HomeMy WebLinkAboutV 327; Rancho La Costa, Inc.; Variance (V)b
STAFF REPORT
w
DATE :
TO :
FROM :
SUBJECT:
December 23, 1981
Planning Commission
Planning Department
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 :I- --
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 the se-
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.
11. 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 show'ing 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 Engineerins Department and the
Flood Control District confirming these findings are attached fez-
the Commission's review. Because these findings have been made, staff is recommending approval of SUP-5.
Major Plannina 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 speocated 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 privatae 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. .L
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 pro ect. 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.
111. 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. RECOMM~N
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
5. 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,
8. Reduced Site Plan and Elevation Plan
9. Environmental Documents
1981.
BH:ar
12/16/81
-5-
CASK
. -..-
N 0. -, CT 8F39CP-185/SUP-5/V+3?7
APPLIICANT CONDO ‘3’’ VICINITY MAP b
WENO: 2C-248, SUk 5, CT 81-39/CP-185, and V-327
AppLIcAMl: RANCHO LA COSTA, INC.
E~QUEST AND 78 unit "Timeshare" condominium project; south
east corner of El Camino Real and Costa Del Mar Road.
D-W: Lot 3 of La Costa Condominium No. 4, according to
Map 6520 filed October 21, 1969 - ' - 210 - -04 . (216-123-01) Asqsors parcel ~crmber: 216
A. pr=res 3.28 NO. offiots 78 units .-
General Plan Land Use Designation RH/O
~ensity~I.lwed 20-30 du/& Density prapo~ed 23.1
&sting Zone R-P (w/floodplain overlayPrapo& R-P (w/out floodplain bverlay)
surrounding zoning and Land use:
North (2-2 .
South p-c
East P-c
Land use
La Costa Hotel c Spa Grounds
Floodplain
La Costa Hotel & Spa Grounds
County (E) - ( 8). Batiquitos Lagoon T*st
school District. Carlsbad, dated September 24, 1981
Public Facilities Fee Agrement, dated September 17, 1981
(other: 1
. E.I.R. Certified, dated
APPLICANT : Ranch6 Ea-Costa, Inc.
Name (individual, partnership, joint VentUlre, corporation, syndication)
2100 Costa Del Mar Road
Business Address
483-9111
Telephon8 Number
AGENT: Mr. Paul Graham
Name
-- 2100 Costa Del Mar Road
P Busbess Address /”‘
438-9111
Telephone Number .
-_3_
See Attached Sheet A - MEMBERS :
Name *(individual, partner, joint Home S-ddress
venture, corporation, syndication)
_- --
I- Business Address
Telephone Nunber Telephone Xunber
_. 32siness Address
--- Telephone Nmbsr Telephone Xunber
-. -
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/r.re declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis-
closure is trrrs and correct and that it will remain true and correct and rtay be*
relie2 upon as Seing true and correct until zaended.
..
Rancho La Costa, Inc. ---_--- - -_ Applicant
BY
.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SHEET
ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP,
MAJOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT. SPECIAL USE PERMIT
ATTACHMENT A
Chairman of the Board Mr. Allard Roen
c/o Rancho La Costa Costa Del Mar Road Carlsbad, CA 92008
President:
Vice President:
Vice President:
Vice President:
Secretary:
. 4.1FC
Asst. Secretary:
(714) 438-9111
Mr. Merv Adelson Lorimar Production, Inc.
10202 W. Washington Blvd. Culver City, CA 90230 . (213) 836-3000
_- - Mr. Irwin Molasky Paradise Development Co. 3111 S. Maryland Parkway Las Vegas, Nevada 89109 (702) 735-0155
Mr. Irv Roston
c/o Rancho La Costa Costa Del Mar Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 (714) 438-9111
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) 299-8350
(714) 438-9111
October 29, 1981
Mr. Mike Holzmiller City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: PROJECT DESCRIPTION, CONDOMINIUM 5, 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.
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-
quentl’yy*%isitors arrive by common carrier and are brought by limousine to the Resort. A comparative few arrive by private
car .
As a matter of interest, approximately 3000 landings at Palomar Airport, by corporate, private or chartered jet aircraft, are directly attributable to La Costa guests each year.
-= -- _- -e
Additionally,
COSTA DEL MAR ROAD * CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 - ARU CODE 714 * TELCPHONE 438-9111
1.
Mr. Mike Holzmiller
h
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 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. 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. 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.
is at the main entrance
The result is a
The building has a fairly large overall
-c - The well established pattern of the La Costa visitor bears outzhe’ 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) bath washer, dryer and ample closet and storage space. Addi t io-* Bach 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. 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.
