HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-07-08; City Council; 8661-3; Boundaries of Local Facilities Management ZonesCIT OF CARLSBAD — AGEND SILL
TITLE: BOUNDARIES OF LOCAL FACILITIES
MTr ,,«,-« MANAGEMENT ZONES/GROWTH MANAGEMENT
MTG ORDINANCE
PEPT. PLN
cdU
I
j-ioC•Hs
cd
X!
4-1
•H
w<u
•H
)-lcd13
C
O
01co
N
(U43
60
C
•H
>Ol-i
ft
oo
(3O•H
ftO
•H
O
OO
O
<
U
Oo
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the City Council ADOPT Resolution No.
ffi» *£~ "7 t establishing the boundaries of the 25 Local Facilities
Management Zones which will then be used in implementing the Growth
Management Program.
ITEM EXPLANATION
This is a request for City Council approval of the boundaries of
the 25 Local Facilities Management Zones which will be used in
conjunction with the implementation of the Growth Management
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 9808). Approving the boundaries of the
zones is required by Section 21.90.100 of the Ordinance. Once the
boundaries are set and a Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan
is prepared (by September 20, 1986), Local Facilities Management
Plans can be submitted for any one of the zones. The Local Plan
must cover the entire zone and address in detail how and when
public facilities and services to accommodate development within
the zone will be installed and financed. The boundaries of the
zones need to be established now so that the informational data
base which is being developed by staff for the Citywide Plan can
also be formatted to analyze the Local Plans.
The boundaries of the 25 zones would be adopted as Exhibit "A" to
Resolution No. £% £"J (attached). In developing the boundaries
of the zones, staff used primarily the following considerations:
(1) Boundaries and ownership patterns with respect to
existing, pending and future master plans;
(2) Existing location and availability of public facilities
and services;
(3) Public facility and improvement relationships as they
apply to future potential development; and
(4) Consideration of developing vs. non-developing areas of
the City.
As City Council may recall, a number of written comments were
submitted regarding boundaries when the Growth Management Program
was still in outline form. Most of these had to do with the
boundaries of the Developmental Status Categories (i.e, Urbanized,
Urbanizing and Future Urbanizing) and not the 25 Local Management
Zone Boundaries. Developmental Status Categories were subsequently
deleted from the Program by the City Council. Staff reviewed all
the previous written comments and only four had to do specifically
with requesting an amendment to the boundaries of the Local
Facilities Management Zones. Copies of the four letters are
attached. Staff only made one minor change to the boundaries of
-\ .
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. F& (f I ~ /
the zones in response and that was to support the request contained
in the letter from Dale Schreiber regarding Zone 22. Staff
disagrees and cannot support the other three requests.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with establishing the
boundaries of the Local Facilities Management Zones.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration for the Growth Management Program was
approved by the City Council on June 12, 1986.
EXHIBITS
1. City Council Resolution No.
2 . Exhibit "A" - Boundaries of Local Facilities Management Zones
(a large scale copy of this exhibit has also been
distributed to Councilmembers )
3. Letters requesting amendments to Zone Boundaries (4 letters)
RESOLUTION NO. 8657
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
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES
FOR 25 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES TO BE USED
IN IMPLEMENTING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS
REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE NO. 9808 (GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE)
WHEREAS, on June 24, 1986, the City Council introduced
Ordinance No. 9808 which established a Growth Management Ordinance
for the City of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, one of the primary purposes of Ordinance No.
9808 was to prevent growth unless adequate public facilities and
services to serve the growth is provided when they are needed in a
phased and logical way; and
WHEREAS, in order to be able to adequately determine the
detailed timing and financing for public facilities and services
and to assess whether they are being provided in a phased and
logical way, it is necessary to divide the City into Local
Management Zones for planning purposes; and
WHEREAS, the boundaries of the zones have been established
based upon logical facilities and improvement planning and
relationships and the boundaries will provide a mechanism to
continually monitor the adequacy of public facilities and services
as growth occurs; and
WHEREAS, Section 21.90.100 of Ordinance No. 9808 requires
that the City be divided into Local Facilities Management Zones and
that the boundaries of the zones be established by City Council
Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, that the Boundaries of the Local
Facilities Management Zones are as shown on Exhibit "A" on file in
the Office of the City Clerk and attached hereto and that said zone
1
boundaries shall be used in the implementation of Ordinance No.
