1985 as project no. P.E. 2.84.46 drawing no. 243-9A . The Improvement plans for Hemlock Avenue and onsite water and sewer were signed by the City Engineer on May 31, 1985 as project no. 83-39. The City of Carlsbad established a moratorium on final maps or building permits for any developments over four (4) units on January 14, 1986 for a 6 month period ending July 1, 1986. The subdivision map act section 66452.6 entitles term of tentative map approvals, effect of moratoriums and lawsuits upon approval time limit, extension of time. Paragraph (b) allows the tentative map time to be extended for the period of the moratorium if the moratorium was imposed during the period of time of the tentative maps existance. See attached copy. We request that the tentative map for Hemlock Condominiums project CT 83-39/CP-286 be extended from March 28, 1986 to 90 days past the end of the moratorium expiration date (proposed to be July 1, 1986.) We will file the final map on July 1, 1986 for final check and approval by the City Council. The building permits, grading permits have been issued on this project and the project is under construction with rough grading completed, building slabs poured and framing under way. City of Carlsbad June 4, 1986 Development Processing Services J. N. 6038 Page Two I have enclosed copies of the approved grading plans, improvement plans and final map for your reference. We would be glad to meet with you regarding this project if you would feel this would help. Sincerely, BRIAN SMITH ENGINEERS, INC. / n <v CL\O-C&V*JL*I^ I . SS^V^VK^QV^ Rodney CDimming sj Vice President and ^ Principal Engineer RI:gh cc: Pan Pacific Trading Corp. (Current owners) 6230 Mar Industry Drive San Diego, CA 92121 BRIAN SMITH ENGINEERS, INC. TO of €arl»<iab 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989 (619)438-5541 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 72.9- 096f ATTENTION the following items:WE ARE SENDING YOU ^t Attached D Under separate cover via D Shop drawings tf Prints D Plans D Samples D Specifications D Copy of letter D Change order D Dated. COPIES DATE.NO DESCRIPTION :^._CU££IC ^lEACr^^fcdAP^ MAP AO^vSl.^TI_:Q*AT_ THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: D For approval [H For your use D As requested D For review and comment For Your Action D For Checking LJ Approved as submitted D Approved as noted D Returned for corrections Resubmit_.copies for approval O Design only, not for construction U Return corrected prints a . REMARKS. COPY T0_ SIGNED:UL ^ vinaaaLs, [2^>£,(j£,LoJ2m£,n.t 280-A Chinquapin Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 729-5060 May 30, 1986 CITY COUNCIL City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Carlsbad Tract 85-36 Dear Council Members & Staff, On Thursday, May 29, 1986 we attempted to obtain our grading permit for CT 85-36, a 24 lot subdivision on Monroe St. directly across from Carlsbad High School. We were denied the permit because of your council meeting on May 27, 1986 and as I understand the situation, no permits are being issued to anyone because of the re-planning being done by the City staff. I understand the need for planning for the future of Carlsbad and I basically agree with the efforts of the staff and City Council to insure the quality of life in Carlsbad is maintained. In our particular project 85-36 we are providing a valuable contribution to the goals of the City Council. The previous use of the 6.7 acres was a greenhouse and flower growth operation employing a number of illegal aliens. The greenhouses were not attractive and the use was not in conformance with the zoning. All major facilities for the intended use, residential housing, are in place in the neighborhood. All schools and shopping are within walking distance and the bus line runs right by the property. In March 1986 the City of Carlsbad issued a demolition permit to us so that we could begin construction on the site. Based on this permit and the tentative map CT 85-36 approved February 26, 1986, we proceeded to destroy the greenhouses and flowers and eliminate the income earnings of the property. The site should not be left as it is since it will create LIC. NO. 450156 * ViYisAoLs, J^>zuELoh,YYi£,nk C<oi,. 280-A Chinquapin Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 729-5060 severe dust problems for the neighbors during the summer and a severe siltation on Monroe St. during the winter. The proposed storm drain system in Monroe St. will improve the ongoing drainage problem in that street. Also, our proposed water system will provide a looped water line for the tracts to the north and south of our project. Since we have already commenced our project, our project should be considered as being under construction. I understand the objectives of the City and I agree with them. I ask that you consider our project as one that has started construction and allow us to proceed with our development. Thank you, Dale Buzza, President cc: All City Council Members RECEIVED *Mr 30)986 -2- LIC. NO. 450156 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY I 3088 PIO PICO DR. • SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008 P.O. BOX 11 29 . PHONE . AREA CODE 619 • 729-4987 June 4, 1986 Planning Commission CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD (CHAPTER 21.9) Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: The following is a list of comments relative the above Ordinance. There appear to be a number of items in the Ordinance that are inconsistent with Ordinance 9791 and that were not, in my opinion, agreed to by the Carlsbad City Council. We agree with the intent of the Ordinance to some respect, but disagree with anumber of the following items: PAGE FIVE, SECTION 21.90.034 - RESTRICTION OF PHASED FINAL MAPS; The section of the Government Code referred to in this paragraph is a recent addition to the Subdivision Map Act that took effect January 1. It specifically provides for certain extension provi- sions on large phased projects if there are $100,000 or more of offsite improvements. The Ordinance, as drafted, specifically is attempting to eliminate the ability to obtain the extensions as provided by the new State law. We think this is wrong and that this seciton should be completely removed from the Ordinance. PAGE 7, PARAGRAPH 21.90.080 - PERFORMANCE STANDARDS; We think it needs to be made very clear that, if the City does not perform their obligation, that fact cannot be a reason for holding up development in any zone, as currently worded in this paragraph. The requirement standards should not only be applied to developers, but also be a strict requirement of the City of Carlsbad. PAGE 8, PARAGRAPH C-2; This paragraph makes reference to a 5-, 10- and 15-year phasing schedule establishing the timing for installation of public facilities, etc. This phasing period seems to be extensive. I think we would all agree that any plan should be flexible and, at Planning Commission June 4, 1986 Page Two this point in time, to say what the 10- or 15-year phasing schedule is seems to be unrealistic for planning purposes. We would suggest that a 5-year phasing schedule be implemented and that it be reviewed in the third year of each 5-year period. On the same page, under Paragraph 3-D, there is reference to "the City Manager shall prepare and present the plan to the City Council no later than one year from the effective date of this Ordinance." This time period seems excessive for the amount of work required. We would suggest that the timing be reduced to a maximum of 6 months for the report back to the Council. PAGE 8, PARAGRAPH 3-E; The Ordinance makes reference to "amendments shall be initiated by action of the Planning Commission or City Council." We think this needs to be clarified. If it means that a developer or individual can petition the Planning Commission to make the amend- ment, we would agree with the paragraph. This should be clearly spelled out. PAGE 8 - LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES; We agree with the items listed for the criteria for determining various zone boundaries. We also agree that the zone should be established by resolution after a public hearing. There probably should be a section added providing for amendments to the zones once they are established. PAGE 9 - CONTENTS OF THE LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN; The Facilities Management Plan shall show 8 listed items that are necessary to accomodate development (sewer, water and schools are listed in addition to five others). Within the City of Carlsbad, there are other school districts, along with sewer and water districts that provide service within our boundaries. There needs to be a provision added to the Ordinance to recognize exist- ing master plans by other service agencies and for the City to respect those master plans. Also, any defencies in those areas should not be reasons to hold up development in the particular zone because a facility provided by a district is not under the control of the City of Carlsbad. PAGE 15, PARAGRAPH 3; W~efind Tt hard to believe that the Council or the Planning Commission can make a finding that the demand for public services and facilities has outpaced the supply and that the Council has determined that these shortages are detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Carlsbad when, at the same time, the City of Carlsbad staff has estimated a year-end total of about $12 million of unencumbered funds. We 7° •Planning Commission June 4, 1986 Page Three find it hard to understand that, on one hand, the Ordinance is saying that the facilities have outpaced the supply when, on the other hand, there are unencumbered funds that could be used to solve some of the shortages supposedly identified. We would suggest that the exemptions to the Ordinance be expanded to include those exemptions in the original Moratorium Ordinance 9791. These are our comments. We ask that the Planning Commission con- sider these changes. We would be happy to answer any questions. Sincerely, Robert C. Ladwig RCL:kd 6506C DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SOUTHWEST June 3, 1986 To Chairman and Commissioners of the Carlsbad Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Proposed Growth Management Dear Chairman and Commissioners: Kaiser Development Company and The Koll Company are deeply concerned with some unintended impacts in the proposed Growth Management Ordinance in Carlsbad. The Koll Company is presently developing the Carlsbad Research Center and Kaiser is developing the Carlsbad Oaks Business Park. In addition, Kaiser's home office for all of its operations in the Southwestern United States is located in Carlsbad and will be housed in the new Kaiser Center-Carlsbad complex now under construction on Palomar Airport Road. Our companies heartily support the preparation of a growth management plan and the concurrent development of a comprehensive facilities plan. We recognize that the City may have difficulty conducting current City business and simultaneously preparing the plans. We also recognize that it is difficult to evaluate development plans and proposals until a growth management plan is formulated. We believe, however, that the City must recognize substantial financial commitments made in conjunction with commercial/industrial projects and the planned benefits the City and the community will derive from the timely completion of the projects based on prior City approvals. Resources are available to help the City acquire additional staff as a preferred alternative to a total work stoppage which alternative would protect the City's interests and those of the commercial/industrial community. In any event the work stoppage associated with the proposed Growth Management Ordinance has not and should not be applied to planned commercial/industrial activity. The exemptions in the original Interim Moratorium Ordinance (No. 9791) are based on the belief that such activity: 1) provides needed employment; 2) pays for its fair share of government service costs; and 3) provides surplus A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation 2121 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, SUITE 201, P.O. BOX 308. CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008-0060 TELEPHONE: (619) 438-2636 H 9 RANCHO CALIFORNIA, CA/HAWAII KAI. HI/KAISEH CENTER, OAKLAND, CA/INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES-WESTERN STATES/KAISER ALUMINUM REAL ESTATE FACILITIES-WORLDWIDE Carlsbad Planning Commission June 3, 1986 Page Two revenues to pay for City facilities and community programs. These reasons hold true today. Stopping commercial/industrial development will cause visual and other problems by leaving quality projects and related public improvements only partially graded and built and further will irreparably damage the City's high quality economic development program. Quality clean industry currently considering Carlsbad will decide to locate elsewhere if needed facilities and construction expansion programs are prevented. In order to maintain the high quality industrial and commercial community in Carlsbad, the processing and issuance of specific plans, tentative and final subdivision maps, industrial and site development plans, building permits and occupancy permits for industrial and commercial projects must continue. The amount of City staff time involved in these projects will not significantly interfere with progress on the citywide facilities and management plans. We sincerely ask that you allow quality commercial and industrial projects to continue to be processed, built and occupied and we offer our assistance in achieving workable solutions to the challenges facing the City. Sincerely, Kaiser Development Company and The Roll Company S. ELAINE LYTTLETON 4872 Alondra Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 438-2059 June 3, 1986 Carl bad City Council & PI arm ins Commission 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008 Dear Members? Re: Growth Management Plan I haven't had a lot of experience with the plannins process, certainly not enough to have all the answers. I do have a lot of luestions though, ones I think the Commission and the City Council should find out the answers to. As Mayor Casler pointed out recently, the far reaching implications of the proposed Growth Management Plan require considerable study by staff, the Commission, and City Council before any decisions should be made. Please listen carefully to our planners* consider the various points of view of the public, and remember that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Will the opposite and e^ual reaction to any action YOU take on-this matter be positive? MY questions are in reference to Drafts 5/30/86 1:30 p.m. (Is there a 3:45 p.m. version perhaps?) Ps. 2, section 21.90.010. (b) "demand for public services and facilities has outpaced the supply resulting in shortages in facilities..." (c) "to ensure that no development occurs without adequate public services and facilities..." (d) "prohibiting development until adequate provisions for the public facilities and services are made by developers..." Questions: Why have services not kept pace with development? Don't developers now have to pay a public facilities fee (PFF) before development starts, to pay for these services? How can the developers therefore be at fault? Is it rue that the city is sitting on more than $15 million dollars in PFF's. having not yet built the facilities that the developers have already paid for? Is the lack of facilities the city's fault? Ps. 4. (f) "Local facilities management plans shall not be processed or app> /ed until after the adopt? facilities and improvements plan." *> of the citywide Question: Can is be assumed that these local plans will developed concurrently with the citywide plan? Pg. 7, section 21.90.090, (b) Enumerates facilities. be Question: Why aren't schools included? next section 21.90.100. Thev are included in the Section 21.90.090, (a) "The plan shall encourage infill development and reduce the growth inducing impact of premature extension of public facilities to undeveloped areas" Questions: If we were starting with a blank map that would be workable. How do we propose to infill when so may areas of the city are developed in all four quadrants? Does this preclude the development of a large undeveloped area even if a big developer plans a really good project including all the public facilities planned for the area? Pg. 3, (d) "The City Manager shall to the Citv Council not later than date of this ordinance." prepare and present the plan one year from the effective Questions: What are the potential negative impacts of a one year moratorium, both for the city and its citizens? Will the public facilities needed now still be built? Will the fees usually generated from developers seriously deplete the city's coffers? Will the business community suffer? Will housing costs sky rocket? Pg. 12, section 21.90.130, (c) "If Council determines that a deficiency exists then no further building or development permits shall be issued..." Questions: What about public facilities that the city has no Jurisdiction over such as water and schools? Won't this create a Catch 22 situation for the developer? Yours truly, »«•-•*•>> «* 1 -•>-Illlll. fWSSELL W. GROSSE DJ^ELOPMENT . ^ J ':./;• ' iran ce^ciii « it a!iii *O>«^"i fj J 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A -:- Carlsbad, California 92008 -:- Phone 619/438-3141 June 4, 1986 •^Members of the Planning Commission •''"• ttiu «..„ City of Carlsbad Iun,.1J™ 1200 Elm Avenue ' .-7) Carlsbad, CA 92008 Members of the Planning Commission: With respaect to your continued public hearing item ZCA-193 (Growth Management Program), we would urge the Planning Commission to exempt all commercial and industrial projects. In the event that the Commission feels that processing all commercial and industrial projects would be too great a burden for the Staff to carry as well as the workload of preparing the Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan, we urge the Planning Commission to exempt those projects for which all processing has occurred except issuance of a building permit. The processing of a building permit requires less input from in-house staff members as the bulk of the planchecking is performed by outside plancheckers. The above would allow the following two projects(as well as others) to proceed: 1. Our 9 unit condominium project #80-19 (Maple Avenue Townhomes), for which all governmental approvals have been obtained, including recordation of Final Map and Coastal Permit; 2. Our hotel and dinner-theatre playhouse ISDP-83-11 (Palomar Place), which has obtained all of its permits Including recordation of Final Map and Coastal Permit. All off-site improvements have been completed as well as the first phase development, which consists of McDonalds and Marie Callender's restaurants. This project has been through building department planchecking and a permit was obtainable; due to financing difficulties at that time, a delay in obtaining a permit occurred. Lower interest rates have enabled the tenant for the hotel and dinner- playhouse to obtain financing now, and plans have been resubmitted to the Building Department for plancheck. We would further urge the Planning Commission to exempt housing developments which constitute Minor Subdivisions. If this 1s not acceptable, we would urge the Planning Commission to exempt housing projects, the owners of which can certify that they personally intend to occupy the premises that are being constructed. This is in keeping with the present Intent of the drafted moratorium to exempt owner-occupied housing. Please refer to the attached letter of explanation dated May 30, 1986 addressed to Marty Orenyak. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Contractors License No. 378383 iWSSELL W. GROSSE DJEVELOPMENT CG., INC. ^^J 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A -:• Carlsbad, California 92008 -:- Phone 619/438-3141 May 30, 1986 Marty Orenyak City of Carlsbad 3200 Elm Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Marty: It 1s our understanding that staff will be recommending that applications for owner occupied, single family residences will be excluded from the effect of the most recently proposed moratorium. Rusty and I and my parents have just recently purchased two 25 ft. beach lots. We have, after a great deal of study, determined the site would be more efficient If the units could be stacked with each unit being basically on one floor. Part of this decision was made because my father 1s legally b!1ndxand my mother suffers from severe arthritis. Since 1t requires a consolidation of two lots Into one lot and 1s 1n essence an airspace condominium, we do not technically qualify as an owner occupied single family project even though we are only building two units on two existing lots. If your recommendation for exemption could be broadened to read as follows: Owner occupied dwelling units of two units or less where the owners Intend to occupy all of the units In the project 1t would cover our situation which 1s certainly within the spirit of presently contemplated exemption. We have filed all the necessary applications to proceed through the City with this project, and 1t 1s designated as minor sub-division 1735. We would appreciate hearing from you regarding the above. Sincerely yours, Contractors License No. 378383 CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE POST OFFICE BOX 1605 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 729-5924 June 4, 1986 Planning Commission CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: PROPOSED GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DATED 5/30/86 The Chamber of Commerce has reviewed in depth the draft Ordinance being considered by the Commission this evening, and offers the following points for your consideration. We would request that this letter and our comments be specifically included in and forwarded to the City Council with your final recommendations. The Chamber endorses the concepts of sound, long-range planning, and of growth management programs that are designed to ensure that needed public facilities are identified and installed prior to, or concurrent with need. To this end we have, and continue to support the recommendations of the Citizen's Land Use Committee and the intent behind Ordinance 9791. However, we are concerned that perhaps the City has lost sight of where we are going. The Ordinance under consideration, while it is an admirable attempt at dealing with an extremely complex set of interrelated problems, is in our opinion, flawed in several respects. We believe that the Council's direction on May 27, 1986 was primarily aimed at removing development pressure from City staff so as to provide them additional time to develop and refine this Ordinance, but it was not intended to fundamentally "change the rules of the game" in mid-stream. The Ordinance as prepared, however, has a very limited list of exemptions. We do not think that it was the intent of the Council to limit non-residential, commercial and industrial, and the other types of projects now exempted under Ordinance 9791. Because 9791 was unanimously adopted by the Council and endorsed by not only the general community, but also by the development industry, we would strongly recommend that this Ordinance include as exemptions all of those previously adopted under 9791. Also, this Ordinance should include a specific list of those projects that are in fact to be exempted. This list should identify those projects by name, Carlsbad Tract No., etc. Planning Commission Page 2 June 4, 1986 The Chamber also endorses the inclusion of a specific and detailed set of City-wide performance standards as a part of any growth management program. While we recognize that this will take time to develop and refine, once they have been adopted by the City, these standards should not be able to be reduced with- out either a 4/5 vote of the Council or a vote of the people. Additionally, the standards need to apply not only to developers, but also to the City where they have the responsibility for providing for certain facilities. It would seem unfair to hold back development in a certain zone simply because the City has not performed its requirements. Our review of the City's finan- ces reveals that at the end of the 1985-86 fiscal year, the City will have unencumbered funds estimated at 12 million dollars and another 11.3 million dollars during fiscal 1986-87, or a total of 23.3 million dollars. Of this sum, only 8 million dollars has been appropriated, leaving approximately 15.3 million dollars in unencumbered funds that would be available for capital projects i.e. La Costa Boulevard., Palomar Airport Road bridge, etc. As we have repeatedly suggested for the last 1 1/2 to 2 years, the City should retain a professional, full-time Projects Manager to see that the funds that have been previously collected from the developers are in fact timely spent, and that the improvements are installed. We also believe that the ability to make amendments to any growth management plan that is finally adopted by the City should be limited, similar to the limits on the number of amendments that may be made to the General Plan. Additionally, we would suggest that any such amendments require a 4/5 vote of the Council. Another major area of concern is that any growth management ordinance that is adopted needs to provide a workable structure to guide the identification and timing of installation of needed public facilities, while maintaining sufficient flexibility so that not only the current and future Councils, but also the development community can timely respond to changing economic, social or unanticipated needs or pressures that arise in the future. In Section 21.90.090(2) it provides for a 5-10-15-year phasing schedule aimed at the timing of installation or provision of public facilities and services in relation to the amount of development activity within a given area. Unless this concept is better defined, we are afraid it will become inflexible and unbending and will be detrimental to the overall program. If a long-term phasing schedule is to be retained, then the Ordinance needs to more specifically detail what type of planning or development, if any, can occur within these zones during each of Planning Commission Page 3 June 4, 1986 these periods. Also, if the needs of the City at some time in the future require the development of property within an area that has not been scheduled for development for 10 or 15 years from now, there should be a way that the phasing schedule can be modified. We also feel that it would be appropriate to make specific reference in the Ordinance to the recent ordinances adopted by the Council reducing residential density, including Ordinance 9794, and the new definitions of open space. Another observation that we make is that the Local Facility Management Plans require a showing as to how and when certain facilities and improvements are to be installed, including faci- lities over which the Council has no specific or direct control, i.e. schools. We would suggest that either a reference to these types of facilities be deleted, or that the Plan acknowledge that the decision by such other districts will be binding and accepted by the City, and will not be a reason for finding that a project does not comply with a Local Facility Management Plan. To do otherwise, would be to create a "Catch-22" out of which there would be no exit. Finally, the draft Ordinance proposes that the staff be given a year to prepare the implementing ordinances. We believe that even if the proposals as set forth above dealing with exemp- tions are adopted, the entire process can be accomplished in no more than six months. We would therefore urge that Section 21.90.090(d) be modified to require that the plan(s) be prepared and become effective no later than six months from the effective date of this Ordinance. These are our comments at this time. We recognize that this is an extremely complex and difficult Ordinance to review, anal- yze and digest on such short notice, but it is of critical impor- tance to the City and its long-term economic welfare that this matter be immediately forwarded to the Council for their consideration on June 17. Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions. Sincere Stephen M. President SML:ck June k, 1986 Carlsbad City Council Planning Commission City of Carlsbad City Hall Elm Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Growth Management Draft Ordinance ZCA-193 This is to advise you that I vigorously object to the above Ordinance, as proposed. However, I would support, with reluctance, Ordinance No. 9791, as originally submitted. Sincerely, FIRST DARTHRON 7233 Plaza de Da Costa Carlsbad, CA 92008 i/P £ : / /- (' I ' 1i A ^ ^, /"'^ /,, G ' I f ;^f/.'.-'/ "• /,-!- ,(. /;.< .' t, //> / : r/; L '•'• /• >ff /c /- ///7f/ V /' SEAFARMS WEST Shellfish Specialists Car|sbad> Phone (619) 438-2444 June 4, 1986 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Clarence H. Schlehuber Chairperson Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Schlehuber: Re: Commercial Projects and Growth Management — A Roadside Stand for Shellfish. The following reiterates and expands our views presented to the City Council some months ago, when a moratorium on development was discussed. As we understand the situation, the City has recently experienced rapid growth and is concerned that public facilities may not keep pace with demand. Growth (to us) means a population increase, either in numbers and/or density. Such growth adds to sewer, water, trash, and other utility services. It also creates greater demands on existing roads, recreational facilities, schools, and other public facilities. Public safety departments also face additional demands. The apparent intent of the development moratorium is to give the City a "breather" while it studies the perceived impacts and determines how best to "handle" or mitigate the impacts. We do not believe that it was the City's intent to curtail economic development; i.e., business and industrial changes and expansion. Yet, a total development moratorium would indeed stop those activ- ities which lead to greater employment with an increased tax revenue, which is normally a net economic gain to the City. That is to say, commercial development increases the City's revenues and does not cause proportional increases in public services. We at Seafarms West have, for some time, been seeking approval for a small roadside stand to sell the products that we grow in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. All of our planning has shown that our proposal is very compatible with land uses, the expansion of Carlsbad Boulevard, and the desires of the land owner (SDG&E). It would also appear to be most fitting for the City's desire for a village atmosphere, with an emphasis on the unique. Farm Location — Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Carlsbad, California ft j Mr. Clarence H. Schlehuber June 4, 1986 Page 2 Unfortunately, we are about to be caught up in a planning exercise which was not originally directed at our type of activities. Our very modest roadside stand will not impact schools, sewers, water supplies, and many other public services. We may generate a few more traffic trips and require some parking spaces, but we will also add to the City's economic well-being and help create the uniqueness so much desired by the City. Please consider the adverse impact to business and the subsequent economic impact to the City if normal business expansion is curtailed. At a minimum, the business projects which can be shown to have little or no impact on public services should be allowed to proceed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Richard D. Glenn, Ph.D. President and Farm Manager RDG:lw cc: Planning Commissioners Mayor Council Members Planning Director /City Attorney VCity Clerk 'A^^H. MARKETS 5075 FEDERAL BLVD., SAN DIEGO. CALIF 92102 « 16191263-3161 June 9, 1986 City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: Carlsbad Growth Management Ordinance: Community Core Shopping Center, Rancho Santa Pe and La Costa Avenue Ladies and Gentlemen: This Company is one of the owners of the 52 acre community site at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe and La Costa Avenue. For the last two years, we have been engaged in the first phase of our site, which is to include a 40,000 square foot Big Bear Supermarket and an additional 130,000 square feet of related retail and service facilities on approximately 24 acres of the site. These facilities are to meet the shopping needs of the La Costa area. We anticipated submitting our application for a tentative site development plan within the next two weeks and had hoped to commence development before the end of the year. Implementation of the ordinance under consideration would delay any further planning for over two years and any construction for two years. Our plans had included the actual construction of the widening of Rancho Santa Fe adjacent to our property. Such construction would likewise be delayed for two years under the terms of the ordinance, as submitted. In addition to providing the much needed road improvements, our facilities would substantially reduce the traffic in the area by providing shopping facilities to more than half of the population in the area, who would otherwise need to drive in excess of two miles for shopping facilities. Furthermore, construction of our facilities will, without adding any burden to existing public facilities, generate in excess of $130,000 in facilities fees to the City of Carlsbad, as well as in excess of $100,000 per year in sales tax revenue. Our studies indicate that construction of our facilities will have no adverse effect on the City and in fact, will alleviate several problems in the area. COOK'S MARKETS 15B6 S. FOURTH AVE., EL CENTHO. CALIFORNIA 922*4 . (6191352-6711 City Council City of Carlsbad June 9, 1986 Page Two Considering the above circumstances, we feel it is appropriate for the City to exempt our parcel from your proposed ordinance, /—~\fely, ^\Since i-^ A TJoT->^~""~——*Phillip A. Ward Executive Vice President PAW:hes Office of the President Scripps Memorial Hospitals June 10, 1986 Mayor Casler and City Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Carlsbad, California Dear Mayor Casler: This letter is to express the appreciation of Scripps Memorial Hospital for the staff recommendation exempting us from the Growth Management Ordinance prohibition on project processing. We urge your support of this important recommendation also. In our previous letter to you (June 4, 1986), we described the serious time constraints that we find ourselves under with regard to the State of California Certificate of Need process and the need to have CEQA and Hospital Overlay processing completed by September 1, 1986. In order to accomplish this schedule, we respectfully request that you direct staff to begin processing on the Hospital Overlay (HO) Zone concurrent with the forty-five (45) day review of the Screen Check E.I.R. This would allow concurrent processing through the Planning Commission and Council as originally antici- pated by staff (staff letter July 16, 1985). Scripps Memorial Hospital is prepared to pay for any outside consultants to assist staff in the processing of our project plans. Further, immediately upon approval of the Hospital Overlay Zoning, Scripps Memorial Hospital is prepared to begin improvement plans for four traffic lanes on Palomar Airport Road between the easterly boundary of the Bressi Ranch and the easterly city limits. Following the Public Works Department approval of the improvement plans, the hospital will have the improvements bid and constructed. Funding for this project will be in accordance with the Carrillo Ranch Development Agreement. In summary, we appreciate the proposed exemption, but in view of severe time constraints, urge that staff be instructed to process Mayor Casler and City Council Members -2- June 10, 1986 the H. 0. Zone during the 45 day E.I.R. public review period. We are prepared to pay for consultants that the City feels necessary to review our plans. We are also prepared to begin substantial improvements on Palomar Airport Road at the earliest possible date. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, President Scripps Memorial Hospitals PROPERTIES June 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor Casler and Carlsbad City Councilmembers CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FOR BATIQUITOS LAGOON Dear Mayor Casler and Members of the Council: Sammis Properties is prepared to immediately grant to the City of Carlsbad a construction easement over the wetlands portion of the Educational Park site so that the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Plan may proceed to implementation. In consideration of this immediate grant of easement, the City of Carlsbad will allow all 3 phases of Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park to continue processing. Building permits for Phase I residential shall be issued upon approval of plans and specifications with the following additional condition: Consistent with the goals and intent of the approved Master Plan, the applicant shall provide the City with evidence of a committment by an educational entity to occupy Phase I of the project. This committment shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the Land Use Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits for residential uses within Phase I. With the exception of the 100 student dormitories in the 2nd phase, no additional residential building permits will be issued until the citywide facilities and improvements plan and local facilities management plan for Zone 9 has been adopted by the City Council. 