HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP 36; E EL CAMINO REAL BTWN LA COSTA AVE & ALGA RD; Condo Permit (CP)o..7LLL.7
(PLEASE PRINT)
i. REQUEST: Condominium Permit for
• .... •• eA- s•-
4L rc d4_'
444- units on property
'te Applicati,Received-
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT
CITY OF CARLSBAD -T -ô 7))?
of approximately 40.8 acres.
2. Location: The subject property is generally located on the
-East side of El Camino Real between La Costa Ave._and
Alga St.
223 190 01 THROUGH
3. ASSESSOR'S NUMBER: Book223 Page 190 Parcel 22 _INCLUSIVE
Book Parcel (If more, please list
on bottom of page).
4. OWNER(S) OR PRINCIPAL OF CORP. SHPELLINDUSTRIESOFSANDIEGO,INC.,
3272 Rosecrans St., San Diego, CA 92110 222-0345
Name Address Zip - Phone
5. Person responsible for preparation of plan: TornPantich,Associated -
Engineers, 3904 Groton St., San Diego, CA 92110 224-2465
Name Address Zip Phone
6. Registration of License NO: RCE 25900
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE:*
I hereby declare that all information contained within this application
is true; and that all standard conditions as indicated on the attach-
ment have been read, understood and agreed to.
Name 7 ',.,Address . Zip Phone
' / 7 SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO, INC.
3272 Rsecrans St Sn•Did, CA 921:10' 222-0345
rnest M. Qa?T(ellas, Executive Vice-President
*NOTE: If. the applicant is an agent to the property owner, a signed
and notarized letter authorizing the applicant to represent the
property owner must be submitted with the application.
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department would appreciate the
opportunity to work with the applicant throughout the Planning
stages of the proposed development. In an effort to aid the
applicant, the Planning Department requests that it be given
an opportunity to evaluate and discuss the application and plans
prior to submittal. This request is not a requirement; however, it
may avoid major redrafting or revision of the plan which only serves
to lengthen the processing time.
ATTACHMENTS:
5upplemental Information Form - Planning 20
Standard Conditions - Planning 27 -
preparation Check List - Planning 32 and 32A
Procedures - Planning 36 V
• FORM PLANNING. 13 . Date of PlannIng Commission .Approval
6/11/79 .
If after the information you have submitted has been reviewed, it is determined
that further information is required, you will be so advised.
APPLICANT: SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO, INC.
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation,1 syndication)
3272 Rosecrans St., San Diego, California 92110
Business Address S
222-0345
Telephone Number
AGENT:
Name
Business Address
Telephone Number
4EMBERS: W.R._Effinger
Name (individual, partner, joint
venture, corporation, syndication)
3272 Rosecrans St., San Diego, CA 92110
Business Address
222-0345
Home Address
Telephone Number Telephone Number
ErnestM. Ornellas
Name - Home Address
3272 Rôsecrans St., San Diego, CA 92110
Business Address
222-0345
Telephone Number Telephone Number
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis-
closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be
relied upon as being true and correct until amended.
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO, INC.
- Applicant
-,
Agent, Owner Partner
Ernest M. Ornellas, Executive VP
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
SPECIFIC PLAN/MASTER PLAN/TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP/SPECIAL USE PERNIT/
PUD/ CONDOMINIUM PERMIT/PRECISE DEVELOPME.NT PLAN/SITE DVELOPMENT PLAN.
1) Gross Acres (or square footage if less than acre) 40.8±
2) Number of Lots ors . / L ig-&
3) Type of Development - Residential
Residential, Commercial, Industrial
L&1
4) Present Zone PC
Proposed Zone No Chang
(If change requ.i.
5) General Plan Land Use Designation Medium-High Density
(10-20 DU/AC)
5) Source of water supply Olivenhein
7) Method of sewage disposal Leucadia
8) -Types of Protective Covenants to be recorded Covenants, Conditions
9) Transportation modes available to service the development-
Private auto & public bus transportation.
10) School District(s) serving the property Encinitas and San Dieguito
11) If your project is for or anticipates being for more than 50 res-
idential units do you prefer to dedicate land
pay fees N , or a combination thereof
12) Methods proposed to reduce sound levels This project will not have
any significant affect on sound levels, nor create any unusual noise
levels.......
13) Methods proposed to conserve energy Insulation, window orientation,
and standard building practices.
Additional sheets may be attached if necessary to answer any of the above
questions.
FORM PLANNING 20 - February 1, 1979
STANDARD INDITIONS
CITY OF ARLSBAD
SPECIFIC PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT!
VARIANCE/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT
CO400iiINIUM PERMIT/PRECISE DEVELCPiiENT PLAN
Development shall meet all requirements of the subdivision, zoning
and building codes, laws, ordinances or regulations of the City of
Carlsbad, and other governmental agencies. Some of the more pertinent
requirements and procedures of the City are listed below for your in-
formation and concurrence. Please read this list carefully and feel
free to ask for further information or explanation.
11 All conditions for Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Planned
Uiit Development and Special Use Permit shall be completed and
the project commenced within 18 months from final City action,
unless otherwise stated as part of the approval. There is no
time limitations for Specific Plans unless required as part
of the approval.
2) Development shall substantially conform to the approved plan.
3) All public improvements shall be made in conformity with City
Standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, without
cost to the City of Carlsbad and free of all liens and
encumbrances.
4) Prior to any construction, the applicant shall submit plans
to the appropriate entity providing domestic water to the
proposed development, for its approval of the location, type
and adequacy of water lines.
5) Prior to any construction, the applicant shall obtain approval
from the City Fire Department of the location and size of
fire hydrants.
6) The applicant shall install all required fire hydrants and
dry-stand pipes prior to framing construction, and said fire
appurtenances shall be functional prior to commencing such work.
7) Street trees, as required by the City, shall be installed by the
applicant at applicant's expense. Trees shall be of a type
approved by the Parks Department and shall. be installed to their
specifications. If removal of any existing trees is required
by the City, said removal shall be at the applicant's expense.
It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to make all
arrangements with the Parks Department concerning the require-
merits of this condition.
8) . A detailed grading plan which includes proposed drainage
and erosion control landscaping or other measures such as
desilting basins shall be approved by the City Engineer.
9) Immediately after grading, erosion control landscaping and/or
other measures such as desilting basins shall be installed.
This control may be the final landscaping if so approved.
10) A detailed landscape and sprinkler plan shall be submitted
for Planning Director's approval for all graded slopes 5'
or greater in height and any other areas required by law.
11) Prior to final building inspection clearance, all landscap-
ing and irrigation systems shall be installed or adequate
bonding accepted. Said landscaping shall be maintained in
a manner acceptable to the Planning Director.
12) No signs or advertising of any type whatsoever shall -be erected
or installed until plans thereof have beer approved by the City
of Carlsbad.
As *part of the approval process, the City may modify these conditions or
add others, especially those of a more specific natUre. The applicant
will be notified of these modifications or additions by Resolution.
Form Planning 27 /Date of Planning Commission Approval
*PREPARATION CHECK LIST
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT/SPECIAL USE PERMIT
A. Documents Required for Submittal:
1) Application with supplemental sheet completed.
2) Standard condition list.
3) P otostatic co of d
her of ription accep a e o the
Planning irector.
4) Fifteen ozalid prints of the plan for all applications except a
PUD which requires 20 prints- Minor Condo permits which require 10, and
major condo permits which require 28. Maps riiustb& fdlded in ,a size not to
excee.d 8½ x 11.
PPf)TTTRPfl PT,ANq APP A
CUP and Variance: Site Plan*
PUD: Site Plan*, building elevations, landscape plan, cross
section of proposed grading.
SDP: Site Plan*, building elevations.
CONDO PERMIT: Site Plan, & building elevations, landscaping plans.
SUP: Site Plan*, grading plan.
*Site Plan as a minimum shall contain all property lines,
building locations with horizontal dimensions, driveways, and
parking stalls with dimensions, location and dimensions of
landscaping.
5) Environmental Impact Assessment or Report with fees (if required).
6) Fee: Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Special Use Permit -
$50.00.
Planned Unit Development $50.00 + $1.00 per unit.
Amendments for PUD'S - $50.00 + $1.00 per unit within area
being amended.
Site Development Plan - $25.00
• - • Condominium Permit -' $50.00 + $1.00 per unit within area
being amended.
• 300 Foot Radius Map - (Not needed for Site Development Plan,
• Special Use Permit and Minor Condominium Permit). A map to scale
• not less than 1" - 200 1 showing each lot within 300 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the subject property. Each of these lots
ha11 be consecutively numbered ad correspond with the property
owner's list. The scale of the map may be reduced to a scale
acceptable to the Planning Director if the required scale is
npractica1.
Property Owner's List - (Not needed for Site Development Plan,
Special Use Permit and Minor Condominium Permit). Two copies
of a typewritten list on self-adhesive (Avery) mailing labels of
the name and address of all property owners within 300' as noted
on the property owners map. This list must be accurate and taken
from the latest equalized assessment roll on file in the Office
of the Assessor of San Diego County, 1600 Pacific Highway,
Room 103, Ph. # 236-3771.
Conversion to Condominiums: In addition to the above property
es and addresses of all' tenants of the units to
be bonvéited to condominiums.
9) Disclosure Statement.
FORM 32 PLANNING (May 25, 1979) Page One
•
1 )(:;0) A written statement by the City Engineer that he in s there
is adequate sewer capacity available' for the proposed use at
the site or that he finds that the proposed use and site can
be adequately served by alternative City approved onsite sewer
system. Applicant, please note, this determination must be
done .prior t6 submitting .applicatioh and it, may require
preparation on your part to provide sufficient evidence to the
City Engineer. It is suggested you make early contact with
the Engineering Department for-such determination.
11) For residential projects within Vista, San Marcos, Encinitas or
San Dieguito School Districts, the applicant shall indicate
whether be prefers to dedicate land for school facilities, to
pay a fee in lieu thereof, or do a combination of these. If
the applicant prefers to dedicate land, he shall suggest the
specific land. -
For residential projects within the Carlsbad Unified School
District, the applicant shall submit written confirmation that
school facilities will be available and serve the project at
time of need.
B. Drafting of Plan:
1) Sheets to be 24"x36" with 1" border (standard "D" size).
2) Scale to indicate: 1" = 10' is generally sufficient; however,
the scale is to be appropriate for sheet size.
3) North arrow oriented to top or left side of sheet.
4-) Lettering must be legible. It is preferred that it be drawn
by mechanical means, in ink, and heavy upper case.
5) - Location map showing the distances to the center line of the
nearest intersection.
6) Title block with name and address of applicant and drafter,
- and pertinent information such as uses, total acreage and
date prepared.
C. Informatloil on Plan -
1) Proposed and existing structures: -
• - a) Proposed use of all structures (in general land use terms).
-b) Building dimensions, setbacks and distances between buildings.
• c) Type of construction proposed.
d) Identification of fire rated walls and fire sprinkler systems.
• e) Height, and number of stories. - -
f) Gross floor-area per structure
:-g) Proposed changes and additions to existing buildings.
2 Existing and proposed right-of-way, public and/or private:
a), Distance from property line to center line of right-of-way. • •bl Widths of right-of-way.
c) Location of existing and proposed sidewalks and curbcuts.
dl Easements - type and location.
31 Parking:
a) Location, size and numbered consecutively.
bI Identification of loading zones.
cl. Dimensions of driveways.
41 Landscaping:
a) Existing and proposed trees in the public right-of-way.
)1 A.schedule, showing types,, size and location of all plant
materials proposed on site. -
C),Indicate a permanent watering system for all landscaping
areas by showing the location of water lines.
FORM 32 PLANNING Page Two
. V
5) Refuse pickup areas (not required for detached housing projects).
6) Signs: Size, location and height of existing and proposed signs.
7) Lot lines and dimensions; V
8) Location of watercourse or areas subject to flood.
9) Location of proposed storm drains or other means of drainage
(grade and size).
10) Topographic contours at two-feet intervals, with indication
of manufactured slope.
V
11) Cross section of proposed grading. Existing contours and
proposed graded contours for all grades of 4:1 or greater
shall be shown.
12) Delineation of development phasing. V
D. Miscellaneous Information for Planned Unit Development and Condominium
Permit Applications. V V
1) Document explaining who shall be responsible for maintaining
open common areas and how maintenance is to be performed.
2) Document explaining special development standards requested.
For custom home Planned Unit Development all development
standards listed 'in Section 21.45.120 shall be included.
3) Elevation of proposed buildings (not required for custom
home PUD'S).
FORM 32 PLANNING V V Page Three
Plans Required for Condo permit
(Section 21.47)
Major CôndoPermit/Tetitative Tract: (5 or more:uni'ts). 28 copies
showin all information listed below, except that only 3 copies
of the landscape and irrigation plans are required. If tract
and condominium plans are separate, 28 copies of each are
required.
Minor Condo Permit: (4 or fewer permits). 10 copies showing
all information listed below, except that only 3 copies of the
landscape and irrigation plans are required. In addition, the
Engineering Department requires 7 copies of the tentative parcel
map.
• Site Plan
a) Location of Buildings and property lines.
b) Location of storage for each unit and size of area
in cubic feet.
C) Location of laundry facilities.
d) Location and construction of refuse collection
facilities.
e) Location of all utility meters (gas, water and
electric) and a note on the plan indicating that
each unit has separate meters.
ParkiPg Plan
Show all parking spaces, as well as the dimensions of
spaces, back-up areas, driveways and garages.
Recreation Plan
Show location and size of all recreation areas. Include
picnic tables, pools, spas, bar-b--ques, children's
play areas, etc.
Landscape and lrrigation Plan
a) Location of all landscaping indicating type and
size of plants to be installed. Check street
tree list if street trees will be installed.
b) Location, sizes, dimensions of sprinkler heads and
staking, backf low preventer, pipes, water meters,
controls.
Building Elevations
Show the elevations and. include a description of buildings
and materials.
KJL:ar
7/19/79
FORM 32A •. . .
I
PROCEDURES
1) Application to Planning Commission: In an effort to aid the
applicant, the Planning Department requests that it be given an
opportunity.-to evaluate and discuss the application-in its various
stages of development prior to submittal. It is more effective if
applicant meets directly with staff; however, writ -Len or telephone
communication is acceptable. It is the responsibility of the
applicant to make the initial contact for such meeting.
2) Submittal: Application will be accepted only if the application,
plans and other pertinent materials are included.
3) Review: -After accepting the application staff will submit it to
the department review board (DCC) to ascertain if further information
is necessary. Staff will attempt to conclude this review within
two weeks, but in no case shall the review period be longer than
30 days from receipt of application.
4) Notice; Upon completion of the application review, the applicant
will be informed by letter if further information is required if
any, or if the application is complete what date it will be heard
by the Planning Commission.
5) Planning Commission Calendar: The Planning Commission adopts an
annual calendar that indicates application closing dates, staff
review dates, a staff recommended review dates as well as Planning
Commission hearing dates. The date your request will be heard is
selected from this calendar. You may acquire this calendar at the
Planning Department.
6) Staff Review: Staff prepares a report for the Planning Commission.
This report is reviewed by the Departmental Coordinating Committee
(DCC), which is made up of representatives from thedepartments of
Planning, Engineering, Fire, City Manager and other as may be
necessary. You are invited to this meeting to explain the project
and respond to staff recommendations. Upon completion of this
review, staff will prepare final staff recommendations to be sub-
mitted to the Planning Commission. The final report with rec-
ommendations will be available at the Planning Department five days
prior to the Planning Commission hearing (Friday afternoon prior to
the Planning Commission meeting date).
7) Hearing: The Planning Commission meets every 2nd and 4th Wednesday
of the month at 7:00 P.M., or as indicated on the Planning
Commission calendar. Depending on the type of application, the
Planning Commission will either make a recommendation and forward
to City Council or take final action:
8) Appeals: Final actions by the Planning Commission may be appealed
to the City Council, provided such appeal is filed within ten
(10) days after the Planning Commission action. The applicant
should review with staff the procedure on the various types of
applications.
9) Final Decision: The City will notify the applicant and property
owner of the final decision.
FORM: PLANNING 36 DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL DEC. 6, 1978.
RECORDING REQUESTEC, c
1651
C , 40
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
1Shapell Industries of San Diego, 1n!
10m 3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, CA 92110
Attn: Wm. Effinger
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO
apell Industries of San Diego, I.
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, CA 92110
' Atn: Wm. Effinger
Corp
78-1153511
EILEJPAGE No.....
BOOK 1978 RECORDED REQUEST 0F
TITLE INSURANCE & IRUSJ W.
MAR 24 8:00MVZ&
OFFICIAL RECORDS
AN DIEGO COUNTY, CAIJr.
HARLEY. F, BLOOM1 REQQROE 300
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
)ration Grant Deed 9045 223-190-02
10 1921 CA (I 274)
THIS FORM FURNISHED BY TICOR TITLE INSURERS
through 223-190-22
TRANSFER TAX PAID The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s): HARLEY F. &ooi, R&ORDER Documentary transfer tax is $_3 112. 45
OQ computed on full value of property conveyed, or
( ) computed on full value less value of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale.
) Unincorporated area: (X) City of Carlsbad , and
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY
a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois
/California
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO, INC., a (corporation
the following described real property in the City of Carlsbad
County of San Diego State of California:
hereby GRANTS to
Lots 274 through 289 and 291 through 295 of Carlsbad
Tract 72-20 (La Costa Vale Unit No. 2) according to
Map thereof No. 7779 filed in the office of the San Diego
County Recorder on October 26, 1973.
In Witness 'Whereof, said corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be Lfixe hereto and this instru- Vice ment to be executed by it President and_ss ].stant Secretary
thereunto duly authorized.
Dated: March 1 , 1978 LA COSTA LAND COMPANY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 'i ~...h'4.- 1..
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO }
On March 1 1978 before me, the under. . Kran,3 Vice P esident
signed. a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
Burton L. Kramer known
B. Elaine Thomas, Assistant Secretary
to inc to be the Vice President, and
ElaineThomas known to me to be
Assistant -.Secretary of the Corporation that executed the
within Instrument, known to me to be the persons who executed the
within Instrument on behalf of the Corporation therein named, and
acknowledged to me that such Corporation executed the within Instru
OFFICIAL f
MILDRED I. HOLMAN merit pursuant to its by..laws or a resolution of its board 6f directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC . CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO COUNTY K
My comm. expires AUG7,1978t
CA 92026
signature _ '-'v2 2ijc.,
Mildred I. Holman (This area for official notarial seal)
Title Order No. _ Escrow or Loan No. B1021179
4
a p RECORDING REQUESTED BY 0
.
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
I— —I
Name
Street
Address
City &
state J
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO
I— —I
Name
Street
Address
City &
State L_. _J
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
CAT. NO. NN00582 Individual Grant Deed
TO 1923 CA (7-82) THIS FORM FURNISHED BY TICOR TITLE INSURERS
The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s):
Documentary transfer tax is $
computed on full value of property conveyed, or
] ( ) computed on full value less value of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale.
( ) Unincorporated area: ( ) City of , and
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
LA COSTA •VALE, LTD., a California limited partnership
hereby GRANT(S) to
SEA POINTE VILLAGE AT LA COSTA HOMEOWNER'S CORPORATION, a California
Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation V
the following described real property in the V
County of San Diego ,State ofCalifornia:
V
Lot 291 of San Diego Tract No. 72-20, Unit No. 2, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to
Map No. 7779 filed in the Office of the Recorder of San
Diego County on October 26, 1973.
This Deed is made and accepted upon the easements, covenants, conditions
and restrictions contained in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions recorded on V , 1983 as File/Page No.
of Official Records of San Diego County, California,
and any amendments thereto of record and upon the covenants, conditions,
and restrictions contained in the DeclarationVof Restrictions recorded
V November 2, 1973 as File/Page No.--73-307983 and amended by Amendment
recorded November 16, 1973 as File/Page No. 73-321220 in the Office of
the Recorder for San Diego County, California, all of which are
incorporated herein by reference to said Declaration with the same effect
as though fully set forth herein, and which covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall run with the land and be binding on Grantee, its
successors and assigns.
Dated: V LA COSTA VALE, LTD.. a California
limited partnership
- By: A Managing General Partner
By:
Title Order No. or Loan No.
IU TAV P!VVC fC
••.. ' '
•C) . . —C
R 83234
I
RECORDING REQUESTED BY £ .s
- AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
•..--.. ..._
T
AME ThDtJSTiIES OF SA DII
;TRECT 3272 Rosecrane Stree
.00RESS San Diego, CA. 92110
ITY&
rA1-E -
79-269407
• TIE/PAGE NO.
• BOCJK 1979
RECORDED REGUEST OF
TITLE INSWMNCE AND TRUST
JuwZ8 10 ssM1'7
OFFICIAL ECORDS
RECORDER
SAN DIEGO COUNTY CALIF.
$3.00
SPACE ABOVE THIS UNE FOR RECORDER'S USE
TITLE ORDER NO, TITLE OFFICER
Full Reconveyance
TITLE INSURANCE AND TRUST COMPANY, 'a California corporation, as duly appointed Trustee under Deed
of Trust hereinafter referred to, having received from holder of the obligations thereunder a written request to reconvey,
reciting that all sums secured by said Deed of Trust have been fully paid, and said Deed of Trust and the note or notes
secured thereby having been surrendered to said Trustee for cancellation, does hereby RECONVEY, without warranty, to
the person or persons legally entitled thereto, the estate now held by it thereunder. Said Deed of Trust was execii'ted by
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO, INC., A California Corporation
Trustor,
and recorded in the official records of San Diego County, California, as follows:
DATE March 24, 1978 AS INSTR. NO. 78-115358 BOOK 1978 PAGE/SERIES
DESC
Lots 274 through 289 and 291 through 295 of CARLSBAD TRACT NO.
72-20 (La Costa Vale Unit No. 2) according to Map No. 7779.
In Witness 'Whereof, Title Insurance and Trust Company, as such Trustee, has caused its corporate name
and seal to be hereto affixed by its Assistant Secretary, thereunto duly authorized on the date shown in the acknowl.
edgment certificate shown below.
Title Insurance and Trust Company, as such Trustee
OVa, s-YE. -D 7" -
By 7?7
STATE OFCALIFORNIAL Assistant Secretary
COUNTY OF San iegoi q if }ss.
June 25, 1979 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State
It .j / personally appeared croy- . . known tome to be an Assistant Secretary of
TITLE JNSURANCE .AN1? RUT.CPMPANY, the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument as such Trustee, and known
to me to be thee person wlà eecü(d,said 4risrumenron behalf of the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that such cor-
F. -, •• . '. - . ..••- .:-;'. -'- ,-• poratlon executed the same as sucn Trustee. . • _,,.
WITNESS thy h LG'-' and ndofficial sea f
OFFICIAL SEAL
BETTY WELTY
NOTARY PUBLIC. CALIFORNIA
Principal Office in San Diego County
My Commission Exp. Nov. 12, 1982
(This area for official notarial seal)
TS 55CA 370 Ie-731
AGREEMENT FOR WAIVER OF PROHIBITION
AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS
UPON THE APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION OF
A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
This Agreement is made this 8th day of June
1983 between the City of Carlsbad, a municipal corporation,
(hereinafter called "City") anc La. COta.V1e 1 1itd\ ___
a
Limited Partnership (hereinafter called "Subdivider").
1 Government Code Section 66452.6(e) and Carlsbad Municipal
Code Sections 20.12.110 and 10.24.180 permit Subdividers to
request and City to approve, conditionally approve 'or deny
extensions of time for the expiration of tentative maps or
tentative parcel maps (hereinafter collectively called
- - •
"Tentative Subdivision Maps").
2. El Patio v. Permanent Rent Control Board, 110 Cal. App.3d
915, rñodified 111 Cal. App 3d 788 (1980) indicates that the
S -
Government Code (Subdivision Map Act) may not authorize City
to impose new conditions; i.e., those which were not
imposed on the tentative subdivision map, upon the
extension of the time for expiration of a tentative
subdivision map, but also held that the City does have
discretion to approve or deny such extensions.
)
3. Government Code Section 66452.6(d) and Carlsbad Municipal
Code Sections 20.12.100(d) and 20.24.160 provide that
expiration of a tentative subdivision map shall terminate
all proceedings and that no final map or parcel map for any
property covered by the tentative subdivision map shall be
filed without first processing a new tentative subdivision
map.
4. Subdivider has requested City to approve the extensioin of
- time for Tentative Subdivision Map No. cp-a / CT 72-20
which was initially approved on February 2, 1981
5. Since the approval of said Tentative Subdivision Map, City
has conducted studies which show that the-construction of
certain drainage facilities or thoroughfares are essential
to protect and provide for the health, welfare, andsafety
of all of the present and future residents of City,
including those who will reside in said subdivision.
6. Since the approval of said Tentative Subdivision Map, City
has adopted a major drainage fee or major thoroughfare fee
-
or both to provide the funds to construct the necessary
drainage facilities and thoroughfares.
7. Since the approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map, City
has conducted studies which show the need to establish a
public facilities fee in order to provide for public
facilities to protect the public health, safety and welfare
of the present and future residents of City and to ensure
2..
••• ,• 1) )
that public facilities to serve the development will be
available concurrent with need as required by City's
general plan. Developer agrees to pay said fees and has
executed a contract which is on file with the City Clerk to
that effect.
8. Because the original approval of said Tentative Subdivision
Nap occurred prior to the adoption of the aforementioned
fees, City did not condition the approval of said Tentative
Subdivision Map with the payment of said fees.
9. Since the initial approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map
there may have been changed circumstances which require
additional conditions of approval on the extension of the
Tentative Subdivision Nap to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare, to mitigate affects on the environment
or to ensure consistency of the extended map with the City's
general plan and Municipal Code.
• - 10. City arguably may not, without the voluntary consent of
Subdivider, impose upon the extension of said Tentative
Subdivision Map conditions requiring payment of the fees
mentioned above or conditions necessary to protect the
public health, safety or welfare, or the environment or
ensure consistency with the general plan or Municipal Code.
11. Without such voluntary consent of Subdivider to the
imposition of conditions City may be required to deny
Subdivider's request for extension to ensure that the
public health, safety and welfare or the environment are
- 3,
) . ) • H
protected or that the general plan or Municipal Code
requirements are satisfied. Approval of the extension of
said Tentative Subdivision Map without assurances that the
fees mentioned above would be paid for said subdivision
would be contrary to the best interests of the City and
would threaten the City's ability to. protect and provide
for the public health, safety, and welfare. Subdivider
agrees that it is in the best interest of City and
Subdivider that City be able to protect the public health,
safety and welfare, or the environment or ensure consistency
with the general plan or Municipal Code by the imposition
of conditions on the extension of tentative subdivision
maps.
12. Subdivider realizes that denial of the requested extension
could result in the expiration of the tentative subdivision
map. Subdivider would then be required to incur
substantial costs and time delays in processing a new
tentative subdivision map approval of which would be
subject to new conditions necessary to ensure consistency
of the tentative subdivision map with the Subdivision Map
Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, Titles 19,
20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the City's
General Plan and to protect the public health, safety and
welfare.
13. City has reviewed the Subdivider's request for an extension
of time for said tentative subdivision map and finds that
granting the request subject to certain conditions will not
4.
lira
tl
S
be contrary to the public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and of the
mutual convenants set forth herein, City and Subdivider agree as
follows:
1. City agrees to extend Subdividers Tentative Subdivision Map
for one year subject to whatever new or revised conditions the
City in its sole discretion deems appropriate.
2. Subdivider knowingly and voluntarily waives any and all rights to
Condominium Permit
the unconditioned extension of xiijxxNo. CP-36_.
3. Subdivider knowingly and.voluntarily consents to the imposition
of a condition of approval of the extension of X4X( Condo Permit
No._CP-36 which requires payment of any fees
which may be in effect at the time of approval of the final
subdivision map for said subdivision or any portion thereof and
to the following additional conditions:
This approval is expressly conditioned on the payment by
the applicant of a public facilities fee as required by
City Council Policy No. 17, issued 2124182 and effective
412182, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein
by reference, and according to the agreement executed by
the applicant for payment of said fee. If said fee is not
paid as promised, this application will not be consistent
with the General Plan and the project cannot proceed and
this approval shall be void.
4. The provisions of Carlsbad Municipal Code Sections 20.12.110
and 20.24.180, as appropriate, shall govern extension of the
map whidh is the subject of this agreement.
5. If this agreement is for an extension of a tentative subdivision
map for a minor subdivision, the appeal of the City Engineer's
approval, or conditional approval, of the extension by any party
shall void this agreement unless
5.
.. f
the agreement is subsequently approved by the City Council.
6. Any action by Subdivider to challenge the legality of this
- agreement or any failure by Subdivider to pay the fees and
comply with any other conditions applicable to the
extension shall void the approval of such extension. The
map shall not final and the development shall not proceed
until a new tentative subdivision map has bee'n approved.
ATTEST:
£LbtiL V ,
ALETHA L. RAUT
City Clerk
CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal
corporation
By
MAYOR (Mjor Subdivisions)
CITY ENd'INEER (Minor Sub-
divisions)
SUBDIVIDER LA COSTA VALE, LTD.
DARTMOO4 DEVELOPMENT CO.,
Mana]art
13, A~~ ~_ - A.,
President
APPRED—AS TO FORM:
V7ENT . w4u
, City Attorney
Assistan
City Attorney
(NotarPalacknow1edg-ement of execution by
subdivider iust be attached)
(Affix corporate seal if appropriate)
6 .
.Ic
F-
S
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
SS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
On June 8, 1983, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
in and for said County and state, personally appeared KENNETH
A. LIPINSKI, known to me to be the President of DARTMOOR DEVELOPMENT
CO., the corporation that executed the within instrument and
known to me to be the person who executed the within instrument
on behalf of said corporation, said corporation being known to
me to be one of the partners of LA COSTA VALE, LTD., the
partnership that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged
to me that such corporation executed same as such partner and
that such partnership executed the same.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
Sandra D. Grazno4
Notary Public 4,ñ afra for said County
and State V
My commission expires April 27, 1984.
e OFFICIAL SEAL
SANDRA D. GRAZIANO
NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA
Principal Xtc hi an Diego County
My Corr, Exp. April 27, 1984
POOR
QUALITY
ORIGINAL (S)
d hereby agrees that the above information given is correct and agrees
ons as stated.
The under
to the co
S- i. vFJ-13 Date toc2- KYO(,
Account No.
9-28-77 0
LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
APPLICATION FOR SEWER SERVICE
Owner's Name - Shapell Industries Phone No. 222-0345
Mailing Address 3272 Rosecrans
San Diego, Calif 92110 5EV/PR PERMIT ISSUED UPON
Service Address: RECEIPT OF BUILDING PERMIT.
Tract Description: La Costa Vale II BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE
Assessor's Parcel No. APPLIED FOR
Type of Building condos No. Units 50 Connection Fee $__30.OQO00
Lateral Size: 4" 6" 8" Saddle Easement Connection pre-pd (10,000.00)
Extra Footage: @ $_______ Extra Depth: @ $
Lateral Fee
Amount Rec'd Prorated Sewer Ck. No/Cash Service Fee Date
Rec'd By Total ________
The application rnustbe signed by the owner (or his authorized representative) of -
the property to be served. The total charges must be paid to the District at the
time the application is submitted.
