Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-11; City Council; 15820; South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment ProjectDEPT. HlRED . . ‘CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGEhA BILL -. CONSIDERATION OF RESPONSES TO WRITTEN APPROVAL OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH OBJECTIONS, CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR AND CITY ATTY. CARLSBAD COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT cm MGR- RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT City Council Resolution No. d000 -22 5 PROVIDING written responses to all objections pertaining to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project. ADOPT City Council Resolution No. &%-Jab CERTIFYING the final Environmental Impact Report, EIR 99-01 for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project. INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS-553ADOPTlNG AND APPROVING the Redevelopment Plan for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project. ITEM EXPLANATION: On June 27, 2000, the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission held a joint public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project. If adopted, the Plan would allow the Commission to: Facilitate interim improvements at the Encina Power Plant to reduce its environmental and economic impacts on the community; Accommodate the economically viable redevelopment of the Encina Power Plant to a smaller, more efficient power generating facility; Provide a funding source for the potential realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard. The project may yield excess property that could facilitate public recreational facilities and improvements including the expansion of the Carlsbad State Beach campgrounds; and Promote the redevelopment of underutilized properties in the Ponto area. Written Responses At the joint public hearing, fifteen (15) objections to the Plan were presented; six (6) verbal and nine (9) written. Section 33363 of the California Community Redevelopment Law requires that before adopting a redevelopment plan, the legislative body (the City Council) shall: (1) evaluate all evidence and testimony, both for and against the pian, and; (2) make written findings in response to each written 3bjection of an affected property owner or taxing entity. Further, the legislative body (the City Council) is to respond in writing to such written objections received before or at the notice of the public hearing. These responses must describe the disposition of the issue raised and address in detail the reasons for not accepting the specified objections or suggestions. Commission staff and its redevelopment consultant have prepared written responses not only to the Nritten responses of affected property owners or taxing entities, but to all verbal objections provided 3t the public hearing. Although not legally required to respond to verbal comments, the Commission Nishes to address the concerns of all interested persons, agencies, and organizations. Attachment ‘A to the first City Council Resolution provides the responses to all objections. - - PAGE2OFAGENDAuLLNO. IS,630 In general, the Responses address concerns relative to the Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment, the Area, the impact of the Project on taxing agencies, and other issues raised during the public hearing. environmental impact of the Project, the evidence of physical and economic blight in the Project As indicated in the Responses, adoption of the Plan does not include approval or authorization of any implementation activity, including the realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard. Future implementation activities would be subject to consideration by the Commission, as well as the City’s regular review process. The Responses also address the adequacy and scope of the environmental review, in context of the Plan’s conformity to the City’s General Plan and all City land use and development policies. The Responses summarize pertinent evidence of blight in the Project Area, as described in the Commission’s Report to the City Council submitted into the record at the public hearing. The Project Area contains both physical and economic conditions, including obsolete facilities, inadequate public infrastructure, incompatible uses, deteriorating structures, depreciating values, impaired with the requirements of Redevelopment Law, and support the formation of the Project Area. investments, and factors hindering the use of Project Area parcels. These conditions are consistent The Responses indicate that the Commission will remit statutory payments to affected taxing agencies as required by Redevelopment Law, and that the Plan authorizes the Commission to consider school, community, and public facility projects which are of benefit to the Project Area. Finally, the Responses state that the Commission does not have any plans to acquire Project Area the Commission will adhere to applicable provisions of State Law, including purchasing property for parcels at this time, and that should acquisition by eminent domain be necessary, as a last resort, not less than its fair market value at its highest and best use, providing relocation benefits to tenants and businesses, and replacing any affordable units destroyed as a part of a Commission project. Final Environmental ImDact ReDort The Commission prepared a program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed Plan. Topics addressed in the document include: (1) aesthetics; (2) air quality; (3) biological resources; (4) cultural resources; (5) geologylsoils; (6) hydrologylwater quality; (7) land uselplanning; (8) noise; (9) transportationltraffic; (IO) public serviceslutilitieslservice systems; (11) hazards and hazardous materials; (12) population and housing; and (13) recreation. The EIR also addressed other related issues as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIR concluded that because of its consistency with the City’s General Plan, adoption of the Plan would not result