HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-14; City Council; 11154; APPEAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 2873 HIGHLAND DRIVEa
u
a,
&I .VI a
c cd
c 0 .d u cd N cd rl c) a, a
a, !-
L)
a
.VI 2 u rd M 2
5 a,
M El .rl
N E
a a cd
h.
em 4u I .d
ZE a,
Zh N g:
.d ua, m
da, su
06 m
&& aa,
a u aa,
a cd TI
rtu 0
*.-I U4-I
cw =I@
um ou
4
1 a
e d
1 ul
e
'a 0
us am om
z 0 F= 0 a
d 0 2 3 0 0
L
t ,"" #&
I CITY w d CARLSBAD - AGENDIILL
AB # ji2E TITLE: APPEAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DEPT. t
C,TYA, MTG. 5-!L(-q1 2873 HIGHLAND DRIVE
DEPT. PLN f& 2.89.61 CITY M(
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT
ADOPT Resolution No. ? \ - I q ? APPROVING a Negative Declarat.
for the grading and for the construction of a single family hc at 2873 Highland Drive finding that there is no substant. evidence that the grading and construction will have a signif ici impact on the environment. Direct staff to issue the perm.
necessary to complete the construction.
ITEM EXPLANATION
This item is an appeal of staffls decision to prepare a Negat: Environmental Declaration for the grading and construction 0' single family home. On February 19, 1991, the City Coun received a briefing from staff regarding the construction 0: single family home at 2873 Highland Drive. Staff informed Council that an objection had been received from a neighbor property owner to the construction being exempt from environmen As a result, staff was recommending, and the City Counl concurred, that the project be required to go thro
environmental review.
The environmental review process has now been completed. A: result of analyzing the potential environmental impacts associa with the construction, staff prepared and approved a Negat Declaration which means that staff does not believe that . construction of the single family home as proposed by . applicant will have any significant, adverse impacts on . environment. The documents to support staff's determination ( attached as Exhibit "4l'.
An appeal of staff's decision to prepare a Negative Declarat has been filed. The appeal letter is attached as Exhibit I' Staff's response to the appeal is contained in a memorandum to f City Manager from the Planning Director dated April 30, 1 attached as Exhibit 1121g. After analyzing the informat contained in the letter of appeal, staff still believes that
proposed construction of a single family residence at t location will not have a significant on the environment and t a Negative Declaration is supportable. Staff is recommending t the City Council concur with staff and deny the appeal. If
council does not concur with staff, the applicant would required to prepare a complete Environmental Impact Report (E1 Details regarding this are also contained in the memorandum to City Manager.
Staff is also recommending that the City Council direct staff issue the permits to complete the construction of the sin family home. The grading and the home comply with all exist
City requirements and development standards.
c,
. review.
0 0
t
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. II, I54
Subsequent to the February 19, 1991 Council meeting, the buildc of the home met with some of the neighbors opposed to tl construction at which time he agreed to lower the elevation of tl
graded pad by two feet and the house by three feet. This was nc acceptable to the neighbors. Therefore, since the constructic has now gone through environmental review and since it complic
with all standards and ordinances in existence at this time, sta does not believe that the permits can be withheld any longer.
The builder is still willing to lower the graded pad by two fel and the house by three feet if the City Council wishes to have h do this. If so, however, the City Council should be aware th the builder would in all likelihood be filing a claim to have t'
City reimburse him for any expenses involved with regrading sin the existing grading does not violate any City ordinance and w
done with a valid permit. Staff did not have an estimated co for the regrading at the time this agenda bill was prepared b will have an estimate at the time of the Council meeting.
EXHIBITS
1. Resolution No. 9 I c I y ?
2. Exhibit 11211 - Memorandum to the City Manager
3. Exhibit It3" - Appeal Letter
4. Exhibit 11411 - Documents Supporting Staffls Determination
dated April 30, 1991
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
w W
RESOLUTION NO. 91-147
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF
A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 2873 HIGHLAND DRIVE.
WHEREAS, a request to obtain permits to construct
single family residence at 2873 Highland Drive has been submitt
to the city: and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the permits constitut
a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality A
(CEQA) and is, therefore, subject to environmental review; and
WHEREAS, the environmental review consisting of
Initial Study, field inspection and analysis by staff has be
conducted: and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 1991, the Planning Direct
prepared a Negative Declaration determining that the constructi
of an individual, single family residence at the proposed locati
would not have a significant impact on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration was published on Mar
21, 1991 in order to allow for public review and comment: and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, one object;
to the Negative Declaration was received and the approval of
Negative Declaration was appealed to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director determined, afl
reviewing the objection and the appeal, that there was
substantial evidence to indicate that the construction of a sin(
family home at 2873 Highland Drive would have a significi
adverse impact on the environment and that a Negative Declarat.
was adequate, legally proper and could be supported by 1
environmental documentation including the initial study.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I?'
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
w w
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Ci
Council of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That based on examining the environmental documen
including the initial study, analyzing all the informati
submitted by staff, considering any written comments received a
responded to by staff and considering all testimony and argument
the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence th
the grad& for and the construction of a single family residen
at 2873 Highland Drive will have any significant impacts on t
environment and the City Council hereby approves a Negati
Declaration.
3. That the appeal of the Negative Declaration a
request to require the preparation of an Environmental Impa
Report is hereby denied.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of t
City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 14th c
of May , 1991 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES : Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Nygaard, and Stanton
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Council Member L
ATTEST:
e
Am* $UTEN~-lerk
(SEAL)
-2-
w 0
APRIL 30, 1991
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Planning Director
RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION/2873 HIGHLAND DRIVE
On March 12, 1991, staff prepared a Negative Declaration for the grading and subsequent construction of a single family residence at
2873 Highland Drive finding that it would not have the potential to
have significant impacts on the environment. A public review period was conducted which ended on April 11, 1991. As a result of
public review, an objection to the issuance of a Negative Declaration was filed by D. Wayne Brechtel, Attorney at Law, and he is appealing staff decision's to approve a Negative Declaration. Staff reviewed the comments submitted by Mr. Brechtel and after thorough consideration determined that there was still no substantial evidence that the construction of one single family residence at this location would have a siqnificant, adverse impact on the environment.
In response to Mr. Brechtel's letter of objection and appeal,
staff has the following comments to offer regarding the environmental issues raised in his letter.
The project site is relatively flat, sloping westerly, away from Highland Drive and no unique physical features exist on the parcel. According the Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, only lots with slopes over 15% and elevation differentials greater than
15 feet are subject to the findings required for a Hillside Development Permit. Since this lot did not meet those criteria, the applicable development standards of the underlying zoning and the grading ordinance are used to guide development. While it is true that the lot elevation is being raised 9 feet in one location, the average slope of the property is only being changed from 9% to
4%. This minor change in slope is not considered a significant, appreciable change in the topography of the site.
The assessment of no significant soil erosion impacts was based upon the fact that the necessary erosion control is being provided on the site both during and after construction. Jute matting will cover all man-made slopes until erosion control planting can be installed and the maximum inclination of the man-made slopes is 2: 1 to reduce the chance of slope failure.
A drainage easement across the adjacent, downhill property is required for possible storm drain overflow that could occur as a result of a major precipitation event. Because the underlying
EXHIBI'
0 0
CITY MANAGER APRIL 30, 1991 PAGE 2
topography slopes down to the west, any project design would
require a drainage easement across the adjacent, downhill property.
Given the erosion control measures required through the grading
permit and the necessity for a drainage easement regardless of
project design, the project is still judged to have no significant
soil erosion impacts.
Mr. Brechtel's appeal letter states that during the February 19,
1991 City Council hearing, 'I.. . & least 10 residents.. . repeatedlv testified about the aesthetically offensive public view... created by the grading project." According to the minutes of the referenced public hearing, a total of 12 persons testified on the items related to the Doan project at 2873 Highland Drive (AB
#11,039 and AB #11,040). Of the 12 testimonies, 9 were in
opposition to the project, mostly arguing against the compatibility of the project with the character of the existing development in the immediate area. Of the 3 residents living directly east of the project, across Highland Drive, 2 stated that potential obstruction of views was not a concern. This testimony collaborates staff's opinion that no significant impacts due to scenic vista obstruction will occur with this project. Of the 12 people that testified at the February 19, 1991 hearing, 6 live in the area around the project site and one of those 6 neighbors supported the project. While it is recognized that development of vacant land often brings about objection from residents near the project site, this does not prove that direct or indirect substantial adverse impacts on human beings will occur.
With regard to the possible creation of an aesthetically offensive public view, the appeal letter again uses the public testimony to substantiate an objection. The 2-story building proposed on the site is not of an unusual or significantly unappealing architectural style and the site is designated for a single-family residence. The mere fact that a vacant lot is proposed to be developed with the proper land use does not in and of itself create an aesthetically offensive public view.
The present General Plan land use designation for the project site and its surroundings is Residential Low-Medium density (RLM) , which allows single-family residences. Scale of development within a given land use is addressed through the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Since the proposed project is a single-family residence, no alteration of land use is being proposed.
0
CITY MANAGER
APRIL 30, 1991 PAGE 3
Mr. Brechtel's appeal letter states that cumulative impacts will result due to the precedent set by this development proposal. Currently, there are several 2-story homes on the west side of
Highland Drive in the area of the project site. Development standards defining the allowable scale of development on a single- family residential lot have been adopted through public hearings and would currently permit a building 35 feet in height on the project site. Since the project is well within the limits allowed by the applicable ordinances, no precedent of maximizing building bulk or coverage is being set, and no cumulative impacts are anticipated.
There are numerous alternate site designs and scales of development that could occur on the site, but not all, if any, would eliminate the concerns expressed by several neighbors. The site design does not maximize building coverage and the scale of development is below the maximums allowed by the applicable ordinances. Some limits must exist to control the scale of development, however a reasonable amount of development must be allowed on any single-
family residential lot. The establishment of development standards is undertaken after establishing goals and receiving public input.
These development standards are intended to implement the goals and
objectives of the General Plan for all like-designated parcels.
Since no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
proposal, and alternative design and scale do not necessarily produce an environmentally preferable project, no further exploration of alternate development need take place.
In summary, after a detailed review of the proposed single family construction and after a thorough review of Mr. Brechtel's comments, staff still believes that there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion that the proposed construction will have a significant impact on the environment. Staff ,
therefore, believes that a Negative Declaration can be supported.
If the City Council does not concur with the staff's decision regarding the Negative Declaration, a complete Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) would need to be prepared. Under state law, an EIR can only be required when there is substantial evidence in the record that the project will have a sisnificant impact on the
m 0
CITY MANAGER APRIL 30, 1991 PAGE 4
environment. The preparation of an EIR will cost the developer of the single family home thousands of dollars and probably delay the completion of the residence for one year. The decision to require an EIR is a very substantive decision. Staff is not aware of any previous situation where the City has determined that the construction of one individual, single family residence would have a significant impact on the environment, thereby, necessitating the need to prepare a complete Environmental Impact Report.
As noted, although it would not affect the construction of this single family home, per City Council direction, staff is processing amendments to the grading ordinance to restrict the amount of grading on infill single family lots. The amendment has been drafted and is now being reviewed and processed. Amendments to the building height definition and establishment of a floor area ratio
for single family homes has also been scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission. All of these items will be before the City Council sometime during the summer of 1991.
4.
4
Planning Director
arb
w 0
B - --*
D. WAYNE BRECHTEL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
380 Stevens Avenue, Suite # 211
Solana Beach, California 92075
Telephone: (619) 792-4688
April 2, 1991
Honorable Mayor
Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Negative Declaration dated March 12, 1991 for Grading Project at 2873 Highland Drive Permit No.: PE 2.89.61 Applicant : Doan Grading
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
This office represents James R. Swab, and other residents of Carlsbad, who are concerned with the above-
referenced grading project. This letter shall serve to provide the City with written comments in opposition to the approval of the above-referenced Negative Declaration dated March 12, 1991 and the project in general, and to notice my clients appeal of the project's approval.
APPEAL
Through this letter, my clients hereby appeal the approval of the above-referenced Negative Declaration dated March 12, 1991 and the project in general. It is hereby requested that this matter: be set for hearing before the Carlsbad City Council and that this office be notified of a
hearing date.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
We would respectfully submit that the proposed Negative Declaration and entire grading project should be rejected by the Council for the following reasons:
A. THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT MANDATeS MEANINGFUL REVIEW OF A PROJECT'S POTENTIAL IMPACTS
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
B. THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN THIS INSTANCE IS
IMPROPER BECAUSE IT IS BASED UPON AND INITIAL STUDY WHICH FAILED TO CONDUCT THE NECESSARY REVIEW.
