HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-08-28; Planning Commission; ; CONSIDERATION OF EIR 37 AND CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION FOR CT 72-04CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REPORT FOR
AUGUST 28, 1973
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT ON: CONSIDERATION OF E.I.R.
CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION
CASE NOS: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 37
CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 72-4
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:
l. 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. NO. 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 out 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 11 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. 11
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 11 beach.strand11
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 11 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. 11
Staff questions the statement on page 29 that the "development plan
introduces a benefit from a traffic point-of-view 1'n 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) proportfonately.
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 tn 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.
G. 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):
l. 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
11 high surf hazard 11 ?
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 11 vi able alternative to the use now proposed 11 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:
l. Unstable soil composition of the site.
2. Unpredictable surf and atmosperic conditions creating potentially
unsafe conditions for residents and property.
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 11 Beach Colony11 •
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 11 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
-3-
of no~ m~r: th9n ~ne 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
consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
C. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of
development.
is not
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:
l. 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 l, 1973
Memo dated May l, 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).
i
THE CITY OF CARLS8AD, CALIFORNIA
Agenda Sill No. -----
(
Referred To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: REQUEST BY BEACH COLONY FOR AN EX TENS ION
-OF ONE YEAR FOR TEi'ITATIVE MAP CT 72-4 AND SPECIFIC
PLAN.
Statement of the Matter
(, Jate May l, 1973 ----=--___.:;,. ____ _
Submitted By:
PLANNING COMMISSION
.
Applicant· is requesting an extension of one year for Tentative Map CT 72-4 and
Specific Plan due to new ownership of the property involved and time needed
for Mr. Zongker to obtain a .permit from the Regional Coastal Cammi ss ion.
The original Tentative Map was approved by the Planning Commission on April
11, 1972, and received final approval by the City Council on May 2, 1972.
Both Resolutions are attached. ••
The present owner is suing the State of California for 11 quiet title" to a
portion of property under questionable ownership so he can proceed with the
approved project. Until this suit is settled however, the applicant is unable
to prepare the necessary draft environmental impact report.
Exhibit
l. Application
2. Plqnning Commission Resolution No. 778
3. City Council Resolution No. 1994
4. Letter from Rick Engineering to Planning Commission, dated 2-20-73.
5. Letter to City Council from Panning Department ·dated May l, 1973, with
Exhibit #4 attached. •
_Staff Recommendations
. Staff recommends no action be taken unti 1 the E. I. S. requirements are met. This
would imply that no further development can take place on the subject property until
such time as the~City Council wishes to extend the Tentative Map to May 2, 1974.
(
May l, 1973
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION ON TENTATIVE MAP (CT 72-4) AND SPECIFIC PLAN
FOR BEACH COLONY.
The attached letter from Rick Engineering, received on February 21, 1973,
requests a one-year extension of Tentative Map CT 72-4 (Beach Colony). In
addition to the reasons for the extension listed in the letter, it should be
noted that the present owner is suing the State of California for 11 quiet
title11 to a portion of property under questionable ownership so he can proceed
with the approved project.
Ordinance #9050, Article IV, Section 400, states: "After receipt of the
Resolution of the City Council approving or conditionally approving the
Tentative Map, the subdivider may, within one year from the date of said
approval, proceed to prepare and file a final map as herein provided. If
such final map is not recorded within one year from the date of the approval
of the tentative map, said 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''·.' : ·_, • -:--~:·>,·;:_ ._ .. __ _ .-, '-,. :;;-i
:\
Because the granting of an extension is a discretionary action, this
request must comply with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Environmental
Protection Ordinance of 1972. The Planning Director has already declared that
this project could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore,
a draft environmental impact report must be prepared. However, until the
aforementioned suit is settled, the applicant is unable to prepare said report.
Since the applicant requested this extension prior to the expiration of the
Tentative Map, Staff would recommend that no action be taken until the E.I.S.
requirements are met. This action shou·ld automatically imply that no further
development can take place on the subject property until such time as the
Beach Colony'
Paqe 2. (
City Council wishes to extend the Tentative Map, the final expiration
date should be May 2, 1974 (one year from original expiration date). The
developer could then proceed with that portion of the project that has
previously been approved. If the extension is denied at that time, the
applicant would have to reapply.
