HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-11-20; City Council; 10916; St. Tropez WestClf -‘OF CARLSBAD k AGENDA-<
AB# /“, q/d TITLE: APPEALOFAP IANNING CO-ION DECISION
MT& 11/20/9[\ APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 9&7, PLAN-NED
DEPT. PLN UNIT DEVEL0PMENT -11, IDLISIDE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT so-15, AND VARrANCE 90-2 - m. TROPEZ WEST
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare documents DENYING the appeal and UPHOLDING the Planning Commission's decision.
I
ITEM EXPLANATION
On October 17, 1990 the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map 90-7 and a Planned Unit Development 90-ll to create six condominium units and construct a seawall, Hillside Development Permit 90-15, and Variance 90-2 to reduce sideyard setbacks from 10 feet to 6 feet and increase the building height from 25 feet or 2 stories to 47 feet 6 inches and 4 stories as viewed from west of the site. The project site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Ocean Street and Grand Avenue on .354 acres.
An appeal of the project approval has been filed by a resident of the Sea Slope project which is located immediately adjacent to the site on the south. The reasons listed for the appeal are the height and sideyard setbackvariances, compliance with the Hillside Development Regulations and the stringline setback from the ocean required by the Local Coastal Program. In approving this project, the Planning Commission and staff have made findings to approve all the necessary permits. Please see the attached staff report to the Planning Commission for specific details regarding each of the items listed in the appeal.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On October 17, 1990 the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director dated July 10, 1990.
FISCAL IMPACT
I None.
1. Location Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3126, 3127, 3128, 3129, and 3130 3. Staff Report dated October 17, 1990, w/attachments 4. Excerpts from Planning Commission Minutes dated October 17, 1990 5. Appeal Form
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 % a $
$%B I 13
OWgj CiLO 0055 14
6 >-lg +-5 SD 0 15 i 82% ,>ma ;go
p## 16
a22
>-a 17
5 0
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. go-415
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DENYING APPLICANT'S APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SEAWALL AND 6 UNIT TENTATIVE MAP, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF OCEAN STREET AND GRAND AVENUE. APPLICANT: ST. TROPEZ WEST CASE NO.: CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2
WHEREAS, a verified application for a tentative map for
certain property to wit:
Lot 1 of Block B of the Hays Land Company Addition in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map No. 1221 filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County November 4, 1909.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the
Planning Commission: and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on October 17, 1990
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider
said application for Tentative Map 90-7, Planned Unit Development
90-11, Hillside Development Permit HDP 90-15 and Variance 90-2; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on October 17, 1990
after hearing and considering all the evidence and testimony of all
people desiring to be heard adopted Resolutions No. 3126, 3127,
3128, 3129, 3130 approving the Conditional Negative Declaration,
Tentative Subdivision Map CT 90-7, Planned Unit Development Permit
PUD 90-11, Hillside Development Permit HDP 90-15 and Variance
v 90-z; and
WHEREAS, a resident of the Sea Slope project located
immediately adjacent to the site appealed the decision of the
Planning Commission to the City Council; and
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 2 gj *wOJ 227 .razQ 13 $aQg
d : zi 2
0034 14
gpg zs;g Ii ' 15 ai +>rna zwmo WZJ -
gp$; 16
a@ c-a 17
ci 0
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A
WHEREAS, on November 20, 1990 the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad held a duly notice public hearing as prescribed by
law to consider said appeal and at said hearing after consideration
of all the evidence, testimony, argument of those persons present
and desiring to be heard the City Council denied the appeal and
approved the Conditional Negative Declaration, Tentative
Subdivision Map CT 90-7, Planned Unit Development Permit PUD 90-11,
Hillside Development Permit HDP 90-15 and Variance V 90-2,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings and conditions of Planning
Commission in Resolutions No. 3126, 3127, 3128, 3129, 3130
approving the Conditional Negative Declaration, Tentative
Subdivision Map CT 90-7, Planned Unit Development Permit PUD 90-11,
Hillside Development Permit HDP 90-15 and Variance
V 90-2 on file with the City Clerk constitute the findings and
decision of the City Council.
3. That the Planning Commission's approval of
Resolutions No. 3126, 3127, 3128, 3129, 3130 approving the
Conditional Negative Declaration, Tentative Subdivision Map CT 90-
7, Planned Unit Development Permit PUD 90-11, Hillside Development
Permit HDP 90-15 and Variance V 90-2 is hereby confirmed and the
appeal of that decision is denied based upon the facts set out in
the Planning Department Staff Report dated October 17, 1990, the
evidence before the Planning Commission, the evidence as set forth
in City Council Agenda Bill No. 10,916, and the testimony before
the City Council all of which are incorporated herein by reference.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 2 g :!$m 2-7 gp$ 13
883: 14
8 >-rz 56 sg
Ii 8 $4 15
+>rna ,wmo 88bo 16 ZO3$ '58fl
z o l7 c'% u 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
4. This action of denial is final the date this
resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provision of
Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for
Judicial ReviewI shall apply:
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision become final: however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008. "
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 20th day of November
1990, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Larson and Mamaux
NOES: Council Member Pettine
ABSENT: Council Mem
ATTEST: lIlLw.&k:- ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Cit$ Clerk
3
PACIFIC
OCEAN
City of larkbad
ST. TROPEZ WEST
\ CT 90-07 PUD 90-11 HDP 90-15 V 90-02
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 IWBLUTION NO. 3126
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT SIX CONDOMINIUM
UNITS AND A SEAWALL ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF OCEAN STREET AND GRAND AVENUE.
CASE NAME: ST. TROPEZ WEST
CASE NO.: CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of October, 1990, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Conditional Negative Declaration.
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 Planning Commission
hereby APPROVES the Conditional Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND”, dated
July 10, 1990, and “PII”, dated July 3, 1990, attached hereto and made a part hereof,
based on the following findings and conditions:
Findings:
1. The initial study shows t&at the proposed project could have a significant impact on the
environment; however, there will not be a significant impact in this case because the
mitigation measures descriid in the initial study have been added to the project.
2. The site has been previously d&m-bed by existing development and impacted by human
activities.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project.
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly impacted
by this project provided that mitigating conditions of approval are complied with.
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
Conditions:
1. This project if approved is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolution Nos. 3127, 3128, 3129, and 3130 plus compliance with the following
mitigation condition:
Prior to issuance of a grading or building penni& whichever comes first, a soils report shall
be prepared and submitted to tie City of Carlsbad. If the soils report indicates the
presence of potential fossil bearing material then a standard two phased program, on file
in the Planning Departmen& shall be undertaken to avoid possl%le significant impacts on
paleontological resources under the direction of the Planuing Department.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of October, 1990, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Commissioners: Schlehuber, Erwin and Marcus.
NOES: Chairperson Schramm and Commissioner McFadden.
ABSENT: Commissioners Hall and Holmes.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST: ,;
SHARON SCHRAMM,‘Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PC RESO NO. 3126 -2-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR -’ GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN. ~~~~~~~~
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
I400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO. CA 95814
August 17, 1990
Don Neu City of Carl&ad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carl&ad, CA 92009
,
Subject: St. Tropez West ScH# 90010715
Dear&' Neu
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none 05
the state agencies have comments. This letter ackowledges that you ‘nave
complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements ,Cor draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Qualit Act.
Please call Terri Loveladp at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions
regarding the environmental review process. tjhen contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that
we may respond promptly.
Sincerely,
David C. Nunenlcamp Deputy Director, Permit Assistance . . .e
* * . .
A
CONDITIONALNEGATIVEDECLu4FtATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 2901 Ocean Street - Southwest corner of the
intersection of Ocean street and Grand Avenue.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A six unit condominium project and a seawall.
5 The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
: pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Conditional Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a
significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification
for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Conditional Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from
the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department
within 30 days of date of issuance.
;I. *
DATED: July 10, 1990 * : .; ~$-A’~;
MICHAEL ‘J: HOLkILLER
. ‘, *_
CASE NO: CT %7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2 Planning Director
APPLICANT: ST. TROPEZ WEST (Charles Rowe)
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 19,199O
DN:lh
2075 Las Palmas Drive l Car&bad. California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-l 161
ENWRONMENTAL IMPACI- AS!%SSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2
DATE: JuLY3.1990
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: ST. TROPEZ WEST
2. APPLICANT: CHARLES ROWE
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: PO BOX 142
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
(6191 434-3125
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: MARCH 1.1990
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AND A SEAWALL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a signScant effect on the environment. On the checklist, “NO” will be checked
to indicate this detezmination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the
project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed
insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings ‘YES-sig” and “YES-insig”
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
-
PHYs1cALENvIR0IWENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECI’LY OR INDIRECTLY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Alter a signi&nt archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
NO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
-2-
-
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMBNT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 73 S %
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire!, emergency or other
public services?
Ei S F S SI msig)
NO
x
x
x
x
x
NO
x
x
-3-
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
Increase existing noise levels?
Produce new light or glare?
Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
Generate substantial additional traffic?
Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacu&on plans?
Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
F S msig) NO
X
x
X
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
4-
-.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFXANCF
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 77 S F S S’8 IIlSlgJ
33.
34.
35.
36.
Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory.
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively con-
siderable” means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
NO
x
x
x
x
-5-
.
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
1. The project site is presently subject to erosion caused by wave action. The proposed design
will stabilize the site by constructing a seawall along the western property line. A report
titled “Report of Geotechnical Investigation,” dated April 17,1989 prepared by Western Soil
and Foundation Engineering, Inc. lists recommendations for development of the site.
Addendum No. 1 to the “Report of Geotechnical Investigation,” dated April 16, 1990 states
that the proposed plans are in conformance with the recommendations of the report. The
geotechnical investigation found the majority of the site to be covered with poorly
consolidated marine terrace deposits. No obvious geologic hazards were observed in any of
the subsurface explorations. The main concern on this site will be the proper treatment of
loose compressible soil as outlined in the report. The project design steps the building down
the slope utilizing structural retaining walls and importing 3,267 cubic yards of f%l dirt to
create a series of level floor areas. A total of 130 cubic yards of cut are also proposed. The
proposed grading and walls will stabilize the site.
2. . The topography of the site will not be significantly changed. The greatest height of fill to
be placed on areas of the project site will raise the elevation approximately 10 feet. This
increase in elevation occurs in the western portion of the site. The resulting new grade levels
will be comparable to the existing development to the south and is necessary to provide the
structure protection from wave action resulting from coastal storms. The proposed structure
utilizes a number of different levels so that the change in topography can be minimized as
much as possible. The site possesses no unique physical features, presently contains an
existing building, and is bordered by existing development with the exception of the Pacific
Ocean to the west.
3. The project design includes a seawall that will abut up against an existing seawall to the
south in addition to extending across the frontage of the 40 foot wide public beach access
to the north. Extending the wall to the north and south as shown on the project plans will
prevent the erosion of soils on and off site which could be caused by wave diffraction. The
use of retaining walls as proposed on site will further reduce the potential for soil erosion.
4. The proposed seawall location will increase protection afforded to both the Public Beach
access and the adjacent property to the north as compared to a string-line alignment which is documented in the report titled “Effect of String-line Seawall Alignment, 2901 Ocean
Street, Carl&ad, California,” dated August 18, 1989 prepared by Group Delta Consultants,
Inc. This will cause a reduction in the deposition of beach sands which is not considered
significant as the site and adjacent property will be protected from further wave erosion.
5. The project will not have a significant effect on ambient air quality as it will generate only
48 Average Daily Vehicle Trips thereby not producing a substantial amount of vehicle emissions.
6. The proposed building setbacks will provide for air movement to adjacent properties.
-6-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION - PHYSKAL ENVIRONMENT (Continued>:
7. The project will change the course of marine waters as the proposed seawall will limit the
landward extend to which waves will reach. This is necessary to protect the proposed
development during coastal storms and is not considered to be a negative impact as adjacent
properties will also be protected.
8. The quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply will not be
significantly impacted by this project as the only on site waters that will be directed toward
the ocean will be from on-site drainage. In addition, the project wili obtain water and sewer
service from the City of Carlsbad.
9. The projec: site which presently contains an existing structure and is adjacent to developed properties contains no natural resources of environmental significance.
10. Because of the project’s relatively small scale it is not expected to use substantial amounts
of fuel or energy.
11. The project site which has been disturbed by urban activities contains no evidence of
significant archeological or historical resources. The site, however, is located in an area
containing soils determined to have a High Potential Fossil Content. Therefore, the City’s
standard mitigation measure concerning the soils report checking for the presence of fossil
bearing material and the related program has been required.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Vegetation on site consists primarily of introduced species including ice plant as the site
presently contains a structure.
Existing species of vegetation on the property are not environmentally significant, therefore,
the introduction of new species of plants will not cause an adverse impact.
No agricultural crop is grown on the project site which does not contain prime, unique or
other farmland of state or local importance.
As a result of existing development on and adjacent to the project site it is not valuable as
habitat for any animal species.
Domestic animals added to the area as a result of this project will not result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals because of the existing level of human activity in the
immediate area including the beach.
-7-
-
DtSCUSSION OF ENVIRoNMENTAL EVALUATION - HUMAN ENVIRONMENT:
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
The proposed project complies with the present and planned land use of the area as the site
is designated RH (High Density Residential) on the General Plan Land Use Map and is zoned
R-3 (Multiple Family Residential). The project’s density as well as intensity of development
is compatible with adjacent land uses.
Public utilities exist in the adjacent public street to serve the development and public
services will be provided through the implementation of the Local Facilities Management
Plan for Zone 1.
Sewer lines exist in Ocean Street to service the project.
The proposed residential use which is bordered by existing development and a public beach
will not significantly increase noise levels over the present ambient level.
The project will not produce new glare that will adversely impact adjacent uses based on the
location of proposed fixtures shown on the plans. All light fixtures will direct light down
away from the perimeter of the site.
Because this is a residential project it will not involve a significant risk of an explosion or
the release of hazardous substances as such materials will not be stored on-site in large
quantities.
The proposed density of 19 du/acre is within the range specified by the General Plan Land
Use Designation for the site of 1523 du/acre and does not exceed the growth control point
of 19 du/acre.
The project will provide additional housing units to meet existing demand.
A total of 48 Average Daily Vehicle Trips will be generated by the project which will not significantly impact the circulation system.
The demand for parking facilities created by this project will be satisfied on site. Two
covered spaces will be provided for each unit.
The project is required to dedicate 5 feet along its Ocean Street frontage to accommodate
future improvements. The necessary dedication is shown on the project plans. This will
enable the area circulation system to be upgraded as determined to be necessary by the
Engineering Department.
The project does not extend into the ocean to alter waterborne traffic and is not located near
a rail line. In addition the site is outside the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport.
-8-
A
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION - HUMAN ENVIRONMENT (ContinuedI:
29.
30.
31.
32.
Adequate sight distance will be provided for all vehicle access points on site to facilitate safe
vehicular movement so as to not create a hazard to bicyclists or pedestrians.
Development of the project site which is designated for the proposed use wilI not create an
interference with emergency response plans.
The project will not obstruct a scenic vista as views to the ocean along the sideyard setbacks
will be provided and the project is adjacent to a 40 foot wide coastal beach access that
provides additional viewing opportunities of the scenic resource. The project design which
includes a great deal of architectural detail and various materials, Iandscaping and decorative
paving will create an aesthetically pleasing development.
Areas for private recreational amenities are proposed as well as passive and active common
areas.
-9-
ANALYSIS OF VLABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT’ SUCH AS:
Al
B)
c>
D>
El
,’ F)
G)
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed, and
g) no project alternative.
The relatively small scale of the project in regard to the number of units proposed, in
addition to the single building design requiring that the site be graded at one time makes
phasing of development impractical.
The applicant has considered alternate site designs. The proposed site design most
closely meets City standards and sufficient justification exists to grant the requested
height and sideyard setback variances.
The proposed project scale of development has been reduced in comparison to previous
designs as the building height and grades have been reduced, the building coverage
reduced from 48% to 43%, rear building elevations step back from one level to the next,
and a larger initial sideyard setback is provided.
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the
site.
Development at some future time rather than now has no environmental advantages
since this is an infill site that presently contains a stmcture and is served by public
utilities.
The number of alternate sites for the project which are adjacent to the public beach are
limited and have no environmental advantages since the project is consistent with existing land use plans and contains no significant environmental resources.
The no project alternative is not in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning
Designations for the property.
-lO-
.
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
- I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
x I find that although the proposed project could have a signScant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
- I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date
: 1 I ,% CL,{ ! .-;, (
Planning Director ’ \ ’
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes lirst, a soils report shall be prepared
and submitted to the City of Carlsbad. If the soils report indicates the presence of potential fossil
bearing material then a standard two phased program, on file in the Planning Department, shall be
undertaken to avoid possible significant impacts on paleontological resources under the direction of
the Planning Department.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-ll-
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
7-45-90
Date
DN:lh
-12-
. . 2 P . Y
f oz F a
5 0” d 3
. . e B a 6 E 2
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PUNNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3127
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA+ APPROVING A 1 LOT TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP CREATING 6 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF OCEAN STREET AND GRAND AVENUE.
