Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP 76-01A; Car Country Expansion; Agricultural Preserves (AP)MEMORANDUM DATE: DECEMBER 12, 1988 TO: RAY PATCHETT FROM: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER VIA: MARTY ORENYAK SUBJECT: COASTAL HEARINGS - CITY'S FLOWER FIELDS AMENDMENT On Wednesday, December 14, 1988, the Coastal Commission at its 9 a.m. meeting in San Francisco, will take action on Carlsbad's LCP Amendment request regarding the Carltas Carlsbad Ranch. The Amendment request includes a Williamson Contract "land swap" plus General Pla.n/LCP zone changes and modifications to land use designations. Coastal staff is recommending a minor modification to the City's LCP Amendment. The modification would require that any acreage associated with the proposed north/south roadway be credited towards the 137 acres of potentially developable land. It is our understanding that Chris Calkins of Carltas is against the proposed modification. Our staff, however, recommends that we not object to the Coastal staff's modification. The intent of the LCP policies that allow development of the site is to maximize the acreage available to agriculture. The Planning Department intends to send Gary Wayne to represent the City at the hearings. We also intend, unless otherwise directed, to support the Coastal staff's recommended modification. Since the City's amendment request involves the preservation of the "Flower Fields" a long sought after City goal, either you or Council representatives may want to attend the hearing. The hearings start at 9 a.m. and there are several controversial issues before the Carlsbad item. We've been told by Coastal staff that our Amendment will probably be heard late morning or early to mid afternoon. Please let us know if you or Council members plan to attend the hearing. Also, please advise if you have a different strategy regarding City support of the recommended modifications proposed by Coastal staff. MJH:GW/af CflRlTflScompany September 20, 1988 Mr. Michael Holzmiller Director of Planning City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Re: GPA 88-2 Dear Michael: The purpose of this letter is to summarize the rationale underlying the configuration of the shifted development area proposed as a part of GPA 88-2. The configuration which has been presented to you showing the alignment of the agricultural and non-agricultural areas is a result of a substantial period of thought and effort conjunctively put together by planning, agricultural, and economic consultants with whom we work to develop a balance that would favor continued agriculture on the Carlsbad Ranch. In addition, while specific uses are clearly not contemplated at this time, the general plan designations in the area of (planned industrial to the east and tourist serving commercial to the west) led us to focus on a development area which would accommodate an urban center focused on offices, corporate headquarters, related uses and limited related retail all of which would appear to be the natural culmination of the City's gradual build out of this area. Some concept of uses was important in order to assure that the development areas as finally determined contained appropriate dimensions to permit both the creation of areas in which construction could occur and adequate buffering with agricultural areas. To summarize, the shape of the agricultural and non-agricultural areas is designed to accomplish the following: 1. It utilizes the topographical features of the land to protect the farming characteristics of the property. 2. it addresses circulation issues in the City, particularly the relationship with the freeway and Palomar Airport Road in a manner which will minimize the pressure for additional roadways through the farming areas. 4401 MANCHESTER; SUITE 206 -ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 U.S.A. (619) 944-4090 FAX (619) 944-3619 Letter to Mr. Michael Holzmiller September 20, 1988 Page Two 3. It utilizes less desireable agricultural land and recaptures the farming areas which had been lost through roadway slopes along Palomar, and development. 4. It clusters development around roadways but allows adequate depth for building pad sites with parking potentially structured in a manner which would be accommodated by the hillside fall, thus reducing the visibility of parking. 5. It allows for a single coherent planned community area with uses differentiated from freeway oriented traffic, as a transition from the tourist oriented commercial and regional retail uses to the industrial commercial uses to the east. 6. It will permit sufficiently "high end" uses so that the infrastructure and agriculture buffers can be planned and economically accommodated by development of the area now permitted for development. 7. It preserves the best flower growing area in an area which would permit long term transition from economic to subsidized agriculture. 