in any significant impacts. The Plan may indirectly encourage and potentially expedite development in the Project Area (consistent with the General Plan), however, the resulting development and impacts are not anticipated to be beyond City policy as set forth in the General Plan. The EIR identified that there would be indirect, significant impacts to air quality associated with the adoption and implementation of the Plan, even with the incorporation of mitigation measures. This is because San Diego County is already in a non-attainment condition for ozone. Any project which even indirectly facilitates development has a non-mitigable significant impact on air quality. However, a primary motivation for adopting the Plan is to facilitate improvements at the Encina Power Plant, thereby improving air quality and reducing ozone emissions. Finally; the Commission approved a Statement of Overriding Conditions. AdoDtina Ordinance Upon adopting the written responses and certifying the final EIR, the City Council may conduct the first reading and introduce the ordinance adopting the Plan and approving the formation of the Project Area. The attached ordinance contains the findings and determinations required by d c - PAGE 3 OF AGENDA PILL NO. 1st 2000, the Plan would be approved. Redevelopment Law. Following a second reading of the adopting ordinance, scheduled for July 18, STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the responsesto all objections received at the joint public hearing, certify the final EIR, and conduct the first reading introducing the ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project. FISCAL IMPACT Part of the purpose for adopting the Plan is to.enlist the financial resources available through redevelopment to help alleviate blighting conditions within the Project Area. The Commission intends to use tax increment funds, among other funding sources, to implement Plan objectives. Tax increment financing is particularly attractive because it does not burden property owners with the costs of redevelopment project implementation. The Commission has no authority to levy or raise taxes. Currently, the Law imposes no limit on tax increment allocated from the Project Area except the time limitation for collection, which is 45 years from the date of ordinance adoption. The limitation of tax increment for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project will, therefore, expire in 2045. Bonded indebtedness repayable from tax increment revenues is limited to $100 million. Preliminary tax increment projections for the Project Area show the capacity to generate approximately $303 million in tax increment revenue over the next 45 years. Twenty percent of this amount, or $61 million, could be available to fund housing programs. With the approval of the ordinance adopting the Plan, the Project Area would retain a 1999-00 base year value, and the Commission would receive tax increment revenue beginning in December 2001. EXHIBITS 1. City Council Resolution No. JcC0-225 Adopting Written Responses to All Objections Pertaining to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project 2. City Council Resolution No. 20nfj. 22 b, Certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report, EIR 99-01 for the Redevelopment Plan for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project 3. City Council Ordinance No. N5 - < 5 3 , Approving and Adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project 4. Responses to Written Objections. 3 1 1 2 - 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 RESOLUTION NO. ~000-225 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA ADOPTING WRllTEN RESPONSES TO ALL OBJECTIONS PERTAINING TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, on June 27,2000, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad and Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission held a joint public hearing ("Joint Public Hearing") on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project; and, WHEREAS, at the Joint Public Hearing, the Mayor, as the presiding officer, called for public testimony, and all persons present were afforded the opportunity to testify and submit materials; and, WHEREAS, a total of fifteen (15) objections ("Objections") were presented at the Joint Public Hearing, including six (6) verbal and nine (9) written; and, WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the Health and Safety Code provides that, where written objections are received at or prior to the hearing concerning the adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan, the legislative body: "...shall respond in writing to the written objections ... The written responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised. The legislative body shall address the written objections in detail, giving reasons for not accepting the specified objections and suggestions. The legislative body shall include a good-faith, reasoned analysis in its response..."; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all Objections and has prepared responses to said Objections ("Responses") in the form submitted herewith as Exhibit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1. The Responses to Written Objections, as submitted herewith and attached hereto as Exhibit "A, are hereby accepted and approved. 4 1 i t 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held on the 1 Ith day of July 2000, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila and Kulchin NOES: None Council Member LAUDE A. LEW ATTEST (SEAL) -2- EXHIBIT ”A South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project July 3,2000 Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission 2965 Rmsevek Street, Suite B Carlsbad, California 92008 Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305 Santa Ana, California 92705 Phone: (714) 5414585 Fax: (714) 836-1748 E-Mail: info@webrsg.com Responses to Written Objections South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project Introduction ........................................................................ i Written Objections and Responses ................................... 2 Metropolitan Water District ................................................................. 3 Nancy Dettmer ...................................................................................... 5 Solomar Homeowners Association. Inc ............................................ 8 Dale Schreiber ..................................................................................... 10 Mira Costa Community College District .......................................... 11 Roger E . Fox ........................................................................................ 14 Ted Dederick ....................................................................................... 16 Chuck French ...................................................................................... 19 Responses to Oral Comments ......................................... 22 Rose Alcarez ....................................................................................... 22 Paul Addison ....................................................................................... 22 Jay Wendell ......................................................................................... 23 Franklin Pierce .................................................................................... 24 Jim Wagaman ..................................................................................... 25 Jody McManus .................................................................................... 26 Appendix A . Prior Commission Response to Marcia Stults ................................................................................ 28 Responses to Written Objections South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project On June 27,2000, the Carlsbad City Council (“City Council”) and Housing and Redevelopment Commission (“Commission”) held a joint public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan (“Plan”) for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project (“Project”). During the hearing, both written and oral objections were presented on the Plan. This document is the written response of the City Council to the objections (both written and oral) submitted at the public hearing (“Response”). Section 33363 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (“Redevelopment Law”) requires that before adopting a redevelopment plan, the legislative body (City Council) shall evaluate all evidence and testimony, both for and against the adoption of the amendment, and make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity. Further, the legislative body is to respond in writing to the written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing and that these responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised, and address in detail the reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 1 i? Responses to Written Objections South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project A total of 9 written objections were filed at the public hearing. This Response addresses each of these written objections, as well as the 6 objections presented orally during the public hearing. Prior to the public hearing, Commission staff responded in writing to one of the 9 written objections. That objection and the Commission’s response are incorporated in Appendix A of this response. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 2 6 j /3 E c 1 1 "'? r Y "'. J7 Responses to Oral comments South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project Although not required by Redevelopment Law, the City Council has also prepared responses to specific objections raised during oral testimony during the public hearing. These responses are enumerated below: Ms. Alcarez suggested that adoption of the Plan and citation of declining assessed values in the Report would result in the Commission being able to condemn Ponto area property at below market values, and resell the same properties at premium coastal prices. Response As a public agency, the Commission must adhere to eminent domain law whenever acquiring property. In part, these legal provisions require the Commission to pay not less than fair market value at the property's highest and best use, irregardless of the its assessed value. In addition, the Commission cannot sell property for less than the property's reuse value under Redevelopment Law. Finding Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that all acquisition activities of the Commission will adhere to all applicable laws, including, if necessary, the California eminent domain law. Paul Addison Mr. Addison stated his opposition to the Plan, in part because, in his words, he does not want the City taking control of the Ponto area. Mr. Addison also questioned the basis for the assessed value declines cited in the Report, and indicated that some of the conditions in the Ponto area were a result of the City's practice of preventing owners from hooking up to the sanitary sewer system and frequent zone changes. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 22 a9 SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT RESPONStS TO WRllTEN OBJECTIONS ReSpOnSe First, adoption of the Plan would not alter the fact that property owners would remain in control of their properties. At this time, the Commission does not have any plans to acquire any property in the Project Area. If the Commission elected to purchase any property, it would first be required to conduct a noticed public hearing, obtain an independent appraisal, and attempt to negotiate a purchase prior to proceeding with any condemnation effort. With regard to the blight documentation presented in the Report, this Response previously addressed the source of the assessed value declines documented in the Ponto area. In addition to declining values, the Ponto area is characterized with several other blighting conditions not noted by Mr. Addison, including incompatible uses, factors (such as small lot sizes, inadequate parking, unscreened storage, and