HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-17; City Council; 17513; Rancho Carrillo Village TCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
I
MTG. 2/17/04
DEPT. PLN
AB# 17,513 I TITLE:
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T
GPA 03-04/MP 139(J)
0
DEPT. HD.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2004-052 , APPROVING General Plan
Amendment GPA 03-04 and Master Plan Amendment MP 139(J) for the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan
to preserve Village T as a community facilities site.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On August 7, 2002, the Planning Commission denied Planning Commission Determination PCD 01-
05 which was a request to allow Rancho Carrillo Village T to revert from a community service site
back to its underlying designation of Residential-Medium. The Planning Commission’s denial was
based upon the finding that the applicant did not make a good faith effort to market the site to a
community facility type use. At this same meeting, the Planning Commission made a minute motion
requesting that the City Council initiate an amendment to the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan preserving
Village T as a community facility site. On August 20, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of a Master Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment to change Village T from a
Residential Medium to Community Facilities designation.
The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan may be subject to plan review and update pursuant to Chapter 1II.F
of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. As stated in the Master Plan, development within the Master Plan shall be subject to all present and future Growth Management plans, City policies or ordinances
adopted by the City Council. Master Plan updates include the provision for fulfillment of current City
policies and standards. Amendments to the Master Plan are also permitted pursuant to the
procedures established in Chapter 21.38.120(b) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (P-C Zone). The
City Council may initiate the amendments to the master plan. Since the adoption of the master plan,
the City has adopted a Community Facilities Zone which established development standards for
community facility uses within master plans. Presently the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan provides 4.7
net acres of community type facilities (1.3 acre childcare and 1 .I acre community/pool), including
Village T.
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Master Plan amendment will result in the designation to
and the preservation of Village T (2.3 net acres) as a community facilities site within the 680-acre
master plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Master Plan Environmental Impact Report included review for either type use for the property.
Subsequent environmental review of the development of the site would be completed during project
review.
FISCAL IMPACT:
A change in land use on this site from Residential Medium to Community Facility it is not expected to
have a significant fiscal impact.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2004-052
2. Location Map
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. l7 513
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5455 and 5456
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 20, 2003
5. Except of Planning Commission Minutes, dated August 20, 2003.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Van Lynch, (760) 602-4613, vlync@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-052
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT FOR
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF EL FUERTE STREET AND
RANCHO PANCHO IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 18.
CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T
CASE NO.: GPA 03-04/MP 139(J)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on August 20, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider a General Plan Amendment and Master Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, in October, 1972, held a
duly noticed public hearing approving the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. The Rancho Carrillo
Master Plan has had subsequent amendments for various land use and development revisions
pursuant to the amendment provisions contained within Chapter 1II.F of the Master Plan;
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.38.120(b) allows the
City Council to initiate amendments to a master plan and pursuant to Section 21.38.140, the
City Council may adopt additional standards for master plans, which would apply to the
undeveloped portion only;
WHEREAS, the preservation of the 3.4 gross (2.3 net) acre site known as
Village T as a Community Facility site will benefit the community, along with the other 1.3 acre
childcare facility and 1.1 acre community room/pool, by satisfying social/religious/human service
needs within the 680 acre master plan community.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 17th day of
February , 2004, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said General Plan
Amendment and Master Plan Amendment and at that time received recommendations,
objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to GPA 03-04/MP
139(J);
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council approves City Council Resolution No. 2004-052
and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5455 and 5456, on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof
by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. That the application for a General Plan Amendment from Residential
Medium (RM) to Community Facilities (CF) on property generally located on the northeast
corner of El Fuerte Street and Rancho Pancho, as shown in Planning Commission Resolution
No. 5455, is hereby accepted, approved in concept, and shall be formally approved with the
GPA Batch No. 1 comprised of GPA 01-03, GPA 01-04, GPA 02-01, GPA 03-01, GPA 03-09
and GPA 03-12.
4. That the application for a Master Plan Amendment to change the land
use designation from Residential Medium to Community Facilities on property generally located
on the northeast corner of El Fuerte Street and Rancho Pancho, is approved as shown in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5456.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 17th day of February 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard
NOES: None
ABS T: None PT
ATTEST:
LO M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Page 2 of Resolution No. 2004-052
-2-
EXHIBIT 2
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T
GPA 03-04/MPA 139(J)
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
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5455
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT’TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
EL FUERTE STREET AND RANCHO PANCHO IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18
CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T
CASE NO: GPA 03-04
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, has filed a verified application with the City
of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Continental Residential Inc., “Owner,” described as
Lot 103 of Carlsbad Tract No. 93-04, Rancho Carrillo Village
“Q”, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to map thereof No. 13551, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 31,
1998
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibits “GPA 03-04” dated August 20, 2003 attached hereto and
on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T - GPA 03-
04 as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 20th day of August 2003, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
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 General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Coniniission
GPA 03-04 based on the following findings:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of RAVCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T -
Findings:
1.
2.
The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in
the staff report dated August 20, 2003 including, but not limited to the following:
Changing the General plan designation on the subject property from Residential
Medium (RM) to Community Facility (CF) is consistent with the objective B.l of the
Land Use Element which specifies that new master planned communities contribute
to a balanced community by providing, within the development, adequate areas to
meet some sociaUhurnan service needs such as sites for worship, daycare, youth and
senior activities.
That all necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and adequate
provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the Capital Improvement
Program applicable to the subject property, in that public facilities necessary for the
development of Rancho Carrillo Village T have been completed in accordance with
the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan.
Village T was previously considered as both a community facilities site and medium
density residential and adequacy of facilities was addressed during the review of the
Master Plan and improvements have been provided to the property.
3. That this General Plan Amendment will provide consistency between the General
Plan and Zoning (Master Plan 139) which designates the property as a Community
Facilities sit e.
Conditions
1.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
This approval is granted subject to the approval of MP 139(J) and is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5456 for that other
approval incorporated herein by reference.
PC RES0 NO. 5455 -2- b
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 20th day of August 2003. by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commission& Segall
ABSTAIN: None
JULIE , Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5455 -3-
\ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
I
GPA: 03-04
draft 0 final 0
SITE
Project Name: Rancho Carrillo Village T
Property/Legal Description(s):
Lot 103 of Carlsbad Tract No. 93-04, Rancho Carrillo
Village "Q", in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 13551, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
I Related Case File No(s): MP 139(J) I
8
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. 5456
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE VILLAGE T FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM TO
COMMUNITY FACILITY FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EL FUERTE
STREET AND RANCHO PANCHO IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 18.
CASE NAME:
CASE NO: MP 139(J)
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, ”Developer,” has filed a verified application
with t,,e City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Continental Residential Inc., “Owner,”
described as
Lot 103 of Carlsbad Tract No. 93-04, Rancho Carrillo Village
“Q”, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to map thereof No. 13551, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 31,
1998
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Master Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “B” dated August 20, 2003, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T - MP 139(J) as provided by MP 139(I) and
Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 20th day of August 2003,
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 Master Plan Amendment.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission amended MP 139(I) most recently on
February 16,2000 as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4722.
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
MP 139(5) based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T -
Fin din ~s :
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance
with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff
report dated August 20,2003 including, but not limited to the following:
A. Land use - Changing the General Plan designation on the subject
property from Residential Medium (RM) to Community Facility (CF) is
consistent with objective B.l of the Land Use Element which specifies that
new master planned communities contribute to a balanced community by
providing, within the development, adequate areas to meet some
socialhuman service needs such as sites for worship, daycare, youth and
senior citizen activities etc.
B. Circulation - The project site is served by Rancho Pancho, a local street,
and El Fuerte Street, a secondary arterial, which have been completed.
The master plan identified the site as a Community Facility site and
adequate circulation facilities are in place to serve the site.
That all necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and adequate
provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the Capital Improvement
Program applicable to the subject property, in that public facilities necessary for the
development of Rancho Carrillo Village T have been completed in accordance with
the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan.
That in the case of institutional, recreational, and other similar nonresidential uses, such
development will be proposed, and surrounding areas are protected fiom any adverse
effects fiom such development, in that the proposed Community Facilities site is
separated from residential land uses by open space.
That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the
anticipated traffic thereon, in that the project site is served by Rancho Pancho, a local
street, and El Fuerte Street, a secondary arterial, which have been completed. The
master plan identified the site as a Community Facility site and adequate circulation
facilities are in place to serve the site.
PC RES0 NO. 5456 -2- IO
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
5. That the area surrounding the development is or can be planned and zoned in coordination
and substantial compatibility with the development, in that the properties are existing
open space areas and no further development is proposed in the immediate vicinity.
6. That the proposed modification does not affect the previous environmental
determinations. The potential impacts of the previously approved actions were
already evaluated in the EIR for the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan (EIR 94-01) and
the 1994 General Plan update (MEIR 93-01). No Public Resource Code 21081
findings are required.