If a service lateral is required, it will be installed by the Leucadia County Water
District. The service lateral is that part of the sewer system that extends from
the main collection line in the street (or easement) to the point in the street (at
or near the applicant's property line) where the service lateral is connected to
the appliant's building sewer. The applicant is responsible for the construction,
at the applicant's expense, of the sewer pipeline (building sewer) from the appli-
cant's plumbing to the point in the street (or easement) where a connection is made
to the service lateral.
The connection of the applicant's building sewer to the service lateral shall be
made by the applicant at his expense. The connection must be made in conformity
with the District's specifications, rules and regulations; and IT MUST BE INSPECTED
AND APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT BEFORE THE SEWER SYSTEM MAY BE USED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT, OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MUST NOTIFY THE DISTRICT AT THE
TIME INSPECTION IS DESIRED. ANY CONNECTION MADE TO THE SERVICE LATERAL OR COLLEC-
TION LINE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL AND INSPECTION BY THE DISTRICT WILL BE CONSIDERED
INVALID AND WILL NOT BE ACKNOWLEDGED.
The prorated sewer service fee is based upon the date the District estimates that
service will begin and covers the balance of the fiscal year. There will be no
additional fee or refund if service actually commences on a different date. For
succeeding fiscal years, the sewer service fee will be collected on the tax roll
in the same manner as property taxes.
• (E) 0
San Diego Gas & Electric
CONSENT LETTER
Date: April 16, 1980 FILE NO. LNC 520
Voyd H. Beights
Shapell Industries of San Diego, Inc.
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, CA 92110
Dear Mr. Beights:
San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) hereby
consents to your use in common with SDG&E of the area shown
in red on the drawing marked Exhibit A attached hereto and
by reference made a part hereof.
Said area is within SDG&E's right-of-way number
31571 granted to SDG&E by a document dated
February 5, 1954 , and recorded, in Book 5132, Paige 342
of Official Records of the San Diego County Recorder.
This consent is limited to the installation, main-
tenance and use of a six foot wide pedestrian A.C. path.
This consent is given subject to the following
standard terms and conditions.
1. You agree that no structures, other than those
specifically described above and shown on Exhibit A will be
constructed on the right-of-way.
2. You agree never to contest SDG&E's title to the
right-of-way or the priority of SDG&E's title.
3. You acknowledge SDG&E's right to utilize the
right-of--way pursuant to the California Public Utilities
Commission's General Order 69B, which gives SDG&E the right
to revoke this consent in whole or in part whenever in the
interest of its patrons or consumers it shall appear necessary
or desirable to do so. -
POST OFFICE BOX 1831. 54N nIF-fl rAt IFORNIA 92112- TFI FPHONE: 714/232.4252 lri rr I
I .
4. You agree to assume all risks of loss, damage
and injury to persons and property arising from your use of
the right-of-way. You also agree to indemnify, defend, and
hold SDG&E harmless from any liability arising from your use
of the right-of-way.
5. You agree to give SDG&E at least 48 hours
notice before working within or near the right-of-way by
-calling telephone (714) 232-4252, extension 1638/John B'urton.
6. You agree to comply with all appropriate
statutes, ordinances, codes, and regulations or public bodies
having jurisdiction over the subject matter of this consent.
In addition, this consent is given subject to the
following special terms and conditions: None
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC/COMPANY
7,
/
Signature /
- VOYD H. BEIGHTS
Typed Name
Date:
/ &
1/
0 \ ~4\
E.
liT 0
L (
- -
r 0
H
to
I L
(
)z- I®
A..
• APPROXIMAT•OcAT ION OF PROPOSED?
6' PEDESTRIAN PATH ! 3
- - -
--
284
\ I / 'N
- -
289
(L--J
42L4 -
3.
Zi
2 .9/
0
I. 0
NOTICE OF DECLARATION
'NONSIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Carlsbad has
issued Negative Declarations for the following projects:
LOG "NO.62: The proposed project involves the construction
of a 1 unit condominium development on a 40.8 acre site
located on the east side of El Camino Real between La Costa
Avenue and Alga Road, and more specifically encompassing
Venado Streets and Piragua Street, west of Cadencia Street
in La Costa. All of the units will be detached, with access
of of private driveways. The private driveways will, in turn,
take access off of either Piragua or Venado Streets. The
project would be constructed in four phases, since the
applicant has received only 50 sewer hookups at this time.
The project grading and lot formation was approved in
conjunction with a certified Environmental Impact Report
(EIR NO. 35). In addition, the EIP. determined that no
significant archaeological or historic resources were present
on the site. Approximately 60,000 cubic yards of additional
disturbed areas, and would not, result in any significant
impacts to the San Marcos Canyon or any environmental
resources.
APPLICANT: SHAPELL INDUSTRIES
CASE NO: CT 72-20/CP-36
A copy of the subject Negative Declarations with supportive
information is available for public review at the Planning
Department, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad. Comments
from the public are invited. Please submit comments in
writing to the Planning Department within five (5) days from
the date of this notice.
PUBLISH: DECEMBER 22, 1979
1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONE: CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 729-1181
(!J;ttp of artbab
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION '
TO: COUNTY CLERK • SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES LOG NO._ 6-2
County of San Diego 1416 Ninth Street .
220 West Broadway Room 1311
San Diego, CA 92101 Sacramento, CA 95814 .
• . PROJECT TITLE: CONDOMINIUM PERMIT . .
.PRWEcr ADDRESS: Eastsideof El -Camino Real btwn LCosta
Avenue and Alga Rd, more specifically encompassing
•
:; .: Venado S&eet & Piragup St, west of adenciaSt.
•
PERMIT APPLICANT:Shapell Industries
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT . .. . •
WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
:0. WILLJMAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT'
.
. . .. •. . . STATUS OF PROJECT . :
Ej APPROVED
[J DENIED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT . . . . . •. .•
:
O NONE COMPLETED PURSUANT TO CEQA &
IJ COMPLETED PURSUANT TO CEQA
A copy of the E] Negative Declaration ETR with supporting .:
• . . documents is available for public review at the Planning Department,
City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008. ••
DATE:
•
. JAMES C..* HAGAMAN,
I' Planning Director •
•,
:
• • • . .
.•
. •• • .• • • • • •
• • ••••• • . • -••
• •
PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST
TO ACCOMPANY 300 FOOT RADIUS MAP
JOB# 8422-B
SEPTEMBER 9, 1981
PROPERTY OWNER&
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER MAILING ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS
(1) 223-221-12 Ernest & Diane Waiski 3201 Fosca Street
3204 Fosca Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 ,
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
(2) 223-221-13 Robert & Susan Trivison 3203 Fosca Street
2006 Marlin Way Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
(3) 223-221-50 Arthur & Laura Benvenuto 3205 Fosca Street
3205 Fosca Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
(4) 223-221-33 La Costa Land Co. N/A
Costa Del Mar Raod
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
(5) 223-221-32 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(6) 223-221-31 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(7) 223-230-05 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(8) 223-230-06 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(9) 223-230-07 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(10) 223-230-08 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(11) 223-230-09 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(12) 223-230-04 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(13) 223-230-03 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(14) 223-230-02 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(15) 223-230-01 Corona La Costa Home- N/A
owners Assn.
do La Costa Land Co.
Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
(16) 223-260-12 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(17) 223-260-11 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(18) 223-291-39 Glen & Andrea Shephard 7408 Carlina Street
7408 Carlina Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Page two 0 0
(19) 223-291-38 Jeffrey & Barbara Toraason 7406 Carlina Street
7406 Carlina Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
(20) 223-291-37 Bonnie Lowry 7404 Carlina Street
7404 Carlina Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
(21) 223-291-36 Thomas E. Evangelisti 3138 Verde Avenue
3138 Verde Avenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
(22) 223-291-35 Gregory & Laura Garver 3136 Verde Avenue
3136 Verde Awenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
(23) 223-291-34 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
c/o The Woodward Companies
5100 Campus Drive
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
(24) 223-291-33 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
c/o The Woodward Companies
(25) 223-291-32 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
c/o The Woodward Companies
(26) 223-291-31 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
c/o The Woodward Companies
(27) 223-291-30 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
c/o The Woodward Companies
(28) 223-291-28 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
c/o The Woodward Companies
(29) 223-291-29 Corona La Costa Homeowners N/A
do Loomis Co.
P. 0. Box 1068
Oceanside, Calif. 92054
(30) 223-291-27 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
do The Woodward Companies
(31) 223-291-26 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
c/o The Woodward Companies
(32) 223-291-25 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
do The Woodward Companies
(33) 223-291-24 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
c/o The Woodward Companies
(34) 223-291-23 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
c/o The Woodward Companies
Pae three S .
(35) 223-291-22 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
c/o The Woodward. Companies
(36) 223-291-21 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
do The Woodward Companies
(37) 223-291-20 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
c/o The Woodward Companies
(38) 223-291-19 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
c/a The Woodward Companies
(39) 223-291-18 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
c/a The Woodward Companies
(40) 223-291-17 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
c/a The Woodward Companies
(41) 223-291-16 Aetna Capitol Co. N/A
c/a The Woodward Companies
(42) 223-292-06 Merle Sims 7408 Brava Street
7408 Brava Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
(43) 223-292-07 Ronald & Debra Williams 7407 Carlina Street
7407 Carlina Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
(44) 223-180-26 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(45) 223-180-25 City of Carlsbad N/A
(46) 223-180-08 City of Carlsbad N/A
(47) 216-130-43 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(48) 216-130-51 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(49) 223-010-43 City of Carlsbad. N/A
(50) 223-010-28 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(51) 223-050-49 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(52) 223-010-32 La Costa Land Co. N/A
(53) 223-190-01 La Costa Land Co. N/A
L'a Costa Land Corp.
fl..-.A__ n.1
ij riar Road Ronald Williams
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 7407 Carlina St.
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Aetna Capitol Corp.
c/o Don Woodward City of Carlsbad
4500 Campus Dr. Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 Newport Beach, Calif. 92660
Gregory Garver jGlenn W. Shephara
3136 Verde Ave. 7408 Carlina St. Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
tCarlsbad, Calif. 92008
Thomas EvanceliSt
3138 Verde Ave.
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
John Robbins
7404 Carlifla St.
Carlsbad, Calif. 92003
r
Jeffrey W. ToraaSOfl
7406 Carlifla St.
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
LO C Ai
'. Marcos
- /
• •
• * •Cos.ta.
Canyon
- Pdk
7 - Pc_ --:-
SDG&E.
Easement •
• -• •
- - 4-!
IPPUCA3LLA OSTAVALE
237
183AC /
4/ 288®
11 68 AC -
—
:7) - - iIAC
2.1 AC
• . a
TAC 2
295 '294
293
3.49ACJ.3SAC
11XI'L
32AC
50
279 ® J 278 1 277 I 5BAC I 50 AC I .70
290
S If
V\ 292
Ul
276 ® 275 0 274 0 t 154AC a,) AC D
Cp-6
OFUAS
. I.- -
CASE NO. Date Rec' d U DCC Date :4 I0 PC Date iii
LV Description of Request: 1JMI1C.
Address or Locati on of . .
A Dlicant:_______ _______________
or Arch. ,t
Brief Legal: V
4~jL7 10&6 Pa e: Parcel
Assessor OOk
General Plan Lana
Existing ZonC: proposed Zone: -
Acres: 0 No. of Lots:
School District:
Water District:_7 - Sanitation District:
Coast permit Area:
- -.------.--
\o
)
VV dTY NAP -
Ci'5E NO.. C 3(A) -
IPT(!.i7.LA . CO-STA
(t)
C Vt
. 0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CP-36(A)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, November 17, 1981, to consider
an application for approval of an amendment to a residential tentative tract
map and condominium permit to construct 336 units on property generally located
on Venado and Piraqua Streets, west of Cadencia in the P-C zone and more
particularly described as:
Lots 274 through 289 and Lots 291 through 295 of Carlsbad
Tract 72-20, Unit No. 2, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, according to Map No. 7779, filed October
26, 1973.
APPLICANT: La Costa Vale, Ltd.
PUBLISH: November 4, 1981 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
; I 0 L\t j
/
-_-.1
Corona La Costa Home-
Owner's
c/q Loomis Company
P.O. Box 1068
Oceanside,Ca. 92054
.
Merle Sims
7408 Brava Street
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Occupant
7408 Brava Street
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Ronald & Debra Williams
7407 Carlina Street
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Occupant
7407 Carlina Street
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
OTTCi OF pUuLIC
NO ICE IS HEBY Gwit1 thr the Plai.hrj C -nissicn of Lh Ci o Clohd
will hold a coblic 1cil Ci •'::ars, 11 3 l: ?veriu:,
Carlsbad, Clifornin nl. 7:00 t. on to
consider accroval of an aal eni Lo a nia1 :ve trnct. i'ap
and codoviiniun ptaiiL bo cnn"c[ 35 units on :rc t'1 er:erlly located
on Venndo and Pftaqua S:ees,
particularly nescribed as:
eat of Cadencia in the ?--C zone od ;'ore
Lot 274 through 209 an3 LotS 291 through 295 of Carlsbad
Tract 7220, Unit ha. 2, in the city of CarJ.bed, conty
of San Diego, aocordir to T4ao 0o. 7779, filed Octber 25,
1973.
Those patrons w:Lsbincj to s no this p:conoal are cardially inited to
attend the public hain. 10 yOU ha'e Cr! questions :2le call the
Planning Departi.ent at 433-5591.
CASE FILE: CP-36(A)
APPLICANT: La Costa Vale, Ltd.
PUBjISH: October 17, 1931
CITY OF CkLSBAD PLt\7NING OYHISSCC
'Ernest & Diane Waiski
3204 Fo'sca Street
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
• Occupant 0
3201 Fosca Street
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Robert & Susan Trivison
2006 Marlin Way
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
Occupant
3203 Fosca Street
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Aurthur & Laura Benvenuto Occupant 3205 Fosca Street 3205 Fosca Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
La Costa Land Co.
Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Corona La Costa Homeowner
Assn.c/o La Costa Land Co
Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Glen & Andrea Shephard Occupant 7408 Carlina Street 7408 Carlina Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Jeffery & Barbara Occupant Toraason 7406 Carlina Street 7406 Carlina Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Bonnie Lowry Occupant 7404 Carlina Street 7404 Carlina Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Thomas E. Evangelisti Occupant 3138 Verde Avenue 3138 Verde Avenue - Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
: Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Gregory & Laura Garver Occupant 3136 Verde Avenue 3136 Verde Avenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Aetna Capitol Company
c/a The Woodward Company
5100 Campus Drive
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660.
.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT 36
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Carlsbad City Council
will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 3,1980 at 6:00
P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
to consider approval of a 243 Unit Condominium Development on
property generally located on Piragua and Venado Streets in
La Costa and more particularly described as "Lots 274 through
289 and 291 through 295 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 (La Costa
Vale Unit No. 2) according to Map No. 7779 filed in the
San Diego County Recorder's Office October 26, 1973."
APPLICANT: SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO, INC.
PUBLISH : May 24, 1980
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR.TLIIG
NOTICE IS HEREBY WEN that the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City
Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at
7:00 P.M. on Wednesday, May 14, 1980, to consider approval
of a 243 Unit Condominium Development on property generally
located on Piragua and Venado Streets in La Costa and more
particularly described as:
Lots 274 through 289 and 291 through 295 of Carlsbad
Tract 72-20 (La Costa Vale Unit No. 2) according to
Map No.7779 filed in the Office of the San Diego
County Recorder on October 26, 1973.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially
invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any
questions please call 438-5591.
CASE FILE: CP-36
APPLICANT: SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO,'INC.
PUBLISH: May 3, 1980
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
2 06 AC
• •• . . .
• >t•_. - - .. ..
2 \113;uIt
.43 h :\
293
1 .10
16
5LAC 278
1.50 k6JAC
280 0 279 0 2778 276,:IiiTte
CP--h
OLS
• City of Carttrnb
1200 ELM AVENUE
• CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
p.
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO,. INC.,
3272 Rosecrans Streè1'
San Diego, CA 92110
• Li..
L.
• . • S • •
4 • •
I
5: • .• • .•• • •
•
•
•••:. • S • •
• 4 •
•
••:
S
.4
/
/
La Costa Land Corporation
Costa El Mar Road
Carlsbad, California 92008
Aetna Capital Corporation
c/o Don Woodward
4500 Cartpus Drive
Nport Beach, California 9266
Gregory Carver
3136 Verde Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Thomas Evancelist
3138 Verde Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
John Ithbins
7404 Carlina Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
Jeffery W. Toraason
7406 Carlina Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
Ronald Williams
7407 Carlina Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
Glenn W. Shephard
7408 Carlina Street F Carlsbad, California 92008
I
g. 7 CP-36
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
.NOTTCEIS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council
Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 7:00 P.M. on
Wednesday, January 9, 1980, to consider approval of 196 Unit Con-
dominium on approximately 40.8 acres on property generally located
on the east side of El Camino Real between La Costa Avenue and Alga
Street, and more particularly described as:
Lots 274 through 289 and 291 through 295 of Carlsbad
Tract 72-20 (La Costa Vale Unit No. 2) according to
Map thereof No. 7779 filed in the office of the San
Diego County. Recorder on October 26, 1973.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially
invited to attend the public hearing.' earing If you have any questions
please call 438-5591 and ask for the Planning Department.
APPLICANT: Shapell Industries of San Diego, Inc.
PUBLISH: December 29 1 1979
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
1-
CP--6
OF4ELLAS
' Thomas Evancelist
Ronald Williams 3138 Verde Ave.
7407 Carlina St. Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
7404 Carlina St.
John Robbins
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Glenn W. Shephard Jeffrey W. Toraason
ariina 7408 Carlina St. Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
La Costa Land Corp. - La Costa Land Corp.
Costa Del Mar Road Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
v-I
\ :kj
H
Gregory Garver
Aetna Capitol Corp. 3136 Verde Ave.
do Don Woodward Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
4500 Campus Dr.
Newport Beach, Calif. 92660
I7' /',
Carlsbad Journal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
3088 PlO PICO AVENUE • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
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 entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice 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 character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established 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 preceding the date of publication of the
NOTICE OF, PTJ'BfIC notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice
HEARING - - of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
I.NOTICE lSi3EREBY GIVEN, that the published in each regular and entire issue of said F planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad will hold a public hearing af newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the City Council Chamkers, 1200 Elm the following dates, to-wit Avéhue, Carlsbad, Clifornia, at 7:00
P.M on'We'dnesday, My 14, 1980, to
considerapprOVal of a 243 Unit Con-
dominlunl Develdpipent on property
'geneial1y1ocated o,vPiragua and Ven- 80 ado Streets in La Costt gnd May 3 more par- ......1 9 . ticularly described as.,. Loth274 through 289,and 291 through
29g of COrisbad Tract 72.50 (La Costa
Vale Unit-No. 2)-according to l!ap No.
779filedinthe-Offi'c0'Ofthe San Diego 1 9 County Recorder on October 28, 1973.
Those persons wishing to speak on
this proposal 'are cordially invited- to
attend the public hearing. If you have any questions please-call 438.5591,
Case File: CP-36 Applicant: SHAPELL INDJJSTRIES
OF SAN DIEGO, INC.
CITY OFCARLSBAD -
PLANNING-COMMISSION-
CS S580: 'May 3,1980 .................................19 .
........................19....
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed at Carl sba Couzjtlpf San Diego,
State of California urie 71 U
day of May 1980 1
/ Clerk of the Printer 2M/5-79
Carlsbad Journal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
3088 PlO PICO AVENUE P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345
Proof of Publication
JAN 3 1980
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CITY OF CARLS2A
Planning Drmk 111.
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 entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice 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 character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established 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 preceding the date of publication of the
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice
of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
N0TTCFMF PUBLIC the following dates, to-wit:
2M/5-79
- HEARING
CP-36
NOTIdE IS.HEREBY GIVEN that the December. 2919 79 Planning-Conmissipn of the City of
Carlsbad Will hold a public hearing at
the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm
'Ayenue, Carlsbad, California at 7:00
P.M. on Wednesday, January 9 1980, to 1 9 cdnsider appcwal of I96 Unit Coil- ..................................
domiium on approximtely 40.8 acres
on. proper' tenetally located on the Realbetween La east sdg olEtCainino
Avenue Alga Staeet, Costa
and and
more .particularty described as: .................................. 1 9 .
Lots 274trough 289 and 291 through
295 df c'aiisbsT.rgct 12-20 (La Cpsta
Vale Unit Noi1,4dcording to Map
thereof No. 7779Tied inthe office ofthe
San Diego CountyEecsrderon Octdber ] 9 26. 1973. -
Those persons wishing to speak on
this proposal-are cordially invited to at-
tend thepublic hearing. Ifyou have any
questions please cl1438-5591 and ask
for the Planning Dpsrtmeht.
Applicant: SHAPELLINDUSTRIESOF
SAN DIEGO, INC.
CITY OFCARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
CJ S650: December 29, 1979
- I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed $ QrIsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California on —th
day of)r.rnhr 1979
0 Clerk of the Printer
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
TELEPHONE: -
V V
(714) 729-1181
QCitp at Cadgbab V.
V
•V
NEGATIVE DECLARATION V V
V V VVi:
V V
PROJECT TITLE: CONDOMINIUM PERMIT
PROJECV LOCATION: EasE side of El Camino Real btwn La. Costa Avenue and VV V
Alga Road, and
Piragua Street, west of Cadencia Street. V V V V
V V V
PR0JECr DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves the construction of a
V
196 unit
of the units will be detached, V with access off of private driveways.
V The rivVallrivewctyWifl, lu turn, Lake access UCf of .Lt11e iiaqua
• or Venado Streets. The project would be constructed in four-phases, since
the apllccuL has. raca-±Ved o.uly -50 sawer hookups, at this Liiut. V Th
project grading and lot formation was approved.in conjunction with a
V LLiLLed EV L.ULc.1 LtipcL ReOj. L (EIRNo. 3)-. Iii addition" V tile V
• EIR determined that no significant archaeological or historic resources
"fLteuL :u the yards ukadd±na1
• grading is proposed. This.additional grading will be limited toVpreviously
distarbeect, ciTd would Erk_JL.
San Marcos Canyon or any environmental resources.
DF()JC'1 PROPONENT: -
Shapell Industries
LOG NO: 627 0 V PEWIT/FILE 1O: CT 72-20/CP-36
V
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an envircnrrntal review of the above described, project:
purusaric 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 draft Negative Declaration (Declaration, of Non-Significant. Impact) is
hereby issued for the subject project. .• Justification for t:his action is.en file in the V
Planning Department, V V •V V -
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive dotunents is on file in the Planning
Depar tmert, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. Coicmarits from the public are
ip jitcn Plc submit ccrent m writin ,. to the P1 nmg (crci c ;io wiLlirn hive (5)
days of care of 0llcatic1 DECEMBER 22 , 1979
VV) •1 /
DATED: SIGNED:
C. FAQ AAN' /
PLANNING DIRECI'OR(
// CITE OF CAFIS1IAID'
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
$ : TELEPHONE:
• . . . (714) 729-1181
(City of earWbab
NEGATIVE DECLARATION . .
•
PROJECr TITLE: CONDOMINIUM PEIT . .
PRQJECE LOCATION: EasE side of El Camino Real btwn La. Costa Avenue and
Alga Road, and more speciflcal]LyflcQmpaSsiflg lienado Streets aid.
Piragua Street, west of Cadencia Street.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves the construction of a
196 unit
-L11• of the units will be detached, with access off of private driveways.
or Venado Streets. The project would be constructed in four phases, since
the ctppliectnt hcis.ieive& only 50 sewer hookups at Lhi LiLue. 'rhi
project grading and lot formation was approved in conjunction with a
ertif led EUV LLnL1LLLpcLLL RepciiL (EIR No. 35) - In addtttoii, the
EIR determined that no significant archaeological or historic resources
Waxe! presucrat an the _y 60,088 uab±c ycLzd: of Lional
grading is proposed. This additional grading will be limited topreviously
-diSLULIJer.1 cLcW1 and would nut ieuiL in ally sijniricuiL iiu&CLb Lci Lhe
San Marcos Canyon or any environmental resources.
PROJECT PROPONENT: Shapell Industries
LOG NO: 62 . • PffT/FILE NO: CT 72-20/CP-36
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
prusant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance '& the City of Carlsbad. As a result of
said review, a draft Negative Declaration (Declaration of Non-Significant Impact) is
hereby issued for the subject project.. Justification for this action is en file in the
Plthming Department,, . . •. .
A cony of the Negative Declaration wtth supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. Ccimnts from the public are
invited, Please submit ccmrerits in writing to the Planning C rrdaion within five (5)
days or date ?t1cat1cn DECEMBER 22, 1979
DATED: 12 - / • SIGNED: ____________
1\ a-NLANI AIq
// PLANNING DIRECIDR.(
' CITY OF CAPISIIAD'
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY
DATE: December 12, 1979
TO: James Hagaman, Planning Director
FROM: Brian Milich, Assistant Planner '
SUBJECT: EIA NO. 626; 196 UNIT (DETACHED) CONDOMINIUM
- DEVELOPMENT ON PIPAGUA AND VENADO STREETS, LA
COSTA. (CP-36)
DISCUSSION
The proposed project involves the construction of a 196 unit
condominium development on a 40.8 acre site in La Costa.
All of the units will be detached, with access off of private
driveways. The private driveways will, in turn, take access
off of either Piragua or Venado Streets. The project would
be constructed in four phases, since the applicant has
received only 50 sewer hookups at this time.
On June 5, 1973, the City Council approved a specific plan
(SP-38) and tentative map (CT 72-20) for 254 residential
lots, permitting a maximum of 1987 dwelling units. The
subject property was included in these approvals. The
applicant's site was divided into a total of 22 lots and
designated for multiple family (condominium) development,
with a maximum density of 11 du/ac.
In conjunction with SP-38/CT 72-20, an environmental impact
report (EIR No. 35) was certified by the City Council. This
EIR addressed the subdivision and grading of the subject
property. The EIR listed several mitigating measures necessary
to minimize potential environmental impacts, primarily to
the San Marcos Canyon. These included grading limitations,
preservation of natural vegetation, and an open space easement.
Some of these mitigation measures were included in the
approval of CT 72-20. In addition, the EIR determined that
no significant archaeological or historic resources were
present on the site, including the subject property.
The final map was approved, and the applicant proceeded to
grade the lots and install streets, curbs and gutters on the
subject property. This current environmental assessment is
for additional grading and pad preparation, and the construction
of the 196 condominium units.
As the property is presently graded, the lots drain away
from the street towards the rear of each parcel. The
applicant feels that this is undesirable and is proposing
a regrading of the lots to direct runoff onto the streets
I
This will require approximately 60,000 cubic yards of
additional grading. This additional grading will be limited
to previously disturbed areas, and would not result in any
significant impacts to the San Marcos Canyon or any environ-
mental resources.
As proposed, the project would result in a density of 4.8
du/acre. This is considerably less than the 11 du/acre
approved under CT 72-20 and addressed by the environmental
impact report. While this raises some questions from a
planning standpoint, it would not result in any significant
environmental impacts since the infrastructure necessary to
handle a higher density has already been constructed.
Since the site has been previously disturbed, staff feels
that the current proposal, as conditioned below, would not
result in any significant impacts.
Recommendation
It is recommended that a CONDITIONAL declaration of negative
environmental impact be iii-su66 7With regard to the project
based on the following justification and subject to the
following conditions:
Justification
1) The project grading and lot formation was approved in
conjunction with a certified environmental impact
report (EIR No. 35). Measures to mitigate potential
impacts created by the subdivision and grading were
included as conditions of approval.
2) No significant historical or archaeological resources
were discovered based on a thorough investigation of
the site.
3) Although a substantial amount of additional grading
is proposed, this grading will be limited to previously
disturbed areas and will not affect the San Marcos
Canyon or any significant environmental resources.
4) The density of the project is considerably less than
the density permitted by CT 72-20/SP-38 and considered
by EIR-35.
5) Some of the infrastructure necessary to handle a
density of development higher than that which is
proposed has been constructed;
6) Conditions which further mitigate potential impacts
have been included as part of this negative declaration.
-2-
0 I
Conditions
1) The applicant shall limit all grading activities to
previously graded and disturbed areas.
2) All grading and land clearance operations shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
The applicant shall obtain and strictly abide by an
approved grading permit.
3) In order to reduce human and domestirc aninal impacts
on the San Marcos Canyon, the applicant shall erect a
minimum 42 inch high fence for the length of the project
along the San Marcos Canyon rim. This fence shall be
placed at the top of the Canyon (located entirely
outside of any undisturbed natural areas), posted OT
with "Danger/Keep Out" signs, and the fence shall not
be visible from the Canyon. Access to the San Marcos
Canyon shall be limited to Lot 290.
BM:ar
-3-
ENVIRoNMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ORM
Receipt No. E 1 NO.
Date:
Name
Addre
Permi
Case Nos.: -W /p3 V
Location of Proposed Activity: EAST SIDL-TOFEL C,4/l'lINO IZEAL 8&rwE/.w
LA COSTA AVE f ALGA ST -.; MORE SEE1F(C/ILLY £AX/l4PAS5/A.I6 VEIIJ4DO sr
P/f?A GO/I ST WEST OF= C/WEAl C/A ST V
BACKGROUND INFORMATION V
l... Give a brief description of the proposed activity (attach
any preliminary development plans). VV
V RES'JIEArTJ L C'oIt/D 044 IN/UM 5 V V V
2. Describe the activity area, including distinguishing V
natural and manmade characteristics; also provide precise
V slope analysis when appropriate.
EXf5T/A1 MANMADE PADS PER /7?()CT ks 72-20.
MINOR GRAD/1u6 PROPOSED.
:
3. Describe energy conservation measures incorporated into
the design and/or operation of the project.
1AJ3UL/-ITION ) W//VIZIW ORIEAIT/4T/OAI, 4/tIL) STAND/?RD
I51)/LD/A/6 PR/I CT/CES.
FORM 44, Page 1 of 4
V PLANNING.V
V V
.•
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM
II. Environmental Impact Analysis .
Answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate
space. -
Yes No.
1. Could the project significantly change present land uses
in the the vicinity of activity?
2. Could the activity affect the u.se of a. recreational
area, or area of important aesthetic value?
3. Could the activity affect the functioning of an
established community or neighborhood?
• 4. Could the activity result in the displacement of
• community ,residents? • / v-
5. Are any of the natural or man-made features in the activity V V
area unique, that is, not found in other parts of the
• County, State, or nation? •
• 6. .Could the activity significantly affect a historical or
archaelogical site or its setting?
7. Could the activity significantly affect the potential
use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural res- • -
• ource? • ____ ____
•
8. Does the activity area serve as a habitat, food source
•
• nesting place, source of water, etc. for-rare or endangered
wildlife or,-fish species? • _____ V V
• 9. Could the activity significantly affect fish,-wildlife or •
• plans life? • V - V _____ •
V V4 /
10. Are there dny rare or endangered plant species in the V
•
-
- -. activity-area?. . •:-
• 11. Could the activity change existing features of any. of
the city's lagoons, bays, or tidelands?-
12. Could the activity change existing features of any of
the City's beaches? V _____ • - •
13. Could the activity result in the erosion or elimination -
V of .agricultural lands? •
•
140 • •
Could the activity serve to encourage development of • -
..presently undeveloped areas or intensify developmeht • / of already developed areas? • V V
FORM 44, Page 2 • •
- V V •
es C 0 No
• 15 Will the activity require. a variance, from established environmental
standards (air, water, noise, etc)? •. . ._____ / "
16. Will the activity require certification, authorization or issuance .
of a permit by any, local, State or Federal environmental control
. agency? . .
