Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-21; City Council; 6571; Certification of an Environmental Impact Report 40 Unit Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit Pointe San Malo EIR 80-04j, „ CITY OF CARLSBAD 4 V?' AGENDA BILL NO: (f £~ 7 1 DATE: APRIL 21, 1981 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING CTY. MGR.' SUBJECT; CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-3 AND R-A TO RD-M AND CONSIDERATION OF A 40 UNIT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT. CASE NO; EIR 80-4/ZC-226/CT 80-24/CP-102 APPLICANT; POINTS SAN MAID This item is a request for certification of an Environmental Impact Report, an appeal of the Planning Conmissicn' s decision to deny a zone change fron R-3 and R-A to RD-M and consideration of a 40 unit tentative tract map and condominium permit located on the north side of Ocean Street, between the AT&SF Railroad and the Pacific Ocean. The Planning Ccrrmission, after considering all public testimony, found that the Environmental Impact Report adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the project. The Conmission, therefore, is recotmending certification of the EIR to the City Council. Staff had originally reconnended approval of both the zone change and ccndoninium permit, however, with respect to the zone change, the Cotinissicn felt that an RD-M zone district for the entire parcel was not appropriate given the sensitive environmental features of the site. Specifically, the Commission felt the lower bluff adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and Buena Vista Lagoon was not suitable for high density development. The Cormissicn is, therefore, recormending denial of the zone change, and in conjunction, denial of the tentative tract map and condominium permit. FISCAL IMPACT If this project is approved by the City Council, the applicant will be required to provide all necessary public improvements. Also, the applicant has agreed to pay a public facilities fee for the provision of all other public services to the project. RECOMMENDATION T) Both the planning staff and Planning Conmission recoitmend that the City Council CERTIFY EIR 80-4, and that the City Attorney be directed to prepare documents CERTIFYING EIR 80-4 per Planning Conmissicn Resolution No. 1795. 2) The Planning Conmission recormends that this application be DENIED and that the City Attorney be directed to prepare documents DENYING the appeal of ZC-226 per Planning Conmission Resolution Nos: 1779 & 1780. 3) The Planning Conmissicn reccrtmends that this application be DENIED and that the City Attorney be directed to prepare documents DENYING CT 80-24/CP-102 per Planning Conmissicn Resolution No. 1780. ATTACHMENTS 1. PC Resolution Nos: 1795, 1779 and 1780 2. Staff Report with attachments, dated March 25, 1981 AGENDA. BILL NO. 6571 April 21, 1981 Page 2 COUNCIL ACTION: 4-21-81 Council certified EIR 80-4, and directed the minutes containing the public comments be included as part of the EIR. Council expressed their intent to grant the appeal of the Planning Conmission's denial of ZC-226, but noting that the triangular piece of property should remain R-A; and requested consideration of an emergency vehicular access on the southeastern portion of the property, and returned the matter to the Planning Commission for recommendation and report. Council expressed their intent to approve the tentative map and condomium permit and returned the matter to the Planning Commission for findings. cc o 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 RESOLUTION NO. 1795 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 80-4) FOR A PROJECT GENERALLY INCLUDING A ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT. APPLICANT: POINTE SAN MALO—NATIVE SUN INVEST- MENT GROUP. WHEREAS, on March 11, 1981, and again on March 25, 1981, the Planning Commission, of the City of Carlsbad, held a / consolidated public hearing on EIR 80-4 and on Zone Change ZC- 226; and Tentative Map CT 80-24 and Condominium Permit CP—102 pursuant to the provisions of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the comments and documents of all those persons testifying at the public hearings; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed EIR 80-4 according to the requirements of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as followst 1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2. That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 80-4 will be amended to include the comments and documents of .those testi- fying at the public hearing and responses thereto hereby found to be in good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of the minutes of said public hearings into the report. 3. That the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Environmental Impact Report EIR 80-4 has been completed in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the state guidelines implementing said Act, and the provisions of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and that the Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and evaluated the information contained in the report. •• •• ' Q en U) Q ni °- f*K < 01 VINCENT F. BIONDO, JATTORNEY - CITY OF C1200 ELM AVENUEkRLSBAD, CALIFORNIA* ° O r 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 4. That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 80-4 as so amended and evaluated, is recommended for acceptance and certifi- cation as the final Environmental Impact Report and that the final Environmental Impact Report as recommended is adequate and provides reasonable information on the project and all reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto, including no project. • 5. That each an every significant environmental impact identified in the Environmental Impact Report would be overruled or counterbalanced by changes or alteration in the project which would mitigate against said adverse impacts or, in certain cir- cumstances, that mitigation of such adverse impacts would not be feasible under the circumstances and under the economic and social needs objectives and concerns in providing the private improvements all as identified in the Environmental Impact Report and which, if the project were to be approved, would be included as conditions of approval of the project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of April , 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairman Marcus, Commissioners Larson, Jose, and Friestedt. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Leeds. ABSTAIN: Commissioners Rombotis and L'Heureux. MARY CARL RCUS, Chairman D PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ES C. HAGAm^K Secretary RLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 3 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. 