Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-09-10; City Council; 5194; GPA-48 from T-S and "O" to "C". . .. CITY OF ""RLSBAD , • ' ' Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. v<5"7 7y Dept. Hd. DATE: September 20, 1977 City Atty \> DEPARTMENT: PLANNING City Mgr. "SUBJECT:CASE NO: GPA-48 From T-S and "0" to "C" (Community Commercial) APPLICANT: WILLIAM F. BURNETT STATEMENT OF THE MATTER Application for a General Plan Amendment from T-S (Travel Service) "0" (Professional Office) to "C" (Community Commercial on property is generally located on the south- east corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. It is a triangular piece of property with frontage off El Camino Real but does not include the corner parcel at the street intersection. The General Plan designates the property as travel services, office and open space. The open space is the hillside and San Diego Gas & Electric easement on the easterly portion. The application however, is for the relatively flat 12 acre portion along El Camino Real. Staff had recommended denial of this request because it was felt that in long term development there will be a need for uses serving the traveling public and for offices Staff recognized that in the immediate land use market a community commercial center . would be viable. However, staff is concerned that in the future other shopping centers would be constructed in better, more centralized areas and reduce the viability of this location. Staff was also concerned with the poor access and the difficult terrain that would hinder good community commercial development. Staff believes that there is more site design flexibility, for an office or a motel., especially pertaining to grading .and traffic movement needs. The applicant presented a population study indicating that there was .sufficient pop- ulation that would soon be in the area to make the community center viable. They also indicated that they would work with the City in developing adequate and safe access to the site. The Planning Commission agreed with the applicant that the site was suitable for community commercial. Although the applicant asked for community commercial "C", he indicated to the Commission he really intended to construct a neighborhood commercial area. The only reason he asked for "Community" is so he may construct a restaurant that serves alcoholic beverages. The Planning Commission felt that both the restaurant with alcohol and a neighborhood shopping center would be com- patible at this location. They therefore recommended that the GPA-48 be changed to "N" (Neighborhood) which would promote the development'of a neighborhood center". How- ever, since the zoning is C-2 a restaurant with alcoholic beverages could be constructed. EXHIBITS ' Planning Commission Resolution No. 1399 Staff Report dated, August 24, 1977 Memorandum to City Manager dated, September 7, 1977 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended that GPA-48 be approved. If the City Council concurs it is recommended that City Attorney be directed to prepare documents as per Planning Commission Resolution 1399. The Planning Staff recommended that GPA-48 be denied. If the City Council concurs, the City Council is to return action to the Planning Commission for further report. FORM PLANNING 73 AGENDA BILL NO. 5194 -2- September 20, 1977 9-20-77 Following the public hearing the Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution #1399 approving GPA-48. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1399 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM TS (TRAVEL SERVICES COMMERCIAL) AND 0 (PROFESSIONAL AND RELATED COMMERCIAL) TO N (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EL-CAMINO REAL, SOUTH OF LA COSTA BOULEVARD. CASE NO: GPA-48 APPLICANT: WILLIAM F. BURNETT WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property as shown on the attached map, Exhibit "A", has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 24th day of August, 1977, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons who desired to be heard, said Commission considered all factors related to the General Plan Amendment and found the following facts and reasons to exist: 1) Proposed land use is consistent with other land use elements in the area. 2) 3) XXX Property is adjacent and compatible with other commercial uses in the area. Travel Service Land Use is not applicable to this property and it has not been demonstrated to be practical in areas away from tourist areas. XXX XXX 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 «$ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That in view of the findings heretofore made and considering the applicable law, the decision of the Planning Commission is to approve GPA-48 located on east, side of El Camino Real, south of La Costa boulevard. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission held on August 24, 1977 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Larson, Rombotis, L'Heureux, Watson, Fikes, Jose, Woodward. None. None. ERIC LARSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: •KSMES C. HA"GAJ4AN", SECRETARY GFA- FROM a o TO 200400 FEET GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 48 COMPILED FROM S.D.C.A. BOOK 216 PAGE 122 PARCELS 9,10 a II SEC- 35-TI2S-R4W-S 1/2 8 POR.NW 1/4 DATED 1977 EXHIBIT "A" '*' STAFF REPORT August 24, 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department CASE NO.: GPA-48 APPLICANT: William F. Burnett REQUEST: Approval of General Plan from TS (Travel Services Related Commercial) to C Amendment to change the Land Use Designation Commercial) and 0 (Professional and (Community Commercial) Section I - Recommendation Staff recommends denial of GPA-48 based on the following considerations: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan provides for the long-range distribution of commercial land uses. Adequate Community Commercial areas are already provided for at their optimum location within each of the identified sub-communities of the City. The development of a Community Commercial facility at the proposed location because of a marginal need at this time would preclude the viability of future developments at their optimum location. 2. There are enough commercial locations already designated on the Land Use Plan to provide for any immediate need that might exist in this area and still be compatible with the ultimate development of the designated Community Commercial areas. Additional locations along El Camino Real would only tend to develop a "strip" commercial character along El Camino Real. 3. Access onto the site will be restricted severely because of topography constraints and driveway and median- break limitations established for traffic safety. Traffic generated by a Community Commercial facility would be more intense and create more traffic-related problems than would development under the present designation of Travel Services and Professional Office. Section II - Background Location and Description of Property: The overall site consists of 16.70 acres. The portion of the site under and to the east of the SDG&E easement is designated open space and is not proposed to be changed. The remaining +_ 12 acres is designated TS and 0. The project site has been severely disturbed by previous grading and fill activities. The terrain is rough and the vegetation has been altered by the earth-moving activities. Some erosion is evident. Existing Zoning: Subject property: North: South: East: West: Existing General Plan: Subject property: North: South: West: East: Land Use: Subject property: North: South: East: West: C-2 C-2 P-C P-C C (County) TS and 0 TS and N RMH County - Commercial OS and RLM Vacant and SDG&E transmission easement Vacant (SE corner of ECR & La Costa Ave.); La Costa Plaza Vacant Open space easement and S.F. residences Small market Past History and Related Cases: The Planning Commission recently reviewed a City-initiated request to change the zone on a portion of the subject property to CT (Commercial Tourist) for reasons of general plan consistency. This zone change is to be heard on the same night as the subject application. See the discussion section for an analysis of the land use alternatives for the subject property. Environmental Impact Information: The State law allows agencies to do expanded initial studies and conditional negative declarations for projects which have mitigations proposed for all potentially significant impacts. The Planning Director has signed and, with the applicant's concurrence, has posted and published the negative declaration. The reasons for the negative declaration are as follows: 1. The site is a very disturbed environment. Sensitive development can improve the aesthetics and stabilize adverse geologic conditions on site. 2. The developer has agreed to mitigate the adverse aesthetic impacts by consenting .to the initiation of a Q zone overlay applicatio'n on the site. 3. The developer has agreed to mitigate the geologic impacts by the submission of a detailed geologic study prepared by a qualified geologic engineer. Such study shall propose methods to mitigate all adverse soil, slope and geologic conditions on the site. -2- 4. The developer has agreed to mitigate all traffic impacts which might be associated with the development of the property with a Community Commercial use. The fourth finding was made following a traffic study prepared by a consultant for the applicant and an analysis by the City Engineering Department. Although the potential impacts off the site can be mitigated, the imposed restrictions, such as the possibility of no median breaks along El Camino Real, necessary for traffic safety would severely restrict good access onto