Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-03-18; City Council; 3314; Proposed "East Carlsbad Annexation No. 2.24"/' 7-A-%atf2: March 18, 1975 .F -. -. ,-- A- Referred to: -- Subject: Proposed East Carlsbad Annexation 2.24 (Temp1 in Heights) submitted by: Planning Director Applicant: - Statement Of the Mattel.: SEE ATTACHED MEMO TO THE CITY MANAGER .. .. i Exhibit: Draft of letter to Orbee Mihalek to he signed by Mayor Fratee 8 Copy of letter to L.4FCO (Skip Schmidt) dated 2-20-75 Letter io Mayor Fraree from LAFCO dated 2-4-75 Staff Recommendations to City Manager: Staff recommends that the City Council, by minute motion, instruct the Mayor .to send a letter to LAFCO stating the Council's reasons as to those socio-economic factors which warrant the approvaJ of Templin Heights. A draft of the proposed letter is attached. .. AB No, Date: March 18, 1975 - .. City . Manager's Recommendation The Planning Director's memo explains the matter in detail. Each of the Council members who were on the City Council at the time of the action should have a copy of the original Environmental Impact Report and may wish to consult that document. If you do not have that report, please contact the Planning Department and they will make it available to you. Council 'Action .3-18-75 Mayor Frazee was instructed to send a letter to LAFCO stating the Council's reasons as to those socio-economic factors which warrant the approval of Templin Heights. -2- L MEMORANDUM March 11, 1975 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM : PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT : PROPOSED EAST CARLSBAD ANNEXATION 2.24 (TEMPLIN HEIGHTS) The Local Agency Formation Commission, in their action of February 3, 1975, requested the City of Carlsbad to indicate those overriding socio-economic factors which in the City's opinion warranted approval of Temnlin Heights. The Staff responded to the Commissions request by letter to Mr. Skip Schmidt, Executive Director of LAFCO on February 20, 1975, offering response to a number of statements made in the LAFCO's staff report. The LAFCO staff is requesting that the City Council formalize a position as to which socio-economic factors were overriding in their consideration. It is the staff's opinion that the single most important overriding con- sideration in the City decision to approve Templin Heights is that the City is in need of adequate low and moderate priced sinqle family housing. In an effort to meet City of Carlsbad housing needs and to meet recommenda- tions in the City of Carlsbad General Plan, the Templin Heights proposal will provide housing in a residential settinq. impacts identified (sewer capacity, density, and air quality) are mitigated by the proposed subdivision. The density is less than General Plan recommendation (4 DU/acre) . Sewer capaci ty currently ava i 1 ab1 e to serve the proposed development and air quality will not be deteriorated in the staff's opinion because of development. The gradinq and other The Staff, Planning Commission and City Council increased the zoning to 8,500 sq. ft. and 9,000 sq. ft. on a large portion of the site to minimize unnecessary grading on the steeper slope within the subdivision boundaries. It is recommended that the City Council respond to the L4FCO with the following statement: "The Ci t,y Council reviewed the Environmental Impace Statement per Carlsbad's Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972 and found the mitigating measures to identified impacts satisfactory. The overriding goal of the General Plan regardincr the subject property is to provide adequate housing, in residential settings, w!?ile relating generally to the natural topoqraphy. The City Believes that the tonina as approved, which requires lower density on the steeper slopes, meets these qoals. does not believe the grading as proposed in the subdivision map is excessive for the proposed development. Furthermore, the City Therefore, the City of Carlsbad is satisfied that out most significant socio-economi c factor ( provi di ng adequate housing ) is met with the Templin Heights proposal." Don A. Agatep PLANNING DIRECTOR DAA/vb - P - (71 41 236-201 5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY e SAN DIEGO, CALlFORNlA 92101 CHAIRMAN WILLIAM J. KARN FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER SECRETARY COUNSEL 5. M. SCHMIDT PORTER 0. CREMANS GREGORY C. M. CARRATT MEMBEAS: . JIM BEAR COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY SOAR0 OF SUPERVISORS DICK BROWN RALPH W. CHAPMAN OTAY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ORBEL V. MIHALEK MAYOR PRO TLM. CITY OF VISTA MAYOR. CITY OF NATIONALCITY CAPTAIN, USN (RET.) KlLe MORGAN RALPH M. PRAY ALTERNATE MEMBERS: KEITH ATHERTON BONITA-SUNNYSIOE FIRE PR OT ECTl ON DISTRICT STANLEY A. MAHH SAW MARCOS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 1 ALAN 8. SKUBA COUNCILMAN, CITY OF ESCONDIDO JACK