Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-15; Planning Commission; Minutes-d . l .~ I Meeting of: MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: July 15, 1987 % Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers \ 4 COMMISSIONERS ’ CALL To OROER: Chairman Marcus called the Meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Hall. 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 Gary Wayne, Senior Planner Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Phil Carter, Senior Management Analyst Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Steve Jantz, Associate Engineer Martin Orenyak, Community Development Director PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES: Chairman Marcus reviewed the Planning Commission procedures shown on the overhead for the benefit of the audience. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED: The were no agenda additions, deletions, or items to be continued. CONSFNI' ITEM: 1) ORAL PRESENTATION - COMER - Request for 18 inch roof height increase at 3384 Carlsbad Boulevard. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the request and stated that Mr. Comer is requesting the Commission's approval of an 18 inch height increase on a 3-story, 4-unit apartment building located at at 3384 Carlsbad Blvd. The applicant is having problems with a flat roof which has been leaking. The roof has been replaced three times and he would now like to put on a pitched roof which would raise the height 18 inches over the existing height. Overall the height of the building would not exceed thirty feet. Staff was not willing to make this decision administratively and felt the Planning Commission should make this particular decision because the beach overlay does prohibit anything over two stories and anything over 25 feet. Staff feels that the circumstances are a little bit different in this particular case and since it is an existing building that already exceeds the height limit, they were not sure whether the intent of the beach overlay would prohibit the changing of a roof which would slightly increase the height. He concluded by saying that Mr. Comer was in attendance to answer questions. #P 7 MINUTES July 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 \ % . COMMISSIONERS Chairman Marcus inquired if there were drawings to specify the exact changes which would be made to structure and Mr. Grimm replied that it was his impression that there would be an 18 inch total difference in height from the present height, although staff has not seen any building plans. Commissioner McFadden inquired why the applicant was requesting an exemption rather than a variance request and Mr. Grimm replied that staff was unsure if the intent of the beach overlay was to prohibit structural additions or changes in roof style, which is why the matter was brought before the Commission. Chairman Marcus invited the applicant to speak. Willard Comer, 1375 Muirlands Vista Way, La Jolla, addressed the Commission and stated that his building on Carlsbad Boulevard was built in 1973, unfortunately with a flat roof. As a result it has had three different roofs in an attempt to stop the water leakage, the most recent being done last year. Unfortunately the roof guarantee is only for two years. Since the roof is almost flat, it collects three or four inches of water after each rain, which eventually seeps through. In addition to replacing the roof he has also had to replace the ceiling in the top apartment at a cost of $250. He has been advised by local roofers that the only solution to the problem is to pitch the roof to permit water runoff. Chairman Marcus inquired if the finished roof would resemble the two story building with a green roof just north of his building and Mr. Comer replied that he would be happy to make it the same as the green roofed building, that he only wants to pitch the roof enough to permit water to drain. He does plan to remove the mansard. Commissioner McBane stated that he has a problem with setting a precedent since the height restriction would be exceeded. Commissioner Schramm stated that she would like to see a drawing of the proposed change and could not approve it without plans , especially since he is removing some aspect of the building. Commissioner Schlehuber stated he feels the request should go back to the staff and the decision of whether a variance is required should be made by the City Attorney. If there is no requirement for a variance, he feels that he should be able to approve the roof once a drawing has been submitted. Otherwise, the variance procedure should be followed. He recommended the request be heard in two weeks. Commissioner Holmes feels that since the building already exceeds the height limit and since bonded roofs are available which can be guaranteed for thirty years, that the increased height requested is unnecessary. He stated that although bonded roofs cost much more, they also last longer and can be insured to last the requisite period. Commissioner McFadden feels that a request for a variance should be submitted and that even though this was a preexisting condition, it should not be addressed as anything else in the area. Martin Orenyak, Community Development Director, replied to Commissioner Holmes' comment and stated that a flat roof will . 1 P q MINUTES July 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 work as long as there is a slope of IX, that a bonded roof could remedy the problem without raising the height of this building, but the question remains as to how much the applicant must spend. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, stated that if the building exists at 27 feet and the ordinance is for 25 feet, it is a nonconforming building that can remain. The structure can be repaired but not improved without a permit. If the request is to increase the building beyond the existing 27 feet, the new ordinance would apply and a variance would be required. Commissioner Hall made a motion that Mr. Comer come back with a request for a variance if he wants to change the roof to the extent that it will require an increase in height. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he cannot support a variance if the bonded roof approach will remedy the problem. Chairman Marcus inquired if Mr. Comer had considered a bonded roof. Mr. Comer replied that he had not specifically looked into the bonded roof but that three local roofers have evaluated the problem and had not mentioned a bonded roof. One roofer, who resided in the building, stated that a pitched roof was the only answer. Mr. Comer was not concerned with the expense of the bonded roof since one would cost as much as the other, but he merely wanted a leak-proof building. He inquired as to the cost of a variance and was informed that the filing fees would be $450. Commissioner McFadden inquired if the first roof was bonded. Mr. Comer replied that he doesn't know what a bonded roof is. Commissioner Holmes suggested that Mr. Comer contact roofing manufacturer representatives and get a price for a bonded roof, then make a decision as to whether to approach it from a repair or variance standpoint. Mr. Comer thanked the commission for their guidance. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN - ZONE 1. Bounded on the north by Buena Vista Lagoon, south by Agua Hedionda Lagoon, west by the Pacific Ocean, and east by El Camino Real. Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, distributed and explained some last minute revisions to the plan. He then gave the staff report and stated that Zone 1 is an older part of town in the northwest quadrant, is basically an infill zone, and that the entire zone infrastructure is in place. The plan was prepared by the Planning and Engineering staff and coordinated by Nancy Rollman. City Administrative Facilities Existing facilities meet the adopted performance standard until the year 2005. No special conditions are necessary at this time. r f? MINUTES July 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 Library Library facilities meet the adopted performance standard until the year 2003, based on City Council action of 7/7/87 which guaranteed construction of a library facility in South Carlsbad. No special conditions are necessary at this time. Waste Water Treatment Capacity Existing facilities meet the adopted performance standard. The City Council has adopted action to ensure that facilities will meet the performance standard by providing an early-warning system, i.e. monitoring the purchase of excess capacity from other member agencies at Encina, bringing the Lake Calavara Treatment Plant online if it is necessary, and expediting the Phase IV expansion of the Encina facility. Parks Park District 1 conforms with the adopted performance standard until the year 1992. Development shall continue to pay Park-In-Lieu fees and Public Facility Fees for Park District 1, to mitigate the future incremental parks demand within the District. Drainage Existing facilities currently meet the adopted performance standard. A special condition has been added that deals with Buena Vista Lagoon. No building or development permits shall be issued for any portion of Zone 1 which drains to the Buena Vista Creek north of Jefferson Street unless it incorporates into the design of the project all conditions of the Buena Vista Lagoon and Watershed Sediment Control Plan, as prepared by June Applegate and Associates on September 3, 1985. Circulation One intersection in Zone 1 does not meet the adopted performance standard at the present time. Until the performance standard is met, no development shall occur. With existing plus committed impacts, five intersections will fall below standard. At buildout, seven intersections are projected to fall below the City's adopted performance standard until mitigating improvements occur. There is only one intersection in Zone 1 (I-5 and Elm) that currently fails to meet the adopted standard. To correct the problem, it will be necessary to restripe the southbound and eastbound approaches to provide right-turn lanes. No building permits shall be issued in Zone 1 until the restriping has occurred. There are a number of intersections that are projected to fail. The plan contains a schedule of improvements, cost estimates of the improvements, and a financing mechanism for all of the improvements which will be adopted and therefore implemented with the plan. Fire Existing facilities meet the adopted performance standard to buildout of Zone 1. No special conditions are necessary at this time. MINUTES July 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 L COMMISSIONERS \ Open Space Existing facilities meet the adopted performance standard to buildout of Zone 1. No special conditions are necessary at this time. Schools Existing school facilities currently have the capacity to meet the demand generated by Zone 1. The School District has indicated that it will be able to provide capacity to buildout of Zone 1. No special conditions are necessary at this