the site. The referenced traffic studies are on file in the Planning Department if anyone wishes to review them in more detail. General Plan Information: The present designation on the property is Travel Services Commercial (the northerly third of the property) and Professional and Related Commercial (the southerly two-thirds.) The TS encompasses uses which cater to the traveling public such as motels, highway-oriented service stations, and restaurants. Uses such as motels and restaurants cater to fewer, longer-term patrons than do neighborhood and Community Commercial facilities, and as such would tend to generate fewer automobile trips. TS uses usually require a site of five acres or more. The Professional and Related Commercial category includes offices, professional uses and supporting commercial facilities (such as pharmacies, blue print shops, cigar shops, etc.) This designation was intended as a transition between the Travel Service area and the residential area to the south. The proposed Community Commercial - designation is intended for a shopping complex of 6-12 acres encompassing a variety of shops, restaurants, theatres, banks, markets, variety stores, etc. An example of this type of development is the Carlsbad Plaza, where Von's and-Payless are located. The Land Use Element states that: "Community Commercial establishments usually serve a market area of up to one and one-half mile radius, containing from 5,000 to 15,000 families Easy access to a relatively large area and population is required." Staff completed a computer analysis of travel distance contours and projected 1985 population in the vicinity of the project site and for the two competing shopping centers (Carlsbad Plaza and the Alpha Beta center at Encinitas Blvd. and El Camino Real.) We concluded that: 1. The proposed center would be serving a considerably smaller number of households (about 1500) than the 5,000 - 15,000 households suggested in the Land Use Element (based on a two mile radius). -3- 2. There is some overlap of the primary market radius of the proposed site with that of the shopping center at Encinitas Blvd. and El Camino Real. There is a gap, however, between the market radius of the subject site and that of the Carlsbad Plaza to the north. A shopping center to the north and east would be located more central to the projected service population than the proposed site. . The Mola shopping center which the Planning Commission recently approved appears to be more favorably located relative to the projected service populations. The applicant has submitted marketing data of his own to support his proposal. Staff has attached that material as an appendix to this report. Regardless which population data are correct, however, does not speak to the more critical issue. That is, the Land Use Plan already provides for a Community Commercial area at an optimum location within the La Costa Community area. There is also a Community Commer- cial area designated to serve the area towards the west along Inter- state 5, south of Palomar Airport Road. This site may not be developed for awhile becausie of the requirements of the Coastal Act. However, residential development will also be delayed, thus postponing the immediate need for that site. When the need is established, the commercial area will be able to develop. Both of these sites were located on the Land Use Plan because of their good access and central location within the ultimate market area. The General Plan also speaks to the desirability of good access to a Community shopping center site. The traffic analysis submitted by the applicant and critique of that analysis prepared by the City's Trans- portation Engineer indicate that the site does pose some access problems, namely: 1. The grade differential along the site at La Costa Avenue; 2. The close proximity of the site to the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real; 3. The likelihood of a median and, therefore, limited left turn access across El Camino Real. Staff believes that with the mitigation measures proposed in the negative declaration, these traffic obstacles could be overcome. But, given the availability of other possible community and neighborhood center sites in the La Costa area (Mola, Ayres, and the center en- visioned at La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road) it appears that lesser impacting alternative locations are available. The existing TS and 0 designation would certainly generate fewer trips and hence less potential traffic conflicts. Pub!ic Facilities: There are no assurances that public facilities will be available to serve any future uses proposed for the site. However, the General Plan designation does not indicate the availability of services, nor does it ensure immediate development rights. The General Plan does assist the City in planning for long-range service obligations. -4- In the short-term, service availability is best judged at the time of discretionary acts such as subdivision maps arid site development plans. The subject application was submitted prior to the enactment of a sewer moratorium in the Leucadia County Water District boundaries. Major Planning Considerations: 1. What is the relationship between the different possible General Plan designations and their implementing zone classifications? 