Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-08-04; City Council; 9122; Zone 5 - Local Facilities Mgmt Plan. f'C ** , u. , F.l? 0 * LCc '. am us. WI-, rd 2dP4 F.l nfcu as u Ui 00 u U Ga, ala) EW a, F-lu a aa cdal F.l 4&l 3Ui aF-l ua ord 2.2 acu ua) al 66 u. *G !4mo *ri -4 -4 al mu scdcd clea C aaaJ ala E u *ri E $7-2 auN Ti u a c: 00 .rl a 000 a 040 u .rl m dNm -4 R a, d -4 d aaa ac23 oa, am> riual rnuI-, - Y-l I-, z uw cc .d cd -4 3um 0 cu -4 c400 uv a Qua F: UGO a a *rl ou -ad a *rl I-, -4 u a, c3 :zg nfnfcu riku u m!=4 u z; -4 a .. r. 1 \ 2 e 0 a2 F 2 =! 0 z 3 0 0 co , DEPT. CITY P AGENTB'LL CIVOF CARLSBAD - & TITLE: ZONE 5 - LOCAL FACILITIE MANAGEMENT PLAN (LFMP-5) AB#- DEPT. PLN CITY n MTG. 8/4/87 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the Ci Council ADOPT the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution No. 7/88 APPROVING the Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5. ITEM EXPLANATION Zone 5 is the fourth Local Facilities Management Plan to be scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider this Loc Faci'lities Management Plan on 3uly 1, 1987 and following the public hearing recommended moving the plan forward for City Council approval. Zone 5 is located in the center of Carlsbad at the intersectio of the City's four quadrants and is comprised exclusively of n residential land uses including industrial, office and related commercial. Approximately one-fifth of the Zone is currently built out with about 4,000,000 square feet of building area. Approximately 7,800 employees are located in the Zone during t square feet of building area and at least 40,000 employees wit Zone 5. Of the eleven public facilities being analyzed in the Local Facilities Managment Plan for Zone 5, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the analysis of six of the facilities without additional comment. The remaining five have some issut associated with the recommendations from the Planning Commissic and are discussed in the attached memo to the City Manager datc 3uly 8, 1987. The Planning Commission is recommending approva: of these facilities as discussed in the memo. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on 3une 5, 1987 indicating that the Local Facilities Management P1 for Zone 5 is not anticipated to have any significant adverse work day, At buildout it is projected there will be 22,000,001 impacts on the environment, FISCAL IMPACT Staff time has already been utilized in preparation of this plz It is anticipated that further staff time will be necessary to monitor this and other zone plans on a yearly basis. The implementation of this plan, however, should help future fiscal planning for the City by listing future facilities and their costs. e w r.0 -. 2 .. Page Two of Agenda Bill No. 9la.a, EXHIBITS 1. Memo to City Manager, dated 3uly 8, 1987 2. City Council Resolution No. 41 853 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2668 4. Letter from Ronald Rouse of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & 5. Letter from Robert Ladwig, Rick Engineering, dated July 1 6. Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5 (Previously Scripps, dated July 1, 1987 1987, distributed) e e r.1 +. 1 ., 3ULY 30, 1987 TO: RAY PATCHETT, ACTING CITY MANAGER FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR ZONE 5 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN (LFMP-5) The Planning Commission at their meeting of 3uly I, 1987, recommended approval of the Local Facilities Mangement Plan for Zone 5. A number of the facilities analyzed had certain issues identified at the Commission meeting, and these issues are discussed below. Library The City's existing, adopted performance standard for Library does not apply in non-residential areas, however, the Planning Commission did recommend that this Zone Plan be submitted to the Library Board to see if they have comments or suggestions on this section. The Library Board reviewed the matter at their last meeting and agreed that the performance standard should not apply to Zone 5. However, they did wish to reserve the right in the future to consider a fee for non-residential use if library use by the non-residential zones increases. Parks Parks in Zone 5 would not be subject to an existing performance standard because the existing standard is based on residential development. However, the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that a local facility management fee for parks be considered for Zone 5 based on the square foot of non-residential building area. This fee would be specifically for the acquisition and improvement of parklrecreational facilities within Zone 5. Staff and Commission feel that this proposed fee a policy statement in the Parks and Recreation Element (action plan 1.1:5) which indicates that industrial developments could provide recreational facilities for their day use population. Other reasons identified for requiring this type of fee include a statewide survey which lists a number of cities that are already requiring park fees for industrial, office and commercial square footage. Those fees range in value from $.02 to $3.00 per square foot. This survey helps substantiate a current trend of providing recreational facilities within industrial areas. The trend is based on a number of positive factors involving the kinds of uses in industrial-commercia1 type areas. These include: is justified for a number of reasons. The first is that there is I e m 4 +. 