HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-08-16; City Council; 9599; CARLTAS' REQUEST FOR PRIORITY PROCESSINGt.
2 a, 3
a, r: 0
$4
w 0
a a,
G 3
.I4 u 8 0
[I] KJ 3
!4
c) a,
u KJ B
a, s H
co co
CD I
I+ I co
Cw OF CARLSBAD - AGENm BILL
5 I
qAB# yx I TITLE: ‘AHd- I DEP~
4
MTG. 8-1 6-88 CITY CARLTAS’ REQUEST FOR PRIORITY
DEPT. R/AG PROCESSING CITY
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
A .d Consider Carltas’ request for priority processing of a General Plan amend GI application.
ITEM EXPLANATION: a, uu
$ z Carltas Development has asked that their request for priority processing ‘r) u P 3aJ General Plan amendment be brought before the City Council for considera
:? 3 EXHIBITS: GB -d VI4 m cd 2 1. Letter to Christopher Calkins from Marty Orenyak, dated 8-5-88.
2. Letter to Michael Holzmiller from Nancy Rollman, dated 8-5-88.
3. Letter to Marty Orenyak from Christopher Calkins, dated 8-2-88.
.rl
0 os! Ti w u k ad F:
$4 ad
0 *d
oua WKJU UG u .d .rl mrl KJ a, au
Wcd 0 3 ar:
a0 $4@
kkO;
s ma;
u a) *rl
a .?I .z
g2g a, ua
Ur:U aa, au $4 cda, !4 .d 4 -d u
*rl a, 0 US c us
0 bl .rl F1u
uo3 .. a3 00 I m hl
00 I
z 0 F 0 a
..
$ z 3 0 0
W) A
4. ’*
2075 US PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009459 i m W
CItp of QCarIsbab
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
August 5, 1988
Christopher C. Calkins Carltas Development Co.
4401 Manchester Avenue, Suite 206
Encinitas, CA 92024
Dear Mr. Calkins:
In response to your letter dated August 2, 1988, reques priority processing of the General Plan amendment applicatior Carlsbad Ranch, I asked staff to prepare a schedule, whic attached.
It appears to me that based on the minimal time required staff’s workload, the City is unable to meet your processing requirements. Even if Council directed staff to priori
processing this application, it still would not be workable bec
of the Coastal requirements. If you wish to go directly to Council with your request, you will need to call Ray Patchett,
Sincerely,
Manager at 434-2821.
Y’ MARTIN v+ 0 NYAK
Community Development Director
bjn
c: Ray Patchett, City Manager
e W
8,
MEMORANDUM
AUGUST 5, 1988
TO : MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
FROM: NANCY E. ROLLMAN pk
RE : PROCESSING SCHEDULE FOR ECKE GPA/ZC/LCPA
Carltas Company recently requested priority processing of tp
application to meet a December 31st deadline for both city Coastal Commission approval. Our normal processing procedux
i.e., typically 6 months for a project requiring a Negat Declaration and 10-12 months for an EIR, will not accommodate tf
request. I have put together an accelerated schedule which wc
be the minimal time it would take to process the application, wk is based on obtaining and reviewing necessary information :re12
to their proposal. That timeline is attached. As you can see,
would take about 16 weeks from the time it became a m,andz
Council priority to get through the City approval process, bz on the following:
1. Upfront, a 6-week LCPA public review notice is relquix which has been started.
2. Approximately 8 weeks would be required to produce
agricultural (AG) study and a traffic study. The study is required by the LCP to determine those ax best suitable for agriculture, thus allowing those ax to be developed. The AG study would look at soj
microclimate, drainage, and the relationship of the
lands with surrounding urban uses, i .e. , their fut
compatibility or incompatibility. A qualified agronon would independently determine the areas least suital: would come up with various tests for suitability would then rate the Ecke proposal.
The traffic study would be a .broad picture type report, in terms of actual numbers of trips, but wc explain and justify the development scenario propc
versus other options and how they would affect gem
circulation patterns.
3. CEQA review would require 30 days assuming thal
Negative Declaration will be adequate, and not an I
The initial study has not been completed yet. Dux
the 30-day period, staff would be reviewing the land
proposals (types of uses) and preparing the staff repc
4. Planning Commission and Council hearings would take al:
0 W
3 weeks to complete.