2. What is the short-term versus the long-range impact of this proposal? Section III - Discussion The Land Use Plan contains eight (8) different commercial classifications ranging from Regional Retail through Neighborhood Commercial. There are presently four (4) different zone classifications for commercial uses. Due to State law and present interpretation by the City, each of the Land Use designations must have a corresponding zone classification for implementation. This requirement has been the cause of many recent General Plan Amendment requests (i.e. Hadleys, Ecke, etc.). It has also created the need to create new commercial classifications in the Zone Code (i.e. the C-T Zone). When the City has then proceeded with zone changes for General Plan consistency (i.e. C-T rezonings of properties designated as Travel Service on the Land Use Plan), much opposition by the property owners has arisen. Most of this opposition arises because the owners feel the new zone would severly restrict the marketing potential of their property. This concern of the owners is basically valid because the new zones would limit the possible commercial uses that could locate on their property. All of this leads to a basic planning issue — should there be limitations on the types of commercial uses that locate in different areas or should commercial uses be allowed to locate wherever the immediate market dictates? The market should absolutely be a key factor when determining commercial locations. However, the market changes from year to year because of many uncontrollable factors. The Land Use Plan should try to project and provide for commercial needs on a long-term basis. Also, there are varying degrees of intensity between different commercial uses. The Land Use Plan must consider the impacts of the different commercial uses on the surrounding area. A Neighborhood Commercial facility properly located within a residential area would have less impact and provide a more desirable service than would a Regional Service facility, such as a lumber yard or a heavy equipment rental yard. -5- Obviously, some differentiations are easier to relate to than others. Everyone would probably agree that there should be some differentiation between potential uses. But to what degree should this occur? Perhaps the City's General Plan makes too many differentials. Many General Plans throughout the State have only three designations (Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, and Service Commercial) as opposed to the City's eight designations. Perhaps this would provide for more market flexibility while still providing for the necessary separation due to land use intensities. The property in question has many characteristics that must be considered in light of the above discussion. First of all, in terms of today's market, the applicant states that he has numerous tenants lined up that wish to locate on his property. Some of those tenants might not be able to locate there if the property were rezoned to C-T for General Plan consistency. The applicant has stated that he desires "the Community Commercial designation primarily because C-2 is considered consistent with that designation. The property is currently zoned C-2 and the zone permits a restaurant with the sale of alcoholic beverages. The applicant purports that he has such a tenant desiring to locate on the property. In most other respects, the C-l zone, considered to be consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial designation, would probably provide for all of the proposed tenants. It should be pointed out that the property to the north is designated as Neighborhood Commercial but is zoned C-2 (zoning and development took place in the County prior to annexation and subsequent General Plan designation). There is a restaurant on that site. The other consideration that must be given the property in question is its physical characteristics. Due to the aforementioned topographic constraints and the proximity of the property to the intersection of two major thoroughfares, the physical development of the property must be undertaken with extreme care. Regardless of the ultimate land use of the property, the Q zone should be applied to the corresponding zone to assure proper controls over development. Attachments: Location Map Applicant's Marketing Data MZ:j-p. -6- ' ! 11 I! i!'! ii i j • •« • i t. i'LF COURSE I !