Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-58A; Carlsbad Park Estates; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (13)RE: Chapter 1 1.06 Excavation and Grading 1 1.06.0 10 Purpose. MAY DEVELOPMENT CARLSBAD CITY CODE VIOLATIONS i I “It is the intent of the City Council to PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY and promote the GENERAL WELFARE, ENHANCE AND IMPROVE the physical environment of the community, and PRESERVE, subject to economic feasibility, THE NATURAL SCENIC CHARACTER OF THE CITY. The provisions of this chapter shall be administered to achieve, to the extent possible, the following goals: (1) Ensuring that future development oflands occurs in the manner MOST compatible with surrounding areas and so as to have the LEAST EFFECT UPON OTHER PERSONS OR LANDS, or upon the general public; We believe the most important word in this paragraph is “MOST.” One has only to view the May Development to realize there is a better way, more consistent with the aims of the City Council. Converting the cul-de-sac into a street entering and exiting on Park Drive with homes facing and draining onto that street, as submitted to engineering, is just one way. There are several others which would retain the number of homes yet avoid raising the ground 12 feet above the corner and 6 feet above the abutting property. We realize the present grading allows the homes to look down on their neighbors (snob appeal) and affords a greater ocean view but it is totally out of sync with the entire area. (3) Encouraging the planning, design and development of building sites in such fashion as to provide the MAXIMUM IN SAFETY and human enjoyment, while ADAPTING development to, and taking advantage of, the BEST use of the NATURAL terrain; The natural terrain which followed the slope of the street has been totally changed by bringing in more than 22 loads of additional soil contrary to what the plans originally stated. The 6-foot rise next to the adjacent property already has as crack which is getting wider and longer. This is NOT SAFE for the abutting property nor the homes to be built on the present HIGH RISE pads. (4) Encouraging and directing SPECIAL ATTENTION toward the RETENTION, insofar as practical, of the natural planting and maximum number of EXISTING natural PLANTING and a MAXIMUM number of EXISTING TREES. (Ord. 8086 1 (part), 1980 More than 15 lovely 25 YR. OLD pine trees were removed from BOTH Monroe Street and Park Drive. I 1 1.06.03 1 Residential infill grading permit requirements. I *\ Q&d An infill grading permit shall be approved ONLY if ALL of the following findings can 4: be md-6: ”*.L+4 h.6. (c) That the design of the grading is generally CONSISTENT and COMPATIBLE with the topography of EXISTING surrounding development. (Ord. NS-168 2,1991) The grading is directly opposed to the aforementioned topography. The property ran downhill as does the street. Now great mounds of fill have been brought in RESHAPING THE ORIGINAL CONTOUR of the property and destroying the integrity of the entire area. 1 1.06.032 Infill grading design standards. (a) Fill height on infill lots SHALL BE MINIMIZED. The relative acceptability of fill heights shall be determined by the following: (1) Zero’to three feet is acceptable; (2) Greater than 3.0 and up to 10.0 feet is DISCOURAGED---. Potential justifications may include---- the need to sewer or drain to the public street----to make the property compatible with adjacent graded properties, to accommodate existing or fbture driveway access to property where NO OTHER alternatives are possible-----. Sewer drainage could be on Park Drive. This grading destroys compatibility with the adjacent property. The planned cul-de-sac can be made into three streets and all lots graded in such a way as to facilitate drainage into the gutters on Park drive with driveways and entrances on the surrounding street on the other side of the homes facing Monroe Street. A rough diagram was submitted to engineering, signed and returned to us without comment. The project has been graded in direct opposition to adjacent properties and is totally incompatible with the entire surroundings. There are many other alternatives, one of which has been seen by the City’s engineering department as mentioned above. The exceptions do not apply to this project. (3) Greater than 10 feet is unacceptable. The excebtions to this do not apply to this project. (c) Import and Export. IMPORT and/or export of fill or excavation material TO or from infill lots shall be MINIMIZED-----grading design shall be accomplished to balance the grading on site to REDUCE the IMPORT or export of soil---- ” 1 There were more than 22 truck loads of soil dumped onto the site despite indication of “0” soils import on the plans submitted to, and approved by, the City. This, initially unauthorized soil, allowed the creation of the 13 and 6-foot build up of the project. THIS DID NOT MINIMIZE THE FILL NOR REDUCE THE IMPORT OF SOILS. 1 1.06.033 Infill grading-----Notice Notice was never given to the public of the infill grading or its consequences. If this refers to notice to the city then, and in that event, the city should have made every effort to be sure that the surrounding property owners were made aware of the drastic changes to the community. 1 1 .O6.040 HAZARDS Whenevef the city engineer determines that any existing excavation or embankment or FILL on private property has become a HAZARD TO LIFE AND LIMB or ENDANGERS PROPERTY------the owner------shall ------repair or eliminate such excavation or embankment. The present condition of this property is definitely a serious danger to life, limb and property. The builder has torn a hole in the chain link fence surrounding the next door pool and children, there are quite a few playing and riding bikes on the slops created by this developer, can easily climb through the hole or jump from the 6’ mount above the fence and injure themselves. The heretofore protected pool area is now accessible. The entire project is an attractive nuisance and should have someone on a site at all times. The builder MUST repair the fence IMMEDIATELY. 1 1.06.050 Grading permit requirements. (8) A statement of the QUANTITIES of materials to be excavated and/or FILL and the amount of such material to be imported to, or exported fiom the site; The initial plans with theCity clearly stated “0” soil to be brought into the project. These plans have been flagrantly violated by the developer importing more than 22 loads of soil under the pretext that the existing soils would not be suitable without additional soil. The use of the additional soil would not have been necessary if the pads had remained as they were INSTEAD OF BEING unnecessarily raised to outrageous heights. The statement of “0” soils was DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING to the PLANNING COMMISSION, the CITY COUNCIL and the general public. 1 1.06.060 Permit limitations and conditions. (4) Conditions of Approval. In granting any permit under this code, the City Engineer may attach such conditions as may be reasonable necessary to PREVENT CREATION Of A NUISANCE OR HAZARD to public or PRIVATE PROPERTY. This project clearly creates a “nuisance” and serious “hazard” to the adjoining property since a child from the new home could easily jump fiom his or her lot into the neighbor’s yard and drown in the swimming pool or walk on the top of the wall, which will just reaches to the level of it’s back yard, and fall several feet to the neighboring ground. It was within the engineer’s province to require redesigning of the project in such a way as to insure the SAFETY OF and FROM the adjoining property. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the city engineers to see that the project is designed safely, consistent with the surrounding properties and harmonious to the area. (4) hazardous. (B)' Requirements for fencing of excavations or fills which would otherwise be This project must be fenced or guarded day and night BEFORE children are injured riding their bikes over the rises and dips on this attractive nuisance created by the builder. Something must be done to prevent the children who are PRESENTLY playing on the project from falling into the adjoining property or climbing through the fence, damaged by the developer, onto the neighboring property and being injured in the swimming pool or elsewhere on the property. (6) (B) The work will be reasonably SAFE for the intended use and will not result in a hazard to adjoining property ----. There is a REAL HAZARD to the adjoining property as previously stated. And, if the neighbor chose, they could fill the gap left between the bank and the six-foot wall (which is not a retaining wall) in order to make their back yard larger. Since this is not a retaining wall, the weight of the additional soil would cause the wall to fall into the neighboring yard l"G ANYONE nearby as well as the park like landscaping. This could be done without a permit as was the filling of the property on Falcon despite three letters from the city assuring the neighboring prop,erty owners that the fill could not be done. 0 Adequate provisions will be made for DRAINAGE and EROSION control. Measures suggested to date are certainly INADEQUATE for drainage and erosion control. It is absolutely necessary for French drains to be installed on the neighboring property and a cement brow ditch to be built along the entire lot line of the adjacent property to assure proper drainage, prevent flooding of the adjacent property and the possibility of erosion of the piled up soil during a normal rain fall. 11.06.070 Denial of Permit A grading permit shall not be issued to ANYONE if the following conditions are found: (1) Hazards. The City Engineer shall not issue a grading permit in any case where he finds that the work as proposed by the applicant is likely to ADVERSELY affect the stability of adjoining property----- The adverse effect of this grading is obvious, even to a layman viewing the site. The City Engineer should have denied the permit. Stability is threatened by the lack of proper drainage. I c 1 1.06.080 Bonds (d) Whenever the city engineer finds or determines that A DEFAULT HAS OCCURRED in the performance of ANY requirement of a condition of a permit insured hereunder, written notice thereof shall be given to the principal and to the surety on the bond.------ Mer receipt of such notice, the surety shall, within the time specified, cause or require the work to be performed, or failing therein, shall pay over to the city engineer the estimated costs of doing the work as set forth in the notice.------- AT NO TIME were the public or the adjacent property owners informed of the grading HAZARDS created by this project. They should have been pointed out during Ann Hosong’s presentation to the Planning Commission. Then the $600 appeal would have addressed the elevations. The developer assured many of us that his project would consist of 14 homes, half of which would be one story, and 2 separate one story low cost houses. He would in no way disturb the adjoining property or integrity of the entire neighborhood. We were also deceived by the planning department which failured to mention the grading elevations to those of us who viewed the plans at the pjanning department nor were they mentioned or explained during ANY of the public meetings. An engineer showing the average person a grading plan without explaining its ramifications is likened to a doctor showing a patient an x-ray without a professional reading. It was represented that the low cost houses would be built as SEPARATE houses, now we are told they will be built over the garages creating even higher elevations and presenting greater obstructions to the area’s views. Developers MUST be required to FULFILL PROMISES made to the public. The city engineer should determined this project to be to be IN DEFAULT. 1 1.06.100 Fills This entire code has been violated as far as SAFETY is concerned as the fill is CRACKING and slipping and the slabs have yet to be poured. Mr. Bob Wojcik excused this problem by stating the slippage was caused by the neighboring watering system. THIS IS NOT TRUE. The sprinkler system showers away fi-om the slopes. Mr. Paul Landen, who has been employed as a Civil Engineer, was present and said Mr. Wojcik’s assessment was incorrect. The owner’s landscaper, Mr. Carlos Martinez, was present and informed Bob that sprinklers watered away fiom the 6-foot rise and could not be the cause of the deepening crack. Mr. Wojcik said that it was his opinion that the sprinklers caused the crack and that was the end of it. It is Obvious the BOUS mind is made up and HE IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED BY THE FACTS. There was a light shower for an hour or two a few days prior to Wojcik’s visit that caused the crack and the slippage. This is truly a potential for a DEEPER AND LONGER crack and greater SLIPPAGE. There is also the serious danger of cracked slabs or worse to the homes to be built upon these pads. We realize that the planning department and city engineering are trying to SAVE FACE but SAVING this COMMUNITY and the fbture home owner is more important. 1 1.06.120 Drainage 5 0 Site Drainage. Graded building sites shall have a minimum slope of one percent towards a public street-----. A LESSER SLOPE MAY BE APPROVED by the city engineer for sites graded in RELATIVELY FLAT TERRAIN, or where special drainage provisions are made. Originally the TERRAIN WAS RELATIVELY FLAT. The property sloped away (downhill) on Monroe from Alder on a grade corresponding with both Monroe and Park Drive. It has been BUILT UP 6 feet higher than the abutting property on Monroe Street AND 13 feet higher than Park Drive. This creates veritable problems to the abutting property where the side of the PAD IS CRACKMG. There is a danger of a slide and no adequate drainage system. The 6 foot rise dams up the water which originally flowed with the terrain turning the adjacent property into a drainage valley between the property uphill and this new 6-foot creation on what was originally downhill. THERE IS NO PLACE for the resulting dammed up water to drain. (e) Overflow Protection. Burms, swales or other devices shall be provided at the top of cut or fill slopes to prevent surface water from overflowing onto and damaging the face of the slope. A minimum precaution of a concrete drainage ditch along the entire property line between the project and the 3955 Monroe Street property should be installed since NO ADEQUATE prevision has been made for run off from the pad’s slope onto that property. 1 1.06.140 Storm damage precautions. If grading is begun prior to November 16th. All protective measures (desilting basins or other temporary drainage or control measures) shall be installed prior to November 16th. This property grading was started prior to November 16 and no adequate protective measures have been done as yet. There are no brow ditches next to the abutting property that have been approved by that property’s owner. 1 1.06.150 Storm damage precautions-- Incomplete work. ------work is commenced after April 15th and before October 1 of any year----and it appears that the grading and INSTALLATION of the PERMANENT draining devices-----will not be completed prior to November 1, then on or before October 1 st the owner of the site on which the grading is being performed shall file or cause to be filed with the city engineer revised plans which include the protective measures------ There has been light rain. The 6-fi build up next to the adjoining property has a crack which deepens daily. Dirt is falling from the 6-foot rise. We wish to see the revised plans. 11.06.160 Storm damage precautions Effect of noncompliance The city engineer may enter the property for purpose of installing ----the drainage and erosion control devices shown on the approved plans-----to protect adjoining property fkom storm damage or the city engineer may cause the owner of the site to be prosecuted as a violator of this code. There are NO storm drains nor EROSION PROTECTION DEVISES which could possibly protect the neighboring property at this time. The fence has been damaged and children are playing on the light giving them access to the swimming pool next door. I request the developer be required to repair the fencing or install some device to safeguard the children that are playing on the sight, immediately. We want the installation of a concrete brow ditch the length of the adjacent property line NOW to protected the property before the winter rains. The brow ditch MUST run the entire length of the adjacent property to hlly protect it fi-om flooding. 1 1.06.170 Grading inspection and Supervision. (3) We wish an inspection to be done prior to the final grading inspection because, the final inspection would be TOO LATE to INSURE PROTECTION to the surrounding properties. (c) Wirequest a copy of all the necessary reports, geological recorninendations and reports, compaction data and soils engineering and engineering geological recommendations. (e) We would like a copy of the “private engineer’s” statement that the rough grading for For land development has been completed-------. (8) This is to inform you that the completion of the work to date is NOT in accordance with many sections of the city code pointed out herein. 1 1.06.180 Responsibility of permittee (d) PROTECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY. The permittee under the grading permit is responsible for the PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY and NO person shall excavate on land sufficiently close to the property line to ENDANGER-------- PRIVATE PROPERTY without supporting and protecting such property form settling, cracking or other damage which might result. (THE CITY SHOULD ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE). Temporary Erosion Control. The permittee shall put into effect and (e’) maintain all precautionary measures necessary to PROTECT adjacent-----PRIVATE property fiom damage by erosion, FLOODING, and deposit of mud or debris originating fi-om the site. I 11.06.210 Depositing earth---upon public Or private property. (a) No person shall dump---earth-----or LEAVE ANY BANK, slope or other excavation surf-ace unprotected so as to cause any of such materials to be deposited upon or roll-- ------upon or over THE PREMISSES OF ANOTHER without express consent of the owner of each such premisses so affected-----. Such consent shall be in WRITING------> Fill dirt from the raised embankment is presently cracking and about to fall on the adjoining property. There is absolutely no protection fiom said material and NO discussion or consent from the owner of the property affected. Written consent was never requested. 11.06.220 False statements in application or plans. A FALSE statement was made on the maps originally submitted to the city misleading all those who might examine them in representing that "0" dirt was to be added to the development. There have been22 loads brought to the development and used to raise the natural levels of the property to 13 feet above Park drive and 6 feet above the adjacent property which would have normally been above the project. While this may have been done with approval of map amendments, it was done in such a way as to totally deceive the local residents. We have been deliberately deceived by planning as there was no mention of this at any of ITS presentations. This has been confirmed by Ann Hysong, who presented the project to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the project AND THE CITY COUNCIL DENIED THE APPEAL without being informed of the ramifications of the additional fill or projected heights. 11.06.230 Violations (a) Any grading commenced or done contrary to the provisions of this chapter---------- is declared to be, a PUBLIC NUISANCE. Upon order of the city council the city attorney shall commence necessary proceeding for the ABATEMENT of any such public nuisance----. Everyone who has viewed this project and the grading thereof has been offended by the many flagrant violations of the city code regarding protection of the abutting property and integrity of the neighborhood. WE HEREBY REQUEST THIS BE DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE andthat the project be suspended and subjected to the penalties provided in the code. The Mayor and the city council have acted in an uninformed manner due to the lack of full disclosure by irresponsible planning and engineering departments. The public has been misled and deceived by these departments. While we want the project to continue, we must have it graded in a more responsible manner. This can be done if the city is willing to pay the cost of regrading. If the city cannot do this then we request the city buy the project and proceed with a more agreeable and harmonious development. ONE THAT WILL CONTINUE GROWTH IN KEEPING WITH SAFETY AND THE CITY'S INTEGRITY. W&@dA