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Master Plan document(s) necessary to make them internally
consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur
substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different
from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of GPA 03-04 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5455 for that other
approval incorporated herein by reference.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5456 -3-
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of August 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
JULIE w, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOE~MILUR
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5456 -4-
I
LEGE
Generai Plan Land Use Bound- Residential Medium-High (9- I5 ddac) Elementary Shod
Residential High (IS-23 ddac)
Residential Low-Medium (04 &oc)
Residential Medium (44 Wac) ’
I3
I
El Master Plan Villages and
Underlying Zoning
VILLAGES
Village
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Jr
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
Totals
Land Use
RH (15 - 23 ddac)
RH (15 - 23 ddac)
RM (4-8 ddac)
RM (4-8 ddac)
RM (4-8 ddac)
RM(4-8ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
RH (15 - 23 ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
RMH (8-15 ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
RM (4-8 ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
E (School)
Corn -Fac
Gross Ac.
14.8
15.4
20.4
22.0
18.1
25.6
18.3
33.9
27.0
28.9
5.8
38.3
12.4
18.3
16.3
73.9
17.0
(17.1)
(4.5)
Net Ac.
8.5
13.6
19.2
19.0
17.7
25.0
16.2
29.3
20.0
27.8
5. I
32.3
10.4
13.0
14.0
63.8
14.9
(12.8)
Units
*I95
258
115
114
I06
**I16
39
94
*65
*95
96
**67
119 * *49 * *60
**I 83
**45
(147)
.I (3.2) (19)
405.7 349.8 1,816
Housing Type
MF
MF
MF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
MF
SF
MF
SF
SF
SF
SF
Underlying
Zoning
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
R-1
R- 1
RD-M
RD-M
R-1
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
R-1
R-I os
C-F
Notes:
1. Net acreage and number of units are tabulatedper growth management control point, except for units marked by an asterisk.
2. Acreagdunits in parenthesis are not included in the totals. 3. Double asterisks (**) denote unit numbers reduced to less than the maximum allowed by the growth control point.
The unit counts for these villages are within the land use density range.
OPEN SPACE
Area Gross Ac. Net Ac. Area Gross Ac. Net Ac. Area Gross Ac. NetAc.
1 7.6 2.8 6 17.7 11.8 10 27.6 23.7
2 18.5 12.8 7 2.2 1.3 11* 4.0 3.3
3 8.9 7.3 8 18.1 9.2 12 30.4 24.0
4 41.9 29.6 9 30.1 22.9 Total 252.2 189.9
5 45.2 40.2
Note:
1. Net and gross acreage are tabulated per growth management.
*A daycardcommunity recreation facility may be located in this area.
Village and I 1
Open Space Tabufattons
October 27,1998 August 20, 2003
GENERAL PLAN AND LAND USE PROVISIONS
A. GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan designations of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan are shown on Exhibit
2. They include the following designations:
os - Open Space
RLM -
RM -
RMH -
RH -
Residential Low Medium, 0-4 dwelling units per acre (Growth Control
Point -3.2 ddac).
Residential Medium 4-8 dwelling units per acre (Growth Control Point 6
ddac).
Residential Medium mgh, 8-15 dwelling units per acre (Growth Control
Point -1 1.5 ddac).
Residential High, 15-23 dwelling units per acre (Growth Control Point -
19 ddacre). E - Elementary School
CF - Community Facility
All development within the Master Plan shall be consistent with these land use designations as
well as complying with the Master Plan and Village Development Standards. The Elementary
School will revert to the underlying RMH General Plan designation if San Marcos Unified
School District does not exercise its option on the School site within a specified amount of
time. In addition, for a 90 day period only, the City shall be given the first right of refusal to
purchase Village S for park purposes if the site is not acquired by the District within the
specified amount of time. Once the San Marcos School District exercises its option, the site's
General Plan land use designation shall remain E, Elementary, unless a General Plan
Amendment is approved.
B. ZONING
The property within the boundary of this Master Plan is zoned Planned Community, (PC), as
shown on Exhibit 6. The PC Zone requires that a Master Plan be approved prior to any
development on the site. The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan complies with all of the
requirements of Chapter 21.38, the Planned Community Zone, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
and represents the zoning for the property within its boundaries. This Master Plan has been
prepared in compliance with the four goals of the Intent and Purpose section, (21.38.010), of
the PC Zone.
1. Provide a method for and to encourage the orderly implementation of the general plan
and any applicable specific plans by the comprehensive planning and development of
large tracts of land under unified ownership or developmental control so that the entire
tract will be developed in accord with an adopted Master Plan to provide an
environment of stable and desirable character;
July27, 1993
August 20,2003
12
acreage is contiguous with the existing Rancho Carrillo Park Site and exceeds the Zone
18 - LFMP requirement. It is anticipated that the park site will be predominantly
passive, however, final site design will be determined by the City of Carlsbad's Park
and Recreation Department.
5. COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Within the residential and open space land uses, land is reserved for a community service
facility and daycare center. The location and description of each of these facilities is
provided below and are shown on Exhibit 7.
a. Community Service (Village T)
A 3.2 net acre site is reserved for a Community Service in Village T located near
the southwest boundary of the Master Plan area. The site will be available for a
minimum period of ten (10) years. The ten-year period shall commence when final
inspections have been approved for one hundred percent of the units in the first
residential planning area in the master plan (October 19, 2000). If, at the end of the
ten-year reservation period, community facilities have not developed in the
community facilities designated area, then the developer may make an application
for a major master plan amendment to eliminate the community facilities site. If the
developer proposes to eliminate the community facilities area, he shall demonstrate
why it is infeasible that the designated area will ever develop with community
facilities uses. The site may be General Plan land use designated Residential
Medium (RM) for a potential of 19 dwelling units subject to approval of a Major
Master Plan amendment.
b. Davcare Center
A daycare center in conjunction with a common recreation center will be provided
in Open Space Area 11 adjacent to the Canillo Ranch Park site.
October 21,1997
August 20,2003
18
20. VILLAGET
a. Description
Village T is located east of El Fuerte between Open Space Areas 12, 9 & 6. Village
T has a gross area of 4.5 acres and a net developable area of 3.2 acres. This village
has been designated as a community service facilities site.
b. Use Allocation
This site carries the CF General Plan Land Use Designation and has been
designated as a community service facility site by the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan.
If this site is not utilized by a community service facility within ten (10) years from
when final inspections were approved for one-hundred percent of the units in the
first residential planning area in the master plan, then the developer may make an
application for a major master plan amendment to eliminate the community
facilities site. If the developer proposes to eliminate the community facilities area,
he shall demonstrate why it is infeasible that the designated area will ever develop
with community facilities uses. The site may be General Plan land use designated
Residential Medium (RM) for a potential of 19 dwelling units subject to approval of
a Major Master Plan amendment.
C. Special Design Criteria
All community-wide design standards described in the Community Development
Standards section of this Master Plan shall be implemented in this planning area.
The following specific guidelines shall be included in this planning area:
0 Prior to development of this site other than the Phase 1 grading, a Site
Development Plan must be approved by the Planning Commission.
0 Village T should attempt to take advantage of views into the valley open space
to the north and northeast.
0 The Community Service Facilities shall produce a positive landmark building
within.the plans overall architectural theme.
July 27, 1993
August 20,2003
177
I
EXHIBIT 4 ,
The City of Carlsbad Planning Departmenl
P.C. AGENDA OF: August 20,2003
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: NIA
Project Planner: Van Lynch
Project Engineer: Bob Wojcik
SUBJECT: GPA 03-04MP 139(J) - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T - A General
Plan and Master Plan amendment to preserve Village T of the Rancho Carrillo
Master Plan as a Community Facility site on property located on the northeast
comer of El Fuerte Street and Rancho Pancho in Local Facilities Management
Zone 18.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5455 and 5456
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA 03-04 and MP 139(J), preserving Village T of the
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan as a Community Facility site.
11. INTRODUCTION
Village T of the Rancho Camllo Master Plan is a 3.44-acre parcel located at the westerly edge of
the master plan on the northeasterly comer of El Fuerte Street and Rancho Pancho. The City
Council on December 3, 2002, adopted Resolution No. 2002-348, directing staff to prepare a
Master Plan amendment to preserve Village T as a Community Facility site. The site was
identified and considered as a Community Facility site under the Master Plan and Environmental
Impact Report (EIR 94-01) and no further environmental review is required.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The City initiated Master Plan and General Plan Amendments are to preserve Village T of the
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan as a Community Facility site. The site is presently designated
Residential Medium (RM) on the City’s General Plan Map and is designated as either a
Community Facility or Residential Medium site within the Master Plan. The proposed General
Plan Land use designation is Community Facility (CF) and the proposed Master Plan amendment
would change the text and graphics to designate the site as a Community Facility site.
Village T is located within the boundaries of the Rancho Cam110 Master Plan, which was
approved by the City Council on October 21, 1997. The purpose of the Master Plan is to provide
for the orderly development of Rancho Carrillo, while preserving the environmental resources of
the area. Grading for the entire Master Plan area was approved under Hillside Development
Permit HDP 91-17. For planning purposes, the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan is divided into
Villages “A” - “T.” The Master Plan identifies the allowable type and intensity of land uses in
each village and provides general development and design standards, requirements, and the
method by which the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan will be implemented.