1 r, Page 2 1) the fact that exercise tends to increase employee 2) recreational facilities can also act as a selling productivity: point for developers of large industrial lots/buildings; lighted ballfields as there are no homes which would be impacted; traffic trips at peak hours as many employees will remain later to utilize the facilities; 5) they would provide greater recreational safety than current activities, such as jogging or biking on industrial streets. 3) industrial areas are usually a good location for 4) recreational facilities can reduce the number of In addition, park and athletic facilities are permitted uses in the City's PI General Plan designation and the P-M Zone which makes up much of Zone 5. Staff was recommending a fee of $.50 per square foot of building space in Zone 5. The fee was derived based upon the idea of developing a sports complex to serve the area. Specifically, a multi-use sports complex was considered which would meet the recreational needs of the industrial population. The following amenities and their estimated costs are listed below: Multi-Use Sports Complex Totals 1. Land - 15 ac at $350,00O/ac $5,225,000 2. Development - 15 ac at $115,00O/ac 1,725,000 3, Community Center - 15,000 sq ft at $IOO/S~ ft 1,500,000 4. Tennis/Racquetball Facility - 20 at $25,000 ea 500 000 5. Overhead Misc. other 5% 448 750 Rounded to $9,500,000 The proposed fee recommended in the Zone 5 Plan was based upon a projected development potential of approximately 19,000,000 square feet of industrial areas. Therefore, a fee of $.50 per square feet was proposed to cover the estimated $9,500,000 acquisition and development cost itemized above. The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 identified several alternatives for addressing the need for recreational facilities in this zone. In recommending the establishment of a fee the Planning Commission felt the matter, if approved by the Recreation Commission to review the proposed fee, Based upon a Subtotal $8,975,ooo Total $9,423,750 City Council, should then be referred to the Parks and 0 * 1. c -I Page 3 more detailed analysis of facility needs, the exact amount of the fee could then be established. The Zone 5 Plan would be amended accordingly once a final decision is made. Circulation Currently all intersections and road segments within Zone 5 or impacted by Zone 5 traffic meet the adopted performance standard. With existing plus committed traffic, however, seven intersections and two road segments are projected to fall below the adopted performance standard. At buildout, nine intersections are projected to fall below the standards unless mitigation beyond that required under the current Circulation Element is installed. The Planning Commission wants to make sure circulation will be closely monitored by staff so if levels of service fall below the standard in the future, the City can act quickly to mitigate the problems or halt development. Fire Zone 5 does not impact the adopted performance standard because Fire is based upon residential development. However, staff and the Planning Commission are recommending that the City Council approve a new non-residential performance standard for Fire facilities based on three thresholds: 1) a daily work force that exceeds 12,000 people in one area or zone; 2) an area that is beyond a five minute fire response time: and 3) that the Fire Department is unable to provide one thousand gallons per minute of fire flow in ten minutes or less. Zone 5 cannot currently comply with the second and third proposed thresholds. All three thresholds in this zone will be exceeded by early 1989. In accordance, the recommendation is that the schedule for Fire Station No. 5 be accelerated, with the construction to begin in early 1988, with an opening date of early 1989. If the City Council concurs with the proposed new standard, the previously approved Council Resolution adopting the Growth Management Performance Standards will be amended to include the new fire standard. Sewer Collection System The Commission felt that the sewer facilities in Zone 5 meet the required performance standard. In approving sewer, they also verified the staff recommendation that the performance standard should be based on the sewer sub-basin rather than the entire zone. In other words, the failure of one sub-basin would not affect an adequate sub-basin in the same zone. The sub-basin meeting the performance standard could continue to develop. Some of the new recommendations concerning parks and fire did not surface earlier because Zone 5 is really the first non- I I 0 0 b Page 4 residential zone plan staff has looked at in detail. The need for the new standards came about as a result of this close analysis. With the changes and Comments mentioned above, the Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council approve the Local Facilities Managment Plana for Zone 5. /’ bw MICHAEL 3. HOLZ Ta ILLER M3H: CG :dm t. I I I,.' 