Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-03-20; City Council; 1080; Correspondence- Advisory Pannonia/Klug Development•THE CITY f*^ OF C A R L S B A D. " C A L -I F" O R N I A Agenda Bill Wo.Date.- March 20, 1973 Referred To : Subject: Correspondence - Advisory Submitted By: Statement of the Matter Exhibit 1) Letters regarding Pannonia/Klug Development, Staff Recommendations AB No. Date City Manager's Recommendation Council Action -2- 4O5I SKYLINE ROAD CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92OO8 November 2£, 1972 Planning Commission, City of Carlsbad, 1200 iiun Ave . , Onrlybad, Ualif. 92008 Gentlemen: Re: Pannoria Investment Gj. J. V. AJu£ ,'JevtIowi^ent Co. I strenuously object to any opening into the Carlsbad Highlands area from the prooosed 166 lot sub- division by the J. V. Klug Development Co. The High- lands has a very high tax basis. It has a rural atmosphere, and all the residents wish to keep it that way. Here comes an intruder with a gleam in his eyes, looking at dollar signs, and attempting to break into this quiet and peaceful section. He uses a subterfuge to reach Skyline and Sunnyhill by opening Clearview (one block long) as an exit. How ridiculous! It is time unwanted crowded subdivisions pay for their access roads. Tamarack, I understand, is on the drawing board to cut through to El Camino Real. While vacant land is still available, why can't this sub- division pay for a new road to pick up with Tamarack after Tamarack has left the Highlands subdivision? The proposed subdivision is a very high den- sity one, and the traffic, with noise and car emissions will ruin the Carlsbad Highlands and pull down its desirability., and va"-.:e. Why should a highly crowded subdivision be allowed to come into existence on the most de- sirable piece of land now available? Yours very truly, (Mrs. Ruth M. Mallard) RECEIVED NOV 2 7 1972 CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OP THE CITY BOUNDARIES OP CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE* SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF 3UNNYHTLL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, A3 WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH. MS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, ROR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY,ft MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL XJNU VrfXJ.Xl'CdU. HC.UA.J-lJ- -'fa^nr^ ^V T^e^^i-^ CJW^tt£*^^^rv MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE AN. JHE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OP THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE' CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE- SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEAHVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, A3 WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH IAS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, FOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY,' MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNKS AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE* SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN"INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, AS WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH,HB ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, ROR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, : MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNKS AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE* SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF 3UNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, AS WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH. BB3 ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, HOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNS AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION 'WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE* SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF 3UNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, AS WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH. BB3 ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, HOH THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, - ' MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE A..J> THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OP THE CITY BOUNDARIES OP CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE' CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OP A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OP REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE- SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OH SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, AS WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OH BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH IAS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, FOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING3ITI2EN. "RECALL? MOST SINCERELY, ^ M-r ^£^,S2.>1^^ xi~~J} d&*^<~S ^^rr^-M 4?^.*ji-&* ^ -^^t^-^^. -^ y ^ - yL^^V^r xt^jt-^^ ,jZM^^ ff-p/y. ft^^fe MARCH 8, 1973 "~ TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE AIML) THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: ' IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE'CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC~TOADS~"ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET. THE DE- SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTERAREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. Ai-J-an WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY ' EXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, A3 WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH MS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE1' AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS FOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, . / -^ ^ , ^ RECEIVED MAR 121973 MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE Alw THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OP THE CITY BOUNDARIES OP CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE' CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OP OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC~LOADS~~ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE- SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OP THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OP "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OH SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, A3 WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OP THESE STREETS, FOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OP THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, "' ' /~>'? -, / MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY BOUNDARIES OP CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OP REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE* SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OP SUNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, A3 WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH. BK3 ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, ROR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, YSW> VXktSU, VtY ^OA(^ fc vtv\&\ A P.S. A DIRT ROAD IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED SOUTH OF CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS RUNNING TO EL CAMINO REAL. WHY CAN'T THESE PROMOTERS PAY THE EXPENSE OF IMPROVING THAT ROAD INSTEAD OF USURPING OUR RIGHTS TO QUIET AND SAFE LIVING? RUTH M. MALLARD U0$l SKYLINE RD CARLSBAD, CALIF. MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNKS AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITS EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION 'WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE* SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF 3UNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, A3 WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH.OS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE PCfcLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, HOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, RUTH M. MALLARD U0$l SKYLINE RD. CARLSBAD, CALIF. 92008 MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITS EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BSCOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION 'WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE* SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF 3UNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, AS WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH: OS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, ROH THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. " RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, MAHCls, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE A..^ THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE' CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC^OADT^ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE- SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. -AGAIIL^AISE OJIfl-Jmi£E-IN-^BQTEST. AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TOBECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY \ EXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OH SKYLINE. / . ^ p . . ——_ ~ —•—" •——— • -— •—.—~* WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, A3 WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OH BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POHUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, FOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, Ca MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D. A. DUNNE AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE' CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE- SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, A3 WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH SAS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POHUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, FOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. " RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION 'WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE* SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, AS WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH.MS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, HOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE* SIHABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, A3 WILL BS EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH.W3 ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, HOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SLMQERELY, MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE -AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE' CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE- SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, AS WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, FOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE AwD THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OP THE CITY BOUNDARIES OP CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE'CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OP REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE- SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OP "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, A3 WILL BE~>EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, FOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, I ~~jT. T -** ^-\ < f r rs _y i A ^ _ _0 <? MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: '' IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION 'WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE* SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO -BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OP SUNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, A3 WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH.HB ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE* YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING TOE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, 80R THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BfiCOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION 'WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE* SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF 3UNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, AS WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH HE ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, HOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. * RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, \( MARCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE SIRS: T HE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIiD IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OP THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE' CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE- SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WE ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, A3 WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, FOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY , ;> /?« ORIGINAL \ H _JU ." (W 31 00-UUl \ ALD A WAT KINS SKYLINE RD LSBAD, CA 92008 - 73 ^< ^^/^^-M7 S -&£^~ //w/ / L^L^^<~ ~4si4s*«^t^&— jQ^g**^*^-^ / ^^ z^fe^-x-^-t--^*- Mr. and Mrs. T, E. Kruglak 4145 Sunnyhill Drive Carl.bad, CA 92008 March 12, 1973 Mr. David Dunn*, Mayer City ef Carlsbad Dear Mayer Dunn* and Members ef the Ceuncilt- Yetrust it is met tee late te add te the already aweseme verbiage cencerning the Pannenia preject and all its cemplex ramificatiens. As Carlsbad heme ewners we are against this cencept ef develepment in its entirety. Oar argument fellewst Grewth, as we knew, is inevitable. We alse knew that it can be centrelied. Centrel can enly be successful by ceaplete reject!en ef develepments within er en the periphery ef a well established cemmunity. Be develepment, regard- less ef hew magnificent it is, sheuld be permitted te tax the reseurees er impinge en the well-being ef these citizens whese hernes, educatienal facilities, shepping habits and secial life ferm the basis ef a defined cemmunity. Witheut the pride and pessesiveness that accrue te an integral sense ef belenging te an identifiable and familiar landscape, we will all be lest. Surely, ne Master Plan can everleek the preeminent fact that the integrity ef an established cemmunity must be preserved at all cests. Furthermere, if we as individuals sit en eur hands while eur cemmunity is ereding piecemeal threugh develepers, then we must be prepared te see the end ef a way ef life that has engendered in all ef us the fendest ef memerles. If we sit en eur hands it sheuld eeme as ne surprise that eur children will be cipher* xxximg living in tract heuses that eeuld just as readily be in Lea Angeles as in Carlsbad. We believe this net need be the case. We believe a stand against encreaohment en the heartland ef eemmunities such as Carlsbad can be met by the firm hand ef its leaders in cemmiting themselves te a peliey ef ne develepment peried. He develepment ef any type that affects the cemmunity preper, er eeuld in any way impese a censtrictien en the present way ef life. We believe a stand must be made semewhere and that Carlsbad is the place te make it. A precedent must be set, it needs enly the unanimity ef men and wemen ef geed will. What we have seen here indicates that there is ne •herbage ef them in leeal gevemment and eut. What abeut grewth? Hew can it be handled te serve the best interests ef all cencerned? One selutien is te institute a green belt areund the present tewn ef Carlsbad. Develepment may take place enly beyend this green belt, and weuld be in the ferm ef clusters, with scheels, shepping centers, and reoreatien areas shared by the clusters. The develepers sheuld be reapensible fer fer previding the scheel and public facilities shared by the clusters} the tewn respensible fer manning the facilities. If we believe in the cencept ef neighberheed scheels and lecal facilities, this is ene way te achieve it witheut busing er expesing children te the dangers ef walking er bicycling te soheele eutside the district. Develepments must step until a ratlenal peliey ef grewth can be achieved. Sincerely -5, / "/ >( < 4540 Highland Drive Carlsbad, California 92Q08 March 5, 1973 The Mayor & Gity Council Carlsbad, California 92008 Gentlemen: There are two proposals to be presented to you on March 6th and which you may consider on that $ate or subsequent thereto. One deals with rezoning the land west and south of Mams Street facing on to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The other proposal deals with rezoning Carlsbad Tract 72-28, that land immediately south of Sunnyhill, Cleaxview and Skyline streets. With regard to these proposals, it becomes abundantly clear that if the past is prologue, then just about every homeowner in Carlsbad can rest assured that the City Council of Carlsbad will continue to ignore and reject their many appeals for the proper preservation of their present zoning regulations in their respective residential areas. What is the question here? It is not really a change of zoning to permit inexpensive housing for clamoring Carlsbad residents. It is not because the proposers of the zone change are looking to the big range interests of the community nor to the personal investment of current residents in the homes they have purchased with the understanding that their hard earned efforts would be protected from unnecessary or unreal zone changes. Rather the proposal for zone change emanates realistically on the part of the proposers to realize substantially greater profit and the hell with the present or future residents and the burdens they will have to bear as a result of such zone changes. Therefore, the proposal to nezone west and south of Adams Street must be denied. For if you allow this to transpire, the obvious side effects will be demands for widening Mams Street, difficulty in keeping the Lagoon clean, loss of property value to adjacent home owners and more taxes for residents of Carlsbad to carry the developers, who will be long gone once they have made their profit. The proposal to reaone Carlsbad Tract 72-28 and to make Hillside and Highland between Hillside and Tamarack a collector street must also be denied. Quite frankly, this latter proposal is the finest example of ineptness, favoritism and downright audacity on the part of the developers, as well as city employees, who are betraying the trust placed in them by the people they work for, namely the taxpayers of Carlsbad. 3990 Highland Drive Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 March 5, 1973 Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Gentlemen: It is our understanding that the Planning Commission has recommended and is submitting for your approval, the closing of Skyline and Clearview streets at the point where they are adjacent to the proposed Pannonia development We feel this is a very poor solution to a' problem that is not being faced and, that is, the flow of future traffic in densely populated areas . Consequently, we object and request that you do not approve this Resolution No. 848. Sincerely yours, Harry/B. Vollmer BEST A PERSONAL Note from... MINA Col leen LESTER Sherilyn THE CITY COUNCIL City Hall Carlsbad, California Gentlemen: 4000 Highland Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 March 6, 1973 RE: Reclassification from R-l-15,000 to R-l-7,500 and approval of tentative map ct 72-28, supplemental information concerning circulation (Pannonia - Klug) Planning Commission Resolution "o48 Agenda Bill 1058 1 have studied the proposed traffic flow maps Exhibits 1,2, and 3 dated January 1973. In the light of the fact that we have Interstate 5 on the West and El Camino Real; on the east as collector streets for heavy traffic, and that ALL Carlsbad residents will often want to go to one or the other, it is imperative to HAVE ALL STREETS OPEN FOR AN ORDERLY FLOW OF TRAFFIC. 1 am sure no one will go out of their way to go through the residential areas of our city to get to Interstate 5 or El Camino Real. Their streets will only carry the NORMAL flow of residents from their area to these major collector streets. If the three streets under consideration in this project, Skyline, Clearview, and Sunnyhill are left open it would substantiate the Voorhees Report that the present streets could be adequate in carrying the cities traffic. three Therefore, I recommend thar alMstreets be open to Hillside Drive. THANKING YOU for consideration of all the residents of Carlsbad and not just a select few. Sincerely, sster E. Cooper O 0 MA.RCH 8, 1973 TO: MAYOR D,A. DUNNE AND TH2 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 5IR3: II IS QUITS EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING v/ITHIN THE CONFINES OP THE CITY BOUNDARIES 0? CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HO'// THEIR CITY WILL GROW. £TOH ARE THESE PEOPLE'CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE ^UIET, THE DE- SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. W3 ONCE.AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, ;-TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA. #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEARVISW OR SKYLINE. iVE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, AS WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE, AS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OP CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO 3ES THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND iPROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE, YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREhTS, iPOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" I-103T SINCERELY, , ' '. ,. ~- RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CJTY OF CARL--AP Individual petitions which are duplicates of the above, were submitted to the Clerk's Office this date. The originals are filed in theClerk's Office. The petitions were signed by the following persons: Gloria M. Walters No Address Mr. and Mrs. Alton Annable • " Mrs. Adella M. Salaberry " Ruth K. Honnold Frances A. Yarbrough " Mr! and Mrs. James H. Coil III Jane E. Magrure " Mr. and Mrs. Leach Evans " Michael E. (Illegible) " : • Mrs. Vicki E. Campbell ^^ 4134 Skyline Rd. R. C. Campbell RC^T 4134 Skyline Rd. Elizabeth Gerhard HiP Um^9 • 4061 Skyline Rd. Ruth M. Mallard COPY 4°51 Skyl1ne Rd' Honorable Planning Commission 4240 Clear-view Drive City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California 92008 1200 Elm, Carlsbad, Calif. November 20, 1972 GENTLEMEN: RE: PANNONIA-KLUG DEVELOPMENT PLAN I am a 30-year resident of Carlsbad and nave owned property in Carlsbad during this entire period. Mrs. Taylor and I purchased our present homesite en Clearview Drive primarily because it had an at- mosphere of seclusion, privaey, beauty, and tranquillity. It is located in a Ion-density area overlooking the ocean and lagoon. We had good reason to believe that any residential building on that lovely slope facing the lagoon would be low density and of a quality equalling that in our own residential area. The Pannonia-Klug development envisioned in Tentative Map 72-28 portrays a land-locked subdivision, with egress-ingress traffic pro- vided by 60-foot wide Clearview Drive which connects up with 84-foot wide Hillside Drive on the northwest perimeter. Clearview is a tiny one-block street that intersects WaeArthur Ave., another 60-foot street, one block in length. MaeArthur curves at the juncture of the two streets, thus a blind intersection exists where the two intersect. To make this situation even more intolerable, when and if Clear- view is widened from its present 30-foot width to the contemplated 60-foot width, all of the drive-way entrances to homes on each side of the street will have to be re-graded, with a sharp fall-off on the westerly side and an abrupt rise on the easterly side. The existing grade rise—incline on the east side, now 15-20$, will have to be in- creased to approximately 25-30$. This will likewise require eemplefce a complete alteration of the landscaping of f ront-yje'ard areas. TRAFFIC - The use of Clearview Drive to channel traffic in and out of a 166-lot subdivision, connecting with an 84-foot thorofare on Hillside Drive, would create immediately new traffic problems and in- creased hazards, stemming from short, narrow streets and blind inter- sections in this neighborhood area. SCHOOL CHILDREN - A hazardous condition exists even now because of the numbers of children walking to schools or playing in the streets. The huge influx of new traffic created by a large subdivion would aggravate this dangerous hazard many times. POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION - The time element and intersection hazards would be greatly increased whenever police and fire units had to res- pond to emergency calls into this proposed subdivision. SUMMARY - Tentative Map of Carlsbad Tract No. 72-28 introduces a completely unsatisfacyory traffic pattern. There is also a question of the legality of using one egress-ingress street for a 166-lot, land-locked subdivision. The plan, if carried out, would definitely and adversely affect the tranquillity and happiness of prsent home- owners in adjacent areas. It would, without question, lower the value and saleability of existing properties, which are already over-taxed. Local streets in this area, which are in poor condition at present, would be rendered in even worse condition with ao-,increased trafic volume. This subdivider's plan (Klug-Pannonia)/^b^ould or subdivider should be given full access to *: 40 73 eun ir.RECEIVED NOV231972 CITY OF CARLSBAD AM A November 7, 1972 NOV 9 1972 City of Carlsbad CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Commission Planning Department Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Sirs: / This is in reference tayour forthcoming public hearing on the parcel known as Thft Pannfljq T>atv»Qi\ AS a concerned adjacent property owner, I have reviewed the zone charge and the map submitted for your approval. I believe that this sub-division will serve the public beneficially in several ways; specifically, there is a great need for the traffic circulation in this area to be improved. From a purely selfish viewpoint, I am looking for- ward to J Street being made available to our parcel as historically our review of sewer and traffic access has indicated that this would be a prefer- able access to our property as compared to developing major access through Skyline Drive. Sincere c/o 8816 S. Sepulveda Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90045 Honorable Planning Commission, City of Carlsbad, City Hall, 1200 Elm Street, Carlsbad, California November 20, 1972 SUBJECT: PETITIONS PROTESTING REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION FROffl ZONE TENTATIVE WAP FOR 166-L 72-28, BY 3. V. KLUG CO., THE OUINER. R-l-15,000 to RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT R-l-7,500 AND APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT, CARLSBAD TRACT CO. AND PANNONIA INVESTMENT ATTACHED: PETITIONS CONSISTING OF THREE (3) PACES, BEARING signatures of s*=***1*!™™™™*ai 64 resident property ouners affected by above proposal. (Planning Co"lV Hearing set for Now. i&! 1972) Honorable Planning Commission, City of Carlsbad, City Hall, 1200 Elm Street, Carlsbad, California November 14, 1972 SUBJECT; PETITION PROTESTING REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION FRQW ZONE R-l-15,000 to R-l-7,500 AND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PflAP FOR 0.6S-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CARLSBAD TRACT 72-28, BY 3.V. KLUC DEVEL- OPMENT CO. AND PANNONIA INVESTMENT CO., THE 0«NER. IE, the undersigned residents of the immediate area, vigorously protest this request on the population density basis and on grounds of greatly increased traffic annoyance and traffic hazards imposed. Particularly objectionable is the plan to funneliingress-egress traffic of this en- tire ne« community/Clearvistti Drive, a secondary street, dead-ending in one short block into BflaeArthur, another one-block street, thus posing - a veritable bottleneck for traffic. If approved, this situation will unquestionably caus£? future citizen complaints and continuous problems for (20 Signatures) ';I w. Tfe, the undersigned, protest zone change from RL-15,000 to R_1-7,£00 requested by Pannonia Investment Co. for Carlsbad Tract 72-28. Such zone change would be hetrogenous to existing community and cause devaluation of our property. C^^MWo^ (23 Signatures) /Lkt**^ iff. /A J^-vC^fcTV^ NCJfeAa --j-«Jrf ------ -. v-Vo ^ ct 5> ff SL. (21 signatures) CITY PLANNING COMISSION CARLSBAD, GA. 92008 MEETING - JAN. 9, 1973 7:30 P.M. (CITY HALL) WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST ZONE CHANGE PROM R-l 15,000 10 R 7,500 REQUESTED BY PANNONIA INVESTMENT CORP. FOR CARLSBAD HIGLANDS NO. 2 MAP 2825 BECOUSE EXISTING SURROUNDING DEVELOPED AREAS ALL HAVE LARGER fiDTS, AND ZONE CHANGE WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC PLOW. /< MlL_ _ ':mi::i S'Fr •3^85- 3?# -I ^?//^ JL^V 3&2.4L.. Aii.-^- /-v*. u &**- COPY CITY -L\FNIt'G CO'^ISSIOH O'.RT.gr.-v^ CA-. 92008 jp, 1973 7:30 P.M. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST ZONE CHANGE FROM R-l 1^,000 TO R 7,^00 REQUESTED BY PANNONIA INVEST!/^ T CORP. FOR CARLSBAD HIGLANDS NO. 2 MP 282^*BECAUSE EXISTING SURROUNDING DEVELOPED AREAS ALL HAVE LARGER LOTS. AND ZONE CHANGE WILL, INCREASE TRAFFIC FLOW. _ /•>/f^*~X&iiisi.ta ,2j, Gu&Lff ^ A .'.'!' -. ... ..- » WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC FLOW. - J'•••'. °, 1°?3 7:30 v-.:. 15/500 TO 3 7,500 Oii'^I , v 1 ^ :P, U)TS. and ZONE CHANGE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION I^TIMG - JAM. °, 1Q7? 7:~:0 rv. C'.RLSBaD, CA. n2008 ^ TH1 UNDERSIGNED, PROTEST ZONE CHANGE FROM ftl - 15,000 TO Rl - 7,500 REQUESTED BY PA1-INONIA INVESTT'^T CORP. FOR C-RI.SRai HIGH1AHDS NO. 2 FAP 2o2< B^CMSE ^KISTIIJG SURROU1IDING D^T^LpP ARISS/AIi HA¥E LARGER LOTS AT-D ZCM1S CHANGE ^LL UE7ALUATK OTIR COPY FATING - JAM/ 9, 1973 - 7130PM.»-J CARLSBAD -T,A; NING CO'l'ISSTOH CITY 'T\LL, H'RLSMD •Vie, TOE UKDT3RSIGHED, PROTEST ZONE CHANGE FROM Rl - 1$,000 TO Rl-7,£00 REQU^3T:^D BY PA' NOKIA IKVESTKENT CORP. FOR CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS NO. 2 MAP 2825 BECAUSSD SURROUNDING D5WJLOPTCD AREAS ALL HAVE LARGER LOTS. T'C - J,T, 9, 1973 - 7:30-t:. •i..t .-7 :':-o «, T!rD UT'" Ju'IG'~J'J, '•"•'/ ~^v*'~rfT* -.-•*•• ' .-*«•?'i,..'. %.»i • V; i J 'X'; L,l!lC-"31 LOTG. BEST COPY o Q GIT? FUHIIKG GO KpSKH ;:3CTI!IG - JAM. 9, 1£?3 7s30 IT:, C.ll,3r";, GA. 92008 -'•^, iBB UHlJSRSiaiiSD, FROT-:«7 XCHS C! ^GS FRC^ »l - i5»000 TO KL - 7^500 HSQTJgSTSD BI PAWNOSII-\ INV!?S.;"TOT OOK*. fCR C %SBA LC, 2 mP 2825 BSSBSE BSISVE-." .-BRBOmroritt "^KLOP S LAHDSl LOfS MID '/f.'ME Of-..i-.r.j \HiI- W 117-TE CUR •pnn: L^ 77 X^4£ IAI -JST COPY w W(Planning Comm. Hearing set for Nov. 28, 1972) Honorable Planning Commission, City of Carlsbad, City Hall, 1200 Elm Street, Carlsbad, California November 14, 1972 SUBJECT; PETITION PROTESTING REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATIQN FROi ZONE R-l-15,000 to R-l-7,500 AND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE WAP FOR ftB|-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP1ENT, CARLSBAD TRACT 72-28, 1Y 3.V. KLUC DEVEL- OPMENT CO. AND PANNQNIA INVESTMENT CO., THE OWNER. IE, the undersigned residents of the immediate area, vigorously protest this request on the population density basis and on grounds of greatly increased traffic annoyance and traffic hazards imposed. Particularly objectionable is (bfaP^an to funnel!ingress-egress traffic of this en- tire ne» sommunityYCIearvie* Drive, a secondary street, dead-ending in one short block into flaeArthur, another one-block street, thus posing a veritable bottleneck for traffic. If approved, this situation will unquestionable cause future/citizen complaints and continuous problems for th ci^y of lsbad. U 2?7? ^ y • » Q 3960 / -v/^ls^^IrftePt O Ljfc y/ ^ ^ <\ Pannonia Investment Corporr^ 3433 W. 109th Street Inglewood, California 90303 Jan. 6, 1973 RECEIVED To the Planning Commission 1200 Elm Ave. Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 JAN 1 0 1972 CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department Gentlemen, Please find attached a report in support of a request for a zone change from R-l-15,000 to R-l-7,500 and adoption of a master plan on 59 acres of property located at the end of Sunnyhill Drive, Clearview Drive and Skyline Drive. The report represents the view points of the current property owners, the Pannonia Investment Corporation. It is also an_ attempt to answer various questions raised by opponents to a development of the area. Your consideration of the facts will be appreciated. 1. Sub j e c t: Applicants: Purpose: History: The new plan: Request for a zone change from R~1~15,000 to R-l~7»500 and adoption of a master plan on 59 acres of property located at the end of Sunnyhill Drive, Glearview Drive, and Skyline Drive. Pannonia Investment Go. (PIG), a group of 76 small investors, who pooled their resources to buy this choice piece of property for future retirement in the fine city of Carlsbad. This report is an attempt to assist the members of the Carlsbad Planning Commission to arrive at a just decision on the future of the Subject property. In a meeting of the Carlsbad City Planning Commission on May 23, 1972 the noted panel recognized at that time the merits of a Planned Community Master Plan, submitted by the Klug Development Company. The Com- mission recommended adoption of this plan. In a subsequent meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on July 18, 1972 the request for adoption of the Planned Community Plan was rejected. The rejection was primarily the result of protests staged by pro- perty owners living in the surrounding areas. A major argument brought forward by the opponents of the plan was density and its effects, although the proposed density was well within the confines of the City Master Plan. The revised plan now submitted calls for only 166 units (as opposed to l^OO previously) on the 59 acre property, or 2.8 units per acre. This is only 31»5% of the density permitted by the City Master Plan. Although the request for a zone change is to R-l-7»500, the average lot size of the proposed development is close to 10,000 sq. ft., well above the allowable minimum size. Additionally, it should be noted that the major por- tion of the PIC property is bordering on developments of higher densities, such as follow: East Kamar Development R-l-7,500 South Kamar Development Planned Community Southwest Shelter Cove Condominiums West Briggs Property R-l-7,500 The homes proposed to be built on this property will be of better quality and higher value than the aver- age of those existing in the surrounding areas. 2. It is PIC's position that the plan submitted by a renown developer would not only be an asset to the area, but it would also reflect an extraordinary effort to comply with the wishes of the adjoining property owners. Sealing off exist- ing roads, low density in the areas adjoining existing resi- dences, separation of higher density areas by a main street to protect the value of property in the immediate area are only some of the special features offered by this development. The plan was generated in full cooperation with city authori- ties. Diligent consideration was given to blending the pro- posed development in with zonin^and densities of surrounding areas. Maintaining a R-l-l5,000 zoning on the PIG property would be detrimental to continuity in the area. Furthermore, the price range of homes on R-l-l5,000 lots would deprive the majority of PIG members of the opportunity to realize their future plans of being able to settle and retire on this property which was the intent when they acquired it. Future Hill- side Drive would, of course, constitute a natural dividing line, separating the low density area from the higher density. How far south should the region of influence of the R-l-l5,000 residential area reach and penalize our development, since we are surrounded by R-l-7,5>00 density and higher? In a meeting with the "People for Responsible Orderly Planning'1 on January 3» 1973 it became apparent that despite an extra- ordinary effort on part of the developer to comply with their wishes, the objections raised against the 166-unit development were the same as those voiced against the ij.00-unit Planned Community, proposed previously. Please, review PIG's position in rebuttal to that of the op- ponents to the proposed development. 1. Circulation The property neighbors claim that the proposed development will increase traffic in the general area and that existing roadways are inadequate. a. In response to this objection, PIC would like to point out that the concern of the citizens affec- ted by the requirement for wider streets is ap- preciated. It should be noted, however, that the Master Plan of the city of Carlsbad provides for widening of existing Hillside Drive, Tamarak Ave., and Highland Ave., regardless of whether the Pan- nonia property would be developed or not. b. Primary ingress and egress will be provided by fu- ture Hillside Drive, a major thoroughfare built and totally financed by the developer with no cost to the City of Carlsbad. 2. Schools "fhe development opponents claim that added population will re- sult in overcrowding of schools. a. PIG rejects this contention in view of the fact that the developer has expressed his willingness to con- tribute a fair share to school funds. In addition our request is, how many of the objectors have ac- tually contributed to schools and city services prior to their arrival in Carlsbad? PIG has contributed to city funds for over 10 years. 3. Public Utilities ?IC opponents also contend that this development will have an impact on public utilities and city services. a. In answer to this argument it should be noted that results of studies conducted by the Carlsbad City Engineer indicate that the proposed development will not constrain public utilities and that the present facilities are adequate to accept the additional load. if. Taxes Concern was expressed over the prospect of tax increases due to added requirements for public utilities, schools, etc. a. PIC contributed heavily with tax dollars to support the growth of the city. Since its inception in 1962 PIC has paid $11)4.,300. in property taxes without bene- fiting from any city-funded services. In 1962, the first year of property ownership, PIC paid $3,705.30 in property taxes. Within 11 years this tax has in- creased 392$ to $19,714.0 annually. How many of those objecting to the development of the property here can claim that their taxes have been in- creased at a rate of 3ci2/° annually, yet they have never claimed any city services? The same people keep asking about contirbutions to city funds by the property owners and the developer. How many of those people objecting to the proposed development have actually lived in the area for 11 years and have contributed to the growth of the city for that length of time or paid taxes prior to their arrival? Many of the protestors had not lived in the area at the time of PIC's acquisition of the property, No one protested their decision to settle in the area. Those opposing this development are claiming the right to deny other people to live next to them. It is understood that the current value assessment of the property is based on the presumption that it is ready for development. Pannonia Investment Corporation purchased the propeerty about 11 years ago. The population of Carls- bad has just about doubled since that time. Growth and expansion create problems and no doubt financial bur- dens. A water reservoir certainly did not enhance the value of the PIC property, yet it was accepted as a price to be paid for progress—without protest demonstration. The members of PIG, many of which have future plans of be- coming citizens of the fine city of Carlsbad, are merely asking for their fair share of due consideration with regard to the decision of the future of their property. It appears that this decision should not depend entirely upon the self-centered desires of the neighbors. When this subject comes up for discussion on our revised plan, it would be appreciated if the Planning Commission and City Council would weigh the facts presented here against the claims offered by the objectors to our plans, we feel certain that an equitable solution would be drawn in our favor. We agree and join with the people for responsible orderly planning. Bauer, President . Cclwaia <^A. 2Hicha>i<l 4039 ounnynill W>iive UaUsbaa, Ualifo'inio 92008 March 14, 1973 Dear Sirs; "his letter is written in reference to item 14 of 'omicil resolution 3085 which designates '.'unnyhill "Dr. as & perrn.rient collector street betv/een the 'Jr-rlsbsd Highlands and Hillside ...r. Joncerned gesidents will be present at the rnext C o un c i 1 i n c e- 1 in g . Yours very truly, Dr. end Mrs E. A. RichrdBds 4039 Suimyhill .i)r. G?'rlsb i-A,'J Calif. o RCH 8, 197 MAYOR D,A* DUMNS AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL T 13 QUITS E7IQ2NT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING v/ITHIN THE CONFINES 0? THE'ITY BOUNDARIES 0? CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING KO// THEIR GIF/ WILL GROW.:OH ARE THESE PEOPLE'CONSIDERED 3Y THE COUNCIL X'HSK THIS GROWTH THREATENSH2IR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA 0? OVER 20_ YEARS:-O BECOME A PART OF A NEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ONDx25IDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR* GONE WILL BE THE <4UI£T, THE DE-SIRABILITY AMD THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER.SEAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. >;2 ONCE.AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES,"O NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BYEXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEAHVIEW OR SKYLINE. V3 DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, A3 WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OR BEFORE,^5 WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLEGROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOUHLAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS ANDPROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AMD DEGRADE, YOU ARE FAILING YOUR HE-SPONSIBIL-tTIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS,THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" rlOST SINCERELY, / ' , ,. J> RECEIVED X^X-.-^ •"*• •*• KAR18W3 ^Sfffsaffsg- Individual petitions which are duplicates of the above, were submitted L to the Clerk's Office this date. The originals are filed in the Clerk's Office. The petitions were signed by the following persons: Gloria M. Halters Mo Address Mr. and Mrs. Alton Annable - " Mrs. Adella M. Salaberry " Ruth K. Honnold " Frances A. Yarbrough " Mr", and Mrs. James H. Coil III " JaneE. Magrure " Mr. and Mrs. Leach Evans " Michael E. (Illegible) Mrs. Vicki E. Campbell 4134 Skyline Rd. R. C. Campbell - 4134 skyline Rd. ElTzabeth Gerhard 4061 Skyline Rd. Ruth M. Mallard 4051 Skyline Rd. Dr. M. P. McCarthy 4073 Skyline Rd. Alice K. McCarthy 4073 Skyline Rd. W. E. Morehouse - with attached note 801gdSkyline Rd. Carol Monehouse - with attached note 4014 Skyline Rd. BEST COPY -/3'O.NCS, 'AGAIN RAISE OUR VQACS IK PROTEST, AFTER AH LMftHEASS IN PROPERTY TAXES, r-0 NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGMRNDS ff2 TO BECOME A PAHT~W "PANNONIA #lrt BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OH SKYLINE. i-/Z DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, A3 WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OH BEFORE, !L3 :•!£ BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD IS CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE 3ROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU SAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE PQLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL- ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS,: FOR TTriAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTINGCITIZEN. '"RECALL".4-^? ^^ .7. MOST SINCERELY, '/^^W-- ^**3f *&• ^^' *'4^i/4' • ^^ -^^^' ^f x,V-^ ^ -^<^^fl ~& ~~&^ -1*?^-*?*. MARCH 8, 1973 • TO: MAYOR D.A. DUNNE AND THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SIRS: IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE VOTING CITIZENS LIVING itfTTHIN THE CONFINES OP THE CITY BOUNDARIES OF CARLSBAD HAVE NO VOICE IN DECIDING HOW THEIR CITY WILL GROW. NOR ARE THESE PEOPLE' CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN THIS GROWTH THREATENS THEIR SAFETY AND SERENITY BY FORCING AN ESTABLISHED AREA OF OVER 20 YEARS TO BECOME A PART OF A MEW SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC LOADS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS NOW IN NEED OF REPAIR. GONE WILL BE THE QUIET, THE DE- SIRABILITY AND THE SAFETY THAT HAS MADE THIS AREA ONE OF THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER AREAS IN WHICH TO LIVE. WS ONCE AGAIN RAISE OUR VOICE IN PROTEST, AFTER AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES, TO NOT FORCE CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS #2 TO BECOME A PART OF "PANNONIA #1" BY EXTENDING THE STREETS OF SUNNYHILL, CLEARVIEW OR SKYLINE. WE DEMAND OUR INDIVIDUALITY, A3 WILL BE EVIDENCED AT THE POLLS, OH BEFORE, A3 WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF CARLSBAD 13 CONCERNED ABOUT SENSIBLE GROWTH WITHOUT RAPING THAT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SENSIBLY ESTABLISHED. YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT CARLSBAD GROWS AND PROSPERS, NOT TO "PEOPLE POLUTE" AND DEGRADE. YOU ARE FAILING YOUR RESPONSIBIL ITIES. RECALL YOUR COUNCIL VOTE CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THESE STREETS, FOR THAT IS THE BYWORD OF THE VOTING CITIZEN. "RECALL" MOST SINCERELY, ~&~f^<U,/£i/ c<^ /Z^'.Z£F ^LJ-*:c- BEST Mr.^Ad Mrs. To E. Kruglak 4145 Sunnyhill Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 March 12, 1973 Mr. David Dunne, Mayer City of Carlsbad Dear Mayer Dunn« and Members of th« Council:- Wetrust it is net too late to add te the already awesome verbiage concerning the Pannenia project and all its complex ramifications. Aa Carlsbad home owners we are against this concept of development in its entirety. Our argument followst Growth, as we know, is inevitable. We also know that it can be controlled. Control can only be successful by complete rejection ef developments within or on the periphery of a well established community. No development, regard- less of hew magnificent it is, should be permitted to tar the resources or impinge on the well-being of those citizens whose homos, educational facilities, shopping habits and social life form the basis of a defined community. Without the pride and possesiveness that accrue to an integral sense of belonging to an identifiable and familiar landscape, we will all bo lost. Surely, no Master Plan can overlook the preeminent fact that the integrity of an established community must be preserved at all costs. Furthermore, if we as individuals sit on our hands while our community is eroding piecemeal through developers, then we must be prepared to see the end of a way of life that has engendered in all ef us the fondest of memories. If we sit on our hands it should como as no surprise that our children will bo ciphers lining living in tract houses that could just as readily be in Lea Angeles as in Carlsbad. We believe this not need be the case. We believe a stand against encroachment en the heartland of communities such as Carlsbad can be met by the firm hand of its leaders in commiting themselves to a policy of no development period. No development of any type that affects the community proper, or could in any way impose a constriction on the present way of life. We believe a stand must be made somewhere and that Carlsbad is the place to make it. A precedent must be set, it needs only the unanimity of men and women of good will. What we have seen here indicates that there is no shortage of thorn in local government and out. What about growth? How can it be handled to serve the best interests of all concerned? One solution is to institute a green belt around the present town of Carlsbad. Development may take place only beyond this green belt, and would be in the form of clusters, with schools, shopping centers, and recreation areas shared by the clusters. The developers should be responsible for for providing the school and public facilities shared by the clusters; the town responsible for manning the facilities. If w* believe in the concept of neighborhood schools and local facilities, this is one way to achieve it without busing or exposing children to the dangers of walking or bicycling to schools outside the district* Developments must stop until a rational policy of growth can be achieved. Sincerely yours, Amy and Theodore B. Kruglak 13 March 1973 Mayor David A. Dunne and. Members of the- Carlsbad City Countil Carlsbadt California Gentlemen: I note with dismay your recent decision to open Skyline Road as an access route to the- Pannonia development. Adding to the distaste is the fact that concerned parties in this area all felt the matter had previously been decided, and that the developer, the Council and local property owners were in agreement that Skyline would not be extended. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we were lulled into a false sense of security in order to quiet our protests, when the matter could be rushed through a Council meeting unmarrtu by our attendance. It is also felt that the Planning Group has been shortsighted, in assuming that Hillside Drive and Carlsbad highlands are the only two potential access routes to Pannonia. A southerly extension of Tamarack across property already largely owned by the Pannonia. people would provide a. much more direct route to the freeway, etc., and over perhaps the only street in the area that could comfortably support additional traffic. Additionally, it is understood, that the eastward extension of Birch will turn South and. skirt Pannonia boundaries before continuing to £1 Camino Real, offering a further excellent means of access. Piecemeal planning of the past has brought sufficient chaos to the. present. Let us accept that South Carlsbad is going to be solidly built up from existing residential areas to the Lagoon and easterly to Camino Real, and demand these additional roads to service the new residents, rather than try to make existing arteries serve a purpose they are incapable of. Mayor David M. Dunne and Members of the Carlsbad City Council Page 2 It is believed that Proposition 20 implications will force a delay of many months before construction ca.n be-gin on the Pannonia project. I urge you to reconsider the decision to extend Skyline and use this fortunate interval to plan an adequate rout*-, structure to serve the Carlsba.d of the near future. Respectfully, Alexander li . Chase 4115 Skyline Road Carlsbad, Calif. 92003 WILLIAM H. DAUBNEY NICHOLAS C. BANCHE JOHN E. PATTERSON GILBERT NARES KENNETH E. REED EDWARD M. FOX LAW OFFICES OF DAUBNEY, BANCHE, PATTERSON AND NARES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 7O2 FOURTH STREET POST OFFICE BOX 39O DCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92054 AREA CODE 714 TELEPHONE 722-ISSI March 13, 1973 City Clerk City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, California Dear Mrs. Adams: 92008 The undersigned has been retained by a group of citizens, all residents of Skyline Drive of the City of Carlsbad, and asked to intercede in their behalf concerning action taken by the City Council at their last meeting which, inter alia, approved a tentative map concerning the Pannonia Development and conditioned that approval on the extension of Skyline Drive. It is my contention that under Roberts Rules of Order, I may appear and ask the Council to consider a motion to reconsider the action previously taken. The basis of my contention is that the Council's action was hasty or ill-advised or erronerous, in that those in behalf of whom I speak had been led to believe that Skyline Drive would be cul-de-saced, and not extended; had been advised that the Staff did not favor an extension of Skyline Drive in that to do so would result in a potentially dangerous stretch of roadway, and, finally, would experience both economic and aesthetic loss by such an extension. Therefore, I respectfully ask that I be placed on the agenda at your next regularly scheduled council meeting for purposes of urging this contention upon the council. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for your convenience in notifying the applicant in the event you so desire. Sincerely, DAUBNEY, BANCHE, PATTERSON & NARES Nicholas C. Banche NCB.-jp encl. »**»»», * jt-jS ^****~* •» *-<r -? aVflSTMV5 JO AllO GEORGE w. BRDWNLEY — £161 G I WIN 4120 Skyline Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 March 14, 1973 Mr. Don Agatep, Planning Director City of Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mr. Agatep: According to the projected plan to extend Tamarack Avenue through Birch Avenue, we understand that Birch would become a thoroughfare with a 68 foot right of way. We further understand that the addi- tional land needed would all be taken from the south side of Birch, which would entail the condemnation of three houses. To put such a thoroughfare with ensuing heavy traffic through a fine, established neighborhood would be an outrage totally devoid of ethics and any consideration for present residents. We strongly oppose this projection and ask that reconsideration be given imme- diately before the damage is done. It is our feeling, as well as that of all the neighbors to whom we have spoken, that the logical thoroughfare is the extension of Tamarack south through the present undeveloped property west of Sunnyhill. Your cooperation will be appreciated. ,Sincerely, Lj. George W. Brown! ey cc: Mayor David Dunne ^Hunter Cook, Eng. Dept. T^ «- ' J M«S I liU RECEIVED Mfl.Rl6l973 CITY Uh CAHLSBAD Engineering Department C 17 March 1973 Carlsbad, . California . Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad, California. Dear Sirs: Twenty years ago I built a small home on Sunnyhill Drive expecting to live here, not only my working years, but my retirement years too Since that time my wages have doubled but all of my living expenses have gone far beyond the doubling. The taxes on my home is one of these, the assessed valuation increased over 300$, the tax rate has doubled. All of which means that my taxes on this property have gone up approximately 600^, Now I understand that you are considering widening and putting in curbs and sidewalks on Sunnyhill Drive to give access for a new development. I am. not against new development, after all my home was once a new development, but I understand that I will have to pay for the improvements to the street in front of my home. Estimated two to three thousand dollars. I do not want this kind of improvements to the street in front of my house, I simply cannot afford them. I especially do not want them done at my expense to make money for a developer, please let him pay all his own costs. Should you let this street improvement take place, you know as well as I do, that the tax assessor will follow up the construction and jump on me for another exhorbitant re-assessment". That Cockroach upped my assessed valuation by 50$ this last year. I am very near retirement age now and it is just nip and tuck whether or not I will be able to keep my home the way things are at present. If you allow this street project to go through, you are practically assuring that I will be forced to give up the home I do so want to keep, For the love of Mike, have a heart and tell them no, tell them "Hell Ho". Please! John W. Wilterding 4040 Sunnyhill Drive Pe S.. Sorry to have to write instead of appear in person but I am working nights This week and cannot make the meeting, rv 0 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED OPENING OF SUNNYHILL AVENUE AT HILLSIDE DRIVE TO: Carlsbad City Council RE: Proposed Klug-Pannonia Development As It Relates To The Opening of Sunnyhill Drive Gentlemen: Please be advised that we are in total disagreement with the arbitrary action taken by the Carlsbad Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 13, 1973, as it relates to the opening of Sunnyhill Drive at its proposed junction with Hillside. That action disregarded the enlightened pleas of Commissioner Norman, the expressed wishes of representatives from the Carlsbad Highlands, the recommendations of the city staff, as well as those of professionals commissioned by that staff at an undisclosed cost to the taxpayers of this fair city, Conceding the need for emergency access as between the Highlands and the proposed Pannonia development, we respectfully submit our view that the commissioners overstepped their bounds in providing "emergency access" by establishing Sunnyhill and Monroe Avenues as major connecting streets, We are -constrained to begin with the observation that Sunnyhill and Monroe are now densely populated streets without sidewalks to accomodate pedestrian traffic. The Highlands as well as the Geyer Development presently house innumerable school-aged children. Those children use Sunnyhill and Monroe Avenues as their primary pedestrian access to the Magnolia Elementary, Valley Junior High and Carlsbad High Schools. To increase the vehicular traffic on these streets is to invite disaster. Moreover, the Sunnyhill-Monroe configuration is uniquely unsuited to its proposed use as a major connecting street. Between Chestnut and the proposed connection with Hillside Avenue there are no fewer than five intersections. Virtually all of those intersections feed school-aged pedestrians into Sunnyhill and Monroe. The Monroe-Alder-Sunnyhill intersection is already an extremely precarious one. The homes on that corner presently house no less than / children; the intersection is a blind one for drivers approaching from the north or south on Alder as xtfell as those approaching from the west on Monroe; and it is virtually unnegotiable at speeds in excess of 15 m.p.h. The intersection already provides a daily spectacle of near misses to area residents. It is patently unreasonable to expect increased traffic to do anything but increase an already dangerous situation. Finally we must note that these streets bisect some of the most desirable residential properties in this city. Neither Sunnyhill noj Monroe are shown on the Master Plan as major connection streets -1- c Carlsbad City Countil February 16, 1973 Page 2 and we respectfully submit that the purchases of real property abutting thereon have not assumed the risk of action of this magnitude. In closing we would hope the Council.will take legislative notice of the neighborhood integrity of this truly unique area. If the Klug-Pannonia Development is to be given the approval of this body, we must respectfully request that the connection between it and the Highlands be of a smaller dimension intended to accomodate emergency vehicles only. Respectfully submitted, NAME ADDRESS c 3 NAME ADDRESS <\A Li/ttz, h , ,-; /; , y V/i £'fr.jL^'**-f c o PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED OPENING OF SUNNYHILL AVENUE AT HILLSIDE DRIVE TO: Carlsbad City Council RE: Proposed Klug-Pannonia Development As It Relates To The Opening of Sunnyhill Drive Gentlemen: Please be advised that we are in total disagreement with the arbitrary action taken by the Carlsbad Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 13, 1973, as it relates to the opening of Sunnyhill Drive at its proposed junction with Hillside. That action disregarded the enlightened pleas of Commissioner Norman, the expressed wishes of representatives from the Carlsbad Highlands, the recommendations of the city staff, as well as those of professionals commissioned by that staff at an undisclosed cost to the taxpayers of this fair city. Conceding the need for emergency access as between the Highlands and the proposed Pannonia development, we respectfully submit our view that the commissioners overstepped their bounds in providing "emergency access" by establishing Sunnyhill and Monroe Avenues as major connecting streets. We are constrained to begin with the observation that Sunnyhill and Monroe are now densely populated streets without sidewalks to accomodate pedestrian traffic. The Highlands as well as the Geyer Development presently house innumerable school-aged children. Those children use Sunnyhill and Monroe Avenues as their primary pedestrian access to the Magnolia Elementary, Valley Junior High and Carlsbad High Schools. To increase the vehicular traffic on these streets is to invite disaster. Moreover, the Sunnyhill-Monroe configuration is uniquely unsuited to its proposed use as a major connecting street. Between Chestnut and the proposed connection with Hillside Avenue there are no fewer than five intersections. Virtually all of those intersections feed school-aged pedestrians into Sunnyhill and Monroe. The Monroe-Alder-Sunnyhill intersection is already an extremely precarious one. The homes on that corner presently house no less than // children; the intersection is a blind one for drivers approaching from the north or south on Alder as well as those approaching from the west on Monroe; and it is virtually unnegotiable at speeds in excess of 15 m.p.h. The intersection already provides a daily spectacle of near misses to area residents. It is patently unreasonable to expect increased traffic to do anything but increase an already dangerous situation. Finally we must note that these streets bisect some of the most desirable residential properties in this city. Neither Sunny-hill nor Monroe are shown on the Master Plan as major connection streets -1- Carlsbad City Countil February 16, 1973 Page 2 and we respectfully submit that the purchases of real property abutting thereon have not assumed the risk of action of this magnitude. In closing we would hope the Council.will take legislative notice of the neighborhood integrity of this truly unique area. If the Klug-Pannonia Development is to be given the approval of this body, we must respectfully request that the connection between it and the Highlands be of a smaller dimension intended to accomodate emergency vehicles only. Respectfully submitted, NAME ADDRESS ^?<rs " <^<*^^ &*<^^^(%^^ /J / / s~i> e f / c ADDRESS . Jr. ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS c o Carlsbad City Countil February 16, 1973 Page 2 and we respectfully submit that the purchases of real property abutting thereon have not assumed the risk of action of this magnitude. In closing we would hope the Council.will take legislative notice of the neighborhood integrity of this truly unique area. If the Klug-Pannonia Development is to be given the approval of this body, we must respectfully request that the connection between it and the Highlands be of a smaller dimension intended to accomodate emergency vehicles only. Respectfully submitted, NAME ADDRESS </<£<// JX^*-t^ Q 7 7 ^ 6 •* cW--Vv- . U^_X^'CT -2- PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED OPENING OF SUNNYHILL AVENUE AT HILLSIDE DRIVE TO: Carlsbad City Council RE: Proposed Klug-Pannonia Development As It Relates To The Opening of Sunnyhill Drive Gentlemen: Please be advised that we are in total disagreement with the arbitrary action taken by the Carlsbad Planning Commission' on Tuesday, February 13/ 1973, as it relates to the opening of Sunnyhill Drive at its proposed junction with Hillside. That action disregarded the enlightened pleas of Commissioner Norman, the expressed wishes of representatives from the Carlsbad Highlands, the recommendations of the city staff, as well as those of professionals commissioned by that staff at an undisclosed cost to the taxpayers of this fair city. Conceding the need for emergency access as between the Highlands and the proposed Pannonia development, we respectfully submit our view that the commissioners overstepped their bounds in providing "emergency access" by establishing Sunnyhill and Monroe Avenues as major connecting streets. We are -constrained to begin with the observation that Sunnyhill and Monroe are now densely populated streets without sidewalks to accomodate pedestrian traffic. The Highlands as well as the Geyer Development presently house innumerable school-aged children. Those children use Sunnyhill and Monroe Avenues as their primary pedestrian access to the Magnolia Elementary, Valley Junior High and Carlsbad High Schools. To increase the vehicular traffic on these streets is to invite disaster. Moreover, the Sunnyhill-Monroe configuration is uniquely unsuited to its proposed use as a major connecting street. Between Chestnut and the proposed connection with Hillside Avenue there are no fewer than five intersections. Virtually all of those intersections feed school-aged pedestrians into Sunnyhill and Monroe. The Monroe-Alder-Sunnyhill intersection is already an extremely precarious one. The homes on that corner presently house no less than // children; the intersection is a blind one for drivers approaching from the north or south on Alder as well as those approaching from the west on Monroe; and it is virtually unnegotiable at speeds in excess of 15 m.p.h. The intersection already provides a daily spectacle of near misses to area residents. It is patently unreasonable to expect increased traffic to do anything but increase an already dangerous situation. Finally we must note that these streets bisect some of the most desirable residential properties in this city. Neither Sunnyhill nor Monroe are shown on the Master Plan as major connection streets -1- July 18, 1972 TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE CITY CLERK SUBJECT: Correspondence addressed to the City Council re: Pannonia Investment Co. - request for Change of Zone. Attached are 41 letters regarding Pannonia In- vestment Company's request for Zone Change and letters with regard to a moratorium on building in the City of Carlsbad in connection with the proposed development. C 3 cf) RECEIVED. JUL 1*1972 ITY CLERK'S OFFICE '' /") "tt*. Lit: ft VX // WL^ RECEIVED 18 1972 July 17, ir7£ Carlsbad, Calif. Carlsbad City Council : ' , C,.,„,! r,t, .• ,3 ,1- J.-,- — r. 1 T V. . ti. J U'- -U 'j— I.',/ ...V..J.» Carlsbad, California ' O-entler-en : .v'i-y vr-s add cur voices to those of the proponents of a. building devel- opment r.oratcriur. ir. Carlsbad. These days legality r.o lonr*er can "be the only c\-itericn in business rsj the ethics c aation r.ust- tlso h?: consdere.Aftor years cf e:vloit- ticn of the public f-.ll ov-r the United St: tes the ethics cf business ;.rc.ctic^s ; ...re b^in,:; chc.llen:;^d pi:":liciv r for the first tir'e in our history. It is brco";:."irjf: neccss-':..r:r to be ethic?.! £.5 veil c;.s loral. vie feel th-.t it is rinethicr-l to brild so ~xz^ units th^.t icas-tine residents h.r.ve to. forfeit criticel front^"e or their actug.l ho^es to provide the necessary access. It tlso seens \aaethicai to r-res^st -the property o^Tiers ••rith the sudden necessity to r^dicr?.lly enlarge the school system vrhen v^e find it h?.rd to rrovide for the present one. A situation vhich is hr;.r-ll;r relieved by l^.n-d donsticns or a fev thousand dollars. Ncr does it see™ ethical for outside speculators or local ones to increase their r:--;rgin of profit -rhen ot::er o^nsTS, by such action, .will lose theirs. Sureljr a population explosion can not be beneficial to a city unless balanced by a proportionate anount of industry and a heaitl^- ta:: base. /jid c-t T«h£t point will the ecoiogr of Carlsbad became as S-~o=i and noise polluted as the areas fron wnich prospective residents are fleeing. Therefore we urge you, our elected representatives, to vote for a building development moratorium at this time in order to reevaluate how far Carlsbad can .30 toward aleviatins the population explosion of the Nation '--rithout irreparable har:.? to those of us who a-ce alreadjr here. incerely, Gordon A. Jo.ston .RECEIVED j(jL 18 1972 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OTY OF CARLSBAD RECEIVED JUL181972 *v\»CC*flft » A'3 "5 c *j, U**£*j a. 'S . '-"••.- i.. i ,7 "!"-» 4-v -.„• i >cii> « 41. I O » !•**£. > *v o ^ ,-5 o r g* i rt-»rrtc» **5ve -v <i<s*e*wuvim««i Ca^4sW6 June 18, 1972 Carlsbid City Council Re: Cannon! a Com. Cnrlsbnd, CA Gentlemen: I note, 7/ith interest, that a moratorium on all building in the city of Carlsbad is being considered until a new plan can be formulated. Tonight you '.Till have to decide on -whether to allow ItOl units on much less than 6.H acres if you make provisions for needed streets and sidewalks. This is about 80 of the 5$^ existing units which are now in an area of a-nnroximately 8,920 acres. By oercent, this is more than a 1000/o increased concentration of dwellings. You vd.ll have to decide on how this mil increase our air t)ollution — Carlsbad has the distrinct honor of having the highest air pollution count in the county — what strains-there td.ll be on our sewer, utility and fire services, the further deterioration of our bumpy streets, how our police force "trill need to be increased to extend services, the necessity for building new school facilities. And, an this, at what gain to Carlsbad? Sincerely, Rita '.Vindrura RECEIVED JUL181972 ^xi^ JUL181972 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF CARLSBAD 'tH/SlA, **&4J o July 17,1972 Carls Dad City Council Carlsbsd, California 3entlemen: As a concerned property owner, I am writing to ptotest th» Pannonla Development to be located south of Sunnyhill, Skyline and Clearview Drives. No plans have been made for roads leading to this development, if the above streets mentioned would be used for this purpose it would greatly reduce property values and the rural atmosphere that we now enjoy. I also urge you to declare a moratorium on all new developments at this time and take a second look at what you are doing to the City of Carlsbad. Please don't make it another Orange County. truly ^oura, Elizabeth Gerhard 4061 Skyline Road Carlsbad, California RECEIVED JUL18B72 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF CARLSBAD July 18, 1972 City Council Carlsbad City Hall Carlsbad, California Gentlemen: I wish to object to the Pannonia development located south of Sunnyhill and Clearview Drives. It is known as a planned community. I strongly feel that a moratorium be placed on all new developments for at least one year so that we all can assess our needs and values. Last night (July 17th) on Channel 2, coastal areas in the United States were discussed. It was alarming to note that California is one of the few states that does nothing to protect its coastal area. Among the states which have for some time been working on this problem are, Maine, Massachu- setts, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Washington and Oregon. The City of San Diego has at last become alerted and also the small towns between San Diego and Carlsbad. Why not us? From a college textbook, namely CALIFORNIA: ITS PEOPLE, ITS PROBLEMS, ITS PROSPECTS by Robert W. Durrenberger, from San Fernando Valley State College - page 169 - I would like to quote: "Some where we must stand and say clearly that enough is enough. That growth is no longer compatible with progress. Now we have come to a point where they are in utter opposition. We all of us must and will come someday soon to distinguish between growth and progress." Page 171 - "If our living stan- dards remain high in the decades to come, it seems inevitable that our society will become more and more metropolitan. There is small hope of much decentralization. These cities economic agglomeration will have their problems, smog, blight, delin- quency, impoverished schools, intolerable traffic, short tempers. This will be the stress society." These ideas are not new. Thousands of years ago Isaiah 5:8 said "Woe unto them that join houses to house, that lay field to field till there is no place that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth". End quote. Respectfully, RECEIVED u ,• •+ D PMrs. Wait R. Groswold JUL181972 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF CARLSBAD July 17, 3972 Carlsbad City Council, Carlsbad'City Kail, Carlsbad, Calif. 92003 Gentlemen: Reading the current newsnaoers, I think Carlsbad is moving too fast, overlooking the need for access roads and provisions for schools, sewers,water, etc., in new areas. I am informed today that the Pannonia De- velopment, a proposed community of UOO units, will come up on the City Council agenda Tuesday evening, July IB. I live on Skyline Road, where the taxes are commensurate with the quality of hoses and the quiet, peaceful environment. Is this area to be sacrificed for the explosion of a large subdivision adjoining, without thought of ade- quate ingress and egress? This development should definitely be halted until all nhases, including roads and utilities, have been studied and determined. I, therefore, urge that a moratorium be placed on all new development in the Sunnyhill, Skyline and Clear-view area, and other similar projects.Respectfully. RECEIVED (Mrs.) Rath M. Mallard JUL181972 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF CARLSBAD -S^O^A• v\ x ] 0^rvv4J3v>^»-^<OC_9 -s—XXC$Lj>rvx_^ &^> RECEIVED JUL 18 W2 CITY CLERK'b UI-FICE CITY OF CARLSBAD .mw4i^^.t^*^^w.;^^^»»v«^j»^^«~,^ O 1200 Sim Avenue Carlsbad, California July 14, 1972 Kenneth and Hilda Brickson 3930 Highland Drive P.O. Box 617 Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Councilmens Ve are concerned about the new housing projects being considered for approval, particularly the Panonia development South East of Highland Drive. After attending the informative meeting with the city engineer, Hunter Cook, and seeing the traffic flow that would be generated from these developments, we want to oppose any such building projects until adaquate traffic patterns have been established. the current proposed plan to widen Highland Drive t» four lanes would place many residences extremely close to the road. Oar own house would no longer have a usable fromt yard. Being this close to the roadway, the es- timated 16,000 cars a day would create a health and noise problem to our established residential community.i Until the community and planners come to an adaquate agreement on traffic patterns in relation to housing developments, we will continue to oppose any new such projects. Sincerely, RECEIVED J&JJ*. JUL14B72 D c ^ c i \/ e nRECEIVED /£^^£€/ <£&7?4s4^J£!L f6vt CITY CLERK'S OFFICE >CITY OF CARLSBAD ^l^^L^-^^^. t^^ BEST COPY RECE 'ED Carlsbad City Council JUL 18 19/2 Carlsbad City Hall CITY CLERK r'FiCE Carlsbad, CA 92008 CITY OF CAK..SBAD Gentlemen, As property otrners and concerned citizens of Carlsbad for the past 2& years, we urge you to vote for a moratorium on approval of all netr developments in our city untill such time as plans have been completed and provision made for schools, streets, access roads and other public facilities to support the inevitable growth of our city, Sincerely, C, h> r. & Mrs. C. A. Cornellier 3963 James Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 o Carlsbad City Council, Carlsbad City Hall, Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 Gentlemen: As property owners and concerned citizens of Carlsbad for the past 10 years, we urge you to vote for a moratorium on approval of all new developments in our city untill such time as plans have been completed and provision made for schools, streets, access roads and other public facilities to support the inevitable growth of our city. cSincerely^ 'Mr? & Mrs. "M." K. Baird Jr. 3942 James Drive Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 RECEIVED JW. I* 1972 AU. I A , '.„..•*.'•"•' .-v. •_*,-.-%< i T* -f] ^\ •1^0^ -A U • *Ji<&^J!L^«, *M^ <tcKCEIVEQ JUL1S1972 CLERK'S OFFICE <f) "tfc*. L-Jtc. 0 \^&<JU4~e-& />U ^4^^-te^L^^s COPY c y /r^f /?> ' Z/£/i(_^ 6^-^^ O^^^s^-^;. RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY; O£ CARLSBAD w - 7 o O K e c 2- r r • ~T 2 T~i o To - o TU, L ro ^ to prof. V ^r f ciS pc*-^ J.f/r ro To Mo.T" "To T~A «-_ £ op e- .r- a T~e C cl , r- c oT~ / /^> of ( c arc, > r_r JL p • y i *j v <... 7~o X1 a p p <r ? r TV c o <7 a r N> o o NJ <=( >. y o c *^ K / oo x^ /a r to L <7 y 0 u r c A £> r- -z /e. of c i TV K o c 10 K i c y o C o RECEIVED £ITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OE CARCSOAfi CL r <- -s1 t ic s a v a C i , 6 c*/ e --<3--<^_-*- «/ o 18 July, 1972 Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad City Hall Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 Gentleman, Tliis letter is written to request the council, as electe representatives of the people, to declare a mor- atorium on approval of all new developements at this time, and that said moratorium be kept in effect until all planning has been completed and provisions made for schools, streets and other public facilities. I object specifically, to the Pannonia developement to be located south of Sunnyhill, Skyline and Clearview Drives.Hone of the above mentioned facilities have been provided to handle the increase in population that this developement will create. I also object to a proposed widening of Hillside and Highland Drives to a four lane highway, to accomadate out of town builders at the expense of long time Carlsbad residents. I have often heard members of our City Council defend the money ynd time developers spend for proposed projects only to be denied their plans when presented to our city officials. Gentleman, I have never heard anyone in city hall defend the permanent residents of this town, who,in total, have far more money and time invested over a period of years than any developer. Perhaps many problems could be eliminated if the city departments listened to the pulse of its citizens and consulted affected property owners before any pro- jected developements were considered. Better communication between the people and elected officials was the great promise during the recent election, now let us see it in action.V/e the people are the government' and we the people have a great responsibitity to take an active part in government ofl we the people will no longer rule. 3551 Highland Drive Carlsbad, Calif RECEIVED JUL 111972 .CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF CARUSBAD o 5990 Highland Drive Carlsbad, California July 5, 1972 Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Gentlemen: As I have been away, I have just learned of the Carlsbad Planning Contraission approving the Pannonia development adjacent to Skyline and Sunnyhill Drives. I object to this cevelopment because of the proposed plans for providing access to that area. Namely, the widening of highland Drive to 84 feet from its present 60 foot width. To gain this added right of way, it will be necessary for the property owners on both siaes of Highland Drive to give the City of Carlsbad a 12 foot easement. Since our home fronts on Highland, the granting of the Iz foot easenient will reduce its set back to 10 feet. Klso, since the house is located below street level, we will no longer have access to our garage if the easement is enforced. It is needless to state that either one of the aforementioned is intolerable because of the loss of privacy and hardships they present. There is also the financial aspects. It is obvious that our property, as a result of the easement,v;ill be devalued. My family and myself find it very disheartening to realize that through no fault or willfull action on our part vie can be forced into losing what we have been working for, plus taking a substantial financial loss - especially when we are in the midst of making plans to improve both our property and home. I can see no justification for either myself or my neighboring property owners to bear such heavy losses while the developers only prosper. In summation, I trust that you members of the City Council will listen to the residents of Carlsbad, recognize their objections and act in their favor. And, that is, to withhold any approval of the Pannonia development until an overall plan for providing access to this area is developed. Don't you agree it is asking too much for a few property owners to bear the full brunt of such Inadequate planning? Very £ruly yours, RECEIVED JUL-51972 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF. CARLSBAD c July 17th, 1972. Carlsbad City Cotlncil, Carlsbad. California 92008 Gentlemen i^- We protest the approval of the Pannonia Development at this time. We ask that a moratorium be placed on the approval of all ne# developments until all planning has been completed for all public facili- ties to handle the increased population.... and it is mandatory that a moratorium be placed on approval of all new developments at this time. ^-—- Yours very trulyv AAGR3 LILLIAN AAGRS PERRY ^269 Hillside Drive. Carlsbad. California Please place official stamp on this letter. RECEIVED JUL 17 1972 crnr CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF CARLSBAD City Council of the City of Carlsbad Elm Ave, Carlsbad, Ca. 0 Carlsbad, July 16 1972, Mr. Mayor, City Councilman : In view of the threat to the basic character and structure of our town I have no choice but to request a moratorium effective immediately on any and all proposed and/or planned building developments within the City of Carlsbad, The grave inequities imposed on the NOW residents of Carlsbad for the sake of the FUTURE residents are almost beyond comprehension. In particular I protest the PANNONIA Development because I feel it would spoil entirely the pleasant and relaxed atmosphere in the very surrounding residential areas. The need for this proposed planned community or high density is totally unwarranted, undesirable and conflictive in nature with what Carlsbad in that section of the town is all about. It seems clearly evident that our present and past organizational structure of this City has been lured into issuing an unwarranted number of building permits of very questionable intent, indeed. The Planning Department seems to rapidly become a Department of History, running after the facts instead of ahead of the facts. How far behind does the City has to get before it will wake up in shock and come to realize that what it let happen was not right after all?. GREED ON THE PART OF THE DEVELOPERS AND LACK OF SEBSITIvTTY ON THE. PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF SEEMS TO BE THE MOTIVE AND ISSUE ; THE ^^^ ORDER. Yours. Mol, ^#4- Adams Street /_ o-jnnft.Carlsbad, Ca. O D RECEIVED JUL 17 1972 CITY CLEM'S CITY OF CARLSBAD July 17, 1972 Mayor David Dunne :' ? Counci Imen City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Dear Mayor Dunne: This letter is written in opposition to the Pannonia Development in the Park and Hillside Drive area in Carlsbad. Our reason for objecting to the development is due to the highly projected flow of traffic being funneled in our residential area when the extension of Sky!ine-Clearview-Sunnyhill Drive could reduce the 16,000 projected vehicular traffic per day. If all abuting streets in the area to this project would receive their fair share of traffic, traffic safety would be reduced in many aspects. We will appreciate you making a fair evaluation of the situation. Respectfully, Mr. & Mrs. D. A. Packer 4205 Hillside Drive Carlsbad, Ca. o J. ZT -e TO Cf/fy <sf /b //; ' July 15, 1972 uear oirs, As are many other Carlsbad property holders, we are very concerned with the prospect of sudden and uncontrolled growth in our community. We strongly urge you to consider a moratorium on authorization of any new housing units; time must be cade to consider increased costs of services such as schools, roads, sanitation and how the increased costs inherent in any expansion can be met. Of course we wish to share the Carlsbad life-style with others; unless we have some very careful planning^ however, urange county smog and congestion will be all we have to offer. Sincerely, Firs. «. P. Chaney o jfi Van M. Lonergan 1950 Magnolia Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad City Hall Carlsbad, Calif. 92008 I am writing to you concerning the Pannonia Development. It is to my knowledge that you plan to build a community of UO units in the area located south of Sunnyhill, Skyline, and CLearview Drives. I further understand that no provisions or plans have been made for the roads leading to this development. I feel, along with others, that adequate planning should be made before the final approval of the Pannonia Development or any other developments. It is not right that those of us already living here may lose because of conditions that will be forced upon us due to the lack of enough planning. One proposal is to widen Hillside Drive and Highland Drive to become h lane highways. Highland Drive is one of the most beautiful streets in Carlsbad, and it definitely is a shame to widen it* Shouldn't it be important to keep our cities and streets beautiful? I urge you to place a moratorium on the approval of the new developments. This would allow time to complete planning for schools, streets, and other public facilities.to handle the increase in population. Thank you, RECEIVED 17 1972 38-V3 ; CwfJLul, 6iCivtnia 92008 RE: Pannonia July 16, 1972 Carlsbad City Council 12 '0 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Sirs: I believe v/e need a moratorium on large-scale developments in Carlsbad until the proposed amend- ments to the General Plan have been given a public hearing and approved by the Council. The Planning Department has stated it will make a survey of present residents concerning their wishes for development of Carlsbad. Most people envision this as the area between the two lagoons, and during the past year you. have heard protest after protest from all sections of the city when developments close to existing homes threaten to change the character of neighborhoods, but no comments on devel- opments in the outlying areas. Need you ask more? The Planned Community concept has many advantages but should not be used in areas where existing roads (even if improved) will be inadequate for the increased flow of traffic and the resulting volume will threaten the safety of residents. Though the Pannonia Investment Co. plans were in the hopper before your 90-day P.O. moratorium went into effect, I believe it is an example of premature develop- ment and should be denied. Sincerely," Mary Casl<6r July l?th, 1972 Carlsbad City Council, Carlsbad City Hall, Carlsbad, California 92008 Gentlemen:-- We request that a moratorium be placed on the approval of all new developments at this time, and that this moratorium be kept in effect until all planning has been completed and pro- visions made in schools, streets and other public facilities to handle the increased population without additional burden to our present citizens. We do not approve of the autocratic dictatorship of our present city government which shows complete disregard for the will of the people. Yours very truly, v^^KX, CURT AAGRS WALTER PSHRY 4269 Hillside Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 RECEIVED JUL17B72 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF CARLSBAD / 3 ? 4 > £<^£<.C-*.*<..?. -J LjCUiji^J-^-^-RECEIVED JUL 17 B72 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF CARLSBAD •C^<JL_-£i-C-' ^C-^i^^fL^ '^L^^^^—^^^-f^— v j-u^J ^*~- j^tt^U S^^-^^e^^c \Jlf^*^u^ I ^/L^^^JQ^C^ /AW~ ^x^^^^^-^^ /"zf^l^^r -^^-^^^*s Carlsbad, -Calif. July 17, 1972 Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad City Hall Carlsbad,Calif.92008 Dear Sirs; I believe that it is time that the elected representatives of Carlsbad started to regard the wishes and welfare of the people. It is indeed time for you to demonstrate whether you are small time incompetents listening to a few who are obviously trying to manipulate you for their personal gain or glory, or whether you are persons of good conscience, capable of influencing the future lives of many individuals^. The dire situation that now exists in Carlsbad must glaringly indicate to you that the immediate need is for desirable small industry. Before ANY other residential changes are made which would beckon additional population and impose greater taxes on all of us, all efforts should be directed toward obtaining the kind of industry that Oceanside and San Marcos are getting all around us. Hhether the present emphasis is due to poor planning, undue pressure, or your inability to fulfill obligations to the citizens, I have no way of discerning^ Until a change iri direction is made, I emphatically urge that you NOT approve any new residential developments.. Very truly yours, 3635 Highland Drive RECEIVED JUL17®2 COPY o Capt. L.W. Rash (USN Ret.) 4156 Highland Drive t June 16. 1972 Chairman of City Council: Members of the Council: Gentlemen; It Is with the upmost concern for a more orderly direction of growth of the City of Carlsbad that I write this letter of objection to the Planning Commission's approval of a Zone chane and adoption of the faster Plan In favor of the Pannonla Investment Co. The Easter Plan presented to the Planning Commission on June 27,1972 Is not In the best Interest of allthe Tax paying citizens. In view of your sworn obllgatlonto rep— resent all the people of Carlsbad, I urge you to set aside these findings and decisions. It Is further requested that no additional developements be approved until the Kaster Plan has been brought up to date and presented to the citizens* I also urge that all alternatives be considered that will exclude the extentlon of Hillside Drive. Respectfully. V &JLLJ . -1*T• 1?~7 D -?-P •CU<L* ^^tisJL^^l^ ^/ -£*u. , I <SA A p* -j!r I ^C^-^^^piL<J^/ ^dx^; ^ZxnW ^ . ^u/ / -/-7 ^(M^^C^^^-^'• o ^IjL /l&^c^L' s) /} " -y- OC^-€^?-y2--^^-^ra-^--' o ^K^SLs-r\~>dL£t^ -sCJ\JL- ^C^ o July 17, 1972 RECEIVED JUL171972 •City Council Carlsbad, Calif. Gentleman: This letter is to notify the City Council and to g-o on public record as being against the action being planned in conjunction with the widening of Highland, Tamarack and Hillside Streets. The action was planned and conceived without announcement and consideration for the right of the tax payer and property owners living on these streets. You, who are elected by the FSC?LS, should, at all times, be concerned for the rights of the people. Should this action proceed and the streets be widened, you will be violating the trust which you either consciously or unconsciously accepted when you weresworn into public office. Gentlemen, have you considered the harmful aspects which this action will bring about? If, as hasbeen suggested, there will in fact be 23*000 cars daily, passing along the streets v/ith its attendant polluting emissions and increased accident potential, then you are truly derelict in your sworn duty to the citizens of Carlsbad. In addition you will be condemning trees, shrubs and grasses, which are so necessary to the balance of nature, to death. We wish to go on record, requesting a morotorium on furthur Land Developeiaent, until such time as the City Engineer, the City Council, and the Citizens of Carlsbad have been able to meet and revalue their differences. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. B.A. Johnston 3925 Highland Dr. Carlsbad, Calif. c , y'-? •/•— ) ^^ & ^ XO / / V ^^ -4&i*j&^zL<f& ^UI-?T^^ / ^<7 / /V_ a Carlsbad, Ca,' July 17, 1972 To The Carlsbad City Council, We are concerned about the rapid growth of Carlsbad without an up to date master plan. The present streets and services cannot handle all the proposed developments without causing a burden on the rest of Carlsbad* We strongly urge the City Council to declare a moratorium on these developments in the city untill a complete study can be made to determine how we are going to handle the increased traffic etc. Then and only then can we procede with orderly growth. The matter before you Tuesday July 18 , Pannonia Development, should be delayed untill this has been done. As elected officials of Carlsbad you should listen to the people of Carlsbad rather than some Qut Of Town Developers whose only concern for the people of Carlsbad is to make as much money as they can and move on, leaving the headaches to us. Please call a halt now before its too late I __ Thank You, -X Mr. & Mrs. Hay Barnhill 38*K> Park Drive Carlsbad, Ca. o Mina A. Cooper 4000 Highland Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 July 18, 1972 Carlsbad City Council City Hall Carlsbad, California 92008 Gentlemen: Recent articles in the local newspapers have caused me considerable concern because the growth of Carlsbad appears to be without proper planning of roads, schools, and financial planning for them. Therefore, I oppose the Pannonia development. 1 have been informed that the City of Carlsbad has no money to develop the roads after the developments go in. Further investigation shows we don't even have a good traffic plan. In a meeting with Mr. Hunter Cooke where he explained the Pannonia Develop ment it appears that the routes the children will have to take to school are considerably out of their way and are presently some of the most dangerous streets we have. Increasing the present traffic to about seven or eight times the present flow (or about 14,000 to 16,000 cars per day) will further endanger our children as well as those in the new development. Since the city has no funds to improve the roads we have, or construct new ones, we will have to have this increased traffic on our presently inadequate roads or unfairly assess present home owners along the routes for roads they don't want and for devaluation of their property. I encourage you to postpone the approvement of the Pannonia development until provisions can be made for roads and schools and for the financing of the same without jeopardizing the present homeowners. Yours for a planned community, RECEIVED JUL18B72 '\ Da via i fwi.i •• Highland Drive Csr^: . •:.?, -Ccfi/fffft-c C*I<£ July 17, 1972 Carlsbad City Council City Hall Carlsbad, California 92008 Gentlemen: As the owner of property at 4000 Highland Drive, I would like to request that the Pannonia development be delayed until the city engineer and his staff can develop a road plan suitable to the City Council and Carlsbad residents and present a financial plan for it. This will enable the council, the present home owners, and the developers to be assured that the community is developing for the good of all. If the city council allows this development and others to go in without a satisfactory traffic plan, we have city development in reverse. Furthermore, if the Pannonia development is passed without a suitable traffic plan it opens the door of criticism for the council for years to come. Many people are not yet aware of the effects of this development on the schools, the devaluation of their property, and the assessments they will be required to pay for roads which they don't even want. When the entire community is aware of these things, there will be a steady stream of citizens to the city hall, wondering why our elected councilmen would do such a thing. For the sake of decent living in Carlsbad and a city we can all be proud of please postpone this and other developments until satisfactory traffic, school, and financing can be planned. Thanking you Sincerely, RECEIVED JUL 18 1972 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY Of CARLSBAD r E. Cooper D.R J a n u a ry^,, 1973 Re:KLug/Pannonia Development Mr. Agatep/Mr. Dominguez - 1. There are three letters of protest - 1. Mallard 2. McCarthy 3. Taylor 2. There is one letter of recommendation 1. Prewitt 3. There are four petitions - (Protest) 1. 64 signatures 2. 96 3. 41 4. 59 260 signatures (total)