GPA 03-04MP 139(J) - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T
August 20,2003
The project site, Village T, has been previously graded into a large building pad as part of the
Rancho Camllo mass grading and is therefore devoid of vegetation. The site is 3.44 acres in size
(2.33 acres net) and is bounded by manufactured and landscaped slopes to the north and an open
space lot (portion of Open Space Area 12) to the east. Adjacent to the north is a storm water
detention basin that is part of the Bressi Ranch development. West of the site is El Fuerte Street,
which is presently improved and terminates at the Master Plan boundary and Open Space Area
Six (OS-6). To the south is Rancho Pancho (street), which provides access to the southern
portion of the Master Plan consisting of Villages 0, Q, R, T, Open Space Area Nine (OS-9), and
the Recreational Vehicle (RV) storage area. The entrance to the RV storage area is directly
south of, and across the street from the entrance to Village T.
Although Village T carries the RM General Plan land use designation (4-8 units per acre), it has
been designated as a community facility site by the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. Pursuant to the
Master Plan, if the site is not utilized by a community service facility within three years of the
grading of the right-of-way for El Fuerte Street or Rancho Pancho, then the site shall revert back
to its underlying designation of Residential-Medium upon a showing by the applicant that they
have made good faith efforts to market this site to a community facility type of use during the
three-year period without any success. The applicant has requested two such determinations and
on both accounts the Planning Commission and City Council determined that the applicant had
not shown a good faith effort and denied the requests. The Planning Commission made a minute
motion that the City Council adopt a Resolution of Intention to preserve Village T as a
permanent Community Facility site. On December 3,2002, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 2002-348 directing the Planning Director to prepare the Master Plan Amendment.
Village T (Lot 103) was created by the Village Q subdivision (CT 93-04) approved by the
Planning Commission on January 4, 1995 and the final map was recorded with the San Diego
County Office of the Recorder on March 3 1, 1998.
IV. ANALYSIS
General Plan
An objective of the Land Use Element of the General Plan is “to ensure that new master planned
communities ... contribute to a balanced community by providing, within the development,
adequate areas to meet some socialhuman service needs such as sites for worship, daycare,
youth and senior activities, etc.” To implement this objective, Master Planned communities and
residential Specific Plans over 100 acres are to provide usable acres to be designated for
community facilities. The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan provided 4.7 acres of community
facilities in the form of a daycare site, community roodpool site and Village T. By preserving
Village T as a Community Facilities site, the Master Plan is fulfilling the objectives of the
General Plan.
The project site is presently land use designated as Rh4 and is proposed to be changed to CF
pursuant to the direction of the Planning Commission and City Council’s Resolution of Intention.
The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan previously allowed the site to develop with a community
facility use under the RM land use designation. The proposed change is to preserve the site as a
Community Facilities site and any future conversion, pursuant to 21.25.030 (CF Zone time
GPA 03-04MP 139(J) - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T
August 20,2003
Pane 3
period of reservation) would require a General Plan amendment and Major Master Plan
amendment.
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan
Amendments to the Master Plan are permitted pursuant to the procedures established in Chapter
21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (P-C Zone) and Chapter I11 of the Rancho Carrillo Master
Plan. As stated in the Master Plan, development within the Master Plan shall be subject to all
present and future Growth Management plans, policies or ordinances adopted by the City
Council. The Master Plan may also be reviewed for the Master Plan’s fulfillment of current City
policies and standards.
Since the approval of the Rancho Camllo Master Plan, the City has adopted a new Community
Facility requirement for Master Plans through Zone Code Amendment 99-02, adopted April 3,
2001. This amendment was to ensure that all master plans reserve community facilities sites,
which benefit the community as a whole, and to establish development standards for community
facilities uses.
The reservation of Village T as a Community Facility site meets the goals and objectives of the
Master Plan. The site is compatible with surrounding development in that the site is located at
least 700 feet from the nearest residential property and is surrounded by open space and a
Recreational Vehicle storage lot of the Master Plan. The development of the site would not
disrupt the open space network which preserves the environmental resources of the area. The
preservation of the Community Facility site would bring the Master Plan closer to compliance
with the new CF Zone. The present area set aside for CF uses in the Master Plan is 4.7 acres,
including Village T, where a total of 9.3 acres would be required by today’s code. Because the
remainder of the Master Plan is developed, no additional land is available for a CF site. The
existing CF uses are a childcare facility and meeting room and community pool facility. Because
the site was considered as a CF as a part of the Master Plan, adequate public facilities and
services have been provided for.
Consistent with Section 21.25.030 of the existing CF Zone, staff is recommending that the
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan be amended to require the reservation of Village T as a CF site for a
minimum period of ten (10) years. The ten-year period shall commence when the final
inspections have been approved for 100 percent of the units in the first residential planning area
in the Master Plan. The first Village to be completed was Village J on October 19, 2000. If, at
the end of the ten-year reservation period, which would be October 2010, community facilities
have not developed in the community facilities designated area, then the developer may make an
application for a major master plan amendment to eliminate the community facilities site. If the
developer proposes to eliminate the community facilities area, he shall demonstrate why it is
infeasible that the designated area will ever develop with community facilities uses.
The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan Open Space Area 11 (OS-1 1) is designated for, and is presently
developed as, a child care site, thus fulfilling the CF zone requirement of the provision of a child
care facility within a Master Plan.
GPA 03-04NP 139(J) - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T
August 20,2003
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed modification does not affect the previous environmental determinations. The
potential impacts of the previously approved actions were already evaluated in the EIR for the
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan (EIR 94-01) and the 1994 General Plan update (MER 93-01). No
Public Resource Code 2 108 1 findings are required.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5455 (GPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5456 (MP)
Location Map
Minutes from November 19, 2002 City Council Meeting (PCD 01-05 Rancho Carrillo
Village T)
Minutes from August 7, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting (PCD 01-05 Rancho Cadlo
Village T)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4722 .(MP 139(1))
Underline/strikeout text of amended master plan.
ATTACHMENT 4
November 19,2002 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 8
ACTION: On a motion by Mayor Pro Tern Kulchin, Council authorized staff to
submit a proposed sand retention concept to the US. Army Corps of
Engineers, pursuant to the provisions of the National Shoreline Erosion
Control Development and Demonstration program, Section 227; and,
that rescission language be added to the contract to allow the City of
Carlsbad's withdrawal from the program and that language also be
added to not hold the City of Carlsbad liable in any way.
Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard and Hall. m: - NOES: None.
14. AB #16.953 -APPEAL OF DECISION TO DENY PCD 01-05 - RANCHO CARRILLO
VILLAGE "T".
Van Lynch, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He displayed a page from the
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan showing the locations of the Community facility sites within the
master plan. Mr. Lynch said that today's definition of "community facilities" would not
include the R.V. storage, elementary school or city park. The only facilities that could be
defined as community facilities are the community facility building and the pool facility.
Mr. Lynch said that the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan stipulates that if Village Tis not utilized
as a community service facility within three years of the commencement of grading of the
right-of-way for El Fuerte Street or Rancho Pancho, then the Village T site shall revert back
to its underlying designation of Residential-Medium. Mr. Lynch said the reversion would be
granted upon the applicant showing that they have been unsuccessful in their good-faith
efforts to market the site to a community facility type use during the three-year period.
Mr. Lynch said in September, 2000, the Planning Commission heard the first request of the
applicant to allow the property to revert designation and determined that the applicant had
not made a good faith effort. In August, 2002, the applicant again requested the
determination and the Planning Commission again determined that a good-faith effort had
not been made. Mr. Lynch said that this agenda item is the applicant's appeal to the City
Council of the Planning commission's latest action.
In response to Mayor Pro Tern Kulchin, Mr. Lynch said that at the August, 2002 Planning
Commission meeting, the Cornmission made a minute motion to bring forward to Council a
Resolution of Intent to amend the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. He said the amendment
would be coming to Council in the future. Mr. Lynch explained that the Resolution of
Intention is an amendment allowed, pursuant to the Master Plan as well as the City's PC
zoning, to allow staff to update master plans in order to bring the master plans into
conformance with current ordinances. Mr. Lynch explained that since the Rancho Carrillo
Master Plan was adopted, staff has brought forward a new community facilities zone, with
requirements for master plans to provide Community facilities and identifies certain criteria
for compliance.
43
November 19,2002 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 9 In response to Council Member Finnila, Mr. Lynch said that staff has the ability to update a
master plan, pursuant to the code and language in the master plan. If a large revision to
the master plan were required, staff would also have the opportunity to update the master
plan. However, Mr. Lynch said that staff does not foresee the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan
being revised in any manner. However, if Council determines the need to update the
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, Mr. Lynch said that Council could direct staff to do so. At that
time, staff would be able to modify Village T.
In response to Council Member Hall, Mr. Lynch explained that new master pfans are
required to comply with the new ordinance, which requires two acres minimum plus one
percent of the net developable area of the master plan to be providing a community
facilities service site.
In response to Mayor Lewis, Mr. Lynch said that Poinsettia Avenue would be improved with
the Villages of La Costa Greens Project as well as with the Bressi Ranch Project.
David Watson, 600 West Broadway, San Diego, stated he is the attorney representing the
applicant, Horton-Continental. He described their good-faith marketing efforts to locate a
community facility use on Village T. Mr. Watson explained that through their marketing
efforts, they have been told that the acreage on site of Village T is too small and unsuitable
for a community facility use. Mr. Watson noted that there is currently a day-care center in
the Village T area that has a 20-year exclusivity clause in its agreement. Mr. Watson asked
that Council support their appeal and allow the Village T site to revert to the underlying
residential-medium land use designation.