17. Will the' activity require' issuance of a variance or conditional V /'. ' . • ____ use permit by the City? :,
18. Will the activity involve the application, use, or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials?,
19. Will the activity involve construction of facilities in a flood '
• '. ' 'plain?
20. Will the activity involve construction of facilities on a slope of
25 percent or greater?
21. Will the activity involve construction of facilities in the ' S
area of an active fault? •' :. .. •
.- ____ ____
• 22. Could the activity result in the generation of significant
- amounts of noise?
23. Could the activity result in the generation of significant
' 'V V ' amounts of dust?
• 24. Will the activity involve the burning of-brush, trees, or
other materials? . . • '_____
•
'V V
.25. Could the activity result in a significant charigein the
quality 'of any portion of the region's 'air or water resources?'
• . (Should note surface, ground water, off-shore). " V
• 26. Will there be significant change to existing land form? "
(a) -indicate estimated grading to be done in cubic yards.. 60 470",
•
' c J41oco) ' '
(b) percentage of alteration to the present land form. ' 2$
(c) maximum height of cut or fill slopes. .£'.t'
.27. Will the activity result in substantial increases in the use of utilities,
sewers, drains or streets?
III. State ofNoSignificantEnvironmentalEffects •
If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in Section II but you -
think the activity will have no significant environmental effects, indicate'your
• reasons below:
•FORM 44, Page '3 of 4
• e
IV: Comments or Elaborations to Any of the Questions in Section II.
(If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach
additional sheets as may be needed.)
• Signature "(
(Person completing report
Date Signed: A40-11 197
Conclusions (To be completed by the Planning Director). Place a
check in the appropriate box.
( ) Further information is required.
( ) It has been determined that the project-will not have significant
environmental effects. ( ) You must submit a preliminary
environmental impact statement by the following date. -
( ) You should make an appointment with the Planning Director
to discuss further processing of your project, in accordance with
Chapter 19.04 of the Municipal Code.
DATE RECEIVED:
BY
or,
7 ••
V.
Revised December 22, 1978
FORM PLANNING 44 Page 4 of 4
S
MEMORANDUM 1/
DATE: May 14, 1980
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brian Milich, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: CP-36; 243 unit condominium development
(Shapell Industries of San Diego, Inc.)
This project was continued from the Planning Commission's
April 23, 1980, meeting in order to provide time for staff
to evaluate the need for a new tentative map for the development.
Specifically, since all phase lines did not coincide with
existing property lines, and five of these existing property
lines intersected proposed units, it was felt that a new
tentative map might be necessary to alleviate these problems.
The applicant has revised the site plan (see Exhibit A,
dated April 21, 1980) in order to bring the phase lines into
conformance with the existing property lines. With regard
to the lot lines that intersect proposed units, staff
believes that a tentative map is unnecessary and that these
lot lines can be modified so they don't intersect the units
by adjustment plats. Since the lots have been designated as
condominium lots by CT 72-20, and all necessary public
improvements and development controls can be regulated
through the condominium permit process, the city would not
benefit by requiring the applicant to prepare a new tentative
map. However, a condition of approval (condition no. 8) has
been included which requires the filing of adjustment plats
to modify those lot lines which intersect units.
Also, it should be noted that the application has been
renoticed due to the number of continuances, and since the
project's design has been significantly modified.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 1629, a APPROVING CP-36, based on the findings
and subject to the conditions contained therein.
Attachments
Revised Staff Report dated May 14, 1980
PC Resolution No. 1629
VAIL
0 I
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
May 5, 1980
City Engineer
Planning Director
City Attorney
toe.-e ~-
SUBJECT: CP-36 -- 243 Unit Condominium Development
Proposed by Shapell Industries of San Diego, Inc.
This memorandum is intended to formalize our oral opinion
given at various times over the last couple of weeks since
the April 23, 1980 Planning Commission meeting.
It continues to be our opinion that the project, as outlined
in the May 14 , 1980 revised staff report from Brian Milich
to the Planning Commission, is a subdivision under the provisions
of the Subdivision Map Act in Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code. In formulating our opinion we have discussed the
situation with the Department of Real Estate, attorneys for
several cities in the County, and with the developer. Even
though the applicant has revised his phasing plan to make the
phase lines correspond to the existing lot lines, the proposed
project is nevertheless a subdivision for which the filing of
a tentative map is required. We recognize that under the
circumstances of this particular case, given the fact that a
final map has been filed for the project area (CT 72-20) and
that all major public improvements have been installed and
necessary fees paid, the filing of a tentative map for the
proposed project may be a mere legal technicality.
It is our understanding that you have decided to allow the
project to proceed based on the old final map, coupled with
the filing of several adjustment plats, to eliminate certain
property lines. While such action is contrary to our advice,
we. feel the position you have taken is supportable based on
your conclusion that filing of a new tentative map would
serve no significant public benefit and is not necessary to
protect the interests of the city or future property owners.
The applicant should be advised that the decision by the city
in no way guarantees that the proposal will be approved by
the Department of Real Estate. It may be that the Department
of Real Estate will allow the project to proceed as proposed.
However, the Department of Real Estate may also find that a
tentative map was required and demand that the applicant
resubmit the proposal to the city so that a tentative map for
the new project can be processed. If you would like us to
outline the various reasons why we think that a tentative map
is legally required for this pr ett) please et us know.
VMCENT F. /BION
12
DSH/mla s1 City Attorney
10
MEMORANDUM FILE CoU"rP
DATE: April 23, 1980
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brian Milich, Planning Department
SUBJECT: CP-36; SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO, INC.
As the Planning Commission will recall, this project was
continued from the March 26, 1980, meeting to allow design
modifications to the project. Originally staff determined
that a tentative tract map was not required for the proposed
condominium development since a previously approved tract
map (CT 72-20) had designated the subject property for
condominium development. Therefore, a condominium permit was
the only required permit.
As staff developed conditions of approval for the revised
plans, it became apparent that a number of the lot lines
established under CT 72-20 would have to be modified or
eliminated entirely in order to avoid bisecting dwellings
and to coincide with phase lines. As a result of these
changes, staff has determined that a new tentative tract
map is legally required.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Commission CONTINUE this project
to the next regularly scheduled meeting (May 14, 1980), in
order to allow the applicant time to prepare a tentative
tract map and that the project be renoticed as both a
condominium permit and a tentative tract map.
BM:ar
4/18/80
0
MEMORANDUM (ID
DATE: March 26, 1980
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brian Milich, Planning Department
SUBJECT: CP-36 (200+ UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT,
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO)
The proposed development was originally heard by the Planning
Commission on January 9, 1980. At that meeting, staff and the
Commission raised a number of concerns relating primarily to
the design of the development. As a result of these concerns,
the project was continued to the February 13, Planning Cow.-mis-
sion meeting.
At the February 13 hearing, the applicant submitted revised
plans to the Commission. These plans showed the redesign of
approximately 50 units to an attached 4-plex design. While the
Commission indicated that the applicant appeared to have improved
the project's overall design, the Commission felt that much of
the project still represented a sub-standard single-family sub-
division and that the recreation area was not appropriately
designed. Therefore, the project was continued to tonights
meeting in order to allow the applicant additional time to
work with staff on a redesign of the project.
During the interim period, staff and the applicant have been
working toward a resolution of the major design issues. The
applicant has submitted preliminary plans for staff's review
and, in general, they represent an improvement in the project's
overall design. However, all of the issues have not yet been
resolved and the plans are therefore not ready for submittal
to the Commission.
Therefore, the applicant, with staff's concurrance, is request-
ing a continuance of the project to the April 23rd meeting.
Recoin1iendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue CP-36
to their April 23, 1980, meeting.
EM: ar
3/21/80
• (This side for City Attorney's Office use)
Preparec. by: - \)EA Date;
WRITTEN MEMORANDUM. OPINT
ORAL
Brief Resume of Advice :Rendered--If Written, Attach Copy orMake' Referer
I I PJf\3 5ob\'W1 f5 Sjj6, ri- co,o-Q.
: -
•
•
(J'\v
1iAV
'Pc •o MoQ 10• 111 AP
•
• •
•
• cqç1 11 frU,fj
:
•' CO1
Q
A O/ 4CoLyVcIL coSo T Do
_jj Vzq6s
AN P Y46 C4 Ilk
Ll NAYj
vv
M C 41 06 Q
WA M tip C MAP
OJ
MO V €PJ
Me
P~wl AAlZ 41A., pp p ol, Nqwb Aso4s.
It
AkL-
O
Gf
P kAv,\q /p%
vv
•
j c
•
CAACo
\ Q / J
j B
•o
Oil CA
U*Pmaer
•A -ei
City
Ivice Noted:- N-i f
CITY OF cARLSBAD
EST FOR LEGAL ADVICE
01
,
.c1fT\.
' I 1
7
(2;
TO: CITY_APOIY
FROM'IAMES '.C. HAGAMAI'L.
DATE: Dece
DEPARTMENT: Planning
.......
SUBJECT: MODEL HOMES DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PUD '1D CONDOMINIUM
PROJECTS.
ADVICE REQUESTED:
1) Can six model homes be constructed as part of either :a PUD or condominium project?
2)If the project involves attached units, can more than six models he 'constructed?
(This being necessary to provide one example of each unit design.) 1f only six
will be used as models, may the other units not used as models be completely
constructed?
3) Must all models have sewer?
BACKGRÔTJND INFORMATION: . . . . .
Add (Prepare synopsis of facts,: giving as many as possible.
additional-sheets if necessary or attach supporting documents.) -
1) Sec1on 21 ;45.17O of the PUD chapter states that "A maximum of six iiodél home
units may be constructed in a complex if 'approved as part of the Planned Unit
Development permit prior to recordation of the final map, provided that adeouate
pyoyi.sibns acceptable to the:..-City Attorney aremade guaranteeing removal' f; such:•
complex" i •the .fi.nalmap is riot recorded. In conflict with this is-Section
21.60.030 which states that "riot more than four building permits for model homes:
.may-beissued for any one proposed subdivision for which a tenta.tivemap haS - béen
fully approved by the. City."
2) Broadthoor Horiesii1l be constructing 130 units in conjunction with PUD-8/CT 77_.2.:
• .: - (Buena Woods). Since the units proposed äreduplexes, a total of five duplex
• . . buildings must be constructed to accommodate the six models. Broadmoor would
like to finish all 10 units,. but leave the four additional units empty for the..:::
time the six units are utilized as models. (See attached letter, 11/7/79). -
3) Shapell Industries is proposing a 196 unit condominium project.
are proposed, but only two will have sewer.
Prepared
Approved
Request
Six models
DATE NT A" TO BE RE •D - -
Richard Hanson, Manager Dr. Robert Crawford, Supt.
Leucadia County Water District Carlsbad Unified School Dist.
P.O. Box 2397 801 Pine Ave.
Leucadia, CA 92024 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ef John P. Henley Bill Berrier, Supt.
Acting General Manager San Dieguito Union School Dist.
Carlsbad Municipal Water Dist. 2151 Newcastle Ave.
5950 El Camino Real Cardiff, CA 92007
Carlsbad, CA 92008 -ónald Lidstrom, Supt. - Elf Jack Kubota Encinitas Elementary School
I Woodside Kubota & Assoc. Dist.
P.O. Box 1095 185 Union Street
#' I Carlsbad, CA 92008 Encinitas, CA 92024
San Marcos County Water Dist. John R. Philp, M.D.
788 San Marcos Blvd. Director of Public Health
San Marcos, CA 92069 1600 Pacific Hwy.
San Diego, CA 92101
' I William Hollingsworth
LI Manager Bruce Warren, Executive Dir.
\ Olivenheim Municipal Water Dist. San Diego Coast Reg. Comm.
1966 Olivenheim Rd. 6154 Mission Gorge Rd.
Encinitas,, CA 92024 Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92120
Dr. Ralph Kellogg, Supt.
San Marcos Unified School Dist. Mr. R. L. Brown, Jr.
274 San Marcos Blvd. San Diego Flood Control Dist.
San Marcos, CA 92069 55555 Overland Drive
San Diego, CA 92123
IJ Postmaster
City of Carlsbad Edwin J. Heimlich F Carlsbad, CA 92008 Federal Housing Admin.
P.O. Box 2648
Water Quality Control Bd. San Diego, CA 92112
6154 Mission Gorge Road
Suite 205 County Transit District San Diego, CA 92120 \- P.O Box 1998 Attn: Arthur Coe, L_J Oceanside, CA 92054 Charlene Dennis, or c/o Paul Price Peter Silva
FOR INFORMATION
San Diego Gas & Electric Don Brown
101 Ash Street Carlsbad Chamber of
Mailing: P'O. Box 1831 Commerce
San Diego, CA 92112 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Pacific Telephone Co.
Right-of-Way Dept. Bruce Eliason
4838 Ronsons Court Dept. of Fish & Game
San Diego, CA 92111 350 Golden Shore
Long Beach, CA 90802
California Div. of Real Est.
107 S. Broadway, Room 8107 J. Dekema
Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dist. Dir. of Trans.
P.O. Box 81405
CITY PERSONNEL San Diego, CA 92138
Eli] WATER DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT I ZtI1 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
VW ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Li]
El
Form Planning 53
T. C. Martin
Programs & Budget
Engineer
State of California
Dept. of Transport.
District 11
P.O. Box 81406
San Diego, CA 92138
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
D-U 4&tS S LOfty /
TELEPHONE:
(714) 7291181
Qtitp of Cavtba
February 28, 1979
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, Ca. 92110
Attention: Mr. Bob Ellis
Re: Monarch Terrace (Vale II), Revised Plan dated Nov. 9, 1978
L
Mr. Ellis:
Evidently you had a meeting with Don Rose of the Carlsbad
Planning Department on January 23, 1979 and raised some
questions on the subject project. Don promptly drafted a
response to your questions and submitted for my review.
I held this response pending further review because 1
wasn't satisfied with all of the answers on Don's draft.
Unfortunately, Don has left the employment of the City
and we may loose some continuity of plan review. This
may be the case at this time as I attempt to answer the
questions you asked Don.
Regardless, any answers I may give to your questions must be.
supportable by the City and that's why I have done a full
review of the matter.
The first questions you asked Don were:
1. Would the City allow computation of total units on gross
acreage rather than net acreage, thus providing for an
increase in the total number of units?
I agree with Don in that density will be computed on a
gross acreage figure. This means that you can consider
the area of the circular public street (Paragua and Venado)
in computing the total number of units allowed. You will
not, however, be able to exceed the density permitted
by the General Plan for the area on an individual parcel.
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES
February 28, 1979
Page two
2; Would an increase in the total number of units require
an amendment to the approved specific plan and a resultant
application of the new condominium standards?
I assume this question was prompted from Don's letter to Shapell
Industries, dated June 30, 1978, indicating condo standards
would not be required unless changes were made to the
Specific Plan.
My problem is that I can't agree with the premise that
condo permits aren't required regardless if changes are
made or not. I know many man hours by both the City and
Shapell went into this project as presently designed,
but I can't see how, technically, we can come to
any other conclusion. Actually (and hopefully) the new
condo permit ordinance will not be a design hinderance,
because I believe both Shapell and Don were using the
draft ordinance (prior to adoption) as a guide. It will
require extra processing however, which you will need
to put into your time frame.
For what it's worth, I don't think any of us thought that the
condo standards ordinance would be adopted prior to Shapell
building permits. The City Council did instruct staff to work
with Shapell in designing a development based on what we felt
was necessary consideration at that time. Now that the condo
ordinance is adopted, these standards are what the City has
designated as necessary.
Dave Abrams, who is familiar with the project will now be the
responsible staff person. You may contact either Dave or
myself if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
BUD PLENDER
Assistant to the
Planning Director
BP:ms
cc: Gus Theberge
Dave Abrams
. (Jo,\
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 29, 1979
TO: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director
FROM: Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Director
SUBJECT: Condominium Permit - Shapell Development, Vale II
Recently you and I had a discussion with Bob Ladwig and a would-
be developer of the Vale II development. At that meeting I
indicated to all there that Shapell who owns the property is
not required to apply for a condominium permit because they are
grandfathered by their submittal of preliminary building permits
prior to the condominium ordinance being adopted. You indicated
at that time that that may not be true and the developer added
that if it was true for Shapell it should be true for him also.
The following day you quizzed me on my statement and why I had
made it. I explained that a letter had been submitted to Shapell
Industries allowing them to proceed without a condominium permit.
I thought at that time that I had wrote the letter, but upon review
I find that the letter was written by Don Rose, but he must have
reveiwed the concept with me prior to writing it, since I do recall
discussion on this matter.
Don's letter is attached. He justifies not requiring a condo-
minium permit by the fact that the project already has an approved
specific plan for condominiums, which differs from my reasoning
on "grandfathered". If Don's reasoning holds up then we have no
control over any of the development in La Costa that may have
condo notes - on tract map or specific plans.
The condominium ordinance states very clearly that a condominium
permit is required for condominiums. It would seem to me that
the specific plan cannot be considered a condominium permit since
it does not meet any of the requirements of such permit. It may
be a legal question of how valid is the specific plan, but it
seems to me that just by adoption of a specific plan does not
perclude the developer from meeting all other regulations. It
would be like saying that since the specific plan was adopted in
1972, all that would have to be met was the building code require-
ments of 1972.
Therefore, I suggest that we reverse our statement to Shapell
and require that a condominium permit be processed for any project
S .
Memorandum -James C. Hagaman
January 29, 1979
Page Two
on these properties. I think the letter should be from either
you or Don. The reason should be that "the condominium ordin-
ance is now adopted and that at the time of writing the June 30,
1978, letter we thought that either they would have acquired
building permits prior to its adoption or the code would provide
some flexibility for such permit. However, upon further review
we now feel that it is very desirable to have your development
meet all of the condominium requirements."
However, a great deal of effort has gone
Therefore before we draft this letter I
situation with Don and Dave.
into the present plans.
suggest we discuss the
i9a,tt
BUD PLENDER
Assistant Planning Director
. .
Memorandum
January 24, 1979
TO: James Hagaman, Planning Director
FROM: David Abrams, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Monarch Terrace (Vale II) SP-38
Discussion
The Shapell representatives met with Don and I today regarding
their proposed development in La Costa. They presented a
revised plot plan reflecting modifications desired by staff
from an earlier submittal. The number of total units indicated
on the new plan, however, has been increased from 440 to 511
This increased density is consistent with the General Plan
designation for the property (10-20 D.U's per acre), but would
exceed the 11 D.U. per acre limit allowed in Specific Plan 38.
The Shapell people agreed to reduce the total units for the
project to 499. This figure would be 11 D.U.'s per acre, if
the loop- street extending through this property was added
in the acreage total. If the street acreage was not included
in the calculation, the applicant would be required to
return to the Planning Commission and City Council for an
amendment to the Specific Plan.
Recommendation
Staff feels the project should be allowed to proceed without
ad-i-t-i-o-n-a-l--d±screti-on-aryaction at the 499 dwelling unit
total. The Specific Plan for the property indicates 11 D.U.'s
per "gross " acre is permitted (excerpt attached). Since the
project is well within the permitted General Plan density,
and the wording on the approved Specific Plan allows for some
loose interpretation, the proposal seems justified. If yc
concur with this recommendation, please sign below.
Attachment
Excerpt from SP-38
Concurrence with the above recommendation
James C. Hagaman
PLANNING DIRECTOR
DA/ar
I
V11
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DRAFT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 1977
[I,
TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
RE: C&C&R'S - SHAPELL INDUSTRIES (VALE II
Gus Theberge of Shapell Industries has submitted copies of the proposed CC&R's
for their condominium development in Vale II, (La Costa). In addition he has
sent us copies of calculations for building plans. You asked me to review these
CC&R's to see if everything was in order and if we wished to add me to them.
Also we have received a memorandum from the City Attorney that indicates that an
( agenda bill is to be prepared for the City Council meeting of September 20th to
'-pprove the CC&R's.
Since changes appear to be required, any approval given on the 20th would have
to be conditional. I, therefore, suggest that an agenda bill be prepared that
explainswhy this action is before the counci and the changes that staff suggests.
C. i. (S/L' 'J
F_u.e This memorandum the basis of the agenda bill..
is
The first question I have on Mr. Theberge mittod 44-1-m k statement that
the CC&R's are in skeleton form. I don't no what skeleton CC&R's are, but as sub-
mitted it appears to be complete to me If not, then we should not be going forward
with so called skeleton C.C.&R's, but require that the final copy be submitted
as soon as possible and that this item be placed at a later council date.
Also, Mr. Theberge sends two (2) sets of the calculations of the building plans
aIrrjwith 6he •GO&' I see t4effl-itt no relationship to the
CC&R's. It is possible that I might have misssed something in the previous meeting
thatwent to. ;44yAre the calculations important to us at this time, If not,
_-U_--re h em LI ierprr±.
.1
S .
PARAGRAPH III DEFINITIONS (e) "Restricted Common Area"
Evidently the project will have restricted common areas for private use. I see
no problem with this concept if such private area is used as a patio or an enclosed
private yard. However, if the private area is so divided that the property appears
as a single-family detached house, wIi.&t individual front and side yards then
. - -/ , .
I believe a problem will occur in the maintenance, -ark4nrj ro6trictionti
i1.
PARTITION PARAGRAPH FIVE (C)
A typographical error of San Diego instead of Carlsbad. I am not sure I understand
1ie subparagraph "C" —thability to partit4-. However, I believe it should be
clear that the them&s. may not be further divided without meeting future
city requirements for building codes and parking and also have City approval through
site plan review.
PARAGRAPH 23, USE OF CONDOMINIUM -
Subparagraph "F" indicates that storage and parking shall be permitted only in
esignated lOcations in the common areas. I believe that a statement should be added
hat parking is not permitted in any drive approach that is less than 20 feet in
01-11
distance from the front of the garage door to the curb of the private drive. Also,
there shall be maintained a parking clear area in the turnaround of the cul-de-sac
and hammer-head backup areas.
PARAGRAPH 27, ADDITIONAL USE RESTRICTIONS AND DESIGN CRITERIA - SUB-PARAGRAPH "A"
PARKING:
-term used in this paragraph is "offstreet parking". This may b -_-como confusion
since the driveways may be considered streets to some people. Also, the parking
that we are attempting to create in the development are for visitors, therefore I
ViMor
believe the term should be "Special decl-op.d designated,arking".
These are the only.iL4"@ca-o I would suggest to what has been submitted. However,
I believe additions should be considered that do the following:
1) Require association maintenance of all front yards t464 extend. rom the curb
a4lst i' 't4t '-
of the private drives or ae streets to the face of Aw@444rig units. Also,
.2
. .
common maintenance of all banks, common recreation or other common open areas
should be maintained 'by the association.
2) The CC&R's should contain provisions for the een -strwtion-wr maintenance of the
private park that has been designated on : 8P-38 and the subdivision map.
3) Even though La Costa claims they have restrictions for RV, I believe the CC&R's
of this development should also contain such restrictions. This will insure
that no matter what La Costa may do with their CC&R'S, this development would
maintain these restrictions unless approved otherwise by the City. Such
restrictions are necessary for this project because of the lack of spaces to
store R-V's.
Because of the time constraints this was' a rapid review. I believe I have 4t4
the most blatant problems and further refinement could be done next week after your
agenda bill review. If you are satisfied and wi ;h to comply with the City Attorney's
suggestion of the September'20th meeting, let me know and I will prepare this/report
in-4 agenda bill format.
Memorandum from City Attorney dated, September 8, 1977
Letter from Shapell's Attorney (Frank L. Asaro) dated, Sept. 6, 1977
C. C. &R' s
Calculations
.3
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 2, 1977
TO: Planning Director
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: La Costa: John Stanley's memo to Fred
Morey - July 20, 1977
Condominium Development in areas approved by
specific plan
According to the attached, Stanley says the CC&R's
were to control the development. He must mean that 'there
was an approved set of CC&R's at the time the Tentative
Map was approved as opposed to the set submitted now
by the Homeowner's Association. Did we in fact approve
CC&R's for the Tentative Map? If so, is what they are
proposing consistent with them?
\ VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR
\ -
City Attorney
VFB/mla
Attachment
IN
AUG -2 1977
I
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
I _c
CIV JJ
DATE: JULY 27, 1977
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
JUL28 1977
CITY OFCARSBAD PJannjn ent
SUBJECT: CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT - AREAS APPROVED/SPECIFIC PLAN
Recently, the Planning Department brought two projects
to my attention in La Costa which they thought were
proceeding with development plans contrary to the
original intent of the City Council.
They also expressed their concern that there were
additional areas within the City that this could
occur.
The first 50 units in Vale III have been approved. This
approval was given because they met all the legal require-
ments and further, the staff worked with the developer for
some time before bringing the matter to my attention.
During this period of working with the developer, he went
to the extent of preparing all plans necessary up to the
point where he was ready to submit for his building permit.
On the larger project referred to in the Planning Depart-
ment memo, Vale II, the developer has brought in preliminary
plans but staff has placed him on notice that we have con-
cerns and have not encouraged him in any way to expend
additional monies to move ahead. The problem is that he
has met or is in the process of meeting all legal require-
ments. As the attached memo points out, those requirements
are not great. Except for the one or two problems that are
pointed out in the attached memo, the staff has not taken
the position that the developments are bad. In fact, some
small lot developments can be excellent. They are only
pointing out that without adequate standards, bad develop-
ment could occur and we should certainly move ahead to
correct the problem for the future.
The staff will schedule a report and make formal recom-
mendations concerning this matter as the present work schedule
permits. If however, any member of the Council is concerned
with the present Vale II project which we are temporarily
holding up, they should bring the matter to my attention
immediately and we will place it on the Council agenda. If
I do not hear from anyone within the next week (thru August 5),
I will then notify the applicant that we will process his
development, routinely.
PAUL D. BUSSEY a
City Manager
PDB: ldg
Att.
MEMORANIUM
DATE: JULY 8, 1977
TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager
FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director
RE: Condominium Development In Areas Approved by Specific Plan
INTRODUCTION:
Recently the City has received plans for detached single family units on
lots approved by Specific Plans for condominiums. They appear to be classic
examples of the type of development that the City Council has indicated
they found problems with. Unfortunately the City is committed to approve
the plans we have accepted for building permits, but staff wishes to
review this matter with the City Council for direction on future appli-
cations.
HISTORY:
Prior to the latest amendment to the Planned Community (P-C) zone the
method to approve development in the P-C zone was by Specific Plan.
Evidently the intent was to approve a site plan for each lot or develop
a set of regulations under the process of Specific Plan. Unfortunately
this was sometimes unacceptable to developers and land holders because
they did not know at the time of subdivision what the site plan would
be. To accommodate this apparent problem the City accepted application
for Specific Plans that were nothing more than Tract Maps. None or few
development standards were established on the plans or made part of the
adopting documents, except statements such as certain lots will be used
for multiple family condominiums at a certain density. Some Specific
Plans indicate that development shall meet standards of a certain zone
such as R-3, but site review was never made a part.
APPROVED SPECIFIC PLANS:
From a brief review of the files it appears there are at least three
Specific Plans that lack complete development regulations. These Specific
Plans contain approximately 730 dwelling units some of which have already
been built. One completed project is a partiular problem (Woodbine)
because it was built as detached single family residential with no
development or use regulation. This means that apartments could be built,
garages converted to apartments etc. without City control. There may
be other examples of this poor processing in the P-C zone.
However, the main issue at this time is on condominium lots approved by
S.P. 38 (Vale).
I
I
VALE III:
The City recently approved building permits for a condo" project in
La Costa located along the west side of Rancho Santa Fe Road, north
of La Costa Boulevard, known as Vale III. The approved Specific Plan
shows only vacant lots with a note stating that the area will be built
with multiple family residential at either 11 or 14 DU/AC depending on
the lot. There are no development standards on the plan or the adopting
documents.
At the time of approval it was assumed that the development would be
attached units with common parking and open areas, similar to the
existing condo developments in La Costa. The approved building permits
however, are for 150 detached single family homes. Each of the
proposed units are fronted on a private street. The density is approx-
imately 5.4 units per acre, less than half the density listed in the
General Plan and Master Plan.
Staff approved the first phase of 50 units request because there are no
development standards on the property. However, we feel that the project
is substandard and may lead to problems in the future and will set a low
standard for single family development in Carlsbad. For instance, most
garages are only 10' from the curb of the private street, this means
that if the cars were parked on the drive they would be over the side-
walk and extend into the street, some Street side yards are only 10'
from the street, (R-1 standards require approximately 20' from street),
the distance between buildings is as low as 10' in some cases, (the R-1
has a minimum of 12' alongside yard lines); the private streets are
30' curb to curb, (36' is standard City width). In summary the project
when completed will appear as a crowded single family development with
little private yard, narrow streets, autos parked across sidewalks and
insufficient guest parking on the private streets.
The private streets will appear like public streets and will be basi-
cally the only reason there is a need for a home owners association.
There is a good possibility there will be a request to abandon the
association and request the City acceptance of the streets. The City
could decline, but the Council may find it difficult to deny such a
request from concerned citizens that have a problem in that their
street needs maintenance. For all intentions the streets are public.
The General Plan indicates 10-20 dwelling units per acre and the
original subdivider put in utility systems for this higher density.
The density approved in the building permit is 5.4 per acre, this
means added costs in maintaining these higher than necessary systems
at City expense. Not meeting the permitted density also may be a
problem when there is a need for multiple family units. It may be
necessary to amend GP and zoning to provide higher densities in areas
that are less than desirable for such higher density of planning a
city.
-2-
a
. S
VALE II:
We now'have received preliminary plans for Vale II. The same condo
notes apply as in Vale III, the only difference is the density is to
be 11 dwelling units per acre. There are to be 281 units over 25.7
acres for a density of 10.9. There are some attached units, some
common open areas (although little is usable), and private streets.
It is difficult to acertain from the preliminary plans what all the
problems may be. However, since there are no development standards
there isn't much staff could do to solve problems at the building
permit stage. Therefore, staff is reviewing this with you to deter-
mine if the CC finds a problem and if so what can be done.
Multiple Family Zone Problem:
Although there are specific problems with Specific Plans as noted,
there is a common problem occurring in all multiple family zones.
The multiple family zones do not require multiple family development
or density, they only allow it. Therefore detached units can be
built and if condo notes approved could be sold as single family
condo units. Since development standards only pertain to the lot
there would be little control on development of these SP units.
For example the Alicante Hills area of La Costa is zoned RD-M and
since it has been converted to acreage it is now one large lot. A
condo map could be submitted as a one lot subdivision showing no
site planning. Without regulations or guidance the City would approve
it. The developer would then have free reins on type of development.
This could be detached homes on private streets with no development
standards--the same problem as described in the S.P.'s. The difference
is that condo map has to be approved and if the City adapted condo
regulations the type of development could be determined.
ZONE & CONDO PROBLEM:
The developments as discussed in this report point out an obvious
weakness in the processing of the original P-C zone. In addition, they
also point out weakness in our development zones and our lack of having
condominium regulations. This same development could be proposed on
any multiple family zoned large enough to contain a private street.
The only development requirements would be as the units relate to
public streets and lot lines.
A solution to this problem would be to establish standards for p' lic
streets or driveways so they do not appear to be City streets, or re-
quire dedication if the street meets certain standards. Adoption, of a
condominium ordinance will help in regaining City approval for such
developments.
-3-
a
.
Another possibility would be to delete detached homes or possibly
duplexes from R-3 & RDM zones. This would then force construction of
attached units to preclude the development of lower density single
family detached units in areas the City is promoting lower cost multiple
rental units. However, this takes away flexibility in development, and
may not totally achieve the desired end.
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS:
There are many approaches the City can take to place some control on
developments as noted. Alternatives staff feels -are acceptable are
as follows:
1) City initiates amendments to Specific Plans to require plans to
be submitted by applicant as an amendment to the Specific Plan
prior to development. Th is is a relatively simple process and may
be acceptable to property owners. However, development standards
are still missing and the City may have difficulty in properly
judging developments.
2) City initiates deletion of Specific Plan and rezone to a develop-
ment zone (i.e. R-3, R-2, etc.) with Q overlay (require Site Dev.
Plan). The development zone will establish basic development
standards and the Q will permit PC review of projects. The SOP
is a relatively easy process--PC approval as a non-public hearing
item. However, the development zones do not adequately cover the
proposal as noted in this report.
3) City initiates deletion of the SP thereby requiring a PUD. This
woul.d be the simplest act the City could initiate and give the best
control since there are standards and guidelines in the PUD ordinance,
to direct development. Property owners may find this objectionable
since the PUD requires both PC & CC action at public hearings and
the development standards and guidelines will require changes to
plans presently being proposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff recommends that the matter be forwarded to the CC for
the following action:
1) Adopt urgency ordinance prohibiting the approval of building permits
for developments in areas approved by SP that do not contain
development standards.
2) Initiate deletion of these SP's as stated in alternative 2 & 3
of this report as appropriate.for individual SP.
3) Initiate adoption of curb cut standards.
4) Place high priority on adopting condominium standards and condo-
minium conversions regulation.
BP:JCH:jp
-4-
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 6, 1977
TO: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director
FROM: Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Director
1.
RE:. Conversation with Gus Theberoe, Shapell Industries
Recently I reviewed preliminary plans for development of a portion
of the Vale area of La Costa. Mr. Theberge of Shapell Industries
presented- the plans to me, Tim Flanagan, and Mike Zander.
Briefly the development is for clustered detached homes and duplexes
on a private street to be sold as a condominium. This so called
condominium is on lots originally subdivided and approved by Specific
Plan for higher density multiple family condominiums.
There were some technical problems on building over lot line and
access in limited access areas. However Mr. Theberge explained
all this could be taken care of. by modification of the development
or boundary adjustments.
More importantly I indicated to Mr. Theberge that the design of the
project does not meet the intent of the Specific Plan and that the
development had great design flaws in not providing sufficient
guest parking, insufficient setback from private street, and improperly
designed streets.
I added that the present ordinance and S.P. does not provide for staff
description in this plan. Therefore. I was going to request this matter
be brought foreward to the CC for their review and direction. I
further stated staff would recommend that the S.P. be deleted and
that development would have to take place as per PUD ordinance.
Mr. Theberge understood our position and has written Mr. Bussey a
letter explaining their position. (see attached).
I have prepared Agenda Bill and report in this matter for the
July 19, 1977 City Council meeting.
BP:jp
A L4tg akt 10
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
365 SO. RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069
PLANNING CONSULTANTS
AND CIVIL ENGINEERS
• SUITE 100
619/744-4800
is
July 31, 1984
Mr. Vincent Biondo, Jr.
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: CONDOMINIUM PERMIT 36(A) (JOB NO. 8422-G, 8422-H)
Dear Vince:
Mr. Jack Guttman of Con Am Properties has advised me that he
has been in contact with you regarding the inclusion of Lot
290, Vale Unit No. 3, Map No. 7779, into CP-36(A). Lot 290
is currently owned by the Daon Corporation and has a City
open space easement over it. Con Am would like to purchase
the fee title to the lot, remove the open space designation
on it, and include it in the presently approved CP 36(A).
Included for your review is a memorandum, dated February 16,
1984, of a meeting I had with Dan Hentschke regarding the
processing and approvals necessary to accomplish Con Am's
goals. Con Am would like to proceed on this matter at
everyone's earliest convenience. Preliminary discussions
have taken place with City Planning, Parks & Recreation, and
the Police Department regarding Lot 290 and there appears to
be agreement that the inclusion of the lot in CP 36(A) would
be in the best interests of both the City and the project.
• Police would like to see the access via Lot 290 to
San Marcos Creek Canyon removed.
• Parks & Recreation would like to not have the
responsibility of maintaining the lot.
• Planning will consider the inclusion of Lot 290 in
a revised plan.
Daon is willing to sell the property.
S .
Mr. Vincent Biondo, Jr.
RE: CONDOMINIUM PERMIT 36(A)
July 31, 1984
Page two
I have enclosed for your review the memorandum mentioned
above and related backup information, a copy of the
Tentative Condominium Permit Map and the Resolution of
Approval (Pc 1882).
Could you please advise us as to what needs to be done to
initiate proceedings on this matter? Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Barry C. ender
BCB:omh
enclosures
cc: Mr. Dave Bradstreet, CARLSBAD PARKS & RECREATION
Mr. Dan Hentschke, CARLSBAD CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Mr. Bill Hofman, CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Jack Guttman, CON AM PROPERTIES
Mr. Jim Goff, DAON CORPORATION
all with enclosures
Ac ,v
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
365 SO. RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069
PLANNING CONSULTANTS
AND CIVIL ENGINEERS
• SUITE 100
619/744-4800
July 31, 1984
Mr. Bill Hofman
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: CONDOMINIUM PERMIT 36(A), SEA POINTE VILLAGE
AT LA COSTA (JOB NO. 8422-G, 8422-H)
Dear Bill:
On behalf of Con Am Properties we would like to request the
following amendments to the original application:
o The vacation of Piragua and Venado Streets for the
purposes of creating a private gated community.
o Allow for the construction of a manned security
gate on Piragua Street near Cadencia Street.
o Allow for an automatic gate system on Venado
Street near Cadencia Street.
o Inclusion of Lot 290 into the project. A separate
letter requesting action by the City on this lot
has been written to the City Attorney and copied
to you.
Included for your review regarding the vacation are letters
from Police and Fire. Both departments have reviewed the
proposal and apparently do not have a problem with it.
Con Am would like to proceed with these revisions in the
fastest possible way. If processing the issues either
separately or collectively is more expeditious, we would
like to know and would appreciate your recommendations on
this.
.
[IJ
Mr. Bill Hofman
RE: CONDOMINIUM PERMIT 36(A)
July 31, 1984
Page two
Please review this request and advise us at your earliest
convenience as to how we should proceed. If you have any
questions, please call me at 729 4987, or Jack Guttman at
297-6771. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Barry C. ender
BCB:omh
enclosures
cc: Mr. Jack Guttman, CON AM PROPERTIES
.
of C4
.
1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 438-5511
Citp of Cartfiab
POLICE DEPARTMENT
July 25, 1984
Barry C. Bender
Director
Rick Engineering Company
365 S. Santa Fe Rd.
Suite 100
San Marcos, CA 92069
Dear Barry,
On Friday, July 20, 1984, we discussed the development of Sea Pointe Village
at La Costa. I understand that a proposal'for the city to vacate the public
streets of Venado and Piragua in the project is planned.
Since the proposal objective is to provide a controlled ingress and egress
into the development with the use of security gates and guards and natural
barriers, I do not object to the proposal as planned. It would be necessary
to install removable gate barriers that could be removed by Police or Fire
Department personnel if needed.
An additional requirement of locking devices that could be opened by -
emergency personnel at both intersections,(Venado & Cadenc1a) & (Piragua&
Cadencia), using a standardized keying system (such as Nox type boxes)
should be installed.
An'address directory installed at the entrance of the community would be
helpful for emergency personnel locating addresses.
If the above requirements are met, the Police Department would not oppose
the proposal.
Please contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Vincent D. Jimno
Chief of Police
By: M.E. Matney
Crime Prevention Officer
RICK ENG. CO.
DATE RECEIVED
JUL 84
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989
r
L 0C45,
City of Carldab
FIRE DEPARTMENT
TELEPHONE
(619) 438-5521
July 23, 1984
Barry Bender
Rick Engineering
365 S. Rancho Santa Fe Road, #100
San Marcos, California 92069
SEAPOINTE VILLAGE AT LA COSTA
Barry, I have reviewed the proposal to convert Piragua and Venado
to private streets, and to create a controlled access condition
by installing access gates. I can approve these concepts with
the following conditions:
1. The entry and gate plans and details are subject to approval
by the fire marshal.
2. All gates shall be equipped with a Knox key entry system.
3. All gates shall be equipped with a manual override to enable
the gates to be opened in the event of a power failure.
Please call me if you have any questions.
BRIAN WATS
Battalion hief
fg
PICKLNG
!L:LLIVED
(j1-,
S I
PLANNING CONSULTANTS I RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY AND CIVIL ENGINEERS
365 SO. RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD • SUITE 100
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069 • 619/744-4800
Conference Report Prepared by: -- Barry Bender
Jack Guttman/ (w/encl.)
Telephone Conversation Copies to: CON AM
Joan Cooper! (w/encl.)
Job: 8422H CON AM
Bob Stockton! (w/encl.)
Date: February 16, 1984 RICK ENGINE E RING CO.
John Brand! (w/encl.)
Regarding: LOT 290, VALE UNIT NO. 2 RICK ENGINEERING CO.
Bob Ladwig!
RICK ENGINEERING CO.
Ernie Harrington!
RICK ENGINEERING CO. Dan Hentschke - CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Doug Helming/
Barry Bender - RICK ENGINEERING RICK ENGINEERING CO.
File (w/encl.
After reviewing the attached information, I attempted to set a
meeting up with the City Attorney's Office to discuss the City
vacating the existing open space easement. Dan Hentschke replied
to me by phone after reviewing same data.
• The lot, although not owned in fee by the City, is considered,
in the opinion of the Attorney's Office, to be Park property.
• As park property, it is an asset to the City, and has value
as other park lands.
• In order to dispose of the "asset," the following would need
to be accomplished, not necessarily in this order:
- Concurrence with the Parks & Recreation Director that the
site is no longer needed.
- Concurrence with the Parks Commission of the same.
- Action by the City Council.
- Appraisal of property to establish value.
- Payment to the City of acceptable value of property.
Present:
DAWCO PRESS 283A
. .
Telephone Conversation
LOT 290, VALE UNIT NO. 2
Page two
Attachments:
Planning Department request for legal adivce, 1-18-84
Reply to Planning from Attorneys Office, 1-31-84
Letter from John Brand to Jack Guttman, 2-8-84
Title report on Lot 290 with cover letter (1-3-88),
10-24-83.
BCB/omh
I
LA COSTA VALE, LTD.
1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110
(619) 297-6771
June 8', 1983
RECEIVED
JUN i5i9S3
Mr. Roy Kackley
City Engineer
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
CP! OF CARLSBAD
LG:::NG DEPARTMENT
VIA EXPRESS MAIL
Re: Sea Pointe Village, CP-36(A) (J-8422D)
Dear Roy:
On behalf of La Costa Vale, Ltd., I would like to request a one-
year time extension on the above-referenced condominium permit.
I have enclosed the following items which I understand would meet
the requirements to process this extension:
1. Check in the amount of $100, processing fee (336 units);
2. Executed Public Facilities Agreement and Waiver of
Conditions; and
3. Copy of Title Report.
If you need any additional items for this request or have any
questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
LA COSTA VALE, LTD.
JOHN M. COOPER
Construction Manager
JMC: amr
Enclosures
cc: Ken Lipinski, ConAm
Carol Fox, ConAm
Barry Bender, Rick Engineering Co.
Bob Stockton, Rick Engineering Co.
EXHIBIT 1
1
A
10
ASEJORRO
1 rE
VII
0
14
•
•
3d
61
OR
CT
GOZo
PL
Y. LA
\•
//
\\
,0 (tK- * o jn) 1T CAS ' C
Ax PL.
04 0
p l b ok
GO rr7
2 : •• •
17
10 nix
tIL1t' nEwu:1cuI}) A.Lø.0t'i.)
(7J17 (P7 C7V Q1I/J!Oj 4U,b CW5) 'qtz 'L] •GWPUY I)OO'DI
¶t i•1 1/
...30 . 1 hill
L-
C I \
co
IQ
\ ) i
n
LA COSTA VALE, LTD.
1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110
(619) 297-6771
March 7, 1983 VJ
( c,?
City of Carlsbad
Attn: Dee Landers
Planning Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
Re: Sea Pointe Village at La Costa
Dear Dee:
e
Rce zeyed
MAR %1$3. cri
CITY 0_6 CARK-SRAP.
V
Pursuant to your correction list for the above-referenced
project, I have enclosed the attached information:
1. Mylar and two (2) blueprints of final site plan;
2. One (1) copy of the CC&R's;
3. Two (2) complete sets of the landscape drawings;
4. Community identity signs included in landscape
drawings mentioned in item 3 above; and
5. Two (2) blueprints of the Subdivision Map, Carlsbad
Tract No. 72-20, Unit No. 2, Map No. 7779.
Should you have any questions concerning the above, please call
me. We are anxious to receive clearance for our project.
Very truly yours,
LA COSTA VALE, LTD.
i" GrJ
JOHN M. COOPER
Construction Manager
JMC: amr
Enclosures
cc: Ken Lipinski, Dartmoor Development Co.
Carol Fox, ConAm
Bob Stockton, Rick Engineering Co.
Pete Pitassi, Kiyotoki & Associates
LA COSTA VALE, LTD. RECEIVED z: 2:. 12
1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110
(714) 297-6771
September 20, 1982
Mr. David Bradstreet
Director of Parks and Recreation
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Sea Pointe Village at La Costa
Dear David:
I am in ré'ceipt of your letter to me concerning the proposed
abandonment of the mini park located on Lot #290. I have given
Ken Lipinski all of your information, and I anticipate that he
will call you concerning this item in the near future.
Thank you for your help.
:Very truly yours,
LA COSTA VALE, LTD. -
&-V~/ ae'yAk
JOHN M. COOPER
Construction Manager
JNC:amr -
cc: Ken Lipinski
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
0
TELEPHONE:
(714) 438-5571
134 6 4W
S
Qr it p of CarIbab
July 21, 1982
Mr. John Cooper
La Costa : Va.l-e, LTD
1764San Diego Avenue
San Diego, Ca. 92110
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT TNA1I
Re: Sea Pointe Village
Dear Mr. Cooper,
Thank you for being patient in my response to your May 11, 1982 letter
proposing abandonment of mini-park, Lot 290.
On July 19, 1982 this item was brought before the Park 6 Recreation
Commission. Staff was directed to meet with you to discuss an appro-
plate trade of equal value for 'either improvements to other park
areas,land, or in lieu of land, money, which could be deposited in
the Park District in the La Costa area.
You mentioned -that no City improvement has been made to date. It was
my understanding that your firm was to dedicate the land and make
all park improvements. 'After the 'completion of the development the
City would assume ongoing maintenance.
Please except my invitation to it .down -and discuss your proposal
at your convenience.
David Bradstreet
Parks C Recreation Director
DB:hlj
cc: Ron Beckman
Marty Orenyak
Mike Holzmiller.
Doug, Duncanson
•LCOSTAVALE LTD. •
1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110
RECiEIVEd MAY 1 • t82
(714) 297-6771
May 11, 1982
Mr. David Bradstreet
Director of Parks and Recreation
City of Carlsbad •:- 1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Sea Pointe Village at La Costa - Location: Cadencia Street
and Piragua Street -
Dear Mr. Bradstreet:
-
As-you may not be aware, La Costa Vale, Ltd. is owner of some 40+
acres surrounding Piragua Street and Venado Street, Carlsbad Tract
No. 72-20, Unit #2. Lot 290 of this map, located on the northwest
corner of the intersection of Cadencia Street and Piragua Street,
was released to the city and designated a satellite city park. At
the present time there has been no city improvement on this lot.
This. lot can provide access to the San Marcos Canyon and appears
to be somewhat of a hazard at the present time. It is our under-
standing that the small satellite park areas, as this one was
-designated, are expensive to maintain; and due to its small size
and remote location, it is somewhat of a liability to the city.
The liabilities appear to outweigh the advantages that this type
of park could provide to the area residents or the city.
We are, therefore, proposing that this lot again become part of
Tract No. 72-20. In the matter of access to San Marcos Canyon,
we are open to suggestions and would be most cooperative concerning
this item. - - - -
I will be calling you in the near future to discuss your thoughts
• concerning the above idea. Thank you for your time. -
Very truly yours, : - -
LA COSTA COSTA VAIL, LTD.
-
JOHN M. M. COOPER - -. •-- - -
Construction Manager - - - -
JMC:amr
cc: Ken Lipinski, La Costa Vale, Ltd. - - - - -
Barry Bender, Rick Engineering
Jim Hagaman, City of Carlsbad - - -
0 0
ShapeD Industries
of San Diego, Inc.
A Subsidiary of
Shapell Industries, Inc.
..r, :1
jflC4j V
1980
CITY CF CARLSBAD 3272 Rosecrans Street
Hannng artrnent San Diego, California 92110
(714) 222-0345
May 1, 1980
Mr. Brian J. Milich
City Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Monarch Terrace
Dear Mr. Mulch:
Enclosed is the ownership list labels which you requested.
In reviewing this file, it was learned that we had not pro-
vided you with a "Consent Letter" from San Diego Gas & Electric
Co. relating to the path across their easement to La Costa
Canyon Park. Enclosed are two copies of that letter.
Brian, I want you to know that we really appreciate the
assistance and cooperation you and your entire Staff have given
us on this project. I want to especially thank you and Richard
Allen in the Engineering Department for helping us solve pro-
blems. This is very refreshing today when in some City Halls
there is very little evidence to indicate a real desire to as-
sist or help to solve problems.
Unless we hear from you to the contrary, I'll see you at
the Planning Commission meeting on May 14, 1980.
S irely,
Voyd H. Bei1ts
Projects CoWrdinator
VHB: j h
ends.
O S
San Diego Gas & Electric
FILE NO INC 520
April 14, 1980
Voyd IL Beights
Shapell Industries of San Diego
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, CA 92110
Dear Mr. Beights:
We are now processing your consent letter for a
pedestrian path across our 100 foot wide right-of-way ad-
jacent to the La Costa Canyon Park. This processing should
take no longer than a week.
At this time it looks as though there will be no
problem in getting it approved.
Sincerely,
H. E. Richmond
Land Planner
HER: cag
POST OFFICE BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92112 TELEPHONE 714/232-4252
9
ShapeD Industries
of San Diego, Inc. 3272 Rosecrans Street
A Subsidiary of San Diego, California 92110
Shapell Industries, Inc. (714) 222-0345
March 20, 1980
Mr. Brian Milich
City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission
1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Continuance of Planning Commission Hearing on Monarch
Terrace Condominium Application
Dear Mr. Milich:
The hearing on the subject project was scheduled for April
9, 1980. We believe that to adhere to that date would not give
our Architects enough time to prepare adequate plans, and would
also result in limiting the time for your review. We know that
your office has a heavy workload, and is probably pushed for
time.
We therefore request that this item be continued to the
hearing of April 23, 1980. Hopefully, this will give all con-
cerned enough time to work together and resolve any problem areas.
H. Beights
VHB: j h
11 2,R 21 1980
CiTY O CARLSft'
F nnhc1g ECrtimeflt
4
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
TELEPHONE:
(714) 72-1181
March 21, 1980
Mr. Pravin.P. Bakrania
Richardson - Nagy - Martin
4000 Westerly Place, Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: MONARCH TERRACE, SHAPELL INDUSTRIES (CP-36)
Dear Mr. Bakrania,
As a follow-up to our phone conversation, I have put in writing
the following comments and concerns regarding the most recent
site design for the Monarch Terrace Development. These items
include both general and specific concerns which should be
addressed on the plans submitted for the April 23rd Planning
Commission Meeting. These plans should be submitted by March
31, 1980.
Please remember that these are only our initial comments and
that we may have cL±ona1 concerns as we further review the
plans. However, any additional comments would be given to you
as soon as possible.
General Comments:
- The Condominium Site Plan should indicate phases.
- You may need to file a Boundary Adjustment Plat to avoid
bisecting residences with the property lines.
- We need the appropriate letters from La Costa Land Company
and SDG&E permitting the pedestrian pathway to the southern
park area.
- Fire hydrants should be delineated within 150 ft. of all
residential structures. In addition, an 8 ft. clear-area"
should be provided around all multi-family structures for
fire access.
- All models must have sewer.
- Some type of treatment (e.g. embossing) is needed to distin-
guish between the public and private streets.
. S
- We need the following plans by March 31st.
15 sets - site, floor, elevation (including detached
garages) and monument signs.
(The more information you can get on one sheet, thus
reducing the size of the overall package, the better.)
- We will also need a Parking Plan, designating the resident/
visitor parking for the multi-family units.
- Recreation improvements should be keyed on the site plan to
correspond with the recreation plans.
- Show the required storage area for the multi-family units and
the balconies on single-family units, which have less than 15'
deep backyards.
- All private streets should be 24' with a 4' sidewalk on one
side.
- Delineate pedestrian pathways through the development connect-
ing the units with recreational areas and visitor (on-street)
parking.
- There should be a minimun of 20' from the edge of the private
street/driveway to the point where the first parking space
begins.
Specific Comments:
- Lot 290 - Indicate type of improvements proposed.
- Lot 288 - Need substantial noise/visual buffers around
the units adjacent to the recreational area.
- Lot 286 - Show on-site visitor parking and/or pathways
serving on-street visitor parking. Also,
relocate refuse containers.
- Lot 285 - Reduce width of easternmost visitor parking
bay by deleting one space.
- Lot 280 - Reduce width of westernmost visitor parking
bay by dropping one space. Relocate the
southern parking bay to a position on the north
side of the street (adjacent to the recreational
area) and makethis a 4-space bay.
- Lot 275 - Show pedestrial pathways connecting with on-street
parking.
-2-
.
- Lot 274 - Add one resident parking space in the area
south of the private street. This may neces-
sitate relocating refuse container.
- Lot 21 - Need on-site visitor parking plus pathways con-
necting with on-street parking. Also, indicate
visual screening for area along Cadencia Street.
- Lot 293 - Indicate pedestrian pathways connecting with the
on-street parking.
- Lot 294 - Eliminate parking on one side of private street.
Some visitor parking is necessary at the southern
end of the development. Delineate refuse con-
tainers.
- Lot 295 - This area lacks both the required resident parking
and visitor parking.
I want to thank you for your cooperation in developing the plans
to date, and I hope that we can work towards the resolution of
these remaining issues.
Yours very truly,
JAMES C. HAGAMAN
Planning Director
By
Brian /J. Milich
AssisEant Planner
JCH:BJM:ma
cc: Voyd Beights, Shapell Industries of San Diego
-3-
29 1980
LnCDStn
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
January 28, 1980
Te
Mr. Shorty Beights
Project Coordinator
Shapeil Industries of San Diego, Inc.
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, CA 92110
Subject: Pedestrian Access to La Costa Canon Park
Dear Mr. Beights:
I amin receipt of your request of January 21, 1980, to install
a 6'- path from Lot 279 in Monarch Terrace, also known as
Carlsbad Tract 72-20, Map No. 7779, across Lot 273, which is
owned by the La Costa Land Company.
I have reviewed your request, and this constitutes a Letter of
Permission to do so -- subject to the following conditions:
1. That the La Costa Land Company shall not be
responsible for the initial construction and
subsequent maintenance of this pedestrian
pathway;
2. That Shapell Industries of San Diego, Inc.
shall be responsible for any and all approvals
as may be required by the San Diego Gas and
Electric Company for permission to place such
a pedestrian pathway over Lot 273, for which
they presently have a utility transmission line
easement;
3. That the placement of the pedestrian pathway
shall be substantially as shown on the drawing
provided by Shapell Industries, entitled "Master
Plan, La Costa Canon Park," approved by the
Director of Parks and Recreation, dated May 18,
1977, and;
COSTA DEL MAR ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 • AREA CODE 714 • TELEPHONE 438-9111
I .
Mr. Shorty Beights -2- January 28, 1980
4. That Shapell Industries of San Diego, Inc. shall
be responsible for any and all additional condi-
tions with reference to this pedestrian path, as
may be required by the City of Carlsbad.
If these arrangements are to your satisfaction, I would apprec-
iate your written acknowledgement for our records. If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY
Iry Roston
Executive Vice President
IR:blt
cc: Messrs. Morey, Goff
LA
625 North Vulcan Avenue
L.ucødla, California 92024
- 714/753.6491
San. Dieczuito
Union High SchoOl District
December 17, 1979 -
City of Carlsbad Re: CP-36, 196 unit condominium development
Planning Department 40.8 acres
1200 Elm-Avenue' -
Carlsbad, --Cali.forni-a 92008' Your ordinance 9500 -c'h'apter 2'155 De.df
cation of Land and-fees for School
Gentlemen: Facilities
Under the terms of the above ordinance the San Dieguito: Union High School.
District 'believes that fees, as opposed to land dedication, meet the ee.ds
of the District.. .
San Diegui-to has .a definite need for. additi-onal school site&, parti,c.u1a-ri.y
a high school site as.shown on the La Costa Master Plan adopted' by-theCity.
As land use decisions are-rev
I i.ewed in the area it is -important that we a.re
informed and have an opportunity to comment.
We look forward to continued cooperation -with your Citystff.
Sincerely, -
- William A. B'errier
Superintendent -'
dar --'- - -
'DEC i9 1979'
CITY OF CARLSBAD
planning Department
..
(V•
S. C.....
PROJECT REVIEW • 7L7L
DATE:________
TO:
FROM: Planning.Departmeflt, City of Carlsbad V
RE: CASE NO:
REQUEST:l4L't)'J'i-ki4I1OPi £LJJp,4E?JJ V
V qog . V
DCC APPLICATION REVIEW: V __. _V ••V
V___V
DCC FINAL REVIEW:
Please comment below and return. For further information call
V
the Planning Department at 729-1181, extension 25.
V
V
V V
ISSUES: _ L112. op VV1I4 i'tç
-) +, or-
r-
4tbøIM1
V V L) j. I oJm c -
COMMENTS: ___
_ff4// V _
•
V
g;
.•
V
V
p~h f (v
F. D. Fontanesi CITY OF CARLSBAD - ~eLvjmcz
P'anning Department
DEC 19 1979
( • ; ROJECT REVIEW
DATE:
TO:
FROM: Planning Department, City of Carlsbad
RE: CASE NO.:_________________________
REQUEST: It1L, t)Itr LM,rsJ1OP% fELoP
OAJ i-/o,g 4.
DCC APPLICATION REVIEW:_________
DCC FINAL REVIEW:i(zSO
Please comment below and return. For further information call
the Planning Department at 729-1181, extension 25.
ISSUES: L&L Ot/l 2
•
).i' _
1kt_A' ufititr'
) /I 71& I 774 iV')r 7tSi71'
COMMENTS:
4 *iIAu.
PLANNING FORM 58, 4/79
CAPRI SCHOOL
941 CAPRI ROAD
nttnita anion 'ctjoot itrirt ENTRAL O N L STREET
FLORA VISTA SCHOOL
189 UNION STREET 1690 WANDERING ROAD
OCEAN KNOLL SCHOOL
ENCIN ITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 910 MELBA ROAD
PACIFIC VIEW SCHOOL
TELEPHONE 753-1152 608 THIRD STREET
PARK DALE LANE SCHOOL
2050 PARK DALE LANE
TY LEVIN
PRESIDENT
LORETTA M. SMITH
CLERK
MARY LOU SCHULTZ
G. RONALD SMITH
DONALD E. LINDSTROM
SUPERINTENDENT & BOARD SECRETARY
November 30, 1979
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attn: Planning Department
Re: La Costa Vale #2, Cannon Park
Gentlemen:
DEC --3 1979
CITY OF CARLSBAD
anning Department
An agreement exists between La Costa Land Company and the Encinitas
Union School District, whereby a school site has been made available
to the School District covering this project. No school fees are
required for this project.
Sincerely,
DONALD E. LINDSTROM
SUPERINTENDENT
Warren Roberts
Director of Planning
Is
f TU
(oVs1 iv JQ A.JO
/T AON'
EXCELLENCE IS OUR GOAL
V.
)
1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALtFORNIA 92008 (714) 729-1181
(Utp o Cart&
DATE: November 26, 1979
TO: Shapell Industries of San Diego
(Applicant)
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION,
CASE NO: CP-36
We have reviewed your application and have determined that it
is not complete. Before processing your application, we need
the following information:
1) 18 sets of elevations _ina -s- incIie-atng------
garage dimension s
2) Two sets of ty ft.
3) Slope cross-sections
4) Copy of certified EIR pped for T
If this information is received by*--------, this item
(Date)
will be placed on the - , Planning Commission
(Date)
Agenda. If you have any questions, please call me at 729-1181,
extension 25.
* Please contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
loe 4
PLAN N/ C DEPARTMENT
KJL/ar
4/4/79
1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
(714) 729.1181
January 12, 1979
Shapell Industries
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, California 92110
Attention: Bill Ellis
Re: Monarch Terrace (Vale II), Revised plan dated November 9,
1978
Mr. Ellis:
I've recently reviewed the subject plan and have the
following comments to offer.
1. In general the changes are good. I think the revised
plan responds well to our previous discussions.
2. The increase in density is acceptable. But is does
create some processing problems. The specific plan will
have to be amended to ref leci the increase.
3. Staff will support the increase in density. However,
there are two major issues accompanying the specific
plan amendment:
a. You would have to have sewer capacity assured before
we could process a specific plan amendment.
b. Amending the specific plan is tantamount to approval
of a new specific plan. This would mean that the
newly adopted condo standards would apply to the
amended plan. I've endorsed a copy of the new
standards with this letter. it may beta your
advantage to develop according to the new standards,
especially in the area of guest parking.
4. The increase in density will generate additional school
fees. I don't have the details on this yet.
S .
Shapell Industries
January 12, 1979
Page Two
I hope we can get this in the mill soon. The sewer situation
is probably your biggest hurdle. Let me know when you wish to
discuss this.
Sincerely,
S4j &_-, oIL
DON L. ROSE
Associate Planner
DLR: jd
cc: James C. Hagaman
Bud Plender
Dave Abrams
Tim Flanagan
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
C4 dç,
-
TELEPHONE:
• (714) 729-1181
September 25, 1978
Shape]] Industries
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, California 92110
Attention: W.R. Effinger
SUBJECT: Monarch Terrace (Vale Ii)
RE: Correction to my letter to you, dated June 30, 1978, (copy attached)
I outlined the steps to issuance of building permits for Monarch Terrace
in the attached letter. In that letter I omitted one very important
step - the filing and approval of subdivision maps for each condominium
lot. This step should be inserted between steps b & c.
You may wish to discuss this at our Wednesday meeting. Looking forward
to seeing you then.
Sincerely,
Don L. Rose
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
cc: Jere Riddle, Principal Civil Engineer
DLR/ar
0 0
Shapell Industries of San Diego, Inc.
.
-Th
3272 Rosecrans Street
Sap Diego, California 92110
(714)222-0345
W. R. (Bill) Effinger 0' çe'? President
VIZ
c'
August 28, 1978
Mr. Don L. Rose
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Don,
I have just been given a copy of your letter to Gus Theberge regarding
Monarch Terrace (Vale II).
I sincerely appreciate your status report on the approval for Monarch
Terrace and inasmuch as it appears there is a difference of opinion on some
issues, prior to going to Mr. Hagaman, I would like to meet with you personally
and with any of your staff you may wish to include, along with our Architect,
Bill Henning and our Land Planner, Ralph Martin of Richardson, Nagy, Martin,
in an attempt to resolve this matter without going any further.
Again, I sincerely appreciate your cooperation and assistance and I
respectfully request that because Bill Henning will be on vacation for the
rest of the week, we attempt to set up a meeting for the latter part of next
week, following Labor Day.
Very
P. S. I have suggested to our Don Rose that he get in touch with you if
for no other reason than for him to apologize for those phone calls you
used to receive from unhappy car buyers.
While the circumstance was somewhat amusing, I think two name-alikes
should meet just for the meeting.
fr
a
1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 729-1181
(Ctp of
August 23, 1978
Shapell Industries
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, Ca. 92110
Attention: Mr. Gus Theberge
Re: Monarch Terrace (Vale II)
This letter follows our recent meetings on Monarch Terrace.
Some time back the City Council approved a specific plan
for La Costa Vale that was not very specific. I understand
that a condition of approval was that your firm was to work
with city staff toward a development plan for the subject
propeicty.. We have been working toward that point for some time
now and I thought we were nearing completion. However,
it appears that we are now at an impasse.
* I perceive the current status of our joint efforts as follows:
1. The proposed yield is not an issue.
2. The number of off street visitor parking spaces has been
agreed on - one for each two units.
3. The general arrangement of building sites has been
mutually accepted. Staff has indicated the elevations
of some of the sites could be an issue depending on the
development proposed for these sites.
4. The locations of building types is an issue. You
propose three story super block structures for the most
prominent sites. Staff feels that is inappropriate
and can not support your proposal.
Regarding item 4 above; it's true that the Council understood
that the building sites were to accomodate some sort of
condominium development. However, I can find no evidence that
Shappel Industri -
August 23, 1978
Page two
the type of structures envisioned are the type which you now
propose. In my opinion the E.I.R. prepared for your project
does not address the project which you are now proposing
adequately or accurately.
Of course these conclusions are all subject to challenge. If
you wish to exercise your right to challenge then I suggest
you start with Mr. llagainan, the Planning Director. However,
if you wish to pick up where we left off, I stand ready to
assist you in carrying out your project.
Sincerely,
AQ/ Jv tTJ
DON L. ROSE
cc: Jere Riddle
DLR:ms
ECEIIVED
AUG 08 1978
Shapell Industries
of San Diego, Inc. .9f tAff 6§4 Net
A Subsidiary of 0
Shapell Industries, Inc. (714) 222-0345
August 4, 1978
RE: Monarch terrace (Vale II Project)
Mr. Don Rose
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Don:
I am enclosing herewith two very marginal pictures showing
the Mission Ridge product which we have built in Mission Valley.
Not being a very good photographer, I was Unable to produce
on short notice the kind of quality pictures I would like to
have. However, these should be sufficient to give you a
feeling for the "non-barracks" type quality product we produce.
Not only are the roof lines deliberately broken, but as you can
see, there are numerous offsets within each building which
affect not only the exterior form, but also breaks up the
interior corridors.
I certainly hope that you would find some time in your
schedule to visit this project as it would speak much more
elegantly than these unworthy pictures.
Sincerely,
GUS THEBERGE
Development Coordinator
GT:c
Enclosures
• ,fr;J'
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
(K
Citp of (Caribab
r L
TELEPHONE:
(714) 729-1181
June 30, 1978
Shapell Industries
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, California 92110
ATTENTION: W.R. EFFINGER
RE: Monarch Terrace (Vale II)
This letter follows a discussion we had at the Planning Department
counter a few weeks ago. In a nut shell you asked:
1) What the status of your project is?
2) What steps need to be completed prior to
building permit issuance?
3) What work can be accomplished without sewer
availability?
4) What is needed for approval of your schematic
development plan?
I'll address each item separately to keep things from getting
mixed up.
1) Current Project Status. You have an approved final subdivision
map, and an approved specific plan that is somewhat vague.
Your proposal was presented to the City Council sometime back.
Council gave direction that the applicant and City staff would
work together to complete a development plan for the property
An question. The development plan must, of course, meet the
intent of the approved specific plan and the P.C., (Planned
Community) zone. City staff has been working with your firm
to nail down a schematic development plan. We have not yet
completed this process, but I feel we are near completion.
2) Steps to Issuance of Building Permits. Before building permits
can be issued, the following steps must be completed:
a. Work with City staff to complete schematic development plan.
b. Submit supplemental environmental information addressing
impacts of reformulated project.
C. Secure grading permits
1. Implement mitigation for grading for E.I.R.
. ... S
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES
JUNE 30, 1978
PAGE TWO (2)
d. Secure sewer allocations
e. Secure building permits.
3) Work That Can Be Accomplished Without Sewer Availability.
Item .2, above, listed 5 steps to I issuance of building permits.
You can complete items a, b, c, & dwithout the required
sewer availability. Item e (issuance of building permit)
cannot be completed without the availability of sewer.
4) What is Needed for Approval of the "Schematic Development Plan"
It's my understanding that the City Council directed City staff
to work with staff from your firm to complete a schematic
development plan. Admittedly this directive is vague and
general. The process and the conclusion were not specified.
I've conferred with Engineering and the Planning Director
and I feel we are close to an acceptable development plan.
After studying the plans you've submitted, visiting the site
and after several discussions with representatives of your
firm and other City staff, I feel the following steps
remain to complete the schematic development plan:
1. City staff to meet with representatives of your firm on
ite to discuss arrangement of buildings.
a. The yield you propose is not an issue; the
arrangement of the building is.
b. The general arrangement of building sites is
approved. Some additional grading will no doubt
-
be needed, but that will be reviewed when final
drawings are submitted.
C. The number of off street, visitor parking spaces
shown on the present plan is adequate.
2. After we agree on the rearrangment of improvements, your
firm should submit two copies of the revised plan showing
proposed grading, location of buildings, private and
public streets, drives & walks, parking, landscaped areas
and property lines. Also accompanying this plan should
be a sheet showing elevations of the proposed types of
-buildings. We would need a sufficient number of
elevations to review the design theme of the project.
3. Both sets of plans will be labeled, dated, stamped
approved and signed by the Planning Director. That's
assuming the plans adequately dipict our agreements.'
.2
1
. S
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES
JUNE 30, 1978
PAGE THREE (3)
You will then be free to begin the necessary steps to building
permit issuance as outlined in this letter. The biggest stumbling
block to completion of your project is the availability of sewer.
You'll have to deal with the Leucadia County Water District for
sewer allocation. We will require proof of sewer availability
before we issue building permits.
As you know we are currently processing a Zone Code Amendment
which will establish development standards for condominiums. The
City has already approved the specific plan for your project.
The process we are going through now is relative to the conditions
of the approved plan and the directions of the City Council.
We will not be applying the standards of the proposed condominium
ordinance to your project, should the ordinance be adopted prior
to issuance of development entitlements. However, should you
come in with a new subdivision map, a new specific plan, or a
substantial modification to either or both, the new standards,
if in effect at the time would apply. I'm not aware, at this
time, of any other existing or proposed changes in land use regulations
that could effect the subject project.
I would like to schedule a meeting with you soon to get things
moving for we are anxious to speed your project along. Please
call me so we can set up a time convenient for you.
Sincerely,
. -~L Z-, PnLV,
Don L. Rose
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DLR: ar
.3
0 9
S
ShapeD Industries
of San Diego, Inc.
A Subsidiary of
Shapell Industries, Inc.
May 23, 1978
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, California 92110
(714) 222-0345
RE: Monarch Terrace (Vale II) Project
Mr. Don Rose, Associate Planner
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Don:
Find enclosed herewith a corrected plot plan for above project.
This particular plot plan incorporates in Lots 274 thru 283 and
294 and 295, the redesign for the attached and detached units
as were presented to you on the 20-scale drawings from VTN.
This plan should replace the one we left with you approximately
two weeks ago also totaling 418 units.
The three-story, stacked condos plotted in Lots 284 through
289 and 291 through 293 should correspond exactly to the
Carlsbad planning and zoning requirements for the Vale II
subdivision.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
GUS THEBERGE
Development Coordinator
GT: cn
Ends.
A
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92003
.... S
tftp t
TELEPHONE:
(714) 729-1181
April 4, 1978
Gus Theberge
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES
3272 Rosecrans Street,
San Diego, California 92110
SUBJECT: Monarch Terrace (Vale II) Condomi-nium Project
Dear Mr. Theberge:
This letter is in response to questions made at our meeting of
March 30, 1978. The main.topic of discussion at that meeting
was the requirements for off-street visitor parking. We also
briefly discussed landscaping of the subject project. After
you left I discussd the project with Mr. Hagaman the Planning
Director and Mr. Riddle, Principle Civil Engineer. I believe
we arrived at a solution that would be acceptable both tb your
firm and the City. It is unfortunate that your project design
cannot accommodate the ,mount of off-street visitor parking
that we had originally planned on. However r, we feel that a
reduced amount of parking would be acceptable along with park-
ing that will be allowed on public streets. To this end then
your project should include the following off-street visitor
parking standards:
1. One off-street visitor parking place for each two dwelling
units or portion thereof. Example: 1 to 2 dwelling units
would need 1 parking space, 3 to 4 dwelling units would
require 2 parking spaces, etc. This parking ratio will be
applied to each individual 1t. -
2. Parking spaces will not be located within the 20 setback
areas. -
3. Parking spaces should be conveniently located and accessible
to units which they are intended to serve.
Regarding landscaping: Please submit your landscaping and
irrigation plans to the Planning Department for approval. The
landscape design should help to distinguish the public right-
of-way from the private streets. it should also set or accent
a common theme for each lot:.
Gus Theberge
April 4, 1978
Page Two
.. .
You may know that the City is currently in the process of dev-
eloping some condominium standards, we expect these standards
to be adopted in the very near future. We will accept the fact
that the approved specific plan for your project indicates dev-
elopment of condominiums to the RD-M.standards. Theref6re,'your
project will not be required to comply with the new condominium
standards, should they be adopted before permits are issued for
your project.
Before applying for a building permit, you will need to present
proof of sewer availability to the City.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of any farther
assistance, for we are anxious to continue processing your
application.
Sincerely
Ltm tt_12-4
Don L. Rose
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DLR: ar
ShapeH Industries
of San Diego, Inc. 3272 Rosecrans Street
A Subsidiary of San Diego, California 92110
Shapell Industries, Inc. (714) 222-0345
November 23, 1977
Mr. James C. Hagaman
Planning Director
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
SUBJECT: Vale II Project Model Complex
Dear Jim,
The following is an outline of our proposal for the con-
struction of the model complex for the Monarch Terrace project
located in the Vale II area of Carlsbad (La Costa).
As you know, our company currently operates a model com-
plex for our Monarch Place and Hill projects located in the
Green Valley Knolls area. The model complex and sales office
occupy a number of lots at Perenne Place, and required an
encroachment permit and associated security instrument be
obtained to provide for the removal of (1) the sales office,
and (2) the temporary walkways and landscaping over public
streets.
It is our proposal to expand the existing model complex
into the cul-de-sac adjacent to the current models and to use
three of the existing six lots of Perdurar Court to display
a typical street scene to be found in the Monarch Terrace
project in Vale II. These six units (3 attached and 3 detached)
would be built in such a fashion as to be easily removed at the
conclusion of the sales effort to their reserved locations in
the project area. These units would not be occupied, nor
connected to water or sewer. The only utility to be connected
would be electric power to provide lighting, music, etc.
Shapell would be prepared to enter into an agreement,
secured if necessary, providing for (1) the temporary nature
of these structures, (2) no connections to water or sewer to
be made, (3) removal of the structures at an agreed upon point
in time, and (4) preservation of the integrity of the approved
subdivision lots 11, 12 and 13 of Tract 76-10 for single-
family detached residential use of the Monarch Place or Hill
type.
. .
Mr. James C. Hagainan
November 23, 1977
Page 2
You will note from the site plan that models B and C
could be relocated in such a way as to be built over the
existing lot lines; perhaps thereby allowing an encroachment
permit procedure to be used. We are currently doing the same
type of model complex in the City of San Diego. Since they
also had no express provisions either allowing or disallowing
such a temporary use, an agreement is being generated by the
City Attorney's office to satisfy any planning, engineering or
legal department requirements involved in the process.
If I can be of further assistance in answering any ques-
tions to expedite this matter, please feel free to call me
at the above number. I am enclosing herewith a set of plans
of the model complex as we conceived it, and of the units to
be built therein.
Sincerely yours,
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO, INC.
Gus Theberge
Development Coordinator
Enclosure
. .
FRANK L.ASARO
ROSCOE D.KEAGY
SAMUEL C. ALI-IADEFF
RICHARD D. BREGANTE
RICHARD R. FREELAND
PATRICK J. OLMSTEAD
ASARO & KEAGY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
301- KALMIA STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
TELEPHONE 239-3861
September 28, 1977
Mr. James Hagaman
Director of Planning
1200 Elm Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Hagaman:
Re: Shapell Industries - Vale II Project
Shapell Industries has furnished us with a copy of your
comments to the proposed Declaration of Restrictions for Shapell
Industries Vale II project. The Declaration was furnished to you
pursuant to our letter of September 6, 1977.
Upon review of your comments, we are resubmitting the proposed
Declaration with the following changes:
1. Paragraph 3 (e), Page 3. Correctidn of atypographical
error by deleting the words "designated area" and adding the words
"designated unit".
2. Paragraph 5 (c), Page 5. Correction of a typographical
error by deletion of the word "San Diego" and addition of the word
"Carlsbad".
3. Paragraph 23 (f), Page 27. This subparagraph has been
substantially re-written to conform to your comments with-respect
to prohibiting parking in driveways less than 20 feet in length
and in cul de sacs and hammerhead back-up areas. Provisions
requiring garage parking in general-and prohibiting street parking
of boats, trailers, recreational vehicles, campers, and trucks,
has been clarified.
4. Paragraph 27 (a), Page 32. The term "off-street parking"
has been deleted, and the term "visitor parking" is now used to
define additional parking. space requirements.
5. Paragraph 27 (d), Page 32. A new subparagraph has been
added to require that all garages shall be constructed and have at
all times maintained a fully operable automatic garage door opener.
. .
Mr. James Hagaman
Page Two
September 28, 1977
You have further expressed concern regarding the requirement
that the Homeowners' Association be required to maintain the project
common area, including the area between the streets and the resi-
dences and the private park. We believe these provisions are
already contained in the documents in that we understand the pri-
vate park is included within the real property described on
Page 1. Paragraph 13 and its subparagraphs requires the Association,
in summary, to maintain the project common areas. The project
common areas as is indicated in Paragraph 3 (d), Page 3, includes
the entire project except the units. The units are the spaces
within the structures. Therefore, the Association is responsible
for maintaining the entire project, including the private streets,
the exterior of structures, and all the real property, and excepting
only the interior of structures. Certain rights in the common
area have been granted pursuant to the definition "restricted
common area". These areas will be depicted and defined on the
project Condominium Plan, and may be subject to further revision
and definition as that Plan is developed. If we can provide
additional information or answer any questions, we will be happy
to do so.
Very truly yours,
FRANK L. ASARO
FLA:mad
cc Shapell Industries
Vincent Biondo, City Attorney
Paul Bussey, City Manager
0
ASARO & KEAGY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FRANK L.ASARO 304 cALMIA STREET
ROSCOE 0. KEAGY
SAMUEL C. ALHADEFF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
RICHARD D. SREGANTE TELEPHONE 239-3861
RICHARD R. FREELAND
PATRICK J. OLMSTEAD
September 6, 1977
Mr. Paul Bussey, City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Bussey:
At the request of Mr. Theberge of Shapell Industries
of San Diego, Inc., we are transmitting two copies of the
proposed Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
for Shapell Industries' Monarch Terrace Condominium project.
The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
provide for a one phase condominium project. I believe that
the specific concerns of the City of Carlsbad are covered
by the provisions of Paragraphs 23, 27, 28 and 32. Paragraph 23
provides the standard condominium type use restrictions. These
have been augmented by the additional use restrictions and
design criteria contained in Paragraph 27. I believe the
language in Paragraph 27 meets the specific concern of the
City of Carlsbad. Paragraph 28 contains the enforcement
provisions, and you will note that the Declaration may be
enforced by the City of Carlsbad, who are made a party to the
Declaration for purposes of enforcement. Paragraph 32, relating
to amendments, has been augmented to provide that no amendments
to Paragraphs 23, 27, 28 or 32 shall be effective unless first
approved by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad.
We trust that these documents meet with your approval.
If you need additional information, please advise.
FRANK L. ASAR
FLA:jf
Enclosures
cc: Gus Theberge
0 1 Qr~'
Shopell Industries
of San Diego, Inc. 3272 Rosecrans Street
A Subsidiary of San Diego, California 92110
Shapell Industries, Inc. (714) 222-0345
September 1, 1977
Paul Bussey, City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Vale II (Monarch Terrace) Subdivision
Dear Mr. Bussey:
Please find enclosed herewith, for your review, copies of CCfR's
which have been prepared in skeleton form to include the items which
we discussed at the meeting of Thursday, September 1st.
Also enclosed are two sets of caics *hich should accompany the
building plans which I submitted to you last week. This will,
hopefully, show you and the Planning Department the direction which
we are taking as a result of our understanding of the current
situation.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO, INC.
)th 7
Gus Thebe rge
Development Coordinator
:.,
— . - • • ._d ..d . . i h. A. ... A. -0 4
To
Fred Mord
flp1y wznitd
John Stanley Prom John - NC) IPY JThCC5SUJ
CITY MEMO FROM RAGMAN TO BIJSSEY CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS APPROVED BY SPECIFIC PLAN
In reviewing the memo, I felt several comments would be appropriate.
I recognize that what may be substandard" depends on your beginning
premise. It is akin to the difference between a glass of water which may
" be either "half full" "half hail empty U
As one involved when "history was made' several omissions aicl
incorrect assumptions appear in the memo.
most prominent misstatement is that the specific plans were nothing *
I.
than Tract maps An integral part of the specific plans were the
) CC&R's for each plan,; These CC&R's were required to be and were in
-( submifted to the City for anprovaiL The CC&Rs etahlished deveiooment
standards greatly in excess of those which would have been required. with
C
onventional zoning.
At the time Vale 1111 (Warmington) was approved, it was not -'-ied that
development would be similar to cxi sting condo d I3n..en -ts at La Costar.
We had been very disappointed with prj developments and specifically
fe that the density allowedy- o high and that the use of common
parkan shoui üiaged0 Consequently. the CC&R.ts provided for a
specific number of units per lot and required two off street parking
places, one being covered or enclosed. We in fact contemplated a mx
of units along the line of Green View and La Costa Village ) both. of which
have individualized units and private streets at a densir oflese than
10 units to the acre -though 40 would have been allowed under the Zoning
Code. - -.
The project is not substandard but in effect greatly exceeds the reouired
standards.
The standards to be applied ii1ue of a mediuiiideirisit uitelpneni,.
e. g. R-3 as opposed to that of medium low density, e. g. R-1 . The only
difference is that single units are envisioned instead of buildings containing
tvio or more unrts.
For instance in Marbella there is no space between the garages and the
internal private street. Guest parking is almost completely bini.Lcd to
pat-king in front of the iaragcs with resulting traffic conestiori. in
La Costa Village and Green View some Lreet yard et backs arc
virtually nonexistent. -
a
MEMO - Fred 1\1
July 28, 1977
Page Two
An additional reason why street set backs are as small as indicated is that
the City requested additional street width though there appears to he no
legal justification. However, the effect is to greatly increase the
availability of guest parking on the private streets In addition the plan
submitted provides for covered parking greatly in excess of that otherwise
required.
The homeowners association will also be employed to assure maintenance
of individual units as well as maintenance of the streets..
Is
' e-e no more reason why the City should be subject to any more pressure
fo the maintenance of these private streets than would he the case in
Green View.
Oversizing of the utility systems means no additional costs to the City.
The City furnishes none of the utilities. It is self evident that less use
mepns less wear and tear. In any event, a conventional apartment could
have been built at the same density which likewise lessens the burden of
the City's sewer and water capa cities
In the same manner, the nature of the proposed development no more
requires the City to allow higher densities in other areas than 3Ljd
conventional apartments at the same density.
In jib wayis the Gneral Plan bei riolated. Accordincr to the Carlbad
General 1tI 1Y ris are intended only to set a 'guaranteed d ensity l?
at the lower end with anything in excess subject to proof of worthiness
Specifically, the setting of density instead Of specifying types of residential
development at a specific number of units per acre was intended to encourage
flexibility in using zoning and specific plans. (See General Plan, Classification )
Residential)
Vale II: Shapell
In this project all of the City's arguments because of the failure to meet
density fall. The City !s eomilaint iS •LhaL it do riot :Ce&. ihaL .
has sufficient development standards to control the project. llowevet,
even as the subject report finally conceeds there is no difference in the
standard from any other parcels of property subject to higher density than
The report ignores the fact that conventional development: st:andards have
been met: major circulation, parks, schools, water, seviar, and other
public facilities.
The report _ ass umes a desirability fox - the City to assume the IUflCtC)fl Of
dcterrninitig site and architectural quality instead of lcavin that function
in the private sector whore it would bccictermwed by i1ie market place.
a
ME MO - Fredly
Jfly 28 ) 1977
Page Three
None of the alternative solutions would be acceptable to me and I would
have considerable doubt if any of them would be legal unless they were
applied to all property regardless of how zoned.
I see nothing which would require any change wha±soever. Contrary the
benefits to the City appear to far outweigh any detriment. To enumerate
only a few; (1) traffic burden is lessened ) utility consumption is lessened,
park and school burden lessened; (2) preferred housing is made available
at less land cost; (3) response to a market demand of those who desire
detached dwelling units without large yards which require large
expenditures of energy and labor.
In short what the report proposes to do is defeat one of the'City's major
goals in its General Plan: to encourage innovative planning to provide for
a mix of housing to meet a variety of nee is.
JO V. STANLEY
a
S S
-F- ••
200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Manager
TELEPHONE:
(714) 729-1181
Citp of rtdab
July 13, 1977
Gus Theberge
Development Coordinator
Shapell Industries of
San Diego, Inc.
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, California 92110
Subject: Vale II Subdivision
Thank you for your letter dated June 27, 1977. Your
concern over the Vale II subdivision lots is certainly
understood. The staff, however, is trying to respond
to City Council concerns which have been repeatedly
expressed over certain development problems.
There is little question that the original subdivision
approval contemplated condominiums, but of a different
• nature and configuration than now proposed. The
development proposed may or may not be considered as
an improvement over the original plans, but there are
• no development standards which the project can be
judged against. -
I will bring this matter to the Council's attention as
early as possible to determine if they.wish to take
any action on this matter. You will-be kept informed
of any action concerning this matter. ce,
P UL
City Manager
PDB: ldg
8
0
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNI A 92008
AN
S.
TELEPHONE:
(714) 729-1181
Jue.y 8, 1977
Gus The.be/Lge
-Z r-,7 'z- - 1~5 -5 -k-
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES
3272 Ro4ecJLctn4 S.tie.e.t
Sari Diego, Cati6 o&nia 92110
1E: PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR VALE 11 SUBDIVISION
Ve.cvz. Wi.. The.be./i.e.:
As I m entioned to you I have d..L4ctL.s.oe.d yoax p/i.e.tLm-IriaJi.y
p!.ctn.s with the City Marutge.ii.. He agxe.e.4 with me that the
concept o4 oa.'i. piui.p.oe .shou2d be it..e.v,Le.we.d by the City
Cou.nc-U beoii.e any mo'te. wonJa is done.. You.'i. £e..t;te.x and oa
Jtepoftt wLU be submitted to the Cou.ne..Li on the-iii. Jwey 19,
1977 meeting and w..LU be avaLPLctbe. on JLe.y 15, 1977.
you W..L4PL you may ob tain one {i.om .th.L4 oh-Lea.
Ij you have any questions, p.eecte jeet £/i.e.e to c.aU me.
S..Lncefi.e.y,
Bad Pe.ende.ii.
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
BP: a/i.
:
Shapell Industries
of Son Diego, Inc. 3272 Rosecranc Street
A Subsidiary of San Diego, California 92110
Shapell Industries, Inc. (714) 222-0345
June 27, 1977
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Att: Paul Bussey
City Manager
Re: Vale II Subdivision
Dear Mr. Bussey:
I met this morning with two members of the Planning Department
staff to discuss our Monarch Terrace project, designed to be built
on Vale II subdivision lots. This condominium project, according
to a letter (enclosed herewith) from Mr. Stanley at La Costa,
is in conformance with the condo notes on said subdivision so that
it is our intention to obtain building permits without further ado.
Upon meeting with the staff however, Mr. Plender informed me that
although we were technically in conformance with the Specific
Plan and P.C. zone, the staff would refer this development to the
City Council for review and recommend reversal of the Specific
Plan guidelines permitting this type of subdivision.
The basis for this action is apparently that current concepts
regarding planning and control of such condominium projects can--
not be properly managed under the Specific Plan and P.C. zone.
It would appear to me that at such time as the Vale II subdivision
was approved, a contract was established between the City of
Carlsbad and La Costa to which each party is bound. Shapell
Industries would like to proceed with its development as quickly
as possible and is willing to perform according to the requirements
set forth in the ordinance.
• 0
Paul Bussey
City of Carlsbad
June 27, 1977
Page
Your prompt attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO, INC.
Gus Theberge
Development Coordinator
h
cc: Tim Flanagan
Bud Plender
Iry Roston •
John Stanley
I.
WRITE i... DON'T SA41T Date LJ2
To
11W BOSTON
Reply wanted
LP CSt
From JOHN STANLEY
No ieply necessary
Re:• VALE II CONDOMINIUM NOTE
You have requested my opinion as to processing for a condominium project
consisting of one or more subdivided lots within this subdivision with
the City of Carlsbad.
The Subject Property is zoned P. C The subdivision map bears a note
which recites that the applicable lots h are lots and is (sic) a condominium
project as defined in Section 1350 of the Civil Code of the State of California )
and is filed pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act".
Under this procedure, each lot is thus a subdivision (condominium) and.
no further subdivision map need be filed.
Government Code Section 66427 provides that the governing body cannot
refuse to approve a subdivision because of the placement of buildings
etc., so long as they are not violative of local ordinances.
Civil Code Section 1370 provides that unless a contrary intent is clearly
expressed, local zoning ordinances shall be construed to treat like
structures, lots, or parcels in like manner regardless of whether the
ownership thereof is divided by sale of condominiums rather than by
lease of apartments. The City of Carlsbad has not expressed a contrary
intent by ordinance.
Under the P. C. ordinance, prior to last year's amendment, setbacks
were established by each specific plan. In the early subdivisions, the
specific plan resolution made no references to setbacks but merely left
them to establishment in the CC&R's. For Vale II, we provided only for a
front yard setback. No side yard setbacks were established as we con-
templated that a project might consist of more than one lot.
Subsequent P. C. zoned subdivisions have in'corpQrated conventional set-
backs by specific references to those required in conventional subdivisions,
e. g. H-i in Green Valley Knolls,
It is my understanding that because there is no reference in Vale II to
side yards, the City Engineer has interpreted this to require those
which would be required in a RDM zone.
The BDM zone (Carlsbad Code Section 21, 24. 050(3)) allows a zero
side line setback upon application if the owners of both lots are in agree-
ment. However, where adjacent lots are owned by the same person, I
see no legal reason why an application would be necessary.
The Carlsbad Code Section 21. 04. 075(2) defines building site as including
two or more lots when used in combination for a building or group of
buildings. Section 21.46.-050 provides for arf automatic modification of
side yard requirements where a building or group of buildings covers
the common boundary line between two lots. In such cases, the combined
HS
I]
•M E.M 0
Iry Roston S -
June 21, 1977 5 -
Page Two
lots constitute a single building site.
In conclusion I see no legal reason why building permits cannot be drawn
for structures which might either cover lot lines or encroach in what
would otherwise be required side yards.
In addition, I see no practical reason why the City should first require a
boundary adjustment eliminating interior lot lines as a condition of granting
building permits as the City's building code allows the City to require the
construction of necessary improvements as a condition of approval of
building permits. In the instant case, all subdivision improvements which
would be required have already been installed.
The only caveat I would add is that it may take City Council action to
clarify the matter and compliance with the simple procedure of a boundary
adjustment might be faster. Accordingly, it is my recommendation that
a conference with the City Engineer and Planning Director be set up to
determine their respective positions before proceeding further.
JOHN V. STANLEY
cc: David Zenoff
Fred Morey
a
I
1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 729-1181
(itp of Qdgbab
June 6, 1977
41
W.R. Effinger
SHAPELLt INDUSTRIES
3272 Rosecrans Street
San Diego, California 92110
Dear Bill:
EFFI NGER
JUN - 7 1977
SHAPELL.
I have reviewed your request to build models- for Monarch Terrace .. north
of the Monarch Hill and place models, west of Perenne Place. I am sorry
to inform you that such a request, as proposed, can not be granted.
Based on the adopted Specific Plan for the area, only single-family units
can be built on each recorded lot and each must meet the development
standards established' in the R-1 zone.
I do not know of any provisions that would permit what you want to do even
though you prose to bond for the removal of the units at the end of
three years.
If you have any further questions on this matter, feel free to call me at
any tine.
Sincerely,
Bud Pleader
,ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRE=R
MZ :BP: ar
• :. I
GENERAL
.1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS BEFORE
STARTING WORK, AND SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES.
2. ALL WORK SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING
CODE, 1973 EDITION, AND THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO BUILDING CODE.
3. WHERE NO CONSTRUCTION DETAILS ARE SHOWN OR NOTED FOR ANY PART
OF THE WORK, SUCH DETAILS SHALL BE THE SAME AS FOR SIMILAR WORK
SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. -
'+. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN ALL SAFETY
DEVICES, INCLUDING SHORING AND BRACING, AND SHALL BE SOLELY
RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFORMING TO ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL
SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS, LAWS AND REGULATIONS.
ABBREVIATIONS
AB ANCHOR BOLT H HORIZONTAL
ARCH ARCHITECTURAL LTW LIGHT WEIGHT
BF BOTTOM OF FOOTING MB MACHINE BOLT
• BM BEAM OC ON CENTER
CLR CLEAR OH OPPOSITE HAND -
CONN CONNECTION SIM SIMILAR
CKS COUNTER SINK SQ SQUARE -
DIA DIAMETER TYP TYPICAL
EA EACH • IJON UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
EN EDGE NAIL V VERTICAL
ES EACH SIDE WP WATERPROOF
EW EACH WAY WI WITH
FF-. FINISHED FLOOR WWF WELDED WIRE FABRIC
FN FIELD NAIL 0 DIAMETER
GA GAUGE
HOMER DELAWIE ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.
2827 PRESIDIO DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
GEORGE 'R.. SAUNDERS ASSOCIATES, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
2905 CADIZ ST., SUITE B, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
PAGE- 11
REINFORCED CONCRETE
1. CONCRETE STRENGTHS: THE CONCRETE STRENGTH SHOWN IN THE
FOLLOWING TABLE IS: THE MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AT
28 DAYS; THE AGGREGATE SHOWN IS THE MAXIMUM SIZE; THE CEMENT
CONTENT IS THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF SACKS PER CUBIC YARD; AND
THE SLUMP SHOWN IS THE MAXIMUM IN INCHES.
ITEM OF STRENGTH AGGREGATE CEMENT SLUMP
CONSTRUCTION (P.s.I.) (INCHES) (SACKS) CINCHESY
FOUNDATIONS AND
SLAB ON GRADE 2,000 314 5.0 4
2. REINFORCING STEEL: ASTM A-615, GRADE 40.
.3. WELDED WIRE FABRIC: ASTM A-185, FLAT SHEETS.
4. MINIMUM PROTECTIVE COVER FOR REINFORCING STEEL:
A. ON EARTH SIDE WHEN PLACED AGAINST EARTH-------------3 1?
B. ON EARTH SIDE WHEN FORMED---------------------------2 11
C. WELDED WIRE FABRIC-----------------CENTER LINE OF SLAB
5. ANCHOR BOLTS AND DOWELS: SECURELY HELD IN PLACE PRIOR TO
PLACING CONCRETE.
6. SPLICES IN REINFORCING: LAP 40 BAR DIAMETERS OR 11_6T1, WHICHEVER
IS GREATER.
7. SPACER TIES: FURNISH 3 TIES @ 4'-0" IN ALL BEAMS AND
FOOTINGS, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN IN DETAILS.
8. SEE ARCHITECTURAL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR
LOCATIONS OF PIPES, DUCTS, VENTS AND SIMILAR OPENINGS.
9. CHAMFER: 3/4fl ON ALL EXPOSED CORNERS.
HOMER DELAWIE ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.
2827 PRESIDIO DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
GEORGE R. SAUNDERS ASSOCIATES, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
2905 CADIZ ST., SUITE B, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 PAGE 2
-
LUMBER
1. FRAMING LUMBER: GRADE STAMPED D.F. (SEE LUMBER GRADES).
2. TOP PLATES OF WOOD STUD WALLS: TWO PIECES, SAME SIZE AS
STUDS, STAGGER SPLICES L.1 _0 11 MIN.
3. TWO-INCH FULL WIDTH SOLID BLOCKING (FIRE STOPS) SHALL BE IN
ALL STUD WALLS AND FURRED SPACES SO THAT THE MAXIMUM DIMENSION
OF ANY CONCEALED SPACE IS NOT OVER 10 FEET.
L.• ALL ROOF AND FLOOR JOISTS OVER k INCHES. DEEP SHALL HAVE THE
ENDS HELD IN POSITION WITH:
A. FULL DEPTH SOLID BLOCKING.
B. BRIDGING.
C. NAILING OR BOLTING TO OTHER FRAMING MEMBERS.
D. APPROVED JOIST HANGERS.
5. TWO-INCH FULL DEPTH SOLID BLOCKING SHALL BE PLACED BETWEEN
FLOOR JOISTS OVER 10 INCHES IN DEPTH AT INTERVALS NOT
EXCEEDING 8 FEET ON CENTER.
AND ROOF JOISTS OVER 12 INCHES IN DEPTH
6. PLYWOOD INSTALLATION: LEAVE 1/16 SPACE @ END JOINTS AND 1/8 1!
AT EDGE JOINTS.
7. ALL BOLTS AND NUTS SHALL BE FITTED WITH CUT STEEL WASHERS.
8. BOLTS IN THE WOOD SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 7 DIAMETERS FROM THE
END AND Lf DIAMETERS FROM THE EDGE UNLESS OTHERWISE DETAILED.
9. BOLT HOLES: 1/32' LARGER THAN THE BOLT DIAMETER.
10. SILL BOLTS: PROVIDE 5/8 INCH DIAMETER ANCHOR BOLTS WITH A
MINIMUM OF 7 INCHES EMBEDMENT INTO THE CONCRETE AND WITHIN
8 INCHES OF EACH END OF THE PLATE.
11. NO WOOD OTHER THAN APPROVED PRESSURE-TREATED WOOD SHALL BE
NEARER THAN 6 INCHES TO ANY EARTH UNLESS SEPARATED BY CONCRETE
AT LEAST 3 INCHES IN THICKNESS WITH AN IMPERVIOUS MEMBRANE
INSTALLED BETWEEN THE EARTH AND CONCRETE.
12. FRAMING CONNECTORS: SIMPSON STRONG-TIE OR EQUAL. ALL FRAMING
CONNECTORS SHALL BE I.C.B.O. APPROVED AND INSTALLED ACCORDINGLY.
HOMER DELAWIE ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.
2827 PRESIDIO DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
GEORGE R. SAUNDERS ASSOCIATES, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
2905 CADIZ ST., SUITE B, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 PAGE 3
LUMBER GRADES DOUGLAS FIR - GRADING RULES NO. 16
1. LIGHT FRAMING 2" TO LfT? THICK, 2" TO Lf?I WIDE,
STANDARD LIGHT FRAMING
2. STUDS AND BLOCKING 2" TO 4" THICK, 6" AND WIDER,
X 6 POSTS NO. 2 STRUCTURAL JOISTS AND PLANKS
3. ROOF AND CEILING JOISTS 2" TO 4" THICK, 6"AND WIDER,
AND FLOOR JOISTS NO. 2 STRUCTURAL JOISTS AND PLANKS
4. BEAMS AND STRINGERS -, 5" AND THICKER, WIDTH MORE THAN 1"
GREATER THAN THICKNESS,
NO. .1 STRUCTURAL BEAMS AND STRINGERS.
5. 1 x 4 POSTS CONSTRUCTION. LIGHT FRAMING
PLYWOOD DOUGLAS FIR - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PS1-74
1. 318" PLYWOOD SHEAR PANELS GROUP I, STRUCTURAL I, INDEX 2410
2. 3/8" PLYWOOD ROOF DECK GROUP I, STRUCTURAL I, INDEX 24/0
3. 112" PLYWOOD GROUP I, STRUCTURAL I, INDEX 32/16
4. 5/8" PLYWOOD FLOOR DECK GROUP I, STRUCTURAL I, INDEX 42/20
• HOMER DELAWIE ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.
2827 PRESIDIO DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
GEORGE R. SAUNDERS ASSOCIATES, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
2905 CADIZ ST., SUITE B, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 PAGE 4
,!AILUNIG -SCHEDULE UBC TABLE:
CONNECTIONS LISTED ARE MINIMUM PERMISSIBLE. ALL NAILS SHALL BE
COMMON NAILS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. WHERE POSSIBLE, NAILS DRIVEN
PERPENDICULAR TO THE GRAIN SHALL BE USED INSTEAD OF TOE NAILS.
1. JOIST TO SILL OR GIRDER, TOE NAIL --------------------------- 3.sd
2. BRIDGING TO JOIST, TOE NAIL EACH END------------------------28d
3. SOLE PLATE TO JOIST OR BLOCKING, FACE NAIL-------l6 AT 16" O.C.
1, TOP. PLATE TO STUD, END NAIL--------------------------------216d
5. STUD -TO SOLE PLATE., TOE NAIL -------------------------------- LF8d
6. DOUBLED STUDS, FACE NAIL--------------------------16d AT 24" O.C.
7. DOUBLED TOP PLATES, FACE NAIL--------------------16d AT 16" O.0 cl
8. TOP PLATES, LAPS AND INTERSECTIONS, FACE NAIL-------------- 3-16
9. CONTINUOUS HEADER, TWO PIECES, ALONG EACH EDGE---16d AT 16" O.C.
10. CEILING JOISTS TO PLATE, TOE NAIL---------------------------38 d
11. CONTINUOUS HEADER TO STUD, TOE NAIL --------------------------
12. CEILING JOISTS, LAPS OVER PARTITIONS, FACE NAIL------------
13.. CEILING JOISTS TO PARALLEL RAFTERS, FACE NAIL--------------3-16
14. RAFTER TO PLATE, TOE NAIL-----------------------------------38d
15. 1" BRACE TO EACH STUD AND PLATE, FAE NAIL------------------
16. BUILT-UP CORNER STUDS ---------------------------- 16a AT 24" O.C.
17. PLYWOOD NAILING SCHEDULE - STRUCTURAL
LOCATION EDGE NAILING FIELD NAILING,
EXTERIOR WALL AND ROOF .
SHEATHING
@ 6" 8d @12"
FLOOR SHEATHING 10d @ 6" 1O- @ 10" -
8d @ 12"
8d @ 4 11 8d @ 12"
11 USE GALVANIZED CASING NAILS ON EXTERIOR WALL SHEATHING..
HOMER DELAWIE ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.
2827 PRESIDIO DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
GEORGE R. SAUNDERS ASSOCIATES, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
2905 CADIZ ST., SUIT.E.B, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
PAGE 5
.
J - _
Jô ZkJ-U
ALVP 3k2 V) L4
( TP tC2L
V vo
!
1HTrTt Ai
------
9LJ
/1:- TI Pe-' \jVLrLLi
HOMER DELAWIE ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.
2827 PRESIDIO DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
GEORGE R. SAUNDERS ASSOCIATES, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
2905 CADIZ ST., SUITE B, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 PAGE 6
1L
• --- •.-- ___
-
HOMER DELAWIE ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.
2827 PRESIDIO DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
GEORGE R. SAUNDERS ASSOCIATES, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
2905 CADIZ ST., SUITE B. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 PAGE 7
•
I
*4r\f! Corç, - _
1l 4C
j
)i' 2LY
Ir,lI
r
I
j)
HOMER DELAWIE ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.
2827 PRESIDIO DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
GEORGE R. SAUNDERS ASSOCIATES, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
2905 CADIZ ST., SUITE B, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 PAGE 8
h L --
t?J
A
-uD--
4
~v
-1
iIiII
-1 kL-i I
kQ}3fi@ A
~b-
HOMER DELAWIE ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.
2827 PRESIDIO DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
GEORGE R. SAUNDERS ASSOCIATES, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
2905 CADIZ ST., SUITE B, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 PAGE 9
- -
----- j%M2L
i 51 L--
.---
*4 T&
HOMER DELAWIE ASSOCIATES, A..LA.
2827 PRESIDIO DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
GEORGE R. SAUNDERS ASSOCIATES, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
2905 CADIZ ST., SUITE B, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 PAGE 10
1 -U2
2 r
7L4 4,o ro
To
4 J ----
I
R, R--(
i2
I
Ii
(T1E.1TY9. T?.
HOMER DELAWIE ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.
2827 PRESIDIO DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
GEORGE R. SAUNDERS ASSOCIATES, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
2905 CADIZ ST., SUITE B, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 PAGE 11
H --p-----------5:r
F=P7 Ii 4pIJ(-4
U \ I!
L —*
Owl
?1L1X kA) sc — P)aJ \Aj
- a Wi ) '1 -DcL Ui arw I Er
I 'OR-
LAF4115
64 iii1 -T-- 4L
— --------,--,-------- ---.---- —
41TT __ - --- — ---. *._. -.#. -__._.•-_s___.__. -t
--t---. -
I
HOMER DELAWIE ASSOCIATES, A.I.A.
2827 PRESIDIO DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
GEORGE R. SAUNDERS ASSOCIATES, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
2905 CADIZ ST.,, SUITE B, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 PAGE 12
-
- -.---
• --
\
i
:
HOMER DELAWIE ASSOCIATES, A.I.A
2827 PRESIDIO DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110
GEORGE R. SAUNDERS ASSOCIATES, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
2905 CADIZ ST., SUITE B, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 PAGE 13
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 28, 1981
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: tPlanning Department
SUBJECT: CP 36(A) - VALE III - An amendment to an approved con-
dominium permit for a 336 unit condominium project
located on Piraqua and Venado Streets, west of Cadencia
in the P-C zone.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
This item is an amendment to a previously approved 243 unit con-
dominium permit located as described above. Since the original
approval, the ownership has changed and the new applicant now
requests to increase the number of units by 93, totalling 336 for
the project. The Planning Commission may recall the original
project which consisted of a combinatin of 107 detached units
and 116 attached units. A co-lored exhibit of the original plan
will be on display at the Planning Commission meeting.
The project as now proposed is substantially different than the
original. Besides the increase in the number of units, the pro-
posed project consists of entirely attached units. The projects
proposed density is now 8.2 dwelling units per acre which is
greater than the 5.9 dwelling units per acre approved for the
original project. The proposed density is still less than the
10-20 du's/ac range designated, for this, site on the Land Use Ele-
ment of the General Plan.
As shown on Exhibit "C", five unit types are proposed, ranging in
size from a 2 bedroom, 1160 square foot unit to a 3 bedroom, 1880
square foot unit. Of the 336 units, 56 would be one and two-
story townhouse units. The units are arranged in clusters cor-
responding with the existing graded pads on the site.
II. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1. Does the project meet all development standards.of the
Condominium Ordinance?
2. Does the project meet all design criteria of the Condo-
minium Ordinance?
EXHIBIT B
is
III. DISCUSSION
Development Standards
As proposed; the project meets all development standards of the
Condominium Ordinance. Two parking spaces per unit will be pro-
vided in carports located adjacent to each building cluster for
280 of the..units. A two car garage will provide the required
parking for each of the remaining 56 units.
The 87 required visitor parking spaces will be provided along
Venado Street and Piraqua Street. Staff can support the location
of the visitor parking spaces on the two streets because they are
conveniently located to the units they serve and, since the
streets are entirely within the project, there would be no demand
for visitor parking on this street by other projects in the vi-
cinity. Also, visitor parking on Venado and Piraqua Streets was
approved on the original plan and no concerns were expressed by
either the Planning Commission or City Council at that time.
The recreational requirements for the project-would be met by a
combination of common and private recreation facilities. Two
large common recreation facilities will be located on either end
of the project. The first, adjacent to Cadencia Street, consists
of a swimming pool, jacuzzi, tot lot and two tennis courts. The
second, located on the opposite end of the project, consists of a
swimming pool, jacuzzi and multi-purpose court. In addition, two
jacuzzis and several barbeque and bench areas would be inter-
spersed throughout the development.
Along with the common facilities, each unit would have a balcony
and/or patio. Overall, the required 200 square feet of recrea-
tion area per unit is met by this project. In addition, all
other development standards are met by the proposed project.
Since the project is in the P-C zone, no specific setbacks or
other zoning standards have been established for this site.
Staff is recommending that the standards of the RD-M zone be ap-
plied to the project. The applicant has been made aware of this
recommendation early in the process and has designed the project
to conform to these zoning standards. -
Additionally, all applicable conditions of the original condomin-
ium permit relating to grading, access to La Costa Canyon Park
and fencing around the perimeter of the project are incorporated
into the new resolution of approval.
Design Criteria
Staff believes that all design criteria of the Condominium Ordi-
nance have been met by this project. Specifically, the units,
recreation areas and parking areas are well integrated and tied
-2-
I
together by a pedestrian circulation system. Also, the common
recreation areas are interspersed throughout the site so that
they are accessible to all the units.
Each cluster of units shares an access driveway to Venado and
Piraqua Streets with only three units on lot 289 having indi-
vidual access to a public street. Staff believes that traffic
conflicts will be minimal since no through traffic will exist on
these streets.
As designed, the units are oriented to take advantage of the view
of San Marcos Canyon which wraps around the site to the north and
west. The majority of units will have a view to either the Can-
yon or the open space created by the SDG&E easement adjacent to
the south. This particular site provides some of the best views
in La Costa.
Overall, staff is satisfied that the project meets all design
criteria and development standards of the Condominium Ordinance
and, therefore, is recommending approval.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the environmental ef-
fects of this project have been considered as part of a previous-
ly certified Negative Declaration (log No. 626, dated December
19, 1979) and, therefore, has issued a Notice of Prior Environ-
mental Compliance on October 5, 1981. The environmental docu-
ments are on file in the Planning Department.
V. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Notice
of Prior of Environmental Compliance and ADOPT Resolution No.
1882i recommending APPROVAL of CP 36 (A) to the City Council
based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
Attachments
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1882
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Exhibit "X" - Proposed Phasing Plan
Reduced Site Plans and Elevations
Environmental Documents
Exhibits "A" - "F", dated September 17, 1981
mi/wi
10/15/81
-3-
H
137CKGPLOUND DATA SIIEP
CASE NO: C 36(A)
APPLICANT; La Costa Vale Ltd. ..,.
• 1EJESTMDIXTION:' amendment to a tentative tract nap and condominium
permit for a 336 unit residential project Tlocated on Piraqua and Venado
Streets in LaCosta
LEGAL DEScRIPTION:Lot 's 274 through 28a andlots 291 through 295 of
CT 72-20, Unit No. 2, County of Sari Diego, filed October 26, 1973
Assessors Parcel Nunter: 223 - 190 02 through 22
'Acres 40.8 No. of Lots 336 airspace units -and 20 land lots
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
• General Plan Land Use Designation •
• 0 Density Allowed 10-29 du/ac DensityProposd 8.22 du's/ac 0
• • :
sg Zone P-C . Proposed Zone - .- •
•Soimdg Zoning and Land Use: •: •
: :•
Zoning Land Use
North P-0 $an Marcos Canyon
South P-C DG&E easement
East P-C yacant
West P-C n Marcos Canyon
0 • 0 0 0
:
• •.
PUBLIC FACILITIES 0 •
School District Encinitas UnionElementry a nd R an Dieguitoigh Sc1ioo1Dis
Water District Olivenhain 0 •
•
• •
0
• Sewer District Leucadia County Water District .EDU's 50
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated
0 (Other:
0
• 0
•
• •• 0 x Negative Declaration, issued J2/1 9/79 Log No. 626
B.I.R. certified, dated
Other, Prior compliance, issued 10/5/81 -
• •
0 •
•• •.
Proposed Construction Phasing & Sequencing
Phase Site No.
1 thru 5
I]: 6 thru 7 •
III 9 thru 12
Iv 13 thru 16
V 17 thru 21
Phase
I
II
III
IV.
V
Proposed Start of Construction
January 1982
January 1983
January 1984
January 1985
June 1985
15
114,
I I I ill 1'
1% I I
l I
1• 1 ' t j
•'1' P
a
:x
o
Kivotoki AuocIitii I! 7ro, COTSh V.CX.3, L1U cStst Poi 11agO4b&)CDSt4.)
(14)k1(SY& —U
0
INS
L T77f Al
AL
Kiyotoki Associates I LA COT, Tfl Sea, Pointe" C Vi1taac a Lv costa., Architccts nd Land Planners 1/
714 L Ir
&. ('UL W
1iY JW IJ siouu puei
VO3 j SGO$S'
• • • •I•p,t .&
091 Ld' 90
cVO) (1J C7V 091/)i(2) MU?jh cc
-I
., • MOT • Z •
.LziS SSH LO 05 11 GCI
4,
IA COSTA VALE LTD. Page 1 of 2
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
MAJOR CtxDMINIUM PERMIT APPLICATION
Filed September 10, 1981
1. Applicant and Owner/Developer
La Costa Vale Ltd. (a California Limited Partnership) dress: 01° Dartmoor Development Co. /Con Am Properties, Ltd.
1764 San Diego Avenue, San Diego, CA 92110
Attention: Kenneth A. Lipinski or John Cooper
Telephone: 714/297-6771 714/295-5201
2. Parties with Beneficial Interest in Applicant:
of
Ownership State of Date of Corporate
Name/Address/Phone Number Interest Incorporation Incorp. Number
Continental La Costa Properties, Inc. 37½% California 3/17/81 95-3589823
Co-Managing General Partner
1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110 7141297-6771
Dartmoor Development Co., 25% California
Co-Managing General Partner
1764 San Diego Avenue, Suite 217B
San Diego, CA 92110 714/297-6771
Continental La Costa Equities, Inc. 15% California
General Partner
1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110 714/297-6771
Continental La Costa Investments, Inc. 15% California
General Partner
1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110 714/297-6771
Continental American Management Corp. 3/4% California
Limited Partner
1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110 714/297-6771
12/5/80 95-3596073
3/17/81 95-3589821
Shareholder(s) Information
Daniel J. Epstein 100%
do ConPm Properties Ltd.
1764 Sari Diego Avenue, San Diego, CA 92110
714/297-6771
Kenneth A. Lipinski 100%
c/a Dartmoor Developnerit Co.
1764 San Diego Avenue, San Diego, CA 92110
714/295-5201
Lester B. Korn 100%
1764 San Diego Avenue, San Diego, CA 92110
714/297-6771
3/17/81 95-3589827 Richard M. Ferry 100%
1764 San Diego Avenue, San Diego, CA 92110
714/297-6771
8/1/75 95-2949467 Korn/Ferry International, a California corporation
1900 Avenue of the Stars
21st Floor Century City 100%
Los Angeles, CA 90067
213/879-1834
3•
Page 2 of 2
Date of Corporate
Incorporation Niruber
12/29/75 95-3005655
Shareholder(s) Information
Continental American Managennt Corp. 1% 1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110 714/297-6771
Paul Putney 44% 1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110 714/297-6771
Bernard Schulte 22%
1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110 714/297-6771
John E. Iohries 11% 1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110 714/297-6771
Daniel Axlerod 11%
1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110 714/297-6771
J. T. Warring 11% 1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110
2. Parties with Beneficial Interest in Applicant (continued):
% of
Ownership State of Name/Address/Phone Nnber Interest Incorporation
Con Am Investors Ltd., Limited Partner 6 3/4% California
1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110
714/297-6771
I declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this disclosure is true and
correct, and that it will remain true and correct and may be relied upon as being true and correct until amended.
Ia Costa Vale Ltd., Applicant
By: Dartmoor Development Co., Co-Managing General Partner
Kenneth A. Lipinsla-j/
0
.
Q
REVISED STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 14, 1980
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brian Milich, Planning Department
SUBJECT: CP-36, SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO, INC. -
•243 uniTE coria6minium development on Piragua and
Venado Streets, La Costa.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has submitted revised plans for a 243
unit condominium development on 40.8 acres in La Costa. The
subject property has been previously graded and subdivided
into a total of 21 lots (see CT 72-20). In addition,
to grading both Piragua and Venado Streets have been
paved and improved.
Approximately 60,000 cubic yards of additional grading
is proposed. This grading is necessary in order to
establish the desired building pads and private streets,
in addition to redirecting drainage so that all lots
drain onto the streets. 107 of the proposed condominium
units will be detached, single-family dwellings. These
units will be one and two stories (maximum height of 25
feet), ranging in area from 1600 to 2800 square feet.
The remaining 136 dwellings will be attached units,
arranged in 8-plex clusters. These 8-plex buildings
will be two-stories (maximum height of 27 feet), with
units ranging in area from 800 to 1300 square feet.
The project will be built in six phases since only 50
sewer connections have been presently allocated for the
development. 42 units are proposed in phase one, with
anywhere from 24 to 50 units proposed in phases two
though six.
Related Cases
CT 72-20/SP-38: On June 5, 1973, the City Council
approved a Tentative Map and Specific Plan for the
development of 1,987 units on 290 acres. The subject
property was included in this approval and designated
by the Specific Plan for condominium development at 11
du/acre. All development standards and conditions of
approval applicable to this site have been included as
conditions of approval.
r~
II. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1. Is the property
grating each of
amenities?
comprehensively designed, inte-
unit types with the on-site
2. Do the private streets and pedestrian pathways
provide safe and efficient circulation? Have
sufficient visitor parking areas been provided?
3. Are the recreation areas adequate to meet the
needs generated by the development?
Discussion
Development of this site was first reviewed by the
Planning Commission on January 9, 1980. At that time
the applicant was proposing 196 condominium units, all
of which were detached single-family dwellings. The
yards adjacent to the units were proposed as fulfillment
of the open space requirements, and no common facilities
were provided. In addition, all visitor parking was to
be provided along Piragua and Venado Streets.
At the January 9th meeting, the Planning Commission
raised several concerns which were primarily related to
project's design. Specifically, the Commission felt
that the project lacked certain amenities including
open recreation area and visitor parking. The Commission
also felt that rather than being a comprehensively
designed condominium development, the project more
closely resembled a substandard subdivision. The
applicant was granted a continuance in order to work
with staff in an attempt to resolve these major design
issues. The plans presently before the Commission
(Exhibit "A" dated April 21, 1980) are the result of
this effort.
As proposed, the plans show a significant improvement
in the project's overall design. Although the total
number of units has been substantially increased, (47
additional units), the applicant was able to provide
additional on-site amenities which were lacking in the
previous proposals. Importantly, the project is now
comprehensively designed, providing strong inter-
relationships throughout the development. These
interrelationships are enhanced through the dispersal
of the common recreation areas, in addition to the
development of a well integrated pedestrian circulation
system. These amenities were possible primarily due to
an increase in the number of attached dwellings, which
opened up relatively large common areas.
-2-
0 0
The revised plans provide an improved circulation
system, reducing potential traffic conflicts and
facilitating emergency vehicular access. This was
acheived by reducing the length of some of the private
streets (technically, they are private driveways per
the condominium ordinance) and redesigning the parking
areas within the attached unit clusters. Also, since
the private streets are not wide enough to accommodate
on-street parking and the spaces along Piragua and
Venado Streets are, in many cases, not conveniently
accessible, off-street visitor parking bays were provided
in locations through the development. The applicant is
also proposing sidewalks along the private streets in
order to reduce vehicular/pedestrian conflicts and
facilitate access to the recreational and parking
areas.
As previously mentioned, a major criticism of the
original plans was the lack of usable open recreation
area. The detached nature of the dwellings coupled
with the small building pads created a number of small
yards, which had limited utility for recreational
purposes. The revised plans indicate the location of a
common recreation area (one of five possible plans)
within each of the dwelling clusters. These common
facilities provide a larger and much more usable area,
and, when coupled with the yards and balconies of the
units, they exceed the recreational area requirements
of the condominium ordinance.
It should also be noted that the applicant is proposing
a pathway from the southwestern edge of the site (lot
279) to the existing 9 acre La Costa Canyon public
Park. The applicant will also be providing public
improvements on Lot 290, owned by the La Costa Land
Company and over which the city has accepted an easement
for public parking and access to the San Marcos Canyon
as part of the approval of CT 72-20. Specific improvements
of Lot 290 are subject to the review and approval of
the Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning Director.
At 6 du/acre, the density of the project is somewhat
less than the density established for this site by both
the General Plan (10-20 du/ac) and SP-38 (11 du/ac).
However, the proposed development is consistent with
both the general and specific plans since previous
grading of the site reduces the number of units which
could be developed. Further, the property's underlying
geologic condition precludes further site modification
in a number of areas, thereby making it infeasible to
regrade the site to accommodate additional units.
-3-
. 0
In several locations, the existing lot lines would intersect
a proposed unit. Therefore, a condition has been added which
requires the applicant to submit an application for an
adjustment plat which removes lot lines which intersect
proposed dwellings (see condition no. 8).
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution
No. 1629, recommending APPROVAL of CP-36, based on the
findings and subject to they 6Editions contained herein.
Exhibits
Exhibit A dated
Exhibits B, and
Exhibit C dated
BM: ar
5/2/80
April 21, 1980
D dated 4/8/80
12/14/79
4
0 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET •
CASE NQ; CP36
APPLICANT. SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 243 Condominium Development _______________________________________________
on Piragua and Venado Streets, La Costa.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 274-289 and 291-295 of CT 72-20 according
to Map No. 7779.
Assessors Parcel Nurcber: 223 - 190 - 02-22
Acres 4 0. 8 No. of Lots 21
GENERAL P1-AN AND ZONING
General Plan Land Use Designation Medium High Density Residential (10-20 du/ac)
Per SP-38
Density Allowed 11 du/ac Density Proposed 6 du/ac
Existing Zone P-C
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Proposed Zone
zoning Land Use
North P-C San Marcos Canyon
South P-C Residential
East _P-C Vacant
West P-C San Marcos Canyon
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District San Dieguito/Encinitas *
Water District Olivenhain
Sewer District LCWD EDU's 5-0
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated iarch
:- -Vr-fe ibcinii!as School District has indicated na an agreuent or a -school
site, covering the subject project, exists between the school district and the La
Costa Land Co; thus school fees are not necessary. The San Dieguito District has
indicated that school fees for their district should be assessed by the City at the
time of building permits.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Conditional Negative Declaration, issued on 12/19/80 Log No. 626.
WPcJ.L ric*43
(pET-cfiEL U1[
1E
_
TLI-
rl
ITi
.- - -
A- - ,•=_v- __t-.\ -, ____/_____-----_
• ciç
ILL
.rt. •
' • . I • • f\\ L__! I fl:
=•-i • C+y of Carlsbad
' Planning Commission
case No.(t1L.k
Exhbf No.
Date
:PS dr ~~ct
-
4
REVISED STAFF REPORT
0
DATE: February 13, 1980
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: CP-36; SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO, INC.,
199 unit condominium development on Piragua
and Venado Streets, La Costa.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 9, 1980, the Planning CommissiOn reviewed the
applicant's request for a 196 unit condominium project
on a previously graded 40.8 acre site. All of the units
consisted of one and two-story detached structures,
ranging in area from 1600 to 2800 square feet. The
yard areas adjacent to each unit were proposed as ful-
filling the open recreation area requirement. No common
recreation facilities were proposed. Each unit had an
attached two-car garage, with additional visitor parking
provided on the public streets and private driveways.
The density of the project was 4.6 du/acre, under half
of the planned density (11 du/ac) approved in con-
junction with SP-38.
Based on the initial design of the project, staff
recommended that the application be denied since, in
staff's opinion 1 the development failed to meet the
intent of the design criteria established by the City's
Condominium Ordinance.
Staff had several objections to the project, but the
primary concern was that while the units created an
outward appearance of single-family dwelling, the
basic amenities for a single-family subdivision or a
condominium development were not provided.
Specifically, staff felt that the project lacked
sufficient open recreation area since no common
facilities were provided, and many of the yards
adjacent to the units were small and afforded no
privacy. Also, staff objected to the lack of con-
veniently accessible visitor parking and the relatively
low density of the development. With regard to density,
it was felt that the site could handle more units,
thereby bringing the project closer to the planned
density.
40
The Commission voted to continue the project to
tonight's meeting in order to allow the applicant
time to work with staff in an attempt to alleviate
staff's concerns.
II. ANALYSIS
During the interim period, the applicant has met with
staff several times in an attempt to redesign the
project. The applicant's most recent proposal (and
in staff's opinion, the best design to date) has been
included in the Commission's packet and is labeled
Exhibit "A" (dated January 29, 1980). Also provided
are the elevations for the proposed 4-plex structures
(Exhibit "B")
This partial redesign of the project shows an increase
in the number of units from 196 to 199. In addition,
three relatively large recreation areas have been
provided in various locations throughout the subdivision.
Finally, the number of off-street visitor parking
spaces have been increased.
These changes were made possible because 50 of the
proposed units are now attached. These attached units
are considerably smaller (ranging in area from 1014
to 1568 square feet) than the single family dwellings,
and are arranged in 4-plex clusters. By attaching
units, the applicant was able to eliminate the small
yards between dwellings, thereby increasing both the
number of units and area available for recreation.
Based on the revised plan, it appears that the applicant
has complied with all of the development standards
established in the Condominium Ordinance, with the
exception of the length of the driveway on lot 295.
This driveway exceeds the maximum allowable length
of 300 feet for single entry driveways.
While staff believes that the changes proposed on the
revised plan represent a significant improvement in
the overall design of the project, the applicant
has not mitigated all of staff's concerns and does not
appear to meet the design criteria of Chapter 21.47.
For this reason, staff is maintaining a recommendation
of denial.
Specifically, the majority of the development still
has the appearance of a sub-standard single-family
subdivision. As stated in the original staff report,
the detached nature of the units increases the number
of small and, in staff's opinion, unusable yards
adjacent to these dwellings. This decreases the area
available for larger, common facilities, in addition
to reducing the number of units developable on the site.
-2-
Staff strongly believes that the single-family units
(with areas of up to 2830 square feet) are too large
for the amount of open area available adjacent to
these units. In many cases, homes with up to 4
bedrooms have backyards which are as narrow as 10
feet. Further, in order to resolve a staff concern
that accessible visitor parking was not available,
the revised plan shows visitor parking bays located
in a number of the front yards of the detached dwellings.
Staff has suggested to the applicant to combine a
substantial number of single-family units into duplex
units to create more usable open space and diminish
the cluttered appearance of the project. Further,
if the project is approved as proposed, staff would
recommend that all detached units maintain at least
a 20 foot deep and 30 foot wide usable rear yard.
The rear yard requirement would exceed 200 square
feet the recreational open space requirement, however,
staff feels this additional space is essential to
provide recreational and open space amenities to the
occupants of these units. Although staff feels that
detached living units in a condominium project can
be attractive and desirable, the design of this
project creates an appearance of a substandard single
family subdivision.
Although staff is recommending denial of the project,
if the Planning Commission votes to approve the dev-
elopment, staff recommends that this item be continued
to allow staff time to prepare a resolution approving
the project based on the revised plan, Exhibit
dated January 29, 1980.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a
recommendation of DENIAL of CP-36 to the City Council based
on the following find±gs:
Findings:
1) The project is not consistent with the City's General
Plan since the project's density falls considerably
below the suggested density range established for
this site by the City's General Plan and Specific Plan
No. 38.
2) The project is not consistent with the design criteria
requirements of Chapter 21.47 of the City's Zone Code
since:
-3-
a. The plan is not comprehensive, embracing land,
buildings and landscaping due to the detached
nature of the units which creates substandard
front and rear yards, in addition to reducing
the overall coherence of the development.
b. Adequate on-site amenities, consistent with the
design of the devleopment, have not been provided
since the size of the detached units dictates
a need for larger yard areas.
C. The buildings are not placed on the site in proper
relationship with other functions of the dev-
elopment since off-street visitor parking is placed
within the front yards of several of the residences.
d. The development is not consistent with planned
land uses in the immediate area since the project's
density falls considerably below both the Specific
Plan and General Plan designations on the site.
Attachments
Exhibits "A" & "B" dated Jan. 29, 1980
Staff Report dated Jan. 9, 1980
Location Map
BM:ar
1/31/80
0 0
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 9, 1980
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: CP-36; 196 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (50 UNITS
PHASE I) ON PIRAGUA AND VENADO STREETS, LA COSTA
APPLICANT: Shapell Industries of San Diego, Inc.
I. BACKGROUND
Location and Description of Property
The subject property consists of 40.8 acres on Piragua and
Venado Streets in La Costa. The property has been previously
subdivided into 22 lots, and pads have been graded under CT
72-20 and SP-38. Both the Tentative Map and Specific Plan
were approved by the City Council on January 5, 1973. In
addition to the grading, both Piragua and Venado Streets
have been paved and improved with curbs, gutters, streetlight
standards, and fire hydrants.
As the property is presently graded, the lots drain away from
the street towards the rear of each parcel. The applicant
feels that this present drainage situation is undesirable and
therefore is proposing a regrading of the lots so that drainage
is directed onto the streets. In order to accomplish this,
approximately 60,000 cubic yards of additional grading will be
necessary.
Since the San Marcos Canyon borders the property to the north
and west, there is a concern regarding further grading of the
site. However, all additional grading will be limited to
previously disturbed areas (this was required as a condition
of the negative declaration) and therefore, no adverse impacts
to the San Marcos Canyon or any environmental resources are
anticipated.
Generally, the subject property slopes to the southwest, with
an elevation differential between pads varying between 10 to
30 feet. The actual building pads will vary from 217 to 356
feet above mean sea level.
Existing Zoning
Subject Property: Planned Community (P-C)
North: P-C
South: P-C
East: P-C
West: P-C
S
Existing Land Use
Subject Property:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
San Marcos
Residential
Vacant
San Marcos
Canyon
(Plannued Unit Development )
Canyon
Environmental Impact Information
A declaration of negative environmental impact (EIA No. 623)
has been issued for the project based on the following
justification and subject to the following conditions:
Justification
1. The project grading and lot formation was approved in
conjunction with a certified environmental impact
report (EIR No. 35). Measures to mitigate potential
impacts created by the subdivision and grading were
included as conditions of approval.
2. No significant historical or archaeological resources
were discovered based on a thorough investigation of
the site.
3. Although a substantial amount of additional grading
is proposed, this grading will be limited to previously
disturbed areas and will not effect the San Marcos
Canyon or any significant environmental resources.
4. The density of the project is considerably less than
the density permitted by CT 72-20/SP-38 and considered
by EIR-35.
5. Some of the infrastructure necessary to handle a density
of development higher than that which is proposed has
been constructed.
6. Conditions which further mitigate potential impacts
have been included, as part of this negative declaration.
•C o'nd iti on s
1. The applicant shall limit all grading activities to
previously graded and disturbed areas.
2. All grading and land clearance operations shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
The applicant shall obtain and strictly abide by an
approved grading permit.
.2
ft S
3. In order to reduce human and domestic animal impacts on
the San Marcos Canyon, the applicant shall erect a
minimum 42 inch high fence for the length of the project
along the San Marcos Canyon rim. This fence shall be
placed at the top of the Canyon (located entirely
outside of any undisturbed natural areas), posted with
"Danger/Keep Out" signs, and the fence shall not be
visible from the canyon. Access to the San Marcos
Canyon shall be limited to Lot 290.
General Plan Information
A. Land Use Plan: The City's Current Land Use Plan designates
the subject property for medium high density (10-20
du/ac) residential development. However, a Specific
Plan (SP-38) approved over the property designates the
subject site for multiple-family (condominium) development
at 11 du/ac. At 4.6 du/ac, the project falls considerably
below the density limit established for this area.
B. Public Facilities Element
Sewer Service: As currently proposed, the project will
be developed in 4 phases. This is necessary since only
50 sewer hook-ups have been presently allocated for
this development by the Leucadia County Water District.
The applicant is applying for 48 residential units plus six
model homes in Phase I. As proposed, only two of the models
would have sewer. However, the City's Planning Moratorium
requires all units, including model homes, to have sewer.
Schools: The subject property is located within the Encinitas
and San Dieguito Union School Districts. A condition of
approval of CT 72-20 stated that the applicant shall work
with these districts to develop a mutal agreement regarding
the impact on schools of this development. The school
districts have been contacted and each has responded in
writing to the City. The Encinitas School District has in-
dicated that an agreement exists between the La Costa Land
Company and the district, whereby a school site has been
made available covering this project. Therefore, school
fees are not required by the Encinitas School District.
The San Dieguito Union School District has indicated that
rather than a land dedication, school fees should be assessed
at the time of building permit issuance. This would mitigate
any potential adverse impacts on the school district created
by the project.
.3
. .
Gas and Electric Service: SDG&E proides gas and electric
service to the subject property. Each unit has a separate
utility meter.
Water Service: The Olivenhain Municipal Water District supplies
water service to the subject property. Each unit will have a
separate water meter.
On-site and Adjacent Public Improvements: All necessary on-
site and adjacent public improvements can be required as per
the City's public improvement ordinance, or as conditions of
approval.
Other PublicFacilities: All other public facilities necessary
to serve this project will not be available concurrent with
need. The Planning -Commission may, by inclusion of an
appropriate condition, require that the project contribute to
the costs of such facilities according to City Council
Policy No. 17. Since the development would pay for its
appropriate share of public facilities it would require, the
Planning Commission could be assured that the requirements of
the public facilities element of the General Plan would be
satisfied.
C. Other General Plan Elements
The project is consistent with all other elements of
the City's General Plan.
History and Related Cases
CT 72-20/P-38: On June 5, 1973, the City Council approved a
Tentative Map and Specific Plan for the development of a
maximum of 1987 dwelling units on 254 lots (290 acres). (On
October 26, 1973 the final map was recorded). The subject
property was included in this approval and as a result,
grading has been performed and streets improved. The subject
site was designated for condominium development at 11 du/ac.
In conjunction with CT 72-20, a number of conditions were
placed on the tentative map. These conditions included the
following: A street improvement agreement; park dedication
and fees; undergrounding of utilities; school agreements;
and a restriction on-storm drain discharge into the San Marcos
Canyon.
Note: From approximately mid-1977 to February of 1979, the
applicant had been in contact with the City regarding the
development of this property. Preliminary plan submitted
for staff comment during this period proposed a mixture of
both detached and attached condominium units, ranging from
a total of 418 to 511 units on the site. Generally, staff
reacted positively to the concept of mixing both attached
and single-family units, however there was an indication
that the density at 511 units may have been too high.
.4
F_ O
II. Maior Planninq Considerations
1. Does the overall design of the project meet the intent
of the City's condominium regulations?
2. Has adequate visitor parking and sufficient open recreation
area conveniently accessible to all units been provided?
3. Is the proposed density of the project consistent with
the planned density which was established for the site
under SP-38?
4. Are the garage setbacks and private driveway lengths
consistent with the development standards established
in Chapter 21.47?
5. Are six models, of which only two will have sewer,
permitted by present City Code?
III. Discussion
The project involves an application for a 196 unit condominium
development in La Costa. As previously noted, the property
has been designated for condominium development, and both
subdivided and improved with the approval of CT 72-20/SP-38.
The units will be one and two-story detached dwellings
(maximum height of approximately 25 feet), ranging in area
from approximately 1600 to 2800 square feet. Each unit will
be served by a private driveway, with each private drive,
in turn, served by one of two existing public streets
(Piragua and Venado Streets). Each unit will have an attached
two car garage, with visitor parking provided both on-street
and in parking bays.
The project will be developed in four phases since only 50
sewer connections ha'e been allocated for the project at
this time. 48 residential units and six model homes are
presently proposed in conjunction with Phase I. However,
the City's Planning Moratorium requires all units, including
model homes, to have sewer prior to the issuance of building
permits. In this case, the applicant is proposing four
models without sewer which is not allowed.
In addition to Phase I, 50 units in Phase II and 46 units in
Phase III are proposed. Phase IV completes the development by
providing the final 46 units. Staff is concerned with the
proposed phasing of the project for two reasons. First, the
units which the applicant has indicated will be used as models
lie in Phase IV, but will be built with Phase I. Since, from
a practical standpoint, it does not matter whether the units
are utilized as models or sold (as long as they have sewer)
it would appear that all 50 units proposed with this application
should be included in Phase I.
.5
.. .
A second criticism of the phasing relates to the park site
located on Lot 290, at the northeast corner of the site. The
city was granted an easement for parking and pedestrian access
to the San Marcos Canyon over this property when CT 72-20 was
finaled. However, the plans indicate that this park lot would
not be improved until the final phase. Staff believes that
the applicant should be responsible for imprOving this lot
concurrent with Phase I.
In the project's present form, staff does not feel that the
intent nor the letter of the City's condominium regulations
have been met. Staff is therefore recommending denial of the
project as proposed, basing this recommendation on the follow-
ing discussion and findings.
Staff's primary objection to the project is that the units
are inadequately designed as a condominium development. The
units create an outward appearance of a single-family sub-
division. However, on closer inspection, the project fails
to provide the basic amenities of either a single- family
subdivision or a condominium development.
More specifically, Section 21.47.110 discusses certain design
criteria which must be met by all condominium projects.
First, the overall plan must be comprehensive, embracing land,
buildings, landscaping and their interrelationships. The
project does not meet this criteria due to the detached nature
of the units. Rather than clustering units around recreation
and landscaped areas, the units are set up as single family
dwellings with substandard front and rear yards. In addition,
much of the area not devoted to paving and building coverage
is unusable due to relatively steep slopes.
A second criteria specifies that the plan shall provide for
adequate off-street parking, open recreation areas and other
pertinent amenities. Staff feels that the unit size and
design encourages larger families. However, it does not
appear that sufficient amenities for large (or even small)
families have been provided. With regard to open recreation
areas, the only space available is located adjacent to the
units. In many cases, the depth of this area is no greater
than 10 feet. Thus, by detaching the units, the yards are
broken up into areas of very limited utility for recreational
purposes. In addition, the plans make no provisions for any
common recreation areas.
In order to accommodate the present unit design, the garages
have been developed so that they meet the minimum front yard
setbacks as required by Code - 5 to 7 feet. This removes
. .
the utility of the driveways for additional guest parking.
In addition, the location of the driveway openings and the
narrow width of the private drives, in many cases, precludes
parallel parking on these private drives. Therefore,
although the applicant has exceeded the required number of
parking spaces for both residents and guests, the proposed
location of the visitor parking does not adequately serve
all of the units. There are a number of dwellings located
near the interior ends of the private drives which do not
have convenient access to this visitor parking.
A third design criteria states that the development shall be
consistent with the existing and planned uses of the land.
While the project appears to be consistent with existing
development in the immediate area, staff believes that the
project's density raises some consistency questions with
regard to planned land uses. Specifically, at 4.6 du/ac,
the project's density is considerably below the 11 du/acre
established for this site by Specific Plan No. 38. By
developing the subject property at approximately half of the
planned density, there is an inefficient use of both the
property and existing improvements (roads and utilities).
Further, underdeveloping sites which are capable of accommodating
a higher density may lead to increased development pressures
on more marginal locations.
Section 21.47.130 discusses development standards which, in
effect, quaitify the design criteria. The first of these
standards discusses setbacks off of both private driveways and
private streets. Since the applicant is proposing to serve
the units with private driveways, the majority of the garages
are designed to take advantage of the permitted 5 to 7 foot
setbacks. However, the "driveway" proposed on lot 294
actually qualifies as a private street since it exceeds the
maximum 300 foot length permitted for private driveways.
It's actual length is 420 feet. As a private street, all
garages must be setback a minimum of 25 feet. Therefore,
either the setbacks or the driveway length must be modified.
As previously noted, the project provides the required number
of parking spaces for both the residents and visitors of
the development. Each unit will have an attached two car
garage and, according to the applicant, 254 guest parking
spaces will be provided on the public streets and in limited
areas along the private driveways. Although it sounds as
if more than adequate visitor parking will be provided,
(52 spaces are required) , as previously discussed, many of the
units have (limited access to these spaces. This limited
access occurs since the majority of the visitor spaces are
.7
S 0
located along Piragua and Venado Streets, rather than along
the private driveways.
Rather than a centralized refuse area, trash containers will
be provided individually for each unit. It is not clear
as to where these containers will be stored.
The final page of Exhibit "C" indicates that all 480 cubic
feet of storage space will be provided within each garage.
Since each garage is approximately 20 1 x20 1 , staff feels that
ample storage space would be provided without interfering
with vehicular parking. In addition, separate laundry
facilities would be located within each unit.
Section 21.47.130(8) requires a minimum of 200 square feet
of open recreation area per dwelling. The applicant is
proposing to meet this requirement solely through the use of
the open areas around each unit. Staff considers this
inadequate since these areas are insufficient in both size
and configuration to provide the necessary recreation area.
A preliminary landscape plan has been submitted (Exhibit
"B") indicating that a number of street and slope trees, in
addition to a variety of ground cover, will be be planted on
the site. However, these plans are not of sufficient detail
for staff to adequately access them.
Finally, separate gas, electric and water utility meters
will be provided for each unit.
Staff believes that the project does not presently meet the
condominium standards that have been established by the City
Council. It is staff's opinion that a redesign of the
development so that units are attached, rather than detached,
would reduce unusable open space and permit the provision of
pocket recreation areas and parking bays in a number of
locations throughout the site. In addition, clustering
units would possibly result in a higher density, thereby
better utilizing the resources and existing improvements on
this site.
IV. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a
recommendation of DENIAL of CP-36 to the City Council based
on the following findings:
Findings
1) The proposed project is not consistent with the City's
General Plan since it falls considerably below the
suggested density range established for this site by
the General Plan and Specific Plan No. 38.
We
I
2) The project is not consistent with the requirements of
Chapter 21.47 of the City's Zone Code since:
a) The Plan is not comprehensive, embracing land,
buildings and landscaping due to the detached
nature of the units which creates substandard
front and rear yards and reduces the overall
coherence of the development.
b) Adequate on-site amenities, including recreational
areas and visitor parking, are not provided since
the size and configuration of the yards provide
little usable recreation area, and the majority of
the visitor parking is not conveniently located to
a number of the units.
c) The development is not consistent with planned
land uses in the immediate area since the project's
density falls considerably below both the Specific
Plan and General Plan designations on the site.
d) In one case, the units do not observe the setbacks
requiéd"offofprivatestreets.
vTrTnTmc
Exhibits "A" & "B" dated 11/7/79 and Exhibit "C" dated 12/14/79
Location Map
BM: j d
1/3/80
WO
'I
.
I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1882
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
A 336 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON PIR1QUA AND VENADO STREETS,
LA COSTA
APPLICANT: LA COSTA VALE, LTD.
CASE NO: CP-36 (A)
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to
wit:
Lots 274 through 289 and 291 through 295 of Carlsbad Tract
72-20 (La Costa Vale Unit No. 2) according to Map No. 7779
filed in the office of the San Diego County Recorder on
October 26, 1973
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 28th day of
October, 1981, 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
Condominium Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commis-
sion as follows:
(A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
(B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,
the Commission recommends APPROVAL of CP-36(A), based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1) The proposed project is consistent with the City's current
General Plan and with the Specific Plan which has been
:i.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8!
10
U
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 1
1 applied to this property, since the proposed density of 8.22
du's/ac does not exceed the density limit of 10-20 du's/ac
2 established for this site and previous grading activities and
the topography of the site precludes a higher density. Also,
3 as conditioned, the project conforms to the requirements of
all other applicable General Plan Elements.
4
2) A Subdivision Map for the site (CT 72-20), designating all
5 lots as "Condominium Lots", has been finaled and approved by
the City Council and a condition has been included which re-
6 quires the applicant to file for an adjustment plat in order
to remove all lot lines which would intersect a proposed
7 dwelling unit.
8 3) The site is physically suitable for the type and density of
the development since the site is adequate in size and shape
9 to accommodate residential development at the proposed den-
sity and still meet all the requirements of the City's Condo-
10 minium Ordinance.
11 4) The project is consistent with all City public facility poli-
cies and ordinances since:
12
a) One hundred fifty sewer connections have been reserved
13 for the first two phases of development by the Leucadia
County Water District.
:1.4
b) A condition has been added that building permits cannot
15 be issued unless sewer service is available and building
cannot occur within the project unless sewer service re-
16 mains available. Therefore, the Planning Commission is
satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities
17 Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
18
c) An agreement exists between the La Costa Land Company and
19 the Encinitas School District whereby a school site has
been made available to this district covering the subject
20 project.
21 Also, a condition of approval requires that certain
school Lees must be paid to the San Dieguito Union School
22 District prior to the issuance of building permits.
23 a) Adequate water and gas and electric service will be
available to serve the development.
24
e) All necessary public improvements have been either pro-
25 vided or will be required as conditions of approval.
26 f) The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion
of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities
27 fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the Lee
will enable this body to find that public facilities will
28 be available concurrent with need as required by the
General Plan.
PC RESO 1882 -2-
C. I
I. I
5) Based on an initial study of the project, including a field
investigation of the site, the Planning Director has deter-
mined that the project will not result in any adverse envi-
ronmental impacts and has issued a Negative Declaration on
December 19, 1979 (log No. 626) and a Notice of Prior Envi-
ronmental Compliance on October 5, 1981 which was approved by
the Planning Commission on October 28, 1981.
6) The proposed condominium project meets the criteria of Chap-
ter 21.47 (condominiums) since:
a) The condominium meets the design criteria of Chapter
21.47.110 since the overall plan is comprehensive, em-
bracing land, buildings, landscaping and their relation-
ships, the driveways are not dominant features and suffi-
cient circulation and on-site amenities are provided.
b) Storage space, laundry facilities, open recreation areas,
parking facilities, refuse areas, separate utilities and
all other requirements of Section 21.47.130 have been met
or will be made conditions of approval.
Conditions
General Conditions:
1) Approval is granted for CP 36(A), as shown on Exhibit(s) "A"
-"F", dated September 17, 1981, incorporated by reference and
on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur
substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these condi-
tions.
2) The conditions contained herein shall supercede all condi-
tions of CP 36 (Resolution No. 1629).
3) 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.
4) This project is approved upon the express condition that the
applicant shall pay a public facilities fee as required by
City Council Policy No. 17, dated August 29, 1979, on file
with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, and
according to the agreement executed by the applicant for pay-
ment of said fee a copy of that agreement dated October 5,
1981, is on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein
by reference. If said fee is not paid as promised, this ap-
plication will not be consistent with the General Plan and
approval for this project shall be void.
1/!
I/I
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
12
PC RESO 1882 -3-
1 5) The applicant shall provide school fees to San Dieguito Union
2 District 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.
6) Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all
5 sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable
city ordinances in effect at time of building permit issu-
6 ance.
7 Planning.-Department:
8 7) The applicant shall prepare a reproducible mylar of the final
site plan incorporating the conditions contained herein.
9 Said site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits.
10 8) The applicant shall establish a homeowner's association and
ii one master set of corresponding covenants, conditions and
restrictions for the entire project. Said CC&R's shall be
12 submitted to and approved by the Planning Department prior to
issuance of building permits in any phase.
13 9) The followng provisions shall be included in the CC&R's
14 required pursuant to condition No. 8:
is a) No individual lots may be sold separately unless they
are sold in groups of at least two lots and are
16 contiguous.
17 b) All lots shall be subject to the CC&R's in perpetuity.
18 c) A common architectural theme shall be maintained for all
lots.
d) All lots shall share common recreation amenities.
20
10) All parking lot trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in
21 size.
22 11) All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and
thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
23
12) Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a 6 foot high
24 masonry wall with gates pursuant to city standards. Location
of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning Direc-
25 tor prior to the issuance of building permits and shall be
shown on the final site plans required pursuant to condition
26 No. 7.
27 13) The recreation facility located on Lot 291 shall be installed
prior to occupancy of any units in Phase 1.
28
PC RESO 1882 -4-
a
14) The barbeque facility within lot 274 shall be relocated to
the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The new location
shall be shown on the final site plan required pursuant to
condition No. 7.
15) An additional recreation facility, including a jacuzzi and
barbeque, shall be provided at a location subject to the ap-
proval of the Planning Director. The location shall be shown
on the final site plan required pursuant to condition No. 7.
16) A minimum of 24 feet of backup shall be provided for all
parking spaces within this development.
17) The applicant has agreed to provide improvements on behalf of
the city for lot 290. Said lot shall be improved by the ap-
plicant concurrent with the construction of the units in
Phase I, subject to the approval of the Parks and Recreation
Commission and Planning Director.
18) Prior to the issuance of any building permits within a speci-
fic phase, the applicant shall submit an application for an
adjustment plat and have a certificate of compliance record-
ed, removing any lot line which intersects proposed dwelling
units. A separate adjustment plat is required for each lot
line to be removed.
19) Unless otherwise approved herein, the subject property shall
be subject to the RD-M zoning standards as they relate to
permitted and conditional uses, building height, setbacks and
yards.
20) Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase I, the
applicant shall submit a detailed landscape, lighting and
irrigation plan for the entire project subject to the approv-
al of the Planning Director. Said plan shall utilize drought
and salt tolerant plant species to the maximum feasible and
indicate methods of low intensity lighting of common recrea-
tion areas and pedestrian walkways. Further, said plan
shall include a 6' high decorative block wall separating and
screening lot 290 from the adjacent parcel to the west.
21) The proposed pathway connecting the proposed development (lot
279) with the existing La Costa Canyon Park shall be improved
by the applicant and maintained by the homeowners' associa-
tion. This requirement shall be noted in the CC&R's.
22) The specific location and design of the community identity
signs shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Direc-
tor prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase I.
23) All parking structures having individual garages shall be
equipped with garage door openers.
///
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
PC RESO 1882 -5-
I Environmental Conditions:
24) The applicant shall grade in substantial conformance with
the approved grading and drainage plan.
25) All grading and land clearance operations shall be subject to
the review and approval of the City Engineer. The applicant
shall obtain and strictly abide by an approved grading per-
mit.
26) In order to reduce human and domestic animal impacts on the
San Marcos Canyon, the applicant shall erect a minimum 42
inch high, dark black chainlink fence for the length of the
project along the San Marcos Canyon rim. This fence shall be
placed near the top of the Canyon, posted with "Danger/Keep
Out" signs, and the fence shall not be visible from the
bottom of the Canyon. Access to the San Marcos Canyon shall
be limited to lot 290.
Engineering Conditions:
27) No grading shall occur outside the limits of the subdivi-
sion.
28) Concrete terrace drains shall be installed at the top of all
major slopes where required by the City Engineer.
29) All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by the home-
owners' association (if on commonly owned property) or the
individual property owner (if on an individually owned lot)
in perpetuity. An appropriately worded statement clearly
identifying the responsibility shall be placed in the CC&R-
'S.
30) Additional drainage easements and drainage structures shall
be provided or installed as may. be required by the County
Department of Sanitation and Flood Control or the City Engi-
neer.
31) All buildings shall conform to minimum slope setback stan-
dards as specified in city of Carlsbad standard GS-14.
32) The design of all private streets and drainage shall be ap-
proved by the City Engineer. The structural section of all
private streets and driveways shall conform to the city of
Carlsbad street standards based on R-value tests. The mini-
mum width of the private streets shall be 24 feet and, where
determined necessary by the City Engineer and Planning
Director, each shall have 'a sidewalk along at least one side
with a minimum width of four feet. All private streets,
driveways and drainage shall be inspected by the city and the
standard improvement plan check and inspection fees shall be
paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
151
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO 1882 groin
a a
33) Lighting along the private streets shall be installed prior
to occupancy of each phase and shall be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer.
34) Sidewalks, Street light heads and any other public street
improvements not presently existing shall be installed to
city of Carlsbad standards by the developer along all' public
streets adjacent to the subdivision prior to occupancy of any
units which abut said frontage.
35) A report of a soils investigation of the site and a grading
plan shall be submitted by the applicant to the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
36) All cut and fill slopes shall be no steeper than two horizon-
tal to one vertical unless otherwise approved by the. City
Engineer. No fill slopes shall extend outside the subdivi-
sion boundary adjacent to San Marcos Canyon. Care shall be
taken in grading to ensure that no debris crosses the subdi-
vision -boundary and goes into the Canyon.
37) All exposed slopes shall be hydroseeded or otherwise stabil-
ized immediately upon completion of grading activities.
38) All previously manufactured slopes which are to remain essen-
tially intact shall be smoothed, stabilized and hydroseeded
as may be required by the City Engineer.
Fire Department Conditions:
39) Street addresses for each cluster of buildings shall be
• posted at the driveway entrance to each cluster subject to
the approval of the Fire Marshall.
40) An all weather access road shall be maintained throughout
construction.
41) All required fire hydrants, water mains and appurtenances
shall be operational prior to combustible building materials
being located on the project site.
42) Brush clearance shall be maintained within a minimum distance
of 30 feet to each residence.
43) All fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing systems,
automatic sprinklers and other systems pertinent to the pro-
ject shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval
prior to construction.
44) Buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet aggregate floor area
shall be sprinklered or have four-hour fire walls with no
openings therein which shall split the building into 10,000
square feet (or less) areas.
45) Fire retardant roofs shall be required on all structures.
1
2
3
:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO 1882 -7-
I I
Parks -and -Recreation Depa r tment Conditions:
46) The applicant shall provide a 30 foot landscape strip along
the perimeter of the project creating a transition from the
project to the natural vegetation of San Marcos Canyon. Said
planting shall include a minimum of 80% drought tolerant
plant species and established by an appropriate temporary
irrigation system subject to the approval of the Parks and
Recreation Director. The developer shall be responsible for
the maintenance of this landscape area adjacent to each phase
up until the time of the sale of the last unit in each phase,
at which time the homeowners' association shall be respon-
sible for this maintenance.
47) Any existing street trees presently missing or subsequently
damaged or removed shall be replaced with a tree equal in*
size subject to the approval of the Parks and Recreation
Director.
48) Approval of this permit shall expire 18 months from the date
of City Council approval unless building permits are issued.
An extension may be requested by the applicant. Said exten-
sion shall be approved or denied at the discretion of the
City Council. In approving an extension the City Council may
impose new conditions and may revise existing conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 28th day of October, 1981, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Marcus, Rombotis, Farrow, Jose, Friestedt, L'Heureux
NOES: None
ABSENT: Schiebuber
ABSTAIN: None
My MARCUS, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
JAMES C.HAGAMAN, Secretary
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
:i.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO 1882 am
. S.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1629
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A 243 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON PIRAGUA AND
VENADO STREETS, LA COSTA.
APPLICANT: SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO, INC.
CASE NO: CP-36
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to-wit:
Lots 274 through 289 and 291 through 295 of Carlsbad
Tract 72-20 (La Costa Vale Unit No. 2) according to
Map No. 7779 filed in the Office of the San Diego
County Recorder on October 26, 1973
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 14th day of
May, 1980, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consider-
ing all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring
to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to
the Condominium Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,
The Commission recommends APPROVAL of CP-36, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1) The proposed project is consistent with tht City's current
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
..
General Plan and with the Specific Plan which has been
applied to this property, since the project does not
exceed the density limit established for this site,
and previous grading activities and the topography of the
site precludes a higher density. Also, as conditioned,
the project conforms to the requirements of all other
applicable General Plan Elements.
2) A Subdivision Map for the site (CT 72-20), designating all
lots as "Condominium Lots", has been finaled and approved
by the City CounciL and a condition has been included which
requires the applicant to file for an adjustment plat in
order to remove all lot lines which would intersect a proposed
dwelling unit.
3) 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
proposed denity and still meet all the requirements of
the City's condominium ordinance.
4) The project is consistent with all City public facility
policies and ordinances since:
a) Fifty sewer connections have been reserved for the
first phase of development by the Leucadia County
Water District.
b) A condition has been added that building permits
cannot be issued unless sewer service is available
and building cannot occur within the project unless
sewer service remains available. Therefore, the
Plannin9 Commission is satisfied that the require-
ments of the Public Facilities Element of the General
Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer
service for this project.
c) An agreement exists between the La Costa Land Company
and the Encinitas School District whereby a school
site has been made available to this district cover-
ing the subject project.
Also, a condition of approval requires that school
fees must be paid to the San Dieguito Union School
District prior to the issuance of building permits.
d) Adequate water and gas and electric service will be
available to serve the development.
e) All necessary public improvements have been either
provided or will be required as conditions of approval.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ii
12
13
14 1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2811
PC RESO #1629 -2-
., .
1 f) The applicant has agred and is required by the
inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a
2 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
4
with need as required by the General Plan.
5) Based on an initial study of the project, including a field
investigation of the site, the Planning Director has deter-
mined that the project will not result in any adverse 6 environmental impacts and has issued a Negative Declaration
on 12/19/79 (Log. No. 626), based on the following conditions:
a) The applicant shall limit all grading activities to 8 previously graded and disturbed areas.
