Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-01-20; City Council; 6484; CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND BATIQUITOS LAGOONd ( B 0 ( r. CITY OF CARLSBAD IN P 'F I AL AGENDA BILL NO: ($qpq DEPT. HD. A4# D?.TE : JANUARY 20, 1981 CTY. ATTY. _sc i r(l DEPARTMENT : PLANNING CTY, MGR '6- - SUBJECT : THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND BATIQUITOS LAGOON STATE-WNT OF THE MATTER: Carlsbad's Sphere of Influence relative to Batiquitos Lagoon will be reviewed LAFCO when the agency decides the issue of San Dieguito's Sphere of Influence. review will take place subsequent to the county's completion of the San Diegui incorporation feasibility study scheduled for January 1981. The feasibility s may require a 2! month review so that LAFCO may schedule consideration of the Spheres for sometime in March 1981. The County planning staff has indicated that they will not recommend San Diegu Sphere boundaries in the feasibility study but will recommend that LAFCO restudy the existing Spheres of Influence (especially Carlsbad's Sphere relati. to Batiquitos Lagoon) when LAFCO decides the San Dieguito incorporation. It should be noted that San Dieguito is recommending that their northern boundary (and thus Carlsbad's southern boundary) be adjusted to the middle of Batiquito Lagoon (see attached letter from the Leucadia Town Council), The attached staff report analyzes the pros and cons of various alteration sce to the existing Carlsbad sphere. The report was considered by Planning Commis at their November 26, 1980 meeting. The Commission voted 6-0 to adopt the sta recommendation (i.e, no adjustment of the Carlsbad Sphere). Fiscal Impact Staff has no anticipation of precise fiscal impacts at this time. EXHIBITS 1. Staff Report dated November 26, 1980 2. October 15,. 1980 communication from Anne Olmstead, Leucadia Town Council 3. RECOiYWENDATION Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached resolution calling for no adjustment of Carlsbad's Sphere of Influence relative to Batiquitos Lagoon. -9 Resolution No. 6 qo 9 Council Action: 1-20-81 Council adopted Resolution No. 6409, supporting the retention of the exi Sphere o:E Influence boundaries in the Batiquitos Lagoon area. e 0 % STAFF REPORT (5 DATE : November 26, 1980 TO : Planning Commission FROM : Planning Department SUBJECT: THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND BATTQUITOS L&G( - I RACKGROUND On June 5, 1978, the San Diego LAFCO adopted. a resoluton establishing Carlsbad's sphere of influence which inciuc7,ed the entire Batiqui-tos Lagoon and the unincorporated territoi northsrly of the lagoon arid southerly of the current city limits. The precise southerly boundaries were established as follows: East of C1 Camino Real the sphere is cotermj-riot with existing city boundaries; between El Camino Real- and Interstate 5 (1-5) the sphere follows the southerly side of La Costa Avenue; and westerly of Interstate 5 the sphere follows the southerly shore of Batiquitos Lagoon. On October i5, 1980, Anne Olnsted, President. of the Leucadi: Town Council. requested a meeting with LAPCO to discuss theii reeomiendation that the northern boundary of the prcpo' -d incorporated city of San Eieguito be established at the middle of Batiquitos Lagoon (see attachmen'r. 1) D Their rationale was to provide San Disguito with strong input intc future planning for the lagoon. 11. ANALYSIS ---- - Planning Issues LAFCO consider& the following critical issues in establishing Carlsbad's sphere relative to Bntiyuitos Lagoon : 1) The existing land use was devoted to agricultural uses and open space. Two major subdivisions are located on the lagoon fringe within Carlsbad. 2) Carlsbad's General Plan designates the north shorc of the lagoon for residential uses ranging in densities from 10-20 units/acre west of 1-5 to 0-20 units/acre east of 7-5. The lagoon and its shore line are designated for open space. The General Plan also designates two commercial uses adjacent to the lagoon. A small area (approximat1 9 acres) near the north shore is designated for --- -- 0 0 recreational comtercial and.. a G .5 acre plot at thc extreme southeast section of the lagoon is designz for travel services. The Gefleral Plan also place: a "Special Treatment" overlay on the entire 1.agoor area. This designation indicates that further study will be required before specific land uses are established i.n the lagoon area. Furthermore, the designation discourages uses inconsistent, wit1 the purpose and intent of the Open Space and Fark: an.6 Recreation (currently in revision) Elements. 