2
9808 - The Carlsbad Growth Management Ordinance.
3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
4
Carlsbad City Council held on the 8th day of July
5
1986 by the following vote, to wit:
6
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine
7
NOES: None
8
ABSENT: None
9
10
11 MARY H. CASLER, Mayor
12 ATTEST:
13
14
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City\ Clerk
15
(SEAL)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONES
MAY 1 o 19 BS
Dale L. Schreiber
1457 Crest Dr.
Encinitas, California
May 10, 1986
92024
Mayor, City Mayor's Office
City Manager, City Manager's Office
City Attorney, City Attorney's Office
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad Planning Dept.
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 REF: CASE FILE:
APPLICANT:
PUBLISH:
CT85-37-HJD-95/SDP 85-15/
CT 85-38/PUD-96/SDP 85-19
BATIQUITOS LAGOON EDUCATIONAL PAEK
PHASE 11 AND PHASE 111
Dear
May 3, 1986
OUR REF: PARCELS: 216-010-01/02/03/04/05 (Schreiber Ownership)
Properties between Carlsbad Blvd. and Sammis Property
* Cur letter dated September 10, 1985
Planning Commission Members and City Council Members:
We have discovered that after attending the Meeting on May 6, 1986 concerning
the new segment (25) development plan for the City of Carlsbad, that the Sammis
Project was to be the pilot plan for the balance of the other 24 zones. The_
above parcels are contained withinjbhe map (Zone 9) of this plan, which is the
Sammis Plan, and are divided from the Ponto Storage location.After speaking
with Michael Holzmiller's senior planner, Gary Waite, he has informed us that
this is dividing our properties and thus causing us to develop under two plans.
Our other properties which are adjacent to Ponto Drive are contained within Zone 22.
We do not wish our properties to be divided as this will cause us to develop
under two zones. We wish these to be contained in one zone and to be continuous
so as to enable us to develop the five-plus acres as one use.
We realize a road divides these properties and should not present a problem
to us. We want to stay out of the Sammis Development and would prefer to be in
Zone 22, or a zone of our own. '
For the record again ...... Sammis does not represent us in any manner concerning
our properties in his development projects.
We look forward to your response on this matter. A map to show the location
of the parcels is enclosed.
Si
)onna E. Schreiber
cc: Ponto Storage
File
5-10-86
WCM Services
Cert. Mail
EXHIBIT NO.
APPLICATION NO
California Conslal Commission
LOCATION -^
Roadside
F1GURE 2. PROJECT LOCATE AS SHOWN ON THE USGS MAP.
R-1488 2/13/85
i
!1 .
rva
«*
c=
5
Of
O
z
n
X>
n
April 23, 1986
Michael Holzniller
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CHANGES IN DEVELOPMENTAL AND COMMUNITY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20
DEVELOPMENT
CONSULTANTS
CONSORTIUM
The purpose of this letter is to formally reaupst
mentaland Community Fac11.3 tips Management
into sub-zones. 20A and
that Develop-
broken
reflect
Categori es e x i s t i n n within the current
shown graohically in Attachment I.
20B to
^the
Zone 20 be
the Developmental 5Ta"tus
zone. Our proposal is
D.C.C. has been retained by Summers Development, Cobblestone
Sea Village and Laurel Tree Investors to prepare the phasing
plan for Zone 20 of the City's Growth Management Program, this
zone is designated as a Category III, "Future Urbanizing" area.
The criteria used for Developmental Status Categorization is
attached as attachment 2.
Our analysis shows that the zone should contain two separate
categories in individual sub areas. The zone divides logically
along the east/west ridge projected as the extension of Camino
de las Ondas (see attachment 1).