•-••' • ' :|fi i_-..'' ' r os P-48 rrom TS D and OS to RLM. N (^5, wj\(3 ^.s. fjBr,-- jrr*"' V <LAHD USEELCMENT CEKERAU PLftH CARUSTlAD SfJBSJIrtrtWn*.'*t'l^T'CAb Kee'd:'-^ "77{j&fLfr^jfcjk^Mgu^aB^iii •i Octe:7°/f^7 -PC Dafce/^//-^fc»-^»»^.^Jfc^./W»^a-^^^ii ^'•W.U^S.^,/ >Mt»AV •§ GeneraV Plan LaiujvDs«" "6oscript'ionT y^~ Er.i^fcing* Zone: ^1-2. t'roposea Acres: roposed ZQIUJ DU^s — Water-' lltthin Coast Area:Coast Permit .' BURNETT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY July 18, 1977 Mrs. Dana Hield Whitson Assistant Planner City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: General Plan Amendment, SEC El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue Dear Mrs. Whitson: In connection with the referenced matter, and in par- ticular your request for 'marketing information as set forth in your letter of June 24, 1977, I am enclosing some demographic information which I have compiled rel- ative to the feasibility of my proposed development. A market analysis of the this property clearly shows that it is best suited for a community commercial de- velopment because: 1. It meets the requirement of size, in that it comprises 16.7 acres. 2. It is located at the intersection of two major arterial streets, and is in fact, the only such intersection within 3 miles. 3. It provides the only direct access, with mini- mum driving times, to the residential community of La Costa, and the other areas contained within the primary trade area of Altamira, North Leucadia and portions of Encinitas. 4. Because of the unique configuration of the property, with some 1800 feet of frontage on El Camino Real, and 560 feet on La Costa Ave., the site can be developed with a minimum impact Pacific Mutual Building • 523 West Sixth Street • Los Angeles, California 90014 • (213) 680-9315 -2- on traffic flow along El Camino Real and La Costa Ave., and additionally, can provide a highly desirable and workable internal traffic flow. 5. It will have no adverse effect on other com- mercially designated properties in the area since the NEC of El Camino Real and La Costa Ave. is already developed with commercial and - office uses, which should materially benefit from a community commercial use of the subject property and its larger trade area to draw upon. The SWC of El Camino Real and La Costa Ave., which is commercially zoned, but located in the County, is questionable as to its devel- opment potential since it is subject to Coastal Commission approval, and additionally, might involve substantial environmental and ecolog- ical problems. 6. It is strategicly.located in the geographical center of a trade area, the configuration of which is defined by natural and logical barriers of the Palomar Industrial area to the North, the Pacific Ocean to the West, the commercial developments of Encinitas to the South, and the canyon areas separating Carlsbad from San Marcos to the East. By reason of its geographical location, the site, and its proposed development, will affford the greatest amount of goods, fa- cilities and services to be furnished to the larg- est possible number of people, with resultant minimum driving times of only one to five minutes, 7. The present population of 13,000+ within the trade area is already sufficient to support a community commercial development, and it is projected that by the proposed opening date of the development, the population will approach 20,000. Based upon current building activity, and projections for further residential devel- opment, the population of the trade area might well be in excess of 40,000 people by 1985. 8. There presently exists within the trade area, no substantial commercial development to furnish the every day needs of those residing now, and in the future, of the La Costa and surrounding- residential areas. -3- I believe the enclosed information certainly evidences that a community commercial use of the subject property is justified, and I hope it will be of assistance to you in evaluating my proposed Amendment to the General Plan. Thank you very much for your consideration and please let me know if you need any additional information Very truly yours, William F. Burnett WFB:Iw cc: Mr. Jim Hicks, Coldwell Banker TRADE AREA POPULATION 1975 CENSUS Census Tract No. Population 200.03 ' 928 176. (1/2) . 2,332 177. (1/2) . 2,716 178.05 1,106 ' Total 7,082 Estimated as of 1-77 200.03 2,000 176. (1/2) 2,932 177. (1/2) 2,976 178.05 2,486 Total 10,394" NOTE: As of 6-22-77 Postal Department states there are now 1,800 mail drops in-La Costa (200.03), which would indicate a present population of some 5,000+ in La Costa (instead of 2,000 estimated as of 1-77), and a present population in the trade area of approximately 13,500. Add: Subdivisions under construction Subdivision No. No. Units 13 253 20 127 20A 51 - 20B 90 21 216 26 303 27 371 29 226 29A ' 63 30 & 31 180 33 420 Total 2,300 x 3 = 6,900 . Projected population of trade area by 3-79 17,294 to 20,294 S.F.R. Lots' Sold to Date Subdivision No. 21B 42 Total No. Units 100 480 580 x 3 = Population 1,740 28 Monarch Terrace Additional Projects 408 x 2 = 282 x 2.5 = Projected population of trade area by 12-79 816 705 20,555 to 23,300 Projected population of La Costa by 1985 Projected population of trade area by 1985 30,000 40,000 to 50,001 12 21A 24 25 26A 32 34 35 Additional Ten. Maps Filed . 