Council.Member Hall said he could support the Planning Commission’s decision.
Council Member Nygaard concurred and said that Village Twill become more marketable in
the future upon the completion of Poinsettia Lane.
Council Member Finnila spoke of the need for a community facility on Village T and said
she would like to continue the community facility designation on Village T until the entire
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan has been completed.
Mayor Pro Tem Kulchin said she could support the Planning Commission’s decision.
In response to Council, Mr. Lynch said that Resolution of Intention (Resolution No. 2002-
348), would be presented to Council on December 5‘h. Mr. Lynch said at a future public
hearing, Council could direct staff to work on the Resolution of Intention to amend the
master plan and give staff direction regarding the length of time Council would like Village T
to remain a community facility site.
ACTlON: On a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Kulchin, Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-318, Upholding a Planning Commission
Decision to Deny a Planning Commission Determination to Allow
Village TI a Community Service Facility Site, Within the Rancho Carrillo
Master Plan to Revert to the Underlying Residential-Medium Land Use
Designation on Property Generally Located on the North East Corner of
November 19,2002 Carlsbad City Council Meeting Page 10
El Fuerte and Rancho Pancho in Local Facilities Management Zone 18;
and,
That this issue of regarding the length of time Council would like Village
T to remain a community facility site shall be discussed at the Public
Hearing when the amendment to the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan is
heard by Council.
AYES: - NOES: None.
Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard and Hall.
COUNCIL REPORTS AND COMMENTS:
Council Member Hall said that during the past weekend;he and Mayor Pro Tem Kulchin
attended a Chamber of Commerce Retreat.
Council Member Nygaard said that NCTD has an agreement with the City of Encinitas for a
Coaster passing track.
Council Member Nygaard said the 1-5/78 Double Lane Project is finished and open.
Mayor Lewis asked if CalTrans is following the City of Carlsbad’s recommended landscape
plan along 1-5.
Mayor Lewis said a discussion was held at the San Diego County Water Authority regarding
the desalination facility. Mayor Lewis said he reiterated the City of Carlsbad’s position.
Mayor Lewis asked staff to give a presentation to the San Diego County Water Authority to
explain why the City of Carlsbad should be the lead agency, the importance of using Merkle
& Associates, and the City’s liability.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: None.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
By pro er motion, the Regular Meeting of November 19, 2002, was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. R
I&*% qk NE M. WOOD
Janice Breitenfeld
Deputy City Clerk
Planning Commission Minute. August 7,2002 Page 11
ATTACHMENT 5
6. PCD 01-05- RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T - Request for approval of a Planning Commission
Determination to allow Village T within the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, a community service
facility site, to revert back to the underlying Residential-Medium land use designation.
Mr. Wayne introduced item #6, continued from March 6, 2002, and stated that Van Lynch would be
making the presentation.
Chairperson Trigas asked if the applicant wished to proceed or continue the item since there was not a full
Commission.
David Watson, representing the applicant, stated he wished to proceed.
Chairperson Trigas opened the public hearing.
. Van Lynch, Associate Planner, showed the location of Village T on the overhead. He stated that Rancho
Carrillo is primarily a residential development with two designated community facility sites. One of the
sites on Melrose is occupied by a daycare facility and Village T is the other community facility site. The
project was continued to allow the applicant to work with a potential buyer of the property. In September
2000, Continental came to the Planning Commission in an attempt to have the property converted to a
residential use; a Residential Medium density use is allowed pursuant to the Master Plan. At that hearing
the Commission felt the applicant had not exercised a good faith effort in soliciting the property for sale to
a community facility type user. On March 6, 2002 the applicant brought the project back again, and at that
time prior to the hearing, Jehovah’s Witnesses was interested in the property so the item was continued so the applicant could work with them to negotiate purchase of the site. At a point during negotiations the
applicant was no longer interested in the property and submitted a letter dated June 26, 2002.
Mr. Lynch stated that during the negotiations he had correspondence with Jehovah’s Witnesses. He also had a copy of the escrow instructions that allowed them to have a 6 month purchase period in which to
process a use permit, as well as one 90-day extension, which should be adequate time to process a Conditional Use Permit through the City of Carlsbad. During this entire time the property was posted for sale and the City occasionally received interested parties which were referred to the applicant. Mr. Lynch
said to date they don’t know of anyone who has had any serious interest in the property so Staff
recommends adoption of the resolution to convert the property to residential land use.
.
Chairperson Trigas acknowledged receipt of a letter from Ken Chernish dated March 1 1, 2002.
Chairperson Trigas wanted to clarify if Jehovah’s Witnesses was given the opportunity for a Conditional Use Permit of 6 months and an additional amount of time beyond that. Mr. Lynch replied that a one time
90-day extension was written in the escrow instructions for Jehovah’s Witnesses to process their application prior to the close of escrow. He said he didn’t know how negotiations went with Continental.
He said they received the March 1 lth letter stating they could not proceed at that time, and a copy of the
escrow instructions which allowed Jehovah’s Witnesses to have a 180 day permit process time and a one
time 90-day extension.
Chairperson Trigas, referring to the March 11, 2002 letter from Mr. Chernish, asked if Jehovah’s
Witnesses felt that wasn’t enough time and if they were not allowed in the escrow instructions that before
close of escrow they would be assured they would get the CUP. Mr. Lynch replied that is correct. The
intent in the escrow instructions was that they were giving time, 180 days plus a 90-day extension to process a use permit. Whether they could fulfill it or receive approval in that timeframe would be another
question. Escrow wasn’t contingent on the approval of a Conditional Use Permit but made allowance for
them to process their permit application and they never began that process.
Commissioner Dominguez stated it looks like a resubmittal of the March 6 item. He said as he
remembered the discussion led by Commissioner Segall, there was going to be a more concerted effort to
try and reach nonprofit organizations to ask if they were interested in this key piece of property. There’s
no evidence of that in this new item. He asked if he was to assume that they just allowed the existing
potential applicant’s agreement to expire and nothing else was done. Mr. Lynch replied that there was
another marketing attempt done by Continental Homes. Commissioner Segall interjected with a point of
Planning Commission Minute. August 7,2002 Page 12
clarification that it was not heard on March 6, it was continued before the hearing, and he thought
Commissioner Dominguez may have been referring to the September, 2000 hearing.
Chairperson Trigas asked where there was evidence of additional mailings or contacts. Mr. Lynch
responded that there is a solicitation package itemized as Exhibit E, January 16, 2001. There is an
example of the marketing brochure, and email and faxes and broker mailing to all major brokers in San
Diego County, and a direct mailer to businesses and groups applicable to the zone for this parcel. They
utilized the SIC codes to sort for users of this type of property. There is a comprehensive list of the organizations and their locations that received mailings.
Commissioner Segall said it appears that Lee & Associates was retained on January 16th and resigned on
April 4th saying they couldn’t find anyone, so the extent of their search was two and a half months. Mr.
Lynch said that was the subsequent search.
David Watson, 600 W. Broadway, San Diego, stated he is the attorney representing the developer,
Continental Residential. In response to the Commission’s question regarding the status of the Jehovah’s
Witnesses negotiations, he stated there were a series of correspondence and negotiations between the
parties and the escrow instructions were prepared that the Staff referred to. No contract was ever signed
because Jehovah’s Witnesses ultimately found a larger site they thought was more suitable. They were in
the process of negotiating the timeline to give them the opportunity to apply for a CUP, but they chose an
alternate site.
With respect to the evidence in the record, Mr. Watson said pages 3 and 4 of the Staff Report summarize
what happened since the September 2000 hearing: When Lee & Associates was retained in January of
2001, they immediately emailed more than 500 brokers in the area, prepared brochures, and did direct
mailings to approximately 857 potential buyers. Those were followed up with phone calls and subsequent attempts to contact people. After 4 months Lee & Associates terminated the listing on their own initiative
because they felt it was a useless exercise. In their letter they stated they felt the limitations of the
property, particularly the size and location and the zoning restrictions didn’t warrant any further time,
energy, and expense on their part.
Mr. Watson stated that the site has been on the market since then and there have been subsequent
phone calls and contacts periodically. The actions that were taken before September of 2000, plus the
actions taken since September 2000, have led Continental to the conclusion that this site isn’t acceptable
for the types of uses desired. Mr. Watson said you are correct in trying to balance community facilities
with the needs of the residential homes being built, but if there was a demand, with the efforts that have been made, someone would have stepped forward. He said the successful churches are looking for
larger sites. A childcare facility would be perfect there, but there is already a childcare facility in the
neighborhood that is only at a 50 percent capacity and it also has an exclusivity right in that area for
awhile.
Mr. Watson said that based on review of the facts, minutes, and your comments, Continental has made an honest and reasonable commercial effort over the last 2-3 years in an attempt to satisfy what the current Master Plan calls for. He said he knew that since the Master Plan was adopted there are now
more stringent requirements in other master planned communities. He said Continental has tried in good
faith to comply with the rules and sometimes as decision-makers you have to make decisions you don’t
necessarily like. He said they’re hoping you’ll look at the efforts over the course of the last several years,
two years longer than the plan originally required, and recognize that all the evidence indicates they made
good faith efforts. They have done everything you’ve requested over the last few hearings and there is no evidence to indicate that they haven’t acted in good faith. He asked that the Commission adopt the Staff
recommendation and thanked them for the opportunity to speak.