1779 A RESOLUTION OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION OP THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-3 AND R-A TO RD-M (RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MULTIPLE) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OCEAN STREET BETWEEN THE AT&SF RAILROAD AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN. APPLICANT: NATIVE SUN INVESTMENT GROUP CASE NO; ZC-22.6 - WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit: All that portion of Lot 2 and a portion of Lot 3, Section 1, Township 12 South, Ranges west, San Bernardino Meridian, in the city of Carlsbad, according to official plat thereof, lying southwesterly of the AT&SF Railway. has "been filed with the city of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 11th day of March, 1981, hold a duly noticed public hearing and a continued public hearing on March 25, 1981, as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Change; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES ZC-226, based on the following findings: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Findings; 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) The property consists of two identifiable portions each with different characteristics and ability to support development. The requested RD-M zone is not appropriate for the lower portion of the property which is presently zoned R-A. The Environmental Impact Report reviewed in conjunction with this project (EIR 80-4J indicates that changing the zoning on the lower portion of the property may cause significant environmental impacts and could give the lower portion of the property a density that is inappropriate to the site. In order to mitigate against significant environmental impacts on the Buena Vista Lagoon, the lower portion of the property may be a logical extension of the existing open space designation surrounding other portions of the lagoon. The upper (bluff) portion of the property which is presently zoned R-3 may be appropriate for rezoning to RD-M. However, because the project as designed involves both the upper and lower portions of the property and because of the environmental difficulties of the site, rezoning of the upper (bluff) portion is not appropriate at this time. //// PC RESO #1779 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the city of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of April, 1981, "by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairman Marcus, Commissioners Larson, Jose, and Friestedt. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Leeds. ABSTAIN: Commissioners Rombotis and L'Heureux. MARY MARWS, Chairman CARLSBA0 PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MAN , /SCT HAGMAN,/Secretary rARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PC RESO #1779 -3- i 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. 1780 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OP THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING- DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO DEVELOP 40 UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OCEAN STREET BETWEEN THE AT&SF RAILROAD AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN. APPLICANT: NATIVE SUN INVESTMENT GROUP CASE NO: CT 80-24/CP-102 . WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit: All that portion of Lot 2 and a portion of Lot 3, Section 1, Township 12 South, Ranges west, San Bernardino Meridian, in the city of Carlsbad, according to official plat thereof, lying southwesterly of the AT&SF Railway. 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 11th day of March, 1981, hold a duly noticed public hearing and a continued public hearing on March 25, 1981, as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends DENIAL of CT 80-24/CP-102, based on the following findings: 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 Findings: 1) The project as designed is inconsistent with the existing R-3 and R-A zoning on the property. 2) Because of the inconsistency with the existing zoning, the site is not physically suitable for the type of development being proposed because of the environmental problems with development on the lower portion of the property as indicated by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 80-4) reviewed in conjunction with the project and the comments made at the public hearing. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the city of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of April, 1981, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Leeds. Chairman Marcus, Commissioners Larson, Jose, and Friestedt. None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners Rombotis and L'Heureux, MARY MAJ&eUS, Chairman CARLSBM) PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ES C. HAGAMAJK, 'Secretary:RLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION PC RESO #1780 -2- c STAFF REPORT DATE: March 25, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: EIR 8Q-4/ZC-226/CT 80-24/CP-102 - POINTS SAN MALO - NATIVE SUN INVESTMENT GROUP - Request for review of an Environmental Impact Report, approval of a Zone Change from R-3 and R-A to RD-M and a Tentative Subdivision Map and Condominium Permit to develop 40 units on the north side of Ocean Street, "between the AT&SF Railroad and the Pacific Ocean. This request was originally presented at the Planning Commission meeting on March 11, 1981. Due to the anticipated length of the Planning Commission meeting, the public hearing on this item was limited to one hour. As there were other individuals who wished to be heard on this matter, the public hearing was conti- nued to this date. Staff has attached the original staff reports, recommendations, and materials presented at the previous meeting for the Planning Commission's review. Attachments Staff Report dated, March 11, 1981 CDN:ar 3/18/81 , STAFF REPORT DATE: March 11, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: EIR 80-4/ZC-226/CT-80-24/CP--102 - POIHTE SAH HALO -"NATIVE SUN INVESTMENT GROUP - Request for review of an Environmental Impact Report, approval of a Zone Change from R-3 and R-A to RD-M and a Tentative Subdivision Map and Condominium Permit to develop 40 units on the north side of Ocean Street betwae'n the AT&SF Railroad and the Pacific Ocean. I- PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a request for review of an Environmental Impact Report, approval of a Zone Change from R-3 and R-A to RD-M (Residential Density Multiple), and a Tentative Subdivision Map and Condominixim Permit to develop 40 units on three parcels, totaling 10.3 acres, located, as described above. The subject property is topographically distinguished by two areas. An upper bluff extends out from Ocean Street, front- ing along the beach, -.nd a larger flat area, approximately 6-10' below the bluff, terminates, to the north, at the mouth and edge of the Bucna Vista Lagoon. The project in- cludes 5.5 acres of land.- proposed, by the applicant, to be • dedicated to an appropriate public agency as park land, (please sec attached letter, dated December 4, 1980, from Native Sun Investment Group). The majority of this land is in the lower portion of the property, fronting on the lagoon. An open space easement, a minimum of 12* wide, would connect this area with additional beach frontage also to be dedicated to the public, The present zoning on the property is also topographically divided. The upper bluff is zoned R-3 and the lower area, R-A. The applicant is requesting a zone change to RD-M for consistency of standards of development and to permit con- struction of attached condominium units. The units themselves would be divided among five, six-unit buildings and two, five-unit buildings. The project would be comprised of fourteen, first-floor flats; fourteen, second floor flats and twelve, two-story townhouses. The units would range in size from 14CO-2143 sq.ft. The build- ings would be 2% and 3 storie.s high. The project's overall density in 3.80 dwelling units/acre and staff has found this density to be v.