Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-10; City Council; 9219; ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - CITY OF CARLSBADIAB# 929 c. MTG. 11 /10/87 c DEPT. PLN DEPT. CITY I CITY I TITLE: ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES - MANAGEMENT PLAN - CITY OF CARLSBAD - LFMP 87-6 _. * ua -d a, ”?& dE! ba, =rx ua) aJ ha, M oa, u3 wm wu (60 ud m a aa, al .d ua m3 a)u 30 00 a, Nh 3; (60 nn Nh md hl -4 5w $a) rl JM mc hl -4 mm .w m .VI 0. ZmM uc d L) .rl ocdm ad a m do OaJh md a a,e p: *4 F: (0 -4 am a,Oh u acd ad oca, a oa (6 ua, d LIS *d 0 u L)a CUE SNO ON u (dw r- m5 2:: 03 I 0 d I 4 4 2 0 F: 2 2 0 z 3 0 0 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the Ci Director, ADOPT Resolution No. 929/ APPROVING the LOC Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 and ADOPT Resolution No. *&.Y& establishing a Local Facilities Management Fee allowed under Section 21.90.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. ITEM EXPLANATION Zone 6 is the sixth Local Facilities Management Plan to be hea by the City Council and is the sixth and final vtinfillvv plan be prepared by City staff. This zone was heard by the Planni Commission on September 16 and September 23. The Commission recommending Council approval of the document as presented. Zone 6 comprises most of the developed areas of La Costa. includes approximately 2,674 acres, and with the exception of small area in the southwest quadrant, it is a part of t built out. The future development of the vacant or uncommitt land will be primarily limited to small and/or midsis residential projects. The plan analyzed the 11 public facilities to determine whet1 Cj they conformed with the adopted performance standards. Administrative, Library, Wastewater Treatment Capacity, Drainac Open Space, Schools, Sewer Collection, and Water Distribut: currently meet the performance standards. Circulation, Par1 and Fire were all determined to be below the adopted standards The analysis of circulation indicates that under exist conditions there are three intersections which fail to meet 1 standard. These are: La Costa Avenue at El Camino Real, whc mitigation was recently completed, and La Costa Avenue northbound 1-5 and at southbound 1-5. With existing p committed development, two additional intersections will fail meet the standard, and at buildout, three intersections l projected to fall below standard unless mitigation occurs. The parks analysis involved both the southwest quadrant (P District 3) and the southeast quadrant (Park District 4) beca Zone 6 is located in two quadrants. Both quadrants w determined to be below standard. Park District 3 has a curr shortfall of 36.93 acres and Park District 4 is below standard 5.80 acres. Council ADOPT the Negative Declaration issued by the Planni southeast quadrant. The Zone is largely residential and larqc ” .* .L a 0 *r Ak Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. fk’y The fire analysis showed that there are currently more than 1, units outside of the five minute response time. The construct and opening of Fire Station No. 6 will bring fire i conformance with the adopted standard. As a result of these three facilities not conforming with adopted performance standards and the magnitude of the mitigat needed to bring these facilities up to standard, the Zone 6 p includes a financial mitigation plan. This plan is presented an alternative which would allow a major group of developers the zone to provide approximately $9.6 million up front mitigate these facility shortfalls. Since the local plan presented to the Planning Commission, the City Council adopted the new C.I.P. and this dollar amount has been reduced $7.9 million. The financial mitigation plan is explained in m detail in the attached memorandum to the City Manager da October 27, 1987. With any of these alternatives, no development will be allowed proceed until a complete financial mechanism is approved by City Council which guarantees that all facilities are conformance with the adopted performance standards. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director July 22, 1987 indicating that the Local Facilities Managen Plan for Zone 6 is not anticipated to have any signific adverse impacts on the environment. FISCAL IMPACT Staff time has been utilized in the preparation of this Plan. is anticipated that further staff time will be necessary monitor this and other Zone plans on a yearly basis. implementation of this Plan, however, should help future fis planning by listing future facilities and their costs. EXHIBITS 1) Memorandum to City Manager dated October 27, 1987 2) City Council Resolution No. %?9/ (Adopting Local 3) City Council Resolution No. %?Ya (Adopting Local 4) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2670 5 Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6 (Previously Facilities Management Plan) Facilities Management Fee) distributed ) r< .b e e ’& 9 October 27, 1987 TO : Ray Patchett, City Manager FROM : Planning Director LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 6 The purpose of this memorandum is to explain in greater det the proposed financial mitigation plan presented as part of Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. During the preparation of the Local Facilities Management P for Zone 6 it was determined that the following three pub facilities fail to comply with the adopted performance standar 1. Parks - in both Park District 3 and 4. 2. Circulation - 1-5 at La Costa Avenue. 3. Fire - Station No. 6 needs to be constructed now. In order to guarantee that each of these facilities could brought into conformance with the performance standard, it determined in the local plan that it would require obtain upfront funding of approximately $ 9.6 million. Since the lo plan was presented to the Planning Commission, the City Coun has adopted the new C.I.P. which allocates funds t specifically address facilities identified in the Zone 6 p and, therefore, this dollar amount has been reduced to $ million. The goal of the proposed financial mitigation plan was to pres a mechanism by which those developers of projects that curren have received approvals but are on hold until adoption of local plan could resolve the facility shortfalls and provide the increased impacts of their development at the same time. Staff reviewed several alternatives which were available to th developers and the following list summarizes these options: 1. Wait until the City resolves these facility shortfal 2. Wait until some other local plan resolved th facility shortfalls. 3. Form a Mello Roos District or some other type Assessment District to correct the facility shortfa which either the City or developers could head up. 4. Developers upfront the money supported by a Lo Facilities Management Fee as allowed under Sect 21.90.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, w reimbursement opportunities, to generate the necess funds to resolve the facility shortfalls. i e 0 4 L October 27, 1987 Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 6 Paqe - 2 In any case, no new development would be allowed to proceed unl the conformance of these facilities with the adopted performai standards is guaranteed. In the mean time a mechanism is also needed to allow the City collect a facilities fee from those developers permitted to forward prior to the adoption of the local plan and who signed agreement to pay any fees established by the Growth Managemc Program. As a result a Local Facilities Management Fee is be proposed which would spread the cost of these improvements those who have agreed to pay future fees and those who w benefit from them being brought into conformance with the adop. performance standards. The procedure used to establish the amount of the Loc Facilities Management Fee was based on the estimated cost bring the facilities into conformance with the adop' performance standards and the number of dwelling units availal to pay the fee. In order to establish the appropriate fee it is necessary distinguish between the various stages of development tl projects are in within the zone. This breaks down into . following categories: 1. Projects allowed to develop which signed agreements 2. Approved units which are on hold - 965 units. 3. Future units - 1338. pay future fees - 574 units. The Local Facilities Management Fee is then determined by tak the total cost to improve all of these facilities and dividing by those units in categories 1 and 2. Those units in categor are not being calculated into the fee because there is no way determine at this time when they will develop. Howev depending upon when they do actually develop they may be madl part of this financing plan. The total cost of the improvements divided by 1539 units equal 5,105 per unit. The fee to be collected from those develop who signed agreements to pay future fees is determined reducing their cost based on the previously collected fees, s as Bridge and Thoroughfare District fees and Park-in-Lieu fe paid when their building permits were issued and reducing amount of the Local Facilities Management Fee by this amount. L e >* kt L October 27, 1987 Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 6 Pase - 3 Therefore, the fee to be collected from the 574 units would 1 $ 3,756 per unit. By discounting for the fees already collec' from these units, the remaining 965 units will be required to 1 a fee in the amount of $ 5,907 per unit. It is important emphasize that this assumes that the City will collect from q of the 574 units. If this does not happen, then those developc wishing to proceed will be required to pay upfront the remain funds necessary to bring the identified facilities i* conformance with the adopted performance standards before be allowed to proceed and develop their projects. The attac: financing chart provides a detailed breakdown on how the fee : unit was established. A large portion of the Local Facilities Management Fee will reimbursable over time. Specifically, this reimbursement w come from the Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit District wh collected from Public Facilities Fees budgeted for ' construction of Fire Station No.6. The timing of reimbursement will be made at the time the City has budge funds for these improvements in the Capital Improvement Progr Also, as local plans are approved in other zones which impact benefit from these facility improvements, they will be added i this financing and the overall fee will be adjusted according1 This financial alternative is not the only mechanism which co resolve these facility shortfalls, however, staff believes it the most appropriate option for the City to implement at t time. Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt a Lo Facilities Management Fee for Zone 6, but also remain flexi enough to consider alternative proposals the developm community may wish to present. Again, no new development can be allowed in Zone 6 until all the facilities are guaranteed to be or are brought i conformance with the adopted performance standards. would be allocated to the La Costa/I-5 bridge and from fu \ Planning Director MJH:poc .L 0 0 ,' c , I L COST REIMBURSEABLE I SOURCE OF REIMBURSEMENT FACILITY SHORTAGES ESTIMATE AMOUNT I ____________________------------------------------------------------ I ........................ ..................... I LA COSTA AVENUE/I-5 3,300,000 2,484,330 I BRIDGE & THOROUGHFARE 400K IN 1988 PARKS - SHORTAGE (SE) 1,211,840 0 I LFM FEES TO BE DETERMINED PARKS 1,144,000 0 I NONE FIRE STATION (CONST.& EQUIP.) 650,000 650,000 I PFF - 400K 1989 AND 250K IN 1990 FIRE STATION (OPERATIONS - ONE YEAR) 526,000 0 I NONE ____________-_______--------------------------------------- ---_-------- SUB-TOTAL 6,831,840 3,134,330 2,037 REIMBURSABLE PER UNIT CONTINGENCIES (1 5%) 1,024,776 I I TOTAL 7,856,616 I ________---_______ I ------------------ ------------------ I FEES REDUCED ON 574 UI AVERAGE PER UNIT COST 5,105 965 UNITS ON HOLD UITH APPROVALS I I I NORMAL I AT BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE UNIT PAID I I I 574 UNITS THAT SIGNED AGREEMENTS I BTBD 304,220 1 , 539 IPIL 470,106 I TOTAL 774,326 --------- ................................................................................................ ................................................................................................ FEES TO BE COLLECTED FEE AMOUNT PER TOTAL FEE I FEE TO BE PAID I PER UNIT 1,349 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .................................................................... I --------------- I I LFM FEE 5,105 1. PUBLIC FACILITY FEES 3,955 6,086,745 I YES I LESS 1,349 3. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES 670 1,031,130 I YES I TO BE 3,756 - - - - - - - - - 2. BRIDGE & THOROUGHFARE 530 815,670 I NO I 4. PARK-IN-LIEU (SEI 819 1,260,441 I NO I PAID ========= 5. PARK-IN-LIEU (SU) 655 1,008,045 I NO I NO !TOTAL COLLECTED 2 YES (FROM 574 5. DRAINAGE 0 01 6. SEWER FEES 1,500 2,308,500 I 7. UATER FEES 1,590 2,447,010 I YES I 8. SCHOOLS 2,250 3,462,750 I YES I I REMAl N I NG 7, IFEE PER LESS 2, TOTAL 11,969 18,420,291 9,965 1965 UNITS --. I 5, I ................................................................................................ ................................................................................................ UNITS --. ................................................................................................ ................................................................................................ PER UNIT BREAKDOWN TOTAL ..................................... --. TOTAL UP-FRONT FEES 5,105 TOTAL FEES PAID MINUS NORMAL FEES --. ................................... TOTAL FEES COLLECTED AT BUILDING PERM 9,965 -----___---_----__ TOTAL FEES COLLECTED 15,070 13,033 11,969 TOTAL FUTURE REIMBURSABLE AMOUNT 2,037 __________________ - - - - - - - - - TOTAL FEES PAID 13,033 ADDITIONAL FEE PAID 1,064 __----___ - - - - - ---- _______--_________ ------------------ \ .' i L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 0 RESOLUTION NO. 9291 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT' CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A LOCAL FACIL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONl WHEREAS, a Local Facilities Management Plan has prepared for Local Facilities Management Zone 6 in accorc with Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on September 1( September 23, 1987 hold duly noticed public hearings as recp by law to consider said plan and at the conclusion of hearing adopted Resolution No. 2670 making findings recommending that the City Council adopt a plan; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was issued by Planning Director on July 22, 1987 indicating that the I Facilities Management Plan is not anticipated to have significant adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council at their meeting of Noveml 1987 held a duly noticed public hearing and consid all testimony and arguments of anyone desiring to be heard; I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Council of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the findings of the Planning Commissior I ' Resolution No. 2670 also constitute findings of the Council. ' 3. That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zo dated September 2, 1987 on file with the City Clerk incorporated herein by reference is hereby approved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I comply with all the terms and conditions of said plan. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting oj Carlsbad City Council held on the 10th day of November , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Lz NOES: None ABSENT: None y', /'/ , ,', /'r c i , ,,/$? - ,/ I CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: ., Cl I 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 e 0 development occurring within the boundaries of Zone 6 I ALGTHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City @erk (SEAL) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I 2. A1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo 11 12 13 l4 I.5 16 l7 l8 l9 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a Resolution No. 9292 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLS CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF A LOCAL FACILI MANAGEMENT FEE IN THE AREA DEFINED AS LOCAL FACI MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. WHEREAS, Section 21.90.050 of the Carlsbad Muni Code authorizes the establishment of a local facil management fee to pay for improvements or facil identified in a local facilities management plan whicl related to new development in a zone and are not othe financed by any other fee, charge or tax on developmeni are not installed by a developer as a condition of a bui or development permit; and WHEREAS, the Local Facilities Management Plan for 21 identified a need for facilities which relate to development in the zone and are not otherwise finance being provided; and WHEREAS, the City Council on November 10, 1987 ad( Resolution No. 9291 which approved the Local Facil. Management Plan for Zone 6 which identified several pi facilities which do not conform with the adopted perfon standards; and WHEREAS, the fee required is in addition to any c means of financing these facilities or improvements identi in the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 an necessary in order to allow the City to collect this fee those developers allowed to proceed with development pric i //// //// 1 > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 3.