time. Sewer Collection System Existing sewer trunk line capacity complies with the adopted performance standard. Capacity problems are projected with existing plus committed projects. An upgrade schedule has been established for two pump stations beginning in 1988--one the Buena Vista Pump station, the other the Agua Hedionda pump station --and continues on a phased schedule to build-out, adding things as they are needed. The plan also includes an upgrading of the Vista-Carlsbad main interceptor and a schedule for a number of upgrades of various different reaches. The last link in the whole sewer collection system, the Agua Hedionda interceptor, is adequate until build-out. No special conditions are necessary at this time. Water Distribution Water service to Zone 1 meets the adopted performance standard to the buildout of the Zone. All development within Zone 1 shall pay the required Costa Real Municipal Water District fees. There were no questions from Commissioners regarding City Administrative, Fire and Open Space. Chairman Marcus asked for questions about Library facilities. Commissioner McBane commented that the Council guarantee for the library facilities is based on a modification of priorities as a possible way of financing. The City is relying on Public Facility Fees (PFF) to solve a whole myriad of problems. He is concerned that if all available PFF funds are spent on a library, what funding vehicle will be used to provide other facilities which are normally purchased with PFF funds. Gary Wayne replied that an answer is not readily apparent from the zone plan but part of the Growth Management Plan includes the capital improvement program and it is the responsibility of staff to determine whether or not there are sufficient funds now and in the future to actually guarantee these projects. Project lists are developed and priorities are established. The library will be given a higher priority than certain other projects. There is enough projected cash flow from PFF to guarantee the library and whether or not there will be enough to fund everything out of PFF is not certain at this time. Some of the more minor projects probably will not have their funding. Commissioner McBane stated that the ordinance which describes the contents of these plans specifically states that a cash flow projection will be included but he has not seen one in the plans presented so far. 0 /I MINUTES July 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 . COMMISSIONERS \ Phil Carter replied that the ordinance requires each Local Facilities Management Plan to identify a funding mechanism to guarantee the facilities needed and the City Council's action basically responds by stating that PFF funds will be available for the library on a first priority basis. This means that there will be $1.1 million for land acquisition, $900,000 for grading, and $650,000 for design. In addition, the library director has also indicated the possibility of a federal grant for 75% of the funding of the actual construction of the library. Mr. Carter believes, therefor, that the plan does identify the financing mechanism that the City Council has established so, in effect, the plan does what is required. Commissioner McBane believes that the specific requirement is for a phasing schedule, market data, and cash flow analysis for the financing and improvement in each zone. He has no question that the City can afford to finance a library, but he does have a problem being fully convinced that all things in all zones can simultaneously be funded by PFF, and he feels an obligation to make certain that the cash flow is available when it is needed. Phil Carter agreed with Commissioner McBane and stated that PFF is merely a funding option to correct some of the public facility shortfalls that are projected. The funds may not be available when they are needed from PFF and that's why there are financing alternatives. Otherwise, development will be stopped until those facilities are in place. Commissioner McBane chose not to belabor the point but feels that the ordinance requires specific cash flow projections that can be analyzed. Commissioner McFadden inquired about the assumptions on page 21 and why a midpoint had been estimated in the beach area for future residential units. Gary Wayne replied that this was analyzed in several different ways in order to determine a growth control point consistent with Proposition E. The high and low in the beach area was analyzed but did not provide an adequate growth control point, however, the midpoint was acceptable within a tolerance and it was consistent with the way we were doing the rest of the zone outside the beach area. Commissioner McFadden then inquired why the maximum was used in the redevelopment area and Gary Wayne replied that the only inventory available was the Economic Research Associates report which was prepared for the redevelopment agency. Their projections were based on certain assumptions which were in line with the assumptions being used in the rest of the city for projecting industrial and commercial square footage. Commissioner McBane requested clarification on the beach area. He understood that the beach area study determined the higher density level to be allowable under the current land use, and the lower density level would only occur if the land uses are changed from those now existing. Gary Wayne replied that the beach area is projected to redevelop which will necessitate land use changes. Commissioner McBane inquired if the maximum