Commissioner Segall asked what specific proactive efforts were made since April 4, 2001 when Lee &
Associates backed out. Mr. Watson said the effort has been more reactive to what Lee & Associates
started. Continental thought they had done a pretty good job on their own and got only one serious
negotiator. It was .disheartening to have the broker quit after four months of effort, and it was more of a matter of what more could we do. Just to continue this seemed like a waste of time. The property still has
been on the market, phone calls have been made, but it hasn’t been as intensive as what it originally was,
mainly because the results speak for themselves. It’s been on the market for 5 years; there have been
intensive efforts during that time and each case has resulted in minimal results from the community. Mr.
Planning Commission Minute. August 7,2002 Page 13
Watson said when you send out something to over 850 people you would think that if they really want it, at
some point someone is going to remember it’s on the market and come after it. It’s a combination of trying to comply with your requirements and the regular market forces.
Commissioner Segall, referring to the March 11 th letter, asked what was unacceptable to the seller. Mr.
Watson said a typical seller isn’t going to want to put the deal at risk for getting a Conditional Use Permit. A final decision had not been made on that. We were trying to alleviate the risk that they were trying to
avoid, which was not getting their entitlement, by giving them a fairly lengthy period of time to get a CUP.
It seemed like 270 days was a reasonable period of time for a project that would have been welcomed, but
when they found another site negotiations never went further. It was a typical seller not wanting to accept
the risk versus the buyer not wanting to have any risk, so as a compromise we were trying for a long
period of time.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if that obstacle could have been overcome by making the CUP a
contingency of sale, protecting both the buyer and the seller. Mr. Watson said that’s what Jehovah’s
Witnesses wanted, but they were offered 270 days. He said that wasn’t the issue that finally changed the
deal; they found a larger site that was more suitable for their purposes, so it basically became irrelevant.
Chairperson Trigas opened and closed public testimony,
Commissioner Segall said the way the Master Plan reads they have 3 years to find a community facility
group that would move into this facility. He asked if we now have 10 years on the books with the new
ordinance. Mr. Wayne said the new ordinance is stricter than the 10 years. It’s reserved for 10 years from
the final inspection of the last unit of the first residential planning area. There is no auto reversion,
reversion requires a major Master Plan amendment, and as a finding for that major Master Plan
Amendment, it has to be based upon infeasibility that it will ever be developed with community facility
uses. The new ordinance is by far geared toward reserving that site for a long, long time.
Commissioner Heineman wanted to clarify they’re not operating under the new ordinance. Mr. Wayne
replied they’re not.
Mr. Wayne said it’s not clear to Staff in reviewing the documents. It looks as if the escrow instructions, not
signed, are escrow instructions for the buyer. If they are escrow instructions for the buyer, then the
buyer’s representative is basically saying that the seller rejected those escrow instructions. He said so as
not to mislead anyone, maybe the seller can clear that up on the record, because the issue is how long did
they really have. Was it the seller giving them 180 days plus one 90-day extension or was it the buyer
requesting it and that was then rejected because you have a letter stating that they rejected.
Mr. Watson said it’s a series of correspondence that is typical negotiation. The seller made that offer and
it was rejected, however, conversations .and negotiations continued after that and ultimately Jehovah’s
Witnesses chose another site for different reasons. There was never a signed contract and there was a rejection of that specific proposal but that did not mean that there weren’t ongoing discussions. His
understanding was that they were here not that long ago. Jehovah’s Witnesses were interested in the
property for a while and there were discussions with them for a while and these issues were going back
and forth until they actually found another site.
Chairperson Trigas said you indicated the seller offered that length of time and then the buyer rejected
that. They in turn said they wanted the CUP at the close of escrow. Mr. Watson said he didn’t know if it
was that precise. In negotiating deals lawyers are talking to brokers, brokers are talking to sellers and buyers. The ultimate issue was whether or not obtaining a CUP was going to be a contingency of the
closing. That is the issue that was never culminated; the buyer wanted it, the seller didn’t. That issue was
never totally resolved because they ultimately found another site.
Chairperson Trigas said from the letter dated March of 2002 it appears that basically the issue was the
CUP and they were probably very discouraged and gave up on it. They don’t mention anything that they found another site. Mr. Watson said they found another letter. Chairperson Trigas said she understood that now. Mr. Watson added that because of the Commission’s interest in this there was a certain
leverage that a clever buyer could use to try to negotiate more favorable terms than they normally could.
Knowing that the Planning Commission is looking over the entire negotiating process would add a new dimension to the process so it would be easy to make matters public to try to increase their bargaining
position.
Planning Commission Minute. August 7,2002 Page 14
Chairperson Trigas asked when the daycare’s exclusivity expires. Mr. Watson did not know the period of
time; he said it was in the purchase agreement when they bought the property.
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Wayne if the Commission decided they wanted to extend it to 10 years
and keep the site open for a good faith effort to try to find something, could they do that. He added if they
allow it to go away as a community facility, he has a concern because Bressi Ranch was just approved and Villages of La Costa was just approved with facilities that is contiguous to this property and there’s
another one coming up. Mr. Wayne said the City Council has a policy to review master plans every five
years with the focus of bringing them up to date. The process would be to request the City Council to
direct Staff to amend the master plan to apply the CF zone to this site to clarify its intentions on the site.
Commissioner Segall said he would support that.
Commissioner Dominguez wanted to know how soon the master plan revision could be initiated if they ask
for it. Mr. Wayne said they would take an agenda bill carrying the Commission’s minute motion to the City
Council with all due haste and then it would be up to them. Commissioner Dominguez said that may be
the ultimate solution and asked if that would then update the community facility requirement and sustain it
in perpetuity. Mr. Wayne said with the rules in effect today, there is a way out, however not an easy way. You have to prove infeasibility that it will ever be used for community facilities, there is no automatic
reversion, and it’s done at a full public hearing.
Commissioner Segall added that when Poinsettia and El Fuerte go through, this is going to be a significant
area. Maybe it has been a problem now because it‘s a dead end but in a couple years when the roads go
through it will be a key location and will serve the entire surrounding community.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that assuming the Commission is going in the direction of making a minute motion to
request an amendment to the Master Plan, they still need to take action on the item before them and
make a determination on whether they made a good faith effort to satisfy this requirement. Assuming it is
found they did not, then you go further with the Master Plan Amendment. If you find they had made a
good faith attempt, that action wouldn’t be in order.
MOTION
ACT ION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission deny Planning Commission Resolution No. 51 57. (PCD 01 -05)
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Segall stated that the reason he would deny it is because almost two years later he does
not feel a good faith effort has been made to sell the property. He finds it difficult that a major commercial
real estate company would just resign the account without really trying. Even though they did resign,
nothing has happened from 2001 until now in an active way to sell the property.
Commissioner White agreed with Commissioner Segall and she found the correspondence the
Commission had access to concerning the Jehovah’s Witnesses project somewhat confusing and
perhaps indicating that the developer did not give the church a chance to pursue this project because of
the denial of the Conditional Use Permit. She said she was troubled by the fact they entered into an
agreement with a daycare facility from the very beginning that was an exclusive contract and prevented
another daycare facility from buying this property, eliminating one strong possible use for this property as a community facility.
Commissioner Dominguez said he could support the motion but would like some assurance that the
directions for the Master Plan revision would be part of whatever they do this evening. He said he was not convinced that a sustained good faith effort had been conducted.
Commissioner Heineman stated he was in agreement with his fellow Commissioners.
Commissioner Whitton’s opinion was that there was not a sustained effort and he wasn’t convinced that
there was a decent effort to start with.
Planning Commission Minute August 7,2002 Page 15
Chairperson Trigas agreed with her fellow Commissioners.
Commissioner Segall stated that, in reference to Commissioner White’s comments, to his recollection the
exclusivity of the daycare center was to negotiate to bring a significant organization (Kindercare) into the
project and that was one of the conditions. He said he thought that was a good move and didn’t think
there was an effort to circumvent.
VOTE: 6-0-0
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, White, and
Whitton
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
30
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTACHMENT 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4722
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNTNG COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MINOR
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED WITHIN THE RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER
PLAN ON THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF MELROSE
DRIVE AND CARRILLO WAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 18.
CASE NAME:
CASE NO: MP 139(I)
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE L
WHEREAS, D. R. Horton San Diego Inc., ”Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by D. R. Horton San Diego
Holding Company, Inc., a California Corporation, “Owner”, described as
Lot 240 of Carlsbad Tract No. 93-04 Rancho Carrillo Villages
“L and M” in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to Map thereof No. 13838 filed in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County August 23,
1999 as file no. 1999-582013
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Master Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “A” - “HH” dated February 16,2000, on file in the Carlsbad
Planning Department RANCHO CAkRILLO VILLAGE L, MP 139(I) as provided by MP
139 and Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 16th day of February, 2000,
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 Master Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE L, RIP 139(I) according to
Exhibit “X” dated February 16, 2000, attached hereto and made a part
hereof based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findines:
1. The proposed Rancho Carrillo Master Plan Amendment is minor in nature in
accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan in that; the area of the Village
does not change; the product type does not differ from that allowed by the Master
Plan; realignment or modification of internal streets does not occur; and the
amendment is not a requirement to satisfy any state or federal agency; and that the
amendment does not change the density or involve an addition of a new use or
group of uses not shown on the original plan or the rearrangement of uses within
the master plan.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance
with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff
report dated February 16,2000 including, but not limited to the following:
A.