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e e the adoption of the Local Facilities Management Plan fc Zone 6; and WHEREAS, the establishment of this fee provides mechanism for development to be allowed in the Local Fac Management Zone 6 provided that all of the ident improvements needed in the Local Facilities Management are made or guaranteed to bring all facilities conformance with the adopted performance standard prio allowing any additional development in the zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Counci the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. Effective this date, a Local Facilities Management shall be collected upon all new development within the L Facility Management Zone 6 as shown on Exhibit Illt1 whic made a part hereof. 3. The amount of the fee to be collected shall be basel a rate of $ 5,105 per residential dwelling unit to assessed on all new development in Local Facility Manageml Zone 6. 4. That all developers within the boundaries of the L Facility Management Zone 6 who have been issued develop] permits and have signed the AGREEMENT TO PAY FEES FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE GRt MANAGEMENT SYSTEM shall be required to pay this fee, : I //// /I// 7 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 those fees previously collected for park-in-lieu and Bridge & Thoroughfare Benefit District, within thirty days of receipt of the City's invoice in accordance with agreement. 5. Reimbursement may be made by the City for those collected upfront that are utilized to fund improvements 1 other established fees are currectly being collected bul not sufficient enough at this time to fund said improvem The timing of the reimbursement shall be made in accorc with the City's adopted Capital Improvements Program and not include costs for operation expenses or interest. 6. That the establishment of this fee does not i development to begin in the Local Facility Management Zc until all of the facilities are brought into conformance the adopted performance standard or are guaranteed prio allowing any additional development. 7. That if an alternative financing mechanism is pres6 which resolves the facilities deficiencies identified in Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6, and is appi by the City Council, this Local Facilities Management Fee be reduced or eliminated altogether. 8. The Local Facilities Management Fee shall be colle as described in Section 21.90.050 (e) of the Carl Municipal Code. I //// //// -I a e , - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1) 0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting o day of November , Carlsbad City Council held on the by the following vote, to wit: 10th AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson NOES: None ABSENT : ,I None 7 ,' 1 / ,' I/ / ,/I[&,- *- / /- CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: AL&* kT~-~C~~ierk (SEAL) /I I I E XH m e *I - A L / - - / JA ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT BOUNDARI 1 L 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 20 m e PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2670 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI? CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 6 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF BATIQUITOS LAGOON, WEST OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, NORTH OF LEVANTE STREET, AND SOUTH OF CARRILLO WAY. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO.: LOCAL FACILIITES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZOl WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed wil the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commissic and WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution No. 8: adopting the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan establishing facility zones and performance standards for public facilities, and WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution No. 91 requiring the processing of a Local Facilities Management 1 and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 16th da September, 1987, and on the 23rd day of September, 1987, h a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to cons said request; and I WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered a factors relating to the Local Facilities Management Plan f Zone 6. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plannin Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. -$ I - 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 II) B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES Local Facilities Management Plan -Zone 6, based on the following findii and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1) That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 consistent with the Land Use Element, the Public Facilities Element, and the other Elements contained Carlsbad's General Plan. 2) That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 consistent with Section 21-90 of the Carlsbad Municip Code (Growth Management), and with the adopted Citywil Facilities and Improvements Plan. 3) That the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 the conditions contained therein will promote the pub safety and welfare by ensuring that public facilities will be provided in conformance with the adopted performance standards. 4) The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 will control the timing and locations of growth by tyinq t pace of development to the provision of public facili and improvements. 5) The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 will prevent growth unless public facilities and services available in conformance with the adopted performance standards. Conditions: 1) Approval is granted for Local Facilities Management -Zone 6 as contained in the Plan titled Local Facilit Management Plan Zone 6, dated September 2, 1987, atta hereto, and incorporated herein by reference. I //// //// //// //// //// //// PC RES0 NO. 2670 -2- $ 1 t 3l 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 e PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, Californi held on the 23rd day of September, 1987, by the following to wit: AYES: Chairman Marcus, Commissioners Hall, Holi Mc Fadden, Mc Bane and Schramm. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Schlehuber. ABSTAIN: None. /72? ? MARY M CUS, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSIOI ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR 1 1 PC RES0 NO. 2670 -3- I t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I.g 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 w w CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING AB NO, 9219 ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN LFMP 87-6 - CITY OF CARLSBAB PARTIAL T-~ANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS I NOVEHBER 10, 1987 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA i c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 m w APPEARANCES: MAYOR CLAUDE LEWIS COUNCIL MEMBERS: ANN KULCHIN, MAYOR PRO-TEM ERIC LARSON JOHN MAMAUX MARK PETTINE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: MICHAEL HOLZMILLER, PLANNING DIRECTOR PHIL CARTER PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS: DAVID CARR KEN MAGRINI LOWELL ABELES DICK SPANJIAN RON RIMMER EDWARD EBRIGHT DENNIS MEEHAN CINDY WARD JIM FOX CITY MANAGER RAY PATCHETT 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CITY ATTORNEY VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo I' l2 l3 14 l5 l6 I' l8 I' 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 w 0 MAYOR LEWIS: ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - LFMP 87-6 STAFF REPORT, PLEASE. MR. BOLZMILLER: THE ZONE 6 PLAN IS DEFINITELY THE MOST DETAILED A PREHENSIVE OF THE SIX ZONE PLANS THAT WERE PREPARED BY STAFF AND BROUGHT COUNCIL. THIS IS FOR TWO REASONS: THE FIRST ONE IS JUST BEING THAT IT - FINAL PLAN, WE HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF PREPARING FIVE PREVIOUS PLANS, AND INFORMATION HAS DEFINITELY IMPROVED, AND THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION. SEI ZONE 6 IS IN TWO QUADRANTS OF THE CITY. IT CROSSES QUADRANT LINES. IT OVER THREE WASTEWATER TREATMENT DISTRICTS. IT CONTAINS TWO PARK DISTRIC' FIRE STATION SERVICE AREAS; FOUR SCHOOL DISTRICTS; THREE SEWER COLLECTIO' DISTRICTS; AND THREE WATER DISTRICTS. SO BECAUSE OF THE NEED TO GENERATI MATION PERTAINING TO EACH ONE OF THOSE DISTRICTS, IT WAS NECESSARY TO DO BIT OF DETAILED INFORMATION. JUST REAL BRIEFLY, THE EXPANDED COMPONENTS OF THIS PLAN, I'VE LIST1 A MORE DETAILED INFORMATION BASE, THAT'S IN THE THICK APPENDIX TO THIS R1 BASICALLY WHAT WE'VE DONE AS PART OF THIS PLAN IS WE'VE REALLY DONE A PA1 PARCEL INVENTORY OF ALL OF THE PROPERTIES IN ZONE 6, AND THIS WILL BE THL FOR STARTING TO DEVELOP A GEOBASE INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR THE CITY. WE AI 1 EACH ONE OF THE SECTIONS OF THE PLAN, PUT IN A MORE DETAILED FINANCING SI AND THEN ALSO CAME UP, AND WE'LL EXPLAIN THIS IN JUST A LITTLE BIT, A Cob SIVE FINANCING PLAN FOR ALL OF THE NEEDED FACILITIES. THE PLAN IN APPENDIX 16 OF THE REPORT DOES PROPOSE A MONITORING PR( START TO KEEP ALL THIS INFORMATION UP TO DATE. YOU'LL FIND IN THE PLAN 1 MORE COMPREHENSIVE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS WHERE WE'VE ACTUALLY GONE IN AND EACH OF THE LAND USES, WE'VE DEVELOPED TRAFFIC GENERATION, AND IT'S ALMOS PARCEL BY PARCEL BASIS. THE PLAN PROPOSES AN OPEN SPACE PROGRAM, AND THk' INCLUDED IN IT, AND THAT PROGRAM IS ACTUALLY AN INVENTORY OF POTENTIAL SI MAKE SURE THAT AS WE CONTINUE ON IN THIS ZONE IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT, TI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 W 0 KEEP ON MEETING THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD FOR OPEN SPACE. SO IT IS DEFIN THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE'VE DONE TO DATE. AS WITH ALL THE OTHER PLANS, WE NEEDED TO START OUT WITH BUILDOUT TIONS, AND JUST TO GIVE COUNCIL A LITTLE OVERVIEW FOR INFORMATION PURPOSI IS A TOTAL OF 2,674 ACRES IN ZONE 6. TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHY THIS IS CONSIDERED AN INFILL ZONE, EIGHTY PERCENT OF THOSE TOTAL ACRES ARE ALL R DEVELOPED. TWELVE PERCENT HAVE APPROVED OR COMMITTED PROJECTS ON THEM, WE'RE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON VACANT PROP IT'S ONLY EIGHT PERCENT THAT HASN'T ALL READY BEEN DEVELOPED OR APPROVED. IS REALLY AN INFILL ZONE. IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPED AREAS, THERE ARE 2,140 ACRES THAT ARE ALI DEVELOPED THAT'S PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL. EIGHTY PERCENT OF IT IS RESIDE": FIVE PERCENT COMMERCIAL; AND FIFTEEN PERCENT OPEN SPACE OR SCHOOL SITES. IMPORTANT PART OF THE BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS, ESPECIALLY CAUSE THIS IS PREL LY RESIDENTIAL, IS THE NUMBER OF EXISTING APPROVED AND REMAINING DWELLINC THERE IS EXISTING 6,426 DWELLING UNITS. WE HAVE APPROVED PROJECTS OR PE THAT ARE IN THE DEVELOPING PROCESS THAT WOULD ADD ANOTHER 1,539. AND THI REMAINING POTENTIAL FOR UNAPPROVED OR VACANT PROPERTIES IS 1,223. NOW TI IF THI NOTHING DEVELOPED IN THIS ZONE, AND YOU APPLIED THE GROWTH CONTROL POINTS WERE APPROVED AS PART OF PROPOSITION E, THERE WOULD BE A POTENTIAL FOR 12 DWELLING UNITS. SO WITH A BUILDOUT PROJECTION OF 9,188, THIS PLAN WILL E SISTENT WITH PROPOSITION E, AND IT ACTUALLY IS ABOUT 2,000 UNITS UNDER WE COULD THEORETICALLY BE DEVELOPED AND STILL COMPLY WITH PROPOSITION E AND GROWTH CONTROL POINTS. I OUT TO A BUILDOUT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTION OF 9,188 DWELLING UNITS. WE DID A SIMILAR ANALYSIS, AS WITH THE PREVIOUS FIVE ZONE PLANS, A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF EACH ONE OF THE ELEVEN FACILITIES THAT GROWTH MANAGE REQUIRES THE CITY TO LOOK AT, AND WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS, THE ANALYSIS H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I.5 l6 l7 18 l9 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 W * FACILITIES FALL INTO THREE GENERAL CATEGORIES, AND SO FOR, TO TRY TO SIM THIS, THAT'S THE WAY I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN THE ANALYSIS. THERE'S FACILIT CONFORM TO BUILDOUT OF THE ZONE AND WE DON'T NEED ANY KIND OF SPECIAL MI THERE'S FACILITIES WHERE THEY'RE CONFORMING RIGHT NOW, BUT WE NEED TO HA TION IN THE FUTURE OR THEY WON'T CONFORM WITH THE STANDARD. AND THEN TH CATEGORY OF FACILITIES THAT DO NOT CONFORM WITH THE STANDARD PRESENTLY, MITIGATION IS REQUIRED RIGHT NOW BEFORE ANY ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT CAN O( THE ZONE. AND SO I'LL GO THROUGH THOSE THREE CATEGORIES AND JUST LIST TI FACILITIES THAT FALL INTO EACH ONE OF THOSE THREE. FOR CONFORMANCE TO BUILDOUT, THERE'S FOUR FACILITIES: DRAINAGE, 01 SPACE, SEWER COLLECTION AND WATER DISTRIBUTION. NOW ON ALL FOUR OF THOSI PLAN INDICATES THAT THERE WON'T BE ANY MITIGATION, SPECIAL MITIGATION, NI THE ENTIRE BUILDOUT OF THE ZONE. NOW THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IMPROVEMENTS EACH ONE OF THOSE FOUR FACILITIES AREN'T GOING TO BE REQUIRED, BUT THEY'R STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS, AND IN RELATIVE TERMS, THEY'RE MINOR. THEY CAN BE HANDLED WITH ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND THEY WOULD BECOME NORMAL CONDITIO DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. THERE'S. NOTHING REALLY SPECIAL ABOUT THEM. THE SECOND CATEGORY WHERE FUTURE MITIGATION IS REQUIRED, THERE'S AL CITY ADMINISTRATI' FACILITIES IS THE FIRST ONE. UNDER THE PLAN, ON A CITY-WIDE BASIS, WE DO ADEQUATE ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES FOR A TEN TO FIFTEEN-YEAR PERIOD. AFT TIME, ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED. IN TERMS OF THE I WITH THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL SEVERAL MONTHS AGO OF PUTTING THAT IN THE ( 1 OF THE ELEVEN FACILITIES THAT FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY: AND DIRECTING THE CITY TO PURCHASE THE SITE, WE DO CONFORM WITH THE STANDf DOES REQUIRE THAT THE LIBRARY BE PHYSICALLY CONSTRUCTED IN ABOUT FOUR-AND- YEARS. THAT IS IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, THOUGH. SO THAT'S W€ MITIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THAT, IN TERMS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT, 7 THIRD ONE, THAT CONFORMS WITH THE STANDARD RIGHT NOW; HOWEVER, IT IS BASED 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 w 0 THE PHASE IV EXPANSION OF ENCINA, AND SO THAT NEEDS TO STAY ON SCHEDULE TO KEEP THIS IN CONFORMANCE. IN TERMS OF SCHOOLS, THE SCHOOLS ARE PROVI: CAPACITY FOR THE STUDENTS THAT ARE GENERATED FROM ZONE 6. THAT IS BEING WITH SOME TEMPORARY AND PORTABLE UNITS AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT DOES BE ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE. THEY ARE PROVIDING THE CAPACITY, BUT IT'S N( BEST MANNER, AND SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL REQUIRE MITIGATION IN THE FI WILL REQUIRE SOME NEW SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND SCHOOL SITES TO BE DONE FOR TI OF THE CITY. OK, THEN FINALLY, IN TERMS OF THE CATEGORY OF FACILITIES THAT DON" STANDARD RIGHT NOW, AND WE NEED TO HAVE THOSE MITIGATED, THERE'S THREE 0 PARKS, CIRCULATION AND FIRE. THESE WILL BE EXPLAINED IN A LITTLE BIT MOE WHEN PHILL STARTS TO TALK ABOUT THE FINANCING PROGRAM THAT THE PLAN PROP( IN TERMS OF PARKS, WE ARE, ZONE 6 FALLS INTO TWO PARK DISTRICTS. A SMALI OF IT FALLS INTO THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT, OR PARK DISTRICT 3; BUT IN THE $ OR PARK DISTRICT 4, THERE'S PRESENTLY A SHORTAGE OF 5.8 ACRES OF PARK, Al SOUTHWEST QUADRANT, THERE'S A SHORTAGE OF 36.9 ACRES. HOWEVER, THE MITI( PLAN ONLY ADDRESSES THE SOUTHEAST DISTRICT BECAUSE ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN CITY, OR IS BEING TAKEN BY THE CITY, TO TAKE CARE OF THE DEFICIENCY IN T€ THAT'S WITH THE RECENTLY APPROVED C. I THERE IS MONEY IN THERE TO ACQUIRE AND DEVELOP PARKS AND ALSO WITH THE HE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING CONMISSION, AND WILL BE COMING TO COUNCIL, THAT HELPS RESOLVE THAT DEFICIENCY. THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE 5.8 ACRES. i WEST QUADRANT, OR PARK DISTRICT 3. BUT WE STILL HAVE A DEFICIE IN TERMS OF CIRCULATION, THERE WERE THREE LOCATIONS THAT WERE IDENT THAT DON'T CONFORM THAT DON'T PRESENTLY CONFORM TO THE STANDARD. THAT WA CAMINO REAL AND LA COSTA AVENUE, WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ALL READY, WE PROGRAM HAS ALL READY BEEN