HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP 151; La Costa Views; Specific Plan (SP)CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT FOR
January 22, 1974
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT ON: CONSIDERATION OF .SPECIFIC PLAN
CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE MAP
CASE NOS. -SP-151
CT 73-60
APPLICANT: D. L. La Cava for La Costa Land
9171 Wilshire Blvd., Suite A
Beverly Hills, Ca. 90210
*,
*• REQUEST: That the Planning Commission consider and approve
a specific plan to permit an increase of the permitted height
of a development from 35 ft. to 88 ft. and to recommend ap-
proval to the City Council of a Tentative Map for a 102-unit
condominium development.
11. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. RE: OPEN SPACE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PERMIT: That it be
moved that the Planning Commission grant a Resource Ma-
nagement Permit to this development. Said property is
within the RM-3 District requirements. However, all pro-
posed development is occurring within the area of the pro-
perty that does not exceed a 15% slope ratio.
B. RE: SPECIFIC PLAN 151: That it be moved that the Plan-"
ning Commission recommend to the City Council that SP-151
BE APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined below:
1. Conformance of the increase in height to the objec-
tives of the recently-adopted Open Space and Conser-
vation Element of the General Plan. By developing
at a greater height, the existing substantial slopes
are not affected.
2. Due to the existence of a bank immediately adjacent
to La Costa Avenue, the increase in height will not
be as apparent from La Costa.Avenue. In addition,
the existence of an approximately 132 ft. high bank
along the southerly property line will act as a back-
drop to the proposed development and lessen the ef-
fect of the project as viewed from the westerly side
of the La Costa golf course.
3." The applicant (see attached) has agreed to comply to
all the requirements of the Municipal Ordinance and
applicable policies presently in effect.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All requirements of Sec. 4.03 of City Council
Ordinance .No. 9375, dated December 28, 1973,
shall be met as a part of this development.
2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits,
detailed building elevations shall be submitted
to the Planning Department for consideration and
approval.
C. RE: TENTATIVE MAP 73-60: That it be moved that the Plan-
ning Commission recommend to the City Council that CT 73-60 BE APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined below.
Justification is based upon:
1. Conformance of the Map to the adopted General Plan.
2. Conformance of the Map to the State of California
Subdivision Map Act.
3. The applicant (see attached) has agreed to comply to
all the requirements of the Municipal Ordinance and
applicable policies presently in effect. With re-
spect to the Parks Ordinance, it is recommended, and
the applicant has agreed, that, in lieu, fees be re-
quired. Justification is based upon the fact that
the General Plan does not indicate a park on the sub-
ject property.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall install full street improve-
ments along the full frontage of the subject
property on La Costa Avenue to City's standards.
2. The proposed driveway areas to La Costa Avenue
shall be perpendicular to the street right-of-
way and shall be no steeper than 5% within 20
ft. of the street right-of-way.
3. Drainage shall not flow over any public sidewalks,
III. BACKGROUND:
A. DESCRIPTION - Lot 185, La Costa South Unit No. 1.
B. LOCATION - Southerly of and adjacent to La Costa
Avenue approximately 610 ft. westerly of
the intersection of Nueva Castillo Way and
La Costa Avenue
-2-
c,
D.
E.
F.
G,
SIZE -8.18 Acres.
H,
I,
J,
K,
L,
M.
N,
0,
P.
TOTAL UNITS - 102 D.U.
DENSITY - 12.5 DU per Acre.
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS - 268 Bedrooms.
TYPE OF UNITS -Type
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
bd
bd
bd
rm
rm
rm
&
&
&
d
d
en
en
Sq
1
1
den
bdrm
bd
bd
bd
bd
rm
rm
rm
rm
&
&
d
d
en
en
1
1
1
2
1
. Ft.
,140
,165
998
,528
,315
,422
,305
,738
TOTAL
Number
8
•20
12
6
24
24
4
i
102 D .U . ' s in
6 Buildings
COVERAGE - 22% (1.8 Acres).
PROPOSED POPULATION - 316 Persons.
E.I.R. FINDING -
EXISTING ZONING
ADJACENT ZONING
Based upon an expanded Environ-
mental Impact Report form (see
attached), the Planning Depart-
ment did find that the proposed
development would not find a sig-
nificant impact on the environment.