B.
C.
Land Use - The proposed addition of special design criteria to the Rancho
Carrillo Master Plan Village L development standards does not change the
land uses prescribed by the Master Plan. The project is consistent with the
City’s General Plan Residential High (RH) land use designation for the site
since the proposed density of 15.8 dwelling units/acre is within the density
range of 15 - 23 dwelling unitdacre and below the Growth Management
Growth Control Point of 19 dwelling unitdacre.
Circulation - The project is served by Carrillo Way, a local street, and
Melrose Drive, a prime circulation arterial roadway which has been
completed, and the project is conditioned to complete all necessary onsite
roadway improvements prior to occupancy of any unit.
Noise - Project noise levels that exceed the City’s 60 dBA CNEL standard
along Melrose Drive have been mitigated to the standard through the use of a
combination berm and solid 6’ masonry wall.
3. That all necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and adequate
provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the Capital Improvement
Program applicable to the subject property, in that public facilities necessary for the
development of Rancho Carrillo Village L have been completed in accordance with
the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan.
4. That the residential and open space portions of the community will constitute an
environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that it will be in harmony with or
provide compatible variety to the character of the surrounding area, and that the sites
proposed for public facilities, such as schools, playgrounds and parks, are adequate to
PC RES0 NO. 4722 -2- 3a
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
serve the anticipated population and appear acceptable to the public authorities ha\.ins
jurisdiction thereof, in that the findings of Planning Commission Resolution 41 67 for
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan Amendment, MP 139(F) are applicable and
incorporated herein by reference.
5. The proposed modifications to the Village L special design criteria allowing reduced
front yard setbacks to a minimum of 10 feet and reduced driveway widths to a
minimum of 24 feet for motor court driveway entrances are justified in that the
project is designed with a more interesting street scene because: 1) front yard
setbacks vary from 10 to 16 feet; 2) all garage doors face interior motor courts
thereby eliminating garages fronting on private streets; 3) the looped circulation
pattern limits the number of multi-plex units fronting on a private street before the
street changes direction, 4) front building and roof elevations are designed with
variety and interest, and 5) the driveway to the motor courts is 24 feet wide with the
garage door to garage doorwidth of 33 feet is adequate room for vehicle turning
movements.
6. That the area surrounding the development is or can be planned and zoned in
coordination and substantial compatibility with the development, in that the Village L
project is buffered from surrounding development within the Master Plan
boundaries by open space and Circulation Element roadway (Melrose Drive).
7. That appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental impact as
noted in the adopted Environmental Impact Report EIR 91-04, for the project, in that all
applicable mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director to mitigate traffic
and noise impacts will ensure that potentially significant impacts associated with the
development are reduced to insignificant levels.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to final map or
issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first.
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CT 99-11 and CP 99-08 and is
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4721,
4723, and 4724 for those other approvals.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Master Plan document(s) necessary to make them internally
consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur
substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different
fiom this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 4722 -3- 33
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
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feeslexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of February, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Nielsen, Trigas and
Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
I
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HX~MIHER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4722 -4-
I
VILLAGES
Village
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
Totals
Notes:
Land Use
RH (15 - 23 ddac)
RH (15 - 23 ddac)
RM (4-8 ddac)
RM (4-8 ddac)
RM (4-8 ddac)
RM (4-8 ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
RH (15 - 23 ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
RMH (8-15 ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
RM (4-8 ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
RLM (0-4 ddac)
E (School)
Corn -Fac
Gross Ac.
14.8
15.4
20.4
22.0
18. I
25.6
18.3
33.9
27.0
28.9
5.8
38.3
12.4
18.3
16.3
73.9
17.0
(17.1)
(4.5)
Net Ac.
8.5
13.6
19.2
19.0
17.7
25.0
16.2
29.3
20.0
27.8
5. I
32.3
10.4
13.0
14.0
63.8
14.9
(12.8)
(3.2)
Units
*I95
258
I15
114
106
**I16
39
94
*65
*95
96
""67
119 * *49 * *60
**183
**45
(147)
f 19)
405.7 349.8 1,816
Housing Type
MF
MF
MF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
MF
SF
MF
SF
SF
SF
SF
Underlying
Zoning
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
R-1
R- I
RD-M
RD-M
R-I
RD-M
RD-M
RD-M
R-I
R- I os
W C-F
1. Net acreage and number of units are tabulated per growth management control point, except for units marked by an asterisk.
2. Acreagehits in parenthesis are not included in the totals.
3. Double asterisks (**) denote unit numbers reduced to less than the maximum allowed by the growth control point.
The unit counts for these villages are within the land use densiq range.
OPEN SPACE
Area Gross Ac. Net Ac. Area Gross Ac. Net Ac. Area Gross Ac. Net Ac.
1 7.6 2.8 6 17.7 11.8 10 27.6 23.7
2 18.5 12.8 7 2.2 1.3 11* 4.0 3.3
3 8.9 7.3 8 18.1 9.2 12 30.4 24.0
4 41.9 29.6 9 30.1 22.9 Total 252.2 189.9
5 45.2 40.2
Note:
I. Net and gross acreage are tabulated per growth management.
*A daycarekommunity recreation facility may be located in this area.
Residential Medium-High (8-15 ddac) General Plan Land Use Boundtny
Residential High (15-23 &lac) Residential Low-Medium (W Mac)
Residential Medium (44 dad=) ’
General Plan
3Q
El Master Plan Villages and
Underlying Zoning
33
ATTACHMENT 7
GENERAL PLAN AND LAND USE PROVISIONS
A. GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan designations of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan are shown on Exhibit
2. They include the following designations:
os - Open Space
RLM -
RM-
RMH -
RH-
Residential Low Medium, 0-4 dwelling units per acre (Growth
Control Point -3.2 du/ac).
Residential Medium 4-8 dwelling units per acre (Growth Control
Point 6 ddac).
Residential Medium High, 8-15 dwelling units per acre (Growth
Control Point -1 1.5 ddac).
Residential High, 15-23 dwelling units per acre (Growth Control
Point -19 ddacre). E - Elementary School
CF - Community Facility
All development within the Master Plan shall be consistent with these land use designations
as well as complying with the Master Plan and Village Development Standards. The
Elementary School will revert to the underlying RMH General Plan designation if San
Marcos Unified School District does not exercise its option on the School site within a
specified amount of time. In addition, for a 90 day period only, the City shall be given the
first right of refusal to purchase Village S for park purposes if the site is not acquired by the
District within the specified amount of time. Once the San Marcos School District
exercises its option, the site's General Plan land use designation shall remain E,
Elementary, unless a General Plan Amendment is approved.
B. ZONING
The property within the boundary of this Master Plan is zoned Planned Community, (PC),
as shown on Exhibit 6. The PC Zone requires that a Master Plan be approved prior to any
development on the site. The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan complies with all of the
requirements of Chapter 21.38, the Planned Community Zone, of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code and represents the zoning for the property within its boundaries. This Master Plan has
been prepared in compliance with the four goals of the Intent and Purpose section,
(21.38.010), of the PC Zone.
1. Provide a method for and to encourage the orderly implementation of the general
plan and any applicable specific plans by the comprehensive planning and
development of large tracts of land under unified ownership or developmental
control so that the entire tract will be developed in accord with an adopted Master
Plan to provide an environment of stable and desirable character;
July27, 1993 12
38
acreage is contiguous with the existing Rancho Carrillo Park Site and exceeds the
Zone 18 - LFMP requirement. It is anticipated that the park site will be
predominantly passive, however, final site design will be determined by the City of
Carlsbad's Park and Recreation Department.
5. COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Within the residential and open space land uses, land is reserved for a community
service facility and daycare center. The location and description of each of these
facilities is provided below and are shown on Exhibit 7.
a. Community Service (Village T)
A 3.2 net acre site is reserved for a Community Service in Village T located near
the southwest boundary of the Master Plan area. The site will be available for a - 2 The ten-
minimum period of rkree ten (lo) years. -
year period shall commence when final inspections have been apuroved for one-
hundred percent of the units in the first residential planninp area in the master
plan (October 19, 2000).
-If, at the end of the ten-year reservation period, community facilities
have not developed in the community facilities designated area, then the
developer may make an application for a maior master plan amendment to
eliminate the community facilities site. If the developer proposes to eliminate
the community facilities area, he shall demonstrate why it is infeasible that the
designated - area will ever develop with community facilities uses. The site may
be General Plan land use designated - Residential Medium (RM) for a potential of
19 dwelling units subject to approval of a Maior Master Plan amendment.
b. Daycare Center
A daycare center in conjunction with a common recreation center will be
provided in Open Space Area 11 adjacent to the Carrillo Ranch Park site.