343 101 190 464 300 211 180 288 Total Units 2,077 1975 CENSUS TRACTS 178.04 1,108 178.05 • 1,106 176. . . 4,664 177 . 5,432 175 4,292 171.03 3,043 171.01 3,474 171.02 565 200.03 928 174.02 5,838 30,510 i _."Kf.,. .4* Vs&sK ir2** ,,.„_ _\j, ^!Sw»>?£«*«tt;;.ns-vrT-Wl^wVlV1 TS^^i^^^^fSP'^^ - ^lifi&ittli-i i-SJ^KJ5^--- - LUu. L .1.:.. ...it J_|__.\ • xB^^mitXlltes^i.4c«i!; \ ii|^\pSvV W-P^4 K i :$$'••' • 1 v -''-r •:• l--30^1^- .^; $^"f&^^1^"fe }j!.-/--^,J ' *> ^ ..j.V::^,!l^4:l;:-.-^\?U:l:l3.2--f6lWASffPl/fx'V i I"m*t:^r^^ADM•'£$.''feraUllH^, ^-^ L\!i. •11"-H:-Xr/:':^«>< *»" ..\ -vr- \'v4 i fVT- \', \i \\\.'-' i •'* \ ':'-rn , _ faf.'vitr X.^- jrO-*—*i:'' .m i L ^t : -j. •• •;^vvT^\^r^^ • \ j^a*-.-=. >%feia£y^ i. .^-cs J^M^rahWl1". i"~ r^"T" I—- ^---^^-r :?™7?H;--my^o i v..| i A . ^_\-l :.;,,:^,: ^k^^ior _- a^ .0 r::^m- !1U—J.« w'; • -'.'>*\!"): j''-'^-1'"'"'''.; v1 "ii;---/'\ a-;: > A-^';'.•;- 'XYV.^^sJJ i«^ ? !lrT^^J~v®^v^iNio^^ TRADE ATtKA b COHPKTITION ALPHA UMTA (_J FOOD 11ASKKT »: PAYI.F.KS MAP KEY SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY * 8. . Master-Planned Community (under study) 600 acres 2500 units* Mixed densities * 9. Master-Planned Community (under study) 900 acres 3700 units± Mixed densities *10. .' - ' Single Ownership - Master Plan potential 557 acres *11. Single Ownership - Master Plan potential 840 acres *12. Ranch Carillo - Units 1-3 111 acres 343 S.F.R. units Ten. map being held for sewer. *13. Ponderosa Homes '' 100 acres- 253 S.F.R. units Phase 1 (142 homes) under construction v19. La Costa Vale - To be Master-Planned La Costa Land Co. - 2000± units No definite plans at this date 20. Coventry-Warmington Developers 40 acres 127 S.F.R. units Models and homes under construction From $85,000 up 20A. Henegar Construction 51 S.F.R. units Under construction $97,500 to $119,500 20B. Sagewood - Sim Development 90 S.F.R. units - Construction to commence in July $80,000 to $100,000 21. Corona La Costa Woodward Companies 216 S.F.R. units - Under construction $65,000 to $85,000 21A. Alicante Hills - La Costa Land Co. Ten. map filed - 85 acres - 101 S.F.R. units -2- 21B. La Costa Estates North 136 acres - 115 lots - 90% sold out $50,000 to $85,000 per lot *22. -. Single Ownership For sale 60 acres - Possible 190 S.F.R. units Coastal Commission approval required In hold - City of Carlsbad *23. Roger Wood Co. .- ' 125 acres - 400± S.F.R. units Problems with Coastal Commission Escrow canceled *24. Pacesetter Homes 39 acres - 190 duplex units Recorded final map Coastal Commission problems In hold - City of Carlsbad *25. Standard Pacific 74 acres - 464 duplex units Approved map Coastal Commission problems In hold - City of Carlsbad *26. Spinaker Hills - Standard Pacific 93 acres 303 S.F. R. units Under construction 130 sold - $77,000 to $107,000 *26A. Covington Bros. . Final map - 300 condominiums Coastal Commission *27. Ranch La Cuesta "Seaport" - Ayres 121 acres 371 S.F.R. units First phase - 200 homes under construction Has received Coastal Commission approval for balance of 171 homes , $70,000 to $90,000 *28. Quail Garden Estates Just received Coastal Commission approval 151 acres - 408 units - duplexes and condominiums Construction to commence by December -3- 29; Monarch Hills & Monarch Place - Shapell 106 acres 226 S.F.R. units Under construction - $60,000 to $135,000 " . Shapell has plans for additional 282 units (attached and detached - "Monarch Terrace") by end of year 29A. Cedar Ridge North - Standard Pacific . 63 S.F.R. units - Sold out - $65,000 to $80,000 30. & 31. Santa Fe Crest - Pardee Construction ' 180 S.F.R. units - 100 homes completed, Balance of 80 under construction 32. Santa Fe Knolls Ten. map filed on first phase - 70 acres - 211 S.F.R. units Total build out projected for 700 units *33. Rancho del Ponderosa 120 acres - 420 S.F.R. units - first phase of 150 sold - Second phase of 100 under construction *34. Ten. map filed - 60 acres - 180 S.F.R. units - County of San Diego - waiting for determination on 36, 38 & 39. *35. . . Ten. map filed - 96 acres - 288 S.F.R. units County of San Diego - waiting for determination on 36, 38 & 39. *36, 38 & 39. Ten. maps filed - Total of 107 acres - 305 S.F.R. units - Turned down by County Planning Commission due to school overcrowding and sewer capacity. Developers are appealing to Board of Supervisors on basis that they have approval letters from School and Sewer Districts. Note: Developers of 34 and 35 also have approval letters. *37. Approved final map - 49 acres - 183 S.F.R. units - ' ' under construction. *40. Approved ten. map - 100 acres - 285 units - Mixed densities - Coastal Commission problems *41. ' Final map recorded - 31 acres - 92 S.F.R. units -4- . 