-.ithin or below the R-M -and RMH land use designations Cor the site. |o II. ANALYSIS ' Planning Issues (ZC-226) 1) Is the requested zone change consistent with the .General Plan? . 2) Are the lots suitable in size and shape to accommodate development permitted in the proposed zone? 3) Would the requested zone change adversely impact surrounding properties? Discussion The applicant's motivation for requesting a zone change is two-fold; first to attain consistency in development standards for the entire property and secondly, to permit construction of attached units. The property is presently zoned R-3, on the upper bluff and R-A in the lower area. The R-3 zone permits multiple family development, for condominiums, at the density specified in the General Plan. The R-A zone, however, does not permit construction of attached units. The developer is requesting the rezoning to allow more creative use of this unique property. The project, as designed, would cluster dwelling units, predominately on the upper bluff, and maximize open space near the more environmentally sensitive area of the lagoon. The proposed zone change to RD-M (Residential Density Multiple) would be consistent with the land use designations and corresponding density ranges established by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The subject property has two land use designations, RMH, (Residential Medium High Density), on the bluff area and RM (Residential Medium Density) on the lower area. The RD-M zoning was chosen as the appropriate designation, as permissable density would be determined by the General Plan and thereby reflect both land use classifications. Staff feels that a single zoning designation, on the property, representing the guidelines of the land use element, would be consistent with the General Plan while allowing for more comprehensive design of the site. A portion of the project site is impacted by noise from the AT&SF Railroad, as defined by the Noise Element. This area, along the eastern boundary, includes approximately one third of the project site, including the majority of the proposed park site. The Noise Element of the General Plan establishes no specific development standards but recommends the use of site plan review to mitigate anticipated impacts. A further discussion of potential impacts and mitigation measures is included in the project portion of this report. As the area is committed to residential development and no increase in permitted density is involved, staff feels that the proposed zone change would be consistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan. — 2— W The lots, themselves, are all adequate in size and shape to accommodate multiple, family development. The smallest of the three lots is 1.78 acres, more than adequate to support development permitted in the RD-M zone. No adverse impacts to surrounding properties are anticipated from approval of the zone change. The RD-M designation is consistent with the land use classifications specified for this property. Additionally, properties to the east and south are permitted the same or higher density development. No increase in intensity of permitted development would result front the requested zone change. Therefore, no detri- mental effects, associated with the zone change, are antici- pated on neighboring residential or lagoon property. Overall, staff feels that the requested zone change is consistent with all applicable elements of the General Plan, would not adversely affect surrounding properties and that the lots are adequate in size and shape to accommodate development' permitted in the RD-M zone. Planning Issues (CT 80-24/CP-102) 1) Have the environmental impacts of the project including wave action and eroison, traffic, biology and beach access been adequately addressed and reduced to an acceptable level? 2) Does the project meet all development standards of the Condominium Ordinance? 3) Does the project meet all aspects of the design criteria of the Condominium Ordinance? Discussion Staff had several major concerns regarding the impact of the project on the environment including wave action and eroison, traffic, biology and beach access. These concerns have been addressed in the draft EIR (attached) and are also summarized in the attached memorandum to the Planning Commission from the Planning Director dated March 11, 1981. Staff feels that these concerns have been adequately addressed in the draft EIR^ and—that the mitigating measures identified in the EIR and recommended as condition of approval should the project be approved will reduce the adverse impact of the project to an acceptable level. The applicant has also redesigned the project from what was originally proposed in order to mitigate and reduce impacts on the environment. However, because of the location of the project, without significantly reducing the density and further redesigning the project, the impacts of the project cannot totally be eliminated. A portion of the project would be impacted by noise as the eastern boundary of the property adjoins the AT&SF Railroad right-of-way. All of the proposed units would be constructed outside the 65 decibel CNEL, (Community Noise Equivalent Level) noise contour established by the city's Noise Element. As discussed in the EIR, no significant noise impacts are anticipated to the residences. However, staff is recommending, as a condition of project approval, that additional insulation be provided to reduce interior noise levels to the State of California standard of 45 dBA. Although a portion of the recreation and park area would fall within the 65 CNEL noise contour, no adverse impacts are anticipated to these uses. The design of the project appears consistent with the policies of the Noise Element of the General Plan of utilizing site review to encourage orientation of living units away from noise generators. This issue of traffic circulation was evaluated and dis- cussed in the EIR with the conclusion drawn that significant impacts to the existing traffic circulation, within the project vicinity, were not anticipated. Due to the volumes of traffic expected to be generated by the project, (440 ADT), the substandard nature of the streets involved, and public concern expressed during the EIR preparation and review periods, staff undertook additional study and evalu- ation of the traffic situation. Staff determined that although a noticeable increase in traffic would occur, the existing street systems could accommodate the traffic gener- ated and that measures could be taken to sufficiently miti- gate the increase (please see attached memo from Engineering Department, dated March 11, 1981). These measures have been incorporated as suggested conditions of approval. Staff's greater concern pertained to future traffic genera- tors as the neighborhood undergoes transition to the high density, multiple-family residential uses planned. The existing streets in the vicinity are substandard, somewhat reducing their overall capacity. The city does hold future improvement agreements on Ocean Street and Mountain View Drive. The city also owns additional right-of-way on Pacific Avenue and could widen this street based on future