a lack of off-street loading areas) hindering the economically viable use of lots, and impaired investments resulting from the presence of junk yard and waste management facilities. The city's policy is to encourage, rather than prevent, sewer hookups. However, the city does not mandate hookup unless a property is redeveloped or improved significantly. The properties in the Ponto area were rezoned from residential to a combination of residential/commercial in 1986. This does not preclude residential development of the properties and is the only zone change that staff is aware of since the area annexed to the city. Finding Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the Redevelopment Law. Jay Wendell Mr. Wendell questioned whether the Commission's Report could be reliable, given a statement made by Housing and Redevelopment Director Debbie Fountain at the June 7 Planning Commission meeting that only four residents lived in the Ponto area. Mr. Wendell believed that more residents live in the area. In addition, Mr. Wendell asked why the EIR did not address the purported presence of white owl habitat in the Project Area. Finally, Mr. Wendell inquired whether property owners that do nothing to their properties would be subject to eminent domain. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 23 30 RESPONStS TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Response According to Ms. Fountain, her statement at the June 7 Planning Commission was that there were between 4 and 5 households that resided in the Ponto area. Assuming each household contains 3.5 residents each, this would translate into 14 to 18 residents in the Ponto area. It is possible that an owl occupies the Ponto area although there is no recorded documentation of this occurrence prior to this time. Biological studies would be required as part of any project that is subsequently proposed in the Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment Plan does not propose or approve any specific projects at this time. With regard to the question on eminent domain, the Plan permits the Commission to use eminent domain anywhere in the Project Area. However, property owners that enter into and uphold the provisions of Owner Participation Agreements may be exempted from this authority. Finding Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the Redevelopment Law. In addition, the City Council finds that the Environmental impact Report on the Plan adequately addressed the potential worst-case impacts of the implementation of the Plan, including but not limited to any impacts on sensitive habitats. Finally, the City Council finds that the use of eminent domain, as a last resort, may be necessary to facilitate the redevelopment of the Project Area. Franklin Pierce Mr. Pierce stated his opposition to the proposed Plan for three reasons. First, he suggested that the Ponto area could be enhanced without redevelopment by planting trees and other landscaping in the area. Second, he stated that the Plan would create blight by eliminating open space areas. In addition, Mr. Pierce stated that based on his consultations with Legal Aid Society attorney Catherine Rodman, Commission staff was reluctant to provide documentation and notice of the plan adoption activities to Ms. Rodman. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC PAGE 24 31 SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT RESPONStS TO WRITEN OBJECTIONS Respo- Planting landscaping in the Ponto area is permitted under the proposed Plan, although this activlty alone would not address incompatible uses, small lot sizes, inadequate parking, substandard public infrastructure, and hazardous contamination. These other conditions would require partnerships between the Commission and property owners to economically fund improvement projects such as lot consolidation, sanitary sewer improvements, relocation or mitigation of incompatible uses, and toxic remediation. Also, the Plan does not contain land use policies beyond those provided in the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinance, so no designated open space areas could be redeveloped with alternative land uses. Finally, Housing and Redevelopment Director Debbie Fountain recalls providing Ms. Rodman with all information requested in a timely matter, and notes that all public meetings relating to the entire plan adoption process were noticed in accordance with Redevelopment Law and City policy. Finding Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the Redevelopment Law. In addition, the City Council finds that the Plan conforms to the City General Plan, and all land use policies are identical to those in the General Plan, zoning ordinance and other applicable codes and statutes, as the exist today or are hereafter amended. Finally, the City Council finds that anyone requesting documentation on the Plan adoption process was provided such documentation in a timely manner, and that the Plan adoption process, including all noticing activities, conformed to the provisions of Redevelopment Law. Jim Wagaman Mr. Wagaman was concerned that residents in the Ponto area did not want to move, and do not want to be subject to eminent domain. In addition, Mr. Wagaman stated that it was unrealistic to expect Ponto area property owners to be able to redevelop their properties because many are on fixed incomes. Respo- The Commission does not have any plans to acquire property in the Project Area at this time. However, eminent domain may be necessary to ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 25 SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT RESPONSES TO WRllTEN OBJECTIONS permit the Commission to remove blighting conditions and upgrade the entire Project Area. Should any eminent domain action be necessary in the future, the Commission is required by State Law to provide specific relocation benefits to any tenants or businesses, pay not less than fair market value at the property’s highest and best use, and ensure that any affordable units destroyed as a part of a Commission project area