1 I 2 3 4 5 fj 7 8 9 10 11 12 13, 14 15 16 17 l8 e 0 RESOLUTION NO. 9188 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI1 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A LOCAL FACII MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT zor WHEREAS, a Local Facilities Management Plan has prepared for Local Facilities Management Zone 5 in accoL with Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on July 1, hold a duly noticed public hearing as required by la consider said plan and at the conclusion of the hearing adc Resolution NO, 2668 making findings and recommending that City Council adopt a plan; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was issued by Planning Director on June 5, 1987 indicating that the I Facilities Management Plan is not anticipated to have significant adverse impact on the environment; and I WHEREAS, the City Council at their meeting of Augus 1987 held a duly noticed public hearing and considered testimony and arguments of anyone desiring to be heard: ! 19 20 21 23 22 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the ( 1 I ICouncil of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the findings of the Planning Commission I I Resolution No. 2668 also constitute findings of the C i Council. 3. That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zor dated June 17, 1987 on file with the City Clerk and incorpora I 'herein by reference and the amendments attached as Exhibit 3' 4 5 6 7 8 9; 10 11 12 13 ,conditions of said plan. 4. That a non-residential park/recreation fee is nl to help meet the recreational needs of a daytime work forc excess of 40,000; to help provide safe recreational areas this work force: to help reduce peak hour traffic trips encourage a healthful working environment; and, to implement Ipolicies of the Parks and Recreation Element of the Ger Plan. 5. That a non-residential standard is necessary fire services to help provide adequate response times adequate fire department facilities to ensure the safeti persons and structures located in non-residential areas SUC Carlsbad City Council held on the 4 rh day of August , 20 21 22 I NOES: None i // I/// ABSENT: None ' ,k&)& y. I( 'f/ c-7 CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor I 24 ' 0- ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cl&k I 0 1) r- EXHIBI' PAGE 8 UNDER SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR PARKS SHOULD READ: All future development in Zone 5 shall be required to pa a local facilities management fee for park/recreationa facilities. Until the specific fee is adopted, all futur developers shall be required to sign an agreement to pa the fee prior to obtaining building permits. PAGE 11 UNDER SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR FIRE SHOULD READ: Based upon the adoption of a non-residential fir standard, the construction of Fire Station No. 5 (Safet Center Location) shall be required to be constructed an Will begin in 1988 with an opening date projected fo early 1989. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2668 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE L1 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 5 ON PROPERTY VICINITY OF PALOMAR AIRPORT APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD DESIGNATED FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CASE NO.: LOCAL FACILIITES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission, an WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution No. 879 adopting the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan establishing facility zones and performance standards for pul facilities, and WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution No. 9801 requiring the processing of a Local Facilities Management P1, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th dl June, 1987, and on the 1st day of July, 1987, hold a duly no public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and 1 considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all pers desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plannir Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hear. the Commission APPROVES Local Facilities Management Plar Zone 5, based on the following findings and subject to following conditions: That the above recitations are true and correct. llll /I// 1 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 0 0 Findings: 1) That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 is consistent with the Land Use Element, the Public Facili Element, and the other