8. It permits unified farming operations by maintaining a linkage, but recognizes two distinct farming areas which can be separately farmed and can reflect the mildly different microclimates. The following discussion considers in more detail each of the foregoing. Exhibit A illustrates the features noted below: 1. Topographic Differentiation. The proposed reconfiguration of the development area primarily involves a utilization of the ridge top and the area to the southeast of the first ridge. The ridge itself has significant topographical difference from its ridge top down resulting in steep slopes at the current time which are not as productive as the gentler western slopes which would remain in farming after development occurs. The design retains some of the topographical features providing natural height differentiation from farming minimizing the kinds of effects from dust and physical communication between areas that can occur in flatland farm development area configuration. Letter to Mr. Michael Holzmiller September 20, 1988 Page Three The ridge to ridge proximity in the south east portion allows for a single development area which accommodates both a north south road (as described below) around which development can be clustered, an area large enough to constitute a significant planning area by itself which can service the corporate office headquarters envisioned along the northern ridge. 2. Circulation Repeatedly your City engineers have identified potential problems with circulation as it approaches the freeway particularly in the vicinity of Paseo del Norte. Without the creation of a new north south road which ultimately will link Cannon to Palomar Airport Road. There will be increasing pressure on the intersections of Paseo del Norte and Cannon and Palomar Airport Road resulting in substantial degradation of levels of service. This kind of degradation and service will ultimately be translated into increasing community/political pressure to create a north south link. By choosing a road location which meets city standards, provides an adequate servicing for the entire development area and also the critical north south link as well as some queueing possibilities, this particular urban pressure (which increasingly causes problems to farming activities) will be avoided. The particular location meets all City standards, permits some useage of the roadway as a buffer, and through grade separation at the north end, will provide little interference to a unified farm operation of the Ranch. 3. Better Farming Land The proposed development area is situated on the tops of the first ridge and immediate southeast ridge. The ridge tops are high windage areas and significantly less desireable for farming than the slopes on each side. The ridge tops as noted have thinner topsoil characteristics than some of the slopes and some of the valley areas in the northeastern area of the property. The slope facing Palomar as cut for the new road cannot be farmed although the soil itself is desireable having a very fine drainage characteristics. The proposed development areas would be accompanied by a reshaping of that slope from the edge of the development area to Letter to Mr. Michael Holzmiller September 20, 1988 Page Four Palomar, to a grade which would permit farming thus bringing the flower growing back around the whole south face of the property. The south face is favorable for bulb and flower growing during winter months. It will also recapture an area which is currently under the Williamson Act but is not as desireable for farming. The area near Ukegawa packing shed is not now effectively farmed but is used as a roadway area. The proposed development area takes advantage of the historic useage as a roadway and also the ability to bring from Palomar Airport grade to the top of the ridge and on to Cannon a roadway accommodating the grade changes necessary in the area. Finally, as noted in the agricultural report there is a preponderance of better soils being put into agriculture and less desireable soils being used for the development areas. 4-5. Economic Pressure/Stable Boundaries Normal perimeter development patterns with multiple nodes of small development may tend to create increasing economic pressure first to expand, but second to capture the higher, more visible sites. The lower perimeter development also requires more lighting and signage than areas with a higher visibility particularly if the uses are not predominantly retail commercial. By capturing the ridge area in a large enough mass to permit unified planning and development as a community, the potential pressure for urbanization normally arising from perimeter development would be dissipated and there will be less need for encroachment. The development pattern will cluster around the new roadway and existing Paseo del Norte but with enough depth +/- •400' from the roadway to allow for reasonable building pads, parking, and landscape/structured buffers to the agricultural areas. In some cases the development area curves to allow this roadway oriented lot depth to assure that the boundary is one which has stability. As noted, parking can be potentially structured behind buildings taking advantage of the hillside slope to reduce its visibility. Letter to Mr. Michael Holzmiller September 20, 1988 Page Five 6. Single Community. The allocation of the development area allows for a single coherent, planned community, providing for uses compatible with those of the General Plan differentiated from the tourist serving commercial to the west. By adopting the proposed development