HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-26; City Council; 12446; Villa At El Camino Real/Villa Loma-2. _
C Y OF CARLSBAD - AGE’ -?A BILL
rB # K$YY& TITLE: - VILLASATELCAMINOREAL-ZC93-02/ ITG. 10/26/93 SDP93-06/SUP93-02/HDP93-08
IEPT. PLN
IECOMMENDED ACTION:
Both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council direct the City
Attorney to prepare documents APPROVING SUP 93-02, and HDP 93-08, as approved by the
Planning Commission, APPROVE SDP 93-06 with two additional conditions that state: 1) “Prior
to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall pay, or agree to pay, their
proportionate share of a fee for the construction of Poinsettia Lane”; and 2) “Prior to approval of
a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner shall annex the property
into Community Facility District No. l”, and INTRODUCE Ordinance No. A@-.$! L Y, APPROVING zc 93-02.
lTEMEXPLANATION .
On September 1, 1993, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended
approval with modification (6-O) of the Villas at El Camino Real project, located west of El Camino
Real, between Camino Vida Roble and Alga Road, in the southwest quadrant of the City, and in
Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 21.
The project is being developed by Aviara Land Associates Limited in concert with Bridge Housing
Corporation, a nonprofit affordable housing developer. The project site is targeted to satisfy the
affordable housing requirements of the Aviara Master Plan as stipulated in the Aviara Housing
Agreement adopted by City Council on July 20, 1993. The project would contain 344 apartment
units affordable to very low and low income households. As part of a “combined affordable
housing project” the remaining affordable housing units (184 dwelling units), over and above the
units allocated for the Aviara housing agreement (160 dwelling units), could be utilized to satisfy
the affordable requirements of other offsite developers contingent upon future housing agreements
approved by the City.
More detailed information is included in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission.
Four citizens provided public testimony to the Planning Commission. The testimony was in
opposition of the project. Their public testimony is included in the attached Planning Commission
minutes dated September 1, 1993. Additional changes to the project proposed by the Planning
Commission at the hearing have been incorporated into the appropriate Planning Commission
Resolutions. The Engineering Department has requested that the City Council approve an additional condition for the project which requires that the applicant pay or agree to pay their
proportionate share of a fee for the Construction of Poinsettia Lane. The project is located in Local
Facilities Management Plan Zone 21. The financial plan for that zone states that, “Funding for the
road (Poinsettia Lane) will be the responsibility of property owners/developers requiring use of
the facility”. Since the project’s traffic report indicates that 20% of the project’s traffic would
utilize Poinsettia Lane, the proposed additional, condition is appropriate and therefore justified.
The Planning Department is also requesting that a condition be added. A special condition of
Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 21 requires that the property be annexed into the
Community Facilities District No. 1 before the first discretionary approval. Staff is recommending
that a condition be placed on the Site Development Plan requiring that the property be annexed
into the district prior to grading or building permits. The property is owned by Bank of America
Trust for the Bressi Family. Currently there is an option to purchase the property by the developer
of this project and a possibility that the City may eventually own it, therefore, until the status of
final ownership is determined, the annexation of the property into the facility district should be
deferred to a later time.
-
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. I a; q 4 b
The agricultural property owner, Mr. Bons and an agricultural tenant to the south of the project
site opposed the project because they felt the project’s proposed access street leading from El
Camino Real would negatively impact the existing access to the flower shop and the green houses.
They were also concerned that the future residents of the project would complain about the uses
of chemical pesticides and the operation of the green houses and force the agricultural operation
out of business. The Engineering Department has agreed to allow a new driveway in front of the
flower shop and along El Camino Real to facilitate access to the retail business. This new driveway
would provide access to the parking lot of the flower shop and allow delivery trucks to enter the
new driveway and exit the existing driveway further south along El Camino Real. A new condition
was also added to Planning Commission Resolution No. 3538 which states that all future owners,
users, and tenants of this project shall be notified that the area is adjacent to industrial and
agricultural operations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Commission has determined that the project could have a significant effect on the
environment, however, there would not be a significant effect in this case since the mitigation
measures described in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3536 have been added to the project.
This decision was based on public testimony, findings of the Environmental Assessment Part II, a
Cultural Resources Study, a Biological Resource Impact Study, a Geotechnical Report, Traffic Study,
Noise Study, a Limited Environmental Assessment, and a site survey by staff.
FISCAL IMPACT
These recommended City Council actions, in themselves, do not create a fiscal impact. A separate
companion set of recommendations regarding the Villas project will present the financing plan and
fiscal implications of this affordable housing project for City Council consideration.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS
Facilities Zone 21
Local Facilities Management Plan - 21
Growth Control Point 6 DU/ACRE
Net Density 17.6 DU/ACRE
Special Facilities NW
F.XH1Bll-S
1. Location Map
2. Ordinance No. /‘VC-dq (ZC 93-02)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3536, 3537, 3538, 3539, & 3540
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 1, 1993
5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated September 1, 1993
4
city of blskd
VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL ZC 93002/SDP 93006/ SUP 93=02/HDP 93-08
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- -
ORDINANCE NO. NS-264
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE
CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO
RANT A ZONE CHANGE, ZC 93-02
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, SOUTH
OF CAMINO VID NORTH OF ALGA ROAD, IN
LOCAL FACILITI ENT ZONE 21.
EL CAMINO REAL
The City Council of the C f Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Title 21 o e Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
the amendrnent of the zoning map as sho n the map marked “Exhibit ZC 93-02”,
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
SECTION II: That the findings and tions of the Planning Commission
as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 7 constitutes the findings and
conditions of the City Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall ctive thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption o s ordinance and cause it
to be published at least once in the Carlsbad Sun within fiftee ays after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meet of the Carlsbad City
Council held on the 26th day of
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
1 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on
2 2 the the day of day of , , , 1993, by the following vote, to wit: , 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
3 3 AYES: AYES:
4 4 NOES: NOES: 5 5
6 6 ABSENT: ABSENT:
7 7 ABSTAIN: ABSTAIN:
8 8
9 9 APPROVED AS TO FORM AN APPROVED AS TO FORM AN
10 10
11 11
12 12 RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
13 13
14 14 \
\
15 15 CLAUDE A. LEWIS)\Mayor
16 16
17 17 ATTEST: ATTEST:
18 18
19 19 ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
20 20 c=Ju (SEAL)
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
2
I I
EXISTING
P-C
L-C
L-C v
PROPOSED
L-c L-c
v
VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL ZC 93-02
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
PLANNINGCOMMISSIONRESOLUTIONNO.3536
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR A ZONE CHANGE, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SPECIAL
USE PERMIT, AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 344 DWELLING UNIT
APARTMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTYGENERALLY LOCATED
ADJACENT TO AND WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, SOUTH OF
CAMINO VIDA ROBLE, NORTH OF ALGA ROAD, IN THE
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY, IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 21.
CASE NAME: VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
CASE NO: ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/SUP 93-02/HDP 93-08
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of September, 1993,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examinin g the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
factors relating to the Conditional Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A> That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
8) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECO MMENDS APPROVAL of the Conditional Negative
Declaration according to Exhibit “CND”, dated July 22,1993, and “PII”, dated
July 1,1993, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
fIllClingS:
Firdims:
1. The initial study shows that the proposed project could have a significant impact on
the environment, however, there will be no significant impact in this case because
the mitigation measures described in the initial study have been added to the
project.
-
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
2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project.
3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly
impacted by this project.
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Approval of this project, is subject to all conditions contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No.% 3537, 3538, 3539, and 3540.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by the Zone
21 Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council on September 17,
1991, incorporated herein and on file in the Planning Department and any future
amendments to the Plan made prior to the’issuance of building permits.
The applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best
management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever occurs first.
Prior to occupancy of dwelling units located adjacent to the northern property line,
asixfoothighsolidmasonrywallshallbeconstructedalongthispropertylineto
minim&e potential noise impacts from the adjacent industrial =. The materials
of the wall shall be compatible with the materials of the tide&al buildings.
r’lans, specifications, and supporting d ocumenl.sforallstreetaIldtIafficsignal
improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Eugineer. Prior to
issuance of i3 grading permit or building permit, whichever ClCCU?Sfirst,theapplicant
shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate secuxity as provided by,
the following improvements:
a. Halfstreetim pnwements, in accordance with City standa& for a prime
arterial,ontportionofElCnminoReal~o~thelimitsoftheproject.
b. AfullyactivatedtrafficsignalattheintersectionofElCaminoRealandthe
pqxsed roadway that will front the project along the south side of the
project site
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation rqu&nen~ofthepreliminarySoil
and Geological hwstigation for the project prepared by Gqgon Inc., dated July
1992 and any subsequent revisions to the report, prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
priortotheissuanceof~~permitstheownerofthe~oftheproperty
shall prepare and record a notice that this property is subject to noise impacts fkom
the existing ECR transportation corridor and overflight, sight, and sound of aira&
PC RESO NO. 3536 -2-
1
2
3
4
F c
6
7
E
s
1C
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8.
9.
10.
operating from Palomar A&port. The notice shall be prepared in a maxmermeetillg the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney. The applicant shall
post airuaft noise notilication signs in all rental offices associated with the new
development. The number and location of said signs shall be approved by the
Planning Director.
Prior to approval of a building permit the project shall comply with all requirements
of the project’s noise study and Planning Department Noise Policy No. 17, or any
other applicable and adopted noise standards in &ect prior to issuance of the
building permit. This includes mitigation to attenuate the project’s exterior areas,
interior building areas, and exterior second and third-story balconies/decks, if
subject to excessive traffic noise from ECR If sound attenuation walls are provided
along EC& the walls shall be designed with pilasters, offset with tree wells, and
lane to provide screen& of the walls from ECR in order to reduce visual
impacts along the scenic corridor.
PriortoapprovalofagradingpermitadetailedsoilstestingandanalyGreport
shall be prepared by registered soils engineer and submitted to the Planning
Department and County Health Departments for review and approvaL The report
shall identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remed@te any potentially
sign&ant public health impacts if hazardous pesticides or other chemicaIs are
detected at high concentrations in the soil.
A note shall be placed on the grading permit stipulating that the following measures
shall be required to reduce construction-related air pollutants:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
The watering of all surfaces being graded and haul routes shall be requimd
during dry weather conditions.
All unpaved areas shall be revegetated according to approved landscape plans
as soon as possible after grading.
All construction-related traffic shall be restricted to routes that are dust- controll&, and reduced speed limits shah be maintained for all haul and
construction vehicles.
All construction activities shall be limited during periods of high winds.
All heavyduty, dies&powered construction equipment shall be operated
accord@ to manufacturers suggested operating instruction (with the f&l-
injection timing retarded to recommen ded levels for NO, emissions, but
which would not result in excessive visible smoke emissions) in order to
control pollutant emissions.
Construction equipment shall be subject to qularly scheduled
maintenanc&me-ups, and be turned off when not being utilised to avoid
tz5assh idling emissions.
PCRESO NO.3536 -3-
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
11.
I?- The application of architectural coating and cut-back asphalt shall adhere to
APCD Rules 67.0 and 67.7, to effectively control other constxuction-related
emissions of air pollutants.
h. The F@neehg hpartment shall monitor for compliance during all grading
operations of the project.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction
site within this project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the
City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The applicant shah comply with all
conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the
hauling operation. If the source of imported dirt is within the limits of the City of
Carlsbad, a grading permit will be required for the import site.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of September, 1993,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz,
Welshons, Erwin & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Savary.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
I
BAILEY NOB@ Chairperson
CARLSBAJJ PLiNNING COMMISSION
MICHAEL J.
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RFSO NO. 3536 -4-
ONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: West of El Camino Real between Alga Road and Camino Vida Roble. APN: 215-020-15 and 215-
020-01.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the; (1) construction of 372 - two and
three-story apartment dwelling units and associated driveways
and parking areas; (2) a main recreation facility to include a pool, exercise room, leasing office, small gathering room, kitchen, and maintenance/workshop facility; (3) several tot
lots; (4) grading to include, 122,ooO cubic yards of cut, 190,OO cubic yards of fill, and 68,000 cubic yards of import; (5) roadway frontage and intersection improvements to El
Camino Real; (6) dedication and construction of a local
collector street leading to the project from El Camino Real, and; (7) a zoning land use change from Limited Control (LC) to Residential Density Multiple (RDM) which permits multi-
family residential land use.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Conditional Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Conditional Negative Declaration with supportive documen tsisonfleinthe Planning Department, 2075 Las Pahnas Drive, Carl&ad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in
the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 44
DATED: JULY 22,1993
CASE NO: VLLASATELCAMINOREAL
CASE NAME: ZC 93-OWSDP 93-06/SUP 93-02/HDP 93-08
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 22,1993 x;:h
.
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-l 576 l (619) 438-l 161 @
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTkENT)
CASE NO. ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/SUP 93-02/HDP 93-08
DATE: Juk 1.1993 BACKGROUND
1. . CASE NAME: Villas at El Cammo Real
2. APPLICANT: Aviwd Associates Limited
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 Palomar Aj.xport Road
Carlsbad CA 92009
(6191931 1190 s
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: June 30.1993
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Droiect consists of the: (11 construction of 372 - two and he-
stow anartment dwelling units and associated drivewavs and ~arkinlr areas: (2') a main . . recreation facilitv to include a ~001. exerase room. leasmn office. small natherinn room, kitchen. and maintenance/ . . . workshon fauhtvz (31 several tot lots: (41 zradmn to include, 322.000 cubic vards . of cut. 190.00 cubic vards of fill., and 68.000 cubic vards f imnort: (5) . roadwav frontage and intersection improvements to El Cammo Real. (6’1 . idcation and .
l construction of a local collector street leaclimz to the txoiect from El Camm o Real. and: (71 a zoninn land use change from Limited Control (LCI to Residential Den&v MuhiDle (RDM) which ) land use.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACFS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect onthe environment.
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This
checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed
project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
Environmetital Impact Report or Negative De&ratio=
l A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a sign&ant effect on the environment. On the checklist, “NO” will be checked
to indicate this detemination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the
project may cause a sinnificw effm on the enhnment. The project may qualify for a Negative
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed in&nil?cant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings YES-s&” and “YES-in&’ respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAI, EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined sign&ant. .
PHYSICAL ENvIRoNMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
WI (ins@)
Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features?
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site?
x
Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
‘Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply?
&bstantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resourres?
Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Alter a signScant archeologica&
pakontological or historical sit% structure or object?
x
x
X
-2-
BIOLOGICAL EN~IR~NMEIUT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
WI big1
12.
13.
14.
15.
.16.
Meet the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance?
Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organ&s
and insects?
Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the
x
x
X
x
migration or movement of animals?
HUMANENVIRONMENT
x
VVILL~THE PROPOSAL DIRECILY OR INDIRECTLY: YES NO
(sig) (in&g)
17. Alterthepresentorplannedhduse
of an area? x
18. Substantially affkt public utilities, schools, police, f& anqency or other public services? X
-3-
HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES bigI (insip
19. Result in the need for new or modSed sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare? x -
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area?
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?.
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
29. Increase traflic hazards to motor vehicles, biqclists or pedestrkns?
30. Interfere with -rcsponscPbor emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
NO
x
x -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES (sigl (ins@
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
34. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, dekitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively con- kiderable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in corm&on with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and ,
the effects of p&able funac projects.)
36. Does the project have eminmumtal effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
NO
X
X
X
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIOl’J
ENVIRONMENTAL SEl7ING
The.23.82 acre site is located adjacent to El Camino Real on the west side of the road and approximately one
mile south of Palomar Airport Road, within Section 23 Towndip 12 South and Range 4 West. The project
is located on the coastal plain in the northern part of San Diego County. The property occupies a portion
of the mesa top which lies at the southeast extent of Canyon de las Encinas. The site consists of gently
sloping topography and a small erosional drainage that crosses a portion of the property, exiting at the
northwest comer and subsequently traveling into Canyon de las Encinas to the northwest. Canyon de las
En&as ultimately empties into the Pacific Ocean approximately three miles to the west. Elevations on the
site range from 230 to 322 feet above mean sea level. Two soil types occur within the area: Huerhureo loam
along the eastern higher portion of the property and loamy alluvial land-Huerhuero complex on the remainder
of the site. Both are comprised of sandy marine sediments with a clay subsoil. The site has been cleared presumably for agriculture, although native vegetation does exist in the far western portion of the site. The majority of the property contains only sparse r emnants of native vegetation, including disturbed and
undisturbed southern maritime chaparral, very small isolated areas of arroyo willows and coast live oak, and
some De1 Mar Manzinita.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Based on the mitigation recommendations from the Preliminary Soil and Geological Investigation for the
project prepared by Geogon Inc., dated July 1992, and compliance with the Hillside Development Regulations,
there would not be a significant impact on soils and geology. The soils report states that; “No soil or geologic
conditions were encountered which would preclude the development of the property as presently planned,
provided the recommendations of this report are followed”. Erosion control measures including landscaping
on manufactured slopes, adequate drainage facilities, and proper soil compaction would all be conditions of
approval for the project and be required by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of the grading
permit.
The San Diego regional air basin has a non-attainment status with respect to CO, O-3 and PM-lo, however,
cumulative impacts to air quality from this project would not be considered signi&nt because the increase
of residential density adjacent to the industrial corridor is consistent with the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS), provides an improved jobs housing balance, and would heJp reduce roadway congestion, vehicle trip
lengths, and vehicle cold starts, (residents are more likely to walk or bike! to work). Otherwise, the only
measure likely to mitigate the cumulative regional air quality impact to a level below signifkant would be
to curtail future development in the air basin until att ainment is achieved, or reduce the region’s dependency
upon the automobile. The project by providing higher residential density and lower income housing close
to industrial employment is incmnentally contributing to the regional air quality solution. Complete
mitigation of the regionwide air quality problem shall require regionwide efforts beyond the scope of one
project.
Construction activities associated with the project would result in potential short-term air quality impacts.
Principal pollutants from these activitiesklude fugitive dust particles due to grading and transportation of
construction materials and, to a lesser degree, emissions for construction vehicles. The Grading Ordinance contains provisions to minimize the release of construction related pollutants; therefore, air quality impacts
resulting from future construction activities on-site would not be considered significant as long as the
_-
appropriate ordinances and the conditions of this environmental document are complied’tith, (see attached
conditions).
The project would not result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake. the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters). The project would not substantially change There are no streams or lakes on the site and the project is located over three miles from the ocean.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant would be required to provide the best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive biological areas. Compliance with this requirement would reduce any water quality impacts to below a level
of signiiicance.
Based on the Cultural Resource Reconnakan ce Report for the project prepared by RECON, dated July 20, 1992, and the archaeology study conducted by Archaeological Associates, Ltd. in June 1983, there would be no significant impacts to cultural resources. No prehistoric or historic sites were located onsite. The project site contains the tertiary-aged Torrey Sandstone, colluvium, alluvium, topsoil, and fill material, therefore, there is a low potential for the discovery of fossils. Significant impact to paleontology resources from grading of the site is not anticipated.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
Based on the Biological Technical Report for the project prepared by Anita M. Hayworth, Biological Consultant, dated July 8,1993, there would be no significant impacts to biological resources. The biological survey and analysis evaluated potential impacts to biological habitat, sensitive animal and plant species, and potential wildlife corridors. The report concluded that no impact would occur and mitigation would not be
required. The California Gnatcatcher was observed on the property in June 1992, however, the species was
not observed utihzing the property in the last three site surveys from the July 8,1992 to Juile 1993. Sage Scrub habitat was not located onsite and the site is not considered a breeding site for California Gnatcatchers.
The project site contains no prime agxicultural Class I or II soils, and is not currently under agricultural cultivation nor has the site been cullhted in the recent past. The onsite soils consist of HrC (Class IIIe-3) and LvF3 (Class VIIIs-1). The project site is not located in the Mello II Agricultural Overlay Zone.
Development of the site would not preclude or negatively effect agricultural development on surrounding
properties. The SDG&E power-line Dt separates the site froni adjacent land to the west, a non-loaded
collector street would separate the site from the greenhouse!s/nuxxries to the south, and ECR separates the site from the property to the east. Constnxtion of the non-loaded collector street leading from the project to ECR would not preclude access to the agricultural parcels to the west via the dirt road called La Costa Blvd. or the parking lot of the mnuxx&s to the south. Access from Street “A” to the parking lot
of the greenhouse would be provided directly across f&m the project entrance (300 feet east of the ECR intersection) with a driveway that travels east along the northern property line of the greenhouse, parallel to Street “4” and connects with the parking area. The greenhouse operation and retail flower shop currently have direct driveway access leading directly to El Camino Real and that access would not be affected by this project.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
The project site and the property to the SOUND and west are all designated for residential land use on the
General Plan Land Use Map. The increase in residential density on this parcel would not exceed the highest density range permitted by the General Plan (RH). Due to the project’s location adjacent to El Camino Real (ECR) and the provision of a non-loaded coktor street leading from the project entry to ECR, t&k would not adversely affect the surrounding properties. The General Plan allows density increases above the maximum designated density range for a property to enable the development of lower-income affordable housing. This site is appropriate for a higher residential density and complies with the General Plan location criteria for affordable housing for the following reasons: (1) the proposal is compatible with the surrounding uses, including the industrial land uses to the north (see explanation below on industrial land use compatibility); (2) the planned public facilities in Zone 21 are adequate to handle the increased density without the need to amend the facility plan; (3) the project site is located in proximity to a major roadway
(ECR) with appropriate transit facilities and large employment cent&, including the City’s industrial.pa&s
to the north and the shopping centem located one mile south.
Increasing the planned residential density of the site from 138 dwelling units to 372 dwelling units would not signikantly impact the provision and availability of public facilities within the local Facilities Management for Zone 21. The project is subject to all the conditions and facility service level requirements within the approved LPMP for Zone 21. The required compliance with the plan would assure that there are no significant impacts to public facilities. Growth Management dwelling unit buildout caps would not be exceeded in the southwest quadrant due to the fact that the additional density for this project would be transferred from the bank of surplus dwelling units in the quadrant.
Based on the Noise Technical Report for the project there would not be a significant impact to the project
created by traffic noise from ECR if the study’s recommended mitigation measures are adhered to. Sound walls, berms, or a combination of both would be required along ECR to mitigate exterior traffic noise to
comply with Planning Department Policy No. 17. The project would be conditioned to require that the interior all buildings exposed to traffic noise be sound attenuated to 45 Dba GNEL. In addition, all exterior usable second-story balconies exposed to tra& noise must provide sound attenuation to 60 Dba CNEL per the requirements of Policy No. 17. If sound attenuation walls are provided along ECR, special landscaping and wall design criteria shall be required to off&t any potential visual impacts the walls may create along ECR.
The project would not create significant impacts on surr~&@ property fbm light and glare because the SDG&E powerline easement separates the site from adjacent residential land to the west, a non-loaded collector street would separate the site fbm the ~nurseries to the south, EGR separates the site
from the property to the east, and large setbacks and topography separate the project from the industrial uses
to the north. In addition, the residential structures would have tile roofs and stucco exteriors that would not reflect excessive amounts of natural light. The project would be conditioned such that all project lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. In addition,
large quantities of landscaping, including trees and shrubs, would be added to the project area and this would also minimize glare and light from structures and parking areas.
The development of high density residential land use adjacent to &sting industrial development creates the potential for significant land use compatiity impac& (i.e. Isoisc, hazardous materials & visual impacts, etc..), however, there is adequate building separation between the two land uses and heavily landscaped
setbacks and topographic separation to ensure that land use compatibility impacts are not sigr&am Proposed residential structures are approximately 80 to 130 feet from the closest existing industrial buildings located on the industrial lots to the north. In addition, the industrial buildings are approximately 10 to 20 feet lower in vertical elevation than the northern property line of the project site. The project’s landscaping would provide a sufficient visual bufk with a combination of trees and shrubs planted along the northern property line. The existing slopes adjacent to the industrial lots also contain dense stands of trees and shrubs that would provide additional screening. All industrial land uses in the Planned Industrial Zone (PM), which
includes the industrial area adjacent to this project, are subject to performance standards that control noise
levels (Maximum 65 Ldn at the property line), odors, vibration, heat, glare, air emissions, onsite storage, and
industrial waste discharge. These safe guards would ensure that the residential land use is compatible with
the industrial land use. To further ensure that no potentially sign&ant noise sources generated from the industrial buildings impact the residential land use, the project would be conditioned to require a six foot high solid masonry wall located along the entire northern property line. This wall would provide visual screening, security, as well as sound attenuation at the property line.
Based on the Limited Environmental Assessment Report for the project prepared by GeoSoil Inc., dated August 3,1992, there has been no documented unauthorkd release or disposal of hazardous waste on the property, or within a one w mile radius of the project site, therefore, there would be no significant impacts resulting from hazardous waste on or near the site. The report did not sample the soil and the parcel was utilized for agriculture in the past, therefore, the potential exists for soil contamination due to historic pesticide use. Prior to approval of a grading permit for the project the soil must be tested for pesticide residue. If signifkant levels of pesticide residue are present in the soil the appropriate mitigation measums shall be required and may include a health risk assament study, removal of the soil and proper dkposal, placement of the soil in deep fills, or other recommen dations of the soils report. Agricultural nmoff from the greenhouses to the south is currently diverted to the west and away from this site. The greenhouse drainage
flows into a detention pond located onsite, therefore, adverse impacts from agricultural runoff would not
significantly impact the site.
Based on the TrafIic Study for the project prepared by Weston Pringle & Associates, dated July 15,1992, there would be no significant circulation or trafIic impacts if the study’s proposed mitigation measures were implemented, (See the attached trafik mitigation conditions). Development of the project would not require
offsite public road or utilities improvemen ts (i.e. sewer, water, and drainage) into Zone 19, 20, or 21, therefore, the project would not have a growth inducing impact on surrounding vacant land.
The preliminary grading plan comprises the import of approximately 68,CKKI cubic yards which must be
transported from o&&e. To reduce traffic hazard impacts to motor vehicles and bicyclists the applicant is required to obtain a Haul Route Permit from the Et@n&ng Department. This permit will ensure that truck traffic does not adversely impact residential streets that arc not designed to handle heavy truck traffic.
Compliance with the cityls Hillside Development Regulations (i.e. slope height and length, grading volumes, etc..), and landscaping of the manufactured slopes would ensure that the project’s grading does not result in signifkant visual impacts. The provision of an earthen landscape berm with a screen wa& landscaping, and a five to fifteen foot grade difkential along ECR would visually screen the parking areas and residential structures from the ECR scenic corridor and reduce all visual impacts to below a level of significance. The project site is not visible fkom major public viewpoints to the south, west or north. The apartment buildings
are setback from ECR approximately 90 to 160 feet and comply with the setback standards of the EL Camino Real Scenic Corridor Standards.
-9-
Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the project will have a significant adverse impact
on the environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those adverse ,impacts. Public resources Code
Section 21002 forbids the approval of projects with significant adverse impacts when feasible alternatives or
mitigation measures can substantially lessen such impacts. A “signikant efkt” is defined as one which has
a substantial adverse impact. Given the attached mitigation conditions, this project has “NO” significant
physical environmental impacts, therefore, there is no substantial adverse impact and no justification for
requiring a discussion of alternatives, (An alternative would not lessen an impact if there is no substantial
adverse impact).
-lO-
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
- I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a signihnt effect on the environme!.nt, and a NEGATTVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previously certifkd environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT&
IMPACT REPORT is required.
?/ 2473
Date
PlanningDireczW v
LIST MITIGATING MFSURES (IF APPLKABm
1. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by the Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council on September 17,1991, incorporated he&n and on file in the Planning Department and any future amendments to the Plan made prior to the issuance of building
pf?RIlitS.
2. The applicant shall comply with the city’s requirements of the National Pollutant Dischqe Elimination
System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to dkharge to sessitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building pennit, whichever occurs first.
3. Priorto~of<twctling~bcatcd~~bothenortban~~aJixfootbighsolid
masomywansballk- alongthis~~to nlinieepotentialnoiseimpacts6Fomthe adjacentindustrhlarea. Thcmat~af~watlahnnbe~tr’hlr!withtbcmataialsoftbcresidentia
mais-
-ll- .
-
4.PlmI&specifica~amdsuppoatingdocrrmmEp~aujtrcctand~csignalimpnwements~~ pI-epamdtothesa-oftllecity~. tiortoisTmmce ofagradingpmnitorbuildingpermir, whicheveroccursfirjsthapplicantshallinstall,or~t0installaadsentrewithappropriatesecurity
asprovidedby,th+hlIowiag~ :
a. HalfstreethpmmeWqin~withCitystandards
CdIlORftddOXlgthclimitsOf~~
f~~aprimearterial+nthatportionofEl
b.A~activated~csigaalatthintersectionofElCamimRealaadtbcproposed~thatwill
lionttlleprojectakmgthesouthsideoftheprojectsite.
5. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation w Of the Prehhaq Soil and Gechgical
Imestigation for the project prepared by Geogon he, dated July 1992 and any subsequent revisions to
the~.pxiorto- ofagxadingpem6~
6. Prior to the issuame ofbuirdingpermitstheownerofthe~oftbc~~~and~~
anoticethatthis~issubjectto~imaacts~~adsting~transportatiancorridorand
overfligh~sisight,andsolmdofairaaftoperatlng~Palomar~ Thenoticesballbepreparedin
amannexmeetingtheapprovalofthePlanningDkctorandtheCityAttomey. Theapplicantshallpost
aircraftIlOiSe~tiflCa~signsillddOffiCl?SassociatcdWithth~dcvelaplaent Themmlberand
1ocationofsaidsignsshaUbeapprovedbythePhningDkctor.
7. Priortoapprovalaa~ttbcpaojeetshnnarwatvwithan~oftheproject’s~
-a=dpl=e?Deparcment NoisePoliqNo. 17,oranyotberapplicableandadoptednoisestlandards
in&~pIiortoisswnce OfthdddbgpeKxnit, Thisinchrdesmi~onto attenuate the projects
exterior areas, interior building areas, and tstdor sead and third-story -decks, if subject to
excessivetrafiicnoisefiomECR. IfsnmdattemmtionwaUsarc~alongECR,thewallssballbe
designedwithpilasters,oBetwithtrawells,~~toprovidescreening ofthewakfiomECR
inonlertore!dllcevisualimpactsalongthesa?nic~.
s.~~~qbagnding~tadetaiLdpo?t~md~~~~~~ l5nplBdShllt-tdtitbGPfannmg~
rev&wandapprwat Tbexpxtsball~a~ofpossihlemitigation~ to remediate any
potentiallysigdkampubk~th~if~ pe&idesorodracheicAsaredete!ctedathigh
concentratiaasinthesoiL Suchdtigabianaptiansshalliaeludeata l * -
a3llewateringofall~beinggradcdandhaulrputesshanbe~durillgdlyweather
amditions.
-120
b.AU~~shallkrerrgrctatsd~toapproved~plansassoonaJ~~~
after grading.
c. Ai.i czcmSm&on-related trafk shall be xtshicted to routes &at are .dustcontrolled, 4 dud speed limitssballbemrrintninedforanbaulandcaastructionvehicles.
d. All construction activities shall be limited during pexiods of high winds.
e. Au heavyduty, diesel-powered ccmstn&cm equipment shall be operated acawdhg to b suggestedoperatinginstruction(withthefirel-injection~~to~
emissions,butwhichwouldnotresultin- edievelsfarN0, visible smoke emissions) inorder to control pollutant emissions.
f. Instruction e@pment shall be subject to reguhly schpdlltpll &-m-ups, & h m offwhe!nnotbeillgutilizedtod~~~ons.
g. The appticaticm of zirchitd coating and cut-back asp&aft shall adhere to APCD Rules 67.0 and 67.7,
to effeddy control other amaNctioll-related eInissicms of air llohtaa.
10. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this
project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul
route. The applicant shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engheer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. If the source of imported dirt is within the limits of the City of
Carlsbad, a grading permit will be required for the import site.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MTIGATING MEASURES
THISISTOCERTIF’YTHATIHAVEREWEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WlTH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
.
JG:vd
-13-
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3537
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM L-C TO RD-M ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ADJACENT AND WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, SOUTH OF CAMINO VIDA ROBLE, AND NORTH OF ALGA ROAD, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 21. CASE NAME: VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
CASE NO: ZC 93-02
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 1188, in the County of San Diego,
State of California, according to map thereof fiIed in the Office of County Recorder of San Diego County, December 20, 1972.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of September, 1993,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
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 all
factors relating to the Zone Change; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A> That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of ZC 93-02, according to Exhibit ‘X’, attached
hereto and based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
28
Findims:
1. The proposed Zone Change is consistent with alI applicable policies and guidelines
in the Land Use Element of the General Plan as discussed in the staff report for the project.
2. The proposed change in zoning designation is consistent with the General Plan and
wilI achieve consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as required by State
Law and the Land Use Element.
3. Ah findings of the Conditional Negative Declaration, Resolution No. 3536 are
incorporated herein by reference.
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Ah conditions of the Conditional Negative Declaration, as contained in Resolution
No. 3536, and conditions contained in Resolution Nos. 3538, 3539 and 3540, are
incorporated herein by reference. Refer to those documents for alI conditions and
mitigation measures applicable to the development of the project site.
Approval of ZC 93-02 is granted subject to the approval of the Conditional Negative
Declaration.
Approval of ZC 93-02 is granted subject to approval of the tentative parcel map for
Minor Subdivision 93-07 by the City Engineer. If the tentative parcel map is not
approved this zone change shah become nul.I and void.
PC RESO NO. 3537 -2-
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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of September,- 1993,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz,
Welshons, Erwin & Hall.
None.
Commissioner Savary.
I
BAILEY NOB@% Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J.
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3537 -3-
I
2
? k
4
5
6
7
E
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_-
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO
THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE, ZC 93-02
FROM L-C TO RD-M ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
ADJACENT TO AND WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, SOUTH
OF CAMINO VIDA ROBLE, AND NORTH OF ALGA ROAD, IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21.
CASE NAME: VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
CASE NO: ZC 93-02
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
le amendment of the zoning map as shown on the map marked “Exhibit ZC 93-02”,
ttached hereto and made a part hereof.
SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission
s set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 3537 constitutes the findings and
Dnditions of the City Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
doption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it
) be published at least once in the Carlsbad Sun within fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
ouncil held on the - day of , 1993, and thereafter
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
-
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the
day of , 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVEDASTOFORMANDLEGALITY
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
w=u
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
-
PLANNINGCOMMISSIONRESOLUTIONNO.353tj
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DEVELOP A
344 DWELLING UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ADJACENT AND WEST OF EL
CAMINO REAL, SOUTH OF CAMINO VIDA ROBLE, AND
NORTH * OF ALGA ROAD, IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONES 21.
CASE NAME: VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
CASE NO: SDP 93-06
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 1188, in the County of San Diego,
State of California, according to map thereof filed in the Office
of County Recorder of San Diego County, December 20,1972.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of September, 1993,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
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 all
factors relating to the Site Development Plan; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A> That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
recommends APPROVAL of SDP 93-06, based on the following findings and subject
to the following conditions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. The project is in conformity with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals
of the City, and it would have no detrimental effect on public heal&, safety and
welfare for the following reasons:
a.
b.
C.
d.
Finding:
The project site and the property to the south and west are all designated for
residential land use on the General Plan Land Use Map. The General Plan
allows density increases above the maximum designated density range for a
property to enable the development of lower-income affordable housing.
Due to the project’s location adjacent to El Camino Real (ECR) and the
provision of a non-loaded collector street (“A” Street) leading from the
project entry to ECR, trafIic would not adversely a&ct the surrounding
properties. Continued access from El Camino Peal to the retail flower shop
and green house businesses will be provided through a mutual agreement
between the property owner of the agricultural parcel to the south of the
project, the applicant, and the City.
This site is appropriate for a higher residential density and complies with the
General Plan location criteria for affordable housing for the following
reasons: (1) the site is in proximity to the employment opporhmities -
industrial parks located directly north, and urban services - commercial
centers located 1 mile south and Wrre community park and daycare center
located l/3 mile west; (2) the site is adjacent to a major roadway - prime
arterial (El Camino Real), and; (3) other transportation facilities are
available (transit bus lines on ECR).
The multi-family residential and industrial land uses would be compatible for
the following reasons: (1) proposed residential structures are approximately
4Oto6Ofeetfiomthenorthempropertylineand8Oto13Ofeetfiomthe
closest &sting industrial buildings located on the industrial lots to the north;
(2) the industrial building pads are approximately 10 to 20 feet lower in
vertical elevation than the northern property line of the project site; (3) the
project’s proposed landscaping would provide a sufficient visual buffer with
a combination of trees and shrubs planted along the northern property line;
(4) the exist@ slopes adjacent to the industrial lots also contain dense
stands of trees and shrubs that would provide additional screening; (5) all
industrial land uses in the Planned Jndustrial Zone (PM), which includes the
industrial area adjacent to tbis project, are subject to performance standards
(Municipal Code, Chapter 2134.090) that control noise levels (maximum 65
Ldn at the property line), odors, vibration, facility operations, heat, glare, air
emissions, onsite storage, and industrial waste dkharge; (6) to further
reduce noise source generated from the industrial buildings the project
would be conditioned ti, require a six foot high solid masonry wall located
along the entire northern property line; and, (7) the property line wall would
also provide visual scremhg and security.
PC RESO NO. 3538 -2-
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
2.
3.
e.
f.
h.
i.
-
The project would provide adequate onsite parking that complies with the
City% Parking Ordinance and eflicient circulation to serve the needs of the
residents and their guests. The project would not impact the availability of offsite street parking.
Sidewalks and drainage facilities would be provided along the project’s street
hntages to serve the project.
A pedestrian circulation system that is separated from the 24 foot wide
dheways is also provided that would allow su&ient and safe access to the
adjacent public streets.
The project is conditioned to provide adequate emergency access by primaxy
and secondary access points leading from “A” Street, the western property
line, and El Camino ReaL The 24 to 32 foot wide driveways are wide
enough to accommodate emepncy vehicles. The project has been reviewed
and conditioned by the Fire Department.
The landscaping of the manufactured slopes would ensure that the ~rojecfs
grading does not result in significant visual impacts. The provision of an
earthenlandscapebermwitha screen wall, landscaping, and a five to fifteen
foot grade differential along ECR would visually screen the parking areas and
resideutial structures hm the ECR scenic corridor. The project site is not
visible from major public viewpoints to the south, west or north The
apartment buildings are setback from ECR approximately 90 to 160 feet and comply with the setback standards of the El Camino Real Corridor
Development staudards.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the
density proposed.
The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
a. The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to
this project, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless
the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building
cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and
the Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public
Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply
to sewer service for this project.
b. School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the
Carlsbad Unified School District.
C. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
PC RESO NO. 3538 -3-
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
6.
7.
8.
d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as
conditions of approval.
e. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be
available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
f. There is currently adequate sewer facilities to serve this project.
This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Conditional
Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on July 22,1993 and
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on September 1, 1993. In
recommending approval of this Conditional Negative Declaration the Planning
Commission has considered the initial study, the staff analysis, all required
mitigation measures and any written comments received regarding the significant
effects this project could have on the environment.
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or
new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure
continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts
created by the project.
This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has
been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 21.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for SDP 93-06, as shown on Exhibit(s) “A”-“R”, dated September
1, 1993, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department.
Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise rioted in these
conditions.
2. The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of
the SITE PLAN as approved by the City Council. The SITE PLAN shall reflect the
conditions of approval by the City. The PLAN copy shall be submitted to the City
Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement plan
submittal, whichever occurs first.
3. This project is approved upon the express condition that the final map shall not be
approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of such approval that sewer
service is available to serve the subdivision.
PC RESO NO. 3538 4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
9
1c
11
19
15
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the District Engineer
determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such
sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy.
This project is also approved under the express condition that the applicant pay the
public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28,1987 and as amended
from time to time, and any development fees established by the City Council
pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance
adopted to implement a growth management system of facilities and improvement
plan and to fulfill the subdivider’s agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated
August 2,1993’, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated
by this reference. If the fees are not paid this application will not be consistent with
the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the
final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as
part of building permit application. These fees shall be based on the fee schedule
in effect at the time of building permit application.
Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to the Water Service agreement
between the City of Carlsbad and the C&bad Municipal Water District, dated May
25, 1983.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which may
be required as part of the Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan and any
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the
payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on
this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in
Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such condition is determined to be
invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the
project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within one year from the date of project approval.
Approval of SDP 93-06 is granted subject to the approval of the Conditional
Negative Declaration, ZC 93-02, SUP 93-02, HDP 93-08, and MS 93-07.
PC PESO NO. 3538 -5
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
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Prior to the issuance of the building permit there shall be a Notice of Restriction
placed on the deed to this property subject to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of
Carlsbad has issued a Conditional Negative Declaration ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/SUP
93-02/HDP 93-08 by Resolution Nos. 3536, 3537, 3538, 3539, and 3540 on the
real property owned by the declarant. Said deed restriction shall note the property
description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions
of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the
deed restriction. Said deed restriction(s) may be modified or terminated only with
the approval of the Planning Director, Planning Commission or City Council of the
City of Carlsbad whichever has final decision authority for this project.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates
pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the
project to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated
and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the
satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building.
All visitor parking spaces shall be striped a different color than the assigned resident
parking spaces and shall be clearly marked as may be approved by the Planning
Director.
The applicant shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name
policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning
Director approval. AU lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any
impacts on adjacent homes or property.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
In such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and
the Planning Director.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of grading
or building permits, whichever occurs first.
All parking lot trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size.
A master plan of the existing onsite trees shall be provided to the Planning Director
, as part of the fInal grading plan to determine which trees shall be required to be preserved prior to the issuance of a grading permit or a building permit, whichever
occurs first.
PC RESO NO. 3538 -6-
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
24. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free
from weeds, trash, and debris.
25. Existing onsite trees shall be retained wherever possible and shall be trimmed
and/or topped. Dead, decaying or potentially dangerous trees shall be approved for
removal at the discretion of the Planning Department during the review of a Master
Plan to submitted showing existing onsite trees. Those trees which are approved
for removal shall be replaced on a tree-for-tree basis as required by the Planning
Department.
26. The developer shall install street trees at the equivalent of Wfoot intervals along
all public street frontages in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. The
trees shall be of a variety selected from the approved Street Tree List.
27. All landscape plans shall be prepared to conform with the Guidelines Manual and
submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning
Department.
28. Landscape plans shall be designed to minimize water use. Lawn and other zone 1
plants (see Guidelines Manual) shall be limited to areas of special visual importance
or high use. Mulches shall be used and irrigation equipment and design shall
promote Water conservation.
29. The developer shall avoid trees that have invasive root systems, produce excessive
litter and/or are too large relative to the lot size.
30. Planter width shall be a minimum of four (4) feet, not including curb, footings
and/or other paving.
31. Prior to final occupancy, a letter from a California licensed landscape architect shall
be submitted to the Planning Director certifying that all landscaping has been
installed as shown on the approved landscape plans.
32.
33.
All herbicides shall be applied by applicators licensed by the State of California.
The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
34. The first set of landscape and irrigation plans submitted shall include building plans,
improvement plans and grading plans.
35. All landscape and irrigation plans shall show existing and proposed contours and
shall match the grading plans in terms of scale and location of improvements.
36. All parking lot trees shall be canopy trees.
-
PC PESO NO. 3538 -7-
1
2
1 c
4
F c
E
‘;
E
5
1c
11
1:
1:
14
1:
1E
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
i4
25
26
27
28
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
. . .
Mature trees which are removed shall be replaced one to one with minimum 36” box specimen. Each case shall be reviewed by the Planning Director.
The minimum shrub size shall be 5 gallons. 1 gallon sized shrubs for certain types
of plants and for purposes of availability may be permitted subject to Planning
Director approval.
Trees shall be dispersed throughout the parking lot at a ratio of 1 tree per four
parking stalls.
The number of trees in a residential project shall be equal to or greater than the
number of residential units.
20% of the required trees in multi-family projects of S units or more shall be 24"
box or greater.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in
conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval
of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of
identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color.
Prior to occupancy of any units, the applicant shall construct a directory sign at the
entrance to the project. The design of this sign shall be approved by the Planning
Director.
The project shall provide bus stop facilities at locations subject to the satisfaction
of the North County Transit District. Said facilities shall at a minimum include a
bench, free from advertising, and a pole for the bus stop sign. The bench and pole
shall be designed in a manner so as to not detract from the basic architectural
theme of the project and said design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning
Director and North County Transit District.
As part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, the applicant shall include
a reduced, legible version of the approving resolution/resolutions on a 24” x 36”
blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any
applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall receive a Coastal
Development Permit form the Califomia Coastal Commission that approves
development that is in substantial co~oxmance with the City approvaL Evidence
thatthepermithasreceivedshallbesubmittedtothePlanning~~~
PC RESO NO. 3538 -8-
1
2
:
4
F .
E
7
E
S
1c
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
-
All conditions of Planning Commissi on Resolution No. 3536 for the Conditional
Negative Declaration are applicable to this approval and incorporated through
reference.
Prior to issuan ce of a grading permit, and during final grading design, the proposed
rt%hhg wall along Buildings NO. 14 and 15 shall be reduced in height to a
maximum of six feet.
Prior to issuance of a building per& a detailed wall and fencing plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval. Fencing shall be
provided around the children’s play area to provide a barrier between the driveways
and the play area.
Priortotheissuan ce of building permits for any units of this project, the applicant
shall enter into an Affordable Housing wt with the City which provides for
the restriction of dwelling units affordable to lower income households.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit the detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall
show the landscaping and irrigation within the El Camino Real median per the
specifications of the Citys Landscape Guidelines Manual.
The design and materials of the proposed carports, as illustrated on Exhibit “G”
dated September 1,1993, shall be upgraded to enhance the project, subject to the
approval of the Planning Director.
Prior to issuance of a grading perruit the applicant shall be required to consult with the U. S. Fish and wildlife Service regard@ the impact of the project on the
Coastal California Gnatcatcher.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall establish a process to
notify, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and City Attorney, all owners,
users and tenants of this project that: 1) this area is adjacent to industrial
opexations; 2) the area maybe subject to dust, pesticides, and odors associated with
adjacent agricultural operations; and 3) the owners, users, and tenants occupy this
areaattheirownrisk
56. This project is located within the Mello II Local Coastal Plan. All development
design shall comply with the requirements of that plan.
57. Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is
authorized by virtue of approval of this site plan, with the exception of an 8%
vertical grade through the intersections of the interior road of the project.
58. The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements
of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
PC PESO NO. 3538 -9-
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
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
. . .
-..
The applicant shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E., Pacific Bell
Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on
the site plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Prior to issuance of a
building permit for the project, a grading permit shall be obtained and grading work
be completed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plans..
No grading shall occur outside the limits of the project unless a grading or slope
easement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. If the applicant
is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, no grading permit will be issued.
In that case the applicant must either amend the Site Development Plan or change
the slope so grading will not occur outside the project site in a manner which
substantially conforms to the approved site plan as determined by the City Engineer
and Planning Director.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction
site within this project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the
City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The applicant shall comply with all
conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the
hauling operation.
The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this
project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided
in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. Reference
Chapter 11.06.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be
provided or installed prior to the issuance of grading or building permit as may be
required by the City Engineer.
The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions or shown on the site plan. The offer shall
be made prior to issuance of any building permit for this project. All land so offered
shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without
cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
a. Suflicient right-of-way shall be dedicated for 32’ of pavement on Street “A”
from El Camino Real to the main entry and for any necessary traffic signal
installation and operation at all four comers of the intersection of “A” Street
andElcaminoReal.
b. Onsite right-of-way shall be dedicated for “A” Street, west of the main project
entry, as shown on the site plan.
PC RESO NO. 3538 -lO-
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
67.
68.
69.
. . .
Some improvements shown on the site plan and/or required by these conditions are
located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title
or interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or
interest. The applicant shall conform to Section 20.16.095 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. This conditional approval is null and void if title to said property
is not obtained, unless the City Engineer and Planning Director make findings of
substantial conformance without construction of said improvements.
The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that runoff resulting from lo-year
frequency storms of 6 hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are
equal to or less than the runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration
under existing developed conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations shall
be analyzed to determine the detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the
desired results prior to issuance of building or grading permits whichever occurs
f-u-St.
The applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best
management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever occurs first.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall
be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of building
permit in accordance with City Standards, the applicant shall install, or agree to
install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements
shown on the site plan and the following improvements:
a
b.
C.
d.
e.
Full l/2 street improvemen tstoEtCaminoRealalongtheprojecthmtage
including drainage facilities and any necessary off-site transitions.
FUllmedian’ nqmovements along the project frontage including connecting
to the exist& median to the north and sufficient off-site median to the south
to accommodate a left-turn lane and lane transition to the satisfaction of the
city Ellginm
Full l/2 street plus 12’ of impwemen tsto”A”StreetfkomElCaminoReal
to the main entrance of the project.
ImProvemen ts to “A” Street within the project boundaq west of the main
eIltryshallbefiMncuysecured,butnotconstnlcteduntildirectedbythe
city EngiMer.
A fully actuated trafk signal at the intersection of “A” Street and El Camino
Real.
PC BBS0 NO. 3538 -ll-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
a:
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
. . .
. . .
The structural section for the access aisles must be designed with a traffic index of
5.0 in accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the parking area
and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500. The structural pavement design of the
aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test information
and approved by the City as part of the building site plan review.
Accesstothe~dirtn>ad(LacostaBoulevard)shallbe~tainedduringand
after construction of required grading and improvements.
Prior to building permit issuance, an emergency access road shall be provided to
seme the northwest portion of the site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Prior to building permit issuance, the main entry to the project at “A” Street shall
be xumowed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Prior to building permit issuance, the intersection of “A” Street with F,l Camino Real
shall be designed to have a skew of no greater than 10”.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be approved
by the Fire Department.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants.
The plan should include off-site fm hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
An all weather, tmobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles
shall be provided and maintained during constructia When in the opinion of the
FireCh.ief,theaccessroadhasbecome unserviceable due to inclement weather or
other reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction
operations cease mtil the condition is comct4
All required water mains, fire hydrants, and appurtenances shall be operational
before combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
All security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be equipped with a
“Knox”, key-operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall contact the Fire
Prevention bureau for specifications and approvals prior to installation
Private roads and driveways which serve as requked access for emergency service
vehicles~bepostedasfirelanesinaccordancewiththe~~ofsection
17.04.020 of the Carl&ad Municipal Code.
PC RESO NO. 3538 -12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
9
1c
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
Water
86. The entire potable water &em, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands are
met.
87. The developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected at time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego County Water
Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for meter
installation.
88. Sequentially, the developer’s engheer shall do the following:
A.
B.
C.
Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection
requirements.
~acoloredreclaimgdwateruseareamapandsubmittotheP~
Department for process@ and approvaL
Schedule a meeting with the District Engineer for review, comment and
approval of the preliminary system layout usage (G.P.M. - E.D.U.) plan for
potable, reclaimed and sewer systems prior to the preparation of
improvement plans.
89. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving
the development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are
available at the tjme of application for such water service and sewer permits will
continue to be available until time of occupancy.
Native vegetation which presents a fire hazard to structmes shall be modified or
removed in accordance with the specikations contained in the City of Carlsbad
Landscape Guidelines ManuaL Applicant shall submit a Fire Suppression plan to the
Fire Department for approval.
Plans and/or specifications for fke alarm systems, fire hydrants, automatic fire
sprinkler systems and other fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval prior to constructions
An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in buildings having
an aggregate floor area exceeding 10,000 square feet.
The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms to the following
requirements: A 400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements
and at least two exist@ intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly depict
street centerlines, hydrant locations and street names.
Culde-sac densities exceed city standards. Provide additional emeqency qress to
mitigate nonconforming design.
PC RESO NO. 3538 -13-
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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of September, 1993,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Chairman Noble, Commissioners: Scblehuber, Betz, Welshons,
Erwin & Hall.
None.
Commissioner Savary.
None.
I
BAILEY NOB@, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
MICHAEL J. HO%MII&R
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3538 -14-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3539
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SPECIAL
USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP A 344 DWELLING UNIT
APARTMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
ADJACENT AND WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, SOUTH OF
CAMINO VIDA ROBLE, AND NORTH OF ALGA ROAD, IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 2 1.
CASE NAME: VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
CASE NO: SUP 93-02
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 1188, in the County of San Diego,
State of California, according to map thereof filed in the Office
of County Recorder of San Diego County, December 20,1972.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of September, 1993,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
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 all
factors relating to the Special Use Pennit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A> That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES SUP 93-02, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions.
Findings:
1. Expansive and scenic views looking west along this section of El Camino Real do not
exist given the curve and the vertical and horizontal slope of the roadway. The site
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
2.
3.
1.
2.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
exist given the curve and the vertical and horizontal slope of the roadway. The site
contains mostly disturbed vegetation and no cultural resources sites are present.
The provision of an earthen landscape berm with a screen wall, landscaping, and
a five to fifteen foot grade differential along El Camino Real would visually screen
the parking areas and residential structures from the scenic corridor and reduce
visual impacts. The project site is not visible from major public viewpoints to the
south, west or north. The apartment buildings are setback from El Camino Real
approximately 90 to 160 feet.
The project complies with the El Carnino Real Corridor Development Standards for
the following reasons:
a> Building heights on the site would not exceed 35 feet.
b) Grading cut slopes in the 30 foot setback along El Camino Real do not
exceed 15 feet from original grade.
The apartment buildings would be setback from the El Camino Real at least
30 feet.
d) The apartment buildings would not have roof equipment.
4 The residential land use is consistent with the existing General Plan.
All conditions of approval for the Conditional Negative Declaration/ZC 93-02/SDP
93-06/HDP 93-08 as contained in Planning Resolution No. 3536, 3537, 3538, and
3540 are applicable and incorporated through this reference.
Approval of SUP 93-02 is granted subject to the approval of SDP 93-06.
Conditions:
PC RESO NO. 3539 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
14
If
1E
l’i
1E
1s
2c
21
2i
22
24
25
26
2:
2t
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of September, 1993,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz,
welshons, Erwin & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Savary.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3539 -3-
#
BAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
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
-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3540
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEVELOP A 344 DWELLING UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ADJACENT AND WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL,
SOUTH OF CAMINO VIDA ROBLE, AND NORTH OF ALGA
ROAD, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 21. CASE NAME: VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
CASE NO: HDP 93-08
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 1188, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof filed in the Office
of County Recorder of San Diego County, December 20,1972.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of September, 1993,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of ail persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to the Hillside Development Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
as follows:
A> That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES HDP 93-08, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions.
Fin-:
1. The hillside conditions and undevelopable amas of the project have been properly
identified on the project site’s hillside slope conditions and undevelopable areas have
been identified on the Constrain& Exhibit “0” dated, September 1,1993.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4.
5.
The project design is in conformance with the development and design standards of
the Hillside Development Regulations and the Hillside Development Guidelines. The
project site contains several small isolated areas of 40% slopes that are less than
fifteen feet in slope height and less than 4,000 sq. ft. in area. The Planning
Commission finds that these 40% slope areas have been fully identified and are
excluded from the requirements of the ordinance per Section 21.95.090 of the
Municipal Code.
The development proposal and alI applicable development approvals and permits are
consistent with the purpose, intent, and requirements of this chapter and that the
project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the
hillside development guidelines manual for the following reasons:
b)
4
d)
4
All manufactured cut and fill slopes would be contour graded and would not
exceed a height of 30 feet;
The project% grading vohnnes of 8,530 cubic yards/graded acre and would
fall within the “potentially acceptable range” of 8,000-10,000 cubic yds/acre.
The Planning Director and City Engineer concur that the written findings
contained on Exhibit “R”, dated September 1, 1993 are adequate to justify
tie proposed gra* volumes;
Landscaping in conf ormance with the Citfs Landscape Guidelines Manual
would be provided on all manufactured slopes to visually screen the slopes
and to reduce erosion;
The apartment buildings within the project would have varying roof lines and
sloping roofk;
Structures would be setback from the top of manufactured slopes fkom 10 to
20 feet;
Nodevelopmentorgradingwilloccurinthoseportiansofthepropertywhichare
undevelopable pursuan t to the provisions of Section 21.53230 of this code, because
all undevelopable areas have been identified and no development or grading would
occur in the areas containing 40%+ slopes (except for small isolated areas of 40%
slope which axe exempt).
The project design and lot configuration n7himhs disturbance of hillside lands,
becausetheproposedgradingwould~te~~padsthatareterracedforviews
and would step down the slope. The local streets and manufactured slopes would
be curving and are aligned to follow the natural contours. The street alignments
and curving landform graded slopes would reduce visual impacts created by the
grading and help simulate the natural slope conditions.
PCRESO NO.3540 -2-
.-
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
conditions:
1. All conditions of approval for SDP 93-06 as contained in Planning Resolution No.
3538 are applicable and incorporated through this reference.
2. Approval for HDP 93-08, as shown on Exhibits “A”-%“, dated September 1, 1993, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development
shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed grading
and/or development substantially different from this approval as determined by the Planning Director, shall require an amendment to this permit.
3. Approval of HDP 93-08 is granted subject to the approval of SDP 93-06.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of September, 1993,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Welshons, Erwin & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Savary.
ABSTAIN: None.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3540 -3-
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STAFF REPORT 0 2
SEPTEMBER 1,1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/SUP 93-02/HDP 93-08 - VILLA!5 AT EL CAMINO REAL
- Request for approval of a Conditional Negative Declaration, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, and Hillside Development Permit to change the zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density- Multiple (RD-M), and to construct 344 residential apartment units adjacent and west of El Camino Real, between Camino Vida Roble and Alga Road in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 21.
I. RECOMMENDATION
APPLririHON COMPLETE DATE: August 23. 1993 STAFF PLANNER: JEFF GIBSON
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3536,
recommending APPROVAL of the Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3537, 3538, recommending APPROVAL of ZC 93-02 and SDP 93-06, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos.
3539, 3540, APPROVING SUP 93-02, and HDP 93-08, based on the findings and subject
to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval of a Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Special Use
Permit, and Hillside Development Permit to change the zoning from Limited Control (L-C)
to Residential Density-Multiple @D-M), and to construct 344 residential apartment units
on a 21 acre parcel located adjacent and west of El Camino Real, between Camino Vida
Roble and Alga Road in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 21.
The project is being developed by Aviara Land Associates Limited in concert with the Bridge Housing Corporation, a nonprofit affordable housing developer. The project site is targeted to satisfy the affordable housing requirements of the Aviara Master Plan as stipulated in the Aviara Housing Agreement adopted by City Council on July 20, 1993. The project would contain 344 apartment units affordable to very low and low income households. As part of a “combined affordable housing project” the remaining affordable housing units (184 dwelling units), over and above the units allocated for the Aviara
housing agreement (160 dwelling units), could be utilized to satisfy the affordable requirements of other offsite developers contingent upon future housing agreements approved by the City.
ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/SUr 93-02/HDP 93-08 VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL SEPTEMBER 1, 1993
PAGE 2
The 21 acre site occupies a portion of the mesa top which lies at the southeast extent of Canyon de las En&as. The site consists of gently sloping topography and a small
erosional drainage that crosses a portion of the property, exiting at the northwest corner and subsequently traveling into Canyon de las En&as to the northwest. Canyon de las
Encinas ultimately empties into the Pacific Ocean approximately three miles to the west. Elevations on the site range from 230 to 322 feet above mean sea level. The site has been cleared in the past presumably for agriculture and a majority of the property contains only
sparse remnants of native vegetation, including disturbed southern maritime chaparral, two very small isolated areas of arroyo willows and several scattered species of coast live oak, De1 Mar Manzanita and Summer Holly.
The property is located in the Limited Control Zone (L-C), which is an interim zone for areas where planning for future land uses has not been completed or plans for development have not been formalized. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the property is Residential Medium High (RM) which designates the site for small lot single-family homes
or townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, and low density apartment developments.
As shown on Exhibits “A’‘-“R”, the proposed project would consist of two and three-story, eight and twenty unit apartment buildings all developed around central 24 and 32 foot wide driveways. Along the driveways there would be guest parking spaces, trash
enclosures, and maintenance storage structures. Near the project entryway there would be a common recreation complex containing a s wimming pool, exercise room, leasing office, gathering room, kitchen, and restroom facility. The project would also contain a
play area for children and flat grassy areas between buildings, driveways, and slope areas.
Resident parking would consist of open parking spaces and carports evenly dispersed
throughout the site. The apartment units would be one, two and three bedroom, and
range in size from 634 to 1,052 square feet. The project would feature contemporary
architecture consisting of tile roofs with a varying roof line, stucco exteriors, and individual
apartments would have a patio or balcony.
Access to the site would be provided by a 60 foot collector street (,A” Street) that
intersects with EL Camino Real. The surrounding neighborhood is developed with
industrial buildings to the north, an SDG&E powerline easement to the west, a retail flower shop and greenhouses to the south, and El Camino Real to the east.
III. ANALYSIS
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, and standards:
A. General Plan: Land Use Element (Residential Medium (RM) General Plan Land Use Designation); and Housing Element.
B. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21:
1. Chapter 21.85, Inclusionary Housing;
ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/SUr 93-02/HDP 93-08 VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
SEPTEMBER 1, 1993
2. Chapter 21.86, Density Bonus;
3. Chapter 21.53, Section 21.53.120, Affordable housing multi-family residential project - Site development plan required;
4. Chapter 21.24, Residential Density-Multiple Zone @D-M);
5. Chapter 21.95, Hillside Development Regulations;
6. Chapter 21.40, Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone, “El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards”;
C. Mello II Local Coastal Program;
D. Growth Management Ordinance, (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 21);
E. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 19, Environmental Protection Procedures and the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
A. GENERAL PLAN:
LANDUSE-
The property has a Residential Medium (RM) General Plan Land Use Designation that allows the development of small lot single-family homes or townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, and low density apartment developments at a density from 4 to 8 dus/acre with a 6 dus/acre growth management control point. The project would contain 344 apartment units developed at a density of 17.6 dwelling units per acre. The Land Use Element was recently amended to allow density increases, above the maximum residential densities permitted ,by the General Plan, to enable the development of lower-income affordable housing, through processing of a Site Development Plan permit. A Site Development Plan is being processed with this project and based on the findings of that permit, the project would be compatible with adjacent land uses, there would be adequate public facilities, and the project site would be located in proximity to a major roadway (ECR), and employment and commercial opportunities, therefore, staff believe that this is an excellent site for
affordable units as explained in more detail later in the staff report and the density increase to 17.6 dus/acre would be consistent with the General Plan.
The City’s General Plan allows an increase in density for affordable housing, however, the
City has not yet amended the adopted Mello II Local Coastal Program in order to allow such density increases in the Coastal Zone. Under Housing Element Policy 3.7.f (Priority Processing) this project is being expedited and would be presented to the Planning Commission before the LCP would be amended, therefore, the only alternative is to process the project under the State density bonus provision (Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21.86)
which permits a density bonus for affordable housing projects (see Section B(2) of this report). State density bonus law, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65915, preempts
ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/sl)r 93-02/HDP 93-08 VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL SEPTEMBER 1, 1993
PAGE 4
the provisions of a certified Local Coastal Program, therefore, the density increase would be permitted in the Coastal Zone.
1. Zone Change
The property is located in the Limited Control Zone (L-C), which is an interim zone for areas where planning for future land uses has not been completed or plans for development have not been formalized. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the property is Residential Medium High (RM) which allows the development of multi-family residential
developments such as apartment projects. A formal proposal for residential development
(apartments) accompanies the zone change application, therefore, changing the zoning
from LC to Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M), which is a multi-family residential zone, would be consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation for the site
wo.
HOUSING ELEMENT
The project would provide 344 apartment units (100%) affordable to very low, and low
income households and would be consistent with Policy 3.6.b which states that, a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of all approved units in any residential master plan, specific plan or qualified subdivision shall be set aside and made affordable to lower income households.
The 344 affordable housing units would substantially contribute towards meeting the City’s regional need of 2,509 affordable units over the next 5 years. The project would also
provide 104 three bedroom units and be consistent &ith Policy 3.2 which states that
developments which are required to include 10 or more units affordable to lower income households, at least 10 percent of the lower income units should have three or more
bedrooms.
The project would contain an increase in density above the growth management control
point (6 dus/acre) and require the allocation of excess dwelling units from the Southwest
Quadrant bank. The utilization of these surplus dwelling units would be consistent with
Policy 3.8 because all the dwelling units above the growth control point would be restricted as affordable for very low and low income households. Policy 3.8 states that excess dwelling units in the bank shall be allocated under a priority system in which housing developments for low and very low households receive first priority. More specifics regarding the availability of excess dwelling units in the Southwest Quadrant are discussed in Section D of this report.
B. CARISBAD MUNICIPAL CODE:
1. CHAPTER 21.85 - INCLUSIONARY HOUSING:
Per the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, this project is defined as a “combined
inclusionary housing project”. The affordable housing requirements of the Aviara Master Plan, under an approved affordable housing agreement (160 affordable dwelling units) with the City, would be provided on this site which is not located in the master plan.
ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/SW 93-02/HDP 93-08 VILLASATELCAMINOREAL SEPTEMBER1,1993 PAGE5
When there is a contractual relationship such that some or all of the inclusionary units which are associated with one development are produced and operated at an alternative
site it is classified as a combination project. This arrangement is allowed by the ordinance,
with. the requirement that the combined housing project be subject to approval of the final
decision making authority of the City. In addition, the construction of inclusionary units
is limited to sites within the same City quadrant in which market rate units are located or
sites which are contiguous to the quadrant in which market rate units are proposed. In
this case, the Aviara Master Plan and the project site are both located in the Southwest
Quadrant.
In general, this site is appropriate as a combined affordable housing project site because it complies with the ordinance requirement that inclusionary housing units restricted for lower income households should be located on sites that are in proximity to the following: (1) employment opportunities - industrial parks located directly north; (2) urban services - commercial centers located 1 mile south and future community park and daycare center
located l/3 mile west; (3) major road - prime arterial (El Camino Real); (4) other transportation facilities (transit bus lines on ECR), and; 5) is compatible with adjacent land uses (see discussion under Site Development Plan).
2. CHAPTER21.86 -REXDENTIALDENSITYBONUS:
The applicant is requesting density above the maximum General Plan land use designation
for the site (RM), under the provisions of the City’s Residential Density Bonus Ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide incentives to developers for the production of housing affordable to lower income households. Density bonus means a minimum density increase of at least 25% over the growth management control point (6 dus/net acre) for
the project site. Section 21.86.030 of the ordinance states that for new residential
construction the City shall grant a density bonus and at least one additional incentive.
Additional incentives may consist of a reduction in development standards and architectural
design requirements, partial or additional den&v, and direct financial aid. Under the
provisions for a density bonus the applicant must agree to construct a minimum of 20%
(more restrictive than 15% inclusionary requirement) of the total base units of the project as restricted and affordable to low income households, or a minimum of 10% of the total base units as restricted and affordable to very low income households. The project meets these minimum requirements by providing 344 apartment units affordable to lower income households.
The applicant is requesting a density increase of more than 25Oh (196%), therefore, the requested density increase beyond 2S”/b is an additional density bonus and is considered an
additional incentive. The City may at its discretion grant an additional density bonus if a
written finding is made by the final decision making authority (City Council) of the City that the additional density bonus is required in order for allowable housing expenses to be
set as affordable. The applicant has submitted proforma evidence that the additional
incentive is economically necessary to make the units affordable as proposed. The need for incentives to support a project targeted to the proposed level of affordability is also confirmed by the City’s analysis “Economics of Developing Affordable Housing”, dated
ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/a& 93-02/HDP 93-08 VILLAS AT EL CAMINO RBAL SEPTEMBER 1, 1993
PAGE 6
December 1991. In addition to the Density Bonus incentives, the applicant will be
requesting additional economic assistance from the City and applying for other sources of
subsidy financing outside the City. The financing proposal for the project will be
considered by the Carlsbad Housing Commission and the City Council, and will be
incorporated into the Affordable Housing Agreement which is a condition of Site Development Plan approval.
3. CHAPTER 21.53, SECTION 21.53.120 - SITE DFIVELOPMENT PLAN:
The Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.53.120 requires a Site Development Plan for any
multi-family residential apartment development having more than 4 dwelling units or an
affordable housim rmiect of any size.
Before the Planning Commission recommends approval of the project to the City Council, Title 21, Section 21.53.120(c) requires that the following finding be made:
‘That the moiect is in conformitv with the General Plan and adoDted rxAicies and mals of
the Citv. and it would have no detrimental efkt on public health, safetv and welfare”.
a. The project site and the property to the south and west are all designated for residential land use on the General Plan Land Use Map. The General Plan allows density increases above the maximum designated density range for a
property to enable the development of lower-income affordable housing. The
project is consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program as discussed in Sections A and C of this report. The project would not have a
significant impact on the environment as discussed in Section E of this
report.
b. Due to the project’s location adjacent to El Camino Real (ECR) and the provision of a non-loaded collector street (“A” Street) leading from the project entry to ECR, traffic would not adversely affect the surrounding
properties. Construction of “A” Street leading from the project to ECR would not preclude access to the agricultural parcels to the west via the dirt road called La Costa Boulevard. There is also a driveway that connects the retail
flower shop/greenhouse parking area with La Costa Boulevard. Half-street
improvements of “A” Street would directly affect access to this parking area, therefore, access from “A” Street to this parking lot would be provided
starting directly across from the apartment project entrance (300 feet east of the ECR intersection) with a separate driveway that travels back east along the northern property line of the flowershop/greenhouse, parallel to “A” Street, and eventually connecting with the parking area (see the site plan). In addition to the parking lot access from La Costa Boulevard leading to ECR,
the flower shop/greenhouse currently has another driveway access leading
directly to ECR. This direct access located further south along ECR would
not be affected by this project.
ZC 93-02/SDP 93-O6/btir 93-02/HDP 93-08 VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
SEPTEMBER 1,1993 PAGE 7
C.
d.
e.
f.
g-
h.
This site is appropriate for a higher residential density and complies with the General Plan location criteria for affordable housing for the following reasons: (1) the site is in proximity to the employment opportunities -
industrial parks located directly north, and urban services - commercial
centers located 1 mile south and future community park and daycare center
located l/3 mile west; (2) the site is adjacent to a major roadway - prime
arterial (El Camino Real), and; (3) other transportation facilities are
available (transit bus lines on ECR).
The multi-family residential and industrial land uses would be compatible for the following reasons: (1) proposed residential structures are approximately 40 to 60 feet from the northern property line and 80 to 130 feet from the closest existing industrial buildings located on the industrial lots to the north;
(2) the industrial building pads are approximately 10 to 20 feet lower in vertical elevation than the northern property line of the project site; (3) the project’s proposed landscaping would provide a sufficient visual buffer with a combination of trees and shrubs planted along the northern property line; (4) the existing slopes adjacent to the industrial lots also contain dense stands of trees and shrubs that would provide additional screening; (5) all industrial land uses in the Planned Industrial Zone (PM), which includes the industrial area adjacent to this project, are subject to performance standards (Municipal Code, Chapter 21.34.090) that control noise levels (maximum 65
Ldn at the property line), odors, vibration, facility operations, heat, glare, air
emissions, onsite storage, and industrial waste discharge; (6) to further
reduce noise sources generated from the industrial buildings the project
would be conditioned to require a six foot high solid masonry wall located
along the entire northern property line; and, (7) the property line wall would
also provide visual screening and security.
The project would provide adequate onsite parking that complies with the City’s Parking Ordinance and efficient circulation to serve the needs of the residents and their guests. The project would not impact the availability of offsite street parking.
Sidewalks and drainage facilities would be provided along the project’s street
frontages to serve the project.
A pedestrian circulation system that is separated from the 24 foot wide driveways is also provided that would allow sufficient and safe access to the adjacent public streets.
The project is conditioned to provide adequate emergency access by primary and secondary access points leading from “A” Street, the western property line, and El Camino Real. The 24 to 32 foot wide driveways are wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles. The project has been reviewed and conditioned by the Fire Department.
ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/bur 93-02/HDP 93-08 VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL SEPTEMBER 1, 1993
PAGE 8
i. The landscaping of the manufactured slopes would ensure that the project’s grading does not result in significant visual impacts. The provision of an earthen landscape berm with a screen wall, landscaping, and a five to fifteen
foot grade differential along ECR would visually screen the parking areas and
residential structures from the ECR scenic corridor. The project site is not visible from major public viewpoints to the south, west or north. The apartment buildings are setback from ECR approximately 90 to 160 feet and comply with the setback standards of the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards.
4. CHAPTER 21.24 - RESIDENTIAL DENSI-IY-MULTIPLE ZONE:
The project complies with the development standards of the proposed RD-M Zone as follows:
LOT SIZE
LOT COVERAGE
FRONT YARD SETBACK
STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK
SIDE YARD SETBACK
BUILDING HEIGHT
yQvIwb: : : j j : j .’ : : PR(-J$(jSE~ j ; : j j : :
10,000 sq. ft. 21.1 acres
60% Max. 25%
lo-20 feet 25 feet
S-10 feet 25 feet
5 feet 40-60 feet
35 feet 27-35 feet
5. CHAPTER 21.95 - I-IILISIDE DECVELaOPMENT REGULATIONS:
The project design is in conformance with the development and design standards of the
Hillside Development Regulations and the Hillside Development Guidelines. The project site contains several small isolated areas of 40% slope that, are less than fifteen feet in slope height and less than 4,000 sq. ft. in area. Section 21.95.090, “Exclusions”, states that these 40% slope areas must be fully identified, but may be excluded from the requirements of the ordinance by the decision-making body.
In addition, the following findings of fact must exist prior to approval of the Hillside
Development Permit:
a. That hillside conditions and undevelmable areas of the moiect have been ~romrly
identified.”
The project site’s hillside slope conditions and undevelopable areas have been
identified on the Constraints Exhibit “0” dated, September 1, 1993.
ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/ dr 93-02/HDP 93-08
VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL SEPTEMBER 1, 1993
PAGE 9
b.
C.
d.
6.
“rhat the develoDment ~rol3os~ and d ar>Dkable develolxnent aDDn>vals and
JXYmIitS are COIISktent with the ~urwse. intent. and ~h!ments of this chaKwr
and that the Droiect de&n substaritially confoxms to the intent of the concmts
illustrated in the hillside develoDment guidelines manual.”
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
All manufactured cut and fill slopes would be contour graded and would not
exceed a height of 30 feet.
The project’s grading volumes of 8,530 cubic yards/graded acre and would fall within the “potentially acceptable range” of 8,000-10,000 cubic yds/acre. The Planning Director and City Engineer concur that the written findings contained on Exhibit “R”, dated September 1, 1993 are adequate to justify the proposed grading volumes.
Landscaping in conformance with the City’s Landscape Guidelines Manual
would be provided on all manufactured slopes to visually screen the slopes
and to reduce erosion.
The apartment buildings within the project would have varying roof lines and sloping roofs.
Structures would be setback from the top of manufactured slopes from 10 to 20 feet.
mt no develoDment or zradhz will occur in those fxxtions of the ~romtrtv which
are undeveloDable wrsuant to the provisions of Section 21.53.230 of this code.”
All tmdevelopable areas have been identified and no development or grading would occur in those areas.
That the moiect de&n and lot confkuration minim&s disturbance of hillside
lands.
The proposed grading would create building pads that are terraced for views and would step down the slope. The local streets and manufactured slopes would be curving and are aligned to follow the natural contours. The street alignments and curving landform graded slopes would reduce visual impacts created by the grading and help simulate the natural slope conditions.
CHAPTER 21.40 - SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONE, “EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR DEWLOPMENT !XANDARDS”:
El Camino Real has been designated a scenic corridor and in compliance with the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone, special development standards have been created for development along the roadway. Projects located adjacent to the roadway are required to process a Special Use Permit and comply with all requirements of the overlay zone and the
ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/&r 93-02/HDP 93-08 VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 PAGE 10
El Camino Real development standards. The overlay zone and the corridor standards are designed to supplement the underlying zone by providing additional regulations to preserve or enhance outstanding views, flora and geology, or other unique natural attributes and historical and cultural resources.
The proposed development would not impact the corridor for the following reasons: (1) expansive and scenic views looking west along this section of El Camino Real do not exist given the curve and the vertical and horizontal slope of the roadway; (2) the site contains mostly disturbed vegetation and no cultural resource sites are present; (3) the provision of an earthen landscape berm with a screen wall, landscaping, and a five to fifteen foot grade differential along El Camino Real would visually screen the parking areas and
residential structures from the scenic corridor, and; (4) the apartment buildings are
setback from El Camino Real approximately 90 to 160 feet.
The project complies with the El Camino Real corridor standards for the Area 4 as follows:
(1) Building heights on the site would not exceed 35 feet.
(2) Grading cut slopes in the 30 foot setback along ECR do not exceed 15 feet from original grade.
(3) The apartment buildings would be setback from the ECR at least 30 feet.
(4) The apartment buildings would not have roof equipment.
(5) The residential land use is consistent with the existing General Plan (RIM).
C. MELLO II LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM:
The project is also located within the Coastal Zone and complies with the applicable Mello
II LCP as follows:
(1) Grading would not encroach into 25% and greater slopes that contain native
coastal vegetation.
(2) The project site contains no prime agricultural Class I or II soils, and is not currently under agricultural cultivation nor has the site been cultivated in the
recent past. The onsite soils consist of HrC (Class IIIe-3) and LvF3 (Class VIIIs-1). The project site is not located in the Mello II Agricultural Overlay Zone.
(3) Development of the site would not preclude or negatively affect agricultural
development on surrounding properties. The SDG&E powerline easement
separates the site from adjacent land to the west, a non-loaded collector
street would separate the site from the greenhouses/nurseries to the south, and ECR separates the site from the property to the east. Access from “A”
ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/SUr 93-02/HDP 93-08 VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL SEPTEMBER 1, 1993
Street to existing La Costa Boulevard and the greenhouse parking lot to the south would be maintained.
(4) The project would provide a retention basin in the northwest comer of the site to control drainage and prevent erosion and siltation of any potentially sensitive wetland areas in the drainage basin.
D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT:
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 21 in the Southwest Quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and
compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
FACILITY
: COMPLIANCE WITH Pepsi% ,:, .. STANDARDS .: #:;j::.
CITY ADMINISTRATION I 1196 sq. ft. I Yes
LIBRARY I 638 sq. ft. I Yes
WASTE WATER TREATMENT 344 EDU Yes
PARKS
DRAINAGE
CIRCULATION
FIRE
OPEN SPACE
2.39 acres
N/A
2752 ADT
Station #2 & 4
2.9
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
SCHOOLS CUSD Yes
SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM 344 EDU Yes
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 75,680 GPD Yes
The proposed project would exceed the allowable growth management density of 116 dwelling units for the site by 228 dwelling units, (344 proposed units). The Growth Management Ordinance, Section 21.90.045, states that no residential development permit shall be approved in which density exceeds the growth management control point for the applicable density range (RM - 4-8 dus/acre), unless the following findings are made:
(11 ‘The Droiect will m&de s&k&t additional public facilities for the densitv in
excess of the control mint to ensure that the ademacv of the Citv’s Dubk facilities
plans will not be adverselv ixmacted”.
This project will be served by public facilities which are adequate to meet the increased demand generated by the increased density. In general, public facilities
have been sized to accommodate the maximum development allowed under the General Plan and Proposition E for the Southwest Quadrant. The density increase requested for this project simply shifts density from one portion of the quadrant to
ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/ JL)~ 93-02/HDP 93-08
VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
SEPTEMBER 1, 1993
PAGE 12
another and does not create an overall increase in demand beyond the projections
contained in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan. Therefore, sufficient
facilities are either already in place or will be provided concurrent with the project
to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s public facility plans will not be adversely
impacted.
(2) T”here have been sufficient develoDments aDDnlved in the Quadrant at densities
below the control Doint to cover the units in the Droiectabove the control wint so
that amxoval will not result in exceed.& the auadrant limit”
The Aviara Master Plan has been approved for development of approximately 800
dwelling units less than what was projected in the adopted Zone 19 LFMP. These
units are referred to as “excess” units, and they may be utilized to grant density
increases elsewhere in the Southwest Quadrant, subject to City Council Policy No.
43. Approval of this project will make use of 228 units, leaving a balance of
approximately 572 units that would be available for density increases to other
future projects. Monitoring of the balance of excess units and density increases will
assure that the quadrant limits stated in Proposition E are never exceeded.
(3) “All necessary vublic facilities reauired by this chauter wilt be constructed or are
guaranteed to be constructed concurren tlv with the need for them created bv this
develoument and in com&nce with the adoDted Citv standards”
As stated in finding #l, all public facilities necessary to serve this project are either
already in place or will be provided by conditions of approval placed on the project.
As shown in the table above, all facilities. will remain in compliance with adopted
City standards.
E. IzIuwRoNMENTALREvIEw
The Planning Director has determined that the project could have a significant effect on
the environment, however, there would not be a significant effect in this case since the
mitigation measures described in the attached initial study have been added to the project.
This decision was based on findings of the Environmental Assessment Part II, a Cultural
Resources Study, a Biological Resource Impact Study, a Geotechnical Report, Traffic Study,
Noise Study, a Limited Environmental Assessment, and a site survey by staff. A
Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on July 22, 1993.
The Conditional Negative Declaration was sent to the State Clearinghouse for State Public Agency review and a letter was received from the California Department of Fish and Game.
A Department Wildlife Biologist sighted a California Gnatcatcher on the adjacent parcel to
the West during a field survey. In response to the Department’s cdncerns the project has
been conditioned such that the applicant must consult with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project.
ZC 93-02/SDP 93-061 DLlr 93-02/HDP 93-08
VILLASATELCAMINOREAL
SEPTEMBER1,1993
PAGE13
Iv. SUMMARY
The proposed project: (1) is consistent with the General Plan; (2) complies with Title 21
of the Municipal Code, and findings for the Site Development Permit can be made under
Section 21.53.120; (3) complies with the Mello II LCP; (4) is in conformance with Growth
Management; and (5) will not significantly impact the environment, therefore, staff
. recommends approval of ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/SUP 93-02//HDP 93-08.
AlTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3536
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3537
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3538
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3539
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3540 5. Location Map
6. Background Data Sheet
7. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
8. Disclosure Form
9. Reduced Exhibits
10. Full size Exhibits “A”-%“, dated September 1, 1993.
July 30, 1993
JG:km
NoTrcE OF CP~TION -
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 : ,treet, RR. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 - 9. -0613
Project Title: Villas at El Caminc Real - ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/SUP 93-02/HDP 93-w
Lead Agency: Citv of Carl&ad Contact Person: Jeff Gibson
Se NOTE Below
SCWI 1
Street Address: 207'5 Las Palms s Drive Phone: (6191438-1161. ext. 4455
City: Carlsbad Zip: County: 92009 San Dieco
------------------------------------------------------.---------------------------------------------------------...----.-------
PROJECT LOCATIQI:
County: San Diego City/Nearest Cannnity: Carlsbad
Cross Streets: El Camino Real L Alaa Road Total Acres: 23.82
A.ssessorls Parcel No. 215-020-15/01 section: Twp. Range: Base:
Uithin 2 Miles: State Huy #: N/A Uaterways: N/A
Airports: &Qellan-Palanar Railuays: N/A Schools: Aviara Oaks Elementary
----------___--------------------------------------.-------------------------------------------------------------,--.-------------
DOCW!NT TYPE
CEQA: - NW - slqp1cnmt/subecqwnt REPA:
z ::I
OTHER: - Joint Docunent
Early Cons -
x Meg Dee
EIR (Prior SCH No.) -FinalDocunent
- Other -Draft EIS - Other
- Draft EIR -FONSI __-__-_-________________________________---------------------------------------------------------------------------------.------
LOCAL ACTION TYPE
- General Plan Update - Spacific Plan - Retons - Atmexation
- General Plan Amendsent - Master Plan Prezona
- General Plan Element Planned Unit DevelopPcnt X Site Plan 1 Use Permit
- Redevelopment
- Coastal Permit
- Community Plan - Land Division (Subdivision, - Other
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) ---------------__-_______I______________----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEVELOPlENT TYPE
X Residential: Units 372 Acres 23 02 - - Water Facilities: Type MGD
Office: Acres
1 Comnercial:
Sq. Ft. - Enploy-s - - Transportation: Type
Sq. Ft. Acres - Enploy- - - Mining: Mineral
- Industrial: Sq. Ft. Acres - Enploy- - -Power: Type Uatts
- Educational - Uaste Treatment: Type
Recreational k Hazardous Uaste: Type
- Other:
---_-___-_______________________________-----------------------------..----------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT ISSUES DI- IN-T
X Aesthetic/Visual
x Agricultural Land
- Flood Plain/Flooding - Schools/Universities X Uater Quality
x Air Quality Forest Land/Fire Hazard x Geologic/Seismic -Septic Systems - Yater Supply/
Sewer Capacity Ground Uater
X Archaeological/Historical Minerals x Soil Erosion/Coapaction/Grading Uetland/Riparian
- Coastal Zone x Noise Solid Uaste x Uildlife
- Drainage/Absorption 7 Population/Housing Balance x Toxic/Hazardous 7 Growth Inducing
- Economic/Jobs x Public Services/Facilities )( Traffic/Circulation X Landuse
- Fiscal z Recreation/Parks X Vegetation x Cusulative Effect
- Other ________________________________________----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present LandUse/Zoning/Gmeral PlmUae
Vacant/Limited Control (LC)/Residmtial Wediu (RM)
------__-----___________________________----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Description
The project consists of the; (1) construction of 372 - tuc and three- story apsrtstent duelling units and associated driveways and
parking areas; (2) a main recreation facility to include a pool, exercise rocm, leasing office, smsll gathering was, kitchen, and
maintenance/workshop facility; (3) several tot lots; (4) grading to include, 122,000 cubic yards of cut, 19D,OO cubic yards of
fill, and 68,000 cubic yards of inport; (5) roadMay frontage and intersection improvements to El Caminc Real; (6) dedication and
construction of a local collector street leading to the project frca El Canino Real, and; (7) a zoning land use change from Limited
Control (LC) to Residential Density Multiple (RDM) which permits multi-family residential land use.
NUTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH nwber already exists for a project (e.g.
from a Notice of Preparation or previcus draft dccunent) please fill it in. Revised October 1989
JG:km
F d
5 .L E t i; t : 5
&
d
ti
APPENDIX P
ENVh .AENT” MlTlGATION MONlTORINti
J &( 13 bo .
1 a
AEcKLIsr Page 1 of 3
2 a E .V E r? E s
1
- APPENDIX P
JlNVlRUl. ANTAL MITIGATION MONITORING G .asr Page 2, of 2
J
8 n w .
1 a
ct
R eo .
1 a
APPENDIX P
ENVIROA ATAL MITIGATION MONITORING C. .XISI’ Page 3 of 3
\ ..i:. : 1 -1 :, I \ y ! -qJ” : : ( ~“.gy$-h~ r‘,,’ i&L\ ,y ( +-“-; (2 j”” .’ -, \ ,>, : , ). ,~”
.P
.
& &f ,r’ j - ., i .sy ’ ;< i: ..( t.
$, %,‘I!,“~,- -,&,f: ’ ,,<+-\‘-;‘3 p:,:y-, -p.. .p->. .*,,, ;i” ,. : / ,: *’ y:L/ ” (:Z, ‘I’ .“‘., iz‘> ,I?’ ‘-;(’
‘5; ‘$ .; ;, l \y;, y\ \ 0 I., L.
‘; ‘.I ; , t2.a.. 1:,. \ :
I. l,4, :, ., c,:,‘.J-* ‘y,
,J’, : ,i
.’ ! , : : : . ::
v’,, $) 2,, ---c-(r~~y
:, c ; “;I ‘: ‘i,” : it :,
1 I ,
I .’ . SW
T
.x .., . Ci.. . . 1.. 0
-_ :‘~L.-~.u-.“l
,/7.7 k -
-- , .
- r- u
- ‘?& ..:. ;5 ):fj _, !/-“:, 3
, .- -.. ,<. i :
pjy,f$ ‘q- ~;/;+“;:2 2 x n - ,. 2 <LA - c-=F’ L.3, ..’ ; .‘p- Yy y, y,-“j +\.\ -,’ ! ; ; ‘,, ‘I \ z;., y.. :. -~ ;-, i ‘?c”
::, 1 2 I,, ':, ., _ :, -6
. .J
I L-.~~ir\-=+‘q ;+, r: _.~
/ ; c, ‘,, : ,\; ) ;;.;i L<,
-- ^ .“ ‘--7.” __ . ..-../ 3 -r
;-.
,@ j <): .] ." ,‘*- ~~/i.~/.>b&w :) r ui z
i * d,, 7. )/G, ;- 1: L 14 ua : $ -7 .'
i,-., ' I. 2,; ! ', ;- '<' 1 " x.. ,A-:, ; 0 :
q/' I ,, ! 4e
,," ',,,I. ~
c; '..
g.'x$ $l \ y.,(;;- I
..:' .\ I r"
y) ; '< . l:~fL;"v,**"ee=
:I 1",!..!.:' i:
'. c',,; ** r\; 0: . g&$3% .F\
y;;! .‘ o
-. ..,, ,L
. 3
'.. I. &-&Y- ‘I' gc 1 --- .L. : . _‘.. I-, . . - .t ’ , .,,-T+ ;’ ; gj;; i. ; ‘.
\. ; :,_ I.,,” :-.:, _ ‘--‘:yr?, 3. ‘,. ‘j_ . I 3
q’ . -? 02
5
, ~:’
1 -.
q- ‘. ,$$ *..&-. !.:, : I\ \ I' 'MT
.T ,.- 7. \_..
7 3 : y,‘ \..._ L' ,-I'; ,- -. h;..j -.,- T ! 'i '-L--:
I; ., 1 I. \ i ,;
+ $-; I 28 _
\ " :e-'
.'\, ,", : ,i\ /
'kc L,-( -.-L I
,"(5 ,y 5 ;;:: ;,-:..; ,J' : '%- - :. .T,'\
‘..' 1
i/' j.
\:
.= 1
. dF ,A -3 .-.I
I ,.. : "i .' , ,- , 5 I ,, . . . , A ;;', I ',A ---' "".". 'Y) s ,’ L 1’ I *’ ‘:. ,+... ‘j.. * i-- -*- \ .’ .’ f
;/. ‘, “I
.Tr 5 1 ,;,y- .c;-.-. . .J -&-$-,-/-
‘a ,i
‘~+..,.\
. ; <--.’
;J; ., ‘;,-. i y.. .y-+ -’ ‘(.. Y&s:
;
py&~::~;, _:”
?< ,p .-- , -qEjl i”;;
%-,..,* = ‘i p .
“ii;,. y ?I i 3
p; CL.--
2; y-, _’ ./ i i? T, , it .\i: * ; i ’ $1 ‘,, : : , ‘It J‘7 g.,,‘.&!- ‘2 .: I : . c\ .:- ‘\ _’ ,: (1 :t -” e I
G - :“ .,.,I ..I.’ II ?
qz.1 .t-:, _- 0 .’ * ?I ‘i Er, C” 2. PI
BACKGROUND DATA SHEE?
CASE NO: ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/SUP 93-02/HDP 93-08
CASE NAME: Villas at El Camino Real
APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Zone change from LC to RDM and develonment of 344
apartment units on El Camino Real. south of Camino Vida Roble.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2 of Map No. 1188. in the countv of San Dieno. State of
California. according to Man thereof filed in the Office of Countv Recorder. December 20,
1972.
APN: 215-020-15 Acres 21 (Assessor’s Parcel Number) Proposed No. of Units 344
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation Residential Medium (RM)
Density Allowed 6 dus/acre Density Proposed 17.6 dus/acre
Existing Zone LC Proposed Zone RD-M
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site LC Vacant
North PM Industrial
South E-A Greenhouses
East N/A El Camino Real
West RD-M-Q Vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 344
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated August 2. 1993
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
X Negative Declaration, issued Julv 22. 1993
- Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other,
JG:km
Cl-I-Y OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGJZMFNT PROGRAM
LOCALFA(IXIlES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
7 PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO.: Villas at El Camino Real - ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/SUP 93-02/HDP 93-08
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 21 GENERAL PLAN: RM ZONING: LC to RDM
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Aviara Land Associates Limited
ADDRESS: 2011 Palomar Air-nor-t Road, Suite 206. Carlsbad. CA 92009
PHONE NO.: (619)931-1190 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 2 1 S-020-1 S
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 21 acres/344 units
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: N/A , . City Admnustratnre Facmnes: Demand m Square Footage = 1196
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 638
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = 2.39
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = N/A
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 2.752
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2&4
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided - 2.9
I. Schools: CUSD
(Demands to be determined by staff)
J. Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 344
Identify Sub Basin - N/A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD - 75.680
L. The project is 227 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. JG’~
,~r<:--r;-, c ; - -. 7 4
CGCLOSURE STATDIENT
, ,
APDUams STAfEMEM OF I)tSCtOSURE m c=Am OwNERyrlP l-E= ON AU ,&Pqr~no,.,s wwlC)+ wu ~EZ~,RE
ZlsCl7FONARY ACTON ON ;kE Pm OF TkE m COUNCIL OR ANY rSpOlm &%RO. CO,.,,,,lSSlON OR COME=
(PIeaSe Prmt)
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Apdicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Aviara l.snrl AGC~P~C
2011 Palour Airnnrt f?rl
Suite 206 Carlsbad, CA 92009
2
3.
4.
Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Bank of America NTdSA Trustee of the
Mary E. Bressi Trust
234 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 500
Pasadena, Calltornia 91101
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names I
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in Me corporation or owning any parvlersr
interest in the partnership.
If any person identffkd pursuant to (1) or (a above is a non-profit organization or a trust. list the names a
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficl;
Of the UUSt. Trust Beneficiaries Mary Persic
10409 Riverside Dr., #203, Taluca Lake, CA 91602
Elizabeth Wiegand -
44 92018 Rah RyQlonP
2525 Ocean Blvd., Apt. B-5, Corona De1 Mar,
CA 92625
FKM00013 W90
. The few =ITP thP +hroP n-w Y beneficiaries of t& trust- Thp
names of minor or continpent
beneficiaries will be supplied
upon request.
7f375 Las Parmm Orwe 0 Cartsbaa. Caiiforma 9200949 - (619) 438-I 161
OisciosurO Statement
(Over)
Page 2
5. Have you had &ore than S?!ZO worn of business- transacted with any member ot City statf. goarcs
CornmIssions, Committees and Coundi’within the past twelve months?
Yes - “$&I 7 yes. please indicate person(s)
Psoon II dotinod ma: ‘Any mdnndual. firm. coocrtn~io. l01m vmturo. -. soad dub. frm.md org~uumn. comotuma l tmo, uust.
rmc.w.r. ynacuo. mm Md y oulr CQlJrlry. cy urd coumy. uy flvmclw. dimmu or 0m.r oolmcad uJMMwon. Qr My emu grouo or
comomalon l ung mm I umt.’
CNOT; Anactr additional pages as necessary.)
Bank of America as Trustee for
Mary E. Bressi
Print or type name of owner
Applicant:
Aviara Land Associates Limited
Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership
By: I
D. L. CIZ&ens/Vice President
BY: j
Date: I/&/$ 3
I By: HHhh-
D. L. b&&m/Vice President
3 By: <J-<.' 1 a- Ted L. Ho;ier/Assistant Secretary
Date: -7A-21;/4S I ,
Fiufooox3 8/90
-
.
.
L 1 S&V t
t
H
. .
*!I t 3 %
1 .:
.’
L
1
m
t
L 1 -.#S
PLANNING COMMISSION September 1, 1993 PAGE 8
nt Planning Director, replied that any structures on school property can avoid the City
, assuming the school district gave their permission.
There are some rid of the woode
Commission has
neighbors look at the positive side of the project. He thinks the Barrio
ever, he doesn’t think enough study has been done yet. The Barrio
e school district might jump at the chance to earn some extra money.
Field because it would provide extra storage and get ts of the Barrio should realize that the Planning
Chairman Noble stated that he could not su ject as proposed. He thinks it is setting a precedent of using park space for other than par . It is possible that the next thing we might see is a McDonald’s in our parks. There is not that mu area of town. He realizes the project could be moved across the street to school where it should be.
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and d nue CUP 93-03 toOctober 8, 1993 to allow time for the applicant s near the project site and also give staff adequate time to review any revlsro prefect resulting from
the neighborhood meetings.
VOTE: 6-O
AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Schlehuber and
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 7:36 p.m. and reconvened at 7:47 p.m.
2. ZC 93-02SDP 93-06/SUP 93-02IHDP 93-08.- VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL - Request for approval of a Conditional Negative Declaration, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, and Hillside Development Permit to change the zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M), and to construct 344 affordable residential apartment units
adjacent and west of El Camino Real, between Camino Vida Roble and Alga Road in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 21.
Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant iS
requesting approval of a Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, and Hillside
Development to,change the property zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M), and to construct 344 residential apartment units, which would be affordable to low and very low
income households, adjacent to and west of El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 21.
The project would contain one, two, and three bedroom apartment units ranging in size from 634 S.f. to 1,052 s.f. The buildings would be two and three story and have pink tile roofs. Within the project, there would be two recreational areas with pools, an exercise room, a clubhouse, and a children’s play area.
The project has guest parking and car ports. The property is 21 acres in size and the project would be
developed at a density of 17.6 du’s/ac. This residential density is appropriate, given the location of the Site adjacent to El Camino Real, which is a prime arterial that has bus service and is designed to handle high
volumes of traffic. The site is also located close to the City’s industrial park, which allows industrial Park employees to live close to their work place. Providing higher residential density near large employment centers, and along major transit corridors such as El Camino Real, makes good planning sense by helping to reduce regional and local traffic congestion and air pollution. He then gave a slide presentation Of the proposed project and surrounding area. . *
.
MINUTES
CORRECTED
PLANNING COMMISSION September 1, 1993 PAGE 9
After the presentation, Mr. Gibson reviewed two items in Resolution No. 3538 which needed to be
corrected, as follows: (1) On page 6, Condition #13, correct “SDP 90-03” to read “SDP 93-06;” and (2) on
page 9, Condition #51, correct the word “swelling units” to read “dwelling units.” He then turned the
remainder of the time over to Evan Becker, Director of Housing & Redevelopment.
Mr. Becker discussed the affordability aspect of the project. He stated that the project would be a 100%
affordable housing project. He used a variety of charts to show the incomes and ranges of rents for the
units. Residents of the units would work nearby and would consist of all low income levels, including
entry-level professionals with college degrees, i.e. teachers, managers, etc. Carlsbad has a goal of 2,500
affordable units. The City is trying to reach their objective of 1,400 units by 1996. The City would be a
partner in the project because they will control financing of the land purchase upon which the units will be
built. Financing will include using SAMCO pooled funds, low income tax credits, the FHLB Affordable
Housing Program, developer equity, and CDBG block grant funds. The City would also encourage
developers in the affordable housing effort by providing them with various fee options. The developers
involved are Aviara Land Associates, Bridge Housing Corporation, Patrick Development, and Picerne
Associates..
Chairman Noble invited the applicant to speak.
Larry Clemens, Hillman Properties, 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and
stated that Aviara has accepted the affordable housing challenge and is striving to provide their share in
the most professional manner possible. Some time ago, they began their search for joint venture partners
who have expertise in construction and financing. They have now selected Patrick Development, Picerne
Associates, and the Bridge Housing Corporation to work with them. All three partners have extensive
expertise in affordable housing. He introduced the representative from Bridge Housing Corporation.
Ben Golvin, Bridge Housing Corporation, 82 Second Street, San Francisco, addressed the Commission
and stated that the majority of their work has been in the Bay area, however they are currently in the
process of completing their first project in southern California. Many officials from the City of Carlsbad
have traveled to the Bay area to visit existing projects there. Bridge Housing Corporation’s sole reason for
existence is to develop and operate affordable housing projects for people who are not served by market
rents. Mr. Golvin then gave a slide presentation of various affordable housing projects that the Bridge
Housing Corporation has developed and currently operates.
Chairman Noble announced that the City Attorney’s office had requested time to review the legalities
regarding affordable housing.
Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, addressed the Commission and reviewed Government Code Section
65589.5 which states that a local agency shall not disapprove an affordable housing project unless it finds
Mb! one of the following: (1) the development is not needed to meet its share of low-income housing;
(2) the project would have a specific adverse impact upon public health or safety; (3) denial of the project is
required to comply with specific state or federal law; (4) approval of the project would increase the
concentration of low-income housing in a neighborhood which already has a disproportionately high share
of low-income units; (5) the project is proposed on land which is surrounded on at least two sides by
agricultural uses or does not have adequate wastewater facilities; and (6) the project is inconsistent with
the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete. She added that there are
other findings which generally apply to affordable housing projects, i.e. if density is used as a basis for
denial of the low-income housing project, or a condition is placed on it that the density must be lowered as
a condition of approval. These findings would not apply here because the applicants have applied under
the density bonus law which says we have to grant a density increase. This, then, would not be a concern
tonight.
MINUTES
CORRECTED
PLANNING COMMISSION September 1, 1993 PAGE 10 ,
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the Commission can make any of those findings. Ms. Hirata replied
that testimony is still incomplete. It is possible that testimony could bring forth substantial evidence which
might be used to make one of the findings.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if this means that the Commission’s hands are basically tied with respect
to approval of the project. Ms. Hirata replied that she is not saying the Commission has no discretion in the
approval process, but they should keep in mind that if the project is denied, the Commission would have to
support the decision with substantial evidence of one of the findings.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if she has heard anything thus far which could be considered substantial
evidence to support any of the findings. Ms. Hirata replied that she is not supposed to make that call.
Chairman Noble reminded the Commission that they are charged with making land use issues. The City
recently disbanded their Redevelopment Commission and has now created a Housing Commission who
will also review the project.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the project can conform to our cul-de-sac policy. Bob Wojcik, Principal
Civil Engineer, replied that both the Engineering Department and Fire Department have added a condition
requiring that the cul-de-sac policy be met. There are several alternatives: (1) the end of the parking
driveway could be punched through for an emergency access; (2) the street could be widened; or
(3) access could be gained through the Spires property to create a loop back to the street. Any of the three
alternatives would not cause a significant design change to the project.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if Engineering feels the problem can and will be solved, and that it will
comply without needing a variance. Mr. Wojcik replied to the affirmative.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about Resolution No. 3536, page 3, paragraph 9.a, which discusses the
removal of contaminated soil that must be hauled to a state-certified landfill. He would like the wording to
state the type of landfill, or an appropriate certified landfill, to ensure that the contaminants if&V end up in
a Class 1 hazardous landfill. Mr. Gibson replied that staff would have no problem with this change.
Commissioner Erwin inquired how Finding #2 satisfies all of Carlsbad’s general plan requirements when
the Mello II local coastal program (LCP) has not yet been amended. Mr. Gibson replied that the City
recently amended the general plan to allow density increases above the high end of the range. The City is
currently in the process of amending the LCP to be consistent with density bonus law which allows
densities above a specified range. However, in the meantime, the state Housing and Community
Development Department (HCD) has informed the City that the density bonus law would preempt any
locally adopted plans or programs, including the general plan or LCP.
Commissioner Erwin feels that having carports constructed of metal would be incompatible with the
project. He would like to see a more appropriate material used for the carports. Mr. Gibson replied that a
condition could be added that carport material shall be approved by the Planning Director.
Commissioner Erwin wants the Planning Director to understand that he would like the carports upgraded.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if there will be one carport provided for each unit at no additional cost. Mr.
Gibson replied that this should be answered by the applicant.
Commissioner Erwin commented that he had spoken with Attorney Nick Banche, who is representing Mr.
Bons, who wrote a letter to the Commission dated July 15, 1993. He would like to have staff comment on
the items in Mr. Bons’ letter. Chairman Noble replied that Mr. Bons would be speaking during the public
testimony period.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION September 1, 1993 PAGE 11
Commissioner Erwin stated that the Commission also received a letter from Mr. Ashcraft, who was
concerned that there would be noise from his industrial development being generated 24 hours per day. He wanted some notice given to tenants of the project. Mr. Banche wanted the same notice regarding Mr. Bons agricultural use given to each tenant.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the intersection of “A” Street where there will be a traffic light. She would like to know how close that will be to Poinsettia (to the south) and Camino Vida Roble (to the north). Mr. Wojcik replied that the intersection spacing will meet city standards.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the need for a traffic light is due to the ADT’s which will be generated
by the project. Mr. Wojcik replied that a signal would be needed primarily as a result of the volume and speed on El Camino Real. The surrounding residential will be adding to the tripe accessing El Camino Real from “A” Street. Staff is also anticipating that the property on the east side of EfCamino Real will also be developed in the near future, which would also add to the traffic. Commissioner Welshons was
interested in the signal issue because she knows that some residents further south must go to Dove Street
and make a U-turn due to the median.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if there will be sidewalks along El Camino Real. Mr. Wojcik replied that
sidewalks would only be required in front of the project.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the distance to the shopping center from the project. Mr.’ Wojcik
replied that it is 3/4 of a mile.
Commissioner Welshons inquired how soon the remaining sidewalks would be built allowing residents to walk to the shopping center. Mr. Wojcik replied that sidewalks would be built as development occurs.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if this applicant could be required to build that sidewalk to the shopping
center. Mr. Wojcik believes that a requirement such as that might fall into one of the categories which the city attorney addressed. It could make the project infeasible.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the industrial area to the north of the site. She ls concerned that
there might be something potentially hazardous which could locate in one of the nearby buildings. Mike Smith, Fire Marshal, replied that there are certainly uses in the industrial park where hazardous materials
are stored and used in various projects. There is always the potential for release of toxic fumes. However, most of the uses are scrutinized by an assortment of agencies and the uses are controlled and regularly inspected. Users must abide by many laws which are enforced by a number of county and city agencies.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if the Fire Department has any concerns about hazardous materials. Mr. Smith replied that they do have concerns because this development is closer to the industrial park than any
other residential development. However, as time goes by, he is sure that other residential developments
will be constructed in the same vicinity. He could not comment on what might be a safe distance. Furthermore, there could be any one of several catastrophic events which could occur in an industrial
zone, not just the release of toxic fumes. The Fire Department’s greatesf concern is that hazardous
material could become windborn. They have worked with the applicant and Engineering to ensure that there is adequate egress. The Fire Department is now comfortable with the access as conditioned.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the gravel road which runs adjacent to “A” Street and how customers will enter and leave the Sunfresh Roses business. Mr. Wojcik replied that he has worked with the developer to make sure there will be 32 ft. of pavement (enough for two travel lanes and a parking lane) constructed from El Camino Real to the main entrance. There is now a driveway serving Sunfresh Roses
where “A” Street will be. Staff has proposed that the driveway to the north of Sunfresh Roses be relocated
far enough away from the intersection for safety, yet close enough so that it will not impact their business.
- -.- . . .--a
PLANNING COMMISSION September 1,1993 PAGE 12
The letter from Mr. Bons was submitted to Engineering in response to a minor subdivision being processed
concurrently with this project. The other project includes property on the east side of El Camino Real. Mr.
Bons’ letter refers to access and a U-turn but it is discussing the other project. Mr. Wojcik feels that the access problem has now been solved. Using an overhead projector, he showed a diagram of the
Engineering proposal now under consideration.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about Finding 1 .b of Resolution No. 3538. On line 10 she thinks it should read (300 feet west...not 300 feet east). Mr. Wojcik replied that this finding was changed after he met with Mr. Bons, the Mayor, and Evan Becker. The Engineering proposal he just described changes Finding 1 .b of the staff report. He will make sure that the wording correctly states 300 feet west.
Commissioner Welshons referred to Finding 1 .g on page 3 and requested staff to point out the pedestrian
circulation system. Mr. Wojcik indicated that this refers ta the internal sidewalks throughout the project
that go to the recreation areas, etc.
Commissioner Welshons inquired if all first floor units can accommodate disabled persons. Mr. Gibson
deferred reply to the applicant.
Commissioner Welshons stated that she had found several discrepancies in the number of acres and units throughout the various resolutions. Mr. Gibson replied that the acreage size was originally larger but the project was redesigned, which is the reason for the discrepancies. There is no need to correct those
discrepancies because the resolution approving the project is accurate.
Commissioner Hall inquired about the distance from the driveway of Sunfresh Roses to the intersection, Mr. Wojcik replied that the curb return radius is 35 ft. and the Engineering proposal adds 25 ft. more. When Mr. Bons develops his property, the driveway will be eliminated.
Commissioner Hall thinks this will create a traffic conflict. Mr. Wojcik replied that the third lane should eliminate any traffic conflict. The third lane would become a right-turn lane. Through traffic would
continue in the other two lanes. Commissioner Hall still feels it will be problematic.
Commissioner Hall requested staff to give him a brief explanation of Condition #9 of Resolution No. 3536. Mr. Gibson replied that a soil testing condition was included so that testing would be conducted prior to
development of the site in order to ascertain the level of soil contamination caused by to prior agricultural
uses. The soils report will recommend remedial measures, if any are necessary.
Commissioner Hall inquired if me testing would be done in conjunction with the County Health Department.
Mr. Gibson replied to the affirmative.
Commissioner Hall thinks that subparagraph b of Condition #9 should be eliminated. Mr. Gibson replied
that staff could agree to eliminating both 9.a and 9.b and rely on the soils report for mitigation.
Commissioner Erwin replied that he could agree to eliminating 9.a and 9.b. to avoid confusion. Commissioner Hall replied that once the County Health Department is involved, there is a precise procedure which must be followed.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if each unit in the project come5 with a carport at no additional coSt. Ben Golvin, Bridge Housing Corporation, replied that this is correct.
Commissioner Erwin stated that he feels the carports need to be upgraded. Mr. Golvin could accept a condition for approval of the carports by the Planning Director.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION September 1,1993 PAGE 13
Commissioner Erwin stated that everything he has heard about the Bridge Housing Corporation has been excellent. However, he would like some assurance that they will manage the project long term, since he
feels that is the key to a successful project. Mr. Golvin replied that in the beginning, Bridge did not manage all of their projects. Now they have a management company in place and they manage over 2,000
Units. 11 is important to Bridge to manage their properties because that gives them some control. Either Bridge would manage this project directly, or one of their partners would manage the property.
Commissioner Erwin inquired how many executives of Bridge make in excess of $100,000 in salary. Mr.
Golvin replied that he is not privy to that information. If there is any, he presumes it might only beone person. The Bridge Housing Corporation has a board of directors. There are approximately 20 persons’
who are paid staff. Bridge is very sensitive to salaries because of their fundraising efforts. Mr. Golvin stated that the Ford Foundation recently increased their funding and they scrutinize salary and expenses very closely. Bridge is a non-profit organization and they are required to submit reports substantiating their non-profit status.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if this will be their largest affordable project so far. Mr. Golvin replied that it would be.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if this large a project could result in any management problems. Mr. Golvin does not foresee any because it is not unlike their other projects. Bridge has very strong standards
for selecting tenants and they go through rigorous screening. They have had a very good success rate on other projects.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired how long Bridge would commit to management of the project. Mr. Golvin replied that they will manage the project as long as they can satisfy the city, the lenders, and their partners.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired how many managers would be on site. Mr. Golvin replied that there
would be one resident manager for sure and at least one assistant manager. He believes Patrick or Picerne could answer that in more detail.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if young Marines might cause any problems. Mr. Golvin understands
there could be management challenges, however he feels proper screening should control the problem.
Commissioner Wdshons inquired if some form of storage could be incorporated into the carports. Mr. Golvin replied that the project in lrvine has storage. However, he would have to refer this to the design
people. There is never enough storage, although the units are not as small as some might believe.
Commissioner Betz does not feel that one playground will be enough for the development. She feels it might cause difficulties for people living at the far end of me project. One playground that far away might be okay for older children, but not for younger ones. She suggests that a tot lot be placed closer t0 the units where families with small children might live. -Tim Kruer, Patrick Development, San Diego, replied
that there are two tot areas in the project and he pointed them out on the architectural renderings. One tot lot is closer to the main pool; the other has a wading pool and is located farther west.
Commissioner Welshons requested him to describe the pool. Mr. Kruer replied that it would be large enough for laps and will have lane markers. The pool has been enlarged since the project was designed.
Commissioner Welshons inquired about the depth of the pool. Mr. Kruer replied that it would be 3 112 ft. to 8 ft. There would probably not be a diving board. Some pools they have recently designed are 3 112 ft. and 4 ft. at either end, with the deep water in the middle.
PLANNING COMMISSION September 1, 1993 PAGE 14
Commissioner Welshons inquired about storage in the carports. Mr. Kruer replied that the carports in
k-vine were raised so the project appeared more open. As far as storage is concerned, he tends to put that within the units or on the balconies. There will also be a washer and dryer in each unit. He would be willing to work with staff to redesign the carports.
Chairman Noble opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Tony Bons, 1565 Mulberry Drive, San Marcos, addressed the Commission and stated that he owns the property directly south of the project. He has met with staff and they have explained how beautiful the
project will look. .He has been in business at his present location since 1971 and he was amazed to see
how fast the zoning was changed on the project property. He is concerned about access to his flower
growing business. There is no easy solution. He wants the flower shop to stay in business but he is
concerned that 344 units will create a lot of people making many trips each day. A greenhouse operation does better with open fields around it. The area seems to be closing in on him even though he has 6 l/2 acres. He is trying to cooperate with staff and the developer but nobody seems to be concerned about his business. He has to spray frequently for insects. As soon as a tenant sees a man in a white suit wearing a helmet, Mr. Bons is worried that they will think it is a hazardous spill and call 911. He will have to be the
one to answer. People feel removed when they don’t know what is going on. He used to spray his tomato
fields by airplane and people became concerned because they had skin reactions. So he sprayed the fields with plain water and the same people still had skin reactions. It proved to him that many of the problems were imaginary. Now he is being pushed and squeezed again. He is concerned that many people will
want to travel west on “A” Street. Vehicles traveling on that dirt road will raise dust and cause problems to
his flower crop. He would like to see more than just 12 ft. of it paved. He also suggested that:
- The City should respect and protect his agricultural business. Mr. Bons suggested the City adopt the
Right to Farm Ordinance which was included in Assembly Bill 584 enacted by the legislature in 1989.
The intent of the bill was to respect the agriculture business. It has been adopted by the County of San
Diego and he would like to see the City of Carlsbad adopt it too. It would help his business.
. The City should make this’ affordable project subject to the same standards as other projects in Carlsbad.
He hopes the traffic signal will help his flower shop, but he thinks safety is equally as important.
* Since the road comes next to his greenhouses, and there is a very small distance between the two, he
proposes building a wall between the road and the greenhouses, with just enough room for him to
service the greenhouses.
- Mr. Bons would like the Planning Commission to invite David Owen, of the California Department of Agriculture, to a subsequent Commission meeting so he can explain the impacts which development has
on agricultural uses. He also suggested that Kathleen Turner, San Diego County Agriculture Commissioner, could offer a lot of insight on this topic, including the insecticides which flower growers use in their business.
- There is a trend towards using less pesticides in agriculture. There is also a growing trend of notifying tenants in nearby housing projects about the use of insecticides.
One goal of Carlsbad’s general plan is to promote agriculture. Mr. Bans hopes the Planning Commission will give him the same support and consideration they have given the growers of Ranunculus along Palomar Airport Road.
Commissioner Erwin stated for the record that he had spoken with Mr. Bans’ attorney. Mr. Nick Banche
Stated that Mr. Bons is requesting three things, as follows: (1) that notice be given to tenants about the
agricultural business and there may be potential impacts (Commissioner Erwin would like to SW that notice
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION September 1, 1993 PAGE 15
expanded to include the industrial uses to the north of the project); (2) that there will not be a median in front of the project (Commissioner Erwin stated that he has been told by staff that there will be a median);
and (3) that Mr. Bons would like assurance from the Mayor and Engineering staff that access to the flower
shop will be changed (Commissioner Erwin believes that is being done).
Commissioner Erwin asked Mr. Bons if his concerns have been alleviated. He replied that he would like to see more of the details about the change to the entrance. All he has seen so far is a brief sketch. He wants to make sure the public will be able to get in and out of his business easily.
Commissioner Hall commented that Mr. Bons also made a point about the dust generated by “A” Street not being fully paved. He will ask staff to respond to that issue later.
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that there will be no left turns if a median goes in on El Camino Real. “A” Street will suddenly become very important. Otherwise, customers will have to go down to
Poinsettia and make a U-turn. Mr. Bons replied that the trucks delivering his supplies are unable to
negotiate U-turns. Commissioner Schlehuber advised Mr. Bons that this will happen unless there is some
access to and from his business off “A” Street.
Karla B. Mulry, 7010 Nutmeg Way, Carl&ad, representing Bexen Press, addressed the Commission and stated that this project will stick all of the poor people in Carlsbad down by the power lines. She does not
think this could remotely be considered “inclusionary” housing. Affordable housing is supposed to be evenly disbursed. City staff must think that poor people are stupid. She would like to know how long the
public is supposed to have confidence with city officials when all they offer is reduced services and triple
density in housing projects.
Renata Mulry, 7010 Nutmeg Way, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she is the Director of Research at Bexen Press. She has been actively involved in housing issues in San Diego County and
Los Angeles County for many years. She wonders why this project has sailed through the City at lightening speed. She would like to know what is burning and why everyone is in such a hurry to get this project approved. Many of thequestione that have been asked tonight need to be answered. She gets the
impression that the entire project is being railroaded through. She hae done a lot of research and thinks it
is interesting that she can find no mention of the Bridge Housing Corporation anywhere. She does not feel
that northern California projects are relevant in southern California. Only the lrvine project is relevant to
the project being proposed tonight. When she first moved to Carl&ad, she lived in a complex that was
approximately this size. She obsenred many problems with parking. Ms. Mulry thinks the parking in this project is woefully inadequate. Many times there are four adults living in a two bedroom unit, and all four have vehicles. How would those vehicles be accommodated. One parking stall for each unit ls totally inadequate. Furthermore, she doesn’t think the Commission should assume that families are only going to
live in the three bedroom units. Many families may only qualify for two bedrooms. She thinks the
recreational amenities being allotted are also minimal. After the project where she used to live was one year old, the owners commandeered the recreation room and turned lt into office space. How can the Commission be sure that this won’t happen here. She thinks it is interesting that everything in the Staff report indicates there will be no impacts. Many people used Section 8 vouchers where she used to live.
The police were constantly there, for one reason or another. Ms. Mulry believes the narrow streets are very
inadequate in this project. People with more than one car will be parking everywhere and moving vehicles
will not be able to negotiate the parked ones, She thinks an affordable housing project of this magnitude iS
only setting the city up for problems down the road in 1 O-20 years. She referenced an article from the LA.
Times dated August 27,1993 which states that a housing project built 40 years ago was going to be demolished for the very problems she has identified in this project. Affordable housing projects in every
major city have become cesspools. She thinks an EIR should be required. The City of Encinitas is doing an EIR for an affordable housing project that has only 40 units. She thinks any housing project which. produces enough traffic to justify a signal needs an EIR..
PLANNING COMMISSION September 1, 1993 PAGE 16
Bart Malone, 3933 James Drive, Carlsbad, representing Ponto Floral Co., addressed the Commission and stated that he operates part of the property which Mr. Bons owns. He would like to go on record opposing this project. He has seen the recent encroachment on farmers. All these things do is push hard working people out of business. He employs 10 people who have families. He wants to be able to get his supplies. The delivery trucks won’t make U-turns. The handwriting is on the wall that he will be pushed out of business within five years. Maybe the Planning Commission wants a city full of tee shirt and yogurt shops. Farms are supposed to receive priority and are not to be considered a nuisance.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if he would like access off “A” Street. Mr. Malone replied that he would like
access off “A” Street, and he doesn’t want a median on El Camino Real. He has talked to the operators of Pickles Deli and they told him when the median went in, they lost 50% of their business. Wherever a median is constructed, business seems to drop off. He doesn’t know any business owner who wants a median in front of his business. But that is not the only problem. He thinks the future of agriculture in
Carlsbad is at stake.
Commissioner Hall inquired how large the trucks are that pick up and deliver. Mr. Malone replied that they are tractor trailers.
Commissioner Hall inquired how they operate now. Mr. Malone replied that the trucks enter on one side of
the building and wme back out on the other side. There is also a large parking lot which givee them plenty
of room.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Noble declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 1064 p.m. and reconvened at 1O:ll p.m.
Commissioner Hall thinks the project looks pretty good but he is concerned about the business people in that area. He liked the three suggestions which Commissioner Erwin made, however he is also concerned
about the effect the dust will have on Mr. Bans’ operation. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, replied
that La Costa Boulevard is dirt. Although traffic from the project will increase, the road will be paved to a
width of 32 ft. between El Camino Real and the entrance to the project. Thedeveloper has Offered to build a fence even though there is 30 feet between the greenhouse and the edge of the proposed pavement.
Commissioner Hall inquired if there will be access to that area. Mr. Wojcik replied that it depends on what
the developer and Mr. Bons are able to work out. There could be a fence and even gates. It depends on
what decision they reach in their negotiation.
Commissioner Hall was glad to hear that the two parties will have to reach some type of agreement on how
to deal with that 30 feet--that there won’t just be blacktop and then nothing. Mr. Wojcik replied that the
conditions require the developer to get the 12 ft. of right of way from Mr. Bans so they will need to Sit down
and talk and reach some type of an agreement.
Commissioner Hall inquired how the large trucks will work under me new proposal. Mr. Wojcik replied that
he drove down La Costa Boulevard,and there is a gate at the far end but that route cannot be UWd by
trucks. The trucks could wme in the northerly driveway, unload their supplies in front of the building, and exit the southerly driveway. Or, there is also a gated easement south of the property which leads to the rear of the building where they could unload. They could then exit the same way.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION September 1, 1993 PAGE17
Commissioner Hall inquired if they would use the 30 ft. driveway. Mr. Wojcik replied that the larger trucks
coming in the northerly driveway will probably have to exit via the southerly driveway, since there isn’t
room in the parking lot for large trucks to make U-turns and exit the same way they came in. The northerly driveway serves two purposes-- it gets customers to the flower shop and it allows trucks to come in and exit easily.
Commissioner Hall requested staff to comment on Carlsbad’s agriculture policy. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that agriculture is encouraged in Carlsbad as long as it is feasible. However, the policy also encourages friendly buffers between the two. He thinks a fence and the access which was mentioned would not be incompatible. With the noticing to tenants that Commissioner Erwin has recommended, Mr. Wayne does not think the projectwould be inconsistent with the general plan as far as agriculture is concerned.
Commissioner Erwin can support the project. The original idea was to integrate carports throughout the
project but it now looks like they will be off by themselves. Overall, he thinks the project is a good one. He
is glad to SW that the units are larger than the last affordable project he saw which only had 300 s.f. units. He feels good about the Bridge Housing Corporation because they swm to know that management is an important key to success. This project is an experiment. He is willing to support it with the added conditions.
Commissioner Betz stated that, given her personal choice, we wouldn’t have these types of projects in
Carlsbad. She doesn’t like them but the law forces them on us. If she could change the law, she would,
but she can’t. As far as a project of this kind goes, this one is acceptable.
Commissioner Welshons stated that her concerns were similar to those voiced by Commissioner Erwin about lumping affordable units all in one area. However, she knows that the Planning Commission is
dealing with land issues and our responsibility is clearly defined. Working with the Bridge Corporation
gives her some piece of mind as we move forward with the project. However, the management issues of the project will be decided by another commission. She also feels comfortable about the other partners, i.e. Aviara Land Associates, Patrick Development, Picerne Associates. They and Bridge lend an enormous amount of credibility to the project. She thinks that having these experts work together will minimize the risks. She thinks the City has to go forward and trust in their expertise. The questions have been answered. She can accept the project with Commissioner Erwin’s added conditions.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he can support the project as well. He, too, feels that management
is the key. This project will either be a star that shines or it will be the biggest disaster we have ever SWn. He would like the record to show that the Commission is aware that management of the finished project will
be the key to success. If the City doesn’t wnsistenly monitor the management, the project will fall into
jeopardy.
Commissioner Hail strongly supports what the other Commissioners have said. He finds it odd that some people find 17 du’s/ac to be too dense. He has personally lived in a condo project, less than one mile from this one, which was 30 du’s/ac. It was probably one of the nicest condos he has ever lived in. It Was in old La Costa. He doesn’t find 17 du’s/ac offensive, especially after this Commission recently passed a project which had 64 du’s/ac.
Chairman Noble will support the project because it creates an incentive for him to live another 40 years to SW if it gets destroyed.
Commissioner Erwin finds it interesting that the word “affordable” is used 31 times in the staff report but, in . reality, this is a subsidized project and nobody has mentioned it in that context.
PLANNING COMMISSION September 1, 1993 PAGE 18
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that some people may think we are dumping low income housing into the
southwest quadrant. However, when you calculate the total affordable units which the City needs, this
quadrant will not get any more affordable units than any other quadrant. This project is only 344 units out of 1,400 units needed by 1996. There are a lot more projects in the planning stages. This isn’t the end of them. State law is requiring us to build them and we need to remember that.
ACTION : Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3536, recommending approval of the Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, adopt Planning Commission Resolution
Nos. 3537, 3538, recommending approval of ZC 93-02 and SDP 93-06, and adopt
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3539,3540, approving SUP 93-02 and HDP
93-08, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with the following changes/additions: (1) that a condition be added requiring disclosure to all lenders and tenants, and acknowledged in writing by those lenders and tenants, that there is agriculture located directly south of the project and industrial located directly north of the project, which may result in certain impacts; (2) revise Condition #9 of Resolution No. 3536 by deleting the words “Such mitigation options shall include at a
minimuin:” and deleting subparagraphs 9.a. and 9.b.; (3) change “east” to “west” on line 10, Finding 1 .b., Resolution No. 3538, and amend wording to reflect that new access to the property south of the project will be developed for those business directly south of the project; (4) change “SDP 90-03” to “SDP 93-06” in Condition #13 of Resolution No. 3538; and (5) add a statement that the Commission supports staffs
position that the carports need to be improved and upgraded, as agreed to by the
applicant.
VOTE: 6-O
AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Schlehuber and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of September 1, 1993 was adjourned at lo:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
GARY E. WAYNE Assistant Planning Director
BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRIT-TEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
MINUTES
.
/I -
rl;c ?3-2/sm 93-6/i?u~ 33-Z/IITP 93-s
Villas at 71 Gamin0 REal
""1:. "'ayor and f:ouncil ?:embers;
I a-i Tony %ns and live at 1565 Yulberry Tr. San :?arcos. -.:e are the
owners of 6 acres louth of the !?rop;;sed Villas at 3 ?amino Xeal.
In 1?:71 we build the greenhouses there and have been growing roses
for the %r?lesale trade and serving the Community through the Z'lower-
shop Cunfresh Toses.
I appreciate that I had the opportunity to talk personally to the
r'ouncil me-ibers and talk about this project and also about our green-
h,ouses and how this is i2:pacting us.
Until now we did well because our neighbors were ->mile away and we
were surrounded by open fields.
?ut devel:)r*ient now has cr?.qe next do-r, this is happening all 3ver
"arlsbad and is part sf being in this area.
-;e have several concer8Stha-t can impact us in continuing our growing
of roses.
The :'ity has a policy ICch reco#gnizes the importance 06 Agriculture
and 7loraculture.
-ur request for the rity of Yarlsbad is:
7 ,To adr)pt the 3ight to Parm Grdinance, this Ass&ly 3.11 584 was en-
r ;i + ^ _ I) acted in July. 1989.
Tust that will be generated during the grading process c.oTes into
the greenhcuses and effects the quality of the roses. .'ith competifi&
from ‘nexico, our emphasis on quality becomes even more important. Gur
request is, to grade and pave this II.ltr 5treet before grading begins
on the 23 acres.
Instead of the developer pave $ c,f the wad + 12 feet 'on our side and
step at the entrance :f the project, ,our req.uest is: Pave the r,>ad the
I;lhole lengt'h of tr,',rr Street till the -.!est end nf the project and also
pave the full-:*!i rjth of lr!:rt Ytreet to eliminate the dust of the unpaved
part. --:7:: be the devel:per can get funds
;- onserwncy T.+i.ch is adrinistrered by the
%stri&t.
for this fro? the 3astal
PalsiTar Toi1 Conservation
.The pro.perty and the greenhouses slcpe t;' the Torth, how will the water
2 runc,ff be cared for,
p&@wrEo 7r, &clrJC’L P-r ewq3 c-WC/C /&~%?6*
C
I
5' -Then 11:" Street is completed to have installed YO PAXI!:TG sings
fro? 6 P"' till 6 4L-7, to prevent overflow parking on "4" Street.
6 “n '71 "a:Tino geal to install a center divider fcr approx. 250-300
feet ,Touth 2f the traffic light to increase traffic safety.
7 'ta.ff suggested t.7 build a separate 30' wide driveway for easy access
1 to the Ylowershop.
,s :'ext t3 this ,yroposed driveway . 7~ are above gr,Lund electrical boxes
fror? S.D.G.":.. %r request is to put those underground.
r 11 *, II ., ,:treet and th*e greenhouses are very close, we request to have a fence
to seperatc b:th.
-,'e hope that those requests are considered. .'e hope that this project and
our gro;sCng of roses are coqatible and that both are beneficial to th?
comunity.
Thank You.
,q4nthor$ 3ons.
KATHLEEN A. THUNER
AGRICULTURAL COMYlSSIONEAl
SEALER OF WEKWTS
AND MEASURES
4
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WEIGHTS & MEASURES
5555 OVERLAND AVE., BLDG 3. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123.1292
September 23, 1991
AGRICULTURE
(619) 6p1.2739
WElGwTS 6 MEASURif
(619) 694.2776
FAX (619) 565.7C16
Mike Horwath, President
San Diego County Farm Bureau
1670 E. Valley Parkway
Escondido, California 92027
This letter is in response to your inquiry about potential pesticide use
restrictions near trails. As you know, the Department of Agriculture, Weights
and Measures considers a.variety of factors before issuing a Restricted Materials
Permit (RMP) of any kind. These include, but are not limited to:
0 The treated area's proximity to people, schools, residences, businesses,
water bodies, livestock, protected species, and other sensitive areas,
The type of pesticide, including its environmental fate 'and potential for l
drift,
l The crop being treated, and 0 Weather patterns in the area which may necessitate special restrictions.
Each RMP is unique and incorporates those health and safety factors that are
applicable in a given situation. Many of these would apply to a permit near a
trail, and may restrict and/or alter a grower's farming practices. The following
are some restrictions that the Department of Agriculture., Weights and Measures
might consider in order to mitigate health and environmental risks associated
with the use of restricted pesticides:
l The use of a particular pesticide near a trail could be banned entirely
due to the possibility of humans, livestock, or wildlife coming in contact
with it.
l A buffer zone of a certain size may need to be established where no
pesticide use would be allowed.
l The method of application could be restricted, based on a method's
potential for impacting the trail.
Again, I would like to reiterate that these are only examples of restrictions
that could apply; each situation would be accessed individually. Accordingly,
the impacts that a trail might have on a grower's operation would.vary, but could
be significant. For instance, a nursery or flower grower could experience a
significant economic loss if a 100 yard buffer between the trail and the area
. , . 1-q
h
Mike Horwath September 23, 1991 Page 2
being sprayed were necessary. The lack of a pest control program in that buffer
could force a grower to take this area out of production.. An acre of carnations
is worth approximately $88,229, so the inability.to plant parts of.a property
could have a severe economic impact to that grower.
While I have focused on restricted use pesticides, and not discussed other
commercial and agricultural pesticide applications, trails in or near
agricultural operations present a complex set of problems. I hope that this
information is helpful to you in determining the types of impacts and
restrictions farmers could expect. If you have other questions or would like
to discuss this matter, please contact me at 694-2741.
' KAI(HLEEN A. THUNER
Agricultural Commissioner/
Sealer of Weights and Measures
KAT:JT
cc: John Blocker
FCWm Burscru s~rn Diego County
1670 East Valley Parkway, Escondido, CA 92027 l (619) 745-3023 l Fax: (619) 489-6348
October 26, 1993
The Honorable Claude %uddy” Lewis City of Carl&ad 1200 Carl&ad Village Drive Carl&ad, CA 92008-1989
Dear Mayor Lewis :
I am writing to you at the suggestion of one of your constituents, Bart Malone, owner of the Ponto Floral Greenhouses in Carl&ad. He is a vital part of San
Diego County’s fourth largest industry, agriculture/horticulture.
Likemany citizens of Carl&ad he is concerned about the impact of growth in your
camunity and mre importantly, his rose business may be severely impacted by a housing project you and your colleagues are considering that is imnediately adjacent to his property.
You are keenly aware I am sure, of efforts to protect the floral industry along the coast. Large developments placed next door to existing agriculture are of ten an open invitation to years and years of trouble. Development brings dust that
will impact the rose growth and development. Agriculture operations often cause
noise or use products that may cause civilian neighbors uneasiness or concern.
The San Diego County Farm Bureau urges you to plan carefully and consider the existing resource you have. We will be happy to provide you with additional
information if needed.
David R. Owen Executive Director
DRO/rsr
ALtxANDEE BDWlE*
mG2ElZiyS PVWbYHwlus PAtulcu a ClANNoNE mEEAtLma.ow EEXE.m KINNmo.LEw AUTO J* NulJmlm
IANRLMWu= ~YhMCMJXMY
@c;-/ - C,' c?, Cb~fl&./
5bC)p.m. c*
fy
&NlE, &NESON, &III, WILE3 & &ANNONE / 9 /~?&I a y?‘r
APAHNES?W~~APR~I~~~~~~N
A-ATUW
o/;iii (2 f&P
49zoctJauE~
NIWFURTBEACK uLmRNlA92660
@ I ty Clef y
Y
AMAcoDE714 TEUPHONE6Sl-1300
FAX(fl4)MblO14
October 26, 1993
City Council City of Carlsbad Car&bad City Hail
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Villas at El Camim Real - ZC 93-02, SDP 93-06, SUP 93-02, HDP’93-08
Honorable Members of the City Council: 1.. .. - - :- ^: i_ . _
This fm represents the C&bad Uxlikd School District (“District”). This letter is submitted with respect to the impacts which the Villas at El Camino Real projet (the “Project”) will have on the Distrkt’s school facilities, and in respom ro the conditional negative declaration prepared for the above-referenced actions (the-“Negative Declaratio~F>. Buildout of the Project envisions the developmens of-344 residential apartment dwelling units (“DTJs”) witbin a 23.82 acre site within Management Zone 21 of the City. These units also will be built in an area entirely within the boundaries of the District (source: Zone 21 Lo&
Facilities Management Plan (“LPI@“), page 105). The2tie 21 LFMP states tit District facilities are currently opera&g at capacity (page 107). We request on behalf of the District
that approval of the Project be de&d absent a mitigation agreement to mitigate the Project’s
impacts on the K-12 school facilities of the District. Absent such an agreement a Negative Declaration i8 contrary to applicable law and any approval is precluded by tkc General Plan of the City and its Growth Management Ordinance.
The District disputes the Negative Declaration’s conclusion that the Project will have no significant effect on schoolS or other public services. The Negative Declaration states
that required compliance with the Zone 21 LPMP will assure that there are no significant impacts to public facilities, but does not indicate how compliance with Zone 21 LFMP requirements will result in mitigation. The Negative Declaration subsequently concludes that
.- ‘_,I_ , ;- ‘13 *x,:<= =rt‘ i _-e’ 3: ,. . ;2 i-
4
Bovm, ~NESON, Km, WILES’& GUNNONE
City Council - City of Carlsbad Villas at Camino Beal Reject Impacts
October 26, 1993 Page 2
the Project will not affect any public facilities or scrviccs in part by stating that “the planned public facilities in Zone 21 are adequate to handle the increased density without need to amend the facility plan.” Negative Declaration, page 8. This is inconsistent with the Zone 21 LIMP, which states that District facilities are currently operating at capacity, and also ignores the potential for increased service demands on school facilities Tom existing residences relative to population increases anticipated to result from buildout of the Project, if approved. The District therefore objects to the approval of the Negative Declaration and the Project without a proper environmental evaluation of the Project’s effect on the District’s schooi facilities. This should occur within the context of a properly prepared Environmental Impact Report (“E3R*), inciuding a proposed mitigation agreement with the District.
Based upon a student generation factor of 0,s per DU it is anticipated that there will be 172 students to be generated from the development of the Project (i.e. 344 DUs times 0.5
students/DU = 172 students). Based on a school facilties cost of $4930 per multi-family DU the Project will require additional school facilities at. a cost of up to %1,695,92Q. .For purposes of example, using an average of 1,000 square feet per DW and thelDistria’s ctn~enc residential school fee of $2.65 per square foot, the Project would generate $5&1&O in school fees from residential development (if the District we& to assc~ such ftes on development within the Project), or less than 54% of the total cost of schools required for the Project from residentiai development alone, not in&ding the number of students to be generated fram commercial-industrial development. This leaves a shortfall of over $784,320. If Proposition 170 is not approved on- November 2, 1993, the residential. school fee will revert to $1.65 per square foot, providing facili&es funding in the amount of $567&N, leav~ga shortfall of-
$1,128,320. State t&ding to make up for t&e shortfall is u&l&y. There is.an=accumuiated backlog of school facility projects on fife with the State AllocatimMoard in the amount of $4.0 - 5.0 billion do&us. If Proposition 170 passes the current State funding program is repealed eff’ecti~~ 1996.
Therefore, WC request on behalf of the District that the environmental effect of such student generation on the District’s facilities be properly addrestied l m the context of an EIR, which EIR would further include provisions for. full mitigation of those school facilities impacts upon the District, and .that such provisions be expressly made a condition of the approval of the Project. In this regard the District requests the Project be continued to allow execution of such a mitigation agreement, or alternatively that it be denied. It should be noted that Govenunent Code Section 65589,5, which generally provides that local agencies
CCT 26 ‘33 15,:3G, 2&‘tl ,;A. 'C'.L:Ji-; --A
,
Cky Council - City of Carhbad Villas at Camin Real Project Impacts
October 26, 1993 Page 3
shall not disapprove a housing development project for low- and moderate- income households absent specified ftiings, also specifically states &at not&g in that section is to be construed to relieve a local agency from making a required finding that changes or alkrarions to such development project .have been incorporated. to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects identified in a completed EIR, or otherwise reIieve tbc local agency from complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Denying approval of the Project absent an executed mitigation agreement with the District for mitigation of the Project’s impacts on the District’s K-12 school facilities would therefore be appropriate under Government Code Section 65589.5.
Other mitigation programs which developers within the Project and the Disaict may __ - agree to include the inclusion of the Project in a coxnmti~ facUi~district, asd&%ssed below. 1 : -c < 7 .“. L : 7. ., : -. ! . .< -e. i .;.....; 5 *-_ ‘-,,s
** .I;,, -*ai.:.< $ -5 5 i y- 1.
On January 1,1$93:‘$B f287 be&c effictive~ $~“I287 m&e sive&%z4nge~ .to’the school facilities fees legkktion which k found in Government Code Section 53080 msca, and 65995 a. $4. (“SchoolF~ilities LRgWion”). Oncsf tho,m~,&nifY$cqt4Qarigcs ia the addition of Government Code Section 65995.Lwhich increased school fees fkom $L65. per square foot to $2.65 per square foot for unified-school districts,! 7 In addition, there has been considerable debate,bctwecm school disuict$-cities ~bu~WerWregti~whethe!%r not SB 1287 Ovbttmled,t& hokhn~ in t& k&a; ~‘W~~~~&is~o~~~~~h star& i for the proposition &at T.ci@ or cou.n@ is ILol limit4 t0 ‘huiki!$*~*l @iS$&EB ‘. - ” 1 ] - .-z* -.e i- . .s considering adequate mitigatio$ for legislative projet& such -a&j@kk p& or zone .I changes. Legislative Counsel Opinion No, 30455 dated December 4,1992,conciuded that those decisions were not overruled by SB 1287, and that cities and counties still have the authority to co.Ukr the adequacy of school facilities when adopting a legislative approval such as this Pro&m. A copy of the Opinion is enclosed. Additionally, SB 1287 -states that its provisions would have “prospective application only,” and would not affect any actions taken
a If ACA 6, which is proposed for the November 1993 statewide ballot and which would lower the voting rcquiremcnt for local Generai Obligation Bond ekctions to a simple majority, fails, the additional $1.00 residential fee authorized by SB 1287 would be rcptakd.
. ,jfzT 2s "33 ;ij: 31 savr -13, ml. z,;,:J =i c/,-J .i ..,
bWE, ARNZ=N, ml, WILES 6r thimom
City Council - City of Carlsbad Villas at Camino Real Project Impacts October 26, 1993 Page 4
by a local agency prior to its effective date (i.e. January 1, 1993). The City’s growth management ekment, discussed below, which requires adequate school facilities in accordance with projected enrollment data supplied by schools as a condition of development approvals was adopted by the City Council on July t, 1986. Therefore., the City’s own requirement for adequate school facilities consistent with its previously adopted growth managemknt element remains unaffected by SB 1287.
Subswent to Janllar~ 1, 1993, the effective date of SR;. 1287, the Supreme Court rendered its d&ion in a v. . Sm -(F&nary 11, 1993) 4 Cal.4t.h 911, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 226 C”.Gruae . One of the holdings in the &QG decision L . that a city or county has the authority to con&&r new-developtuent ottthe use. of Meiio- - ’ Roos Community Facilities Districts- (“CFDs”~ to mitigate schti irk&&. ti T&e m decision is significant in that it acknowtedgcs the char@ madeI$*@ 1287, re@r&ng the --‘_ continued ability of cities and count&s to use CFDi for m&ig@&of~ ,#&@~@@acta. . . : The ability of the City to con&ion kw dev&&cm’up&rke& of&%& to mitigate school impacts is found&Sections 65995# and65%&(~-S&tiolPb5~5(a) provides that: .., I. .T ; ._ .>Zi ‘-..I;2. L&.,& 7
Except for a fee, charge, dedication or othkr req@rement auth@ed-under Section 53080 , , ., no feet charge, @iicatioxi pr o&r $z@sment SW be levied by-the legi$btive body &a&c&agency agaia# a dmclwnt project. . . whethcs by administrativeor lcgislat&aa&on~fu&&ootWruc~ or- : rsopJatfon-& s&&.f@&s; = _ , 1 _ : _. -t Ctll ..=G’-T . ‘1 : Y’S ,; :i.i. .-. _ ,-. So _ i.--.Ga ;,
Section 65995(f) by providing: SpCCiflCdl~ CXCmpts CFDS fkOlll the limitaT++ .-.../,
, -.-- ;
..* fottHKSed&k iif .----.
Nothbg in this section shall be inter&& ~~~-&~or&bibht&~use df .- . . -..-- b__ (CFDS) to fInan& the Gkrktion or reconstrWion of- schodl facilities. .
This provision makes CFDs a feasible method of school fencing .in &at they have been specifically exempted from any dollar limhation for school mitigation. SB 1287 did not alter the authority the. City has to require school mitigation through CFDs.
. -.
BOWIE, AmasON, KiDI, WILES &~GuNNoNE
City Council - City of Carisbad Villas at Camino ReaL Project Impacts October 26, 1993 Page 5
Section 65996 also lends further support to this proposition and provides that CFDS
are One of the Specific methods of mitigating enviro~eIltaL effects rd&g to t& a&qmcy of
school facilities when the City is considering the approval of or the establishment of conditions on a development. SB 1287 did not change the ability of the City to use CFDs as a means of mitigation under Section 65996, and CFDs are specifically exempt from the- statutory dollar limits of Section 65995. .
The Supreme Court’s deci&n in &JR$ is consistent with this pssiti&i:.--‘@ & ,a voted special tax on new development for school facilities, “Measure C”, was. challenged. Measure C had been approved by the voters within the Chino Unified Sch6oi District prior to , the 1986 legisiation which aurhorized residential school fees originally at $1.50 per square . foot (“School Facilith Legissiation*~,Tht Supreme Court distkgukhed special taxes lcvied~ by a CFD from the special taxes of Measure C. One of the Supreme Cowc’s key argunicn@f used to support its decisidn w5 th@ Measure C special taxes were inchrckd with&he sci& of the iimitations on “fees, char=, dedica or-other requirements” found in Section 65995 and that CFD special taxes were specifically exciuded from the fi@@ous of Section 6599% Gaqze, pg. 2027. Accordingly, the Supreme Court helb‘-tl@ the l@htion~ of Government Code Section 65995 applied to Measure C-and therefora, Meaaura 0wae invalid because the school district was also levying Fe ma&num schooLfee ahowed by-Se&ikrn~--y-l 65995. It shouid also be opted that the supreme Court’s. de&on was rond+redwh~~~“~” acknowledging the recent enactment-of SB 1287. - --* -’ ~. 5 - .-
The holding in m is asignificant development with respect to confkru&&he -; city’s ability to condition new-devclopm&t thtlR]gh the we’of CF$k’:&.Suprcsnr Court-
denied review .of the &fjx, -m ai&&&& &cisior& .$.ud thkj is th&kstt&~& the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of scho&facilitics fees a3 authu&@d= tirider .-*- .’ ’ -*’ I Government Code Section 53080 and 65995. Both before and after the effective-date‘ of SB 1287, the City has had the authority to condition new development upon the use of CFDs to mitigate scho& impacti. The Supreme Court’s decision in m lends additional support to such authority.
The City’s General Plan Public Facilities Element as w&C as the City’s Growth Management Element contain provisions which require availability of schools‘ prior to
t::t:T & “33 16: 33 a&;-> 7:~. ~5:.-;:;
Bowm, ARNESON, Km, WILES 6r GUMONE
City Council - City of Carlsbad Villas at Camino Real Project Impacts October 26, 1993 Page 6
kgislative approvals, including specific plans and zone changes. For example, the LFMP for Zone 21 (at page 107) requires as a “special mitigation condition” that all development within Zone 21 (which would include the Project) conform with the District’s stated performar~ standards, which requires school capacities to meet projected enrollment requirements within each zone, as determined by each school district, prior to projected occupancy: Absent a mitigation agreement the District’s facilities cannot meet the projected enrollment requirements for Zone 21 when development approvals result in the generation of additional students.
Ic should be noud that Govcrmnmt Code Section 65300.5, requires a frading of . consisuncy between a specific plan (such as rhe Zone U..LP&lP)@ci?.k-Ci&y.‘s-&,ral Plan . prior to approval of that specific plan; It should &fhcr be ngti.Qat Gmmnmt Code Section 65589.3 spccificaiIy provides that nothing in that smion-M be tw .s n prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other axabtions otberw~~~ by law which are esser$ial CO provide necess~ pub&~ services -&I& facilitieU to. < prOpoy6 .ptiject, . -.., regardless of whether such project is for the deve~opmc~ 9f!?:y; afid mod+~~~.~~omc - housing. In order to fully mitigate fhe impacts from the Project the Disk&t requ@ts that the .,. ^- “-- ; p City require that developers of properry within the Pro@ enter +a nuug~tio~~ agreement acceptable to the District which fUly mitiga@ ,@e impacts. fo bc,ias;urred by the Disaicr as set forth above. -.- ,. . _ .-.-a ..-. .c -- 1 -w * _ . i .,, -I
We would be .pieascd to provide ye? with any ad~i~~~~rqzati$‘$&ti~~~$re. _: ., ., & s ..-.. ~. -
BGWIB, ARNBSON, KAU, WILES & GIANNW%-J
= .a
&2&-$&p&
,.- ‘_ . . . Ale&ii& &xvie
cc: John Blair
-- ‘S3 IF:31 EFK!j . Bom,‘xiTc~s*N, ~t, 24. :35: *a:-!
Wms di GUNONE . .
.
~onar~~lr 2L.9 Ss3z.1
S8Crtacntu, Cecmhcr: 4,
Wlllir L. Bmuri, -32.
s3pitaS . -.
'* d. bear Mr, Brcwl t
..- . + I; 'J .,* .,- i-;dt&brlu .t-(t 4. -I
f .-..a: -. --s.i4 .-. * : .' .?
". i. .I e ,A-*. ..‘r.' .~. _ - 2; 1. *.; ._ -,E-. 1-,3
! , oars Cbaptr~ z364 of t!le &.&w&Rf. iga j&&&i& 8’ city, c3untyb ut city and cuuatf tro$a- cenrwa~i~~~‘tk~ aclrqiracy BP. 8CWOl fadbUa3s ta the cuuz$e at a&$tizq ox i2l~bamatt~y a gener8J P-b zU&zy w&aanca, ~zruthar. laJ;tialbt;Lv8 I* UfmL cu policy? .I I._ -,-.; . .-9 q...t.‘i-.a A “7 ---
, 1 * ‘%a - .-. . ‘ ../ * . . _~ .- . . .d 4, 1 * 9mQfJ NO= 4 .
Cb8ptar USi.+ e$ tha Starutra. at 3942 doas, nor p+ehiRi+ a city, count I O~--~~huxaty~~~& &iif&&$E~‘tia sdrquaty of scheof, foci r ’ kba garraral phnr in the c~3~tllr of acqrt*9 a.= h@.aq88g&qpm+
pdiCy* zoniq cmwlanca b 9 a* dtb8r &,48isL@*~ .1 and uaa, T LZ,., ILi * =i i ;Ya_L2*: $ .,
~w9~~ fla* .:. -. _ . _ __, ..q ^ .
B@*Oge ASS&t* tbs effect c’iihapteg 1334 CC thr statMar af lS92* b ye cmsfdat the rxistby law -ragardLnq the relathnshfp 08Ween t!to devrlopunt 0f t8a3 prygerty aad schcoL f~cFufLos Cunat2xct~3n.
! ibis measure is the chapcared :2a7 of ti’.n, 199b92 Zagulsr Sassfan, vcrs!on ci sfanaza ait:. F:o.
* E C -:I~-~ r= ‘-~,:3: JJ car;; ;iJ. 35;.tr~LJ ‘- P .2 _I . w-
~onara~~e Willie t. Bmm, Jr. - p, 2 - 430455 ,
1. -+~“a t-L CVl
Ptfar to auaU8ry 1, a967 , devrLapmeirt project3 were pokantialI~ SybfUcl: W scba& gacilftits Caes 01: aW2r raquiremmtS FWOSti by cftier al& cc)u?UCes srfthaz pursua$~t fa Chapter 4,t (C~XUWlCiAg Witit Sfctian 6$970) of biVi$iOn 1 dL Title 7 of ths C6verrarr~nt Coda (bexraftctT V!haptu: 4.79 OX pursuant ta QafiLtr poUC& power g8naraUy (sea candt_d m & Y. m !&i&l U& Sati u, 39 Cal. 3d 876) e t4here schoos ove2!c~wduzg i3 dmonstfotad to exist, cauptw 4 4 7 qonerakky $Mbtifts a Cie 0% Qounty Lr0x apptauing a rorldantfal. &.evalo~=~nt ~2188 it Pkst raquirw, acapt a8 rpaeAfi@d, the land be dedfeatrd # 3%~~b8 paid, it both, tot cL&rrsa~oipr and relatad faeflitihs, azecrph as rpwif$sd (Sacs, 63973 .im& 65974) , *
App~?:sVd, of 8 rrosidanttol dev~lopmz% inoluda&, far thi% pu the approval of an a*t?ancr retanbg pmparty ta a rr8idurt ~a, T al USB, tSe grantfnq af a discrat;fonrry omit fuE rrrfd8!ttfal use-, at tkc apprwal ef a tantative E eubdfv sfarr nap for reaidsntlal purp~ser (see SW. 65973) .
* ’ a A0 08 antlary 2, A.987, bwwar, ttm XbV qovsrn~ #c&Ok iacilitier fm8 8ad ot5rl: mqufranaats war 8aas&d by cUpf~+&? 9 of tba 8tatUtu Of 2386. mdu that ahaptub t&a Le&t4tlare added Se&ion 630$& gzaathg ta w&al d&i&M %&ti. eiqrrra .a _
autbotit I ta 14~ daiur%oprx faer and.~thw requtrm&ata am fia - rsaJanab 4 metll0Q of i1xtaatr,g the eacptiion alid coau~oa of: ~eh~~~ iacf2ltiea rma2tbg itesrmw cruonwdc dma2o~t.wfthta. the district" {sub& (4jt Saa. 7, C&, 067, Mat=, :906x. .- ‘j . a
‘Pitirt bUtkU:it~ $8 rxprsrlaly pladi %UjkUt ~~ t&hVUi 'i tUk ' the restristiW2* set rtOrttJ An chaptu 4.9 @timi* b “with: sution.. 65995) sf ofvfsslan 2 of vtt24 7 (lw3aArrot! w2abgt8,r 4rS") pus. (1)) md. ta) ) sau,.. 53080) ,? I zm,tdrrt, alron + tbw te8tb3bme~ts . . . ,Sootion 668983 which-titih?& t&taml sznoti & I- 02 tbr’daviitepsrr~~ioms.. and other nqU$r~tS tu fund tbcon8tntctfG8l 0Lt Xf;Qan$tZBctf~: of sr&ool frtU~t~~rr;tkat nayiba 2svM bg se&n@. dl+t&&ts undo-
sectidn ~aQl& by; a cftr ott comty.unbsr? +apt+r 4J,“?abr: both, tra.. . $2.50 per squbra fuot 6L a*ressaWe apuc~, iz&T:ltr,caar of -- rasidentfal d@veicpraant,. and SOAS pa square feat at c)rsmcable. covered and enclosed awe, in the case of coammrcia2 or' industrial dwm&.opmrjt W&d, (h), SW. 63?9Q, ?‘P,est dallar liarits era increasd E l riedf tally accotdirrg re i ‘desFgraksd 8dfum8ent for inflat an (pan. (t), subde (b), Sacb 63995)6
L All section reference8 are to the Govamwnt Code, unless athe,YtJise fr,dfcacad.
D E C .~‘_’ i ’ _-- li: 3~ rrr i. -1~. j_l,;,3;j
-
&aaozabia ~LllAA t. BWUn, 3:. - p, 3 - #306S3
dectfcfi 64995 also COR~Z~~~S t-da pravf~~on~~ 8xpttit88ir.g tht4 mfislaturs% btmt to rodid any Loca!. Ze as ex@feitfY autai28d undar: tEe sate lava d 4
fslatian, ~XCS~C scucrrrd abave that would conditfan tht apprwal of developmat 'according t/the impact upon =hml cacilltirm, 3%rsf, mbdfvfsfon (a) ai! section 65995 ProhibLts the. lrcrWativ8 body of my lacal agancy, includinq tk8 w=‘rmfnq board aL a a~boal d&strict (u+m ldlrc B%sx~ -tiv, =aWgd,, 206 Cal. AD*, 34 s 224;:
f=m lWY%W Wf g44 or 8tSur requl;troraant agafnrt a drval.gparnt
pro fat 3 BT%. CO fund me c6nstructioa or rrctxu3truckfon PE 8c&Q& lrtiar *Wept as authorfzrd undrr Secgfgjn MO80 a* maptag 4.7
(sub& (a), Seaa 6999s). *
seaa& subbivfghn dsc+ares the fn*:ant ,Qf tha f d&) 'of S4et~ca as99 aqaressly '
lo f %,shtfOtt fiag rlature ta PZfaaspt Local *fiat We’d r*qu&ra fr48 or oshar aanafdemtfon t8 br pa 4 a8 a conditian of t;hr. rpprcwal of dav.elcrpraurt‘., Zn thfr regardI altbow~ slCt?on Ub995 dare net apreff.L.cally wccltia a laMa neamw3 that auaaorizos the &&jJ& af a dwrleprrrcure on the baAa 02 the adequacy of scbol Paotilktfm, wa t&i ZQjeCt'
-$I¶8 r-trfCttQn Placed by uur L+qJra&t:uro ugaa z&j& 1 n% that
that would Z8&=- that k&4- ~iapaat at a Q~ui~opnWQ 3
hlu;tfQ& . Ice on- 1 se&oo~ facilities br ortUgaa4 would hrr ~oty#gti 'tu h to a 1~0rrL standard Clkah a dntel~t, mfeck lir dini &hw~cs of taut raftfqauOnl A etafat !a ?z% + ~+ua2fx w; ‘. *
ma&,coaa*ru84 8a am-ta : be qiyrn 'a r--M&la ~rrult-con~istea* vitLt?g~*~rqgrlatfvr .‘:* purpQ*rt in-lQ&t ad-t&c cQate%* oi t&8 legtibtfaa 8s &ta -- -- apparerrt 0bjtfatWe (m v. gj&&.u. m,,;. Z&-S& 3& “I ig.
73& 732-7331 me m &
wju Bd,, 1%.Cal. va siausza:m hi-r. i L , F;y; _-
Zn addfttuza to- t2tr a10koaa~~&kti~ co& tfGi8 upOn. = _ -.A._
devafeptocrr0 that may bt utabUah8d puzsuaat: to S-tfon b3080 grfwrally p.afmasrrs th& aamaey:-tb approvcrl 02 a devolagourrt=~ro~e~~.~~a-t= potentAa& burden u oil publie a*rvicrs impact COirc8288? t L rut&Jrfty raa
state Zaw prtwUan0 ta the. Calffam 1 be axr?gcfrti und8ra sxtstia~. a EawkonrJlntaf’ Qrtalitjy. XCt; as. e*t fog tn PiVfafon if (CammrRc~nq wttn leowJn 2390) of+lr PUblLd Reoourtc** Cpdo (hw8uftrr "aQA'~J see maa. 2lQ.CQt .ufld 22902*a, p.w.c*t m u, a3 Ca2. mh V@. c&&g s,: , irpp~ 34 s&h 52%) and the Subdivision Map. AC< (Div. 2 i
(~~~~encinq wMa sea. 684aalr r&k9 7), HQWYBP,, Saatfon 65996, ' '
~hkh also is aonrtainad in Chapter 4.9, fbanfifiL3 Sacion ma0 and &her spOdfic statutory prav&sj.onr at the exc2~stvr mathOds a. of dtfqatfnq cnvfrannrnrrl sffeces umter CEQA with raqard fs condfticniny ‘the agpzwal 02 a devel~pwx prufrct on the adequacy i 0f SU~ICO~ faciSLttr4, and pr0i7tbits Any publla aqency from drnyinq
- -- , n E c‘ --“,,-zi -3; iG:z< z;vC -* -c, -2. =>-. ;vz3-:
* h'0norabla willhi L. BPOWI, Jr. - p. 4 - $30455
approval or d dev*hapaent psjact an the hads ef the adequacy og school, facfi1fi.M PUXsuant ta CZQA or the Subdivlaicn b?ap Att,
%%a awrt fa Mim bdgsn Ftt analyrh by dlstfngutirhinq an 8ppkkath! fQZ a uduvs14$tuenE pr~jrcr,~* to, whiti Samion 6~994 expresrty rppllLsa I f2oar 8 r+quarb fat a zoning axrendmmt , ma-. COUY% hrfd t&t: a $weww rrq~~~r tu M application fotr t&s approval. of d d~vU6pbe~ p,ro aut la an adjudtcativa (Lot, gaming an &ct: that gfaWliEl8 tb appZ cation ot an existing rJlr to a 1 - rrpecifio l et ot l iutiag iafiw (m, dupta, ppi r3t7-um IO* .*J&&& V* &g&-g em. .-US Ca%.,Aop. 34 934, 026) e fn ‘contrau~, tar cew ChartctsElzeb 4 q ] p~dpoabd ta¶lbg evemiaaM’ rsb ‘drur~ te 8 -
~aa8tlubti~~ og 8 -at as a hqArlat&vo aat, vhi CI fffttalWS..thU gaaarthuy 4ggTiCabla rule or”~p82ley (m, rupmj- pa ;228t tanbf. VI m &,m, ma$m,a -DC. iWj’,
Wauaa* to that diatincsfort, tb Hll’a.Oouze- cha~~ctsttiz8d 34scrc;tcrft 6?1994 48.8 mut&ctla~ upacrnfy t&e adjudico*iV~ Nth~~&ty o$ .t!%afz aqancyo ‘Eb aaurk $ihrrrcd t.c~ “broaden” +b8 atUning UP doctten 63996 TV inu&ubo any rastrtctfms upon 8 gubUa awncpr authority QVW~ proposed zarrLngr~ anadaat8. OF over otimr aat+rrr fnvulving tkr ageaay 9s rxrr&w : di’its - LsqfslatlYu pQ%m= (l&& suprafi I$* %&8) * .-_ .
al. deeualng t13 .ev~?wrn ehA-.~~y.-cetret_tL’.a .man on’- ’ the basi8 Ot .SlOt&oll 6SO96, the &&gg c&W did ?kat&Mjd th8 - appAiCa&ffiw t~-.thu city ca~~~fVu actian of atidSvl’S#tx (e) of= sactfun 60993fi Or of any ottw aspwe ot .ttm prruq3tion dwtrinh ThUS, the K&a dmirian fafhd fi8 addzmr a%prarrbAy WtaWmr: ~ubdivirrio,ct (e) St Saetfcsa, 66995, rather .than S&t&on- 669*6r w&d be canstrwd CO prrap,t tha.city coun&,~ 'in the'swarsisr of im- ragislatfve PGWW& grau duliyfng & rezoning appllcatfon an the basis bL school Esclti+~r, imprcr. 1- L . . . .-...-.A .- . f AS a legfslative act, a ‘zcnfilpi~e~Sal& is-‘atfQrdd ,aorQ ’
k deferenca ::;;I ap&iC agywy~ 1 8djUdfCdvg ~~~~~~oZZJ (b%
::~f5;dpitf, 522) 6 CQ- .aa,,ant rr ‘.* $&v. ~GcolltGU? 28 .
_ D Ei 1:‘3’ tC ‘33 ii:37 s&f -:A3 3y:1ef31d
**-~0tbb18 wtZlle. t. Qmvn, a. - p, 5 d fi30453
$~squrnt judictaf decisiona hsva elabarat8d, hewever, uaPn the SCQ~~ of Slitfans 6999s and 68s96 in that ryaf; ~S_cg#&&zunianWterkm.aiab,.v. aiiusaLam,
226 Cal. A)#. 36 1-612 (hUSaftU “w?), i.WO~v4d t&8 r’lfu$hf df a county ta corddaz ti ocftoo~ fanilltiea -at% af a prapesd Zoning change. The caurt decrlatod t!zat w&division (a) of ihctfon 65996 prempts ow mrcqutiarPents for rrchaa& fimmcs that a heaL agency wiJ2 f&ppGSQ en s m m4eaq' (elitphaais in 0tFgfnal). ,Tlm COUEt sxplainti thbt, becatue thu loaal leqfsk~tive de&den ;Cn I&& did not l~ol~e r~quirwue~~~k~~~ imposed an a davakopnrrmnt PFQ$~&, but, father, the 1
anautaent oi *1amHasu ei+ (Btn$hmia in ozigb28 1 II kh8t uecjLdod was not prumt8d by 84ction 8!!s9S ar any nthu proviybn of chaptat 4.9 0-e MurrieChww SChaot mL.v* mJ&x. ' &,R%vQ&&, 228 CaL A p+ Bared upon tlt8t diSth& f 34 l-212, 1230; hsroaitu c4~*)4 =I, thr cnwt concfudsd that! th c
was nut re8trfC%d by atat 2AW frOZ C8~~~Ch'b%~ UcfiQO& fad&&t -I 43 impact with respect ta its dadsfan ta QSULE or deny thr propased zoning change (tb pp-~ 2626~Idaf)e
A riartlW 4UUfysis waaypLnya4 fn &#rfmQ, aupra, rn‘ that caaq th 0-q sppruved m amaMamat to tU. gunura& pl&-+c" _ TY& ad&tiaaaL UWrla t Iicy, wiurrJut- Caw48P c to QCCW. 88 3 tuttar a* tan& USI;: , purma4At fd .tw r~in6Aea$ CZQA,. t.m 88hacr;L ZaoflLtAsr fprpact: of t&at gaa8nL 3m a it.
P p* %2M-i2U)4 cm\0 cm &8cribul a P
(Id; i,l ---.; ganu2a plan .as a- %ade -..; and uaa ahr*u gwm¶Fng #w bsrmtiern of ftauga- Land uti4ft the- vocal jurisbictfQ% ‘I aAd tag24 that ta& aswld?wnt 8fi a is a b@alativ* act that dwa- neti inwlve the I~d4wbpta9rrt pdrak~ far. pvxpses of.S6ctfo~
$230~123%) b Furthe, tba ptrrmrpffon ia oubdidrian 659g5 wa8 held by t&s ca?4Ch t8 r&ah ody to..tb schoo& tucfUtta8 witb dov&apzpnt fees, 1% -Car tneluds in a genar*A~~ plaw~nt :.;-A. - I startdaH8 to mfttqiite&ha 1 QA a4equaq _~S4s~~e~3z;‘- .t-:- ..;G 1 .;m_4y. t-2 L
mr caurt.. c*Aclu$cd, consrqumtiy, that nrimu - -“.-.-. ,
3ubdividon (a) ei S48tfnn 611999 nor 84CtioA 6!5996
ca\tnty, when cunsfdszinq a qenerr2 plan amurdmant se-p+ ,A t R at my- &yersely affrc3S th4 ‘rr%AbEin GOKditLOn d inad*+14*&s- SCM81 faciLities fn ~1 SC~UQ~ dfstr Ctr I! from %m~fdrrfng an&providinq feasible Iand '3~ and develagmnt dttqadng oab~ur8~~~ AY rsquirad by CZQAb The tautk suqqrstad t&at thess luWMutts caQld ii?Ckd& for tBx~pL~4 the reduetk of rerlU~ntis1 dmattiss or‘ the---
~antrolled phasifig al 2aridendaf dSv83opmQnt V&id the :,t@ndunc* areis of the schcrol, UfattFct havirig iT+w=e sd‘~=l
cflftfes (&E&&a, supta, pa 1234).
gonerabLe Willh t. mm,’ jr. - 8. 6 - #364SS
T&@ Z@s+rhtfa~~ rdablishrd in Chaptat 4,s have barn construed by -a cm, according&y, te hPply ta th8 &al f~poaftfon of c~ndithms ,en t!za appeal. of hilvidurr~ devshgnent projects, bu* fiat tu tha 1ocsL adoption ar azw&urc 02 qenezal. hnd OJQ poflci-.
2‘3 -==i28, Sect&a 65995 prrc&UdU’hZ8& AqWlCfu, fncludhg oikbs ab cauatfu, irua ad8pUrrg a* l@Slatfve rCICpiW3bnC ‘=ce$t to t&a l xtent autbarfzrd by Seutfan 53080 and Chapter 4.7, that imgoaas 1888 a5 a eendition to approval af a dwalopwa: prmj l ct in ada ta rrduca t2m praf &CWS negative impact on s&o01 faoil&tLm. (arr m, rupra, pa 1234, Ln; 16) 0 Sectfon 6S994, b our vinw, r-M tht, An WA e3xamiaq ol! local Adjubjc8tivm auknaxify ta.r8qafrrr u&UT c2iQ& that the school frcUttiafi iarpmt aC a davrlopmuh pwfaa b6 mlttqatad, onry thr rtatumry rrinrdiu tdmztiifrrb fn t&a%* 8wUon my be ut;ilfzacl, with ttm rrmalt that a 2‘3casB govrmmatal blqUttCy-=~ net oxuploy CEQA to rrqufre individual deuels~sn~ prrrjec$a to otherwisa rPltfgak8 ilchaol Eacflitfu a,3 ct candttfda a: receiving * approval. ' . lMQ@~UX* pu-t ta the 8utiaosity dl8~d'abovr, on, concluda tbrb ch8pta 469 bms aor prohfbi+a-Citfid m, o* city and CM* Crc~r%@nrfduinq th 8dceFIIIcy aP n&~& taciliw in th cwr8u ef rdcgM2tg or bpi4aaathg 24 fr3ativa policy fn thr fdm& for mcaB$ia, .ec a g$w2a 4
land us+ ?p&an er mafng- ordinance. . _. - 1 . _ .‘A5 -.r*i_ ^_.
We nmce itus &&a~~ &.&&tit t8 whQ3&kh;il T U, fn chaptar 4 08 made by C8apta.v 2334 of ttw Stat&+ 02, U?Z. tr u altar t!m l Xi8tfnq. 1W bribed rbevqa .j. - : _~ :.‘1,
'brwtrir 11384 of '&a J&utaaq or: '?$uz anims Secefona 65995 A?& 6SS)@ir Uid Add8 ad"~u$&d&& ~ri'au&f~;~'-‘with ‘tha etiect that ibbltfona2 1~8 ia @tad& ko ttmrr ir&fent, eftactivt Jm=;tty f, L#bfp bus At &mmbAy coaatit%t%cnal Amm&e!at N@e 6 02 the 4992093 Reqular %98iott falli tb rtorive’ the apprwat, Of a atnjorfty of the volsra voting on that m&Wtat seotiona 65993 md 65996 wi2Z rrvut to ths vrdonr OL thOSi secfims Frt eff8Ct UrtdrY mcfatfng law as descrfbed above. ThLJ
analysi.2 vial ad&Us tha 'changes made by Chaptrrr 1334 oi ths . .
44 c- 8.M ,:,cT -’ _ -, - : ;, ?, 1<:j,
.
Honorablu Willia L. amm, 32. - p. 7 - fGc45S
Statutta cf ,I933 to Soctfona 45995 and 65996 t%if ~Fll take aftect cm January L 2993’. * *
Ws inltfalLy ~~~18id8l: tk0 pruvtsions al CZIaptor 1354 cd tte StawtQs o? 2992 that rwfsr Station 65995.
cnapt452 1394 UP Qm'StatuCa8 of L.991 k%Wfaes aubdfvisL0n (a) of Section 6NS3 to road as fellawst
"6SSSS. (a) Eweapt f a3 a far, cha2y4, dedi.cat~aa, cr other r~&~~fm% autheafzed.unUer
Sootian S3080, or pursuant to chaptaz 4.7
(comnctnq with aautim uawo), no fed, ctu- dedL,cat~Wh of ,otber hqufrrnuaat ahull be lev 9 e, ad by the legfslativr body cf n local agmay aqahst a aa defined in Sytlon 53080,
at -a a!iaInR, &truatton of U&801 facflftiaa,
ia undarlfrre. ) + + +m’ (Neu--vordf* aJcueate8 .i ; , ..i --. .I ; -: -Ir;
* .a s : . .._kC.---
a=, wbfiruk &am& pMvLio8al of o+tticrxr d$$@S ’ prohtwt oftfw, ccunti8a; or*othr~ loa&& 8~uaulPr8a ~&vying- any foe or ON Suf$A&a8u8tt rxurrpt. ta tb- 4xbd bat?m?zized by Gection 53686 aft& C&apt= 4.7, aa a cetrdltteaa to &-al at a davoloymcrrt meet ia erdrt: to-. tuna thr amatxwtfaa or= .
mmonat~&f~~ of so&m& iac~lit~ra, -c&a ot 1991 vi&r rwirr t& aucth P tw -138+-of .tiuh statutr~ ._
applits to th8 14 1%
ta~apw w-f&at tJ$s ~~Hdbftfon
adafn1stzati.v~ 8~ a# - ‘62 ha8 0~: okhut ztaqu&rsorm$4 Whouraq k2y
latfva actLe.8 .-.A.-.4 '1.
, 6s Cal, App. 36
723, ?28*?W. *.a
' Chagte? 13J4 c? the Statuttm d 1992 alsa edda Bacticrn i 65994.1, whick Will be dk3cussed il? Analysis W. 2 g ‘I . .
u E c;,:,-- t; ‘2-5 :e: 2: 2&;, ZL -:A, yzL<~~lA _ _- __ _- - --
'ri.ocorsbia Willie t. BZ%Wn, Sr, - p. 8 - #304SS
Sured upoa that distinction, thr appawal 0: a devela+ent p%QjWt, f3clucUnq th8 isauanccr Cd hn), pamit, tim granc$ng of 80nFng val=iancas and conditional “us4 pamnits, and the apgrevul of tmtitlve subdfvfzion mpa is conriderrd WI achnL~istxat~V0 act (m, supra, p. 263St u v. Qunty a ~n*kww, suprat p. 93b)e By centzast , the approval of a zoning a~anbrn~ 02 the anrmcbmnt of a gemral @at? is net b&tad in SCO~U te a cwacrif fa attaarpt te develop, and ia cha+lrcrkarized, thez8fbm, as a LaqisLutive act t-, supxa, p. lU2?11 ae* Mr+-*& supra, pp* i230-t231).
muS+ S*etCon 69993, 88 ~~~fseb by chapt4z ;354 0f th4 Statutes Qf 19% will rxpruuly prohibjt a city county, city and COuty, ar’eth? bea& aqUrcj fia e&.&u 4mtadah&ng &89ia1&th3 standards, 96 aPPlYiJl’3 My ~6@&at~Yo%y 88Eablfikrd Sbt!dard, CIQ- as to rsquir;sp as. a condition of t&a ap$zwal 8% any drva;lopxe
project, t&at u tar be paid or et&&z rsqulra~uat be mrt tar fh ~~~848 af Ptifr,g sdzeol facifiitiea cfmtactfon of reconsEr~tfL0~~ cthaz than +m Levfad pursuant to Ssctticn 5308rj 0~ chapter 4*7* )
As-dfrcusred above, ' 'exstcfAe ot leqf8latfYa rutharity
atz*ady %fl&s tb 4 l 0bOd f~ititba- _ f8e or ot&ar Z~lrSMnt aqaiaat a d8v8lapamab 65995, fa itc, ourrunt-ca, $uut8 thu %&&a loaal apnc)t f?z8m utrfdi8h&f~ an nqufrema& pmj4ct aosrpiy with CL 8chaul Pat Al it;tea Pm or- othrr aan purPumt ta-s8cti8a 13080 orxaa$t~~ 4%7;i'- scirgolt-‘tad&f
~8qi~latfvo,~uUlorfty.
i.
tmnorabla WilLi t. Brown, 3:. - 9- 9 - #304SS
Wa turn next ta the pravfsians OC Ctraptsr 1354 of the Statutes at 1992 that alsend Section 65996. gectbm 65996, aa revtsad by Chaptet 1354 0L the 8tatutar ot 1093, reads a8 foll0ws:
"-&I+ u Chapter 23 (coraasanaing with Snafus 17700) af Part 50 oi tsa EducaeAan Cada6 _ :,
"* u Chaptar 25 (CBancbg tiitla S~Ctfon 17785) 0P Faxt 10 af th8 Educatfan Cada. l
_ 1.
1:. > .L I-i .c r -3:
WWF J& Articla 2.3'( coahnc?ng wig s6ce+ - .- -1L 39327) af apt8S 3 of PaWa of th~Mueat~an Coda * . . : y,? -z,- . '
.- .;?.:- ..-"?r: /. .w . . I -.. . . -* -- -LA -:
~*zpL.~dor 2.3 (cu8fa8ting wi&.tmLon ; i--: , 33321) ef QluirUn t bf. Tl@e 5. a*! t!ae courtha*~~T- _ L'fL:7 =t- _ "_ .* CO&B. I* y .L. -_. 1. :: .-..i- -,;
u El L.. .7-’ -1 -2; - ( _ - z- _ _d _- -3: ‘1 =kcr -A, I=;*. TL-#’ + -_I. -_*- = q- ,- ,- .- - - VW
Soncra23le wFu.ia L. Brm, Zr. - 9A 10 - 430453
we bwia with tm ffzat aubrtanifve red& made to. Section 65996 by -ptu: US4 or: th Sta*titas of 1992, Cd the rggect that tka limttatfon8 roC: gorth iL1 that amtt8n a rassly apply ta leeal nftfgatfan %y adfnbtratfv8 a* laglslat ya Y ac=~ionJ~ 8f sehaof FaciUtias fxpacr pumxane t3 cgQA*
Sa-fm 31083 bf thq Fubf~c Rarauruee &da, a pmisioa of czf2Al e>rpre*W autharfzrr 421 pubLL0 ag8auim-tu 8ept 100rr, 'Seqialativta~~*&8UZaa fort&r. waluatJon og.p~.r&8dm& .&u i
preparation of @3lMxoanentrL Aspact xepwa andsaag8~ve 'i dauluatl~l $=maat ta. cZQA, C~clY$ tbh LZle rwA&ios- ta sootfon 65998 wi22 0proLfy that we r~&uua¶# m m j#r&-r t&at 8eetiM: apply net only ta: 3auA ad;rpfaistraW ati trkut: wade: CZQA to roat;CEa tsMt a dwelet;wc+rrt p =I uct &*$a- im. hpact on scir-~ fratUt%m, hut: aZae ta ni* g&l812 rrqrrtzmnts under =QA -* nay be lzpomd amdaz ZocaL. Zagir&rkAvr maawm, as nay b4 6da8tcPb. pwtzmt-to-.-Sectt 31082 of .thr. Pub3i.c
msourcr8 Code.
‘L?)ra. r-en& subgta~&iye rrviifun +&.&&ikiSSO& m&c by ’ b
.Chapar L394 of. the. 8t8tgtte at 29$& edda~~.~tbbipwisF~ 82~
that smtfon’ chat. Wmatly. pmhibite 8 @ubU crgqacy~~iro~~ denying approval of 8 P~j8ckorr Ue,b.wAa ad.. Ckr .&tAa~cy- 02 .mc4aal facLlith# pU8u823t te =QLL- ef tbr. sWivi8iaa,Ma .Aclz This .- rwision delrtar ~&spa~l~~c~trfaza&K ta the a UEd lvlriort Map.
AC+, as set fa#% fn D&viaian 3 (caanemtig w;tkh. S@d.on 664X0) at
Tttu 7, in8trad applying thak pwhfhitimto tha 8xexcfsa.af- 1ecaL autharfty uadrt TitL,cr ‘I (ccmmcfnq wfth Section -65000) in its entirrty (betbalter the “PlAZUlfACJ ad ZOniag QW”) +
me SuhdfViSfOA MAD Act pIEOvid for EhO- rmgulatfm and cont;rol of tha design and fmprovantrnt CI~ aubdLtr~rlona and grants
power far that FUrp8Si% to- C)?B Le~isl~tlV~ hdfti Of local ag+nci,ea, ixlludfng the authority ko adapt m!dinanc~~ ta rWJLhta
c
t>e deS$gn and iaptwemerr:: 0: subdlvicForM (Sees. 664154 464Ue
664L9, and ~~~2%).
l .,
JJ e L :)I- :;-s:= 1+:~,-~$ r -2, z=, ;->, ( _- ._ --- -.---
CTOAO~~~ uulie L. am3423, 3r. - p, LI - 430435
Tna PlUixdnq arad 20ning ta, ~hfch includes the suhdfvishm nap Act, alsa includea, for example, chapter 3
(cazzaencir?? With Stattan 65200) of Dl,viaion 3, of Title 7, which contafns WriOU pYWfSfUZ3 qOVetd.ng the ad8ption or SWtd?zerrr a!? a gerrtral plan* Bv*x~ city or cOtit~%y, whrthrx charbrad OF general law, coa?apdmnsbrs is ret&red undar that cheptm ta adopt a t Wag-tam qanrral pLan, cmtainfng spociffc ~agdafory elsmant3 far t&i physical deuelapt3ant ot thr city or
county (S’ZCS l 63300, 65303, rnd 63700).
ThUh thlr rntirfon -ta S8ctforr dS994 pruh~blta a gnablic. a ancy fB.WYbq CrpprovlrL of a pzujrct cm tim b&r ot tba a 1 equaq of .schoof taddltlaa-, not mZy wkan”~acrttng, pua&ng tu the sukdfvirtan Map Act, but alsa whan- actfnr tmtzait te: qthrr
P ~avisln~~ bf . . the Pl&aniag and Zaning Z&w, ine P udfng bti% nat
imttrrb. to; tb a&ptfon ar-mans of 8 gunsral p&tin a$- zon* law@ Atfirwgh the adsptletz ot meruin8i~s at u’ paean&& p-lari'~r= toning la% a8 a lrgfsbtlvr aatt8n, orufnarfly invaW-.thr
eotabUsb8mt of catr$plaul larsd uoa paliczy *at&m ckail the egps~va% ai :-a drvt&aptaont ptof a&- (me blurr,rba , aupru, pk; t33u- ’
‘123zt m aupra, ppi %638-1C2?), t&a apparent effwA af thir
rov~8fon w i.ll ba to apratr;c&y pv:iskAbit tbo-Lnc2usfCrrrwftbin a genera& pb&O~ 2018w Z&W Of.88~ pr0~i5i0n that ~OttlA 8&&d-2a
ma d4nLa2 of- ind~vidug developaant: pgojrctrr cn the bad6 of thk adaqU4cy Of Whoal &8&l&tfer, -
fn aaitfa,n to revicrfng S4ction 69996 to prohtbFt a
public 44’enOYt PWaurnt to CEUA ur .thr Piannfnq and Zonfng Law,
fron denying 8pprovrL of a projactt on the basis of the adrqtracy school faQf.lltiQS, Chapter $354 Of the Statutes 8: 1992 add4 an
express prohibitian upm thr fngesitfon of conditicnr an Thai approval of a project for tha purpose oa prwfdfng school facilities Chb'G axcaed the amounts authazized.purguant to
1 .
DE c;:r:- -- ‘2: 1;: y,- ;;,-- _-‘ Z--I ;= .- -- .T?s ! --- -,--w 4 = : .- e.Llr
Honorz!sle wiufa It. Bam, SF, - p. ~2 - 330495
I
Chapra,' 4,s. %US, 8fhzkfon 65996 will SpOcfffCally pZ3Ghda a public agency fZOxn exrrtisinq its auaorft)r U,ndU CEQA 02 the ?lar,tlinp and Zoning Lw, aa bAscuis88 abwb CQ. rwUfrr that schoof facflitfss fare ar ot!ixsr reqtXfr4mant3, in eXEair of &a. anounts autborizdd undaf Chapter 4 ,s, ke paid on bahaZL 6L any
davel6ptrtsnt PrOjeCt 68 a CORlditfGn of &pprWd*
To mmarfza, while e#ci&lng Law I,i!nits fhm authotfty of a local agency to raquire that a duvmlopmt pmfeCt rovida f!fnar.cfaZ mft*gation og ltm c~ckool fscllLtir8 inpact P n ma C~~ESQ cf the agmcyb 8 admirhtratfve hipl+mmta*fon ot 8eotSen g3cm0 an&. CSQA, the reviefun CO Section 65996 aa& by cab#W 2364 ol:.the. Statutes 02 2993 fuz-ther grohlbitrs a local 4qv fraro requiting that: nitiqatfon ;tn ita ad&alrtraWa impt8mrntatlon a< any etka;r tegfslativr authorfty,. ~.
Thr revisiona made ta 8wtian 43996 mu by C)rup~ar. ~3% of tti: Stafutra uE 2993 oproffy *at ti* raaottctioaa rrt- iee in that section apply cot or,fy to leea& rbinfditxatLv.vr a+on taken, undmr CEQA to Z8quirr t&t- a dwrlm6. pwac$-bitigista ita.. -
fagact en ocb8ak facilit&s, bw--al8g t~ txLt$qaticm rap&~ . “I’ under CSQA CzaC nay be: hqmued uades &cd. 1egMativa maw
I US may be adopted purntantt~~~4kee~n 3U$t.. oi..&8 JubLfa” - Raseurcu cede. taa: add&t&n, t&a0 rwWea8 spIQii*fLy prohfbit to!%* inQlu8Aen WiUb a;g+arrrrl, &aJ%ot'9en~ lav of~aay provtrfon thak wwU mtBuxize ebducia f dE fadbribua~.: devolaprasn~ proj88ta an- t&8 buir ot tiW Sd8~ aE 8CWU~ gacflLttra, and preclludu li pubUs agascy -C-rnzg oxrrcirinq it*. e adadnistrativm Q*..l4g$Urti7m rru~ifq#:.uhdU CZQ& W-tb. P2aturhW an6 zonlnq SW, ar4isctxud &boy+, k6: m$uir* $?aat~-nche81 eaailltfrs fou. UJT, Other-rqlatikn~ts, .An axeaa# ac.thr, almunt:t- authorized unbw- ChhpUr 4 g 9, 84 paid on ‘@@a$ of- any devsla-t piuj 0th aa a condftfon of a-al. .‘-L.~, i -,r __ -- .. -- .
m &&& =*$a ~&&~~~~~-~~$j~~ &$, -@ngge by
chapter US4 0P th4 Statute* c+lO$~ &Spa* pti*drtTG hddrW81'. hov4vu,'*r.auta3ri x of 8dzoak CatsUit -oJ?ra---focaf aqaaq. to conuwu? the actaquaQy any corrtrxt ati&than kh3 apgroTtal. QC- i!ldividua devrlopment pro
analysts rrtr i!o* CLbcwm, 1 ruts. consequently, baaed upan tim- A, t f:, cur c~nclurfon that chapter 1394
of the strcutas at UWZ doua not prohibit a city, cowit ) or-ciky and county from donsidezfng tha adequacy 0L 9Chool L&Ci 1 ities ia the couzsc OP adeptinq or fztpleamting a gwwral plan, ZQnifiq ordinance, or other 16gfeLatfv6 Land use po~We
Jdkb :,I: -- ‘-,1 1-t:’ f&’ -, ==. --,* :z __ -_ - -2. ---.:.--L
KonortiLer WflUa L. Brown, Jr. - pa f3 - !I30453
,
YOU kcrve agkrd that we consider an altematfva ~nkerprsfat~0~ of tha ravf~ions made ta Sectfctrs 6tSSS and 65996 by ChagitOZ 1354. of We statutes of ma. Thbaftanrative argunmnt pa&ta tht~t We Isgfsl.atf~s intent Wdarlyti9 tkoue ~~ittions was to rwfss th8 mealr;tng of the tern kl4velap~~nt g&e~t:,~t a6 usad ia Sectiona 65995 md 63996, to hlude tha l&sLatfve actfun of a focal agency frs adcpttng 6r nmendfng a
goacra% plan Qr zaaftrg law tu esrab1fda msd UII paky,
Accordfn9 CO thfS ArqWamt, the qftret d *bidi WMt?EUCffon. Wet&i be that a 10-t bquxy wou2d be pzahibftdd fiy $izcar saccionr, aa- rdsed by CU@tax 1354 of. the Statutea. 6f 1992, fzsittskfng into SCCOU~* t&a impact en achaol f2bctfftfrb in &uibiag an ttm 8d0fii~n or a2ma&8a UP a genera& plan oz zoniaq. law.
A8 SlQtiad a&C-, C!!.!d$t*k 1334 6E tit0 StAtule8 Of 1992 revise8 swtlan 69998 te Brat& E-t, 4bxc8pt ads ukhm&za& u&e=.
%U baqfn Wit& S~ction'65495;--aa &ii~-$y-~ptar-l354 cd t&r gtat=ritas a2 2993, raths Mi. exiatfnq Ia* t&8,-phrh fia.2 drvrle
Y
ent~prof8ct, as*drfilrtrd fJ&Seatfoa 53O$O.fi mfs ils&
fnconn PtMt Wfch tb WzttSntt8tr tha*$b8ptar-,t354 oC.t!m St8tUtW
et-199? 8hoUld be- iaterpxrtrd a;4 ‘a .rgvfriwt of3h~.~g*ffnft~an of. the iana ~develcpmnt pmjr&. (t I... _ .w; _~. .:$, _ _ . . , or.mt&y, iha.. o&y apPm& &&&ii& ‘. . . _ . ’ ’ conatntctiua * clauao W&Wzer by 8dim$~iotrat&k”%$ legfs2atfva ACtfCM With& t&e contax& of w-provtsF0~ of Se&fan 65S95 qudtrd abeve, in Our opfnitr& h t#ag thb’ c&MA68 tpodiIi6s the rQwyhqU by a lrqialatim body al. -c far, cha or atart raquireatqlt. 6,’ dtiicati$m, It: fs our vaw, A9 axpr8ooe Aa th8 3
dfrrcuonioa abOW, tZI&t “WiMQW~ by adtoiafetratbfr- br 14gishtf+4 actfan" 18 ~UarLy nn &dvtbr&fale c~aura in th.fa. ccnt8xt tt~t
addresses th8 m8t2tdds pursuant ta- which that leeihg af Zaea 6g other requtrements r~ay OCEUI~
T?w alttwnaeivr w
the phrase ~~whacher by achin 4” *zant rguiras an Fntarprctatfon mat stra~fy*.or logis&4tlurr act?ona w4s
inserted fn Section 65993 after Ita dav~&Opme~t pfujact, 8s &dined in Section 630820" to further &Fins "dwelopaent prajtut" to P-n any administrativa a hghlative ac'cfan. In our apfnfon, it is an unrcasonabia cmst~ct~cn to suggest: that chr noun "d8valoVent
0 =+ bl-‘l-- 2c ‘;I ‘-1,: EG, [, -Lj.z=, . ;-,, . _ __I A --i L.-.-
;Zon&bla WFllft. LL. B,YOWR, Jr. * 3. 14 - $30453
projacttt We3 Wdlfiad by tba aLaus Whrthox by’ adalnfstxatfva 0~ legislAtfV8 OC~Onw to express the mad,ng ck&t udavalQa~%nt pro3 act" is dUhrd ta includs, far, purpcau of sactfen 65995, any 8ddnist=atfVe or hgfslattvs sation. 8ab th8 actually fntendsd thud result, wa thf& it: E 9 irlatalce rob&b a that the daf inician of ltdovrlcpmaat prog~ct~ 11~sw-t on 63OaO wauld have
bean aamded or; ~lt~tivdyl thut a statemat would have been added to Chap*= 449 ta tha offcat that "davefoplaant. project" includas any 1'adWh3trativ* a* *l@alatfva acM~n.tt
.
Pu*~mre, Thor akaxna0iva krtorpr&atd.cn w&d
raault: in the ~~~ltanawa cwbina,t4on wfrrhti Wet&can 4599s agi*w
inCaZJht-* d~ffnitiUM OP.' th4 tUa- "duwl8p@4at prajact." As+ namd abW8b SWttorr 65995, aa rrvtrad by - t334 of the2 statutes 02.. L993i contaiaa the. eatprmrrr rag~anca.Ns-dwe~upw~~
pr0rf act, a8 drlfned in arctton s308u.w s4~cti~r 33080 d4ftn~ . . ~~drvdapae~t Proj l t* to mere uany. project uaUrrt&ua Cot thn
purpose of ~~V~~Wmnt, and fncludu a pro3 sat imlvinq the iSSUaAC8 of a pmdt.fd~.CbMtm2C~f4~ or ~~~~fOfi, btrk not.8 psrmit to Qp--*u ( am. q3rafectH is. nat &f P ntad (a), mu. (a), sac. 630&Q)‘, byv34kti~~~63080, the- tm. ;isdtirr A2=?iY . elsawhels in thr PhAlnfng aa .zaning t’a$t ta.. mug ” . LnvOlVfrtg tha AMum .tc ..R p&soq-af a iearu; qd 7 8ctfvf~~ < Zfcsnsai, csrtiticat8, Or-0th~ entft2ea4nt for-usr by hia o&mr8 p?ablicrt agenCiS%P (SC)& U8¶32 b in accmdane4 w&la f t! h @=a84 6%. axpa8rfoor may be Mmpratsb. us4 in otbu rraatob 8th$+t8tPf~ 4’ ’ pf;p, 315 as&. Apltb Zd.l21,.25t)r 'b." --'. 7 ., -. j.
unreaaonrhh,
metfan a5998 tr revFs@d by Cnapteti 23154 o# the statutaa 0s 1992 ta &tbte that deritplated provisians u8hall br tk,4 exclusive met;hoU~ of xdttgatlnq environmentaL rffmta related to rha adrquACy Of School facikigies when co cha ~aab2Lshr2en~ of condftfans for the a .prajactW '- 'e ,Z4$os --.. 1.. Y i3x '* . w aGC.~ pwsuant to ;CEQAltt (c
HmorabL~ wfllLe L. Arran; 3~. - pa 15 - #30453
hadLea& in @~ihwt and underline). me mdlyda s4t fo*h
abbve With rWUd ta .thrr. incluafon An 6ectfon $3995 ot t!m c3aa8 ltwh&her bY l adm+kfatrative bc teqislativa action@ alsa applies fn ._
this parallel CWbtd*, to thr eLface. tha* t!x clause %y addnist2stiv~ Or? 1agtslaWm actfenfi in Sectfun. 63996 my &a amrued r*asenafy, in wr view, fo rofsr err& mitigaffUn Utflhed by local agcmcfeo vhon to-t& oehodr & Cona 1 daring #ta approval 61! a deve2opmant gr~ject (see u, supr;r, p, 2233, fn. 15)". '
.
Final1 prejmW@ in 5ac J uti lagat fspauf- cd drftning~ WW@l&nf ias 6S99b &nd 65398 ta Ane2uUa way Ia edmhfst~atiV8 Or’ Laqislative actionv waald ncl+ hpperr ta have the aile+@ rarrult CE prQbfbft*~ a 0%
into account UZe bpuct an rahool faafl 1
Q;z! .cela4w t!zml, taing -’
ths in decidsq CJ~ t&a.
adoption of +mandmrmt of .a g~~ral. P&&X& or g8i$w 1~.
65995, doffnfnq “devrltlprauat p~jrct"' to ticSuds mzy
z& f&ctian
a&inistratFYb Or 2egk3hitiva a0t ww2ld have tha. litem& rfga& of pmhtiitfnq tb lrqiblafim body oC. a tocal aqraqf 1zew 2avy$~~g, o athat t!! -Uaat trr Section WU$O ar. Chaptar 4.7 I a ~C&QQ& ’ facilitiaa -‘-‘for example
f l *$
thr leg ch*rq. 8; drdf=tiMI, OTZQ~~U ~mfm agafrrj+i’ 2at4vr rut a&..
1 plan af-2m La q*lath
%w320
Sfaf%a&y, ia.
act mu f” en* pr0$4ut” ta iacAud& ray a
d have thr litua2 rtiaat 03
requirlurrmtS t&a* my+e iapoaad. by against its. a&pMan or a-t qi . . . . 2 . .-: -,_. .f - _ .- .._ .*A >. '_
’ tha drlstltarr by chagiui ‘1334 uf ttk stakutri-*of m&iWha
phrase 6, 66 defb6 In Sdctfoa 33080,fl ia SskiW3 65996 COU~L ’ be atgrtad ta--rebf;wt t;trr legtalattivr Latent. ta~.ravim the meaning- of the ters ‘ww~logm4t preject, n 88 usrd l4 that-aect.iQni Tm mqirlaturr cannot b*. pruatm$ trr: bava-- i&t&~@& in -id&& act@.. . . (e VI BM&g&,&&mcara,., 39” ma* 26 7%t,& .8Wt _ m-v. EQbY, 270 Ca2, ApZr, 3&2039,- 1OSW.: .A. ..~ ; :‘.: : _
Hmveoa~, C!aA& 1334 oL the ~tAtUtk!k &a 1992 dams hak
*
purport to add. lanqmqe to 6eutian 89998 thw rearohabl const;rued ta ropikf33 the. deflnitfan of Wlrvrlopent pro r aray be:- aat: se* forth in Secttan 53080. CarwquentZy, pursuant ta the rttle Of * rtatut3ry constrwtfan that a phra$r or wpresriafi my be
interpreted in accordaxe with its us61 in other rolat8d statute& (pedimi, V. Oa, ZU Cal, App. id &37, 133) l W.CWiClUda that:
Mdavelopme~t prefect ‘1 wau2d have the shzoa meaning in Section 65996 as it does fn Section bS993, which defines tha term by ewras* i ra*erance ta SWtion ~3086 and by ~55 of the d6bfinitfQn Of tk@ b. term J'Frofect" Lz a reletad neatian, namely Sact~~n 6593~ ,
4-y __ -z -5 s _- ;-* - A-’ :I _ ___- - .=
I Hcxloraue WIllh t. arawn, Jr. * p. 16 - jJtM$$
It - Aa rwaliy t2uur hw;lvu, that Iugislrtlv0 btt63t bc gFvrn oLfe& only if it can. reasonably ha iafrrrmd Lrm. w
ay
languuge Of &be CrCt (Sa U-V, a 187 m, 181, 18$-&86; z-m, 160 C&l. 420, 426-4ift l eu alno WV, --Cara;, 7 C8L 34 60, 66-6814 zn.tU care, tortha reaacna art fOrut LLbaVO, it ia OUY epidon that the trPgi&&tfv* intent uugqeatad by the Sea&a ‘fnfrd Read&r4 amiyrfr, aad by &a;. altarnatiVe 8 addraimed la t&b dirrau88ion, csnnot reasonably be +~nd. fztaor thm L&n~e ia 84ctfana 65998 ant%. ':..#$996 a% 2UVislrb by ~Bt~.~334 of the Stacl;utcu et ‘1992. We.-
I conc1ub, accemWWy, tha% tbir l ltumattve ooarWmsU8.a ‘02 -shore smtia~ wuld net&r adopted by the courts. f. ,
1
Ware. a r&l dbtdct9m4 -8ed k& ~axiaus :’ .. :
ouppL0mat8Lroha61 EaCllltlar fea authorised t&n&m Swtba
65995.3 agairu+ 8 d4vslepmat profaot?, iu.,r mc8nd rohaal * *
dF$.tz$tt, &win
&Utkzf24ab to.1 La c-n torritarial Tjwinbfckian with thr 'i;fs~G wtse imp088 that fara un ,4dt8t davelopm0nt: , projact? .
D NO. a
'Whew a rcM8l'dAatritt haa hposrd t!te assrhum ~upglemtal. sahaol facUtfr8 L 643. autnotizd. umiaz S4ution
65995.3 8g8b8t 8 d~V8lG rOUtt $rO$eCti a SaCOnd $&go1 didMtt; , having awn’ tUYikCd& f juriudictfcur witi Ch4 f fZS*, $1 328% ’ authori& ta lik+wira FrJpase that fee on that developant project.. . .
Anyg(srs we. 2
Arr indfcazed b Analysis No. 1, tka aut)rozity & a nahoot dfsttfUt trt hEJO feaii) Ot: Other ra@XeSata against
d~v~~~p~tmt to fund schaol - Qrsiltt&es conatYucelo;n ia sat m*h in
L .secticm 53080* The authority undgr that 2ectfOfi to LmpaSa thosr fees 0~: other raquirezmnts is expressly made sWeCt= to "a*Y
& 5 - ,-i-f c<. __ !#.I: -,;> -.--‘-:;7; ‘t~,,~‘L.i\~\!J * _ - = -
. ~orWr3ble WfllZiQ- 26. 0X&J, Jr. - p. i7 - #304jj
IfnitatfOas ME forth in Chapter 4.9n (subd. (a), See. 53080).
The Lbhathu ark forth in chapter: 4.9 incLud8 thr re%trfctfon- that 1’ ( L] n nb LYbtlt* shaU t!za. total aaaunt of any fses fi chaqes, dedication3, cz Theo rqtairemants autbotizml unde Sac&on 57080,. or pursuant tP &a&at 4.7, execad Uesfqnrt8d dollar. aamunts. Thoue azmnts Wea rstabUsl3~d, prior to edjurtmat ear LnrC;rakim., at $2.50 per IWarm foot oi assessaM apam, ha khcr cas4 ot. raeidenkfal d8V8~~pw%, m$ $0.25 pax scpare fa& oi charqaable. d5vered aM enulooocl ap~c0 ) in.. tha cam 0P c~zufursfal er - industriaf davehpaank (rrubd, (b), 3ac. 63995; .
2930 qwstion hexa alato to a aftuattan Ln whfcktvo.: schaal dfatrfcbt have camsen trtitetia2 juriadictfauat II .ma cccur whsn neftker i% a uafrlrd 8Ch882 USutrf&. T&a ixlpMA E t3g Q schac!t facilitfa8 ire or bower 233&rwuurt ptarauant to : far: .
s8ctton 53080 unrfar those c~tea8tane4a ib l paaificrrtfy adbreus4d+. under exfotfng law, by 8ectAorr 53080.2. rf. tha tata% amuat at: sc)=ool faaflitf*ti f6es ttauthgrftad purazruanc to Se&h3 5308Op as.: ltaviad b two,nonuniEIad ache01 &J.stri&s havfn
T co- tsrritor al jurfsdbtien, would l cud Uthu L zMT tee ‘8uthe~aa& U’&r SMtfOZl 6f995,” 8WtiO83 63080.2 ZqUfrM th4. ~8~hlg
beards l of kb nf factad %!~882 Uifitrf&8 tQ antar h&3- &a. agw@aat-
fitjd$C~~ying th8 auQUti= 6t th4 ClC XWVU%UI Ogi tit~Sti-Yely, b= at&tit thr dbpuu to tke authority of an l rbitratian pana.&,
.
Sectfan 65935.3, as addad by tha*ar 13% oP ‘t&e Statuttrs Of 1992, +ds U.f~lI&?~i .
fl65995.3. {a) IaAddftfan: tc .-al8 fM, ChaqQf drCUUt&an, ar=&ke-mquix~en~ apaciPtrd. l b-mbdtviaiea (b). bC~8&t~on~~6~99dr an-acldft~onal. fabb chatgfb Cedication, or-et&w raqufrmant- of
OM d&lax. ($2) per rquarrr. fuet cP arrsraable s may be t~i@d by t gwrmfaq. baard 02 a P ace rchou . di&ri& agafnat that ruLdmath1 cunstzuctfon detcrfb*d in rubwagraptwr (S) anb. (C:) 02 pazugmph (a) ae.subdfvisfaa (&) 02 SOetFua 53080 for: the cmstntotfon 8~rrafmdzc2ettian oi 8cb062 faeil~th~~ ,
@(b) Tnia 8eatbn shall rmain in effeut mly
until th0 data that Asauubly eanMdtutiona2 ~andzzant 6 6g th8 X992-92 Regular SoSShl faih to receive th* approval of 8 mafchty of the vatorS
’ %t: is OUI UZUhJistaridinq that, as ad&&d ior i.nfl&tian, base linrits currently at8 $1.65 per aqucre goof: fcr resLdenEial
davelopmnt , and SO.27 per square foot for camnaralal or htdustriai devalopmsnt.
Y-- _ ,,__ - -- 2 - i- ‘Z.‘, - --?,I-‘;,
_ _j I ;y i: _- 17: ;= ;A L ‘1-L ‘&L-1
mmsblo Willfe L. arown, Jr. - p. 18 - 63a453
v0tir.g of% tie mea8ura
I socti~n As rapaaled.“’
and us 02 that data th$s
SeUd.an 65999.3 thus autlzoA,z&a a schaol district
.
eupra-p. 233), we cant&ads that Sect&n 6$995.3, &a an a&&f~~
to czlaptez 4.9r USceatfse weuZU be dame& ta a$ogata as a
roattiction Upa tha rutbrity grantad in Sactfon S3080, by ravisbag the dub2a.r lisita idantifLm&- in thrt chaptar. A rtatuta should ba interpretad Witi zefalxmca ta thy ~yaf=aaof lhw at which it is u pa*. asah VC cQabQm, 20 Cal. 34 142, 147).
If8 aMct owrt consider ttuk Ufact of Sratf~z~ 65993.3 uparr
* “ebs SUO~43 of-.Sec~aa J3oao.t. Aa diruumrb &WV+, Sect&n ~o80.3 providea a msthti af dtrtzihking mhaal faafl~tfar Parr &tanuer. bcttmur kW aattunffibd $&~a2 diatdeta huvinq. conam turdtarfrl. jutiadictioa, w&an tha +&al anaunt of the teas luvfed~by~ thnra .
ttJ0 dfjtrtct;rr puzmaaat ta 8whion 63080 wauld ycaau "the Mach Car authd.2~ Undaa~ smtfett 63999 (w&bi (a), Sau. 83080.2) 1
of the rwrnua8 fraar the impasltfon oi scbe2 facflitfrr fms be. goyernd by an agrroiams or arbitration when the tata2 ammt + these fear u0u1d @Haiti Wm RWCIZUIR fee autaatizad under sectaon
65995, \* GV~ timuqh Saetion 66995.3 wikf authoriza a scksd
’ Lffce -8 revisions made by Chapter 1354 at th:s Statutes ot
$992 tb 6WthnS 65993 end 65996, Srctfan 6599St3-b&caaes
tdfective January 3, 1993, but is rcpehlrd ff Asmonbly constitutional Art\endnent No, 6 oe the 199X-92 RaquLar Ssssim fails to receive the approval u1 4 a majority of tha voters vatfrrg , * I. on that ~eamure (sub& (b), Sec. 65995.3).
Honotnbh utllli0 La Br3m, u’r. - p. 19 - #304SS
dhtrict to levy a scha0i fdutias ta* 8gafn~t rdden~ta co~str~ctf0~ that aceeds “thr max;lmuz tar au,tharized under s’ecrhn 6399sb by $2 per tqrtara faoc of aaiaescrahla space. This result, M&h would r8quira that any tatal s&ml fadlit fae axwedltng $2.65 pal: square POOE of assessahl@ epnc4 for ra&ientfaf COn3trLctian be govarmd b Y aqmmnant of arbkratfon whmn levied by ta nMlUniifmd $abol L=rtx&ts, although a 8uhaok faoi~itf08 fee Of $3.63 grz squara foot Of ass63Stih sgscb far residential consbucrtion could ba iagoaad by a sfng3.r SC&GOL district, Voutd COZJ3tbUtr Cm absurd ~8UU&$, in elk" Ytev, rQr_
~;urparo of th8 nl@ OL otat=utorry cono%guctfan cited above.
ltomaavf% reqardlaaa of 4a6thsr Section S3686.2 is daerPad to appLY to tke suppfaruantsl rahoo2, facilitbs'~ar aanant~ authctfZibd under Sectfan 68993 .a, it is ~uz epinfon Mat th* additional $X per: 8qMr8 foci% oP assessable npmu ruk&ori34d By snct;?an 6599983 may not bemtcreded whera two rzonwrfff8d rc&cA disrrfcm haua caumn territurtal jurfsdictba aval: the
development rqaintt whfch the achedi facUki48 fee f;l Levi&L
ha notad &a~+, the am8US authrirrd undu Swtton 65995,3 ip1 a auppbnmht to t!m *oCat dofLar aaaua of my foes or okhas . recpimlmrLta WukharZ?ized under Sectfm 53080, orpmuant te ’ chapter 4.7” .that my ‘br wcceebrd .fl (Lln nc l vant" (mbc\, (b) I SW. 6S99518 ?ursuaAt to the rtG84 ab st8tutory canatructi8a when thcr 1aJllrguagr of a rtsntte is claer, a uaa* fatrrprrfbq
qiould -fp+lfzw it? PIah maning- (gmks ;2&aq- m2g@iQh. m sl&tz~z35 assmM, aup=+ p4 as51 4 &#a tla4s 4 8UrrtZI -a construad $4 8* +u hmozaba it, A* g~ssiblo, wit8 othmr &us-
a, .13 .-Cd. 36 384, SSO) , Y4 cancluda ~oumatanc~ that
relatf:?g to th8 aaam subject (m,v4 WAmswu ,
WWI than one td%Ml diatzf& bar trrrftoriai jurlsdictfon ,wm a dnvmbpxmnt fS fiat WI rvant that would be deemed ta supetsoci6 the aggrsqata dull- * lfrrrft fQrt mcimol. facilities faes establishad by , sectfopa 6SOOS and 65393.3. .-
Thts CORCh8ion ir mhancad by refeik8 t;q”& --. I -e
afttration iin Which @II* 62 hotb oi the school dhtricts having, OOPIILIO~ rorrlter~al jurirdictbn 9x6 eppUcanta Br atrta futrding at schwi CaUfliti&r conr~zuctfbzz under tbe Repay F. Cxrrmm Stafa gcrhool aulldlng Ulsr-Rirchase L&w of SD76 (Ch. 22 (cammunuinq vtth Sec. L?3601,s X. 20, Ed. c.). Undw Semfon t??OSA of Chal: which, like Seoriana 53080 and 65995, became cffactiVe ii%$*l, 1987 (see Ch. 867, Stats. 1986), the total bullding ’ cas;t rrorEFon of
statemAlZ8CatiCn
the srato funding for my project appruuad by the Bc8rd under tha tegoy 8, Greene State Schaal ~ufldfnq Laase-hrchcsa Law of 1976 fs reduced by c5 matching share
I .
- c y,-- =;- , ;-, . _#_I ;- __' Is -: 2': B&i CI 71-i. ,c,T;, z!jl:
xonorahle uillia L. Sruwn, Jr, - p. 2C - i30*, I
tw&rement fwosed upan t!!e achaol. district far whic!t tka project
FS approved l rd&ZWWZ%+& ?%a amount of t&s distrtct raechfng abre VhW is caiculatad on tfae bad of develepet fae revenues that t!!8 applicant d&strict is authwfzacl to coflect uxtes Soctfon 53080, fe raduccsd by &a oxpm~8 tatraa of S,t%tfan
1770SS by bn anounc dascribtid as Collc~a:
Ha??05,cI. 44*
I' (3) An az3otuw rsflectfng tha extrnt ta which the diStt;btcc, is m iroxlcolirctfng tbosr frrr by r’cttswa of the lavy and dolho’c+m crf dwwlopor fya ty another s&oal,,diatrfct havinq ’ ~gzn, tmratarhal jurisdfetim (Erp@ASiS .
h tthk that fh;la d!istrict from mt;fbfnq sbars E rodsian, stce~pb~q 8n applicant
“precluded (( iabflfty to thr extant it ir
those tees f== collecting developir Cam by tb collrqtidn oc by =whatr dfatrict in tha circwmtanc+a daroribed, Frdicatrs the fntmt 02 k&a taqLsleazr that t&s Lapaofti~n and collect=hm UC d~vqloprr fiou by a rcheol diatric%undar 4310
i (': authowiy oc S~ffal 8308Q. 1laita OX pm2lud0a t&a autbrftp 02 &
. dfrtrfci: havidst ~=IEQ~I t82daria3 $t&abfctftia' tu Lap080 atrd .' .* callsct thum fem. Tbr Language of 88ctfua 17705.s at thr
&dUCatfdn C&e ~&JS Wqportr the cQnC&UUiUtt t&&t th l8axim& araounts .Uet Fan. in Secftru, 63491 forr any a&oak LadAfhfrs. far, may not be ex-rdrd 01 to btl b8Y+b Uevelapment &far in, thr t+rr turfal eat, whetha or nut the.
8ChUOl diatrief. 1 $ uriidi&fa ui amm that% bna
Purthamtra, Chfa pruv~8forr of saction L730Sr.S wm enactad weU bafora t!! +MQW~ of saction. uam2, .~&ick. 1
neraly goverm th dfsd.hutfaa OP UC&G& f8Ci&ftb8 rew~Ws between BCb80~ dirtricta having Canaan territo~i~i3UFfrinction .(Ch, 1209, 4taa 19891, ( .
W0 cmclude , ehar&i cpursz&t 2uAtwruL8 d at
statutaw UofUtrUCtfQra c&tad &mm (SW -UC u
846) I that t!m ~~WWIX~ ti Seceiort 4fQ80,2 ta. .Wse 818~ L rUpX& p* wa fsa. authaxfzd undar Sacfi~ 6S995” VortLd bt COnat~~d, Wb#rqrtcint to
JaaU8Ey t, L$)3 (the effeCltfV8 d&t& df SatXion 639353)r to r@ihr to the dollar lSmft,in Sectlea 63995 as su$pAstirnrtid by Sectim
65995.3.
. ’ ’ I’
I
HQnorabk f?il%h &. 8gWl'L, jg, - p* 2s d #304:,
Ztt acculdaaee wkh thrr& cencUaion, hnd bamd upon the 9oraqoSnq ddMUSSton, it Ls aul: U&don that vharr a school distzfict has. higored CA& m&ma auppla78mtal o&o01 facilft;tes fee authorized tinder. daction 6399S.S againat a devrlopst project, a second Mzualt district, having cnmman tamztorial . jurhdictbn wit& the fitet, iJ not nuthorfrud to likwise imgass
that fao on that dwre+agmane projrct.
vary truly yours4
Bfcn 24. Gregory LagFsLativ* Courua~
JAO: 6ja
.
.
,
,
l
OCT -126-93 T IJ E 15:19 .
es
!Mx.‘;;4\B., Ml3 SQccE’rY OF SAN DEGQ, Px:. w-iw of dw P3rlie &komcy a
2 I6 $. l I;*mont $troct t 3lw,&ll’, CA 92054 (6 19) 7%2740 P &&
(619) 722~1935 II
October 26, 1993 FAXED AND M.AILf:D
Haymond R. Patchett, Executi.ve Director Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Car3..sbad, CA 92008-1989
P. 82
CL ARC MhU19:iI.l?
pw., I*nL, 9..d d !J;*LdOIY
GR ~XXRY @. KNO!,L
C: G/-~ A-Home~
C i-t-y C (CYK \\
c
-
CL,‘)\ * Dd&LJ .-h-. - \
Re: , Parameters for Using Carlsbad Redevelopmenk FnnA Aaency’s I&w and Moderate IncomeGznq to Ass’i’st The-Vilzs at El Camino Real -- -”
Dmr Mr. Patchett:
‘Ilhe City and Agency have a right to be excited about “he Villas at El Camino Real, Aviara’s Answer to its inclusiooaly housing obligation. This project not only implements the City’s Housing
El,emcnt but marks an historic turning point i.n the Cit;(‘s use of CDDG monies to benefit lower income residents by prov.ding much nccdcd housing. For this, the developer and the City should be comarendcd .
X!owever, in order for the Agency to support this prrcjcct with
its Ilousing Fund, more nhacrld and could he done. With regard to
the duration of affordability, Redevelopment Law reqr.ires that
when the Agency’s Rousing Fund is used to develup near housing,
that housing must renlain available at affordable housing costs to the karqfited income levels fox? the “longest feasikblr tine”.
Ileach L Safety Code S 33334.3(f). Unless the Agency l.as made a
finding, ha%.od upn substantial evidence, that the “ionqsst feasible time” is less than in perpetuity, then the coejenants or deed restrictions which will be recorded (8 33334.3(f)) mrr6t assure ongoing affordability,
Since a fundamental purpose of Community Redeveiopment Law is to e!xp;lnd the eomrnunity’s supply of affordable housing anlJ assure a xrtix of residential and commercial development within the Project
Atea, there is no need to make a finding of benefit when an Agency’s Housing Fund is used to support the development or rehabilitation of housing within the Project Area. I:taf f sck- nowledges that in order to spend its Housing Fund aitside the Project Area, both the Agency and the leqislativc body must adopt a resolution based upon finxxgs that the proposl!d project will bcnefi.t the Project Azea.
What E;kiltiStics or studies form the basis for the ~:cncl.usion that the Village Redevelopment Area offers employment to those
CICl---2rj-93 TUE 15-19 . P-83
. Raymond R, Pat&. .ett c --_ --- October 26, 1993 Eccz- --.- . ,,
triaking at or below 50% and 60% of area median income? And how will this project be structured so that it serves emp.‘oyees who work but do not live in the Project Area or the City? The pro- posed resolution also states that it is feasible for residents of The Villas at El Crunino Real to use public transit to access the Village Redevelopment Area to work and chop. Yet there is no discussion of the length of time that public transpcjrt takes, nor the directness ot circuitusness of its route. Without this, how can it be determined that it is feasible to utilizs public transport to access and therefore benefit the Project Area? Further , what is the factual basis for the conclusory statement that those living at The Villas will have a “significarlt impact” on revitalizing the Village Project Area by working and shopping there? The downtown area is primarily a tourist destilratifin- 1 have been advised by Staff that following the October 14, 1993, Housing Commission meeting, data has been ohtainsd ta support the propose3 resolutions. I have not yet seen this da1.a.
Clearly this proposed use of the Agency’s Housing Fund:; promotes the City of Carlsbad’s housing goals, as cIaimt?d in Pa:-agraph 3, Page 3, of Resolution No. 93-009. kftlether it satisfies Commu- nity Redevelopment Law, the Agency’s Redevelq~m~nt Pli n, and/or benefits the Project Area is subject to doubt. Factu;:l support is needed before the Agency and City can consider adcpting the necessary resolutions.
1 appreciate the opportunity to comment on this propcxed use of the AgQncy*s Housing Fun3, and would be happy to work further with the Bmsing Commission or Staff to assure that the Agency coritpl ies wi bh Community Redevelopment Law. I remain,
Sincarely, I,w,AL ATI SCCTr;:TY OF SAN DYEGO, YNC.
Attotfiey at Law
CAR/b
cc: Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency C.ity Council Members Pvan Seeker, Uouoing & Redevelopment Director Gl,enn Wasserman, at Kane, Ballmer, & Retirntan City Clerk
BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ALEXANDER BOWIE* JOAN C. ARNESON WILLlAM J. KADI WENDY H. WILES PATRICIA B. GIANNONE ROBERT E. ANSLOW
ERIC R. DOERING KENNETH S. LEVY ART0 J. NUUI-INEN JANETL. MUELLER KIMBERLY A. McMURRAY
*AFnoIEssloNMamP
4920 CAMPUS DRIVE
NEWFORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660
October 26, 1993
AREACODE TELEPHONE 851-1300
FAX (714) 851-2014
b [k /&7/f3 -
City Council
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad City Hall
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Villas at El Camino Real - ZC 93-02, SDP 93-06, SUP 93-02, HDP 93-08
Honorable Members of the City Council:
This firm represents the Carlsbad Unified School District (“District”). This letter is
submitted with respect to the impacts which the Villas at El Camino Real project (the
“Project”) will have on the District’s school facilities, and in response to the conditional
negative declaration prepared for the above-referenced actions (the “Negative Declaration”).
Buildout of the Project envisions the development of 344 residential apartment dwelling units
(“DUs”) within a 23.82 acre site within Management Zone 21 of the City. These units also
will be built in an area entirely within the boundaries of the District (source: Zone 21 Local
Facilities Management Plan (“LFMP”), page 105). The Zone 21 LFMP states that District
facilities are currently operating at capacity (page 107). We request on behalf of the District
that approval of the Project be denied absent a mitigation agreement to mitigate the Project’s
impacts on the K-12 school facilities of the District. Absent such an agreement a Negative
Declaration is contrary to applicable law and any approval is precluded by the General Plan
of the City and its Growth Management Ordinance.
The District disputes the Negative Declaration’s conclusion that the Project will have
no significant effects on schools or other public services. The Negative Declaration states
that required compliance with the Zone 21 LFMP will assure that there are no significant
impacts to public facilities, but does not indicate how compliance with Zone 21 LFMP
requirements will result in mitigation. The Negative Declaration subsequently concludes that
BAKW&GIABIAJN:ad6850
&WE, hNESON, -1, WILES 63 GIANNONE
City Council - City of Carlsbad
Villas at Camino Real Project Impacts
October 26, I993
Page 2
the Project will not affect any public facilities or services in part by stating that “the planned
public facilities in Zone 21 are adequate to handle the increased density without need to
amend the facility plan.” Negative Declaration, page 8. This is inconsistent with the Zone
21 LFMP, which states that District facilities are currently operating at capacity, and also
ignores the potential for increased service demands on school facilities from existing
residences relative to population increases anticipated to result from buildout of the Project, if
approved. The District therefore objects to the approval of the Negative Declaration and the
Project without a proper environmental evaluation of the Project’s effect on the District’s
school facilities. This should occur within the context of a properly prepared Environmental
Impact Report (“EIR”), including a proposed mitigation agreement with the District.
Based upon a student generation factor of 0.5 per DU it is anticipated that there will
be 172 students to be generated from the development of the Project (i.e. 344 DUs times 0.5
students/DU = 172 students). Based on a school facilities cost of $4930 per multi-family
DU the Project will require additional school facilities at a cost of up to $1,695,920. For
purposes of example, using an average of 1,000 square feet per DU and the District’s current
residential school fee of $2.65 per square foot, the Project would generate $911,600 in school
fees from residential development (if the District were to assess such fees on development
within the Project), or less than 54% of the total cost of schools required for the Project from
residential development alone, not including the number of students to be generated from
commercial-industrial development. This leaves a shortfall of over $784,320. If Proposition
170 is not approved on November 2, 1993, the residential school fee will revert to $1.65 per
square foot, providing facilities funding in the amount of $567,600, leaving a shortfall of
$1,128,320. State funding to make up for the shortfall is unlikely. There is an accumulated
backlog of school facility projects on file with the State Allocation Board in the amount of
$4.0 - 5.0 bill’ ion dollars. If Proposition 170 passes the current State funding program is
repealed effective 1996.
Therefore, we request on behalf of the District that the environmental effect of such
student generation on the District’s facilities be properly addressed in the context of an EIR,
which EIR would further include provisions for full mitigation of those school facilities
impacts upon the District, and that such provisions be expressly made a condition of the
approval of the Project. In this regard the District requests the Project be continued to allow
execution of such a mitigation agreement, or alternatively that it be denied. It should be
noted that Government Code Section 65589.5, which generally provides that local agencies
BAKW&G/AB/AIN:an/6850
BOWIE, hINESON, KADI, ‘WILES &z GUNNONE
City Council - City of Carlsbad
Villas at Camino Real Project Impacts
October 26, 1993
Page 3
shall not disapprove a housing development project for low- and moderate- income
households absent specified findings, also specifically states that nothing in that section is to
be construed to relieve a local agency from making a required finding that changes or
alterations to such development project have been incorporated to mitigate or avoid
significant environmental effects identified in a completed EIR, or otherwise relieve the local
agency from complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Denying
approval of the Project absent an executed mitigation agreement with the District for
mitigation of the Project’s impacts on the District’s K-12 school facilities would therefore be
appropriate under Government Code Section 65589.5.
Other mitigation programs which developers within the Project and the District may
agree to include the inclusion of the Project in a community facilities district, as discussed
below.
. . . . . ty Facrl&es Dlst~&
On January 1, 1993, SB 1287 became effective. SB 1287 made several changes to the
school facilities fees legislation which is found in Government Code Section 53080 et.
and 65995 s;t. w. (“School Facilities Legislation”). One of the most significant changes is
the addition of Government Code Section 65995.3 which increased school fees from $1.65
per square foot to $2.65 per square foot for unified school districts. ’ In addition, there has
been considerable debate between school districts, cities and builders regarding whether or
not SB 1287 overturned the holdings in the &&a, m and Murrieta decisions, which stand
for the proposition that a city or county is not limited to statutory school fees when
considering adequate mitigation for legislative projects such as specific plans or zone
changes. Legislative Counsel Opinion No. 30455 dated December 4, 1992 concluded that
those decisions were not overruled by SB 1287, and that cities and counties still have the
authority to consider the adequacy of school facilities when adopting a legislative approval
such as this Project. A copy of the Opinion is enclosed. Additionally, SB 1287 states that its
provisions would have “prospective application only, ” and would not affect any actions taken
l If ACA 6, which is proposed for the November 1993 statewide ballot and which
would lower the voting requirement for local General Obligation Bond elections to a simple
majority, fails, the additional $1.00 residential fee authorized by SB 1287 would be repealed.
BAKW&GIABIAJN:an/6850
BOWI& hNESON, &Ix, ‘WILES 63 GIANNONE
City Council - City of Carlsbad
Villas at Camino Real Project Impacts
October 26, 1993
Page 4
by a local agency prior to its effective date (i.e. January 1, 1993). The City’s growth
management element, discussed below, which requires adequate school facilities in
accordance with projected enrollment data supplied by schools as a condition of development
approvals was adopted by the City Council on July 1, 1986. Therefore, the City’s own
requirement for adequate school facilities consistent with its previously adopted growth
management element remains unaffected by SB 1287.
Subsequent to January 1, 1993, the effective date of SB 1287, the Supreme Court
rendered its decision in Grune Develonment Cow v. Sunerror Court (February 11, 1993)
4 Cal.4th 911, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 226 (“Grupe”) . One of the holdings in the Grupe decision is
that a city or county has the authority to condition new development on the use of Mello-
Roos Community Facilities Districts (“CFDs”) to mitigate school impacts. The Grupe
decision is significant in that it acknowledges the changes made by SB 1287 regarding the
continued ability of cities and counties to use CFDs for mitigation of school impacts.
The ability of the City to condition new development upon the use of CFDs to
mitigate school impacts is found in Sections 65995(a) and 65995(f). Section 65995(a)
provides that:
Except for a fee, charge, dedication or other requirement authorized under
Section 53080 . . ., no fee, charge, dedication or other requirement shall be
levied by the legislative body of a local agency against a development project .
. . whether by administrative or legislative action, for the construction or
reconstruction of school facilities.
Section 65995(f) specifically exempts CFDs from the limitations set forth in Section 65995(a)
by providing:
Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the use of . . .
(CFDs) to finance the construction or reconstruction of school facilities.
This provision makes CFDs a feasible method of school financing in that they have been
specifically exempted from any dollar limitation for school mitigation. SB 1287 did not alter
the authority the City has to require school mitigation through CFDs.
Bow, fkRNESON, -I, WILES & GLANNONE
City Council - City of Carlsbad
Villas at Camino Real Project Impacts
October 26, 1993
Page 5
Section 65996 also lends further support to this proposition and provides that CFDs
are one of the specific methods of mitigating environmental effects relating to the adequacy of
school facilities when the City is considering the approval of or the establishment of
conditions on a development. SB 1287 did not change the ability of the City to use CFDs as
a means of mitigation under Section 65996, and CFDs are specifically exempt from the
statutory dollar limits of Section 65995.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Grupe is consistent with this position. In m, a
voted special tax on new development for school facilities, “Measure C”, was challenged.
Measure C had been approved by the voters within the Chino Unified School District prior to
the 1986 legislation which authorized residential school fees originally at $1.50 per square
foot (“School Facilities Legislation”). The Supreme Court distinguished special taxes levied
by a CFD from the special taxes of Measure C. One of the Supreme Court’s key arguments
used to support its decision was that Measure C special taxes were included within the scope
of the limitations on “fees, charges, dedications, or other requirements” found in Section
65995 and that CFD special taxes were specifically excluded from the limitations of Section
65995. Grupe, pg. 2027. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the limitations of
Government Code Section 65995 applied to Measure C, and therefore Measure C was invalid
because the school district was also levying the maximum school fee allowed by Section
65995. It should also be noted that the Supreme Court’s decision was rendered while
acknowledging the recent enactment of SB 1287.
The holding in Grupe is a significant development with respect to confirming the
city’s ability to condition new development through the use of CFDs. The Supreme Court
denied review of the W, &.rl and &Iurrie& decisions, and this is the first time the
Supreme Court has addressed the issue of school facilities fees as authorized under
Government Code Section 53080 and 65995. Both before and after the effective date of SB
1287, the City has had the authority to condition new development upon the use of CFDs to
mitigate school impacts, The Supreme Court’s decision in Grupe lends additional support to
such authority.
The City’s General Plan Public Facilities Element as well as the City’s Growth
Management Element contain provisions which require availability of schools prior to
BAKW&GIABIAJN:anI6850
BOWE, ARNESON, KADI, Wms & GLANNONE
City Council - City of Carlsbad
Villas at Camino Real Project Impacts
October 26, 1993
Page 6
legislative approvals, including specific plans and zone changes. For example, the LFMP for
Zone 21 (at page 107) requires as a “special mitigation condition” that all development within
Zone 21 (which would include the Project) conform with the District’s stated performance
standards, which requires school capacities to meet projected enrollment requirements within
each zone, as determined by each school district, prior to projected occupancy. Absent a
mitigation agreement the District’s facilities cannot meet the projected enrollment
requirements for Zone 21 when development approvals result in the generation of additional
students.
It should be noted that Government Code Section 65300.5, requires a finding of consistency between a specific plan (such as the Zone 21 LFMP) and the City’s General Plan
prior to approval of that specific plan. It should further be noted that Government Code
Section 65589.5 specifically provides that nothing in that section shall be construed to
prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise required by law
which are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to a proposed project,
regardless of whether such project is for the development of low- and moderate- income
housing. In order to fully mitigate the impacts from the Project the District requests that the
City require that developers of property within the Project enter into a mitigation agreement
acceptable to the District which fully mitigates the impacts to be incurred by the District as
set forth above.
We would be pleased to provide you with any additional information you may require.
Very truly yours,
BOWIE, ARNESON, ISADI,
WILES & GIANNONE
Alexander Bowie
cc: John Blair
BAKW&GIAB/AJN:an/6850
BOWIE, AP\NESON, Km, W~LEI & GIANNONE
4920cAMpoSDIuvE M3VKmT BEKIi. ‘ZZMKRNIA %?&o TELEPHONE (714)851-lMo* FAX(714)851-2014 HOME(714)644-8068
v,,-* , :1..0 ?*X, 3 ?b=Vb* L’&-Q&ntb &In .u+su c IJvbw 3.m.# A Wmwnbn :rr@nvw hub 01 re@b, ctbbw1
- - -*. . - . ..w- -. ..-
aawa we l b@w L4ronruA **I,
b%l’rW+ AUOb-
Loowu*~
10N tbl. GRmxYlY 8
S~cxammtb, callfomia wntwuo
December: 4, 1992 ano r nrmgpn IUCilW Oe*a a Jd*Lon
‘.
i .
d
HonoraXa Uillie L. mxm, Jr,
219 State capital
- 1 bear Mr, Bromt
__ h4vMtwubt- &mAwqU
EXY uscn*o sAc*v bwwr yk*M* SW* aPr sum an cunw :(I*.
Al!?m,~ Ehtr#nr UJed rrsruoa wrxv: tmva 0 uwtr Iuam w:::: Jlob 4 2orrnr
6UESCPrC)NPO. 1
Does Chaptar X3134 ef the Statutes of 1992 prrJhi!dt 8 city, county, or olty and coamty from coasfdoring ti8 l daquacy 02 5chool fzicilftfes in the Ce3UX88 of adopting or impLema*trtg 8 general pLan, policy? zoning ordirrance, or-other lsgislatlva liwi u:a
QPrNIouuo. 1 a
Chaptar 1354 at the Statutes af 2992 does net prohibit a city, cou3tYI Or city and county iroar considering Cha adequacy of ’ school fhcilittes in the ccursa of adopting or itnplemsnting a general plan, policy. zoning ordinance, or other legisLativ% land US%
Before assessing the effect ot chapter 1354 or the statutes of 1992’ t ye ccms~der the existing law regarding the relationship betwaen the develcpmont of real property and schocl facilities constructfon.
' This measure is the chaptered version of Senarrs Bili Nab i287 of tke 1991-92 aeqular Sassfon,
DEC-11-92 FRI 13'31
Hmorable Willie L, &Own, Jr. - p. 2 - #30455
Prior to &muzcy 2) 1987, developntehe proj wt.3 ware potxntiall~ subjsct to schaal facilitfas fees or ether requirements imposed by citiss and wunlies either pursuant to Chapter 4.7 (Commeacing with Spction 65970) of PiVisibn 1 df
Tftlt$ 7 of tho Government Cod& (herrafter ~rChaptax 4.71') or pursuant to t!WJ! poliCS pawrl: generally (see a m- tnc.. v. Grs.smont Qj$sll Hi& mhQQ3& g&&L., 39 C&l. 3d 870). where 5dm03 ovekwdinq is damonvtratsd to exist, Chaptrr 4.7 generally prohibits a city OF wmnty frm approving a roridential develogaant unle~ it Pirst: raquir8~, except aa rpacileiod, that land be dedicated, fess be paid, CIZ b&h, far classrooms and ,
related facilities, awrpt ab apmiffed (Sacs, 65972 and 6S974). ' Approval 6f a xasidmtSa1 dwolopmmt inaludas, Par thh w over the apprcvsl of an ardinancr rcrzodrg property to a rolrsident al T user the granting alf a dimcrstiona TP onnit fee rdAsnt#.~l um, at the apgraval elf a tantathe subd v rsiafi map for r&afdential purposes (see Sec. 65971).
0 As of ;tanuuw 1, &987, hewaver, the law gmmming Waaoli 'facilities ferns tlhd other rlsquiremntr wad ammdrd by chapter 887 - Of the Statutas Qi? 1986. Under that chapter, thy kgislatuzs added Section 63080, wanting to ~hooi diatricta tlm a%prmr I huthorit rsaeianab 'f td levy devalopmr 2~s and athrx roquframnta as Ha.- a &&hod of financing the rxpansion mnd comtructian of. ticWe facilities rtiaultfag &&II new ~aonanio dwalqpmnt within the district18 {subd. (a), Sea. 7, Cl& aat, Stats: :986).
T!haC autherity ia mxpmtaly made subject, hwwer:, to:- ths restriction8 set fort=h in chiptar 4,s (umma~eing wit& S4ction, 65995) aP Division 1 of Tith 7 (h~rm~tor 1’Chaptor 4.Vtt gara. (I), subd. (a), SBU~ 53080). Included umong thoee restrfctiona is I ,-Section 65995, whiah limits th4 total tm0un-t 0P the dmmlogelt fees. and other requixemrnta tu Pund the conotzuctim or rtconstzuction of school facil~fiar that may be lsviod by school. districts undmr Secticrn 53006, by a 6ity OT county undmz Chapter 4.7, or bath, ta $1.30 per squhre foot ef asaeseable LIPCLCCI, in the csta~ af residential dwelopuont, and $OAS per rquare foot at chargcabls. covered and enclased space, in the cam Of rsornmrcfal of industrial deveh3pmerqt (sub& (b), Sea, 6SSSS). Thdse dollar limits are increased pericxllcally according to a daalgnatsd ndjuarmcnt fat inflatian (paxa. (3), subd. (b), Sec. 65995).
’ All, section references are ta the Governmsnt Code, unless otherwise Fndfcated.
DEC-11-92 FRI 13~32
gonorable Willie t. Brown, Jg, - pI 3 - #304~s
SectiaJ? 65995 aim cantaim two provisfonr axprasahg the Leqislature’s intent to forbid Amy Zocal legislation, except as explicitly aUt&Orized undrr the state laws discuS8~d abave, that: wauld aondition thb approval of dwellopmcnt according ta the Lmpnct Upon 6chOOI faciliCi6r. First, subdfvision (a) ef Section 65999 prohibits the lrgfslativr body 6f any local agency, including t;he govoming board rzL a schcsal district (sea fo pda, &&&a&~ AU&. v. Gevazz&~ J&L, 206 Cal. App. 34 g 2;;: Prom levying aW for or othm requirement againrrt a develapmmnt
pro FUG 1 ect to hmd the cmatruotian or rrcanatruckfcm of 8th~~~ lities e%Cept is authorized under metion 53080 41: Chapter 4.7 (subd, (a), SW. 63995).
saond, subdivisL~n (e) ‘Qi setion 6591)s aaxpratisly ’ declares the intantr, oE the bsgirlaturs to precmgt local 19 islation that wetid require few9 or 0th~ considr~ation te be pa d a8 a conditian of the approval of drvalupmant4 1 Sn thir regard, &Wmu~h S6ctfon CL3995 dam not specifically excluda a local ~MWW;B that= ruthorizm t.ho &&.& of a dmmldpzaent: on the basis of thr adsquay of whool fadlities, we thi nE m&t -
-.-the rr8trictfon pl&cwi by the Lsqirlature upm local legirlaticn - that would I%Wim that th+. @act af a devalopnront proj +ck an t school faeilfti@a bs a\itigrted would bs conrtrwd to agpl to a lbcaf aWknda%i tha% & davala~u& abwnce of thut mitigation4 P rojrcii: be dmied I rquafly n th&. A etatuts 9 to be cowttrueCt l o aa to be qfverr a maronabla rorult consistent w%h tha lrgiriatlvr purpcm, I2Vlight Of t!m crantaxt Q$ t&s lsgielation 8nd ika apparent abjeotive (w v, UP& &Q# m, 11 Cal, 34 - 32& 732-7331 904 u J& -mu peea
fn addition to t2m aohoal-rarated conditiona ugan devel6ptaent that may be establishad by lwal legislative action
pursuant: to 9eation 53080 ow2aptr6r 4.7, a city or county
generally pae~esaas thr authority ta &a ome cmdition~ upon the approval of 8 developr;lent project relat ve te the P P r~jrct~b
'i otenCia1 burden upon publfc~ service5 or ather rnv ronnsentaf mpact aonctirns? WA authority ma Y be exercisrd under axirtinq data law pur8umt to the Califom h Environnantal Quality Act, as
set forth in Division 13 (comxsncMq with Section 21000) ae the eubifa Resources Cod@ (hereafter %EQA”; ~86 Sets. 22002 and 21002.1, P.5t.C.r &&J& u r;aaee .u pml, VI city Eouncfl, . $3 Cal. App. 3d 515, 521) and ths S&vi~Lon Map ACt (Div. 2
[commencing with SW, 66410)~ Titte 7). However, Seotion 65996,
which aLso is contained in Chapter 4.9, identifies Ssaction 53080 and &her ape&% statutory praviskms as the exclusive msthods ‘. ot mFCiqating environmental effects w&i? CEQA wiCh regard to conditioning the approval CH? a development project on the a4squacy \ of sahool facilFtfa3, and grohiblts any publia agmcy I!WIK den)rWI
DEC-11-92 FRI IS:35
* Honorable willio L. Brawn, Jr. - p. 4 - #304SS
apprOVa1 of 8 d~vebpment prQj&X on the basis of thy adequacy of school facilitie8 pWsuant tsa CEQA or the Subt$ivfafon Map Act.
fh8 firsi: dacisi.gr! OE record in which Sgrcthn 65996 was judicfally constzxad is m B COrn~V. g&yQgsa_n Q&C& 205 Cal. App. 3d 1203 (hsreaffnt 11ml*) I a oa34 in which a city council denird a tezming apgU.cation that wa3 prereq~isita to the approval af a propaaad rastdantfal development projecl, zn tnac caue, the uity t%tmcWs dacfsion w&s aZ3eged by tlm developer to have baen based upon the inadequacy of achaal
facilit=fes and, therefore, ta havtr viol&tad tbo prohibition e& forth in SWtioYI 65996 o&g& sugr,a, pa 1227)*
TM aourt ia &f& began Lts analyrfs by distinguishing’ an application for d ndewslopzmnC pfojwtr4~ ta. which Saction 65998
expr:easly ripplie5 t from a raquert for a zoning amndmnt. Thr
COU~:~: held thati a gwermer&ial rmpona to an application fog the approval.af a davclapnmt pro sat ir dn adfudfcativa act, waning an ace that ~~qui2aa tha appl catiora oi an wSstAz%g rulr t:b a 3 b sgecifla uot 8f rxLi6Cfng facto (,m, qpra, pp. 12t7-lNh l ea ..Lwrd_i, v* Q&n& at m, 139 Cal, hpp. 36 934, 934) l Tn conrras& th@ uourt charaoterfzed a qavarmtmtal reapunsr to a : gtopossd zoning amendment aa a legirslativr sot, which hwolv~s the fomulation of a gemrally applfcnbls nt1a or policy3 (m, supfar
p. 1218t Landi vI &&&y a.-, mapra, p. 936) .,
Pursuant to that d;tstinc*ion, the ~xowt charactarized S+cb;lon 65998 PS a rastxict&m upon only tba adjudicatfw wtharity oa? Wl agency. Tim aourt rrfuard $a f'brda&rP tl~o rawming 6f Setfon 65996 to lnaludo any ralrtrfction
upon a gublia agancy’r authartity QV~E proposed zanfng funundmrnta or over other Pratterr Involving the agencyta axorcim of its s legislative powera (u, aupral p* x2&8), 8
Zn dsa&,fning tb ove~urn the city comcWa acitian on. the baeis af Sacfion 65996, the Mira caurt did not discwr the bpplfcability te the clity CDUIICSI*B actfan of subdivision (8) aE Section 65995, QZ of any bother zt$ge& of the prrrmpfian doctrine, Thud, the l&a docisicn ?!ailed to address exprsssLy whethar SubdivisiozI (6) OP Sectim,6599S, rather than Ssc!tt=ion 65996, wotkd
be construed to prsemgt tha city counci.1, in tha’ axercisr of its legislative powers, bash 6t school from denying a rezoning application on the facilities inrpact.
.
’ As a &QiSlative act, a zcrning decioian is af~mXied mor@
i
deference thafz a gublic agancy’a adjudicatfve decisfan3 (k&U,
1.. supra, g. 12181 j&Q& -en& Co. v, C.ftx a $$LQi!Z& MA$, 28 Cal. 3d 511, 522). .
"-norable Wirli& L. Brokm, Jr. - p, 5 - 630459
Subsequent judScfa1 Qecisions have elaborated, hawever,
upon the sccqe of Smkians 65995 and 65996 in thgt reqasd. wll.liar!&mrtnianmmav-ReaiodaLP,annfna’1;91PL, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1612 (harealtor ~~jj.up) , irmlvcrd the rafushl de a cmttty to conaidtir: the s&001 faoilifisti ftipact of a proposed
zoning ohange. The COUrt deebrad that: subdivision (e) of Swtfon 65995 preempts only "requirements for schaal finance that a Zacal agency will 1tupOSe on a m ~aieatN (emphasis in
original) 6 #The COUZ'k Qxplainrd that, because the Local legialativc decision in Mira did not irrvolve rqafr+mants to &I imposed on a develeproant projrat, but, gather, the hgisfativa enaatmank Of NLand-use a" (emphasis in original), that decision was9 not praempted by Bratfan 65995 cm any oth+r gravision of c!haptrF 4.9 (a- I#U&k& w w scha_ol Q&& V. w ' a RlversiQ, 228 Cal. 36 1212, 22301 hsreattrrz II-h), A pe Based upon that df.stia& on, E tha co& cancLud&d that the count waa not restricted by 8tatcJ law prom considering school Fnoilit 6s x impact with raspsct t8 its daoisi6n to grant or deny the propased zoning change (Ida, gpr 2626-1627).
A rimflar UlWlyysJla was employed in m, sugra. In that cam ,’ the county approved axa a~~~~dnent tic its grnaral plan to mfti additional devalopamt to becur ~1 a mattat of land um licy, without ccmriderfnq, purruont ta the requiramnts of cgQA,. the rohodl CaCilki8e inpact sf t&&t: gumral pLan 8inandzumt (rd.,
P p, 1218-2229) l ‘fl’W court brcribad a grme2al plan aa a Wblria and um charter governing the diraation af future land use in UZP Local jurisdiotiqn, fl and heLd that the. ararndment of a g+n+ral plan is a teqislativa act that doea not inveXve tha rpprwal oP a l~dsvolopment proj4aklc fbr purposes OP Section 63996 (r& , pp. 1230-1231) a further, the ptemption in subdiviaian (6) oC 86ctlon 65995 uae held by ths couth to re&te only to ths ffnancing of school, facflitf8r witi devrlopmant foes, Ifa 3ar cry from stating *that a public agency Cannot include in a genar#k& plan.amendaont land use and Qweloptient objectives and standards to mitigate the atnendmenkfs patenth negat&Ve &f8Ct8 on adequacy Of 8&a& faciiiW# (Ed., p 1234, fn, 16).
,
The cou&..concluded, consequently, that neitfiar subdivision (a) af Scsetfon 66995 nor Section 63996 preempt4 a county, when cansidezinq a genwal plan amendsent that may adversely affect the WSstljrg condition of inadequate School facilities in a schoof Ustriut, from Vansidsrfng and providing feasible land use and development mFtSgating meamresl' as required
by CEQAI Tha court suggested that these measures could include, far example, the reduction of residential densities or the
ccrntrolled phasing af residential Bevelopmant within the ?tsndance are& af the school dimtriat: having ivadeguate school cilities (UW'i~+% supra, pe 1234).
DEC-11-5'2 FRI 13:~6 -
Konmxble WilU.0 t, ~mfn; or, - p, 6 - 5136455
The featActions rstzab2ished ixr Chaptcrr 4.9 have bean constrwd by th aourta, accordi,ngly, to apply tu tha local
itap~~ftfen ot conditionti ,m the approver1 of hqilvidual devsl~pment projects, hue rick to the local adoptim or amendmnt Crf general land usu polScies.
To sUmariz8, S&din 65995 pt8ckZss’loca~ agencies, including cikim and uountie~, froaa adopting anS, kugialatfve IXiKpi~~~~tl~, except to the extent authmized by Sactiotl S3080 and clhapter 4.7, that: imposm~ F+ma aa a condition ta appmval of 8 development project in ordrr to reducs the projrct8s negative inpact on school facilitiati (ati* &&&& mpra, p+ 1234, Xn;
16) l Swtian 65994, in our view, mquire8 that, in the marcfse, of local adjudicative wthority to raquirttb under CZQA QUIZ the school tacilitie8 impact a$ a davmLopaustit grojec% be mitigated, only the statutory rmmdirr fdontifiad in that mction may be utilized, with tha ram&k that a local. gmmmt~tal agency may not employ CEQA to r8quke hdividual defhl6gmcnt: p~ojrcfs to othQrnisa laitigata rrchool Eacflitisa; zm a condition 02 mceiving. approval.
Eowevar, pwmaamt to ths authority Uiscuemd hwe, we cmcluds thae chapter 4.9 dars not prohibit a city, csuq, oe city and aaunty frdtn conriderfnq the adruuacy of achocl Zacilitfra in the couraa af rdopting br inplamntfng 3tr falative land us4 policy in th8 tom, fw rmnplo, of a gene33 4 plan or! 2oninFj ordinance.
We nex% must Utltorrolne th8 sxtant to whioh CM &an r)l in Chapter 4.9 made by aiter Che existing law Cnaptw 1394 cP the Statutes 0: 199;1 w 11, ! described abav@ .
.
Cbptar 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 anrnd8 Sectiona
65995 and iS996, and addd and repralrr tbtrira saotfonr, with t;he effect that additional langunqa ir added to those eectio~, effcckive January k., 1993, but ip &iwmbly CmatlWtianPl Amendnent No* 6 of tha 1991-91 Regular sesfiiion faila to receive’ the approval Of 1 majority of the voters voting on that malrsur% Seations 65995 and 65996 will revert to the voraiow af those sections in effwt under existing law as descrfbed above. ‘thfs analysis Will address tha 'changes made by Chapter 1354 cP the
DEE-11-32 FHI 1SZ67 I-, w-b
Honotabla Willis L. Brown, Jr. - p. 7 - #3Od5S
Statutes af 1992 to Sections 45995 and 65996 that will take etfect: cm January I., 19934. 1
We initially consider the provisions af Chapter 1354 of the S~aCutes of 1993 that revise seation 65995.
Chaptar~ 1354 aP thr Statutaa of 1992 ?%Vims subdivision (a) of Sectian 65995 to road as fbllbws:
"65995. (a) Excrpt: for ii fee, charge, dedication, 01: other requirewant: authosfzad under Sectfan 53080, or pursuant ta Chapter 4.7 (comnancing with Seatian 65970), no Pee, char a, dedication, OF other reqtairament shall be ! 1~ ed by the 1egislaCrCva body of a lecal agency against a clevslapm6trt projwt, 88 dmiined in Saatien 53000, IifhdhW&ndminiatrative~~acti6n, for.the COnstructian ar roaonstZuctian of Um31 facilltfeo.
+ + *n (New wording indiaaCed . . in underline. )
%US, while the currant proviaionrr 02 B+ckiafi 6$995- prohibSt oiC&ss, count188 , or other laoal rgenciar from levying any Gee or otkar requ;frwmnt, rrxoept to thr ractmt autkrizad by Section 53d80 attd Chaptet 4.7, as a condition ix~&qmwal of d
develogmcnt project in ardrsr to tund the construutiorr or rmxastruotion of schoo3, Pacilities, clia trr X334 of thlr StatUtrs of 1992 will X~ia;e &at section to apea si appliser *:a thr lrvyin fy that this prohibition
hdminfstrative or 4 of faaa or at&w raquimmnts @whether by leg sllstiva actfan. 11
Genarall opsaklng, a leg~5lnt:ive act fs chuoribed asi a . +vfmmental act d ut prascribss a naw policy 05: plant an adminiatrakiva act?, by cerzapariaon, is an aat undmtakabn to carry auk the legislative pollicirs and purpcsss establirhed by,the legislatfve body (&J&jj,~ ve w g& m m, 86 Cal. App. 3d 506‘ 5091, An act,is administxaEiv8, rather than lrgfrlativr, if it htolvas, fbr dxatnple, the dete&nation of specidc rights under existing law yith regard ta a o;pecific fact situation (pfountain pafens& J,ea+u v. ~J,QJ)& & dwerv~org, 65 Cal, App* 3d 723, 728-729).
' Chapt6r 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 al'so adds 8dbn i \ 6599S.3, which Will be discussed in Analysis No. 2. 'b.
Honotable WFlXie L. Brawn, Jr. - p. 8 - #a0453
Based upm t&at distinction, the approval of a develapmenf pt=Oject, fncluding thcr isauanC:s 4f Ury pamit, the granting of caning variancea and cmditional ‘use pamits, and the approval of tantatfve subdlvislton maps ia conaiderrd an admini.stxatiW taut (w, supra, pe 1415~ &a,& yr CaUi G$ merev, 8uprar p. 936) t By cmtrst, the approval of a zoning amendment or the amendment of a glenera glan is net IAmPi~ed in SCOPO to a spsuifia attempt to devalop, and 1~9 characterized, thetefom, as a hgiolative act (m, aaapra, pe 16251 8430 .gy,g&ha, suPrat pp. X230-1231).
!f!hus, Section 65995, a8 ,reviaed by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992, will rxpreeoly prohibit a city, county, city and cmmty, ar othfuz local agancy from eit&er rstablitihing Ilegialatfve standards, QL: applying any legislatively astablirbed rtandard, so as to recpim, aa a condition or the approv&l 02 any dwmlopmmnt project, that a f (be be paid ox otbr requirrawnt ba mrt for the
p~2pxsa of Zunding rckr~~l faci&,ftiea construction ar reconstrtictiOnr crtha2z than as levied pursuant to Section 53080 or Chaptsr 4.7. , .
A8 discuati~~U abew, existin ’ . exercise of lrqi8lativa rukharity ta law already Zixhits the %p 894 CI rchool facilftkll fee or athnr roquirumnt against a devehpmmt ~tb act, Sactim
MOSS, in its crurrmat form, psshib;ftr th P 1 bqirr at ve body of any lowal agency f&mu l stablimlaing my rrquirsmcurt tuti a dm!doptasnt project aomply with a echool PacUitiea fire 02 oW3x requiremat, other: than put;‘ciuant to Sectfun 53080 or drsptar 44 7# and pr8srapti ths subjeat nattier of thr financiag of schcroj. eaeilitie8 from that 8ourc8 a8 a matter ei? etatawide ammmz (aubds, (a) and (e) , de& 65995) t Further, Sectian 65996 aurrmtly idetit&Liea Saction 53080 and other spaaific otatutory provisiona as the +XU~US~VS w&had8 ---‘“‘of mitigatinq errvfronmantal attacks under CEQA with regard ta conditioning the approval of a dwelogmsnt project on thm adequacy of school faailiticr, and prohibiti any publics agmuy &on denying approval of a devmlopmnt pzojrat on tJ~r b&&is of tha ada@aq CX? school facili%bas pursuant to ClZQA,or the Subdivision Map Act.
Consquently, while misting law limits the 8uthority’,af a local agenc r ta ibquirr that a davelopmrn* pro jaat provi,do financial mit qatiwn or ita eohosl Ladl~tias impact in the course of the agency’s aclminfstrativs impbmentation of Section 53080 and CEQX, the r;evision to Ssction 65995 msde by Chapter 1354 of tha Statutes of 1992 further prohibits a local &gamy from requirfng * ,
that mitigation in itlr achinfstratfvs impleme~tatian ot &ny Ma92 legislative authority.
DEII-11-92 F '3 I 1s :4&
Nonorabla Wfllia L. Bmwlr, or, - p. 9 - #304rSS
We turn next ta the provisions of Chapter 1334 of the Statutes of 1992 that anmd Sect&n 65996. Qectfon 63996, as revhad by Chaptet 1354 of the Statutas of 1992, reads as follows:
"BS996 .* Q& The ltollewing provfsians shall be the sxclus~ve methods af mitigatljng enviranmental effech rdateci tc the adequacy of school facilftles when considering the approval or the l exbUAaaient bf conditfone for tha approval of a develc SC& g~lof~ctr lZltrdmlnPetrati?re a iaaialatfve hctfan pursuant to blvisien 13 (commencing rfth Saction 21000) of thn Public Resouxers Co&:
‘Ye ( Chapter 22 (conmenoing with Section
17700) of Pati 10 of the Education Coda.
VW- 17385) or
“# 27870) QE
” w- 3932-7) of Code.
w+ Cqds,
w9- 53321) af Code.
w+ 65970) Of code b
a Chapttor 25 (cemencfng with Section Fart 10 of tha EdUcatian Code, A
QJ, Chaptar 28 (commmaing with S0ction Part 10 o$ the Edtzcatfcm Coda.
m Article 2 .S (conuPancfng with Se&ion
Cbaptrr 3 OF Part 23 of thb Education
J,!& Section 93080 cf the GcW8rrna~nt
u. Chaptar 2 ,S (commencing witi SeCtion ,
DWiaien 2 of Tit98 5 of the Gauernmclat
(71_ Chaptar 4.7 (mxuum2fng with Stictian bivision 1 of Title 7 ol! the Govermont
.
I* fbl No .ptiLic agency ahall, pursuant ta
Dlvisiml 13 (comencipg with seutim 21000) a2 the
. ...,,,_,, Public Resourtgrs code OF -
(cm yit!&Ftian &,5OOQ),, deny approval a of profe~t on the basi 6 of the adaquacy of school facflitfes, 9d; M gondltiong pn am- Qf 4 praJm pb_r the pmuosq of pravu facFlft=fes that & ~&WAnts Wtm M to this charker,
DEi;--lA-YL I-HA A.*;**
-
mmcrabla WiXfQ La Brown, or. - g. LO - #XMSS
hdicatrd in strikeout and Und~lino.)
Wa begin with the first aubatantive ravirik made to Section 65996 by Chaptrr 1354 of the Statutw or 2992, ta tlu +fgeat that the lim~fatione 8et far& In that aaction 9 rossly apply to local mitfgatfon '*by a&nfnistratPm ok Legfalat va "i actfon11 w? s&3301 Pacilitim impac% pursuant: td CEQA,
Section 2Xoa2 co? the Fublio Resouraas Cade, EL providon of cEQA, expressly authorfzss all publia agmncfra to adapt: local
’ ~egisl&ti%‘O. m+cLBUW39 fOY tha WidUatioll OP pa?cijaatS and th8 proparati68 of GWWironnmatal tipact rqmsta and neg8tSve deul&ratfcnf3 purdnrant to GEQAA Cox~aeq~ently, this firs* zevirion to section 65996 will apraify that the rrrtrlutfona 8~4s EoM ;Cn- that rectimapply not only to louti a&ninbtratie uatfan taken undst: cEQA ko require #at a dsvelclpmemt pro sct&tSgateb impact tm schacrl Paoilitier 1 its I but a&m to nit gatfm rrqufxenrenta under C!EQX that zuay bs imposed undar: Local le#rlrtiVe maasuxea, aa nay b& adopted pursuant to Gectfarr 21082 ot th8 Public ~asourcer Code.
The rmond substantbo ~wiaion ta Section 65996 mada by .chapker 1354 of the Stat&s6 of 1992 addrsrrres tha pravirion of that t%!tiOn that currently pmhibfts a publiu agmzy front denying approval of ih pEOject on We bado af th* adquacy of schaol facilitiau pursuant to CEQA OF thr Subdiviaian Map Act. This revision d@lstW the specAffc reference ta the 8ubdiviriod Map Act, as set: totih in Dlvfsion 2 (camtmncing wAth Suction 66410) of Title 7, fnstead applying that prahfbitlon to tha rxercise~ af lacnL authdrfty under Title 7 (commencing with Sdotion 65000) In its entirsty (heaziafter thus Wlanning and Zoning L~w~~)~
The Subdivision Map Act providm for tlm regulation and control af the design and fmprovehont of subdSvieion~ and grants power for that purpose ta the leqisl&tive bodies of lc~cal agenoies, including the authorfty to adopt ordinnncae ta regulate
k
the design and ihp2%vement of subdivisions (Sets. 66411, 66418, 66419, and 66421).
l . .
Utb-L I-PA I-r%0 A3 --s-a
gmarable NiLlie L. 0rOwn, $r. - pb II - 63045s ,
The P2aminq and Zohing Law, which includes the Subdivision Map Act, Crlna includes, far rxaxuple, Chaptsr 3 (commencfny with Seutton 63100) of Div1~I.m 2 of Title 7, which contabls variaufi prwiSfW%I goVeming the addptfan or alnendment af a genM31 p&II, Wery clffq OF ccrunty, whather: chartrrrd or genrral law, is raquirad under that chapter ta adopt a comprmhensivs 1. long-tern gensral pran, uontaining 8pociEic jm~datosty elements for trhe physical, development of thr city or county (Sew. 65300, 65302, l d 65700).
Ahe within t:hcr Planning and Zoning Law ia Chaptoe 4 (comsncfng with 8ection 65800) of DivlPrion 1 ot Title 7, which
sets forth a&ah 1Mtationa upon local aufhority over zonfng, The ~WJBJ: of a city or ccnmty to zone la not: grantad by the Laqlis;latum, but derives &cm tha bread ~lgcrlicta pc~wmW confrrred on C&em by daction 7 of Artlch XI of t;he Californfa Conrtftution (B Y@ other grounds, Ljvet?&Q& 18 CAL 3d 583, 396, Ln, 24) and, in the QA~Q of 3 char-tar citfea t and citlas and cou~fe~ with autharity GYW ’ 3wkipal affairs, frorp k&a chartar (Sets. 5 and 6, AI?& XS, Cal. "am&~ a Se &aa a v. &!iwMa-enG SlLf Iis&lkb 63 Cal. App- 36 473, 479) l
ThU8, this ravfrion to Seatien 65996 prohibit8 a publia agenq frozu daybg appztbval crf a project on tha bads af the ndaguacy of daoof Zaoilitirr, not only when aoti,ng pursuant to the SubdiviPian Mibp Act, but: Ait33 when acting ummant %b otkr pmvisions bf thQ Planning and Zoning Law, inc udfng, P butr n8t
$ited to, the adoption or rztandmnt of d genera1 plrn or mnfng Although the adopt&on OX tmandment of u gmeral plan or zoning law, afi a 1egfulatfva action, ordinarily f~olv~m the eotablishmnt of categorical lmd ULG policy rather man the approvai of a develcrplamt projac* (me m, aupra, pp* 1230- a '1231~ m, 8upra, ppe 1426~16271, the apparent afir& of this revbfan will bd to apec~i~iorlly prohibit the inclusion within a general p&an Or honing law of,&ny p?XWi!iifon that would aut=horf2e the denial or’-individual devslapaant projects on the basis 09 the adaqidcy 00 school ffdcilitfes. - - -
In additfan co revlsfng Section 65996 public agency , pursuant ta ClilQA 02 ,the Planninq from 4enyfng approval. CC? a project on the basis school faoi+++es, Chapter 1354 af. the Statutes . .
ta prohibit a and- Zoning &W, of the adequacy of S of 1992 adds an express prohibitlen upon the inpasit;on of conditfwns on the approval of a grofeck for thr purpase of providing school facilities th&Lt: excoecl the amounts authkized pursuant to
.
DEC-11-92 FRI IS:46
-
.
Kmorabie Willi I;. Brown, Jr. - p. 12 - #304SS
Chapter 4.9. Thus, Section 65996 will SpeciffCa~ly preclude a public agency frara exercising its au%horfty q~dol: CEQA or the elanning and Zoning mu, aa cii~aus8cd above, tcr raqufta that schoo3 facflitfes fea OF ether ~s&mnsnts, in BXCP88 of the amounts nuthorfzad under Chapter 4.9, be paid on behalf of any
d8Vd6pnenk project as a COnditiun Of apprwal*
To sumarfze, whih mfbtfnq Law limb! thm autiorfty of a local agency to require that a devalopmertt project rovide finmcial mUAgatLon of its trchool faciiitf- fntpact f n thr COU~:SQ ab ths agrncyb3 achinfstmtive bi’pbzwitation Of S+ction 53080 ami CEQA, the revioion IX Secthn 65995 muda by tipt:rr 1394, of the StaWtor rsi tS92 furtim? prohibita a local agancy ircrar requiring that mitigation in ita admfnfrtra~ivc i&pLeatintatiPn af any other legislative authoritya
The m&ion8 trade te Section 69996 rrrhd& by Chapter 1334 of the statutes of 1992 spwffy that th4 restrictiofis rat forth in that section apply not cm&y to ho&J, adminirrt?stivr actian taken e undcrz CEQA ta 8:+quire that a dwelapasent prodact aritlgate it8 ., impact on ockrdal Pacllitiea, but ltlrcr ta mi.Uqation requiruaaata , . under CEQA that nay b,rr.@omd under looal logfilative tarauurea,
I as may be adopted purruartt ta brctfon 21082 of thr Publfa Reuaarcer Cede a Ia acldU&m, those ravidons rpreifically prohibit th+ hcUsion within a general plan or-soniw law oi my pm&ion that would autlmrize the denial oE Mi~fdual devahpment projeuta on the baais of tM &deqUaq of a~&Nl facilitias, and prsoluh 0. puhlfo agency f'ram rxercirfng ftr a4ninistrativa 01: leqialative autharity wdlr CZQA or the Planning and zaaing .Law, aqlimu8ard 2&w+, to roquirr ,tihat roh4al faoilitios gem ot Oeher raqriLrtm*ntr, in wee88 of the mnaunta
authorized uodw Chapter 4,9, be paid on behalf at any deverlopzuerrt ptojaot as a condlttlon of apprwal.
The rwtisiana ma& to Baatiorr8 65995 and 6599U by
chapter 2354 of ths Statutm erf 1992 do not purp8ti to d;ddxww, however, the nuthority of a local aumnq ta oansider tha adaquaay of schoal Cacilitfaa Itn any contra& ather than the approval of*: individual dov*lopimt proj acts. conoeqmdy, based upah the ‘1 analysis nob forth ubovm, it is our conclusian that chaptar 1354
of the Sf%tUtes of $392 dOea not pmhltbit a City, coUntyI or- City and county Pram donsfdsring t;hs adequacy of school &kcilftiau in
the course OP Adaptfng or ~mpMmnting a gemral phn, zoniflq ordinance, or other hgisXative land use policy.
Honorable WiUie Le Bmm, Jr. - p. 11 - #30455
rrr. mve Ca@hYlcCi5n or * l-,4 of? t!tle st:g *er ?f tntcs ai!
ls!a 6
YOU have asked that we consider an alternative FnterprefatfOn Of the revFsion3 mada ta Seufitm 65993 and 65996
by Chapter 1354.0~ We Statutss of 1992. Thirr alternatim argumank posits that the lbgislatfvar intent undrrlyin r;evidone ww ta ravfse the meaning of the tern bfdtive f thoclle opmwxt groject,lt a8 used in Seatfonti 65995 and 65996, Z;o include the 18gisZative action of a local, agency In adapting 6'2: amWing a geneal plan or zoning Xaw to establish land urna polScy, Accord2ng t93 this hsgument, the effeut of this construction wculd be that a locaf, ag+ncy would be prohibftlrd by thorr sec~ionb, a8 ~wfsac! by Chaptax 1354 of the Statutm af 1992, from taking into accoux~t the impact: an school facilities in deaiding an the
adoption or amandrosnf of a grnmkl plan 0% zoning law.
AC quoted aboVq Chapter 1354 oE tha Statutes ot 1992 revisea ~eotfon 659315 to atate that, oxcegt aa autbrized under I
canot~otion or raconrtrt2cti scilool facilltia8’~ (ealpLsia addrd to danata language inemtmab by CL 1354, Stata. 1992).
90 begin with, Section 65995, a2e revimd by cbapt~tl354 of thr statutes of 1993, retains Ikom axi3ting law tha ptrrase “a dmelo incone 3"" ent project, as-drofined in Se&Ion 53080.~~ this is ctsnt with the aontmtion that ChaptarJJ84 ol th Statutrr ot 1992 should br inkerprrtad as a ravfeiarr of thsr doffnitiorr of the ter!n ~developraont proj act * " 6
More bnpotiantiy, hha only app;hg~t rrasonabh
‘constructian of tba d&USe “whethrr by administrative 01: legislative aetion~~ within the contaxt of the provision of Section 69998 quatod abwe, in our opinian, is thcst the cldus8 modifies the rNl~vyfng4f by 8 lrgislativr hod or other rcquirmnant. of a fee, charge, dQdfcati+, It is our v +w, 1 discuroion above, aa expreosed ha the
actlorP ie that f%hether by adzuinistraWm or leg&Xaties clearly un advwbial Claude in this cmtrxt tUt addresse8 the methdds pursuant to which that= levyinq 09 feea or other requirements ;aay occur.
The dternative argument rcquiras an Lnteryretafion that: the phrase Whether by administraMw OE legislative act;iorY wets inserted in Section 65995 after "a devalapnent project, as dafined in S&Zion S3080Lt ta furfhaz define 'fdwelapment ptbjwt" to pa83l
i any administrative or legislative actfan. In our opiniOn, it iS
L an unreasonable canstruation to suggesr that tha noun ~~davslogment
. .
UtL.-A.A.--‘L r-r%.& *3.-r, 1
-
rionarable Willie L. Brown, Jr. - p. L4 - X30455
project ’ WaS IWdified by the olause WhetMr by administrative or: legislative actffonr 4% wpresa the meaning that Wevrlopment prajoCt 14 is baffnad ta in~luda, for purpoara of Se&fen 65995, any admInistrative OF hgiSl&tivu #totim. Had the L%girlaturs actuallY intencbd that: rwult, wo think It r&able that tie definition Of 1~d4vrlopt#unk prajwVa in. Sod E on 83080 would have been amended or, alt~znativaly, that a statemmt: would have been added to Chaptar: 4,9 to tha effect that %Wfafopmsnk pmjectfl includes any %dministrativa or legialativa actlcmtt
Purthrnore, t&ha aktsxnative ihupretrrtian would result: in tha rhaltansoua coznbinptfm within section 8s~~ of-two inconsfetent definitions of thr tara weva~opment prcjsct," &3 ; noted abave, Section 65998, a6 zwised by Chapter 1354 og w1m Statutes of 1993,’ oontaiw the axprmr rafrranca ira development-~
project, 88 BaiLned in Saction 33080.H Section 83080 dafinrr ~~devalopnrent pfojaatf' to man nany prajut undmtaken fez th
P urpose of d@WloPUerrt, 8nB fncltidmm A proj@Ct ima~Vb¶g me s~uzmX 05 CL permit far conrrtZtM&n or rcanstructfon, buk not&a permit to operate'c (para, (a), at&d. (a), saa. B3080), Although t ttprojcctl' is nut drfint~i by Ssution 53080, that tewa ia 4afint-d elsat4aere in tha Planning and Zaniag LAW tta men Way activity invalving the isruunce,to a paraan of a learr',+mmi~, lIcuu~, csrtificatet or othar antftlemmt for u8q by aas be nora publfa:: agencies@ (SML 48931) 4 A phram er exprauaI~n may be inteprtrted in. hCcwdMCr Wit& it8 ttsa in othar reLatrd rtatutrs '(&&ML% - Q& 21s Cal. ASP. 24 127, 133) a 1 .
%sutfozu, fsr pqrpoaee OP hetWz 6!M95, "drvelopmnt- pmject*' zteans ?in activity weaken f&th~ pq088 at dewlopment that involve8 a pubU~ rrqmoy’r 4maant~1 to A pa&n
of a 18a801 pWdt, Ucen84, ceztC$ficata, a~.-atrlrrr-qntftlebent for. Aa 80 def bad, t&r term *c!hvalqmant projetS ,EyChe courts t0 Bxcludm lagislatdm actfon ha8 beon held
z a public agency- 5 FnvoAving tke ndopt;im or rarm&aa~k of gmrz8 plum and aoninq-- laws (aa4 &&a, aupra, p. 1218t ltarzai.v. m. a m,
5uprat pa 936) b ‘A oonstrrtctbn to--tha affect that 8wtfon 65993 , purports to defitra Wrvsl@msnt-projecV aa sp+cfffad &I Seatfoti wMO and, simultaneously, to mean my ~~admfnistrative or legislative 8ctkW art th+ legislativs bady of a locrl agency ’ would thur be intuqally Inconsistmt dnd, cansequently, unreasonable. '
Sectian 65996 Fm revised by Chapter: 1354 of! the Statutes of 1992 to state that de~ignaeed provisions 'l&all be the exclusive me+Zhods of mitigating enviromental effects related to
the adequacy of schoal faciU.t:iss when considering the &pproval,or the establishment oe aondftions for the approval of a development project, 22 W". l=fis~aW -8SikitAQ p;rsuant to (CEQA]" lax st -tivq &$% i; W&
Honorabla Willie L. artm, or. - p. 15 - #3043S
.
I
~ndlcat:ed in at2fikeout and underline). The analysis sat forth above with regard tc, the inclusion An $~&JNI 65995 oe the clause btwhether by-administrative ott lqislative actiarP also applies in this paralbl COIZte%t, to kh ei?fect,that thr chU3e nby administrative or legislatzive actkm" in Saction 63998 may be construed reasonably, in ~uf view, b roeer on1 ko the methods e& mitfgatiolr utflbed by local agencies vhan aonm Y dedng th4 approval bf a deveLapment grrojact (sea m, Bupro, p, 1233, fn. U)‘, .
Final1 Y thb legal impact of defining- Dd*v*lap60nt project?' in Sect &a 65995 and 66996 ta inalude any %dmfnistrativs or lagfalative aationit would not 'appear te have, thr &ll&$ti r@~u&t of ptahS$ibSng a ait into account +%I impact on suhool faail r: 01: COUII~Y ~'~OIII taking ties in deciding on eke. adoption of amndmant of a genrral plan dr eming Zirw. In. sectian 65995, defining ~~devalqm~~t: pasj+ctfl ta includa any adainfstrativa 01: legislativr act ~~18 have Uar literal sffrct of prohibiting the lrgiblativa bady of a local agmnoy front lgvying,' other than ~suant to Smtion 4S3080 or Chapt8r 4.7, a 8uhool facilitha fm, aba for example I 7f 18~ dodlcatian, ar-otlmr rrquirararnt #qainsti * the lw rlative &ut ot adoptixig or.amondtn plan QX tonfnq law. Sim;Llarly, ia Seation 65996, a gen4ral defia ng f ‘~develapment Pra j aat” te includr any adtollniatrativr ett --legislative act would have the literal effect cri rmtricting the litigation mquirementEi t&&t may&be imposed by a laaal agrncy under C!EQA against ita rdoption or anmdmnt of a qsnrral ~~ZLXI 02 zoning law,
.
' The dsleffon by Chapter 1354 af the Statutaa of 2992 of .tha phrase “, as dafinad in Section !33080,~ frtm Ssctfoa 6S996 could be argued to refhat the legltalativa intent to ralrim the meaning of the tern-- Wevolo~ant pmjeet,l* aa usrd Ln that section. The Wgfrlature cannot be graaumd to have indulgsd in idle acts [&&a,U~d vI M&J,&y~ &+&da Qg&, 39 Cal, 2d 797, 80% &fas&i ve w, f70 Cal, App. 34 1039, 3056).
Chapkor 1334 of the Statutes of 1992 doer nok I
nowevsr, purport to add lbnguags ta Section 65996 that rclasonabl. construed to replbca the definitiwi of UwslopmQnf pro rot4c 1 may be set Zorth in Section 53080, Cansaqtiently, pursuant ta the rule of statutory constzvction that a phrase cw expression may be interpreted in accordance wfth its use in other related gtatutss (Frediani. v. Qg,&, 215 Cal, App, 2d 127, 1331, GtO conclude that Ndevelapment projectt;" would have the sme meaning b-3 SeCtiOn 85996 as it does'in Section 6S999, whfch defines the term by axpr85S reference kc Section ~3080 and by use af the definition of the term l'proj ect u in a related &eckfon, namely SeCtiQtl 65931.
Hanottable Wilffe Lt. Srawn, or. - p. 16 - $3~433
ft: is we&f s&t&d that, in construing i statuts, a court zuay use a wide variety of extrinsic aids, such as the
history af the statute, coxmnFtt%e reports, staff bill reports,
,
St ia equally true, howiw0r, thnt hgi6latlvs intent may be giveri eCfs& only if it can reasmably b& infrrrrd from thy language of the UCt (QeB WI VI j&g& 187 Cal. 181, 18!544N; u m &&&la, 1dQ Cal, 430, 416-417~ lim alao my, r.M, jamlQdn &XL, 7 Cal* 2d 60, 66-68). In this cam, for tAa reasons me fara above, FG $8 Out dpfnfon that the ftBgiShtiY8 intent suggestad by the Sonata Thfrd Raadinq anrlyaiar and by UIS alternative argwtaxat addreaaeci in thfs diaourion, cannot reasonably ba ififamed f?fmn tha I&II-@ in Sactiens 65996 and ..65996 as ravfsed by Chapter 1334 of the St&&km crt 1992. We
i conchde, accardingly, tba* tbir rlternativr aonstmautfon af khoae
. . sections wuld not be adopted by tbr, courts. ,
' -.
Wbms u s&o01 dhtrfct bars Smpoard +& paximm :’ : .- aupplawantal rdaool facilities f&n authorizad undar @rakiatr . 65995.3 against a d+veLopatsnt p&m=k, ;to a oaccnd #ah001 dirsttict, bavin
hutharizod to 1 %t cexamon torritarfal jurbdfction with tb 'iSrrrt=-;
project? awiee imposm tkmt fee on that bavelopnmnt
Waara a archaol dintrict haa hpohd Ma@ maxizauzu suppbztentsl school ~ncAlFtirs tee authoriz84 under Sootion 69996.3 agafnrt a dsvelogxnent projmt, a smmd school district, , having uomon tarritoria1 jurisdi&ion wfth the Pfrst, Jo mt authorized to lik~wisc inpose that fee on that develogmant project,
&ANALYSTS NO. 3
Aa indicated Ln Analysirs No. 1, the authority at a sohool, distriat to impose fers or other requirements 8gainst
c
developnent to fund school fhcsilicie~ cmstructidn is set forth in sectfcm 53080. The authority under that section to impose tho3a fees or other requirements 3,s expressly made subject to qtanY
yCCr-L*-z& I I-L& -w-u-
1 _-
Honorable Willie L. Brbwn, Jr. - p. 17 - #30455
limitations set= forth in Chapter 4.9" (subd, (a), Sec. 53080). The limitationa aat forth in Chapter 4,9 includr the restrictJ.m that: "fi]n m tvBntH shall tie total amount op any fee~3, charges, dedkations, Or 0th~~ rmpIir@ments authorhad undar Seation 53080, or ptirsuank ta Chagtert 4.7, exceed designated. dolfar amounts. Those amounts Were aatab&ished, prior to adjustmat for inf&ation, at $1.50 per 3qUaro foot of assessabh apace, in the case of raeidenkfa% developnrent, and $0.28 per: aquare foot of chargeable covered and rnclosti space I in the used 6f comgtercisl or indusltriaL deve~opntent (sub& (hs), Sac. 65995) l
Tb6 qua&ion her6 relatas to CL situation in Which two school dfrtrfcts have coatten twzitorfal ju?AscIictfon, &LLI ma ec0ur when neLthe2 fill a unitted s&m31 dfatzrict. The fmpo&cn * oe a achook facilities tea or otkas: rquirumnt pursuant 60 SeatrCon 53080 Udar those cirmtancra fr l peaificallp addmaased, w3er existing lawI by Sccttan 53080.3. If tha total atnount of., e&ml fadliti+s fees ~~atatbrfzed gumuant to Section as levied b r two .nonunffSad schaoi dbtriats havin 53080r"
trarritot al juxisdktiien, would l xmmd Wxr f uonuwn mdx mum Zso autbrfaed under Section 65995, n Bwtien 33080.2 raquirea the g~v8rnittg boarda’af cha affected scbal di&&zta to sntar i&a m rrgreraant rsper=iPying tko aUocat~orr 0f tb frr r*vmm 0~; aMmmtfvely, tom- tmbmit the dispute to the autharity of rn arbitration pnncrl,
.
Se&fan 69995.3, as acidad by ClUptar 1354 ol't9m Statutes ef 1992, rgads as fallswat 1
"65995.3. (a) In..miditfan te tha fee, chargr, dedic~kids, OZFotlmr rac&rmmnt ap~ciried d in rubd$vi8fen (b) ef Sration 65995, an additional P88, charge, dedication, OS other rcquiremmt of
ona daZfar ($1) per square fuot of' aresaaablo s ace
. may be levied by thrr govrzning board of a achea E dietriet aqain8t that, rerridential uonstructfon described in rubparagraphs (a) and (t) af paragraph (1) ef sUbdiVision (a) of Srctfan 53080 for the c?xWxwtfon dr rticonotrrtatim of sohoe facilitie8. ,
n (b) This section ahall rmain in effect only until the data that Assembly Constitutional AInendrr.ent 6 of the 1991-92 Regular Sassion fails ta receive the hpproval of a majorSty of the vatets
' It is OW Understanding that, ad adju&@d for blfl~tion, those limits currently are $I.,65 per aqubre fool: for resfC&ntfal development, and SO,27 per square foot: far cammcarcial or industrial development.
UeC.-J.A-2& r-I-L* -u--4
+.
~0norabla WiIfie 21. kmwn, JE. - g. 18 - 930455
voting ml the mOa6ure
section is repealed. rrt and aa 02 thaC date thts L
Seution 65995A thus autiorims a school district
governing boa& to levy a “fee, charge, dedication, or ether rrquireatant 02 one &llar ($1) gel: squat8 feat al asssssable spats” against r~sidantial constructfan “Ii JR addition ta the &a,
aharga, dedication, o'f: csthar rrquirmrnt aprcifird fn subdiviaian (b) of Sectian 65996." BIcaurra hction 65995 currmntly operates, tog&hex with othrx: proViaionP of Chaptar 4.9, 8s a statmnont 02 maximum dollar lhnfta and other reatd.ctfanr upon the authority granted to aohoolL diafrfaC governing boards in S&don 53080 ta , hwy school facilftfei f&w er ether raquiremonts (mm sub& (a), sea. 630801 iiiafmuw-av* Ema aupra, g, 233), wa conclude that Sectian 65995.3, as en add&ion ta ctwpter b9# lfkewfslr would be dremsd ta o&gate au a
fastrfctfbn upon tha authority grantad in 8rctimk 53080, by revising the dollar limits idmtifiad in that chapter. A rtatxto should her interpreted with rclsrfarencrr ta thn crydam af law 02 which
it is a pa* l (m va m, 20 Cal. 3d 142, 147).
WS muck tuust ccmrsidet tlza affect of Station 65995.3 upon * *‘the scope ef 8Od&n d3080& Aa diouusead abwe, Socth S3009.3 provfdos a melWd df dirtributing ilahool fadflitim Per6 zavenues betwarn two nanunffisd rohool dirrtrfota having comwn trrrritorfsl jurisdiction, w&m tha total &mount; OP tha foae Wded-by those 4 two distrittr, PUrrurnt: to So&ion 63080 would rxc,esd “thOuu&wa fee authorized undo 88cstibn 65%W (m&d. (a), Smo. 53080.2).
.WbrI the languhqr 0i a rrtatuts is 'clear, a court Lntergretihg it: ohould follow its plain maning (CFca_C m e a v* $g&y & zlAmun&, 19 Cal. 3d 152, 155) except that‘ tlra literal amanirrg Of LI &at&a may be dfarrgarded to avoid abarurd rerrulta or to givr atteds to rPani2amt purpase3 that, ‘in- light bf thr rtatuWa laqiolativrs history, appear from itr;a p:;irians conriduad as a wholr (a&a vI m, 63 Cal. 2d 841, In t=hfs eae$ n litsral.intarprrtation of Section 53080.2 WOUND fequirr that th distribution between two 8cbool districts. of the mmnuma from the imgasition of schcxd facSlitis8 fees be . governed by an agzdmnt or arbitration when the total amount of ;;;;g fees vould rxce,ed "the maximum fee authorizad under Section
t TV avm though SeutAon 65995J will authorrim a scho&.
’ Like the revisions made by Chapt&r 1354 ei the Statutes of 1992 to Sections 65993 and 65996, Sectlon 65995.3 becomes ef2ectfVe January 1, 1993, but is rcpelllrd if Assembly Constitutional Amendment No, 6 of the 1991-92 Rq.~lar Session
, fails to receive the approval of a majorit)c of the voters voting ) . on that mea8ure (subd. (b), Sec. 65995.3).
YtL-**-T& d-l-L* *a-U3
-.
Honornblo Willie LB* Brawn, Jr. - p. 19 - #30455
district ta &eVy 6 SChaol ~!acfli.ticra tse against reridemial construction that mcceeda Vzha maxizxun fee au,thorized under secrion 65995" by $1 p&r square foot of asaassablla apace. Thir; result, which would raquirs that any total 8chaol facilities fee exceeding $2.65 per equare foe% of assessable space far residential Canstnzatim be qovarned b agreementi QF arbitrakion whan levied by t;~ rrcxIunif;icrd Buhaol d sfrfcts, 1 although a Baheai faailiti+r ffae al $3.6!5 per swarm foot of assessable $pace far: residential construction could be ingosect by a single whoal district, would constbtuta an absurd result, Ln our view, for: purposes of the rule of etatutery con~tructim cited above.
14axeuver, regardhas of ‘whathor $ectLon 53080.2 is
dmmed to apply to tie suppletnental ruhod, &dlitias fad amunt~ authofizeb undar Section dM993.3, it is our opinforr that the zrdditional $is per rquare foot ol assessable spat% authsrfzed by S+ck%on 65995.3 may not be’axG8e&+d wherm two nanunifirrd rchool dbtricts have common territorial jurisdictian bvm~ tha dwelogmont qainet which the schbdl facilftiw ias is levimL Aa noted above, the amcut autharizrd under Section 65995.3 ier a dupplenetrt to the tetal doUar mount: of uny Bms or ckbar 1 requfretienta 'chapter 4.7 'Quthorizad unde~r Sectfun 53080, or puzauant Co n rthat my ‘be +xceeded ” [ 1111 no l v8xW (aubd. (b) , 1 SW. 6599s) w Pursuant to the rule3 of et&utory conr~ution *hak when the languaga of a rrtatutr is clear, a aourt Intorpre~ $
$$& a a &&g,m&, supraf p. MS) , and that ?%%%hmaM bi shauld follaw lta plain meaning (Grant m
construed 68 86 to hmoniza it=, if poesfbl~, with other laws relating to khr mme subject (a va sIna.- &, 12 Cal, 36 384, 590), we cbncludcr that tha circum8tanco tiat more than one schcrol dfstrict hae trrritorial jurfadicCi8n BVW I development is not 8n evmt th&k would be deemed to supcrrsaciti 42~ aggregate dollar: limft: frsr nchr?ol facfLities fsss astablished by sgctiqs bS995 and 65995.3.
This canelusion ir rnhancsd by rsferanca to ths sl.tuatfon in which mr er both of the school distzictti having
aomnwn terrftarfal jurirdictibn (LFI applfcants Par etatr funding of school faciifties conrtructfan undar the terry F. Crsrnr Sta$e Sahool Building Lease-hirchaae LAW ol! 2376 (Ch, 22 (ComrP~tioinQ with Sec. 17700), Pt. 10, Ed, c.). Under: Section 177OSA of that chapter, which, l'ike Sectfans 53080 and 63995, became effective Yanuary 2, 1987 (see Ch, 887, Stats, 1986), the total building ’ cost portion of the stata funding for any project approved by the
stat% A1Zocatfon Board under the Leroy F, Greene StdU School Building Lease-Purcbasa Law of 2976 fs reduced by d matching share
YCL -A. L - TL 1-r%* 4.3 .-r-r
-
Honorable Willie L, Brown, Jr, - p. 20 - $304, _
rrpquiremcnt impdsed upon me school. dfstrict for which tha project is approved. The amount of that district matchltng share requirement, which is calculatfed on the bad of developer fee revontles that the applfcant district is authdttized tb collect under Section 53086, ig reduced by the uqmaaa term ef Section 17705.5 by bn amount dascribad bs foxlowe:
"17705.5. art*
"(3) An amoune g:eflecting tha extent ta which the dfsfrict is greG from collrctting those fess by reason of the lavy and crcUrc+on 6f daveloper foe8 by an&her schaal district having ’ common territorial jurisdiction. I*
added. ) (Empbasir
We thiti that Ufa provfsion, exempting &n applicant district from matching share Liabtlity to tkr extant it in ~~precludcd44 CraM collecting &v&loper feea by tha cmlleotion ol: those fesa by another: dhtriut in the circwnatancma dasuzibed, indicates the fntant of thr Lagfslntu~a that the tmporrition and collectfan af davmlapar *@+a by a rchool district undar thtr
i -. authol=ity of Section $308~) llmitr or p,racLudes the autkritr of CL
‘\ distriut havifig ~ozunon t;arritorial $,a&isdickion 4~ Fmpoae and . . coWhct thrrr~ freu. Thr language oti Sectian 1776S.S ef the Edrlcatian C5ode thur, rupports the concluaim that the ztmdxwm amounts sat forth in Sectfon 65995 for any actheaL faailitfaa fae may not be e%coadrd am to an d+v+lo
devaloptnunt Zfrs in.thr t+gz torial 1 T en& whether or nat tIa8 u&adicWcltr a2 motm than bm schoak distrkt. Furthurmbrm, thlri prov&dn of Sactian 37703.5 wm enacted well before tie ~aatrrrent: of Sect&m 13080.2, which merrly governs the df8tributim OP school Eacilities rrvsnuea ’ betwasrr scbaaL districts having common tsrkitorial jurfrdiction [ch, 1209, Stats. 1989).
Ws conchada, therefore, piquant: ta the rule at statutory oonstructlon &red above (set silv.er: VC &Qg& 6upr& p- ah!!), that the reference in section 33080.2 to ifthe maximum fee authorized under Section 65995” would bb canatrued, W&rrcpnt to January 1, 2993 (the effective dare bf Sactim 639954, to rofk to the dollar linit,in Sectiotr 65995 as 6upplemonted by Section 65995.5.
Honorable Willie XI. 8rovn, Jr. - p. 23 - #304:, ,
In accom!iatrce with that: conclusion, and bawd upan tha
foraqd,ng dlscus8i~nr it le our apiniorr that whme a whbc4 district hbb: imposed thr maximum dupphnmntal s&o01 facilities fee autharizsd under 8actian 659M.3 against a develo~ent project, a second sc&al district, having ~omamn tcarratodal jurisdiction witkI the firet, ia not authorizs4 to lik+wisc impwe that fee on that Ueva+opmcnt project,
Wry truly your34
Bi~tt M. Creqorlf Legislative Cams81
::m:?pd * Daputy L&slbtivo Caunsol
JAD: sjm
.
Carlsbad SUN
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
W.C.C.N. Inc. 2841 Loker Ave. East, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 431-4850
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper
is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspa- per at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and
which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the said City of
Carl&ad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next -2-e -- ~~- : I NOTICE OF -- ties Management Plan Zone 21. end preceding the date of publication of the / a, -PUBLIC HEARING more pertirulerly dercriljed es:
ZC SWSDP 93.81 percel2 orParcel Map No. 1188.
‘ SUP 934HDP 83-S in the County of San Diego. Slate of notice hereinafter referred to; and that the
’ V&LAS AT EL CAMINQ REAL Celifornia. eccording lo map lhere- of Wed In the OKIce Qllhe CoUntY notice of which the annexed is a printed
N@l’ICE IS HEREBY GIVEN lhet recorder of San DIego C&tol~. De.
,he Cily Council of the Cily ofCarl- cember 20.1972. copy, has been published in each regular
rbad will hold e public tiearlnr et if you have any qu~sttons wet’d- ing lhis matter. please call JeffGib- and entire issue of said newspaper and not
the City Council Chambers. 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive. Cerkbed. son In lhc Planning Department et in any supplement thereof on the follow-
Calllpmia. a1 u:OO p.m.. on Tuesday. 42S.1181. ex1enrion 44%.
tJ&jber 28. 1902. lo consider e re- If you ehellenge lhe Conditions1
qitiitea for epptwal of e Conditional Negative Declaration. Zone ing dates, to-wit:
Nedsl,ve Declarrtion, gone Change. Site Dev@topmont Plan.
Climes. Stle Developmenl Pleo. speckel Rae Permd and/or H!llslde
Speeirl Use Permit. end Hillslde Devclop,oent Permit in eoU,.t. you
mey be limited lo raIs(ngpotythoac October 14 DbVelopmenl Permil lo ehenge the issues raised by Pot! or Someolle 1993 lotin from Limited Control IL-C) ld’kesidenlial Densky-Mulliple else al lhe public heerlng de-
(RD.Nh end lo eonslruC1 1244 unit scribed io this notiel. at in &illcn
effordable residential splrlmenl correspondence delive.red lo lhe 19-
$%jici on properly generally to- Cily of Cerlsbed Cit.9 Cterk3 OfIke
ded adjacent and we81 orEI Caml- et. or prior 10. lhe public hearing.
no Real. between Camino Vide RP Applicant: Avisra Lend Associeles CARLSBAD WY COUNCIL 19- bfs’and Alga Road in LoCat Farili- .I” ,
19-
I 19----
I certify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
Ii I I I
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California on the 14th
day of October, 1993
/?-7c 1
C./w Clerk of the Printer
jq,ANNTNG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3538
SOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNLA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DEVELOP A
344 DWELLING UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ADJACENT AND WEST OF EL
CAMINO REAL, SOUTH OF CAMINO VIDA ROBLE, AND
NORTH * OF ALGA ROAD, IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONES 21.
CASE NAME: VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
CASE NO: SDP 93-06
plication for certain property, to wit: -
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 1188,‘& the County of San Diego,
State of California, according to map thereof filed in the Office
of County Recorder of San Diego County, December 20, 1972.
. NOTICEOFPUBLICHEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. 4
on Wednesday, September 1, 1993, to consider a request for approval of a Conditional Negative
Declaration, Zone-Change, Site Development Plan Special Use Permit, and Hillside Development
Permit to than ed Control (L-C) to Residential Density-Multiple @D-M),
and to construct n&&on property generally located adjacent and west
of El Camino Real, between Camino Vida Roble and Alga Road in Local Facilities Management Plan
Zone 21 and more particularly described as:
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing.
Copies of the staff report will be available on and after August 251993. If you have any questions,
please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at 438-1161, ext. 4455.
If you challenge the Conditional Negative Declaration/Zone Change/Site Development Plan/Special
Use Permit/Hillside Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASEFILE: ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/SUP 93-02/HDP 93-08 CASENAME: VILLASATELCAMINOREAL PUBLISH: AUGUST 19,1993
CITYOFCARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -
ZC 93-2/SDP 93-6/SUP 93-2/HDP 93-B
VILLAS AT EL CAMINO RFAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, October 26, 1993, to consider a
request for approval of a Conditional Negative Declaration, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, and Hillside Development Permit to change the zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density Multiple (RD-M), and to construct a 344 unit affordable residential apartment p eject on property
generally located adjacent and west of El Camino Real, between Camino Vida Roble
and Alga Road in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 21, and more particularly described as: "
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 1188, in the County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 20, 1972.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Jeff Gibson in the
Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4455.
If you challenge the Conditional Negative Declaration, Zone Change, Site
Development Plan, Special Use Permit and/or Hillside Development Permit in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone
else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: Aviara Land Associates PUBLISH: October 14, 1993
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
VUASATELWEAL &S%W
-
(Form A)
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL - ZC
93-02/SDP 93-06/SUP 93-02/HDP 93-08 for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the Council meeting of
Thank you.
MARTY ORENYAK
Assistant City Manager Date
Attachments
SEPTEMBER 28, 1993
i .’ ‘_ 2 :Wq&?;? ;“;: . _,
*44444444,,;‘444444
Prepared f,
Requested byi
Rep: ************.*****
Fquityowth Investments
f' 0 60x 1780
La Mesa ca 91944
Michael & Elliott
2610 Commerce Dr
Vista, Ca 92083
Suunto Inc
2151 Las Palmas Dr
Carlsbad Ca 92009
Virgil&Patricia Trs Anglin 6432 Seabryn Dr
Pales Verdes Peni Ca 90274
Jack K Williams
2070 Las Palmas Dr
Carlsbad Ca 92009
Danny Ashcraft
1543 Sapphire Ln
Vista, Ca 92083
Terry&Margaret Reiter
6 Saddleback Rd
Palos Verdes Peni Ca 90274
William P&Marjorie Bowen
14088 E Kamm Ave
Kingsburg Ca 93631
. _-
Anthony&Oicky K Trs Bons
1565 Mulberry Dr
San Marcos Ca 92069
Carlsbad Partners Ltd
1601 Elm St Ste 1900
Dallas TX 75201
F -1dstone
14 Lorporate Plaza
Newport Beach Ca 92660
Fargo Bank We
P 0 Box 63700
San Francisco
1s
Ca 94163
Polaris Industrial
215 Via De1 Norte
Oceanside, Ca 92054
Palomar Industrial Propert
1801 Ave Of The Stars
#936
Los Angeles Ca 90067
I Associates Davis-Palomar P 0 60x 1686
Ranch0 Santa Fe Ca 92067
Jack K Williams
2070 Las Palmas Dr
Carlsbad Ca 92009
Elliott Silverstein
P 0 Box 8372
Ranch0 Santa Fe Ca 92067
Michael F Sfregola
1052 Hyde Park Dr
Santa Ana Ca 92705
Pacific National Secur
P 0 Box 54029 Terminal
Annex
Los Angeles Ca 90054
Carlsbad Partners Ltd
1601 Elm St Ste 1900
Dallas TX 75201
Anthony&Oicky K Trs Bans
1565 Mulberry Or
San Marcos Ca 92069
l Alfonsa Paziura *
1248 Heathview C.
l Agoura Ca 91301
Carlsbad Inwment Co
6451 El Camino Real #8
Carlsbad Ca 92008
Gildred Development Co
550 West C St #1820
San Diego Ca 92101
Pleta Trust
550 W C St #1820
San Diego Ca 92101
Business Park Creekside
16672 Milliken Ave
Irvine Ca 92714
Sierra Land Group Inc
620 N Brand Blvd
Glendale Ca 91203
I Carlsbad
2255 India St
Los Angeles Ca 90039
Pacific National Security
P 0 Box 54029 Terminal
'Annex
Los Angeles Ca 90054
Terry&Margaret Reiter
6 Saddleback Rd
Palos Verdes Peni Ca 90274
Pacific National Security
P 0 Box 90610
Pasadena Ca 91109
Fieldstone
14 Corporate Plaza
Newport Beach Ca 92660