Respectfully submitted,
\
fBJ:~'b~{ ENGlNEERlNG COMPANY I PLA/IMING CO/lSULTM, rs
ANO CIVIL U,GINEER:i
509 ELM AVENUE ~ CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
TELEPHONE AREA CODE 714 729·4987
City Planning Commission
City of Carls bad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
February 20, 1973
RECEI 1/ED
FEB 2 l 1973
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
RE: BEACH COLONY TRACT NO. 72-4 (TENTATIVE :MAP & SPECIFIC
PLAN) TIME EXTENSION
Gentlemen:
On December 2 7, 1972, Mr. Bob Anderson sold the Beach Colony
Project to Mr. Bill Zongker (see attached notice of change of
ownership from Land Title, dated January 2, 1973).
On behalf of Mr. Zongker, we hereby request a one year extension
of the above tentative map and spe·cific plan.
The final plans for public improvements have been through one plan
check and are ready to resubmit_ to the Engineering Department for
final approval.
We need additional time to secure a permit from the Regional Costal
Commission.
Thank you for your consideration.
RCL:fm
Attachment
cc: William L. Zongl<:.er
Sincerely,
•. L1\NO TITLE 8U!LOING • 1330 FOURTH AVENUE
_ SM! DIEGO. CAUFOANIA 91112
/ (714) 234-7192
, I
• -~ Jan. u a ry 2 , 19 7 3
Rick Engineering
S09 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: YOUR -BEACH COLONY
OUR-280359-D
Gentlemen:
.Please amend our Preliminary Report dated June 13, 1972
as follows:
1. Change th~ Vestee to:
William L. Zongker, a single man
2.. Add:
A deed of trust dated December 26, 1972, to
secure an indebtedness of $479,000.00, recorded
December 27, 1972 as File/Page No. 343235.
Truster: William L~ Zongkcr, a single man.
Trustee: First American Title Insurance Company,
a corporation.
Beneficiary: Robert C. Anderson, a married man as
his sole and separate property; Arthur E. Anderson,
a married man as his sole and separate property, and
Grace~. Harris, a married woman as her sole and sep-
arate property. • [
.,;•
i Also, would it be possible to get the current status of
the above referenced Subdivision.
Since rely,
I l(' /P.~ 0~ "" ·~ (! YP';Y
J1\MES J. RI\FPERTY
Title Officer
JJR:cag
April 25:, 1973
City Council.
CITY OF.CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad~ California
P.O. Box 99'172 "':San Diego,Calif.92109•274-2312
Reference: Request for extension· of filing tract map
72-4 La Costa Bea·ch Colony • 1
Gentlemen: ·1 .•
·r have requested extension of final filing of bhis·
tract map primarily due to the.fact that· the California
..,. . State Parks .. and Recreation Department has claimed a
large pottion on the north part of my property. I am
currently in litag~tion ~ith t~e State concerning·this
matter.·
,·
:It is my understanding that the.City of Carlsbad cannot
legally take action on this-matter due to the fact that
your information is incomplete. It is my understanding
that; therefore, no ~ction ~an or will be taken.untii
such time as boundaries are ·fixed and environmental
impact statements can be prepared. With this ~nder--
standing_.,. I. guarantee no~· to proceed on any work· on··
this site until an ext~nsion is granted.· • i'
·Thank you £0~ your consider~tion. JJi1 yours,
William J~ongker
Presiden~:-toninmark
' . , '
.,
(
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P.O. BOX 2390
SAOA},IENT0 95811
(
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
July 23~ ·1973
Hr. Paul A. Williams
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Hr. Williams:
ECEIVED
JUL 2 7 1973
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
We have reviewed the draft environemtnal impact report (June 1973) for the
proposed 11Beach Colony Condominiums".
There is a question to be resolved regarding the land ownerships related to
this proposed development. The Attorney General's Office is presently:inves-
tigating the issue and we will notify you of their interpretation.