3) Services are not provided in the lagoon area because of agricuit.ura1 and open space uses and the generzl lack of roads, However, the praxinit: of "in-place" services provided by Carlsbad ard the Carlsbad Municipal Water District make Czrlsb; the logical jurisdiction to provide urban-level services as the lagoon area develops, 4) The lagoon area is within a singl.e zone that has a con~unity iden.tFty which is alj-gnel! with the cli of Carlsbad (as identified by LAFCO) .) In additj.on. to the above critical issues I LAFCO concluded that relative to future park lands acquisition and wa.ter quality and wetlands (lagoor;) management, it wou.E:3 be desk; rmnagemen-i; agency e A?iotf.er issue "chat was not addressed by LAFCO, but that is an importamt planning issue is Carlsbad' s sphere relative tc La Costa Avenue. La Costa Avenue is designated a major arterial i.n th.e city's Circulation Element. The road serve: as the major access liizk between La Costa and 1-5, The future development of La Costa will probably necessitate thc upgrading and widening of La Costa Avenue e Future inprovemi of La Costa Avenue and their timing both to the city's satisfaction may not be feasible if the road was out of Carlsbad's sphere of influence. I11 .' DISCUSSION The city has several options available (outlined below) relative to LAFCO'S forthcoming review of the city's sphere and LAF'CO'S boundary decision for San Dieguito. 1) Th.e ci.ty could concur with San Dieguito's recommendatii L L.o have the lagoon under a single land use jurisdicticn or I th,at the sphere boundary be adjusted to the middle of the lagoon. Effect: -- the future planning for the lagoon. At present, responsibility for lagoon management has not been established. In addition to Carlsbad (by vitue of the current sphere) other agencies may have ownership and/ This option would create joint control over e -2- e 0 0 am3 jurisdiction over major portions of the lagoon and adjacent wetl-ands . -I Diisadvant.ages : programs would! become difficult to implenent because of the shared jurisdiction. Land acquisition by the Count Department of Parks and Recreation for a future park ma:y be impeded if the area were under a multiple jurisc Thle city would have no control over future improvement: of La Costa Avenue. Currently La Costa Avenue is in the county, but within the city's sphere, Until this situation is modified either by armekation or an adjusl of the sphere, improvement and maintenance of the road re:mains the responsibi1it.y of the county. If the road. were in another jurisdiction (i.e., San Dieguito) tile than-ce that Carlsbad could exert any influence relativc to future improvements would be greatly reduced. Water qua I.ity and lagoon managenent 2) The sphere could be adjusted to follow the south shore line of the lagoon between El Camino Real and the coa.64 Effect: --I- under a single jurisdiction (Carlsbad) * Responsibilit] for maintenance and improvement of La Costa Avenue wou: then rest with the newly incorporated city of San DFeguito. There would be no change of t.he curent sph: This option would probably leave the lagoon Wesf. Of 1-5. Benefits: Carlsbad would be relieved of the f ina:icial responsibility for the maintenance and improvernitnt of La. Costa Avenue. (This would also.apply to the opticn 81, Financial responsibility would not become a real u~til Carlsbad annexed the land that contains the roac? Di.Sadvantages: The city would not have control over t improvement and maintenance of La Costa Avenue. ci.kjj would not have control over land use decisions for several properties along the southerly shore of th lagoon. Those properties include the former "park and ri.de" lot east of 1-5 and the land at the northwest intersection of La Costa Avenue and 51 Camino Real. T' shoreline is designated for open space in the General while the intersection is designated for travel servic open space immediately adjacent to the lagoon. Adjust the sphere to be coterminous with the current city boundaries. Effect: The city would lose approximately 800 acres from its sphere. The ci ty would no longer be a responsible agency for the management of the lagoon. However, the lagoon would remain under a single juris- diction (San Gieguito) for planning purposes. The cit could lose meaningful input into the future planning a development of La Costa Avenue. ---.- 7 The 3) ---r -3- 0 .. Benefits: burden of providing services to the lagoon area, Disadvantages -- : All of the disadvantages outlined above would also apply to this option. Furthemore, the city would lose potential revenue generators relative to the development of thc county laid.; north of the lagoon. In addition, the boundary created by this option would not be a physical limit. Ph;isical boundaries (e.g., streets, rj dges I waterways, etc e ) make the development of incompatible land uses on each side of t5e boundary nore difficult = No adjustment of the present sphere. Effect: _--" The lagoon and the properties south of the city iircits as well as La Costa Avenae would remain within the county's jurisdiction until annexed by Carlsbad, -__I_ Renef its: The city when it annexed the unincorporated portion of the sphere would have direct coiitrol over the future :,E La CQsta Avenue east of 1-5. The lagoon would remain under a sinqle jurisdiction. could realize revenues followj.ng that annexation of thc lands south or' the existing city limit. Disadvan'caqes: The diszdvantages of this option arc tied to annexation of the unincorporated land within the sphere. land it might not be ab12 to generate enough revenue tc sen7e the area. This is primarily because of both the current tax split situation with the county and the policy of the Coastal Commission rqarding the develop of agricultural lands. favorable tax split and if the Coastaf- Commission wcul: allow development of the unincorporated area generally consistent with the city's General Plan, the city may be able to generate enough reveaue to make the provisi of services in the area cGst effective. The actual cost of provding services in the area has not been determined. However, several very rough estimates hav been made relative to La Costa Avenue. For example, the cost of improving the road to provide four travel lanes could range between $830,000 to $1.25 million (1-980 dollars) depending upon the amount of grading an upgrading to bring the roa-d to city standards. In addition, it could cost the city approximately $35,000 per year (1980 dollars) to maintain the road (this f:igure does not include patching and other repairs), The cost of cther city services have not been estimate If the city postponed annexation hut retained its existing sphere at least until the current tax split and Coastal Commission problems were resolved, the cit could better stuciy the economic feashility of said annexa tion. The city would be relieved of the financial ---- 4) ?-'he city --I--_I - If the city annexed the unincorporated If the city could negotiate a * -4- 0 e IV . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The current Carlsbad sphere of influence underwent full environmental review which was certified by LAFCO (Lead Ager prior to their determinztion of the sphere. determined that the existing Carlsbad sphere should remain unaltered, then the initial EIR would apply and no new environmental review would be necessary or required. LAFCO were to alter the existiny Cdrlsbad sphere new enviror rev5-ew would probably be required. review would be t1.e resyonsibility of LAF'CO as the Lead Agency e V . CL RElCONPENDATI ON It is recommended t5at the Planning Commission ADOPT _II Option No. 4 above, xhich would leave Carlsbad' s sphere re]-ative tc the Eatiquitos Lagoon area unaltered. It is further recorrinc that Carlshad postpone annexation of the unincoi-poratpd are; south of the city Limits in ?lie lagoon area until the Eeasj.1 of said annexation could be completely studied, -_- --- If LAFCO If That environrnsntal ATTACAMENTS Letter from Anne Cmsted, dated Oct, 15, 1980 (Attachment Si1 _1---- GFi : ar 11/19/80 -5- \ -; -e:',."**H h , " . e-' , '7- y ~a [f a .-, , e-. ;.; /I/ '-7.3- _. , -' .e.,: .. .,- ,. f-? -v c : OC~OIXZ 15, 19uc ; . f.-'rZ-.>! i ; 7 y*; p(+-0 *.-a%, I. \,);, 1 p4 v7 **r"* .'(. ''C* \;,..:\T:.tj>,, r. ,..-,;,.;, I '.. ?- .>, '4, . (I , t , ,\ ' 2 1: =" --.. & y+&J v~ f \ ?&.J.JLJdG~ is; \',\ \ Aw.- * ;'it 'I Post l"l.i. 1 I<.A, J3ox d.1 Jt5 5 ,+yy:~ !\!~TJ 4- ' &..?.* . =A .., rL, I:-.* k:A: 'hdk \i. Y.,, .\. - .-:a A pv ,. . --&' C'. rvspfi Lib. E.;,- ..:;,I ;.-- 12;. Lcncadia, Caiihmia 9 2O?{i ATTACHF I cc- , Xr+ Bi.11 L)a.vvjes, Execu-tivc Off.icer " L.,Z k: : -' / T&2i"-j &--ALL--.---,- b I 2.600 Pacific fIightjvLy * Sa11 Diego, Cta 921oi Dear !?re Uavizs; At -this time all of' B~.-:S..qu.!-tos La,fi;;'30n no-: pub:icijr o~,c~ed ~~cI-u.C?~? i.n i:h? spl-,ere of i.nfliiE.ylze of -bjjc? cii;br of ~~~-~~~~Q( This s-pere is d:~e to bt revi ::v~ed sl!or';j..y. ' -7 inc 12corioratic Cor!irnj.-'ctee for Sa44Jiegui-tc: i;rou.?-~i j-i:.:e i;o i,?ype t:-,z-+; -the vor3;! bou.ndar,y. .. :.a:? San 3: +Legrito be 82;jil.s~;ed to the nj..c!dl.e 02 %ti 'r J.G..,oo~ " CY in crdei- to gj.ve Sari !~1eg3,:?.rj-.to .. son!p s-!;rons i~-q?~'; I.ztc or docu:;ne12!;s f all dated ZKQ~ their sburccl iden';ified ~ x!~?ich 1 c:~cariy deIineri-t-es tlie iri+;ei\.si> intercs.t; ~c?uca<iz ~1z.s ha2 ir plannirlg .Toor Hatiquitos Lagoon +&CSE y~:si; years o 3' The f~l-l-ov~i~g fzct:; are presented- :o suppr-t our requ~ 1 a The City of !l..i--lsbad, zccordipg to L,.!?r"CO's reTQrt c - 2-17-78 enti-tlcci ?inal SScc.3 ended S9heres of Igf"3-\ i:it c-de C ' drax -thcir' 'la c . ~1.1tS.xa.i;e city boiilz&;.y from east i;c across tke cen-;;er uf. the ~.E~GOR~ '' (9. 39) This wa: anended to irc:l.u.de all of the Lagoo;: withifi their 5 2, .A13 the Local Coastal Pf.ari for this area was done 1 the Co~.~?tyi . .. 3. CarI-sba6. Sewer District h3.s a major. t-rirzk line rum .. along the nor-i;her!i shore of Ih-tiqiii-tos Lagoor,. Lei; Cou.n-!;y Water JX.s'i.rict; has a. major +xu!& line on the side of the lago.;,n. 14, Both Sail Diego !!ocn?;y 2n.d. Yhe 6i-I;y oI" CarlsbzC sho~ .. ' Costa A-venue 011 'their circula-tion elekent ifia?s* La . Costa Averme will physically Se a part a? San !lie@: so All school, tm-te~~ and. fire services provided on tk f;ou-l;fi shc2re of Batiqu5.tos La&con we provided by di agencies than serve the Ylorthcrn shore. Recawe of a13. thc-re facts, $40 sre requesting a meetir,g wi-i yourse3.J.' and rncrr,bcrs of your s-kaff to 2i:.;c~z::; this bouridnry mattei?. "lease c:ontact me t3 seL up 2. d?.,-t;e and time +,hat; M ?- 2. 3 f\;t~.~?z :r;l?~-i~~ing, for th.2 Lagoon-. A+:+arliec! YOU. y~lll fj-~$ COT . .._I-._- --~ _I-c ~ --_. -I_ .___l__--..-_l_l_._-_. - ---.I g-cemm-j-e e , 75. >;-!;sJ-. z;-,? .i.. L.& q.1 -7 ~ - c.L.->? .> dcG - , !? ri g!. nzliy -. - ---_ ' .. bc CO1)VCMi ent f02' y.3u 0 . TTI J..hzlnk yoa v?!..y Inucf!. Si r, 2 e 1.e 1. y , -hw, (9 fyqxa b.4 .. d- 9. ccz Co. Plnrini AYIIIC Oi!lvtt!:l, Pp;.!-:i dp?)-+ .1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 3.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 z2 23 24 25 26 27 e 0 6409 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CO'JNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE RETENTION OF THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARIES IN THE BATIQUITOS LAGOON AREA. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, on June 5, 1978, the San Diego LAFCO adopted resolution establishing Carlsbad's Sphere of Influence whic included the entire Batiquitos Lagoon; and WHEREAS, LAFCO established the Sphere based upon crit: plannj-ng issues such as: existing land use, General Plan dc land use, proximity of "in-place" services; community iden- facilitation of lagoon management; and WHEREAS, the proposed incorporation' of San Dieguito w( modify any of the critical planning issues considered by LI NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of t of Carlsbad, California, that the Council supports the rett the existing Sphere of Influence boundaries in the Batiquil Lagoon area. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting oJ City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on 1 day of January, 1981 by the following vote, to wit: .. " AbYES: Council Members Packard, Casler, Anear, Lewis and Kulchj . NOES: None ABSENT : None ABSTAIN : JGz&??F&&/ RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayoi A9e~ Dec. 9, 19 9 0 m THE GREATER SAN DIEGUITO TOWN COUNCIL The Greater San Dieguito Town Council suggests that the Bat&kquitos Lagoon not be dQided under the control of two separate jurisdictions. Such a division between the City of Carlsbad and the proposed new city of San Dieguito could lead to numerous conflicts and a resultant poor planning for this crucial area. in such a concept can be demonstrated by the Lake Tahoe area which has been the source of conflict and litigation be- tween the two jurisdictions since its inception. An example of the problems inherent The 'Town Council has no preference at this time as to which of the entities should have control; we merely re- peat our suggestion that it be kept under one jurisdiction and not divided. It appears to us, though, to be premature to discuss this concept until such time as the election has been successful which would even allow the possibility of the new city being in existence. voted into being and has had an opportunity to assess its potential, then discussions as to jurisdiction of the la- goon would appear more appropriate. After it has been Unti.1 such time as this can occur, we suggest that no attempt to divide this area be considered by the City of Carlsbad. We hope these comments can be useful in your delib- eration of this matter. Sincerely, YL9-21 &-J-mA- Fred Schreiber, President, GSDTC "P P.O. BOX 853 a ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 a a L A11*n o* Kelly 4675 El Camino Real Sept. 14, 1979. Car I sbad, Ca I iforn ia 92008 Phone: 729-3895 Mr. Ron Packard, Mayor CITY OF CARLSBAD Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Re: The 40 acre overlay zone. Dear Ron: I attended the Board of Supervisors hearing on the 4( holding zone of Sept. 4, 1979 that your staff or some members Council are proposing. I met Mr Hageman there before the mee and tried to learn why this new zone was needed but his answe rather vague, but I did tell him that I was ready and willing I would like to know why this hearing was held so quickly a I was not notified. I wouldn't have known of the meeting exc that Mr. Guy Moore called me on the telephone. I learned lat there was a legal notice in the Journal in the form of a smal but I see no reason why the few property owners in the County the "hole in the doughnut",could not have been formally notif In talking with some of the other land owners at the heari learned that some thought it an effort by the City to force t owners to annex to the City and from others, that it was an e to keep them in the County because LAFCO would not allow them annex because they were in agriculture. When the hearing finally got under way, I made my pitch to my 425 acres to the City but as you know, the hearing was adj to the 19th. At anyrate, I want to make it clear and before of September, that I wish to annex to the City. I have been ing to do this since Prop. 13 made the taxes the same whether out of the City. I had stayed out before because I did not w pay taxes for services like fire and police that the City COLI adequately provide. Now I would like the City to annex my property and retain present zoning which was established several years ago as lan under the Cities "sphere of influence." The present zoning on the high, view property around my ha zero to 1.5 units per acre and the lands further down the slo 0 to 4 units per acre. The 185 acres that the State Fish 6 C are now considering was of higher density, I believe 1 to 10 10 to 20 units per acre but this zoning would be wiped out if ,- - - 'e 0 -2- Fish G Game take the land. In the event that the State does the property, my family and I wish to keep the 240 acres of h land in agriculture and open space as it is today and would h put the land in an agricultural preserve to reduce the taxes. At the present time the taxes are several thousand dollars than the rental income from the tomato grower which is very u considering that only about 80 acres of this land is tillable rest being too steep and rough or swamp lands. The taxes on a should be based on an equalization with farm lands in Imperia or the San Joaquin Valley where there is no pressure from hig values for home construction. Taxes on such farm lands range $40 to $50 per acre and where all of the land is tillable. I San Diego County, where less than half of the land is tillabl why should the land owner pay any taxes on the open space(vie for the benefit of the public.- The Coastal Commission and local government are apparently ing only to theose who are demanding that all unimproved land kept in open space and agriculture but they make no demands o government of California or $he County or Cities, to reduce t If the open space, wet lands and other lands in private hands be kept that way.. . .then the taxee should be reduced to zero leGy imposed on all tax payers who desire these benefits. Finally, I see no logical reason for the 40 acre overlay - Sincerely, I @& - ? 0 a i MEMORANDUM - DATE : September 5, 1979 TO : Paul Bussey, City Manager FROM : SUBJECT: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING OF AUGUST 29, 1979 James C. Hagaman, Planning DirectorJC # CARLSBAD SPHERE OF INFLUENCE The Board of Supervisors made a motion to place Carlsbad Spherl of Influence lands into a development moratorium until such time as the Local Coastal Plan is adopted. County staff had recommended that the area within the City's sphere of influence be placed in a 40 acre holding zone. After the motion the Board opened the public hearing at which time I had the opportunity to speak. I indicated the Mayor's regrets in not attending, due to conflicting business schedule: and noted that the City would support either the 40 acre holdir zone, or -the moratorium on development, since our goal was to stop further development of county areas until the City had control over where and how development would occur. In addition, I voiced concern with the number of signs being constructed on county sphere of influence land, and our desire to have that acreage south of Palomar Airport Road delet from the !;an Dieguito Plan. Supervisor Moore questioned me on several aspects of the eventu annexation of the sphere areas to the City. Her first questior revolved around whether or not the City of Carlsbad understood that just because an area is in the sphere of influence it does not necessarily guarantee annexation. I indicated the City understood the principle of a sphere of influence, however, there are certain islands surrounded by the City which will ultimately be annexed to the City. Supervisor Moore also asked what specific efforts have been taken by the City Council to pursue annexation of county island I indicated that the City has no current policy to actively annex lands other than generally encouraging annexation as does the current county policy. I also indicated that the effec and nature of Proposition 13 had almost precluded any active annexation policy at this time as has our current sewer availab. problem. Additional testimony was taken from residents south of Palomar Airport Road, who indicated concern that various government agencies had jurisdiction over the use of their property. They m 4 COUNTY OF SAN IDIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 (71 4) 236-2249 TOM HAMlLTON SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT July 27, 1979 Honorable Ronald C. Packard Mayor, City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Packard: Please accept this apology on behalf of the Board of Super visors and County staff for the unfortunate oversight whic delayed docketing the planning and related land use concer expressed in your letter of March 2, 1979 regarding Carlsb sphere of influence. On Monday, July 30, 1979 the Departm of Planning and Land Use will docket with the Board a comp schedule of planning actions to be taken to resolve each o our mutual concerns. I would like to assure you that County planning staff and Board of Supervisors will continue to work with the City o Carlsbad for a prompt resolution of all matters you have b to our attention. If you have any questions, please feel to contact me or Bud Gray of County staff at 236-2110. Sincerely, 9; om Hami H- ton, Chairman Board of Supervisors TH:hr cc: Board Members Bud Gray Dona Trumble