CASE NAME: ST. TROPEZ WEST
CASE NO.: CT 90-7
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
Lot 1 of Block B of the Hays Land Company Addition in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map
thereof No. 1221, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, November 4,1909.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
r Title 21 of WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th day of October, 1990, hold
a duly noticed public hearing 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as
follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES
CT 90-7, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed density of 19
du’s/acre is within the density range of 15-23 du’s/acre specified for the site as indicated
on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is at or below the growth control point
of 19.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is
adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed.
The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project,
ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer
determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project
unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commission is satisfied that the
requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as
they apply to sewer service for this project.
School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad Unified
School District.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of
approval.
The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay
a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this
body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the
General Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s Planned Development Ordinance and also
complies with the Design Guidelines Manual.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding
properties are designated for high and medium-high density residential development on the
General Plan.
This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Conditional
Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on July 10, 1990 and
Approved by the Planning Commission on October 17,199O. In approving this Conditional
Negative Declaration the Planning Commission has considered the initial study, the staff
analysis, all required mitigation measures and any written comments received regarding the
significant effects this project could have on the environment.
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has been
conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 1.
PC PESO NO. 3127 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13. This project was subject to Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Hillside
Ordinance) and meets all the requirements of that Chapter to ensure the sensitive treatment
of the City’s hillside resources.
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
. . .
. . .
Approval is granted for CT 90-7, as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “K”, dated October 17, 1990,
incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur
substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the
Tentative Map as approved by the Planning Commission. The Tentative Map shall reflect
the conditions of approval by the City. The Map copy shall be submitted to the City
Engineer prior to issuance of building permits or improvement plan submittal, whichever
occurs first.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued
for development of the subject property unless the City Engineer determines that sewer
facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue
to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map.
This project is also approved under the express condition that the applicant pay the public
facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 and as amended from time to
time, and any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth
management system or facilities and improvement plan and to fulfill the subdivider’s
agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated March 28, 1990, a copy of which is on file
with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid this
application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will
be void.
The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map
as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as part of
building permit application. These fees shall be based on the fee schedule in effect at the
time of building permit application.
Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to the Water Service agreement between
the City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, dated May 25, 1983.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which may be
required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made
to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
PC RESO NO. 3127 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
. . .
. . .
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this project are
challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
65913.5. If any such condition is determined to be invahd this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all
requirements of law.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit
issuance except as specified in condition number 38.
Approval of CT 90-7 is granted subject to the approval of PUD 90-11, HDP 90-15, and
V 90-Z.
The applicant shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&R’s shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates pursuant
to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning Director.
Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Planning and Building.
All visitor parking spaces shall be sniped a different color than the assigned resident parking
spaces and shall be clearly marked as may be approved by the Planning Director.
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning Director
approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on
adjacent homes or property.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of grading or
building permits, whichever occurs first.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from
weeds, trash, and debris.
AU landscape plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Guidelines Manual and
submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning Department.
PC RESO NO. 3127 4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Landscape plans shall be designed to minimize water use. Lawn and other zone 1 plants
(see Landscape Guidelines Manual) shall be limited to areas of special visual importance or
high use. Mulches shall be used and irrigation equipment and design shall promote water
conservation.
The developer shall avoid trees that have invasive root systems, produce excessive litter
and/or are too large relative to the lot size.
Prior to final occupancy, a letter from a California licensed landscape architect shall be
submitted to the Planning Director certifying that all landscaping has been installed as
shown on the approved landscape plans.
The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The first set of landscape and irrigation plans submitted shall include building plans,
improvement plans and grading plans.
All landscape and irrigation plans shall show existing and proposed contours and shall
match the grading plans in terms of scale and location of improvements.
The number of trees in a residential project shall be equal to or greater than the number
of residential units.
20% of the trees in multi-family projects of 5 units or more shall be 24” box or greater.
Any landscaping utilized west of the building shall be limited to species which are low
growing so as to not block coastal views that adjacent properties may cum&y enjoy.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings
so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or
addresses shall contrast to their background color.
The developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office at all
times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be
limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks, and streets.
This project is being approved as a condominium permit for residential homeownership
purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum time increment for
such rental shall be not less than 26 days. A condition so stating this shall be placed in the
CC&R’s for the project.
PC RESO NO. 3127 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
As part of the plans submitted for building permit plan check, the applicant shall include
a reduced version of the approving resolution/resolutions on a 24” x 36” blueline drawing.
Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Development
Permit and signed approved site plan.
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first, a soils report shall
be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad. If the soils report indicates the presence
of potential fossil bearing material then a standard two phased program, on file in the
Planning Department, shall be undertaken to avoid possible significant impacts on
paleontological resources under the direction of the Planning Department.
Approval is contingent upon obtaining a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal
Commission that approves development that is in substantial conformance with the City
approval. A copy of the signed, approved Coastal Development Permit shall be submitted
to the Planning Department Approval is also contingent upon obtaining approval from the
City Council for construction of improvements of the seawall on the public beach access.
The applicant shall submit to the City prior to recordation of the Final Map a maintenance
plan for the seawall for the review and approval of the Planning Director and City Engineer.
All conditions stated in Resolutions 3126, 3128, 3129 and 3130 for the Conditional
Negative Declaration, PUD 90-11, HDP 90-15, and V 90-Z are incorporated by reference
herein
Grading for the project site shall only exceed 10,000 cubic yards per acre, which is in the
unacceptable range pursuan t to the Hillside Development Regulations, if the applicant can
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and City Engineer through submittal
of a current topographic map prepared, stamped, and signed by a registered Civil Engineer
or Land Surveyor that the &sting ground elevations for the site are lower than what is
shown on the exhibits approved for this project This consideration has been made by the
Planning Co mmission to recognke the fact that the existing ground elevations for the
project site could be significantly changed as a result of coastal storms. This would require
that fill dirt be brought in to return the ground level to that which is shown on the
approved exhibits. Grading calculations shall also be submitted to support any request to
exceed 10,000 cubic yards of grading per acre.
The project shall contain 2,629 square feet of storage area within the structure as shown
on Exhibit ‘G” dated October 17,199O. The storage area shall be retained as storage and
not converted to any other use unless a Planned Unit Development Permit Amendment is
approved by the Planning Commission
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
41. The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the
respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project.
42. The developer shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E., Pacific Telephone, and
Cable TV authorities.
PC RESO NO. 3127 -6-
.-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
. . .
This project is approved specifically as 1 (single) phase.
Approval of this tentative tract map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of
Planning Commission approval unless a final map is recorded. An extension may be
requested by the applicant. Said extension shall be approved or denied at the discretion of
the Planning Commission. In approving an extension, the Planning Commission may impose
new conditions and may revise existing conditions pursuant to Section 20.12.110(a)(2)
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Prior to approval of the final map the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City
to pay any drainage area fees established as a result of the forthcoming Master Drainage
Plan Update.
The developer shall enter into an agreement to pay proportional fees for the future
undergrounding of all existing overhead utility lines along the boundary of the subdivision
prior to Final Map Approval.
No grading permits shall be issued for this subdivision prior to recordation of the final map.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
Tentative Map, a grading permit for this project is required. Prior to issuance of a building
permit for the project, the applicant must submit and receive approval for grading plans in
accordance with City codes and standards, be issued a grading permit and complete the
grading work in substantial conformance with the approved grading plans.
The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to the commencement of any clearing or
grading of the site.
No grading shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless a grading or slope
easement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. If the developer is unable
to obtain the grading or slope easement, he must either amend the tentative map or change
the slope so grading will not occur outside the project site in a manner which substantially
conforms to the approved tentative map as determined by the City Engineer and Planning
Director.
A separate grading plan shall be submitted and approved and a separate grading permit
issued for the borrow or disposal site if located within the city limits.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any proposed construction site within this
project the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the
proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the
City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
Additional drainage easements and drainage structures shall be provided or installed prior
to the issuance of grading or building permit as may be required by the City Engineer.
PC RESO NO. 3127 -7-
I
,- ,-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
Ocean Street shall be dedicated by the developer along the project frontage based on a
center line to right-of-way width of 25 feet (that is an additional five feet of right-of-way)
and in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards prior to approval of Final Map.
Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall give
written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the site plan
into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1. The form
shall be provided by the City during the improvement plancheck process.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all improvements shall be prepared to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to approval of the Final Map in accordance, with
City Standards the Developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate
security as provided by law, improvements shown on the Tentative Map and the following
improvements:
A. Full half street improvements to Ocean Street along the project frontage including
any necessary offsite transitions.
B. A note to this effect shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final map per
the provisions of Sections 66434.2 and 66445 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 12 months of Final Map Approval.
The construction of the proposed seawall for this project is conditioned to comply with the
requirements in the report titled “Design Criteria for Vertical Seawall St Tropez West 2901
Ocean Street, Carlsbad, Califoti dated December 4,1989 and any amendments thereto,
and the letter from Noble Consultants dated July 10,1990, and any amendments thereto.
The developer shall install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, the
seawall from the subject property north across the public beach access to the northern
properties seawalL The developer must fht obtain an encroachment permit from the City
and a Coastal Permit from the State for the ofTsite seawall prior to final map approval. The
developer must then comply with conditions for said encroachmm permit
Fire Conditions:
59. Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the Fire Department.
60. Additional public and/or onsite fire hydrants shall be provided if deemed necessary by the
Fire Marshal.
61. The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of a site plan showing locations of existing and
proposed fire hydrants and onsite roads and drives to the Fire Marshal for approval prior
to issuance of a building permit.
62. Proposed security gate systems shall be provided with “Knox” key operated override switch,
as specified by the Fire Department.
PC BESO NO. 3127 -8-
1
2
t
4
c: L
e
‘i
E
s
IC
11
12
12
14
1:
1E
17
1E
1s
2c
21
2i
2;
21
2!
2t
2:
2t
63.
64.
Fire retardant roofs shall be required on all structures.
All fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing systems, automatic sprinklers, and other
systems pertinent to the project shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior
to construction.
65. Building exceeding 10,000 sq. ft. aggregate floor area shall be sprinklered.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of October, 1990, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners: Schlehuber, Marcus and Erwin.
Chairperson Schramm and Commissioner McFadden.
Commissioners Hall and Holmes.
None.
SHARON SCHRUIM, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PC RESO NO. 3127 -9-
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. 3128
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT TO DEVELOP SIX CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND A SEAWALL
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF OCEAN STREET AND GRAND
AVENUE.
CASE NAME: ST. TROPEZ WEST
CASE NO.: PUD 90-11
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
Lot 1 of Block B of the Hays Land Company Addition in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map
thereof No. 1221, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, November 4, 1909.
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 17th day of October, 1990, hold
a duly noticed public hearing 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 Planned Unit Development.
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 APPROVES
PUD 90-11, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed density of 19
du’s/acre is within the density range of 15-23 du’s/acre specified for the site as indicated
on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is at or below the growth control point
of 19.
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
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
. . .
-
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is
adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed.
The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project,
ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer
determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project
unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commission is satisfied that the
requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as
they apply to sewer service for this project.
School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad Unified
School District.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of
approval.
The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay
a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this
body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the
General Plan.
Assurances have been given that adequate sewer for the project will be provided by the City
of Carlsbad.
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s Planned Development Ordinance and also
complies with the Design Guidelines Manual.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding
properties are designated for high and medium-high density residential development on the
General Plan.
This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Conditional
Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on July 10, 1990 and
Approved by the Planning Commission on October 17,199O. In approving this Conditional
Negative Declaration the Planning Commission has considered the initial study, the staff
analysis, all required mitigation measures and any written comments received regarding the
significant effects this project could have on the environment.
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
PC RHO NO. 3128 -2-
-
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
13. This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has been
conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 1.
14. This project was subject to Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Hillside
Ordinance) and meets all the requirements of that Chapter to ensure the sensitive treatment
of the City’s hillside resources.
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Approval is granted for PUD 90-11, as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “K”, dated October 17,
1990, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall
occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Site
Plan as approved by the Planning Commission. The Site Plan shall reflect the conditions
of approval by the City. The plan copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to
issuance of building permits or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued
for development of the subject property unless the City Engineer determines that sewer
facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue
to be available until time of occupancy.
This project is also approved under the express condition that the applicant pay the public
facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 and as amended from time to
time, and any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth
management system or facilities and improvement plan and to f&ill the subdivideis
agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated March 28,1990, a copy of which is on file
with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid this
application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will
be void.
The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map
as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as part of
building permit application. These fees shall be based on the fee schedule in effect at the
time of building permit application.
Water shall be provided to this project pursuant to the Water Service agreement between
the City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, dated May 25, 1983.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which may be
required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made
to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
PC RESO NO. 3128 -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
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
. . .
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this project are
challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
65913.5. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all
requirements of law.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit
issuance.
Approval of PUD 90-11 is granted subject to the approval of CT 90-7, HDP 90-15 and
v 90-2.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates pursuant
to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning Director.
Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Planning and Building.
All visitor parking spaces shall be striped a different color than the assigned resident parking
spaces and shall be clearly marked as may be approved by the Planning Director.
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning Director
approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on
adjacent homes or property.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of grading or
building permits, whichever occurs first.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from
weeds, trash, and debris.
All landscape plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Guidelines Manual and
submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning Department.
Landscape plans shall be designed to minimize water use. Lawn and other zone 1 plants
(see Landscape Guidelines Manual) shall be limited to areas of special visual importance or
high use. Mulches shall be used and irrigation equipment and design shall promote water
conservation.
PC RESO NO. 3128
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
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
The developer shall avoid trees that have invasive root systems, produce excessive litter
and/or are too large relative to the lot size.
Prior to final occupancy, a letter from a California licensed landscape architect shall be
submitted to the Planning Director certifying that all landscaping has been installed as
shown on the approved landscape plans.
The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The first set of landscape and irrigation plans submitted shall include building plans,
improvement plans and grading plans.
All landscape and irrigation plans shall show existing and proposed contours and shall
match the grading plans in terms of scale and location of improvements.
The number of trees in a residential project shall be equal to or greater than the number
of residential units.
20% of the trees in multi-family projects of 5 units or more shall be 24” box or greater.
Any landscaping utilizied west of the building shall be limited to species which are low
growing so as to not block coastal views that adjacent properties may currently enjoy.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings
so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or
addresses shall contrast to their background color.
The developer shall display a current Zoning and hand Use Map in the sales office at all
times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be
limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks, and streets.
This project is being approved as a condominium permit for residential homeownership
purposes. If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum time increment for
such rental shall be not less than 26 days. A condition so stating this shall be placed in the
CC&R’s for the project.
As part of the plans submitted for building permit plan check, the applicant shall include
a reduced version of the approving resolution/resolutions on a 24” x 36” blueline drawing.
Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Development
Permit and signed approved site plan.
PC RESO NO. 3128 -5-
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
34.
35.
36.
37.
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first, a soils report shall
be prepared and submitted to the City of G&bad. If the soils report indicates the presence
of potential fossil bearing material then a standard two phased program, on file in the
Planning Department, shall be undertaken to avoid possible significant impacts on
paleontological resources under the direction of the Planning Department.
Any fencing constructed around the spa shall not be solid fencing but shalI be of a type
having openings between the materials of which the fence is constxucted which would not
completely block views of the coastline from adjacent properties.
The four single car garages adjacent to Ocean Street shall be equiped with automatic garage
door openers due to the length of the driveways. The required garage door openers shall
be installed prior to approval of occupancy for the struchxre.
AU conditions stated in Resolutions 3126, 3127, 3129, and 3130 for the Conditional
Negative Declaration, CT 90-7, HJIP 90-15, and V 90-2 are incorporated by reference herein.
Engineering Condition:
38. All conditions stated in Resolution No. 3127 for CT 90-7 are incorporated by reference
herein
Fire Conditions:
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
. . .
Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the Fire Department.
Additional public and/or onsite fire hydrants shall be provided if deemed necessary by the
Fire Marshal.
The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of a site plan showing locations of existing and
proposed fire hydrants and onsite roads and drives to the Fire Marshal for approval prior
to issuance of a building permit.
Proposed security gate systems shall be provided with “Knox” key operated override switch,
as specified by the Fire Department.
Fire retardant roofs shall be required on all structures.
All fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing systems, automatic sprinklers, and other
systems pertinent to the project shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior
to construction.
Building exceeding 10,000 sq. ft. aggregate floor area shall be sprinklered.
PC RESO NO. 3128 -6-
-
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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of October, IWO, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners: Schlehuber, Erwin and Marcus.
NOES: Chairperson Schramm and Commissioner McFadden.
ABSENT: Commissioners Hall and Holmes.
ABSTAIN: None.
PC RESO NO. 3128 -7-
SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
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. 3129
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CREATING 6 CONDOMINIUM
UNITS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF OCEAN
STREET AND GRAND AVENUE.
CASE NAME: ST. TROPEZ WEST
CASE NO.: HDP 90-15
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
Lot 1 of Block B of the Hays Land Company Addition in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
map thereof No. 1221, filed in the office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, November 4, 1909,
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 17th day of October, 1990,
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said 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 Planning Commission Determination; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as
I follows:
1 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES
HDP 90-15, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. Hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map/slope analysis and
slope promes exhibit
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
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
. . .