figure referred to in the high end density range is what is likely to occur if changes are not made to the land use element for that P. ,? MINUTES July 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS area. Gary Wayne replied that the maximum figure does not include the growth control points, which causes the problem. Commissioner McBane inquired if the low end assumes certain land use changes that would reduce it below the current growth control point for that area. Gary Wayne replied yes. Commissioner McBane inquired if the consultants recommended that the land use in the beach area be changed from the current figure based on the assumption that changes were being made to the present land use patterns. Gary Wayne replied that Nancy Rollman was in charge of the beach area study. The various uses in the beach overlay were calculated and it appeared that if the midpoint between the two different scenarios was used, it better reflected a growth control point. If the assumption is wrong, if there is less development, then there will be less of an impact on the public facilities. Commissioner McBane inquired if staff analyzed the situation based on less development than is estimated and what the facilities requirements would be. Gary Wayne understands that development will not go to the high extreme and that the midpoint is more realistic. Commissioner Hall inquired about the adequacy of Carlsbad Village Drive west of I-5 to Carlsbad Blvd. Gary Wayne replied that the plan recommends that area be studied to determine whether or not and when it should be expanded to four lanes and what should be done with parking. Commissioner Hall was under the impression that a decision had already been made to expand Carlsbad Village Drive to four lanes and that it was a priority issue. Gary Wayne replied that the proposed expansion is still an unresolved issue which is being studied. Commissioner McBane inquired if the increased costs of the Calavara Hills sewer collection system (when brought on line) would be spread to the other users in the Carlsbad sewer system area or be localized to any group. Gary Wayne replied that the operating costs would probably be spread and Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer , agreed that everyone would benefit so the costs should be spread. Commissioner McBane inquired about the new language added to the Parks plan and how the contingency works. Gary Wayne replied that if the inventory is revised, the Park District plan must be revised. Commissioner McBane inquired if permits can be issued in the interim if the Citywide plan has been approved. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, stated that no new building permits would be issued once a deficiency in any facility has been determined. Phil Carter stated that the 1982 Parks and Recreation Element is currently under evaluation and inventory revisions should be presented to the City Council within the next month. It should not have a significant impact on Zone 1. Commissioner McFadden inquired about the process for revising the Parks & Recreation Element. Gary Wayne replied that the revised element would be presented to the Planning Commission and then returned to the City Council. Chairman Marcus declared the public hearing open and issued the invitation to speak. MINUTES July 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 COMMISSIONERS Rodney Miles, 29441 Ana Maria, Laguna Niguel, addressed the Commission and stated that he owns several properties in the beach overlay area and is trying to find out when the Planning Department will be accepting applications for building permits. He inquired when he would be able to get a building permit for a 2-unit structure. Gary Wayne replied that the circulation problem must be taken care of and City Council must approve the plan for Zone 1 before applications will be accepted. Mr. Miles inquired about an annual building restriction of 500 units and Mr. Wayne replied that there was no such limit. Al Ruden, 2733 Mesa Drive, Oceanside, addressed the Commission and stated that he is a Carlsbad property owner and that two of his properties have tentative maps. He was told that they must wait until the Zone plan is approved. He is concerned that the plan density is lower than his maps show and inquired when he could seek a building permit. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, replied that existing maps have been taken into consideration and that new projects will require a finding. Also introduced into the public hearing were two letters dated 7/15/87 from James S. Ready, Jr., an attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. George Meese of 4072 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, and Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Perry, 4110 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, which cited opposition to the plan for Zone 1. 