Since the Coastal process would take 2-3 months after (
approval, the project would have to get through the City pro(
by the end of September, which appears impossible, based on
minimal time required and my present workload (also attached
your reference). The only other shortcuts I could suggest m. be to have Carltas prepare the AG study for third party re
request a shorter CEQA review period from State Clearinghol
shorten our review time, and have the public hearings one \
apart for Commission and Council.
NER: af
Attachments
instead of US going through the RFPjeancultank geleckion procf
-2-
a - ..
*
0 E
g
u) z
0: m g
Q a 0 (Y N
2
OD rl
4 W% c3
% :i $ I ” ,il PI
ca i W
DOI f3W
z4 OD 8
r
rl pt u
iiii I f3 u 0
(Y 4
*
E; 24 PI
11 o 21 0
M 8
r( r: iB.
i Si 8 3 2 H I
i~ -
Hz E E3 ixz
HE
D
am
QD 4 c
m
0 - *_
"0
TO : MICHAEL
FROM: Nancy
MY WORKLOAD IF CARLTAS GETS TOP PRIORITY
The following is a status report of my current workload
would be affected in the Carltas GPA gets all of my attent:
the next 6 - 8 weeks:
1. Planning Commission Subcommittee -- Beach Area l
implementation of recommendations plus GPA and Zone for R-1 areas.
2. Blonski - revised plans submitted today.
3. Ponto Drive Specific Plan - property owners are pres to get done (3 years in-house) .
4. Floral Trade Center - time expires soon - administ work required.
5. Kelly stockpile permit - EIA/CEQA review.
6. Cobblestone/College Boulevard realignment - Ne Declaration/CEQA review.
7. Cannon Road EIR - execute extension of contrac,
archaeology.
8, Cannon Road east of EIR - applicant wants to begi process.
9. Redevelopment - 1 day/week
10. Senior Residential Center (Alga/ECR) - revised plan
next week.
11. Baldwin - 4-unit PUD - in 30 day complete process.
12. Farmers Insurance SDP - in 30 day complete process.
13. Airport Centre PUD - in 30 day complete process.
14. Review changes/amendments to old projects - Rice, La Valley Terrace, Rancho La Costa Plaza, Herrick.
15. Bed and Breakfast ZCA
CFlRlTFll * W
.cornpmw
August 2, 3.988
Mr. Martin Orenyak
Director of Community Development
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: General Plan Amendment - Carlsbad Ranch
Dear Marty:
As a follow-up from our recent meetings, I am taking this opportunity to clarify several issues which have been raised wit? discussions with yourself and the Planning Department.
The General Plan Amendment,' LCP Amendment and Williamson Contrac. Swap is crucial to occur prior to December 31, 1988 by the Cit:
Council and Coastal Commission if the flower fields are to bl
preserved.
1. Without the Amendment and Williamson Swap, only the corne' of Paseo del Norte and Palomar Airport Road (i. e. th
10 years. (See Attorney Gerald Dawson's letter attached).
2075 bas Palmas
'IFlower Fieldd') will be available to develop for at leas
2. The Ecke family cannot carry the cost of Palomar Airpor Road assessments and be prepared for other potential cas needs such as estate taxes in the family without obtainin
and using the development rights on the land during the nex
tan years.
3. Without the land Swap, development must be pursued for th flower field area. Flower farming would cease and tk community will lose the proposed flower preserve, E important community asset.
4. Early this year, we. attempted to extend -the life of tk
legislation which permits the Williamson Act Swar Assemblyman Frazee, while willing to attempt tk
legislation, had determined its chance for success unlike:
by the Deukmajian Administration, Sierra Club, and variol
ranching interests, regardless of merit. Raising the is81
would immediately create a storm of opposition.
in light of specific objection to any Williamson Act changl
4401 MANCHESTER AVE., SUITE 206 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 U.S.A. (619) 944
-4 . .I
1. - 0 - ..
