Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-04; Planning Commission; MinutesMeeting of: Time or Heetlnq: Oate of Meeting: Place of Meeting: CALL TO ORDER: MINUTES PL~NIHG COMMISSION 6:00 p.m. June 4, 1986 City Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS The Adjourned Meeting was called to order by Chairman Schlehuber at 6:05 p.m. PLEDGE Of ALLEGIANCE was led by ChaJ.rman Schlehuber. ROLL CALL: Present -Chairman Schlehuber, Conrnissioners McFadden, Hall, Marcus, McBane, Holmes and Schra11111. Absent -None. Staff Metnbers Present: Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 1) ZCA-193 -CITY OF CARLSBAD (Growth Mana ement Pro ram -equest to approve an ordnance estab sh ng a growth management program and implementing procedures. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, suggested that public lnput be taken innediately after the staff report prior to C0111111ission questions. The Planning Co11111ission procedures followed in publ!c hearings were displayed for the benefit of the audience. Hr. Holzmiller gave the background on :1-iis item, stating that the City Council on May 27th made several changes to the growth 111anagement program, which were incorporated into the new draft ordinance, and are as follows: (1) to si111plify the progrc1111 -eliminate the three tiers of develop111ental status categories; (2 ) to require the City to prepare a Citywide public facllltles plan, and then require the plans for the individual zones to show how t hey will coinply, and implel'!lent the overall Citywide plan; ( 3) stop the processing of certain pro.fects until the growth 111anage111ent program is in place. Hr. Holzmiller suwaarized that the ordinance ls a foundation ordinance which basically sets up the requireaP-nt for the Citywide plan and individual zone plans, and the performance standards to be adopted for ~ach one of the public facilities and services. These perforunce standards will then be used for the Citywide and individual pians. There will be a continulng 110nltorlng system after th~ plans are adopted, Hr. Holz■lller referred to a aet110randum dated June 3, 1986, subaltted by th~ City Manager lo the City Council which ...arlzes what the ordinance does and suggests additional exe■ptlons be included in the ordinance. Attached ls a-«> fr011 Harty Orenyak, C~nity Developaent Director, providing further detail. MINUTES June 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Chaln11an Schlehuber declared the publ:c hearing opened at 6:16 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Robert C. Ladwig, Rick Engineering Company, 3088 Pio Pico Drive, addressed the C00111i sslon in opposition to the proposed ordinance and highlighted items in the proposed ordinance which conflicts with Ordinance No. 9791, as contained in their letter to the Co11111ission. (A copy of the letter ls on file.) Bill Hofman, 6994 El Camino Real, Suite 208, addressed the C011111ission and stated that the ordinance ties the City's hands in acquiring needed major public facilities by freezing projects which could provide such improvements. The ordinance should provide for pro.fects to accomplish t his intent. He suggested that these types or projects be added under the list of exceptions. The Council could evaluate each or these projects on a case by case basis to ascertain that they are providing a major public lmprove111ent. He distributed a letter to the Col'lllllssloners expressing his opposition, and suggesting additional wording be included in the ordinance. (The Clerk did not receive a copy of the letter.) Helmut Kiffmann, 5820 Miramar Road, #200, San Diego, representing Hultltech Properties Inc., addressed the C011111ission and requested the Commission to confirm that their project t o complete the Elm Avenue extension will be e xemp ted fr0111 this proposed ordinance . (A letter was submitted and ls on file.) Christopher Neels, 701 "B" Street, San Diego, attorney representing HPI Development, addressed the C011111isslon and stated that there needs to be some exceptions made for projects that can offer significant public facilities. He pointed out that t he 111c1ster plan process ensures that the needed major facilities will be in place, and the building pert11it process ensures that the developer fflll pay the fees. Stephen M. L'Heureux, President of Carlsbad Chamber of Coaaerce, addressed the C011111isslon and outlined the COlll!llents addressed in a letter submitted to the Planning C01aission expressing their opposition to the proposed ordinance. (A copy of the letter ls on file.) lohn Stanley, 275) La Gran Via, owner of parcels Sc:-1J and f -14 at the Northeast corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue, addres sed the C011111ission and inquired on the genesis of not exe111ptlng COlll!lercial/industrlal projects as this is a sudden reversal to Ordinance No. 97'1. He requested that an exe111ption be given for their project to build a super111arket and added that an aases saent has been initiated for t he purposes of providing for the widening of Rancho Santa Fe Avenue. Thia project has been in the planning stage for the past t1t0 years. The project ls in a special treat.ent area which will require hearing before the Planning C011aission ind City Council. There will be enough control to assure t hat the public facilities needed will be in place. MINUTES June 4, 1~86 PLANNING COMMISSION Jim Hicks, 2910 Managua Place, addressed the Co11111lsslon and stressed that this proposed ordinance ls probably the ~ost i111portant docUMent to COllle before the Co11111lssion and should be considered very careful~~-It could be an effective tool, but it can also be a damaging tool to the landowners and even to the City itself, Richard D. Glenn, representing SeaFarms West, P.O. Box 1540, addressed the C011111lssion and read a portion of his letter subfflitted to the Planning C011111lssion opposing the proposed ordinance as it will adversely impact 111c1ny businesses, and requesting that the business projects which can be shown to have little or no impact on public services be allowed to proceed. (A copy of the letter ls on file.) Marlene A. Fox, 3919 Westerly Place, #202, Newport Beach, representing Partin-Bennett Financial Group, addressed the C011111isslon and expressed their opposition to the proposed ordinance as it does not provide for planning and stops all growth. She pointed out that the 111c1ster planning processing identifies the major facilities that are needed. She inquired where a developer would go to find the data wherein the City Council based it determinations and findings contained in the ordinance. She added that there ls no quarantee that the City Manager will not go before the City Council to request an extension of time to c0111plete the Citywide plan and thereby delay a developer's project even further. The ordinance does not address that aspect. Dan Reed, 16016 Big Springs Way, San Diego, ~alser Develop111ent C0111pany, addressed the Cofflffllsslon and highlighted the projects that Kaiser ls involved in at this tl111e. He pointed out the exorbitant amount through public facilities fees that the City will lose if their projects are not permitted by the ordinance. He added that the projects also provide needed infrastructure to the cowaunlty, and will also increase the real property tax valuation. (A copy of a letter was submitted and ls on file.) Dave Easterbrooks, 2623 Ocean Street, addressed the C011aission and stated that he ls processing a slngle- f•ily h0111e which will be owner-occupied. He request~d clarlflcatlon whether his project will be exe111pted fr~ the ordinance since he ls requesting a variance. Mike Holzialller, Planning Director, advised that if the variance ls for the slngle-faaily holle, it can be accepted •nd processed. Mr. Easterbrooks encouraged that the infill projects in his neighborhood be allowed, as they will have a positive l11pact. Bernie flpp, President of the Southern division of the Koll C011pany, addressed the C~lsslon and pointed out the aubatantlal financial benefits that the City will gain thrOU1Jh the C lsbad Research Center and added that recently llena were placed on this project to l11prove Carlsbad Boulevard through the assessaent district prooeaa. He urged that lndustrial/coa.ercial projects be elle11pted. MINUTES June 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION f'Jge 4 COMMISSIONERS Doug Avis, Bieri-Avis Company, addressed the Co11111ission and requested its consideration to exempt projects which provide major public improventents. An analysis of these projects could also be included in the ordinance. He advised that he is a