needs. Staff feels that these provisions should allow for miti- gation of future generation of traffic. The project would meet or exceed all development standards of the Condominium Ordinance. The development would be served by private driveways originating from one central entrance off Ocean Street. This entrance would be controlled by a security card gate. Provision has been made, on-site, to accommodate three stacking vehicles waiting to enter the development. As shown on Exhibit "B", all guest parking would be provided at various locations within the project, convenient to the units. -4- e 5 As shown on Exhibit "C", resident parking would be accommodated by a combination of private garages, one covered parking area and one uncovered parking area. Storage space, 4180-560 cu.ft. per unit, would be provided within the garages, covered parking areas and one free-standing storage building. Individual utility meters and four centralized refuse areas would be provided. Laundry facilities have been designed in each unit. Open recreation requirements would be far exceeded by a combination of private and common areas. Each unit would have either a private deck, balcony or combination thereof. Two common recreation areas would be provided, a pool area and four tennis courts. Additional recreation areas available would include the beach and park area, adjacent to the lagoon, all to be dedicated to the public by the developer. Four access points would be provided from the project to these areas. From a design perspective, staff feels that the project has been comprehensively designed, incorporating the natural features of the site. The units, themselves, have been clustered, predominately on the upper bluff. This grouping, combined with a "stepping-down" of the units, takes advant- age of the views afforded the site while maximizing the open space available to the public (as discussed in the EIR, a portion of the land, proposed as a park site, will be sub- ject to a clearing of sovereign claims with the State Lands Commission prior to dedication). The internal circulation system, landscaping, buildings and open space relate well to each other and the site. ' Parking, storage and beach access have been conveniently located. Pedestrian walkways have been integrated, linking units to beach access and recreation areas. Finally, the proposed development would be compatible with existing and planned land uses. The existing neighborhood includes a combination of single family homes, condominiums and one large apartment building immediately adjacent to the site. Present zoning and land use designations would permit future high density, multiple-family development. Staff feels, therefore, that the proposed development would be consistent and not a disruptive element to the neighborhood. Staff is satisfied that the project is consistent with all applicable elements of the General Plan, meets all aspects of the development standards and design criteria of the Condo- minium Ordinance and would not cause significant traffic problems. Staff has received several letters and a petition from the pnb3.ic, expressing their opposition to the project. These documents have been attached for your persual. c; III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff had environmental concerns regarding the proposed development. The most significant of these pertained to wave action and erosion, traffic, biology and beach access. Staff feels these concerns have been adequately addressed by the draft EIR, and recommends that the Planning Commission, by minute motion, recommend certification of the EIR by the City Council. IV. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend certification of EIR 80-4.by minute motion, adopt Resolution No..1779, recommending APPROVAL of ZC-226 and adopt Resolution No. 1780, recommending APPROVAL of CT 80-24/CP-102, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. ATTACHMENTS . 1) PC Resolution Nos: 1779 and 1780 2) Memorandum from Planning Director to Planning Commission re: Draft EIR 3) Background Data Sheet 4) Location Map 5) Letter from Native Sun Investment Group, dated 12/4/80 6) Memo from Engineering Dept., dated March 11, 1981 7) Letters and petition of opposition from various residents 8) Disclosure Form 9) Exhibit X, dated March 11, 1981 10) Exhibits: A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I, and K, dated February 24, 1981 CDN:ar 2/24/81 -6- DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM March 11, 1981 Planning Commission Planning Director ^erfl DRAFT EIR FOR POINTE SAN HALO' CONDOMINIUMS The proposed project, Pointe San Malo Condorainiums , is the construction of 40 units o'n approximately 10.3 acres. The site' is located on the south side of Buena Vista Lagoon and north of Ocean Street. The site fronts on the Pacific Ocean. The applicant submitted environmental information prepared by their consultant. The city then hired a consulting firm, Haworth and Anderson, to review and revise the environmental information and to prepare the draft EIR. The city's con- sultant wrote the Response to Comments and everything in italic type within the body of the draft EIR. The appli- cant's consultant wrote everything in the body of the draft EIR which is not in 'italic type. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission , by minute motion, recommend certification of EIR 80-4 by the City Council. MAJOR ISSUES 1.Wave Action and Erosion Research done for the draft EIR pointed out two basic pro- blems. The first is the action and effect of waves upon the proposed retaining wall/seawall. The second problem is the incremental effect-of the project on beach erosion. The EIR notes that this area is subject to occassional severe wave conditions depending tipon the season or the direction of the waves. It is expected that the proposed retaining wall/ seawall would be subject to impacts from \y-aves and from the cobbles on the beach. Also, if not properly designed, the wall could incrementally increase the erosion of sand from the beaches.. The EIR notes that it is impossible to lint all the impacts that way occur to the proponed wall due to changing weather patterns. However, it is stated in the KIR that as a miti- gation measure the actual design of the proposer! retaining wall/seawall should be subject to dotai-lort engineering r.tudicn. This would ensure thait the' wa'll is built with cidoquato and updated engineering principles. I Lo c The second problem listed is the incremental effect that this project might have on beach erosion. Any construction along the coastline has the potential effect of aggravating the erosion of sand from the beaches. There are several possible mitigation measures. One, proper construction of the proposed retaining wall/seawall, has already been mentioned. The EIR also notes that beach erosion is a regional prob'lera and that as a mitigation measure a site specific study would be costly, lengthly and of little benefit. Participation in a regional study to formulate policies to counteract beach erosion is suggested as an alternative mitigation measure. 