October 21, 1997 18
39
20. VILLAGET
a. Description
Village T is located east of El Fuerte between Open Space Areas 12, 9 & 6. Village
T has a gross area of 4.5 acres and a net developable area of 3.2 acres. This village
has been designated as a community service facilities site.
b. Use Allocation
++€&e@+ This site carries the RM CF General Plan Land Use Designation
M+& - and has been designated as a community service facility site by the
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. If this site is not utilized by a community service
facility within 3 ten (10) years ( E!
from when final inspections were approved for one-hundred
percent of the units in the first residential planning area in the master plan, then the
developer may make an application for a maior master plan amendment to eliminate
the community facilities site. If the developer proposes to eliminate the community
facilities area, he shall demonstrate why it is infeasible that the designated area will
ever develop with community facilities uses. The site may be General Plan land use
designated Residential Medium (RM) for a potential of 19 dwelling units subiect to
approval of a Maior Master Plan amendment.
C. Special Desipn Criteria
All community-wide design standards described in the Community Development
Standards section of this Master Plan shall be implemented in this planning area.
The following specific guidelines shall be included in this planning area:
0 Prior to development of this site other than the Phase 1 grading, a Site
Development Plan must be approved by the Planning Commission.
0 Village T should attempt to take advantage of views into the valley open space
to the north and northeast.
The Community Service Facilities shall produce a positive landmark building
within the plans overall architectural theme.
July 27, 1993 177
Planning Commission Minutes August 20,2003 EXTBIT 5 Page
3. GPA 03-04/MP 139(J) - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T - A General Plan and Master Plan
Amendment to preserve Village T of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan as a Community Facility site
on property located on the northeast corner of El Fuerte Street and Rancho Pancho in Local
Facilities Management Zone 18.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 3 and stated that Senior Planner, Van Lynch, would make the presentation and
that this matter would go to City Council for final approval is approved by the Planning Commission..
Chairperson Baker opened the public hearing on Item 3 and acknowledged a letter that was received by
the attorneys of the applicant.
Senior Planner, Van Lynch, presented the Staff Report stating that this Item is a General Plan and Master
Plan Amendment for the Rancho Carrillo Village T project site located at Rancho Pancho and El Fuerte
Street in the Carillo Master Plan. This project site was before the Planning Commission in August of
2002. The applicant requested that a Planning Commission determination be made that the applicant
had made a good faith effort in marketing this site as a Community Facility site. The Planning
Commission denied that request. A minute motion was made to secure the Village T as a Community
Facility site for a 10-year period. The City Council adopted a resolution directing Staff to process such an
Amendment. The General Plan Amendment accompanies the Master Plan Amendment to designate the
site as a Community Facilities site from the present Residential-Medium designation. Staff recommends
approval to the City Council.
Chairperson Baker invited the applicant to make a presentation.
David Watson, attorney for the applicant, 600 West Broadway, San Diego, stated that the letter he sent to
the Planning Commission was a legal discussion of arguments of why they believe that this designation is
inappropriate. He stated that he wanted to share the good news of what was happening with respect to
this property. Horton Continental and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had recently signed
a Letter of Intent for the church to purchase and develop this site. The Letter of Intent and closing is
contingent upon the church getting the entitlements to build their project. They are hopeful that when the
church submits its application, the project will be approved and this issue will be moot. Therefore, they
are asking for a continuance of this decision, as they are fearful that if this moves ahead, Continental will
be forced to have to analyze this from a worst-case scenario. If both the Planning Commission and the
City Council approve this designation, Continental would be forced to take actions to legally protect itself
that they don’t want to do. The church is doing its due diligence, but there is always a possibility that the
church could change its mind and back out of the deal. There’s also the possibility that the City wouldn’t
approve it for one reason or another. Also, this is a very difficult site to develop as it‘s very small and has
certain issues. He noted that there is litigation currently pending over the Planning Commission’s
determination that they didn’t act in good faith. The attorneys have agreed to delay the trial on that matter
until after the church project goes forward. They are trying to avoid the confrontational issues in hopes
that this will be approved.
Commissioner Dominguez asked what his estimate was of the time frame to get some basic threshold
approvals for the LDS filing. Mr. Watson replied that it was his understanding that within the next 60 days they were going to be submitting their application for a Site Development Permit. Assuming that it is
consistent with the General Plan and the zoning, then it would take six to nine months.
Ms. Mobaldi elaborated that with regard to the Amendment that‘s being brought forth, it was done in
response to a minute motion that was made by the Planning Commission and forwarded to City Council
who then gave direction to follow through and process this Amendment. It was going to be processed
before they became aware that there was another prospective buyer for this site. Theoretically, if that
didn’t work out and this Amendment was finalized by the City Council, then perhaps they would feel the
necessity to file a lawsuit. The Planning Department has agreed not to take this to the final step to the
City Council until there is further clarification regarding the prospective buyer, so they won’t feel that they
have to file a lawsuit to protect their rights. They would have to file within 90 days of the final action by
the City Council. If the Mormon Church does buy this site, the site is going to have to be amended
anyway. Council has directed us to amend the designation for the site, so we see no downside in going
forward with this Amendment as it won’t jeopardize their rights.
Planning Commission Minutes August 20,2003 Page 6
Chairperson Baker asked what sort of entitlements the site needed to become a church considering that
it‘s already designated Community Facilities. Mr. Lynch clarified that the Rancho Carillo Master Plan had
already determined that this site was suitable for a church for the use aspect of the property, so only a
Site Development Plan was required for an approval. No zone changes were necessary.
Chairperson Baker asked Ms. Mobaldi to reiterate her recommendation. Ms. Mobaldi recapped that this
action was already in process and they saw no reason to continue it because it would be an appropriate
action regardless of the negotiations with the church.
Mr. Watson asked that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council wait until the church
project was approved so that they don’t feel compelled to take legal action.
Chairperson Baker asked how the approval of this resolution would endanger their arrangement with the
LDS church. He acknowledged that they wouldn’t need to take action until it became final after the City
Council voted and that there was an informal agreement that this wouldn’t go to the City Council until after
the church project was processed. Ms. Mobaldi confirmed that agreement.
Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Watson why they would feel compelled to engage in further legal action
with the City if they were in negotiations with the potential buyer. Mr. Watson explained that if the City
Council approved this before the church project was approved, the church could change its mind and not
go forward with the deal. Also, there could be some unforeseen issue that caused the City not to approve
the project. Chairperson Baker commented that the lawsuit would then jeopardize the sale of the
property, not the City. Mr. Watson stated that the current use designation would allow the church to move
forward, but that they didn’t believe it should be made permanent. They want the current language to
remain, but not be made permanent, because if for any reason the church project wasn’t approved, then it
would demonstrate that this site was difficult to develop as a Community Facility.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if the City Council approved this resolution if it would undermine their
negotiations with the church. Mr. Watson said that it would not, but that it would put Horton Continental in a position of gambling that the project would be approved, or having to take some legal action within a 90-
day period if the church project didn’t move forward. Commissioner Montgomery asked what his client
considered the site, if not a Community Facility site. Mr. Watson replied that it was considered a
Community Facility site, but that this church project was the first solid offer in the past five or six years
that they’ve been trying to sell it. Every other potential buyer had walked away from their deals when they
looked at it closely. This was the first one that had moved forward this far.
Commissioner Montgomery suggested that the logistics of the site, particularly when Poinsettia Drive went through, would offer even greater access for a Community Facility. Mr. Watson countered that the
issue was not access, but rather the size and developable area. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example,
found a larger site a year ago and abandoned this one as a possibility. It‘s been difficult to find a potential
Community Facility user that would choose this site because of the size, not because of the location.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if they didn’t consider the future improved access and visibility of the
site as a benefit for this continuing as a Community Facility site. Mr. Watson stated that they opposed the
permanent designation from the beginning, reiterating that this property had been hard to sell. The
permanent designation could leave the owners with an unsold piece of property for ten more years if the
church project did not reach fruition.
Commissioner White asked if his client intended to pursue litigation within 90 days of the City Council’s
decision, unless they had within the 90 days closed the sale to the church. Mr. Watson stated that they
had to anticipate a worst-case scenario. They didn’t want to file a lawsuit, but may feel they have to in
order to preserve their rights. Timing will be the key determinant.
Commissioner Whitton stated that the Planning Commission was not the trigger on this, adding that the
site could be used for a Community Facility other than a church. Mr. Watson acknowledged that, noting,
however, that they had not had any other offers in the past five or six years other than for a church.
Planning Commission Minutes August 20,2003 Page 7
Commissioner White asked Ms. Mobaldi if up to a six-month distance between the Planning
Commission’s decision and the City Council’s decision would be reasonable in this scenario. Ms. Mobaldi
stated that she didn’t know the answer to that open-ended question. She advised that the Commission
probably didn’t need to concern itself too much with the litigation strategies that Mr. Watson outlined as
she had spoken with Mr. Shulman, the attorney handling the litigation. Mr. Watson apparently had not. She stated that she and Mr. Shulman had reached an agreement, and that it was not their intention to
force another lawsuit while this matter was pending. That would happen if there were final action that
was not favorable to Village T and then they would have to protect their interests within 90 days. She
stated that she would be discussing the matter with Mr. Shulman. Each entity.will decide what’s in their
best interest, but at this time there was no intention to send it to Council until there was some resolution
with the church proposal.