No undevelopable areas such as slopes over 40 percent have been identified on the project
site.
The development proposal and all applicable development approvals and permits are
consistent with the purpose, intent and requirements of the Hillside Development
Regulations and no modifications to the devleopment and design standards are necessary.
The finding that no development or grading will occur in those portions of the site which
are undevelopable pursuant to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance section Section
21.53.230(b) can be made as the site contains no area within any of those categories.
As a result of wave erosion and existing development the project site has been disturbed;
however the project design minim&s the disturbance of the site as much as feasible by
following the exkting slope of the land.
The project design substan&& conforms to the intent of concepts illustrated in the
Hillside Development Guidelines as follows:
A.
B.
C.
The building and useable yard area step down the slope.
The varied rodline and its orientation are in compliance with the guidelines.
The building is setback 25 feet from the property line at the bottom of the slope
and the various levels have been setback from one another.
The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the proposed density of 19
du’s/acre is within the density range of 15-23 du’s/acre specified for the site as indicated
on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is at or below the growth control point
of 19.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site
is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed.
The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project,
ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer
determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project
unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commission is satisfied that the
requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar
as they apply to sewer service for this project.
School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the Carlsbad
Unified School District.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions
of approval.
PC RESO NO. 3129 -2-
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
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to
pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable
this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required
by the General Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s Planned Development Ordinance and
also complies with the Design Guidelines Manual.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for High and Medium-High Density Residential
development on the General Plan.
This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Conditional
Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on July 10, 1990 and
Approved by the Planning Commission on October 17, 1990. In approving this
Conditional Negative Declaration the Planning Commission has considered the initial
study, the staff analysis, all required mitigation measures and any written comments
received regarding the significant effects this project could have on the environment.
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
This project is consistent with the Citys Growth Management Ordinance as it has been
conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 1.
This project was subject to Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Hillside
Ordinance) and meets all the requirements of that Chapter to ensure the sensitive
treatment of the City’s hillside resources.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for HDP 90-15, as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “K”, dated October 17,
1990, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development
shah occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
2. Approval of HDP 90-15 is granted subject to the approval of CT 90-7, PUD 90-11, and
v 90-2.
3. All conditions stated in Resolutions 3126, 3127, 3128, and 3130 for the Conditional
Negative Declaration, CT 90-7, PUD 90-11, and V 90-2 are incorporated by reference
herein.
*..
PC RESO NO. 3129 -3-
.
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of October, 1990, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners: Schlehuber, Erwin and Marcus.
NOES: Chairperson Schramm and Commissioner McFadden.
ABSENT: Commissioners Hall and Holmes.
ABSTAIN: None.
SHARON SCHRAMM, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
’ k.ANNI# DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3129 -4-
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. 3130
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO
ALLOW SETBACKS TO BE REDUCED FROM 10 FEET TO 6 FEET
AND INCREASING BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 25 FEET TO 47 FEET
6 INCHES AND NUMBER OF STORIES FROM 2 TO 4 FOR A 6
UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF OCEAN
STREET AND GRAND AVENUE.
CASE NAME: ST. TROPEZ WEST
CASE NO.: V 90-2
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit:
Lot 1 of Block B of the Hays Land Company Addition in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
map thereof No. 1221, filed in the office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, November 4, 1909,
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 17th day of October, 1990, hold
a duly noticed public hearing 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 V 90-2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad as follows:
A>
B)
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES V 90-2, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findings:
1. There are exceptional or extraordimuy circums~ces or conditions applicable to the
property or intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same
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
2.
vicinity and zone because the property which is located on the west side of Ocean Street
slopes radicaUy toward the beach partIy as a resuh of erosion caused by wave action. To
develop the property and comply with City requirements such as parking and street
dedication as weII as an ocean setback based on a “stringhne” method of measurement as
de&bed in Policy 7-12 of the Mello II LCP, causes the buildable area of the site to be less
than that of existing projects. The proposed project sideyard setbacks will vary from 6,
8, and 14 feet or greater to provide bu.iIding planes with a great deal of relief. The
proposed project height and number of stories complies with the 2 stories or 25 feet
maximum height as measured from Ocean Street. The requested variance is necessary
because of the topography of the site and the need to create the underground parking
garage and a 1eveI buihiing surface.
Such variance is necessary for the p reservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone because without the
sideyard setback and buihhng height variance the scale of the project would have to be
reduced substantially while numerous variances have previously been granted for
properties along Ocean Street because of the physical and regulatory restrictions stated
previously. The applicant’s engineer has surveyed numerous properties on the west side
of Ocean Street which are shown on the sketches attached to the staff report that have
been stamped and signed by the engineer. This information shows that there are
developments on the west side of Ocean Street that presentIy exist at heights comparable
to that requested for this project because of the topography on the west side of Ocean
Street The proposed project density is considerabIy less than that of adjacent
developments and will utihze high quality surface materials.
3. The granting of such variance wiU not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vkinity and zone in which the property
is located because aII other requirements have been met inchrding parking, lot coverage,
density, required recreational open space, and provision of an additional five feet of right-
of-way for Ocean Street.
4. The granting of such vaiance will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan as it will
provide for the removal of an existing structure in need of repair having no parking with
a high quality project that will be an improvement to the area and have 15 onsite parking
spaces. The project will he compatible with surrounding uses in scale and density, and is
in an area present@ served by alI necessary public utilities and services.
Conditions:
1. Approval is g-ranted for V 90-2, as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “K”, dated October 17, 1990,
incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall
occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
2. Approval of V 90-2 is granted subject to the approval of CT 90-7, PUD 90-11, and HDP
90-15.
3. All conditions stated in Resolutions 3126, 3127, 3128, and 3129 for the Conditional
Negative Declaration, CX 90-7, PUD 90-11, and HDP 90-15 are incorporated by reference
herein
PC RESO NO. 3130 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
S
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of October, 1990, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners: Schlehuber, Erwin and Marcus.
NOES: Chairperson Schramm and Commissioner McFadden.
ABSENT: Commissioners: Hall and Holmes.
ABSTAIN: None.
’ PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 3130 -3-
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
APPL,,AI’ION COMPLETE DATE:
JUNE 26, 1990
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 17, 1990
0 2
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
c FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2 - ST. TROPEZ WEST - Request for approval
of a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to create six condominium
units and construct a seawall, a Hillside Development Permit, and a Variance to
reduce sideyard setbacks from 10 feet to 6 feet and increase the building height
from 25 feet or 2 stories to 47 feet 6 inches and 4 stories, located on the southwest
comer of the intersection of Ocean street and Grand Avenue, in the R-3 Zone and
Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3126 APPROVING the
Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning Commission
Resolution No’s. 3127, 3128, 3129, and 3130 APPROVING CT 90-7, PUD 90-11, HDP 90-15, and
V 90-2, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission denied a previous design for a 6 unit project on this site on July 19,
1989. The present project consists of a single U-shape building containing 6 condominium units
having a height of 24 feet and 2 stories as measured from Ocean Street and 47 feet, 6 inches and
4 stories as measured at its highest point along the north and south elevations. The buildings
architecture contains elements of the Tudor style and is enhanced by the use of cultured stone
around the base of the building and at the entry courtyard, face brick above the garage doors and
on the chimneys, stucco exterior walls accented by the use of wood, and a multi-level roof to be
covered by Hallmark Weathered shake shingles. The proposed six units range in size from 2,666
square feet to 2,855 square feet. Decks are proposed on the western elevation for all 6 units. Some
units also have additional decks facing north, south, east or onto the interior courtyard. Decorative
paving will be used for the courtyard, driveways, and guest parking and will consist of tile or
imprinted concrete.
A seawall is proposed as part of this project. The seawall will extend along the project’s 110 foot
long western property line and continue north across the 40 foot wide public beach access. The
concrete seawall will have a rough hewn plank texture with a light aggregate color. The wall will
have a height of 10 feet across the project’s ocean frontage and 7 feet 6 inches across the public
access. Stairways providing access down to beach level will be constructed as part of the wall.
Recreational amenities proposed in addition to private decks are a spa, a beach yard with barbecue
areas, public beach access, and a private courtyard accessed from Ocean Street.
CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP Vu-15/V 90-2 - ST. TROPEZ WEST
OCTOBER 17, 1990
PAGE 2
A total of 15 parking spaces are provided as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Four single-car
garages and two uncovered guest parking spaces are proposed adjacent to Ocean Street. The
remaining 9 parking spaces are contained in the underground garage including the third guest
parking space. The guest space is located closest to the entrance leading to the elevator to make
it as convenient to use as possible. The proposed parking arrangement reduces the building
frontage on Ocean Street and causes the project scale to appear smaller as viewed from street level.
The project site totals .354 acres and encompasses two 55 foot by 140 foot lots which will be
consolidated into one lot by the proposed Tentative Tract Map. The northern lot is presently
developed with an existing 4-unit apartment building having no onsite parking. The southern lot
is vacant. The proposed design requires adding a net amount of import of 3,397 cubic yards of fill.
This is due to the stepping down of the grade from the high end at the street level access and in
order to raise the floor of the lowest level to protect it from storm wave damage. All proposed
grading is contained behind retaining walls.
The proposed project is subject to the following standards and policies:
A High Density Residential (RH) General Plan Designation
B. Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone
C. Planned Development Ordinance
D. Beach Area Overlay (BAO) Zone
E. Hillside Development Regulations and Guidelines
F. The Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Plan
G. Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1
Adjacent land uses to the site consist of a 40 foot wide coastal pedestrian access with a 5 foot wide
public stairway to the north. To the south is a 21 unit condominium project. To the east is a
variety of 1 and 2 story multi-family residential units. To the west is the beach and Pacific Ocean.
III.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ANALYSIS
Does the proposed project comply with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan and the
High Density Residential Classification?
Is the project in compliance with the requirements of the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3)
Zone?
Does the proposed project comply with the design criteria and development standards of the
Planned Development Ordinance?
Does the proposed project comply with the intent and purpose as well as the development
standards of the Beach Area Overlay (BAO) Zone?
Is the project in conformance with the intent as well as the development and design
standards of the Hillside Development Regulations.
Can the required findings for the requested height and sideyard setback variances be made?
-
CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/v 90-2 - ST. TROPEZ WEST
OCTOBER 17, 1990
7. Is the proposed project consistent with the MeIlo II segment of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal
Program?
8. Is the project in conformance with the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone l?
DISCUSSION
’ General Plan
The project as proposed complies with the goals of the General Plan as it will not create a land use
impact in part because the proposal is an infill project. The policies of the General Plan have also
been complied with since the site is presently served by all necessary utilities and can obtain all
public services. The General Plan designation for the site of High Density Residential (RH) is
characterized by low and medium rise condominium and apartment development within a range
of 15 to 23 dwelling units per gross acre. The project design of 2 stories at the Ocean Street
frontage and 4 stories as viewed from the west containing six condominium units complies with the
RH designation. The project is proposed at a density of 18.42 dwelling units per acre which is
within the density range and does not exceed the Growth Management Control Point.
The General Plan Land Use Element states that the density allocation for any project starts at the
low end and, if a higher density is desired, the proposed development must prove itself worthy of
the higher designation. The criteria for allowing the higher density is to be reviewed on a project-
. by-project basis and shall include such things as slope of land, soil stability, compatibility with
surrounding land uses, flood plain protection, adequacy of public facilities, onsite amenities and
preservation of unique and desirable natural resources.
The project has several floor levels which step down the site following the slope of the land. The
proposed seawall and retaining walls will stabilize the site and the public beach access which are
subject to erosion from wave action. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent land uses which
are also multi-family residential uses of 4 and 5 stories to the south and north respectively. The
Sea Slope project to the south has a density of 29 du/ac while the Moorings project to the north
has a density of 31 du/ac, well above the 18.42 du/ac requested for this project.
The project site is not within a flood plain but is within an area of the City which is presently
developed and contains public facilities with sufficient capacity to accommodate the use. The
project will provide a number of onsite amenities which include a courtyard, spa, beach yard with
barbecue areas, numerous private decks, large private storage facilities, and an elevator. The
project also utilizes high quality design and surface materials such as curved building walls, an
entry gate, cultured stone and brick, decorative (stamped) concrete, and a varied roof line with
weathered shake shingles. The site does not possess any unique and desirable natural resources.
zoninq
The proposed residential use is permitted by the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone. The eight
foot front yard setback is permitted under Section 21.46.070 of the Zoning Ordinance which is
titled modification of required front yards. The building has a rearyard setback of 25 feet and
complies with Policy 7-12 of the Mello II Local Coastal Plan which requires an Ocean setback based
CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2 - ST. TROPEZ WEST
OCTOBER 17, 1990
on a “stringline” method of measurement. The zone allows a maximum of 60 percent lot coverage
while the project proposes only 43 percent lot coverage. All other requirements of the zone are met
except for side yard setbacks and building height. A variance has been requested for these two
items and is described in more detail under the section of this report on variances.
Planned Development Ordinance
’ The project complies with the design criteria and development standards of the Planned
Development Ordinance. The plan provides for adequate useable open space, circulation, off-street
parking and recreational facilities. The project will be compatible with surrounding land uses
which are of a similar height and a higher density. When completed the project will not constitute
a disruptive element to the neighborhood or community. The common areas and recreational
facilities described previously are located so as to be readily accessible to the occupants of the
dwelling units. Because the six units are to be contained within a single structure there are no
concerns relevant to architectural harmony within the development. The proposed architecture is
similar to that of a number of buildings within the nearby project boundaries of the Village
Redevelopment Area.
Two full-sized covered residential parking spaces are provided for each unit. Three visitor parking
spaces are provided based on the rate of one space for each two units. The street level open
parking spaces are setback from the building five feet. This five foot area will be a landscaped
planter.
A total of 2,841 square feet of recreational space will be provided which exceeds the minimum
1,200 square feet required by the ordinance. Common active as well as private passive recreational
facilities are required. The proposed spa fulfills the common active recreational facility requirement
while the proposed balconies meet the private passive recreational facility requirement. Each unit
has at least one balcony with a minimum dimension of six feet by six feet. Additional recreational
facilities are provided including a beach yard with barbecue areas, and a courtyard.
A separate storage space of 480 cubic feet in area is required for each unit. Storage areas ranging
from 3,420 to 4,302 cubic feet per unit are proposed. Two trash enclosure areas are being
constructed.
Beach Area Overlav Zone
The proposed project complies with the intent and purpose of the Beach Area Overlay Zone. The
project is compatible with surrounding development and parking has been provided as required by
the Zoning Ordinance. Adequate public facilities exist to serve the beach area and improvements
will be made to the adjacent public beach access to the north. The project will be an improvement
aesthetically to the area as it will replace an older stntcture in need of repair and contains high
quality surface materials.
The development standards of the Beach Area Overlay Zone have been met with the exception of
building height. The maximum height permitted is two stories or twenty-five feet in height,
whichever is less. The project complies with this standard only as viewed from Ocean Street. A
height variance has been requested to allow the central and western part of the structure to reach
CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2 - ST. TROPEZ WEST
OCTOBER 17,199O
a maximum height of 47 feet 6 inches and 4 stories. The variance request will be described in more
detail under the variance section of this report.
Hillside Development Regulations
The project design is in conformance with the intent as well as the development and design
c standards of the Hillside Development Regulations. The site presently is occupied by an existing
four unit structure and all adjacent properties are developed. The proposed design and seawall will
prevent further erosion of this property.
For calculating the allowable density for the site, no more than fifty percent of the portion of the
site containing twenty-five to forty percent slopes was utilized. The building and useable yard area
step down the hillside. The orientation and varied roofline are in compliance with the requirements
of the ordinance. In addition, the building is setback 25 feet from the western property line at the
bottom of the slope and the various levels have been setback from one another on the west.
Approximately 3,397 cubic yards of fill are proposed which equals 9,608 cubic yards per acre. This
is within the potentially acceptable range of the Hillside Development Regulations. The fill is
required as a result of the existing topography, to create the underground parking garage, and to
raise the floor of the lowest level to protect it from possible storm wave damage and is therefore
justified. No modifications to the development and design standards are necessary.
Variances
As stated previously the applicant is requesting that two variances be granted. The first request is
to allow sideyard setbacks to be reduced from 10 feet to 6 feet. Of the entire building length of
95 feet a total of 44 feet (46%) would have a 6 foot setback, 12 feet (13%) would have an 8 foot
setback and 39 feet (41%) would have a 14 foot or greater setback providing the building with a
great deal of articulation. The variance is necessary due to the slope of the site creating the need
to construct an underground parking garage to satisfy the parking requirement. This requires the
14 foot wide setback along a portion of the building to accommodate vehicular access to the
parking garage. The site is further constrained by the required Ocean Street setback and rear yard
stringline setback required by the Local Coastal Program which results in a 25 foot rear setback.
A significant number of properties along Ocean Street have been granted setback variances.
