HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-09-08; City Council; 9158; Bear negative declaration appeal.. z 0 5
8
a
=i 0 z 3
4B# P/sr
IIITG.
3EPT. 9/8/87
PLN
r./ /I,' m CI"-' OF CARLSBAD - AGENr L BILL /"
L,
TITLE: APPEAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PE 2.87.19 - BEAR
CITY MG
CITY A
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff is recommending that based on the findings in the Negative
Declaration and the additional findings listed below, the City
Council DENY the appeal and uphold the Negative Declaration as
issued by the Planning Director.
ITEM EXPLANATION
This is an appeal by Mr. Jess Groomer of a Negative Declaration
issued for a grading permit at 3311 Fosca, in the La Costa area
(map attached).
Building plans were submitted by Mr. Joe Bear for the
construction of a single story, single family residence at the
above address. The building plans showed a swimming pool and
tennis court which required some additional grading onsite. The
additional grading necessitated a grading permit. The grading
permit requires an environmental analysis by the Planning
Department.
The grading plan for the proposed home, shows 2,500 cubic yards
of grading. This is high for a single family residence, but not
high for a house with a pool in the steeper areas of La Costa.
Staff analyzed the grading and felt there were no significant
impacts. A Negative Declaration was issued on August 5, 1987.
The Groomers' appealed the Negative Declaration (letter from
Attorney Worden attached) on August 14, 1987 and based the appeal
on adverse impacts to the views of homes to the east. The view
blockage rather than actual grading impacts appears to be the
major issue. Apparently the Bear property has a restriction
prohibiting view blockage through private CC&RIs. Based on a
memo from the Assistant City Attorney (attached) this view restriction is a private matter between Mr. Bear and the Homeowners Association. The City has no discretion to deny a grading permit based on view blockage.
Most of the grading shown on the plans is not created by the new house itself, but is needed to create a pad for the swimming pool
and tennis courts which are located a distance below the
appellants property. In summary, staff feels the grading is
appropriate for the project as proposed. The view blockage is not a City issue and should be resolved between the Bears and the Homeowners Association. Staff would recommend that the City
Council add the following findings in upholding the Negative
Declaration issued by the Planning Director.
Page Two of Agenda Bill No. 9 /sr
1) That grading for the site is in accordance with similar
projects in this area.
2) The grading creates no significant impacts to adjacent
properties as it meets all City Standards and ordinances.
EXHIBITS
1) Location Map
2) Memo from Assistant City Attorney, dated August 21, 1987
3) Appeal Letter from Attorney Worden, dated August 14, 1987
4) Letters (2) from Attorney Worden, dated July 30, 1987
5) Negative Declaration with Documents
2
GENERAL PLAN
RESIDENTIAL RL LOW DEMIT( ( 0. I 5 ) RLH LOW.MEDICM DENSITY(0-+)
RMH MEDICM HIGH DENSIP((8-13) RM MED1C.H DENSITY (4.8)
RH HIGH DENSITY (15.23)
RRL RRE
COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL (e& Plaza Camin0 Red) EXTENSIVE REGIONAL RETAIL (q Cu Country Culsbad) Rs REGIONAL SERVICE C CO.H.HLWlTY COMMERCIAL N SEIGHBORHOOD COM.HERCIAL T'S TRAML SEWICES COMMERCIAL 0 PROFESSIONAL RELATED CBD CENTR4L BCSINESS DlSTRlCT PI PLWNED INDUSTRIAL G GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
RC RECRL4TION COMMERCW
I
u PCBLIC CnunEs
ICnOOLS E ELEMENTARY J JUNIORHIGH I H HIGHSCHOOL P PIIDATE
OS OPENSPACE NRR NON RESIDENTL4L RESERVE I
ZONING
RESID8" P.C PLANMD COMMUNITY ZONE R-A WIDENlIAl. AGRlCLzTcRAL ZOPiE R.E RCRU WIDEhTLU ESTATE ZONE R. I Oh€-FAWILY RESIDLITLU ZOh€ R.2 lU'O.FAWILY RESIDENTIAL LONE R. 3 McLnpu FAMILY WIDENTLU LONE R JL UHITED HL Ln FAHILY ESIDEVTLU ZOIE RD M RD H RHHP WIDLITLU HOBlE HOME P4RKLOhT
WIDEITUl DLISITI ML1TIPl.E ZOhE WIDEhTUl DEhSITY HIGH ZOhE
R P WIDLTLU PRDF€SSlOhAL ZOVE RT WIDL%TLU TOL RlST ZOhE RW WIDLITMI, UATERWAY ZO\E
C. I NUGHBORHOOD C0M.HERCI.U ZONE C.2 GENERAL COMMERCW ZOhT C.T COhLMuIuAL-TWWT ZOh€ C-M HEAWCOMMUCW~LLMlTED ULDL'STRLU ZONE
P.M ~LMK'STRIALZONE M INDLSTRWZONE
OTHER F-P ROODPLALN OMRIAY ZONE L.C UMmDCONIRDL in OPENSPACE P-u RBUC LTrn ZONE
BEAR PE.2.87.19
FROM : Assistant City Attorney
APPEAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED ON THE
REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY MR. JOE BEAR LOCATED AT 3311 FOSCA, CARLSBAD, ISSUED AUGUST 5, 1987
Thank you for sending me the information regarding this project in your memorandum of August 17, 1987. That information included letters from Attorney Worden to the Planning Department and the Architectural Committee of La Costa Vale Unit No. 3 dated July
30, 1987, a letter from Attorney Banche to the Planning Director
dated August 6, 1987, a copy of the negative declaration published August 5, 1987 and the letter from Attorney Worden of August 14, 1987 proporting to appeal the issuance of said negative declaration.