The garage level will have central maid stor-
. 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 the 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 sard 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.
Sincerely,
RANCHO LA COSTA, INC.
PG : ph
Paul Graham Vice President
MEMORANDUM
DATE :
TO :
FROM :
SUBJECT:
December 9, 1981
Planning Director
City Engineer
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 then 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 -Z
of before-grading and after-grading conditions that the
encroachment into the San Marcos Creek flood Dlain 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. z3
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
t
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
R. J. MASSMAN, Director
Offices of:
County Engineer
County Road Commissioner
County Surveyor
County Airports
Flood Control
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Transportation Operations
BUILDING 2 5555 OVERLAND AVENUE
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123
TELEPHONE: (714) 565-5177 December 4, 1981
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TOM HAMILTON First District
PAUL W. FORDEM Sccond District
ROGER HEDGECOCK Third District
Fourth District JIM BATES
PAUL ECKERT Fifth District
City of Carlsbad
Engineering Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: David A. Houser
Dear Sir:
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.
plain of San Marcos Creek upstream of El Camino Real bridge.
The project would encroach into the north overbank flood
The following table is a summary of the results of HEC-2 analysis done by the
developer's engineer:
Cross Section
Number
5
6
8
9
9+64
11
12
7 -&). 3
TABLE 1 - 100-year
Existing WSEL Velocity
13.13 7.4
13.27 7.9
13.86 7.0
14.06 6.7
14.33 5.4
14.46 4.6
14.51 5.5
14.57 5.6
Flood Summary
Proposed MSEL Velocity
13.13
12.95
13.77
14.01
14.28
14.37
14.57
14.51
7.4
9.1
6.5
6.0
5.0
4.5
3.6
4,2
. c
City of Carlsbad -2- December 4, 1981 .
Table 1 indicates that the project would increase the 100-year water surface
elevation .06 ft. at cross sect'ion 11 and the channel velocity 1.2 fps at cross section 6. analysis. At cross section 6, the water surface elevation would be at least 13.13 which would lower the velocity.
These deviations are generally within the accuracy of the
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,
_-
4
i-7- R. J. MASSMAN, Director \- Department of Public Works
RJM: KH: lm
.
i
..
-y,
1,' -* .i:
I;
I I
lz00 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
438 - 5591
PFOJET mFtESS/lKRIT~:
Costa ml Mar Road.
The southeast -mer of El Cb Real and
PRlYBX DESCFUFTICIN:
2) Tentative Tract Map and Candanm ' icrm Pedt for a 78 unit codo- minium project, 3) Special Use Pennit to develop in the flood overlay zone, and 4) a Vmiancx of the 35' height limitation,
1) Zcne Change to delete the Flood Plan Overlay,
me City of Carlsbad has ducted an envi-tal review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implemntation of the California Enviranmental Quality Act and the Environmental protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant hpct on the envirannrent) is hereby issued for the subject project. planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documnts is on file in the Planning Department, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
CA. 92008. Camrents fran the public are invited. Please suhnit osnanents in writing to the Planning Department within ten ( 10) days of date of issuance.
As a result of said
Justification for this action is on file in the
DATED: December 7, 1981
CASE No: Cl' 81-39/-185 V-327/suP-5 /ZC-24 8
APPLICANT: Rancho La Costa, In
PUBLISH DATE: December 9, 1981
ND-4 5/8 1
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA QzooS
a.8 - 5591
PUBLIC NUl!IcE OF PREPARATION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
The planning Department of the City of Carlsbad intends to prepare a Conditional Negative Declaration for the following project:
Project Description: 1) Zone Change to delete the Flood Plan Overlay, 2) Tentative Tract map and Condominium Pennit for a 78 unit condominium project, 3) Special Use Permit to develop in the flood overlay zone, and 4) a Variance of the 35' height limitation.
Project address/Ix>cation: Costa Del Mar Road. The southeast corner of El Canino Real and
Anticipated significant hpacts: adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.
We need to know your ideas about the effect this project might have on the environment and your suggestions for ways the project could be revised to reduce or avoid any significant environmental damage. Your ideas will help us decide what issues to analyze in the environ- mental review of this project.
As conditioned, no significant
Your ccannents on the environmental impact of the proposed project may be suhitted in writing to the Planning Department, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008, no later than
DATED: Novenber 6, 1981
JNS C. HAGAMAN
CASE NO: CI' 81-39/8-185/v-327/
sup-5
AEPLICANT: Rancho La Costa, Inc.
PUBLISH DATE: Novenber 14, 1981 MND 3
5/8 1