EXMe
w 0
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
Re: Doan Project
April 2, 1991
Page 2
C. FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL
HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS UPON THE ENVIRONMENT.
1) The project clearly impacts the land use
pattern, topography and view of the local area,
The significant public controversy surrounding the project indicates a need for further environmental review.
2)
3) More importantly, the project will have a significant cumulative impact upon the general area due to its precedential impact .
Finally, there was no good faith discussion of feasible alternatives in the Initial Study. 4)
D. THE PROJECT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS AND IS INCONSISTEErm WITH THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCES
E. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE CITY'S HILLSIDE REGULATIONS .
DISCUSSION
A. THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT MANDATES
MEANINGFUL REVIEW OF A PROJECT'S POTENTIAL IMPACTS
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was
enacted in response to ffa general and growing awareness and acceptance of the importance of the natural environment in the lives of [California] citizens and the vital necessity of
its protection and preservation." County of Inyo v. Yortv
(1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 802, 108 Cal.Rptr. 377. The preservation of a quality environment was found to be a
matter of state-wide concern (Pub. Res. Code Section
21000(a) ) . All state agencies must give "major
consideration" to preventing environmental damage when
regulating activities affecting the quality of environment. Id, at (g)*
w a.
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 3
When first presented with an opportunity to review the
provisions of CEQA, the California Supreme court held that the legislature intended the Act "to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259, 104 Cal.Rptr. 761, 502 P.2d 1049.
To meet this goal, CEQA and its guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, Tit. 14, Section 1500, et. seq) (hereinafter "Guidelines"), coupled with extensive case law, outline a comprehensive scheme for agencies to follow when evaluating the potential adverse environmental effects of any project .
CEQA, it must conduct a initial study to determine whether the project may have a @ gnificant effect on the environment. Guidelines Section 15365. If the initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment, the agency then prepares a negative declaration.
significant effect on the environment, an EIR must be prepared. No Oil, Inc. V. County of Los Anseles, supra, 13 Cal.3d 68, 84, 118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66. In No Oil, the Court established a low-threshold requirement for determining when an EIR must be prepared. Whenever "it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact," an EIR must be prepared. Id, at p.75, 118 Cal.Rptr. 34.
Prior to issuing a negative declaration, agencies must thoroughly evaluate a project before deciding that it will not have a significant effect upon the environment. Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 225 Cal.Rptr. 334. The initial study must document the factual basis for determining that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Guidelines Section 15063 . An initial study which displays only a token
observance of the CEQA Guideline Checklist is inadequate. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 248 Cal.Rptr. 352.
Once an agency dete ines that a project is subject to
If the initial study shows that the project may have a
\
__ w @
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project
April 2, 1991
Page 4
B. THE NESATIVE DECLARATION IN THIS INSTANCE IS
IMPROPER BECAUSE IT IS BASED UPON AND INITIAL STUDY WHICH FAILED TO CONDUCT THE NECESSARY REVIEW.
In this instance, the City of Carlsbad ("City") performed a post-hoc analysis of the Doan project, which summarily dismissed any potential environmental impacts the project might have. Most notably, the environmental checklist concluded that the project would not "[a]ppreciably change the topography or any unique physical features". (Initial study (IS) p.2, para. 2), or "[r]esult in or be effected by erosion of soils either on or off-site" (IS p.2, para. 30). To state that a project which fills a quarter-acre parcel with 2500 yards of fill, requiring a 6-foot retaining wall around 3 sides of the property, raising the level of the property on one end 9 to 10 feet, does not appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features, defies logic.
The Initial Study goes on to summarily dismiss other potentially significant impacts. The study concludes that the project will not "[oJbstruct any scenic vista or create
an aesthetically offensive public view (IS p.4, para. 3),
[allter the present or planned land use of an area (IS p. 3, para. 17), or I*... cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly"(IS, p.5, para. 36). Once again, these conclusions are unreconcilable with the clear facts in this instance.
Finally, the Initial Study relies upon its conclusion that the Doan grading project "meets all applicable ordinances as contained in the Carlsbad Municipal Code" (IS p. 6 and p. 9, para. 31.) to support its finding of no
environmental impacts. While we in no way concur with the
study's conclusion of compliance, the mere fact that a project might comply with the applicable zoning ordinances does not excuse it from environmental review pursuant to CEQA where evidence of significant environmental impacts exist.
See Christward Ministry v. SuDerior Court, Supra, 184
Cal.App.3d 180, 197, 228 Cal.Rptr. 868.
w 0
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991
Page 5
C. FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED BECAUSE
THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL
HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS UPON THE ENVIRONMEW.
1) The project clearly impacts the land use pattern, topography and view of the local area.
Finally, the Initial Study relies upon its conclusion
that the Doan grading project "meets all applicable ordinances as contained in the Carlsbad Municipal Code" (IS
p. 6 and p. 9, para. 31.) to support its finding of no environmental impacts. While we in no way concur with the study's conclusion of compliance, the mere fact that a project might comply with the applicable zoning ordinances
does not excuse it from environmental review pursuant to CEQA
where evidence of significant environmental impacts exist. See Christward Ministry v. Suuerior Court, Supra, 184
Cal.App.3d 180, 197, 228 Cal.Rptr. 868.
The City Council was presented with the testimony of & least ten residents during its February 19, 1991 hearing on the Doan project. The testimony clearly established that no residential grading project of the magnitude being allowed on
the Doan property had ever occurred within the local area,
negating any conclusion that the project does not alter the present or planned land use of the area. Moreover, the residents reDeatedlv testified about the aesthetically offensive public view that was created by the grading project. that the Doan project will have a significant impact upon the environment, and the Initial Study's conclusion to the
contrary cannot stand in light of the facts previously presented to the City.
2)
Thus, it is clear that a fair argument can be made
c
The significant public controversy surrounding the project indicates a need for further environmental review.
The significant public controversy that has been
generated by the Doan project supports the conclusion that
the project may have a significant impact upon the environment, thereby triggering the need for additional environmental review and, possibly, an EIR. The existence of
serious public controversy may indicate that preparation of
c
e e
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project
April 2, 1991
Page 6
an EIR is desirable. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311, 248 Cal.Rptr. 352. "In marginal cases where it is not clear whether therers substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect upon the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following factors: (1) If there is serious public controversy over the environmental effect of the project, the lead agency shall consider the effect or effects subject to the controversy to be significant and shall prepare an EIR." No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Anqeles, supra, 13 Cal.3d 68, 85- 86, 118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66. Even where substantial
evidence of significant impacts may not exist, an EIR may be required where it is determined that the lack of evidence is
due to an agency's failure to undertake an adequate initial
study. Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App. 3d 29, 311, 248 Cal.Rptr. 52.
3) More importantly, the project will have a significant cumulative impact upon the general area due to its precedential impact 8
The Initial Study also erroneously concluded that the
project would not have any precedential or cumulative impact. (IS p. 5, para 35). The precedential and cumulative impact of the Doan project is clearly significant. essentially levels what was otherwise a hillside lot, located in a neighborhood characterized during the past 70 years by gently sloping lots and homes constructed in a manner that conforms to and complements the natural topography. Not one other residential lot with in-fill even remotely resembling the Doan project can be found within the local area.
one property owner the option of levelling his hillside lot will lead to similar projects throlighout the City in the future. Such a consequence would radically alter the nature and character of the Highland Drive area and the entire City of Carlsbad. February 19, 1991, discussing the Doan grading project, makes it clear that this precedential and cumulative impact was a
major concern that the Council expected to be addressed during the environmental review process. Planning, Michael J. Holzmiller, was present when the Council expressed these concerns. even address the cumulative impact of the Doan project defies logic & the direct instructions of the City Council.
The project
One can only conclude that the City's decision to allow
A review of the City Council Meeting on
The Director of
His department's decision & to
W e
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project
April 2, 1991
Page 7
If the Doan project is to be utilized as a precedent for
future development, the Highland Drive area will become a series of terraced lots, impacting surrounding views,
altering drainage courses, and otherwise radically changing the nature of the residential area. Where a proposed project potentially involves a change in pattern, scale or character
of the general area of the project, a fair argument can be
made that the project would have a significant environmental impact, and an EIR is required. See Christward Ministrv v. Superior Court, Supra, 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 197, 228 Ca1.Rpt.r.
868
Moreover, a review of the City file reveals facts indicating a clear possibility that the project might result in erosion of soils, either on or off-site. Documents within the file show that Mr. Doan was forced to obtain an easement from an adjoining neighbor for the placement of a drainage pipe to address such a potential impact.
4) Finally, there was no good faith discussion of
feasible alternatives in the Initial Study.
The Initial Study does conduct a short analysis of viable alternatives. (IS, p.10). However, the analysis quickly dismisses two viable alternatives, alternate. site design and alternate scale of development.
states that: "Alternate site design does not necessarily produce environmentally preferable results as no significant environmental features are being affected." (IS, p. 10, para
Be) This is not a discussion of viable alternatives, but, instead, it is a statement of no significant impacts.
Discussing the alternative of reducing the scale of
development, the City stated: "The scale of development is
below the maximum scale allowed by applicable ordinances and
is consistent with developments in the surrounding area."
set forth above, the Doan project is anything but consistent with the surrounding area, and the fact that it may comply with applicable ordinances does not exempt it from
environmental review, pursuant to CEQA. Once again, the City's analysis of a viable alternative is, in fact, a restatement of its conclusion that the Doan project will have
no significant effect upon the environment,
Addressing alternative site design, the Initial Study
As
W a
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 8
More importantly, viable alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the project's environmental impacts exist. review of the City's file reveals that reducing the fill on- site is a viable alternative. A letter from the City
Engineer to the City manager and Planning Director dated March 4, 1991 specifically states that a variance could be obtained to reduce the level of the Doan lot fill by as much as 3 - 4 feet. A true and correct copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit "A". Moreover, as ,members of the public testified during the Council hearing on the project, a re- design of the Doan residence that accommodates the natural slope could eliminate the need for fill altogether.
The City's failure to address the alternative of reducing or eliminating the fill and the Doan project site indicates a desire to leave the status quo, rather than make a good faith evaluation of the viable alternatives as required by CEQA.
A
D.THE PROJECT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS AND IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CARLSBAD GENERAL
PIAN AND ZONING ORDINANCES
California statutory and case law mandate a strong
consistency doctrine which requires that cities and counties adopt an adequate general plan and that all regulatory controls and development approvals (zoning and subdivision ordinances and actions) be consistent with a city's general plan. "The requirement of consistency is the linch-pin of California's land use and development laws." de Bottari V.
Citv of Norco (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d, 1204, 217 Cal.Rptr. 790.
The requirement of consistency between land use proposals, zoning and a city's general plan is underscored by a review of the Carlsbad General Plan, Land Use Element which states :
"...the city must make its zoning ordinance and General Plan compatible and insure that future development proposals are consistent with the adopted city General Plan." As a definition of consistency, the city will adhere to the language contained in Assembly Bill 1725 as follows:
\
W a
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 9
A zoning ordinance shall be consistent with a city
or county General Plan only if ...( ii) the various land uses authorized by the ordinances are
compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such plan."
(General Plan, Land Use Element, p. 41)
The General Plan goes on to State:
A Land us[e] proposal or zone, which if implemented would prevent the achievement of the objectives established for the area by the General Plan, would clearly be inconsistent; (General Plan, Land Use
Element, p. 42, para. 2).
In this instance, the Doan grading project was
authorized under Chapter 11.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
(CMC) entitled "Excavation and Grading". Section 11.06.010
requires that the chapter "be read and construed as an
integral part of" the City's Zoning Code, Chapter 21. The Zoning Code is governed by, and must be consistent with, the
Carlsbad General Plan. Cal. Gov. Code Section 65860. As such, an analysis of the Carlsbad Grading Ordinance must be conducted in light of the views, policies and mandates of the Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning Code. See, e.g., Neishborhood Action Group v. Calaveras City (1984) 156 CAl.App.3d 1176, 1185, 203 Cal.Rptr. 401.
The Doan project, which essentially levels a hillside
lot under 2500 cubic yards of fill, is hopelessly
inconsistent with the Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning Code,
both of which continuously call for development which preserves neighborhood atmosphere and identity, provides for harmonious development and site design, minimal grading, and
preservation of natural slopes.
1. General Plan Land Use Element
s-
For example, the General Plan, Land Use Element, sets forth general guidelines intended to provide guidance and direction in the handling of daily affairs in a manner that
strives toward the goals of the City.
require the City to:
These guidelines
W e
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991
Page 10
"[e]stablish development standards for all use
categories that will preserve natural features and
characteristics, especially those within rural,
coastal and/or hillside area." (General Plan, Land Use Element, p. 43, para. 3.)
More specifically, pertinent sections of the residential
guidelines found within the Land Use Element read as follows:
"Preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas" (p. 44, para. 6)
"Hillside areas should only accommodate densities that
are compatible to slope preservation" (p. 44, para. 6, 15.)
2. General Plan Housinq Element
The Housing Element of the Carlsbad General Plan is even more specific. The Housing Element uses the guidelines set forth in the Land Use Element to develop more specific goals
and policies. The Housing Element condenses the 16 different
guidelines found within the land use portion into five main themes, the first of which reads as follows:
"Preservation - The City should preserve the neighborhood atmosphere, retain the identity of the existing neighborhoods, maximize open space, and ensure slope preservation." (Emphasis added) (Carlsbad General Plan, Housing Element, p.3, para. 1.)
3. General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element
The same policies mandating preservation of community
identity, conservation of land, and natural features, including slope preservation, can be found within the General Plan Open Space Conservation Element. found within the Carlsbad General Plan, Open Space and
Conservation Element, dated December 20, 1973, provide that:
accomplished in a manner that would maintain the appearance
of natural hillsides wherever possible.
Pertinent guidelines
(1) Grading for building pads and roadways should be
w 0-
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 11
(3) Density, and intensity of development on hillsides should relate to the slope of the land in order to preserve the integrity of the hillside.
(4) Proper design criteria should be utilized to preserve the integrity of the hillsides and soil resources of the City." (General Plan, Open Space and Conservation
Element, dated December 20, 1973, p. 11.)
The 1990 Revised Draft of the General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element also provides for the preservation of hillsides. Policies and Action Programs provides as follows:
"Development on hillsides (if allowed) shall relate to the slope of land in order to preserve the integrity of the hillsides." (P. IV - 10) .
various elements of the Carlsbad General Plan calling for consistent and harmonious development, preservation of neighborhood identity and preservation of natural slopes within hillside communities. The sections cited above, represent only a small portion of the provisions which
support these principles. There is simply no way to square
the clear mandate of the Carlsbad General Plan with the Doan
project, which buried, rather than preserved, the property's natural slope. The approved Doan project has completely eliminated, rather than preserved the hillside character of the property. otherwise pleasant hillside residential neighborhood.
4. Gradina Ordinance
Paragraph C.3 of the Proposed Implementing
In sum, there is overwhelming direction found within the
The project is a complete anomaly in an
Moreover, a review of the purposes set forth in the Grading Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 11.06) make it clear that it was intended to be implemented in a manner consistent with the policies and guidelines found throughout the General Plan. Relevant portions of section
11.06.010 read as follows:
\
I.
w a
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project
April 2, 1991 Page 12
"It is the intent of the city council to protect life and property and to promote the general welfare; enhance and improve the physical environment of the community; and preserve, subject to economic feasibility, the natural scenic character of the City. chapter shall be administered to achieve, to the
extent possible, the following goals:
The provisions of this
(1) Ensuring that future development of lands occurs in the manner most compatible with surrounding areas, and so as to have the least
effect upon other persons or lands, or upon the
general public; ...
(3) Encouraging the planning, design and development of building sites in such a fashion to
provide the maximum in safety and human enjoyment,
while adapting development to and taking advantage of the best use of the natural terrain;...
While the City has taken the erroneous position that there is no specific provision to be found within the Carlsbad Municipal Code prohibiting the type of grading which has occurred on the Doan property, the City is equally unable
to direct one to language allowing such massive in-fill on a residential lot. concerning a particular land use is not especially clear, the
code must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the general plan. In this instance, the City is under an obligation to interpret its grading ordinance in a manner consistent with its General Plan, which clearly mandates that massive fill of residential hillside lots shall Q& occur.
Finally, as set forth below, it is our position that the
Doan in-fill project violated the City's Hillside Development Regulations. position that the Hillside Regulations do not apply, the
Regulations should serve as persuasive guidelines to be used
in the implementation of the applicable grading ordinance in a manner consistent with the General Plan. To do otherwise,
would render the grading ordinance unlawful due to its inconsistency with the clear directions of the General Plan.
Where application of a city's code
However, even if the City maintains the
c
w a
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project
April 2, 1991
Page 13
E. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE CI'IY'S HILLSIDE
REGULATIONS
The Doan in-fill project fell within and violated the provisions of the City's Hillside Development Regulations. CMC, Chapter 21.95. This Chapter sets forth a comprehensive
set of regulations governing development on hillside property. Section 21.95.030 requires that all property with a slope of 15% or more, and a proposed elevation differential greater than 15 feet cannot be developed unless a hillside development permit has been issued.
The City has taken the position that this section exempts all property with a slope of less than 15% from the Hillside Regulations entirely. However, a review of the purpose and intent of the Hillside Development Regulations and the testimony of one of its authors, demonstrate that the ordinance is clearly intended to be applied to all hillside
development, regardless of whether a hillside development
permit is required.
Section 21.95.010 of the Development Regulations set forth the purpose and intent of the Regulations. sections read as follows:
"(b). Preserve the natural appearance of hillsides by assuring that development densities and intensity relates to the slope
of the land, and is compatible with hillside preservation;
c. grading, landscaping and in the development of structures and roadways to preserve the natural appearance of hillsides;
d. Preserve and enhance a healthful and aesthetically pleasing environment by
assuring that hillside development is
pleasing to the eye, rich in variety, highly identifiable, and reflects the
City's cultural and environmental
values. I'
Pertinent
Assure proper design is utilized in
.
w e
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 14
Of particular significance in this instance is the
purpose and intent set forth in paragraph (f), which reads as
follows:
f. and open space/conservation elements of the Carlsbad General Plan."
As set forth above, the open space and conservation elements of the Carlsbad General Plan call for the preservation of natural slopes within the City.
"Implement the intent of the land use ,
Finally, paragraph (h) directs the City to:
"encourage creatively designed hillside development requiring a minimal amount of grading. (emphasis added)" (CMC, Section 21.95.010)
A review of the purposes and intents set forth above makes it clear that the Hillside Regulations were intended to govern the development of all hillside properties, and not just those subject to a hillside development permit. This position is supported by one of the co-authors of the Hillside Development Regulations, Mr. McBane, who went on record before the City Council on February 19, 1991, stating that the Regulations do apply to properties with slopes less
than 15%.
Moreover, a review of the Hillside Development Regulations reveals no exclusions for properties with slopes less than 15%. If the drafters of this ordinance had wanted to completely exclude such properties, they could have easily stated this in section 21.95.090 entitled "Exclusions". A review of this section, however, reveals no such exclusion.
The drafters decision not to exclude property with slopes less than 15% from the Hillside Development Regulations makes sense. Otherwise, properties with a lesser slope could be developed in a manner which defeats the clear intent of the Carlsbad General Plan and the Hillside Development Regulations which is to prevent the unregulated destruction of the City's natural hillside appearance. While it might be sensible to only require those properties with significant slopes, (the development of which generally requires the most grading) to obtain a hillside development
w 0
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991
Page 15
permit, excluding all other hillside properties from the provisions of the Hillside Development Regulations makes no sense. This result leaves a significant portion of the
City's hillside properties completely devoid of any type of regulations.
underscore the devastating result of such a narrow interpretation of the Hillside Regulations.
of fill on less than a quarter acre. This massive fill exceeds the acceptable limits of the Hillside Regulations which designate as unacceptable fills averaging over 10,000 cubic yards of fill per acre. The Doan project, which represents 2500 cubic yards of fill on less than a quarter acre exceeds the acceptable limits of the regulations. Had the Doan project been subjected to these regulations, the amount of fill used on his lot would have never been allowed.
More importantly, the Doan project which levelled, rather than preserved the natural hillside of the lot would have violated the clearly defined purpose and intent of the
Hillside Regulations to preserve and protect natural hillside topography throughout Carlsbad.
Application of the Hillside Regulations to the Doan project would be expected to result in far less fill due to the lesser slope of the property. The quantifiable limits of fill set forth in the Hillside Regulations are necessarily
intended to govern development and grading on various degrees of hillside slope. Those properties with a greater hillside slope necessarily involve the greatest amount of grading. On
the other hand, those properties with a lesser slope should require less grading. To allow the Doan property with a
slope of less than 15% to exceed the acceptable limits for development of property with far greater slopes, defies the
clear direction of the Carlsbad General Plan and the Hillside
The results of the Doan in-fill project
The Doan project involves approximately 2500 cubic yards
Development Regulations. c
w e
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 16
CONCLUSION
The City of Carlsbad clearly erred when it allowed the Doan project to proceed in a manner that allowed a hillside
lot to be filled and levelled with 2500 cubic yards of fill, in clear violation of the City's General Plan and applicable
ordinances.
to conduct any environmental review prior to issuing the
grading permit for the project. The City is now faced with a
partially completed project that is inconsistent and
incompatible with the surrounding area, General Plan and
applicable ordinances. These errors should not now be compounded through the adoption of a negative declaration
based upon post-hoc analysis, lacking any meaningful, environmental review.
This error was compounded when the City failed
Moreover, the Council should reexamine the entire Doan project while it has the ability to effect corrective action. At this point, the Doan property could be returned to a conforming state through relatively little expense. could be do by removing all, or at least a good portion of
the massive in-fill and re-designing the home to conform to
the property's natural hillside topography. The Doan project could then go forward in a manner consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. A redesign of the house might not even be required if the necessary variances were processed as suggested by the City's Engineering Department.
City disapprove the Doan project entirely. inclined to move forward, it is respectfully requested that it disapprove the proposed Negative Declaration dated March 12, 1991, and order the Planning Department to conduct meaningful environmental review as required by CEQA.
A redesign might not even be required if the necessary variances were processed as suggested by the City's Engineering Department.
This
For these reasons, it is respectfully requested that the If the City is
Very truly yours,
D&+y---
D. Wayne Brechtel DWB: bw
cc: Client
. Fi(c & W 67’
-
March 4, 1991
TO: CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
FROM: Cily Engineer
DOAN GRADING PERMIT 2873 HIGHLAND AVENUE
During public discussion on the subject project it was indicated that the grading was increased
three to four feet by the Engineering Department to accommodate driveway slopes.
I have discussed this issue with involved staff and have reviewed the files in detail. At no time
did staff direct revision to the pad elevation. The need to maintain a maximum driveway stope
of 14% or request waiver was pointed out during the plancheck process. The Engineer chose
to not request a variance but to raise the pad elevation approximately one foot to meet the
driveway standard.
Other options related to house location and design were not explored by the applicant nor
discussed with staff. The one foot increase did not alter the basic design or impact the
surrounding properties.
The original grading plan was submitted November 13,1989. Plancheck fees were based on an
import fill amount of 2560 cubic yards, Quantity calculations indicate finish floor elevation of
154.9. The plan was reviewed and the Planning Department indicated concern with wall and fill
heights. The original submittal was returned incomplete with comments on November 15, 1989,
On December 18, 1989, Mr. Doan submitted a letter to the Planning Director indicating that the
site met code and he wished to process. This was accompanied by a sketch indicating an eight
(8) foot fill (letter attached).
The final finish pad elevation was 154.30. Final fill quantity was 2460 cubic yards, 128 cubic
yards less than the original submittal,
Staff has reviewed several design constraints in an attempt to explore a range of potential grading alternatives. Major constraints include:
. 0 Street and driveway connections
0 Sewer connections
0 Rear yard setback *
Maintaining the current house design, sewering to Highland Avenue and meeting acceptable
street and driveway standards, the existing design could be lowered by approximately one (1)
foot.
Granting variances to City standards to practical minimums would allow a finish floor reductior
of 2 to 2% feet,
.
-181 IT~V’P ,>. ,
a e
Doan Grading Permit t.
March 5, 1991
Page: 2
Any furfher reduction in pad elevation would require redesign of the home, sewering through the
yard to the rear or installation of a sewer pump system.
Sewering to Elmwood would require additional offsite easements from the abutting property
owner.
It should be pointed out that even precluding any grading on the site would not necessarily alter
the impact of the house design. If Mr. Doan’s intent is to take advantage of views, he can
accomplish the same basic design utilizing stepped foundations and subfloors with decking
similar to his neighbor to the south. Grading is only one element in a complex design issue
involving structure height, architecture, setbacks, driveway slope and provision of sewers. The
precise design mix to meet City requirements is in the hands af the owner and his design
E
City Engineer
L6H:rz
c: 0. Haus e/’ ’
t
I.
. .b.
.*
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 2873 Highland Drive. West side of Highland Drive
between Elm Avenue and Buena Vista Way in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Grading for and construction of a two-story single family
residence on an infill, previously disturbed lot.
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, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
21 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the
Planning Department at 438-1 161, extension 4499.
1
DATED: MARCH 12, 1991
CASE NO: PE2.89.61 Planning Director
APPLICANT: DOAN GRADING
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 21,1991
MICHAEL J. ‘& MILiAR
MG:lh
EXHIBIT “4”
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 161
a e .*
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Po Box 944209 SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2090
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project TitleLocation (include county):
Doan Grading (PE 2.89.61) west side of Highland Drive between Elm Avenue and Buen
Vista Way in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Project Description:
Grading for and construction of a two-story, single family residence on an infill, previous11
disturbed lot.
Findings of Ehemption (attach as necessary):
1. The City of Carlsbad Planning Department has completed an F.nvironmental Knitia
Study for the above referenced property, including evaluation of the propose(
project's potential for adverse environmental impacts on fish and wildlife resources
Based on the completed Environmental Initial Study, the City of Carlsbad Plannin;
Department hds that the proposed project will not encroach upon wildlife habita
area, will have no potential adverse individual or cumulative effects on wildlit
resouTces, and requires no mitigation measures to be incorporated into the propose1
project which would affect fish or wildlife.
2.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that th
project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resource:
as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
4ld& 1 &
MICHAEL JA-IOL~CIILLER
Title: Planning Director
Lead Agency: Citv of Carlsbad
Date: March 12. 1991
MG:I
pe28F61n
Section 71 1.4, Fish and Game Code
DFG:lY90
0 e .t
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART E1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. PE2.89.61
DATE: MARCH 11, BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: DOAN RESIDENCE
2. APPLICANT: LARRYDOAN
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 725 NORTH AVENUE
VISTA, CA 92083
(619) 758-0268
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: NOVEMBER 13.1989
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GRADING FOR AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORE
FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 2873 HIGHLAND DRIVE, (
CARLSBAD.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City COI
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the envi
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed prc
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Envirc
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the r
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO' will bc
to indicate this determination.
*- An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any asp€
project may cause a simificant effect on the environment.
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be
insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and 'Y
respectively.
The project may qualify for a
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fo
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to d
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
0
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
tu geologic hazards? - X
unique physical features? -
2. Appreciably change the topography or any
X
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
X -
4.
X any bay, inlet or lake? - -
ambient air quality? -
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
water, ground water or public water supply?
depletion of any natural resources?
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on
X
6. Result in substantial changes in air
X -
7. Substantially change the course or flow of
X -
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface
X -
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
X
X
-
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? -
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
X structure or object? -
-2-
0 0
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
E3 NO as WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants) ? - - X
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of - x existing species? -
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance? - X
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms X and insects? -
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the 16.
X migration or movement of animals? - -
HUMANENVIRONMENT
E21 NO Eds WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use X of an area? -
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fie, emergency or other X public services? - -
-3-
0
HUMANENVLRONMENT
0
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: ES E8 NO
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems? 2
X
X
- 20. Increase existing noise levels?
21.
22.
- Produce new light or glare?
Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
X -
23.
X -
24.
X -
25. Generate substantial additional traffic? 3
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
X - - create a large demand for new parking? -
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods? 2
X - 28.
29.
Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase traffic hazards to motor
X vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? -
emergency evacuation plans? x
aesthetically offensive public view? - 3
existing recreational opportunities? 2
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
32. Affect the quality or quantity of
-4-
- e m
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: Els Eg-J NO
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
X - of California history or prehistory. -
34. 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 the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
siderable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
x
35.
- X the effects of probable future projects.) -
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
X either directly or indirectly? -
-5-
d \(I) e
DlSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project involves filling of an existing residential lot with approximately 2500 cubic yards
retained by a six-foot high retaining wall and the construction of a two-story, 4570 square
residence on an infill residential parcel at 2873 Highland Drive in Carlsbad, California. The sit
a natural grade of approximately 9% and falls approximately 10 feet in elevation from Highland I
The grading and building proposal meets all applicable ordinances as contained in the CaI
Municipal Code. Based upon several site visits, staff has determined that no adverse envirom
impacts will result from this project.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
1. The grading and filling of the lot is in accordance with all applicable ordinances and a so
compaction report and compliance verification is required prior to issuance of a buildi
permit. No unstable earth conditions or geologic hazards will therefore result from tl
project.
The natural slope of the site is relatively flat (being only 9%) and filling of the pad creat
a large area of approximately 4% slope with a 6 foot high slope and a 6 foot high retaini
wall on the downslope side and the maximum fill depth is 9 feet. There is therefore
appreciable change in topography and no unique physical features exist on site.
Standard erosion control measures are required through the grading permit process a
drainage will be directed into an existing storm drain. No significant erosion of soils on
off site will result.
There are no beach sands, rivers, or streams on or near the site, therefore, no impact to su
features will result from this project.
Construction and occupation of this infill residential project will produce an incremen
increase in aerosols. This small increase is considered insignificant, however.
The alteration of the surface characteristics from the pre-existing disturbed state ta
developed state will alter the radiative and moisture exchanges between the surface and
but these small scale changes in climatological variables are considered insignificant.
No natural or manmade water courses exist on or near the project site. The propos
therefore, will not substantially change the course or flow of marine, fresh, or flood wate
There are no significant supplies of surface water, groundwater, or public water on or nt
the site and therefore, this proposal will neither affect the quantity or quality of thc
resources.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
-6-
e e
* 9. No significant natural resources exist on site and the construction and occupation of th
residence will only produce an incremental increase in the usage of various natur;
resources. There will therefore be no adverse impacts to natural resources as a result of th
project.
An incremental increase in the use of fuel or energy will accompany construction an
occupation of the residence but this minor increase is considered insignificant.
There are no archeological, paleontological, or historical structures or objects on or adjacei
to the site and the site is not of significance itself. As such, no impacts to the above ai
expected.
The site has been previously disturbed and no significant species of plants or habitats exi
in the infill project area.
While landscaping will accompany the development, the site is an infill lot in an urbanizt
area with a wide variety of plant species. The introduction of incidental new plant speci
does not pose any negative environmental ramifications nor will it create a significant bani
to the normal replenishment of existing species.
There are no agricultural crops or farmlands on or near the project site therefore no impac
to such features will result from this development.
As stated previously, the site is an infill residential project on an already disturbed lot. 1
species and habitats of animals are accustomed to the urbanized environment and I
significant impacts shall result from this infill project.
No new animals are specifically proposed with this project and no evidence of a migrato
path for animals through the project area can be seen. This infill residential projec
therefore, will not produce any adverse impacts to the migration or movements of anima
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
17. There is no alteration of land use proposed with this development and the propos
residential project is consistent with the general plan, land use designation for the area. I
land use impacts will therefore result.
While occupation of the residence will produce an incremental increase in the need i
public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency and other services, the needs i
accommodated through the continued implementation of the Local Facilities Manageme
Plan for Zone 1. As such, no significant impacts to the above will result.
While a sewer lateral will be required with the project, all existing sewer systems, so
waste and hazardous waste control systems applicable to the project area can adequatf
accommodate the construction and occupation activities. Therefore, no adverse impacts
these systems will result.
18.
19.
-7-
0 e
20. Construction of the project will result in a short-term incidental increase in noise lev€
however, due to the short duration of this increase, any impacts are considered insignificar
Noise resulting from construction and occupation of the residence will be required
conform to Chapter 8.48 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and will not, therefore, produl
any significant impacts.
While the project could include decorative or safety-related outdoor lighting, this
considered within the expected limits of residential development and no adverse impacts a
expected. The project is not proposing any objects or surfaces that would produ
significant amounts of light or glare.
No hazardous substances are proposed to be located on site and all standard safety practic
will be employed during construction. Given this, no significant risk of explosion or relea
of hazardous substances is anticipated.
The occupation of the proposed residence will produce an incremental increase in populatic
of the area but this increase is considered insignificant. The proposal is consistent with t
allowed residential density as defined in the general plan and the City's Growth Manageme
Ordinance.
The construction of this project will add only one additional residence to the City's housi
supply and therefore, will not adversely affect existing housing or create demands i
additional housing.
The approximately 10 additional average daily trips generated by the proposal are r
considered significant as the local and collector streets serving the project can accommod:
the incidental increase in traffic.
AU parking required by the Carlsbad Municipal Code will be provided by the propos
rherefore no large demand for new parking will be created. Since no parking facilit
currently exist on or near the site, no impact to such facilities will be encountered.
No patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods or transportation systei
exist on the project site and no encroachment into the public right-of-way on Highland Dn
is proposed. As such, no adverse impacts to the above are anticipated.
No waterborne, rail, or air traffic circulate on or near the project site therefore developmc
of this infill lot will not adversely affect these forms of transportation.
While construction activities will require the ingress and egress of construction equipme
all necessary signage control and safety measures will be required during constructic
Traffic hazards associated with occupation of the infill residence will not be significan
different than those from neighboring residences and, therefore, no increase in trd
hazards is anticipated with this project.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
-8-
0 0
-30. No emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans involve this site therefo
development of this infill residential project will not prove to be an interference to su
plans.
The proposal meets all applicable development standards as specified in Titles 18 and 21
the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The building height of the two-story residence is 27 feet hi
which is 8 feet lower than the maximum allowed per code. The building footprint is smal
than the maximum allowed per code and the total building square footage is less than h
of the maximum allowed on an R-1 zoned parcel of this size. Currently, there are no vic
preservation ordinances in effect and a large variety of grading and building proposals WOI
produce the same visual impacts to residents to the east. No public views or scenic vis
are on or near the project site. Since there are no architectural guidelines for the ai
surrounding the project site, a wide variety of architectural types can be seen. As such, t
architectural style, bulk, and form of the proposal is in keeping with the variety of t
neighborhood. Given the above, no obstruction to scenic vistas or creation of aesthetica
offensive public views will result from this project.
No recreational opportunities exist on or near the site and the incremental increase
potential park usage produced by this development is not considered significant. No affc
to the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities will therefore result from I
project.
As stated previously, the project site is a previously disturbed infill, residentially-designa
lot that contains no significant habitats, plant or animal communities, or examples of m:
periods of California history or prehistory. All potential environmental impacts have bi
shown to be insignificant and, therefore, the project does not have the potential
substantially degrade the quality of the environment.
No short-term or long-term environmental goals are being affected as this site is designa
for residential use by the general plan and no sidcant environmental features are or
near the site.
As this is an infill, residential project in a developed neighborhood, the incremental efft
of this project do not become cumulatively considerable when considered together. '
project is consistent and compatible with existing and possible future developments.
As shown above, no significant direct or indirect adverse affects on human beings are bc
created by this infill project since no significant environmental features exist on or near
site and development is consistent with all applicable ordinances.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
-9-
e 0
AIkUYSIS OF 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.
A) The project is too small to phase.
B) Alternate site designs do not necessarily produce environmentally preferable results as
no significant environmental features are being affected.
C) The scale of development is below the maximum scale allowed by applicable ordinances
and is consistent with developments in the surrounding area.
D) The project is a residential project on a residentially designated parcel. Any alternate
land use would be inconsistent with the general plan.
E) Development at a future time would leave a site designated for residential development vacant. Since there are no environmental features on site, no advantages would be
gained by postponing development.
F) As this is a residentially designated site, alternate sites gain no environmental
advantages.
G) As stated above, no development on this site contradicts the general plan and land use
designation and provides no environmental gains.
MG:lh
-10-
8 e e
- DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a N
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, be
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunc
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an att:
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be propose(
- I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIROI
IMPACT REPORT is required.
3/49,
Date
3Il&
D*ate I
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-11-
0 e
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
-12-
m 0
1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 434
Office of the City Clerk situ rtf anrlsbab
DATE : April 2, 1991
TO : Bobbie Hoder, Planning Dept.
FROM : Karen Kundtz, Clerk's Office
RE : Nevative Declaration - 2873 Highland Drive - Doan PE 2.89.61
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed, (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
all parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
___-________________------_----_--------------------------------------------
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
Meeting of
Signature Date
-a 0 m.' 9
D. WAYNE BRECHTEL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
380 Stevens Avenue, Suite # 211
Solana Beach, California 92075
Telephone: (619) 792-4688
April 2, 1991
Honorable Mayor Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Negative Declaration dated March 12, 1991
for Grading Project at 2873 Highland Drive Permit No.: PE 2.89.61 Applicant : Doan Grading
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
This office represents James R. Swab, and other residents of Carlsbad, who are concerned with the above- referenced grading project. This letter shall serve to provide the City with written comments in opposition to the approval of the above-referenced Negative Declaration dated
March 12, 1991 and the project in general, and to notice my clients appeal of the project's approval.
APPEAL
Through this letter, my clients hereby appeal the approval of the above-referenced Negative Declaration dated March 12, 1991 and the project in general. It is hereby requested that this matter be set for hearing before the Carlsbad City Council and that this office be notified of a hearing date.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
We would respectfully submit that the proposed Negative Declaration and entire grading project should be rejected by the Council for the following reasons:
A. THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT MANDATES
MEANINGFUL REVIEW OF A PROJECT'S POTENTIAL IMPACTS
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
B. THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN THIS INSTANCE IS
IMPROPER BECAUSE IT IS BASED UPON AND INITIAL STUDY WHICH FAILED TO CONDUCT THE NECESSARY REVIEW.
0 0
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 2
C. FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED BECAUSE
THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL
HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS UPON THE ENVIRONMENT.
1) The project clearly impacts the land use
pattern, topography and view of the local area.
The significant public controversy surrounding
the project indicates a need for further
environmental review.
More importantly, the project will have a significant cumulative impact upon the
general area due to its precedential impact.
Finally, there was no good faith discussion of
feasible alternatives in the Initial Study.
2)
3)
4)
D. THE PROJECT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS AND IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN
AND ZONING ORDINANCES
E. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE CITY'S HILLSIDE REGULATIONS .
DISCUSSION
A. THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT MANDATES MEANINGFUL REVIEW OF A PROJECT'S POTENTIAL IMPACTS
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in response to 'la general and growing awareness and acceptance of the importance of the natural environment in the lives of [California] citizens and the vital necessity of its protection and preservation." County of Inyo v. Yorty
(1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 802, 108 Cal.Rptr. 377. The preservation of a quality environment was found to be a matter of state-wide concern (Pub. Res. Code Section 21000(a)). All state agencies must give "major consideration" to preventing environmental damage when regulating activities affecting the quality of environment.
Id, at (9)-
0 0
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 3
When first presented with an opportunity to review the provisions of CEQA, the California Supreme court held that the legislature intended the Act "to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory
language." Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972)
8 Cal.3d 247, 259, 104 Cal.Rptr. 761, 502 P.2d 1049.
To meet this goal, CEQA and its guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, Tit. 14, Section 1500, et. seq)
(hereinafter "Guidelines"), coupled with extensive case law, outline a comprehensive scheme for agencies to follow when evaluating the potential adverse environmental effects of any project .
Once an agency determines that a project is subject to
CEQA, it must conduct and initial study to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Guidelines Section 15365. If the initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment, the agency then prepares a negative declaration,
If the initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR must be prepared. No Oil, Inc. v. County of Los Anqeles, supra, 13 Cal.3d 68, 84, 118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P,2d 66. In No Oil, the Court established a low-threshold requirement for determining when an EIR must be prepared. argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact," an EIR must be prepared. Id, at p.75, 118 Cal.Rptr. 34,
Prior to issuing a negative declaration, agencies must thoroughly evaluate a project before deciding that it will not have a significant effect upon the environment. Christward Ministrv v. Superior Court (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 225 Cal-Rptr. 334. The initial study must document the factual basis for determining that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment, Guidelines Section 15063.
observance of the CEQA Guideline Checklist is inadequate. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 248 Cal.Rptr. 352.
Whenever "it can be fairly
An initial study which displays only a token
0 a
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991
Page 4
B. THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN THIS INSTANCE IS
IMPROPER BECAUSE IT IS BASED UPON AND INITIAL STUDY
WHICH FAILED TO CONDUCT THE NECESSARY REVIEW.
In this instance, the City of Carlsbad ("City") performed a post-hoc analysis of the Doan project, which summarily dismissed any potential environmental impacts the
project might have. Most notably, the environmental checklist concluded that the project would not "[alppreciably change the topography or any unique physical features". (Initial study (IS) p.2, para. 2), or "[r]esult in or be effected by erosion of soils either on or off-site" (IS p.2, para. 30).
To state that a project which fills a quarter-acre parcel
with 2500 yards of fill, requiring a 6-foot retaining wall
around 3 sides of the property, raising the level of the
property on one end 9 to 10 feet, does not appreciably change
the topography or any unique physical features, defies logic.
The Initial Study goes on to summarily dismiss other potentially significant impacts. The study concludes that the project will not "[olbstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view (IS p.4, para, 3), [allter the present or planned land use of an area (IS p. 3, para. 17), or "...cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly"(IS, p.5, para. 36). Once again, these conclusions are unreconcilable with the clear facts in this instance.
Finally, the Initial Study relies upon its conclusion
that the Doan grading project "meets all applicable
ordinances as contained in the Carlsbad Municipal Code" (IS
p, 6 and p. 9, para. 31.) to support its finding of no environmental impacts. While we in no way concur with the study's conclusion of compliance, the mere fact that a project might comply with the applicable zoning ordinances does not excuse it from environmental review pursuant to CEQA where evidence of significant environmental impacts exist. See Christward Ministry v. Superior Court, Supra, 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 197, 228 Ca1,Rptr. 868.
0 e
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project
April 2, 1991
Page 5
C. FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED BECAUSE
THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL
HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS UPON THE ENVIRONMENT.
1) The project clearly impacts the land use pattern, topography and view of the local area .
Finally, the Initial Study relies upon its conclusion that the Doan grading project "meets all applicable
ordinances as contained in the Carlsbad Municipal Code" (IS p. 6 and p. 9, para. 31.) to support its finding of no environmental impacts. While we in no way concur with the study's conclusion of compliance, the mere fact that a
project might comply with the applicable zoning ordinances does not excuse it from environmental review pursuant to CEQA where evidence of significant environmental impacts exist. See Christward Ministry v. Superior Court, Supra, 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 197, 228 Cal.Rptr, 868,
The City Council was presented with the testimony of &
The testimony clearly established that no least ten residents during its February 19, 1991 hearing on the Doan project, residential grading project of the magnitude being allowed on the Doan property had ever occurred within the local area, negating any conclusion that the project does not alter the present or planned land use of the area, Moreover, the residents repeatedly testified about the aesthetically offensive public view that was created by the grading project. that the Doan project will have a significant impact upon the environment, and the Initial Study's conclusion to the contrary cannot stand in light of the facts previously
presented to the City.
2)
Thus, it is clear that a fair argument can be made
The significant public controversy surrounding the project indicates a need for further environmental review.
The significant public controversy that has been generated by the Doan project supports the conclusion that the project may have a significant impact upon the environment, thereby triggering the need for additional environmental review and, possibly, an EIR. The existence of serious public controversy may indicate that preparation of
e 0
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 6
an EIR is desirable. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, supra,
202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311, 248 Cal.Rptr. 352. "In marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect upon the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the
following factors: (1) If there is serious public controversy over the environmental effect of the project, the lead agency shall consider the effect or effects subject to the controversy to be significant and shall prepare an EIR." No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Anqeles, supra, 13 Cal.3d 68, 85- 86, 118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66. Even where substantial
evidence of significant impacts may not exist, an EIR may be required where it is determined that the lack of evidence is due to an agency's failure to undertake an adequate initial study. Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App. 3d 29, 311, 248 Cal.Rptr. 52.
3) More importantly, the project will have a
significant cumulative impact upon the general area due to its precedential impact.
The Initial Study also erroneously concluded that the project would not have any precedential or cumulative impact. (IS p. 5, para 35). The precedential and cumulative impact of the Doan project is clearly significant. The project
essentially levels what was otherwise a hillside lot, located in a neighborhood characterized during the past 70 years by
gently sloping lots and homes constructed in a manner that
conforms to and complements the natural topography. Not one other residential lot with in-fill even remotely resembling the Doan project can be found within the local area.
One can only conclude that the City's decision to allow one property owner the option of levelling his hillside lot will lead to similar projects throughout the City in the future. Such a consequence would radically alter the nature and character of the Highland Drive area and the entire City of Carlsbad. A review of the City Council Meeting on
February 19, 1991, discussing the Doan grading project, makes it clear that this precedential and cumulative impact was a major concern that the Council expected to be addressed during the environmental review process. The Director of Planning, Michael J. Holzmiller, was present when the Council expressed these concerns. His department's decision & to even address the cumulative impact of the Doan project defies
logic and the direct instructions of the City Council.
e e
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 7
If the Doan project is to be utilized as a precedent for
future development, the Highland Drive area will become a series of terraced lots, impacting surrounding views,
altering drainage courses, and otherwise radically changing the nature of the residential area. Where a proposed project potentially involves a change in pattern, scale or character
of the general area of the project, a fair argument can be made that the project would have a significant environmental impact, and an EIR is required. See Christward Ministry v. Superior Court, Supra, 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 197, 228 Cal.Rptr. 868.
Moreover, a review of the City file reveals facts indicating a clear possibility that the project might result in erosion of soils, either on or off-site. Documents within the file show that Mr. Doan was forced to obtain an easement from an adjoining neighbor for the placement of a drainage pipe to address such a potential impact.
4) Finally, there was no good faith discussion of feasible alternatives in the Initial Study.
The Initial Study does conduct a short analysis of viable alternatives. (IS, p.10). However, the analysis quickly dismisses two viable alternatives, alternate site
design and alternate scale of development.
states that: "Alternate site design does not necessarily produce environmentally preferable results as no significant environmental features are being affected," (IS, p. 10, para
B.) This is not a discussion of viable alternatives, but, instead, it is a statement of no significant impacts.
Discussing the alternative of reducing the scale of
development, the City stated: "The scale of development is below the maximum scale allowed by applicable ordinances and is consistent with developments in the surrounding area," As set forth above, the Doan project is anything but consistent with the surrounding area, and the fact that it may comply with applicable ordinances does not exempt it from environmental review, pursuant to CEQA. Once again, the City's analysis of a viable alternative is, in fact, a restatement of its conclusion that the Doan project will have no significant effect upon the environment,
Addressing alternative site design, the Initial Study
e 0
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 8
More importantly, viable alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the project's environmental impacts exist.
review of the City's file reveals that reducing the fill on-
site is a viable alternative.
Engineer to the City manager and Planning Director dated
March 4, 1991 specifically states that a variance could be obtained to reduce the level of the Doan lot fill by as much as 3 - 4 feet. A true and correct copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit rrA". Moreover, as ,members of the public testified during the Council hearing on the project, a re- design of the Doan residence that accommodates the natural
slope could eliminate the need for fill altogether.
The City's failure to address the alternative of reducing or eliminating the fill and the Doan project site indicates a desire to leave the status quo, rather than make a good faith evaluation of the viable alternatives as required by CEQA.
A
A letter from the City
D.THE PROJECT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CARLSBAD GENERAL
PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCES
California statutory and case law mandate a strong consistency doctrine which requires that cities and counties
adopt an adequate general plan and that all regulatory controls and development approvals (zoning and subdivision ordinances and actions) be consistent with a city's general plan. "The requirement of consistency is the linch-pin of California's land use and development laws." de Bottari v. City of Norco (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d, 1204, 217 Cal.Rptr. 790.
The requirement of consistency between land use
proposals, zoning and a city's general plan is underscored by
a review of the Carlsbad General Plan, Land Use Element which states :
"...the city must make its zoning ordinance and General Plan compatible and insure that future
development proposals are consistent with the adopted city General Plan." As a definition of consistency, the city will adhere to the language contained in Assembly Bill 1725 as follows:
0 e
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 9
A zoning ordinance shall be consistent with a city
or county General Plan only if ...( ii) the various land uses authorized by the ordinances are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such plan." (General Plan, Land Use Element, p. 41)
The General Plan goes on to State:
A Land us[e] proposal or zone, which if implemented
would prevent the achievement of the objectives established for the area by the General Plan, would clearly be inconsistent; (General Plan, Land Use Element, p. 42, para, 2).
In this instance, the Doan grading project was
authorized under Chapter 11.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
(CMC) entitled "Excavation and Grading". Section 11.06.010
requires that the chapter "be read and construed as an integral part of" the City's Zoning Code, Chapter 21. The Zoning Code is governed by, and must be consistent with, the
Carlsbad General Plan. Cal. Gov. Code Section 65860. As
such, an analysis of the Carlsbad Grading Ordinance must be conducted in light of the views, policies and mandates of the
Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning Code. e, e.g.,
Neiqhborhood Action Group v. Calaveras City (1984) 156 CAl.App.3d 1176, 1185, 203 Ca1,Rptr. 401.
The Doan project, which essentially levels a hillside
lot under 2500 cubic yards of fill, is hopelessly inconsistent with the Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning Code, both of which continuously call for development which preserves neighborhood atmosphere and identity, provides for harmonious development and site design, minimal grading, and preservation of natural slopes.
1. General Plan Land Use Element
For example, the General Plan, Land Use Element, sets
forth general guidelines intended to provide guidance and direction in the handling of daily affairs in a manner that strives toward the goals of the City. These guidelines require the City to:
0 0
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991
Page 10
"[e]stablish development standards for all use categories that will preserve natural features and characteristics, especially those within rural,
coastal and/or hillside area." (General Plan, Land Use Element, p. 43, para. 3.)
More specifically, pertinent sections of the residential
guidelines found within the Land Use Element read as follows:
"Preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas" (p. 44, para. 6)
"Hillside areas should only accommodate densities that
are compatible to slope preservation" (p. 44, para. 6, 15.)
2. General Plan Housins Element
The Housing Element of the Carlsbad General Plan is even more specific. forth in the Land Use Element to develop more specific goals and policies. The Housing Element condenses the 16 different
guidelines found within the land use portion into five main themes, the first of which reads as follows:
The Housing Element uses the guidelines set
"Preservation - The City should preserve the neighborhood atmosphere, retain the identity of the existing neighborhoods, maximize open space, and ensure slope preservation." (Emphasis added) (Carlsbad General Plan, Housing Element, p.3, para. 1.)
3. General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element
The same policies mandating preservation of community
identity, conservation of land, and natural features, including slope preservation, can be found within the General Plan Open Space Conservation Element. found within the Carlsbad General Plan, Open Space and
Conservation Element, dated December 20, 1973, provide that:
accomplished in a manner that would maintain the appearance
of natural hillsides wherever possible.
Pertinent guidelines
(1) Grading for building pads and roadways should be
0 0
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991
Page 11
(3) Density, and intensity of development on hillsides
should relate to the slope of the land in order to preserve the integrity of the hillside.
(4) Proper design criteria should be utilized to
preserve the integrity of the hillsides and soil resources of the City." (General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element, dated December 20, 1973, p. 11.)
The 1990 Revised Draft of the General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element also provides for the preservation of hillsides. Paragraph C.3 of the Proposed Implementing Policies and Action Programs provides as follows:
"Development on hillsides (if allowed) shall relate to the slope of land in order to preserve the integrity of the hillsides." (P. IV - 10).
various elements of the Carlsbad General Plan calling for consistent and harmonious development, preservation of neighborhood identity and preservation of natural slopes within hillside communities. The sections cited above, represent only a small portion of the provisions which support these principles. There is simply no way to square the clear mandate of the Carlsbad General Plan with the Doan project, which buried, rather than preserved, the property's natural slope. The approved Doan project has completely
eliminated, rather than preserved the hillside character of the property. The project is a complete anomaly in an otherwise pleasant hillside residential neighborhood.
4. Gradins Ordinance
In sum, there is overwhelming direction found within the
Moreover, a review of the purposes set forth in the Grading Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 11.06) make it clear that it was intended to be implemented in a
manner consistent with the policies and guidelines found throughout the General Plan. Relevant portions of section
11.06.010 read as follows:
0 0
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 12
"It is the intent of the city council to protect life and property and to promote the general
welfare; enhance and improve the physical environment of the community; and preserve, subject to economic feasibility, the natural scenic character of the City. The provisions of this
chapter shall be administered to achieve, to the
extent possible, the following goals:
(1) Ensuring that future development of lands occurs in the manner most compatible with surrounding areas, and so as to have the least
effect upon other persons or lands, or upon the general public; ...
(3) Encouraging the planning, design and
development of building sites in such a fashion to
provide the maximum in safety and human enjoyment, while adapting development to and taking advantage of the best use of the natural terrain; ...
While the City has taken the erroneous position that
there is no specific provision to be found within the
Carlsbad Municipal Code prohibiting the type of grading which
has occurred on the Doan property, the City is equally unable
to direct one to language allowing such massive in-fill on a
residential lot. Where application of a city's code
concerning a particular land use is not especially clear, the
code must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the general plan. In this instance, the City is under an obligation to interpret its grading ordinance in a manner consistent with its General Plan, which clearly mandates that
massive fill of residential hillside lots shall not occur.
Finally, as set forth below, it is our position that the Doan in-fill project violated the City's Hillside Development Regulations. However, even if the City maintains the position that the Hillside Regulations do not apply, the Regulations should serve as persuasive guidelines to be used
in the implementation of the applicable grading ordinance in a manner consistent with the General Plan. To do otherwise,
would render the grading ordinance unlawful due to its inconsistency with the clear directions of the General Plan.
0 0
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991
Page 13
E. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE CITY'S HILLSIDE
REGULATIONS.
The Doan in-fill project fell within and violated the provisions of the City's Hillside Development Regulations.
CMC, Chapter 21.95. This Chapter sets forth a comprehensive set of regulations governing development on hillside
property. Section 21.95.030 requires that all property with a
slope of 15% or more, and a proposed elevation differential
greater than 15 feet cannot be developed unless a hillside development permit has been issued.
The City has taken the position that this section
exempts all property with a slope of less than 15% from the
Hillside Regulations entirely. However, a review of the purpose and intent of the Hillside Development Regulations and the testimony of one of its authors, demonstrate that the ordinance is clearly intended to be applied to all hillside development, regardless of whether a hillside development
permit is required.
Section 21.95.010 of the Development Regulations set forth the purpose and intent of the Regulations. sections read as follows:
Pertinent
"(b). Preserve the natural appearance of hillsides by assuring that development densities and intensity relates to the slope of the land, and is compatible with hillside preservation;
c. Assure proper design is utilized in grading, landscaping and in the
development of structures and roadways to
preserve the natural appearance of hillsides;
d. Preserve and enhance a healthful and aesthetically pleasing environment by assuring that hillside development is pleasing to the eye, rich in variety,
highly identifiable, and reflects the City's cultural and environmental values. I'
e e
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 14
Of particular significance in this instance is the
purpose and intent set forth in paragraph (f), which reads as
follows :
f. and open space/conservation elements of the Carlsbad General Plan."
As set forth above, the open space and conservation elements of the Carlsbad General Plan call for the preservation of
natural slopes within the City.
"Implement the intent of the land use
Finally, paragraph (h) directs the City to:
"encourage creatively designed hillside development requiring a minimal amount of grading. (emphasis added)" (CMC, Section 21.95.010)
A review of the purposes and intents set forth above makes it clear that the Hillside Regulations were intended to govern the development of all hillside properties, and not just those subject to a hillside development permit. This
position is supported by one of the co-authors of the
Hillside Development Regulations, Mr. McBane, who went on
record before the City Council on February 19, 1991, stating that the Regulations do apply to properties with slopes less than 15%.
Moreover, a review of the Hillside Development Regulations reveals no exclusions for properties with slopes less than 15%. If the drafters of this ordinance had wanted to completely exclude such properties, they could have easily
stated this in section 21.95.090 entitled "Exclusions". A review of this section, however, reveals no such exclusion.
The drafters decision not to exclude property with slopes less than 15% from the Hillside Development Regulations makes sense. Otherwise, properties with a lesser slope could be developed in a manner which defeats the clear
intent of the Carlsbad General Plan and the Hillside Development Regulations which is to prevent the unregulated destruction of the City's natural hillside appearance. it might be sensible to only require those properties with significant slopes, (the development of which generally requires the most grading) to obtain a hillside development
While
e a
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 15
permit, excluding all other hillside properties from the provisions of the Hillside Development Regulations makes no
sense. This result leaves a significant portion of the
City’s hillside properties completely devoid of any type of regulations. underscore the devastating result of such a narrow interpretation of the Hillside Regulations.
of fill on less than a quarter acre. exceeds the acceptable limits of the Hillside Regulations
which designate as unacceptable fills averaging over 10,000
cubic yards of fill per acre. The Doan project, which
represents 2500 cubic yards of fill on less than a quarter
acre exceeds the acceptable limits of the regulations. Had the Doan project been subjected to these regulations, the
amount of fill used on his lot would have never been allowed.
The results of the Doan in-fill project
The Doan project involves approximately 2500 cubic yards This massive fill
More importantly, the Doan project which levelled,
rather than preserved the natural hillside of the lot would have violated the clearly defined purpose and intent of the Hillside Regulations to preserve and protect natural hillside topography throughout Carlsbad.
Application of the Hillside Regulations to the Doan project would be expected to result in far less fill due to the lesser slope of the property. The quantifiable limits of fill set forth in the Hillside Regulations are necessarily
intended to govern development and grading on various degrees of hillside slope. Those properties with a greater hillside
slope necessarily involve the greatest amount of grading. On
the other hand, those properties with a lesser slope should require less grading. slope of less than 15% to exceed the acceptable limits for development of property with far greater slopes, defies the clear direction of the Carlsbad General Plan and the Hillside
Development Regulations.
To allow the Doan property with a
e a
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Re: Doan Project April 2, 1991 Page 16
CONCLUSION
The City of Carlsbad clearly erred when it allowed the
Doan project to proceed in a manner that allowed a hillside lot to be filled and levelled with 2500 cubic yards of fill, in clear violation of the City's General Plan and applicable
ordinances. to conduct any environmental review prior to issuing the grading permit for the project. partially completed project that is inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding area, General Plan and applicable ordinances. These errors should not now be compounded through the adoption of a negative declaration based upon post-hoc analysis, lacking any meaningful environmental review.
This error was compounded when the City failed
The City is now faced with a
Moreover, the Council should reexamine the entire Doan project while it has the ability to effect corrective action.
At this point, the Doan property could be returned to a conforming state through relatively little expense. could be do by removing all, or at least a good portion of
the massive in-fill and re-designing the home to conform to
the property's natural hillside topography.
could then go forward in a manner consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. A redesign of the house
might not even be required if the necessary variances were processed as suggested by the City's Engineering Department.
For these reasons, it is respectfully requested that the
City disapprove the Doan project entirely. inclined to move forward, it is respectfully requested that
it disapprove the proposed Negative Declaration dated March 12, 1991, and order the Planning Department to conduct meaningful environmental review as required by CEQA.
A redesign might not even be required if the necessary variances were processed as suggested by the City's Engineering Department.
This
The Doan project
If the City is
Very truly yours,
DuyW-
D. Wayne Brechtel DWB : bw
cc: Client
rrlc 'Tt e m
March 4, 1991
TO: CIN MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
FROM: City Engineer
DOAN GRADING PERMIT 2873 HIGHLAND AVENUE
During public discussion on the subject project it was indicated that the grading was increased
three to four feet by the Engineering Department to accommodate driveway slopes.
I have discussed this issue with involved staff and have reviewed the files in detail, At no time
did staff direct revision to the pad elevation. The need to maintain a maximum driveway slope
of 14% or request waiver was pointed out during the plancheck process. The Engineer chose
to not request a variance but to raise the pad elevation approximately one foot to meet the
driveway standard.
Other options related to house location and design were not explored by the applicant nor
discussed with staff. The one foot increase did not alter the basic design or impact the
surrounding properties.
The original grading plan was submitted November 13,1989. Plancheck fees were based on an
import fill amount of 2568 cubic yards. Quantity calculations indicate finish floor elevation of
154.9. The plan was reviewed and the Planning Department indicated concern with wall and fill
heights. The original submittal was returned incomplete with comments on November 15, 1989.
On December 18, 1989, Mr. Doan submitted a letter to the Planning Director indicating that the
. site met code and he wished to process. This was accompanied by a sketch indicating an eight
(8) foot fill (letter attached).
The final finish pad elevation was 154.30. Final fill quantity was 2460 cubic yards, 128 cubic
yards less than the original submittal.
Staff has reviewed several design constraints in an attempt to explore a range of potential
grading alternatives. Major constraints include:
I*
. e Street and driveway connections
e Sewer connections
e Rear yard setback
Maintaining the current house design, sewering to Highland Avenue and meeting acceptable
street and driveway standards, the existing design could be lowered by approximately one (1)
foot.
Granting variances to City standards to practical minimums would allow a finish floor reduction
of 2 to 2% feet,
.
EX H 3 0 1 T ''A 'r
a W
Doan Grading Permit I,
March 5, 1991
Page: 2
Any further reduction in pad elevation would require redesign of the home, sewering through the
yard to the rear or installation of a sewer pump system.
Sewering to Elmwood would require additional offsite easements from the abutting property
owner.
It should be pointed out that even precluding any grading on the site would not necessarily alter
the impact of the house design. If Mr. Doan’s intent is to take advantage of views, he can
accomplish the same basic design utilizing stepped foundations and subfloors with decking
similar to his neighbor to the south. Grading is only one element in a complex design issue
involving structure height, architecture, setbacks, driveway slope and provision of sewers. The
precise design mix to meet City requirements is in the hands of the owner and his design
.’
City Engineer
LBH:rz
c: D. Haus J‘’
. \
z & i 0
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: 4-30-7)
(3 rreq OV, \/ del Capq ur/
2 3 20 L/ ;a c- /&we. q. +e 9- Print $ame '
Street Address
Date: y_30-- y/
7A!//F( LHC,E7?.
Print Name
.Tk? Pfl L/p /COLA/ ST Street Address
D*CH 9 Z0@ p City and State
dignat u re
Print Name
Date: "/-30 - y/ %-A '4 8554.- a/ d
fldd&fG 3. 60 ,?fA
2769 /="Loofif F1FLD.S
bm Street Address
Cit nd State *
L--w----
/ i T- \
Date: I A-?/ 1 fl/5SC" p&AT
S igw 54 t/u QP@ re f l kY)@filp4423-4 c \
332y f//@ 2Jf?
,(
Print
Street Address C>Ha-&?..& 6- ~zcc
Date: y-304 ?( - KQLi SigAature
Print Name
C.idaA LEG ~LE/PJ
39L9 Pd- -#Pi0
C/+KLS6A.a ~ CA 9-2 eo Street Address
City and State
4 e e
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
9
Date: 4- @-9/ dYaJ$cAL Signatur PmLi
Car’/ s/Q A4L?s dO.i@k
I;, k“qs C&,qNafibN,fl!*
Print Namd
Street Address C,,l,hGLd ci: q2cL;. 9
City and State
Date: (/5Ob/ r”’
u A L -T.G-/? 7/?, L,-/E
30.9 L-A.4-T /#fi-#&- &-/es~~
Print Name
r;-
Street Address eA,zL558b cA 9z_rras-
Date: /fxci <r3 d,, 177 I
Print Name a/$or ..&%SWtiG’D /qL’@-
Street Address
C&&/<&&Qi @A+-s
Date: 4-30-7 I 1 q/-+ P fI.4 Lu &&LC-
$?at u re J//dG% 7) flG!.A@
2m-6 &///.O-&!!JP \ A:.e
G%3A-=z3 LcL %3mf
City and State
Print Name
Street Address
City and State
s ign%t u r e
ANAkia I Print Name
- 8-7 T6FlE AI/-
8 Date: 4 -30-4 \ f&JJ R Is4:c 5/26) % /r yl>diann i5
15 5- pG I\I 0 KQGif4N h /I
Street Address
C& R L5 8 A 19 c4. 4 eoog City and State
a e 0
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: 1 r?.r v
313 ?;I.Le s+ d I
COI'-JJDdJ G
- Street Addre's
Date: \&%I i,; Y i
Print Name 33 72 d <&&)&.!&&J <
I
Street Address c@?&pkal CG
1 $',5-/ L Date:/'&& /
P r in t Nar6e
249 <r& .s -j-u&w& &&g-
[-$z.&D ; & Street Address
1 City and State
Signature
Print Name
Date: FflF/$!y>y ///&&&
Date: eat2 /&/qq/
7
6UL bflA?<
-37?-+3?. 77- /J&
r 9 ti3A2b&/
Street Address
PA& 5AHO
QDhe& 6 PQfSLb+
L JAD iC$jH@d,A@>H ,? 4,
City and State
Signature
Print Name
St eet Address/
Y
QiaLi 6,J Gv. ,him75 City and State
3 & 0 0
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: 3- 30 -9, h&J Signature
Print Name . d& i Srr., r+i-
~b~q i4ed&Yc? C3-
I' iSl9Lld CA- ct
Street Address
Date: y-30 / 9 J
Print Name \3,?W m/4fl5 s 7'-
Pr &2) idt ' &j!cfp Name
L Street Address
MCClg&fJ P&,F City v and State -
iC 14 Date: ;/. o,/j / /qq p ,/ *p; b <E( s'ig ria t u re v-
<E J( ;/-, >
8 /' c_
11 $1, /?E? -/. "7
I 4 c. > r u \, I .
Street Address
Date: 4-=-?1
Print Name
c/jb jfip:i ;J C.i
r(? ris Lqd' j ("%e qimj~
Street Address
City and StAte ,PdtA.ii/L/ q- 3n--91 Date: Signatur -
/\.in& c, PwvyGK
Print Name
/A 79 JMCI,X, s
Q&&? BQ, Q& "I-&%!
4 Pt-
Street Address
City and State
.
7 P 0 *
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his
Carlsbad,* California 92008.
Date: 5-9-q
, e’
d,~
Street Address @k@-d&, th%.)f4D 322 /-
4 c +,q/ Date: I
“See& IrV op ,hPp w
3GtbY2 P- UfeQ
Street Address
/ 21 G/G Date: t /J
Print Name
3 573 - i .ri.C& WLq
Street Address
/- G-</ Date: -$.Hi 3,
‘t’ and St
Date : 3 /-- /- c,c / ;I g+qiYj@ w fll, $
&& g2$, (& ?:&?a// r-
SignatXre
Print Name
Street A&, /
City and State
EOhZfVE h- G/?436d
Lij73q/l. fq $&y I( &,.&J&*/?
ss
-
r e e
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRJ
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: 574- 7 1 i)qg/ /t..4&[
2 i8n”at u r e
t \&y /-2cw €g.b LC
3 g %s- 13 ??I& L-AA ’i3 *-,
Print Name
Street Address
City and Statd
Signature
CILFrZLs&*, e& $AS0
Date: fir-- LJ---q/ bY&6?BL2 klL&ddL2k
Gzzs%Gd&rn&&?k~>/A
2 @~,~p///d@L-#c5d, 4&
Print Name
y q G P Date: / /i
Print Name
Street Address dJ
/- ZQT& /d&j& 44 44%
92 ~ ~ ~
f
/ud/ A<. P/ - City and State
Signature >
Print Name
,
Date: ,4-- t q/ y//- I ?/&44/ p‘ 5.k K 4 &z& A
z EL Lfx=A E-///!//<- 7/4
Date: J- +%
Print Name
>(04 C/(k (!-CUP1
Stree Address &&q3&h CA- 4;
City and State
A e 0
PET1 T I ON
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of Nay 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRl
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008.
-s.
Date: -a// /77/ L?w i &6 - *&Ld / S* natdr ?L;.c Print Name a ,KXQ/q
9 *5- C.h&5 & cp -/
C8&/4Y8&0 EH 5?&c
/ .<YO/. 4- ---'a
&ffj)<) d&i7dc+ -E R3'
I
Street Address
City and State
Signature
Print Name
2w Date:
/fl<tZ &L&&92& AV+
Street Address
EAhlCLJ&$P &f/, ph&-
azitate
Signature
Print Name
Date: 4 </- Z./( A &A%=
&A/?/& Q- hb T7c,d/
gyc 2 (- /As$$
Street Address
City and State
Signature
Print Name
Date : s/3-55/ *&
3dJG- d PafbJ
3571 scbIc71 br
*&5Ab .M
&dh[FT/j ,H-ld
Jo4-2 CY+ F-cFJ)L, T /qLIE
CAR L9?AO, cfj
Street Address
City and S
sigs
Print Name
5- 1% Date: ..
Street Address
City and State
A 0 *
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
I' q 3 /q / Date:
0 E/b% /J f&edlJy
1 2 79 /(&dt&k E-! ALE
Print Name
Street Address
CiYPL.rh'nAi9 CA- 42488
Date: L T/ye r yi
1 Print Name
P@&PiY 4& 60
/?1~4q/AT&\_n~~ , Td i d' >$ Street Address
City and State
signature
Print Name
513 /q/ /, I. ]74YA Date:
<RArlGfl&f) / IX!/&/n/
53C& Oh/ -> r f I C/4/f-F@ > Street Address
City and State
s @at u re
Print Name
Date: .5- 3+7/
J-mmB Znkdek-7
3Y'q sei$ crps 7 Dr
CdY-LS b,d 1 ca 9J&
Street Address
City and State
Date: 3q9,
Print Name
U36&BPT&(dA _7, In*
CMS.6B)n a?- %?&&
Street Address
City and State
& e e
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: 5--9-w -%:
Signature
Print Name
P4-Fof4w- VI CCD a
/&7'Jz /b!JA.?LE 4vg
Street Address
Date: 50 Y- 7)
gignatu'fe I/
Print Name
5T.C P-- t JWl dTp mi3
203-8 d4VA
GaLSlap-0 a Street Address
LG- + 4/ Date:
&:ad hD Print Name
Date: k-3- 3/
Cy -I/ Date: Signature
Print Name
TSBc4a- W&CKSM
/l43tLsSprot @f-+ qzc
36- W~PrthlVT
Street Address
City and State
I .Ir, e 0
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: T[r"/ P
Date: 3;jyjy/
.Aa&i.E V4eLe
Print Name 's7ii: 4@& 4LZ< A5 &JJ! cq qdolLq Str et Address
zd State
Signatur_e-rJ
Print Name
Date : 5>/?/9)
Date: 579(/%
/-9--=- 4 = fl>Zd
u A/& /OSCY R/&kO/b/
37d (2 w&,s/-2y??JPd &d
Street Address
Date :
Print Name
*
1 I 0
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Car lsbad, California 9 2008.
Date: A
32gy 6Lp /~&&-f -/+f&)”y -
Street’Address ,.e ., .
Date:
f 78 (I i<* c
Street Adhress
b
Date: 3-& 7)
J5/3 &’2F& -733
Street Address
Date: T-L cfl
Date: 5- &- 41
.&X& YeAl-
*73 c%Ja 34. -f2
&&&!!k4 dU g2&0 LC
Print Name
Street Address
City and State
1 I 0 0
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: 3- b - 81 1 Sign&’ ure
Print ’Name QiIViA nc 50 I’
2s/g &ose-L/el f- %! gpf,
PAkL5LHd. E&
B...;.p\- L. ,
Print Nam-%
Street Address
and Stat-d
Date: 5/& h, s igiiat oA4/ ur qyay- e \ \\ 7 a\
2720 L\o@sedeLT- n<
\
Street Address
CAfaCSK340 -.cw I
L T-/&/ p/ Date:
&*l
Street Address
City and State ’
Signature
Print Name
53#p, l#/ #I ad ,-
?./I A@LC A ~IT(7 n i) Phi
%-7L@fi -4.k-44CJ3-D-
L<2 t
Y
& Date: 6
Street Address
Date:
t’ \
Print Name y&/c$j p)y&y.. v\, ’ J i/ .*vu &A .i Street Ad ress
Ckty and Statd
6 , a,& ,* .J ’<q‘ f (+/! G.;/QL. /
.