2650 Camino Del Rio North #100 • San Diego, CA 92108 • (619) 298-7112 n BATIQUITOS LAGOON FOUNDATION June 10,1986 Honorable Mayor Mary Casler and Council Members 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Sammis Properties Project The importance of the Batiquitos Lagoon Restoration Plan cannot be overemphasized. It is the largest off-site mitigation plan the Coastal Commission has ever approved. It is the Foundation Board's belief that such an opportunity for the lagoon will not come again. Sammis Properties have been exceptionally flexible in their planning process to accommodate the concerns of the Foundation regarding their project's impact on the lagoon. Their willingness to donate their property in the lagoon itself to the public to accommodate the terms of the Coastal Commission permit is laudable. The fact that they will in return gain a restored lagoon on the edge of their property does not alter our appreciation for their cooperative spirit. The community has worked hard to have our lagoon restored to a more viable state. We are all hoping that the lagoon project will go forward. Sincerely , TVW^*- Anne Omsted, President P.O. Box 3103 Carlsbad, CA 92008 The Honorable Mayor Casler and Carlsbad City Councilmembers June 10, 1986 Page 2 By allowing Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park to proceed with processing, the City will insure that substantial public benefits including graduate education and environmental restoration will occur in Carlsbad. Very truly yours, SAMMIS PROPERTIES Ion D. Briggs Vice President JDB:krp CHARLES W. CHRISTENSEN • ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS June 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor Mary H. Casler Mark Pettine, City Council Claude "Buddy" Lewis, City Council Ann Kulchin, City Council Richard Chick, City Council Vincent F. Biondo, Jr., City Attorney Frank Aleshire, City Manager Aletha Rautenkranz, City Clerk CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 444 WEST C STREET Subject: Proposed Growth Management Ordinance; City Council Public Hearing Concerning the Ordi- nance of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California Amending Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code by the Edition of Chapter 21.90 Establishing a Growth Man- agement Program for the City; Objections of Owners and Developers of Villages "0" and "T" of Calavera Hills Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council: As you may be aware, the civil engineering firm of Charles W. Christensen & Associates represents the owner and developer of Villages "Q" and "T" of Calavera Hills located in the City of Carlsbad, State of Calif- ornia. Please accept this letter as the Owner's and Developer's objection to the passage of the Growth Management Ordi- nance as proposed for Chapter 21.90 of the Municipal Code of the City of Carlsbad. CALIFORNIA 92101 (619) 232-7891 CITY OF CA ,SBAD June 10, 1986 Page 2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND In September of 1984, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad approved the tentative maps for Villages "Q" and "T". Village "Q" provided for approximately 202 residential lots, Village "T" provided for 466 lots. Both tentative map approvals provided that phased final maps would be filed and the tentative maps actually set forth a plan for phasing those maps. Final maps have been prepared in accordance with that phasing. To date, the Owner and Developer has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars in engineering, architecture, mechanical engineering, traffic engineering and other costs in reliance upon the approval of tentative maps for Villages "Q" and "T". On or about September 3, 1985, the City adopted Interim Ordinance No. 9771 which was to be effective until July 20, 1986. Under the terms of that Ordinance, developers were precluded from filing final maps until a local Fa- cilities Plan was approved. However, the City authorized the processing of final engineering plans for tentative maps which were approved prior to the Interim Ordinance. The Owner and Developer submitted a sewer plan which has been reviewed by the City on April 25, 1986. Those plans have been processed by the City under the Interim Ordinance. On or about May 13, 1986, the Owner and Developer sub- mitted, under the provisions of the Interim Ordinance, a Local Master Facilities Plan for processing. As of this time, the City has not processed the plan. At the time the Interim Ordinance was introduced, the Council for the City had indicated that the phasing plans would in fact be processed and that once approved, all development be allowed to proceed. During the terms of the Interim Ordinance, the applic- able time periods for the tentative maps were stated to be tolled by the Assistant City Attorney of the City of Carlsbad. CITY OF .RLSBAD June 10, 1986 Page 3 Now, the City proposes to introduce and adopt a Growth Management Ordinance which would serve to further delay the recordation of final maps for tentative maps that were approved prior to the effective date of both the Interim Ordinance and the Proposed Growth Management Ordinance. The Owner and Developer hereby object to the introduc- tion of the Growth Management Ordinance on any and all grounds available to it, including but not limited to, the following: 1. The Ordinance does not provide for a tolling period for tentative maps approved prior to the effective date of the Interim Ordinance or the Growth Manage- ment Ordinance in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Government Code (Subdivision Map Act). Specifically, Section 21.90.031 is unclear and ambiguous but it does not appear to toll the period of tentative map viability pending the com- pletion of the City's City-wide Facilities and Improvement Plan. 2. Section 21.90.034 places additional restrictions on the tentative maps for Villages "Q" and "T" which were not imposed at the time of their approval. It, therefore, violates both the applicable sections of the Subdivision Map Act as well as the provisions of California case law. The City cannot legally impose additional condi- tions on a tentative map which has previously been approved nor require the subdivider to waive rights accruing to him by virtue of the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act as a condition to allowing him to file phased final maps in accordance with the original approvals of Villages "Q" and "T". 3. The provisions of Section 21.90.160(b) is vague, ambiguous and uncertain and the applicant desires an explanation and clarification of its provisions. Clarification is needed to determine whether or not the City of Carlsbad intends to allow the continued processing of final subdivision maps for which ten- tatives were approved on or before August 6, 1985. CITY OF .RLSBAD June 10, 1986 Page 4 Further clarification is needed as to the portion of the section that states: "The tentative map shall be subject to Section 21.90.030." To the extent this section imposes conditions which were not in effect on the date of the approval of the tentative subdivision maps for Villages "0" and "T" violates both the Subdivision Map Act and case law of the State of California. 4. The Ordinance violates provisions Government Code Section 65863.6. Specifically, the Growth Manage- ment Ordinance as proposed adversely affects the Regional housing needs of the City of Carlsbad and County of San Diego and the Ordinance is not needed to promote the public health, safety and welfare. Specifically, the proposed Ordinance would severely restrict the number of housing units which would be constructed within the City of Carlsbad and would have an adverse effect on the supply of housing within the general region as well as the City of Carlsbad. This, in turn, will exacerbate the hous- ing market conditions in the surrounding jurisdic- tions and will limit the access to affordable hous- ing within the City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego as a whole as well as all surrounding cities. 5. The Owner and Developer request and demand that the tolling provisions set forth in Section 21.90.030(d) (1) be clarified to provide final subdivision maps covering property that is the subject of tentative maps approved prior to the effective date of the Interim Ordinance would be allowed to continue to process and record without the need of filing a City-wide Facilities and Improvement Plan or a lo- cal Facilities Management Plan. In the alternative, we would like a clarification that sub-paragraph (d)(l) provides that the time period for the filing of final maps shall be tolled until such time as a City-wide Facilities and Im- provement Plan is implemented by the City of Carls- bad. n L.J e? CITY OF < 1LSBAD June 10, i986 Page 5 The Owner and Developer take this position without in any way waiving its right to attack the consti- tutionality and legality of the Ordinance if the alternative suggested herein is adopted by the Coun- cil. 6. The Owner and Developer object to Provision 21.90. 040 to the extent they apply to subdivisions for which tentative maps were approved prior to the effective date of the Interim Ordinance and Pro- posed Growth Management Ordinance. 7. The Owner and Developer object to the Ordinance on any and all other grounds available to it under the laws of the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California and/or Federal Law whether or not specifically set forth herein. 8. Further, the Owner and Developer hereby adopt by reference any and all other objections to the Pro- posed Growth Management as enumerated in the Public Hearing at the City Council and the Planning Commis- sion on the Proposed Growth Ordinance as well as any and all other written opposition to the Growth Management Ordinance which has been previously or hereafter submitted to the City as though set forth herein in its entirety. 9. The Owner and Developer further object to Section 21.90.150 in that it is vague, ambiguous and unin- telligible and does not set forth an ascertainable standard for future Council action. 10. The Ordinance violates the Equal Protection Provis- ion of the United States Constitution. In addition to all the forgoing bases, the Owner and Developer oppose the Growth Management Ordinance on the grounds that due process, both procedural and substan- tive have not been complied with by the City of Carlsbad in the passing of both the Interim Ordinance and the Growth Management Ordinance for the City of Carlsbad. •17 CITY OF RLSBAD June 10, 1986 Page 6 CONCLUSION The Owner and Developer hereby request that the Growth Management Ordinance as proposed not be adopted but that at a minimum changes to the tolling provisions of Section 21.90.030(d) be added; that Section 21.90.031 be clarified; that Section 21.90.034 be deleted; that Section 21.90.040 be amended to exclude tentative maps previously approved; that Section 21.90.150 be deleted; and that Section 21.90.160 be clarified to exclude from the operation of the Ordinance any property which was the subject of an approved tentative map prior to the effective date of the Interim Ordinance and the Proposed Growth Management Ordinance. Respectf 'C Charles B. Christensen Vice President & General Counsel for CHARLES W. CHRISTENSEN & ASSOCIATES CBC/jk A-7112 MARTIN MCDONOUGH ALFRED E HOLLAND BRUCE f. ALLEN V. BARLOW GOFF JOSEPH E COOMES. JR DAVID J. SPOTTISWOOD DENNIS D.O'NEIL RICHARD W NICHOLS DONALD C. POOLE RICHARD W. OSEN RICHARD E. BRANDT GARY F. LOVERIDGE G. RICHARD BROWN DAVID W. POST SUSAN K EDLING BRUCE MCDONOUGH WILLIAM L OWEN DAVID F. BEATTY ALICE A WOODYARD MICHAEL T FOGARTY HARRY E. HULL. JR. DENNIS W.DECUIR ANN OCONNELL ROBE RTW.O CONNOR JEFFRY R.JONES T. BRENT HAWKINS STUART L. SOMACH BRIAN W. CASSERLY DONALD R PERSON SUSAN L. SCHOENIG DAWN H.COLE SHARON 0. ROSEME IRIS P. YANG DAVIDS. SALEM VIRGINIA A. CAHILL JAMES L. LEET HARRIET A. STEINER PATRICIA D. ELLIOTT MARY POWERS ANTOINE WILLIAM A. LICHTIG ALAN F. CIAMPORCERO SETH f BRUNNER EDWARD J QUINN. JR. DON E. GREEN NANCY P. LEE MARK GORTON MARCIA SCULLY PAUL M. VALLE-RIESTRA DEBRA S MARGOLIS MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS 4O41 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD. SUITE 1OI NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 9266O (714)851-1 ISO June 10, 1986 SACRAMENTO OFFICE 555 CAPITOL MALL. SUITE 95O SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 958 I 4 19161 444-39OO OAKLAND OFFICE P. O. BOX 3448 OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA 946O9 (4151 547-O1 O6 ARTHUR H. BERNSTEIN OF COUNSEL HAND DELIVERED The Honorable Mayor Mary Casler City of Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Growth Management Ordinance No. 9808 Dear Mayor Casler: The Lusk Company wishes to go on record in opposition to the City's proposed Growth Management Ordinance No. 9808 On January 21, 1986, when the City Council adopted the moratorium Ordinance No. 9791, it was generally understood that a growth management program would be in place and landowners in the City of Carlsbad could proceed with planning and development of their property by July 20, 1986 It now appears that under Ordinance No. 9808, all but a few major residential projects will be delayed until a City-wide Public Facilities and Improvements Plan can be adopted. It is our understanding that this Plan could take another year to prepare and implement. The Lusk Company owns more than 90 acres of vacant land located at the westerly extension of Poinsettia Lane near the grade separation at the Santa Fe Railroad tracks. The property has historically been designated in the City's general plan for residential development. Since acquiring the property in 1972, the Lusk Company has relied on its rights to develop the property with urban land uses as permitted by the City's general plan and implementing zon- ing ordinances. On June 17, 1982, Lusk entered into an agreement with the City ("Bridge Agreement") committing Lusk to pay for a The Honorable Mayor Mary Casler June 10, 1986 Page 2 portion of the Poinsettia bridge. Approximately two years ago, the Lusk Company paid the City over $840,000 towards the cost of the bridge roadway approaches and dedicated additional right-of-way for the widening of Poinsettia Lane. It was implicit, if not expressed, in the Bridge Agreement that Lusk would be able to develop its property with reasonable urban land uses in consideration for the contribution to the bridge construction fund and the dedi- cation of the right-of-way. In short, Lusk has more than paid its fair share towards providing public facilities. If the City Council intends to exempt certain projects from the Growth Management Ordinance, The Lusk Company submits that its Poinsettia property should be given equal consideration for such an exemption. Very fc*uly yours, Dennis D. O'Neil DDO:dlg cc: Donald D. Steffensen Richard T. Deihl JAMES H. SCOTT INVESTMENT REAL ESTATE DATE: JUNE 10, 1986 TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF CARLSBAD FROM: JAMES H. SCOTT SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM MORATORIUM FOR SPYGLASS POI17TE - 80 UNIT CONDOMINIUMS ALTIVA PLACE, LA COSTA CT 84-10 For the following reasons, we believe our project should be classified as an exemption from further delays and be allowed to be built. 1. Our complete final map was submitted for signature so that we could record it prior to the moratorium. Our map was not accepted by the City. (see Exhibit on final map) 2. Our final building plans were approved, by the Carlsbad Building Department before the moratorium, (see Exhibit on final plan check expiration) 3. -Te would not be using Staffs' time since we have received all Planning approvals. We were unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. /+. For several years, all streets and utilities have been to the site. 5. We are infill, urbanized, and surrounded by exisiting developments. 6. This project is family owned. Any further delays will create severe financial hardship for our family. In conclusion, we have planned a very high quality project, lie are prepared to pay our fair share for any facilities needed by the City of Carlsbad. Cur situation is unique, v.'e look to you to be fair with UP and allow us to ~o forward. Sincerely, Parties II. Scott Owner 1241 Elm Avenue, Suite 210 • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • [619] 434-6700 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: FROM: JANUARY 20, 1986 CONWAY & ASSOC., INC. 224 BIRMINGHAM DRIVE CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA 92007 (619) 753-1453 TO:CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 HAND CARRIED PROJECT:SPYGLASS POINTE: CT-84-10 SUBDIVISION MAP TRANSMITTED* ^3 BLUELINE SETS OF REVISED SUBDIVISION MAP. * ^PREVIOUS CHECK PRINT. X ^HOLD-HARMLESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CITY PER CONDITION * 24. * v HOLD-HARMLESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN PROJECT OWNER AND ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. X S corf <f- <.<qr«£K. ffo^nAO'J co«.(. X /REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION PER CONDITION # 36. REMARKS: BY: X ^1 COPY OF UPDATED PRELIMINARY TITLE X / 2 COPIES OF SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE FOR PROJECT. PLEASE CALL WITH ANY COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS. ^ MICHAEL PASKO ^fj. CONWAY &. ASSOC. , INC. (619) 753-1453 DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES BUILDING DEPARTMENT Date: To: 5-12-86 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008-1989 „ (619) 488-5525 Cttp of Carlsftab James Scott PC* 85-727 866 So. sierra Drive Spyglass Point Solana Beach, CA. 92075 EXPIRES: 6-16-86 MAy 1 4 1986 C,TY QF CARLSBAD ' Subject: Plan Check Expiration Our records indicate that you have not obtained your building permit for which you filed an application on the date shown above. The provisions of Section 304(c) of the Uniform Building Code state: Sec* 3Q4(c) Expiration of Plan Check. Applications for which no permit Is / ^isstied rwithin 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation and- plans submitted for checking may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the Building Official. The Building Official may .•*> extend the time for- action, by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 '••• days upon written request by:the applicant showing that circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have prevented action from being taken. In • order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay. a new plan check fee. For* your convenience,: please check the appropriate box below indicating your ' intentions and: return this letter to the address above. Project abandoned. I will pick up plans in 10 days. _ _ Signature ate _ Project abandoned, plans- may be destroyed. _ Signature X Maximum 180-day time extension requested for the following reason: ~^~ — , \ Signature Date Date If you have any questions, please contact the Carlsbad Building Department at 436^5525 MARTIN ORENYA^ Building OfficiJ THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT June 10, 1986 The Honorable Mary easier Mayor City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Proposed Growth Management Ordinance: Chapter 21.90, Carlsbad Municipal Code Dear Mayor easier: At its hearing tonight, the City Council will consider (among other things) a proposed ordinance to amend the Carlsbad Municipal Code by adding Chapter 21.90 regarding a growth management program for the City. This ordinance is an outgrowth of recent events, beginning with the City Council hearing on May 27, 1986. At the moment, the governing ordinance with respect to the growth management program is interim Ordinance 9791, adopted by the city in January 1986. That ordinance reflected a balancing decision by the City, to restrict the addition of new projects into the development pipeline, but, at the same time, to allow continued processing of certain projects already in the pipeline. The proposed new ordinance (Chapter 21.90) as written would substantially change the rules. As written, it would stop all work on projects in the planning and engineering pipeline, until completion of the citywide and local Facilities and Improvements Plan. Thus, Chapter 21.90, as written, would be an exception to the manner in which business has been conducted in the City of Carlsbad until now. Not surprisingly, there has been a good deal of clamor within the community since May 27 with respect to this proposed ordinance. Part of discussion has focused on interpreting what the Council really intended by its May 27 resolution, and the efforts of staff to prepare a growth management ordinance which would accurately reflect the intent of the Council. Significant additional attention has focused on the fundamental question of whether it is in the best interests of the City of Carlsbad to allow certain projects to go 7707 EL CAMINO REAL • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 • TELECOPIER 619-436-6839 • 619-436-0907 The Honorable Mary easier Mayor June 10, 1986 Page 2 forward (i.e., be exempt from the new ordinance) either because (i) Council had not intended them to be within these new restrictions or (ii) such projects offer the prospect of public facilities of such benefit to the community that continued processing and even construction of the projects would be in the best public interest. THE PACIFIC RIM PROJECT All of these concerns affect the Pacific Rim Project in a special way. HPI has suggested that, if the ordinance is to be adopted, the Pacific Rim Project be included within the list of projects to be exempted from its impact (i.e., that the normal process should be allowed to continue). The Pacific Rim Project offers to the City a number of major benefits, including major public facilities and improvements, which would be substantially delayed or conceivably lost entirely, unless the project is exempted from the proposed ordinance. Among the catalog of these major benefits are the following: (i) the proposed Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Program involves the portion of the lagoon owned by the HPI (as well as that owned by Sammis and others). Continued processing of the Pacific Rim Project would allow for continued and concurrent processing of the Lagoon Enhancement Program, funded by the Port of Los Angeles and/or the Pacific Texas Pipeline Company; (ii) the project will provide a right of way needed by the City for improvement of the El Camino Real/La Costa Boulevard Intersection; (iii) the project will provide a right of way needed for widening La Costa Boulevard along its north side; (iv) the project will provide major east/west roads badly needed in this area of Carlsbad, and the existence of which would be of great benefit to the already existing population; (v) the project will provide a school site to the City which, if the school district proceeds with construction, would be of significant benefit to existing residents in the area; (vi) the project will provide a major park site to the City which likewise would be of immediate benefit to the City as a whole and particularly to existing residents in the area; and (vii) finally, there would be a number of significant financial benefits to the City also resulting from the project, including but not limited to increased property tax revenues and TOT revenues. HPI would like to remind the City of a number of points with respect to the Pacific Rim Project, and for the Council THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT The Honorable Mary easier Mayor June 10, 1986 Page 3 to consider in connection with the proposed ordinance, including the following: 1. At the time HPI annexed its property into the City of Carlsbad, it did so in the expectation that it would be allowed to process its Master Plan for this major geographical portion of Carlsbad in the ordinary course. 