42; La Costa South Lots - (All South of La Costa Boulevard) R-l 7500 46 lots R-2 74 lots . . R-l 7500 51 lots R-l 7500 68 lots R-2 53 lots R-l 7500 66 lots R-l 7500 50 lots R-l 7500 . 68 lots - ''• R-l 7500 32 lots Total Lots 508 Approximately 95% of the Single-Family lots have been sold to custom home builders. Many of the R-2 lots have beer. sold for Single-Family construction. Would estimate that 50% of the Single-Family has been built out within the last year. * - NOTE: None of these subdivisions are within the boundary limits of the planned residential community of La Costa. fTTTHf^"'^ \j jX: Vi^ ™ _,'_\T.!_.-.;X'U-'"""•7"--^AT-; •JxC=-:/ «••'•••..•<••,•••'• ^;ir J;••::;i r-/ ' ''^ • \VV\?» "•• -76 " T:" '_ V___^-_il- •'-y> .•"••;.• "._\\'' •'•^— --- --;_>•;--: -••.o'-v'.v.-. ... j. ^ •;•! tJ.;"?'••>,:-, '^l'.^\ / . \'\ "\"-" / ** ^i ]™*i Vi. i ' I :/'. . ..X! ' " '^TTiP* /.,v (.'*\' i ^* \ ' .. x^" ***~*tM ^f/" . -> •. y _-^\ v^M Af=^ '// v/^=i'vi;w;v :X"v ;^-',r:-,<^i^;;.: •;;:-/^--^ - A -v / •.•-.-.. .-j.v..:.U f \ '--^-'»..^ ::.-.—«..:-.,. •:•...... '.' ".;•.;.:=/ -it.'.'V V. /- • ' f • • "S • ^«r>;;W^^^^^:-.>-^'iS^nr^||gi^l'iiifi : VVi \\R« iwl '•' • • • !• '• N- ^;" • ,->wv:-WG^B^^^^s^^^©^i^~X;~t""T'^^m^^Sf^0 > i- -COUNTY/7^ .r >i '"»!; : M^m 39,- r \ V - ^ B f ^wr t-^i_;J^-^V" '$\V/'M ""r-^-v«^: S?^1 i —\ :; .'^«-.i-^:W-,.;As-J ?Ay ;•MW u^-^^-^r-'1'1 V;~ir-m^-^^^^-. ( ••i%* iS'-V*-;?—-^•-^-Jr'-H--- A-^-^r^4va^;||^3\^ V. ••^-- '•,-^?ipf 3^/'3r^- - j^O^ W.^; ^:^^^f7^^^ —r i •^^±^^^::^Ti/i^^Q^,>> ^/Jr i. i •/ OLIVENIHAJN! 'L*c MEMORANDUM DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 1977 TO: PAUL BUSSEY, CITY MANAGER FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: GPA-48, WILLIAM F. BUFNETT Several questions were raised at the Planning Cotmission hearing on this application. This memo is intended to clarify these points. Description of Request; The overall site is 16.70 acres. The existing General Plan shows the area under the SDG&E easement (approximately 5 acres) as open space. This is not to be changed. Of the remaining +12 acres, the northerly third is shown as Travel Service and the southerly two-thirds is shown as Professional. The applicant requested that the 12 acre portion of the property be designated as Coitntunity Comnercial. The Planning Commission recormended that a Neighborhood Com- mercial designation be approved instead. As a separate action, the Planning Com- mission recommended that a Q Overlay Zone be applied to the existing C-2 Zone on the property. Slope; The site has been severely disturbed by previous grading and fill activities. The site will have to be radically graded to create a usable, level pad. However, because of the disturbed nature of the site, staff believes that proper grading can stablize soil conditions. The attached map shows the relationship between the open space designation, SDG&E easement, the 25% slope area and the relatively flat buildable area along El Camino Real. It can easily be seen that little if any of the slope land power easement or open space can be used for development or parking. Population; At the Planning Commission meeting there was considerable debate over the service population estimated by staff vs. that estimated by the applicant. The problem was not in the figure used, but how they were used. The applicant submitted evidence that showed sufficient population to support the proposed shopping center. Staff reviewed this same information, but related it to all commercial centers proposed in the south Carlsbad area. The question was not can the population support the proposed center, but can this population support all the proposed shopping centers in the area. DHW:BP:ar Attachment Slope and Open Space Map LA COSTA BLV O IOO 2OO 300 FEET »«••••••• I» •*»»»*••!*»•••••••OPEN SPACE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-48 NOTICE IS HEREBY of Carlsbad will hold a GIVEN that the City Council of the Public Hearing at the City Council City M.Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 7:00 P on Tuesday, September 20, 1977, to consider an application to amend the General Plan from Travel Services Commercial and Professional and Related Commercial to Community Commercial on property generally located on the south side of La Costa Boulevard, east side of El Camino Real and as shown on the map. APPLICANT: WILLIAM F. BURNETT PUBLISH:September 7, 1977 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL NOTE GP-.48 From TS, . and O- to C ..," C DENIED 8 ' N.VAPPROyED * BY PLANNING COMMISSION ON ^8/24/77