replaced at the same income levels as those destroyed. In addition, the Commission concurs with Mr. Wagaman’s assertion that many property owners cannot afford to redevelop their properties, which is one of the reasons the Plan and the tax increment financing mechanisms have been proposed. Tax increment financing allows the Commission to provide grants, low or no interest loans, and other assistance to eligible owners to upgrade their properties, without increasing taxes on Project Area residents or businesses. In this way, implementation of the Plan will open doors to many residents and property owners, by creating affordable alternatives to upgrading Project Area properties. Finding Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the use of eminent domain, as a last resort, may be necessary to facilitate the redevelopment of the Project Area, and that displaced households will be entitled to relocation benefits provided by State Law. In addition, the City Council finds that redevelopment of the Project Area cannot be accomplished without tax increment financing and Commission participation. Jody McManus Ms. McManus urged the Commission to exercise more sensitivity to Ponto area property owners and residents abutting Carlsbad Boulevard. In addition, Ms. McManus questioned why the Environmental Impact Report did not address archeological sites. Response Again, the Carlsbad Boulevard project is not being considered by the City Council in conjunction with the Plan. The realignment study process is ongoing, and involves substantial public input. The Plan would only permit the Commission to fund a portion of the project costs with redevelopment resources. Ponto area property owners have been actively involved in the Plan adoption process, and will continue to be an integral part of implementation activities if the Plan is adopted. One of the first steps ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 26 33 SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT RESPONStS TO WRllTEN OBJECTIONS proposed by the Commission is to undertake a 24 to 30 month community-based Master Planning effort intended on refining redevelopment programs, land use priorities and infrastructure needs over the duration of the Plan. Again, the Redevelopment Plan does not propose any specific projects at this time and, therefore, parcel specific archeological studies were not performed nor are they required at this time. As specific projects are proposed within the Redevelopment area, parcel specific environmental review will be required including archeological surveys. Finding Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that no implementation project is being approved or authorized as a part of the adoption of the Plan, and that continued community participation will be an integral component of the redevelopment process. In addition, the City Council finds that the Environmental Impact Report on the Plan adequately addressed the' potential worst-case impacts of the implementation of the Plan, including but not limited to any impacts on archeological sites. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 27 Responses to Oral comments South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project This Response incorporates the Commisson's earlier response to a letter received from Marcia Stults on May 31, 2000. Both the Ms. Stults's letter and Commission's staffs response dated June 5, 2000 follow this page. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC PAGE 28 3 2- KSb, IN",. lD:714-83b-1748 , .,,. ., . . .. ," . . . . .... .I. .A ..... .. ..", .JUL 03'00 1U:52 No.004 P.02 . .... ... I , .1... "__ .. .. K?U. INC. ..' I. l!J;<l4-85b-1<48 ............. .A ........... ........... -, ........ .. I JUL 05'UU iu:~ ~0.~4, r.u3 -2 _. .... .- " City of Carlsbad UEBBIE FOUNTAX!! Hourlng nnd Redcvolupmemeat Dirertor ( I 1 1( 11 1: 1: 1L 15 It 17 18 1s 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-226 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIONMENTAL COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG PORTIONS OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, PONTO DRIVE, AND CANNON ROAD, INCLUDING THE ENCINA POWER GENERATING PLANT, SAN DIEGO GAS AND VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL, SERVICE AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE PONTO DRIVE AREA IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 3, 9, 13, AND 22. CASE NAME: SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT CASE NO. EIR 99-01 IMPACT REPORT, EIR 99-01 FOR THE SOUTH CARLSBAD ELECTRIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, OTHER PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND PROJECT WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission (“Commission”) and the City Council of the City of Carlsbad (“City Council”) have prepared and are considering the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Projecl (“Plan”); and WHEREAS, the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan constitutes a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, CEQA requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared when a project has the potential to create significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan does not propose any specific projects at this time nor does it propose to change any of the existing land use policies, standards and regulations, and it was determined to prepare a Program EIR to discuss indirect environmental impacts associated with adoption of the Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 7, 2000, as prescribed by law to consider said Plan and associated EIR, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 4786 recommending certification of EIR 99-01 for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 27Ih day of June, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed in law to consider said Plan and associated EIR; and ( I ! 