Elements contained in Carlsbad's General Plan. 2) That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 is consistent with Section 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal (Growth Management), and with the adopted Citywide Facil and Improvements Plan. 3) That the Local Facilities Management Plan and the condil contained therein will promote the public safety and we1 by ensuring that public facilities will be provided in conformance with the adopted performance standards, 4) The Local Facilities Management Plan will control the tl and locations of growth by tying the pace of development the provision of public facilities and improvements, 5) The Plan will prevent growth unless public facilities ar services are available in conformance with the adopted performance standards. 6) This Plan will not cause any significant environmental i and a Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planni Director on June 5, 1987 and approved by the Planning Commission on 3uly 1, 1987, Conditions: 1) Approval is granted for Local Facilities Management Pla Zone 5 as contained in the Plan titled Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5, dated 3une 17, 1987, attached he and incorporated herein by reference, I/// Ill/ //I/ /I// ///I ///I /I// //I/ PC RES0 NO. 2668 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I’ 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e 0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting 01 Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, helc the 1st day of July, 1987, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairman Marcus, Commissioners Schlehuber, Schramm, Hall, Holmes, McFadden and McBane. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 927, hd- MARY M CUS, Chairman CARLS D PLANNING COMMISSIO ATTEST: MICHAEL 1 t m PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 2668 -3- 0 e .I LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & ScRlPPs A LAw PARTWCRSHIP INCLUDING PROTLSSIONAL CORPORATIONS SAN Dl FOUNDERS GRAHAM INTERNATIONAL PLAZA I*C .ANI - or CALl (10 ICST A SIN DOC00 CALl SUITE 300 - LDGAIA LUCL 888 8058 CMAS w IOnwAmD (ate) t3c 2111 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008-4815 toma 1011 LC JOI LA JOLLA. caur (81OJ .SI r T~DO~ emac-s _II 4900 ,963 7007 IVANWOL - avc (619) 438-7333 RONALD W. ROUSE July 1, 1987 PROrCS8IONAL cOc1coIA~IO~ PARTNER Members of the Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Zone 5 - Local Facilities Management Plan Dear Commissioners: I have been asked by several property owners in Zone 5 share with you comments, suggestions and concerns regarding Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 before you t evening. While the plan has been many, many months in preparation, it has only recently been available to the prope owners and their representatives for review and analysis. know the City has been working under a tight time schedule implement the Growth Management System and the local zone pl and do not wish to delay that process, but the property owners believe earlier private sector input and comment is desirak If the local plans are to work and construct the infrastruct of our City, the programs must function not only from regulatory perspective but be workable and financible in private sector. as drafted include: The major areas of comment and concern as to the Local P 1. In Item No. 7 on page 7, it suggests that follow adoption of the Local Plan, the existing exemptions : previously approved commercial and industrial proj ec will terminate unless the performance standards i satisfied. This statement conflicts with 4 commercial/industrial exemption authorized by ' Growth Management Ordinance. Section 21.90.030 expressly states that the commercial/industr exemption @I. . . shall expire on July 20, 1988" i therefore, the Local Plan is inconsistent with I Growth Management Ordinance in that respect. e e +I I , .. LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS Members of the Planning Commission July 1, 1987 Page 2 - 2. A critical part of the Local Plan as it relates to timing and demand for various levels of infrastruci relies heavily on the phasing assumptions and schec appearing on Exhibit F at page 32. It is 1 projected phasing schedule (Absorption Rate) 1 drives the Local Plan's target construction dates various levels of infrastructure, particularly by 1991. That schedule, however, assumes an ani absorption rate well in excess of 900,000 square 1 each and every year beginning in 1987. That rate far in excess of any annual absorption experience( date in this area. The Local Plan should incorpo. language that if the scheduled absorption is achieved, the construction date would be extei accordingly. The Local Plan proposes to establish new standards fees for the commercial/industrial area which are presently contained in the Citywide Facilities Plan are inconsistent with the policy statement by the ( Council in April, 1987. The Local Plan proposes to a parks and fire standard, and further proposes impose through the Local Plan a park fee of $.50 building square foot. Not only is imposition of new standards by the U Plans not authorized, but to do so, would expres violate provisions of the Growth Management Ordinar Section 21.90.110(b) and (d) both require that Local Plan be "consistent with and implement Citywide Plan." Since the Citywide Plan has no E standards, to attempt to include them at this timr the Local Plan would make it inconsistent. As to the proposed new park fee, nowhere is tl authorization for the imposition of new impact feea part of the Local Plans. Additionally, the Local I and related materials are completely void of evidr and support to establish any shortage of parks recreation opportunities in Zone 5, as well as facts legally justify the amount and imposition of SUC fee. In point of fact, existing and approved projt provide significant park and recreational opportunit already in the Zone and of course the commercj industrial sector contributes heavily to the pu3: facilities fees which in turn are used substantial11 provide parks and other recreational opportunit throughout the City. projected circulation improvements (over $17 Mill: 3. e a .L LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON 61 SCRIPPS Members of the Planning Commission July 1, 1987 Page 3 - 4, The property owners have very substantial coria regarding the infrastructure phasing and financ alternatives suggested in the Local Plan, particuli with respect to the Circulation Improvement CC illustrated on Exhibit 2, page 100. The projec improvement costs of $17,039,000 by 1991 rel, exclusively to Palomar Airport Road from the Inters' 5 interchange easterly to the City limits. However, when we look at the llFinancing Priorit options, no reference is made to a wide range additional funding sources and mechanisms w: certainly ought to be considered for t improvements, especially because of the City benefit and regional impact on Palomar Airport R For example, the commercial/industrial property ow in Zone 5 have contributed heavily to traffic im fees, public facilities fees, and yet neither sou the Local Plan should include as possible alternat the use of gas tax or other transportation orie funds and sources, including consideration of SANDAG sponsored one-half cent sales tax ballot mea funding. The absence of these additional funding sources alternatives is all the more troublesome since the Council in September, 1986, as part of its ado 1986-91 Capital Improvement Program allocated Million of public facilities fees in year one Palomar Airport Road, College Boulevard west to P Del Norte and an additional $900,000 of pu facilities fees for Palomar Airport Road east ol Camino Real. Given these concerns, we would specifically req to include potential use of public facilities f traffic impact fees, Mello-Roos Districts, and o possible funds and sources such as gas tax allocat the possible use of the SANDAG sponsored sales allocations to the extent such funds are useable capital infrastructure improvements. 5. Lastly, I want to emphasize that the property ow want this Growth Management System and the Local P to succeed as much as anybody. The owners have ' very, very substantial investments not only in t property, but in the desirability and liveabilit] are identif ied as possible funding sources. Furt, that the financing alternatives and options be expa e a .I LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS Members of the Planning Commission July 1, 1987 Page 4 - the entire City. The City's program is ambit4 innovative and experimental. For it to be success for it to work, there must be an enlightened attit flexibility and willingness to embrace new conc and, if necessary, create new financing mechanisms arrangements in providing appropriate develor assurances and commitments if the private sector d raise the multi millions of dollars targeted construct infrastructure. These new concepts may include development agreeme density commitments and other arrangements that prc reasonable assurances that if one or more pro1 owners front end the enormous capital infrastruc costs, they will be able to pay back the borrowin5 obtain a reasonable return on their investments. the financial community does not see a reasonable 1 for a stream of income to pay back infrastructure 1 and advances, and if the investment community does see the opportunity for a reasonable return investment, then the necessary financing and invest will not be made in this community, and therefore community will not have the resources to construct maintain the desired infrastructure. We would request the foregoing comments be incorporated your recommendations and forwarded on to the City Council their action. TZi;:z&?