HomeMy WebLinkAboutZC 160; PONTO AREA; Zone Change (ZC)LAW OFFICES
ROBERT S. WALWICK
JAMES s. READY, JR.
32.2 NORTH N EVAD,0..
POST OFFICE BOX 701
AREA CODE 714
TELEPHONE: 722•4221
STEPHEN M.~HEUREUX
February 2, 1973
TO: MEMBERS OF THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
RE: PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IN PONTO AREA
Dear Sir:
My office has been retained to represent Mr. Mitchell
L. Pollard, owner 9f Gaycrest Kennels, 7250 Ponto Drive,
Carlsbad. Corning before you on fepruary 5, 197.4, is the
proposed Zone Change in the Ponto Area from its present M
and CM status to RDM.
Mr. Pollard advises me that he has attended every
meeting regarding this matter expressing his opposition
to the proposed change. He further states that it should be
a matter of record that no pr·operty owner in the Ponto
Area is in favor of the proposed change.
The action of the Planning Cornrnissio'n of January a,·
1974 was apparently inconsistent with the staff recornrnenda-~
tion that the General Plan be modified rather than adopt ~-
the RDM Zoning. Mr. Pollard's subsequent contact with the
office of the County Tax Assessor has revealed further that
the change would result in substantial tax increases to the
affected property owners to the extent of two and possibly
three times the present levels. The effect of such action
upon ·:th:, a~fected property owners is thus a:pparent.
Of the two alternatives k.vailable to you, it would seem
~~.Ymost logical to simply amend the General Plan to conform to
""'~Jpresent zon~~g. This is particularly apparent when the
~-::c,..;r~proposed piari carries a 35 -40 year phase-out period indi-
-' ~;.-.::-.~eating that development "in acc15rdance with the RDM zoning
~~ is not imminent.
\:f
MEMBERS OF THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
RE: PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IN PONTO AREA
FEBRUARY 2, 1974
PAGE TWO
The resulting hardship upon the property owners, and
more particularly my client, would seem in good conscience
to outweigh the selection of this Zone Change to provide
compliance with Assembly Bill 1301. •
We will appreciate your serious consideration of this
matter in light,of· the potentially devasting effect upon
my client and others in the-Ponto area. •
JR.
JSR:mk
·.-1;\1
' ·<}~·-~
-------------
I
• --._ \· ·-rd ·-• :l \ :-,
.._. :. • ·... • t ' !
• .< I
I . -~ f
I . .
.. ·" . .
. . .. --.\.
• . )
. .
"t .
-i . : .. .....
J ._--. __ .· ' • ' --·_
: ~ -~: •. 4 i . ' -;
-..... · ..
• -· .. ~ ! ~ . '
----· --·-·-·,,,,._· ~ ~~.t
CITY OF CA-RLSBA D PLANNING DEPT
APPLICANT A.B:-130/ REOU!REiV!EiVTS/ PER .GEN. Pl/;JJV
CASE NO AREA /VO 2 ( F.XISTING LAND USE
• DATE NOV 30, /973. EXHIBIT 11 A11
• AREA 4
AVE
AREA_ "5
k' •• 1-T,"f!fljL_EL'.I; . -~ ~v~~A~i1½ -~ -
~.i;,·~ ,_ ,,,.~."' 1i1if ·'-·\t Q!JA J... 7v·;:f'" ~;;.1'.".:i' -, '. ~t_\J i/;i • , • .i
r . <:>.
-~
~ ~
,. • T
.-./-'.
>-•
<( 0 :s:: ~ _,:
LtJ a. .,...;'..i
IJJ .,..!r ~ ~ jl!l
i· •
~/ S/: -
-
~ ' • MARACK. "'i'IT:nfJ~I . . :..!liM J /1 ~--_ _ .. -
AREA 3-
• • • _I-·.· .. -• . .
. . . • . . . .
1.-
(
AREA 1.
Areas requiring consisten~y of General Plan Land Use recommendattons and zoning.