RD-M (Residential Density - Multiple)
North •
East -
South •
West -
R-l-75
RD-M
R-2
RD-M
GENERAL PLAN COMMITMENT -The approved La Costa Master Plan
which has been incorporated into
the adopted General Plan indicates
the property to be potential high
density residential with up to 43
D.U. ' s per acre.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT - RM-3.
PARKS ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE -Yes, if in-lieu fees paid.
PARKING COMPLIANCE - Proposed - 220 spaces total with 185
underground
Ord. Req.- 193 spaces
PIanning
Commission
Policy Req.- 164 garage spaces.
-3-
Q. COMPLIANCE TO ALL POLICIES - Yes.
IV. DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC ITEMS:
A- SPECIFIC PLAN: Pursuant to Sec. 21.24.03 of the Municipal
Code, the applicant is requesting by Specific Plan to in-
crease the permitted building height from 35 ft. to 88 ft.
Building height is measured from the official sidewalks of
property line grade of the highest abutting street at the
center of the building structure to the highest point of
the roof. The applicant has submitted a building profile
(Exhibit A) which reflects this height.
The subject property is impacted by the RM-3 (Hi 11 side-and
Soil Resource Management District) in that the average
slope does exceed 15%. This high percentage results from
two substantial slopes with a minor one located adjacent
to La Costa Avenue and a major 50% slope located along the
southerly property line. Said slopes and the pad area are
presently in existence. The proposed grading will be mi-
nor. The actual development is t'o occur totally within
the area that does not exceed the 15% slope ratio. There-
fore, other than complying to the landscape requirements
for the new slopes created as a part of this development,
this development does meet the requirements of the Hill-
side and Soil Resource Management District.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Environmental Impact Assessment Form from La Costa
. Land, December 18, 1973
2. -Apartment Count Form (Exhibit B).
3. Letter to Planning Department from G. J. Nowak,
County of San Diego Department of Sanitation and
Flood Control, December 26, 1973.
4. Letter to Planning Department from J. B. Askew, M.D.,
Director of Public Health, City of Carlsbad, December
28, 1973.
5. Letter to Planning Department from J. Dekema and T. C.
Martin, State of California Department of Transporta-
tion, December 27, 1973.
6. Letter to Planning Department from William A. Berrier,
Superintendent, San Dieguito Union High School District,
December 26, 1973.
7. Affidavit from D. L. La Cava for La. Costa Land Co. for
SP-151.
8. Affidavit from D. L. La Cava for La Costa Land Co, for
CT 73-60.
'IRONMEMTAL IMPACT ASSESSJULNT
Date: December 18, 1973 _ _ . " •
Name of Applicant: La Costa Land, A Limited Partnership
Permit Applied. For: tentative Map and Specific Plan
Location of Proposed Activity: The proposed
on the south _side of La Costa Avenue approximately 3500 feet
east of its intersection with El Oamino Real.
1. Background Information. ' .
1. .Give a brief description of the proposed activity.
The proposed project involves the construction of 102 condominium units
consisting of 4 three-story buildings over parking, 2 two-story buildings,
1 one-story building and a one story maintenance building.
The site has previously been graded, however, some additional grading
•will be required to accommodate the proposed buildings. Approximately
5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of earth will be removed from the toe of the
bank paralleling the southern property boundary. A retaining wall will be
constructed at the toe of the finished bank. All grading operations will
be performed under the supervision of a qualified soils engineer.
The construction of the proposed three-story buildings will require the
.approval of a site plan because the structures will exceed the 35-foot
height limitation. The height of the proposed buildings is 88 feet, mea-
sured from the curb elevation at La Costa Avenue to the highest point on
the roof. The top of the slope bank is 132 feet above the curb elevation
at La Costa Avenue. Therefore, as the top of the slope bank is 44 feet
above the roof line of the proposed buildings, the-view from the existing
homes on the top of the slope bank will not be affected by the proposed
construction. •
2. Describe the activity area, including distinguishing natural and manmade
characteristics. ..