In respect to the environmental impact report prepared by Environmetrics
Development Planning our comments are:
1 •. The proposed 40' public easement is in conflict with the "California
Canprehensive Ocean Area Plan11 1972, which states that:
"A public easement at least 100 feet in width should be provided
wherever possible between the high tide line and private develop-
ments, when such developments are initiatea in undeveloped areas,
in order that lateral public access can be maintained along the
shGreline. This requirement may be modified, as necessary, in
areas where public safety, site se.curity or other unusual circum-
stances exist."
2. The Coastal Zone Conservation Act 1972, stipulates that:
11A development will not substantially interfere with, or distract
from, the line of sight toward the sea from the state highway
nearest the coast". As stated in the report, Interstate 5 is
the 11 state highway nearest the coast11 , (actually some distance
east) but the county highway (Coast Highway) is adjacent to the
proposed development and certainly the development cannot help
but be a substantial block to the line of sight toward the sea
from this much-used highway. •
3. The acc\llllulative effect of developments of this type would have
a pro:Eound negative impact on the state Is beach areas.
I \ (
l'lr. Paul A. Williams -2-July 23, 1973
4., Ti1is land was included in the 1965 acquisition study to connect
La Costa with Ponto Stata Beaches. The site will have a high
priority for acquisition in the 1974 bond studies.
Th:;1.nk you for the opportunity of conunenting on this proposed development.
Sincerely,
1,;1.1J_~J.:·
H-5/2
cc: Hr. Thomas Crandall, South Coast Regional Coastline Conservation Commission,
San Diego, California
·(;:i;led )peq) s;:ipuno:> 8S s,e!UJOJ!!l~:) JO 4:>ea U!4l!l,\ lU;JWdo1aAap pue uon1s,nbn >ped 1e:>01 JOJ
p;:iie:io11e dq oi k:iuow JO 1unowe ;)4l uo saJnll!J JAP£W;)l s;ip!AOJd pue 'P'v' puos a41 U! p;i1e1ndps
se (sa.ied ap!SU! ;Jas) p;Jsn ;iq Ol S! Aauow S!lfJ Mo4 su,1qdxa ia14dwed S!4l ·sp;J!oJd UO!ll!AJasuoJ
,,J'IPl!M pue 4S!J aleis JOJ pue 'P.!UJOJ!fl!:) U! iuawdojJAap pue UO!l!S!nb:ie >ped 1e:Jo1 pue a:i.eis
.IUJ ooo'ooo'os-l$ SJP!AOJd 'vl6L 'v ;)Un( SJalOA aq:i ,uo_pq oll Ol 'P'v' puoa J;J!IJO:)-llJaq,z alfl
COUNTIES
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno
Glenn
Humboldt·
Imperial
Inyo
Kern
Kings
Lake
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey
Napa
Nevada
J?l6l :llO .1::nt CN09
S3Ul11J'f:i 1YJl1101SJH ONV
S NOS
POPULATION
ESTIMATE
July 1, 1980
1,217,700
600
14,300
111,200
17,100
12,700
689,100
15,000
54,500
454,100
17,700
108,000
83,500
19,800
366,800
69,400
26,000
18,400
7,680,500
42,200
261,900
7,700
59,400
117,000
7,800
6,200
303,500
102,500
31,700
( (
ALLOCATION TO COUNTIES OF "STATE GRANT MONIES" AUTHORIZED
BY THE STATE 8EACH, PARK, RECREATIONAL AND HISTORICAL
( FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 1974 (
• • POPULATION
ALLOCATION ESTIMATE
BY-COUNTY COUNTIES July 1, 1980
$ 4,316,866 Orange 1,939,700
200,000 Placer 95,000
200,000 Plumas 12,600
394,215 Riverside 572,500
200,000 Sacramento 740,500
200,000 San Benito 22,000
2,442,927 San Bernardino 851,200
200,000 San Diego 1,790,800
200,000 San Francisco 721,600
1,609,829 San Joaquin 340,100
200,000 San Luis Obispo 133,100
382,871 San Mateo 613,100
296,016 Santa Barbara 321,200
200,000 Santa Clara 1,386,600
1,300,342 Santa Cruz 161,100
246,030 Shasta 91,500
200,000 Sierra 2,600
200,000 Siskiyou 34,400
27,228,124 Solano 214,300
200,000 Sonoma 275,100
928,461 Stanislaus 240,500
200,000 Sutter 49,100
210,579 Tehama 31,900
414,776 Trinity 8,200
200,000 Tulare 211,500
200,000 Tuolumne 29,300
1,075,937 Ventura 574,700
363,373 Yolo 119,000
200,000 Yuba 49,100
ALLOCATION
BY COUNTY
S 6,876,426
336,784
200,000
2,029,569
2,625,145
200,000
3,017,587
6,348,561
2,558,143
1,205,688
471,863
2,173,500
1,138,686
4,915,633
571,115
324,376
200,000
200,000
759,714
975,256
852,596
200,000
200,000
200,000
749,788
200,000
2,037,368
421,867
200,000
Administration and Contingencie~ (4%) 3,600,000
D11partment of Parks and Recreation calculatior '9 Department of Finance population estimates, "Provision.11 Project/("'
California Counties to 2000". '
These projections are to be revirsed in January 1974. The revised projections will be used as the official basis for the allocation
of funds for the 1974 Bond Issue.
Totals 23,548,600 $90,000,000
DS
$250,000,000
S1'ATE BEACH, PARK, RECREATIONAL AND HISTORICAL FACiUTIES
BOND ACT OF 1974
How the money is to be used:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . $90,000,000
For grants to counties and cities for acquisition or development of parks,
recreation areas, beaches, or historical units. (To be allocated on basis
of population but with no county getting less than $200,000.)
STATE GOVERNMENT
State Park System Acquisition
General Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . $75,000,000
To acquire property for parks, beaches, recreation
areas and historical units.
Acr.._-;sition of Inholdings . . . . ( . . . . . $15,000,000
• (o be used to acquire inholding_ or additions to
existing units.
State ~-.-k System Development (
Genera I Development . . . . . . . . . $45,000,000
To develop existing units or units to be acquired
under bond act.
Historical Development . . . . . . . . . . . $15,000,000
To develop historical resources in the State Park System ..
Wildlife Conservation Board . . . . . . $10,000,000
To acquire or develop property for fish and
wildlife conservation.
I ELECTION DATE: June 4, 1974. This will be Proposition I on the ballot.
I-\ series of public hearings will be held during the coming year, as part of the•
process for establishing a list of priorities for acquisition and development projects
of the Department of Parks and Recreation.
STAU Or CAl.!FORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY
iOEP.~RTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
\
STATE OF CALI FORNI A-CALI FORNI A COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION RONALD REAGAN, Governor
SMI DIEGO COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
6154 MISSION GORGE ROAD, SUITE 220
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92°120-TEL.(714) 280-6992
June 27, 1973
Paul A. Williams
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Hr. Williams:
MALCOLM A. LOVE
Chairman
WILLIAM A. CRAVEN
Vice Chairman
JEFFERY 0. FRAUTSCHY
Representative to the
California Coastal Zone
Conservation Commission
THOMAS A. CRANDALL
Executive Director
Subject: Beach Colony Condominiums: Environmental Impact Report
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft E.I.R. submitted
for the Beach Colony Condominium project.
Assuming that this project will be heard before the San Diego Coast
Regional Connnission, it will be reviewed and evaluated, at that time,
in respect to the criteria set forth by Proposition 20. Of especial
concern to the Beach Colony project would be the following factors:
1. Would the project eliminate or diminish any existing coastal vistas;
2. Would the project eliminate or degrade any established public access
points to the beach;
3. Will the project encroach onto a public beach (if so, to what extent);
4-Is the project in substantia.1 conformance with the established
character of the surrounding neighborhood?
It is our hope that the preceding comments will assist you in your
evaluation of the environmental impact of the Beach Colony Condominium
project. If you have additional need for information from us, do not
hesitate in calling.
~~y°u!(
/!;;;;;{. Crandall
Executive Director
MIK: sel JUN 2 9 1973
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
COUJVTY OF SnN DIEGO
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
C. J. H0US0N
Director
D(p.art;nent of Sanitation & Floor/ Control
County Operations Center, 5555 Overland A'/enue, San Diego, California 92123 .•. , . Telephone: 278·9200
12 July 1973
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: Beach Colony condominiums--EIR
Your letter of 25 June 1973 requested a review of subject condominium project.
This property bordering on the north side of Batiquitos Lagoon, is in the San
Diego County Flood Control District. Although the property has been annexed
into the City of Carlsbad, it has not been de-annexed from the D.istrict.
Therefore, the District has a responsibility to maintain all drainage facilities
dedicated to the District for that purpose. Prior to accepting maintenance
responsibilities, these facilities should meet the District's minimum standards
and be approved by the District.
The report comments on (1) the probability of wave action and beach erosion, and
possibly mitigating these natural forces by construction of a concrete seawall;
and (2) designing runoff to discharge into the ocean. From our viewpoint, the
report appears to provide a broad, over-view of problems that could affect the
engineering of this project. The brief analysis of the ocean 1 s impact and the
geology of the land provides us with useful information. The method of
drain,ing surface waters into the ocean was barely mentioned. The copy of the
early tentative map notes that storm drains may be required. These drains
should be shown on the tentative map. The seawall should be shown on the tentative
map with an appropriate cross-section.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this report.
\.Je are returning the report as requested in your letter.
C. J. HOUSON
-·) J I 1 .I O ~,<:t_
By f7J • .~ 1 1~~1t 1f·1 l,lj~
B. H. HOfFM/, TER
Deputy Di re I or
HS:kk
Enclosure
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCH,QOL DISTRICT
801 PINE AVENUE
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
July 12, 1973
Attention: Mr, Paul A. Williams, Planning Department
Dear Mr. Williams:
The Governing Board and District Administration appreciate
the opportunity of reviewing the environmental impact report
for the proposed Beach Colony Condominiums as submitted by
your agency on June 25, 1973.
It is the opinion of the District that this development when
completed may have from eight to ten school age children in
residence, It is noted that the environmental report makes
no mention as to school age children residing in the develop-
ment nor the availability of the classroom space in the District.
It is hoped that the above information will be useful in
accordance with your request for comments and observations
by representatives of this district.
z~~ }P."~
HOWARD C'~ION
District Superintendent
FHL:HCH:dp
ADMINISTRATION 729-9291
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11, P. 0. BOX 81406,SAN DIEGO 92138
July 6, 1973
Mr .. Paul A. Williams
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Williams:
ECEIVED
JUL 101973
CITY OF CARLSBAD
.Elannlng Department
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
We are returning your Environmental Impact Report for
the "Beach Colony" Condominium Development as requested.
Transportation District 11 has no comment in our area of
expertise or jurisdiction ..
Sincerely,
J. DEKEMA
District Director of Transportation
.--BW J4l1 / ,... (~j/,J·· <'7..«L., V Cjt_,u.,,-li----{,, C .. -{;v/ ,,.,J. T. CHESHIRE
,, District Environmentalist
DP:a.m
Attachment
cc:JOG
JTC
..,/1
,)' --:.~:--.
/:'~;~
h"
~ ~ti ,f,
~:~~~> ·:-·,;._o ,_,
DEPARTNfENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
J. B. ASKEW. M. D .. M. P. H.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH
!600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SAN DIEGO. CA 92101
August 15, 1973
Mr. Paul A, Williams
Planning Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Williams:
AUG 1. 7 1973
:c,rv OF CARLSBAD
P1annlng Departni~nt
A review has been made of the Beach Colony environmental impact
report by the Department of Sanitation, Health Engineer and Air
Pollution Control District. We have no comment on the afore-
mentioned project.
Sincerely,
NORMAN E. SCHELL
Air Pollution Control Officer
~~'7;,K..
R. J. SOMMERVILLE
EIR Coordinator
RJS:etp
Attachment:
-Enviro:tlmental Impact Report (Beach Colony)
Condiminium Development.
Serving all of the incorporated a11tl 11nincorj){)rated areas of San Diego County
-