2. The HPI proposal, for more than two years, has been that the lagoon would be dedicated to the people at such time as the processing of the Pacific Rim Project has been completed and development permits for the first phase obtained from the City and Coastal Commission. That scenario has always involved the fundamental concept that there would be tandem and concurrent processing of the integrated components of the Pacific Rim Master Plan and the Batiquitos Lagoon. It has also always involved the concept of favorable and simultaneous disposition of both parts. 3. Although not legally obligated to do so, HPI has from the outset stated its intent that the HPI portion of the lagoon would also be "enhanced" from the current state of affairs, before being given to the State. 4. It later became known that, because of the Port of Los Angeles/Pacific Texas project, there was an opportunity that the entire lagoon (and not just the HPI portion) might be enhanced in a much more sweeping and all encompassing fashion. HPI early and frequently has stated its desire to cooperate with that Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Program. HPI still does. 5. Interim Ordinance 9791 enacted in January allowed continued processing of the Pacific Rim Project. That was being done concurrently with processing of the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement plan. Immediately before the May 27 action of Council, HPI had been advised that it was scheduled for the first public hearing on its Master Plan (and related documents) before the Planning Commission in July, and before City Council in August. In other words, the tandem processing was occurring. 6. The proposed ordinance (unless Pacific Rim is excepted therefrom) would destroy the ability of HPI to continue the synchronized tandem processing of the integrated components of the Pacific Rim Master Plan and the Batiquitos Lagoon. Legally and economically HPI is not in a position to THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT The Honorable Mary easier Mayor June 10, 1986 Page 4 allow those to proceed other than in tandem, and HPI is not able to afford the luxury of parting with the lagoon "up front" as has been suggested or speculated by some, both in public hearing and in private. HPI has proceeded in good faith, and has not changed its position. It is the City's proposed "change in the rules" which jeopardizes the concurrent processing of the Master Plan and Batiquitos Lagoon. It is the City's change of position which threatens the Lagoon Enhancement Plan. 7. At the Council meeting on June 5 there was discussion about the possibility of obtaining "up front" dedication from HPI of right of way for the widening of La Costa Boulevard and improving the La Costa Boulevard/El Camino Real Intersection. As detailed below, that is possible with certain clarifications. 8. Also at the Council meeting on June 5, the possibility was discussed that, if processing of the Pacific Rim Project went forward, any approvals granted would be conditioned to prevent commencement of construction as to residential units until such time as the citywide and local Facilities and Improvements Plan and the Facilities Management Plan have been completed consistent with the proposed ordinance. HPI understood the intent to be that, if the project is approved, HPI could proceed to construction with respect to the commercial portions of the project. That restriction would also be acceptable to HPI, as detailed below. 9. Also at the Council meeting on June 5, it was suggested by at least one Council member that, at the time of approval of the HPI Master Plan (if it is approved), the Council then consider dedication with respect to the lagoon. As detailed below, HPI is prepared to make its intent even more specific than that. EXCEPTION TO THE ORDINANCE Since the hearing on June 5, HPI has devoted considerable thought to the necessary features which ought to be incorporated into any provisions for an exception to the ordinance involving Pacific Rim Project, having in mind the concerns articulated by City Council, as well as what is fair and necessary to the project. We have reviewed a draft ordinance exception, apparently prepared by staff. As we read THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT The Honorable Mary easier Mayor June 10, 1986 Page 5 that language (drafted since the June 5 meeting) the staff version would require "up front" dedication of the lagoon as a condition even to begin processing with respect to the Master Plan. We do not believe that version is consistent with the sense of the Council as articulated in the June 5 resolution. More importantly, it is not viable from the standpoint of HPI, for all the reasons listed above. Rather than get into a debate over what the Council said or intended on June 5, and rather than quibbling over words in the staff draft, we would prefer to set forth the points which outline the exception which should be granted and which would be acceptable to HPI, as follows: (a) HPI would immediately ("up front") dedicate to the City the land owned by HPI necessary for the right of way for widening the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Boulevard, and also for the widening of the north side of La Costa Boulevard. The language of that dedication would include the necessary reservations and assurances so that HPI will continue to have the access which it currently enjoys to its property owned along El Camino Real, both north and south of La Costa Boulevard (i.e., including Green Valley). This dedication will be an "advance" on conditions and/or mitigation which the City may seek in connection with the project (if approved), and in connection with any such approval HPI should be given credit for these dedications as if they were so required. However, the dedications will stand even if the project is not approved. (b) City would continue processing the Pacific Rim Master Plan, the Phase I Tentative Map, the Site Plan for the commercial development and the LCP Amendment. Processing would be completed with respect to the EIR, which is currently in the forty-five-day public comment. The processing of those items would move forward in anticipation of adhering to proposed Planning Commission hearing date of July 23, 1986. It would also be anticipated that such matters would be heard before City Council as soon thereafter as possible, but not later than August 19, 1986. (c) If the project is approved in substance mutually acceptable to the City and HPI, it is the intent of HPI to commence construction of the golf course and commercial. We do not know whether, by then, the City will have completed the necessary technical matters so as to have coastal development permit authority. If so, then application for the THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT The Honorable Mary Casler Mayor June 10, 1986 Page 6 necessary permit would be made concurrently to the City. If not, then HPI would make immediate application to the Coastal Commission for the necessary development permits. (See discussion below for limitation to commercial only.) (d) Approval by the City of the Master Plan (and related documents) would contain appropriate restrictions precluding commencement of construction with respect to residential units until the citywide and local Facilities and Improvements Plan referred to in the proposed ordinance have been completed as provided therein. (e) The approval of the Master Plan (and related documents referred to above) in substance mutually acceptable to City and HPI would be conditioned to require that, concurrently with receiving the necessary coastal development permits for the golf course and first phase commercial, HPI would dedicate a sufficient possessory interest in the lagoon for the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Program. That would be along the following lines (which have been discussed with the Coastal Conservancy and the State Lands Commission): (i) HPI will work immediately with the State Lands Commission, Attorney General's office and others, to finalize the form of an easement which would allow for construction, operation and maintenance of the Lagoon Enhancement Program with respect to that portion of the lagoon owned by HPI. A form of such easement was sent by HPI to the State Lands Commission more than six weeks ago, and HPI is still awaiting comment from the Commission, the Attorney General or others. HPI will work diligently with those agencies to finalize the form of the easement. (ii) When the form is agreed to, HPI, in effect, will escrow the easement. Concurrently with receipt by HPI of the necessary development permits for the golf course and commercial portions of the project, HPI would execute and deliver into the "escrow" the easement in the agreed upon form. The easement would not actually be recorded until such time as construction is ready to proceed on the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Plan, but that recordation would be self executing and the necessary easement would be assured and in the hands of the appropriate agency. (iii) At such time as the Lagoon Enhancement Program is substantially completed, HPI would deed the lagoon to the THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT The Honorable Mary easier Mayor June 10, 1986 Page 7 State Lands Commission (or other designated agency of the State). (f) Implicit in the above is the understanding that, assuming approvals at each step along the way, HPI could proceed to and actually commence construction of the golf course and first phase commercial portions of the project. (g) The City would, of course, be able to impose other conditions upon the Master Plan and related documents in the normal course of processing and approval. That is anticipated. With respect to the lagoon, please remember two items of explanation. First, it is not necessary to grant and record the easement at this time. There are many matters still to be accomplished before construction of the enhancement program can begin. In case, for any reason, that seemingly attractive and desirable program should fall apart, it is still the specific intent of HPI that it would both (i) enhance its portion of the lagoon consistent with its previous mini- enhancement program and (ii) ultimately dedicate its portion of the lagoon to the State. This is what HPI has always intended and still intends. In discussing this scenario with the State Lands Commission and the Coastal Conservancy, it is apparent that they do not need to record the document until they are ready for the enhancement program to begin, and that can be made essentially automatic. Second, HPI does not want to give a grant deed until it knows that the enhancement program has been completed (or at least substantially completed). Again, until it is substantially complete, it is always possible that the deal with the Port of Los Angeles/Pacific Texas the various agencies may fall apart for some reason beyond the control of any of us. If so, HPI would want to revert to its own mini- enhancement plan for its portion of the lagoon, and would find that difficult to do unless it had retained title. Accordingly, actual passage of the deed should be held up until such time as the completion of the enhancement program is assured. In conclusion, we hope that this explanation has been helpful to your consideration and that of the Council. The word "fairness" has been frequently utilized in recent days. HPI has been proceeding with the tandem and concurrent processing of the lagoon and its Master Plan for many months. THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT The Honorable Mary easier Mayor June 10, 1986 Page 8 Without the tandem processing, there can be no business justification for donating the lagoon which cost the principals of HPI several million dollars. Until May 27, it appeared that the various agencies were all processing agreeably with respect to the tandem concept. It is hardly fair for the City suddenly to switch the rules, and then ask that a multi-million dollar piece of lagoon property be donated free and clear (up front) without even any assurances that (i) the HPI project would be processed at all, let alone approved, or (ii) that there would be an enhancement program by anybody. HPI has been told by the Port of Los Angeles that there is a fairly short window of opportunity which the City of Carlsbad may utilize in order to benefit from the overall restoration program of the entire lagoon. It is that window of opportunity which is threatened if the City changes the rules, and stops processing with respect to the HPI project. We thank you for your careful consideration of these matters. We know that you and the Council will consider the best interests of the City, as always. Sincerely, D.L. Clemens Vice President HPI Development DLC/pp 2CBN02QL.WH5 cc: Councilmember Ann Kluchin Councilmember Claude Lewis Councilmember Mark Pettine Councilmember Richard Chick Mr. Thomas J. Curnes Mr. Al Allred Christopher B. Neils, Esq. Mark A. Brunger, Esq. THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT It is HPI's proposal that, if the proposed new ordinance is adopted, there would be an exemption given with respect to the Pacific Rim project, essentially incorporating the following features: a) The City would continue processing the Pacific Rim Master Plan, Phase I tentative map, LCP Amendment (and any other items also required). b) HPI would immediately grant to the City (or dedicate) the land owned by HPI necessary for the right of way for widening the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue, and also for the widening of La Costa Avenue. The language of that dedication would include the necessary reservations and assurances so that HPI would have the necessary rights of access which it currently enjoys with its property owned both to the north and south of La Costa Avenue, along El Camino Real. That would also include the "Green Valley" property, which is not a part of the Master Plan. c) It would be anticipated that the Master Plan, and Phase I tentative map would also be conditioned to preclude construction of residential units until such time facilities and improvement plans had been approved consistant with the ordinance. The Council should understand that HPI cannot transfer title to the Lagoon until the Enhancement Program has been completed. Until it has been completed (or at least substantially completed) it is always possible that the arrangement with the Port of Los Angeles and all of the various agencies may fall apart for some reason. If so, HPI may want to revert to its own mini-enhancement plan for its own portion of the Lagoon. Unless HPI has title to the Lagoon, that would be very difficult. Therefore,there can be no "up front" grant with respect to the Lagoon. The approval of the Master Plan (and related documents) would be conditioned upon HPI granting to the State Lands Commission a sufficient possessory interest to allow the Lagoon Enhancement Program to proceed in accordance with Pacific Texas' schedule. That would be along the following lines (which have been discussed with the Coastal Concervancy and the State Lands Commission): (i) Upon approval of the Master Plan, Phase I tentative map, LCP Amendment, and a coastal development permit for the project, HPI would grant to the State Lands Commission (or other appropriate designated agency) a sweeping easement to allow immediate commencement of the Enhancement Program, including construction, operation and maintenance. A form of such easement has previously been sent to the State Lands Commission, and we are awaiting comment from the Commission, the Attorney General and others. (ii) At such time as the Lagoon Enhancement Program is then completed, HPI would deed the Lagoon to the State Lands Commission (or other designated agency). P3 Wt-< pi P> rt 3 P-01 & hh C 0> P-^ rtO01 fP>iQ O03 **J(0 (D 1-3 p-rt |— J (D 0 WO PI3 rt •d P-M.Q(0 Crt P-p-rt O O3 0) £H PI(Q OO3 OO301rtt-f (2 Ortp-O3 O ttlO P»3 rtM P-rt iHh{ £ P P-0 rtrt OP- 01O 3 fPIWiQ (D OiQ OP-33o) Mjj 3" PI30(D ^(D3rt WPIrtP->Qg P-rt O01 fP><QOO3 W PI01 (D3(D 3rt j> Ort PIrt (D *"^ WP- PIPTt <D P-D*(Qp; £ P-^ rt M Oft 01PIrt f(D PIiQt^ OPI O 3 3 01 W PIO 01O 0> 1 (0P-3W rt 01P- O3 — « Wt^ rtO P>TJ rt(D If3 o0) O3 PI(X 01• rtPIpn |— i O OO Opi § 01 3rt P-PI 01 M 01p-*() O(0 3M 3P-rt*~* tr* P] 3o ro PIhj 3 01*d rt> O fl> 3 i^ r^fl) PI 3 ^ ^op. ^ ^—i 3 pi (033 3 Pirt><: JT O *T}P- W 3"rt M pi»< 50 01>• 0> OOOP1 fl ^3 >O >•P-P" X >diQ M 0 f P] 3o n o> PI3 hd 3 013 V rtP-> O (001 3 i-( i-< 01 to PIP- 3 i-l HJQ p. ><*; i— i 33 PI(033 3 P*rt 'rj <}•>-.. hrf h^ P- W 3*pi M pi3 50 013 - (0P- 3 O P1 |><^« !! to OJ WH 50 OO3tJp* (0rt0> *TJH Oo(D0101 P-3<Q P1 P»•~* n> siQ M(D OOrt Z O< so vo 00 <T> WPIrtP->Qw e01 P-rt rt P-03 01PIrt F(D PI H.8P-3 (D M H.3-p, p, M O O M O H 3 Oo nf THE WILLIAM N. HOFMAN COMPANY Planning Project Management Environmental June 10, 1986 Honorable Mayor Casler City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Proposed Growth Management Ordinance Dear Mayor Casler: This letter is written to provide suggestions to the proposed Growth Management Ordinance under consideration at tonight's City Council meeting. As proposed, the Ordinance would essentially place a hold on all projects in the pipeline that have not received final maps. A number of exceptions have been suggested by the staff which were considered by the City Council at its special meeting held last Thursday night. Additional exceptions that were discussed at this meeting include the Hunt Master Plan and the Sammis project. Based on Thursday's meeting, it seems that the City Council is sympathetic to projects which provide the city with needed and beneficial public facilities. In the case of Hunt and Sammis, restoration of Batiquitos Lagoon would certainly provide great benefit to the city. Other projects in