COMPLETED TO TAKE CARE OF THAT, AND THAT WAS 'I RECENT IMPROVEMENT, so THAT HAS ALL READY BEEN TAKEN CARE OF, AND WAS DOT\ 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 w e CITY. AND THEN THE TWO OTHER LOCATIONS ARE 1-5 AND LA COSTA AVENUE BOTE BOUND AND NORTH-BOUND. THOSE PRESENTLY DON'T MEET THE PERFORMANCE STAND NEED TO BE MITIGATED. THEN FINALLY IN THIS CATEGORY IS THE FIRE, FIRE S IN ZONE 6, WE PRESENTLY EXCEED THE 5-MINUTE RESPONSE TIME THAT'S PART OF PERFORMANCE STANDARD. WE PRESENTLY, WELL, AS OF JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEA HAD 1,534 DWELLING UNITS THAT WERE OUTSIDE OF THE 5-MINUTE RESPONSE TIME THAT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE STANDARD, AND MITIGATION IS NEEDED AT THIS OKAY, THAT COMPLETES THE FACILITY ANALYSIS PART OF THE PLAN. IN TERMS o FINANCIAL MITIGATION OPTIONS, WHEN WE WERE PREPARING THIS PLAN, AND AS P, PLAN, THERE WERE SEVERAL OPTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED, AND IT WAS FELT TH, OBDER TO MITIGATE THE FACILITIES THAT DON'T PRESENTLY CONFORM WITH THE PI STANDARD, THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO HANDLE EACH ONE OF THOSE SEPARATELY. COULD BE, BUT IT SEEMED TO MAKE MORE SENSE TO COME UP WITH A PACKAGE THAI ADDRESS HOW TO FINANCE THE MITIGATION FOR THE THREE FACILITIES THAT WERE€, FORMING WITH THE STANDARD. THE OPTIONS THAT WERE LOOKED AT BECAUSE, WERE PRESENTLY NOT CONFORMIMG, IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WILL EVENTUALLY 7 CARE OF WHEN WE GET ENOUGH FUNDS IN, IN FEES. SO, THE DEVELOPMENT, ADD11 I DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA COULD WAIT UNTIL THE CITY RESOLVES THE PROBLEM, 1 IS POSSIBLE UNDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. THE TIMING MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO PEOPLE THAT WANT TO GO FORWARD, BUT THAT IS DEFINITELY AN 0 HAVE THE CITY EVENTUALLY FUND AND PUT IN THE FACILITIES. A SECOND ONE, BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER ZONE PLANS THAT ARE BEING PRO RIGHT NOW IN THIS AREA OF THE CITY THAT WILL HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THE SAM FACILITIES. THOSE HAVE, THOSE ZONE PLANS HAVE A LOT MORE UNDEVELOPED PRO1 AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL. SO THERE IS A POSSIBILITY WHERE, IF WE CAN'T ! THE PROBLEM IN ZONE 6, WE COULD WAIT UNTIL ANOTHER PLAN THAT HAS MORE DEV' POTENTIAL COMES IN WITH THE SOLUTION AND THE FINANCING TO BRING US UP TO ? A THIRD POSSIBILITY THAT WE LOOKED AT WAS SOME SORT OF A DEBT FINAN( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo l1 l2 l3 I* 15 l6 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 w 0 PROGRAM LIKE AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, SOME SORT OF A DISTRICT THAT WOULD ( MONEY UP FRONT, ALL THE MONEY, PUT IN THE FACILITIES, AND THEN PAY IT OF PERIOD OF TIME. THE LAST ALTERNATIVE, AND THE ONE THAT IS BEING RECOMMENDED AS WHA FEELS IS THE ONE THAT WOULD COME ABOUT THE SOONEST, IS TO HAVE THE ZONE f DEVELOPERS, AND THESE ARE DEVELOPERS OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN ON HOLD 1 PLAN IS DONE, TO HAVE THEM UP-FRONT THE MONEY TO CORRECT THE FACILITIES 1 GUARANTEE THAT THE FACILITIES WOULD BE CORRECTED, AND THEN THEY COULD TH AHEAD AND DEVELOP. SOME OF THAT MONEY WOULD BE REIMBURSABLE. THIS TYPE APPROACH IS ALLOWED UNDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. IT'S THE SEC ALLOWS THE CITY TO IMPOSE A PUBLIC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE, AND WHAT I DO RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY THE MOST IMPROTANT PART OF THE PLAN, I PHIL GO THROUGH HOW WE CAME UP WITH THAT FOURTH PROPOSAL. WHILE PHIL'S, WE'RE MOVING OVER, I SHOULD SAY, TOO, THAT THESE WERE ALL ALTERNATIVES TI PRESENTED AND THOUGH WE'RE RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF FOUR TONIGHT, AS THE RESOLUTION ADOPTING THAT, IT STILL LEAVES OTHER ALTERNATIVES OPEN. ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE BECAME MORE FEASIBLE AND MORE SATISFACTORY TO EVERY0 ADOPTING THE FOURTH OPTION TONIGHT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE COUNCIL IN THE 1 i APPROVING ANOTHER OPTION THAT SEEMS TO MAKE MORE SENSE, OR YAY BE MORE E: MR. CARTER: THANK YOU MICHAEL, YOU MADE MY PART OF THE PRESENTATI( EASIER WITH THAT INTRODUCTION. AS WAS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE ZONE 6 PLA! MOST COMPLICATED PLAN AND THE MOST DETAILED PLAN PREPARED AND PRESENTED j AS PART OF THAT PLAN, WE'VE IDENTIFIED THREE PUBLIC FACILITIES THAT DON" WITH OUR ADOPTED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. AND IN THE PREPARATION OF THE PI WERE LOOKING FOR A WAY TO PROVIDEW AN ALTERNATIVE TO PEOPLE TO CONTROL TI DESTINE, TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CORRECT THE PUBLIC FACILITY SHORTFALLS, i THE ABILITY TO PROCEED AND DEVELOP IN ZONE 6. IN DOING SO, WE DISCOVEREI GOING THROUGH EACH ONE OF THE FACILITIES, THROUGH CIRCULATION, THROUGH Pf 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 e - THROUGH THE FIRE STATION PROBLEM, THAT THE ONLY WAY TO DO THIS WAS THROUi COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL PLAN. AND SO ZONE 6 CONTAINS WHAT NONE OF THE 0' PREVIOUS PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL, AND THAT IS A COMP FINANCIAL PLAN TO CORRECT PUBLIC FACILITY SHORTFALLS IDENTIFIED DURING T PARATION OF THE ZONE 6 PLAN. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AS THE PLAN WA! PREPARED, AND AS THE FINANCIAL PACKAGE STATES IN THE PLAN, WHEN IT WAS AI AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THERE WAS ABOUT 9.6 MILLION DOLL1 IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED. WELL, TODAY, THANKS TO ACTIONS BY THE CITY COUNCIL FACIILTIES THAT NEED TO BE IMPROVED, THE DOLLAR AMOUNT HAS BEEN REDUCED, OVERALL AMOUNT IS ABOUT 7.9 MILLION DOLLARS. WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING IN THIS PLAN IS A WAY TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT SO LONG AS THE ADOPTED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ARE COMPLIED WITH, AS GROWTI MENT, INDEED, DICTATES. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS START BY DESCRIBING HOW \ DETERMINED, HOW A LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT FEE SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED, AI THAT CRITERIA IS. THE FIRST OVERHEAD THAT'S PUT UP DESCRIBES THE DEVELOPMENT CATEGOR: DIFFERENT PROJECTS WITHIN ZONE 6. WELL PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL, AXD THE AI THE ZONE 6 PLAN, CERTAIN DEVELOPERS WERE ALLOWED TO PROCEED AND GO FORWAF 1 IN ORDER TO DO SO, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT TO PAY FUTURE FEES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED OUT OF THE ZONE 6 PLAN. THE SECOND CATEGORY OF DEVELOPMENT STAGES ARE THOSE PROJECTS WHICH THEY'RE ON HOLD UNTIL THE LOCAL PLAN IS I CITY APPROVALS BUT ARE ON HOLD. UNTIL ALL OF THE ELEVEN PUBLIC FACILITY STANDARDS ARE BROUGHT INTO CONFOI AND THEN FINALLY, THERE'S A CATEGORY OF FUTURE UNITS. THOSE UNITS, POTENTIAL TO BE DEVELOPED OVER TIME. NOW I THINK I HEARD EARLIER SEVERAL IN THE ROOM MOVING BECAUSE THE AGENDA BILL INDICATES 1,338 FUTURE DWELLIb AND THAT'S AN ERROR. IT SHOULD BE 1,223. THIS DESCRIBES THE DIFFERENT 5 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN ZONE 6, AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS HIGHLIC I: 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 20 - 0 THE FACILITY SHORTFALLS ARE WITHIN ZONE 6, AND THE NEXT OVERHEAD PROVIDE, THOSE ALONG WITH THE COST ESTIMATE PREPARED BY STAFF WHICH WOULD ALLOW U BRING THOSE FACILITIES INTO CONFORMANCE WITH OUR STANDARDS. THE FIRST ITEM IS THE LA COSTA/I-5 INTERCHANGE, AND THE ESTIMATED BRING THAT UP TO STANDARD IS 3.3 MILLION DOLLARS. AND YOU'LL NOTE THAT I ASTERISK THERE, AND I'LL GO BACK TO THAT AND EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS. TI TWO ITEMS LISTED ARE FOR PARKS, AND AS MICHAEL INDICATED, WE'VE IDENTIFII FALLS WITHIN THE ZONE 6 PLAN IN BOTH THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT, PARK DISTRIi THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT, PARK DISTRICT 4. THE FIRST CATEGORY OF PARKS, THE SHORTFALL INCLUDES THOSE DEVLEOPE BEEN ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD AS WELL AS THE SHORTFALL IDENTIFIED IN THE PLI IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ENOUGH 'ACREAGE, WE NEED APPROXIMATELY 1.2 MILLION DOI THE NEXT CATEGORY IS, UNDER OUR FINANCING PLAN, IF WE ALLOWED A GR( PEOPLE TO GO FORWARD, AN ADDITIONAL 965 DWELLING UNITS, THEIR DEMAND FOR AND THE ABILITY FOR THE CITY TO GUARANTEE THAT WE COULD SUPPLY THOSE PARE APPROXIMATELY 1.1 MILLION DOLLARS IS NEEDED. THE THIRD ITEM DEALS WITH FIRE STATION NUMBER 6, AND WE'VE BROKEN r DOWN INTO TWO CATEGORIES: THE FIRST IS THE COSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COST I650 THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND OF COURSE THAT HAS TO ASTERISKS, AND I'LL DISCI. IN A SECOND ALSO; THE NEXT IS THE NEED TO MOVE THE FIRE STATION UP A YEAR BUILD IT FASTER THAN THE CITY HAD ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED. AND IN DOING T WE'VE INCLUDED OPERATIONAL COSTS FOR THAT FIRST YEAR. THOSE COSTS WHICH NOT ASSUME TAHT WE WOULD INCUR, AND THOSE ARE 526 THOUSAND DOLLARS. WHEF SUBTOTAL THAT, AND INTO THE SUBTOTAL A CONTINGENCIES ACCOUNT, BECAUSE EAC THESE ITEMS IS AN ESTIMATE, OF FIFTEEN PERCENT, THE SUBTOTAL IS ABOUT 7.9 DOLLARS WHICH IS NEEDED TODAY TO BRING THESE THREE FACILITIES INTO CONFOR WITH OUR ADOPTED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. AS I WENT THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES, WE INDICATED THERE AR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo l1 12 l3 l4 l5 l6 17 18 l9 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 2'lr 28 0 w PROJECTS THAT WERE ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE LO1 AND THEY'VE SIGNED AGREEMENTS TO PAY FUTURE FEES AS IDENTIFIED IN THE PL, THERE ARE ALSO THE 965 DWELLING UNITS THAT ARE ON HOLD, THAT HAVE SOME C APPROVALS AND ARE READY TO GO FORWARD. WHAT WE'VE DONE, IS WE'VE TAKEN 1 COST TO BRING THE FACILITIES UP TO COMPLIANCE, AND DIVIDED THAT BY THE T( NUMBER OF DWELLIXG UNITS THAT HAVE GONE FORWARD, OR HAVE EXPRESSED AN IN' DEVELOPING AND IN GOING FORWARD, AND THAT'S 1,539 DWELLING UNITS. DIVID BY THE TOTAL COST, IT COMES UP 5,105 DOLLARS, AND TONIGHT THAT'S THE LOC, FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE THAT WE'RE REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL TO mom REASON THAT THE 1,023 FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS HAVE NOT BEEN CAI INTO THIS FEE, THE FIRST IS THAT THE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TODAY I TAKE THE ZONE THROUGH BUILDOUT. THEY'RE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO ZONE INTO COMPLIANCE NOW WITH THE ADOPTED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. THE SE( THAT STAFF HAS NO WAY OF GUAGING WHEN THOSE INDIVIDUALS WILL WANT TO DEVL PROJECTS, WHEN THEY'LL WANT TO COME IN AND DEVELOP THE LAND THEY HAVE. I BE A YEAR FROM NOW OR TEN YEARS FROM NOW. WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING.. TWO OF THE ITEMS IN THE FACILITY LIST HAVE ASTERISKS. THE FIRST IS LA COSTA AT 1-5 BRIDGE, AND THE FOOTNOTE BELOW INDICATES THAT A PORTION C AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE COI BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE BENEFIT DISTRICT FEES TO PAY FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT TIME. THE DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE COST NEEDED TODAY TO FIX IT AND THE AMOU MONEY THAT WE'LL COLLECT OVER TIME, THERE'S ABOUT 2.4 MILLION DOLLARS THA BELIEVE NEEDS TO BE REIMBURSED TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO GO FORWARD AND UP-FRON TO CORRECT FACILITIES. I STAFF BELIEVES SHOULD BE REIMBURSABLE. UNDER THE FIRE STATION, WE HAVE BUDGETED PUBLIC FACILITY FEE FUNDS YEARS 1988-89 TO PAY TO CONSTRUCT THAT FIRE STATION AND TO OPERATE IT. W THINK IS THAT THOSE FUNDS ALSO NEED TO BE REIMBURSED TO THOSE WHO GO FORW UP-FRONT THE FUNDS. 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 - e WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO NOW IS WALK THROUGH AN IMAGINARY, THE NORMAL D FEES THAT WE COLLECT IN THE CITY AND REALIZE THAT THIS ISN'T THE EXACT N EVERY HOME. WE'VE TAKEN AN IMAGINARY 1,500 SQUARE FOOT HOME AND APPLIED WE COLLECT AND WHAT THOSE COSTS ARE. WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE SHOWN THA' COLLECT PUBLIC FACILITY FEES, WE COLLECT BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE FEES, TI IMPACT FEES, PARK-IN-LIEU, DRAINAGE, SEWER FEES, WATER FEES, AND SCHOOL 1 AN AVERAGE, THE TOTAL FEES COLLECTED ON AN INDIVIDIUAL PROJECT, OR AN IN1 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ARE A LITTLE OVER 11,000 DOLLARS. OF THOSE FEE HIGHLIGHTED TWO FOR YOU: THE BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE AND THE PARK-IN-LII THE PROPOSAL THAT STAFF IS MAKING, AND UNDER THE FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVE WI PRESENTED, AT THE TIME THE BUILDING PERMITS WERE PULLED BY THOSE PEOPLE F GO FORWARD AND UP-FRONT THE CITY FUNDS TO CORRECT THESE FACILITIES, WE WC CREDIT THEM DIRECTLY AGAINST BOTH THEIR BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE FEES AND PARK-IN-LIEU FEES BECAUSE THEY'VE PAID ADVANCED FEES TO THE CITY BASICALL THAT ULTIMATELY ENDS UP IN IS A REDUCTION OF ABOUT 1,350 DOLLARS WHEN THE BUILDING PERMITS SO THE ACTUAL FEE PER HOME IS ABOUT 9,965 DOLLARS. WHAT THE NEXT OVERHEAD DOES IS PROVIDES A PER-UNIT BREAKDOWN. A TO FRONT FEES, THE 5,105 DOLLARS, THE LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT FEE THAT WE' j RECOMMENDING, ADDING TO THAT THE MOUNT OF MONEY THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED 'I PAID AT THE TIME A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED, WHICH IS 15,070 DOLLARS. WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE PUT IN LESS REIMBURSEMENTS. WE'VE TAKEN THE TOT MILLION DOLLARS OUT OF BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE AND THE 650 THOUSAND DOLLA HAVE DIVIDED THAT BY THE NUMBER OF UNITS PARTICIPATING, AND THAT'S A LITT 2,000 DOLLARS. SO IN THE END, ALL THE FEES THAT WOULD BE PAID ARE A LITT 13,000 DOLLARS. JUST BELOW THAT, WHAT IT SHOWS IS THAT THE TOTAL FEES PA 13,000 LESS THE NORMAL FEES WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN COLLECTED HAD WE NOT AD ZONE 6 AND HAD WE NOT IDENTIFIED THE FACILITY SHORTFALLS, A DIFFERENCE OF 1,700 DOLLARS IN ADDITIONAL FEES TUT WOULD NEED TO BE PAID TO ALLOW us T 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 I e WITH THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. AND AGAIN, AT THE TOP OF THIS OVERHEAD, WE'RE SHOWING IS WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT A LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT FEE APPROVED THIS EVENING IN THE AMOUNT OF 5,105 DOLLARS. WHAT THIS ALLOWS 1 IS TO GO BACK AND TO COLLECT THOSE FUNDS FROM PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN ALLOWED FORWARD PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE LOCAL PLAN AND PRIOR TO THE TIME THf IDENTIFIED FACILITIY SHORTFALLS. WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT A FEE AS SOON AS I BECAUSE THE LONGER WE DELAY, THE MORE DIFFICULT IT'S GOING TO BE TO GO BL COLLECT THOSE FUNDS FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED THOSE AGREEMENTS. WE ALI BEGIN DOING THAT SO THAT WE START TO GENERATE AND GATHER FUNDS NECESSARY THESE IMPROVEMENTS. WE'VE INDICATED THAT THERE ARE 574 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS THAT HAVE GONE FORWARD PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS PLAN. WELL, IN DOING SO, HAVE PAID THEIR NOW BUILDING PERMIT FEES. AND WHAT WE WOULD SAY IS TE THOSE 574 UNITS, WE WOULD BE SUBTRACTING APPROXIMATELY 1,350 DOLLARS FROh FACILITY FEE BECAUSE THEY'VE ALL READY PAID NORMAL BUILDING FEES WHEN THE THEIR PERMITS. AND WE WOULD BE SAYING THAT WHAT THEY OWE IN TERMS OF FAC IMPROVEMENTS IS 3,756 DOLLARS PER UNIT. THOSE ARE THE BILLS THAT WE WOUL SENDING OUT IF THE FACILITY FEE IS ADOPTED. 1 WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS JUST END BY SAYING THAT WE BELIEVE THE ADOPT THIS PLAN IS NECESSARY. WE BELIEVE THAT IMPLEMENTING THE LOCAL FACILITY MENT FEE IS ALSO NECESSARY FOR THE REASONS THAT I'VE STATED. I THINK THI ESTABLISHES ONE FINANCIAL PLAN WHICH WOULD ENABLE THOSE DEVELOPERS TO CON THEIR OWN DESTINY THAT WANT TO DEVELOP PROVIDED THAT THEY CAN BRING OUR s INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. WITHOUT BRINGING THE STANDARDS INTO COMPLIANCE, THERE WON'T BE ANY DEVELOPMENT ALLOW$ED IN ZON IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO SAY THAT FOR THE 965 PEOPLE THAT ARE ON HOLD DWELLIN FOR THEM TO PAY 5,105 DOLLARS IN A FACILITY FEE, THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TO ALL GO GET 7.9 MILLION DOLLARS. THEY'LL STILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE us ADDL 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 w e UP-FRONT FUNDS TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE THAT 7.9 MILLION DOLLARS. DURING 7 THAT FUNDS ARE COLLECTED TO DO THAT, WE WOULD SAY THAT ANY FUNDS COLLECTE THE 574 WOULD BE USED TO OFFSET THE AMOUNT OF THAT UP-FRONT FEE. THE FACILITY FINANCING PLAN PRESENTED IN ZONE 6 IS INDEED COMPLICAT HOPE I HAVEN'T MADE THAT MORE COMPLICATED THROUGH THESE OVERHEADS. MS. KULCHIN: QUESTION. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. CLARIFICATION. I AGENDA PACKET WE TALK ABOUT 574 UNITS THAT WERE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP, AND T HAVE IT CROSSED OUT AND I PUT 671. IS IT 574 OR 671? MR. CARTER: IT'S 574. MS. KULCHIN: IT IS 574. OKAY. MAYOR LEWIS: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. HOLZMILLER: WITH THAT, MAYOR, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CIT' IN ADDITION TO APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION THAT WAS DONE ON THIS, ' ADOPT TWO RESOLUTIONS. AND THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE APPROVING ZONE 6, THE I PLAN; AND THEN THE SECOND ONE WOULD BE ESTABLISHING THE LOCAL FACILITIES b FEE. AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT BECAUSE THIS WAS A CONCERN THAT WAS EXI PLANNING COMMISSION BY FUTURE DEVELOPERS IN THIS AREA, THAT THEY FELT THA? SHOULD BE FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF HOW THIS MONEY IS UP-FRONTED, AND AS PAI ITHAT RESOLUTION, IT DOES SAY IN THERE THAT THIS IS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT IS ADOPTED AT THIS TIME SO THAT WE CAN START COLLECTING THE MONEY FROM THE PE THAT HAVE AGREED TO PAY THAT AND HAVE ALL READY BUILT, AND THE LONGER WE F THAT, THE HARDER IT'S GOING TO BE TO COLLECT. BUT THAT IF SOME OTHER ALTE FOR UP-FRONTING THE REST OF THE MONEY IS PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL, AND IT ACCOMPLISHES THE SAME PURPOSE, THEN THE PLAN COULD, IT, THAT WOULD BE ACCE UNDER THE: PLAN. MAYOR LEWIS: QUESTIONS? MR. MAMAUX. MR. MAMAUX: MR. HOLZMILLER, HOW MANY SINGLE R-1 LOTS TO BE DEVELOPE OWNER-OCCUPIED ARE THERE? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 - e MR. HOLZMILLER: IT'S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 100 TO 200. MR. MAMAUX: OKAY. AND IN THE FINANCING PACKAGE, YOU TALK ABOUT T PUT UP THE MONEY, THEY COULD PUT UP LETTERS OF CREDIT, HOW DO YOU WANT T E REQUIRES CONCURRENT WITH NEED, SO YOU'RE REQUIRING 7.9 MILLION CONCURR THE NEED. MR. HOLZMILLER: YES. MR. MAMAUX: OKAY. AS I LISTENED TO MR. CARTER, THE 5,105 DOLLAR THE 1,349 IS 3,756, BUT THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER REIMBURSABLE 1,719. 1,719 IS THAT CORRECT? MR. CARTER: IT'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE OVER 2,000 DOLLARS. MR. MAMAUX: WELL, THEREABOUTS. SO THAT MEANS THAT THE ACTUAL MITl FEE, IF EVERYONE CAME IN AND PAID TOMORROW WOULD BE ABOUT 2,000 DOLLARS I DWELLING UNIT. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? OKAY. THANK YOU. MAYOR LEWIS: ALL RIGHT, LET'S MAKE SURE WE CLARIFY THAT. IF I UND YOU CORRECTLY, MR. MAMAUX, YOU'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE SINGLE-FAMILY R- MR. MAMAUX: NO, WELL, I MAYOR LEWIS: DID YOU MR. MAMAUX: I GOT THAT ANSWER BEFORE CAUSE I FEEL THAT THOSE FOLKS 1 WANT TO TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MAYOR LEWIS: OKAY, BUT THEN YOU JUMP INTO THE 7.9, MR. MAMAUX: YEAH. MAYOR LEWIS: AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TOTAL BUILDOUT OF THOSE, MR. MAMAUX: YES. MAYOR LEWIS: THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 2,000 DOLLARS EACH, THAT'S WITH TI IMBURSEMENTS, RIGHT? MR. MAMAUX: AFTER THEY GET REIMBURSED, THE COST IS ABOUT 2,000 DOLI MITIGATE ALL OF THE OTHER, MAYOR LEWIS: OKAY, FINE. MR. LARSON. 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 w e MR. LARSON: LET ME ASK A QUESTION TO CLARIFY MR. MAMAUX'S STATEMEI 100 TO 200 IS THAT OF THE 574 PLUS THE 965 OR IS THAT THE UNDEVELOPED. MR. HOLZMILLER: THAT'S UNDEVELOPED. MR. LARSON: THAT'S THE 965 ON HOLD. MR. HOLZMILLER: NO, IT'S THE 1,223. MR. LARSON: OKAY, IT'S A COMBINATION OF WHICH, WE HAVE THE THREE r UNITS HERE. MR. HOLZMILLER: LET ME PUT THAT ONE BACK UP SO WE. MS. KULCHIN: I THINK YOU CHANGED THE NUMBERS ON US. THAT'S WHAT': MR. LARSON. WE HAVE 1,338. MR. LARSON: I'M EASILY CONFUSED. MS. KULCHIN: NO, NO. IN OUR PACKET, WE HAVE 1,338 AND NOW THEY'RE US IT'S REALLY 1,223. MR. LARSON: OKAY, SO MR. HOLZMILLER! TBOSE ARE PART OF THE FUTURE UNITS. MR. LARSON: OF THE FUTURE UNITS. MR. HOLZMILLER: YES. MR. LARSON: OKAY. NO AGREEMENTS SIGNED? I MR. HOLZMILLER: NO AGREEMENTS SIGNED. MR. LARSON: FUTURE UNITS THAT WE MAY SEE AT SOME POINT IN TIME. C ME ZERO IN ON THE QUESTION ABOUT THE 574. WHAT KIND OF OPTIONS DID THE C PREVIOUS TO THOSE 574 UNITS BEING APPROVED AND BEING ALLOWED TO BUILD? W THE OPTIONS OF THE CITY NOT TO ALLOW ANY OF THOSE UNITS TO BUILD? MR. HOLZMILLER: THOSE WERE UNITS THAT WHEN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT 0 WAS ADOPTED, WERE SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS THAT WERE PART OF THE ORDINANCE. T UNITS THAT A PORTION OF THE PROJECT HAD ALL READY STARTED TO DEVELOP AND ' INFRASTRUCTURE WAS IN, OR THEY WERE PROJECTS THAT HAD A FINAL MAP AT THE ' THE CITY STARTED WORKING ON THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. 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 w m NR. LARSON: BUT THEY WERE EXEMPTIONS, MR. HOLZMILLER: YES. MR. LARSON: AND ONE OF THE OPTIONS THE CITY HAD COULD HAVE BEEN T ALLOW THOSE 574 MR. HOLZMILLER: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. LARSON: TO BUILD. SO IF THE CITY HAD TAKEN THAT OPTION RIGHT WOULD HAVE 574 PLUS 965 MR. HOLZMILLER: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. LARSON: OF APPROVED UNITS AND WE WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THE E FEES. MR. HOLZMILLER: YES. MR. LARSON; HOWEVER THOSE 574 WOULD NOT MVE BEEN BUILT. MR. HOLZMILLER: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. LARSON: THEY WOULD STILL BE WAITING TO PROCEED AND BUILD. NO1 SET THE FEE, HOW CLOSE DOES THAT GET us TO SATISFYING THE SHORTFALLS TW THESE THREE ITEMS. MR.HOLZMILLER: WELL, MAYBE MR. CARTER COULD GIVE YOU THE MORE SPE( NUMBERS. THE PROBLEM IS WE DON'T, WE HOPE THAT WE GET A HUNDRED PERCENT I TION RATE FROM THE 574 UNITS, BUT, AND IF WE DID, THEN THE FEE WOULD BE 1 IF SOME OF THOSE DON'T, EXACT AMOUNT WE NEED TO FINANCE THE WHOLE THING. MAYBE THAT'S NOT TOTALLY CORRECT, RIGHT? DOLLARS, BUT THEY'VE ALL READY PAID CERTAIN THINGS THAT THEY WOULD GET A OKAY, BECAUSE, THE FEE IS THE 5 FOR, SO THE BILL THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE SENT TO THEM WOULD BE A LITTLE OV DOLLARS. NOW IF WE COLLECTED ON ALL 574 OF THOSE UNITS FOR THE UNITS THA ON EOLD JUST PAYING 5,000 DOLLARS WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH TO TAKE CARE OF THE AND-A-HALF MILLION. IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT. WE DON'T K THAT WOULD BE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO TRY TO COLLECT FROM THE THAT HAVE GONE FORWARD. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 -7 MR. LARSON: OKAY, SO THE SHORTFALL FALLS ON THE 965 AT THIS POINl IF THERE BECOMES AN IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION TO COLLECT ON A PORTION OF THE MR. HOLZMILLER: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. LARSON: AND SO NOTHING WILL HAPPEN WITH FUTURE UNITS OR APPRO UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT THOSE FIGURES ARE AND FEES ARE COLLECTED AND WE CAN PI THE SHORTCOMING. MR. HOLZMILLER: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. LARSON: THANK YOU. MAYOR LEWIS: MS. KULCHIN. MS. KULCHIN: YEAH. THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MR. LARSON'S QUESTION WAS SOME OF MINE. SO, IF I'M ONE OF THE 574, WHEN I CAME IN YOU TOLD ME YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND YOU CAN BUILD, AND THEN I SIGNED A LETTER OF AGREEM- I WOULD PAY THOSE FEES, ALL RIGHT? MR. HOLZMILLER: RIGHT. MS. KULCHIN: AND YOU KEEP SAYING WELL I HOPE THAT THEY DO PAY AND NOW WE'RE ASKING 3,756 PER UNIT. WE DID PUT A LIEN OR SOMETHING ON THAT, THEIR DEED. MR. CARTER: WE HAVE THE LEGAL STRUCTURE TO COLLECT THAT MONEY WE'? 1 NOT ALL OF THE MONEY COMES IN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AS REQUIRED BY THE AGREI WHETHER OR NOT SOME OF THE MONEY SIXTY DAYS, NINETY DAYS. THAT'S WHAT WE COMING IN. . MS. KULCHIN: OKAY. MAYOR LEWIS: MR. PETTINE. MR. PETTINE: MR. CARTER, IF THESE FEES ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING COLLECTED AND THE DEVELOPERS DECIDE TO COLLECTIVELY SELECT A DIFFERENT AL THAT YOU'VE OUTLINED IN YOUR MEMORANDUM, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH THOSE FEE OTHER WORDS IF THE FUNDING CAME FROM ANOTHER SOURCE, WOULD THOSE FEES BE 1 THEN REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY OWNERS? 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 T MR. CARTER: RIGHT. IT WOULD BE OUR PLAN TO USE THOSE FEES AS PAR POOL OF MONEY TO HELP SUPPORT ANY OTHER KIND OF FINANCIAL PLAN THAT WAS j MR. PETTINE: ALL RIGHT. AND IF THE MONEY CAME IN IN ITS ENTIRETY ANOTHER SOURCE, WHICH 1s PROBABLY UNLIKELY, THEY THOSE FEES WOULD BE REI IN THEIR ENTIRETY, IS THAT RIGHT? MR. HOLZMILLER: RIGHT. MR. PETTINE: OKAY. MR. MAMAUX: I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE IN ENTIRETY, WOULD IT? THE1 STILL THAT 1,700 OR THE 2,000 RATHER THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE RETURNED. MR. CARTER: YEAH, MAYBE I'M NOT AS CLEAR WHAT WOULD BE, THE UP-FRC MONEY THAT WOULD BE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE 5,000 DOLLAR LOCAL FACILITY MANf FEE. IF THEY WERE REQUIRED TO UP-FRONT 1,000 DOLLARS WAITING FOR PART 01 UNITS TO PAY ALL THEIR FUNDS, THEN YES, THAT 1,000 DOLLARS WOULD ALL BE I BURSABLE AND THEN A PORTION A LITTLE BIT OVER 2,000 AT SOME POINT IN THE WOULD ALSO BECOME REIMBURSABLE SO YOU'RE BOTH SAYING THE SAME THINGS. MAYOR LEWIS: ALL RIGHT, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. MOST OF MINE Hb READY BEEN ANSWERED, BUT THAT DEALS WITH THE FUTURE UNITS OF 1,223. ACC MY NOTE THAT I HAVE HERE, IT STATES THAT IF THE COUNCIL WISHES TO DO ANY1 ,I ABOUT THE R-L'S, THE SINGLE R-1's THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THAT, YOU MENTIONE WERE BETWEEN 100 TO 200, THAT'S WHERE THEY WOULD COME OUT OF, IS THAT RIG HOLZMILLER? MR. HOLZMILLER: THAT'S CORRECT. MAYOR LEWIS: OKAY, FINE. m. HOLZMILLER: JUST TO CLARIFY ON THAT POINT BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ISSUE THAT WHEN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED, OWNER-OCCUPI SINGLE-FAMILY ON PREVIOUSLY SUBDIVIDED LOTS, SO LOTS THAT WERE ALL READY b DIVIDED, THEY WERE OWNED BY ONE INDIVIDUAL, AND THEY WNATED TO COME IN ANI A HOUSE ON IT, THAT WAS EXEMPTED FROM THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. AI 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 r ONE OF THE EXEMPTIONS THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PART. HOWEVER, STAFF DID NOT THEM AS PART OF THE LOCAL PLAN. SO I THINK WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT, YOU IT'S A QUESTION WHETHER THE COUNCIL WANTS TO LOOK AT EXEMPTING THOSE IT MISSIBLE UNDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT W MAKE PART OF THE PLAN. MAYOR LEWIS: I REALIZE THAT, MR. HOLZMILLER. YOU MENTION IN YOUR COMMENTS THAT IN ZONE 6, EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE LAND USE HAS ALL READY BE DEVELOPED, AND YOU HAVE REFERRED TO THIS AS THE INFILL AREA. TWELVE PER BEEN APPROVED PROJECTS. WE ONLY HAVE EIGHT PERCENT THAT HAS NOT BEEN API LAND USE, IS THAT CORRECT? MR. HOLZMILER: THAT'S CORRECT. MAYOR LEWIS: OKAY, FINE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. MAMAUX: ONE, SO I UNDERSTAND CLEARLY, MR. HOLZMILLER, YOU'RE h THAT IN ZONE 6 THERE ARE 2,762 DWELLING UNITS THAT ARE EITHER UNDER CONS7 BEING WITHHELD, OR ON FUTURE AGREEMENTS, AND ALL OF THOSE HAVE TO PAY A I PERMITS ARE ISSUED. THE UP-FRONT FEE. THEY ALL HAVE TO BE COLLECTED. MR. HOLZMILLER: YEAH, YOU PROBABLY ADDED UP THE NUMBERS AT THE BEG MR. MAMAUX: YES. I MR. HOLZMILLER: YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT. MR. MAMAUX: BUT THE POINT IS THAT EVEN A PERSON CAME IN AN PAID TH THEY STILL CANNOT PROGRESS. MR. HOLZMILLER: NO. INDIVIDUALLY PAID THE FEE? NO, THEY COULD NOT MR. MAMAUX: THAT'S THE POINT I WANTED TO GET ACROSS, THAT EVERYONE EVERYONE PAYS UP TO THE 7.9 MILLION, THERE ARE NO PERMITS ISSUED. MR. HOLZMILLER: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. MAMAUX: THANK YOU. MAYOR LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MS. KULCHIN: I HAVE A QUESTION. 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 e T MAYOR LEWIS: MS. KULCHIN. MS. KULCHIN: I THOUGHT WE TOLD YOU ABOUT EXEMPTING SINGLE FAMILY, OCCUPIED. MAYOR LEWIS: WE HAVEN'T. HE JUST MADE THE COMMENT THAT WE COULD IT AT A LATER DATE IP WE WANTED TO, BUT ALL WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW, THIS EVERYONE INTO 7.9 PAYUP OR ELSE. MR. MAMAUX: THAT'S THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO GET ACROSS. I WANTEi SURE THAT WE'RE NOT EXEMPTING ANYONE MAYOR LEWIS: RIGHT. MR. MAMAUX: TO -- EVERYONE HAS TO PAY AND NO ONE BUILDS UNTIL EVE PAYS. MR. HOLZMILLER: THE WAY THE PLAN IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, IF ONE INDl PERSON THAT HAD A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT WANTED TO COME IN AND GET A BUILDING THEY COULD NOT DO IT UNLESS THEY WERE WILLING TO PUT UP 7.9 MILLION DOLLt MS. KULCHIN: THAT'S A VERY EXPENSIVE HOUSE, MR. HOLZMILLER. MR. HOLZMILLER: THAT'S NOT WHAT WE PROPOSED IN THE PLAN. WHAT WE IN THE PLAN IS THAT THE PROJECTS THAT ARE ON HOLD, THAT ARE READY TO GO P KNOW THAT THEY'RE READY TO GO, AND THEY'VE BEEN ON HOLD SINCE WE'VE BEEN I ON THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, THAT THEY ALL GET TOGETHER BECAUSE THEE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. THEY ALL GET TOGETHER AND THEY COLLECTIVE UP WITH THE MONEY. THERE'S ABOUT TWENTY PROJECTS THAT ARE ON HOLD RIGHT BUT WE WE REALIZE THAT A SINGLE-FAMILY PERSON THAT OWNS ONE LOT ISN'T GO1 COME IN AND DO THAT, SO THAT ISN'T WHAT MS. KULCHIN: SO IF THE COUNCIL WANTED TO, WE COULD EXEMPT THEM TON MR. PATCHETT: MAYOR. MAYOR LEWIS: YES. MR. PATCHETT: LET ME JUST SAY SOMETHING, THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING A IS IF A FACILITY IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE ADOPTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l1 l2 l3 14 15 16 17 18 I' 2o *I 22 23 24 z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e - MS. KULCHIN: I'M NEXT AFTER YOU, MR. PATCHETT. MR. PATCHETT: PLEASE. MS. KULCHIN: NO, GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD. MR. PATCHETT: WELL, I CAN STAND CORRECTED ON THIS, BUT TO MY KNOW WHERE THERE'S BEEN A GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEFICIENCY IN EXISTENCE, WE HAVEN VIDED ANY EXEMPTIONS. THIS ZONE 6 PLAN DOESN'T ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHE NOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY OWNER-OCCUPIED SHOUL SHOULD NOT BE ADDRESSED. IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE COUNCIL WANTS TO DISCU SOME POINT TONIGHT, I THINK WE OUGHT TO BRING THAT UP, BUT I'D REALLY LI YOU DEAL WITH ZONE 6, AND THEN WE'LL COME TO THAT. MS. KULCHIN: OKAY. MAYOR LEWIS: ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEA' ANYONE MAY ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THIS ISSUE BY SIMPLY COMING UP TO THE GIVING YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, AND YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO MAKE YOU1 TATION. MR. CARR: DAVID CARR, 3322 VENADO STREET. I'M ONE OF THE 574. I' PROCESS OF FINISHING MY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, My CONCERN IS WITH THE 1 SCHEME AND HOW IT IS BEING APPLIED TO THOSE WHO us WHO SIGNED AGREEMENTS 1 FUTURE FEES. EITHER THE VERSION WHICH I SIGNED, WHICH WAS AN EARLY VERSl THERE'S A NEWER VERSION NOW. IN MY AGREEMENT, I AGREED TO PAY ANY INCRE~ NEWLY ESTABLISHED FEES PURSUANT TO THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. I STAND, AND AGREE, THAT THIS FEE CAN BE TO CORRECT CURRENT DEFICIENCIES A! PROVIDE FACILITIES ATTIRIBUTABLE TO FUTURE GROWTH. IN THE ORDINANCE ESTA THIS FEE, IT STATES "THE FEE SHALL BE FAIRLY APPORTIONED AMONG THE NEW DE MENT". UNDER THE PLAN PROPOSED, THE INVOICES SENT TO THOSE OF US WHO SIC THESE AGREEMENTS WOULD INCLUDE NOT ONLY OUR FAIR SHARE OF MONEY NECESSAR'~ FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS, BUT AN AMOUNT OF UP-FRONT MONEY TO BE REIMBURSED A DEVELOPMENT TAKES PLACE. IN MY OPINION, THE AGREEMENT I SIGNED BINDS ME 1 MY FAIR SHARE AND I DON'T HESITATE TO DO THAT. THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT R 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 l2 I3 l4 l5 l6 17 18 19 e T TO PARTICIPATE IN A FINANCING SCHEME BY PROVIDING UP-FRONT MONEY. I'VE T, FEW PEOPLE WHO TELL ME THAT THE MONEY HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE, AND I l THE DAY I GOT MY BUILDING PERMIT, IF THEY HAD ASKED ME TO SIGN AN AGREEM PROVIDE FUTURE UP-FRONT MONEY, I WOULD HAVE SIGNED IT, BUT THAT ISN'T WHI ED, AND