Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-09-18; City Council; 2153; Zongker condominium project1HE CITY Of- CARLSPAD, CALIFORNIA Agenda Bill ^.ji./S^9.'. Date Sept. 18, 1973 Referred To:3~^ CITY COUNCIL Subject: CASE NOS_ .EiS-37.and CT 72-4 - Request for Submitte^" Acceptance of Final" Environmental Report and • . M { Consideration of Tentative Map CCT 72-4)" to allow PLANNING COMMISSIO: a condominium project (WILLIAM L. ZONGKER) on property nf nirl Highway 1 fljl, _, n^v^hgrly of Batiqui to s -Lagoon . Statement of the Matter At their duly" noticed regular meeting of August 28, 1973, tfte- Planning Commission considered the sub jact applications for Acceptance of Final EIR and consideration of' tentative flap (Extension) to allow a condominium project. " " After hearing and" considering all testimony, the Planning Commission voted to accept the Final EIR and to recommend DENIAL of the request for extension of Tentative Map to the City Council. . - Exhibit . 1. Certificate of Ownership '• 2. -Sta-ff Report dated August 28, 1973 . ..' - 3. Memorandum to City Council dated September 7, 1973 4. E.I.R. Information • 5. Appl i cants Exhibits _ ...-.."- 6. City Council Resolution No. ' '_.'____ Staff Recommendat ions to the City Manager Planning Commission's reasons for denial set out in Memo dated September 7, .1973. NO. ' ' . Date: oept. 18, 1973 City Manager's Recommendation This matter is on the agenda as a matter: that was discussed at the Planning Commission level. ..The Planning Comm'iss'ion . " 'had before it the matter of accepting a final E'lR and making .a recommendation to the City-Council^regarding extension of the-tentative map. The Planning Commission approved the. . final EIR and recommended denial of the te.native map. * . * . . The City Council', therefore, will' have the'decision as to whether to abide by the Planning Commission recommendation to de'ny the extension or .the City Council may "take action to " . extend the tentative map'.- • It is the recommendation as stated, of th'e Planning Commission that the extension-be denied and the staff concurrs for the reasons set forth under Section B of*the staff report. Council'Action1 --"'—""•- -""' L ~ ._ __ - ...--- _i ^ % 10-2-73. Following discuss/ion, the matter was continued to allow-. Mr. Zongker-an'opportunity ta modify negative aspects of the proposed development. -2- CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR AUGUST 28, 1973 CT72-4 TO:PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT ON: CONSIDERATION OF E.I.R. CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION CASE NOS: ENVIRONMENTAL IM CARLSBAD TRAC"/TO. 72-4 NO. 37 APPLICANT: William L. Zongker, President Coninmark P.O.Box 99172 San Diego, California, 92109 I. GENERAL INFORMATION A- Request: The applicant requests acceptance of a Final Environmental Impact Report and approval of a one (1) year extension of Tentative Map CT 72-4. The subject site is located on a portion of Section 33 and land lying westerly thereof, and southerly of Section 32, Township '12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, to the mean high tide line in the City of Carlsbad. B. Background: Preannexational zoning and a Master Plan for this site was approved in -1971. A Specific Plan and Tentative Map was approved in May, 1972. The owners at that time were L. C. Guthrie, Jr. and R. C. Anderson. On February 21, 1973, a letter from Rick Engineering, on behalf of Mr. Zongker, was received requesting a one year extension of the tentative map. Since an extension is a discretionary action, it was determined that a Final Environmental Impact Report would have to be prepared prior to any City action. C. Zoning and General Plan: !• Zoning: Existing: P-C Proposed: P-C Adjacent: North: R-A-10 (State Beach) East: R-4 (County) South: R-4 (County) West: Pacific Ocean 2. General Plan: There is no land-use designation on the adopted General Plan for this area. The land directly to the east of Carlsbad Blvd. is designated as Medium Density Residential (22-47 d.u./acre). D. Public Notification: The required public notices have been published and mailed regarding these items. II. CONSIDERATION OF E.I.R. MO. 37 A. Project Description: Pages 1-8 of the draft EIR provide an adequate description of the project. Two points worth noting are: 1. On page 5., under "Objectives", it is pointed but that "the site is subject to beach erosion and the impact of adverse tidal and atmosperic actions which in combination, are depleting the real property in question." 2. On page 8, the first paragraph suggests that a recommended alternative "is to reduce the total development yield from 81 units to 40 units, with all units restricted to two stories in height. The applicant is willing to accept this reduction in density." B. Existing Environmental Setting: Pages 8-20 of the draft EIR provides this information. Of prime interest, and importance, is the discussion on pages 10-12 regarding the "littoral processes" involved with the "beach strand" on which the property is located. C. Identify Environmental Impacts: Pages 20-29 of the draft EIR describe the environmental impacts expected to occur as a result of this project. As pointed out on page 25, the "primary effect from the proposed action will be to stabilize the physical conditions of the site by the re- plenishment of beach sand in conjunction with the proper design and construction of protective measures including the provision of a concrete seawall on continuous and spread footings. The