the pipeline would also provide the city with needed improvements that are of major importance and that would result in significant public benefit. The widening of Rancho Santa Fe Road is certainly on.e improvement that needs immediate attention and that would increase the safety in La Costa to a great degree. Also, the extension of College Avenue would free up circulation congestion in the northern part of the city. A limited number of other projects would also provide facilities that would benefit the city of Carlsbad. Given the number of projects that could provide significant public benefit, the Council may not wish to limit itself, as this Ordinance does, to the few projects under consideration for exemption. The decision to exempt any projects should 6994 El Camino Real • Suite 208-G • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (619) 438-1465 be based on solid findings and evidence that demonstrate the projects contribution to the public benefit and the public health, safety and welfare. It is suggested that an exemption clause be added to the Ordinance that would give the City Council the ability to review individual requests for exemptions on a case by case basis. The City Council would have to make specific findings that the project would provide significant public benefit before an exemption could be granted. Certainly, the Hunt and Sammis projects would qualify under such a procedure, but in addition, other important projects such as Rancho Santa Fe Road could be considered and not have to wait an indefinite amount of time to proceed. In all cases, an exemption would have to be based on solid facts that clearly demonstrate the need and the benefit to the public welfare. In reviewing the City Council Agenda Bill, and specifically, the City Attorney's memo to the City Council dated June 6, 1986, a mechanism is provided to allow the types of exemptions mentioned herein. Specifically, on page 3 of this memo, Section 4(f) provides specific findings that would allow the City Council to review on a case by case basis projects which provide major facilities which are in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare. This clause would give the City Council the ability to provide for major public improvements that would benefit the overall community without having to come back and amend the Growth Management Ordinance. It is recommended that this exemption be added to Section 21.90.030 Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion. I will be available at the public hearing to answer any questions. Sincerely , Bill Hofman cc: City Councilraembers City Manager City Attorney Planning Director City Clerk MARTIN MCDONOUGH ALFREDS HOLLAND BRUCE F ALLEN V BARLOW GOFF JOSEPH E. COOMES. JR. DAVID J SPOTTISWOOO DENNIS 0 O'NEIL RICHARD W NICHOLS DONALD C POOLE RICHARD W OSEN RICHARD E BRANDT GARY F LOVERIDGE G RICHARD BROWN DAVID W POST SUSAN K EDLING BRUCE MCDONOUGH WILLIAM L. OWEN DAVID F BEATTY ALICE A WOODYARD MICHAEL T FOGARTY HARRY E HULL. JR DENNIS W DECUIR ANN O'CONNELL ROBERT W O'CONNOR JEFFRY R JONES T BRENT HAWKINS STUART L. SOMACH BRIAN W CASSERLY DONALD R PERSON SUSAN L SCHOENIG DAWN H. COLE SHARON D ROSEME IRIS P YANG DAVID S SALEM VIRGINIA A CAHILL JAMESL LEET HARRIET A STEINER PATRICIA D ELLIOTT MARY POWERS ANTOINE WILLIAM A LICHTIG ALAN F CIAMPORCERO SETH P BRUNNER EDWARD J OUINN. JR DON E GREEN NANCY P LEE MARK GORTON MARCIA SCULLY PAUL M VALLE-RIESTRA DEBRA S MARGOLIS MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN A PROFESSIONAL COFIPORATION ATTORNEYS 4O41 M»cARTHUR BOULEVARD. SUITE 1O1 NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 9266O (714)851-1 ISO June 10, 1986 SACRAMENTO OFFICE 555 CAPITOL MALL. SUITE 95O SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 958 t ' (916)444.3900 OAKLAND OFFICE P O BOX 3448 OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA 946O9 (4 15) 547.0106 ARTHUR H BERNSTEIN OF COUNSEL HAND DELIVERED The Honorable Mayor Mary Casler City of Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Growth Management Ordinance No. 9808 Dear Mayor Casler: The Lusk Company wishes to go on record in opposition to the City's proposed Growth Management Ordinance No. 9808, On January 21, 1986, when the City Council adopted the moratorium Ordinance No. 9791, it was generally understood that a growth management program would be in'place and landowners in the City of Carlsbad could proceed with planning and development of their property by July 20, 1986, It now appears that under Ordinance No. 9808, all but a few major residential projects will be delayed until a City-wide Public Facilities and Improvements Plan can be adopted. It is our understanding that this Plan could take another year to prepare and implement. The Lusk Company owns more than 90 acres of vacant land located at the westerly extension of Poinsettia Lane near the grade separation at the Santa Fe Railroad tracks. The property has historically been designated in the City's general plan for residential development. Since acquiring the property in 1972, the Lusk Company has relied on its rights to develop the property with urban land uses as permitted by the City's general plan and implementing zon- ing ordinances. On June 17, 1982, Lusk entered into an agreement with the City ("Bridge Agreement") committing Lusk to pay for a The Honorable Mayor Mary Casler June 10, 1986 Page 2 portion of the Poinsettia bridge. Approximately two years ago, the Lusk Company paid the City over $840,000 towards the cost of the bridge roadway approaches and dedicated additional right-of-way for the widening of Poinsettia Lane. It was implicit, if not expressed, in the Bridge Agreement that Lusk would be able to develop its property with reasonable urban land uses in consideration for the contribution to the bridge construction fund and the dedi- cation of the right-of-way. In short, Lusk has more than paid its fair share towards providing public facilities. If the City Council intends to exempt certain projects from the Growth Management Ordinance, The Lusk Company submits that its Poinsettia property should be given equal consideration for such an exemption. Very Dennis D. O'Neil DDOrdlg cc: Donald D. Steffensen Richard T. Deihl DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SOUTHWEST June 9, 1986 PROPOSED AMENDMENT SUBMITTED BY KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND THE KOLL COMPANY TO DRAFT GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE FOR INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL Change the language set forth in the City Attorney's Memorandum to the City Council dated June 6, 1986 at page 2, paragraph 4(e) by adding the underlined words to subdivision (9) of subsection (c) of Section 21.90.030 to read as follows: "(9) Development permits, specific plans, grading, occupancy and building permits for commercial and industrial projects on lots located within an area that has been previously processed and approved as an industrial or commercial project and for which a final or tentative map has been approved prior to July 20, 1986." A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation 2121 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, SUITE 201, P.O. BOX 308. CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-0060 TELEPHONE: (61 V, 438-2636 RANCHO CALIFORNIA, CA/HAWAII KAI, HI/KAISER CENTER. OAKLAND, CA/INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES-WESTERN STATES/KAISER ALUMINUM REAL ESTATE FACILITIES-WORLDWIDE , DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SOUTHWEST _ ,„„,. TT j-~*Ci^l±*«^ jJune 9, 1986 Hand Tfgrivered Mayor easier and Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Proposed Growth Management Ordinance - Industrial/Commercial Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: Kaiser Development Company and The Koll Company request an exemption be added to the proposed Growth Management Ordinance to allow quality industrial/commercial projects to be fully improved, built and occupied by the final user. Merely subdividing and grading business parks does not realize the benefits new clean industry contributes to the City. The final user of the industrial/commercial lots must also be able to construct buildings and to occupy the completed improvements. To accomplish this, we have revised slightly the proposed ordinance language suggested by the City Attorney in his June 6, 1986 Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council at page 2, paragraph 4(e). The enclosed revision more clearly lists the types of additional permits and approvals necessary for existing projects to be built and occupied. On June 5, 1986 we wrote each of you reviewing the importance to the City, now and into the future, of continuing quality industrial/commercial projects. We highlighted a few of the positive financial and community contributions it makes by providing needed jobs and funds to construct other important projects throughout the City. A copy of that letter is also enclosed for your convenience. Allowing quality industrial/commercial projects having tentative or final map approvals by July 20, 1986 to proceed will not significantly interfere with the Planning Department's efforts to prepare a citywide management plan. In summary then, we urge you to adopt the attached language into the Growth Management Ordinance in order to permit approved industrial/commercial projects to proceed. Sincerely, Kaiser Development Company and The Koll Company cc: Frank Aleshire, City Manager A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation 2121 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, SUITE 201, P.O. BOX 308, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-0060 TELEPHONE: (619) 438-2636 RANCHO CALIFORNIA, CA/HAWAII KAI, HI/KAISER CENTER. OAKLAND, CA/INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES-WESTERN STATES/KAISER ALUMINUM REAL ESTATE FACILITIES-WORLDWIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SOUTHWEST June 5, 1986 HAND DELIVERED Mayor Mary H. Casler City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Proposed Growth Management Ordinance Dear Mayor Casler : Raiser Development Company and The Koll Company are deeply concerned with some unintended impacts in the proposed Growth Management Ordinance. The Koll Company is developing the Carlsbad Research Center and Kaiser is developing the Carlsbad Oaks Business Park. In addition, Kaiser's home office for its operations in the Southwestern United States is located in Carlsbad and will be housed in the new Kaiser Center-Carlsbad complex now under construction on Palomar Airport Road. Our companies support the preparation of a reasonable growth management plan. We recognize that the City may have difficulty conducting current City business and simultaneously preparing the plan. We believe, however, the City must recognize substantial financial commitments made in conjunction with industrial/commercial projects and the planned benefits the City and the community will derive from the timely completion of the projects. In any event the work stoppage associated with the proposed Growth Management Ordinance has not and should not be applied to planned industrial/commercial activity. The exemptions in the original Interim Moratorium Ordinance (No. 9791) are based on the belief that such activity: 1) provides needed employment; 2) pays for its fair share of government service costs; and 3) provides surplus revenues to pay for City facilities and community programs in other areas of the City. For example, build out of Kaiser's 78 acre Carlsbad Oaks Business Park alone will contribute the following to the City: o Over $1,200,000 in public facilities fees o In excess of $65,000,000 In Increased real property tax valuation o More than $5,000,000 in public improvements, including over 1 mile of Palomar Airport Road o Quality clean industry which should provide 3,500 new jobs A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation 2121 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD. SUITE 201. P.O. BOX 306. CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008-0060 TELEPHONE: (619)438-2636 RANCHO CALIFORNIA. CA/HAWAII KAI, HI/KAISER CENTER. OAKLAND. ( Mayor Casler June 4, 1986 Page Two The Koll Company's Carlsbad Research Center project, being over three and one half times larger, contributes proportionately greater benefits and revenues to the City, Including substantial Improvement of College Boulevard. Together with other Industrial/commercial projects, Koll and Kaiser will be paying substantial bridge/thoroughfare fees and special traffic Impact fees to fully Improve the balance of Palomar Airport Road, Interstate 5 interchanges and other important projects throughout the City. Add to these increased sales and TOT tax revenues and one begins to appreciated the contributions of industrial and commercial projects throughout the City. Approval of tentative and final subdivisions maps alone is not enough to allow ultimate use and occupancy of industrial and commercial projects and to realize the benefits to the City. Additional City approvals are still required Including specific plans, planned industrial permits, site development plans, and grading building and occupancy permits. The amount of City staff time involved in these approvals will not significantly interfere with progress on the citywide facilities and management plans. Resources are available to help the City acquire additional staff as a preferred alternative to a total work stoppage. Stopping Industrial/commercial development will cause visual and other problems by leaving quality projects and related public Improvements only partially graded and built and further will irreparably damage the City's high quality economic development program. Quality clean industry currently considering Carlsbad will decide to locate elsewhere if needed facilities and construction expansion programs are prevented. We sincerely ask that you amend the draft ordinance tcallow quality Industrial and commercial projects to continue to be processed, built and occupied and we offer our assistance in achieving workable solutions to the challenges facing the City. Sincerely, Kaiser Development Company and The Koll Company cc: Frank Aleshlre, City Manager LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS FOUNDERS GRAHAM INTERNATIONAL PLAZA ^ EDGARA.LUCE NO WEST A STREET leai-iesa SUITE 3OO SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA »2ioi CHAS. H. FORWARD (CIO) 236-KM>Bee.i»8i 2111 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD F.TUDOR SCRIPPS, JR. LA JOLLAIBOa-'803 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92OO8-48I5 LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 02O37 (ei9)-459-4OII (619) 438-7333RONALD W. ROUSE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Tl 11-1 « 1ft 1QQC PARTNER JUne 10, 1986 To the Mayor, Members of the City Council and the City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Proposed Growth Management Ordinance Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We are legal counsel for Kaiser Development Company and The Koll Company, quality industrial/commercial developers presently developing the Carlsbad Oaks Business Park and Carlsbad Research Center respectively. In the now pending Growth Management Moratorium Ordinance (Carlsbad Ordinance No. 9791) there was included specifically a well-reasoned and appropriate exemption for commercial and industrial projects, consistent with the Citizen's Land Use Committee recommendations. The substantial justifications for that exemption applies equally to the pending Growth Management Ordinance. My clients request that all pending commercial and industrial projects be fully exempted from the proposed Growth Management Ordinance. We have previously submitted to each of you our letter of June 9, 1986 containing the exemption language to be incorporated into the draft Ordinance before you. Copies of that submittal is attached. Quality commercial and industrial projects create needed and beneficial jobs for the community, bring clean, modern industry and businesses to our fine City, contribute substantially to the public facilities fee and general tax revenues of the City, and further contribute in less direct ways by increasing the involvement of Carlsbad citizens who both live and work in our community. Planned commercial and industrial projects need to be allowed to fully proceed and the language we've drafted allows /a. a. LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS To the Mayor, Members of the City Council and the City Clerk June 10, 1986 Page 2 those projects having tentative or final map approvals to obtain all other approvals and permits necessary to build, occupy and use the parks. My clients recognize and support the City's efforts to develop a workable and reasonable growth management plan and offer their assistance and cooperation toward that goal. However, we want to bring to your attention possible shortcomings in the draft Growth Management Ordinance as proposed as we believe it may conflict with preemptive provisions of the California state law and case law defining the permissible boundaries of land use regulation. Those areas of concern include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. In practical and legal effect, the proposed Growth Management Ordinance is a "citywide moratorium" of indefinite duration, violative of the preemptive state law contained in Government Code Section 65858 regulating the duration and content of such measures. 2. Alternative measures less onerous than a "citywide moratorium" have not been exhausted which might alleviate perceived threats to the public health, safety or welfare. 3. The findings and conclusions contained in the proposed Growth Management Ordinance are not supported by substantial evidence and facts in the record justifying the extreme measures being proposed applicable to all areas of the City and to all stages and types of development. 4. As drafted, said Growth Management Ordinance would conflict with some of the goals and policies of the Carlsbad General Plan. 5. The burden of proof required by California Evidence Code Section 669.5 with respect to limiting of building permits has not been sustained. 6. The ordinance as proposed could be confiscatory in application to particular properties constituting inverse condemnation inasmuch as the practical effect of the ordinance is to preclude any and all beneficial use and enjoyment of private property for an indefinite period of time. 7. The ordinance may violate substantive and procedural due process by failing to give actual notice to all affected property owners and an opportunity to be heard. LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS To the Mayor, Members of the City Council and the City Clerk June 10, 1986 Page 3 8. The City may be equitably estopped from precluding completion of projects in view of the substantial good faith reliance on prior City approvals. 9. The Ordinance may violate the vested rights of property owners to proceed with projects where they have relied in good faith on validly issued City permits and discretionary approvals and incurred substantial expenditures or construction. 10. The ordinance may violate Government Code Section 65961 by impermissibly imposing additional conditions or exactions following tentative map approval. 11. The ordinance contravenes in many instances express findings made in granting approvals with respect to individual projects, as to which mitigation measures and other exactions were imposed to insure consistency with the General Plan and other goals of the City. 12. The ordinance may violate Government Code Section 66477 by requiring both the dedication of land and payment of fees for parks. 13. The proposed ordinance may require a project construct supplemental improvements, without the mandatory reimbursement agreements required by Government Code Section 66485. 14. The proposed ordinance may violate Government Code Section 65913.2 by imposing conditions that could interfere with the construction of housing for all economic segments of the community, adversely impact the housing needs of the region and impose higher standards and criteria for private improvements compared to comparable publicly financed improvements. 15. With respect to those projects for which tentative map approval has already been obtained, the ordinance may violate Government Code Section 66474.2 by imposing new conditions not in effect at the time of application for the map. 16. The new "fees" may in fact be a special tax violative of Article XIII of the California Constitution. 17. The ordinance as proposed may be inconsistent with provisions of the California Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Sections 65920 et seq.) as well as the California Environmental Quality Act by indefinitely delaying and postponing analysis and review of land use and permit applications. LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS To the Mayor, Members of the City Council and the city Clerk June 10, 1986 Page 4 Kaiser Development Company and The Koll Company, being quality commercial industrial developers desire their projects to make positive contributions to the Carlsbad community now and into the future. While they believe that a sound and reasonable growth management program will contribute significantly to the legitimate needs and goals of the City, the extremely fast track being applied to the drafting and implementation of the proposed Growth Management Ordinance makes appropriate and balanced input extremely difficult, if not impossible. The timing and pace of processing this ordinance has placed tremendous strain on the Council and the City Staff and we all commend the dedication and efforts of all involved. Kaiser Development Company and The Koll Company respectfully request a comprehensive industrial/commercial exemption be added to allow projects to be built and occupied by quality, clean business and industry for the benefit of the whole community. Very truly yours, Ronald W. Rouse Professional Corporation of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps Attorneys for Kaiser Development Company and The Koll Company RWR:jm cc: The Koll Company cc: Kaiser Development Company cc: Frank Aleshire, City Manager LAW OFFICES OF DAUBNEY AND BANCHE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS WILLIAM H. DAUBNEY AREA CODE ©19 NICHOLAS C. BANCHE BIO MISSION AVENUE. SUITE 2OI TELEPHONE 722-1831 POST OFFICE BOX 39O DCEANSIDE. CALIFORNIA 9E054 June 9, 1986 Office of the Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mayor and Council: This letter is being written on behalf of Oakley G. Parker, a property owner on the north shore of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. I am sure you will recall the situation with regard to his property, involving what amounted to a moratorium in excess of 7 years, and of a relatively recent change from commercial designation to low density residential. The purpose of this letter is to respectfully ask that an exemption be fashioned for small lot subdivisions, within the northwest quadrant, even if the maps involving same cannot be finaled on or before July 20, 1986. The reason for this request is that it is indeed harsh that the Parker property should once again be subject to a moratorium, given the fact of what has happened to it during the last 8 or 9 years, and also in light of the fact that the property is in the northwest quadrant. Secondly, the property is currently in escrow, and the potential buyer, a Mr. Olson, is diligently pursuing a parcel map. Unfortunately, there was a 2 or 3 week delay, when no processing was occurring because Staff was under a Council direction to cease all work, except that involved with the Growth Management Plan. That processing ban was lifted as a result of your special meeting which occurred June 6th, but that 2 or 3 week delay will make it impossible for Mr. Olson to final the parcel map by July 20th. Certainly every equity lies with establishing an exemption for this property, as it has most assuredly, suffered enough. Office of the Mayor and City Council June 9, 1986 Page 2 Please also consider that the property presents an infill opportunity, and given the fact that its development would involve but minor subdivision, very little Planning Staff time would be involved. Should you require further elaboration on any point raised in this letter, please don't hesitate to make inquiry. Respectfully, LAS C. BANCHE NCB:jp cc: Oakley G. Parker LAW OFFICES OF DAUBNEY AND BANCHE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS WILLIAM H. DAUBNEY AREA CODE 619 NICHOLAS C. BANCHE . Sl° MISSION AVENUE. SUITE 2OI TELEPHONE 722-ieSI POST OFFICE BOX 39O OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA 9E054 June 9, 1986 Office of the Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mayor and Council: The undersigned represents K N Partners, applicants with regard to the Alicante View Apartments, the development plan of which was approved by Council Action on May 13, 1986. The purpose of this letter is to ask for a clarification regarding the status of the project in light of the current processing/construction restraints which exist in the City of Carlsbad. There are two factors which I would ask that you consider regarding this project. The first is that it cannot receive a final map, since a final map is not a requirement under your ordinances. The site development plan is the final discretionary approval involved in the project. Accordingly, it would seem to me that it should be treated as a project that has received its final map, i.e., final approval. The only advantage to that status would be that it would be permitted to process a grading permit, grade the site, and be ready to receive building permits at such time as the City's phasing plan was adopted. This seemed to be both the concern and the intent at time of approval. The second factor which I would respectfully ask that you consider is that Planning Staff time is what was at a premium, not Engineering Staff time. This project will make no further demands on Planning Staff, and will make but minor demands on the Engineering Staff, most of the work being done by outside consultants. Office of the Mayv. and City Council June 9, 1986 Page 2 It never was the intent of the Council to place a limitation on the right to proceed up to the building permit phase. By halting this project from all further applications, it simply adds some 5 or 6 months of delay at such time as the current constraints are lifted, whether that relief comes in November, December or a year from now. Please keep in mind that the project involved is an infill project in an area that has been classified as "urbanized." It has always been the policy of the City to encourage infill development in urbanized areas. Given the fact that this project does not require Planning Staff time, and very little Engineering Staff time, it would seem that to prevent this project from procesing up to the issuance of building permits would have no effect other than to cause needless hardship to the applicant. Respectfully submitted NICHOLAS C. BANCHE NCB:jp cc: K N Partners WILLIAM H. DAUBNEY NICHOLAS C. BANCHE LAW OFFICES OF DAUBNEY AND BANCHE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 8>° MISSION AVENUE. SUITE 2OI POST OFFICE BOX 39O OCEANSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92054 AREA CODE 619 TELEPHONE 723-1881 June 9, 1986 Office of the Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mayor and Council: The undersigned represents Foote Development Company, Inc., developers of the Falcon Hills residential development located in Zone 2 in Carlsbad. The property is generally south of Elm Avenue and north of Tamarack. It lies in an area of the City where the only public facility deficiency is the extenison and connection of Elm Avenue east of El Camino Real. The cost of such extension/connection is no more than $200,000.00 to $300,000.00. The Falcon Hills project site has been entirely graded, has completed all plan checks, all sewer and water facilities have been installed, and all public circulation requirements have been met, including those of making off-site connections of Sierra Morena to Pontiac concerning the east-west connection, and Pontiac to Tamarack concerning the north-south connection. Those connections resulted in a most uneconomical design, from the standpoint of the developer, but were requirements of the first phase, in order to satisfy legitimate circulation concerns of the City. In addition, the project has corrected an off-site water problem, again, more a concern of the City of Carlsbad than the project in question. All bonds have been posted, the developer has $10,000,000.00 hard money, in the project, and there has been a final map on part of the project. Office of the Mayor and City Council June 9, 1986 Page 2 As a matter of fact, the project is very similar to the Tamarack Point project, apparently exempt under present interpretations, because it was a "developing project" at the time of inspection. It is interesting to note that to and including May 31, 1986, Falcon Hills has incurred some $10,000,000.00 in costs, $3,258,000.00 of which have been incurred after January 31, 1986. If that does not constitute "developing", it would certainly indicate a strong interest in same. There are horror stories everywhere in the City, and rather than pick and choose among developments, the only fair solution is to establish a committee of Staff to examine these projects, and report to you based on hardship and fairness considerations. I have no doubt that under either criteria, this project would be allowed to go forward. I most respectfully ask for your consideration. Sincerely, NICHOLAS C. BANCHE NCBrjp cc: Foote Development Company ALL June 6, 1986 Carlsbad City Council % Mr. Frank Aleshire, City Manager 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: M acres, N. shore Batiquitos Lagoon, E. of 1-5 Freeway Dear Madam Chairman, Councilmembers and Mr. Aleshirei I urgently request that you consider the merits of exempting my project from the new processing; restrictions. While there are some distinctions between mine and HPI, I believe you will find the underlying justification to be similar for both projects. Preface. I purchased my property in 1959 for the purpose of developing an income to support my family. For these 2? years I have been denied this opportunity--and at extreme personal ship—by a chain of governmental obstructions, as follows* Freeway construction, severance of access til mid-'60s Proposed County Regional Park, in'60s and'70s Coastal Commission refusal to issue permits prior to LCP, 1972-1981 Carlsbad sewer moratorium Department of Fish & Game determination of wetland boundary, 1981-1983 State Lands Commission/Attorney General preparation of Boundary Line Agreement ("BLA"), 1983-1986 Carlsbad planning moratorium, 1986 Map Filed. I request to be treated as one who has filed a map. We filed a tentative map a year ago, on June 28, 1985,.. perhaps predating my neighbor*s .filing. Carlsbad would not process the map until our BLA with the State was consumated. My developer pulled the map on October 28, 1985, choosing to walk from our $220,000 investment, rather than be subject to uncertain delays and mounting expenses. There would be 3 north-shore Batiquitos maps before the City now (Sammis, Savage & HPI) were it not for the BLA compli- cations. William C. Savage • Box 773 • Rancho Santa Fe • California 92067 • 619-756-2717 Carlsbad City Council June 6, 1986 Page 2 Similar Justification as HPI and Sammis. We, too, owned land needed by the State for the restoration of Batiquitos Lagoon. Just one month ago I deeded approx- imately 1/10 of my land to the State, a) to enable Lagoon restoration/dredging, and b) to enable us to process and develop. I told the State I wanted to hold my actual deeding of land and recording of the BLA pending the receipt of my develop- ment approvals, making these a mutual condition with my development. State lands advised me by letter they required the deeding and recording by April 29, 1986. Prior to April 29, we were consulting with City staff on a specific site plan and project which I believe the City feels is meritorious. Based upon what I interpreted as assurances from the Gj-^y "that we could resubmit and process by or before July 1986, and based upon assurances from the State, I felt it would not be necessary to play "power politics" with Carlsbad by withholding my land until plan- ning approvals. Thus, I gave this sizeable parcel to the State, along with incurring a ^30,000 cash payment to part- ners to be able to deed the land free and clear. I would not have deeded this land had 1^ thought we would be denied timely processing. Compatible Exemption. The exemption being requested for the Savage property would be compatible with those of HPI and Sammis in the following particularsi All 3 properties front the N. shore of Batiquitos Lagoon; Savage property lies between Sammis and HPI properties; Savage property is only property between Sammis and HPI; Our developments are interrelated; We are in same Public Facility Zone #19 as HPI; Many facilities are inter-dependent, e.g. water, sewer, roads, etc. HPI's Pacific Rim Drive is slated to bisect Savage property; It is not likely we can make that road dedication unless we, too, can process; We are in the immediate freeway corridor, which Coastal Commission identifies for first development in the City's SW quadrant. Carlsbad City Council June 6, 1986 Page 3 An exemption for the Savage property would not be a precedent for exempting others. It would be unique in its nature; it would not be" another category" in its scope. I trust the Council will be able to find this request to be both reasonable and equitable. My sincere thanks for your consideration. Yours very truly, William C. Savage WCS/sjb / "V J. City Counsel City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Brook D. Olsen 27811 Tirante Mission Viejo, Ca. 92692 June 10, 1986 Dear Counsel Members, In March of this year I put into escrow the Parker property adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Laguan (Lot 1, Block A of Bella Vista Map in the City of Carlsbad) . I immediately began work on the Parcel Map, and in early April submitted my package for Tentative Parcel approval. Development Processing Services handled the project as it is a Minor Subdivision (little or no planning staff time was required) . Delays were encountered in engineering review and through the course of resubmitting plans no short of four times, much time was lost toward achieving tentative approval and continuing to Final Map submission and approval. Two weeks ago at the time counsel instructed staff to stop processing, my map was ready for signing by Planning, and final terms were being finalized by engineering. As of June 10, 1986, the PUD and is presently awaiting approval for Tentative Parcel Map by engineering. It is my opinion that had the City Counsel not delayed my processing I would have had sufficient time to attain a final map before July 20, 1986. With the delay, it is legistically impossible to attain final approval from engineering due to plan check turn around time. Since, however, Development Processing Services will handle this project, as it is a Minor Subdivision, it may be feasible to attain planning approval by July 20, 1986. I am developing this project to build my own home and raise my family. The remaining lots will be sold for the purpose of single family homes and the project conforms to the City's General Plan and Density Plans. Since this project conforms to the intent of the new ordinance in that the property is in the Northwest Quadrant with an existing infrastructure, an infill project of less than four units, I request an exemption from the new growth management ordinance and be allowed sufficient time to complete processing to final approval. Respectfully Submitted, Brook D. Olsen LATHAM & WATKINS CHICAGO OFFICE SEARS TOWER. SUITE 69OO CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 6O6O6 TELEPHONE (3121 S76-77OO TELECOPIER (312) 993-9767 TLX S9O77e ELN 62793271 LOS ANGELES OFFICE 5S5 SOUTH FLOWER STREET LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9OO7I-2466 TELEPHONE (2131 485-1234 TELECOPIER 1213) 68O-2O9S TLX S9O773 ELN 62793268 CABLE ADDRESS LATHWAT NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE 66O NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE. SUITE I4OO NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 9266O TELEPHONE (714) 7S2-9IOO TELECOPIER (7141 759-8891 TLX S9O777 ELN 62793272 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 7OI "B" STREET, SUITE 2IOO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92IOI-SI97 TELEPHONE (619) 23e~l234 TELECOPIER 019) 69G-BZB\ TLX 59077S ELN 6279327S June 10, 1986 PAUL R WATKINS (1899-19731 NEW YORK^OFFICE 437 MADISON AVENUE. SUITE 14OO NEW YORK. NEW YORK IOO22 TELEPHONE (212) 3I9-2B7O TELECOPIER 1212} 75I-4S64 TLX 5IOIOI268O ELN 62891922 - WASHINGTON. D.C. OFFICE 1333 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE., N.W, SUITE 12OO WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036-1594 TELEPHONE (2O2) S28-44OO TELECOPIER (2O2) 826-4-415 TLX 59O77S ELN 62793269 Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Proposed Growth Management Ordinance No. 9808 and Associated Negative Declaration Dear Council Members: I just recently had the opportunity to obtain the latest draft of Ordinance No. 9808 which will be considered by you at your meeting this evening. I represent Cal Fed Enterprises , the owner of a proposed residential development in Rancho Carrillo. As I have indicated to you in oral comments to the City Council at previous meetings, I am concerned that the City's various efforts to adopt a growth moratorium are legally flawed; The comments I have made at previous meetings apply equally to this proposed ordinance. Specifically, I have the following concerns: 1. The proposed ordinance does not appear to be consistent with the Government Code provisions specifying deadlines for review and approval projects. Gov't. Code Section 65920. The City Council's decision to refuse to process permits will not comply with the deadlines set forth in this section of the Government Code. 2. The decision to delay approval of building projects, and to practically restrict new development in the next few years as a result, is not to LATHAM & WATKINS Members of the City Council, City of Carlsbad June 10, 1986 Page 2 consistent with the City of Carlsbad's General Plan. The requirements for the provision of public facilities contained in the proposed ordinance are not consistent with the requirements for public facilities set forth in the General Plan. 3. The finding that a moratorium is needed to ensure adequate public facilities is not supported by substantial evidence because the City currently has a public facilities financing plan in effect, and substantial funds accumulated for the construction of additional public facilities. Additionally, because of this existing program for the provision of public facilities, and substantial accumulated funds, there does not exist substantial evidence to support the finding that any new building in the City will adversely affect the public health and safety at this time. 4. The proposed ordinance does not adequately consider the regional general welfare because no investigation or findings were made regarding the effect of a moratorium on development in surrounding communities which may be forced to bear the brunt of San Diego County's needs for new housing, commercial and industrial facilities, given that Carlsbad has ceased to provide them at this time. 5. The proposed negative declaration is inappropriate because the proposed ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment because it will force additional growth on surrounding areas which are not protected by a growth moratorium, and which will be forced to provide Carlsbad's share of the need for new housing, commercial and industrial facilities. This additional growth in surrounding areas will result in a significant impact on the environment. Additionally, by delaying, disrupting, or otherwise preventing the completion of certain planned and pending developments in Carlsbad, necessary public facilities will not be provided by project developers. While the proposed moratorium may eliminate, for the moment, increased population and travel from sites within Carlsbad, many surrounding areas will continue to grow and will rely upon the City of Carlsbad's facilities and roads. Specific evidence of this fact was presented to the cwgOOS LATHAM & WATKINS Members of the City Council, City of Carlsbad June 10, 1986 Page 3 City Council in letters from several current developers and testimony at prior City Council meetings , including the June 5, 1986 letter from La Costa Ranch Company. This delay or disruption in public facilities used by surrounding areas will be a significant impact on the environment . 6. Generally, the finding that the proposed moratorium is needed to ensure adequate public facilities for development in Carlsbad is not supported by substantial evidence in that the City Council retains the authority to impose whatever requirements it believes are necessary on individual projects as they seek discretionary approval, including the imposition of conditions to provide all needed public facilities for those specific developments. Because the City Council has the legal authority to impose all necessary requirements on a case-by-case basis, after appropriate planning staff and environmental review, there exists no need for a moratorium and no basis for a finding that the City is unable to provide public facilities for these developments. Instead, the moratorium is simply an effort to circumvent the Government Code provisions requiring the City Council to make a decision on a project, including the imposition of all necessary conditions to provide public facilities, within the statutorily mandated time limits. I hope to have the opportunity to supplement these comments orally at your meeting this evening, but I understand that public comments may be limited by the City Council and I may not have an opportunity to do so. Sincere! Christ/pher W. Garrett of LATHAM & WATKINS cc: Mr. Rick Jack Mr. Barry Bender cwgOOS US-H •Jll U.S. HOME CORPORATION WESTERN LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 2421 E. Southern • Suite 3 « Tempe. Arizona 85282 • (602) 838-4178 June 9, 1986 The Honorable Mary Casler/ Mayor City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor easier: We/ being the developers of a 70 unit residential tract (CT-85-8PUD) in Carlsbad have/ as you must know/ been very upset over recent developments within the City. We have patiently waited for the completion of a phasing plan that would free up our project/ which is clearly infill/ for development. This scenario will now not take place. However/ it appears that in some situations certain exemptions will be granted. We have been through three engineering plan checks (and require- little staff time to complete)/ all conditions of approval have been or are being satisfied/ we purchased the property with an approved tentative map (date of tentative 4-10-85)/ the project is relatively small/ failure to receive a final approval would result in severe financial hardship and we are conditioned on major roadway improvements to Melrose Avenue and Alga Road which will eleviate pressure on Rancho Santa Fe Road. We certainly don't hold any leverage over the City relating to major improvements but for all the aforementioned reasons we deserve the same consideration as the larger developers. Thank you for your consideration/ Very truly yours/ f RPORATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Steven Ludlow Sr. Vice President SL/rc cc: Councilwoman Kulchin Councilman Bettine Mr.Martin Orenyak Councilman Chick Mr. Frank Alshire City Attorney Councilman Lewis Mr.Michael Holzmiller HUGHES INVESTMENTS SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT WILLIAM W. HUGHES, «TB. June 6, 1986 City of -> CARLSBAD! ***' Carlsbad. CA Mr. Martin Orenyak Community Development Director CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mr. Orenyak: RE: Application for Building Permit North County Plaza (SP-187) Please be advised that we have applied to the Building Department for an application for a building permit with respect to the subject project and have submitted all required documentation and materials which will permit the City to issue that permit. As you may know, our discretionary approval for the subject property (Ordinance No. 9662) requires that this building permit be issued prior to July 5, 1986. It is critical, therefore, that this permit be issued as soon as possible. We request that the City issue the permit immediately or advise us as soon as possible if it believes anything further is required. We appreciate your attention in this matter. Very truly yours, HUGHES NORTH COUNTY ASSOCIATES William W. Hughes, Jr. cc: Daniel Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney Mary Casler, Mayor Frank Aleshire, City Manager City Council Members: Ann Kulchin Mark Pettine Richard Chick Claude Lewis WWH/tes TWO CORPORATE PLAZA, SUITE 25O • P. O. BOX 87OO • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9266O • (71*) 759-9531 AYLWARD, KINTZ, STISKA WASSENAAR & SHANNAHAN A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2IOO CENTRAL SAVINGS TOWER 7855 IVANHOE AVENUE 225 BROADWAY LA JOLLA,CALIFORNIA 92037 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92 IOI (619) 234-1966 TELEX: 910-335-1500 TELECOPIER: (519) 235-1403 June 10, 1986 Honorable Mayor and City Council of City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Proposed Growth Management Program City Council Hearing on June 10, 1986 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: I represent Vernon Savings & Loan Association ("Vernon"), the lender and developer of property located in the Calavera Hills Master Plan Area. We oppose adoption of the proposed Growth Management Ordinance in its present form, primarily because of its significant impact on developments already in process. My client has obtained tentative map approvals for two villages within Calavera Hills, Villages Q and T. Vernon was prevented from processing a final map for these villages because of the moratorium ordinance. However, we were advised by City staff that the expiration date of the tentative maps would be extended by the six-month period the moratorium was in effect. We were also advised that a final map could be processed and approved after a local facilities plan had been approved. Vernon has prepared and submitted a local facilities plan, but staff has refused to process the plan. The Growth Management Ordinance provides that a final map based on a previously approved tentative map may be processed and approved without a local facilities plan, but only after approval of the City-wide facilities plan [Section 21.90.030]. However, staff has estimated that it will take approximately one year to prepare and approve the City-wide plan, and there is no provision in the Growth Management Ordinance tolling the expiration date of existing tentative maps for the period required to meet this condition. In fact, the Ordinance provides that no extension of such an expiration date will be granted until a local facilities plan has been approved [Section 21.90.032]; but a local facilities plan cannot be processed until the City-wide plan has been approved first AYLWARD, KINTZ, STISKA WASSENAAR & SHANNAHAN A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDINO PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Hon. Mayor and City Council of City of Carlsbad June 10, 1986 Page 2 [Section 21.90.030(f)]. In short, the Ordinance appears to be drafted to ensure that final maps cannot be obtained based on existing approved tentative maps. The developer has a right to obtain City processing and approval of a final map subject only to conditions imposed on an approved tentative map [California Government Code Section 65961; Youngblood v. Board of Supervisors, 22 Cal.3d 644 (1978)]. In addition to the requirement that a City-wide facilities plan be adopted prior to approval of a final map based on an existing tentative map, the Growth Management Ordinance also requires that a final map be consistent with the City-wide facilities plan and the applicable local facilities plan. These provisions authorize the City to impose additional conditions as a result of those plans which were not imposed on the tentative map, contrary to applicable law. Vernon does not object to the purpose and intent of the growth management program. However, we believe it unfairly impacts projects which have already proceeded under City rules previously in effect, at considerable cost and expense to the developer. The Growth Management Ordinance, in sweeping fashion, requires all projects (with a few very limited exceptions) to begin again under a new set of rules, regardless of the position of each project in the development process. Everyone must wait at least one year until the new City-wide rules are identified, and longer if a local facilities plan is also required. We urge the City Council to permit existing projects to proceed under reasonable terms and conditions consistent with approved tentative map conditions. We also urge the City Council to automatically extend the expiration dates of approved tentative maps for the time period during which final map processing is prohibited, either prevented by the moratorium or by further delays pursuant to the Growth Management Ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Ellen B. Spellman For the Firm EBS:1739M cc: City Clerk Planning Department Mr. Richard A. Little Mr. Charles W. Christensen DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS CONSORTIUM June 10, 1986 Honorable Mayor & City Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Honorable Mayor & City Council Members: Under the provisions of Ordinance 9791, CT 85-39/PUD 97 (Laurel Tree) was permitted to continue to process. As a part of processing a determination was made that a focused EIR was required. It was to be done bv an outside consultant at no expense to the City. It was our understanding that when the City Council limited expenditure of staff time for processing, it allowed consultant processed items to proceed. In the interim, we have been advised that this is not the case unless a consultant has been contracted by the City. It is somewhat difficult to understand how this can occur in the absence of an amendment to Section 2, Paragraph 4 of Ordinance 9791. We understand the need to free the staff of major time demands. However, the amount of staff time required to allow originally exempt project EIR's to proceed is minimal. Once consultant selection is complete, a miniscule amount of staff time is required prior to actual processing of the document. In fact, Mr. Orenyak's memo to the City manager of June 2, 1986 notes on page 2, 1) D) that EIR's and special projects may proceed where a consultant is already under contract with the City. Therefore, it is requested that lanauaqe be added to section 21.90.030 that would permit consultant selection and EIR preoaration to proceed on projects identified in Exhibit B to Ordinance 9791. Thank you for your consideration, ^aspectfully, :k E. Henthorn IEH:cr 2892 JEFFERSON • P. O. BOX 2143 • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 • (619) 434-3135 1 " C< HENRY WORLEY ASSOCIATES CIVILENGINEERING D SURVEYING D PLANNING JUNE 9, 1986 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 ELM AVE. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS: ON THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1986 THE COUNCIL HELD A WORKSHOP MEETING DURING WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING FREEZE WAS DISCUSSED. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT NO FORMAL ACTION WAS TAKEN, HOWEVER A LIST OF PROJECTS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WAS PROPOSED TO BE EXEMPTED. THE BIRTCHER PROJECTS, PALOMAR OAKS C.T. 80-38 AND PALOMAR OAKS 11 C.T. 82-4, WERE NOT INCLUDED ON THE LIST/FURTHER INQUIRY WITH CITY STAFF REVEALED THAT ALL PROJECTS WHICH HAVE RECORDED FINAL MAPS ARE ALSO EXEMPT BUT WERE NOT INCLUDED ON THE LIST. WE WOULD APPRECIATE FORMAL VERIFICATION OF THE EXEMPTION OF THE BIRTCHER PROJECTS AT THE FORMAL COUNCIL HEARING ON TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1986. SINCERELY, L HENRY L. WORLEY, PRESIDENT HENRY WORLEY ASSOCIATES 7875 Convoy Court D Suite A-2 D San Diego, California 92111 D (714) 571 -7728 Jack Peek Vice President June 9, 1986 Mayor Mary easier City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: SDP 86-3, Rancho La Costa Plaza Honorable Mayor easier: With respect to the proposed City Ordinance No. 9808, which is to be considered by the City Council on Tuesday evening, June 10, it is my understanding that our application No. SDP 86-3, Rancho La Costa Plaza, will continue to be processed. The final map, designating this site at the corner of La Costa Blvd and Rancho Santa Fe Road as commerical, was approved on February 24, 1983, prior to our acquisition of the property. Negotiations for the dedication of portions of our property to the City have been under way since May 1985. We have agreed to dedicate an 18 foot wide strip of property along Rancho Santa Fe Road to accommodate the widening of that street. On March 14, 1986 we submitted documents for site plan review and on May 15 and May 20 we met with Clyde Wickham (Engineering) and Nancy Rollman (Planning) respectively, for staff review. All staff comments are being integrated into our plans and we anticipate a resubmittal for final staff review on Thursday, June 12. Since the construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road is already under way, but at a less than ultimate width, we have instructed our engineers (Rick Engineering) to expedite their work so that the road can be built to its final ultimate width. Roger Ball of Rick Engineering met with Dave Hauser of the City on this matter and it is our understanding that your engineering department is preparing the deed documents necessary for the property dedication. commorwealth dei/elopment 1O675 sorrento /alle/ road, suite 2OO, san diego, ca 92121 619 455 79OO Mayor easier June 6, 1986 Page Two We are prepared to proceed with our project and the street widening as soon as approvals can be obtained. I am taking the liberty of enclosing a sketch of our proposed building design. I hope that you will feel, as we do, that Rancho La Costa Plaza will be an asset to the community. If I can provide any additional information, I will be happy to do so. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, IE COMMONWEALTH COMPANIES, INC. H. Peek JHP:j j Encl. --:-- cc: Mr. Bud Lewis, Councilmember Mr. Richard Chick, Councilmember Mr. Mark Pettine, Councilmember Ms. Ann Kulchin, Councilmember Mr. Frank Aleshire, City Manager Mr. Vincent Biondo, City Attorney Ms. Aletha Rautenkranz, City Clerk i .,4, ' SEAFARMS WEST Mailing Address Shellfish Specialists P-O- Box 1540Carlsbad, CA 92008 June 6, 1986 Phone (619) 438-2444 HAND DELIVERED The Honorable Mary Casler and City Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Madame and City Council Members: Re: Growth Management and Commercial Development -- A Roadside Shellfish Stand On Wednesday, June 4, 1986, I made a presentation to your Planning Commission and gave them a letter with a copy to you (another copy is attached). It regarded commercial development in general and in particular, our desires to have a very modest roadside stand to sell products that we grow in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The previous week, the Planning Commission approved our request for a zone amendment which would allow the sale of aquaculture products grown on-site. On Wednesday, the Commission exempted commercial projects in the City's northwest quadrant from the development moratorium. However, at your meeting of last night, you adopted Marty Orenyak's letter, which allowed commercial project processing only if the projects had a scheduled meeting. We do not have a meeting sched- uled for our needed CUP, even though we made a formal submission in January and paid our application fee. We would like you to adopt the Commission's action, especially in the case where no public services are affected. That is, commer- cial projects in the northwest quadrant should be allowed to proceed if they make no significant demands on City and other agency services. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to making a brief presentation to your body next week. Richard D. Glenn, Ph.D President and Farm Manager RDG:lw Attachment Farm Location — Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Carlsbad, California BU-IIMC'OMMLMni-lS June 4, 1986 F. D. Aleshire City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear We recognize that the growth situation in Carlsbad has become critical and that far-reaching or unresolved land use decisions are being delayed. We, however, strongly urge you to exempt projects that (i) have all discretionary approvals, (ii) have a recorded final map with conditions involving specific elements of infrastructure and (iii) have minimal impact on growth and make a positive contribution to the infrastructure of the community . A complete and absolute suspension of all development in Carlsbad will put needed roads, parks, schools and a host of other community facilities in jeopardy. Additionally, it will erode the tax base of the community. While you are justified in managing growth in Carlsbad, we feel you would be derelict in your duties if it came at the expense of basic community needs. We, at Brehm Communities, have worked long and hard to have our apartment project (SDP 84-8A) located at the corner of Corintia Street and Xana Way exempted from the moratorium created by urgency ordinance #9791 . We feel it rightfully should have been excluded from the moratorium in the first place, and certainly should not be subjected to any further delays . The total impact of the 100 units will be minimal . It has all discretionary approvals. It has a final map with conditions of infrastructure not only identified but under construction or completed. Included in these are such major roads as Alga Road, Melrose Avenue and Corintia Street . Additionally, a PFF Agreement and an agreement to pay increased fees are in effect. This project clearly provides a disproportionate contribution to the infrastructure of the area . Its growth impact is negligible and will require no further interaction with the Planning Department. We specifically ask you to allow this project to proceed. We feel it is only fair and equitable that you allow us to proceed. Our efforts initiated over a year ago, to improve a preapproved project were continuously thwarted for an extraordinary length of time. More restrictive design and IKI-MMCOMMLMTIKS increased fees and conditions have all been accepted by Brehm. An exemption will allow us to finally complete this project; provide the important roads conditioned with the project and complete our commitment to the infrastructure of the community. Very truly yours, BREHM COMMUNITIES Forrest W. Brehm President FWB:mcd HUGHES INVESTMENTS SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT WILLIAM W. HUGHES. JH June 6, 1986 Members of the City Council CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: Proposed Amendment Establishing Growth Management Program: Exemption for North County Plaza (SP-187; Ordinance