I THINK WE NEED TO STICK TO WHAT THE AGREEMENT SAYS, NOT WHAT IN IT POSSIBLY SHOULD HAVE SAID. THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE IN PARKS ARE t FIED. FOR FIRE RESPONSE, IT CALLS FOR BUILDING A FIRE STATION ON LAND TI THE REALIGNMENT OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFIED, AND THE T WHICH IS AT LEAST A COUPLE OF YEARS AWAY. I DON'T SEE THE NEED TO INVOIC COLLECT THIS UP-FRONT MONEY AT THIS TIME WHEN IT'S BEEN SAID THAT ANY NU'b WAYS MIGHT BE FOUND TO MAKE THIS UP-FRONT MONEY FROM THOSE 574 OF US UNNE THE AGREEMENTS ARE SIGNED BY DEVELOPERS AND RECORDED AGAINST THE LAND. T THIS 1s CREATING A PAPERWORK NIGHTMARE. WILL THE INVOICES BE MAILED TO T DEVELOPER OR THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? I DEVELOPED, AND AM GOIN IN MINE, BUT THERE IS SOME THAT ARE CONDOS, SOME THAT ARE SPEC HOUSES. W GOING TO PAY? IF THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T PAY, ARE YOU GOING TO GO AFTER TH BOUGHT THE LAND, BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AFTERWARDS. CONVERSELY, ONCE THE RE IMENT STARTS TO TAKE PLACE, wHo GETS THAT? THE DEVELOPER WHO PAID IT, OR 2o PERSON WHO BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AFTER THAT TOOK PLACE? IT APPEARS TO ME TI 21 1 22 23 z4 z5 26 27 28 PROPOSAL IS SETTING UP A PAPERWORK NIGHTMARE OF REIMBURSEMENT WHICH COULD FOR TWENTY YEARS OR MORE IN ORDER TO PREMATURELY COLLECT AN INSUFFICIENT i MONEY FROM PEOPLE WHO NEVER AGREED TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH A FINANCING PLAP LOVE TO CLOSE OUT MY OBLIGATION TO THE CITY BY PAYING MY FAIR SHARE. I RE THAT THE FEE FOR ZONE 6 BE SET ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE. THAT IS FAIRLl APPORTIONED AMONG NEW DEVELOPMENT. AS A MINIMUM, I WOULD ASK THAT THE CI1 ATTORNEY REVIEW THE DOCUMENT I SIGNED TO DETERMINE IF I OBLIGATED MYSELF 1 VIDE UP-FRONT MONEY, NOT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW THAT MONEY HAS TO COME FRC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e T WHERE, BUT FROM THE REALITY OF WHAT THE CONTRACT SAYS. MAYOR LEWIS: QUESTIONS? MS. KULCHIN: COULD WE GET A, MAYBE MR. BIONDO WOULD LIKE TO. MAYOR LEWIS: IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OF THIS GENTLEMAN? MS. KULCHIN: NO. MAYOR LEWIS: THANK YOU, MR. CARR. MS. KULCHIN: MR. BIONDO AND MR. PATCHETT ANSWER THAT? MR. PATCHETT: I DID TALK TO MR. CARR TODAY, AND HE'S A VERY EFFEC' SPEAKER. THE RESULT BEING I PROMPTLY WENT OUT AND STARTED TALKING TO TH' STAFF ABOUT WHAT'S HE TALKING ABOUT. AND I AM CONCERNED ENOUGH ABOUT WH, SAID THAT WE WILL BE EXPLORING THAT AS WE MOVE FORUARD. THE GENERAL CON' THE STAFF IS THAT ALTHOUGH HE MAKES A GOOD STATEMENT, THAT HE SIGNED THE AND THE CONSENSUS IS THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS BIND HIM TO PAY THE FUTURE FEE. ARE GOING TO EXPLORE THAT AND WE WILL BE EXPLORING THAT WITH RESPECT TO 1 UNITS PRIOR TO THE TIME WE SEND OUT AN INVOICE TO COLLECT A FEW THOUSAND FROM EACH PERSON. MAYOR LEWIS: ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. MAGRINI: COUNCIL, MY NAME IS KEN MAGRINI. I LIVE AT 2713 YORE: I 1 HERE IN CARLSBAD. I MOVED HERE TEN YEARS AGO. MY KIDS ALL GO TO SCHOOL STARTED A BUSINESS HERE AND EMPLOY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. I DECIDED THIS 15 WANT TO LIVE, AND I AM IN THE THROES OF TRYING TO BUILD A HOUSE, AND THE THEY SUBMITTED LOOKS LIKE IT' S VERY COMPREHENSIVE AND ADMIRABLE, BUT I TH RATHER FRUSTRATING THAT EVEN IF YOU'RE WILLING TO PAY THE FEES, YOU CAN'T AHEAD AND BUILD THE HOUSE YOU WANT TO LIVE IN AND STAY IN CARLSBAD. I JU YOU CONSIDER TAKING THE EXCEPTION, OR MAKING AN AMENDMENT TO THAT REPORT THEY'RE SUBMITTED TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL MS. KULCHIN: SINGLE FAMILY MR. MAGRINI: SINGLE-FAMILY OWNER TO GO AHEAD AND PROGRESS. QUEST1 \j I 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 7- MAYOR LEWIS: QUESTIONS? TWK YOU. NEXT PLEASE. MR. ABELES: MY NAME IS LOWELL ABELES. I LIVE AT 2005 COSTA DEL F CARLSBAD. I'M NOT A FULL-TIME RESIDENT OF CARLSBAD BUT I LIVE IN MIAMI FLORIDA, FOR SEVEN MONTHS OF THE YEAR AND HERE FIVE MONTHS AND I'VE LIVE FOURTEEN YEARS. THREE YEARS AGO I BOUGHT A PIECE LAND UP ON TOP OF THE LA COSTA TO BUILD A HOUSE. THAT LAND COST OVER 200 THOUSAND DOLLARS FOP TENTHS OF AN ACRE. I'VE BEEN SPENDING TWO YEARS DESIGNING HOUSES AND CO THEM AND I'VE PUT IN OVER 23 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN DESIGN FEES. I SPENT M SOIL TESTING. I HAVE CALCULATIONS MADE ON THE PLANS. I'VE DONE ALL KIN LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS AND EVERY DAY I WENT DOWN TO THE CITY WL, I FOUND 0 FEES WERE AND I'M TOLD NOW THAT THEY MAY HAVE A MORATORIUM OF SOME TYPE. FIGURED I WANTED TO COME DOWN AND MEET THIS COUNCIL CAUSE I'M SURE THIS 1 HAS GOTTA HAVE SOME GOOD BUSINESS SENSE IN THEIR IDEAS, CAUSE OTHERWISE : WOULDN'T BE THERE. THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT EVERYBODY AT TH: so FAR HAS BEEN LOOKING AT WHERE YOU GONNA GET MONEY FROM. WELL, IT'S AI CHRISTMAS TIME, AND I'M HERE TO SAY THAT I WANT TO BE A LITTLE SANTA CLAI. BECAUSE I'M WILLING TO BUILD A HOUSE, AND I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO TAKE IT THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE AT LA COSTA WHO COULD AFFORD SOME OF THESE THINGS. 1 THESE PEOPLE LIKE ME, WHO COME HERE FOR FIVE MONTHS OF THE YEAR DON'T USE LIBRARIES, DON'T USE THE PARKS. WE DON'T USE VERY MUCH. WE KIND OF STIC OURSELVES AND WE ENJOY A RETIRED LIFE. AND WE ONLY BRING MONEY INTO THIS WE DON'T TAKE VERY MUCH OUT OF IT. I'M WILLING TO PUT IN A HOUSE THAT'S TO COST ALL MOST 400 OR 500 THOUSAND DOLLARS ON TOP OF THE LOT WHICH IS N ALL MOST 300 THOUSAND DOLLARS. THAT WILL BRING IN TAXES TO THIS CITY OF EIGHT OR NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR. PLUS ALL THE MONEY I SPEND HERE A' COSTA. NOW, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR BUSINESS TO CUT OFF THE BUILDING OF THE HI( ECHELON HOMES WHICH I MEAN ARE THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WHEN A MAN BUYS OR BUYS A LOT AND WANTS TO PUT A HOUSE ON IT AND YOU SAY HE CAN'T DO IT. 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 0 7- THESE PEOPLE ARE BRINGING MORE INTO LA COSTA THAN THEY'RE TAKING OUT. AI SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING THING SHOULD BE EXEMPTED IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE FIRS' THERE AREN'T MANY LEFT AND THE SOONER YOU GET THEM BUILT THE MORE MONEY GET. THAT'S THE WAY I DO BUSINESS. THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY. IT'S A QUEST DOLLARS AND CENTS IN THE CARLSBAD POCKET. UYOR LEWIS: SO, MR. ABELES, YOU'RE SAYING THEN THAT YOU THINK YO GET THE BOYS TOGETHER TO PUT UP THAT 7.9. MR. ABELES: I CAN TELL YOU THAT I'D LIKE TO LOAN IT TO YOU BUT ON OF THE MARKET, I'M A LITTLE SHORT. NOT MUCH BUT JUST A LITTLE. MAYOR LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS. MS. KULCHIN. MS. KULCHIN: JUST A COMMENT. TO BE NOTED THAT MR. ABELES IS THE ( BROTHER OF AARON SIMON AND HE DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB SPEAKING BUT I THINK PROBABLY COULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB THOUGH. MR. ABELES: YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT. MAYOR LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. NEXT PLEASE, MR. SPANJIAN: MY NAME IS DICK SPANJIAN. I LIVE AT 7315 BORLA PLAI LA COSTA AND I'VE BEEN THERE FOR ABOUT EIGHT YEARS AND TWO YEARS AGO BOU( SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING OFF OF EL FUERTE ROAD AND HAVE BEEN DEVELOPING PLI I THAT RESIDENCE SINCE THEN. SIX MONTHS AGO I ENTERED INTO THE NEGOTIATIOE THE CITY TO GET A PERMIT AND BETWEEN THE GRADING PLAN AND EVERYTHING ELSl THOSE THAT HAVE EXPERIENCED SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES IN THAT, WE'RE ABOU: TO START GRADING AND WE CAN'T GET A BUILDING PERMIT UNTIL THE GRADING IS IT'S A HIGHLY SLOPED LOT AND IT TOOK SOME DETAILING. SO ALL OF THE COST! INVOLVING ALL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL FEES AND ALL OF THOSE SOIL TESTS AND E ELSE HAS GONE DOWN THE TUBES APPARENTLY BY THE OBLIGATION WE'RE TALKING P INCURRING TONIGHT. AND OKAY, IT'S GOING TO COST THREE AND A THIRD MILLIC DOLLARS TO BUILD A FREEWAY OVERPASS OR REBUILD IT THAT THE WHOLE AREA, I GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE. NOW THE COST OF IT IS BEING DISTRIBUTED BY A VI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 Z2 Z3 24 25 26 27 28 e T GROUP. THOSE THAT ARE PLANNING TO BUILD IN THIS AREA. AND THAT, EVEN i REDICULOUS AS THAT SOUNDS, AND EVERYBODY'S READY TO GO, I JUST HAVE TO P VOTE TO THE FACT THAT I PUT MY HOUSE INTO A ONE-YEAR ESCROW CAUSE A BIRI: HAND IS WORTH, YOU KNOW, ONE IN THE BUSH, AND SO ALL OF A SUDDEN I BETTE THAT HOUSE A YEAR FROM NOW AND I'VE GOT ALL THE MONEY COSTS IN THERE ANC AN ARBITRARY DECISION. I'M SURE THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A OR THE PLANNING HAS, BUT JUST WHAT DO I DO AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME. h THE MONIES I HAVE INVESTED AND AM INFORMED THAT I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GE AND WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BUILD. SO, PLEASE, I'M NOT BUILDING THIS FOR I'M BUILDING IT TO LIVE IN AND I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A DISTINCTION MAD ADDING TO THOSE THAT HAVE ALL READY SAID. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. MYOR LEWIS: QUESTIONS? THANK YOU SIR. MR. RIMMER: MY NAME IS RON RIMMER AND I LIVE IN ENCINITAS RIGHT Nc I'M IN THE SAME POSITION AS THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER. I JUST WANTED TO AGREr HIM THAT I THINK THAT THE FEES IN CARLSBAD ARE a~ READY VERY HIGH BUT I' BOUGHT A LOT AND AM READY TO PAY THEM AND I'D EVEN BE WILLING TO PAY THE AL FEE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO BE, AS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OWNER BUILD A HOUSE FOR MYSELF. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO BE PUT IN THE GROUE 1 ALL THE DEVELOPERS WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET TOGETHER ON THIS SI7 I MAY HAVE AN ARGUMENT AND NOT BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH THIS MONEY. I'D BE TO GO AHEAD AND PAY MY PART BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO TAK MONEY AND LET ME PROCEED. THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE MONEY TOWARDS MILLION DOLLARS. BUT WHY TURN MONEY AWAY. AND I JUST, I THINK IT'S ALL VERY EXPENSIVE, BUT I'M WILLING TO GO AHEAD AND, LIKE THE GENTLEMAN BEFOR I'VE ALL READY INVESTED A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THIS PROCESS AN RIGHT WHERE HE IS, STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. THANK YOU. MAYOR LEWIS: THANK YOU. QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. NEXT. MR. EBRIGHT: MAYOR LEWIS, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS EDWARD EBRI( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 z2 Z3 24 25 26 27 28 e LIVE AT 6507 AVENIDA DEL PERISIO IN THE AREA OF CARLSBAD CALLED LA COSTA. OWN A SINGLE FAMILY UNDEVELOPED LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, IN THE LA COSTA P I'M NOT OPPOSING THE FEES BEING PAID. I DO NOT REQUEST AN EXEMPTION, BUT FEEL THAT THE SINGLE-FAMILY PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD HAVE A TYPE OF VEHICLE WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CARLSBAD SO THEY MAY PROCEED WITH PLAN DRAWINGS THROUGH THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AND OBTAIN A PERMIT. THANK YOU. MAYOR LEWIS: QUESTIONS? MS. KULCHIN: IS THAT SINGLE-FAMILY, OWNER PLANNING TO LIVE DOWN TH EBRIGHT? MR. EBRIGHT: THE OWNER-OCCUPIED. WHAT I MEAN IS THE SINGLE-FAMILY TIAL. MS. KULCHIN: WHAT I'M ASKING IS ARE YOU LOOKING TO LIVE DOWN THERE MR. EBRIGHT: WE LIVE DOWN THERE RIGHT NOW. MS. KULCHIN: OKAY. MR. EBRIGHT: BUT WE ALSO OWN AN UNIMPROVED PROPERTY, SINGLE-FAMILY MS. KULCHIN: OH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. OKAY. MR. MAMAUX: THE QUESTION, I THINK IS, MR. EBRIGHT, IF YOU BUILD ON MOULD YOU MOVE INTO THE HOUSE OR ARE YOU SPECULATING ON THE LOT? I MR. EBRIGHT: WELL, WE HAVE NOT MADE A DECISION, AS YET. MR. MAMAUX: I SEE. MR. EBRIGHT: WHAT I AM SAYING, THOUGH, IS I THINK THERE SHOULD BE € FOR THE OWNERS OF THE SINGLE LOTS TO GO INTO AN AGREEMENT IF THEY WISH TO FEES THAT MAY BE REQUIRED OF THEM IF THEY ARE SO WILLING TO DO SO. AND I WILLING TO DO SO. THANK YOU. MAYOR LEWIS: THANK YOU. MR. MEEHAN. MR. MEEHAN: DENNIS MEEHAN, 3981 GLORIA LANE, CARLSBAD. I THINK TW OF THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WOULD WHOLE-HEARTEDLY SUPPORT EXEMPTING THE LOT OWNER IN ORDER TO BUILD AND ACTUALLY WHETHER IT WAS OWNER-OCCUPIED OR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 l9 0 7 IT WAS A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT OWNER DOING THE BUILDING. MY CONCERN IS AS ADDRESS THE EXEMPTION PROCESS, IS THAT I THINK WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO HA' IS PUT A DATE IN FOR THE OWNERSHIP. BECAUSE IF THERE ISN'T A DATE IN T SHIP PROCESS, OBVIOUSLY YOU'D CREATE LOT SALES AND THEN THE HOUSES WOUL. TO THE, CONFORM TO THE SPECIFICATION. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEN YOU \ ABLE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLAN. so I THINK THAT THE EXEMPTU BE VERY SPECIFIC TO KEEP THE INTEGRITY OF THE, OF PROP E TOGETHER. BUT THINK THAT THE SINGLE-FAMILY LOT OWNER WHO HAS ONE LOT THAT WANTS TO BUI UNQUESTIONABLY SHOULD BE EXEMPT. I DON'T THINK THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WORE PROP E MEANT TO PUT THAT TYPE OF A BURDEN ON AN INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNER. MAYOR LEWIS: QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. MR. MEEHAN: THANK YOU. MS. WARD: I'M CINDY WARD, 937 BEGONIA COURT. I'D LIKE TO REMIND COUNCIL, OF COURSE I REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO REMIND YOU, OF HOW DIFFICU TO TURN LEFT ON LA COSTA AVENUE FROM THE FREEWAY. AND RECENTLY, WE HAD LOOKING AT LOTS IN LA COSTA AND THERE ARE AN AWFUL LOT OF SINGLE-FAMILY AVAILABLE. AND I DON'T SEE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN EXEMPTING THEL THERE'S QUITE A FEW LEFT. IF YOU EXEMPT THESE, THAT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN 1 ING THAT WITH A DEVELOPMENT, SAY, OF LIKE 200 HOMES. THAT'S ALL I'D LIKl 20 z1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MAYOR LEWIS: THANK YOU. QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. NEXT PLEASE. OR WE HAVE NO ONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL EXCEPT ONE GENTLEMAN € MR. FOX: YEAH, I'M SORRY. I WAS JUST ENJOYING THE OTHER PRESENTAl MY NAME IS JIM FOX. I'M WITH THE LAW FIRM OF STERNBERG, EGGERS, KIDDER C SAN DIEGO. AND WE REPRESENT SWELL INDUSTRIES. THE OWN A PROPERTY THAT UNITS ON IT. THEY HAVE PREVIOUSLY HAD A MAP APPROVAL BACK IN 1983. THEY FINAL MAP APPROVED IN 1984 AND RECORDED. LONG BEFORE THE GROWTH MANAGEME WAS ADOPTED. I'VE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN TO THE CLERK A LETTER THAT I WOULD LI MAKE A PART OF THE RECORD WHICH EXPLAINS OUR POSITION ON THE APPLICABILIT 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 PLAN THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. CEED WITH THE PROJECT AND COMPLETE IT, BUT IT OBJECTS TO THE IMPOSITION ADDITIONAL FEES. THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AT A TIM THE DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS FOR THE PROJECT WERE GOING TO BE EXPIRED AND WERE GIVEN NO CHOICE BUT TO SIGN THAT OR LOSE THE RESULTS OF ALL THEIR El SHAPELL DESIRES THEY HAVE PAID, TO DATE, 915 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN FEES FOR WHICH THEY HAVI BUILDING PERMITS. THEY BELIEVE IT IS, THAT THAT 915 THOUSAND DOLLAR FIG1 THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE EXPENSES. AS I UNDERSTAND THE PLAN, AND THE PRE! TONIGHT, MOST OF THE MONEY WOULD GO TOWARD REMEDYING EXISTING DEFICIENCIE ANY DEFICIENCIES THAT WOULD BE CAUSED BY THE 120 PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIVE I UNITS. WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE LETTER IN DETAIL, IT EXPLAINS SEVERAL E GROUNDS THAT GO TO THE VALIDITY AND LEGALITY OF THIS PLAN. BUT I WOULD I POINT OUT IN PARTICULAR THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THE LAW REQUIRES SOME CONNE~ NEXUS, BETWEEN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND THE FEES THAT ARE SOUGHT TO BE 1 AND THE ACTUAL DEMANDS ON PUBLIC FACILITIES BEING MADE BY THE 120 UNIT. THINK WE'VE ALL READY HAD A PRESENTATION HERE BY THE STAFF WHICH ESTABLIS THE PROBLEM IS EXISTING DEFICIENCIES, NOT THE HOME OWNERS IN THIS 120 UNI THERE ARE OTHER PROCEDURES AVAILABLE SUCH AS ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS, WHICH I PROPER PROCEDURE FOR SPREADING THE COST OF THESE EXISTING DEFICIENCIES. MAYOR LEWIS: MR. COX, I HAVE A QUESTION ON. MR. FOX: IT'S FOX. MAYOR LEWIS: IS IT COX OR FOX? MS. KULCHIN: FOX. MR. FOX: IT'S FOX WITH AN F. MS. KULCHIN: SHARP LIKE FOX. MAYOR LEWIS: YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO THIS. 1 CLIENT, OR HAVE YOU BEEN, HAVE YOU BEEN WORKING WITH THE OTHER PROPERTY 06 TRYING TO REMEDY THIS PROBLEM? 