2. Traffic The proposed project is estimated to generate 440 trips per day. Staff noted that due to the substandard condition of streets in the area and existing safety and traffic conditions the additional traffic would create a significant impact. The EIR suggests several mitigation measures. The construction of a concrete island on Mountain View to discourage left turns onto Carlsbad Boulevard will be required as a condition of approval by the engineering department. The other mitigation measures proposed, prohibition of other 1'eft turns onto Carlsbad Boulevard and prohibition of parking on one side of Ocean, Mountain View and as needed on. other streets, are policy issues best decided at the time of project approval.- 3. . Biology The EIR states that the project area is disturbed. Construction would reduce open space and possibly impact potential nesting sites for birds, including the California Least Tern. As a mitigation measure the applicant has agreed to dedicate approximately 4 acres of land in the northeastern portion of the site as open space. The northwestern portion of the proposed project will also extend within 20 feet of the edge of the lagoon. The danger of erosion could be mitigated by restricting construction to dry seasons and by-creating temporary barriers along the lagoon during construction.' -,.'.- - • ., 4 . Beach -Access The State Lands Commission has stated that portions of the site are historic tide and submerged lands and are therefore subject to public interest. A settlement clearing the property of 'any sovereign claims will provide adequate public access to both the beach and the lagoon. Discussions between- the applicant and the State'Lands Commission staff are underway and the {settlement is expected .shortly. JC:nr • \ n 2/24/01 -2- I I MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Richard Allen, Engineering DATE: March 11, 1931 SUBJECT: CT80-24 - POINTE SAN MALO - TRAFFIC IMPACTS The subject project will generate 440 additional trips per day on a sub- standard local street system. Although the ideal standard is a maximum of 500 vehicles per day on a local street, the Traffic Engineer has determined that the existing streets have a capacity of 750 to 1200 vehicles per day. The street capacity will not be exceeded by the addition of the traffic from this project. Nevertheless, traffic volumes will increase noticeably and the additional summer beach traffic will add to the burden. Mitigation measures have, therefore, been included in the conditions of approval for the project. These conditions will do the following: 1. Provide stacking off-street for vehicles entering the project. - - 2. Provide-street widening along the subdivision- frontage. 3. Provide an island to restrict left turr.s from Mountain View-Drive to Carlsbad Boulevard. The sight distance is very poor'and left turns are a hazard. . - 4. Provide signs directing through traffic around the substandard area. The above measures will sufficiently mitigate the increase in traffic so that the Engineering Department does not feel that the project will cause significant traffic problems. RliA:ls 2/23/81 C CASE. NO: _19^£26/_CT 80-24/CP-102 APPLICANT: ^TIVE SUN INVESTMENT REQUEST AIS LOCATION: REQUEST FOR APPRO\/AL OP A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND __NORTH LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 AND.AJPQRTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 1, Assessors Parcel Narcber: 155 190 06 § 155-101-62 f, 203-010-14 Acres 10.3 NO. of Lots • 3 \ GENERAL PLAN AM) ZOMEKG General Plan Land Use Designation RM/RMH Density Allowed 4-10/10-20 Density Proposed ;$_ Existing Zone R-3/R-A Proposed Zone RT)-]\i_ Surroundijig Zoni.ng and Land Use: gonj.ng Land Use llorth °"S South _5ll_ SFRS g MULTIPLE ' E:ast R'3 ^ °"S APT § RR RIGHT-OI-'-imY .West OCEAN OCEAN HJKLIC FACIL.ITIES ,, . , rv- 4. • *. CARI.SBAD UNIFIEDSchool Distract ^. ,. . ,. CITY OF CARLSRADWater Da.Gtrict • Sevrer District CITY OF CARLSBAD EDO's 19 ALLOCATED Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated APRIL 21, 1980 (Other: • Negative Declc-iration, issued \ Log Ko. __ _x E.I.H. Cor Li f.red. dated Oi:her, ' ' n fifff? NATIVE SUN INVESTMENT GROUP 12831 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN. CALIFORNIA 9268O 7J4/731-1>55 December 4, 1980 City or" Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 ATTENTION: Catherine Nicholas SUBJECT: • Pointe San Malo Project Dear Catherine: In submissioji of our Tentative Map for the Pointe San Malo project, we have proposed dedication of approximately 6 acres of land to the public for park use. We proposed this dedication in lieu of park fees and affordable housing consideration. He feel th&t the park would be a considerable asset to the City since it would provide them an additional access area to the Buena Vista Lagoon and the beach. In proposing chis dedication, we wish to explain that the dedication is dependent upon the approval of the project by the California Coastal Commission, as approved by the City of Carlsbad. If the Coastal Commission reduces the density, or significantly alters the concept of the development, dedication nay be economical1y unfeasible. We are truly excited about our project and are available for any meetings or explanations which might be required. Very truly yours, /W INVESTKEiiT GROl '•"ichael R. Mafioney General Partner KRM:jas cc: Nicholas C. Banche . ., . . Robert C. Ladwig-Rick Engineering OUP MEMORANDUff TO: PLANNING COTiISSIOt! FROM: Richard Allen, Engineering Department w\#' DATE: March 11, 1931 SUBJECT: CT80-24 - POINTE SAN MALO - TRAFFIC IMPACTS The subject project will generate 440 additional trips per day on a sub- standard local street system. Although the ideal standard is a maximum of 500 vehicles per day on a local street, the Traffic Ennineer has determined that the existing streets have a capacity of 750 to 1200 vehicles per day. The street capacity will not be exceeded by the addition of the traffic from this project. Nevertheless, traffic volumes will increase noticeably and the additional summer beach traffic will add to the burden, Mitigation measures have, therefore, been included in the conditions of approval for the project. These conditions will do the following: 1. Provide stacking off-street for vehicles entering the project. 2. Provide street widening along the subdivision frontage. 3. Provide an island to restrict left turns from Mountain View Drive ' to Carlsbad Boulevard. The sight distance is very poor and left turns are a hazard. 4. Provide signs directing through traffic around the. substandard area. The above measures will sufficiently mitigate the increase in traffic so that the Engineering Department does not feel that the project will cause significant traffic problems. RHAils 2/23/81 (A Non Profit Organization) 2425 Mountain View Dr. Carlsbad, California 9200S December l65 1980 Catherine D. Nicholas City of Carlsbad, Planning Dept, 1200 Sim Avenua Carlsbad, California R&: 3t.Malo Point Condominiums Dear Ks. Nicholas: ,'ie the property owners of the Granville Park Property Owners Associa- tion oppose the construction of the St. Malo Point Condcr.ir.iums, a *fO unit condominium development which is being proposed to be built on the southern point of land at the outflow of the Buena Vista Lagoon* The Buena Vista Lagoon is one of nature's refuges for both v.'ildlife and man. The proposed building site .vas originally planned as a park and during the years of manipulation was expanded by landfill. The water and land are now peacefully integrated. The introduction, of kO family units into this park like area would result in mosquito abetenant problems in a wildlife area, as .veil as added vrater and sir pollution. The traffic that would be connected with a development the size of tha St. l-'alo Point condo- miniums tfould more than jam and exhaust the narro-.T streets of Granville Park. Granville Park is a quiet arefl boundaried by the Bue.ra Vista Lagoon, the Pacific Ocean, the Army-Navy Academy and Carlsbad Boulevard. It is an area accentuated by ths c-^lodic songs of birds iu-.the trees, harmonized by the sounds of the ocean. It is very peaceful and wildlife abounds, expecially in the area around the lagoon. .71 th reference to the original 1925 map, one can see that the property of discussion (the propo- sed construction site) wt-s originally planned to bs a park by the ocean, for the people of the area to enjoy the quiet solitude snc! beauty. 1 c; f/4 A'o/7 Profit Organization) 2425 Mountain View Dr. Carlsbad, California 92008 It is a known fact that most of .the fill used to create the landfill area that extends into the lagoon beyond the original high tide line of the 1923 ciap, *;as publicly ovmed beach sand. Therefore, part of the property of discussion, has been created by landfill being placed into the lagoon by the o*ner at that time, which was since 1925. The property of discussion is surrounded on three sides by lagoon and ocean. Presently, in its natural state, the ecology of the area is fairly balanced. The water, marshes and land (property of disc'jsssion) are now at one with each other. The wild-life move freely about .vith no fear, nesting, collecting food, etc. The ambience is one of peace and tranquility. The shock that would be produced by a large group of people moving in, could only be likened to the effects that forest fires have on wildlife areas. However, in the case^.-of the forest fire, the --iildlife will return r/hen re-growth has occurred.- The impact of the construction would be PEEKANEKTs The wildlife wovld not and could not return to an area which had been taken av;ay for the use of people. One can easily understand hov.' the addition of ^0 families with their guests and all their cars (approxi- mately 100-125 when parked) would impact such an srea in a devastating way. To begin with, let's think about mosquitoes. Presently, the area abounds in mosquitos, due to the close proximity of the lagoon (a natural body of fresh '-rater.) Mosquito populations increase greatly when added protein from the blood of increased populat5.ons of hosts produces millions of fertile offspring instead of two or three per female as when deprived of blood. • Let's consider housing for a large number of people built right next to the lagoon. Many people tfould experience a great deal of discor.;- fort from the increase in the mosquito population. The use of chemical agents to control this problem iTOuld completely disrupt the natural ecolo- gical balance of predator and pest, as well as enter the food chains of several varieties of wildlife. -2- - f if (A Non Profit Organization) 2425 Mountain View Dr. Carlsbad, California 9200S Other forms of pollution of the wildlife area would come from run- offs and a large number of cars being driven back and forth next to the lagoon. These problems would then result in water pollution of the out- flow of the Buena Vista Lagoon; and air pcl3.ution ss a result of the ad- ded combined emissions of at least 100 to 125 cars. Presently we have the beginnings of a water pollution problem of this sane lagoon due to the adverse impact of new construction at the 31 Carr.ino Real Shopping Kail. Many biologists and naturalists groups are seriously concerned about the future of the wildlife in our lagoon. It does not make sense to approve the construction of a project that will contribute seriously to all these problems which are already of controversy end concern. The streets are narrow in Granville Park. Hour.tain View and Ocean Street are the only two ways in and out. These are both narrow residential ;-tree'ts which presently become bottler.ecked with traffic and perked cars. One must drive very slowly and csre.fu3.Iy through these streets due to the fact chat its difficult for tv/o cars to pass each other at times. Most of the streets cannot be widened due to the houses having been built so close to the narrow streets. As an example of congestion, Ocean Street is barely capable of one way traffic with two cars parked. Even to get this small amount of traffic through, pedestrian right of way hod to be omitted by not having sidewalks in several places. Frequently, families with small children are forced to weIk among traffic. Residents of the area are concerned for the safety of their children when playing outsido. These are all the thoughts, concerns and problers of not only the members of the Granville Park Property Owners Association, but of others also. Many other property owners ar.d residents of the area are very upset about the proponed building of the St. Falo Point Condominiums. COPY ns for this proiect (7V.v//^V- (j '" ""'' &Lynn 51y- •KicharJ Ely ,CJA,C 8 1931 ?-January 5, 1981 «£:* Ms. Catherine Nicholas City of Carlsbad, Planning Department 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 ^^^^m^m.m Dear Ms. Nicholas: \^\$f^ • Both my wife and myself would like to express our opposition to the construction of the St. Malo Point Condominiums, proposed on the southern point of the land outflow of the Buena Vista Lagoon. We are residents of 2468 Ocean Street and it is my understanding that the only access to this condominium project would be at the end of Ocean Street. In discussions with you, you informed me that an actual car count had not been done. However, the traffic consultant estimated that there are currently over 500 cars a day going on Ocean Street and that this project would generate 600 additional a day or approximately 1,100 trips with Ocean Streets' rate of capacity at 1,500 per day. For a residential area, with a lot of small children, that is totally unacceptable. As you know, in ocean communities there are always undersized lots due to the value of the land. Therefore, the children in the neighbor- hood play in the front yards because back yards are relatively small. There are tremendous amounts'of young pre-school children that play on Ocean Street including iry three children. This'would jeopardize their safety. Besides the increase in traffic there is insufficient parking in or about the whole area and I feel that the Planning Department must address this problem with a realistic approach. One of the main reasons we purchased in that area was because of the beautiful Buena Vista Lagoon, a wildlife sanctuary. For your information, I am the General Manager of the Wild Animal Park in Escondido arid previously the General Manager of Busch Gardens in Los Angeles which had one of the greatest bird collections in the world. Because of my personal love and affection for birds and because of the fact that through my experience froia a profession- al standpoint, we have seen the devastation of wildlife sanctuaries when projects of this magnitude disturb the ecological balance of the area. It is for this reason I have contacted Captain Laret of Region 5 of the California Fish and Gaiue as well as our Special Agent for the Fish and Wildlife in this region who have- generated