The area
category
criteria
marked 20A
III area.
on the attachment should remain as a
Analysis of the area based on Category III
reveals the following:
1) There is very little or no development in proposed zone
20A other than agricultural operations. There are no
map approvals or indications of joint planning efforts.
2) The topography in the area requires it to sewer to the
south across the HPI holdings to the Batiquitos Trunk
line. This would require the construction of 3,000 to
5,000 lineal feet of line or the installation of interim
pump stations (attachment 3).
2956 Roosevelt No. 4 • P.O. Box 2143 • CarlsbaoYCA 92008V» (619) 434-3135
April 23, 1986 Page Two
Ltr: Michael Holzmiller
In addition, 20A drains to the south into the San Marcos
Creek (Batiauitos Lagoon) Water shed (attachment 4).
Finally, access into the area is extremely limited, with
only a small portion of the property directly accessible
via Poinsettia extension (attachment 5).
These statements are all easily verifiable through the
sewer, drainage and circulation plans of the City from
which the attachments are taken.
3) Only a small portion of 20A is adjacent to a Category I
area (attachment 6). Sewer and drainage services are
only available tTfrough the Category III area to the
south of this zone.
4) As a result of Coastal Commission designation, 20A became
known as Site III. This area had the least potential for
development in the near future and as a result, very
little planning was done for the future of the area.
Analysis of the four Category III criteria support a Category
III designation and separate sub area for the area shown as
20A on attachment 1.
Our analysis indicates that area 20B is closely related to
Category I, zones 4 & 5, and that the logical Development
Status Category for this area is Category II, "Urbanizing".
Our analysis of the Category II & III criteria concluded as
fol1ows:
1) There is some development in the area as evidenced by
the completed Sudan Mission Retirement facility,
Cobblestone Sea Village approvals, Seagate Village
construction, Ukegawa Industrial, Kelly Industrial Park,
Birtcher Business Center (Palomar Oaks), Sea Pines,
Lincoln Properties, and Alta Mira (see attachment 7).
2) Given the number of projects approved, under construction
or constructed, this portion of zone 20 is certainly a
newer developing area of the city.
3) Planning activities have been undertaken for the northern
portion of zone 20. The most recent coordinated
activity involved the property owners efforts to formulate
a comprehensive plan for the area. The goal of the plan is
to cluster physical development on a portion of the land
area and provide integrated development of sewer, water
and circulation facilities. This planning effort is
known as the Site II plan & program. Annexation and
rezoning were completed by the City and acknowledged as
the first step in providing for comprehensively planned
development of the area comprising most of proposed 20B.
April 23, 1986 Page Three
Ltr: Michael Holzmiller
4) Category I properties are immediately adjacent to the
north, west and northeast boundaries of the site. The
Lincoln Properties, Alta Mira and Grupe projects are
all immediately adjacent to 20B on the west. The north
and east boundaries of the site are adjacent to approved
industrial development which is currently under
construction. These areas provide logical service exten-
tions to the site (attachment 8). Facilities have been
instal1ed to provide sewer, water, drainage and circula-
tion to the northern 2/3 of the zone. Camino de las
Ondas & Lagoon Drive are completed to the zone boundary.
A sewer trunk line exists to provide service to property
along College Avenue.
As a result of adjacent service availability the Kelly,
Cobblestone and sudan Interior Missions projects have
been approved and the Summers & Laurel Tree projects are
pending.
We support the City's Growth Management Program and feel that
it is workable. Granting our request will enable us to deal
with our facilities planning efforts in a manner that will
ensure that facility requirements will be compatibly phased
with growth perepheral to our zone.
Please advise us as to when our request will be considered.
If you need additional information please contact me at your
convenience.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
'Jack Henthorn
JHrcr
cc: Mike Howes
Gary Wayne
. 7.37cs
, BIA ' - , J
ATTACHMENT 1
ZONE 20 PROPOSAL
SOURCE: CARLSBAD
Interceptor and trunk
sewer systen) Master
/3
DEVELOPMENTAL STATUS CATEGORIES
City divided into three categories based upon their overall
developmental status, level of urbanization and existing level of
adequacy of public facilities and services. The three categories
and the criteria used as a guide for each one is as follows:
I. Urbanized
1. Older developed areas of City.
2. Primarily developed or immediately contiguous or
surrounded by developed areas.
3. Additional development considered infill.
4. Public facilities basically adequate for level of
anticipated, additional development.
5. Infill requirements in terms of completing
public facilities or infrastructure.
II. Urbanizing
1. Some development in area.
2. Newer developing area of City.
3. Some level of planning already completed (i.e,
existing master plan).
4. Adjacent to or considered a logical extention of
a Category I (Urbanized) area.
III. Future Urbanizing
1. Very little or no development.
2. Isolated from existing services and facilities.
3. Isolated from existing development (i.e, not
immediately adjacent to or surrounded by a
Category I or II area (Urbanized or Urbanizing).
4. No existing master plan or existing master plan
outdated.
ATTACHMENT 2
SOURCE: GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN
ATTACHMENT 3SFWER SERVICE BASINS& TRUNK LINE LOCATION
SOURCE. Take from II
•>/
A,
/7
Developmental Status Map
CATEGORY I: URBANIZED
CATEGORY II: URBANIZING
CATEGORY III: FUTURE URBANIZING ATTACHMENT 6
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 20A &
CATEGORY I&II PROPERTIES
SOURCE: CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ,
V..._V i;
ATTACHMENT.7
SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT
RELATIONSHIP TO 20B
SOURCE: SEC #1 and add County
Assessor Records
City of Carlsbad Files '/
CHRISTOPHER
V/ H O M F S **»M E S
*17 CORPORATE PLAZA DR./SUITE 101
NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92660
May 7, 1986 (7'4> 72°"666
The Honorable Mary Casler \c"i r ,^
Mayor ^\
City of Carlsbad \
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: PARK VIEW WEST
CT 85-15
Reclassification as "In-Fill" Project
Dear Mayor Casler:
We are the owner of the 131 lots comprising the PARK VIEW WEST subdivision
(CT 85-15) which has initially been designated as a part of Zone 11 under the
Growth Management Program adopted by the City Council in its meeting on
May 6, 1986. The purpose of this letter is to confirm our support of the
recommendations and requests made in the May 5, 1986 letter to you from Timothy
N. Roberts c:: behalf of the La Costa Ranch Ccnp-*r>y. As more particularly
described in that letter, we believe our property ohould be properly included
within Zone 6 as an "in-fill" project.
This letter will also service to confirm our strong belief that the much-needed
improvements to Rancho Santa Fe Road can be best achieved through the
development of our property and the other properties described in Mr. Roberts'
letter. With the adoption of the Growth Management Program, the reclassification
of these properties as "in-fill" projects will greatly expedite the completion of
those improvements.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters with you in greater
detail should you desire to do so. Thank you for your kind attention to our
concerns.
Very truly yours,
CHRISTOPHER HOMES
Christopher C. Gibbs
President
\_>> i^ v? r i\ ^^^ - jk J^M >\ t
cc: William Hoffman ^^^f] \^On^^V^^ -
Michael S. Holzmlller 4
ATTACHMENT 3
Developmental and CommunityFacilities Management Zones
ZONES 1-6 URBANIZED
ZONES 7-12 URBANIZING
ZONES 13-25 FUTURE URBANIZING
ATTACHMENT 4
DEVELOPMENTAL AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE BOUNDARIES
For developmental and community facilities management and
planning purposes the City was divided into 25 zones. These
would be similar but on a smaller scale to what some cities call
community planning areas. The criteria that was used as a guide
for determining the boundaries of the zones was as follows:
1. Boundaries of existing master plans
2. Boundaries of pending master plans
3. Boundaries of potential future master plan areas
4. Availability of public facilities and services
5. Public facility relationships especially the City's
planned major circulation 'network
6. Special district boundaries where appropriate
7. Location with respect to the three developmental status
categories (urbanized, urbanizing and future
urbanizing)
San Diego Gas & Electric
ApriI 7, 1986
Michael J. HolzmiIler
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
Dear Mike:
We have reviewed the City's "Growth Management Program - Draft
Outline and Overview". The program provides in part that "new development ..
is not permitted in any zone until a Developmental and Community Facilities
Management Program (Phasing Program) is prepared for the zone." However,
the program does not include development projects exempted by Ordinance 9791.
A review of this ordinance reveals that these exemptions are:
a.) minor subdivisions;
b.) redevelopment permits;
c.) governmental agency projects;
d.) industrial or commercial projects; and
e.) R-1 zone variances.
The primary focus of Ordinance 9791 is to address "critical shortages in
certain public facilities including, but not limited to, circulation systems
and parks which must be remedied in order to accommodate any new residential
development." Therefore, commercial and industrial projects should be al-
lowed to proceed without requiring a zone phasing plan. This is not clear
in the draft outline. Facilities necessary to serve a non-residential
project such as sewer, water and drainage are logical requirements. The
other public facilities and services to be addressed in a zone phasing plan
are based on population and are related to residential dwelling units.
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) was surprised to learn at the
ApriI 2, 1986 workshop that its property east of 1-5 and north of Cannon
Road was included in the "Future Urbanizing" Development Status Category
(Category III). Yet at the January City Council meeting you informed the
Council that this property was included in the "Urbanized" category
(Category I). SDG&E strongly disagrees with these changes, particularly
since we were informed by your staff in January that the SDG&E property
would be exempt from the phasing program. SDG&E was not informed of the
subsequent change.
POST OFFICE BOX 1831 • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92112 • TELEPHONE: 619/696-2000
Mr. M.J. Holzmiller - 2 - April 7, 1986
The approximately 45 acre SDG&E parcel located east of I-5 and north
of Cannon Road is designated Travel Services in the Local Coastal Plan. This
land use was fully supported by City Council and staff throughout the develop-
ment and subsequent approval of the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Program
segment. The City has adopted a specific plan for all of SDG&E's property in
this area which identifies existing and proposed improvements and establishes
commercial uses on the 45 acre parcel. Additionally, Cannon Road is fully
improved along the entire frontage of the 45 acre parcel.
The proposed "Development Status Category" for the 45 acres is
"Future Urbanizing". However, based on the stated criteria, this property
belongs in the Urbanized category (Category I). It is contiguous to an exis-
ting fully developed area (Car Country) and public facilities have been
installed that are adequate for anticipated development. Development of
this property should be treated as infill since it is surrounded on three
sides by areas in the Urbanized category and is the only designated Travel
Services property in the area not yet developed. Additionally, the 45 acre
parcel should be included in Zone 3, not Zone 13. Zone 3 includes Car Country
to the south and property in the Urbanized category. Zone 13 covers property
in the Future Urbanizing category.
SDG&E believes that the remainder of its property east of the 45
acres should be included in either Category I (Urbanized) as originally pro-
posed, or in Category II (Urbanizing). This area includes the City's proposed
90 acre "Hub Park" development that will link with Macario Canyon Park which
is included in Category II. A master plan has been developed for Hub Park and
the City is currently considering development alternatives for the Macario/
Hub Park area. Hub Park occupies the majority of SDG&E's land east of the
45 acres with much of the remainder of the property being used for existing
high voltage electric transmission line structures.
In summary, SDG&E requests that the following revisions be made to
the draft Outline of the Growth Management Program:
o Clarification of the program outline to identify the exemptions
included in Ordinance 9791;
o Inclusion of SDG&E's 45 acre parcel immediately east of I-5 at
Cannon Road in Category I and Zone 3; and
o Inclusion of the remainder of SDG&E's property east of the 45
acre parcel in Category I or II.
Mr. M.J. Holzmiller - 3 -April 7, 1986
Thank you in advance for your consideration of the above revisions.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment at the workshops and at this time.
If we can provide you additional information, please call me at 696-2480.
F. Michael Dudley, Supervisor
Land Management & Redevelopment
FMDrdc
cc: P.M. Stanfield
DEVELOPMENT
CONSULTANTS
CONSORTIUM
July 7, 1986
Mayor Mary Casler
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Mayor:
D.C.C. represents Laurel Tree Investment Co, owners of property
near the Intersection of Laurel Tree and Palomar Airport Road
tn Zone 20, The property is in the Palomar Airport Influence
Area which: ts currently being studied so that appropriate Land
Use Amendments- can be proposed.
Following discussions with staff, the owners, through their
former consultant filed a request for redesignation of a
portion of their property from residential to industrial. (see
attachment) Staff has indicated that it supports the request
and will take it forward as part of the Airport Influence Area
recommendation.
Since Zone 5 contains the industrial uses in the area it is
requested that the portion of the Laurel Tree holdings considered
for redisignation as shown in the attachment - be moved from
Zone 20 to Zon-e 5,
cc: Mike Holzmiller
End os-ure
2892 JEFFERSON • P. O. BOX 2143 • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 • (619) 434-3135
City & Regional Planning Consultants -
. t , , ..April 21, 1986
Mike Howes
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Growth Management Program - redesignation from Facilities Management
(F.M.) Zone 20 to P.M. Zone 5 property adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and
future College Blvd.
Mike:
Laurel Tree Investments owns a parcel ( appox. 5.6acres) adjacent to
designated Planned Industrial properties (P.M. Zone 20). The property should be
included in zone 5 instead of P.M. Zone 20 because the parcel is impacted by the
extension of College Blvd., the proximity to adjoining industrial lands, and
impacted by noise generated by Palomar Airport.
Therefore, we request the Planning Department and the City Council
to redesigriate the parcel to P.M. Zone 5 because:
* The property adjoins existing Planned Industrial properties to
the North and West
The property is topographically separated from other land uses
to the South
* The property is influenced by Palomar Airport Operations
(Palomar Airport Master Plan findings)
* The property designated proposed for Industrial use would be
compatiable with adjoining and surrounding land use.
2956 Roosevelt Street • Post Ojfice Box 590 • Carlsbad • California 92008 • (6I9J 434-1056
PAGE TWO
GMP April 21, 1986
NOTE: We have submitted a request to amend the General Plan (Land Use)
under separate cover.
If you have further questions, please contact me at your conveience.
Respectfully,
Donald A. Agatep
CC: Laurel Tree Investments
DAA/cj
City & Regional Planning Consultants
April 21, 1986
Mike Howes
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: General Plan Land Use compatibility - Palomar Airport Influence Area
Mike:
We understand the City Council has instructed the City's Planning Staff to
review present General Plan Land Uses in the Palomar Airport Influence Area
and determine, as a consequence of that review, inconsistencies and
recommend appropriate Land Use Ammendments to the affected properties.
Laurel Tree Investments, APN 212-040-22 presently owns 6453 acres
southerly of Palomar Airport Road, westerly of existing Laurel Tree Lane
(future College Blvd.). A portion of the ownership, approximately 5.6Acres,
(Exhibit A) is continguous to property designated in the General Plan and zoned
Planned Industrial (P.I.). Additionally, the Palomar Airport Master Plan's
projected Noise Contour (CNEL) 60-db impacts the property.
As we discussed, at our meeting, April 18, 1986, we are therefore requesting
the City to redesignate that portion of our property, Exhibit "A", from the
existing Residential (RLM) designation to Planned Industrial(P.L). Our request
is justified by:
* Influence of current and projected Palomar Airport operations
on the subject property.
P The property is adjacent to existing Planned Industrial
and proposed College Blvd.
2956 Roosevelt Street • Post Office Box 590 • Carlsbad • California 92008 • (619)434-1056
.PAGE TWO
GPA . April 21, 1986
*The parcel has the same elevation as adjacent
Planned Industrial lands
* The parcel is seperated from adjoining parcels
designated for Residential Use by steep slopes to the
south, east and west.