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 e 7 MR. FOX: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE. WE JUST RECEIVED. THERE INFORMATION THAT WE MIGHT NOT BE SUBJECT TO THESE NEW FEES. AND SO WE W1 WE WERE A PART OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT QUALIFIED AS SOME SORT OF AN EXEMP' THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN BECAUSE THE MAP WAS RECORDED BEFORE THE PLAN. MAYOR LEWIS: MAY I ASK YOU WHERE YOU ACQUIRED THIS INFORMATION? STAFF TELL YOU THAT YOU WOULD BE EXEMPT? MR. FOX: NO. NO ONE, NO STAFF MEMBER SAID WE'RE EXEMPT. BUT UP01 THERE WAS SOME INFORMATION THAT WE MIGHT BE NOT INCLUDED IN THE 574. TK CONFIRMED THAT WE ARE IN THE 574, AND WE RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS AGENDA j FRIDAY. so WE'VE HAD ONLY A FEW DAYS TO REALLY REVIEW IT. WE TRIED TO ( SOME OF THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS TODAY AND MET WITH LIMITED SUCCESS. MAYOR LEWIS: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. MAMAUX. MR. MAMAUX: YEAH. I'M CONCERNED, MR. FOX, THAT BASED ON MY ARITH PAID A FEE OF LESS THAN 8,000 THOUSAND DOLLARS A UNIT. AND THE EXAMPLE k 11,000. DID WE MISS SOME MONEY, MR. FOX: WELL, REMEMBER. I THINK YOU GOT YOUR FAIR SHARE. MR. MAMAUX: THAT'S A MR. FOX: IF YOUR ARITHMETIC MAY BE BASED UPON MY 915 THOUSAND, AGA (HAD VERY LIMITED TIME TO PULL THE MATERIALS TOGETHER. AND FROM WHAT I WAS OBTAIN, IT CONSISTED OF ABOUT 275 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN SCHOOL FEES. ANOTH PLUS THOUSAND IN GENERAL FEES. MR. MAMAUX: WELL, IT SAYS INCLUDING SCHOOL FEES. MR. FOX: THAT'S CORRECT. AGAIN MR. MAMAUX: I ASSUME THAT IF YOU'RE INACCURATE IN THE FIRST PARAGR I ASSUME THAT THE REST OF IT IS INACCURATE? MR. FOX: I THINK THAT WOULD BE A POOR ASSUMPTION. OKAY. THEN THE TO THAT, AGAIN, BASED UPON VERY LIMITED TIME TO PREPARE THIS MATERIAL, WE GET COPIES OF CHECKS AND TO TRY TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL AMOUNT. UNDER TH 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 r LIMITS AVAILABLE, WE DETERMINED IT WAS APPROXIMATELY, AS I INDICATED, AI MATELY 915 THOUSAND DOLLARS. THAT'S A NUMBER THAT WE CAN CLEARLY VERIFI STAFF. MAYOR LEWIS: ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MS. KULCHIN. MS. KULCHIN: I HAVE A QUESTION. MR. FOX. IT SAYS THAT YOU'RE TI, VILLAS PROJECT CARLSBAD TRACT 83-1. THAT MEANS YOU CAME IN IN JANUARY C THAT CORRECT? MR. FOX: I BELIEVE THAT THE, THE PROJECT, OF COURSE, WAS STARTED THEN. BUT IN APRIL OF '83, THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED. MS. KULCHIN: OKAY. AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 120-UNIT RESIDENTIAL HOLZMILLER OR MR. CARTER. THIS WAS BEFORE PROP E/GROWTH MANAGEMENT. IF SHAPELL PEOPLE WERE TO COME IN TODAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY UNI HAVE? WOULD IT BE 120? BECAUSE WE DID CUT OUR DENSITY QUITE A BIT. MR. HOLZMILLER: RIGHT. WE WOULD HAVE TO PULL THE FILE AND SEE WH. DENSITY THEY WERE APPROVED AT. I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT WAS. MR. MAMAUX: WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE HE HAS TWELVE SINGLE-FAMILY, ASSUI NUMBERS ARE RIGHT. TWELVE SINGLE-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM HOMES ON TEN LARGE : DON'T KNOW. WITHOUT KNOWING THE SIZE OF THE LOTS, WHAT THE. I MR. FOX: THANK YOU. YOU'VE PICKED UP AN EXCELLENT POINT. THERE': I MISSING. 120 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. EXCUSE ME. SORRY. THERE ARE 12 CONI ON EACH LOT AND TEN LOTS FOR 120 UNITS. MR. MAMAUX: YEAH. SO IF OUR GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, AS MS. KULCHI TRYING TO POINT OUT, MR. FOX, APPROVED LAST NOVEMEBER, REDUCED THE DENSI~ SIGNIFICANTLY FROM WHAT THEY WERE IN '83. AND THAT, I THINK, IS THE ISSU WE'RE REALLY SAYING IF YOU WAITED YOU WOULDN'T HAVE HAD AS MANY UNITS. MR. FOX: YEAH. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CAS PROPERTY. MAYOR LEWIS: ONE OTHER QUESTION, MR. FOX. WHEN DID YOU SIGN THE L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 3.6 l7 18 l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l AGREEMENT BE SIGNED BY SWELL THAT IT ACKNOWLEDGED THE EXISTING AGREEMEN WE REFUSED TO SIGN THAT AGREEMENT. SO THAT'S. MAYOR LEWIS: KNOWING THAT YOU HAD ALL READY SIGNED THE ORIGINAL AG IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? MR. FOX: THE AGREEMENT, ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, STANDS ON ITS OWN AND A LEGAL OR AN ILLEGAL AGREEMENT. 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 T MAYOR LEWIS: HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN REPRESENTING IN THIS GROUP? MR. FOX: HOW LONG HAVE I REPRESENTED SHAPELL? MAYOR LEWIS: UMHMM. MR. FOX: COUPLE OF YEARS, I SUPPOSE. MAYOR LEWIS: OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU 5 MR. FOX: THANK YOU. MAYOR LEWIS: ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THIS I ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE HEARD FROM NINE DIFI; INDIVIDUALS PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE OF THIS ZONE, ZONE 6. OF CONCERNS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN REFERENCE TO SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS. MS. KULCHIN: OWNER OCCUPIED. MAYOR LEWIS: OWNER OCCUPIED, THAT'S CORRECT. AND WE HAD ONE INDI THAT'S NOT SIMPLY SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AS SUCH. WHAT IS THE DESIRE OF THE IN REFERENCE TO THIS? MR. PETTINE. MR. PETTINE: BASICALLY THIS IS BEFORE US TONIGHT FOR APPROVAL OF ' PLAN AND THE LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE AND THIS ISSUE RELATING TO L FAMILY, OWNER-OCCUPIED EXEMPTION HAS ARISEN. HAS STAFF HAD A CHANCE TO I THIS, PARTICULARLY THE TYPE OF IMPACT IT MIGHT HAVE RELATING TO OTHER ZO1 1 WE'RE TALKING 100 TO 200 UNITS IN THIS ZONE, WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY BUIL~ I'M WONDERING, WHAT WOULD THAT EXEMPTION DO TO THE OTHER ZONES WITHIN THE MAYOR LEWIS: I HAVE JUST A COMMENT. IN THE NOTES THAT I HAVE HERE THAT THE COMMENT YOU MADE, WE'RE LOOKING AT ADOPTING THE PROPOSAL AND IF TO MS. KULCHIN: WE SHOULD DO THAT FIRST. MYOR LEWIS: IF WE WISH TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, THEN WE CAN DO THAT WE HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THIS MATTER. MR. PETTINE: THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE. MAYOR LEWIS: OKAY? /I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo I' l2 l3 l4 l5 l6 I? I8 I' 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 @ T MR. PETTINE: WELL, WITH THAT, MAYOR, I'D MAKE A MOTION, IF THE CO PREPARED, THAT WE ADOPT RESOLUTION 9291 AND 9292 AS SET FORTH IN THE AGE PACKET. MAYOR LEWIS: AND ALSO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION? MR. PETTINE: YES. MAYOR LEWIS: OKAY. MS. KULCHIN: I'LL SECOND IT. MAYOR LEWIS: OKAY. WILL YOU VOTE PLEASE. NOTE THAT ALL FIVE COUl PERSONS HAVE SUPPORTED THE ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND as0 T ADOPTING RESOLUTION 9291 AND RESOLUTION 9292. ALL RIGHT. IN REFERENCE ' ISSUE THAT MR. PETTINE ADDRESSED, MR. HOLZMILLER, PERTAINING TO.THE SING LOTS HOMES WHERE THEY WOULD BE OWNER-OCCUPIED, AND I ALSO THOUGHT THE CO1 QUITE WELL TAKEN IN REFERENCE TO A TIME SEQUENCE. PERHAPS WHEN THE PROP ADOPTED, I HAVE NO IDEA IN REFERENCE TO CONSIDERING ONLY THOSE IN THAT Cl THAT WOULD LIMIT, I WOULD IMAGINE A TIME SEQUENCE WOULD HAVE TO BE INVOLT IF WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER THAT. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THAT AS MANY UNITS ARE ACTUALLY INVOLVED. THE OTHER THING I THINK WAS INTEREST11 MRS. WARD MADE A COMMENT THAT THERE, IF THERE ARE 200 LOTS OUT THERE, IT' 1 DIFFERENT THAN THOSE PEOPLE DEVELOPING AND HAVING AN INDIVIDUAL COME IN 1 EIGHTY UNITS THAT IS DEVELOPING AS A SINGLE OWNER OVER THOSE EIGHTY UNITS MR. HOLZMILLER: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS THE LAST OF THE INFILL AND IN ALL OF THE OTHER ONES WHERE YOU HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF SINGLE LOT A PERSON WANTS TO BUILD THEIR HOUSE ON, THOSE CAN ALL GO FORWARD NOW BEFC ONLY ZONE WHERE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO IS IN ZONE 2 BUT A DEVELC FORWARD AND CORRECTED THE DEFICIENCY, SO THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHE AND WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THE SINGLE FAMILY CAN ALL READY GO FORW WHEN WE SAY THAT THIS IS SOMEWHERE APPROXIMATELY 100 TO 200, THAT DOESN'T THAT THESE ARE ALL GONNA GO FORWARD TOMORROW. THE PEOPLE THAT ARE READY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 * T FORWARD ARE PROBABLY HERE TONIGHT. SO THAT'S OVER THE BUILDOUT OF THE k THAT THERE WOULD BE THAT MANY ADDITIONAL UNITS, YOU KNOW, OVER A TEN TO YEAR PERIOD. SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF UNLTS AND THERE'S NO 0 THAT THIS WOULD REALLY SET A PRECEDENCE FOR BECAUSE WE'RE DONE WITH THE ZONES. MR. PETTINE: MR. HOLZMILLER, WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER ZONES TO BE PRC THE FUTURE BEYOND THE FIRST SIX. I KNOW THEY WERE UNIQUE. ARE WE SETTI PRECEDENT FOR THE OTHER NINETEEN? MR. HOLZMILLER: NO BECAUSE MOST OF THE OTHER ZONES ARE ALL VACANT HASN'T BEEN SUBDIVIDED YET AND A DEVELOPER WILL BE SUBDIVIDING IT AND WE BE TALKING ABOUT THE SITUATION WHERE YOU HAD ONE SINGLE PERSON THAT ONLY INDIVIDUAL LOT. THEY'D ALL BE SUBJECT TO SUBDIVISION. THIS, THE WAY IT ORIGINALLY WORDED IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, AND THAT CERTAINLY BEFORE WE HAD IDENTIFIED OR ANALYZED THE FACILITIES AND WHETHER THERE wo' IMPACTS ON IT, BUT IT WAS, IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT, WE WERE JUST TALKING 1 THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY SUBDIVIDED AND ONE PERSON OWNED 'EM AND ONLY OWNED ( BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. MAYOR LEWIS: MS. KULCHIN. I MS. KULCHIN: MAYOR, I FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT SINGLE-FAMILY, OWNER-OC( 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I BEING EXEMPTED. THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN BUYING A SPEC HOUSE. YOI HERE PEOPLE ARE READY TO MOVE IN AND DONE THINGS. THEY'RE LOOKING FORWM LIVING THERE, AND AS MR. HOLZMILLER SAID, WE WOULD NOT BE SETTING A PRECI OTHER, IN my OTHER ZONES. THIS IS THE LAST INFILL, so I WOULD LIEK TO E SINGLE-FAMILY, OWNER-OCCUPIED, MAYOR LEWIS: MR. LARSON. MR. LARSON: WELL, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. WE 5 MOVING AHEAD HERE REAL QUICK AT EXEMPTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, AND DOING THAT I'M NOT SURE PROTECTS THE INTEGRITY OF OUR GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. 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 e T FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. I DON'T SEE THAT SINGLE-I HOME AS IMPACTING WHAT WE'RE DOING IN ANY ONE PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE REALITY, 100 HOMES OR 200 HOMES MIGHT NOT DO THAT. BUT I THINK WE GOT P BIGGER ISSUE HERE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND THAT IS THE LEGAL DOCUME GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, ALLD WE'RE BOUND TO E WE'RE BOUND TO ENFORCE. MAYBE IT'S MY IGNORANCE OF IT, BUT OUR STARTINC EXEMPTIONS IN THE SITUATION LIKE THIS MAKES ME VERY NERVOUS ESPECIALLY I ADDRESS IT THIS EVENING WITHOUT SOME IN-DEPTH LOOK AT IT AND SEE HOW IT IMPACTS WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON IN THAT AREA. IF WE START EXEMPTING SOME HOMES, ARE WE IMPACTING WHAT GOES ON WITH THE ADDITIONAL LOTS THAT AREN' THERE AND AT WHAT POINT DO WE DRAW THE LINE AND HOW DO WE COME ABOUT DEC WHO IS EXEMPTED AND WHO ISN'T. WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO IT. PERHAPS I WORTHWHILE. BUT I HAVE REAL CONCERNS IF WE MOVE AHEAD, YOU KNOW, POST H. MAYOR LEWIS: ANY OTHER CONMENTS? MR. PATCHETT: MAYOR. MAYOR LEWIS: MR., YES. MR. MAMAUX. MR. MAMAUX: GO AHEAD, MR. PATCHETT. MAYOR LEWIS: MR. MAMAUX. MR. MAMAUX: MY FEELING IS THAT ONE OF THE BASIC CRITICISMS OF THE ORIGINAL GROWTH ORDINANCE, AND THE REASON WE HAD TO HAVE PROP E WAS CAUSl WANTED TO TAKE DISCRETION AWAY FROM THE ELECTED OFFICIALS. PROP E WAS C1 FOR HAVING TOO MANY EXEMPTIONS. PROP E WAS PUT THERE TO ESTABLISH GOALS, ESTABLISH REASONS AND TO SAY THAT THERE ARE NO EXEMPTIONS. IT SAYS CONCL WITH NEED FACILITIES HAVE TO BE IN PLACE. I DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE IS. WE JUST WENT THROUGH A BIG HEARING WHERE EVERYONE SAID, NOT EVERYONI WE HAVE TO RESPECT THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE AND VOTE FOR HOSP GROVE BECAUSE. THE WAY THE PEOPLE VOTED. THAT'S A BITTER PILL FOR SOME PEOPLE. LIKEWIS THINK, EXEMPTING SINGLE-FAMILY R-1 LOTS WOULD BE THE EASY WAY TO GO, BUT 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 T IT DIFFICULT TO GO FOR AN EXEMPTION, AND THEREFORE I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR MOTION. MR. PATCHETT: MAYOR. YAYOR LEWIS: YES. MR. PATCHETT: IF IT'S THE COUNCILS' DESIRE TO HAVE STAFF EXPLORE COME BACK WITH THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS WHICH COULD IMPLEMENT THAT TYPE AND You DIRECT us TO DO SO, WE WILL DO THAT AND BRING THAT BACK AS QUICK POSSIBLY CAN IF YOU LIKE. MAYOR LEWIS: WELL, MR. PETTINE. MR. PETTINE: WELL, MAYOR, I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD START MAKI EXEMPTIONS HERE WITHOUT A FORMAL AGENDA ITEM AND AT LEAST ALLOW STAFF TO MORE EVALUATION OF IT AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO ST1 LOOK AT WHAT THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS ARE. I DON'T THINK THAT THE GROWTH fi ORDINANCE WAS EVER INTENDED TO DECIMATE ANYBODY AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT REASONABLE TO REQUIRE ONE SINGLE-FAMILY OWNER NOT TO PROCEED BECAUSE A FF INTERCHANGE NEEDS TO BE FIXED UP, BUT I'D, RATHER THAN DO ANYTHING TONIGk LIKE TO HAVE STAFF LOOK AT IT AND COME BACK TO US AT A FURTHER TIME. I r LARSON HAS MADE A GOOD POINT. I THINK WE SHOULD PROCEED WITH DELIBERATI( 1 AND NOT WITH HASTE. MAYOR LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. MS. KULCHIN. MS. KULCHIN: TWO THINGS. NUMBER ONE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY THEIF SHARE AND THEN NUMBER TWO, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I HAD THE OPPORTUNI'I TALKING WITH MR. HOLZMILLER AND MR. ORENYAK CONCERNING THIS AND THEY ANSW SOME OF MY QUESTIONS, BUT MAYBE PERHAPS SOME OF THE OTHER COUNCIL PEOPLE SO THAT'S WHY I HAVE NO PROBLEMS CONTINUING IT, BUT I FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW FEEL. MAYOR LEWIS: OKAY. THE THOUGHTS HERE, OF COURSE, IS THAT WE DO WA FAIR, BUT I THINK MR. MAMAUX BROUGHT OUT A KEY ISSUE ABOUT WHEN WE WENT T q . 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 T VOTER AND ASKED THEM TO APPROVE THE PROP E AND TO MAKE SURE THE THING WO AND OF COURSE, I THINK THE OTHER COUNCIL PERSON BROUGHT OUT THE IDEA THA WANT TO LOOK INTO THIS VERY THOROUGHLY. WE'VE ALL AGREED THAT THE PROP MOST BENEFICIAL THING FOR CARLSBAD, AND WE'VE ALL SAID THAT WE TOTALLY S AND I THINK THAT IT IS WELL FOUNDED THAT WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND WE'VE AL APPROVED THE ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN. AND WE CAN HAVE S BACK AND SIMPLY GIVE US A REPORT AS TO THE IMPACT AND HOW IT AFFECTS CAR; OVERALL AND MAKE OUR DECISION AT A LATER DATE. IF WE COULD HAVE THAT BAI WOULD IMAGINE, WITHIN, MR. HOLZMILLER, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE? WEEK, TWO W MR. PATCHETT: WE'LL HAVE IT BACK AS QUICKLY AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. BIG ISSUE AND I WANT TO BE SURE WE COVER ALL THE BASES. MAYOR LEWIS: OKAY, FINE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. PATCHETT: AND WE WILL DO A NOTICE IN THE NEWSPAPERS SO PEOPLE IN THIS POSITION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR HOME WILL KNOW THAT ISSUE I! AGENDA. MS. KULCHIN: ALSO, EXCUSE ME MAYOR, ALSO, TOO, IN THAT REPORT, I b KNOW HOW MANY WE DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, SINGLE-FAMILY, OWNER-OCCUPIED LOTS 01 MAYOR LEWIS: AND MR. HOLZMILLER, WOULD YOU ALSO GET A DATE ON THAI 1 THOSE THAT WERE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES AS OF THE TIME THAT PROP E PASSE CAN HAVE KIND OF A FEEL FOR THAT AS WELL. WOULD THAT BE, COULD YOU FIND ABOUT THAT, OR IS THAT, IS THAT POSSIBLE? MR. HOLZMILLER: NO. I DON'T THINK WE'D BE ABLE TO . THAT'D TAKE ING THROUGH THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ALL THE FILES. I THINK IF THE COUNCIL DATE, IT SHOULD BE JUST WHAT DATE YOU FEEL IS APPROPRIATE AND IF THEY OWN LOT BEFORE THEN THEY WOULD FALL UNDER IT AND IF THEY DIDN'T, THEY WOULDN' MAYOR LEWIS: I SEE, OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGH (END OF ITEM) J ‘I .r 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 * T STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ) ss. I, ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALI DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING 38 PAGES CONTAIN A TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS FROM THE NOVEMBER 10, 1987 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON THE ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN, WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF SAID CITY OF CARLSBAD, THIS 22ND L JANUARY, 1988. ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cle City of carlsbad I 'b e w 1 LAW OFFICES OF STERNBERG, EGGERS, KIDDER 6 Fox ELEANOR L. BLAlS RICHARD W. BOGE LAWRENCE T. DOUGHERTY JEROME E. EGGERS 1900 CENTRAL SAVING JAMES HENRY FOX 225 BROADWA' SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 TONI MARIE GIERAN (619) 231-259s THOMAS C. HOWARD DONALD L. KIDDER MICHAEL L. MADGETT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION - TELECOPIER (6191 233-384: CHRISTOPHER E. MCATEER CHRISTOPHER D. MCINTIRE LAURIE J. ORANGE TAD SETH PARZEN MICHAEL 8. POYNOR F. GREGORY PYKE November 10, 1987 RAND K. SHOTWELL R. GENE STEINECKERT JAMES R. STERNBERG HAND DELIVERED The Honorable Bud Lewis Mayor of the City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 and City Council Re: Proposed Approval of Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 and Proposed Establishment of Fees Council Meeting of 11/10/87 Dear Mayor Lewis and Council: This letter is written on behalf of our client, Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (hereinafter referred tc as llShapellll), which owns a 120 unit residential project in thc proposed Zone 6 commonly referred to as the Monarch Villa: Project, Carlsbad Tract 83-1, Subdivision Map No. 11085. Thc project involves 10 large lots containing 12 single-famill condominium homes on each lot. On or about October 13, 1987 thc City of Carlsbad issued building permits for 120 units in returr for Shapell's depositing with the City and the School District: the approximate amount of $915,000 representing various types 01 fees and assessments relative to the project. Because the City of Carlsbad has now noticed a public Facilities Management Plan and the proposed adoption of relate( fees, Shapell now finds it necessary to offer its comments as tc why this proposed action (especially the charging of additional fees) should not apply to Shapell, and why the proposed action at this time would be inappropriate and illegal. Because the IIGrowth Managementv1 Ordinance provides at Section 21.90.070 (b) that any I1protest1l of development condition: triggers a suspension of building permits, please consider thc hearing for the purposes of adopting the proposed Zone 6 Loca: 0 ~iit: nuiiuLaule DUU wib and City Counci m hTovember 10, 1987 1 Page 2 following comments to be an exercise of Shapell's Constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment: to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees various real propert] rights and "due process" rights to meaningfully participate ir noticed public hearings which materially affect real property anc fundamental legal rights. We believe it would be unfair for the City to suspend the existing Shapell building permits by deeminc this letter and any oral comments at the public hearing tc constitute a Ivprotestr1 which would require suspension of thc building permits. The following comments are directed to the City of Carlsbac in response to the City's attempted notice of public hearing an( in response to the City's implied invitation for all propert] owners to express their views on the proposed action. Thc following comments are of a general nature. There may be othei legal and factual objections to the proposed action which arc either presently unknown to Shapell, or which may be raised ir last-minute staff materials presented to the City Council 01 raised by last-minute comments at the public hearing by citizen: or by various City officials. By submitting this letter, Shapell Industries, Inc. is not in any way waiving any of its legal rights to raise any additional legal and/or factual issues at i later time depending upon the scope and outcome of this public hearing. The City presently lacks legal authority to impose b] legislative action, or other method, fees associated with thc above-described Shapell project. OBJECTIONS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE "GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE1! AT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 21.90.010, ET SEQ. The following comments and objections relate to any actio1 proposed to be taken by the City of Carlsbad which implement an; newly determined fee or material condition of development whicl was not subjected to public hearing and public adoption by thc Carlsbad City Council prior to the issuance of the Shapel: building permits. All references below to the term glOrdinancel' refer to the "Growth Management Ordinancell contained at Carlsbac Municipal Code Section 21.90.010, et seq. at Chapter 21.90. 1. The Ordinance Is Now Unenforceable Under Its Own Terms and Conditions. The Ordinance at Section 21.90.090(d) requires that the Citb Manager Itshall prepare and present" the financing plan to thc City Council "not later than one year from the effective date of this Ordinance." Because the Ordinance was adopted effective July 1, 1986, and because the proposed '!Local Facilities 0 lLIFj rlurioraDLe BU ewis ' and City Counci rn November 10, 1987 *- I Page 3 Management Plan - Zone 6" was submitted on or after September 2, 1987 (beyond the contemplated one-year mandatory submissior period) the legal power under the Ordinance to assess the new anc additional fees to Shapell has now expired. Shapell has now pro- ceeded with obtaining building permits on October 13, 1987, anc should not now be assessed any additional building fees because the City has now lost its legal power and authority to so estab- lish and set those fees under the explicit terms and conditions of the Ordinance. 2. By The City's Delay, The City Has Waived Its Claim To Assess Additional Fees Aqainst Shapell. The Ordinance at Section 21.90.050(a) requires that thc I'Facilities Management Fee shall & paid before the issuance of 2 building permit. II Likewise, subsection (e) of that same sectior provides unequivocally that 'Ithe fee established by this sectior shall be levied at the time of issuance of a building permit.' Because the City had one year to determine any additional Facili- ties Management Fees" as mandated by Section 21.90.090(d) an6 failed to lawfully set those fees at public hearings, and because the City did set, establish and collect from Shapell more than $915,000 as a condition for issuing building permits on or about October 13, 1987, the City has either waived its claim to assess additional fees against Shapell, or has actually utilized its discretion and determined that the amount of $915,000 was the sufficient amount to represent Shapell's contribution to future public facilities related to the Shapell 120-unit residential pro j ect . 3. The City has failed to give adequate legal notice under Government Code Section 54992, as required under the Ordinance at Section 21.90.100(c), and did not even make available to the public the City's IIAgenda Bill" with its attachments and proposed resolutions until after 3:OO p.m. on Thursday, November 5, 1987. This provided insufficient time for Shapell and other affected property owners to evaluate the material contained in the "Agenda Bill" and to properly and fully analyze and respond to the materials in such a way as to achieve "due processt1 and notions of fundamental fairness on issues which may materially affect legal and real property rights. The City Has Given Defective Notice Of This Hearing. 4. The City Planninq Commission Must Reconsider This Item Before City Council Action. The City's "Agenda Bill1t which was first publicly - &-.ab llUllULUUAG and City Cou~~~=wL~ Hovember 10, 1987 I Page 4 distributed on the afternoon of November 5, 1987, contains a memt dated October 27, 1987, which represents that new developments have occurred since the prior noticed hearings before the Citj c.1.P. Program, and which discusses a review of other available financing mechanisms (as contrasted to this fee assessment), ant which referred to a total number of units of 1539 instead of tht number of 1499 considered by the Planning Commission. Saic report contains different financial allocations and breakdown: from those previously reviewed by the Planning Commission Because this proposal has changed materially, the matter musl return to the Planning Commission in order to accomplish al: necessary requirements for public hearing and review of thi: matter. 5. The proposed action contemplates the City Council adopting i "Negative Declaration" as was recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. This action is a violation of the California Environmenta: a complete EIR (Environmental Impact Report) to be prepared an( subjected to full public hearing whenever a major public projecl is commenced. It is beyond legal dispute that the adoption 03 the Zone 6 Plan with its announced construction budget for public improvements in the range of $9.6 million for significant public projects including parks, a fire station, and major roadways, art significant in their environmental impact and should be full! subjected to the EIR process as required by law. The City cannol legally adopt Zone 6 (and any financial fee assessment relate( thereto) without first complying with CEQA by adopting an E11 instead of a "Negative Declaration. II Planning Commission with respect to the adoption of the net The Adoption Of The Plan Without An EIR Is Unlawful. Quality Act, Public Resources Code 21000 et, seq, , which require: 6. There Is Insufficient Evidence To Justify the Assessment of $7.9 Million In Fees. The factual evidence previously submitted to the Planninc Commission and now submitted in the record before the Cit] Council indicates approximately $6 Million in proposed public improvements which are required because of existinq populatioi demands and overloading of City facilities. Neither the fact: nor the law support a fee assessment of any kind to Shapell base( upon paying any amount of these fees which must be borne by thi general public and which have no relationship to future impact: from the future Shapell development. e ---; UUAIUL~WLG uuu WIS ' and City Counciv November 10, 1987 - , Page 5 7. There Is Insufficient Connection Between The Shapell The law requires some connection or ltnexustl between thc public improvements sought to be constructed, fees sought to br imposed, and the actual demands on public facilities which may bc made by the 120-unit Shapell project. The evidence is clear11 those already requested by the City and paid by Shapell) foi these future improvements. There is also a failure to includt the projected future units in the Zone 6 area numbering 1334 which are in addition to the newly revised projected unit figurc of 1539 (not 1499 as the City previously calculated) whicl defective. 120-Unit Project And The $7.9 Million in Assessed Fees insufficient to retroactively extract additional fees (beyonc provides the basis for the fee per unit. The calculations arc 8. Settinq Any Additional Fees Under The Ordinance Is Illegal. The City is continuing to make an illegal attempt to dc indirectly what it can only do through the otherwise lawful mean5 of establishing and spending property taxes, establishing an assessment district (including, but not limited to, a 1911 Act district) or a Mello Roos district, or other type of special assessment district using the procedures already established ir: California law. By failing to collect this money through the proper taxing or assessment district procedures, Shapell is nop denied all of the statutory protections provided in those pre-existing statutory schemes. The City cannot do indirect11 (by avoiding statutory protections to property owners) what it iz statutory schemes for raising money from property Owners. Assessing any new fee after the issuance of building permits is illegal and is an abuse of any reasonable interpretation of the limits of municipal power. legally required to do directly through already existing 9. Retroactive Charqing Of A Fee Violates The Subdivision Map Act. The Subdivision Map Act prohibits the City from assessing and collecting any new fees from Shapell at a time after the building permits were issued to Shapell. The law requires that the various developer fees for purposes of parks and roadways be determined and established before the filing of a subdivision map or before issuance of building permits as seen in California Government Code Sections 66477 and 66484. These sections, along with other similar sections of the Subdivision Map Act, show that the attempted Itretroactivel8 establishment of fees by the City of Carlsbad is illegal as applied to Shapell. 0 A*-- +IY-.VIUYA- DUU WIS ' and City Councim November 10, 1987 - , Page 6 10. Assessing Any New Fee Against Shapell Violates Federal The retroactive assessment of any additional building fee (after the prior issuance of building permits) violates thl Federal and State civil rights of Shapell because it creates violation of "due process11 rights, constitutes an unlawful takin. And State Civil Rights. and/or damaging of property without prior payment of jus1 compensation, and violates common notions of fairness and "equa: protection of law" because other similarly situated propert! owners throughout the City are not being treated in a manne: equal to the treatment now being imposed upon Shapell under thl unique circumstances now existing. The Ordinance provision! regarding any llprotesttl constituting a mandatory suspension 0. building permits is clearly void for public policy reasons. Thc Ordinance does not use the same limited restrictions as found ii Government Code Section 65913.5. The entirety of the Ordinancc is self-contradictory and is sufficiently 'Void for vagueness" sc that persons of common intelligence must either guess 0: speculate in order to determine the meaning of the variou: inconsistent and illegal provisions contained therein. CONCLUSION In view of the above objections to the proposed City Council action concerning Zone 6 and the adoption of any fees relatec thereto, Shapell respectfully requests the City Council to exempl Shapell, to the extent that it has paid for fees and obtainec building permits on or about October 13, 1987, from tht assessment of any further additional IILocal Facilities Managemenl Fees" in connection with the existing Shapell building permit: issued for work in Zone 6. RG, EGG~RS, KIDDER & FOX fessional Corporation 6636.04-01/MBP13f cc: Ann Kulchin Mark Pettine Eric Larson John Mamaux Raymond Patchett Marty Orenyak Vincent F. Biondo, Esq. U bt- I e .*r,.-.. " . ~ . & 'a+-&. '/ * 5- ,Y li I* = c+ DONALD W CANADY ATTORNEY AT LAW 3 """7- 11300 SORRENTO VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92121 (619) 546-1555 TRADEMA TELECOPY (619) 546 1380 AND RELATED November 9, 1987 City Council, City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, CA RE: Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6 City Council Hearing November 10, 1987 Dear Sir: I am writing concerning the assessment of the IC facilities management fee, which the notice of public heal states may range between $7000.00 and $10,000.00 per resident dwelling unit. It is my understanding that this fee wili assessed against all those residents who have obtained a build permit within the last two years (or will seek a permit in near future) and in doing so were, or will be, required to s an agreement to pay fees determined in the local plan for Zone I am writing on behalf of David and Karen Canady who ow lot in La Costa Vale No. 1 and are planning on building a home this lot 39, in the near future. We would strongly oppose this assessment on the basis t these improvements will benefit all residents in the area will be paid for by only a small portion of the residents. S an assessment would appear to be contrary to the recent U Supreme Court ruling in the First English Church vs. Los Ange "taking" of private property, which would subject the City Carlsbad to law suits for damages under the First Engl doctrine. county, case, 107SCt2378, and would in essence amount t Secondly, it would appear that it would be patently unf to assess this fee against people who have recently built bought homes and thus are subject to the "agreement" or th whose property is subject to this assessment, with specifically notifying each of these owners of the Counci hearinq on November 10, 1987. Accordingly, in view of the above, I urge the Council adopt a plan whereby the cost of the public facility improveme would be born equally by all the homeowners who will benefitted by the improvements. Sincerely, Donald Mf W. Canady A DWC:sfc . - i - 1.. -2 dl I.. kbhCAL FAClbTIES MANAGEMENT PLAai -&lE 6 4’ i% NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing Bt the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO P.M. on Tuesday, November 10,1987, to consider a detailed plan f& the provision of public facilities to meet adopted performance standards for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6, based on the City of Carlsbads General Plan on property generally located in the developed portions of the La Costa area and more particularly described as: The developed areas east and west of El Camino Real from Camino Vtda Roble to Olivenhain Road, the developed areas north of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Avenue, the undeveloped area east of Melrose and north of Rancho Santa Fe Road, the area south of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road to Levante, and the developed area south of Levante. The City Council will also be considering the approval of a Local Facilities Management Fee which may range between $7,000 to $lO,OOO per residential dwelling unit as allowed by Sechon 21.90.