extreme concern and I'm sure will be contacting you to determine the specifics of the Environmental Impact Report. A future area of protest, besides the traffic and the ecological concerns, is the use of landfill in that area. The proposed height of tho structures will virtually obstruct almost every resident's Ms. Catherine Nicholas 2 January 5, 1981 view of the ocean in or about Ocean Street as well as the Buena Vista Lagoon.' Can't we just leave well enough alone and look at those existing residents who have purchased homes specifically because of white water views? In summation, both my wife and myself in association with the Grandville Property Association oppose this project simply because it does not fit' appropriately within the area. I sincerely hope the Planning Department realizes that the iripact of this kind of project in a quiet and serene residential area will severely damage this nice, quiet and beautiful neighborhood. Why don't we have the City purchase that land for a park like it was intended in earlier master plans? Sincerely, Andy and Lindy Graiit AG/cj cc: Mr.. Frank Aleshire, City Manager, Carlsbad Captain Gregory Laret. Special Agent of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Mr. Chuck Damm, Coastal Commission P.S. In research undercovered today, we have found out that Buena Vista Lagoon is a nesting site for Lsast Ternr eui endangered species, and that Buena Vista Lagoon is also a nesting area for the Snowy Egret arid that there has bsen nesting activity of the White Faced Ibis in 1979 which is the first activity taking place since 1399. ioj'j po 1351 "' ' u CITY OB CARLSBAD. YiU y^ , V i-/- • , //? /// LeJ^iA- ^L^ ^ ?/ T*^1* ^ /W ^I /l\ '/ &.-SC^~/-'^' ' / /_ /^A /^x/'^^ . ' /»<s;Ci>f^--. * / .<-.,- ^e X?A^-^^~i^ -" . t '~ ' f A S'fv^.:" 0J\ &^^-~- — /' t f>si — P -;>~-'^-/ j- --.—, }-~*^fi~~ •* /-, , .Xi-c'-^^-f ^ l"Js^f- A .1 ^;}-^~<'^'t pjj,,.,* /*s~* ^ ' " . / (/ T ^ /-^y^;v.c />vv ,^^, ^? eU^*-t<< (A Hon Profit Organization) 2425 Mountain View Dr. Carlsbad, California 92008 January 23, 1961 Catherine D. Nicholas City of Carlsbad, Planning Department 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 'Tj xrCITY, Re: St. Malo Point Condominiums Dear Ks. Nicholas: Since our last letter of December 16, 1980 so:r;e other concerns have coae to the foreground as a result of talking with the Eie~bers and neighbors in Granvillo Park. The construction of a retaining wall on the ceen high tid*= line on this last parcel of vacant beach land is of major concern for many of the people of the area. It would create a dead end situation at the bottom of the public beach access. The properties adjacent to i-he access on the south have high block walls at the mean' high tide line. This means that one half of the tiir.e the public access ,VILL KOT 32 Al-i ACCS33 A1;Y KGRS, if yet another block wall is allov/ed to be built on the mean high tide lino. Due to erosion these sea walls are no A- encroaching beyond the mean high tide line. As an example of the regression of this line, there were several property owners (one adjacent to this property) who had to artificially build beach pebble barriers in front of their sea walls to prevent undercutting. Should these property owners not have intervened with nature, the rr.ean high tide line would have moved several feet behind their EOS walls. When viev/ing the present situation and comparing it to the 192J tract reap it is clear that the beach has eroded through a natural process to the dotted line which denotes the line of veiretaticn on the r>ap. Please refer to the article "Hold That Line" in the Jan. 1?, 198l (Vol. 119, No. 3) of Science News. The condition tenr.od as "Ksv; Jeraeyi?.ation" is a terminal situation. This can be compared to photographs of our heach. (A Non Profit Orgyniz-Jiion) 2425 Mountain View Dr. Carlsbad, California 92008 Several years ago the construction of similar units could not be built on adjacent Ocean Street property due to the fact that the sewers in the area could not handle any additional load. Since then about ICO facilities have been added to this already overloaded situation. There have been no improvements to the sewers in the area of this development since this lest additional load. Kow the sewers are marginal causing occasional back-ups. Several residents of the area are suffering frorr. sewage problems. One can then understand what some of the resulting conditions might be if a large complex .vere added which would contain many, r.any more facilities* These two situations are of major concern to all the residents of the area. Therefore, I am reporting these concerns to you for very serious deliberation, inspection and further investigation. Sincerely *~r-?&S~J^ Lynn 21y Chairparson for this project >nS . are coposea 1*o me C( o . ~..s*tSi £ i_4 V* 5 IO I 1. 5. 6. 7. 8. Th» sizo of this project (VO coBdORiniuc units, t-acJr'one family eizad) would dwurf tha rest of tfts buildings on this poist. Tr.a mitbsr of people end cura that such t largs prefect would brir.~ into the area, vrould crust* so well noi9t> «r.d disturbajice thst it could d?r-troy that beauty feed quiat p*«C9fulris»a of our lagocs e.raa nad point. 2hs property hjB^i »o 1-Stji.l tceccs bosa.u-i& all surface streets ara at eu«xiii.tiE unaga, Shin conatructioa sould extend beyond the neap high tide lice ea recsat-ly raclafined by cosstul erociar.. /.sothaticelly, tho p.ppsnr^r.ca of theae condoiuiciu^.e io a cheep Bubgtitut? for the very beautiful co.iiunity of the ia;-.e BSKC, the real St. Ualo. Xhia construction would sxcead the buildizig heights chich ere now c.cc.'.Ftii on adjacent lote. The fill for this proposed construction aito *?as sand illegally tekec frow our beach, (publicly ownea bsach sr.nd. } This construction is prop:cod to bs built very closa to the ectg-o of our 1«goon. This eiti'atioa osuld croote pollution of e^ny kindo vfhich sould destroy the very delicate ecological balance. Thfi addition of sail over 100 paoplc liring directly r.d;JEcent to the legcsB cill ittcressa the Eoequito population greatly. j _M£k^*- ^.^..—J-]u, ^tfG^k^LJLJ^LJI^•"}' ' ' : ^ . 2j%fyaat&^^ L;lA^A!;^^J£y^^ %l£&<&:LLj~Sl^^ *• (^ l^^gLJ^*^*^^^ *' "' ' &^H ^ &V/S&C/ ' *>. o &a^J^ (c<ac.v. .Sr £ 72 Va \S^^^L£^J]^^M^^^hL ..i ^-3fi>-j5il;^£v- '!^^2^^SJM^J- f^~_.-.. , . _. ^ ^Zd>jZ'^M.^ e * •/»; -Ui !- r'nqn ""''- " *;*»• C"* 1. *' -•" f I /S * Ul 0Tor Point 6. 7. * ovmq reasons : The aizo of thie project (-.-0 eondottiniuis units, eftch-*oa« feisily eizftd) would fionrf the rest of tha builiis^Fa ca tiiia point. Tha punber of paoplc end cers that auch e largo project ivould brirHT into tha sroe, would create so Kuch noiaa and diaturbanc- tbst it sov.id destroy th* bsaiit^ tuxd quiet poftc«fuliiees of our Icgoon. sroa and point* Efcs px'opsrty has »o le^-vl tccesa bsaau&a &11 fciu-raca tti^ots &ra fet euutis.ua usisga,. Shits conetractten trouid oxtsnd fcsyond tho tsesn high tida line as r»ct,ntly redefined by co&stal erocioa. Aesthftticallr, tha appaarr-^c^ of thsss ecndaaiBiii.MS is a choap subatituta for th« very bountiful coE^ufiity of tJbe sur^r,- aesie , the rsel St. Kalo, Ihis conetructj.on.aould exceed th& builclis^; haights chicb ere now accepted oa adjacent lots. Tha fill for thia propoaad construction kite BBS B&nd illegally t&lcaR froE our boach, (publicly oirnei byach aaad. } Tv.ia construction ic proptss.d to b» built rgry ciooo to the ed^n of oar legoon. 