1( 11 1; 1: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimon and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council considered a factors relating to the Plan and the EIR; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the Cit of Carlsbad as follows: A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B. That the Final Program Environmental Impact Report consists of the Dral Environmental Impact Report, EIR 99-01, dated February 2000, appendices, all writtel comments and all responses to comments contained in the Response to Comments dated May 2000, as amended to include the comments and documents of those testifying at the publil hearings and responses thereto hereby found to be in good faith and reason by incorporating i copy of the minutes of said public hearings into the report, all on file in the Planning Departmen incorporated by this reference, and collectively referred to as the “Report”. C. That the Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 99-01. as so amended an( evaluated, is recommended for acceptance and certification as the Final Environmental lmpac Report and that the Final Environmental Impact Report as recommended is adequate an( provides reasonable information on the project and all reasonable and feasible altemativc thereto, including no project. certifies the Program Environmental Impact Report, SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL D. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Counci REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, EIR 99-01; approves the Candidate Findings of Fact (“CEW the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“Program”), all on file in the office of the Cib Findings”), approves the Statement of Overriding Considerations (“Statement“), and approves Clerk and the Planning Department and all incorporated by this reference; based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. Findinqs: 1. The City Council does hereby find that the Final Program EIR 99-01, the Candidate Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement 01 Overriding Considerations have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Prxedurss of the City of Carlsbad. 2. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and considered Final EIR 99-01, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project, the Candidate Findings of Fact (“Findings” of “CEQA Findings”) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“Program”) prior to approval of this project. 3. The Civ Council finds that Final EIR 99-01 reflects the independent judgement of the City of Carlsbad City Council. -2- IY I11 Y R n C 3 It i i t ? I i i I ! ( I ! 1( 11 1: 1: 1L 15 If 1; 1E 15 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Conditions: 1. The Cit contain€ y and all other responsible parties shall implement the mitigation measure: !d in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the South Carlsbac Coastal Redevelopment Project on file in the Office of the City Clerk and the Planninc Department of the City of Carlsbad. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Cit) Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1 Im day of July, 2000. by the following vote, to'wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila and Kulchin NOES: None ABSENT Council Membef; Nyqaard Hall ATTEST: -4- 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-553 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT The City Council of the City of Cartsbad, California, does ordain as follows: WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad (“Commission”) has prepared a Redevelopment Plan (“Redevelopment Plan”) for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project (“Project Area”), a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk; WHEREAS, the Commission has prepared a Report to Council on the Redevelopment Plan which provides all information required by the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et seq.). A copy of the Report to Council is on file in the office of the City Clerk. The Commission submitted to the City Council the Report to Council, which contains among other things, the Planning Commission’s report and recommendations, the Final Environmental Impact Report with respect to the proposed Redevelopment Plan, and the Report of the County Fiscal Officer, and the City Council has duly considered and evaluated the Report to Council; WHEREAS, Rules Governing Participation and Reentry Preferences for Property Owners, Operators of Businesses, and Business Tenants, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, have been prepared and adopted by the Commission. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad (“Planning Commission”) has approved a Preliminary Plan for the Project Area, and has submitted to the City Council its report and recommendations regarding the Redevelopment Plan, and has found that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the City’s General Plan, and the City Council has duly considered and evaluated the report recommendations and findings of the Planning Commission; WHEREAS, the Commission consulted or attempted to consult with the taxing agencies which levy taxes, or for which taxes are levied, on property in the Project Area with h 1 respect to the Redevelopment Plan and to the allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 of 2 the California Community Redevelopment Law; 3 WHEREAS, the Commission and the City Council have certified that the Final 4 Environmental Impact Report for the Project Area was prepared and completed in compliance 5 with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and State and local regulations and 6 guidelines adopted pursuant thereto, and that the Commission and City Council have reviewed 7 and considered the information contained therein, and adopted findings with respect to the 8 environmental impacts of the Project Area as required by law; 9 WHEREAS, the Commission has prepared and submitted a method and plan, 10 should it be necessary, for the relocation of individuals and families that may be displaced as a 11 result of carrying out the Redevelopment Plan; 12 WHEREAS, after due notice as provided by the Community Redevelopment Law, 13 a joint public hearing was held by the City Council and the Commission to consider the 14 proposed Redevelopment Plan; 15 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all aspects of the Redevelopment 16 17 18 19 Plan, and has received, considered and evaluated all written and oral evidence and testimony presented for or against all aspects of the Redevelopment Plan, including the adoption of written findings responding to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity; and WHEREAS, all actions required by law have been taken by all appropriate 20 II persons and entities. 