characteristic, the property does not lend itself to freeway serving retail uses. High signage demands, and high traffic turnover are characteristic of freeway oriented activities. To the east of the Ranch lies an industrial base, which as it builds out, should have a requirement for higher end office and related urban services. Further, the plan permits a coherent planning area with large enough mass to allow for integrated services for whatever community is developed. Including would be services for the buildings located in areas along the northern ridge which would be identified as predominately office sites taking advantage of the views. This accommodates what is perceived to be the likely growth and development of the area. In doing so, it enhances the desireability of maintaining the agricultural areas as barriers and separations between uses. The agricultural areas become economic amenities for the developed sites. In contrast, the current perimeter development characteristics of the property would provide no incentive for the continued maintenance of the agricultural areas but would be subject to substantial urban pressures as the area builds out. 7. Infrastructure/Buffer Cost By capturing in a single community an area which is designed to take advantage of the topographical differentiation and minimize the distance from infrastructure support which would be created along the single roadway, the new development area will permit carrying the costs of the kinds of buffers likely to be needed to protect the agricultural activities. Perimeter boundaries designed in such a way as to enhance the visibility characteristics of the development area (i.e. minimum walls, landscape, mounds) would provide an economic amenity to the development and thus pay for the cost of the needed buffering for the agricultural activities. Letter to Mr. Michael Holzmiller September 20, 1988 Page Six 8. Preservation of Maximum Flower Growing Area As noted, the ideal flower growing area lies in the southwest facing slopes of the property in front of the first ridge and to the south. The grading contemplated to reconfigure the slopes adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and recapture those for farming will permit a true south face and permit a contiguous belt of farming from north to south. This will maximize the flower growing area and will put it into a configuration with tourist serving commercial activities to the west that ultimately may permit a transition in use from commercially economic agriculture to some form of subsidized flower growing agriculture that relates to tourist based uses in the Paseo del Norte area i.e. a flower preserve park related to an Arboretum/botanical garden, etc. 9. Unified Farming Operation While the development area itself lies between the two farming areas as they now are operated, the maintenance of a contiguous band at the north end unified by a grade separated undercrossing for farm traffic will permit the operation of the property as a single unit should that be desireable. Sufficient area exists at the northern end between proposed Cannon Road and the development areas to permit farming activities to be conducted along with the communication between the farming areas. This also reflects the differing characteristics of the two areas and the different nature of the farming now conducted on it. Many other planning issues were identified in the course of analysis of the best way to use the Carlsbad Ranch. Cross sections were made of the property to show the relationship between the development area depths, potential building sites, roadway alignments, buffers, etc. The conclusion is that the balance of characteristics accomplished by this topographically sensitive shaping will be to improve the stability of the boundaries between farming and non-farming activities and encourage the use of the farming activity as an amenity to the development areas rather than as a conflicting use. Letter to Mr. Michael Holzmiller September 20, 1988 Page Seven I will be pleased to discuss further any issues related to the design of the proposed development areas or^the General Plan Amendment. Very truly yours, CARLTAS COMPANY Christophei: C. Calkins, Manager III! CIC RESEARCH, INC. Economic Research • Marketing Research • Environmental Research ' Survey Research MEMORANDUM September 13, 1988 TO: Nancy Rollman FROM: W. Scott Pidd SUBJECT: Third-Party Analysis of Agricultural Consultant Report Regarding and Exchange of Williamson Act Acreage INTRODUCTION CIC Research, Inc. was asked to evaluate a report by Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc., dated August 29, 1988. Two basic issues were to be addressed in this analysis. First, a determination of the quality of the resources (land) going into the Williamson Act contract was to be of equal or superior quality than the land being exchanged. Second, CIC was to ascertain the compatibility of land uses under the proposed land swap. These issues are discussed in order below starting with an evaluation of the soils and climate and then a review of possible land use impacts. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Agricultural resources include topography, soils, water, and climate. The consultant has given a general description of the location and topography of the subject property which is sufficient for the purpose of the report. The consultant's soils analysis is not as accurate as it should be, due to generalizations regarding soil locations, and possibly inaccurate mapping. It is implied that acreage with the lower-quality Carlsbad soil series would be removed from the contract, being replaced with a higher-rated Marina soil. Acreage measurements by CIC indicate that very little of the Carlsbad soil would be removed from the preserve (5.89 acres), but that still less would be placed under contract (2.61 acres). In addition, just under five acres of a Las Flores soil with steep slopes would be removed from the preserve. 1215 CTSIIMAN AVKNTK • SAN DIKCO. CALIFORNIA 92110 TKI.KI'IIONF. ((;!<)) 296-SS-1-4 Ms. Nancy Rollman 1111 September 13, 1988 - Page 2 The net effect of this exchange in terms of resource quality would be somewhat positive, as can be seen in Tables 1 and 2, and illustrated in Figure 1. In terms of Capability classifications and Storie Index ratings, little change in resource quality is observed. The land going into the preserve has an indicated weighted average Storie Index of 52.44 while the land coming out of the preserve is rated at 47.85. The relative difference in these values is inconsequential. Both measurements place the generalized soil quality of each area within the Grade 3 interpretation category (Storie Index ratings of 40 to 60) wherein "soils are suitable to a few crops or to special crops and require special management."1 A more practical measure of resource quality is crop suitability which more specifically rates soils for those crops most likely to be grown on these soils. All 52 acres incorporated into the preserve are rated "good" for flowers and "fair" or "good" for truck crops. Conversely, only 47.10 acres to be removed from the preserve have the same suitability ratings. Therefore, a slight increase in soil quality in the preserve would result from the exchange.2 Issues related to irrigation water are not addressed in the consultant's report. However, it is unlikely that the source, quality,or cost of water would be affected by the exchange. It is possible that the main irrigation system could be impacted through development along the ridge, necessitating dual systems if that configuration is not already employed. It is recommended that the consultant be asked to address this issue. The climate of the study site would be similar to the description in the consultant's report. Proximity to .the coast is the primary climatic influence while minor variations would be present to the east, west, and along the ridge. 1Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California, USDA Soil Conservation Service, et al., 1973, pg. 92. 2See Appendix A for a description of soil rating systems. Ms. Nancy Rollman September 13, 1988 Page 3 PACKING SHED The Soil and Plant Laboratory report mentioned the Ukegawa Brothers' packing shed on the parcel in question. The importance of this packing shed was not addressed. CIC telephoned Mr. Pete Mackauf of Ukegawa Brothers. He indicated that the packing shed remained on a year-to-year basis at the Ecke's pleasure. First, the packing shed services primarily Ukegawa Brothers farm interest. Thus other farm operations should not be impacted. Second, there was a plan to move the packing shed to another location. However, economic conditions in recent years for the Ukegawa Brothers have precluded such a move. Third, the decision to move the packing shed will be made if and when such a move becomes necessary based on financial considerations as well as farming considerations, e.g., where the Ukegawa Brothers are farming at the time. In summary, Mr. Mackauf indicated that the Ukegawa Brothers would be impacted, but that very little impact should be felt by the surrounding farm community. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY At the present time the only urban use adjacent to the agricultural preserve is the planned 27.0 acre expansion of Car Country. With prevailing winds from the west, no impacts should be expected from this arrangement. The planned development along the north-south ridge would create a significantly different situation, laying the ground for potential future impacts to both urban and agricultural uses. The consultant's report mentions three areas in which buffers are required and 10 suggested means to mitigate impacts. The report does not mention the capital costs related to installing a masonry wall ~around the perimeter of the area, grade separations, windbreaks, etc., nor the increased operating costs associated with maintaining landscaped buffer areas, windbreaks, drainage systems, etc. Operating costs tend to increase also when farmers adjust work schedules around urban areas and spraying schedules around more critical climatic factors. Crops require treatments at specific times that are not always coincidental with calm weather, putting the yield quality of crops in a subordinate position to urban schedules. More general impacts can also occur. Probably the greatest impact to the farm activity is the neighborhood response to the Ms. Nancy Rollman | September 13, 1988 J. *V Page 4 impacts from farming (i.e., dust, odor, groups of transient farm workers, etc.). Besides directly complaining to the farmer, residents have been known to protest these impacts to the agricultural commissioner. Another major area of urban impacts deals with /vandalism and theft. Vandalism occurs in terms of physically destroying crops, machinery, and support equipment. Losses can also occur when neighbors trespass, which they often feel is their right under the perception that an agricultural field represents an urban open space amenity. Neighbors out on casual walks destroy fences, trample crops, take produce and flowers. Other urban activity such as using a farm site as a dump also impact farm operating costs directly. A less direct impact on costs is what has been termed urban closeout. This occurs as fields become surrounded by urban .land uses. In addition to the impacts noted above, farmers find it more difficult to obtain casual labor, i.e., undocumented workers. In addition, certain essential inputs such as water tend to have residential rates administered, and support facilities (suppliers) .relocate to more distant rural area. Agricultural impacts to urban uses occur from a variety of sources. Agricultural activity can be the source of complaints and/or real impacts from dust, noise, odors, health hazards, and traffic. Farmers in San Diego and especially those working in the more densely populated coastal zone are aware of the problems that can occur in semi-urban locations. Farming practices have developed so urban dwellers will not be adversely affected by nearby agriculture. These methods include the following: o Use of ground spray rigs rather than airplane or helicopter application of pesticides o Nonoptimal field configuration in order to minimize dust o Use of slower-acting nitrate fertilizers rather than longer- acting organic fertilizers in order to minimize odor o Adjusting work starting and quitting times to more closely coincide with residential population habits Ms. Nancy Rollman 111 September 13, 1988 JJLJL Page 5 o Transporting labor to the field in buses to minimize traffic and parking problems Use of these practices raises production costs. However, farmers have adjusted practices and are able to continue farming without significantly impacting neighboring development. Site-specific impacts can be expected whenever potentially harmful sprays are used, or intended to be used and delayed due to weather conditions. Also, the future field configuration, while similar to leasehold and crop pattern usage, can be expected to restrict movement of farm machinery and labor. The ability of farmers to acquire inexpensive labor would also be reduced. Opening the field area to urban uses would increase the potential for impacts to agriculture as noted above. As mentioned above, farmers experienced in coastal regions are familiar with the problems associated with farming in urbanizing areas and have developed means to maintain some degree of profitability. The primary impacts to farm operations are the significant differentials in water and labor costs in relation to other growing areas. The cumulative effect of urbanization forces water prices ever-higher, yet this result cannot be attributable to any particular development or area in San Diego County. Labor differentials are even less directly tied to local land use issues. However, these two factors, and spiraling land costs, are the principal causes for the declining viability of agriculture in Carlsad and all Southern California. Table 1 RATINGS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO BE ADDED TO CONTRACT AREA Hap Syrebol Happing Unit Acreage Hap Added to Capability Range Area Preserve Classification Site H1C Marina loaay coarse sand, 2-97. slopes 49.39 1115-4(19) Weighted Average Btorie Storie Index Index 54 51.29 Crop Suitability Truck Crops Toiatoes Flowers Fair Not Good (slope) Rated CbB Carlsbad gravelly loany sand, 2-n slopes 1 2.61 IIle-8(19)sandy 23 1.16 Good Not Good Rated 52.00 52.44 Source: Soil Survey of San Diego Area, California, USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1973 CIC Research, Inc. Table 2 RATINGS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO BE REMOVED FROM CONTRACT AREA Hap Synbol Happing Unit Acreage Weighted Renoved Average Map frois Capability Range Storie Storie Area Preserve Classification Site Index Index Crop Suitability MIC Marina loamy coarse sand, 2-9* slopes 2 22.57 IIIs-4119) 3 18.64 CbB Carlsbad gravelly loaay sand, 2-97. slopes 3 5.89 IIIe-B(19) sandy 54 23.43 19.36 23 2.60 Truck Crops Totatoes Flowers Fair ' Not Bood (slope) Rated Good Not Good Rated LeE2 Las Flores loamy fine sand, 15-30X slopes 4.90 VIe-3119) claypan 26 2.45 Not Not Not Rated Rated Rated 52.00 47.85 Source: Soil Survey of San Diego Area, California, USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1973 CIC Research, Inc. Figure I Soil Map Source: Soil Survey of San Digo Area, California, USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1973 CIC Research, Inc. 11 I 1id td i« a APPENDIX A SOIL FATING SYSTEMS SOIL RATING SYSTEMS Soil rating systems are used to describe soils in detail. The soil capability rating system and the Storie Index rating system both describe physical characteristics of a