Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-01; Planning Commission; MinutesMeeting of: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: July 1, 1987 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Marcus called the Meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Marcus. ROLL CALL: Present - Chairman Marcus, Commissioners Hall, Holmes, McBane, McFadden, Schlehuber, and Schramm Staff Members Present: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Mike Howes, Senior Planner Chris DeCerbo, Associate Planner Phil Carter, Senior Management Analyst Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Stuart Gary, Fire Battalion Chief PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Chairman Marcus reviewed the Planning Commission procedures as shown on the overhead for the benefit of the audience. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA: Ted Trimmer, 3563 Don Juan Drive, Carlsbad addressed the Commission and stated that he is a resident of Ranch0 Carlsbad and is concerned about the proposed route of the Cannon Avenue extension east of El Camino Real and north of the Ranch0 Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. Due to Cannon's intersection with College Boulevard and the site of a future high school nearby, and in order to avoid a radical curve, a new proposal routes Cannon within 100 feet of a majority of Ranch0 Carlsbad residents living along the north wall. He feels it is one of the duties of the Planning Commission to avoid locating main highways adjacent to residential areas and that the Commission should investigate the proposed route of Cannon and seek a compromise between the owners of the various properties involved. AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED: The were no agenda additions, deletions, or items to be continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 5 On property generally bounded by Interstate 5 on the west, and the City's eastern boundary on the east. The Zone is bisected east to west by Palomar Airport Road and north to south by El Camino Real. Chris DeCerbo, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and stated that Zone 5 is located in the center of Carlsbad at the intersection of the city's four quadrants and is comprised exclusively of nonresidential land uses including industrial office and commercial. Approximately one-fifth of the zone is currently built out with 4 million square feet of building area and 7,800 employees during the work day. At MINUTES July 1, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 build out it is projected there will be around 22 million square feet of building area and at least 40,000 employees. Since Zone 5 does not include any residential units, the performance standards for city administrative and library facilities which deal specifically with residential land uses are not applicable to Zone 5. However, public facilities fees required to be paid by all nonresidential users are currently deemed adequate to meet the city administrative and library demands created by Zone 5. City Administrative Facilities Not applicable. Library Not applicable. Wastewater Treatment Capacity Existing facilities meet the adopted performance standards. Zone 5 will be subject to the same special conditions adopted for the other infill zones with regard to the four point action plan adopted by the City Council. Parks Zone 5 does not impact the adopted performance standard because it is based upon residential development. However, staff is recommending a new standard for Zone 5 which would require assessment of a Local Facilities Management Fee for parks of $.50 per square foot of non-residential building area. This fee would be collected at the time of building permit issuance and would be specifically for the acquisition of park property or for improvements to park facilities within Zone 5. Drainage Zone 5 complies with the adopted performance standard. However, special conditions have been added to ensure that additional drainage improvements are implemented as future development occurs with drainage sub-basins 11 and 13. Circulation Currently all intersections and road segments within Zone 5 or impacted by Zone 5 traffic meet the adopted performance standard. With existing plus committed traffic, seven intersections and two road segments are projected to fall below the adopted performance standard. At buildout, nine intersections are projected to fall below the standards unless mitigating improvements beyond those required under the current circulation element are installed. Fire Zone 5 does not impact the adopted performance standard because it is based upon residential development. However, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve a new non-residential performance standard for fire facilities based on three thresholds: 1) the daily work force exceeding 12,000 people. 2) the area being beyond the five minute response time for fire protection. 3) the Fire . . . ,- , MINUTES July 1, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 COMMISSIONERS r Department being unable to provide 1,000 gallons per minutes of fire flow in ten minutes or less. Zone 5 cannot currently comply with the five minute response time or the fire flow threshold. Based upon the projected phased development of the zone, all three thresholds will be exceeded by early 1989. In accordance, staff recommends that the construction schedule for Fire Station No. 5 be accelerated with construction to begin in early 1988 and an opening date of early 1989. Open Space Open Space facilities comply with the current standards and no special conditions are required. If Zone 5 continues to build out, typical open space such as mini-parks, par courses, and expanded landscape setbacks will continue to be provided. Schools Existing school facilities comply with the current standards and no special conditions are required. There is also capacity to meet the anticipated demand generated by Zone 5. All nonresidential users are required to pay school fees of $.25 per square foot of building area. These fees will be used to provide school facilities necessary to satisfy the demand generated by Zone 5. Sewer Collection System Sewer service for Zone 5 currently meets the performance standard. However, with committed and future development, there will be sewage capacity deficits within certain reaches of the Buena-San Marcos Interceptor System. Prior to any further development of land tributary to these reaches, additional short and long term capacity shall be required. In addition, adequate financial mechanisms such as an assessment district shall be required to be developed to ensure construction of the south Agua Hedionda interceptor by 1995. Without completion by this date, all development in basin 5B will be stopped. Water Distribution Water service to Zone 5 meets the adopted performance standards to the buildout of the Zone. All remaining development within the zone will be conditioned to pay the required Costa Real Municipal Water District fees. These fees will be used to implement the required water service improvements through the buildout of the zone. In conclusion, Chris DeCerbo stated that while there are a number of potential inadequacies within Zone 5, they can all be mitigated in order to comply with the Citywide adopted performance standards. Staff recommends approval of Local Facility Management Plan for Zone 5. Chairman Marcus opened the floor to questions. Commissioner McFadden inquired about the Zone standard for drainage and sewer collection. She is concerned about splitting the zone when one portion complies and the other l . : ’ : P T MINUTES July 1, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 does not. Phil Carter responded by saying that staff feels there are two facilities (drainage and sewer) which need to be addressed on a sub-basin level and that in the future, schools may also need to be in this category. Commissioner McFadden inquired if staff would be presenting a new recommendation and Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, replied that there really is no problem with the standard and that a revision needs to be made to the proposal which was sent to the City Council with regards to drainage'and sewer being evaluated on a zone basis. He continued by saying that since staff has analyzed some of the zones, it makes more sense to take the sub-basin approach and does not feel that it will violate the ordinance. Chairman Marcus stated that she understands Commissioner McFadden's concerns and that Council will be alerted that the sub-basin evaluation would be a better measurement. Mr. Holzmiller stated that the school facilities may also need to be evaluated differently since several zones are split into more than one school district in the southerly part of the City. He will be talking to school officials prior to making a recommendation. Commissioner McFadden inquired how many more zones would be broken down with regard to drainage and sewer. Dave Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, replied that it may be necessary to evaluate all zones on a sub-basin basis. Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing open and issued the invitation to speak. Mr. Bob Ladwig of Rick Engineering, 3088 Pio Pica Drive, Carlsbad stated that he had written a letter to Commissioner Schramm dated July 1, 1987 and had given copies to each Commissioner just prior to the meeting. He and a number of property owners and developers within Zone 5 agree with the findings and recommendations of seven facilities mentioned in Zone Plan 5. He reviewed the contents of the letter concerning the four remaining facilities: 1) Circulation - The report suggests that $17,000,000 in improvements be constructed by 1991. These would include improvements at I-5 and Palomar Airport Road, Palomar Airport Road between Paseo De1 Norte and Camino Vida Roble, and Palomar Airport Road from El Camino Real to the easterly city limits. The group thinks there should be more emphasis placed on improvements at the corner of Palomar Airport Road and I-5 and, in addition, strongly consider the alternative to build College south of Palomar Airport connecting to Poinsettia (page 81). He feels that since Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real provide for regional traffic needs that other sources, possibly State and the County of San Diego --a landowner, should be pursued. It is not clear in the report what triggers the requirement for $17 million in improvements to be built by 1991 (page 100) and feels that a specific service level or traffic count should be stipulated. 2) Sewer - There has been substantial progress made on the lease of capacity from the Buena Sanitation District that Commissioner McFadden has been concerned about which provides a solution for a portion of the zone, but the balance of the zone appears to be alright for some time. MINUTES July 1, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 3) Fire - They agree with the staff recommendation about accelerating the construction of Station 5, but do not agree, that this facility plan process is the proper place to establish a new policy or standards. Changing the standard should be done separately from the zone plan process and this forum is not the place to establish standards. 4) Parks - There is currently no official Park Standard for the industrial or nonresidential areas and, in a strict interpretation of the Plan as written, the industrial areas do not have to meet any Park Standard. The nonresidential users are not required to pay a park-in-lieu fee and this was reaffirmed by the Council in April of this year. The property owners would strongly recommend that the idea of park-in-lieu fees be pursued further but not in a manner which would hold up the adoption of the Zone 5 plan. Some items which need to be considered are identification of maintenance costs for parks in nonresidential areas and who is going to pay, studies for actual usage of parks by employees, and justification for the $9 million in expenditures for parks that potentially would only be used by a portion of the employees at lunch breaks or other limited periods of time. If the needs cannot be demonstrated, the fee probably could be conceived as a tax if there's no direct benefit for the amount of money collected, especially since the industrial/ commercial builder pays a public facility fee and a large portion of that fee goes to the parks program. They do not think that anyone should pay for a park twice. Mike Dunigan, 3309 Piragua, Carlsbad, an executive with the Koll Company, addressed the Commission and stated that, as a property owner, he wishes he had more interface with the Planning staff. He agrees with the issues brought up by Bob Ladwig and feels there are definitely some inconsistencies relative to the standards. He would like to see the property owners meet with staff to sort out some of the issues, especially the park issue. Ronald Rouse, 3113 Quebrada Court, Carlsbad, an attorney with offices at 2111 Palomar Airport Road, addressed the Commission and stated that he, too, had written a letter about Zone Plan 5, copies of which had been handed out to staff and Commissioners. He reviewed the letter with comments as follows: 1) Item 7, page 7 suggests that exemptions for previously approved commercial and industrial projects will terminate unless the performance standards are satisfied. This statement conflicts with the exemption authorized by the Growth Management Ordinance stating that the exemption shall expire on July 20, 1988. 2) The schedule on Exhibit F, page 32, assumes an annual absorption rate in excess of 900,000 square feet each and every year beginning in 1987 which is far in excess of any annual absorption experienced to date in this area. He feels that the Plan should incorporate language to adjust downward if the scheduled absorption is not achieved. 3) The proposal to impose a park fee of $.50 per building square foot would violate provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance, Section 21.90.110(b) and (d) which require that the Local Plan be consistent with and implement the Citywide Plan. Existing and approved projects already provide significant park and recreational opportunities in the Zone and the commercial/industrial sector contributes heavily to . ** , , P MINUTES July 1, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 the public facilities fees which are used substantially to provide parks and other recreational opportunities throughout the City. 4) The property owners have substantial concerns regarding the infrastructure phasing and financing alternatives, in particular Exhibit Z, page 100, since no reference is made to a wide range of additional funding sources which should be considered due to the regional impact of Palomar Airport Road. 5) The property owners feel that in order for the Growth Management Plan to be successful, there must be an enlightened attitude, flexibility, and willingness to embrace new concepts so that the property owners can obtain a reasonable return on their investment. There being no other person to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Chairman Marcus inquired if staff was able to respond to the public testimony. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he feels the points were clear and well presented. Phil Carter, Senior Management Analyst, replied that staff only received the letters this evening and would require time to respond to all of the items presented. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about Mr. Ladwig's reference to page 100 and the triggering mechanism. Phil Carter feels there is a triggering mechanism in the proposed phasing schedule; that the plan clearly defines that phasing is based on level of service; and that 1991 is not an arbitrary date. Dave Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, directed Commissioners to pages 7, 77, and 181 which defines peak hour service levels and how the projections were developed. If corrections wait until the failure point is reached, it will take several years to correct the problem. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he would like to see the service levels clearly spelled out. Commissioner McBane referred to page 79 about the monitoring of the intersections and timing of the installations as part of the ongoing review. Phil Carter replied that during the monitoring process, staff will be better able to project the need. Commissioner Schlehuber is concerned that all financing options have been considered. Phil Carter replied that staff will look at all financing options and that the plan only presented a couple of options. There are many financing options available and Exhibit Z only begins to prioritize the options. The door is open and flexible on the financing options. Commissioner McFadden referred to the last sentence on page 98 which clearly states that other financing options may be available and more appropriate. Chairman Marcus referred to the comment by both Mr. Ladwig and Mr. Rouse that the Zone Plan was not the place to establish policies and standards. Phil Carter replied that the Zone Plan is the natural place to begin discussion on an additional standard or need for public facilities. f- MINUTES July 1, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner McFadden directed a question to the City Attorney regarding park fees and if there is anything in adopting zone plans which says we cannot collect fees retroactively. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, stated that if the building permit has been issued, the developer signs an agreement agreeing to pay specific additional fees. No agreement is necessary if the building permit has not been issued. Commissioner McFadden has difficulty determining what the fee should be. She is in favor of setting a standard to collect some fee to help mitigate the many thousands of employees but does not know what it should be at this point. She is in favor of the fire station being built and feels it is needed now. She would like to hear from the Library Board of Trustees as to whether the library standard applies to nonresidential, since she feels that businesses as well as residential use the library. Some large business even make an annual annuity to libraries. Commissioner Holmes agrees with Commissioner McFadden regarding the fire station. He does not feel that residential fire standards can be applied to commercial. Stu Gary, Battalion Chief of the Fire Department, replied that there are extensive federal and state regulations for hazardous materials and that there is a new chapter in the building and fire code calling for local enforcement of H-6 (hazardous) occupancies , primarily high tech, which is a burden on the local fire department. The Palomar Industrial Park is a magnet for these types of facilities and he referred to a recent chemical spill at a circuit board manufacturer. Although the buildings are concrete and have sprinklers, they contain combustible materials. The fire standards take these matters into consideration. Commissioner Schlehuber feels that fire is a proper issue and should be included. Commissioner Schramm inquired how staff arrived at the $.50 figure for the park fee. Chris Decerbo replied that the fee was recommended as a result of a study recently taken by the City of Burbank. The Parks and Recreation Director has confirmed that businesses use active parks for athletic needs such as softball leagues and jogging, etc. Commissioner Schlehuber sees the need for active parks in the industrial area and has no problem with the $.50. He does have a problem with the maintenance of parks, even the mini-parks (3 acre). He does not feel that a softball field could be created on a three acre parcel and does not necessarily agree with the staff recommendation. Commissioner Schramm directed her question to Mr. Ball, Assistant City Attorney, and asked if Zone Plan 5 could be approved with the new performance standards even though they haven't been adopted by the City. He confirmed that they are incorporated by standards which are part of the conditions which the Growth Management Plan contemplates. Commissioner Schlehuber does not agree with Commissioner McFadden's opinion regarding the library issue. He feels that the library standard is adequate. Chairman Marcus agrees with Commissioner Schlehuber. . . ‘. ,P -l MINUTES July 1, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 . COMMISSIONERS \ Commissioner Schramm inquired about the fire standard on page 106 referring to mitigation conditions, and whether it is normal to ask developers to pay for the early operating expenses. Phil Carter replied that it is not normal, but in the early Citywide plan it stated that if developers wanted to accelerate the plans that they would be required to cover the additional costs. Commissioner Hall feels that the library situation should be researched since he feels that commercial may have a need for library usage. Commissioner McFadden reiterated that she would like a response from the Library Board of Trustees. Chairman Marcus appreciates the testimony given tonight regarding the circulation element and feels that many valid points were made. Commissioner McBane agrees with Chairman Marcus' comments on circulation and is in favor of leasing sewer capacity rather than expending large dollars. He also feels that Commissioner McFadden's suggestion to research the library issue is valid. He would like to see a formula for the park fee, reviewed annually, rather than a fixed amount. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to approve the seven uncontested elements for the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 on property generally bounded by Interstate 5 on the west, and the City's eastern boundary on the east, and recommendation made to the City Council. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to approve the fire element as presented for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to approve the sewer element as presented for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to approve the circulation element as presented for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5, with the addition of specific language on measurement of service levels. Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm . ; . r‘. /1 MINUTES July 1, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 , COMMISSIONERS \ Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to approve the parks element as presented for Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5, with the addition that assessment, amount, and use be researched and recommended at a later date. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to request an opinion from the Library Board of Trustees regarding the library element of Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5 and if they have suggestions on how commercial and industrial can support the library element. MINUTES: There were no minutes presented for approval. ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS: Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the results of the request by the Commission to contact Mr. and Mrs. Kates regarding the addition of a condition to require the employees to park on Porta Place. Mrs. Kates stated that originally they supported the condition but now do not feel it is a good idea since some of the cars of employees have been vandalized on Porta Place. Mrs. Kates has met with the neighbors who state that their only problem is parking in front of their residences. Mrs. Kates stated that one employee drives a motorscooter which can be parked at the side of the Kates' home and the other employee drives a car which will park in the Kates ' driveway which still leaves room for two people to pull in. She would be willing to return to the Commission and discuss the matter. Chairman Marcus stated that the condition to park on Porta Place was an inadvertent omission and the Kates volunteered to park out of the cul-de-sac. After discussion, the Commissioners unanimously agreed to have staff contact the Kates again and if they do not agree to the condition, the CUP will be reopened for review. Mr. Ball confirmed that since the issue of employees parking on Porta Place was inadvertently omitted from the minutes, and since the Commissioners felt it was a condition of approval, that a public hearing can again be held and the CUP reopened for action. Commissioner Schlehuber reported on having met informally with other Planning Commissioners in the tri-city area and that the informal meetings will probably be continued on a quarterly or semi-annual basis. He stated that it was interesting to share ideas with other Commissioners who are having similar problems and he invited other Carlsbad Commissioners to attend the next meeting if they desired to do so. Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm . . . MINUTES \ % , July 1, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 COMMISSIONERS ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of July 1, 1987 was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. u y\ \ i 5’ 5 B I Respectfully submitted, . c MICHAEL HOLZMILLER Planning Director BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. Hall Holmes Marcus McBane McFadden Schlehuber Schramm RlCK ENGINEERING COMPANY 1 k#‘ti%%\~~~: 3088 PI0 PICO DR. . SUITE202 . CARLSBAD,CA 92008 P.O. BOX 1129 . PHONE . AREA CODE 619 . 729-4987 July 1, 1987 Ms. Sharon Schramm Planning Commissioner CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 RE: LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5 RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 8712-B . Dear Commissioner Schramm: On Wednesday, June 24th, City staff presented the Zone 5 Plan to a number of property owners and developers within Zone 5 at the City Council Chambers. On Tuesday, June 30th, the property owners met again and discussed in more detail the proposed Plan as presented by staff. The group that met have some comments and recommendations. The Executive Summary of the Plan provides a broad overview of the public facility issues. Of the 11 facilities, the staff is recommending that four require special emphasis. These four facilities include circulation, sewer collection, parks and fire. The property owners agree with the findings and recommendations of the other 7 facilities as mentioned in the Plan. The follow- ing are our comments and suggestions relating to the four remain- ing facilities. 1. Circulation: The report suggests that $17,000,000 in improvements be con- structed by 1991. These would include improvements at I-5 and Palomar Airport Road, Palomar Airport Road between Paseo de1 Norte and Camino Vida Roble, and Palomar Airport Road from El Camino Real to the easterly city limits. On page 81, the staff has suggested several alternatives that we feel merit more emphasis. Several traffic studies show that the $50,000 widening of the off ramp at Palomar Airport Road will provide a substantial increase in the service level at this intersection. This work should be done immediately. Planning Commissioners July 1, 1987 Page Two In addition, we think the alternative to build College south of Palomar Airport Road connecting to Poinsettia is one that has a lot of potential merit. We have asked the staff to request SANDAG to do a traffic study to show the actual benefits if this connection is made. There may be a possi- bility that more benefit from a traffic standpoint could be generated for the $10,000,000 for the improvement rather than spending $17,000,000 for the immediate improvements of Palomar Airport Road. The City may want to consider moving the Poinsettia/College connection higher on a priority list and still follow up with what appear to be longer term improve- ments on Palomar Airport Road, especially the improvements at I-5. In the financing section, reference needs to be added to include public facility fees, traffic impact fees, future dollars possible from the half-cent sales tax if approved, Mello Roos districts and other public funds. Also, the September 1986 CIP budget for 87-88 shows $2.1 million for Palomar Airport Road west of College and another $900,000 east of El Camino Real. These funds need to be shown in the report. The report should also point out that Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real provide for regional traffic needs and that other sources of funding (State) should be pursued. In addi- tion, the County of San Diego is a landowner along Palomar Airport Road, and their participation should be requested. The Zone 5 Plan Circulation Section, on page 100, requires $17,000,000 in improvements built by 1991. It is not clear in the report what triggers that requirement for improvements. If it is a certain service level or traffic count, reference to that fact should be clearly spelled out in the report. 2. Sewer Collection The major problem with the deficiencies in the sewer- collection system are'located immediately south and west of the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. Alternative A-l on page 123 suggests capacity be leased from the Buena Sanitation District at an estimated cost of $7,500 per year. We strongly urge that the City pursue this alterna- tive and assist the Buena Sanitation staff in reviewing a lease approved by the County that has been presented to the Sanitation District. We think that this alternative should be pursued at a staff level rather than providing the parallel system at an approximate cost of $200,000. This $200,000 alternative should be a last resort should negotations not be successful for the additional leased capacity. Planning Commissioners July 1, 1987 Page Three 3. Fire We would agree with the staff recommendation that the construc- tion schedule for the proposed Safety Center Fire Station be accelerated and that the City Council include Fire Station Number Five in the 1987-1988 CIP budget. We understand that this would enable construction of the station to begin in early 1988 with an opening date projected for January 1989. We do not agree that the facility plan process is the proper place to establish new policy or standards. The Council clearly stated in April of this year that the Fire Standard does not apply to nonresidential uses. If the Standard needs to beestablished or updated, it should be done separately from the zone plan process. 4. Parks Currently, there is no official Park Standard for the indus- trial or nonresidential areas and, in a strict interpretation of the Plan as written, the industrial areas do not have to meet any Park Standard. Also, the nonresidential users are not required to pay a park-in-lieu fee. This fact was reaffirmed by the Council in April of this year. Staff is recommending that a park-in-lieu fee be charged for all nonresidential development. The fee in Alternative 1 is suggested to be 5Oc per square foot which would potentially generate close to $9,000,000 through the buildout of the indus- trial areas. The property owners would strongly urge that this not be adopted at this time. We would also recommend that the idea be pursued further but not in a manner which would hold up the adoption of the Zone 5 Facilities Plan. Before any additional fees are put in place relating to parks for the industrial area, we think it would be appropriate to do a number of things. These would include: O Full research of what other communities and industrial areas are doing with a direct comparison as to what residential parks are in those communities and industrial areas and what fees they charged. O Identification of maintenance costs and who is going to pay. O Studies for actual usage of parks by employees. Planning Commissioners July 1, 1987 Page Four O Justification of $9,000,000 in expenditures for parks that potentially would only be used by a portion of the employees at lunch breaks or other limited periods of time. If the need cannot be demonstrated, the fee could be a tax. Also, the industrial/commercial builder pays a public facility fee and a large portion of that fee goes to the parks program. We do not think anyone should pay twice for parks. O Inventory of existing and potential parks within the immediate area that could serve the same purpose, i.e. 288- acre Macario Park, potential golf course and recreation center at the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road, and potential 30f acres of natural open space that could contain some passive recreation areas near the intersection of Faraday and Melrose. O Exploring other alternatives,including developers providing open space and dedicating it to the City as part of future projects. (This potential has limited possibilities because the majority of the major projects contain approved tenta- tive maps.) O Will there be credit for mini-parks required in some projects? O The Parks staff has suggested that possibly weight rooms and other health facilities be included in these parks. These facilities are also allowed uses within the industrial area. Will these public areas compete with potential private developments? This needs to be addressed. O Will the existing industrial and office users be asked to pay some kind of a fee to use these common areas? In summary then, as it relates to parks, we would recommend that 5Oc per foot not be a requirement at this time but that further study be given and that the above questions and possibly many others be addressed. Fifty cents a square foot does not sound like very much, but this would only be the beginning of the additional costs when you add up the main- tenance cost and other costs that would have to be included to have a fully sustained parks program. We think that a good inventory of what is currently available and what will be available may shed a different light on the alternative suggested by staff. In the past, the City did not see a need for public parks in the Zone 5 area. Also, in April the Council reaffirmed that the Park Standards only applied to residential. Again, we suggest that the Zone 5 Plan process l , ,.. -.. I*. . 1 . Planning Commissioners July 1, 1987 Page Five is not the place to establish new policy and that the Commission not include the proposed fee in your consideration of the Plan for the reasons stated. These are our comments. We appreciate the presentation by the staff and the opportunity to address our concerns to the Commission. We will be ready to answer any questions. Sincerely, Robert C. Ladwig RCL:kd/002 Copies to: THE KOLL COMPANY Attention: Mr. Mike Dunigan T & G IVESTMENTS Attention: Mr. Doug Wood BEDFORD PROPERTIES Attention: Mr. Frank Rice CENTRE DEVELOPMENT Attention: Mr. Dean Greenberg LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON AND SCRIPPS Attention: Mr. Ron Rouse D.C.C. Attention: Mr. Jack Henthorn P Y. FOUNDERS ‘WAC A. LUCC ,..1.1PS. t*.,. *. FO”VA”D ,..e-le.1 1. TUDO” Km.“. .I”. ,mo.-Be.= k LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON a SCRIPPS A L&W l ARTNC”SH,P ,NCL”DINO PROFESSIONAL CORPORA~IONB GRAHAM INTERNATIONAL PLAZA SUITE 300 2111 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-48L5 RONALD W. ROUSE PmoFC~sIO”*L conCOIA~1ON PARTNER (8lQ) 438-7333 July 1, 1987 SAN DIE00 ,“L .AN” OF CALI*O”III* PLAZA (10 *)I,I A S1”LLI SAN DILOO, C.LIFo”*I* UlOl (.IP)~.~d41. LA JOLLA ,.I, ,“A?J”OL AYF.NUC. *“III e.01 LA ,OLLA, C*LICO”NtA maowl (eIs).~D-.ool Members of the Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Zone 5 - Local Facilities Management Plan Dear Commissioners: I have been asked by several property owners in Zone 5 to share with you comments, suggestions and concerns regarding the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 before you this evening. While the plan has been many, many months in its preparation, it has only recently been available to the property owners and their representatives for review and analysis. We know the City has been working under a tight time schedule to implement the Growth Management System and the local zone plans and do not wish to delay that process, but the property owners do believe earlier private sector input and comment is desirable. If the local plans are to work and construct the infrastructure of our City, the programs must function not only from a regulatory perspective but be workable and financible in the private sector. The major areas of comment and concern as to the Local Plan as drafted include: 1. In Item No. 7 on page 7, it suggests that following adoption of the Local Plan, the existing exemptions for previously approved commercial and industrial projects will terminate unless the performance standards are satisfied. This statement conflicts with the commercial/industrial exemption authorized by the Growth Management Ordinance. Section 21.90.030(e) expressly states that the commercial/industrial exemption IV. shall expire on July 20, 1988" and therefore, thi *&al Plan is inconsistent with the Growth Management Ordinance in that respect. , -, c- 4 LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON 6 ~ZRIPPS Members of the Planning Commission July 1, 1987 Page 2 2. A critical part of the Local Plan as it relates to the timing and demand for various levels of infrastructure relies heavily on the phasing assumptions and schedule appearing on Exhibit F at page 32. It is this projected phasing schedule (Absorption Rate) that drives the Local Plan's target construction dates for various levels of infrastructure, particularly the projected circulation improvements (over $17 Million) by 1991. That schedule, however, assumes an annual absorption rate. well in excess of 900,000 square feet each and every year beginning in 1987. That rate is far in excess of any annual absorption experienced to date in this area. The Local Plan should incorporate language that if the scheduled absorption is not achieved, the construction date would be extended accordingly. 