, Letter to Martin Orenyak
August 2, 1988
Page Two
Since Spring 1987, we have pursued obtaining changes whir:
preserve the most visible flower fields while permitting SOT long term use of the remaining land by the Ecke family. ThJ proposal only changes the location of development, not the SCOPE
or density. It is necessary if the long term goals for land UE and preservation of Carlsbad's character are to be achieved. .
We urge the priority processing of this Liendment, ar
accordingly we would request that the Council consider thJ matter at its earliest opportunity. We recognize the bus workload you and your staff have, and offer our assistance in a]
way we can to help achieve our mutual goal of preserving tl Flower Fields.
Very truly yours,
>(
CCC/ns Orenyak4. lcc
cc: Michael Holzmiller
I . '. -0 W
AUGUST 16, 1988
TO : FRANK MANNEN, ACTING CITY MANAGER Am FROM : COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
CARLTAS REQUEST FOR PRIORITY PROCESSING THEIR GENERAL 1
AMENDMENT
Should Council wish to consider the Carltas request for priol
processing they must understand two things:
1. Without a commitment by the Coastal staff to concurre] process this application we could not, even under most optimistic time frame, process this applicatiol receive all approvals before January 1, 1989.
2. Council must understand that 15 projects would be pu.
hold for the next six to eight weeks. The most not;
of these projects are as follows: -
Pacific Coast Hotel (Blonski Project) Cannon Road EIR Carltas's own Floral Trade Center College Boulevard EIR Farmers Insurance Expansion
In addition, the staff person that is assigned to this project ' is the planning liaison with the Redevelopment Agency. This ml for the next six to eight weeks, Redevelopment would be witho.
planner assigned for their exclusive use one day a ws
Transferring some or all of these projects to other planners been considered and rejected for the following reasons:
It would place other projects on hold that are equ important as those identified above.
And secondly, to have another planner step into the re
process at this late date, would cause even greater
delays.
Staff's recommendation at this time would be that Council defer action regarding this request until a written commitment is by the Coastal staff agreeing to concurrent processing of
General Plan Amendment. Staff would also suggest that the
f .. 0 - Frank Mannen
August 16-, 1988
Pase Two i
applicants for projects impacted by this decision be notified
given an opportunity to express their concerns. It must be furt
noted to the Carltas Corporation that granting their request ir
way implies approval of their General Plan Amendment.
MARTY ORENYAK
bjn
-
e
; ' AUGUST 23, 1988
w
TO: MAYOR L El IS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM : rn COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
CARLTAS REQUEST FOR PRIORITY PROCESSING
The City Council on August 16, 1988 deferred the Carltas request for prior processing unless the Coastal Staff would agree to concurrent processing of application. We have received written confirmation by Coastal staff agrec to place this on the Commission Agenda in December if the City takes fina'l act on the proposed amendment by November 1, 1988.
Meeting this November 1st deadline will create some impacts to projects currer in the system. Should Council concur with the Carl tas request, staff wt recommend the following:
1. City initiated projects, (1) the Beach Area Study, (2) Ponto Dri\ Specific Plan, (3) Cannon Road EIR, (4) Minor Redevelopment Projec and (5) the Bed and Breakfast Zone Code Amendment, would be pli on hold until the General Plan Amendment was processed through system.
2. Blonski (Pacific Hotel), staff would continue working 1 application as time would allow.
3. Floral Trade Center, Carltas would formally withdraw the tental map application on this project or agree to an indefir postponement.
Smaller projects that are subject to prescriptive time limits will be reassi! to other planners. The balance of the projects would be worked on as i a1 1 ows.
The applicant has agreed to modify his appl ication so as to place the i commonly referred to as the flower fields, approximately 50 acres which is west facing slope between Car Country and Pal omar Airport Road, into an ( space designation. He also understands that the General Plan Amend1 designations for the balance of the property will be placed in Non-Residen' Reserve. In other words, the General P1 an designations on the property \ change from Residential Medium and Non-Residential Reserve to Open Space and I Residential Reserve. This is a holding zone and any specific land use w1 require an additional General Plan Amendment. Obviously, these concessions WI only be granted if the GPA is approved.
It is staff's opinion, that these concessions are significant and, therefl we concur with their request and would recommend that Council direct staf. provide priority processing for this application.
MARTY ORENYAK
c: City Attorney City Manager