Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP 163; Beach Colony; Specific Plan (SP)CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT October 8, 1974 TO: FROM: REPORT ON: THE PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT SIR 37 SP 163 CT 74-18 "BEACH COLONY" APPLICANT:WILLIAM L, ZONGKER 1221 PARKER PLACE SAN DIEGO, CA 92109 I. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting certification of an Environmental Impact Report and approval of a Specific Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map which would allow con- struction of 24 dwelling units on a 4 acre parcel located on the west side of Carlsbad Blvd., south of the South Carlsbad State Beach Park. II. RECOMMENDATIONS: a) SIR No. 37: Staff recommends CERTIFICATION of the EIR based on the following justification: 1) The report adequately discusses the environ- mental impacts of the project and proposes mitigations and alternatives which would lessen those impacts. 2) The EIR has been properly noticed and reviewed and meets all requirements of CEQA and the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance. b) Specific Plan No. 163: Staff recommends that SP-163 be DENIED based on the following justification: 1) The site is not physically suited to the type of development proposed. 2) The proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. c) Tentative Map CT 74-18: Staff recommends that CT 74-18 be DENIED. Section 11549.5 of the State Subdivision Map Act states that a City must deny approval of a tentative map if: 1) The site is not physically suited to the type of development proposed. 2) The design of the proposed subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage. Justification for denial of the tentative map is based on these requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Ill. E.I.R. SUMMARY a) Project Description: Pages 2-6 of the draft EIR provide a description of the project. One points worth noting is: On page 2 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" b) Existing Environmental Setting: Of prime interest, and importance, is the discussion on pages 3-5 regarding the littoral processes involved with the "beach strand" on which the property is located. c) Identify Environmental Impacts: Pages 7-12 of the draft EIR describe the environmental impacts expected to occur as a result of this project. The report points out that the "primary effect from the proposed action will be to stabilize the physical conditions of the site by the replenishment of beach sand in conjunction with the proper design and construction of protective measures including the provision of a concrete seawall on contin- uous and spread footings. The change from a natural site to a developed site having up to 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." d) Adverse and Irreversible Effects of the Project: This topic is discussed on page 12 of the draft EIR. Staff feels that the greatest irreversible effect of the project will be to irrevocably commit this area to medium high density residential uses. As pointed out in 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. e) Growth Inducement Impact: This impact is described on Page 14 of the draft EIR. The expected growth induce- ment effects caused by this project alone would be limited to the property to the east, presently in the County. f) Alternative Choices: Alternatives to the proposed development are discussed on page 13 of the draft EIR. It is pointed out that a "viable alternative to the use now proposed: is for the State cTf County to purchase the site as an extension of their present facilities. g) Summary: Staff feels that development of this site would very likely cause substantial environmental impacts due to: 1) Unstable soil composition of the site. 2) Unpredictable surf and atmospheric conditions creating potentially unsafe conditions for residents and property IV. PUBLIC FACILITIES POLICY: The applicant has provided letters from all affected service districts stating that facilities will be available to serve the project. A letter from the Carlsbad Unified School District has been attached. V. PARKS ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: The Carlsbad Parks Ordinance requires that for all subdivisions with less than 50 units, in lieu fees are required. If the proposed subdivision is ap- proved, in lieu fees, allowing for open space credit, will be assessed. VI. BACKGROUND: a) Zoning: Subject Property: P-C North: RA-10,000 (State Beach Park) South: County R-f4c\(iC-ountynOwhed) East: County R-4 West: Pacific Ocean b) Legal Description: That certain parcel of land lying within Township 12 south, range 4 west, San Bernardino Meridian, in the county of San Diego, State of California, according to United States Government survey approved October 25, 1875, described as follows: Beginning at the most Southerly corner of Fractional Section 32 in said township 12 South, Range 4 West, said most southerly corner being 1837.81 feet from the northeast corner of said Fractional section 32; thence westerly along a line drawn at right angles to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean to an intersection with the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean; thence southerly along said mean high tide line to an intersection with the Southerly line of Lot 6, as extended as said lot 6 is shown on U.S. Government survey; thence North 60 degrees 23' 56" east along said southerly line of lot 6, as extended, to an intersection with the westerly line of the State Highway right of way described in