9 b) All grading and land clearance operations shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 10 The applicant shall obtain and strictly abide by an
11 approved grading permit.
c) In order to reduce human and domestic animal impacts 12 on the San Marcos Canyon, the applicant shall erect a
13 minimum 42 inch high fence for the length of the project
along the San Marcos Canyon rim. This fence shall be
placed at the top of the Canyon (located entirely - outside of any undisturbed natural areas), posted with
15 "Danger/Keep Out" signs, and the fence shall not be
visible from the bottom of the Canyon. Access to the
16 San Marcos Canyon shall be limited to Lot 290.
6) The proposed condominium project meets the criteria of 17 Chapter 21.47 (condominiums) since:
18 a) The condominium meets the design criteria of Chapter
19 21.47.110 since the overall plan is comprehensive
embracing land, buildings, landscaping and their
20 I relationships, the driveways are not dominant features,
and sufficient circulation and on-site amenities are
21 provided.
b) Storage space, laundry facilities, open recreation 22 areas, parking facilities, refuse areas, separate
23 utilities and all other requirements of Section 21.47.130
have been met or will be made conditions of approval.
24 Conditions:
25 1) Approval is granted for CP-36 as shown on Exhibit A to CP-36
dated 4/21/80 and Exhibits B and D to CP-36 dated 4/8/80, 26 and Exhibit C to CP-36 dated 12/14/79, on file in the
Planning Department and incorporated by reference. Development 27
shall occur substantially as shown on these exhibits unless
otherwise noted in these conditions. Iruprorements for Lot 290 28
as shown on Exhibit dated April 21, 1980, are not
specifically approved.
PC RESO #1629 -3-
I .
The applicant has agreed tà provide improvements on behalf-
of the city, for Lot 290. Said 1t shall be improved by
the applicant concurrent with the construction of the units
in Phase I, subject to the approval of the Parks and
Recreation Commission and Planning Director.
3) The applicant shall prepare a reproducible copy of the
final condominium site plan incorporating all requirements
of the condominium permit approval and shall be subject to
the approval of the Planning Director prior to the issuance
of building permits.
4) 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 building permits and will continue to be available
at time of occupancy.
5) This approval is expressly conditioned on the payment by
the applicant of a public facilities fee as required by
the City Council Policy No. 17, dated August 29, 1979, on
file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference, and according to the agreement executed by the
applicant for payment of said fee. A copy of that agreement
dated March 5, 1980, is on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference. If said fee is not paid
as promised, this application will not be consistent with
the General Plan and the project cannot proceed and this
approval shall be void.
6) Covenants, conditions and restrictions are required for the
entire project prior to the issuance of building permits
for Phase I and shall be subject to the approval of the
Planning Director. Said CC&R'S shall include provisions
for the maintenance of all private streets, common areas
and private pedestrian pathways serving the development
(on and off-site) by the homeowners association, in
perpetuity.
7) No individual lots as shown on CT 72-20 may be sold separately
and all lots are to remain in common ownership. A condition
requiring this shall be placed in the CC&R'S.
8) Prior to the issuance of any building permits within a
specific phase, the applicant shall submit an application
for an adjustment plat and have a certificate of compliance
recorded, removing any lot line which intersects proposed
dwelling units. A separate adjustment plat is required for
each lot line to be removed.
) The subject property shall be subject to the RD-M zoning
standards as they relate to permitted and conditional uses,
building height, setbacks and yards.
PC RESO #1629
:1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
:1.].
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
:1.9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
..
1 10) The applicant shall fully comply with all requirements of
2
the approved conditional Negative Declaration, EIA No. 626,
dated December 19, 1979.
11) The applicant shall submit a street name list consistent
4 with city policy, subject to the approval of the Planning
Director prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I.
12) Prior to the issuanceof building permits for Phase I, the
6 applicant shall submit a detailed landscape, lighting and
irrigation plan for the entire project subject to the
7
approval of the Planning Director. Said plan shall utilize
drought and salt tolerant plant species to the maximum
8
extent feasible and indicate methods of low intensity lighting
of common recreation areas and pedestrian walkways. Further,
9
said plan shall include a 6' high decorative block wall
separating and screening Lot 290 from the adjacent parcel to
10 the west.
11 13) The location of the common recreational areas shall be shown
on the final condominium site plan numbered per Exhibit D
12
dated 4/8/80, and subject to the approval of the Planning
Director.
13 14) The proposed pathway connecting the proposed development
14
(Lot 279) with the existing La Costa Canyon Park shall be
improved by the applicant and maintained by the homeowners
15 association. This requirement shall be noted in the CC&R'S.
16 15) The specific location and design of the community identity
signs shall be subject to the approval of the Planning
17
Director prior to the issuance of building permits for
Phase I.
18 16) The visitor parking area on Lot 285 and the two parking
19 spaces located at the southern terminus of the parking
area on Lot 274 shall be redesigned on the final condo-
20
minium site plan, subject to the approval of the Planning
Director.
21 17) All parking structures shall be individual garages, equiped
22 with garage doors and garage door openers.
23 18) Fire retardent roofs shall be required on all structures.
24 19) A minimum eight feet "clear area" adjacent to and around
all multi-unit buildings shall be provided to the
25 satisfaction of the Fire Chief or his designee.
26 20) All private streets/driveways shall be posted "No Parking".
27 21) The design of all private streets and drainage shall be
approved by the City Engineer. The structural section of
28
all private streets and driveways shall conform to
PC RESO j1629
-5-
e
the City of Carlsbad street standards based on R-value tests.
The minimum width of the private streets shall be 24 feet
and each shall have a sidewalk along at least one side with
a minimum width of four feet. All private streets, driveways
and drainage shall be inspected by the city and the standard
improvement plan check and inspection fees shall be paid
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
22) Street lighting along the private streets shall be
installed prior to occupancy of each phase and shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
23) Sidewalks, street light heads and any other public street
improvements not presently existing shall be installed to
City of Carlsbad standards by the developer along all
public streets adjacent to the subdivision prior to
occupancy of any units which abut said frontage.
24) A report of a soils investigation of the site and a grading
plan shall be submitted by the applicant to the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
25) All cut and fill slopes shall be no steeper than two
horizontal to one vertical unless otherwise approved by.
the City Engineer. No fill slopes shall extend outside
the subdivision boundary adjacent to San Marcos Canyon.
Care shall be taken in grading to ensure that no debris
crosses the subdivision boundary and goes into the canyon.
26) All exposed slopes shall be hydroseeded or otherwise
stabilized immediately upon completion of grading activities.
27) All previously manufactured slopes which are to remain
essentially intact shall be smoothed, recompacted and
hydroseeded as may be required by the City Engineer.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: EDWIN S.SCH-ICK,Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING 44ISSION
Li '.. . J.W3.Jfl4.JAfl4
tary
SBAD PLANNING S SI ON
3.
2
3
• 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1].
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Planning Commission of the City of-Carlsbad, California, held
on the 14th day of May, 1980, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: SCHICK, MARCUS, ROMBOTIS, LARSON, LEEDS, JOSE,
FRIESTEDT - -
NOES: None -
•C cn • 1y?q
. I
RESOLUTION NO. 7308
1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
2
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT 36-A SUBJECT TO
3
CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
4
5
WHEREAS, Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act
6 provides that a tentative subdivision map may not be approved
7 unless it is consistent with all applicable general and specific
8 plans; and
9
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the
10 1st day of December, 1981, adopted Resolution No. 6738 approving,
1). with conditions, Condominium Permit 36-A; and
12
WHEREAS, Condominium Permit 36-A is now inconsistent with
13 the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad because the City Council
14 has found that public facilities are inadequate; and
15
WHEREAS, said Condominium Permit 36-A having expired on
16 June 1, 1983, and the Applicant has requested an extension of time
17 which cannot be approved unless the project can be brought into
18 conformity with the General Plan; and
19
WHEREAS, the addition of certain conditions of approval
20 to the project will allow it to be found to be in conformity with
21 the General Plan and the Developer has requested the imposition of
22 such conditions and agreed to comply with them; and
23 I/I
24
25
26
27 I/I
28 1/I
WHEREAS, the approval of an extension of Condominium
Permit 36-A, subject to such conditions, in lieu of denial of the
map, will allow the project to go forward avoiding the unnecessary
delay to the City and to the Developer involved with denial and
the new application which would then be approved subject to the
same set of conditions; and
WHEREAS, both the Developer and the City wish to extend
the map subject to the additional condition;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
A. That the above recitations are true and correct;
B. That Condominium Permit 36-A is hereby extended until
June 1, 1984, subject to the execution and fulfillment of all the
conditions of Resolution No. 6738 and the following additional
condition:
(1) This approval is expressly conditioned on the
payment by the applicant of a public facilities fee
as required by City Council Policy No. 17, dated
February 24, 1982 and effective April 2, 1982, on
file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference, and according to the agreement executed
by the applicant for payment of said fee. If said
fee is not paid as promised, this application will
not be consistent with the General Plan and the
project cannot proceed and this approval shall be
void.
C. That the agreement for waiver of prohibition against
the imposition of conditions upon the approval of an extension of
a Condominium Permit, dated June 8, 1983, between the Developer
and the City of Carlsbad, on file in the office of the City Clerk,
is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute such agreement
on behalf. of the City.
FI1I I/I
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
1].
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 I
/Cp
. .
1 D. That this extension is approved in reliance upon said
2 agreement. Any legal challenge to or failure to perform said
3 agreement or the conditions of this resolution shall render this
4 approval void.
5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
6 City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd
day of August , 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
8
AYES: Council Mwbers Casler, Lewis, Kuichin, Chick and Prescott
10 NOES: None
:1.1 ABSENT: None
12
13
14
MARY H.6CASLER, Mayor
15
16 ATTEST:
17
18 y Cl e r k
19
R. KUNIYI'Z, Deputy City Cleric
20 (SEAL)
2].
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
S .
1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHONE:
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (714) 438-5621
Cttp of QCartab
August 8, 1983
La Costa Vale, Ltd.
1764 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110
Enclosed for your records, please find a copy of the
following Resolution 7308 , adopted by the
Carlsbad City Council on August 2, 1983
Sincerely,
/RAUTLEE
ENKRANZ,
City Clerk Clerk
LR:adm
Enclosures ( 1 )
8
9
10
11
12,
131 I
14
.-,> W> 0
uj(.)
'8d 16 W2 c•<
z 17
18
19
>:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2711
RESOLUTION NO. 6738
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS
AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 243-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (CP-36(A)) TO ADD 93 UNITS
TO SAID PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON
PIRAQUA AND VENADO STREETS, LA COSTA.
APPLICANT: LA COSTA VALE, LTD.
WHEREAS, on October 28, 1981 the Carlsbad Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 1882 recommending. to the City
1
2
3
4
5
6
'7
Council than an amendment to a previously approved 243-unit
Condominium Permit (CP-36(A)) to add 93 units to said project be
conditionally approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on
November 17, 1981, held •a public hearing to consider the
recommendations and hear all persons interested in or opposed to
amended Condominium Permit 36(A); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has determined that the
environmental effects of this project have been considered as
part of a previously certified Negative Declaration and,
therefore, has issued a Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance
on October 5, 1981 which was approved by the Planning Commission
on October 28, 1981; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
A. That the above recitations are true and correct.
B. That the findings of the Planning Commission in
Resolution No. 1882 constitute the findings of the City Council
in this matter.
D. That said amended Condominium Permit (CP-36(A)) is
hereby approved subject to all applicable requirements of the
.21
.. .
:1-
2
3
4
5
6
.7
8
9
10
•11
12 1
13
14
0
C)
Ou o z
0>• O 15 •0 2 J
U-
I->- 16
>17
18
19
20
21
• 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Carlsbad Municipal Code and to the satisfaction of the conditions
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 1880,
dated October 28, 1981, marked Exhibit A, attached hereto and
made. a part hereof.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the
1st day of Decenber - , 1981 by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Council Manbers Casler, Jnear, Lewis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayork\
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
2.
3
•
ii
I-f pit CQXHIBIT A TO CITY COUNCIL ISOLUTION NO.6738 .
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1882
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
3
A 336 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON PIRAQUA AND VENADO STREETS,
4 LA COSTA
APPLICANT: LA COSTA VALE, LTD.
5 CASE NO: CP-36 (A)
6 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to
wit:
8 Lots 274 through 289 and 291 through 295 of Carlsbad Tract
72-20 (La Costa Vale
'
Unit No. 2) according to Map No. 7779
9
filed in the office of the San Diego County Recorder on
October 26, 1973
1O
ha's bee.n 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 28th day of
October, 1981, 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
Condominium Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE -IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commis-
sion as follows:
(A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
(B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,
the Commission recommends APPROVAL of CP-36(A), based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1) The proposed project is consistent with the City's current
General Plan and with the Specific Plan which has been
1].
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
221
23
24
25
26
FAA I
281
Di Di CI)
ci .a < C) '0
OLL
z IZ Z
LLJ
UJ C14
U-
ZO
Li
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 RESOLUTION NO 6211
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
3
WITH CONDITIONS CONDOMINIUM PERMIT (CP-36)
FOR A 243-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON
4
APPROXIMATELY 40.8 ACRES, GENERALLY
LOCATED ON PIRAGUA AND VENADO STREETS,
5
LA COSTA. APPLICANT: SHAPELL INDUSTRIES
OF SAN DIEGO, INC.
6 WHEREAS, on May 14, 1980 the Carlsbad Planning Commission
7 adopted Resolution No. 1629 recommending to the City Council
(CP-36); and
WHEREAS, said Condominium Permit has been declared to have
a nonsignificant impact on the environment and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared and filed in compliance with the
requirements of the City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection
lOrdinance of 1972;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad as follows:
A. That the above recitations are true and correct.
B. That the -City Council concurs with the findings and
decisions of the Planning Commission as expressed in Resolution
No. 1629, on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by
reference herein and, in addition, the City Council makes the
following finding:
"The possibility exists that this project may be considered
a subdivision, requiring a new tentative map, and the
applicant was so advised. At his express request, the
the project was allowed to process based on a previous sub-
division. The applicant is proceeding in spite of the City
Attorney's warning at his own risk."
that Condominium Permit (CP-36) be conditionally approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on June 3,
1980, held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and
hear all persons interested in or opposed to Condominium Permit
0 0
1 C. That Condominium Permit (cP-36) is hereby approved
2 subject to all applicable requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal
3 Code and to the satisfaction of the following conditions:
4 1) Approval is granted for CP-36 as shown on Exhibit A to CP-36
dated 4/21/80, Exhibits B and D to CP-36 dated 4/8/80,
5 and Exhibit C to CP-36 dated 12/14/79, on file in the
Planning Department and incorporated by reference.
6 Development shall occur substantially as shown on these
exhibits unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
7 Improvements for Lot 290 as shown on Exhibit A dated
April 21, 1980, are not specifically approved.
8
2) The applicant has agreed to provide improvements on
9 behalf of the city for Lot 290. Said lot shall be
improved by the applicant concurrent with the construction
10 of the units in Phase I, subject to the approval of the
Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning Director.
ii
3) The applicant shall prepare a reproducible copy of the
12 final condominium site plan incorporating all requirements
of the condominium permit approval and shall be subject
13 to the approval of the Planning 'Director prior to the
issuance of building permits.
14 cc, z z
4) This project is approved upon the express condition
15 that building permits will not be issued for development
• of the subject property unless the City Engineer determines Lu
16 that sewer facilities are available at the time of
application for such building permits and will continue
17 to be available at time of occupancy.
18 5) This approval is expressly conditioned on the payment
0 by the applicant of a public facilities fee as required
- 19 by the City Council Policy No. 17, dated August 29,
1979, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated
20 herein by reference, and according to the agreement
executed by the applicant for payment of said fee. A
21 copy of that agreement, dated March 5, 1980, is on file
with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
22 If said fee is not paid as promised, this application
will not be consistent with the General Plan and the
23 project cannot proceed and this approval shall be void.
24 6) Covenants, conditions and restrictions are required for
the entire project prior to the issuance of building
- 25 peçmits for Phase I and shall be subject to the approval
of the Planning Director. Said CC&R'S shall include
26 provisions for the maintenance of all private streets,
common areas and private pedestrian pathways serving
27 the development (on and off-site) by the homeowners
association, in perpetuity.
28///
-2-
0
o t.L. — Do
Z ti3 i-s>- 0
Ui0
ZW cO wZ<
-,- -J >,- < < •0
C)
1
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1].
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
FMI
7) No individual lots as shown on CT 72-20 may be sold
separately and all lots are to remain in common ownership.
A condition requiring this shall be placed in the
CC&R'S.
8) Prior to the issuance of any building permits within a
specific phase, the applicant shall submit an application
for an adjustment plat and have a certificate of compliance
recorded, removing any lot line which intersects proposed
dwelling units. A separate adjustment plat is required
for each lot line to be removed.
11) The applicant shall submit a street name list consistent
with city policy, subject to the approval of the Planning
Director prior to issuance of building permits for
Phase I.
12) Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase I,
the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape, lighting
and irrigation plan for the entire project subject to
the approval of the Planning Director. Said plan shall
utilize drought and salt tolerant plant species to the
maximum extent feasible and indicate methods of low
intensity lighting of common recreation areas and
pedestrian walkways. Further, said plan shall include
a 6' high decorative block wall separating and screening
Lot 290 from the adjacent parcel to the west.
13) The location of the common recreational areas shall be
shown on the final condominium site plan numbered per
Exhibit D dated 4/8/80, and subject to the approval of
the Planning Director.
14) The proposed pathway connecting the proposed development
(Lot 279) with the existing La Costa Canyon Park shall be
improved by the applicant and maintained by the homeowners
association. This requirement shall be noted in the
CC&R'S.
15) The specific location and design of the community
identity signs shall be subject to the approval of the
Planning Director prior to the issuance of building
permits for Phase I.
16) The visitor parking area on Lot 285 and the two parking
spaces located at the southern terminus of the parking
area on Lot 274 shall be redesigned on the final condo-
minium site plan, subject to the approval of the Planning
Director.
9) The subject property shall be subject to the RD-M
zoning standards as they relate to permitted and conditional
uses, building height, setbacks and yards.
10) The applicant shall fully comply with all requirements
of the approved conditional Negative Declaration, EIR
No. 626, dated December 19, 1979.
-3-
I
1 17) All parking.structures shall be individual garages, equipped
with garage doors and garage door openers.
2
18). Fire retardent roofs shall be required on all structures.
3
19) A minimum eight feet "clear area" adjacent to and
4 around all multi-unit buildings shall be provided to
the satisfaction of the Fire Chief or his designee.
5
20) All private streets/driveways shall be posted "No
6 Parking".
7 21) The design of all private streets and drainage shall be
approved by the City Engineer. The structural section
8 of all private streets and driveways shall conform to
the City of Carlsbad street standards based on R-value
9 tests. The minimum width of the private streets shall
be 24 feet and each shall have a sidewalk along at
10 least one side with a minimum width of four feet. All
private streets, driveways and drainage shall be inspected
11 by the city and the standard improvement plan check and
inspection fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of
12 a building permit.
CO 13 22) Street lighting along the private streets shall be
installed prior to occupancy of each phase and shall be
c5L 14 subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
15 23) Sidewalks, street light heads and any other public
LUU street improvements not presently existing shall be
16 installed to City of Carlsbad standards by the developer
along all public streets adjacent to the subdivision
17 prior to occupancy of any units which abut said frontage.
18 24) A report of a soils investigation of the site and a
grading plan shall be submitted by the applicant to the
19 City.Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
20 25) All cut and fill slopes shall be no steeper than two
horizontal to one vertical unless otherwise approved by
21 the City Engineer. No fill slopes shall extend outside
the subdivision boundary adjacent to San Marcos Canyon.
22 Care shall be taken in grading to ensure that no debris
crosses the subdivision boundary and goes intd the
23 canyon.
24 26) All exposed slopes shall be hydroseeded or otherwise
stabilized immediately upon completion of grading
• 25 activities.
26 27) All previously manufactured slopes which are to remain
essentially intact shall be smoothed, recompacted and
27 hydroseeded as may be required by the City Engineer.
28
-4-
H
a
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1].
12
13
LL'
. 0 c'J C)
14 cODZ
2 LiJ
M Z3 15
U.. • UJO
zgd 16
20 17 cc
18
- 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2&
28) Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase I, the
applicant shall pay school fees to the San Diequito Union
School District. These fees shall be based on the fee
schedule in effect at the time of building permit application.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the
17th day ofJune , 1980 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:Council Members Packard, Casler and Lewis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Members Kuichin and Anear
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
ATTEST:
-AI'ETHA L. RUTENKR', 9'ty Clerk
B D. "
U
Murphy, De*Ity City Clerk
(SEAL)
ii
-I
-5-
Ui > 0
z
0
-J
z
0 0
CITØF CARLSBAD - AGENDILL
AB # £P t/9. ? I TITLE: 'DEPT. HD._____
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT EXTENSION IMTG._8/2 /83 I CP 36-A I DEPT. _ENG lCrrYMGR72'
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No.73cpproving a one-year extension of time
for Condominium Permit 36-A.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Condominium Permit No. 36-Ais a 336-unit condominium project
located along Venado Street and Piragua Street in the La Costa
area.
The Applicant has requested that the Condominium Permit be
extended until June 1, 1984.
The final map for this project, •La Costa Vale, Unit 2, was
recorded October 26, 1973. This map set aside certain lots as
"Condominium" lots with designated units permitted. Various
revisions to the original planhave been made, and resolution of
concerns has delayed progress.
The Applicant agreed to pay .Public Facilities Fees with the
or application. Planning and Engineering staffs have
reviewed this project and recommend the Developer-be required to
execute the revised Public Facilities Fee Agreement as required by
Council Policy No. 17. The subdivider has signed an agreement to
waive a prohibition of new conditions.
Even though the request for extension was made beyond the filing
date, it is in the interest of the City and within the capability
of the Council to approve its extension as requested.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Additional public facilities required by this project will be
offset by the payment of the Public Facilities Fee by the
Developer.
EXHIBITS:
1. Letter requesting extension
2. Location Map
3. Project Plat
4. Conditions of Approval
5. Resolution No.730r approving a one-year extension of time
for Tentative Map CP 36-A.
CIIIOF CARLSBAD - AGENDBILL
AB#_68121 TITLE: CP-36(A) LA COSTA VALE, LTD.--336 DEPT. HD._____
MTG. 12-1-81 UNIT AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED CONDOMINIUM CITYATTY91E
DEPT.CA PERMIT. PIRAGUA AND VENADA STREETS. CITY MGR.24
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If the City Council desires to approve amended Condominium
Permit 36(A), your action is to adopt Resolution No.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The City Council, at your meeting of November 17, 1981, directed
the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents approving an
amendment to a previously approved 243-unit Condominium Permit
(CP- 36(A)) to add 93 units to said project, totaling 336 units
overall. A resolution of approval is attached.
EXHIBIT:
Resolution No. & 73
ta > J
0
0 CL
z 0
I- C)
-J
0 z
0 0
CIA OF CARLSBAD - AGEND ILL
AB# i?i 'TITLE: CP-36(A), LA COSTA VALE, LTD -
336 UNIT AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED
MTG.'1/17 /81 CONDOMINIUM PERMIT; PIRAGUA AND
DEPTL VENADO STREETS, WEST OF CADENCIA
IN THE P-C ZONE.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
// _-1 (D
DEPT. HDdTs-4 2--
CITY A
CITY MG
a.
z
0
I- C.)
-J
C) z
0 C)
Both the Planning Staff and Planning
this application be APPROVED and that
rected to prepare documents APPROVING
mission Resolution No: 1882.
Commission recommend that
the City Attorney be di-
CP-36(A), per Planning Com-
ITEM EXPLANATION
This item is an amendment to an approved condominium permit lo-
cated as described above. The project consists of 336 units
which is greater than the 243 units originally approved. The
project's density is 8.2 dwelling units per acre which is greater
than the 5.9 du's/ac originally approved, however, is still less
than the general plan density range of 10-20 du's/ac designated
for this site.
The project's design differs from that originally approved in
that it consists of entirely attached units whereas the original
project contained a combination of both attached and detached
units. Staff believes the amended project is better designed
than that originally approved.
Through staff review and Planning Commission hearing, all issues
on this matter have been satisfactorily resolved.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the environmental ef-
fects of this project have been considered as part of a previous-
ly certified Negative Declaration and, therefore, has issued a
Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance on October 5, 1981 which
was approved by the Planning Commission on October 28, 1981. The
environmental documents are on file in the Planning Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant will provide all required public improvements to
the project. Also, the applicant has agreed to pay a public fac-
ilities fee to offset the costs of providing all other public
services.
EXHIBITS
A. PC Resolution No. 1882
B. Staff Report, dated October 28, 1981, w/attacliments
0 CITY OF CARLSBAD I 7
AGENDA BILL NO.767Sn1op1emen.t #1 Initial:
Dept. Hd._____
DATE: June 17 ., 19() C. . Atty. V, \
DEPARTMENT city_Attorney C. Mgr. ?i
Subject: 243 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
APPLICANT: SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO
-- (7ST NO CP-
Statement of the Matter
The City Council, at your meeting of June 3, 1980, directed
the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents
approving Condominium Permit (CP-36). The resolution of
approval is attached.
Exhibit
Resolution No. 6211
Recommendation
If the City Council concurs, your action is to approve
Resolution No. 6911 .
Council Action
6-17-80: Council adopted Resolution 6211.
6zo)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
INITIAL
AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd (I
DATE: Jdne 3, 1980 Cty. Atty-VFA
DEPARTMENT: NING Cty. Mgr.
UBJECT' * 243 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
APPLICANT: SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF SAN DIEGO
CASE NO: CP-36
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER
The applicant is requesting approval of a 243 unit condominium
development on Piragua and Venado Streets in La Costa. The project
will consist of 107 detached and 136 attached units with an overall
density of 6 dwelling units per acre.
The Planning Commission was satisfied with the overall design and
concept of the development. The Commission made some minor mod-
ifications to the conditions of approval including the requirement
of a screening wall separating Lot 290 (improved common open area)
from the adjacent property to the west and the requirement of low
intensity lighting of the pedestrian walkways and common recreation
areas. The applicant concurred with all the modifications.
Inadvertently, a condition of approval which would have corresponded
with Finding 4(c) was left off of the Planning Commission Resolution
specifically, a condition requiring the payment of school fees to the
San Dieguito School District, prior to the issuance of Building Permits
in Phase I, should be included in the Resolution. This would enable
the Finding to be made that the project is consistent with all city
public facility policies and ordinances.
EXHIBITS
1. PC Resolution No. 1629
2. Revised Staff Report dated May 14, 1980
3. Exhibit "A" dated April 21, 1980
4. Exhibit "B" and "D" dated April 8, 1980
5. Exhibit "E" dated 5/22/80
RECOMMENDATION
Both the planning staff and Planning Commission have, recommended
APPROVAL of this application and that the City Council direct the
City Attorney to prepare documents APPROVING CP-36 per Planning Com-
mission Resolution No. 1620 with the addition of the following
condition:
28) Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase I, the appli-
cant shall pay school fees to the San Dieguito Union School Dis-
trict. These fees shall be based on the fee schedule in effect
at the time of building permit application.
. I
AGENDA BILL NO. 6262
Page 2
Council Action:
6-3-80 Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents approving
CP-36 per Planning Commission Resolution No. 1620 with the addition
of the following condition:
28) Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase I,
the applicant shall pay school fees to the San Dieguito
School District. These fees shall be based on the fee
schedule in effect at the time of building permit
application.
. .
DATE: February 10, 1984
TO: Land Use Planning Office _
--Building, Dennis Johnston4-
Engineering
-_Fire Department, Joe Hardin/0
—Police Department, Shiela. Tarvi
(jC-Utilities & Maintenance,AL Co<'
Vicki Bowen
Donna McClain
FROM: LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: STREET NAMES FOR CP-36A
The following street names have been requested as a part of the
final map processincT -or CP-36A despite the fact that previous
names have already been approved. If you have no objection to
the following names lease approve and I will send a memo
making the changes. From this date forward, all develolDers
will be given a notice that street names absol-utely will not
be changed unless there is a valid duplication or safety reason.
Street A - Camino Arroyo
B - Camino de Aquas
C - Arroyo Vista
D - Avenida Alcor
E - Vista Grande
F - Vista Bonita
G - Camino del Arco
H - Vista Mar
I - Vista Rica
J - Calle Fuego
K - Calle Viento
L - Calle Verano
M - Alta Vista
N - Calle Luna
O - Calle Alma
P - Paseo Verde
Q - Calle de Fuentes
1
AML:arnl
A - Camino Arroyo
B - Camino de Aguas
C - Arroyo Vista
D - Avenida Alcor
E - Vista Grande
F - Vista Bonita
- 'il-uL.. iif&-
Caniino del Arco
H -.Vista Mar
I - Vista Rica
To Ic
'-. Calle
41 p-rrrlErP
Fuego
- - (falle Viento
L - Calle Verano
M - Alta Vista
N - Calle Luna
o - Calle Alma
P - Paseo Verde
Q - Calle de Fuentes
• _____
Sea Pointe Village
- STREET NAMES -
A
F
L
6
H J K
RC K ENGINEERING COMPANY I PLANNING CONSULTANTS
AND CIVIL ENGINEERS
)rQQ Din PICfl OR • SI IITF 702 • CARLSBAD. CA 92008
.
Continental American Properties Ltd. c
February 9, 1984
Adrienne Landers
Land Use Planning Office
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008-1989
Re: Street Names for CP-36(A)
Sea Pointe Village
Dear Adrienne:
Following is the final list of approved street names for this
project based on our telephone conversations of this date.
Street A - Camino Arroyo
B - Camino de Aguas
C - Arroyo Vista
D - Avenida Alcor
E - Vista Grande
F - Vista Bonita
G - Camino del Arco
H - Vista Mar
I - Vista Rica
J - Calle Fuego
K - Calle Viento
L - Calle Verano
M - Alta Vista
N - Calle Luna
O - Calle Alma
P - Paseo Verde
Q - Calle de Fuentes
Please contact me if you have any questions whatsoever regarding
this matter.
Very truly yours,
LA COSTA VALE, LTD.
By: Continental La Costa Properties, Inc.
General Partner
Faye Williams
Project Coordinator
/fw
1764 San Diego Ave. • San Diego, CA 92110 • (619) 297-6771
[I
DEVELOPMENTAL 1200 ELM AVENUE
SERVICES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989
LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE
(619) 438-5591
Qrttp of (Cartbab
January 27, 1984
John Cooper
La Costa Vale, Ltd.
San Diego, CA 92110
RE: Street Names for CP-36(A) - Seapoint Village
The following Street names have been approved as a part of the
processing of final map CP-36(A). These names should appear on
the final map, all improvement plans and a 500 foot scale mylar
which should be submitted to me as soon as possible. Please feel
free to call me at 43-5591 if you have any questions.
Street A - Camino Arroyo
B - Camino de Aguas
C - Arroyo Vista
D - Avenida Alcor
E - Vista Grande
F - Vista Bonita
G - Vista Frontera -
H - Vista Mar
I - Vista Rica
J - Calle Toledo
K - C a lie B-ee+e- i-Ai° (4 JC
L - Calle Verano
M - Alta Vista
N - Calle Luna
O - Caile Alma
P - Paseo Verde
Q - Calie de Fuentes
M 110 -
ADRIENNE LANDERS
AML: ad
r nA
c-, ST.
0
'1ENO T.
Si