The project site is located on the southerly slope of San Marcos Canyon
overlooking the La Costa Golf Course. The Canyon is quite wide at this
point and the slopes create a natural ampitheater. The slopes have been
terraced to allow development with lagoon and ocean views.
APPENDIX B.
II. Environmental Impact Analysis, '.
Answer the following questions by placing a check in the
appropriate space. .
.... . . - . N£
1. Could the project significantly change present
land uses in the vicinity of the activity? _ x_
2. Could the activity affect the use of a re-
.. creational area, or area of important
aesthetic value? _ . x
3. Could the activity affect the functioning ' ..
of an established community or neighbor-
hood? • • x
4. Co.uld the activity result in the displace-
ment of community residents? . _ _ ___X_
5. Are any of the natural or man-made features
in the activity area unique, that is, not .. .
found in other parts of the County, State,
or natio.n? . • x
6. Could the acti vi ty significantly affect a
. historical or archaelogical -site or its
setting? -\ _ _ x
7. Could the activity significantly affect
•the potential use, extraction, or con- . . '
servation of a scarce natural resource? _ _ _ •.'••__x
8. Does the activity area serve as a habitat,
fo ad source, nest ing place, source of water,
etc. for rare or endangered wildlife or
fishspecies? • .' __«_ '. . x
9. Could the activity significantly affect
fish, wildlife or plant life? . . ' _ _ _ X
10. Are there any rare or endangered plant
species in the activity area? • . _ _ X
11. Could the activity change existing features
of any of the city's lagoons, bays, or
• tidelands? . . _ X
Yes No.
12. Could the activity change existing features
of any of the City's beaches? . x_
13. Could the activity result in' the erosion
' or. elimination of agricultural lands? . : ...'... x
14. Could the activity serve to encourage ' .•
development of presently undeveloped
areas or intensify development of already
developed areas? X
15. Will the activity require a variance from
established environmental standards (air,
water, noise, etc)? ,_JL.
16. Will the activity require certification,
authorization or issuance of a permit " •
by any local, State or Federal en-
vironmental control agency? . . y
17. Will the activity require issuance of
a variance or conditional use permit
by the City? . x
18.Will the activity involve the application, . ; :
use, or disposal of potentially hazardous
materials? • ' x
19. Will the activity involve construction
of facilities in a flood plain? • t _x
20. Will the activity involve construction •
of facilities on a slope of 25 per cent
or greater? x
21. Wi-11 the activity involve construction -
of facilities in the area of an active
fault? . . y •
22. Could the activity result in the
generation of significant amounts .
of noise? . ' x
23. Could the activity result in the gen-
eration.of significant amounts of dust? . .'__ ^ x -
24. Will the activity involve the burning
of brush, trees, or other materials? • x
25. Could the activity result in a significant
change in the quality of any portion of the
region's air or water resources? (Should
note surface, ground water, off-shore) '' . • y
_ Yes NCI
26. Hill tlTere be a significant change to
existing land form? - X
(a) indicate estimated grading to be
done in cubic yards . 5 ,000 to 10,00p cubic yards.
(b) percentage of alteration to the
present land form. Minimal . .
. (c) maximum height of cut or fill
slopes. Existing 90-foot slope
27. Will the activity result in substantial
increases in the use of utilities,
sewers, drains or streets? . „____ x_
III. State of No Significant Environmental Effects '
If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in
Section II, but youthink the activity will -have no significant enviro-
mental effects, indicate your reasons below:
SEE ATTACHED.
IV. Comments or Elaborations to Any of the Questions in Section II
"(•If additional space is needed .for answeri ng any questions,
attach additional sheets as may be needed.)
Signature: /vt^-i^u L.J. _„ _^
(Person completing report)
Date signed: z^e^e.. /9//973
V. Concl us ions (To be completed by the Planning Director)
' Place a check in the appropriate box.
[] Further information is required.
It has been determined that the project will not have
significant environmental effects.
[] • It has been determined that the project could have
significant environmental effects. An environmental
impact statement must be submitted by the following
date, . .,• •
BY;
LANNING DIRECTOR
(Or Representative)
Date Received:
Environmental Impact Assessment
December 18, 1973
III. Statement of No Significant Environmental Effects.
14.) This development could intensify the
development of this'developed area if
it is a financial success. This area has
a large number of graded building sites
that are not built on yet. If this project
has above average market acceptance it
could encourage development of surrounding
lots at a faster pace.