The second variance request is to increase the building height from the maximum 25 feet or 2
stories required by the Beach Area Overlay Zone to 47 feet 6 inches and 4 stories. The proposed
project as measured on the east at Ocean Street will be 2 stories and 24 feet high which complies
with the ordinance. The variance is necessary as a result of the topography of the site that slopes
toward the beach and the need to stabilize the toe of the slope with a seawall to create a level
building surface. The applicant has had his engineer survey numerous properties on the west side
of Ocean Street. The attached sketches stamped and signed by the engineer show that there are
developments on the west side of Ocean Street that presently exist at heights comparable to that
requested for this project. The topography of this site is similar to those other properties. Staff is
able to make the required findings to support the requested variances.
CT 90-7/PUD 90-l l/HDP 90-15/V 90-2 - ST. TROPEZ WEST
OCTOBER 17, 1990
Local Coastal Program
The proposed project is subject to the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and
will require a Coastal Permit. The project design is consistent with all applicable policies of the
Mello II LCP. Consistent with Policy 7-12 the proposed structure and decks observe an ocean
setback based on a “stringline” method of measurement with adjacent structures and decks to the
c north and south.
A report was prepared for the proposed seawaIl design by Group Delta Consultants, Inc. The Group
Delta Report was reviewed by the City Engineering Department as well as by Noble Consultants,
the firm selected by the Engineering Department to complete a Peer Review of the report. The
project has been conditioned to comply with the submitted sea wall study.
One of the study’s recommendations is to extend the seawall across the public beach access and
connect to the seawall at the property to the north of the beach access. The project is also
proposing to connect their seawall to the adjacent southern seawall. The extension of the seawall
along the project frontage including the beach access is required to protect the beach access and
adjacent structures. The attached letter from Noble Consultants verifies that without the seawall
the beach access would suffer damage from wave action. The existing adjacent structures would
also be undermined by the wave action concentrated in the access easement if the proposed seawall
were only to be built along the project’s beach frontage. The developer has been conditioned to
construct the seawall across the public beach access at his expense and to do any repairs or
additions to the public beach access as required by the seawall design. The seawall design which
includes the public access area is included on the project plans.
Construction of improvements including the seawall on the public beach access would require that
the City Council grant the applicant permission to construct these improvements. Should the
Council not grant permission to build the seawall on the public access, an alternative wall design
which would extend along a portion of the project’s northern property line has been analyzed in
the report. Landscaping to the west of the building has been conditioned to consist of species that
are low growing so as not to block any coastal views that adjacent properties might presently have.
c
CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2 - ST. TROPEZ WEST
OCTOBER 17,199O
-.
Growth Mananement
The proposed project is located in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. The impacts on public
facilities created by the project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are
summarized below:
FACILITY IMPACT
City Administrative 22.239 sq. ft.
Library 11.868 sq. ft.
Wastewater Treatment Capacity 1,320 GPD
Parks .044478 AC.
Drainage N/A
Circulation 48 ADT
Fire Station 1
Sewer Collection System 6 EDU’s
Water Distribution System 1,320 GPD
Open Space N/A
Schools Carlsbad
COMPLIANCE WITH
STANDARD
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
The project is proposing a density of 18.42 du/acre which is .58 dwelling units below the Growth
Control Point.
Summary
The project complies with the existing General Plan and Zoning Designations for the site if the two
requested variances are granted and is compatible with adjacent development. Compliance with
the Planned Development Ordinance, Beach Area Overlay (BAO) Zone, Hillside Development
Regulations, Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Plan and Growth Management is obtained with
the exception of the height variance which also must be granted under the BAO Zone. Staff is able
to make the findings to support the requested variances and therefore recommends that CT 90-
7/PUD 90-l l/HDP 90-15/V 90-2 be approved.
CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2 - ST. TROPEZ WEST
OCTOBER 17, 1990
PAGE 8
Iv. I3MRoNMENTALR.EvIEw
The Planning Director has determined that the project could have a significant effect on the
environment; however, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measure described in the initial study has been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration was issued on July 10, 1990. This decision was based on the findings of the
’
Environmental Impact Assessment, review of the Geology Map of the City indicating soils having
potential fossil content, and a field survey by staff. The Conditional Negative Declaration was sent
to the State Clearinghouse for circulation and no comments were received from any State Agencies.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. 10.
. 11.
12.
13.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3126
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3127
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3128
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3129
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3130
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Form
Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form
Surveyed Building Heights
Correspondence from area Property owners
Correspondence from Noble Consultants
Exhibits “A” - “KY, dated October 17, 1990.
September 13, 1990
DN:km
.
A
iv i STATE OF CALIFORNIA--OFFICE 0~ THE GOVERNOR c . . GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
August 17, 1990
Don Neu City of Carl&ad ,2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009
,
Subject: St. Tropez West
ScH# 90010715
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to
selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of
the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have
complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call Terri Lovelady at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions
regarding the environmental review process. Khen contacting the Clearinghouse
in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that
we may respond promptly.
Sincerely,
David C. Nunenkamp
Deputy Director, Permit Assistance . * .+
m . ..e
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
c
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 2901 Ocean Street - Southwest corner of the
intersection of Ocean street and Grand Avenue.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A six unit condominium project and a seawall.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Conditional Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a
significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification
for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Conditional Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from
the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department
within 30 days of date of issuance.
DATED: July 10, 1990
CASE NO: CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2 Planning Director
APPLICANT: ST. TROPEZ WEST (Charles Rowe)
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 19,199O
DN:lh
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (819) 438-l 161
-
EIUVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2
DATE: JULY 3, 1990
BACKGROUND
3. CASE NAME: ST. TROPEZ WEST
2. APPLICANT: CHARLES ROWE
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: PO BOX 142
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: MARCH 1.1990
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AND A SEAWALL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, “NO” will be checked
to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the
project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed
insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings ‘YES-sig” and ‘YFGnsig”
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
A
PHYSICAL EmvrRoI+dMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards? P
Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
x
x
x
Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? x
Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality? x
Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? x
Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? x
Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply? x
Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources? x
Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? x
Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object? x
NO
-2-
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 75 S Sl
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
‘plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRFCILY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
F S 1llSlg)
El S si F S mnsig)
NO
x
x
x
x
x
NO
x
x
-3-
HuMANENvrRoNMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
Increase existing noise levels? c
Produce new light or glare?
Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
Generate substantial additional traffic?
Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
Alter waterborne, rail or air trafCc?
Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
NO
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-4-
-
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGIVIFICAN~
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory.
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively con-
siderable” means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
75 S SI NO
x
x
x
x
-5-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
1.
r
2.
The project site is presently subject to erosion caused by wave action. The proposed design
will stabilize the site by constructing a seawall along the western property line. A report
titled “Report of Geotechnical Investigation,” dated April 17, 1989 prepared by Western Soil
and Foundation Engineering, Inc. lists recommendations for development of the site.
Addendum No. 1 to the “Report of Geotechnical Investigation,” dated April 16, 1990 states
that the proposed plans are in conformance with the recommendations of the report. The
geotechnical investigation found the majority of the site to be covered with poorly
consolidated marine terrace deposits. No obvious geologic hazards were observed in any of
the subsurface explorations. The main concern on this site will be the proper treatment of
loose compressible soil as outlined in the report. The project design steps the building down
the slope utilizing structural retaining walls and importing 3,267 cubic yards of fill dirt to
create a series of level floor areas. A total of 130 cubic yards of cut are also proposed. The
proposed grading and walls will stabilize the site.
The topography of the site will not be significantly changed. The greatest height of fill to
be placed on areas of the project site will raise the elevation approximately 10 feet. This
increase in elevation occurs in the western portion of the site. The resulting new grade levels
will be comparable to the existing development to the south and is necessary to provide the
structure protection from wave action resulting from coastal storms. The proposed structure
utilizes a number of different levels so that the change in topography can be minimized as
much as possible. The site possesses no unique physical features, presently contains an
existing building, and is bordered by existing development with the exception of the Pacific
Ocean to the west.
3. The project design includes a seawall that will abut up against an existing seawall to the
south in addition to extending across the frontage of the 40 foot wide public beach access
to the north. Extending the wall to the north and south as shown on the project plans will
prevent the erosion of soils on and off site which could be caused by wave diffraction. The
use of retaining walls as proposed on site will further reduce the potential for soil erosion.
4. The proposed seawall location will increase protection afforded to both the Public Beach
access and the adjacent property to the north as compared to a string-line alignment which
is documented in the report titled “Effect of String-line Seawall Alignment, 2901 Ocean
Street, Carlsbad, California,” dated August 18, 1989 prepared by Group Delta Consultants,
Inc. This will cause a reduction in the deposition of beach sands which is not considered
significant as the site and adjacent property will be protected from further wave erosion.
5. The project will not have a significant effect on ambient air quality as it will generate only
48 Average Daily Vehicle Trips thereby not producing a substantial amount of vehicle
emissions.
6. The proposed building setbacks will provide for air movement to adjacent properties.
-6-
.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION - PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT (ContinuedI:
7. The project will change the course of marine waters as the proposed seawall will limit the
landward extend to which waves will reach. This is necessary to protect the proposed
development during coastal storms and is not considered to be a negative impact as adjacent
properties will also be protected.
8. The quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply will not be
c significantly impacted by this project as the only on site waters that will be directed toward
the ocean will be from on-site drainage. In addition, the project will obtain water and sewer
service from the City of Carlsbad.
9. The project site which presently contains an existing structure and is adjacent to developed
properties contains no natural resources of environmental significance.
10. Because of the project’s relatively small scale it is not expected to use substantial amounts
of fuel or energy.
11. The project site which has been disturbed by urban activities contains no evidence of
significant archeological or historical resources. The site, however, is located in an area
containing soils determined to have a High Potential Fossil Content. Therefore, the City’s
standard mitigation measure concerning the soils report checking for the presence of fossil
bearing material and the related program has been required.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Vegetation on site consists primarily of introduced species including ice plant as the site
presently contains a structure.
Existing species of vegetation on the property are not environmentally significant, therefore,
the introduction of new species of plants will not cause an adverse impact.
No agricultural crop is grown on the project site which does not contain prime, unique or
other farmland of state or local importance.
As a result of existing development on and adjacent to the project site it is not valuable as
habitat for any animal species.
Domestic animals added to the area as a result of this project will not result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals because of the existing level of human activity in the immediate area including the beach.
-7-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION - HUMAN ENVIRONMENT:
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
17.
Hi.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
The proposed project complies with the present and planned land use of the area as the site
is designated RI-l (High Density Residential) on the General Plan Land Use Map and is zoned
R-3 (Multiple Family Residential). The project’s density as well as intensity of development
is compatible with adjacent land uses.
Public utilities exist in the adjacent public street to serve the development and public
services will be provided through the implementation of the Local Facilities Management
Plan for Zone 1.
Sewer lines exist in Ocean Street to service the project.
The proposed residential use which is bordered by existing development and a public beach
will not significantly increase noise levels over the present ambient level.
The project will not produce new glare that will adversely impact adjacent uses based on the
location of proposed fixtures shown on the plans. All light fixtures will direct light down
away from the perimeter of the site.
Because this is a residential project it will not involve a significant risk of an explosion or
the release of hazardous substances as such materials will not be stored on-site in large
quantities.
The proposed density of 19 du/acre is within the range specified by the General Plan Land
Use Designation for the site of 15-23 du/acre and does not exceed the growth control point
of 19 du/acre.
The project will provide additional housing units to meet existing demand.
A total of 48 Average Daily Vehicle Trips will be generated by the project which will not
significantly impact the circulation system.
The demand for parking facilities created by this project will be satisfied on site. Two
covered spaces will be provided for each unit.
The project is required to dedicate 5 feet along its Ocean Street frontage to accommodate
future improvements. The necessary dedication is shown on the project plans. This will
enable the area circulation system to be upgraded as determined to be necessary by the
Engineering Department.
The project does not extend into the ocean to alter waterborne traffic and is not located near
a rail line. In addition the site is outside the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport.
-8-
.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION - HUMAN ENVIRONMENT (ContinuedI:
29.
30.
31.
c
32.
Adequate sight distance will be provided for all vehicle access points on site to facilitate safe
vehicular movement so as to not create a hazard to bicyclists or pedestrians.
Development of the project site which is designated for the proposed use will not create an
interference with emergency response plans.
The project will not obstruct a scenic vista as views to the ocean along the sideyard setbacks
will be provided and the project is adjacent to a 40 foot wide coastal beach access that
provides additional viewing opportunities of the scenic resource. The project design which
includes a great deal of architectural detail and various materials, landscaping and decorative
paving will create an aesthetically pleasing development.
Areas for private recreational amenities are proposed as well as passive and active common
areas.
-9-
_-
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
B)
c>
D)
El
F)
G)
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed, and
g) no project alternative.
The relatively small scale of the project in regard to the number of units proposed, in
addition to the single building design requiring that the site be graded at one time makes
phasing of development impractical.
The applicant has considered alternate site designs. The proposed site design most
closely meets City standards and sufficient justification exists to grant the requested
height and sideyard setback variances.
The proposed project scale of development has been reduced in comparison to previous
designs as the building height and grades have been reduced, the building coverage
reduced from 48% to 43%, rear building elevations step back from one level to the next,
and a larger initial sideyard setback is provided.
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the
site.
Development at some future time rather than now has no environmental advantages
since this is an infill site that presently contains a structure and is served by public
utilities.
The number of alternate sites for the project which are adjacent to the public beach are
limited and have no environmental advantages since the project is consistent with
existing land use plans and contains no significant environmental resources.
The no project alternative is not in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning
Designations for the property.
-lO-
.
C
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
-
x
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
j !‘ ,! ; : &(((-y
Date
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first, a soils report shall be prepared
and submitted to the City of Carlsbad. If the soils report indicates the presence of potential fossil
bearing material then a standard two phased program, on file in the Planning Department, shall be
undertaken to avoid possible significant impacts on paleontological resources under the direction of
the Planning Department.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-ll-
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
745-90
c Date
DN:lh
-12-
- -
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2
APPLICANT: St. Tronez West/Charles Rowe
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Anproval of a Tentative Tract Man, Planned Unit
Develonment, Hillside DeveloDment Permit and two Variances to construct a 6 unit
condominium nroiect with a seawall at 2901 Ocean Street.
c LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1 of Block B of the Hays Land Comnanv addition in the Citv of
Carlsbad according to Man thereof No. 1221 APN: 203-234-01/02
Acres .354 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 6 units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RI-I
Density Allowed 15-23 du/ac Density Proposed 18.42
Existing Zone R-3 Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site R-3 4 Unit Anartment & Vacant
North R-3 Coastal Public Access Stairwav
South R-3 21 Unit Condominium Proiect
East R-3 Multi-Residential Units
West O-S Pacific Ocean
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU’s 6
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, Date March 28. 1990
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
x Conditional Negative Declaration, issued Julv 10. 1990
E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other,
DN:km
. _ - _ _ - -.
OISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPUCANTS STATEMENT OF 06CLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON AU APPUCAT~ONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE OlSCRmOmY ACTlON ON THE Pm Op THE CFIy COUNCIL OR ANY AppOlNTEO
BOARD. COMMISSION OR COMMITlEE.
.
(Please Print)
The following information must be disclosed:
1. ST. TROPEZ WEST, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP &dicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
DT.PAqF SF!‘7 ATTArHEl3
2. owner ST. TROPEZ WEST, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
PT,#
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names ar
addresses of all individuals owning more than 1096 of the shares in the corporation or owning any partners;:
interest in the partnership.
DT.l?ASl=! .STV? ATTAC-HEI
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names ar
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the nonprofIt organization or as trustee or beneficial.
of the trust.
C
/
V’
Oisclosuf~ stat@ Page 2
5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with my member of City staff, Boar=: Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes - No 2 If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: ‘Any individual. firm, COpartnership, joint venture, association. social club, fraternal I organization, corpora!ion. estate. trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other cwnty, city and county, cty municipality. district of other poliiical subdiiision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.’
1
I
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
CHARLES F. ROWE, MANAGING PARTNER CHARLES F. ROWE, MANAGING PARTNER
ST. TROPEZ WEST, A GENERAL PARTNER- ST. TROPEZ WEST. A GENERAL PARTNER-
SHIP SHIP
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Baia 1711 Sirrine Drive Santa Ana,CA 92705 (714) 544-1651
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Erickson 7381 Almaden Lane Carlsbad, CA 92009 H- 438-0850 W(714) 932-7822
Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Bowers 3199 Falcon St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 729-3085
Mr. and Mrs. Richard Bowers 3885 Monroe St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 H 434-4021 W - 722-2674
Mr. and Mrs. John Stoscher 9109 La Alba Whittier, CA 90603 (213) 947-3605
Mr. Wayne Minor Agri Empire P.O. Box 490 San Jacinto, CA 92383 (714) 654-7311
Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Vigil 2805 Ocean St. # 301 Carlsbad, CA 92008 729-2609
Donovan Westerfeld
Transpac Fiber Optics & Telecommunications, Inc. 5430 Van Nuys Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91401 (818) 906-3066,.
Charles F. Rowe P.O. Box 142 Carlsbad, CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO.: St. -West - m 90-l SN W-2.
,FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: RH
ZONING: R-7
DEVELOPER’S NAME: CW
ADDRESS: PO 142 CaMx&CA 97M8
PHONE NO.: (6l!9 474-3175 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NW X-%7.1A-W
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): .354 AC., 20,192 sq. ft., 6 DU
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 337a
Library: Demand in Square Footage = 11.a
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) = 1.320 GPD
Park: Demand in Acreage = -044478
Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = -@J/A
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 48
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 1
Open Space: Acreage Provided - N/A
Schools: Carlsbad
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 6
Identify Sub Basin - 1G
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD - 1,320
The project is .58 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
DN:km
.* -. L ?yzJ+ -_---. .. _I _. ( -- . . e- . ,,~.-.l- -..- . I’ -y .
&
; :. .-2 / : g -- I/ _. ,_ -9
L 0
3 d
7 T /_/:yq
.K I I+ ” ’ :-- - i= ‘.. ‘, 7 .’ -
-ah&
,-.2- -- 9: - ::
* e .I :
iL*:
~ .v 0
2 -# dl ---
IF
\ r., i \
I
c
c
v 4--‘-, / . .< : ,, 4 ‘, ,“ %, -. I- ’ .‘-. _ : ’ ~‘1
;*\- . ---
i -’ -.- -.
!, -- : r: -_ .-.d ‘x. ,,;. _ * \ ‘. I, _ ;.--- ‘. d,‘\s: : , *-
cnm
P I
wo
CT*
I l-l
r- I brn
wo
nicu
c
I
0
‘$ c- - ~ , ,- , :. r .=-w .._,
-=J-
\: r ,-’ & :. .
, I -yc*;, ---.. I
& L.
u; db i
-q-F& ;ii -,
TJT&& ,, I. ;b
’ Y,[: -,I, ,* ‘--.-..-
’ /,/ ,;a.* r; , . ,:- /---.. .: ‘<,\
A.-.
‘V > ‘i j.~_ . - 5 - yg.--j~\, zz ,
, i :- ,/. -. sip53 -; ‘\ \ ,--, . ,’ ‘V “I -< i --__ -“_L_-_
m
0
W
cud-Ic\1m
000
- I
r-la.2
ON
w I NO q
-r-l
07 I mm UT0
CVN
. 3:
-
ATTACHMENT 11
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
September 7 1990
As property owners located at the address 2895 Ocean Street and
2950 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, Calif. we wish it to be known that
we are very much interested in the development of the
Beach Front property south dthe Grand Avenue Beach Access
and that we approve of the anticipated Condominium plans.
-1 /z ,-qj+--” LLLL7
Kurt Gunther.P&ident
Ocean Manor Garden Motel, Inc.
Kurt Gunther, $esident *
The Mooring Apartments, Inc.
PETE VERBOOM
9587 PALA ROAD l PALA, CALIFORNIA 92059 . (619) 742-3773
?.U$S t 70,199o
Subject: New construction project at 2901 Ocean St., Carlsbad.
- To: Carlsbad City Nanager and City Council
Dear Sir;
It is my understanding that the city fathers of Carlsbad
are consideri-g to allow a new project at 2901 Ocean St. to go
ahead with construction with requests for many variences that
will exceed the city ordinances which have been established by
the City of Carlsbad.
I am the owner of unit #20 in the Sea Slope complex.
Unit #20 is on the bottom an the north side.of this complex. I
bought this unit because of the view and privacy that it afford-
ed us. If this proposed project is allowed to proceed exceed-
ingyour own guidelines it will dramatically reduce our privacy
and completely take away all the view that we have to the north
looking towards Oceanside.
I am not opposed to this p:roject if it is built according
to the ordinances that you yourself have established as
guidelines for Carlsbad. However, if the city plans to approve
this projeet along with the variences that the proponent
has asked for than I will strongly oppose it.
Ynur ordinances call for height limitations that this
project will exceed, your ordinances call for set backs off
of the beach that *his project will exceed, your ordinances
alsocall for a 10 foot seperaQion between-our properties
which this project will exceed. I will. strongly;! oppose the
variences that thedevelopers of this project have asked for.
?ly experiences in matters such as this tells me that variences
are approved under the guise that precident. has been set on
other projects. It is also my experience that generally who a
developer knows in the city is more important than any president
that has been set. Yhat I am saying is, that I knoT*I how the
system works.
Please consider my request to not approve the variences
that the developer has requested on this project and to allow
* construction on this project only if it is built within the
guidelines and ordinances that the City of Carlsbad has
established. Thank you for your consideration.
Pieter b.Verboom
9587 Pala Road
Pala, CA 92059
(619) 742-3773
cc; Sea Slope Assn., Xegth, Macdonald, and Solzberg of San Diego.
P.S. PI-a..-& all correspPrGLen.tz~@ss-+ndEx rns
W&patuze. above.
$+p j,&&mrp g@&&eemm*.
$ultter. If, in case I am not able to attend this hearing, I
vi11 be represented by the law firm of Macdonald, Heght, and
Solsberg of San Diego.
LAW OFFICES OF
Reid & Hellyer
CHARLES T. SCHULTL ROBEl?T M. PADIA MlCHAEL Cl. WOLF EDWARD J. NOWAKOSKI MICHAEL ,. GlLLlCAN DEBRA eARTLE GER”za15 CLORlei M. HAZELTON ROBERT w. CANNON JeiMES E. COFFlN MiCHAEL G. KERBS
A PROFESSlONAL CORPORATlON
POST OFFICE BOX 1300
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 82502-1300
TELEPHONE ,714) 688-1771
TELECOPIER (7141 686-2415
HOWARO 5”RR ,le.n39-18.71
GEO. b-4. HELLIER IIeEie-tPeeI
JOIIN 8. SURR ,19oe-19711
JAMES R. EDWARDS (1820-1977)
September 19, 1989
3880 LEMON STREET, FIFT” FLOOR
RIVERSIDE. CA 92501
599 N. ARROWHEAD *IVENUE
5*,N ~ERNAROINO, CA 9.2401
1714) 884-4704 * 824-5325
27710 JEFFERSON AVENUE TEMECVLA. CA 92390
,714, 676-1424
695 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 800
COSTA MESA. CA 92e.25
(7141 754-5813
OUR FILE NUMBER
,. CRAIG WILLIAMS JAY c. ECENLS STEVEN t. LEE MlCHAEL A. MeiRKEL HARLAN 8. KlSTLER L15A MARlE “ISINCARDI
NORMAN w. ACHEN OF COVNSEL
Mr. Charles F. Rowe St. Tropez West General Partnership CALIFORNIA BUILDERS Post Office Box 142 Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: St. Tropez West - 2901 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Rowe:
As you know, my wife and I are owners of Unit 7, 2955 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, which is the project immediately to the south of your proposed project. After receiving notice of the variances you have requested with respect to set backs and height restrictions among others, we visited with the planning staff and reviewed your file.
We are of the opinion that it would be in the best interest of the neighborhood if you were allowed to build your project as you proposed and, accordingly, we support your application for the variances necessary to build your project as planned.
Very truly yours,
Ja.@dfd Donald F. Powell
l/R/7327z/dc
RUSSELL W. GROSSE DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.
5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A -:- Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone 6191438-3 14 1
September 28, 1990
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 1200 Elm Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attn: Don Nue
Re: CT90-7/PUD90
Dear Mr. Nue:
We are the owners of a two unit condominium located at 2677 and 2679 Ocean Street, Carlsbad. Mr. Charlie Rowe has reviewed with us the working drawing for the above referred to project. The
project appears to us to be superior in design and of less density than other projects within the immediate area. It is a very well conceived floor plan.
We support the project.
RWG:jh cc: Charlie Rowe P.O. Box 142 Carlsbad, CA
Contractors License No. 378383
. -I 1 I E'
.
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502 October 2, 1990 P.O. BOX 226 . TELEPHONE 666.2422
Dear Mr. Holzmiller,
We are writing out of concern and protest in regards to the project “San Tropez West” at 2901 Ocean St., Carlsbad. We
are told the hearing for variance changes will be on Oct. 17, 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.
Being residence/Homeowners at “Seaslope, ” which shares the southerly property line with San Tropez, our concerns are
my;
1. If variances asked for are approved, it will set a precedence that will effect charm of the street, and
the Panorama located in the immediate section of Carlsbad Beach.
2. Northern edge of Sea Wall by public access should be connected with the existing wall of the “Mooring”.
Extensive erosion, with water action in that unprotected pocket, will take place both to the North and South of
project.
3. If Sea Wall isn’t joined to the south with wall of “Seaslope” at same height and slope, this too will cause a
swirling action and thus jeopardise the integrity of our sea wall.
4. Consideration of mean high tide has not been done as line of Sea Wall indicates. (Not 100 year storm line)
5. The overall height and massiveness of project is not commensurate to the general feeling of what you as the
planning commission have accomplished.
6. The property value of units directly adjacent to the “San Tropez” will be devaluated (as will all) because of
the destruction of northerly view. (Looking into a solid wall of cement is not consistent with good design and
planning).
We feel that we, as co-builders of Seaslope, were consistent with variances and with the feeling of design in the area.
When we constructed the seawall, we stayed in the exact compliance with height, design and public concern, as set out
by planning department, coastal commission, and the Sierra Club. Is San Tropez exempt from this quality control? Has
there been an environmental study done on this project?
As residence and taxpayer of Carlsbad since 1974 we feel we have a great deal at stake. Good land use and environmental
continuity are essential for the good of all. “San Tropez” should work toward this goal as well!
Sincerely,
Tom & Barbara Mazzetti
2955 Ocean Street #14
Carlsbad, CA 92008
-
October 2, 1990
Planning Department City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Commissioners:
This letter is to express my full support for the proposed project, St. Tropez West, on Ocean Street.
My primary residence is 2215 Janis Way in Carlsbad. However, I also own a beach home located at 2623 Ocean Street, just two
blocks north 'of St, Tropez West, My family uses the Ocean Street home year-round as a part-time residence at the beach for the
enjoyment of the ocean and pleasant Carlsbad Village. I have owned this property since 1978 and plan to live here indefinitely.
I have reviewed the plans for St. Tropez West, and believe this project will be a positive asset to our neighborhood. Carlsbad Village is a wonderful area now, and this quality project will certainly enhance the positive redevelopment that I have seen recently. I am also pleased with the architectural charm that has been brought into the design of the low density residential develop- ment. I am certain this project will be a beautiful addition and tremendous benefit to the Village - beach neighborhood.
DAVID S. EASTERBROOKS JR. v
DSE/pac
C A
Dr. & Mrs. Earl H. Shultz
P.O. Box 2394
Ranch0 Santa Fe, CA 92067
October 3, 1990
The Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Commissioners;
We wish to support the proposed condominium project,
St. Tropez West, on Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California. We currently
own a home at 3085 Ocean Street, and our primary residence from
1970 to 1980 was at 3083 Ocean Street. We think this project would
be a major addition to the neighborhood, while increasing the tax
base for the city of Carlsbad.
Mr. Rowe and California Builders did a major remodel for us at
3083-85 Ocean Street in 1974, and built a seawall to protect our
home in 1982. Both of these construction projects have stood the test
of the subsequent years and remain state of the art. Mr. Rowe has
personally lived on the beach in Carlsbad for many years and has a
great understanding and appreciation for the quality, materials and
unique building problems characteristic of ocean front property.
We wholeheartedly endorse the project and California Builders
as the general contractors and recommend approval of this project.
Sjncerely,
Earl H. Shultz, M.D./ \
Karen L. Shultz
2950 OCEAN STREET . CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 l (619) 729-2493 .
1 .’ ‘c/ ; 5/.- .q d i’ ‘/ .
GODDARD ACCOUNT’CY CORPORATION
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
October 4, 1990
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
Planning Director, City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: San Tropez West
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
My wife and I are owners in Seaslope Condominiums located at 2955
Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California.
We understand there is a proposed condominium project to be
constructed to the north of us named "San Tropez West". We also
understand that the developers of this project have applied for
height and side variances.
This letter will serve as our official protest of granting such
variances and to express our concern that any consideration would
even be given this matter. Our protest is based on these facts:
1. This is clearly an abuse of land use.
2. If we have an existing policy, what purpose would
granting a variance serve?
3. These construction variances could increase the
possibility of beach erosion.
4. There would be an immediate destruction of existing beach
and coastal views.
We urge the Board Members to consider our deep concern and protest
of the proposed variances.
Sincerely,
JDG/jj
555 N. "D" STTZEET,SU~ 130.~0. BOX 1313. SAN BERNARDINO.CA 92401 l 714/889-9878 l wx m/884-2136
-
c
-
October 5, 1990
Dear Mr. Holzmiller,
I am writing out of concern and protest in regards to the project "San Tropez West" at 2901 Ocean St., Carlsbad. Being
a homeowner at Seaslope which is immediately south of San Tropez,
I am concerned with the height variances they are requesting.
Such a massive project will take away the small town charm
that exists on Ocean Street. I feel that the San Tropez pr0jec.t
must remain consistent with current buildings in the area and
not be allowed the many variances they are requesting.
I am also concerned about how this project might affect the environment of the area. Has an environmental study been done on this project? I would hope this will be taken into
consideration at the Oct. 17 hearing in Council Chambers.
Sincerelv,
J&e Krekorian 2955 Ocean St. #5 Carlsbad, CA 92008
.
-
October 6, 1990
Mr. Michael Holzmiller Planning Director, City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
Re: San Tropaz West
Dear Mr. Holzmiller,
I am a neighboring property owner contiguous to the south
of this new proposed six unit condominium development.
I think it is great that this property is going to be built
upon.
My concerns are (1) with the variances asked for by San Tropez West to increase the height from 25 feet to 47 feet and side variances being changed from 10 feet to 6 feet, (2) being sure that the set-back on the ocean side does not protrude out blocking the coastal view for current
residences on either side of this new development, and (3) be sure that any seawall that is built (and there certainly needs to be one) does not block the same coastal
view for the neighbors.
I like the idea of a development, but want to be sure that
neither the seawall or the building protrudes out on the coast side so far or so high that it obstructs the current existing view for the neighhors of which I am one.
Thank you for considering the above.
Sincerely,
Gary L. McMillan
h
LAW OFFICES OF
Reid & Hellver J A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
27710 JEFFERSON AVENUE, SUITE IO2
TEMECULA, CALIFOFtNIA 82390
TELEPHONE ,714, 676-1424
TELECOPIER (714, 676-4796
HOW*RD S”RR 11869-19471
CEO. w. HLLLIER cIe*e-19881
JOHN q . S”RR 119oc3-19711
.lA.MES R. EDWARDS ,1910-,977:
599 N. ARROWHEAD AVENUE
SAN BERNAROINO. CA 92401
1714) 8844704 . 814-5325
October 9, 1990
3880 LEMON STREET, FIFTH FLOOR
RIVLRSIOE, CA 92501-1300
(7141 688-1771
695 TOWN CENTER OR,“E, SUITE 800
COSTA MESA.. CA SIQ.?e
1714) 966-2590
OUR FlLE NUMBER
SO404-002
HAND DELIVERED
Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009
Attention: Mr. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Re: Planning Commission Hearing, October 17, 1990
CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2
St. Tropez West, Charles Rowe
Dear Commissioners:
Please be advised that my clients, the owners and residents of Seaslope, 2955 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California formally protest the above-referenced matters and respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny these applications as presently proposed because they constitute at least eleven violations (see Attachment 1) of the City of Carlsbad Ordinances and Policies. Individually, any one of these violations is grounds for denial; collectively, they state an overwhelming case that the project must be redesigned or rejected.
As you will note from Attachment (l), the project's massive design is simply not appropriate for this hillside beach area, (2) it raises questions concerning serious beach erosion problems and public safety due to the location of the proposed sea wall, and, (3) the project should be set back from the ocean an additional 15 to 25 feet.
The Planning Commission should direct the applicant to redesign the project so that it complies with city and state codes and policies. Accordingly, as presently designed, CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2 should be denied.
Planning Commissioner Attn: Mr. Michael Holzmiller October 9, 1990 Page 2
Thank you in advance for your review of these violations and our 'concerns.
Very truly yours,
REID 8 HELLYER Aza;Ttion
R. William Ferrante Attorneys for Seaslope
5/T/C0575/pac Enclosure copy: Don Saba Cheryl Johnson
- 4
CITY OF CARLSBAD ORDINANCES ST. TROPEZ WEST VIOLATIONS
ATI’ACHMENT 1
I. Chapter 21.82: Beach Area Overlay
(BAO) Zones
Section 21.82.010 Intent and Purpose l-
The intent and purpose of the beach St. Tropez West, as proposed, area overlay (BOA) zone is to... is not compatible with exist-
(1) Ensure that development will ing developments to the North be compatible with surrounding and South. The adjacent developments, both existing and developments follow the topo- and proposed in the beach area. graphy of the area by stair- stepping the 39 foot drop in elevation from Ocean Street to the beach. St. Tropez West does not follow this pattern. Rather it presents a massive facade on the West side, rising vertically 72 feet from the base of the sea wall to the top of the roof. (See Attachment
2.1
Additionally, this vertical rise (vis-a-vis a stair step- ping approach) presents a wall of concrete at eye level for residents living North and South of this project.
(4) Protect the unique mix of residential development and aesthetic quality of the area.
The proposed project is clearly out of proportion for the neigh- borhood. It's massive structure will literally overshadow ad- jacent developments and block views by adjacent residents and the public.