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. Commissioner McFadden is concerned about phasing and if public fees are high enough. She inquired if annual monitoring in this particular zone is enough due to the infill characteristic. She is uncomfortable depending entirely on public facility fees. Gary Wayne replied that a report would be presented annually but that all zones are monitored constantly and not just once a year. He also stated that fees are monitored and they are presently scheduled for public hearing by the City Council for the annual revision. Commissioner McBane stated that the problem is not limited to the public facility fees. He feels that financial analysis is not provided and is especially needed in this zone. Michael Holzmiller stated that the information coming out on Zones l-6 is immediately being evaluated to update the PFF and developing the capital improvements program. It is important to get the plans for Zones l-6 approved otherwise everything comes to a standstill. Commissioner Schramm inquired if, after Zones l-6 have been approved, a summary of all zones can be provided by staff so the Commission can evaluate the total picture. Michael Holzmiller stated that this is already in process. Commissioner Schramm understands that the City Council determines how the CIP is spent but would like the Planning Commission to be aware of this information. Michael Holzmiller replied that the state law provides for the Planning Commission to review the CIP and make a recommendation. P ? MINUTES July 15, 1987 PUNNING COMMISSION Page 9 Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, requested a change to the general conditions on page 6, paragraph 2, after April 22, 1986, add the following: "...and as amended from time to time..." and in paragraph 4, after Resolution 8797, add the following: "...September 23, 1986.". Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2672 approving Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 on property generally bounded on the north by Buena Vista Lagoon, south by Agua Hedionda Lagoon, west by the Pacific Ocean, and east by El Camino Real, based on subject to the conditions and based on the findings contained therein, to include amendments suggested by the City Attorney on page 6. Commissioner McBane requested that the record show that he was unable to make Finding %l and H2, specifically that the plan is not consistent with the Parks and Recreation element of the General Plan and it does not include a cash flow analysis. INFORMATION ITFIM: 3) PCD/GPC 87-4 - General Plan Consistency Determination for the purchase of the Community Development Department Building at 2075 Las Palmas Drive. Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the request and stated that Section 65402 of the California Government Code requires a General Plan Consistency Determination be made before the acquisition or disposal of real property. Staff feels that the purchase by the City of this particular building is consistent with the general plan and, particularly, with the public facilities element which indicates the City should provide comprehensive public services. The planned industrial designation where the building is located does permit location of government buildings within this designation. Staff recommends approval. A Minute Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried that the purchase of the Community Development building located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive is consistent with the the General Plan. MINUTES: The Planning Commission approved the minutes of June 17, 1987 as presented. The Planning Commission approved the minutes of July 1, 1987 as presented. 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 . . July 15, 1987 P T MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS: Commissioner McFadden suggested that the Planning Commission Workshop agenda for this year include a discussion on the reimbursement of Commissioners for travel expenses on City business. Commissioner McFadden inquired about a project status report which was supposed to be given to Commissioners at the first meeting of each month. Commissioner McFadden inquired if there would be a meeting on July 29 and was advised that there would not be a meeting. Charles Grimm reported that the May Co. parking lot is scheduled for the August 5th meeting. Chairman Marcus and Commissioner Schramm will be gone on August 5th. Mr. Grimm will advise Commissioners before Friday if there will be a meeting on August 5th. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of July 15, 1987 was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . MICHAF,L 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 JAMLS L. O’NLAL JAMCS s. RLAOY. JR. PCTCU L. YLOMANS CNARLENL S. BARON LAW OFFICES RECEiVEa O'NEAL R-',c=JJ;"S = 6ARo%YCLERK'S OFFICL 2741 VISTA WAY, SUITE 205 OCEANSIDE. CALIFORNIA m2Os4 87JUL 15 PH 4: ~;LpHONL CITY OF CARl.SE%W'72'-"3" July 15, 1987 City of Carl&ad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attn: Carlsbad City Attorney, Carlsbad City Council and City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Re: Public Hearing Regarding Local Facilities Management Plan For Zone 1 Scheduled For 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 15, 1987 Gentlemen: Please be advised that I have been retained to represent Mr. and Mrs. George Meese of 4072 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, California, with respecttodamages to be claimed by past and proposed future action by the City of Carlsbad with respect to their property at said location. Please be advised that Mr. and Mrs. Perry are in opposition to the local facilities management plan to be considered at the above- referenced meeting including, but not limited to the following issues, although it is somewhat difficult to be more specific given the limited detail provided by the City of Carlsbad: 1) To the extent that the amount of existing public facilities and services will affect the development and/or usage of this property, Mr. and Mrs. Meese wish the Council and the City of Carlsbad to be advised that they will claim all damages proximately caused by these actions. 