17.) This project as planned will exceed the
height limits allowed by the City of Carlsbad
Zoning Ordinance. This departure from the
City standard will be applied for on a Specific
Plan.
EXHIBIT £>. •.-• *. !7* »• • • :'.\ "' •—+ i- vi'•"" ta^-s *"'s |f-
YPE P P^ e;1C «2S (SGI. .FT)
CPU|\|T,BY BUILDlftJG
SA ' SB-1 3 TOTALS
.
4
•-4
V.';"- '••i,1^
2-',*>•UO
10
2) (•c
., __ _ I . ' ' ' _ _ .D "-
in>i>-^<=as3V^<4^ ' •«=' fOcrif— J ,V!.'.-t*V" ' '
-*-
•"-t^.: • '• .-• •;'•.;'. Vr •''•'••^v:i
• , .'.. . • '•'••' 'i- ''•. '' ''•'• ;
'•/y-'y .;?.-• "-y''';^,H .'
'/' '^.'.c:-'^ ':;/''.'p.:.,- .'^Vy V.'.^''':H i. "" :'-, •:••";'" ;:' " •',;/":; ^<;'rt'k;-;.;.":y. i.. -.-.; • '.> ^'^y-^;^ '^ y •,.TQTAI *AS^> '.'''
Jcyr-ej:
^^^^^•^^-...^y^.jl^^*!^ -"-i^t"^--?^-^-^^*: £"r^C'-x=r~ -SSSSKK^-—4*———*
^li^-^t^^T-:.^'/^5*rn5?-'i^^^-V^JK^'. 'F^t'-^Kj'hO^"',';-';yv> f yrt^^n ;;^y j.riy,-/^^^
••?i::lMh?h'^Sl'^^':iv^
Y-*? ••
•;:. ..-2-
-z-^-
,t' .-!ur--ijl; 1.^''^^,^^^^^
;';' -•>^:&'^'.-::-'-M:''\\i •'•'•
^f.VlT/V-'iV'^r'-;1^^-"
C.J. HOUSON
Director
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
Department of Sanitation & Flood Control
County Operations Center, 5555 Overland Avenue, San Diego, California 92123
565-5325
26 December 1973
Mr. Donald A. Agatep
Director of Planning
City, of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT:. SP-151, La Costa,Views
We are currently reviewing the grading plan for the subject
development and will make, our comments on flood control and
drainage through the.plan checking process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
C..J. HOUSON
Prirfeipal Civil Engineer
GJN:pg.
1200 ELM AVENUF:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
TELEPHONE:
(714)729-1181
December 28, 1973 J&N
Mr. Donald A0 Agatep
Director of Planning
City of Carlsbad.
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Agatep:
Your request for our recommendations concerning Specific Plan
Ko. SP-151 has been received and reviewed by this department.
This department has no objections to the specific plan provi-
ded each building is connected to the Carlsbad City Water Com-
pany and the Carlsbad Public Sewer System.
ery truly yours,
J. B. ASKEW, M.D.
Director of Public Health
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSFERATION AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11, P.O.BOX 81406, SAN DIEGO 92138
December 27, 1973
ZfljgSD-O-Cbd
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92003
Attention: Mr. Donald A. Agatep
Planning Director
Gentlemen:
Your recent memorandums request comment on the following tenta-
tive maps and Specific Plans:
CT 73-60 Specific Plan 151 - La Costa Views - a condo-
minium development located south of La Costa
Ave. East of El Camino Real.
CT 73-59 Pacesetter Homes development, a portion of West
1/2 of section 21, TWN 12 S, R 4 W in City of
Carlsbad located east of Lowder Lane, north of
Camino De Los Ondos.
SP 152 Shoppers World, located between San Diego Freeway
and Avenida Encinas South of Poinsettla Lane, a
portion of North 3/4 of the Southwest Quarter of
Sect. 28, TWN 12 South, Range 4 west.