* The proposed Land use would be consistent with noise impacts
defined by the Palomar Airport Master Plan.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated
Respectfully,
Donald A. Agatep
DAA/cj
C.C. Laurel Tree investments
JUNE 25, 1986
TO: LEE RAUTENKRANZ, CITY CLERK
FROM: MICHAEL HOLZMILLER, PLANNING DIRECTOR
WORDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE FOR JULY 8, 1986 - ADOPTION OF
PUBLIC FACILITY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND LOCAL FACILITIES ZONE
BOUNDARIES
"to consider adopting performance standards for public
facilities and service and to consider setting the boundaries of
local facilities management zones. Both of these items will be
used in conjunction with the implementation of the Growth
Management Ordinance recently adopted by City Council. The
performance standards will be used to assess and monitor whether
an adequate level of public services and facilities is being
maintained as growth occurs in the City. The local facilities
management zones will divide the City into individual areas for
purposes of public facility and services planning."
MJH:bn
LOCATION -^
Roadside
F1GURE 2. PROJECT LOCATE AS SHOWN ON THE USGS MAP.
R-1488 2/13/85
ATTACHMENT 4
DEVELOPMENTAL AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE BOUNDARIES
For developmental and community facilities management and
planning purposes the City was divided into 25 zones. These
would be similar but on a smaller scale to what some cities call
community planning areas. The criteria that was used as a guide
for determining the boundaries of the zones was as follows:
1. Boundaries of existing master plans
2. Boundaries of pending master plans
3. Boundaries of potential future master plan areas
4. Availability of public facilities and services
5. Public facility relationships especially the City's
planned major circulation 'network
6. Special district boundaries where appropriate
7. Location with respect to the three developmental status
categories (urbanized, urbanizing and future
urbanizing)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ADOPTION OF PUBLIC FACILITY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND LOCAL FACILITIES ZONE BOUNDARIES
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, July 8, 1986, to consider adopting
performance standards for public facilities and service and to consider setting
the boundaries of local facilities management zones. Both of these items will
be used in conjunction with the implementation of the Growth Management
Ordinance recently adopted by the City Council. The performance standards
will be used to assess and monitor whether an adequate level of public services
and facilities is being maintained as growth occurs in the City. The local
facilities management zones will divide the City into individual areas for
purposes of public facility and services planning.
If you challenge the performance standards and zone boundaries 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: June 28, 1986 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
Coast Dispatch Satu
*^Sa»
Citp of Cartebab
NOTICE OFPUBLIC HEARING
Adoption of Public Facility
Performance Standards and Local Facilities
Zone Boundaries
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, July 8, 1986, to consider
adopting performance standards for public facilities and service and to
consider setting the boundaries of local facilities management zones. Both of
these items will be used in conjunction with the implementation of the Growth
Management Ordinance recently adopted by the City Council. The perform-
ance standards will be used to assess and monitor whether an adequate
level of public services and facilities is being maintained as growth occurs in
the City. The local facilities management zones will divide the City into
individual areas for purposes of public facility and services planning.
If you challenge the performance standards and zone boundaries 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: June 28, 1986 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
2 — Saturday, June 28, 1986 Carlsbad Journal
Cttp of Cartebab
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
Adoption of Public Facility ——
Performance Standards and Local Facilities
Zone Boundaries
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, July 8, 1986, to consider
adopting performance standards for public facilities and service and to
consider setting the boundaries of local facilities management zones. Both of
these items will be used in conjunction with the implementation of the Growth
Management Ordinance recently adopted by the City Council. The perform-
ance standards will be used to assess and monitor whether an adequate
level of public services and facilities is being maintained as growth occurs in
the City. The local facilities management zones will divide the City into
individual areas for purposes of public facility and services planning.
If you challenge the performance standards and zone boundaries 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: June 28, 1986 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL