HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-12-23; Planning Commission; ; CT 81-39|CP 185|SUP 5|V 327 - CONDO '5'DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
December 23, 1981
Planning Commission
Planning Department
SUBJECT: CT 81-39/CP-185, SUP-5, V-327 -CONDO '5' -A request
for:
1) A Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit for a
78 unit time-share condominium project;
2) A Special Use Permit to develop in a floodplain,
and;
3) A Variance to allow an increase in the height limit
from 35 feet to 40 feet located on the south side
of Costa Del Mar, east of El Camino Real in the R-P
zone on 3.28 acres of property.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests approval of three applications: 1) a 78 __
unit Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit for a time-share
project, 2) a Special Use Permit to develop in a floodplain, and
3) a Variance to allow an increase in building height from 35' to
40', located as described above.
The project would be developed as time-share condominiums and
would be managed by the La Costa Hotel and Spa. The units would
sell in time increments ranging from one week to four months.
Units selling for four months would cater to people who wish to
live in the area during the Del Mar racing season.
The applicant must obtain a special use permit in order to allow
development of a small portion of the project within the 100 year
floodplain. To obtain these approvals, the City Engineer must
find that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
project's design to ensure that flooding will not endanger the
project.
The project would be three stories in height and the one and two
bedroom units would range in floor area from 1010 sq.ft. to 1745
square feet. The applicant's intent is to retain a high degree
of security. To accomplish this, the project is designed for
entry to the units through only one front entry and from these-
cured subterranean parking garage.
The discussion section of the staff report is divided into three
subsections for easier understanding: 1) The special use per-
mit; 2} the tentative tract map and condominium permit, and 3}
the variance request.
II. ANALYSIS
Major Planning Issues {SUP-5)
1. Will approval of a special use permit allow development which
would be subject to flooding hazards?
Discussion
As mentioned, a portion of the site is within the 100 year flood-
plain boundary, and as such, must receive approval of a special
use permit prior to development. The special use permit may only
be granted if the City Engineer finds that the project is
designed to mitigate flooding hazards.
The applicant has submitted detailed data showing how all flood-
ing hazards would be mitigated. This data was reviewed by the
Engineering Department and by the San Diego County Flood Control
District. Both parties have found that, as designed, the project
would be removed from the 100 year floodplain zone and will not
be subject to flooding hazards nor will the construction of the
project create other flooding problems to adjacent or downstream
properties. A memo from both the Engineering Department and the
Flood Control District confirming these findings are attached fo~-: -
the Commission's review. Because these findings have been made,
staff is recommending approval of SUP-5.
Major Planning Issues {CT 81-39/CP-185)
1. Does the project meet all development standards and design
criteria of the Condominium Ordinance?
2. Can the design of the parking and storage areas be justified
because of the time-share nature of the project?
Discussion
As designed, the project technically meets all development stand-
ards of the Condominium Ordinance. The parking requirements is
met by a subterranean garage housing 78 cars (1 space/unit) and
an outdoor parking lot (100 spaces: 1 space/unit plus 22 visitor
parking space:fVlocated west of the units {Exhibits "B" & "C").
The subterranean garage is protected by a security system allow-
ing access to the residents.
The open recreational requirements would be met by a combination
of privat.e patios and balconies for each unit and a common recre-
ation area containing a sunning area and a large swimming pool.
The storage requirement is satisfied by an underground storage
area (within the subterranean garage) accessible to the units by
the elevators.
-2-
Although the project technically meets the development standards
of the ordinance, staff had concerns regarding the location and
accessibility of the open parking lot and the underground storage
space. The parking spaces are located in excess of 150 feet from
the units, which is over the distance established by adminis-
trative policy. In some cases, the required parking spaces are
greater than 1000 feet (walking distance) from the units.
Likewise, the storage area is not conveniently located to all the
units. Particularly, the units located in the east wing cannot
easily gain access to the storage area. Residents must walk down
the hallway corridor, travel down the elevator, then walk across
the subterranean garage to get to the storage area. This route
is particularly inconvenient if large items must be transported
from the storage areas to the units.
Under normal circumstances, staff would recommend denial of the
project based on the inaccessible location of the open parking
lot and the storage areas. This project is unusual in that it is
being built as a time-share condominium. As indicated by the
letter from Paul Graham of Rancho La Costa, the typical residents
of this project would be people visiting the resort. Most
visitors arrive by common carrier and are driven to the resort by_
limousine. The clientel is both national and international.
Staff believes this project constitutes a unique development
that is well suited to a time-share condominium development
because of its proximity to the La Costa Hotel & Spa, a
successful resort development.
The types of residents that can be expected to live in a
time-share project such as this would not need the amount of
parking that is being provided. Staff believes that one parking
space per unit in a convenient location is sufficient to meet the
needs of this project. As an added note, in the new PUD
Ordinance, staff is recommending that a ratio of 1 parking space
per unit be the standard for a time-share project.
Similarly, the amount of storage space required for a time-share
unit is not expected to be as great as a normal condominium.
Staff feels the design of the storage areas is acceptable for a
time-share pr~3ct. When considering the design criteria for
both parking-storage, the intended use of the project must be
considered. Certainly, the use of the project directly relates
to its design. In the case of this time-share project, staff
believes that the design of the storage area and parking lot can
be justified.
Since both the development standards and design criteria can be
met by this project, staff is recommending approval of CT 81-
39/CP-185.
Major Planning Issues (V-327)
1. Can the four mandatory findings for a variance be made for
this project?
-3-
Discussion
The variance request is to increase the building height from the
required 35 feet to 40 feet along the south side of the
building. The reason for the increased height is because the
existing grade level must be raised to remove the property from
the 100 year floodplain. The appearance of the project from the
street and adjacent properties will be similar to a project 35
feet in height because the lower story (subterranean garage) will
be hidden from view by mounding rip-rap and landscaping. The
actual visual height would be less than 35 feet.
Staff is recommending approval of the variance request because
all four of the mandatory findings can be made. Specifically,
the property's existing location in a floodplain constitutes an
extreme and unusual circumstance which does not generally apply
to other properties in the vicinity. If the project was not lo-
cated in a floodplain, it could be built without the need for a
variance.
Secondly, without a variance, the project would be denied a prop-
erty right that other properties in the same vicinity enjoy be-
cause other properties have developed three story buildings simi-
lar to the proposed request. The property's location within a ~-
floodplain requires special grading techniques which would not
allow the development of a three story structure without a var~
iance.
Finally, approval of this height variance would not be injurious
to the public's health and welfare nor be detrimental to the
Carlsbad General Plan, since the height of the building will not
detrimentally encroach upon adjacent properties nor create any
dangerous or unsafe circumstances, or adverse visual impacts.
Staff is, therefore, recommending approval of V-327.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this project will not
have a significant impact on the environment and, therefore, has
issued a Negative Declaration dated December 7, 1981.
IV. RECOMMEffl.JlffON
It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Neg-
ative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Reso-
lution Nos: 1905, 1906 and 1907, recommending APPROVAL to the
City Council of CT 81-39/CP-185 and APPROVING SUP-5 and V-327
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
-4-
ATTACHMENTS
1. PC Resolution Nos: 1905, 1906 and 1907
2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Form
S. Letter from Paul Graham, dated October 29, 1981
6. Memo from Les Evans, dated December 9, 1981
7. Memo from County Flood Control District, dated December 4,
1981.
8. Reduced Site Plan and Elevation Plan
9. Environmental Documents
BH:ar
12/16/81
-s-
..
. ' ---.. , ..._ __ _
LOC.-.TION
CASE NO.
Ill ,-
n ,..
3 -z
0
,a
"' > ,..
,C-2
PC
LA COSTA
-, CT 81-39/CP· 185/SUP·S/V -u'17
APPL IC AN T ____ Cs.=O......,.,N=-;Do:__:,:''s:....__" ___ _ VICINITY MAP
BACKGlO.JNDDATA~
• ~ H:>: ZC-248, SUl---5, CT 81-39/CP-185, and v-~27
APPLICANT: RANCHO LA COSTA, INC.
REXllJEST AND IO:ATION: 78 unit "Timeshare" condominium projectr south
east corner of El Camino Real and Costa Del Mar Road.
ux;M.DF.SCRIPTION: Lot 3 of La Costa Condominium No. 4, according to
Map 6520 filed October 21, 1969
As~sors Parcel Number: 216 210 -04 . ( 216-123-01)
Jl.cres 3.28 No. of !Qts 7 8 uni ts ........ ----
~ PLAN A.'l> ZONING
General Plan Land Use Designation RH/0 --------.. 23.1 Density All~ 20-30 du/ac Density Proposed -------
Existing ZOne R-P (w/f loodplain overlayProposed Zone R-P (w/out floodplain. verlay)
SUrrounding zoning and Land use: --•
Land Use
North __ c_-_2 __ La Costa Hotel·& Spa Grounds
South P-C · Floodplain ----
F.ast
West
P-C La Costa Hotel & Spa Ground$
County ( E) -( 8) . Batiquitos Lagoon
PUBLICFACILI'l'IES
Schcol ·District . Carlsbad, dated September 24, 1981
'\ .... . ...
water District • !=osta Real Wate:c. District.
......,;---------.. .;:i._ --.-.... -.-... ---
Sewer Distrli:::t"" ~eucadia County Water District EDU's -------
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated September 17, 1981
(other: ------------------------~>
mvmoNMENrAL IMPACT ASSESSMEm'
----Negative ,Declaration, issued··· De<:. 7~ .. 1981 U)g No~
..
____ E.I.R. C~tified, dated _________ _
-~ . ~ other, ________________________ _.:.,_...;_ ___ _
:-• .If• after the information--vou have submitted has been reµ; ewed, it is determined
,t.hat further informatio ; required, you will be so ac. ed.
APPLICANT:
AGENT:
MEMBERS:
Name (individual, partnership,. joint venture,. corporation,. syndication}
2100 Costa· Del Mar Road
Business .Mcb:ess
483-9111
Telephone Number •
Mr. Paul Graham
Name
2100 Costa Del Mar·Road
Business Address
Telephone Number
pee Attached Sheet A
Mame ;(individual,. partner, joint
venture, corporation, syndication)
Business Address
Telephone Number
3~siness Address
Telephone Nu.."1.ber
Home ~.ddress
Telephone Number
Home Address
Telephone ~h1r:tber
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We decl~e under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis-
closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and corr-ect and r:iay be·
relied upon as being true and correct until a~ended.
Rancho .. La· Cos ta,. Inc .
--Applicant --------
BY --~d~A~g~e~:~:f~:=--Q:;---:~~-_;...:__.--.---..~-_._ ____ _
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SHEET
ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP,
MAJOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SPECIAL USE PERMIT
ATTACHMENT A
Chairman of the Board
President:
Vice President:
Vice President:
Vice President:
Secretary:
' ~ --=···.·
Asst. Secretary:
Mr. Allard Roen
c/o Rancho La Costa
Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Mr. Merv Adelson
Lorimar Production, Inc.
10202 w. Washington Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90230
Mr. Irwin Molasky
Paradise Development Co.
3111 s. Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
Mr. Irv Roston
c/o Rancho La Costa
Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Mr. Burton Kramer
(Address same as Irv Roston)
Jack Donnelley, Esq.
Donnelley & Hulden
3366 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103
Ms. Elaine Thomas
c/o Rancho La Costa
Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(714) 438-9111
(213) 836-3000
(702) 735-0155
(714) 438-9111
(714) 299-8350
(714)438-9111
LACDltA
October 29, 1981
Mr. Mike Holzmiller
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: PROJECT DESCRIPTION, CONDOMINIUM s,
RANCHO LA COSTA, INC.
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
This project description is bring written to provide you with a
full range of information on our proposed development, known as
Condo 5, and as a response to some questions raised by yourself
and the Assistant City Attorney.
The principals of Rancho La Costa designed Condo 5 as a time ~·~·
share project only after lengthy observation of the market forces
that have made La Costa successful. As an example, immediately
to the east of the project site are 96 Chateau condominiums which,
although wholly owned by individuals, have a variety of occupancy
uses. Some are occupied by their owners on a year-around basis,
some are only seasonably occupied and others are listed with the
Hotel to be rented on the same basis as Hotel rooms. Additionally,
a good part of the Resort's clientele are repeat guests who have
expressed a desire for more spacious and luxurious accommodations.
Condo 5 is estimated to cost, as presently designed, $7,200,000
and should adequately fill that need.
The typical La Costa guest visits the Resort as a point destina-
tion with every intention of spending the vast majority of time
on the premises. Because La Costa is a resort it is rarely used
as a place to stay while in the area for other reasons. Conse-
quently-, ~''(risitors arrive by common carrier and are brought
by limousine to the Resort. A comparative few arrive by private
car.
·Asa matter of interest, approximately 3000 landings at Palomar
Airport, by corpora-te, private or chartered jet aircraft, are
directly attributable to La Costa guests each year.
COSTA DIEL MA" ROAD • CARLSIIAD, CALIP'ORNIA 92008 • ARIEA CODE 71◄ • TIELIEPHONE '438• 8111
Mr. Mike Holzmiller October 29, 1981
-2-
As we will be marketing Condo 5 on a national and international
basis, we expect the owners of Condo 5 to follow the same use
patterns.of our present visitors.
The currently vacant site· ·for Condo 5 is at the main entrance
to the La Costa Resort complex. Being a substantial building of
78 units, the facility was set back from El Camino Real as far as
practical within the confines of the property. The result is a
project with an abundance of open green space as a foreground.
The project is in conformity with the zoning ordinance, although
a small height variance will be. necessary due to the design of
the three-story building. The building has a fairly large overall
plan which allows underground parking for 78 cars and includes
storage space for each unit. The balance of uncovered spaces are
placed on the site at the only location available --between the
building and El Camino Real. Because of this location and the
large footprint of the building, it is virtually impossible to
plan the parking so that no space (outdoors) is further than 150
feet from the most remote dwelling unit.
The well established pattern of the La Costa visitor bears ou~~~e·
fact that rarely is one space per unit needed and in no case will
additional parking be required, although it will be in place.
This statement is easily verified by the adjacent Chateau garages
which are normally about 25% occupied.
Because of this low demand for parking by time-share and/or condo-
minium owners, we consider the outside parking to be in excess
but useful during some of the major sports tournaments held at
La Costa.
The functional relationship of this building to the balance of the
Resort is a pedestrian-oriented complex and is best maintained
with the building positioned as it is and the continuity of
La Costa not interrupted.
The 78 units in the project will be equipped with a small kitchen,
two. ( 2) 11~..;IM-~ ._,'#~sher, dry~r and amJ?le c~oset and storage space. Additi:o ,·&ach floor will contain maid storage and other
general space.
The main floor will contain an atrium space that will act as a
passive game room. The garage level will have central maid stor-
age/supply, trash areas enclosed within the building, central
room service maintenance areas and storage for the units. The
building will be staffed 24 hours per day by security and opera-
tional personnel.
.. . . .. -
Mr. Mike Holzmiller October 29, 1981
-3-
Because all units will be fully furnished, including the patios,
there is no no need for major storage areas within the units
themselves. All storage requirements are fully met but in a way
that is best for the La Costa owner/user.
Condo 5 will have an on-site exclusive swimming pool but its
owners will also have the opportunity to enjoy the facilities
of the Resort. Exact arrangements, however, have not been
finalized at this date.
While Condo 5 may not precisely meet the design criteria of the
Condominium Ordinance, in regards to guest parking and unit
~ storage, it was conceived and designed as an additional facility
of La Costa with the characteristics of the typical guest in
mind.
The owners/users and this facility will be fully and permanently
integrated with the La Costa Resort complex, further expanding
this internationally known community asset.
Condo 5 will be registered with the DRE as both a time share and
a condominium project. The rationale for this direction is the
large number of units that would have to be sold on a time sliare
basis, i.e. 4056 sales based on one week owner occupancy. If
the market does not respond as anticipated, La Costa desires to
reserve the right to sell some units as condominiums and will
have the parking and storage spaces in place to meet the require-
ments of the Condominium Ordinance.
In summary, it must be recognized that the unique characteristics
of the typical Resort guest and of the owners/users of the
Chateaus has led us to design this project to meet the market
forces distinctive to La Costa.
PG:ph
Sincerely,
RANCHO LA COSTA, INC.
/tud~
Paul Graham
Vice President
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
December 9, 1981
Planning Director
City Engineer ~
SUBJECT: SUP-5/CONDO 5 -Condominium Complex South of Costa
Del Mar and East of El Camino Real
In accordance with Section 21.31.100 of the Municipal Code, I
have reviewed the subject application and hereby present the
following report:
The drawings and calculations for the latest Condo 5 plans
were reviewed by my department and the County of San Diego
Department of Sanitation and Flood Control. It was deter-
mined by them and by us that the proposed improvements
adequately protect the proposed development from the
effects of erosion and inundation related to a 100-year
flood. In addition, it was determined from a comparison
of before-grading and after-grading conditions that the
encroachment into the San Marcos Creek flood plain will
have a minimal effect on the 100-year flood water surface
for the adjacent and upstream channel areas.
It is, therefore, my finding that a special use permit be issued
with the following conditions:
1. The proposed development plan remain substantially as shown
on Condo 5 CT81-39 Exhibit 'A' dated November 20, 1981 and
SUP-5 Exhibit 'X' dated December 8, 1981.
2. Improve the channel flow capacity at cross section 6 as
shown on SUP-5 Exhibit 'X' dated December 8, 1981.
3. Reshape the trapezoidal channel improvements at cross sec-
tion 11 as ,shown on SUP-5 Exhibit 'X' dated December 8, 1981.
~'
4. Provide rock slope protection along the fill slope adjacent
to the proposed structure. The location of the proposed
rock slope protection will be shown on the final grading
plan.
DAH:ls
. ,
-
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
R. J. MASSMAN, D1rector
Offices of:
County Engineer
County Road Commissioner
County Surveyor
County A1rporn
Flood Control
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Transportation Operations
City of Carlsbad
Engineering Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING 2 5555 OVERLAND AVENUE
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123
TELEPHONE: (7141 565-5177 December 4, 1981
Attention: David A. Houser
Dear Sir:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TOM HAMILTON
First District
PAUL W. FORDEM Second District
ROGER HEDGECOCK Third District
JIM BATES Fourth District
PAUL ECKERT Fifth District
Subject: Third Review of Backwater Analysis for Second Revision to Condo-5---SUP-3
At your request this department has reviewed the proposed revision of the
SUP-3 project. The project would encroach into the north overbank flood
plain of San Marcos Creek upstream of El Camino Real bridge.
The following table is a summary of the results of HEC-2 analysis done by the
developer's engineer:
TABLE 1 -100-year Flood Summary
Cross Section Existinf Pro:eosed
Number WSEL __ Ve ocity WSEL Velocity
5 13.13 7.4 13.13 7.4
6 13.27 7.9 12.95 9.1
7 B·'· 13.86 7.0 13.77 6.5
8 14.06 6.7 14.01 6.0
9 14.33 5.4 14.28 5.0
9+64 14.46 4.6 14.37 4.5
11 14.51 5.5 14.57 3.6
12 14.57 5.6 14.51 4.2
. '
City of Carlsbad -2 -December 41 1981
Table 1 indicates that the project would increase the 100-year water surface
elevation .06 ft. at cross sect1on 11 and the channel velocity 1.2 fps at
cross section 6. These deviations are generally within the accuracy of the
analysis. At cross section 6, the water surface elevation would be at
least 13.13 which would lower the velocity.
After inspection of the cross section plots it appears the following would be
advantageous:
1. Improve the channel flow capacity at cross section 6.
2. Reshape the trapezoidal channel improvements at cross section 11.
The project will have minimal effect on the 100-year flood plain of San Marcos
Creek provided improvements in flow capacity are made to the channel. Rock
slope protection should be provided and the finished floor of the building
should be at least one foot above the 100-year flood level.
If you need further information, please contact Ken Hanson at 565-5509.
Very truly yours,
I • I ; I I .,.,._ ~.
\r., R. J. MASSMAN, Director
Department of Public Works
R.JM:KH: lm
·-
..
·' i •
.!
-r ·;
. .; ' ...
. , :
,·.
•.1.
1~
'•
\
s,e,~,
·--~ .....
' '
I ,
I I I i
; • II , ! I 1 .~
-~-~ Ii
,Q
'" F , ..
· /!-,f
{' : :0
• \ ,.
·_c· · ~N-17-:D;_ ;o• ·~~¼i~~i •• •• •.•. • u .''. , -~·1·~· ::·•1· .. "':s-.~-
I i.
., ' ~ ..
I ,
-~
:-~ ,::, ·~-• :.-.;
-~ ~ .. ,
-~~ •~·~ .. -~!" ... --... ,. :,, -• --·-
.,.~~ •► .. ·M~··.;·~ .•
G
• 111 •
'
I 'I
U'"l . i
''JU I .
l
. -:,,.,,. .......... .-·
J
f
!
l
1
I
1 I ! I on qr,
~ l
~
!
l
• t
i ·I
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
((;itp of CarlilJab
NEGATIVE·· DECIARATICN
438· 5591
PIOJECT AJDRESS/LOCATICN: The southeast comer of El Camino Real and
Costa Del Mar Road.
Pinm:T DESOUP'l'ICN: 1 ) Zaie Change to delete the Flood Plan OVerlay,
2) Tentative Tract Map and Condaniniurn Permit for a 78 unit condo-
minium project, 3) Special Use Permit to develop in the flood overlay
zone, and 4) a Variance of the 35' height limitation.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an enviraunental review of the
above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental
Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not
have a significant irrpact on the environment) is hereby issued for the
subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A COP':/ of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on
file in the Planning Department, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
CA. 92008. Ccmnents £ran the public are invited. Please subnit
cx:mnents in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of
date of issuance.
DATED: December 7, 1981
CASE 00: er 81-39/CP-185
V-327/SOP-5/ZC-248
APPLICANT: Rancho Lacosta, In
PUBLISH DATE: December 9 , 19 81
ND-4
5/81
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Citp of Carlfbab
PtJBLIC·l«1J.'ICE·OF·PREPARATIOO
~E TAKEOOI'ICE:
'!he Planning Department of the City of Carlsbad intends to ~re a
caiditiooal Negative Declaratioo for the following project: •
project Description: 1) zooe Change to delete the Flood Plan OVerlay,
2) Tentative Tract map and CCX'ldaninium Permit for a 78 unit
oondaninium project, 3) Special Use Permit to develop in the flood
01erlay zooe, and 4) a Variance of the 35' height limitatioo.
Project address/u,catioo: '!he southeast ex>rner of El Canino Real and
Costa Del Mar Road.
Anticipated significant inpacts: As conditiooed, no significant
a:iverse environmental impacts are anticipated.
we need to know your ideas al:x>ut the effect this project might have
ai the enviraunent and your suggestions for ways the project ex>uld be
revised to reduce or avoid any significant enviraimental damage.
Your ideas will help us decide what issues to analyze in the enviroo-
mental review of this project.
Your canments on the enviraimental inpact of the prq>OSed project may
be subnitted in writing to the Planning Department, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA 92008, no later than Novent>er , 1981.
DATED: November 6, 1981
CASE m: er 81-39/CP-185/V-327/
SOP-5
APPLICANT: Rancho La Costa, Inc.
J?UBLISB DATE: NOlel'lb!r 14 , 1981
JAMES C.
Planning Dire
4.3$· 5591