As you know, construction of a single-family dwelling is normally categorically exempt pursuant to 14 CAC Section 15303( a) which sets forth examples of this exemption:
"Single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.. .'I
In addition, minor alterations to land which do not involve
removal of mature, scenic trees are normally exempt pursuant to
14 CAC Section 15304. However, in this case, it is my
understandinq that the engineer has determined that a grading permit is required under the provisions of Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 11.06. His determination was appealable to the City
Council within ten (10) working days after that decision pursuant
to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 11.06.200. However, since
that determination was not timely appealed, the issuance of a grading permit invokes the environmental protection procedures
set forth in Title 19 in the Carlsbad Municipal Code (19.04.050(a)(11)). The scope of the project then under review
became the grading permit and, after the required circulation and review period, your department issued the said negative
declaration on August 5, 1987. The issuance of that negative declaration may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.140 within ten (10) days of its approval and upon payment of the appropriate fees.
4
The appeal letter from Attorney Worden dated August 14, 1987,
appeals the issuance of the negative declaration due primarily to the adverse view impacts that the construction of the single-
family residence will have on surrounding neighbors. Although, for reasons discussed below, obstruction of views will not be an
issue, tPW appeal is timely under Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
19.04.140 and must be heard by the City Council. The subject of
views and view obstructions is apparently covered in private
recorded CC&R's. The City does not have a view ordinance and has
no discretion to deny a grading permit based upon obstruction of views. (c.f. Ross v. Rolling Hills Estates (1987) 192 Cal.Ap. 3d. 70.) The City does not enforce private CC&R's. (Mullally V.
Ojai Hotel Company (1968) 266 Cal.Ap. 2d 9 and O'rourke v.
Teeters (1944) 63 Cal.Ap. 2d 349.
It is my opinion that in connection with the issuance of a
negative declaration, the City can only place mitigatinq conditions on the grading permit that are within its existing expressed or implied Dowers. Public Resources Code Section 21004
states:
"In mitigating or avoiding a significant effect of a project on the environment, a public agency may exercise only those expressed or implied powers provided by law other than this division (CEQA)..." (emphasis added)
In enacting this section, the legislature declared that
"Such clarification is necessary because of contentions
that the provisions of Division 13 (CEQA) of the Public
Resources Code, by themselves, confer on public aqency independent authority to levy fees, impose exactions,
and take other actions in order to comply with the
general requirement of that division that significant affects on the environment be mitigated or avoided whenever it is feasible to do so.
The provisions of Division 13 (CEQA) confer no such independent authority ..." (emphasis added)
In this situation, the issue on appeal before the City Council
shall be limited to whether or not the issuance of a gradinq
permit under Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 11.06 may have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
R~NALD R. BALL Assistant City Attorney
arb
.
D. DWIGHT WORDEN
TRACY R. RICHMOND
W. SCOlT WILLIAMS
JAMES H. ELLIS 111
DEBORAH A. WOLFE
Michael J. Holzmiller Planning Director City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
LAW OFFICES
D. DWIGHT WORDEN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
740 LOMAS SAMA FE DRIVE
sum 102
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075
AREA CODE 61 9
TELEPHONE 766-8604 * 469-7979
August 14, 1987
Re :
Dear
Case No. PE2.87.19 Applicant Bear Project Address 3311 Fosca, Carlsbad
Mr. Holzmiller:
This office represents the Coventry Homeowners Association, an association of residents and property owners on Fosca in La Costa Vale Unit No. 3. We have read the proposed Notice of Negative Declaration which was published in the Carlsbad newspaper on August 5, 1987, indicating that the comment deadline was August 15, 1987. Please accept this letter as our comments.
Please also treat this letter as an appeal of the staff determination to issue a Negative Declaration for this project. We believe that an Environmental Impact Report, a Focused Environmental Impact Report, or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is required in lieu of the proposed Negative Declaration. Our reasons follow. If there is anything further we need to do to perfect the appeal, please let me know.
The project in question, as currently proposed, will have
significant adverse impacts on a number of neighboring properties
along Fosca. The owners of impacted properties are members of the
Coventry Homeowners Association which I represent. Principally,
the impacts to these neighboring properties will be view impacts which my clients consider to be significant and adverse. The subject location is conceded to be view sensitive as a special provision was put in the CC&R's for La Costa Vale No. 3 to ensure that any project built on Lot 379 would not block the views of the neighboring properties on Fosca. Unfortunately, the local Architectural Committee approved the subject project without notice to my clients and, we believe, in violation of the CC&R view protection provisions. We understand that issues of CCCR violation are not necessarily of concern to the City. However, view impact to adjoining neighbors is a legitimate environmental issue.
Michael J. Holzmiller 8-10-87
-2-
' Appendix G to the State's CEQA guidelines identifies certain impacts which are normally considered to be significant. We believe that the Bear project will have significant effects within the meaning of Appendix G (a) in that it conflicts with the "goals of the community" as reflected in the CC&R's, that the project will have a significant effect within the meaning of Appendix G
(b) in that it will have a "substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect" due to view blockage. We would also refer you to 14 Cal. Admin. Code section 15064 (CEQA Guidelines) with regard to determination of significant effect. Subsection (h) (1) indicates that where there is serious public controversy over the effects of a project, the City shall consider the effect to be significant and shall prepare an EIR. Finally, we would refer you to 14 Cal. Admin. Code section 15360 for the definition of "environment" which clearly includes aesthetic impacts such as view impacts.
Under the circumstances, we believe that one of the following options must be pursued by the City:
1. A focused EIR must be prepared addressing the view impacts of the proposed Bear residence and identifying mitigation measures to mitigate those impacts, such as relocating the home on
the lot, excavating the lot to lower the residence, or redesign of the residence.
2. A mitigated Negative Declaration must be prepared for the project containing a mandatory mitigation measure requirement
that the elevation of the proposed residence be reduced so that it does not block existing views.
Previously, I provided to your department copies of
correspondence which were sent to the prior land owner stating a maximum elevation for construction on Parcel 379 which my clients feel is consistent with the CC&R's and protection of the local environment. We would find a mitigation measure limiting the height of the proposed project to this elevation to be acceptable. In the alternative, we would consider a focused EIR which addressed alternative siting and mitigation measures to be an adequate substitute.
7
Michael J. Holzmiller
8-10-87
-2-
Finally, we trust that your City will not issue a final approval to this project until these issues are resolved.
Sincerely,
LAW OFFICES OF D. DWIGHT WORDEN
A PROFASSIONAL CORPORATION 0 kfy Ld\
D. Dwight Worden
DDw/pd cc: Red Latch Jess Groomer
Nick Bancke
Ruth Besecker
( 2 1 : 8/87 )
cc: Brian Hunker, Assistant Planner
0. OWIGHT WOROEN
TRACY R. RICHMOND
W. SCDlT WILLIAMS
JAMES H. ELLIS 111
DEBORAH A. WOLFE
LAW OFFICES
D. DWIGHT WORDEN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
740 LOMAS SANTA FE DRIVE
SUITE 102
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075
July 30, 1987
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
AREA CODE 6 19
TELEPHONE 755-6604 459-7979
,I:; .. .
AUG 1987
PUNNING nEPAi7TMEM CITY OF
CARLSBM)
', '. \*
Re: Lot 379 La Costa Valle Unit No. 3, Carlsbad Tract 72-20
Dear Planning Department:
This office represents the Coventry Homeowners Association, an Association of residents and property owners in La Costa Valle Unit No. 3. Enclosed you will find copies of corresponence
regarding a serious problem which has just arisen regarding view blockage and CC&R's.
While we understand that the City does not normally become involved in enforcement of CCtR's, it is important for the City to know in this case that a request to set aside the Architectural Committee approval of this project has been made which we expect will be considered by the Committee shortly. Under the
circumstances we believe that the City should hold off issuing any approvals or authority to proceed until this matter is resolved.
Moreover, in investigating this matter a representative of
the Coventry Homeowners Association has learned that, apparently,
the proposed development on lot 379 is in the process of
undergoing environmental review at the City. We understand that
an environmental impact assessment form was filed by the applicant
on July 29, 1987, which normally takes ten days to approve.
Importantly, however, our investigation indicates that there
appears to have been a noticing error on the City's part in that
this matter should have been published in the local paper but was
not. We ask that your Department look into this matter and confirm the facts.
I
.- I
City of Carlsbad 7-30-87
-2-
Under the circumstances we would respectfully request that
the City delay any further action on this matter until this
situation is resolved.
Sincerely,
LAW OFFICES OF D. DWIGHT WORDEN
D. Dwight Worden
DDW/pd
cc: Client
(11: 7(11)87)
0. DWIGHT WORDEN
TRACY R. RICHMOND
W. SCOn WILLIAMS
DEBORAH A. WOLFE
JAMES n. ELLIS 111
LAW OFFICES
D. DWIGHT WORDEN
A PROFESSIONAL CORWRATlON
740 LOMAS SANTA FE DRIVE
sum 102
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075
AREA CODE 0 18
TELEPHONE 755-6804 459-7979
July 30, 1987
Ar chitectur a1 Committee
La Costa Valle Unit No. 3
c/o Ruth Beseker 6994 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA'92008
Dear Sirs and Madams:
Several years ago this office represented the Coventry Homeowners Association, an organization of homeowners and residents in the Coventry Development in La Costa. Members of
this association live, primarily, on Fosca Street.
The CC&R's for this area assure certain view protection to
the properties along Fosca. Recently, I was advised by my clients
that your Architectural Committee may have approved, without notice to me or my clients, a home to be located on lot 379 which is in violation of these provisions of the CC&R's. Under the circumstances, we must request that you immediately reschedule
this matter for reconsideration and rehearing so that we can have an opportunity to present our position to you on this important matter. To assist you in reviewing this matter, I will summarize
our prior actions and our position to date.
Article IV, para. 10 of the CC&R's states:
"That each owner of lots - 379, 380, 430, 431,
432 and 433 agrees for himself, his assigns,
and successors that he will not in any way
construct or allow to be maintained on any
such lot owned by him, any structure, fence,
hedge, wall or other thing of any nature, which would unduly limit the view of the
owners of lots 367 through 378 and lots 381 through 303. In the event of any dispute concerning the applicability of this
provision, the decision of the Architectural Committee shall be final."
4 *
Architectural Committee
La Costa-Valle Unit No. 3
7-30-87
-2-
The purpose for formation of the Coventry Homeowners Association was concern that, at some point in the future, the owners of lots 379, 380, 430, 431, 432 and 433 might propose to build something which blocks the views of the protected homes on Fosca on the lots referenced in the portion of the CC&R's quoted above. At that time, we undertook a title search and identified all of the current owners of record of the referenced properties.
In 1983 we sent each such owner a letter (copy attached) quoting
the CCLR's, alerting them to the view sensitivity, and explaning our interpretation of how the view restriction should be applied. You will note that the copy of the 1983 letter which I am enclosing was directed to the then owner of lot 379, the property on which I understand you have recently approved a new home which
does not conform to the C.C. & R. view protections. A second
letter was sent to the owner of lot 379 in January of 1984, return
receipt requested, a copy of which is also enclosed.
You can imagine the shock and dismay of my clients when they learned for the first time last week that, apparently, in spite of
the specific view protections of the CC&R's, and in spite of our
prior correspondence, a new owner of lot 379 was proposing to
build a home which would substantially block views. Moreover, my
clients were very distressed to learn that, apparently, your Architectural Committee had already approved the project without notice to my clients. As you can note from the CC&R's, your
Architectural Committee is obligated to resolve any dispute as to
the application of these view protections. We now call upon you
to ensure that the CCbR's are enforced in full conformance with
their spirit and letter.
Please let me know as soon as possible when your
Architectural Committee will be considering this matter so that my clients and I may attend and make a presentation. Moreover, we
would respectfully request that you immediately notify the
builder that his previously issued approval is temporarily stayed until your Committee can consider this matter further.
Sincerely,
LAW OFFICES OF D. DWIGHT WORDEN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
D. 0-h Dwight Worden M
DDW/pd
Architectural Committee
La Costa Valle Unit No. 3
7-30-87
-3-
CC: Clients
Roy R. Blackford
2942 Harding St., Sp. E
Carlsbad, CA 92008
City of Carlsbad
Joseph and Angela Bear
1387 Basswood
Carlsbad, CA 92008 (owners)
13
PLAN NlNG DEPARTMENT
6ltp of 4Carl$bab
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
C ARLSB AD, CALI FO R N I A 92009-4859
(619) 438-1161
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 3311 Fosca, Carlsbad, CA 92008
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Grading for single family home, 3700 cubic
yards (1200 cut, 2500 fill) on a .8 acre lot. Maximum height of fill
slope is 10 feet.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the
above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental
Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not
have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the
subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on
file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA.,
92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments
in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of
issuance.
DATED: August 5, 1987
CASE NO: PE 2.87.19
APPLICANT: BEAR
PUBLISH DATE: August 5, 1987
Planning Director
ND4
11/85
i
.-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
DATE : !r 7\, s+
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT:
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 13 83- rn hvg
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED:
I I. FIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under
Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
1. Earth - Will the proposal have - significant results in:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
i
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
Disruptions, displacements, com-
paction or overcovering of the soil?
Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or
modification of any unique geologic
or physical features?
Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel or a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
YES - MA.Y B E .NO’
. ..
x
YES
2. Air - Will the proposal have - significant results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable
odors?
cb Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
3. Water - Will the proposal have ._ significant results in:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Q*
h.
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements,
in either marine or fresh waters?
Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface water runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not
limited to, temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public
water supplies?
MAYBE
i -2-
-
YES NO - MAYBE
4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
. unique, rare or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of, any species of animals
(birds, land animals including reptiles,
fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered speciqs of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of
animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly
increase existing noise levels?
-- Light .and Glare - Will the proposal sig-
nificantly produce new light or glare?
7.
8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of
the present or planned land use of an area?
x
. I
-3-
NO - MAYBE
9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions?
11. Population - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu-
tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
Housing - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or 12.
. create a demand for additional housing?
A ....
13. Transpor.tation/Circulation - Will the
proposal have si,gnificant results in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilit- ies, or demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transporation
d. Alterations to present patterns of
systems?
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
i -4-
NO - YES MAYBE -
14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational
f acil it ies?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy - Will the proposal have signif-
icant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel . or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities - Will the proposal have.
significant results in the need for new
systems, or alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)?
1
-5-
18.
19.
20.
21.
YES - NO - MAYBE
Aesthetics - Will the proposal have
significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the
public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically ,offensive
public view?
Recreation - Will the proposal have
significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
Archeological/Historical - Will the proposal have significant results in
the alteration of a significant
archeological or historical site,
structure, object or building?
I
Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed project such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate. site designs,
. c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the. site,. e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. .
..-
I -6-
22. Mandatory Findings of Significance -
a.
b.
C.
d.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the . environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment?
YES -
-
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.)
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
3% bwL-x 0 pQoa$q --p G$2Aoz-
NO - MAYBE
.&. ...
'IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed by the Land Use Planning Office)
the basis of this initial evaluation: z' I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
i -9-
FEE: $175.00
RECEIPT NO:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - Part I
(To Be Completed by APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE :
Phone Number: (G\q ) 7571 -107 1
Name, address and phone number of person
Applicant) : ztq $?. 5s
GENERAL INFORMATION:
I /t,*-b%ix% Y2.QE3
Description of Project:
I
Project Location/Address: ?GWD c?_A.
Assessor Parcel Number: 2~3 0 I - gq
I
Zone of Subject Property: -
r> Proposed Use of Site: kT9 I E-4c-x
i
.- ..- ..
2. .- Describe the activity area, including distiguishing natural and man-
made characteristics; also provide precise slope analysis when
appropriate.
The site is undeveloped, in it's natural state with a covering of shrubs and grasses.
Topsoil cap is a reddish-brown, sandy silty clay that chunks or metavolcanic rocks. The site contains small amounts of soil and broken concrete left by construction activity in the surrounding area.Underlying materiala are metavolcanic rocks
of a dense consistency. All adjacent properties, except one, have been developed with single family dwellings.
3. Describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design and/or operation of the project. -.
The proposed project will be constructed in compliance witk the State Energy
Conservation regulations.
4. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes,
range of sal'e prices or rqnts, and type of household size expected.
Cne single family dwelling, livin9 space = 4,342 SF to be occupied by the applicant (family of 3).
5. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or
regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading
facilities.
Not applicable.
6. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and
loading facilities .
Not applicable.
7. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per
shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project.
Not appl icabl e.
i
-2-
c- ,. --
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate
space. (Discuss all items checked "yes". Attach additional sheets as
necessary.)
YES NO
Could the project significantly change present X
7 land uses in the vicinity of the activity?
Could the activity affect the use of a recreational area, or area of important aesthetic value?
Could the activity affect the functioning of an established community or neighborhood?
Could the activity result in the displacement of
community residents?
modest cost housing units in the city?
Could the activity decrease the number of low and
modest cost housing units in the city?
Are any of the natural or man-made features in the activity area unique, that is, not found in other
X
X
X
Could the activity increase the number of low and X
X
X parts of the county, state or nation? A
Could the activity significantly affect an historical or archaeological site or its settings?
Could the activity significantly affect the
potential use, extraction, or conservation of a
scarce natural resource?
Does the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural resource?
Could the activity significantly affect fish, wildlife or plant life?
Are there any rare or endangered plant species
in the activity area?
Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's lagoons, bays, or tidelands?
Could the activity change existing features of
any of the city's beaches?
Could the activity result in the erosion or elimination of agricultural lands?
X
X
x
X.
X'
X
X
16); Could the activity serve to encourage development of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop- X ment of already developed areas?
-3- Xr-
I
YES NO
Will the activity require a variance from
established environmental standards (air, water,
noise, etc.)? X
Will the activity require certification, authoriza-
tion or issuance of a permit by any local, state or federal environmental control agency?
Will the activity require issuance of a variance or' conditional use permit by the City?
Will the activity involve the application, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials?
Will the activity involve construction of
facilities in a flood plain?
Will the activity involve construction of
facilities in the area of an active fault?
Will the activity involve construction of
facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater?
Could the activity result in the generation of
significant amounts of noise?
Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of dust?
Will the activity involve the burning of brush, trees, or other materials?
Could the activity result in a significant change in the quality of any portion of the region's air
or water resources? (Should note surface, ground
water, off-shore.)
Will the project substantially increase fuel
consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)?
Will there be a significant change to existing
land form?
(a) Indicate estimated qrading to be done in .. 2,50D CY - cubic yards:
(b) Percentage of alteration to the present land form: 5c .
(c) Maximum height of cut or fill slopes: .. - 9,6 feet *
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
Will the activity result in substantial increases
in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets?
Is the activity carried out as part of a larger
x
31) i project or series of projects? - x
-4-
I. . 11. STATEMENT OF NON-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in Section
I but you think the activity will have no significant environmental
effects, indicate your reasons below:
a. Parcel overall contours shall remain and the basic site drainage
pattern will be unchanged.
b. Proposed grading will create a series of terraces down the existing
slope of the parcel that will ultimately be an integral part of the
’ siting of the residence , pool and tennis court structures. The series
of terraces that would create high sloped banks and the siting of structures maintains lagoon & ocean views of neighboring properties.
will enable complete use of the site without gross cuts
111. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN SECTION I
(If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach
additional sheets as needed.)
Signature 4
(qerson Completing Report)
Roy k Blackford ’AIA.
Date Signed 1u Am24 I
-5-
September 4, 1987
3223 Fosca Street
Carlsbad, California 92009
941-5822 or 753-1855
Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: 1) APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S ISSUANCE OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION DATED: AUGUST 5, 1987, CASE NO: PE 2.87.19
APPLICANT: BEAR, AND THE APPLICABLE
2) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - PARTS I AND I1
Dear Mayor and Council:
We are members of the Coventry Homeowners Association, who are
gravely concerned about the pollution of our air and obstruction
of our views, if the proposed project is permitted to reach its
ultimate planned conclusion. We believe both air quality and
scenic views to be environmental issues, which we respectfully
request that you address.
We hope to demonstrate with a series of referenced quotations
from EIA forms - Parts I and 11, that both the Planning Director
and the Applicant do indeed think in terms of combined lot and structures. It is our further hope that you, also, will think of a graded lot with structures as a unit, and not only in terms of a graded lot.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Project Description: "Grading for a single family home."
EIA FORM - Part 11. Page 5. The Planning Director makes reference to a "tennis court."
EIA FORM - Part I. Page I. The Applicant describes the project as being a ''new single family residence," and the proposed use of site as being allresidence."
EIA FORM - Part I, Page 5. - b. The Applicant states, and
please note, ever so falsely, that "the siting of struc- tures maintains lagoon and ocean views of neighboring prop- erties. ''
Incidentally, we trust you have a type of penalty you routinely im- pose oA an Applicant who lies on an EIR FORM. That very lie could have had a significant influence on the Planning Director's de- cision regarding the Negative Declaration.
Mayor and City Council
Citp of Carlsbad
September 4, 1987
Page 2
RE: EIA FORM - Part 11. Page 2. Item 2. AIR and Page 5.
Item 17. HUMAN HEALTH:
The proposed plan for garages, back up area and/or guest park-
ing are a tremendous threat to both = QUALITY AND HUMAN HEALTH
in that the three-car garage faces two properties, QUCS and the
Stephen Spikers.' The combined area of the back up and guest
parking extend across one-half of each of these two properties
to within 12 to 15 feet of our property lines and patios, which
we frequently enjoy with our spas and barbeques. Large sliding
doors and windows of our houses open onto these patios.
We are concerned for our health when noxious carbon monoxide
emissions spew in our direction, and are quickly and further
forced into our faces, patios and houses by the almost constant
breezes and/or winds from the ocean. In addition, we believe the
structures sited and used as proposed are disgustingly filthy and insulting.
The lot size is approximately 240 feet deep and 200 feet wide. The structures can be relocated on this large property in many different ways to sites that will at least allow us to retain our views of the hillside, city lights, golf course, lagoon, white water and ocean beyond, and the noxious fumes could reach us in a diluted state. Mr. Bear could enjoy the same views as we, and even more.
EIA FORM - Part 11. Page 6. Item 18. AESTHETICS:
"Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public ..."
We sav yes, indeed. We ask that you open your minds and be aware thatworduses and definitions are ever changing, that is, according to Webster, when we combine the definitions of public and common, we have a true and correct definition of the Coventry Homeowners: "belonging to or shared by two or more individuals or members of a group." That interpretation fits us Homeowners like a glove.
Just as the City is fighting pollution from the proposed San Marcos
trash burning plant, and the City has already enacted a no smoking
ordinance, we respectfully ask that you assume an additional respon-
sibility as relates to our environment, and we also again ask you
to think in terms of the project as a whole: a graded lot with
structures on that lot as proposed. Only then will you be able to understand as we the degree of which our health is threatened,
and just how much of our scenic views will be obstructed. And we
don't deny that we are also greatly concerned about our most certain greatly depreciated property values.
Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad
September 4, 1987
Page 3
For all the reasons stated, we most respectfully ask that you deny a grading permit and a building permit to issue, at least until you have accepted our invitation to view the site with proposed structures plans from our properties, or through our eyes, so to speak.
R spectfully, &e&rd-
Coventry; Homeowners Association
cc City Attorney
D. Dwight Worden, Esq.
Neville Laatsch
Stephen Spiker
LAW OFFICES OF
DAUBNEY ANC BANCHE
PIOFESSIONPL COmPOIATIONS
eto MISSION AVENUE. SUITE 201
POST OFFICE eox 390
OCEANSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92054
.-
WILLIAM H OAUBNLY
NICHOLAS C. BANCHL
AREA CODE 619
TELEPHONE 7zz-iea1
September 1, 1987
Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S ISSUANCE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PROJECT, CONSISTING OF A SINGLE
FAMILY HOME, LOCATED AT 3311 FOSCA, CARLSBAD
Dear Mayok and Council:
La Costa Vale Unit No. 3, commonly known as 3311 Fosca.
regard to the appeal filed by attorney Dwight Worden, on behalf of a group known as the Coventry Homeowners Association.
The appeal was taken from the issuance of a Negative
Declaration issued with regard to a grading permit application with regard to the above referenced lot.
lot whose general plan and zone designations accommodate such activity.
I represent Mr. and Mrs. Joe Bear, the owners of Lot 379 of
The purpose of this letter is to provide some insight with
The project involves a single-family, single-story home on a
The lot is in a "built up" neighborhood, and constitutes one of the last two or three lots in a neighborhood containing
literally hundreds of homes.
The oft-stated concern of the appellants has to do with views
which they claim to be effected by the residence proposed to be
built by the Bears.
Other than view, I have not been able to determine any significant environmental effect that Mr. Worden or his clients contend would result if the grading permit were granted.
,- i'
Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad September 1, 1987
Page 2
I respectfully invite your attention to the case of Grabic v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 183 where it was
specifically held that the effect on the environment of
construction of an individual dwelling, in the absence of unusual
circumstances, is not significant.
Neither are views included under the protective provisions of Appendix G to Title 14 of the California Administrative Code. The general notion of "conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located" (Appendix G(a)) is
clearly satisfied by implementation of the existing zoning on
site. Please see, e.g. 14 Cal. Admin. Code S15183.
As to the question of "substantial, demonstrable negative - aesthetic effect" (Appendix G(b)) the Court in Pacifica Homeowners' Assn. v. Wesley Palms Retirement Community (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 1147, at 1154 stated that a focus on the aesthetics of
a project did not involve protection of neighboring views.
In this regard, please note that 14 Cal. Admin. Code S15360,
The reason for this is that there is no statewide statutory
which defines "Environment" does not refer to views or light.
right to the maintenance of a view, in the absence of a local ordinance (see, e.g. Ross v. City of Rolling Hills Estates (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 370) or Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, and
that with-regard to Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, the enforcement of same constitutes a matter of private action.
Incidentally, it has always been the policy of the City of Carlsbad that enforcement of private restrictions is a private matter. I heartily recommend that you continue to follow that
policy in this particular case.
Insofar as the specific matter now before the Council, it must be noted that single family residences are categorically exempt from CEQA under the Administrative Code. Secondly, and pursuant to 14 Cal. Admin. Code §15183(d), since there is a
grading ordinance in place in the City of Carlsbad, the restrictions connected with approval of a grading permit obviate environmental review under CEQA in any event, given the fact that
the residence in question is consistent with the general plan and zoning applicable to the Bears lot.
Finally, and as previously stated, the group which is appealing the issuance of the Negative Declaration consists of 11
homeowners and was formed for the specific purpose of preserving
c
. 'Mayor and City Council
City of Carlsbad September 1, 1987
Page 3
views affecting their specific lots. This group apparently unilaterally adopted guidelines designed to accomplish that objective. Unfortunately those guidelines were not matters of
public record and were unknown to Mr. and Mrs. Bear, who purchased
their lot, examined the existing Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, and satisfied the requirement of obtaining the approval of the designated Architectural Control Committee. In addition, the Bears have satisfied every building requirement of the City of Carlsbad, and should be allowed to go forward.
To the extent that appellants feel that they are aggrieved and have rights which are capable of enforcement, they ought to be permitted to seek the appropriate remedy.
For all the reasons stated, I most respectfully ask the
Council to uphold the negative declaration and allow a grading
permit and building permit to issue.
Respectfully,
g<&C. -\ BANCHE
NCB: jp
CC: Mr. Joe Bear D. Dwight Worden City Attorney \
Carlsbad Journal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of Son Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
North Coast Publishers, Inc. corporate offices: P.O. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024
(61 9) 753-6543
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
the City Council Chamber. lZOOElm Avenue, Carlsbad. California. at 6:OO P.M.. on Tuesday, September 8. 1987. to consider an appeal of 4 Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director for grading of a pad for a single family home on property located at 3311 Fosca.
Carlsbad (La Costa area). Grading
would be 3.700 cubic yards on .8
acre and maximum height of fill \ slope is 10 feet. If you have any questions regard-
ing this matter. please call the Planning Department at 438-1161. If you challenge the Negative
Declaration in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party toor interested in the aboveentitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of Sat3 Diego, State of California, and which
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still hasa bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in
the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next
preceding the date of publication of the notice
hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of
which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
August. ?.?. .. 19. 87 ...
................................. IY ....
~~ you or someoneklse-raised at the public hearing described in this
notice. or in written correspon- HEARING dence delivered to theCityofCarls- APPEAL bad at or prior to the public
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
PE 2.87.19 hearing.
.___ Appellant: Coventry Homeowners
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City CounciloftheCityofCarls- bad will hold a public hearing at
Association
CJ 4816. August 28. 1987
19
............................ 19
....... 19
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California on -TbP-Bth..
day of ~ -+~t-J29&7.~L+&~--
Clerk of the Printer
t' /f j,b;'& I'p / k: - - _~_____ ___
1202 2M 7 86
-
A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL
PE 2.87.19
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chamber, 1200 IClm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO P.M.,
on Tuesday, September 8, 1987, to consider an appeal of a Negative Declaration issued by
the Planning Director for grading of a pad for a single family home on property located
at 3311 Fosca, Carlsbad (La Costa area). Grading would be 3,700 cubic yards on .8 acre
and maximum height of fill slope is 10 feet.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Planning Department
at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,
or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public
hearing.
APPELLANT: Coventry Homeowners Association
PUBLISH : August 28, 1987 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday,
September 8, 1987, to consider an appeal of a Negative
Declaration issued by the Planning Director for grading of pad
for a single family home on property located at 3311 Fosca,
Carlsbad (La Costa area). Grading would be 3,700 cubic yards on
.8 acre and maximum height of fill slope is 10 feet.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend a public hearing. If you have any questions please call the Planning Department at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: PE 2.87.19
APPLICANT: BEAR
PUBLISH: August 26, 1987
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
-. . ..
D. DWIGHT WORDEN
TRACY R. RICHMOND
W. SCOTT WILLIAMS
JAMES H. ELLIS 111
DEBORAH A. WOLFE
Michael J. Holzmiller
Planning Director City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
LAW OFFICES
D. DWIGHT WORDEN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
740 LOMAS SANTA FE DRIVE
SUITE 102
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075
August 14, 1987
Re: Case No. PE2.87.19 Applicant Bear
Project Address 3311 Fosca, Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
This office represents the Coventry Homeowners Association, an association of residents and property owners on Fosca in La Costa Vale Unit No. 3. We have read the proposed Notice of Negative Declaration which was published in the Carlsbad newspaper on August 5, 1987, indicating that the comment deadline was August
15, 1987. Please accept this letter as our comments.
Please also treat this letter as an appeal of the staff determination to issue a Negative Declaration for this project. We believe that an Environmental Impact Report, a Focused Environmental Impact Report, or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is required in lieu of the proposed Negative Declaration. Our reasons follow. If there is anything further we need to do to perfect the appeal, please let me know.
The project in question, as currently proposed, will have
significant adverse impacts on a number of neighboring properties along Fosca. The owners of impacted properties are members of the Coventry Homeowners Association which I represent. Principally,
the impacts to these neighboring properties will be view impacts
which my clients consider to be significant and .adverse. The subject location is conceded to be view sensitive as a special provision was put in the CC&R's for La Costa Vale No. 3 to ensure
that any project built on Lot 379 would not block the views of the neighboring properties on Fosca. Unfortunately, the local
Architectural Committee approved the subject project without notice to my clients and, we believe, in violation of the CC&R view protection provisions. We understand that issues of CC&R
violation are not necessarily of concern to the City. However, view impact to adjoining neighbors is a legitimate environmental ;issue.
. ..
Michael J. Holzmiller 8-10-87
-2-
..*.
Appendix G to the State's CEQA guidelines identifies certain impacts which are normally considered to be significant. We
believe that the Bear project will have significant effects within
the meaning of Appendix G (a) in that it conflicts with the "goals
of the community" as reflected in the CC&R's, that the project
will have a significant effect within the meaning of Appendix G
(b) in that it will have a "substantial, demonstrable negative
aesthetic effect" due to view blockage. We would also refer you to 14 Cal. Admin. Code section 15064 (CEQA Guidelines) with regard
to determination of significant effect. Subsection (h) (1) indicates that where there is serious public controversy over the effects of a project, the City shall consider the effect to be significant and shall prepare an EIR. Finally, we would refer you to 14 Cal. Admin. Code section 15360 for the definition of
"environment" which clearly includes aesthetic impacts such as
view impacts.
Under the circumstances, we believe that one of the
following options must be pursued by the City:
1. A focused EIR must be prepared addressing the view
impacts of the proposed Bear residence and identifying mitigation measures to mitigate those impacts, such as relocating the home on
the lot, excavating the lot to lower the residence, or redesign of
the residence.
2. A mitigated Negative Declaration must be prepared for
the project containing a mandatory mitigation measure requirement
that the elevation of the proposed residence be reduced so that it
does not block existing views.
Previously, I provided to your department copies of correspondence which were sent to the prior land owner stating a maximum elevation for construction on Parcel 379 which my clients feel is consistent with the CC&R's and protection of the local environment. We would find a mitigation measure limiting the height of the proposed project to this elevation to be acceptable.
In the alternative, we would consider a focused EIR which
addressed alternative siting and mitigation measures to be an
adequate substitute.
I
Michael J. Holzmiller 8-10-87
-2-
Finally, we trust that your City will not issue a final
approval to this project until these issues are resolved.
Sincerely,
LAW OFFICES OF D. DWIGHT WORDEN
A PROFASSIONAL CORPORATION
D. @.lL!!Jyu- Dwight Worden
DDW/pd cc: Red Latch Jess Groomer
Nick Bancke Ruth Besecker
( 2 1 : 8/87 )
cc: Brian Hunker, Assistant Planner
....
3
,
,
/'
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92Qd ' I ,, ,L,CI.J :y2.LJL?
438.5621
I I
i I 1 I I I
VbdITE IT - DON’T SAY I I !
Date 19 87
To I-Lo/ 0 Reply Wanted
From & UNO Reply Necessary
PRINTED IN USA AIGNER FORM NO. 55-032
- c
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR- 2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday,
September 8, 1987, to consider an appeal of a Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director for grading of pad for a single family home on property located at 3311 Fosca, Carlsbad (La Costa area). Grading would be 3,700 cubic yards on .8 acre and maximum height of fill slope is 10 feet.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend a public hearing. If you have any questions
please call the Planning Department at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to
the public hearing.
CASE FILE: PE 2.87.19
APPLICANT: BEAR
PUBLISH: August 26, 1987
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
.,
iD z 00 ,
I
!
R
u
c r c
1Y W Y
3
3
c IV
d
ern 'C .. . c
E:
rn m . C
P
w m 0
N u
u
u C
5
D
D n m r
z $
IU IU u
3
a
3 P
E
w m
4 .
P
0
t.l m n
IU u - N " C
P
D , D " m r
Z C
m m D
IU lU u
3
3
3
z C is
DDV 3
w m "Q N a U v
z C
m m *
.
,,
NI 1 8, j
om I LO I -n I 13 I Ln'A 8
NI h
NI "I " n I\ "
%
5 .
s
C
I -
t U
r P
u P Y Q ON
:If s m
0 4-
U N 0
:;I Lnvl -.a SI f
0 N NI NI N N N u
N E 5
N u
5 \11
N N u
m. P IU 3
P
P w
, u
N E 3
N N
Pi UI .. w,
.. . , ., .
N N U
N - -
N Y
N N W
N +
N A
NI N N U NI VI
NI -1 -1 Y
I NI OI Q
I
IS f * .- I*
Y UN I -1 x ~n 0.
cn IO -I -.m
.I U
r S c)
0 *
S
U a
0 ON ro oa
(u
P Q ,o”
ON 0
30 C 0N la.. ma0
I Oi - --. IO
50: 0-
m.., E???
84-01 1oy
CYW I
mm-I ma0
d ., - -04 --4
- !- . -- ow-* -ow0 -I. . 0-40 ON(c0 CUnDQ
.zrr
0-DO amiz .x-r
04DO amxz
N N U
N s
5
‘u N prl N N u
N s
0 N
s ”.
.3 j . * !. * ?
w
L . h h "
h
h
L "
8 m
a
h h u
h d
rr
s m s s ,..
' l.E , C .I.
.- E. 5.-
-
I "
I- O
an UD
r E:
... W^
I). m D
0
CI
N N u Q NN -0 -0
U
U
P m
0
ON 8"
3
0
N 5,
!
SI m, s is
s c m
I si s
I
I
m
0 *
I 1
F
n e
-
Q P .
I 8
s
m
d u
m VI -
, CP zn -0
-#*
N N U
Q (VN -3 -m
u
0..
X' I. . il '
'I I L :E Y
" c .=
s 111 P m
. ., .
re .I c 001 ! I PP 1 mr
XI mm
? u
I
n
0 ZI
r 0
"d
m
0
r-- I
,
I
i
N NE LA;
N N U
N 'v s
N N v IVI NO "8
.y N d
3 U
! 4 a *O 0. s m
U
I- P I
0 U 0
0 Y
ON
xzx-r 0m03x 0- 00
mu ..I
mm *o -D XI "lm
.. iP IY ..
! P Y s m N
,
. I x? I ms -. ,. . ,i
N
S"
R
%
Y
.n
hi hi "
r. 2
c 0
hi hi "
h Y
I "
P .n
N N "
N 2
r;
9
W P VI
QC
0- .-
n. mu r-.
a
-- I- - on- Q -1 mu
P *: i C1 I" m. "
n- m II a-n "I, 0%
c.
0 *
U
0 + N N u
N N d
N 0
ru N
O " NN ?e c
N N "
9 q - c- w. m- Ia -. -0
IN -
u " 0 a u E
4- a. .Y -3 3"
.r mz 00
,o - .- mc c- h .O NVI NO
.!-
PO mz
c
.I I -r om0 3 z 0- mo
mu
ri -0
,N -n. -
O.O. 0"YN c
. .. -
~ ..
. ..
I
... I
N N U
N N A
u
N N "
N N
d
u u
N N U
N N
u N
-
P u
'u I" .L
N 'u
Q
s s u) s u
r
QN >a m
-2
2 CI
nc
r- 4
-0 0 10
Y NO NI U" CO NQN NO
00 - -8
ml
0
c "70 .\ -0 rn ".C
om 92 --
013 CCI. "7.. mm - # CU -. -0
,E
"1
13" .P E
r =,a coo- -,.. mza- IIOY
-.Y IO
4.
N 4 4
Y
00 0 0
N ,.. I- u .I" -- 3- VI" CDYSN
.I" 00 I*...
ga&"
.zx-r mmoxz 0- 00
-2x-r mmoxz P- 90
m'v "'v "'c .. . -0
>N - m. O>" -400 Om"
Y
r
ly, NI "I
,n .. I
NI
'I iJ I!
D n
n n
n
n J B
2
n ?
;1
r
I
I
I
~
i
x
0
N N u
N N N
0 Y
f w
N N u NI NI
U!
N N N NI Nyl N1
0: 01 s
!
m
4 as " w P
r 3: con VI... nzm- I #OW -.
0 00
I- ,"
mr n, .. ;I . lU - n. *.- -.>e 'mm*
'V N "
IW Y w
P
..
1. .
N N U
N g
r
5. IC
N N u
N !5
a ..
N N "
N Y
3
h N u
N s
J
N N U
N 3
0
s w
N N u
N 3
2
lU N c
IU L
3 c
s
N N U
N Y
2
4
c
P I VI s w
c I x I ." m m .D ..
4, N 3
C - r c- IC
-2 -m
mf 4- .z
c
.-I -u
u2 .u I
rm
2 .-
F: P I ..
c c' s
r N Do
E?
e 0
Q q
e 0
Q ON &.e e
r 133 COL-I) w... -2 DN t 10- -. -0 IF d
P v 2
Q
r. d 0
Q
.. O E5 w
r 35 c ORIN .AD.. mz03 I4wY
-0 8.n
-. -
m 0 .'
,m - E; 'P 0 0
.I -r ~m 3 2 0 .. v 01
.I -r
0-00 mm I z .r
02 00
mu _I mu ..I
b I Pi 4:
u * 3,
u s.
r- - N N
W
N oa
'U 'U u
N ?
3 w
Y
,., YI
W .Y
*
4
4 D
'0 4 *
7 P I - ,,I - . LL
R h ”
h s
C
8 u
N N U
N
NI NI UI
S
N 0
E!
NI .I, I I
h h
n :
h ,
s u
fI C
w 4
1 U
r 4
E 0
0 N ON
? I 111 UIU . I.
n
0 ul
m
0 wl
0; F00 c Ul eo-P m .I ul,.. m 01 mzm~ I .I, ,,YO -., d .
0 00
mu “I “CU - a. Q,U.
mown PmPO
‘I
1:
D
c
n n
Tu N u
Iv
u m
2
s w
N N U
N
N m
N
s u
. h L.
h 0 h - a
s .n
si Y s
r 0 -4
Y -4
.f
VI- *I
c I
s *
c
D m E
m ln '
-4 m - 5, 3
5
n
D n
s a
5 ?
J
D
c -I 111 =I
P
* f -
d c
I
0 VI 1 F
0
03 m
33
Y
I" 3 I) 0
33 c --
mm- 4 rQ -. 34
If
VI..
3 A
O - .- ""
'u
"".
ma
.a
-3
.r
PO mz
. z -r Om3z 0-DO .z-r
0-DO mmxz
-r 00 .-
u u s". N 5u c. 5,
.
0 I I si *I
*
R h u
h
-
2 ..
N N U
N v -
N L.
s m s w
L
r r r 0 .. - 0
r 0
.. u
P
*Y u
7J
1..
Y
r 3
33 E NN w.. -03
I me -. -- ,m
00 D O?
. z x -7 Omox2 o-l OD
mu 7,
-L - m. 0.0 v c' .Y 0- r
. ..
..
...
$
ai -
=-N
9
D m
,. 5