1'hic situation vjculd create pollution of lasny kinda which would destroy ths very delicate ecological balance. The eddition of '^sll oror 100 piopla lining direetlj edjpcoat to ths lagoon Bill increase tho aoe-quito poj^ulstion groatly. l_g?,^/j^r;/fv . i/^si CL,; GU^A^_ :££i_!-£±6£r ^^^l^'L^i^-^^£^-*.-./' _ (//y // .-'..* / r~i- ^ -»--wwsp«-W5-i-•^^^^j.'L^^-^^:^'^^g/g.^4/^ ^/V/w/7 I' \ x/ 'f\sfSi\/ •nJ^-i-.y*V«.l!.l..^1i,-l,,.<r,.favfe<^^^g^',<.,^. w ''W&Y.tlY&.'&tffjf^ \•*"**.*!•** JJ-*,'*.: r-~~.,'*f»^^^,J*jJtZ*-^f.'.K.<f-~J'.-+-~ -j. _. • •^/j/fTfl^M^ ! ..A-ij^.vi-i-v.iT-jCTA.ji^-i.j:;.;, £l^^.:^yci:J^ ?£l^/^d^M-^^^ ^/J^^^^i3^^J^j€^^J^j^-^£^^ JJ^Jf-5?. Q A ''^//^y'.'/U-- • tl.^3S? A. ..•? .^^ // / nflt rsf/!.:1~~-- ~1 1 £*.'*. G •?& fMa^e^d^L^ ^?i5/Mi^^fc^i±^iL£i&^^ ^^:-.^L,.^S:;^JB^^^:l£5f^^^^ C^^-vGL, <8^J&> J^^SZ^7" 2-?ff- rJ5 > 7 co e"vnfs> i* « ~T I. I 1 ! 1 rucon o 3 ^ v —•• St. fvlilb 1. . _ TKo Bif-o of this project CtO ccndo:;j.aiua unit*, esc'a-'ono fep.ily oizocJ) »ould d^KJ'f tJie rest of t::<» buildings on this point. 5'ho nuabsjr of peopla and cara th&t aueh £ lcrg» prc-jact would bring into the £.raa, would create so much aoisa snd diaturtajics that it sovld aeatroy the beauty scd quiet of our ligoor. troa s^icJ poxnt. .\J5eas curf«.ce streets fat aiocis.ua 5. 6. 7, 6. property h«s ao ie v.saga » Thin con::truotioa rould extsnd boyoad tha p.aan high tido Ittio es redefined by cosatal etroaioa. /afithevtically, the appearance oi" tbs.'ie condoalniuao is a cheep r.ubstifcate for tha very bssutiful conrunity ci tho SB.BO aa.'nc, the real St. I!s.lo» This construction coulJ. e^ossd ths building heights which are »:OK accoptod oa adjacent lota. The fill for this proposed construction sita uas e.e.nd illognlly taken fros our botch, (publicly c»n&d beach eand.) This construction dp, propcsad to bs built very close to the edgo of our lagoon. This situatica wculd create pollution of tsany kinds which would destroy tiie very (Solicits ecological balance. Tho addition of wall orer 100 people living directly adjacent to tho lagocc uill increaca th-3 coc-quito population gi'«atly» __ /*7 ^ ji " t f V • f \ " I lM2;L^:;A^jJ/;-->,..J^_C^kk&i _Zr??.r£CT7I /--. i .. . . . ! I i -»». ^-- \ " I i"~~~*"" ' v" ' "= -s C V .',L uonaorninmr ni *---i t -V.* * C V,/| V ?~.-J-' f1, Xho £i?.e of this project (i.0 condominium i-nita, frauL-'ona fcnily siaod) daarf the rest of the buildimgs on thio point. ?hc nuebor of people Cfcra that ouch c Icrgc project should bi-iiig: :ato tcs area, would crsnta much aoias end dieturbfcnc* that it would sJor-trc-y the beauty and piacofttlnosa of our lagoon area fcrxd pcx>:t9 2. 2fcts property hsz &o ie^il r.ocasa fcscauas all ourfaaa streets *,pa at could d so 5. 6. 7. This conatv-uctioa would extend boyoad fh? Hi-an high tide line ea rsccntly rstdafinei by coEatcl croiion. &a&theticaliy, tho spponrcjice ox these ccnde'ni.-iiuna is a chas.p cubBtitutc for the very bottutiful co— *unit^ of tiia came fisas , tha real St. Ka).o» This construction could excj&d t.h* builcir-s hoigjitB chich ere no» ececptcd on adjacent lote. The fill for this proposed construction sit* was eand illegally tekon free our beach, (publicly oanod beach t»an<i.) Thic conctruction in proposed to bs built very close to tha edge of our lagoon. This situatios eould crcats pollution of cany kinds which nould destroy tha vary dolicKta ecological bai,-nc&. thft addition of sell over 100 people livir.g- tliractly cdjacent to ths lagosa will iccrcaa* the £O2t;uito population greatljr. _^k^^i^^?/%^_L£J£.^ 3 /^-£-^>7^ J ^' .5", l£^±j;ilii^^ f'lijk^M^Jl3 ? 0 ^'^4-^ "^d^JlL^-L —1>. ^£$^^!$^J^:t^-^^: 7 ^ '^J#£$/&^ fi^^'sir 2^,7*75^ * • 1. ••?.» - - , ^V ^"%t \ i I Ou *i- V'": p** I 2 3^- * ^ .^ts sw M5 &%.£««. •>4-.!"B (1 ^'•VJ •=*». V-^S <>li Uv^i lOi 1 < V/-KIWn Condomlmums •o Point t "*• " "i51'-^# 1» Tha siae of this project i^O condor-ieiua units, esch^one family eizod) K- elaorf tha rest of the buildxr.ira ca thia point. The number of paopl* fi] eisi-3 that such a Icrgo preject wsuld bi-ir.^ into the area, would create much noise and diatarb&r.cs that it could dv.-.troy the beauty and quist paacsfulnass of our lagoon area end poisl* 2. ykf> proporty h*.-* ao le^al c.cc&ss b&caucs all surfe.c« atro&ts ura *.t 5hio construction would extent! bt-yorsci tha is«c.c hijjh tide lins 68 recently re-dafinsd by couatal erosisn. Acothatically, the uppoaraaea or t-h^se ccr-.dc oir.iusa ia a chaap e;uboti.tut> for this very beautiful cor^unity of th« fe-s.s DC.BS, tha real 3t, Halo. Ihis cocstructioa.would oxc&ed tha building haights ehich sre now accaptcd on cdjacunt lota. The fill for this propossd cor.strr.ction cits ees eand ille^slly t&kea fron o'iir beach, (publicly owned beach sand.) This construction is prop-sad to bs bu5.lt very close to tha edga of our Icgoon. Shis situ&tioa ecald create pollution of r.any tir.tJs nrhich sould d&etroy the very delicate ecolc-gicsl balence, 5"ha r.dditioa of '.fill ovar 100 pooplc- livins tlirt'Ctly adjjxcoat to the lagor.n incrsasa tha mosquito populatioa grsttiy. L_0isnn_ * - 6^ ( ~&3JlJ-LU,o! s^';: reasons: 1. "She. else of this project (^0 units, cacb^onc fanlly Biaed) rould 5. 6. ?. 8. d£,-*rf tho rest of tho buildinsa on this po\Kt. The nuwbor of people enrt ctrs that auch e Icrga projoct would bring into tho area, would croato eo much noieo tnd diaturbs.nco that it uould dsetroy th«» beautj taid quiot peacttf.ulnsse of our lagoon ajree a;id point. Sha pi-o^srfcy h.i« no It44;«i RSCUSS beosusa all aurf&oo streets trs «t ai*xiB.ui4 usoga. This construction v-emlS extend -bsyoadl tho mssu h.lgh tide lino an recantly rodefin?»d by coastal croaion. Aeathsticslly, the a??earftacs of thcsa condoniniuas is a cheap eubotltutct for tho vsry beautiful eoasunity of the saos ftWue, tha real St. t-Salo. Shin construction would exceed tha building heights which are now acnsptod on edjacant lots. She fill for thie pro-posed construction (site was eand illegally takon from our bench, (publicly owned baach eand.) tfhia construction ir. propacsGd to bo built very close to the edge of our lagoon. This situation would crsntw polluticn of many kinde which would destroy the vary dalicate ecological balance. ffhe addition of »9ll over 100 people living directly edjacont to th« lagoon Bill incraoae th«j aoaq-iito population grently. i \Warior the inforiii.it ion you linvr ruibnii t ti?r|i,ir. l-con reviewed, it in determined I hat: further informal, ion is rcqujro.l, you will be r.o advised. MTUCANT: HATIV.E SlltLJ^VESTKEOT. GROUP , a j.imited partnership Name (individual, pcu:l.ncrn)iip, joint venture, corporation, synJication) 128.31 Kev/port Avenun'^ Tustin, CA 92680 UusincKs AOdrcas ftGENT: 1=331=11.5 5_Telephone (lumber RICK ENGINEERING Uame 3083 Pio Pico , .Suite 202 BusineKS Address M13HUER3: 229_-i9J Telephone Number Name (individual, partner, joint venture, corporation, syndication) Home Address Business Address Telephone Number Telephone Number Home Address Busir.ess Address Telephone Number Telephone Numtocv (Attach more shee!:s if necessary) I/V7O declare undt>r penalty of perjury that the information contained in this flii closure ir; true anj correct and that it will remain true and correct aad may be relied upon as being truo and correct until iiw »".cjcnt, Ui/ner', i'artncr