participant in the Cannon Road Assessaent District, which recently received approval from the Ci ty Council to 1110ve ahead. He stated that the a~proval was to open up Hacario Park which ultimately will relieve other traffic-impacted roads. Bob Galloway, representing Kelly Ranch, addressed the C~ission and appealed the conditions being implemented by the proposed ordinance. He stated that their project on the Kelly Ranch has been well planned in accordance with all of the goals set by the City. He gave the backgr0<1nd nf the project and listed the financial benefits this project will have to the City. He requested that this project be included in the list of exemptions outlined in the ordinance. Jack Barnes, 2934 ~ountain View, Laguna Reach, addressed t he C011111ission and gave the background of their project, Carlsbad Highlands. He informed that they were the originators of the Cannon Road Assessment District. He added that everything is in place for Cannon Road, including the right of ways and the alignment. This will be one of the Major East-West arterials of the city, and requested that their project be allowed to be processed. Roy Collins, 2175 Ca111inito Del Barco, Del Har, part-owner of the property at 5963 La Place Court, Carlsbad, addressed the C011111ission and expressed his frustration with the proposed ordinance, pointing out that his develop111ent wi ll be beneficial to the City. He stated that C011111ercial and industrial projects should be exempted as it previously was in Ordinance No. 9791, and everyone should be treated fairly. Beebe Grosse, representing the Russel W. Grosse Develop111ent Co., Inc., 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A, Carlsbad, addressed the C011111ission and pointed out that they have three projects (described in a letter submitted to the Coiaission) which they are requesting be allowed to proceed. She stated that everyone is operating in good faith, and the City should take that into consideration. (A copy of the letter is on file.) Andrew Wright, 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, representing Lincoln Property C0111pany, addressed the C~ssion and pointed out that there are projects in the pipeline that do not take that lllJch staff tiae; particularly, the projects which have final or tentative ups. He stated that the aajority of staff ti11e taken up with tentative approved and finally approved projects is taken up by the City's private consultants. He reca.aended that projects which have obtained a tentative up be allowed to oontinue to be processed. He further stated his opposition to the 12-110nth time fra.e given the City to C011plete the Citywide plan. He felt that six aonths would be enough tiae. MINUTES June 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Nick Banche, 81 0 Mission Avenue, Suite #2, Oceanside, representing Mr . Nor dquist, addressed the Connission and stated t hat the proposed ordinance changes the philosophy and the goals recently J>dSSed by Ordinance No. 9791. He added that in Or di nance No. 9791 t he burden was on the landowner to C0111e up wi th a phasing plan to satisfy the public facil i ties program; now, the burden is on the City, Further, the City is qiven 15 years to solve these probleias. He stat ed that he felt that the City ls trying to sell t he concept of urban reserve. He inquired what the criteria was for obtaining an exemption to the ordinance, and suggested that everyone who qualifies should be infor111ed of such. He further inquired what would happen to t hose exemplary projects that involve Cannon Road, Palo111ar Road, etc. which are projects with great public benef i t . Jc1111es [. Erickson, 650 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, attorney representing La Costa Land Company, addressed the C011111ission and stated that the proposed ordinance was sOllleWhat confusing. He inquired what was the status of Ordinance No. 9791 and how it related to this proposed ordinance. He stated that he has seen no negative declaration on the environmental impacts the proposed ordinance wi l l have . He pointed out that low-income hous ing projects wi ll fflOst likely be built in the new areas and i nquired what accommodations have been made for that. He continued t o make various inquiries in regard to the proposed ordinance such as the reason for the exe111ptions, how long it will be effective, whether projects wit~ approved final subdivision maps will be delayed, and so forth. Frank Mola, President of La Costa Ranch Company, addressed the Coaalssion and expressed his opposition to the proposed ordinance. He pointed out that they are the largest landowner in t he City and yet they are not allowed to build one stick. ~ stated that the City should decide one way or the other in regards to giving exemptions -either all or none. He pointed out that 111any of the developers have 11c1de tre111endous financial ~itments, and he did not understand the purpose of the ordinance. He stated what we need to be discussing is the quali ty of life and an orderly fashion of deve lop11ent. He expressed his pleasure that several Council 111embers were present tonight to hear the publJ~•~ i nput. Wenda! Marsh, 650 Town Center Dr ive, Costa Mesa, attorney representing Hughes North County Associat es, addressed the C«-ission and stated that their project l s i n a stage where construction ls about to CXMM1ence. He stated t hat sinoe they have gotten that far, they should not be prevented frOII p oceedlng. Me inqui red whether their proJect oould 1-eceive an exeaptlon. He pointed out that there la a chau between the govern111en t al agenci es, the PlaMino Departaent and the developaent COlllfflUnity and he did not aee the oooperat1on in workinq together with the developers u 1n other cities, and that a .echaniM needs to be incorporated wherein all involved sit together and dlaouaa a plan. MINUTES June 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION RECESS The Plannin9 COlllllission recessed at 7:37 p.m. and reconvened at 7:48 p.m., with all members present. r ., Jennifer Locke, Vice-President of Harry L. Summers, Inc., 9404 Genesee, La Jolla, addressed the Commission and expressed her concern with the continuous changes of the 9aine plan since Ordinance No. 9791 was enacted -the project which were exempted in that ordinance are now not exe111pted in the proposed ordinance. She stated that she felt that 111any of the functions involved in the processing of tentative 111aps Cdn be performed concurrently with the development of the Ci tywide plan. She also stated that she felt that the one-year limit given to develop a City- wide plan is too long. Joe Sandy, 2892 Jefferson Street, addressed the Co11111ission and stated that the one-year rnoritorium to develop the Citywide plan is too long. He listed the various Master Plans that the City has in place already. He also spoke regarding the exe111ptions which were given by Ordinance No. 9791 and are now disallowed by the proposed ordinance. He referred to the letter dated June J, 1986 from the City Manager to the City Council and suggested that the exe111ptions which the City Manager is proposing should be Included in the proposed ordinance. He pointed out that the attached list frOIII Marty Orenyak, C011111Unlty Development Director, of the projects in the Northwest quadrant which would be exempted, was not complete as various Slllall projects were not listed. However, he stated that he has been assured by the Engineering Departaent that they will be exempted. Chairman Schlehuber announced that the City Council will be holding a special 111eeting on June 5 to discuss the City Manager's letter and attach111ents, and to further discuss the outeo111e of this meeting. David Resnic, 2111 Paloaar Airport Road, Suite 25, Partin- Bennett financial Group, addressed the C011111lsslon and stated that they are willing to cooperate if the ordinance ls to provide infrastructure. However, he stated that he felt that thla ordinance will be stopping growth. He stated that either exe111ptions should be allowed for all the projects, or no exe111ptions should be given at all. He spoke on the traffic probletns ln the La Costa area, and yet PFF funds are just sitting ln the bank. He inquired why the City dld not solve the l..ediate problell!S rather than looking at stopping growth. He reiterated that if the City's intent was to provide for infrastructure, then they totally support lt1 but this ordinance does not addrea1 that. He stressed that the~e ls already a park in Carrillo Ranch that has been dedicated, and they have been working wlth the City for soae tlae ln developing a plan. C. S.Uel Blick, P.O. Box 8025, Rancho Santa Fe, attorney representing TIC lnvestaents or San Diego, addressed the Coaila1lon and expressed his concern that their project ls not included as an exeiaptlon in the proposed ordinance. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION June 4, 1986 Page 7 COMMISSIONERS Mr. Blick requested that the ordinance be amended tc allow for the developMent of projects su~ject to industrial/ COl!lllercial final maps. He added that qrowth manage~~nt ordinances are very uncOlll!IOn, and that the ordinance should be for the future planning process of future growth, not to stop the projects which are beinq developed now. He urged the Co11111ission to recommend to the Council that this ordinance ls not necessary. Ben Hillebrecht, 2170 Skyline Drive, Escondido, addressed the C011111ission concerning his property off of Poinsettia Lane. He pointed out that he anne~ed his property to the City to r~ceive guidance dnd help from the City in the developMent of his property, and now by the proposed ordinance, he will not be allowed to develop his property. Jon Briggs, representing Sanwnis Prop~rties, 2650 Camino D~l Rio North, San Dieqo, addressed the Conwnissi~n and gave the background of his project, the Batiquitos Lagoon Educatio,al Park. He stated that they supported Ordinance No. 9791 and went forward under the provisions of that ordinance. Si~ce Ordinance No. 9791 is still in effect, he questioned what was the status of their project now. Carlsbad 111ay lose the opportunity to have Batiquitos Lagoon restored. Carlsbad should be actively seekinq and trying to obtain and encourage the industries which will be beneficial to the City. He added that it ls important to .ake the Citywide plan as broad as possible. Fred Delaney, 839 W. Harhor Drive, San Diego, addressed the Ca.nission and gave the background of his project, Poinsettia Shopping Center, which was previously approved by the Planning COlllfflission. He urged that co.-ercial/industrial projects be exempted from the proposed ordinance. There being no other person in the audience desiring to address the Planning COl\aission, Chairman Schlehuber declared the public hearing closed at 8:12 p.~. (Letters were also received from S. Elaine Lyttleton, Arthur Harris and D. Kleirwan expressing their disapproval with the proposed ordinance.) COMNISSIOH OISCUSSIOH/QUE.STIONS Chail'll&n Schlehuber referred to the technical changes to the growth aan•oeaent ordinance (111e1110 dated June 4, 1986 froa the City Attorney to the Planning COIMlission) and to the recent lette1 subaitted by the City Manager to the City Council datt·d June 3, 1986 and requested olarlflcation. Mike HolZ11iller, Planning Director, advised that the new ordinance will be in effect on July 20, 1986. He pointed out the Northwest quadrant of Carlsbad on a wall Map and gave the reasons why the City MaMger was requesting that that area be ex911Pted. G) MINUTES June 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION In the lengthy discussion that ensued, thP following proposed changes werP ~Jde to the growth llldnagement ordinance: Section 21.90.0SO(e) C011111lssloner McFadden felt that the sequence of levying fees ls belated and suggested it be moved forward to when the tentative maps or final maps are issued. Mr. Holzmiller stated that almost all the fees that are collected now, parks, schools, sewer, water, impact, and public facilities, are collected at the time the building permit is issued. Dave Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, further advised that the dralnaoe area fees are paid at the time of the final map. The park-in-lieu fees are paid at the time of the final map or are bonded--the developer does not pay the fees, but enters into a security aoreetnent which defers payment on it until the building permit ls issued. Chalnna11 Schlehuber expressed his concern with requirln9 the pay111ent of fees upon issuance of t~e final llldp. Mr. Hauser explained that in park-in-lieu fees it is the option of the developer to come in with a security aqree111ent; he does not have to pay this fee when the final map ls tssued. Section 21.90.130(c) C~lssloner McFadden pointed out that if the develope~ gets behind in providing the public facilities, then he will not be allowed to build any further. Her concern ls that the system ls very interrelated, causlnq all developers in the particular zone and in other affected zones t~ stop develop111ent. Section 21.90.030(c)(3) and (4)(d) C011111lssloner Mcfadden inquired how m~ny projects were coverud by these subsections... Hr. Holz,111 Iler responded that there are 2,474 units covered under subsection (c)(3), and two projects with 25 units under subsection (•)(d). Section 21,90,090(b) Coaalssloner Mcfadden requested that Cowwlssloner Hall's previous suggestion that solid waste collection be added to the Citywide list of facilities be forwarded to the City Council as a recoaMindatlon fr011 the Planning Co-Mission. She inquired why schools were not added to tt.e Citywide list. Hr. Holztlllller explained that the schools have a 111aster plan which ls not controlled by the City. However, he added, since schools cannot be addressed on a Citywide level, they will be addressed at the loc.11 level. As to the sewer and water facilities, since there are very li■ited portions that are not City- controlled, it was felt that these facilities could be addressed by a Citywide plan. Overall, the City has control in oonJunction with the sewer and water dlltricta. MINUTES June 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Conaissioner McBane pointed out various wordings used in the ordinance that he did not reel were correct, as r ollows: ( 1) throughout the ordinance, inf' i 11 deve lop111ent has been encouraged. He f'elt that the City should not encourag~ infill develop111ent, but rather acc0111110date infill development; (2) the words "services" and "facilities: are used interchangedly in the ordinance. If' they are speaking to the service itself', then that should be indicated, and not just the physical structure where the service will .-un through; (3) the words "services" and "!111provements" are also used interchangedly. He stated that he did not reel c0111f'ortable with that; (4) the terms sewer, water, and pipeline have also been used interchangedly. He pointed out that the services are necessary to be included in the ordinance, and not just the physical structure itself. Hr. Holzmiller stated that staff' will 111c1ke a note of these suggestions. CORWissioner McBane requested that energy and COl'lll"-.lnication systet11s be added t~ the list or facilities. He inquired why the police service was dropped of'f from the list. Hr. Holzmiller stated that it was decided by the 111ajority of' staff' that this service should be handled adlninistratively. All the other services are measured by acreage or facility, while the police service is 111easured by 111c1npower (or level of' service) -which is handled out of' the operating budget. The number of' police af'f'icers we have did not f'it in appropriately with the number detert11ined per thousands of' people. Hr. Hentschke further explained that reference to services should have been eli~inated as physical improvement facilities are structures which provide f'or govern111ental services. However, it does not provide f'or the people in those structures. It is just physical things. The i11proveaents are things that the develo?ing coaa.inity or the City can physically provide. It would cause legal problet11s if' the nulllber of' police of'f'icers per develop111ent, etc., is included in the ordinance and then not followed. Section Z1.90.1ZO(d) Coaissioner Mcfadden stated that she felt that a ti,ne li■lt should be placed on the ti,ne a property owner(s) in a particular zone ■ust sut.it a plan. Chairman Schlehuber inquired whether the setting of' a tinie li■lt would hold up develop■ent in the City if the owner ls not ready to initiate the plan. Hr. llolz■iller explained that Coaissioner Mcfadden ls suggesting that if a plan ls not co■pleted within a certain ti111e li■it, another property owner will then have the opportunity to prepare and subalt a plan in that particular zone. MINUTES June 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page HboMMISSIONERS Section 2 -Finding No. 4 Cowaissioner McFadden suggested that the Planning COfflfflission recomnend to the City Council to consider placing a cap on the number of houses which may be built. Chair111an Schlehuber expressed hls concern with a cap being placed on this and referred to the Cannon Road extension. He stated that if a cap is placed on the number