No. 9662) Dear Council Members: As the developer of North County Plaza, a 17.6 acre commercial center immediately adjacent to and west of the Camino Real shopping center ("the project"), please be advised as follows: The project was approved in 1983 (Ordinance No. 9662). Despite all the necessary street work, curbs, gutters, etc., being complete (and payable by assessment against this project) commencement of this project requires us to complete further infrastructure beneficial to the City and not required by our project including improvement to Monroe, Jefferson, Marron, and Improvements to Plaza Camino Real/City Parking Authority parking lot. We have applied for and submitted all of the documents and materials necessary for the first of the building permits to be issued and we are now waiting for that building permit to be issued today or tomorrow. The further development of this project will not require any additional approvals regarding public facilities nor will it require any significant time on the part of the Planning Department staff. This project is not a burden in the City's infrastructure and services, but benefits them. All planning department review has been completed. The mitigation measures have been completed at substantial past expenditures to us through our involvement in the Buena Vista Lagoon Restoration Project. Completion of our project provides substantial sales tax revenue dollars to the City. Issuance of the first building permit will trigger conveyance of a valuable strategic property to the California Department of Fish and Game for the addition of facilities to the Buena Vista Lagoon much desired by the California Coastal Conservancy, Department of Fish and Game, the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation and the City of Carlsbad. TWO CORPORATE PLAZA, SUITE 25O • P. O. BOX B7OO - NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9266O • (71*) 759-9531 Members of the City Council CITY OF CARLSBAD Page Two June 6, 1986 Our project would already be under construction, or perhaps complete, without previous impediments to our processing created by the City of Carlsbad. Accordingly, we would appreciate it if you would take care in considering the proposed ordinance to assure that this project is exempt from any moratorium established. Obviously, any delay at this critical point of construction would be very costly to us without any benefit accruing to the public. Incidentally, we are requesting a non-city required adjustment which may either take the form of a boundary line adjustment or a parcel map or minor subdivision map approval (normally ministerial actions) and therefore we suggest the ordinance also include the following exemption: Section 21.90.030 (c)(5) should be added reading as follows: "(5) Subdivision and parcel map approvals and boundary line adjustments which are consistent with and Incidental to a final approval contemplated by (provision excluding projects which have received final development permits)". If you have any questions or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours respectfully, HUGHES NORTH COUNTY ASSOCIATES William W. Hughes, Jr. Distribution: City Council Members: Ann Kulchin Mark Pettlne Richard Chick Claude Lewis cc: Daniel Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney Mary Casler, Mayor Frank Aleshire, City Manager Llndell Marsh, Attorney WWH/tes LOS ANGELES THIRTY-FIRST FLOOR 445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 9OO7I-I63S (213) 6IZ-7SOO SAN FRANCISCO THIRD FLOOR IOO THE EMBARCAOERO SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94IO5-I295 (4IS) 543-2700 LAW OFFICES NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER. 1CNOX 8 ELLIOTT CENTER TOWER 6SO TOWN CENTER DRIVE SUITE I2SO COSTA MESA, CA 92626-I9SI (71*) 545-327O TELECOPIER (714) 545-0238June 10, 198S WASHINGTON. D. C. SIXTH FLOOR II4O I9T_» STREET. N. W. WASHINGTON. O. C. 2OO36-6699 |2O2| 223-9IOO SACRAMENTO SUITE 3OO IOIO IITM STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 442-0238 REFER TO FILE NUMBER Vincent F. Blonde/ Jr. City Attorney City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, California Re: Proposed Ordinance to Add Chapter 21.90 to the Carlsbad Municipal Code Dear Mr. Biondo: We represent Mola Development Corporation,the asset manager for BCE Development Company, which owns over four thousand acres of undeveloped land in the City of Carlsbad. This includes areas for which tentative tract map approvals affecting more than 1200 units have already been obtained from the City. The company has requested that we bring to your attention a number of issues raised by the proposed ordinance referenced above (the "Ordinance"), which ordinance in essence would impose a construction moratorium pending further studies regarding infrastructure development within the City. Since these issues bear upon the scope and validity of the proposed Ordinance we believe that they should be adequately addressed and considered by the City Council prior to any action by it on the Ordinance. Mr. Vincent Biondo, Jr. June 10, 1986 Page 2 1. What is the authority pursuant to which the City would adopt the Ordinance? In particular/ is the City proceeding under Government Code section 65858? If the City is not proceeding under this section, what is the authority for its imposition of a moratorium on further processing of development proposals? 2. At the Planning Commission meeting on June 4, 1986, Mr. Daniel Hentschky, Assistant City Attorney, indicated in substance that it was not necessary for the City to make specific findings as to the impact of the Ordinance on the City's fair share of regional housing needs, since the Ordinance did not specifically limit the number of permits which could be issued for residential development. We presume that Mr. Hentschky*s comments were predicated in part upon the wording of Government Code section 65863.6, which section might be narrowly construed to suggest that such findings are necessary only if there is a specific limitation on the number of dwellings which can be constructed. In addition to our disagreement with such a narrow interpretation, it is our opinion that the history of section 65863.5 indicates that, in fact, such findings are required even if there is not a specific numerical limitation on the number of dwellings which can be constructed. This section was originally added as section 65863.5 by Statutes 1979, Chapter 947. In 1980, such section 65863.5 was amended by Statutes 1980, Chapter 823 to read as follows: "In carrying out the provisions of this chapter, any ordinance which operates to limit the number of housing units which may be constructed on an annual basis shall contain findings which justify reducing the housing opportunities of the region. The findings shall include all of the following: (a) A description of the city's or county's appropriate share of the regional need for housing. (b) A description of the specific housing programs and activities being undertaken by the local jurisdiction to fulfill the requirements of subdivision (c) of Section 65302. Mr. Vincent Biondo, Jr. June 10, 1986 Page 3 (c) A description of how the public health, safety and welfare would be promoted by such adoption or amendment. (d) The fiscal and environmental resources available to the local jurisdiction. With respect to a charter city, this section shall apply to any zoning ordinance adopted by such charter city." (Emphasis added.) In 1981, the Legislature renumbered section 65863.5 to its present designation. The statute which was purportedly renumbered, however, was Statutes 1979. Chapter 947, not Statutes 1980. Chapter 823. Although apparently arising from a legislative oversight, the result is that the 1979 version of this statute — which had already been superceded by the 1980 amendments — was the section which was purportedly "amended." There is no indication in the legislative record that the Legislature intended to re-amend the section so that it would read as when originally enacted. On the contrary, the 1980 amendment tracks the language found in section 65302.8 (which was adopted in 1980 by the same Chapter 823), which also requires findings regardless of whether a specific numerical lid is placed on development. We believe that even the original language of the statute requires that adequate findings be made by the legislative body to reflect that regional housing needs have been taken into account prior to the enactment of any ordinance which serves to limit the number of housing units which can be constructed. Such duty is even more strongly supported by the language under the 1980 amendments which requires such findings for "any ordinance which operates to limit the number of housing units ..." Since the proposed Ordinance would have such an effect, we believe that such findings are a statutory prerequisite to any adoption of the Ordinance by the City Council. 3. The City Council has previously approved a number of tentative tract maps, some of which are conditioned upon the completion of certain public improvements by a set date. For example, City Council Resolution No. 8169, approving of Tract Map No. CT-85-9, provides: Mr. Vincent Biondo, Jr. June 10, 1986 Page 4 "42. Within nine months after tentative map approval, developer shall have commenced construction of the easterly half of Rancho Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and Mission Estancia. Construction of these improvements to Rancho Santa Fe Road shall be completed within fifteen months from the approval of the tentative map." We request verification that the "tolling" provisions of the Ordinance will suspend such obligations of the developers to either commence or complete any such public improvements upon which tentative maps are contingent, during the period that the moratorium imposed by the Ordinance is in effect. If such obligations are not tolled, we wish to be informed of the statutory or other authority upon which the City bases its asserted power to require the development of public facilities which are of no benefit to the developer. See, Government Code §§66486, 65909; Furey v. Citv of Sacramento (E.D. Cal. 1984) 592 F.Supp.463, 473 (". . . these cases uniformally stand for the unexceptional proposition that a local government cannot, consistent with the Takings Clause, require a particular segment of the community to bear the costs of civic improvements unless the segment so burdened is specially benefited by the improvement and there is a rational relationship between the benefits conferred and the costs imposed."). 4. Along the same lines, what mechanism does the City intend to implement to compensate developers who have already installed public improvements or have made dedications for public purposes, yet who will be precluded from making any use of such improvements or property for an indeterminate period of time? 5. Is it the contention of the City that, once a tentative tract map has been approved with conditions, it has the authority to condition the issuance of final map approvals or building or development permits upon the payment of additional fees or the satisfaction of additional conditions? We note for your consideration Government Code sections 65961 and 66473, which appear to specifically prohibit the exaction of such additional fees or conditions once a tentative map has been approved. Mr. Vincent Biondo, Jr. June 10, 1986 Page 5 If the City agrees that such fees or conditions cannot be validly exacted, what is the rationale justifying the City's refusal to process final maps and development permit applications while the City studies the desirability of assessing such additional fees or conditions for future developments? If staff shortage is the alleged rationale for not processing final maps, why does the City not retain outside consultants pursuant to Government Code Section 66451.1, if developers offer to pay for such consultants? 6. Is it the contention of the City that it has the right to assess fees in addition to those specifically provided for by statute (see, e.g., Government Code §§ 66451.2, 66477, 66478, 66479, 66483, 66484)? If so, what is the statutory or other basis for such contention? 7. Is it the contention of the City that it has the right to exact fees or other conditions which are not provided for by ordinance at the time that a tentative map is filed? If so, what is the statutory or other basis for such contention? As previously noted, if the City agrees that such fees or conditions cannot be validly exacted, what is the rationale justifying the City's refusal to process final maps and building permit applications while the City studies the desirability of assessing such additional fees or conditions for future developments? 8. The City is statutorily required to provide for and implement its fair share of regional housing needs. (Gov. Code §§ 65580 et seq.) Such housing needs include making provision for adequate housing for all economic segments of the community. Under the Ordinance, only single family dwellings occupied by their owners and redevelopment projects would be exempt from the building moratorium. Has the City determined the stock of available properties which might fall within these exemptions, and are such properties sufficient to satisfy the City's housing obligations during the period the moratorium would be in effect? Where may one obtain the studies done by the City to support this determination? Mr. Vincent Biondo, Jr. June 10, 1986 Page 6 Although not exhaustive, the above points do address certain of the significant issues raised by the Ordinance, and we request that these issues be properly addressed and considered by the Council in its deliberations on the Ordinance, Very truly yours, fames E. Erickson JAMES E. ERICKSON, INC. Of Counsel to NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER KNOX & ELLIOTT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SOUTHWEST June 11, 1986 To: Mayor Casler and Members of the City Council From: The Roll Company and Kaiser Development Company Re: Proposed Additional Amendment to Draft Growth Management Ordinance for Industrial/Commercial We sincerely appreciate your favorable action last evening in fully exempting all industrial/commercial projects currently in processing with the City. We understand that it is your intent to also fully exempt the ultimate buyer of industrial lots in our parks so that the*y^ can also fully process. In order to accomplish this in conjunction with your other action, we request you also adopt the following language only slightly modified (as shown by the deletion) from the City Attorney's Memorandum to the City Council dated June 6, 1986 at page 2, paragraph 4(e) and add it as a new subdivision (9) of subsection (c) of Section 21.90.030 to read as follows: "(9) DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND BUILDING PERMITS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS ON LOTS LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PROCESSED AND APPROVED AS AN INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL PROJECT ANB-FeR-WHi6H-A-FiNAfe-MAP-HA6-BBBN-APPReVBB-PRf6R-?e-JHfc¥-2eT ±986." If you have any questions, we welcome the opportunity to answer them for you at tonight's continued meeting. Sincerely, Kaiser Development Company and The Koll Company cc: Vincent Biondo, Jr., City Attorney Frank Aleshire, City Manager A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation 2121 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD. SUITE 201. PO BOX 308. CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA y<:OGtt-j060 TEi EP! lONt iM •• l -' - ' RANCHO CALIFORNIA. CA/HAWAII KAI. HI/KAISER CENTER. OAKLAND. CA/INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES-WESTERN STATES/KAISER ALUMINUM HEAL ESTATE FACILITIES-WORLDWIDE .' C -j THE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT June 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor easier and Carlsbad City Councilmembers City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Construction Easement for Batiquitos Lagoon Dear Mayor easier and Members of the Council: HPI Development Company is prepared to immediately execute and deliver to the City of Carlsbad a construction easement over the wetlands portion of the HPI property (not including Area 32, and otherwise incorporating all of the agreed upon wetlands of which a legal description is currently in preparation) so that the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Plan may proceed to implementation. This easement should not be recorded until such time as implementation of the Enhancement Plan is ready to proceed. In consideration of this immediate grant of easement, the City of Carlsbad will allow continued processing of the Pacific Rim Master Plan, Phase I Tentative Map, the Site Plan for commercial development and the LCP amendment. Processing will also proceed and be completed with respect to the Environmental Impact Report. HPI may also proceed to and actually commence construction of the golf course and first phase commercial portions of the Pacific Rim Project, assuming that necessary approvals of the items mentioned previously are achieved. Processing of these items will move forward with the City in anticipation of adhering to a proposed Planning Commission hearing date of July 23, 1986, and a proposed City Council hearing date of August 19, 1986. Minor variation in those hearing dates may occur, but both the City and HPI will attempt to adhere to them. Building permits for the golf course and Phase I commercial would be issued upon approval of plans and specifications therefore. No residential building permits will be issued for the Pacific Rim Project until the citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan and the local Facilities Management Plan for the applicable zone have been adopted by the City Council. 7707 EL CAMINO REAL • CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 • TELECOPIER 619-436-6839 • 619-436-0907 The Honorable Mayor easier and Carlsbad City Councilmembers June 11, 1986 Page 2 HPI and the Pacific Rim Project will be exempted from the proposed Ordinance 9808, consistent with this letter. yours D.L. Clemens Vice President HPI Development DLC/pp 2CBN02RL.WH5 cc: Mr. Thomas J. Curnes Mr. Al Allred Christopher B. Neils, Esq. Mark A. Brunger, Esq. firTHE PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT Carlsbad Journal Decreed a Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County 3138 ROOSEVELT ST. • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation, published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next preceding the date of publication of the notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: NOTIC&OF PUBLIC HEARING — GROWTH' MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN t the City Council of the City of C May 31, 19 86 Elm Aveav*. Carltbgd. California. * at 8itM Kit,, M T«e»d*y. June 16.'.!«•», to teprt^er approval of a zone 'code am»i«lm«nt oUbtlching m • growtn abatement plan which * would be effective within the incor-1porated area of the City of Carl*-1 l 19 19 If you challenge the Zone Code AnwMflHWBt/tn court, you may be limited to rW jing only thote IMU* you »rw*Jii«e else raised at the public ha«rjng described in thi»notice, or» hi written correipond- ence delivered to the City ofCarU-,bad at 01- prior to the public' 19 19, twe I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California on _ the _ 3LLs_t _ day of _ May, 1986 _ #202-2M-985 Clerk of the Printer NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council 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 Tuesday, June 10, 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. If you have any questions regarding this matter, 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. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH: May 31, 1986 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL