HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-46; Brindisi; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (3)City 0
July 8, 1998
Richmond O’Neill
Brehm Communities
Suite 220
2835 Camino De1 Rio South
San Diego, CA 92108
SUBJECT: MPA 177(W)/LCPA 97-lo/CT 9%17/PUD 97-15/GDP 97-46 BFUNDISI
This morning I received a memo from the Parks and Recreation Department expressing concern
with the grading proposed for the Brindisi project. Mark Steyaert indicated that his department
cannot support ‘the project as it is currently proposed. He reiterated the fact that the City had a
previous agreement with Hilman to lower the pad elevations for the park to provide better public
accessibility. Apparently, that grading was postponed again and again and never completed.
Unfortunately, this now becomes your problem since you want to develop the subject site.
The Engineering Department has also reviewed the memo from the Parks Department. Clyde
Wickhams’s comments are provided below. This issue must be resolved to everyone’s
satisfaction prior to scheduling the project for Planing Commission.
We have received an interoffice memo concerning the design and support of CT
97 - 17/Planning Area 19. The memo is in response to the recent submittal which
was contrary to Mark Steyeart’s understanding of our last meeting with him, the
applicant’s design team and planning/engineering staff where we discussed
inclusion of the park parameter into this design. The applicant also discussed the
idea of actually grading the adjacent park parameter to insure compatibility. A
few weeks later the design team decided to “pull back all grading efforts at the
parameter and leave the correction or resolution of mismatched grades and access
to others”.
“Others” means in the future a contractor would grade access to the park, lower
the property at the cul-de-sac about 8’ and remove a slope up to a slope down
along the common property line (in the industry this is called a hog-back ridge).
The applicant’s design as a “stand alone” concept includes retaining walls that
would not be necessary if the overall site was graded correctly. The applicant’s
design as a “stand alone” project also drains a portion of the park site through an
internal, private system, again an afterthought mutation of standard design.
2075 La Palmas Dr. -0 Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-l 161 - FAX-(760) 438-0894 _L e9
MPA 177(W)iLCPA 97- 1 O/CT 98- 17IPUD 97- 15KDP 97-46 BRINDISI
July 8, 1998
The Parks position is the same as it was a few months ago: show us how this
design is compatible with our park site and show us that this design will not
preclude development and access. On the surface it appears that the proposed
design will lessen the developable area of an already reduced park site. Finally,
Mark’s memo brings up an important issue. We (the City) gave up land to
increase developable land for this planning area. We ( the City) gave permission
to grade the park site and “blend” grades into natural condition. And now Parks is
not willing to support the Brindisi project which could be considered a taking of
developable park property.
The proposed subdivision should show access to the parks site as well as ultimate
grading along the south east boundary adjacent to this project. As we discussed in
our meeting a week ago perhaps a potential solution could be to allow a blanket
“future grading easement” over the adjacent border to allow for future correction
of the grading problem.
The approved grading plan for this area is significantly different than constructed.
There may be more work contemplated by Hilman Properties or perhaps a
reimbursement planned for the applicant’s correction of this error. The applicant
may want to contact Hilman Properties in this regard.
Please contact Clyde Wickham at 438-l 161, extension 445 1 or Mark Steyaert 434-2824,
extension 2855 for further details.
Sincerely,
Adrienne Landers
Principal Planner
AL:dch
Attachment
c: Clyde Wickham
Mark Steyeart
MARK STEYAERT P l-760-434-2451
July 7, 1998
ml 717190 i96:59 PM
TO: PRINCIPAL PLANNER, DEE LANDERS
From: Park Development Coordinator
BRINDISI (CT- 17) / ZONE 19 PARK ACCESS ISWE
I received your voice mail that was in response to my concerns that future access to
Zone 19 Park is a problem under the current subdivision design. Your message was
that you felt Brindisi, because they have decided not to grade further into the park, has
no responsibility to assure access to the park.
I don’t agree with your assessment for the following reasons:
1. Hillman was originally granted permission to grade onto the park site (by
someone in the City). Because the elevation of Poinsettia was set, this allowed Brindisi to fit more units onto their site by allowing a lower elevation of their
buildable area closer to the joint property line of the park, Alternatively they
would have needed to build substantial retaining walls (which are expensive
and may not have been acceptable to the Planning Dept.).
2. The grading onto the park site allowed for the lowering of the Brindisi site and
consequently Ambrosia Lane, which also facilitated additional units, When the
City approved a land swap for the park site (which allowed for establishing a
developable site for Brindisi) Abrosia Lane was shown on the plan provided by
Hillman, as being 8.5’ higher (allowing easier access to the park).
3. While Brindisi did not grade onto the park site themselves, they are directly
benefiting from the pre-development action of Hillman. At a minimum, they
should be responsible to assure that their project, does not preclude the use of
ALL the park site. Remember, all 24.25 acres of Zone 19 Park are supposed to
be developable.
When we met with the developer several months ago, I was under the impression that
they would provide a plan showing how access to the park will be obtained. I haven’t
heard from them since and suspect they are headed for the Planning Commission.
As currently, proposed, we oppose this project! We hope you can assist us in
resolving our concerns.
Mark Steyaert
C: Associate Civil Engineer, Clyde Wickham
Recreation and Park Planning Manager