Section 21.82.050 Building Height
No newly constructed...residential St. Tropez West requests structures within the beach over- a variance to increase its lay zone shall exceed 2 stories or height from 25 feet to 47.5 25 feet in height whichever is feet. However, this request less. is misleading in that the 47.5 feet begins at elevation 24.5 feet which is 16.5 feet above
1
-
the existing beach. As a result, the St. Tropez West complex will rise 64.0 feet (47.5 + 16.5) above the beach. This constitutes a significant variation to the 25 foot limit- ation and a radical departure from existing developments on the beach.
Section 21.82.070 Dwelling Units Per Lot
(a)(4) RH density shall be 15.1 to
23.0 du/ac.
(b) Whenever density is estab- lished in terms of ranges, the density for a project shall be the lowest density established by the range...
St. Tropez is in the RH General Plan designation area.
At a density of 15.1 du/ac, the total number of units shall not exceed 5.35.
St. Tropez West's proposed 6 units exceeds that maximum.
II Chapter 21.16: R-3 Multiple- s Family Residential Zone
Section 21.16.020 Building Height
In the R-3 zone, no building shall exceed a height of 35 feet (Ord. 9060 5701).
St. Tropez West is located in an R-3 zone.
St. Tropez West will rise 64 feet vertically from the beach.
Section 21.16.040 Side Yards
Interior lots shall have side yards of not less than 10% of the lot's width but not more than 10 feet.
Corner lots shall have side yards on the street side of 10 feet - the full length of the lot.
St. Tropez West's width is 110 feet. The required interior side yard (South side) shall be
10 feet, not 6 feet as re- quested.
St. Tropez West's North side yard shall be 10 feet - the full length of the lot, not 6 feet as requested.
The applicant has not submitted a "Justifications for Variance" form for the requested side
yard reduction.
Section 21.16.090 Lot Coverage
All buildings, including accessory buildings and structures, shall not cover more than 60% of the area of a lot (Ord. 9060 5708).
III Chapter 21.45 Planned Development
Section 21.45.010 Intent and Purpose
"The intent and purpose of the planned development regulations are to:
(5) Provide for projects which are compatible with surrounding develop- ments."
From the Preliminary Plans for St. Tropez West, it is unclear how much of the lot is covered by structure. Sheet 10 of 10 indicates that this massive project covers more than 60% of the lot.
The 20,192 square foot St. Tropez West project is not compatible with surrounding developments due to its massive size and sheer bulk on a 11O'X
140' lot. It rises vertically from the beach with no appre- ciable stair stepping in stories. Horizontally, it covers 98 feet of the 110 feet wide property. Unlike other surrounding developments, the St. Tropez West will completely dominate the landscape.
Section 21.45.040 Application (Density)
"The density on the developed The St. Tropez West project portion of the planned development exceeds the maximum density site shall be similar to and com- permissible for the site, i.e. patible with surrounding develop- 5.35 units v. 6 units. ments."
"Projects proposed at the high end of the density range are required under the land use element of the general plan (page 25) to demon- strate that they are of superior design to justify the number of units being requested." March 30, 1990 letter from M.J. Holzmiller to applicant.
The design of St. Tropez West does not meet this test as it presents a massive structure dominating the beach both vertically and horizontally. No attempt has been made by the developer to stair stepthepro- ject from the beach to Ocean Street.
Section 21.45.072 Required Findings
3
C
(a)(l) "The granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with the Code, the General Plan, applicable Specific Plans, Master Plan and all adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies."
.
(a)(3) "Such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicin-
ity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity."
(a)(5) The proposed planned development meets all of the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080...
Section 21.45.080 (3) requires compatibility with existing and planned land uses...It shall not constitute a disruptive element to the neighborhood or community.
For the reasons stated herein, the St. Tropez West project is inconsistent with the Planned Development Code, (Chapter
21.451, the Beach Area Overlay (BAO) zones (Chapter 21.82), R-3Multiple-Family Residential zone (Chapter 21.16), and Local Coastal Program, Mello II Seg- ment.
The St. Tropez West project will have adetrimentaleffectonthe health, safety and/or general welfare of residents at Sea Slope immediately South of the proposed project as well as to their property. The St. Tropez West project proposes to rise 24.5 feet vertically from sea level on the West before terracing at the storage level. The first 18 feet of this vertical rise will be a sea wall (8 feet below and 1Q feet above existing beach level). Developments immediately to the North and South have sea walls that are only 13 feet above existing beach level; and their first decks are located at only
19.6 feet and 18.0 feet respectively. As a result, St. Tropez West's higher sea wall will prevent pedestrian access along the beach at high tides.
St. Tropez West's massive structure is not compatible with existing land uses. It will be disruptive to the neighborhood as it will block views of the ocean by the public from Ocean Street. The project not only proposes to reduce side yards from 10
Section 21.45.080 (6) requires architectural harmony within the neighborhood.
(a)(6) The proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural topo- graphy of the site.
to 6 feet but also proposes to plant trees and shrubs along the side yard for "privacy" thereby blocking the viewofthe ocean by the public on Ocean Street. It will also block views of the beach by residents of Sea Slope.
St. Tropez West fails to achieve harmony due to its massive size and lack of stair stepping design.
Projects to the North and South' of St. Tropez West follow the natural topography of this hill- side areaby stair stepping down to the beach from Ocean Street. St. Tropez West does not do so and, accordingly, does not blend in with the natural topography of the site.
(a)(7) The proposed project's The St. Tropez West project as design and density of the develop- presently designed does not ed portion of the site is com- harmonize with the neighborhood. patible with surrounding develop- Its sheer massiveness makes it ments and does not create a dis- stand out from all neighboring harmonious or disruptive element projects. to the neighborhood.
Section 21.45.075 Design Guidelines Manual
"NO project which is inconsistent with the design guidelines shall be approved.
The proposed development shall be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses (21.45.080 Design Criteria).
IV Local Costa1 Program
Mello II Segment
As noted above, St. Tropez West is not compatible with existing land uses.
"New development on the seaward The proposed St. Tropez West side of Ocean Street shall observe, project violates the "string- at a minimum, an ocean set back line" method of measure- based on a "stringline" method of ment as it completely ignores measurement. the development immediately to the North.
5
-
"NO enclosed portions of a structure The St. Tropez West project shall be permitted further seaward is 25'2" further seaward than than the adjacent structures to the the development immediately to North and South; no deck or other the North. appurtenances shall be permitted further seaward than those on the adjacent structures to the North and South.
.
V Noble Consulbnts Letter September 25, 1990 Re: Seawall (Attachment 3)
"The applicant's seawall, if con- The seawall as proposed presents fined within his lot boundary, would an unsafe and unsound facility project approximately 15 to 20 feet and thereby places the public seaward of the toe of the adjacent at unnecessary and unreason- bluff. It is possible that such a able risk. structure plan could alter the local shoreline processes and concentrate storm wave energy at times within the unprotected lot...
The magnitude of the applicant's The entire project should plan is such that we believe some be set back from the ocean form of protection to the bluff and additional 15 to 25 feet. and stairway will be necessary.
.
w.... . . . . .
d ,
i I
ATTACHMENT 2
:- if i’ I
‘c $ q7’ c”
I ‘- f I
I- &4 ‘0” I
.
N01)1.li COh’WLTANT-‘ -
I
Sherri Howard CITY OF CARLSBAD September 25, 1990 Page 2
?
k c
. L Jr-
The applicant's seawall, if confined within his lot boundary, would project approximately $5 to 20 feet seaward of the toe of the adjacent bluff; ft is possible that such EI structure plan could alter the local shoreline processes and concentrate storm wave energy at times within the unprotected lot. We assume that the applicant originally proposed the north seawall extension in his May 1990 plan to provide for a more gradual structure transition between his project and the lots to the north. In general, this strategy is a more desirable treatment where coastal structures of different designs and locations are present.'
In our opinion, modification of the applicant's project plan to eliminate the north transition seawall may e?pose the unprqt+zted, public access lot to future erosion damages. The magnitude of the applicant's plan is such that we believe some form of protection to the bluff and stairway will be necessary.
7J2J;ertmpletes our additional review of the St..Tropcz West seawall' Please call us if you need any additional information or require'further clarification to our professional opinion stated in this letter.
Sincerely,
NbLE CONSULTANTS, INC.
JTM:olh
.
.
RCV EW: XEROX TELECOPIER 7010 A g-25-90 10: 26FIM : 17147s=25391+ 24069: # 1
Sep.25 '90 IO:19 0880 NLum’ ‘ONSULT. TEL 17147srF71 P. I/ 2
ATTACHMENT 12
e- September 25, 1990 675-01
Sherri Howard Engineering Department CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Los Palmas Drive Carl&ad, CA 92009-4859
Re: St. Tropez West Peer Review CT 90-07/PWD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-02 Revised Seawall Plan
Gentlemen:
,
This letter sununarizes our continued peer review of the proposed St. Tropez West seawall. The project is described on the tentative tract map drawings prepared by Eric Fotiadi, AIA Associates, (revised May 22, 1990) and in the design criteria report written by Group Delta Consultants, Inc. on December 4, 1989. Our letter dated July 10, 1990 sumrnarized our comments pertaining to the seawall component of the applicant's proposal as it related to the adjacent public stairway corridor.
We understand that the applicant has subsequent to our review modified his project plan to eliminate the north seawall extension -that was proposed to protect the Grand Avenue public access stairway. At the request of your department we have reviewed the revised project .plan. No drawings were available ftom the applicant regarding the modified seawall plan.
In general, exposed shoreline segments that are adjacent to protected lots can be susceptible to shoreline damages. As beach sand levels fall, the behavior of storm waves in such case6 can result in accelerated damages to the unprotected lots (Kuhn and Shepard, 1980').
1 Kuhn, (3.0. and Shepard, F.P., 1980. lBCoastal erosion in ' San Diego County, California". Proceedings of Coastal Zone -80, AXE. :. .
. RC’J !.?‘.Y’: rERU>I TELECUPIER 781E1 i9-25-99 IB: 27QM ;
Sep.25 ‘90 IO:20 0000 NL ‘ONSULT.
171475~381+
TEL 17147,-.-‘-?I
24069; # 2
P. 2/ 2
N 0 11 1. E C 0 N S 11 L TA N T S
Sherri Howard CITY 9F CARLSBAD
c September 25, 1990
Page 2
The applicant's seawall, if confined within his lot boundary, would project approximately 15 to 20 feet seaward of the toe of the adjacent bluff, It is possible that such a structure plan could alter the local shoreline processes and concentrate storm wave energy at times within the unprotected lot. We assume that the applicant originally proposed the north seawall extension in his May 1990 plan to provide for a more gradual structure transition between his project and the lots to the north. In general, this strategy is a more desirable treatment where coastal structurea of different designs and locations are present.'
In our opinion, modification of the applicant's project plan to eliminate the north transition seawall may expose the unprotected public access lot to future erosion dmage8. The magnitude of the ktpplicant's plan is such that we believe Ijome form-of protection to the bluff and stairway will be necessary.
This completes our additional review of the St. Tropez WeAseawall project. Please call us if you need any additional information or require further clarification to our professional opinion stated in this letter.
Sincerely,
N LE CONSULTANTS, INC.
JTMtslh
MINUTES
October 17, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 COMMISSIONERS \:
2) CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/RUD 90-15/V 90-2 - ST. TROPEZ WEST - Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to create six condominium units
and construct a seawall, a Hillside Development Permit, and a Variance to reduce sideyard setbacks from 10 ft. to 6 ft. and increase the building height from 25 ft. or 2 stores to 47 ft. 6 in. and 4 stories, located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Ocean Street and Grand Avenue, in the R-3 Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Don Neu, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and gave a short slide presentation showing the site and surrounding area. He stated that the .354 acre site is located at the southwest corner of Ocean Street and Grand Avenue. The property is within the R-3 Zone and has a General Plan designation of High Density-Residential.
Mr. Neu stated that the Planning Conmission denied a previous
design for a 6 unit project on this site on July 19. 1989. The present project consists of a single U-shape building containing 6 condominium units having a height of 24 ft. and 2 stores as measured from Ocean Street and 47 ft. 6 in. and 4
stores as measured at its highest point along the north south elevations. The project is proposed at a density of 18.4 du'slac which is within the density range of 15-23 du's/ac and below the growth control point of 19 du's/ac for this property.
The proposed 6 units range in size from 2,666 s.f. to 2,855 s.f. The architecture contains elements of the Tudor style enhanced by the use of cultured stone around the base of the building and at the entry courtyard, face brick above the garage doors and on the chimneys, stucco exterior walls
accented by the use of wood, and a multi-level roof to be
covered by Hallmark Weathered shake shingles. Proposed recreational amenities include private decks, a spa, a beach yard with barbecue areas, public beach access directly from this project to the beach, and a private courtyard accessed from Ocean Street. Decorative paving is proposed for the courtyard. Driveways and guest parking will consist of tile
or imprinted concrete.
A seawall is proposed as part of this project. The seawall, which will reach a maximum height of 10 ft., will have a rough hewn plank texture with a light aggregate color. The applicant has been conditioned to extend this wall to the north across the public access, which is necessary to prevent further erosion of the public beach access. Within the public access, the seawall is proposed at a height of 7 ft. 6 in. in order to provide some level of privacy and security for this project as well as the project to the north.
All standards have been met except for side yard setbacks and building height. Staff is recommending approval of the requested variances since this property and other properties on the west side of Oceen Street slope radically toward the beach as a result of erosion caused by wave action. The variance is also needed and justified for the underground
parking.
Numerous responses have been received from surrounding property owners, some in favor of the project end some opposed. Opposition to the project is based primarily on the height and setback variances, in addition to concerns from property owners in the Sea Slope project to the south who
.
c
MINUTES
October 17, 1990 PUNNING COMMISSION Page 3 COMMISSIONERS
state that their views northward will be obstructed. In this regard. the project complies with the Coastal Plan in regard
to setbacks from the ocean based on a string line measurement which restricts the structure from extending any further westward than adjacent properties.
The environmental determination on the project is to adopt a Conditional Negative Declaration. If the soils report indicates fossil bearing material, there is a standard program to allow mitigation and recovery of such materials.
The project complies with all ordinances and zoning designations for the site, if the two requested variances are granted, and is compatible in scale with adjacent development. Staff can make the findings to support the variances and therefore recomrmends approval.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the basis for justification of the 4 ft. variance. Hr. Neu replied that new access to underground parking was traded off for reduced setbacks in other areas.
Chairman Schranas opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Nick Banche, 810 Mission Avenue, Suite 200, Oceanside, an attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Commission
and stated that Charles Rowe, the managing partner, is a long time resident and the project he has proposed exceeds all of Carlsbad's requirements. It does not meet sideyard setbacks because the building is dropped down for architectural relief but it has much less density than the surrounding area and more storage and recreation space. Mr. Banche stated that although the structure is 40 ft. in height from the beach, it is only 24 ft. high from Ocean Street. The average setback is 9.5 ft. Two persons opposing the project, Messrs. Red Robinson and Ferrante, have both withdrawn their opposition to the project because they now understand that the building
corners are rounded and will not obstruct their views. Further, Mr. Rowe will be importing fill dirt to replace dirt which has washed away.
Commissioner Erwin is concerned because the project is only 392 cubic yards short of reaching the unacceptable level of the Hillside Ordinance. Mr. Ranche replied that if more than an additional 392 cubic yards of fill is required, his client will not build the project.
Cocrmissioner Erwin would like to see wording to ensure that the storage area could never be turned into living units at a later date. Mr. Banche replied that such wording would be acceptable.
Commissioner Erwin stated that his biggest concern on the variance is the 6 ft. setback near the Sea Slope project to the south. Mr. 8anche replied that this variance is needed to accoaxoodate the underground parking and unusual shape of the structure. There are no windows on that side of the building and the corners of the applicant's building are rounded to protect views of the Sea Slope residents.
Chairman Schrm is concerned that the roof line is not
stepped down when it is viewed from a side elevation. Mr. Banche replied that since the building is horseshoe
shaped, it would be impossible to create 6 units if the roof were stepped down.
MINUTE;
-
DRAFT
October 17, 1990 PLANNING commsI0~ Page 4
Coaxaissioner McFadden is concerned that since most of the COMMlSSlONERS conformance to the Hillside Ordinance is underground, it does
not appear to conform. Mr. Ban&e replied that staff has concluded that the project complies with the Hillside
Ordinance and he agrees with staff.
Commissioner McFadden also feels the structure is too massive for the beach area and would still house 6 units if the
storage area were converted to living space.
Connuissioner Erwin. stated that one variance would not be needed if the underground area only was expanded to accosnaodate the parking and the portion above ground moved inward to meet the setback requirement. Mr. Banche deferred coanaent to the applicant and his engineer.
Mr. Banche asked to be excused from the meeting because he had another hearing to attend in Oceanside.
Charles Rowe, 4046 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, applicant and
one of the managing partners of the St. Tropez partnership, addressed the ColPllission and stated that:
* 6 ft. setback - The front of the building has a 14 ft. setback with.6 ft. at the property line to eliminate a boxy appearance and to make sure that no views from
adjacent buildings will be obstructed.