WALSH COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS February 4, 1975 Honorable R. C. Frazee, Mayor City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Proposed East Carlsbad Annexation No. 2-24 - Templin Heights Dear Mayor Frazee: At its last meeting, February 3, 1975, the Local Agency Formation Commission unanimously directed me to forward this request to the Carlsbad City Council, LAFCO has before it a proposed annexation to your city: East Carlsbad Annexation No. 2.24 - Templin Heights. This proposed development has been approved and prezoned by the City of Carlsbad. certified by your city presents several substantial adverse environmental effects which may result from pro- j ec t implementat ion. The environmental impact report Some of these potential impacts apparently cannot be mitigated, ie. increased traffic on El Camino Real with accompanying air quality implications, increased demand on the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility and growth inducing aspects of a 6,000 foot sewer connection over several large parcels of undeveloped land, Further, the massive amount of grading proposed appears to violate policies outlined by both the Housing and Open Space/ conservation Elements to your General Plan, B In People v. County of Kern (June 1974), the Fifth District Court of Appeals required the Kern County Board of Supervisors to justify their approval of a proposed development for which significant environ- mental issues had been raised. The State EIR Guide- lines refer to preparation of such statements in Sections 15088 and 15146(b). Because of the substantial environmental effects associated with this proposal, TAFCO requests that the Carlsbad City Council forward for the Commission's further information a detailed statement of the reasons why the economic and social value of the project, in its opinion, overcame the significant environmental issues raised. Please include the raw data (and sources) from which any conclusions were drawn. The Commission as a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act is obligated to independently consider environmental factors prior to approval or denial of a proposal before it. It is the Commission's desire, pursuant to the policy presented by the court in the Kern County case, to consider the social and economic infomation evaluated by the Carlsbad City Council in its prior approval of this project. Your early response to this request will greatly facilitate WCO staff analysis and will be necessary if the proposal is to be reconsidered at the Commission's March 3 meeting. Sincerely, Executive Officer SMS :MFN : dg .- DRAFT I Mrs. Orbee V. Mihalek Chairperson Local Agency Formation Commission 1600 India Street San Diego, CA 92101 RE: Proposed East Carlsbad Annexation No. 2.24 (Templi Heights ) The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on February 3, 1975, requested the City of Carlsbad to indicate overriding socio-economic factors which, in the City's opinion, warranted approval of the proposed Templin Heights residential project. The City Council and Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project in conjunction with an Environmental Impact Report as required by CEOA and the City's Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972. Because the City Council and Planning Commission share with LAFCO the environmental concerns which are created as a result of development, the impacts of the project were discussed in detail in the final report: specifically those of grading, sewer and density. CEQA and the City's Environmental Ordinance require the identification of significant adverse environmental effects which may be developed as a result of the project. We must recognize in this context, that any construction activity, public or private, subdivision or bridge leadins to the subdivision, will cause an alteration to the natural landscape. There, the siqnificance of the impact must be identified and usually significance is based on those unusual environmental features which may be destroyed or which cannot be retained as a result of the project. Your staff quotes the case of People vs Kern County as a decision which could be applied to Templin Heights. There is, however, substantial difference between Environmental impacts of Kern and Templin. First the environmental issues identified in Kern were significant: A California Condor habitat, youth group campgrounds, marshes, a high land valley unique to the area, etc. In comparison, the Templin project does not contain anything physically and environmentally unique or different that is not found elsewhere in the region. The land is covered with native California grasses, shrubs, and a small stand of Eucalyptus trees. slopes ranging for 5 to 15+ percent. proposed by Temp1 in will result in significant adverse effects especially when compared to the environmental impacts of the Kern case. The