HomeMy WebLinkAboutMP 139; Rancho Carrillo Master Plan; Master Plan (MP) (23)RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM SEP 05 1973
CITY OP CARLSBAD
DATE: September 5, 1973 Winning Dtpirtmtnt
TO: Planning Director
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Letter of September 4, 1973, From Byron White
re Master Plan for Carrillo Ranch
The City needs to determine its position in
regard to the Carrillo Ranch Master Plan and the current
solution to the parks problem suggested by Mr. White. It
may not be possible to resolve all the problems in time
to allow the first tentative map to proceed. It certainly
will be possible to require the dedication of 10 acres as
a condition of the first tentative and leave the resolution
of the overall problem to the future. That course of
action, however, requires that the developer trust that
the City will behave responsibly in the future in arriving
at the agreements necessary to credit the balance of the
10 acres over and above the park-in-lieu fees require-
ments on the first tentative to the park fee requirements
for future tentatives. In the event he is not prepared
to proceed on that basis, it will, of course, be necessary
to effectuate the appropriate agreements prior to the
approval of the tentative map. Practically, it may not
be a problem because the actual dedication will not take
place until the final map stage and by then we certainly
should have resolved the overall problem. The 10 acre
dedication could be required. The developer Would then
have the alternative of letting his tentative map lapse
if he and the City could not reach an agreement and he
did not wish to lose the 10 acres.
The mechanics for accomplishing the objective
for the Carrillo Ranch property will also apply to the
La Costa situation which has yet to be resolved. It may
be necessary to consider an amendment to the park-in-lieu
fees ordinance. These matters will have to be resolved
in meetings with La Costa and Carrillo Ranch and with
consultations with the staff.
I would like to make the following particular
comments about the points raised in Mr. White's letter:
Planning Director
Page Two
September 5, 1973
1. There is no objection to making the
dedication of the 10 acres a condition of the first
tentative map. The dedication on the map would have to
be unequivocal with a policy of title insurance showing
fee title in the city also required. However, the
resolution of approval could indicate the City's intent
to apply the excess of land over and above the requirements
of that map to future maps.
2. Your staff should verify once and for
all the exact amount of park land dedication required.
The 3.1% land requirement applies to a development of
one dwelling unit for each 8,000 to 8,900 square feet.
Your staff should verify those figures as applicable
to the ranch project.
3. The valuation of the improvements is
the most difficult problem to be overcome. The ordinance
at this time does not provide for any credit to be given
to a developer for improvements on the land to be
dedicated. We will have to determine whether the require-
ments of Section 20.28.100 for payment of fees can be
satisfied by transfer of an equivalent value in improve-
ments. Assuming we can do that, we then are faced with
devising the mechanics for evaluating the improvements.
4. I am not clear on the purpose for having
a Parcel K and Parcel K^l.
5. Basically the developer's view on this
question is in accord with our discussions. The land
will have to be banked and credited against the require-
ments of individual developments. It is likely that a
tentative at some point will exhaust the balance in the
bank without fully satisfying the park requirements and
we will have to provide a way to shift over and draw
on Parcel K-l. The bank will contain not only land,
but also a dollar equivalent for improvements and the
agreement will have to determine how much of each and
when these two accounts would be drawn upon.
6. We should discuss this point amongst
ourselves. My first impression is that I don't see any
objection to allowing the value of the improvements to
fluctuate assuming we can arrive at a sound method of
valuation. That is assuming the value of the land will
increase in an amount equal to or greater than the value
of the improvements. It might be simpler to value the
Planning Director
Page Three
September 5, 1973
improvements at the time the first map is filed and credit
as much of that amount as possible against the first
development. This would eliminate the problem for the
future.
The balance of his letter relates to policy
matters and planning considerations. The Master Plan
as ultimately prepared should, of course, contain all
of the requirements of the P-C ordinance.
Basically, it appears that the City and the
developer are in accord as to how to proceed. The City
itself needs to determine how to accomplish the objective
considering both Carrillo Ranch and the La Costa problem.
VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR.
City Attorney
VFB,Jr/mem
cc: City Manager
Parks & Recreation Director