21 22 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: 23 24 25 26 SECTION 1: The purposes and intent of the City Council with respect to the Project Area are to: 1. Eliminate blight and environmental deficiencies in the Project Area; 2. Assemble land into parcels suitable for modern, integrated development with improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the Project Area; 27 28 -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 3. Replan, redesign, and develop properties which are stagnant or improperly utilized; 4. Increase, improve, and preserve the City’s supply of housing affordable to very low, low and moderate income households; 5. Develop new beach and coastal recreational opportunities; 6. Facilitate the redevelopment of the Encina Power Generating Facility to a physically smaller, more efficient power generating plant; 7. Provide a funding source for the potential realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard which will yield excess property that could facilitate expansion of the Carlsbad State Beach campgrounds and other recreational facilities, and/or development of cultural facilities or other public facilities; 8. Retain as many existing businesses as possible by means of redevelopment and rehabilitation services; 9. Enhance commercial and recreational functions in the Project Area; 10. Strengthen the economic base of the Project Area and the City by the installation of needed on- and off-site improvements to stimulate new commercial/residential expansion, employment and economic growth; 11. Increase parking and open space amenities; and 12. Implement performance criteria to assure quality site design and environmental standards to provide unity and integrity to the entire Project Area development SECTION 2: The Redevelopment Plan is hereby approved and adopted. The Redevelopment Plan is incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as if set out in full herein. SECTION 3: The Redevelopment Area is hereby designated as the official redevelopment plan of the Project Area. SECTION 4: The City Council hereby finds and determines that: 1. The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the Community Redevelopment Law; 2. The Redevelopment Plan will redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the pubic peace, health safety, and welfare; 3. The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible; 4. The Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the City’s General Plan, including but not limited to, the City’s housing element, which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code; 5. The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan will promote the public peace, health, and safety and welfare of the City of Carlsbad and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment Law; 6. The condemnation of real property, as provided for in the Redevelopment Plan, may be necessary for the execution of the Redevelopment Plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law; -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 7. The Commission has a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons to be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the Project Area; 8. There are, or are shall be provided, in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to the displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law Sections 33411 and 33411.1. Dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law Sections 33334.5, 33413, and 33413.5 9. There are no noncontiguous areas in the Project Area; 10. Inclusion within the Project Area of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part; any area included is necessary for effective redevelopment is not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial justification for its inclusion; 11. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area cannot be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting along without the aid and assistance of the Commission; The Project Area is predominantly urbanized, as defined by subdivision (b) of Commun:: Redevelopment Law Section 33320.1; 13. The time limitation, if applicable, the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to the Commission that are contained in the Redevelopment Plan are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area and to the ability of the Commission to eliminate blight within the Project Area. SECTION 5: The City Council is satisfied that if any families or persons are displaced by the Redevelopment Plan, permanent housing facilities will be available within three (3) years from the time occupants of the Project Area are displaced and that pending the development of such facilities, there will be available to the displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the City of Carlsbad at the time of their displacement. SECTION 6: All written objections to the Redevelopment Plan received during or prior to the joint public hearing, and all oral objections presented to the City Council at the joint public hearing, having been duly considered by the City Council, are hereby overruled. -4- 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 SECTION 7: In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the Redevelopment Plan, it will be necessary for the City Council to take certain official actions, and accordingly, the City Council hereby: 1. Pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Redevelopment