soil and make inferences regarding the potential that a soil has for certain uses. The soil capability rating system usually gives a clearer indication of the agricultural potential of a soil than does the Storie Index rating system. The Storie Index rates a soil on the basis of a defined standard, and must be broken down into its components to obtain specific information about the soil. SOIL CAPABILITY FATING SYSTEM The soil capability system shows, in general, the limitations of a soil when cultivated for field crops and the way the soil responds to management practices. All soil mapping units are grouped at three levels: capability class, subclass, and unit. Classes are indicated by Roman numerals, with Class I soils having few limitations that restrict their use for agriculture. Progressively greater limitations are indicated by higher Roman numerals, with Class VIII soils being restricted to recreation or wildlife habitat uses. Subclasses denote particular risks associated with a soil unit. Risk of erosion is symbolized by a small letter e added to the class numeral. Risk or limitations due to soil surface characteristics are indicated by a small letter s_ added to the class numeral. More specific management requirements for a soil unit are denoted by Arabic numerals after the subclass letter. These numerals, called capability units, represent the kind of limitation responsible for placement of the soil in the capability class or subclass. A capability unit of 3 indicates slow or very slow permeability of the subsoil or substratum. A capability unit of 4 occurs due to the coarse texture of the soil. Nearly impervious bedrock or a hardpan is associated with capability unit 8. STORIE INDEX RATING SYSTEM A second method used to estimate the agricultural potential of soils is called the Storie Index. This index expresses numerically the relative suitability of a soil for general intensive agriculture. Profile characteristics, soil surface texture, slope, and other miscellaneous conditions of the soil are assigned percentages, with the most agriculturally favored condition being 100 percent. These percentage factors are multiplied together and the final Storie Index rating results. Ratings from either system can be grouped to define Agricultural Land under the provisions of the California Land Conservation Act. Agricultural Land includes soils in Capability Classes I through IV, and soils with a Storie Index of 20 percent more. Of course, greater management is necessary for soils with a low Storie Index or with a Capability Unit near IV. Agricultural soils can be further grouped to be called Prime Agricultural Land. This category includes soils with a Storie Index of 80 percent or more, or those in Capability classes I or II. A weighted average Storie Index describes the overall quality of the land in question based on the relative proportions of acreage at given Storie Index levels throughout the site. CROP SUITABILITY In is interpretation of soil characteristics, the Soil Conservation Service provides a suitability evaluation for selected crops commonly grown in San Diego County. Soils are rated good, fair, or are not rated depending on their suitability to production of commercial crops and whether they are employed at all for this purpose. Suitability is based on the following factors: o soil depth o soil rooting depth o surface layer texture o subsoil permeability o subsoil or substratum material o slope Because particular crops produce higher yields on soils with characteristics favoring the biological needs of plants and management practices employed in commercial production, crop suitability ratings can be more descriptive of a soil's value for specific crops than are the Capability Classification or Storie Index systems. A soil can be ideally suited to particular crop and be rated poorly by the two generalized systems which evaluate soils for use by all crops. 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE • jprff j • TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 m^HfaW CfM (619)438-1161 Citj> of Cartebab COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 23, 1988 Mr. Chris Calkins Carltas Company 4401 Manchester Avenue, Suite 206 Encinitas, CA 92024 ECKE GPA Dear Chris: If the City Council approves priority processing for your application at tonight's meeting, it will be based on the following understanding: 1. That the General Plan Amendment designations for the property will be Open Space (OS) for the flower fields and Non-Residential Reserve (NNR) for the entire remainder. In other words, the change from the existing General Plan would be from Residential Medium (RM) and Non- Residential Reserve to Open Space and Non-Residential Reserve. Staff simply will not have time to closely analyze specific designations such as Travel Service and Commercial; in addition, CEQA would require an Environmental Impact Report for those changes. The Local Coastal Plan map would be changed to reflect the agricultural/non- agricultural land swap. 2. That you formally withdraw your tentative map, zone change and hillside permit applications for the Floral Trade Center and agree not to re-submit until after the General Plan Amendment process is completed. 