of h0111es that the developer can build out there, this may make it l111possible for that developer from a realistic standpoint to build. This would then shut down the ability for the City to continue on, and who will then pay for the facilities that the City r.eeds. Section 21.90.090(c)(2) Co.wlssloner Marcus stated that she felt that there should be another provision to review the 5-, 10-, 15-year phasing schedule. Oan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, pointed out that Section 21.90.130(e) provides that the City Council shall annually review the Citywide plan at the time it considers the budget. In response to questions from Chairman Schlehuber regarding the phasing schedule, Mr. Holzmiller clarified that the City presently has a 5-year CIP . The ideal ls if an overall plan will be developed for the City which will look at ultimate needs and facilities, then a longer time period than the 5-year CIP will be better. C011111issioner McFadden expressed her concurrence with this concept; especially, ln regard to the future roads that wll l be needed. Section 2l.90.050(a) C~issioner McBane stated that the language ls used in the ordinance that projects will finance their proportionate share of whatever infrastructure they use. He stated that he would like to see some section to allow the City to identify the entire pool of problems, to analyze what the infrastructure will be in the aggregate, rather than in increaents. Chairaan Schlehuber clarified that the City-wide plan will identify the aqgregate, look at the possibility of solving the aggregate and then get into individual areas. C~lssloner Mc8ane stated he ls concerned specifically with the portion in the section dealing with fees a developer will have to pay for illproveinent related to new developaent. This will not solve the problelllS that exist today. Mr. Hentschke explain6d that the fee ls intended to be levied for all new developaent. The reason it ls written the way it ls, i! to not make any new developaents p• for soa:body else's probleias. It will be financed out o' · ·,xiatlng revenues or through other financing aechanlsas ,:i'·kh spreads the cost to the new and existing d$valopaents1 thereby, avoiding a challenge to the fees baaed on unfair aaaesS11ent and an unfair spread. The plan that wlll be prepared will address both the deflclencies that exist because of old developaent, and incremental lncreaaes to those deficiencies caused by new developaent. The fee ls only one of the techniques used to el!Minate the deficiencies. MINUTES June 4, 1986 PLANNING COMHIS~ION Page 11 COMMISSIONERS Section 21.90.110(2) C0111111lssloner McBane noted that the word "capacity" was used several tiffles in the ordinance to require the ultimate capacity of a service and stated that the word should be replaced with "acceptable designed standards". Section 21.90.125(a)(5) C~lssioner HcBane inquired whether the payment of fees vest any rights with the developers. Hr. Hentschke responded that generally rights are vested upon obtaining a building permit. Whether a final map vests rights ls a legal opinion which has not been decided. Generally, the payinent of fees Itself do not vest rights. Section 21.90.160(b) COlll!lissioner McBane requested that the exclusion be qualified in terms of what or where. Hr. Holzmiller stated that they will look into that. He explained that this section ls to ensure that ~ll projects submitted prior to the submission of the C tlzens' C011111lttee report to the City Council wlll be processed. However, he stated that he did not know offhand the exact number of the projects/units that this section covered. Hr. Hentschke added that this excluslon does not allow the processing until the completion of the plans. It's an exclusion with regard to what standards apply to the consideration of that tentative 111c1p. This wJll avoid a conflict to the Subdivision Hap Act. Section 21.90.0JO(c) Chairman Schlehuber stated that in the public input received today, various requests were made that certain projects which will provide 111ajor public facilities be exeapted. He stated that he could not support allowing those projects to proceed on an open-ended basis. General C01111ents -St11111arlzatlons In response to a question froa Chalr111c1n Schlehuber, Hr. Hnlz•lller clarified that if a policy decision ls 111ade to exmipt certain projects in a particular area, they will be exeapted whether they were included in Hr. Orenyak's list or not. Chalrun Schlehuber stated that there ls a need for this ordlMnce. He inqui red regarding the [nvlronaiental h1pact Report for this ordinance. Mr. Hentschke replied that the Planning Director has assured that this ordinance has undergone envlronaental illpact studies and a negative declaration has been issued. Chalrun Schlehuber pointed that the exeaptlon for non- profit organizations are listed in the City M.tnager's letter and stated that he could go along with the Boys and Clrla Club, but not with Scripps Mellorial Hospital. @ MINUTES June 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Hr . Holz•iller responed to various questions rrom the C011111ission regarding the City Manager's letter, He stated that he would estimate about four to five projects in the Northwest quadrant area will meet the July 20th deadline. As to the CC>Raerclal/lndustrlal projects in the Northwest quadrant, Hr. Holzmiller stated he did not know the number which would be ready by July 20. C011111issloner Harcus stated that she felt that the ordlnanef', without the suggestions or the City Manager being lmple111ented, will really shut down the City and a tre.endous amount of revenue will be lost. She referred to the 111ajor projects which will provide major public lmprove111ents, and stated that a lot of these needed projects will be placed on hold if these exemptions are not allowed. Chairman Schlehuber requested that exemptions be allowed ror ~rcial/lndu~trlal projects throughout the City that have approvals by July 20th. He dlso inquired whether the Sat1111is Project, which ls ready to go, could go ahead with the ~rcial portion of their project (the project ls a •ix-use of residential and co111111erclal), assualng they obtain their approvals by July 20. Chairman Schlehuber gave the reasons why he could not support the exe111ption to the Hunt Project as suggested in the City Manager's letter because it ls too preliminary at this point, and too 111asslve a project. C~lssloner Mcfadden stated that she felt that there ls a good chan~ of developing a workable plan for the City. Staff is going to need sufficient time to develop the Citywide plan, and a full year may be necessary. Further, she felt certains exemptions should be considered. A 110tion was 111c1de to rec011111end to the City Council that the following be exempted fr0111 the ordinance: (1) the co.-ercial portion of the Sc111111is Project; (2) the Boys and Girls ClJbl (3) c0111111ercial and industrial projects in the pipeline throughout the City approved by July 20, 1986; and (4) the Northwest quadrant area. C~issioner Mcfadden urged that the Council look at a c0111plete list of all the projects that are being proposed to be exeapted. C~ssloner Hall referred to an exhibit by Mr. Orenyak, polntlng out the Kaiser Project was not included. He inquired what was 111eant by governaent projects. Mr. Holmiller stated it would be a project such as a school. C~ssloner Hall requested clarification on No. 8 of an exhibit to the ordinance. Mr, Holzmiller clarified that the projects are listed on page 4 of the sa111e exhibit and it ls a C011plete 11st. A brief discussion ensued on a suggestion niade by Chair111c1n Schlehuber that owner-occupied dwelling units, consisting of two units or less, where the owners and all the aetabers who intend to occupy the units are blood-related be also included ln the ordinance as an exeaption. He stated that he really••• talking about soaething similar to a granny flat. Mr. Hentschke pointed out the R-1, single-dwelling units, include granny flats, However, it does not involve two dwelling units. That would be an R-2 use. @ MINUTES June 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION ,\CTION The Planning Co11111ission amended the proposed growth management ordinance to include the proposed exemptions included in the City Manager's letter dated June 3, 1985; to include specifically, the Boys and Girls Club, the Sawais Project -c0111111ercial portion, all cOffllllercial and industrial projects throughout the City which have their approvals by July 20, to specifically exclude the Scripps Memorial Hospital, and to incorporate the comments made tonight. The