2) Regarding the phasing of development until build out aspect of the plan to be considered, it is opposed to the extent that it will delay, hinder or otherwise interfere with prompt, full, and maximum profitable development of this property. 3) With regard to the portion of the management plan which is designed to consider future demand and supply of the various public facilities, they are opposed insofar as they impact the land value, both now and in the future. As you well know, the value of this property has already been sub- stantially impaired by earlier actions of the City of Carlsbad, t- - l . . . . City of Carlsbad July 15, 1987 Page Two and all such damages are now claimed and will be claimed in a sub- sequent court action. The areas of damages which are anticipated include, but again are not limited to, the loss of past, present and future profits which would have resulted had my clients been permitted to develop their property as anticipated. Further, damages will be claimed for inter- ference with their usage of the property should that occur by reason of the action on the management plan. Additional losses, which can only be anticipated at this time but will be claimed if they should arise, will include losses due to the cost of public facilities and services insofar as they impact the private aspect of this matter. Additionally, please be advised that my clients will seek restitu- tion of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the "Private Attorneys General Ruling" which has been rendered with respect to such matters. This letter is specifically intended to respond to the language in the Notice of Public Hearing published on Friday, July 3, 1987, in . the Carlsbad Journal, which Notice attempts to limit the raising of issues raised by Mr. and Mrs. Meese and others with respect to this hearing. Thank you for your courtesy and consideration. Sincerely, YEGMANS C BARON cr cc: Mr. and Mrs. George Meese . . i JAMES E. O’NEAL JAMLI 9. READ*. JR. PCTCR L. VCOMANS CHARLLNC S. BARON LAW OFFICES fqEi’v’Ei3 O’NEAL, "EA~CI,Y~Y~~~" a -RO~TY CLtRK'S O,'FfCk 2741 VISTA WAY, SUITE 209 OCEANSIDL, C*LICORNIA %?os4 87.M. IS P/-f ij:fq TCLCPNONL CITY OF CARLs/j.m) 721-~533 July 15, 1987 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attn: Carlsbad City Attorney, Carlsbad City Council and City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Re: Public Hearing Regarding Local Facilities Management Plan For Zone 1 Scheduled for 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 15, 1987 Gentlemen: Please be advised that I have been retained to represent Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Perry of 4110 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, California, with respect to damages to be claimed by past and proposed future action by the City of Carlsbad with respect to their property at said location. Please be advised that Mr. and Mrs. Perry are in opposition to the local facilities management plan to be considered at the above- referenced meeting including, but not limited to the following issues, although it is somewhat difficult to be more specific given the limited detail provided by the City of Carlsbad: 1) To the extent that the amount of existing public facilities and services will affect the development and/or usage of this property, Mr. and Mrs. Perry wish the Council and the City of Carlsbad to be advised that they will claim all damages proximately caused by these actions.. 2) Regarding the phasing of development until build out aspect of the plan to be considered, it is opposed to the extent that it will delay, hinder or otherwise interfere with prompt, full, and maximum profitable development of this property. 3) With regard to the portion of the management plan which is designed to consider future demand and supply of the various public facilities, they are opposed insofar as they impact the land value, both now and in the future. City of Carlsbad July 15, 1987 Page Two As you well know, the value of this property has already been sub- stantially impaired by earlier actions of the City of Carlsbad, and all such damages are now claimed and will be claimed in a sub- sequent court action. The areas of damages which are anticipated include, but again are not limited to, the loss of past, present and future profits which would have resulted had my clients been permitted to develop their property as anticipated. Further, damages will be claimed for inter- ference with their usage of the property should-that occur by reason of the action on the management plan. Additional losses, which can only be anticipated at this time but will be claimed if they should arise, will include losses due to the cost of public facilities and services insofar as they impact the private aspect of this matter. Additionally, please be advised that my clients will seek restitu- tion of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the "Private Attorneys General Ruling" which has been rendered with respect to such matters. This letter is specifically intended to respond to the language in the Notice of Public Hearing published on Friday, July 3, 1987, in the Carlsbad Journal, which Notice attempts to limit the raising of issues raised by Mr. and Mrs. Perry and others with respect to this hearing. Thank you for your courtesy and consideration. Sincerely, O'NEU, READY, YEOMANS 6 BARON J cr cc: Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Perry