deeds to the State of California, recorded July 23, 1926 in Book 1258, page 1 of Deeds, records of San Diego County and April 9, 1935 in Book 393, page 200 of Official Records of said County; and April 9, 1935, in Book 385 page 451, of Official Records of said County; thence northerly along the said westerly line of said State Highway right of way to its intersection with the Easterly line of said Section 32; then southerly along said easterly line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. c) General Plan: The adopted General Plan shows the subject property as medium high density residential at 22-47 DU/acre. The proposed Land Use Element shows a density of 10-20 DU/acre. The proposed project meets both of these requirements . The Land Use Element has a number of stated goals which should be used in evaluating the project: 1) Provide for an orderly balance of both public and private land uses within convenient and compatible locations throughout the City and to ensure that all such uses - their type, amount, design and arrangement - serve to protect and enhance the environment and the character and image of the commun- ity as a desirable beach and open space oriented urban area. 2) Encourage development only in those areas which can best.zsupport a change in land use without adverse impact. 3) Preserve and maintain the visual and physical charac- ter of all quality residential, commercial and indust- rial areas throughout the community and promote the upgrading and improvement of older or deteriora- ted areas so as to insure adequate levels of health and safety and strengthen the local economic environ- ment and visual quality of the community. 4) Develop land use policies which will identify, protect and conserve natural resources, fragile ecological areas, unique natural assets and historically significant features. 5) Strive to make the objectives of the Land Use Element available to the greatest number of citizens possible. Implementation should consider the social, economic and physical impacts on the Community. Will the proposed project enhance the beach environment of Carlsbad? Can the site support a change in land use without sustaining adverse environmental effects? Does the project preserve, protect and conserve fragile and unique Coastal Resources? Does this project promote the objectives of the Land Use Element for the greatest number of Citizens possible? These questions focus on some of the more subjective aspects of General Plan conformity. In Staff's opinion, the project would cause substantial adverse impacts which warrant its denial. The loss of fragile resources and visual/physical character would be significant. d) Project Proposal: The project will contain 24 luxury townhouse condominiums built in four (4) phases. The units will be clustered to help preserve the view potential for motorist on Carlsbad Blvd. Each unit will contain approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of living area and will be a split level design and conform to all building and height regulations of the City of Carlsbad. The density will be approximately 6.0 units per acre. The density redution and the building layout have been changed by the developers to conform to the requirements of the City of Carlsbad to conform to master planning and open space and natural vista elements. The applicant states that the buildings to be arranged so that motorists will never loose sight of the Pacific Ocean while driving on Carlsbad Blvd. e) Parking and Circulation: The applicant proposes parking at a ratio of 2.5 spaces per unit. Each unit will have 2 covered parking spaces; guest spaces for 12 cars are also proposed. The access to the site is somewhat limited by the .fact that all exiting and entering traffic must be south bound. Exiting traffic must go south to Ponto Drive in order to gain access to the northbound lane on Carlsbad Blvd. Northbound entering traffic must turn around at the La Costa Downs overcrossing. Because of high traffic volumes on Carlsbad Blvd. median breaks cannot be allowed. f) Proposed Phasing: Phase I will be the 4 unit bldg & rec area, Phase II will be the 5 unit building. Phase III will be the 7 unit building. Phase IV will be the 8 unit building. It is expected that the total development will proceed over a period of two (2) years. g) Major Planning Considerations: Coastal property is a very limited and valued commodity. For this reason, the City must very carefully examine the economic, social and environmental implications of any project which affects the coast. The City must allow the property owner economic return on his property, but it must also protect the public interest in preserving a maximum .^of both physical and visual access to the ocean. The City must also consider environmental dangers associated with building structures close to the shoreline. The appli- cant has, in staff's opinion, failed to adequately address problems of surf damage and erosion which could accompany the project. The City is legally obligated, through the EIR process to examine alternatives to the proposed action. Residential use restricts public enjoyment of the property to primarily those persons who can afford to live there. Other economic uses, commercial recreation, etc., deserve further exploration. A private parking lot, with locker and restroom facilities is one possible use for the property. Public purchase is also a likely possibility for this property. Attachments: EIR 37 Plot Plan - CT 74-18, Exhibit A dated 9-2-74 Plot Plan - SP 163, Exhibit A dated 9-2-74 School Letter