Planning Co11111ission further recommended that the City Council include a definition ror owner-occupied dwelling units where the owner intends to occupy all of the project or a family-relationship--one member be blood related. ,\00£0 ITEMS ,\NO REPORTS Planning Ca.nission C~issioner Holmes requested to lllclke a motion to reconsider the project of Hr. Brodine, applicant or project SOP 85-17/V-373, which cante before the Planning C~ission on Hay 28, 1986. (,\ letter was received by Hr. Brodine requesting the Commission to make a motion to reconsider previous action). Hr. Hentschke confirmed that a motion to reconsider or rescind previous action ls in order at any meeting. If a C01111lssloner wants to vote to change his mind, it ls in order. ,\ 110tlon was -.?de to res cind Commission action of Hay 28, 1986 in the Brodine Mtter -SOP 85-17/V-373 in order to enable the appl!cant to resublllt the project to the C~sslon at i ts next meeting ror their denial to give t he applicant an opportunity to appeal the llldtter to the City Council. In the discussion that ensued, it was pointed out that the Plannin~ C01111isslon could deny the project at this ""'eting t onight . The Planni ng C01111lsslon rescinded the prior 1110tion sending t he Brodi ne Mtter back to the C01111lsslon and denied the project for the reasons contained in the minutes of the May 28, 1,86 ~eetlng. C«-iasloner Mcfadden inforaed that she contacted roraer C«-laaioner S.l t h t o schedule the outgoing party, and he hea edvlsed that he will be f r ee on July 30, 31 and ,\ugust 1. The C~ssloners agreed to hold the party on ,\ugust 1, 1986. Schlehuber McFadden Hall Marcus :,cBane Holmes Schra11111 Schlehuber McFadden Hall Marcus McBane Holmes Schranwn Schlehuber McFadden Hall Marcus Mc8ane Holaes Schraaii @ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MINUTES June 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 14 COMMISSIONERS Staff Mike Holzailler, Planning Director, informed that the regular 111eeting or the Planning C011111ission scheduied for June 11, 1986 has been ca~celed. ADJOURNfoENT By proper 1110tion, the Meeting or June 4, 1986, was adjouned at 9:50 p.~. Respectfully sublnitted, Planning Director Elizabeth Caraballo Minutes Clerk EC:tc MEETINGS ARE ALSO TAPED ~D KEPT ON FILE ~TIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. @ W •l1.. ••M a.. o•ue""r" NICMO~ A~ ( "·""'~Mf LAW O J1t 1C£SO,- DAUBNEY AND BANCHE PQ "'' f ".._ "'I~•. (. ,-,uo,,na.•,c)"""~ c,.c,,.,, c-,r,-,("l 8 0 • )00 OCEANSIOE CALlf"ORNIA 920!,4 June 4, 1986 Carlsbad Plann i n g Commission 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad , Cali for n i a 92008 RE: SOP 85-1 7/V-3 73 -Brodine MOTION TO RECONSIDER Dear Ch airman Sc hlehube r and Commissione.s: ARC.A COO!. &t Q TC LC ~ ... o ... <. 722 •ee The und ersigned represents applicant, with regard to the above referenced p r oje ct, and on their behalf respectfully asks the Conuni :Jsion to move to rescind the previous action taken at its meeting o f May 28th, a nd to set the matter for reconsideration. The basis o f the motion is two-fold, the first being newly discovered e v i dence in the form of a growth control plan which would result i n a mor atorium concerning the application. The second is an assertion that there was no evidence existing from which a conclus i on of "massiveness" could have been made with regard to t he p r oject. Since t h e vote was 6 -1 to return for redesign, any member of the Commiss i on, wi th the exception of the Chairman, could make a motion to resci n d the previous action, and the matter could be reset for rehearing at your next regularly scheduled meeting. NCB: jp Respectfully submitted, 7'1-----<- NI~HOLAS C. BANCHE - LAI& O•IICB 01 C. SAMUEL BLICK r O 110 , 110;,-. '"11\IIANI<.\ !V<N( H r1..AlA llANCHO SANTA Ff.. CALIFORNIA 92067 June 4. 1986 Mr. Clarence Schlehuber . Cha1nnan Planning C011111ission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008 Re: Carlsbad Oaks (Job No. 7576-M) Dear Mr. Schlehuher: LO~ ANG! lU 12131 ~7-4755 OIV<NC.,I 17141 1157-()484 IIIVt R.\10[ 17141 JS0-!>480 This finn has been retained by T & G Investments of San Diego, the owners of 187 acres of property located on the north side of Palomar Airport Road approximately 1/2 mile east of El Cilllino Real. Al though this c011111erc i al industrial project is almost completely graded pursuant to an approved final map and the appropriate pennits. it may not be exempt from the proposed growth management program, entitled Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Certainly , this project is the type the City of Carlsbad would be eager to see completed not only because it has progressed so far but also due to its c00111itment to improve Palomar Airport Road. In an effort to provide public facilities needed by the City and to establ1st-the necessary tax base created by the development of cc.nercial/industrial uses, we would encourage the Planning C0111J1ission to include in the proposed Growth Management Ordinance exemptions similar to those provided in Ordinance 97-91 adopted by the City Council in January, 1986 . We would specifically urge the Planning Coomission to reconmend the inclusion of a provision which allows for the development of property subject to 1ndustrial/coomercial Final Maps regardless of those discretionary decisions which may be required. Please consider this request for clllendment to the Growt h Management Ordinance and if you have any questions, we will be in attendance at the Planning COllll'lission meeting of June 4, 1986. Very truly yours, C. SAMUEL BL I CK CSB: law cc: Paul Tchang ••• -■--411111111 ■• 11 IULL IL C\.n ===--==-_::_:_c5=-8?....::0.:..:M-=,r=am=a=r=R=oa=d=. S=u=,t=-e 2=()()=.=Sa=n=O=,e=go=.=C=A=921=21 111111111111·1111111111111111111111111111u111111PROPERT1ES INC. (619) 455-1900 .Aine 4, 1986 City Counc i1 ; Planning Corrmission; City Manager; City of Carlsbad Re: Elm Avenue Extension -C.T . 83-20 We request that you confirm that we are exempt, or that you exempt us, from any potential moratorium for finalizing maps or obtaining building permits. Our map has been entirely approve d by the Engineering Department and Planning Department and does not require further staff time. We have made arrangements to purchase the key right-of-way needed and can proceed quickly to bui ld Elm Avenue, per the agreement we have with the Cfty. If the project is not exempted, the City risks losing the benefit of a $l ,500,000 capital improvement project, which has been needed for many years. Kiffmann HK/he ·• ,~ RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY I ~~A:~ .. ~~lc~=i~wc~t 3088 PIO PICO OR. • SUITE 202 • CARLSBAD. CA 92008 PO BOX 1129 • PHONE • AREA CODE 619 • 729-4987 Planning Commission CITY OF CARLSB1\D 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE June 4, 1986 ESTABLISHING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD (CHAPTER 21.9) Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: The following is a list of comments relative the above Ordinance. There appear to be a number of items in the Ordinance that are inconsistent with Ordinance 9791 and that were not, in my opinion, agreed to by the Carlsbad City Council. We agree with the intent of the Ordinance to some respect, but disagree with ail umber of the following items: PAGE FIVE, SECTION 21.90.034 -RESTRICTION OF PHASED FINAL MAPS: The section of the Government Code referred to in this paragraph is a recent addition to the Subdivision Map Act that took effect January 1. It specifically provides for certain extension provi- sions on large phased projects if there are $100,000 or more of offsite improvements. The Ordinance, as drafted, specifically is attempting to eliminate the ability to obtain the extensions as provided by the new State law. We think this is wrong and that this seciton should be completely removed from the Ordinance. PAGE 7, PARAGRAPH 21.90.080 -PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: We think it needs to be made very clear that, if the City does not perform their obligation, that fact cannot be a reason for holding up development in any zone, as currently worded in this paragraph. The requirement standards should not only be applied to developers, but also be a strict requirement of the City of Carlsbad. PAGB 8, PARAGRAPH C-2: This p~ragraph makes reference to a 5-, 10-and 15-year phasing schedule establis hing the timing for installation of public facilities, etc. This phasing period seems to be extensive. I think we would all agree that any plan should be flexible and, at Planning Commission June 4, 1986 Page Two this point in time, to say what the 10-or 15-year phasing schedule is seems to b e unrealistic for planning purposes. We would suggest that a 5-year phasing schedule be implemented and that it be reviewed in the third year of each 5-year period. On the same page, under Paragraph 3-D, there is reference to "the City Manager s hall pre pare and present the plan to the City Council no later than one year from the effective date of this Ordinance." This time period seems exces3ive for the amount of work req~ired. We would suggest that the timing be reduced to a maximum of 6 months for the report back to the Council. PAGE 8, PARAGRAPH 3-E: The Ordina nce makes reference to "amendments shall be initiated by action of the Planning Commission or City Council." We think this needs to be clarified. If it means that a developer or individual can petition the Planning Commission to make the amend- ment, we would agr ee with the paragraph. This should be clearly spelled out. PAGE 8 -LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES: We agree with the items liste d for the criteria for determining various zo ne boundaries . We also agree that the zone should be established by resolution after a public he aring. There probably should be a section added providing for amendments to the zones once they are e stablished. PAGE 9 -CONTENTS OF THE LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Facilities Management Plan shall show 8 listed items that are necessary to accomodate development (3ewer, water and schools are listed in addition to five others>. Within the City of Carlsbad, there are other school districts, along with sewer and water districts that provide service within our boundaries. There needs to be a provision added to the Ordinance to recognize exist- ing master plans by other ser u ice agencies and for the City to respect those master plans. Also, any defencies in those areas should not be reason s to hold up development in the particular zone because a facility provided by a district is not under the control of the City of Ca rlsbad. PAGE 15 PARAGRAPH 3: We fin~ it hard to believe that the Council or t~~ Planning Commission can make a finding that the demand for public services and facilities has outpaced t he supply and that the Council has determined that these shortages are detrimental to the public health, safety a nd welfare of the citizens of Carlsbad when, at the same time, the City of Carlsbad staff has estimated a year-end total of about $12 million of unenc umbe red f unds. We Planning Commi ssion June 4, 1986 Page Three f ind it hard to under s t a nd that, on one hand, the Ordinance is saying that the fac i lities have outpaced the supply when, on the other hand, t here a re unencumbered funds that could be used to solve some of t he shor t ages supposedly identified. We would suggest tha t t he exemptions to the Ordinance be expanded to include tho se exempt ions in the original Moratorium Ordin~nce 9791. These are our comme nts. We ask that the Planning Commission con- sider these c hanges . We would be happy to answer any questions. RCL:kd 6506C Sincerely, -&1-- R ob er t C. Ladwig ' INOUSTAIAUCOMMEACIAL SOUTHWEST June 3, 1986 To Chainun and eo-issionera of th• Carlabad Planning Comaisaion City of Carlsbad 1200 !la Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Ile: Proposed Growth Hanageaent Dear Chainun and Co-issionera: Kaieer Development Coapany and The Koll Company are deeply concerned with aoae unintended iapacte in the proposed Growth Management Ordinance in Carlsbad. Tb• Koll Co11pany ia presently developing the Carlsbad Research Center and Kaiaer ia developing the Carlsbad Oaks Business Park. In addition, Kaiser's hoa• office for all of ita operations in the Southwestern United States is located in Carlsbad and will be houaed in the new Kaiser Center-Carlsbad coaplex nov under construction on Paloaar Airport Road. Our coapanies heartily support the preparation of a growth manageme~t plan and the concurrent develop .. nt of a comprehensive facilities plan. We recognize that the City .. y have difficulty conducting current City business and aillultaneoualy preparing the plans. We also recognize th~: it is difficult to evaluate developaent plans and proposals until a growth management plan is fonrulated. We believe, however, that the City muat recognize substantial financial comaitaenta ude in conjunction with c011111ercial/industrial projects and the planned benefit• the City and the commnity will derive fr0111 the timely completion of the project• baaed on prior City approvals. Resources are available to help the City acquire additional staff as a preferred alternative to a total work stoppage which alternative would protect the City's interests and those of the ca...rcial/industrial c011mUnity. In any event the work stoppage associated with the proposed Growth Management Ordinance has not and ahould not be applied to planned coaaercial/induatrial activity. Th• exeaptiona in the original Interim Moratorium Ordinance (No. 9791) are baaed on the belief that such activity: 1) provides needed eaployaent; 2) pays for its fair share of government service coats; and 3) provides surplus A Wholly Owned Su~ldlary of Kalaer Aluminum & Chemical Corporation 2121 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD. SUITE 201. PO BOX 308. CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008-0060 TELEPHONE: (619) 438-2636 MNCt10 ~ ~All KAl HIIIIAalJI CbfTl.fl OllltLAHi>. CAAN!>USTR\Al. I\NO COMMEACW. ""°"~WUnAN STATU/llAl9VI AlUMINUII AEAl ESTATIE ,~ITIQ,WOAUIIWIOE • Carlabad Planning C01111ission June 3, 1986 Paa• Two revenue• to pay for City facilities and community programs. These reasons hold true today. Stopping comnercial/industrial development will cause visual and other probln• by leaving quality projects and related public improvnente only partially graded and built and further will irreparably dam.a1e the City's high quality econoaic developaent program. Quality clean industry currently conaidering Carlsbad vill decide to locate elsewhere if needed facilities and conatruction expansion programs are prevented. In order to uintain the high quality industrial and c01m11ercial comaunity in Carlabad, the processing and issuance of specific plans, tentative and final 1Ubdivi■ion upa, induatrial and site development plans, building peraHs and occupancy peraita for industrial and commercial projects must continue. The aac,unt of City ataff time involved in these projects will not significantly interfere vith progress on the citywide facilities and management plans. We aincerely eek that you allow quality coanercial and industrial projects to continue to be proceaaed, built and occupied and we offer our essistance in achievin1 workable aolutions to the challen1es facing the City. Sincerely, ltaiaer Developaent Company and The loll Coapany @) S. ELAINE LYTTLETON 4872 Alondr• W.v C•rlsb•d, CA 92008 (619) 438-2059 C.rlb•d CitY Council & Pl•nnin• ColMlission 1200 Elin Av•nue C•rl1b•d, CA 92008 I h•v•n ✓t h•d a lot of •~"•ri•nc• with th• ll'lannin• ll'roc•••• c•rtainlv not •nou•h to hav• all th• ans••rs. I do hav• a lot of ~u•1tion1 thou•h• on•• I think th• Co1Mni11ion •nd th• Citv Council should find out th• an•w•r• to. As ,-,.vor Casl•r fltoint•d out r•c•ntlv, th• far r•achin• i•ll'lications of the fltroll'os•d Growth Mana••••nt Pl•n r•~uir• consid•rable study bY st•ff, the C01Nti11ion, and CitY Council b•for• •nY d•cisions should b• mad•. Pl•••• tist•n carefully to our ll'lann•rs, consid•r th• various fltoints of vi•w of the fllublic, and r••••b•r that for ev•ry action th•r• is an Oll'fltosit• and •~ual reaction. Will th• 0ll'll'osit• and •~u•l reaction to anv •ction YOU tak• on this tMtt•r b• ll'ositiv•? Mv ~u•1tion1 ar• in r•f•renc• to Draft• 5130/86 1•30 11'.m. <I• th•r• a 3145 ..... v•rsion "•rh•II'~?) P•. 2, ••ction 21.90.010, (b) ud•tMnd for fltublic ••rvice5 and faciliti•• has out,-ac•d th• SUll'll'lv resultinw in ~hort•••• in faciliti•s ••• " <c> "to •nsur• th•t no d•v•loll'~•nt occurs ~ithout ad•~uat• ll'ublic ••rvic•s and faciliti•••••" (d) "ll'rohibitin• d•v•lofitm.nt until ad•~u•t• fltrovisions for th• fllublic faciliti•• and ••rvic•• ar• mad• bv d•v•loll'•rs ••• " Qu•1tion11 WhY hav~ ••rvic•• not k•ll't fltac• with d•v•loll'•ent? Oon ✓t d•v•loll'ers now hav• to ll'&Y • ll'ublic faciliti•• f•• <PFF> b•for• d•v•loll'ment starts, to ll'av for th••• ••rvic••? Ho• can the develo,-•r• th•r•fore b• at fault? Is it ru• that the citv is 1ittin• on •or• than •15 •illion dollars in PFF'1, h&vin• not v•t built th• faciliti•• that the dev•loll'ers have alreadv fllaid for? Is th• lack of faciliti•• th• citv'• fault? ~roc••••d or .,. .. ~v•d until after th• ado.-t~ of the citYwid• faciliti•• and t. r-ov•••nts .-lan." Qu•stion• C..n is b• a••uM•d that th••• local .-lans will be d•v•lo,.ed concurrentlY with the citywide .-lan? P•. 7, ••ction 21.90.090, (b) Enu••rates facilities. Qu•1tion1 Whv aren't •chool1 included? They ar• includ•d in th• next ••ction 21.90.100. S•ction 21.90.090, (&) "Th• .-lan ~hall encour••• infill develo.--•nt and reduce the erowth inducin• i•.-act of .-reaature extension of .-ublic facilities to und•velo.-•d areas• Questions• If we were startin• with a blank .... that would be workable. How do w. .-ro.-o•• to infill when •o a&Y areas of the citv are develo.-ed in all four ~uadrants? Do•• this .-reclud• th• d•velo.-aent of a lar•• und•v•lo.-•d area even if a bi• develo .. er .-tans a really wood .-roJect includinw &11 the ~ublic facilitt•• .-lann•d for the ar•a? P•. 8, (d) "T~• City M&n&wer •hall .-re.-are and .-re•ent the .-tan to the Citv Council not later than one v•ar fro• the effective date of thi• ordinance." Questions• What are the .-otential ne•ativ• ia.-act• of a one vear aoratortua , both for the city and its citizens? Will th• .. ublic facilities ne•d•d now still be built? Will the f••• usuallv ••nerated fro• develo.-er1 ••riouslv de.-let• the citv's coffers? Wi11 the business cornmunitv 1uffei'? Will housin• costs sky rock•t? P"• 12, ••ctif'n 21.90. 130, (c) "If Council deter11in•• that a d•fic i •ncv exists then no further bui1din• or deve1o .... nt .-errnits shall b• issu•d ••• • Question•• What &bout .-ub1ic f&ci1iti•• that th• citv h•• no Jurisdiction over such•• water &nd schools? Won't this create a C..tch 22 situation for th• d•velo.-er? Vours trulv, s. Elain• /SEL , ' 5850 Avenida Encina\, Suit, A Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone 619/438-3141 June 4. 1986 ,. ~ Members of the Planning Comm1ss1on C1ty of Carlsbad "111 1986 r ·,.-... ,..'f) 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008 Members of the Planning Commission: With respaect to your continued public hearing item ZCA-193 (Growth Manage11ent Program}, we would urge the Planning C0111T11ssion to exempt all c0111nercial and industrial projects. In the event that the COfllllission feels that processing all conwnercial and industrial projects would be too great a burden for the Staff to carry as well as the workload of preparing the Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan, we urge the Planning COlllffl1ss1on to exempt those projects for which all processing has occurred except issuance of a building permit. The processing of 1 building pen111t requires less input from in-house staff members as the bulk of the plancheck1ng is performed by outside plancheckers. The above would allow the following two projects(as well as others} to proceed: 1. Our 9 unit condominium project 180-19 {Maple Avenue Townhomes), for which al l governmental approvals have been obtained, including recordation of Final Map and Coastal Permit; 2. Our hotel and dinner-theatre playhouse ISDP-83-11 (Palomar Place}, which has obtained all of its permits including recordation of Final Map and Coastal Permit. All off-site improvements have been c0111pleted as well as the first phase development. which consists of McDonalds and Marie Callender's restaurants. This project has been through building depart111ent planchecking and a permit wa~ obtainable; due to financing difficulties at that t111e, a delay 1n obtaining I permit occurred. Lower interest rates have ,,nabled the tenant for the hotel and dinner- playhouse to obtain financ ·lng now, and plans have been resuhllitted to the Building Departaent for plancheck. We would further urge the Planning Commission to exet11pt housing developi1ents which constitute Minor Subdivisions. If this is not acceptable, we would urge the Planning C0111ission to exempt housing projects, the owners of which can certify that they personally intend to occupy the premises that are being constructed. This is 1n keeping with the present intent of the drafted 110r1torium to exet1pt owner-occupied housing. Please refer to the 1tt1ched letter of explanation dated May 30, 1986 addressed to Marty Orenyak. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Contractors License No. 378383 ~ . 04\··J ... . ..... , .... .. tltJ,SELL w. GROSSE D~VELOPMENT ca~,JNC.· .·· :~;,·,;:y_; ... .\ . ··r . ·. . ~-.;. ·~---~;, ·• .. ·-·-··· ·-•·· -~---·····-. ,;.-.. • .._ •..:....:,.:..;, . ~... •• •• . \._ . t . . .... ~ A'••, 1. •• •, • • .i..;/ -,, • i ~·1· .f:f;,-l: ··1~~::~1:r--· . ·. ·1rejnnoc:;;~011•t;.;J•lhOfta ·. r1,: · !! l .. •• I ;l; • ... :~~~~i...: ~. •"' . , • •• -·. °.. • _ .r J,_ -~ •,,: SISO A.11enid1 Encinu, Suit, A. May 30, 1986 Marty Orenyak City of Carlsbad 3200 Eht Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Marty: urlsbid, C11iforni1 92008 -: . Phone 619/438-3141 It ts our understanding that staff will be recommending that applications for owner occupied, single family residences will be excluded from the effect of the 110st recently proposed 110ratorium. Rusty ~nd J and my parents have just recently purchased two 25 ft. beach lots. We have, after a great deal of study, detenwined the site would be ■ore efficient if the units could be stacked with each unit being basically on one floor. Part of this decision was made because~ father is legally b11nd1 and --.y aother suffers from severe arthritis. Stnce tt requires I consoltdatton of two lots tnto one lot and ts tn essence an airspace condoni1ntUTll, we do not technically qualify as an owner occupied single f1~tly project even though we are only building two untts on two extsting lots. If your reccaaend1tton for exemption could be broadened to read as follows : Owner occupied dwelling units of two units or less where the owners intend to occupy 111 of the units tn the project tt would cover our sttuatton which ts certainly within the sptrtt of presently cont111Pl1ted ext111Pt1on. We have filed all the necessary app11cattons to proceed through the C1ty with thts project, and 1t ts designated as ■tnor sub-d1v1s1on f73S. We would appreciate he1rtng froni you regarding the above. Sincerely yours. ✓'J C) r ce,,1..:---:r:~ lebe Grossi/ Contractor, Liunlt' No. 378383 ~ ""!!•"'I~· ~ ,r-:_.;; ~ , r {11!.L., -.. '~v-6' ii'· -... ~.: .. :' ~ ......... -·I•·. CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ·--· . -POST OFFICE BOX 1605 Planning Commission CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad , CA 92008 CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 June 4, 1986 RE: PROPOSED GROITH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DATED 5/30/86 The Chamber of Commerce bas reviewed in depth the draft Ordinance being considered by the Commission this evening, and offers the following points for your consideration. We would request that this letter and our comments be specifically included in and forwarded to the City Coun~il with your final recommendations. (619) 729-5924 The Chamber endorses the concepts of sound, long-range pla nning, and of growth management programs that are designed to ensure that needed public facilities are identified and installed prior to, or concurrent with need. To this end we have, and continue to support the recommendations of the Citizen's Land Use Committee and the intent behind Ordinance 9791. However, we are concerned that perhaps the City has lost sight of where we are going. The Ordinance under consideration, while it is an admirable attempt at dealing with an extremely complex set of interrelated problems, is in our opinion, flawed in several respects . l e believe that the Council's direction on May 27, 1986 was prima rily aimed at removing development pressure from City staff s o a s to provide them additional time to develop and refine this Or d i na nce, but it was not intended to fundamentally ''change the r ules of the game" in mid-stream. The Ordinance as prepared, however, has a very limited list of exemptions. We do not think t ha t it wa s the intent of the Council to limit non-residential, c ommercia l a nd industrial, and the other types of projects now exe mpted under Ordinance 9791. Because 9791 was unanimously adopted by the Council and endorsed by not only the general co111Dunity , but also by the development industry, we would s t r ong ly reco111Dend tha t this Ordinance include as exemptions all of t hose previously adopted under 9791. Aleo, this Ordinance should include a specific list of those projects that are in fact to be exempted. This list should identify those projects by name, Ca rlsbad Tr act No., etc. Planning Commission Page 2 June 4, 1986 The Chamber also endorses the inclusion of a specific and detailed set of City-wide performance standards as a part of any growth management program. While we recognize that this will take time to develop and refine, once they have been adopted by the City, these standards should not be able to be reduced with- out either a 4/5 vote of the Council or a vote of the people, Additionally, the standards need to apply not only to developers, but also to the City where they have the responsibility for providing for certain facilities. It would seem unfair to bold back development in a certain zone simply because the City bas not performed its requirements. Our review of the City's finan- ces reveals that at the end of the 1985-86 fiscal year, the City will have unencumbered funds estimated at 12 million dollars and another 11,3 million dollars during fiscal 1986-87, or a total of 23.3 million dollars. Of this sum, only 8 million dollars has been appropriated, leaving approximately 15,3 million dollars in unencumbered funds that would be available for capital projects i.e. La Costa Boulevard., Palomar Airport Road bridge, etc. As we have repeatedly suggested for the last 1 1/2 to 2 years, the City should retain a professional, full-time Projects Manager to see that the funds that have been previously collected from the developers are in fact timely spent, and that the improvements are installed. le also believe that the ability to make amendments to any growth management plan that is finally adopted by the City should be limited, similar to the limits on the number of amendments that may be made to the General Plan. Additionally, we would suggest that any such amendments require a 4/5 vote of the Council. Another major area of concern is that any growth management ordinance that is adopted needs to provide a workable structure to guide the identification and timing of installation of needed public facilities, while maintaining sufficient flexibility so that not only the current and future Councils, but also the development community can timely respond to changing economic, social or unanticipated needs or pressures that arise in the future. In Section 21,90.090(2) it provides for a 5-10-15-year phasing schedule aimed at the timing of installation or provision of public facilities and services in relation to the amount of development activity within a given area, Unless this concept is better defined, we are afraid it will become inflexible and unbending and will be detrimental to the overall program. If a long-term phasing schedule is to be retained, then the Ordinance needs to more specifically detail what type of planning or development, if any, can occur within these zones during each of @ Planning Commission Page 3 June 4, 1986 these periods. Also, if the needs of the City at some time in the future require the development of property within an area that has not been scheduled for development for 10 or 15 years from now, there should be a way that the phasing schedule can be modified. le also feel that it would be appropriate to make specific reference in the Ordinance to the recent ordinances adopted by the Council reducing residential density, including Ordinance 9794, and the new definitions of open space. Another observation that we make is that the Local Facility Management Plans require a showing as to how and when certain facilities and improvements are to be installed, including faci- lities over which the Council has no specific or direct control, i.e. schools. le would suggest that either a reference to these types of facilities be deleted, or that the Plan acknowledge that the decision by such other districts will be binding and accepted by the City, and will not be a reason for finding that a project does not comply with a Local Facility Management Plan. To do otherwise, would be to create a "Catch-22" out of which there would be no exit. Finally, the draft Ordinance proposes that the staff be given a year to prepare the implementing ordinances. le believe that even if the proposals as set forth above dealing with exemp- tions are adopted, the entire process can be accomplished in no more than six months. le would therefore urge that Section 21.90.090(d) be modified to require that the plan(s) be prepared and become effective no later than six months from the effective date of this Ordinance. These are our comments at this t i me. le recognize that this is an e~tremely complex and difficult Ordinance to review, anal- yze and digest on such short notice, but it is of critical impor- tance to the City and its long-term economic welfare that this matter be iD1Dediately forwarded to the Council for their consideration on June 17. Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions. SML:ck • Carlsbad City Council Planni ng Canmieeion City of Carlsbad City He.ll. Elm Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: June 4, 1986 This ie to advise you that I vigorously object to the above Ordinance, as proposed. However, I would support, with reluctance, Ordinance No. 9791, as origina.l.ly submitted. Sincerely, FIRST DARTHROB Harrie 7233 Plaza de La Costa Carlsbad, CA 92008 r .• ' . • I I i ,. ... I •.• I ' / /. I , r l . I;. ' /... ' ,... L , .' I - . I ! . . J I { ' " ,r .. , • r1 . I ! I l' i· /{ >--" ~ / • 'I I I I r 1 1-" I I/" I . , I '-~ JI /1 i I I ,{. Ir.I ·-' c' -f-f I .. < I ,,, . •/it I ,'• /1 I· '/! I 'C J ,, . I r 1 -' /· , I ·-- !y "· )' /-t I~ fl'"\ :? I i I (/., I /( I f /I-I /" j.. I I I ' , •1 \. / I ) I ( ,. . /J -I',' • SEAFARMS WEST Shellfish Spec,alisrs HAND DELIVERED Mr. Clarence H. Sc h lehube r Chairperson Planning Commiss i on City of Carl sbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Sch lehuber: June 4, 1986 Re: Commercial Pro j ects a nd Growth Management A Roadsid e S tand for Shellf ish. Mailing Address P.O. Box 1540 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone (619) 438-2444 The following reiterates and expands our views presented to the City Council s ome months ago, when a moratorium on development was discussed. As we u nderstand the s ituation, the City has recently experienced rapid growth a nd is concerned that public facilities may not keep pace with dema nd. Growth (to us) means a population increase, either in numbers a nd/or density. Such growth adds to sewer, water, trash, a nd other utili ty services. It also creates greater demands on existing roads, r e creational facilities, schools, and other public fac i l i t i es. Publ i c safety departments also face additional d emands. The apparent i n ten t of the development moratorium is to give the City a "breather " while it studies the perceived impacts and determines how best t o "handl e" or mitigate the impacts. We do not believe t hat it was the Cit y's i ntent to curtail economic development; i.e., busine ss a nd industrial changes and expansion. Yet, a total develop ment moratorium would indeed stop those activ- ities which lead t o greater em ployment with an increased tax revenue, which is normally a ne t economic gain to the City. That is to say, commercial de ve lopme nt increase s the City's revenues and does not cause proportio nal inc r eases i n public s e rvices. We at Seafarms West have, f o r s ome time, been seeking approval for a small roadside stand to sell t he pr oducts t hat we grow in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Al l of our pla nni ng has shown that our proposal is very compatible with land uses , the expans ion of Carlsbad Boulevar.d, and the desir es o f the land owner (SDG&E). It would also appear to be most fitting f o r t he City's desir e fo~ a village atmosphere, with an emphasis on the uni que . Farm Location -Agua Hedlonda Lagoon, Carlsbad, Cellfornla Mr. Clarence H. Schlehuber June 4, 1986 Page 2 Unfortunately, we are about to be caught up in a planning exercise which was not originally directed at our type of activities. Our very modest roadside stand will not impact schools, sewers, water supplies, and many other public services. We may generate a few more traffic trips and require some parking spaces, but we will also add to the City's economic well-being and help create the uniqueness so much desired by the City. Please consider the adverse impact to business and the subsequent economic impact to the City if normal business expansion is curtailed. At a minimum, the business projects which can be shown to have little or no impact on public services should be allowed to proceed. Thank you for your consideration. RDG:lw cc: Planning Commissioners Mayor Council Members Planning Director ,,City Atto1ney ✓city Clerk Sincerely, Richard D. Glenn, Ph.D. President and Farm Manager