- Storage units - There are no plans to convert the storage area to living space. The partners agree and will accept wording to that effect.
* Deep balconies - Each floor will be set back approximately 2.5 ft. to preserve the privacy of the units below and to
provide architectural relief.
Chairman Schrsssn still feels the building is too boxy when
viewed from the beach. She does not feel it conforms to her interpretation of the Hillside Ordinance.
Conrmissioner Erwin inquired if the higher units in the adjacent building will lose any of their southern view. Mr. Rowe replied that they would.
Coasnissioner Erwin cormvnted that the project is very close on the fill requirement. Mr. Rowe replied that his engineer
is very confident on the calculation and feels the number is
correct.
Mr. Rowe showed some slides of the project site and
surrounding area.
Chairman Schrm introduced the following letters which had been received into the public record:
- Letter dated October II. 1990 from Margaret S. Dutton,
2955 Ocean Street, protesting the St. Tropee project;
* Letter dated October 15. 1990 from Bob and Toni Skousen,
2701 North Val Vista, Hess, Arizona. protesting the proposed variances;
* Letter dated October 17, 1990 from Robert J. Wueste, 3083
Ocean Street, in favor of the St. Tropez project;
c
October 17, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 COMMISSIONERS v
* Letter dated October 15, 1990 from William P. and Mary W.
Skinner, 3065 Ocean Street, in favor of the St. Tropez project;
- Letter dated October 9, 1990 from R. R. Robinson, 2977 Ocean Street, protesting the St. Tropez project, and his
subsequent retraction dated October 15, 1990.
Lani Verboom, 9587 Pala Road, Pala, speaking on behalf of her family, addressed the Couunission and stated that her family owns the unit in Sea Slope on the lower level at the north end, adjacent to the proposed project. They are opposed to
the variances because they will be forced to look directly at the sea wall from their two full length windows. They requested the Commission to deny approval of the St. Tropez project.
Jeff Carlson, 2955 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Conxnission and stated that he lives in Unit 1117 of Sea Slope. He feels the St. Tropez renderings are deceptive and that the actual height will be 25 ft. higher than the Sea Slope
structure. Also, at high tide, the sea wall will obstruct people from walking along the beach because it is too high. He feels the height of St. Tropez could be reduced if they would not use 10 ft. ceilings in the individual units. He requested that the project be denied.
Don Saba, 2955 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, addressed the
Cormaission and stated that he owns Unit #19 of Sea Slope. He objects to the height of St. Tropez and the variance to reduce the side yard setbacks to 6 ft.
Bill Ferrante. Reid h Hellyer Attorneys, Temecula, California, addressed the Commission and stated that he represents Sea Slope Homeowners Association. He referred to
his letter dated October 9, 1990, included with the staff report, which opposes the location of the seawall and spa. Since that letter was written, he has reviewed the staff report in detail with Don Neu, Senior Planner, and the applicant, Mr. Charles Rowe. Hr. Ferrante has been reassured that the major issues addressed in his letter are no longer a
serious problem. although he still has some concern about the massive size. He would still like to see 10 ft. side yard
setbacks and feels it could be done by shifting the entire project to the north about 4 ft. Because of the public access area, it would allow 10 ft. between buildings. Also, if the Planning ComPlission approves the project, he wants to make sure that conditions proposed for the seawall by Noble Consultants will be adhered to in order to maintain integrity of the project and to protect the views of adjoining residents.
RECESS
The Planning Coreaission recessed at 7~22 p.m. and reconvened at 7:29 p.m.
Joe Vigil, 2805 Ocean Street, Corlsbad. addressed the Commission and stated that he has lived in Carlsbad since
1970. He c-ted that staff had received a letter dated
September 7, 1990 from Dr. Kurt Gunther, owner of the Mooring and the Ocean Manor Uotel. stating that he was in complete agreement with the St. Tropez project. However, on
October 4. 1990, another letter was written on Ocean Manor letterhead and signed by a Kurt Gunther objecting to the
MINUTE;
October 17, 1990 PLANNING COHnISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS v
project--that letter is included with the staff report. Mr. Vigil stated that he had spoken with Dr. Gunther this morning
and that the letter dated October 4, 1990 is a forgery. Dr. Gunther did not write the letter nor did he authorize anyone to write the letter on his behalf. Mr. Vigil produced another letter from Dr. Gunther dated October 16, 1990 in favor of the St. Tropez project.
Charles Rowe, 4046 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, was given an opportunity to rebut. He is willing to stake his reputation on the accuracy of the engineering measurements for the St. Tropez project. The difference between the top of the roof of St. Tropez and the top of the roof of Sea Slope is less than 12 ft. The St. Tropez seawall will be no higher than Sea Slope's seawall and it does not project past their property line.
Commissioner Erwin requested Mr. Rowe to conssent on the
statement made that St. Tropez would be a much taller building than Sea Slope. Mr. Rowe used the wall diagrams to show the respective height of the two buildings.
Commissioner Schlehuber requested a statement by the engineer.
Eric Fotiadi, 740 13th Street, Suite 407, San Diego, addressed the Corxaission and stated that he had a surveyor stake out all of the roofs in the area and he (Eric Fotiadi)
has certified the accuracy of the survey. St. Tropez was a difficult project to design and he feels that the architectural relief made possible by the reduced side yard
setbacks more than compensates for elimination of 4 ft. He reiterated that the average setback is 9.5 ft.
Chairman Schramm inquired if it would be possible to drop the living rooms of the units by 4.5 ft. in order to bring the
overall height down. Mr. Fotiadi replied that to lower the living rooms would necessitate dropping the ceilings above and it would be inconvenient to the residents. Although the floor to floor measurement is 10 ft., the interior of the units will be 9 ft. because some space is required in the ceiling area for ducting and utilities.
Colrmissioner McFadden inquired if it would be possible to step St. Tropez down on the west side and then shift it to the north to allow a 10 ft. setback on the south side. Mr. Fotiadi replied that if the building were shifted north, it would create a 2 ft. setback from the public access. As far
as stepping the building down on the west side, it would be very costly.
Cossaissioner Schlehuber suggested that Ur. Rowe be able to look at the plans being circulated by Hr. Jeff Carlson to determine if they are accurate. Charles Rowe, applicant, replied that the drawings are those for the previous project
from about a year ago; the current project has been completely redesigned.
Sheryl Johnson. 2955 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she is not a property owner but has lived in Carlsbad all her life. She is concerned why we have rules if we don't adhere to them. Everybody who brings in a project wants to stretch the rules just a little bit more.
.
MINUTES
October 17, 1990 PLANNING COMHISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS \;
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Schramm declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Commissioner Schlehuber thinks the project is a good one, although there have been some misunderstandings. He can support it. He is somewhat concerned about the forged letter because he is not aware of any previous occurrences of alleged forgery. He wishes that Dr. Gunther could have attended this meeting. As far as the speaker that questioned the "rules 11 Comissioner Schlehuber stated that there is a
law for vaiiances and we are not creating any new rules. He added that there are many things allowed within the beach area which are not allowed anywhere else.
Commissioner Marcus can accept the staff report. She believes it is a very generous project and will be a big improvement with the seawall. She is happy that the project is less dense than adjacent projects. She would not like to see the project shifted to the north. She will support it.
Commissioner Erwin doesn't like variances because they exceed minimum standards. Other than being bulky and massive, he thinks St. Tropez is an excellent project. He questions why 10 ft. is needed within the units. If the project is approved, he would like a condition in perpetuity to make sure that the storage area is never converted to living space.
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, conmented that it would be best to state approval for no more than 6 units according to the plan. If it is determined that there are more than 6 units, the offending unit will be abated on notice by the City. Further, the unit could have a lien placed on it for
attorneys fees to enforce it.
Commissioner Erwin would also like a condition added which states that the cubic yards of landfill will not exceed the acceptable level in conformance to the Hillside Ordinance. If it does exceed the amount allowed, the project will cease until it can be reheard by the Planning Commission.
Charles Rowe, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated
that the partnership has no objection to the condition regarding the storage area. As far as the grading is concerned, if a large amount of fill is lost due to a bad winter storm before the project is commenced. he would like some protection written into the proposed condition.
Commissioner l4cPadden likes the project but doesn't feel that it conforms to the Hillside Ordinance so she cannot support
it. She does not think it is enough to have underground conformance to the ordinance. Although she could accept the
proposed setback variance, she would like to see the project sent back and redesigned so that it steps down the slope in
conformance with the Hillside Ordinance.
Chairman Schra feels that shifting the structure to the north would just cause more problems. She can accept the
setback variance but she does not feel the project meets the intent of the Hillside Ordinance in terms of the step down. She cannot support the project.
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, coasaented that Condition 1110 of Resolution No. 3127 should read "except as specified
MINUTES
October 17, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 COMMISSIONERS
in Condition 1138." Also, Condition 1136 should state that approval is contingent upon obtaining a Coastal Development Permit as well as approval of the City Council.
Conrmissioner Erwin stated that he would support this project but will never again support a project with setback variances or a project on a hillside that is not stepped back properly.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3126 approving the
Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3127, 3128, 3129, and 3130 approving CT 90-7, PHD 90-11, HDP 90-15, and V 90-2, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with the following amendments : (1) that the approval is granted for 6 units only; and (2) that construction will cease if it is necessary to import more than an additional 392 cubic yards of dirt than is shown on the plans unless the existing topography of the site is significantly lower than shown on the approved exhibits as ttie result of winter storms. Additional fill over any allowed to return the site to the present existing grades will require approval by the Planning Conmission of a revised Hillside Development Permit to allow grading to
exceed 10,000 cubic yards of grading per acre.
Chairman Schraass and Commissioner McFadden wished the record to show that they could not support the project because they did not feel it conformed to the provisions of the Hillside Drdinance.
ning Cossaission recessed at 8:14 p.m. and reconvened
property located along the north of Batiquitos Lagoon, south of Spinnaker Hills Deve , east of the Sea Cliff Development, and i y west of the Aviara Master Plan, in Local Facl agement Zone 19.
Chris DeCerbo, Senior Planner, re request and stated that the appli discretionary approvals for a 40. adjacent to the north shore of the of Spinnaker Hills, and irmaediately w Plan area. The proposed project of 7 have a net density of 3.1 du'siacre site's maximum net density of 5.03 consists of 79 lots (7,500 s.f. min maintained as consson open space. I project site (18.34 acres) will be
The project consists of detached single family resident ranging in size from 2,350 s.f. to 3,500 s.f. Sixteen 72 units will be single story. Architecture of the structures is California Traditional which incorporates gabled roof form, light colored stucco walls. balconies,
Erwin
Yarcus McFadden Schlehuber Schranxa
. .
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808
DATE: 10/24/90
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Bobbie Hoder - Planning Dept.
Karen Kundtz - Clerk's Office
CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2 - ST. TROPEZ WEST
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
all parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
/~-26-~~
Date
t .
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
- ‘--,,
3 \
-&j\.;&
C17”{ CLERfi’S ~p;:;i~p~p~oNE
(619) 434-2808
gjOCj- y; F/f 3: “0 r! -
aitfi of (lhlrlsttnb CITY 13i’ !yFtq2,\,fj
APPEAL FOfW
I (We) appeal the following decision of the
Date of Decision:
Re'ason for Appeal:
c h)O Ita-tC’r I
n /tC+/c:
/ '
” tjc #iy h d&, bcn~~~/( k,, Lre-.
Name (Pleke Print) 3&S Lpc EG& {c5 724 F L-r-sz,X
Address
E 3 i & J( :1, [jp 7202 j-
04 37 ZL/6
Telephone Number
4 I - -.\ CITY OF CARLSBAD - . 1200 CARLSBAD \IIiuAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CAL;. JRNIA 92008
c D 438-5621
REC’D FROM
\ L l--CL : ,’ ,,I ’ PL &tch - ‘;3 0 J DATE lo -- 2 c/ - 50 , ! YO I 11
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
,y~y-;: ;. I ,’ I /t ’ /.,I‘ / , I I
i ,! I / ?., , L I . ;, r .-/ ‘I,,. .I : I
@& I (: 1 I
* !) :., I .*,v - I ).,, .’ . /S>/ I I
I
RECEIPT NO. 063 1 TOTAL 1 c/-]d /PC’
t
1
Carlsbad BY l THE l SEA
A California Lutheran Home
November 20, 1990
City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Council Members:
We have recently reviewed the plans for St. Tropez West (CT 90- 7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90/15/V 90-2) and find no reason to oppose their application. We do support their application and project as planned, believing that it will enhance the immediate area and is appropriate for the site.
Respectfully,
-h.+?fQ-Q-J-
Lloyd L. Rochambeau
Administrator
LLR/jh
2855 Carlsbad Boulevard l Carlsbad, CA 92008 l (619) 729-2377 l FAX (619) 729-9045
, .,
e
November 20, 1990
Attached is a list of phone calls and letters that have been received regarding the agenda item for Council tonight regarding the proposed name change of
Poinsettia:
AGAINST NAME CHANGE
Eugene S. Miller
938 Jasmine Court Carlsbad
Fred De1 any on behalf of Pointsettia Village Merchants
7130 Avenida Encinas, Suite 202
Carlsbad
Rick Floyd 7405 Linden Terrace Carlsbad
Mrs. Stockman Carlsbad
Betty Meise Carlsbad
Bob Beecroft Hm; 438-2154 wk: 237-2521
Charles and Mary Contreras Harbor Point (against name change)
Ray and Jeanne Hebert 431-2664
Mrs. Vi Leeper Alta Mira
Joe Reid 438-3567 Spinnaker Hills (makes no sense. Against)
Mona & George Reasons 431-0333 - Residents were never contacted
Thomas and Jean Shipley .438-0069
Walter and Susan Johnson
Frank and Shirley Rodgers
Dorothy and Bill Bennett
Delphine Miller 438-1148
Ted Frye 438-3765
John Duffy 438-3057 1019 Daisy (Spinnaker Hills)
Page 2 Against Name Change of Poinsettia
Enid Forsberg 438-3118 - Thinks idea is terrible (Aviara should not be any part
of name)
Merle Scheel 438-2377 Lakeshore Gardens - Against Mr. Mamaux's idea.
Renea Sherrill 431-3712 No!
Robert Meyer 438-0248 (4 voters in home all are violently opposed of name
change)
Robert and Mary Lou Martin 7433 LindenTerrace
Jack and Charlene Long 931-7876
Mr. and Mrs. MacGregor 438-1035 (Strongly opposed of name change)
Mr. and Mrs. Aronld J. Burton 931-1727
Barbara Kelow 431-1081 very very much against this idea. Ridiculous!
Michelle Finrow 931-9084
.
.- .c
._.
I *:r : ( - . ..; il _ ‘... __ _
America the Beautiful USK‘ -‘- 15
1
1
i
DEAR MAYOR BUDDY LEWIS & "EVERYBUDDY" ELSE,
" I GROW WEARY, TIMOTHY LEARY"
WHEN I SPY IN THE LOCAL PAPER
'THAT GOCD OLD AVIARA
IS UP TO ANOTHER CAPER.
THEY MADE A SHOT NOT SO LONG AGO.
I'M AWARE OF THAT MOVE, BECAUSE I KNOW
THAT I PASSED A PETITION AND WORE OUT MY SHOES
OVER THEIR PLAN TO CHANGE BATIQUITOS...SOME RUES!
SO THEY'RE EYEING OUR LITTLE POINSETTIA LANE!
IS THERE NEVER A REST FOR THEIR DEVELOPER BRAIN?
SINCE "AVIARA" SOUNDS LIKE SOME PHONEY, MADE-UP NAME,
I THINK THE PRESENT ONE SHOULD REMAIN THE SAME!!!!!
SINCERELY,
"DR. RICE"
P.S.
CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL THE NEW CITY FATHERS AND MOTHERS!
YOUR HARD-FOUGHT CAMPAIGNS PAID OFti A BIT BETTER THAN SOME OTHERS!!
“73dxJy FL t. kc 4t.CLLL . CAL5 /3AfzJ c?+ 4Y 3LY P o-L&/&.+ C? pbOD7
i
-
17 November 1990
Mayor Claude Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, CA 92008
-..
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I wish to protest former Councilman John Mamaux proposed to change the name of Poinsettia Lane to Aviara Four Seasons because Vhe new resort is facing an unfair advantage because La Costa Spa has the name identification with the street, La Costa Avenue." Actually the Spa is located on Costa De1 Mar Road east off El Camino Real.
Plans for the future Vrolley 11 from San Diego to Oceanside calls for a station at Poinsettia Lane. The Lane is correctly named as its original land use was the growing of poinsettia flowers. It should remain as a reminder of an important historical, agricultural part of early Carlsbad. Landscaping could include the Christmas flower made world famous by Ecke.
Thank you for not changing Poinsettia Lane to accommodate another business venture in Carlsbad. With the money the developers are spending, I feel assured they will be able to promote Aviara without having to rename Poinsettia Lane.
Sincerely,
'D!~h~d~;~ he 7328 San Bartolo Carlsbad, CA 92009
-
17 November 1990
Mayor Claude Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis:
Many years ago I belonger to the DAUGHTERS OF THE GOLDEN WEST. In California many of our towns and streets were named in Spanish because of California history. Through the years people from other states couldn't pronounce the Spanish names. Native Californians always fought to keep the original names or names- designating original land use.
I read with dismay in the Blade Tribune, Friday, November 16, w former Councilman John Mamaux proposed to change the name of Poinsettia Lane to Aviarals Four Seasons because )) the new resort is facing an unfair advantage because La Costa Spa has the name identification with the street, La Costa Avenue.'*
Actually the Spa, built 25 years ago, is located on Costa De1 Mar Road east off El Camino Real.
The improvement of Poinsettia Lane was correctly name as its original land use was the growing of poinsettia flowers an important historical part of early Carlsbad.
I wish to enter my protest against any consideration of what I "deem smacks of gross commericalism. Let the new development do its own promotion.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Nancybelle Pfister 7114 San Luis Carlsbad, CA 92009
-
..’
November 16, 1990
Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Council Members:
It is my understanding that you have received .a request to change the name of Poinsettia to Aviara, and I wish to express my approval of such a change.
La Costa Avenue identifies the community of La Costa, the recent change of Elm Street to Carlsbad Village Drive now closely identifies the Carlsbad Village area and the change of Poinsettia to Aviara will then identify the community of Aviara.
The name of Poinsettia, as pretty as it is, no longer identifies an area of flower fields, as it once did. The name Aviara now becomes more appropriate as a means to identify the developing area which the street serves. Perhaps the name Poinsettia could be given to a street within the flower growing area of our city.
I am pleased to see the City of Carlsbad identify the various areas with appropriately named streets and strongly approve the name change of Poinsettia to Aviara.
Sincerely,
6. AJJ~~2
The Rev. Will iam A. Moquin
WNM:gc
76766 EL CAMINO REAL m CARLSBAD, CALlFORbhA 92009 n (619) 944-4538
--_.
-
November 16, 1990
Mayor Bud Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Sir:
I have just heard that you have received a request to change the name of Poinsettia to Aviara. It certainly makes sense to me to make such a change. La Costa Avenue identifies the community of La Costa, the recent change of Elm Street to Carlsbad Village Drive now closely identifies the Carlsbad Village area and the change of Poinsettia to Aviara will then identify the community of Aviara.
I imagine that when the street was originally named Poinsettia many flower fields adorned the area. However, that is no longer the case and perhaps the name Poinsettia could be given to a street within the flower growing area of the city to better identify such an area.
I am pleased to see the City of Carlsbad identify the various areas with appropriately named streets and wish to express my support and approval of the name change of Poinsettia to Aviara.
Sincerely,,
6 A!YL(?y~~~
The Rev. William N. Moquin
WNM:gC
76766 EL CAMIN REAL n CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009 a (619) 944-4538 ’
November 19, 1990
Mayor Bud Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Poinsettia Lane name change
Dear Mayor Lewis:
We petition for you to consider changing Poinsettia Lane to Aviara Parkway. There is no historical relationship between Poinsettia Lane and the street so named or to the s&thwest quadrant of Carlsbad.
Now we are getting a new development which has Poinsettia Lane (Aviara Parkway) as the major link to I-5. The name Aviara will .appear in the residential community, resort, grade school and golf course.
We strongly ask your consideration of this petition.
Sincerely,
isI’y;I~~ c4hb#&& Mary leischer and Bob Fleischer
cc: Mayor Pro Tem Ann Xulchin J
Councilmember John Mamaux Councilmember Mark Pettine Councilmember Eric Larson
George Kinney,
REALTOR@ 2810 PlO PICO DRIVE
SUITE 3
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
(619) 720-2@64
November 19,199O
To: The Mayor and City Council Members Carlsbad City Council 1200 Elm Avenue . .
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Subject: Street Renaming - Poinsettia Drive to Aviara Drive
As a local business owner and Realtor, I support the pro- posed name change of Poinsettia Drive to Aviara Drive and urge your favorable consideration of this change.
I believe that it is advantageous to have major access streets identify the community which they access. Prime examples of this are La Costa Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive both of which serve to identify for both local and visiting traffic the access to the La Costa Area and the Village Center. Similarly, with Aviara soon to become a destination location, this name identification seems to be *' in everyones' best interests. I say this knowing that Poinsettia Drive also has a strong Carlsbad identification, but I have been given to understand that the Ecke family is not averse to this suggestion and perhaps a more specific location can be named for them or their interests.
Sincerelyg.-
?I
J
--
,'%pfiJ-\
PEOPLE OPPOSED TO THE POlNSE=iTlA NAME CHANGE
Ann Barnicoat
Jan James
R.C. Archer
John W. Miller
Joan Christian
Mrs. Merlice & Brian Tynan
Ruth E. Chisholm
Tom James
Jerry Parker
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
I (We) appeal the following decision of the
Project Name and N
Date of Decision:
Re'ason for Appeal:
aL&l4r Lvc
Name (Plehse Print)
5&f s he E-i& yL5-
726 iE’ 64
Address
617 -?w 264
Telephone Number
.
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the Cify Clerk
DATE: 10/24/90
TO: Bobbie Hoder - Planning Dept.
FROM: Karen Kundtz - Clerk's Office
RE: CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2 - ST. TROPEZ WEST
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the'City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
all parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
Meeting of .
Signature Date
5
7
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALlFORNli- 92008
Office of the City CIefk
DATE: 10/24/90
TO: Bobbie Hoder - Planning Dept.
FROM: Karen Kundtz - Clerk's Office
_-
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808 , ..H A------. /‘/-
CYI-l) F=- -4 ., __ ___,. _ ,A .. ‘-
RE: CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2 - ST. TROPEZ WEST
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
all parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
/b-z&y&
Date
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA.92008
Office of the City Clerk
c/T’/ CLEcz‘s ~:‘;‘~,“TELEPHONE
(il9) 434.2808
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the following decision of the
Project Name and
to the City Council:
Date of Decision: &z-f- 1.7, /p//i,
/.
Re'ason for Appeal: U&f 1’ 6-m al c P , Si JP t/L1 fl (C f t I 74 Cl\ e J
h-w/ ( /t, /j,> L: /;p h,P‘, f/ / c l&lCLY cu, <t : I
3cLGy h dz&fi SCdrrL( IQ?% &*-
Name (Pleke Print) 5&x s Lpc /3.&~ &.5
72-6 E &d
Address
04 7’?7 26/b
Telephone Number
- CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, C:iFORNlA 92008
438-5621
REC’D FROM FL (&JLvI - 7) 0 s DATE I ?, -- 2 c/ . (I,, : 0 /r ‘/’ i
ACCOUNT NO.
&?I -slam c.,a -cm.-ss73 -’
DESCRIPTION
Tl!L-a&, Lt /7,&LL
I; I 1
AMOUNT
47 I (3 1 oc’,
t I
__ .- I I I I I
?, I .’ ,-
‘, ,L. ;, I
F$ I
i I
I
: I / I
:, I
:L:;-’ / I
I I
RECEIPT NO. 0 6 3 1 TOTAL 73 / i’.xl’ I
.
I
Carlsbad Journal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper DY me supenor LOUIT OT San Diego Coun ti/
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
N.C.C.N. Inc. P.O. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024 (619) 753~6543
Proof of Publication
’ STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above enf i - tled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Joumak, a newspaper of general circulation,
published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper
is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general characterj and which
newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has beenestablished, printed and published at regular intervals in the
said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next
PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL CI’ Dk7lPUD W-11/ HDP SO-1SiV ~2
Zone 1. and more particularly de-
preceding the date of publication of the
scribed as: Lot 1 of Block B of the Hays Land Company Addition tothe City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed
N(YIICE IS HEREBY GrVEN that State of California, according to copy, has been published in each regular
the City Council of the City ofcarls- map thereof No. 1221, tiled in the
bad will hold a public hearing at OfIke of the County Recorder of San Diego County, on November 4, and entire issue of said newspaper and not
the City Council Chambers, 1200 ’ 1809. Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly If you have any questions regard- in any supplement thereof on the follow-
Elm Avenue). Carlsbad. California, at6:OO PAL, on Tuesday, November ing this matter, please call the ing dates, to-wit:
‘20, lW0, to consider an appeal of Planning Department at 423-1161.
the Pknning Commission approval If YOU challenge the Tentative
of an application for t Tentative Tract Map. Planned Unit Develop
Tract Map and Planned Unit De- .meot. Hillside Development Per-
wlopment to create six condomi- mit and/or Variance in court, you
nium units and construct a seawall, may be limited to raising only those NOVEMBER 8 19 90
a Hillside Development Permit, hUeS YOU or someone else raised
and a Variance to reduce sideyard at the public hearing described in
SetbaCkS thm 10 feet to 6 feet and this notice, or in written corres- 19-
, increase building height from 2ft pondence delivered to the City of
feet or 2 stories to 47 feet 6 inches Carlsbad Ci@ Clerk’s OtTme at or 19-
and 4 stories on property generally .Prfor to the public hearing,
located on the southwest comer of Appellant: Jeffkey M. Carlson for 19-
the intersection of Ocean Street Seaslope Estates d Grand Avenue, in the B-2 rone, CABLSBAD CITV COUNCIL 19-
I certify under penalty of pe&ry that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, s tate of Cali-
fomia on THE 8TH
day of NOVEMBER, 1990
proof of FM
U lit!& November 6.1880
ST. TROPEZ WEST **
Clerk of the Printer
I -
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL
CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly Elm Avenue),
Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, November 20, 1990, to consider an
appeal of the Planning Commission approval of an application for a Tentative Tract Map
and Planned Unit Development to create six condominium units and construct a seawall,
a Hillside Development Permit, and a Variance to reduce sideyard setbacks
from 10 feet to 6 feet and increase building height from 25 feet or 2 stories to 47 feet
6 inches and 4 stories on property generally located on the southwest corner of the inter-
section of Ocean Street and Grand Avenue, in the R-3 zone, and Local Facilities Management
Zone 1, and more particularly described as:
Lot 1 of Block B of the Hays Land Company Addition to the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof No. 1221, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, on November 4, 1909.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Planning Department at
438-1161.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development
Permit and/or Variance in court , you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
APPELLANT: Jeffrey M. Carlson for Seaslope Estates
PUBLISH: November 8, 1990 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
City d CarM
ST. TROPEZ WEST
CT “Oz+;
HDP 90- 15 v 90-02
-
‘. I !,
“‘*‘“NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING c-0’
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold
a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly Elm
Avenue), Car&bad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 17, 1990, to consider
approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to create six
condominium units and construct a seawall, a Hillside Development Permit, and a Variance
to reduce sideyard setbacks from 10 feet to 6 feet and increase the building height from
25 feet or 2 stories to 47 feet 6 inches and 4 stories on property generally located on the
southwest comer of the intersection of Ocean street and Grand Avenue, in the R-3 Zone
and Local Facilities Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as:
Lot 1 of Block B of the Hays Land Company Addition in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 1221,
filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 4,
1909.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after October 11, 1990. If you
have any questions, please call the Planning Department at 438-l 161.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map/Planned Unit Development/Hillside Development
Permit/Variance in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 90-7/PUD 90-ll/HDP 90-15/V 90-2 ,
CASE NAME: &I%TROPEZ~WEST
APPLICANT: CHARLES ROWE
PUBLISH:
BLADE CITIZEN SOUTH - OCTOBER 5, 1990
CARLSBAD JOURNAL - OCTOBER 4, 1990
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
\ Jl
City d Clfhbd
CT 9014:
ST. TROPEZ WEST HDP 90-15 v 90-02
- -
(Form A)
TO: CITY’ CLERK’S OFFICE
. . .
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
APPEAL - ST. TROPEZ WEST
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
NOV. 20, '1990 .
Thank you.
,
Assistant City Man--
11/2/90
Date
Barbara S. Mazetti P.O. Box 1350 - Riverside, CA 92t,.,L +.,rb
,,..
-. TROPEZ WEST
W.R. & Tonia Skousen i i,,‘ P.O. Box R 0 ! Mesa, AZ 85201
-,-. _, ‘. ‘““‘~-,** .y.fl, ,,, . ..., L .
- .- __.--.i.IY-t---*l -- .
Charles H. Garner Sarah M. Garner 25775 Toluca Dr. / San Bernardino, CA 92404
Jeffrey M./Nanettel Carlson 3027 N. Broadway Escondido, CA 92026
'I'homas C. Purdom II
Dale 0. Mahan 8104 N. 54th St. Paradise Valley, AZ 85253
Howard Marx
Kathleen Marx 2995 Ocean St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
I Fred z. Havens
2139 Archdale St.
Riverside, CA 92506
St. Michaels by the Sea P.O. Box 127
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Robert E. & Harri Wailes 2687 Garfield St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
Robert & Elizabeth Bryant P.O. Box 101 . . I ._I Carlsbad, CA 92008
Jay & Maryon Hoffman 4901 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008
$ i
1
9.,.. .r
I -. “.,*,
i,.:
c\ 4
c
,.- L’
,*- I L
i ,;
,..- ., L
:-’ L-
i.-.
is
il._
*-
. .
c.
i-
i...
-,-
L-
‘a...
. .
"hornas 0. Nick Dale Mahan 2227 Ruddy Duck Ct.
Cardiff, CA 92007
Far1 & Karen Shultz
P.O. Box 2394 Ranch0 Santa Fe, CA 92067
Huqh & Nanette Coleman
2955 Ocean St. # 18
Carlsbad, CA 92098
M/M Saba Consolidated Exchange Corp. 3065 Dona Susana Dr. Studio City, CA 91604
Pieter & Lani. Verboom 9587 Pala Road Pala, CA 92059
Seaslope Estates Owners Assn. P.O. Box 1300 Riverside, CA 92502
TOBO Investments 2785 Roosevelt St.
Carlshad, CA 92008
California Lutheran Homes 2400 S, Fremont Ave. Alhambra, CA 918113
De1 Mar Properties P.O. Box 5466 El Monte, CA 91734
Thomas 0. Nick 4851 E. Orchid Lane
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
RR/Alice Robinson 2977 Ocean St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
, ..i* Connie Miller
2955 Ocean St. # 1 -
Carlsbad, CA 92008 I.,,,'
i,, ,P Harold/Eva McMillan lS25 Heather Lane Riverside, CA 92054 i ..-
Z..‘ Zimmerman & Donaldson 8303 N. 75th St. Scottsdale, AZ 85258
\ ,I_. Barbara D. Powell
P.O. Box 1300 Riverside, CA 92502 \
; Mary R. Carson
P.O. Rox 8583
Ranch0 Santa Fe, CA 92067
\ Marqaret Dutton 2520 Raeburn Dr. Riverside, CA 92506
Rex W. Young 3737 N. Seventh St.
Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85014
‘. Mary Jerneqan
Jane Krekoriam
2955 Ocean St. # 5
Carlshad, CA 92008
:, Philip P. Scheerer
Alice C. Scheerer
7519 N. Third St.
Phoenix, AZ 85020
‘... Donald Powell P.O. Box 1300
-Riverside, CA 92502
L” .------
c- : ‘, ;. ’
;. ! ‘i. I
J L
/
, : ‘-2
I
-. ._____,_ ._...-- .- - I. i._
Gary L. McMillan Patricia McMillan 4125 Sandia Creek Dr. Temecula, CA 92390
.I”
\i i--x . T,,’ i ; i-.
,I,. i ,, ‘,:
,: . ( * \._.:
“.
‘L-:i
.; ~‘ - . . ; 1.,<
/
_---
Frank & -elyn Rose
32791 Lui..,ria.Lane Laquna Nisuel, CA 92677
/A
: ,-'-. I - . J
Robert & Auqusta Phipps 3015 Ocean St. Carlshad, CA 92008
:
Arthur & Vicki Perry P.O. Box 1101
Ranch0 Santa Fe, CA 92067
. ;
Carlsbad Inn Ltd. P.O. Box 4068 Carlsbad, CA 92008
i i ,(-y !’ :.
-. ,
i .--., 1
-
./ ( . . : . . ,<’ \.I’ . ..,‘I :’ .
.
.
‘,/‘.
.- I -----.---.--~ .___..__ -.- -. - -_- -- --..“+-,/’ ’
. , : \. ; c
.i
1’ ,: 1 ?.i
St.
ship Tropez West General' Partner- k 'L I:
P.O. Box 142
Carlsbad, CA 92008 1 '-..
.,
* _ C’
: .:
”
:.
. .
.-
.’
<..
:
i.
Eric Fotiadi, A.I.A. I' 740 13th St.
Suite 407
San Diego, CA 92101
'C. ..! t '. ,
t I .-..
. .__ _ _-.-_.... -- t-- -
Aa :
7b’d &b%i
=2 wwd!zs
LsGunlct f?v&5pa 9 2~5-3
I ~ i.
. ..A’ i
\ I .J 1 I
: ,. ,:’
:
:
‘. ..
,
., ‘.
. CITY OF CARLSBAD
I 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 c 438-5621
REC’D FROM ? >),fh! /’ j PI, (-&.Lh - 3 8 5 DATE lc--, - 2 ct - c/o .
c,: 1 u ,J k ,’ ‘ia8 ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
L .r’ I :, .’ I _ _ _/” I _-..-.-- I
RECEIPT NO. 0 6 3 1 TOTAL 1 &7s / C>C?