topography is gently rolling with The City does not think the project as Additionally, Kern County was challenged because the EIR process bad not been followed as required by law. requirements outlined by CEQA and the City's Environmental Ordinance. The City Staff sent the draft EIR on Templin to your staff for review and comnent. the final EIR as certified by this body. In our belief, the EIR process was sound and provided for input and discussion required by CEQA. not so in Kern. Templin on the other hand, did follow the The comments received were then addressed and incorporated into This was By letter to your staff, February 20, 1975, the Planning Director responded to each of the issues raised by your staff's report of February 3, 1975. Issues relating to sewer, density and grading were addressed in detail, especially as they related to the environmental impact, General Plan and mit- igating measures. The Templin Heights project does have environmental impact as does any other project. on an eighty-five acre residential project that will provide needed housinq for the City, and the degree to which any grading can be minimized in light of normal single family subdivision design. Grading is an issue. However, grading of any type to accomodate a subdivision will result in the alteration of topography. bad, especially if there are no unique or special topographic characteristics which are identified on the project site. grading as an environmental impact is relative and we do not feel that Templin possesses a serious or significant threat to the environment. We question however, the seriousness of the impacts The movement of earth in the City's opinion is not necessarily Therefore the seriousness of The City's General Plan provides for a number of findings prior to any approval of a project. statements and guide1 ines of the Open Space and Conservation Element. The LAFCO staff states that the project appears to contradict Specifically, - 2- that grading should maintain the appearance of natural hillsides. be pointed out, that in and of itself, retention of natural hillsides is a consideration that cannot be taken out of context. The entire General Plan, including Housing Element, Open Space and Conservation, Land Use, Geologic Hazards, must be considered and the project compared to all the pro- visions of the General Plan, not just the retention of natural hillsides. For instance, the Housing Element provides that all residents 'of the City of Carlsbad should have access to adequate housing within a price range they can afford. enhanced by providing necessary amenities and service for the residents of Carlsbad. providing housing in the City should not lose sight with the.ret'entian of natural topography nor should it lose sight of preservation of geoqraphic and natural resources. It must Secondly, it provides that the environmental qual i ty'sf-tkousina can be Additionally, the Housing Element recommend ed that an effort of The Open Space and Conservation Element on the other hand states that the City should prevent incompatible development of areas that should be pre- served or regulated for conservation, publ ic health and/or publ ic safety purposes. Additionally the open space document requires the coordination of open space and other land use for the mutual enhancement and creation of "Human" urban environment. ly balance of both public and private land use within convenient and compati- ble locations throughout the City so as to protect and ehhance the envir- onment and the character and image of the community. Land use also speaks to the preservation of natural resources and fragile environmental and ecological areas. Templin Heights development meets the intent of each of these goals. The Land Use Element provides for the order- It is the City's considered opinion that the proposed The project provides for critically needed, moderate priced, single family housing. The subdivision is located in an area that will logically extend urban services. Provision for Pedestrian ways and other open spaces are made, density (3.14 DU/acre) is consistent with the Land Use Element 0-4 DU/acre. There- fore placed in context with all General Plan documents, the Templin Heights project is consistent and satisfy's the General Plan Goals and Objectives. It is not being located so as to promote Urban Sprawl. The other issues raised by your staff in their report of February 3, 1975, have been sufficiently addressed by the City's Staff Report of February 20, -3- 1975. be weighed against the contribution that a 260 unit subdivision will make. Two hundred sixty units and their do not seem to compare to the relationship of air quality and the impact of a major north-south arterial. of some 260 dwelling units cannot compare to the contributions generated by Industrial Employment base located to the South and the use of El Camino Real as a major arterial. of the El Camino Real Basin will be adversely affected by 260 dwelling units. Sub-regional air quality, which appears to be an issue, again has to inpact on air quality along El Camino In other words, the contribution to air pollution Therefore, we do not believe that the airiquality In conclusion, the City Council is of the opinion that the Templin Heights project, when reviewed in conjunction with General Plan provision, and the needs of the Community, is a positive addition. The critical need for moderately priced housing and the relationship of grading to meet the housing are important considerations. Assuming that the adverse impacts identified in the EIR are potentially significant, the City Council is of the opinion that the environmental considerations are overriden by the need for moderately prices housing within the City. potentially adverse are not so significant as to preclude approval of the proposed project. It is also the City's opinion that the impacts identified as Sincerely , Robert C. Frazee Mayor , City of' Carl sbad DAA/vb - 4- ., P Local Agency Formation Commission !!r. S.19. Schmidt, Executive Director 1500 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92'101 RE: Proposed East Carlsbad Annexation No. 2.24 - TEMPLIN HEIGHTS The local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) was given a staff presentation on East Carlsbad Annexation 2.24 (Templin Heights) February 3, 1975. LAFCO continued the Public Hearing until lcrarch 3, 1975 p2r Staff's recommendation and requested the City of Carlsbad to present further information on the Social-Economic factors which were over-riding considerations in approving Templin Heights. The request was based on identified significant Environ- mental Impacts contained in Templin Heights' Certified EIR. The LAFCO Staff Report outlined the major impacts of: a> Density i b) Sewer Capacities c) Grading s d) Air Quality During the EZR review process, directed by the Carlsbad Planning Departm2nt, a copy of the preliminary EIR was forwarded to the LAFCO Staff for review and comment. Your Staff responded by a letter datod July 31, 1974 and requested elaboration on the fo'florv- ing impacts: a) The cumulative effects of the project; b) The impacts on public services, especially fire, police, c> The growth inducement of a 6,000 ft. sewer extznsion to I water and sewer; Kelley Drive; d) The impacts of the proposed grading of the project, with a view toward mitigating measures and alternative sit2 designs which woul d reduce those impacts. I' Pag2 2 - t 7' 1n3 LAFCO comments, as we11 as other a~cncy comments, were aadrgssed il:/ the Staff and incorporatzd into the final EIR approved by ths City Council January 7, 7975. The City ~ould like to make the foilowing comments on the January 27, 1975 Staff Report presented to LAFCO: a) Density: The LAFCO report stated proposed densities of 4.5-5 dxelling units per acre. The Carlsbad Planning Department Staff Report of November 12, 1974, stated the densities proposed for Templin Heights were 3.14 dwelling units per acre. The densities outlined in. the Carlsbad Staff Report derived by using the recently adopted Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element which provides for an average residential density of 0-4 dwelling units per gross acre. San Diego County General Plan calls for rural residential and the corresponding zoning is E1A - Residential Estates, two dwelling units per acre. The County's Land Use recommendation and zoning have been in existence for a number of years. The City of Carlsbad and LAFCO, on the other hand, consider the Templin property to be :vithin the Carlsbad Sphere of Influence. The parcel currently abuts the City of Carlsbad City limits on three sides; West, North and East, and is completely within Carlsbad' "Hole in the Donut" (a large County Island). As a result of the Templin Heights location and relation- ship to the incorporated City, the property has always been within Carlsbads' planning area. Therefore, in a71 the City's planning studies, the Ternplin Heights parcel is identified. The property is currently shown as low- density residential, 0-4 dwelling units per acre on the Carlsbad land Use Element of the General Plan. Additionally the City of Carlsbad is the only logical servicing agency for sewer, police, fire, etc. b) Encina Sewer Capacities: The LAFCO report assumes that Templ4n Heights and the adjoining 850, acre Calavera Hills Planned Community and the nearby 100 acre, 506 unit Planned Community are going to build out and that Carlsbads share of Encina Water Quality Control*Facility is going to remain static at 3.4 MGD. The three projects wjll, in fact, add a potential requirement of 1.5 MGD when they are completed and occupied. Templin Heights will probably be built during a 3-4 year period and have a sewer requirement of approxi- mately 90,000 MGD. t Carlsbad's shl~e in tho incina Plant will not remain static at 3.4 i4GD but will be phasid over-time to meet denafids;. The antjcipated Phas? IiI expansion of the Encii7a Plan wfll add approximatzly 2.0 FIGD to the City's current sharz, thereby providing sewer capacity to me5t potential demands until the mid 1980's. If all the presr?ntly undev?loped, zoned, and subdivided land in the Cities of San Diego, Chula V,ista, Carlsbad, County Service areas, etc. were to demand sewer service . now, there would not be enough sewer capacity nor the ability to provide sewer treatment in any of the agencies sewer treatment facilities to meet the demand. In approving Master Plans such as the Calavera Hills Planned Community, the City has been careful not to approve or guarantee development rights but only approve a planning concept. c) Grading: The Environmental Impact Report identified as a major impact, the alteration of the natural topography by moving 1,000,000 ccbic yards of earth per lot. The cost of grading therefore, based on current engineering estimates, could be $1,500 per lot, not $6,000 per lot. This cost is not abnormal when considering grading in an average subdivision throughout the county. We recognize the value of considering lot and grading relationships. The City would ask that you also consider that if grading is reduced to retain natural topographic configurations, increased lot size could occur and the relative cost per lot increased. The rationale then is, there are fewer lots divided into total project land costs and public improvements. Consequently fewer lots can conceivably increase the cost of housing, not decrease costs. The City has considered the alternative of cluster housing recommended by the Housing Element. However, current Council attitudes on housing favor utilization of Standard Subdivision design to meet housing needs and demands. This is based in part on the existing levels of cluster housing already built or contemplated with- in the City and the need to strike a balance. The Goal of the Housing Element is to provide adequate housing for all Citizens of Carlsbad regardless of race, sex or socio-economic level. Carlsbad's average single family home sells for $40,000/45,000. Templin Heights pro?os2s a salzs program that nil1 range from $29,@00/ 38,000. It is the opinion of the City that the Templin Heights proposal is mezting Gcals of the Housing Element and the t!oiisincj needs of Carlsbad Citizens at this time. 1 b- Page 4 - Eucalyptus Trezs/Traffic: The developer is proposing to retain the stand of Eucalyptas trees along the east2rly boundary at staff's dir2ction. The subdivision design locates the trees in a landscaped roadway median to be built in Elm Avenue. It is anticipated that the roadway will be a two-way couplet (crith different surface elevations, thereby allowing the opportunity for keeping the trees in tact. Traffic generated by the Templin Heights development and the adjoining developments will have the availability of 4 major points of ingress and egress when the 36,030 average daily trips (ADT's) are generated. The points of area access are the extension of Elm Avenue, Colleg2 Boulevard, Cannon Road, and existing El Camino Real. The 36,000 ADT's will not be added only to €1 Camino Real but the other major trafficed routes as well. The pro- posed design parameters of the 4 routes, 84' right of way (ROW) - 102' ROW, will easily accomodate 10,000 AilT's each. The Council has identified the major impacts and offered satisfactory mitigation measures to those impacts. The mitigating ni2asures the I City feels offset the identified impacts are: I t4 PA C T M IT I &AT I I~G 1.1 EASU Fi E S 1) Grading . 2) Sewer The City Council and Planning Commission approved larger lots, 8,500 sq. ft. and 9,000 sq. ft. not 7,500 sq. ft. as requested by the applicant. Potential lower housing cost $29,000/39,000 - majority at 829,000/32,000. Sprinkler and Landscaped slopes. Landscaped pathway and rest area (% acre) for pedestrian/equestri, purposes adjacent to SDG&E right of way. Retention of EGcalyptus trees. a) Phaszd Residential -Commercial- b) Phased szwer capacity increases Industrial development, in the Encina Water Pollution F “, . Sehe r (con ti nu ed Control facility. i‘roposed PSase III expansion would add approximately 2.0 HGD ‘cy early ’1380. 3j Trzffic/Air PollutSon a) 4 major access pofnts vs. one. b) Shared construction of Elm Avenue. c) Dispersion of traffic routes and subsequent concentration of potential air pollution. Therefore, it is the opinion of the City of Carlsbad that the Templin Heights project has net the requirements of CEQA and the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance and that the City has offered mitigating measures to identified impacts simultaneously meeting the Goals and objectives of the City of Carisbad General Plan, Land Use Element, Housing Element, Open Space/Conservation Element. 1 Si ncere’iy, & &La.- ,A Donald A. AaateP PLANNING DIGECTOR OAA/vb