Commissioner Montgomery asked what would happen if this was continued by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that nothing would happen, but that ultimately the issue would have to come forward.
It would have to be renoticed and they would have to start all over again with an updated Staff report and
so forth.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if they would do that anyway, regardless of a church or any other
facility going there. Ms. Mobaldi said they would. She emphasized that the Planning Commission had
asked that this be done. The City Council followed the Planning Commission’s direction and also had
asked that this be done. This was an appropriate action, regardless of whether or not this particular
proposal materialized, because that was what the Council and the Commission wanted to accomplish,
having this remain a Community Facility site for a longer period of time, feeling that there had not been a
sufficient marketing effort and that it was still a viable Community Facility site.
Chairperson Baker opened public testimony and invited those who would like to speak to the podium.
Seeing none, she closed public testimony.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Heineman stated that he failed to see why formalizing this as a Community Facility site
would keep it from becoming a Community Facility site and being sold as such. He stated he was in favor
of the resolution.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that he believed that this site should remain a Community Facility site.
He added that the site would become more and more visible and should remain as designated.
Commissioner Dominguez agreed that with time, the profile of the property would become more
prominent and that it would have more appeal to developers. Having wrestled with this problem for a
long time, Council has provided a satisfactory solution without jeopardizing the applicant’s standing for
the use of the site. He stated that he saw no reason not to go forward and send it to the City Council.
Commissioner Whitton stated that he agreed with their original position and that the site would become
more visible over time when El Fuerte and Poinsettia go through. He added that there were other options
other than a church. He felt they should move this forward.
Commissioner White agreed with the remarks of her fellow Commissioners.
Chairperson Baker called for a motion.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner White, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5455 and 5456
recommending approval of GPA 03-04 and MP 139(J), preserving Village T of
the Rancho Carillo Master Plan as a Community Facility site.
Chairperson Baker called for a vote.
43
Planning Commission Minutes August 20,2003
VOTE: 6-0
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSTAl N : None
Baker, Dominguez, Heinernan, Montgomery, White and Whitton
Page 8
4%
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO
p.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, to consider a General Plan and Master Plan amendment
to preserve Village T of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan as a Community Facility site on
property located on the northeast corner of El Fuerte Street and Rancho Pancho in Local
Facilities Management Zone 18 and more particularly described as:
Lot 103 of Carlsbad Tract No. 93-04, Rancho Carrillo Village “Q”,
in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof No. 13551, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, March 31, 1998.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after February 13, 2004. If you have
any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613.
If you challenge the General Plan and/or Master Plan amendment 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, Attn: City Clerk, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 03-04/MP 139(J)
CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T
PUBLISH: February 6, 2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
'TE
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T
GPA 03-04/MP 139(J)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 6% 2011 C.C.P.)
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
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 the principal clerk of the
printer of Proof of Publication of
North County Times
Former!:. !s-,o;;,n as :!IC Blade-Citizea and Tie
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the City of Oceanside and
the City of Escondido, Court Decree number
171349, for the County of San Diego, that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set
in type not smallcr than nonpariel), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
I certify (or dcclarc) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This Day of February, 2004
Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
NOTICE Of
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Cit)
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 C
p.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 2004, to cc
to preserve Village T of the Rancho Car
property located on the northeast corner
Facilities Management Zone 18 and more p
Lot 103 of Carlsbad Tract N
in the City of Carlsbad, Cou
according to map thereof P
County Recorder of San Die!
Those persons wishing to speak on this
hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be a
any questions, please call Van Lynch in the
If you challenge the General Plan and/or h
to raising only those issues you or someor
notice or in written correspondence delive
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 9200
CASE FILE: GPA 03-04/MP 139(J)
CASE NAME: RANCHO CARRILLO VI1
PUBLISH: February 6,2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
irlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO
isider a General Plan and Master Plan amendment
ill0 Master Plan as a Community Facility site on
if El Fuerte Street and Rancho Pancho in Local
irticularly described as:
. 93-04, Rancho Carrillo Village “Q”,
ty of San Diego, State of California,
3. 13551, filed in the Office of the
o County, March 31, 1998.
iroposal are cordially invited to attend the public
ailable on and after February 13,2004. If you have
’lanning Department at (760) 602-461 3.
aster Plan amendment in court, you may be limited
? else raised at the public hearing described in this
2d to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200
, at or prior to the public hearing.
LAGE T
'TE
RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE T
GPA 03-04/MP 139(J)
Sritooth Feed SheetsTM
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
VALLECITOS WATER DlST
201 VALLECITOS DE OR0
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SANDIEGO CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92fO8-4402
D. R. HORTON
STE 200
5927 PRIESTLY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC W ORKS/COMM U N ITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
VAN LYNCH
01121 I2004
AVERW Address Labels
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LENNAR HOMES
STE 200
24800 CHRISANTA DR
MISSION VIEJO CA 92691
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC W 0 RKS/EN G I N EERl N G
DEPT
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 R FFlN RD
SAN DI ti GO CA 92123
I. P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CONTINENTAL HOMES
STE 100
2237 F RADAY AVE
CARL s$ AD CA 92008
ATTN TED ANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUN IC1 PAL WATER DISTRICT
3-
Laser 5160@
RANCHO CARRILLO RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE TVILLAGE TGPA 03GPA 03--04 04 / / MPA 139(J)MPA 139(J)
Location MapLocation MapSITEEL FUERTE STRANCHO PANCHOVIACONQUISTADORALGA RDUNICORNIO STCACATUA ST
Location MapLocation MapSITE
Aerial ViewAerial View
Village TVillage T Designated as a community service facilityDesignated as a community service facility Also carries an underlying General Plan designation Also carries an underlying General Plan designation of Residential Mediumof Residential Medium Reserved for three yearsReserved for three years Provision to revert to underlying land use designation Provision to revert to underlying land use designation upon good faith efforts to market the site to a upon good faith efforts to market the site to a community facility type usercommunity facility type user
TimelineTimeline July 6, 2000: Planning Commission Determination (PCD) July 6, 2000: Planning Commission Determination (PCD) September 20, 2000: denial of PCDSeptember 20, 2000: denial of PCD April 2001: Community Facilities zone adoptedApril 2001: Community Facilities zone adopted November 13, 2001: PCD submittalNovember 13, 2001: PCD submittal March 6, 2002: item continuedMarch 6, 2002: item continued August 7, 2002: denial of PCD and minute motionAugust 7, 2002: denial of PCD and minute motion August 14, 2002: appeal to City CouncilAugust 14, 2002: appeal to City Council October 22, 2002: City Council upheld denialOctober 22, 2002: City Council upheld denial December 3, 2003: City Council declared intention to consider December 3, 2003: City Council declared intention to consider amendment to Master Planamendment to Master Plan August 20, 2003: Planning Commission recommended approval August 20, 2003: Planning Commission recommended approval of Master Plan and General Plan amendmentsof Master Plan and General Plan amendments
Rancho Carrillo Rancho Carrillo Community FacilitiesCommunity Facilities1.3 acre child care facility1.3 acre child care facility1.1 acre community pool/building1.1 acre community pool/building2.3 acre Village T2.3 acre Village T4.7 total acres of Community Facilities4.7 total acres of Community FacilitiesCurrent Zoning Ordinance requirement = Current Zoning Ordinance requirement = 2 net developable acres + one percent 2 net developable acres + one percent net of Master Plan (2 + 3.5 = 5.5 acres)net of Master Plan (2 + 3.5 = 5.5 acres)
Community FacilitiesCommunity Facilities Churches, synagogues, temples etc.Churches, synagogues, temples etc. Religious reading room (separate from church structure)Religious reading room (separate from church structure) Welfare and charitable services (Goodwill, Red Cross, etc)Welfare and charitable services (Goodwill, Red Cross, etc) Social Clubs (nonSocial Clubs (non--commercial)commercial) Fraternal associations and lodgesFraternal associations and lodges Youth organizations (Scouts, Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs, YMCA)Youth organizations (Scouts, Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs, YMCA) Civic organizations (League of Women Voters)Civic organizations (League of Women Voters) Veterans’ organizationsVeterans’ organizations Adult and/or senior daycare/recreation facilitiesAdult and/or senior daycare/recreation facilities Other uses of similar characterOther uses of similar character
Master Plan AmendmentsMaster Plan AmendmentsProvision in the Master Plan to fulfill Provision in the Master Plan to fulfill current City policies and standardscurrent City policies and standardsMunicipal Code Section 21.38 allows Municipal Code Section 21.38 allows the City to initiate amendments and the City to initiate amendments and adopt additional standardsadopt additional standards
What This Action Does:What This Action Does: General Plan designates the site as CFGeneral Plan designates the site as CF Amends the text of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan Amends the text of the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan to preserve Village T to the standards of the to preserve Village T to the standards of the Community Facility ZoneCommunity Facility Zone Reservation of a community facility site for ten (10) Reservation of a community facility site for ten (10) years from the date of the first inspection (October years from the date of the first inspection (October 2000), which would be October 20102000), which would be October 2010 Requires a major Master Plan and General Plan Requires a major Master Plan and General Plan amendment to revert the site back to a residential amendment to revert the site back to a residential land use designationland use designation