3. The Local Plan proposes to establish new standards and fees for the commercial/industrial area which are not presently contained in the Citywide Facilities Plan and are inconsistent with the policy statement by the City Council in April, 1987. The Local Plan proposes to add a parks and fire standard, and further proposes to impose through the Local Plan a park fee of $.50 per building square foot. Not only is imposition of new standards by the Local Plans not authorized, but to do so, would expressly violate provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance. Section 21.90.110(b) and (d) both require that the Local Plan be l'consistent with and implement the Citywide Plan." Since the Citywide Plan has no such standards, to attempt to include them at this time in the Local Plan would make it inconsistent. As to the proposed new park fee, nowhere is there authorization for the imposition of new impact fees as part of the Local Plans. Additionally, the Local Plan and related materials are completely void of evidence and support to establish any shortage of parks or recreation opportunities in Zone 5, as well as facts to legally justify the amount and imposition of such a fee. In point of fact, existing and approved projects provide significant park and recreational opportunities already in the Zone and of course the commercial/ industrial sector contributes heavily to the public facilities fees which in turn are used substantially to provide parks and other recreational opportunities throughout the City. -. LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & ARIPPS Members of the Planning Commission July 1, 1987 Page 3 4. The property owners have very substantial concerns regarding the infrastructure phasing and financing alternatives suggested in the Local Plan, particularly with respect to the Circulation Improvement Costs illustrated on Exhibit Z, page 100. The projected improvement costs of $17,039,000 by 1991 relates exclusively to Palomar Airport Road from the Interstate 5 interchange easterly to the City limits. However, when we look at the "Financing Priorities" options, no reference is made to a wide range of additional funding sources and mechanisms which certainly ought to be considered for these improvements, especially because of the Citywide benefit and regional impact on Palomar Airport Road. For example, the commercial/industrial property owners in Zone 5 have contributed heavily to traffic impact fees, public facilities fees, and yet neither sources are identified as possible funding sources. Further, the Local Plan should include as possible alternatives the use of gas tax or other transportation oriented funds and sources, including consideration of the SANDAG sponsored one-half cent sales tax ballot measure funding. The absence of these additional funding sources and alternatives is all the more troublesome since the City Council in September, 1986, as part of its adopted 1986-91 Capital Improvement Program allocated $2.1 Million of public facilities fees in year one for Palomar Airport Road, College Boulevard west to Paseo De1 Norte and an additional $900,000 of public facilities fees for Palomar Airport Road east of El Camino Real. Given these concerns, we would specifically request that the financing alternatives and options be expanded to include potential use of public facilities fees, traffic impact fees, Mello-Roos Districts, and other possible funds and sources such as gas tax allocation, the possible use of the SANDAG sponsored sales tax allocations to the extent such funds are useable for capital infrastructure improvements. 5. Lastly, I want to emphasize that the property owners want this Growth Management System and the Local Plans to succeed as much as anybody. The owners have made very, very substantial investments not only in their prop=WI but in the desirability and liveability of i. ? c , - .? LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & J~~~~~~ ‘1 Members of the Planning Commission July 1, 1987 Page 4 the entire City. The City's program is ambitious, innovative and experimental. For it to be successful, for it to work, there must be an enlightened attitude, flexibility and willingness to embrace new concepts and, if necessary, create new financing mechanisms and arrangements in providing appropriate development assurances and commitments if the private sector is to raise the multi millions of dollars targeted to construct infrastructure. These new concepts may include development agreements, density commitments and other arrangements that provide reasonable assurances that if one or more property owners front end the enormous capital infrastructure costs, they will be able to pay back the borrowing and obtain a reasonable return on their investments. If the financial community does not see a reasonable basis for a stream of income to pay back infrastructure loans and advances, and if the investment community does not see the opportunity for a reasonable return on investment, then the necessary financing and investment will not be made in this community, and therefore this community will not have the resources to construct and maintain the desired infrastructure. We would request the foregoing comments be incorporated into your recommendations and forwarded on to the City Council for their action. mly yoursV-- I&nald W. Rouse Professional Corporation of Lute, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps RWR:jm cc: City Clerk, City of Carlsbad