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