3. That priority processing assumes your consultants will meet our scheduled deadlines. I must also remind you again that priority processing does not in any way guarantee approval of your applications. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, MARTIN ORENYAK Community Development Director 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE . •^TW-jS TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 ^?T*» Jf^ (619) 438-1161 Xj|$7 Citp of Cartebafc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 5, 1988 Christopher C. Calkins Carltas Development Co. 4401 Manchester Avenue, Suite 206 Encinitas, CA 92024 Dear Mr. Calkins: In response to your letter dated August 2, 1988, requesting priority processing of the General Plan amendment application for Carlsbad Ranch, I asked staff to prepare a schedule, which is attached. It appears to me that based on the minimal • time required and staff's workload, the City is unable to meet your processing time requirements. Even if Council directed staff to prioritize processing this application, it still would not be workable because of the Coastal requirements. If you wish to go directly to the Council with your request, you will need to call Ray Patchett, City Manager at 434-2821. Sincerely, MARTIN ORENYAK Community Development Director bjn c: Ray Patchett, City Manager MEMORANDUM AUGUST 5, 1988 TO: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER FROM: NANCY E. ROLLMAN RE: PROCESSING SCHEDULE FOR ECKE GPA/ZC/LCPA Carltas Company recently requested priority processing of their application to meet a December 31st deadline for both City and Coastal Commission approval. Our normal processing procedures, i.e., typically 6 months for a project requiring a Negative Declaration and 10-12 months for an EIR, will not accommodate their request. I have put together an accelerated schedule which would be the minimal time it would take to process the application, which is based on obtaining and reviewing necessary information related to their proposal. That timeline is attached. As you can see, it would take about 16 weeks from the time it became a mandated Council priority to get through the City approval process, based on the following: 1. Upfront, a 6-week LCPA public review notice is required, which has been started. 2. Approximately 8 weeks would be required to produce an agricultural (AG) study and a traffic study. The AG study is required by the LCP to determine those areas best suitable for agriculture, thus allowing those areas to be developed. The AG study would look at soils, microclimate, drainage, and the relationship of the AG lands with surrounding urban uses, i.e., their future compatibility or incompatibility. A qualified agronomist would independently determine the areas least suitable, would come up with various tests for suitability and would then rate the Ecke proposal. The traffic study would be a -broad picture type of report, in terms of actual numbers of trips, but would explain and justify the development scenario proposed versus other options and how they would affect general circulation patterns. 3. CEQA review would require 30 days assuming that a Negative Declaration will be adequate, and not an EIR. The initial study has not been completed yet. During the 30-day period, staff would be reviewing the land use proposals (types of uses) and preparing the staff report. 4. Planning Commission and Council hearings would take about 3 weeks to complete. Since the Coastal process would take 2-3 months after City approval, the project would have to get through the City process by the end of September, which appears impossible, based on the minimal time required and my present workload (also attached for your reference). The only other shortcuts I could suggest might be to have Carltas prepare the AG study for third party review instead of us going through the RFP/consultant selection process, request a shorter CEQA review period from State Clearinghouse, shorten our review time, and have the public hearings one week apart for Commission and Council. NER:af Attachments -2- SEPT. 12 8 WK TO INITIATE/PREPARE AGRICULTURE AND TRAFFIC STUDY OCT. 12 1 WK TO REVIEW STUDIES AND PREPARE CEQA OCT. 18 4 WK CEQA REVIEW/STAFF REVIEW NOV. 18 1 WK TO GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION NOV. 25 2 WK8 TO CITY COUNCIL DEC. 9 8-3-88 TO: MICHAEL FROM: Nancy MY WORKLOAD IF CARLTAS GETS TOP PRIORITY The following is a status report of my current workload which would be affected in the Carltas GPA gets all of my attention for the next 6-8 weeks: 1. Planning Commission Subcommittee — Beach Area Study— implementation of recommendations plus GPA and Zone Change for R-l areas. 2. Blonski - revised plans submitted today. 3. Ponto Drive Specific Plan - property owners are pressuring to get done (3 years in-house). 4. Floral Trade Center - time expires soon - administrative work required. 5. Kelly stockpile permit - EIA/CEQA review. 6. Cobblestone/College Boulevard realignment - Negative Declaration/CEQA review. 7. Cannon Road EIR - execute extension of contract for archaeology. 8. Cannon Road east of EIR - applicant wants to begin EIR process. 9. Redevelopment - 1 day/week 10. Senior Residential Center (Alga/ECR) - revised plans due next week. 11. Baldwin - 4-unit PUD - in 30 day complete process. 