Plan; and 2. Request the various officials, departments, boards and agencies in the locality having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, including the expenditure of money in accordance with the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan; and 3. Stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan, and declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceedings necessary to be carried out by the City of Carlsbad under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. SECTION 8: The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Commission, and the Commission is hereby vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan, subject to the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. SECTION 9: The City Clerk is hereby directed to record with the County Recorder of San Diego County a description of the land within the Project Area, and a statement that the proceedings for the redevelopment of the Project Area have been instituted in the Project Area under the Community Redevelopment Law. The Commission is hereby directed to effectuate recordation in compliance with the provisions of Section 27295 of the Government Code to the extent applicable. SECTION 10: The Department of Building Inspection of the City of Carlsbad is hereby directed for a period of two (2) years after the effective date of this Ordinance to advise all applicants for building permits within the Project Area that the site for which a building permit is sought for the construction of buildings or for other improvements is within a redevelopment project area. SECTION 11: The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit within thirty (30) days a copy of the description and statement recorded by the City pursuant to Section 9 of this Ordinance, a copy of this Ordinance, and a description and map or plat showing the boundaries -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 of the Project Area to the Auditor and Tax Assessor of San Diego County, to the governing body of each of the taxing agencies which levies taxes upon and property in the Project Area, and to the State Board of Equalization. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certiiy to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 1 lth day of July, 2000, and thereafter. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the lsthday of July 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard and Kulchin. NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Hall ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: Jf2-79& E M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) -6- SOLRMAB HOM€OWN€RS RSSOCIRTION, INC. 6532 Easy Street Carlsbad. CR 92009 (61 9) 438-2236 TO: Debbie Fountain Housing And Redevelopment Director City Of Carlsbad 2965 Roosevelt St. Ste. B Carlsbad,,CA 92008-2389 c: Mayor CIW Council C1.y Manager C:i Attorney City Clerk FROM: Ted Dederick, Chairman Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Committee Solamar Homeowners Association RE: The Response To Written Objections and other comments prepared as a result of the public hearing held on June 27,2000 to consider adoption of the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project. COPIES TO: Carlsbad City Mayor Lewis, Mayor Pro Tern Hall and Council Members Finnila Kulchin and Nygaard Francie Bonner, President Solamar Homeowners Association Chuck French, Nicole Giebink Realignment Committee Members Dear Ms. Fountain: Thank you for your responses to Solamar's written objections to the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project and the associated Environmental Impact Report and for copies of the Mitigation Monitoring report and Reporting Program and the CEQA Findings ofFact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. As we have stated before, Solamar is not opposed to the Redevelopment Project per se. Much of the Redeveippment Project may be beneficial. Carlsbad Boulevard reali-munent is however a serious issue for Solamar. This memorandum is intended to register and inform, as a matter of record, our disagreement with many of the responses to Solamar's written objections. In the main, these disagreements are summed up as follows. 1. Solamar is assured that the proposed Redevelopment Plan does not approve the Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Project. However, the Redevelopment Plan and associated EIR and other written material strongly suggest that there are no serious environmental impacts and that no mitigation is required. In our opinion there are serious environmental impacts that Page 1 of2 7/10/2000 . would result from the currently planned and designed Carlsbad Boulevard realignment, financing of which is featured as one of the primary Redevelopment Plan objectives. Solamar fears that City Council adoption and dpproval of the South Carlsbad Boulevard Coastal Redevelopment Plan and associated documentation and the Responses to Written Objections implies and establishes tacit approval to the erroneous conclusion that there are no serious environmental impacts. This erroneous conclusion is already reinforced by what we consider to be flawed and problematic findings included in the Carlsbad Realignment Study - Phase I report. .I 2. It is simply noted that we at Solamar disagree with many specific responses to our written comments and with some of the logic applied to generate the responses. We would be happy to discuss these disagreements with you. 3. There was no response to the Solamar request, stated by Mr. Chuck French. that Solamar be insured of future input and participation in both the Redevelopment and Realignment project planning and implementation process in those aspects that affect Solamar. We hereby request that this memorandum be made a matter of record in the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project documentation and deliberations. Please let me how if you have any questions. Sincerely, ” Ted Dederick, ED.D Chairman. Solamar Committee On Carlsbad Blvd. Realignment Telephone 438-2386 Page 2 of2 7/10/2000