change from a natural site to a developed site having 33 percent of its surface area covered with impermeable surfaces will have an impact on run-off and drainage. All run-off will be designed to discharge into the ocean." Staff questions the statement on page 29 that the "development plan introduces a benefit from a traffic point-of-view in that it makes provisions for 42 off-street parking spaces which can be used by the public in conjunction with their day trips to the beach." Staff would suggest that increased accessibility would increase demand (traffic) proportionately. D. Adverse and Irreversible Effects of the Project: This topic is discussed on pages 36-37 of the draft EIR.Staff feels that the greatest irreversible effect of the project will be to irrevocably commit this area to high density residential uses. As pointed out in the description, South Carlsbad State Beach lies directly to the north of the site and the County is developing a public beach area directly to the south. Also, refer to the attached letters from the State Department of Parks and Recreation and the San Diego Coast Regional Commission. -2- E. Short and Long-Term Use of Land: This information is discussed on pages 35-36 of the draft EIR. F. Growth Inducement Impact: This impact is adequately described on Page 37 of the draft EIR. The expected growth inducement effects caused by this project alone would be limited to the property to the east, presently in the County. 6. Mitigative Measures: The proposed measures to mitigate the expected environmental impacts of this project are discussed on page 30 of the draft EIR. Staff would raise two questions regarding measures (d) and (e): 1. If the Coastal Commission does not allow the construction of the seawall (an item they have been most reluctant to approve thus far) could the proposed development still safely withstand the described "high surf hazard"? 2. Without the designed effect of the seawall, how would the applicant propose to replenish the sand lost by erosion? H. Alternative Choices: Alternatives to the proposed development are discussed on pages 30-34 of the draft EIR. On page 32, it is pointed out that a "viable alternative to the use now proposed" is for the State or County to purchase the site as an extension of their present facilities. This alternative is also mentioned in the attached letter from the State Department of Parks and Recreation. I. Summary: Staff feels that development of this site would very likely cause substantial environmental impacts due to: 1. Unstable soil composition of the site. 2. Unpredictable surf and atmosperic conditions creating potentially unsafe conditions for residents and property.i 3. Substantial change of the existing and surrounding land uses. J. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ACCEPT this Environmental Impact analysis, along with the draft EIR and the comments received from the reviewing agencies as the Final Environmental Impact Report for the afore-described project known as "Beach Colony". III. CONSIDERATION OF EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE MAP NO. CT 72-4 A. Analysis: Section 20.16.010 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code states that if a "final map is not recorded within one year from the date of the approval of the tentative map, such map shall be considered abandoned. The City Council, may, however, grant not more than one extension for a period of not more than one year on such map". Section 11549.5 of the Subdivision Map Act states that the "governing body of a City or County shall deny approval of a final or tentative subdivision map if it makes any of the following findings: a. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. d. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a governing body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Section 19.04.210 of the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972 states that the City Council or Planning Commission may disapprove a project if they find that the adverse environmental consequences of the project out- weigh the positive aspects of the project. A formal finding is not^required. B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the extension of Tentative Map No. CT 72-4 BE DENIED. Justification is based upon: 1. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development described in the tentative map (the draft EIR also makes this statement). 2. The proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. 3. Conditions of the site are likely to cause serious public health problems. -4- Staff would again like to emphasize that they are basing their re- commendation of Denial on the project as approved in 1971 and 1972. Both the draft EIR and the applicant (through conversations with staff) have stated a complete willingness and intention to substantially revise the project from what was originally approved. Because of this fact, Staff would also recommend that they be instructed to investigate the possibility and proceed, if found desirable, with the holding of a public hearing to revoke the approved Master Plan and Specific Plan for the original development proposal. This would leave the new applicant unhindered to make new applications. ATTACHMENTS Agenda Btll submitted to City Council for extension, dated May 1, 1973 Memo dated May 1, 1973 for time extension . Letter from Rick Engineering dated Feb. 20, 1973 requesting extension. Various letters from agencies with recommendations on this extension request. (8)