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. All people who signed an agreement to pay future fees as determined in the local plan for Zone 6 will be required to pay this fee within 30 days following receipt of an official City invoice. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Planning Department at 438-1 161. If you challenge the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 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’s City Clerk’s office at or prior to the public hearing. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH: October F, 1987 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 4’ m cay ol cul.lub -~-procrun ZONE 6 J.nu.v 1w LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT BOUNDRIES RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN RL LOW DENSIP( (C-1.5) I FILM LOW MEDIUM DENSITY (04) W MEDiUMDENslTy(4-8) AM HIGH DENSIP( (1523) RMH MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY (e.15) COMMERCIAL RRJ INTENSIVE REGKMAL RElAlL mE EXTENSIVE REGKWYnL RETAIL RI REGIONAL SERVICE C COlMUNtlYCOMMERClAL N NEIoH@QRm)(3D COMMERCIAL TS 7RRVEL SERVCES COMMERCIAL 0 PROFESSK)NRREUTED CBD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT fl PU\”ED INDUSTRIAL G GOVERNMENT FACILITIES U PUWC UTILITIES Rc RECREATION COMMERCUL SCHOOLS E ELEMENTARY J JUNMHIGH H HIWSCHMX P PRIVATE 05 OPEnSPACE NRR NON RESlENTIAL RESERVE ,,lay ut: pcLrrrrrrt:" 1'1 3"C'I UCLWSCII ,us LIILCC:LIII UL m'aJ 11C1111155YL DcI"I<T:J UCL*"IC 1, WE.. is of public parks or beaches are specifically designated City Manager for archery or vojertile tbr4wing devices. D discharge or set off fire- 'rs. torpedoes, rockets or reworks except where a per- 5 been granted by the City er. The City Manager shall ;aid permit only where he ?at: . is for an established civic he person proposing to dis- or set off the fireworks has 0. and hat it can be done without o stable. pasture or keep ?/ k NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT BOUNDARIES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Cham- bers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO P.M. on Tuesday, November 10, 1987, to consider approval of a de- tailed plan for the provision of public facilities to meet adopted performance standards for Local Facilities Manage- ment Plan Zone 6, based on the City ofcarlsbad's General Plan on property generally located in the developed portions ofthe La Costa area and more particularly described as: ation, :essary skill and experience :ering persons or property. s or insects. ) enter any portion of a pub- .k or beach in the City. or ngs or portions thereof in iublic parks and beaches we posted with signs stating itry." "Keep Out." "No Tres- s,'' "Closed Area" or other ition of entry I enter any portion ofor be in c park or beach in the City at of the day. or on a day of the when such entry is prohi- y a clearly legible sign post- ach entrance to such public .beach. The City Manager is luthority to post such signs. o park any automobiles or her vehicles in any public .beach in the City. except in specifically designated as y areas by the City Manager. :o construct or erect on any ty any building. fence or 'acter. or run. or string or in- The developed areas east and west of El Camino Real from Camino Vida Roble to Olivenhain Road, the developed areas north of Alga Road between El Cami- no Real and Melrose Avenue, the undeveloped area east of Melrose and North of Ranch Santa Fe Road, the area south of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road to Levante, and the developed area south of Levante. The City Council will also be considering the approval of a Local Facilities Management Fee which may range between $7,000 to $10,000 per residential dwelling unit as allowed by Section 21.90.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. All people who signed an agreement to pay future fees as determined in the local plan for Zone 6 will be required to pay this fee within 30 days following receipt of an official city invoice. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordial- ly invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any ques- tions, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161. If you challenge the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 in court, you may be limited to raisingonly 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. I ofa public parkor beach in Lure of whatever kind. :r permanent or temporary iy public service utility into. mr across such lands. except cia1 written permit of the inager as to temporary items ems. Each day such condi- :ists shall constitute a new parate offense ;o ride or lead horses. or to imal or fowl of any kind. ex- !he City Council as to perma- asten. lead, drive or let loose I provided in subsection (25) i section. This subsection eaches. lot apply to state parks or '0 cut and remove any wood smove turf, grass. soil, rock, CASE FILE: LFMP 87-6 ravel or fertilizer. '0 camp or lodge therein ex- camping sites by the City er 'O play or engage in any sport tingevent in any picnicarea 'odisturb in any manner any meeting. service. concert. ie or exhibition. ro distribute any handbills :ulars. or to post. place or my bills, notice. paper, or ising device or matter of any RL lm Density (0.1.5) lo sell or offer for sale or to RLM Lnr-MediumDensity (04) lease any merchandise. arti- Ru MediumDenstj (4.8) thing. whatsoever, unless RMH Medium4IighDensily (8-15) d a valid permit by the City RH HghDemity 11523) I. ouM* '0 practice, carryon. conduct RRI InlensiveRegbnal Retail :it for any trade, occupation, RRE GlensiiRegbnal Retail ssor profession ofwhatsoev- RS Rsgiml SeMce C Crmmunity CMnmercial N Neighbhcd Canmercial i or character without per- TS Tml Service n of the City Council 0 Pmiessiml Related lo use or operate any motor- ad vehicles at any time. ex- CBD btml Busim District I permitted by the City Mana- PI Planned Industrial iesignated streets or parking G GPnmment Facilities iras part of a supervised rec- U Public Utilities ial activity or as authorized RC Rereation Canmercial :&E in the outer lagoon. This *kdr aph does not apply to offi- E urmentaq gentsoremployeesofthe Un- J hior High ales, the State of California. H ~hSchaol .ty, or public utility com- P ftiwate or other local government ies. when they are using powered vehicles in the per- ice of their official duty. nor use of motor-powered vehi- APPLICANT: CrrY OF CARLSBAD areas designated and post- PUBLISH: OCTOBER 30, 1987 mstmlul 0s opnspace NM Mn-I!&Wii Raac .i -~ I I I i ( I ~ I I I , 1 i I. ,' ' NUlpiC2 Ux~ PU6LIC HEAhiNG I - ' LOkAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 6 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:OO P.M. on Tuesday, November 10, 1987, to consider a detailed plan for the provision of public facilities to meet adopted performance standards for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6, based on the City of Carlsbad's General Plan on property generally located in the developed portions of the La Costa area and more particularly described as: The developed areas east and west of El Camino Real from Camino Vida Roble to Olivenhain Road, the developed areas north of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Avenue, the undeveloped area east of Melrose and north of Rancho Santa Fe Road, the area south of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road to Levante, and the developed area south of Levante. The City Council will also be considering the approval of a Local Facilities Management Fee which may range between $7,000 to $10,000 per residential dwelling unit as allowed by Section 21.90.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. All people who signed an agreement to pay future fees as determined in the local plan for Zone 6 will be required to pay this fee within 30 days following receipt of an official City invoice. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Planning Department at 438-1 161. If you challenge the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 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's City Clerk's office at or prior to the public hearing. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH: October 30,1987 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL I T.\ 4) m; ~ - .- cq 01 caliumd Growth Mansgemnt Pr-m ~. ~~ ZONE 6 JMYW 1987 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT BOUNDRIES RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN RL LOW DENSITY (0-1-5) 3LM LOW MEDIUM DENSITY 10-41 RM MEDIUM DENSITY 14-8) 1MH MEDIUM HIGH DENSlrY (8-151 RM HIGH DENSITY (15-231 COMMERCIAL RRJ INTENSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL ?RE EXTENSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TS TRAVEL SEAVICES COMMERCIAL 0 PHOFESSIONAL RELATED PI PLANNED INDUSTRIAL G GOVERNMENT FACILITIES U PUBLIC UTILITIES AC RECREATION COMMERCIAL flJ REGIONAL SERVICE ;ED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SCHOOLS E ELEMENTARY J JUNIOR HIGH H HIGHSCHOOL P PRIVATE OS OPENSPACE IRR NON RESIDENlIAL RESERVE clty d cambad v _.-_. .. - wy -* -I 3-141 UI-H s .4dAJ (Farm A) TO a CITY CLERK’S OFFICE FROMI P LAN N IN G 5.E P AR T ME N T REo PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Atteuhed are tha materials necessary for you to natiuc - Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan - City of Carlsbad LFMP-6 - ?or a public hearing before the City Council. Please notice the item for the council meting of November 1987 Thank you. J - Date Assistant Cfty Man-- w v '2. '1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO P.M. or Tuesday, November 10, 1987, to consider approval of a detailed plan for the provision of public facilities to meet adopted performance standards for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6, based on the City of Carlsbad's General Plan or property generally located in the developed portions of the La Costa area and more particularly described as: The developed areas east and west of El Camino Real from Camino Vida Roble to Olivenhain Road, thc developed areas north of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Avenue, the undevelopec area east of Melrose and North of Rancho Santa FE Road, the area south of Alga Road between El Caminc Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road to Levante, and thc developed area south of Levante. The City Council will also be considering the approval of 2 Local Facilities Management Fee which may range betweer $7,000 to $10,000 per residential dwelling unit as allowed bl Section 21.90.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal code. All people who signed an agreement to pay future fees as determined ir the local plan for Zone 6 will be required to pay this fee within 30 days following receipt of an official City invoice. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordiallq invited to attend the public hearing. If you have anq questions, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161. If you challenge the Local Facilities Management Plan fox Zone 6 in court, you may be limited to raising only thosc issues you or someone else raised at the public hearin5 described in this notice or in written correspondencc delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: LFMP 87-6 APPLICANT : CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLISH : OCTOBER 30, 1987 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL w w J NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAWNG .) I LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 6 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a pub: at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carxsbad, California, at 6:OO P.M. on November 10, 1987, to consider a detailed plan for the provision of public facilities meet adopted performance standards for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6, base( City of Carlsbad's General Plan on property generally located in the developed portic the La Costa area and more particularly described as: The developed areas east and wegt of El Camino Real from Camino Vida Roble to Olivenhain Road, Lhe developed areas north of Alga Road between El Camino Reg1 and Melrose Avenue, the undeveloped area east of MelroGe and North of Rancho Santa Fe Road, the area south of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road to Levawe, and the developed area south of Levante. .\ / If you have any questions regarding this mat/ter, please call the Planning Department 438-1161. If you challenge the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 in court, you may bc to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing descrit this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad's City C~C Office at or prior to the public hearing. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH : October 30, 1987 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL ,, 1, The City Council will also be considering the approval of Local Facilities Management Fee which may range betwec $7,000 to $10,000 per residential dwelling unit as allowed b Section 21.90.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. All POP] who signed an agreement to pay future fees as determined 1 the local plan for Zone 6 will be required to Pay this ft within 30 days following receipt of an official City inv0i.c~ >< 1 h v p'1 lJ! 'B - a ,I -*:i, ZONE 6 -. GENERAL PI I 21- L,I.+iIc6 la!&- mmwrmi u LO~Dt*,l*~OI,, . u Ulol"YDr*,lnt48, . u( HlCnDINllno,-*,, COYYI.LI.I "U I"rm,lrl "ECIO"*l"n&ll UI t.n(r,l"l "ICIONIIUT*II c EOU,I"*I~Col*I"CUL N Lllc"~owooo~o1*L.cUL n m"msc""Ku<o*v~c!AL 0 ."OILUIO"ILUUTED cm cImuLm7I*u1oI,TucI ,, rwneo INDLrnL G CO*IW*~ltT RCluTill " rYlYCLnYTlY "C "ICLLI"ONEO**- II" LOY.HEDI"YDr*IIT1(0.4, wn >tlOlliM n,c,c Ow,lnl.-l). L1 UGIO*lllr""IcI 01, a C. ICHOOLI , ,LNl""IIIW I IILUIXTAL" " WCMlClloDl , rur*n 0, olr*ll*cI NU *ONLUlDUrnrllUU.l J A N U A R Y ZONE 6 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - .II 1 t .>, rc‘\ ‘I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the C 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Wednesd September 2, 1987, to consider approval of a detailed plan the provision of public facilities to meet adopted performa standards for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6, based the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan on property generally loca in the developed portions of the La Costa area and n particularly described as: of Carlsbad will hold a public’hearing at the Council Chambe The developed areas east and west of El Camino Real from Camino Vida Roble to Olivenhain Road, the developed areas north of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Avenue, the undeveloped area east of Melrose and North of Rancho Santa Fe Road, the area south of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road to Levante, and the developed area south of Levante. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordia invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questic please call the Planning Department at 438-1161. If you challenge the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zor; in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you someone else raised at the public hearing described in t notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: LFMP 87-6 APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLISH : AUGUST 21, 1987 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION - w 3t < os, l..ll\ I ,I (51 c - L 5 - 7 f LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT BOUNDRIE ZONE 6 JAb - 7 , :* 3 -1-'=1-1~1111,~ v) 0 0 P w ~"r ~=~uzpog~u=~ w-z& - d+ E9 U 0s * .. ,_ * t.' I fp cn, Of C. ,hb#* *e-#* Y....I.rn.0f R, - JANUARY 1087 ZONE 6 LOCAL FAClLlTlES MANAGEMENT BOUNDR~ES Ln- GENERAL P IIIIDINIIAL II ,om DENIITYIO I51 lLIl WIUMOINIIlY(4 lli COMMIRCIAL NH LOW HEDIUMDEYSlN100 UI" VtDSL" *IrXOYLI*<. I3 w */011 DE*I/_< 5 1,, xu I*TlNll"I RlCIO*Ai~Ail UIL I*TEYI,YLIIGI.WN~AT*II a3 ?zc OIIL5LR"YICE c CO*~I"NlTYCO*"I~LU Y hL1C"lOU100DCOUUTKcUL n Tu"IIIE""IcLIcoY"ucw 0 PIOIUSIONAL sum CBD Uml*LI)LIIRWoImCT SI ?LMNEDI"OLrnL 0 COYELNNTNTrACIYTILI " PL8YCLTUTIU RC lrClUrONCoHHUCW scwooLI E ILLIIIITALI , ILniOllllCH " H,CHIC"00L P ruv*re 05 OPW~PICI "RR w3NwIDmLLum ZONE 6 JAN U A I? Y LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN