The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-03-09; City Council; 15091; Commercial Visitor Serving Overlay Zonef? z 3 . . E i= 2 6 5 s - rq CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGEWA BILL AB# 6-o?/ -. TITLE. MTG. 3-q +? CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY PROPERTY OWNER PETER WALSH TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROPOSED COMMERCIALNISITOR-SERVING DEPT. PLN OVERLAY ZONE RECOMMENDED ACTION: lb4 ‘O 0 CITY MG- That the City Council consider the property owner’s written request and make the determination that the subject property remain within the boundaries of the proposed overlay zone. ITEM EXPLANATION: The City is currently preparing an overlay zone ordinance intended to regulate new commercial/visitor-serving uses; and expansions or modifications to existing uses that would intensify the commercial/visitor-serving nature. At a public workshop conducted on December 9, 1998, regarding the overlay zone, the City Council concurred that the subject property should be included within the overlay zone boundaries. Staff is preparing the overlay zone (ZCA 98-Ol/ZC 99-03/LCPA 98-05) to be considered by the Planning Commission on March 17, 1999. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts are associated with the consideration of the property owner’s request. EXHIBITS: 1. Letter from Community Development Director to Peter Walsh, dated January 27, 1999 2. Letter from Peter Walsh , dated February 19, 1999. 3. Walsh Property Location Map - EXHIBIT 1 City Januaty27,1999 Peter Walsh 6452 Avenida Manana La jolla, CA 92037 PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF I5/POINSEITIA LANE The City has received your letter dated January 7, 1999 stating your desire to be excluded from the proposed Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone. As you are aware, at the December 9, 1998 workshop, Council gave clear direction to staff to include the subject property into the overlay because of its freeway frontage, commercial land use designations, and the recognition that theme park influences go further than the immediately adjacent freeway offramps. Also consistent with this, was the Council’s direction to correspondingly expand the overlay zone northward to include the commercially designated parcels east of l-5 between Chestnut and Tamarack Avenues as well as the commercial parcels around the intersection of l-5 and Tamarack Avenue. With regards to your future development .plans, we suggest you process a Preliminary Review application with Planning staff to assess the scope of potential impacts of the overlay zone ordinance. The City notes and appreciates your diligent efforts to include the adjacent residential areas into your initial development efforts. The City also notes that your commercial center is geared toward neighborhood commercial uses and not tourists. Nevertheless, the Council’s concern is for commercial and tourist-serving uses within the coverage area of the overlay zone and the ability to develop allowed land uses is not being eliminated. The desired scale of intensity, signage and other features may need modification given the overlay zone ordinance; however, the Preliminary Review process will help assess the most likely impacts (until the overlay zone is formally approved, all standards and criteria contained in the draft ordinance are not finalized). Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding this Council initiated project. You are urged to consider processing a Preliminary Review and participate in the Planning Commission and City Council hearings to further express your views to the decision makers in this matter. Sincerely, ent Director MO:EM:bjn c: Ray Patchett, City Manager File - ZCA 98-01 2 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 l (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 @ ,.‘/, .; - _ .? EXHtBlt 2 February 19,1999 Ray Patohett ‘. CITY MANAGER - CARLSBAD 1200 Ca@bad \(iIlage Drive Car&bad; CA 92008 RE: CARLSBAD RANCH OVERLAY ZONE Dear Mr. Patchett, I have written to you before concerning the inclusion of my mother’s property, the five acre parqel at Paseo De1 Norte and Pointsettia Lane, in the Carlsbad Ranch Overlay Zone. As much as I appreciate the response from the Community Pknning Director I do not believe his suggestion to submit a .PreliminaryPlan Review alters the impact this proposed decision will have on this property. Time is of the essence and with no criteria established to review site plans my mother stands to lose substantially due to this delay. I am respectfully requesting that this matter, specifically removing this property from the I overlay c&t&, be plqced on the agenda of the City Council for the March 2, 1999 meeting. Your assistance in this matter is appreciated. Peter A. Walsh (760) 72P- 128 1 Exhibit 3 WALSH PROPERTY LOCATION MAP * Phdlip R NIcholson’ ~VWKC kph Ronald I Sdvenan Mano Camara Gforge D C&ins. II John Ii Kuhl Arthur 0 Spauldiog. II Jeffrey Lap00 John S Miller. Ir Kenneth B. Bly Ira I. Waldmm iohn F Nicholson Charles E. Noneman William Kamer Marlcne D. Goodfned leffrey D. Martm Robert D. lnfclisc Tamar C Stem Douglas P Snyder Garv A. Glick Lord Lee Mwrc Lews G. Feldman Mark P. McClanathan JoJm A Kincannon Stanley W. Lampon Randall W. Black Perry D. Mocuaro leas R Brarr cregoy I. Kaml D. Scott Tumer Sandra C. Stwn h4athm A. wymlo Randy P. Odik Kenneth Williams Laurel R. Ballard Amy H. Wells Scott D. Brooka Gary P. Downs Vakrie L Flora Pmtoa W. Brooks Paul I Tncher Roben , Svkcs iifred F DeLeo llerben I Klan Sharon L Tamlya Lscelle hl Braaf Smh, G. .Marcopulos Cdl” c swamrton .4dam B. XGYelshurg Chnwne Corra leffrey A Gagllardl Camclha Kuo Schuk lonathln San Scan L Groufeld Roben M Haight Jr. Richard 1 Kaiser .inne.Mane Reader PenyS Hughes ludy Man-lmg brn Leqh Orruka lander tdward F Qugley 111 Dame1 1. Villllpando Kevin I Crabtree Joseoh W Denn Dw&m P. McK;nz,e Jean A TanB Seth i. Weiuman Clark I. Ducllmln Ron S. Gross Pem S. Victor Debbie L Freedman Pamck A. Peny Tuan A. Pham Paddishmhn Sean W. Sourbard Hans Lauterbacb MitcheU Pwlr Gdyn Yasbad Gide zappamlu COX,CASTLE&NICHOLSON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership lncludlng Professional Corporauonr LAWYERS 19800 MacArthur Boulevard Suite 600 Irvine, California 92612-2435 Telephone (949) 476-2111 (310) 284-2187 Facsimile (949) 4760256 www.ccnlaw.com March 51999 AGENDA ITEM # t 0 c: Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Georgeh4 Gx (~-4 hhrd N. Castle (1932-1992) Senior GJunsel Edward c. Dygen Dand S. Rosenberg Richard L Picheny Susan S. Davis Charles I Moore Samud H We&bard Wmohy M. Tm.ax Bruce J Graham Los Angeles of% 2049 Ckmy Park Fast l!mxy@hth Floor Las .4ngda. CaJifomia 90067-3284 Telephone (310) 277.4222 FaamlIc (310) 277.7889 -. San Frandsco Office 505 Mo”tg0mely suect suhc 1550 San Fran&cc.. Cabfomia 94111-2585 Telephone (4151 296-9966 Faaimik (415) 397-1095 OUR FILE NO: 99129 WRITER’S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (949) X0-4642 WRITER’S E-MAIL ADDRESS edygert@ccniaw.com ‘A Projes.+naI Corpan~rn VIA FACSIMILE AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Ronald R. Ball, Esq. City Attorney City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Carlsbad Ranch/Leeoland Overlav Zone - Neighborhood Commercial Pronertv - General Plan Inconsistencv Dear Mr. Ball: This firm represents Pacific Development Partners LLC in connection with the development of a neighborhood commercial center on a 5.13-acre site located east of Interstate 5, south of Poinsettia Lane, and west of Paseo de1 Norte in Carlsbad (the “Property”). The Property is designated in the land use element of the City of Carlsbad General Plan as Neighborhood Commercial (“N”), the least intense of the commercial development permitted in the City. As you know, the City Council is considering the Carlsbad Ranch/Legoland Overlay Zone (“Overlay Zone”) which is directed at the larger commercial/tourist-serving developments and not the neighborhood commercial-type of development proposed for the Property. The Property is the only parcel within the boundaries of the draft Overlay Zone designated by the General Plan as Neighborhood Commercial. The effect of including the Property in the Overlay Zone is to reduce the net usable land area, creating an undesirable design for a Neighborhood Commercial Center. Therefore, application of the Overlay Zone to the Property prevents development for its mandated use, Neighborhood Commercial, creating an inconsistency between the Overlay Zone and the General Plan so as to render the Overlay Zone void should it be adopted as proposed. Ronald R. Ball, Esq. March $1999 Page 2 Accordingly, the Overlay Zone as proposed, will violate the consistency requirements of Government Code Section 65860 as it relates to general law cities, such as the City of Carlsbad, requiring consistency between the General Plan and zoning ordinances, and will be void if the Property is regulated by the Overlay Zone. Additionally, it should also be noted that the Property has obtained numerous development entitlements over a twenty- (20) year process to permit development of the proposed neighborhood commercial center as planned by the General Plan. Significant time and expense has been incurred by the Property owner in reasonable reliance on the fact that the Property could be developed for its planned use. Most recently, on November 4, 1998, the California Coastal Commission issued a notice of acceptance which confirmed that the special conditions of Coastal Development Permit 6-82-537, is relevant to the property as previously approved. However, inclusion of the Property in the Overlay Zone will prevent development of the project for which the entitlements were obtained. As set forth in more detail below, the Overlay Zone cannot lawfully be applied to the Property nor should it be because of the existing entitlements; therefore, the Property should be excluded from the boundaries of the Overlay Zone. The ProDosed Overlav Zone does not comDlv with Government Code Section 65860 in that it is not consistent with the General Plan land use desknation for the ProDerty. The Neighborhood Commercial Land Use. The Neighborhood Commercial land use designation comprises a small part of the City’s non-residential land uses and is the least intense of the commercial development permitted in the City. Property designated as Neighborhood Commercial, according to the land use element of the City’s General Plan, encompasses only 66 gross acres within the entire City. Within the entire Overlay Zone area the Property is the only site designated for neighborhood commercial use. However, application of the Overlay Zone to the Property will prevent the development of the Property with the needed Neighborhood Commercial project and therefore defeat the goals and objectives of the General Plan to permit development of the Property as Neighborhood Commercial. As described in the City’s land use element, neighborhood commercial development is intended to meet the “daily needs and convenience of residence in adjacent neighborhoods”. Further, in the implementing policies and action programs of the land use element for commercial development, it is noted that generally there should be “one acre of neighborhood commercial development per 1,000 population of the service area.” (Land Use Element - Commercial C. 1). Therefore, by eliminating the Property as a Neighborhood Commercial development site, these goals of the General Plan will also be defeated. Ronald R. Ball, Esq. March 51999 Page 3 You should note that development of the Property is intended to implement the General Plan policies by serving the following residential developments: SeaCliff Village, Aviara, Alta Mira, Harbor Pointe, Seacrest, Zone 20, Poinsettia Properties, Spinnaker Hills, Poinsettia Shores, Vista Pacifica and Las Playas. When the area is build-out, this center will serve approximately 7,500 families representing 22,500 residents. Additionally, among the goals of the City’s land use element is to provide “for the development of compatible, conveniently-located neighborhood shopping centers.” (Land Use Element - Commercial A.2). The General Plan further provides among its objectives that “all residential areas are adequately served by commercial areas in terms of daily shopping needs which include convenience goods, food and personal services.” (Land Use Element - Commercial, B. Objectives (B.2). Because the Property is planned for Neighborhood Commercial and is ideally located, as described above, for its planned use, the General Plan objectives will be defeated by including the Property within the Overlay Zone. In short, the neighborhood commercial land use designation is an essential element of the City’s Land Use Plan which will be defeated by the Overlay Zone. Accordingly, the adoption of the Overlay Zone which addresses commerciaVtourist-serving developments runs entirely contrary to the stated goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan for Neighborhood Commercial property and is not consistent with the General Plan and is therefore unlawful. The Overlav Zone Ordinance Must be Consistent with the General Plan. The City of Carlsbad’s Zoning Ordinance must be Consistent with the General Plan or the inconsistent Ordinance is void. The clear unambiguous language of Government Code Section 65860 provides that “a City’s Zoning Ordinance shall be consistent with the General Plan of the . . . City . . . .” It is also a point beyond debate that a zoning ordinance inconsistent with a general plan at the time of enactment is “invalid when passed.” DeBottari vs. Citv Council, (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1212. It is a further point beyond debate that if a zoning ordinance fails to advance the objectives and policies of the general plan and obstructs attainment of the their goals, the zoning ordinance is not consistent with the general plan. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines, 112 (1998). The Pronertv has been entitled based unon the existing Citv of Carlsbad and the California Coastal Commission’s Rules and Repulations which the inclusion of the Pronertv in the Overlav Zone will destroy. Over more than twenty (20) years the Property has been reviewed and scrutinized by the City of Carlsbad and the California Coastal Commission. A listing of the development permits and entitlements for the Property is set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto. As recently as November 4, 1998, the California Coastal Commission found that all of the conditions required by Coastal Development Permit 6-82-537 (“Permit”) have been Ronald R. Ball, Esq. March 5,1999 Page 4 completed. Now, notwithstanding the completion of a site plan review including conditions required by the California Coastal Commission, the inclusion of the Property in the Overlay Zone will effectively destroy the rights obtained by the Property by completing all the original conditions required by the Permit. Additionally, the City on September 6, 1994, reviewed its General Plan and confirmed that the appropriate use for the Property is for Neighborhood Commercial development. As was discussed above, Neighborhood Commercial development is an essential component of the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan which will be defeated by the inclusion of the Property within the Overlay Zone. Accordingly, given the long and complex history of entitling the Property and its importance for a Neighborhood Commercial development, the Property should not be included within the Overlay Zone. Conclusion. The inclusion of the Property in the Overlay Zone will therefore create a clear inconsistency between the General Plan and the Overlay Zone Ordinance which means that if the Overlay Zone is adopted, its adoption will be a meaningless act because the Ordinance will be void if the Property is included within the Overlay Zone. Further, the inclusion of the Property in the Overlay Zone defeats the reasonable investment-backed expectations of the property owner who has expended capital for improvements like curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm drains, sewer, landscaping, grading, traffic lights, infrastructure fees and agricultural conversion fees paid in reliance upon validly issued permits to develop the Property for a Neighborhood Commercial development. Accordingly, as a matter of law and policy, the Property should not be included within the Overlay Zone. Very truly yours, ECD/ecd LiCVULl “&J Edward C. Dygert ECDYGERT/99999/205633vl Attachment cc: &ayor Claude “Bud” Lewis (w/attachment; via Overnight Delivery) Councilmembers: Ramona Finnila, Matt Hall, Ann Kuichin, Julianne Nygaard (w/attachment; via Overnight Delivery) . ‘+ Exhibit “A” Governmental Actions and Entitlements; Citv of Carlsbad Resolution No. 94-246, Certify Master EIR and General Plan Amendment Resolution No. 90-153, Comprehensive General Plan Update Resolution No. 9122, Resolution No. 2659, City of Carlsbad, Resolution No. 2037, Agenda Bill No. 3420, Ordinance No. 9430, Resolution No. 3707 Resolution No. 3170, Resolution No. 3169, Resolution No. 921, Resolution No. 922, Report No. 136, Zone 4, Growth Management Program Neighborhood Commercial 1 Zone 1, Growth Management Program Neighborhood Commercial Grading Permit PE 2.81.58 Zone change from C-2 to C-l-Q Neighborhood Commercial, ZC-232 Supplement #I Adopting Specific Plan (SP-122A) Rescinding Specific Plan (SP-122) Agenda Bill No. 3420 and Exhibits Council approval of CT 73-24 Council approval of SP-122 Sr 922 Planning Commission Approval Planning Commission Approval Environmental Impact Report California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit. Yo. 6-82-537 .Yotice of Acceptance & Reinstatement Coastal Development Permit So. 6-82-537 Staff Report and Recommendations Sotice of Intent To Issue Permit Letter to Cecil A. Smith, Acceptance of Fees September 6,1994 May 22.1990 June 16.1987 May 20.1987 September 29,1983 November lo,1982 August 5.1975 July 15, 1975 August 7,1973 June 26.1973 April 24, 1973 November 4,1998 February 23,1983 January 4,1983 March IS, 1983 May 10.1983