- Ronald W. Rouse Professional Corporation of Luce, Forward, Hamilton SI Scri] RWR: jm cc: City Clerk, City of Carlsbad 0 1) . L’,,. PUNNING CONSULTANTS di RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY I AND CIVIL ENGINEERS 3088 PI0 PIC0 DR. I SUITE 202 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 P.O. BOX 1129 PHONE AREA CODE 619 729-4987 July 1, 1987 Ms. Sharon Schramm Planning Cornmissioner CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MAGEMENT ZONE 5 RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 8712-H , Dear Commissioner Schramm: On Wednesday, June 24th, City staff presented the Zone 5 Plan a number of property owners and developers within Zone 5 at t City Council Chambers. On Tuesday, June 30th, the proper owners met again and discussed in more detail the proposed P1 as presented by staff. The group that met have some comments a recommendations. The Executive Summary of the Plan provides a broad overview recommending that four require special emphasis. These fc facilities include circulation, sewer collection, parks and fir The property owners agree with the findings and recommendatic of the other 7 facilities as mentioned in the Plan. The follc ing are our comments and suggestions relating to the four rema: ing facilities. 1. Circulation: the public facility issues. Of the 11 facilities, the staff The report suggests that $17,000,000 in improvements be cc structed by 1991. These would include improvements at 1-5 E Palomar Airport Road, Palomar Airport Road between Paseo ( Norte and Camino Vida Roble, and Palomar Airport Road from Camino Real to the easterly city limits. On page 81, t staff has suggested several alternatives that we feel mei more emphasis. Several traffic studies show that the $50,000 widening of off ramp at Palomar Airport Road will provide a substant: increase in the service level at this intersection. This wc should be done immediately. 0 a I -, m Planning Commissioners July 1, 1987 Page Two - In addition, we think the alternative to build College sot of Palomar Airport Road connecting to Poinsettia is one tk has a lot of potential merit. We have asked the staff request SANDAG to do a traffic study to show the actu benefits if this connection is made. There may be a post bility that more benefit from a traffic standpoint could generated for the $10,000,000 for the improvement rather tl spending $17,000,000 for the immediate improvements of Palon Airport Road. The City may want to consider moving t Poinsettia/College connection higher on a priority list 2 still follow up with what appear to be longer term improl ments on Palomar Airport Road, especially the improvements 1-5. In the financing section, reference needs to be added include public facility fees, traffic impact fees, futu dollars possible from the half-cent sales tax if approve Mello Roos districts and other public funds. Also, t September 1986 CIP budget for 87-88 shows $2.1 million f Palomar Airport Road west of College and another $900,000 ea of El Camino Real. These funds need to be shown in t report. The report should also point out that Palomar Airport Road a El Camino Real provide for regional traffic needs and th other sources of funding (State) should be pursued. In add tion, the County of San Diego is a landowner along Palom Airport Road, and their participation should be requested. The Zone 5 Plan Circulation Section, on page 100, requir $17,000,000 in improvements built by 1991. It is not clear the report what triggers that requirement for improvement If it is a certain service level or traffic count, referent to that fact should be clearly spelled out in the report. 2. Sewer Collection The major problem with the deficiencies in the sewe collection system are located immediately south and west I the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Roa Alternative A-l on page 123 suggests capacity be leased frc the Buena Sanitation District at an estimated cost of $7,5 per year. We strongly urge that the City pursue this alternz tive and assist the Buena Sanitation staff in reviewing lease approved by the County that has been presented to tl Sanitation District. We think that this alternative should 1 pursued at a staff level rather than providing the parall: system at an approximate cost of $200,000. This $200,0( alternative should be a last resort should negotations not 1 successful for the additional leased capacity. a e . *-it- Planning Commissioners July 1, 1987 Page Three - 3. Fire We would agree with the staff recommendation that the constru tion schedule for the proposed Safety Center Fire Station accelerated and that the City Council include Fire Stati Number Five in the 1987-1988 CIP budget. We understand th this would enable construction of the station to begin early 1988 with an opening date projected for January 1989. We do not agree that the facility plan process 1s the prop place to establish new policy or standards. The Counc clearly stated in April of this year that the Fire Standa does not apply to nonresidential uses. If the Standard nee to be established or updated, it should be done separate from the zone plan process. - 4. Parks Currently, there is no official Park Standard for the indu: trial or nonresidential areas and, in a strict interpretatic of the Plan as written, the industrial areas do not have * meet any Park Standard. Also, the nonresidential users ai not required to pay a park-in-lieu fee. This fact wi reaffirmed by the Council in April of this year. Staff is recommending that a park-in-lieu fee be charged fc all nonresidential development. The fee in Alternative 1 i suggested to be 50C per square foot which would potential] generate close to $9,000,000 through the buildout of the indur trial areas. The property owners would strongly urge tha this not be adopted at this time. We would also recommec that the idea be pursued further but not in a manner whic would hold up the adoption of the Zone 5 Facilities Plan. Before any additional fees are put in place relating to park for the industrial area, we think it would be appropriate t do a number of things. These would include: O Full research of what other communities and industrial area are doing with a direct comparison as to what residentia parks are in those communities and industrial areas and wha fees they charged. O Identification of maintenance costs and who is going to pay. 0 Studies for actual usage of parks by employees. 0 e . * 1. . >- Planning Commissioners July 1, 1987 Page Four - O Justification of $9,000,000 in expenditures for parks tE. potentially would only be used by a portion of the employe need cannot be demonstrated, the fee could be a tax. Als the industrial/commercial builder pays a public facility f and a large portion of that fee goes to the parks progra We do not think anyone should pay twice for parks. at lunch breaks or other limited periods of time. If t O Inventory of existing and potential parks within t' immediate area that could serve the same purpose, i.e. 28 acre Macario Park, potential golf course and recreati center at the intersection of El Camino Real and Palom Airport Road, and potential 30f acres of natural ope space that could contain some passive recreation areas ne the intersection of Faraday and Melrose. O Exploring other alternatives including developers providii open space and dedicating it to the City as part of futu: projects. (This potential has limited possibilities becau, the majority of the major projects contain approved tenti tive maps. 1 projects? O Will there be credit for mini-parks required in SOI O The Parks staff has suggested that possibly weight rooms a other health facilities be included in these parks. The: facilities are also allowed uses within the industrial are: Will these public areas compete with potential privat developments? This needs to be addressed. O Will the existing industrial and office users be asked t pay some kind of a fee to use these common areas? In summary then, as it relates to parks, we would recommer that 50e per foot not be a requirement at this time but thz further study be given and that the above questions ar possibly many others be addressed. Fifty cents a square foc does not sound like very much, but this would only be tk beginning of the additional costs when you add up the mair. tenance cost and other costs that would have to be included t have a fully sustained parks program. We think that a goc inventory of what is currently available and what will k available may shed a different light on the alternativ suggested by staff. In the past, the City did not see a nee for public parks in the Zone 5 area. Also, in April th Council reaffirmed that the Park Standards only applied t residential. Again, we suggest that the Zone 5 Plan proces # :e L. 0 e i. Planning Commissioners Page Five July 1, 1987 - is not the place to establish new policy and that t Commission not include the proposed fee in your considerat of the Plan for the reasons stated. These are our comments. We appreciate the presentation by 1 staff and the opportunity to address our concerns to t Commission. We will be ready to answer any questions. Sincerely, &4-- Robert C, Ladwig RCL:kd/002 Copies to: THE KOLL COMPANY Attention: Mr. Mike Dunigan T 61 G IVESTMENTS Attention: Mr. Doug Wood BEDFORD PROPERTIES Attention: Mr. Frank Rice CENTRE DEVELOPMENT Attention: Mr. Dean Greenberg LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON AND SCRIPPS Attention: Mr. Ron Rouse D.C.C. Attention: Mr. Jack Henthorn - __ __ > %ccrp1.58~111 iy b~i iiw , wbGai iaiuv -y wuui a~. II iiui I I iauui I. sides give nething,” Zollinge said Monday. “It seemed on1 reasonable that they share ii liability that results from action only thing the cities were givin 729-4926. Sunday, Aug. 2 m “Concert in the Park,” Carlsbad Community Band, Magee Park, 2 p.m. rn “Hollywood Spectacular!” Batiquitos Festival Pops featuring the San Diego Chamber Festival Orchestra, Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park. Open for picnics . City files ()\ at 5 p.m.; concert begins at 7 p.m. Information: 298-71 12. By Terry Snoeyenbos that we take at their request. Th i I‘ Staff Writer NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad wi hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Wednesday, June 17, 1987, to consider approval of Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 on property generally located witk the center of Carlsbad at the intersection of the City's four quadrants. The zone is bounded approximately by 1-5 on the west, and approximately the City's eastern boundary on the east and is bisected east to west by Palomar Airport Road and north to south by El Camino Real, and more specifically shown on the maps below. The Local Facilities Management Plan will determine the amount o existing public facilities and services, the phasing of developnent until buildout, future demand and supply of these facilities and services and how t will be financed. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to atte the public hearing. If you have any questions please call the Planning Department at 438-1161. If you challenge the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 in court, yc 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 delivex to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5 APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLISH: JUNE 17, 1987 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION -- - # w NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING w .. .- LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 5 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that: the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a pub1 hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO on Tuesday, August 4, 1987, to consider a Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 on property generally located within the center of Carlsbad at the intersection of tf City's four quadrants. The zone is bounded apprqximately by 1-5 on the west, and apE the City's eastern boundary on the east and is bgsected east to west by Palomar Airpc Road and north to south by El Camino Real, and more specifically shown on the map bel The Local Facilities Management Plan will determine the amount of existing public fac facilities and services and how they will be financed. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Planning Department 438-1161, If you challenge the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 in court, you may bc to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing descril in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or to the public hearing. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH: July 24, 1987 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL and services, the phasing of development until buildout, future demand and supply of I *r 6' 1 eCEANSIDE - The Oceanslr memberr - d $5 for members. For 1 sonic Lodge No. 381, Free ar more inf, .lation contact Maxine Accepted Masons, will hold an in- Custer at 439-5943. ' formational open house at 7 p.m. 511 Eucalyptus-St. The gathering is to give people a chance to find ,-,ut more about the club. For more information, call Monday at the .Maso Volunteers sought Women between WEANSIDE - A meeting of the I Better Breathers Club will be held the ages of 18 and 30 are needed to on Tuesday, July 28 at Tri-City Participate in a UCSD School of Medicine study on the effects of artificial light on regulating the Hospital's Pavilion Basement, Room 2, 4002 Vista Way from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. menstrual cycle. Bill Wright of A-1 Medical'Supp- - d Volunteers must have either long ly is scheduled to demonstrate ESC th or irregular menstrual Cycles, and medical equipment designed for Concern will offer free introducto- not be taking oral contraceptives those with lung disease. For more ry sessions for its smoking cessa- The study involves Participants ROOM LETTER A BEDROOM SUITE $5 REG 51339 99 ON SALE FOR 5699 99. A SAVINGS kD?JCE 18 KACBY GIVEN that the City Coirncil of the City of Cartsbad will hold a public heanng at the City Council Chambrs, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, Califor- nia. at 6.00 P.M., on Tuesday, August 4, 1987, to consider a Local Facilities Managemsnt Plan for Zone 5, on proper- ty generally located with;n the center of Carlsbad at the in- Zsrvodion of the City's for quadrants. The zone is bounded z;prox;rnately by 1-5 on th7 west, and +p&uxinatoly the City's 9i;:m ki~idciy ci: tko CB! 2nd IS kcs.x:aCi eest to west by Palomar A'iporl Road ard north to wu2h by El Camino Real, and more spmfically shown on the map blow. The Local Fa~ilriios Mansgomsnt Plan will deter- mine tb amount of Q::IS~JXJ pub':'. facilities and SQIVICB~, tho phasing of doveiupmen: unti! buildout, future demand and supply of tbtm facilities and serv~cos and how they If you hwn nny c;usst:c-z ra.ja:< cg this rnzttttor, p:cm call l!ic Plamng DLpartmsnt at 430-1 161. If you chal!m* the Low> Faaliiius Knnagament Plan for Zone 5 in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing duscnbod in this notice, or in wntten correspondence I------ W.!l !X fmwd.