At the present time, \ve have no route studies which would affect
these properties.
Thank you for keeping us informed.
Sincerely,
J. Dekema
District Director
of Transportation
T. C. Martin
District Project
Planning Engineer
RLHtmmb
cctTCMartin
KUCMIA
j^is Smut Hi°li
minus IU r.MCfutJrli
2151 NEWCASTLE, CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA 92007 714-753-6491
December 26, 1973
City Council
City of Carlsbad
c/o Mr. Don Agatap
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Carlsbad Tract No. 73-60
Dear Mr. Agatap:
I have been asked to comment on the possible effect that the proposed Carlsbad
Tract No, 73-60 will have on school facilities in the San Dieguito Union High
School District.
At the present time secondary school facilities are extremely overcrowded within
the district.' The Trustees of the San Dieguito Union'High School District cannot
assure the availability of school facilities concurrent with need without some
type of assistance on the part of the developer. At the present time there has
been no agreement reached between the district and the developer that such assis-
tance will be provided.
Sincerely,
\
Q. &
William A. Berrier
Superintendent
bfs
cc: John Daily
DEC 3 8 1973
OITV OF CARLSBAD
Pi3ttttlR3 Department
BOARD OF TRUSTEES:
ADMINISTRATION:
David H. Thompson,
President
Douglas M. Fouquet,
Vice President
William A. Berrier,
Superintendent
Jack. R. Stevens,
Clerk
Robert A. Morton,
Assistant Superintendent
Daniel J. Rodriguez Don W. Mitchell
John J. Daily,
Business Manatjer
AFFIDAVIT
V
APPLICANT: D. L. La Cava for La Costa DATE/f%
CASE NO.
Land Co. , 9171
•
Suite
Beverl
CT 73-
'"•--,,
A
y Hills,
60
^^V L
Mil
Ca.
. L
shire
90210
,e
Blvd.
^O A
,.A^.^.}^H
I , \......--^ A^CX u- r? L , L A. C- A- 0 A . o n "4 A. /o CJ>A 02.i
, 1974, did review the proposed requirements to be attached
to any approval of Case No. CT 73-60 by the Planning Commission.
In addition, I,'JL-J)??,*^> A c- rp (.-,. (..^ (Sl^A.-o A. » am aware that
any development must comply to all requirements of the Municipal
t j N I I X""*?
Code; and I, L-.-tr>/co A ^ r^. C-. . L-A. Q ^_-^ A.» also have read
Standard Conditions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (in-lieu fees), 6, 7, 8, 9,
10. 11, 12, 13. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 of Planning Commission
Res. No. 1000. dated November 27, 1973, and do agree by the follow-
ing signature to comply with these conditions as a part of any de-
( /-"3 i \velopment of V->XC, <Z?<Z>TJ^ \J \.&
(representing)
Si gnature
Company
^- cc(ATTESTED: Addr¥ss V
2^73
Phone
AFFIDAVIT
APPLICANT: D. L. La Cava for La Costa DATE:-
Land Co. . 9171 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite A
Beverly Hills. Ca. 90210
CASE NO.: SP-151
\ ., ,I, ^.-^c ,0 tx ._ : u, . U A v . x.0 -K _ , on
fy_ , 1974, did review the proposed requirements to be attached
to any approval of Case No. SP-1 51 by the Planning Commission. In
addition, I, JLJW ^J>_<_ c, o <L . L- A C --i°J ^ » am aware that any de-
velopment must comply to all requirements of the Municipal Code;
_ ______ , s^
and I, ^L . }^<^> j\ (_ Q U^ W-A VA.v.y.V also have read Standard Con-
ditions Nos. 1 (Exhibit A), 2B, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16,
17, 18, 20. 23, 25 of Planning Commission Res. No. 999, dated No-
vember 27, 1973, and do agree by the following signature to comply
with these conditions as a part of any development of La Costa
Views (SP-151).
x--- . L\ __ ^^-T^V/^Jc^^o?^^^ (representing)
Signature
Company
G ATa G
ATTESTED: Address , c t p ^ax, Ot_t
N. «\t\. * — >C" ^"^ ^^ 1 ^<-"-' ( _-c. -
Phone