12. Farmers Insurance SDP - in 30 day complete process. 13. Airport Centre PUD - in 30 day complete process. 14. Review changes/amendments to old projects - Rice, La Costa Valley Terrace, Rancho La Costa Plaza, Herrick. 15. Bed and Breakfast ZCA CflRlTflScompflnv April 12, 1988 Mr. Martin Orenyak Director of Community Development City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Flower Fields/General Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Orenyak: The purpose of this letter is .to request that the Genera l~~Plan^Amendment^ ("LCPJ^)^and ^"Williamson Act "Contract"Amendmen€ rfor^urpo~ses1!rof» 'conforming5 the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan and Williamson Act Contract governing the Carltas property, which includes the flower fields east of Paseo Del Norte, as depicted on Exhibit "A". Such conformance will also give effect to the express findings of the Citizens Committee for the Review of the Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General Plan, as adopted by the City Council. Initiation^ by^th'e^City^CouncIl^is^proper and consistent with the Growth Management Program, without:*an^adopted^Loc"ar^FacriTities Management Zone plan for the Carltas property, pursuant to the express exception of Section 21.90.030 (C)(8) of the Municipal Code which provides as follows: t "(8). Zone changes or General Plan Amendments necessary to :.' accomplish consistency between the General Plan and zoning, to implement the provisions of the Local Coastal Plan, or which the City Council finds will not increase the public facilities or services, and which are initiated by the City Council or Planning Commission..." The-'GeneralTfrPlan^and^zoning^curreritiy^pFo^^ uses * in^the^areas ^designated-- f or^development?-unde:r^theig?EGS>, and for residential uses in the area designated for agriculture under the LCP and Williamson Contract. The initiation by the City Council of a General Plan Amendment which will conform the General Plan to the Local Coastal Plan and a concommitant amendment to the Local Coastal Plan amendment allocating the development areas as depicted on Exhibit "A" in such a manner as to preserve the front ridge, (commonly referred to as "the Flower Fields") in agriculture and open space, will provide consistency between the General Plan, the Local Coastal Plan and the Williamson Act Contract, all as contemplated under Section21.90.030 (C)(8). 4401 MANCHESTER AVE., SUITE 206 • ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 U.S.A. • (619) 944-4090 * Mr. Martin Orenyak April 12, 1988 Page Two Further, since these changes will merely readjust current areas and development rights, this action will not increase the public facilities or services. The matter has some significant time»i.constrairits since the provisions of the Williamson Act adopted approximately three years ago at the request of the City of Carlsbad, which permit boundary adjustments and thus would permit conformance of the Williamson Act contract administered by the City of Carlsbad to the Local Coastal Plan and General Plan, wMl^expfrelDecember^Sl', 1988 unless an amendment to the boundary has been completed prior to that date. Because of the need for hearings and environmental review by both the City and Coastal Commission, this process must be initiated immediately if implementation is to occur prior to expiration of the legislation. We believe thatj the Growth Management Ordinance is clear and unambiguous and ask that these actions begin immediately in accordance with the attached exhibit. As you are aware, the City Council expressed itself strongly on this matter at the hearing on the Car Country Expansion. This conformance action, while ministerial in character, is clearly of substantial importance to the City and to the Ecke family, owners of Carltas. We believe that this is an action specifically permitted under Section 21.90.030 (C)(8). Please advise us promptly if for any reason you do not believe it appropriate for the City to immediately commence the actions requested above. We will provide any services and materials which you deem appropriate to facilitate proceeding in this manner. Very truly yours, Carltas Company, a California Limited Partnership By: ccc/jm orenyak3 . Ice 1-90-8 cc:, Ray Patchett, City Manager MEMO DATE: OCTOBER 30, 1987 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: GPA/LU 87-1. ZC 87-2. SP-19fCl. CT 87-3. LCPA 87-2 CLCPA 87-2F) . LFMP 87-3 (2). AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE NO. 76-1 - CAR COUNTRY EXPANSION Attached is a copy of the staff report for the above mentioned project. A copy of the revised Zone 3 Local Facilities Management Plan will be delivered on Monday or Tuesday. It has not been included in this packet because staff does not have the needed binders or dividers required for this document. Staff regrets the late delivery of these documents, but due to the number of complex general plan amendments being presented at the November 4, 1987 meeting, it was unavoidable. As we have discussed with members of the Commission previously, this is one of the items that will be continued to the special meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday, November 12, 1987. MH:dm