I 1 e e
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction hland Drive,
Date: '3- /&?/
Street Address
City and Stat%
s igaat u re
Print Name
d2+9&@D G "
Date: 0-75- w tL#Lv 74' 7G-d </,
- t' J 4 PI EX ff /<'~flp~fJ.z- i- c
;/c r- EA /4,/k?)/ rg zc",: E=- ./. -< -
T&R ,d'J 8,449 qzou?
Street Address
Date: &+ q J
Print Name
Date: 3:LP
-& Print Name
q!&J p&#??g , /a
stQyATdre.s,; 1. . , gd,Pd- 57224
Ci and State
3 1 0 e
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
/q L.LiE-A/
Date : - e// &+(X
ID75 3dW6 . x
\
Ti s %‘ i mri, .&si pq ,W!p $.,‘b rJ a ,f14
IoGE &P&&L /q P~~VY,,
Print Name
Street Address
City and State
Signature
Print Name
Sdreet Address
Date : S/d / Pi L
k 7 27 ‘s-rnErCT e#a,
c, nar sm 6! c- (3
,rdvrNhL CIA S7/LCO
City and State
Signature
Print Name
Date: 5 /i/y/
-I i.! vi3w? L, cfl STlLLC
2 6 c-7 1 3 W=Ef2SO *u 37. ++ YG?? Street Address
cq /?..!-s/?8J> C.M ‘ YUGR
City and State
Date: &/k-//-y/ /
Print Name
3 60 k cw ~&-FFq?T%/J c TiqAO)
RfL-,-,,&? [ A, P3d42T-
Street Address - P
City and State
I. e 0
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: 3.5 - 3 - 9 i
\ArnES &I e 3@$ Print Name .
+rsL d,k\&ILPuD Tk
QRy2~~b0 eA9z-E Street Address
C$ty and State
Signature
Print Name
Street Addresg
9L $L+
TC z r\ it> \/& t" tvlq
W'L kc,L(&.J v-
Lv-C,L,L r,, qa-m
($e 3,- L
Date: -
\
City and State
Signature P
Print Name
Date: J- -3-?/
7ii;k;e - B x. .rh4a4
3470 Q-df b2.
Q&!!\L&L&L TP&
Street Address I
City and State
Sfgnat u re
Print Name
Date: pJ -?I OAC" -A-
gidz f- .7izk A+Jd
377b sa% 345
fidsMi) ,CA q2aaa
Street Address
City and ,&ate
A Signature/ Date:
d&/rn& E 7, 6?9A4 Print Name
&7/ /4&-#4,.7/ / /
di?!&&Ad 4. Street Address
City and State
I 0 a
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: -7 9,- 7/ CaAd d, lLLe c CI&%cxt-
Signature d d
Print Name J
9 C&rocy#d De OPS~ '"I
-3s7 7he, 5s. /9p+ 3
e Rf+&i.?r-k-l' CA. 5 aL
Street Address
City and State
Date: X!!&J L~@MGA~ cp t7pir6s Signature
c-AQ*,GAJ (-#k5ti[fO
Print Name
-.
-2fG-Y %CC'&+& e 0
CA 12 L s 6?, d a Y3.se:y
Date: .j-/ a- 71 \ -' 'A, I L \?yaL2:zY3
Street Address
City and Stat+
si&natu""r&- 4 " 3
Print Nade
I
j9ps $ ' 3 ".;3 @ $ k e -5%
CT 397 $>;[;E LbC
EQQLSb&A- e&
Street Address
City and State
Signature
Print Name
Stre 't Addyessr 7
Date: 5-9- 7f
,,- -38 > #e fl/.A, E .s /- /4/i ,7
.;31 J
22 \4$ ,&////&&+A/&v-
i fi /// "/ /L /2 /,,A, Jz? \A/ /a
b3[ F(qp7 &+/&fy-&.
2C.?/Y?S( Ll/LT&g k4e
Street Address / e#bq cs 643 car G' {LC .3
-
.<>
(7 , ,;) 3 g-S-ci / CL! yJy=? L-!y
Date:
signakure"
Print Nam'e f
City and State
b 0 0
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: 3 + k, /4 I J 8 $ i ,LL [f-c I SY nature T?h 2?$ J q-
p2b 7 [kfflAe) E./.
(;,{lsb@f; /".i
%&@*&&
38YY Jm4 &d-
C&d4$4&1 BaBa *
Print Name I
Street Address
Cit and Sdat
Date: f-/. y6,, -+A ignature
Print Name
Street Address
City and State
Date : 4/h,/;# .!
StreetBdresS . lf
City and State
e-tzb, ~ 2z/Pv2yfi5&4D @ 9 z
/PW ; .",&E A- A/ #<
c- 11
tJ //LC? / 9 1
/
/& Si nature Date: . e#,+# 5-.- 651 >-./Qp" '4 @ /
Print Name '/' f -
Street Address f
City and State f
S Lqna t u r e
Print Name
9, \L*&"+* %-
<'
f- GLY9 L3>>v:/< ":r ,y.,S/'
. -.*&~2~~-~ 1 i;&&J-*
KC? Be; <-/ (4 {fl f ((&L
5cg.f3 ;J 6; p\ Tpi c-r I f,. ,t
"/(I /, \ I i '! c =,-, l(J& t. > I L4
- Date:
\
4
Street Address
City and State
* 0 0
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008. kwc. Signature
Print Name
Street Address4
D3te: nq 7, (W
GUSS 4, Ic7,ttfiex G
we Et 4qi.A J 4&
C,&ld( LpQ 92-007
City ,and State
Date:
&$Y+fH r 7d/kh&J
/o 3- &pP/Qo ,,jv L
rfff/<&yn(y 4/7QDK
Print Name7
Street Address
City >nd State
-
Date
Date: F 9 -41
/i7O,M&U! @. Street Address
5-7 - 7/ Date:
t Print Name (
I pcla B6CF.q r3/
Street Address ccLf/~ 6&L?/ CS 72~
City and State
0 0
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the ccmstxuctim of his home at 2873 Highland Dsive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: 5-4 -q/
Print Name
Street Address
. 405q H-f-J-0-
CHA-LSGA~ e/
Date: !?b-7/
RQLLad F j?t{Kde~e ifl,
33 3 mc&hLeL,
Print" Name t
Street Address
Date: . [ Signature fimi PC /JLA I> c 4-&--
2rgY- J%-jp&asPk' 4 28
Print Name
Street Address
Date: 5-6-7/
Print Name
Street Address
e* LT mfgJ/?/eG'
Date: AT--- 7r 72
I Print Name
I
C&-/5bCcd,; cE/t- LZa&!)y
City and State
e e
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRS
DOAN, for the const.ruction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: -- 4- 7- 97
Signature
Print Name
Street Address
Date: </9/.9/ i
P-.’q &~cA+Dffl -
?&,?(-J -44 A P/
c2v---Jd CZ
s-7- 91 Date:
27- 9- 9/ Date:
Date:
Zg!gP$J\ IL #% cui de
.... t..Sl\QWfz! w 72-09
Print Name
1 c/4f&W& P/,
Street Address
City and State
e e I)
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: 5 - &- 9/
Print Name
Date: 5 -6- q/
LSQ7/CC &&n&; 9&Yi Print Name
6E9.l- fd RAmz;n IC)&
Q&ktii& em 9 LQ@
Street Address
Date: 5 6 Yi
2 Lo 0 %",LCl .A UQ
#
Date: J +&F/
Print Name
%4- 7 C??flK,2L//f-./l
Street Address
GBrHA& a<@& " &
Date: s-L- r/ I
Signat re
Print Name *
Ad45 UflkM
(." 5+5 /4#44&t
('aRisdz9d PA?* Street Address
City and State
e m > I. A
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: 5c o(+-y// /? /&u--JL4 ~ Aeb4xA / s i”g na t u r e
Print Name
.-- &- /& -5* k; LJFL
4 5’ /3C.%L3Wk L4sm
&c25-A & ,, c.4 *
Street Address
City, and State
si&tdde
Print Name
Street Address
Date: y/&JV
zmw g OLGQ
740~7 wi:J&
,+?=5-/.?.?< c4 “7 2-m.)
Date: ?-&q/
-\ L \A .ai10
-?la1 I? E \A irp, k a P 1
\-&ax\ G c r Print Name
Street Address
Date: ,y- c9 - 26
-signature A
Print Name
Street Address
c
?% -
\\>..& 4 fl p; E.y id a&
.@@s-&&~// r$ $L.
(yLp/s b&<] e& 7d-S i’ .p Y-
Date: 5-6-9l
i Print Nam
Street < -QL)4 Add ess IlfeaL&.c
OAKkh$; C4bP
City and Stat
, \s I e 0
I
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
CarJsbad, California 92008.
flfl59CCi sw/N
A9 %h B4kk. F
@&R2S&&+j3 @69@
WL CliLQLL R CLeAl
Date: -
Piint Name
Street Address
Date: L 9 7 7
Print Name
Date: s-qF.7/
Date: g-, 7-?f
Print Name ,,J
Date: T/?/?f
I Print Name
City and State
. ii 1 c 0
c
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: 5-9 - 555
Date:
Date : 5- 7- q/
City and State
Signature
Print Name
Date: ------ ..
Street Address
City and State
Signature
Date:
.! Print Name
Street Address
City and State
> rt > @ 0
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 16, 1991, fd~~6i h building permit: to GARR?
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive
* Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: -97 7 YJ j$# L/Wl A&/W
siqnaturejYoc Ab\\ PJ LC\ $J;i
'3 \yb I G{&J JLt- i
y&- &
Print Name
Street Address
Cit nd State
Signature
Print Name /
Street Address
&.yy??&-J c 15
Date: 3'-7- P/ .------ P-
Ad g&OLi&yz 3&yGe
75-75- 200S~~~C757f + 2 d=L
&&5dHb @-
/
/-
Date: 5-?!7/
m6kRzYrfEs
Street Address
/ Date: 1- -7--"i f
T<a,hvJ7!9 dOCi&jfd! w ,/c ' d& Street Address
City and State '
Signature Date :
i Print Name
Street Address
City and State
e 0 9 I?,
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: F-4-W &#de gnature
Print Nark
Street Address
r3"aE E F LWJ
Os~k-L7--
Date: 5- 7-71
Print Name
/$4@ PEDWOdO *e
St eet Address
LwB"Dl &. ,?%ad
City and State
Signature
Print Name
4-e 7- 31 Date : W
fi&-&7 &,eQ3
/7r gp-5 3F-O
Street Address
574v Date:
??o,ae~ l-03 d
Street Address
City and State/
e?fM @ d, 0,
qopj w ''6 I/
kkxbw kMu~
Date: A5-I- 9 mce
Print Name
St r eet Add r es s c&/p-h& re 9a0~
City and Stafe
b 8t + e 0
x
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Signature
Print Name/
Street Address
Date: 5-+g!!%! Y
/GHA w4.7 '
/A&- c4< /A
339;;: -1Zp
/ cp- 94244
vINcE- ,e& A/!
City nd State
Signature
Print Name
Street Address
Date: S-S;s/
/70 t
- &Z'
Pate : s4 P=?/
73/ &$ @m#&& &7-- Street Addresk' -
J-*g -9 I Date:
qLv5 cLw%5n'c, ict/r/
Street Address car&+ G 920-$7
Date: c- g-4 f 8w b-$y
&Lo* k€AddS
27/l? ,&OU=T
&,L&&q CA 92
City and State
Signature
Print Name
Str et Address
City and State
* 8 >* f a 0
x
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date: fi/+
zb1 ZBUBCG~&F;L
C4A u-%-#3 ck
Print Name
Street Address
City ,and State
Signature
Print Name
Street Address
e-? Y/-4/7z 5z
Date:
/VddO J H& 5%
37F.7 5-
Date :
Date: fic - 71
%74/4 -, G
Street Addras
---/ (27- f' / Date: -2 Signature
-7 (e=??- /
.";/=-/ L ;-T/,J5CL- L-
r ,- ->yfl7 &zL -y
i Print Name
Street Address
City and S"t.$te
',g-&L=/' -a
‘a, 0 e
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of Ma.y 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, Cal if o rnia 9 2 0 0 8.
Date: yi/w
’3566 Gj9EL-d
C”;.nuB&J CA p-=&
Street Address
City and State
Signature
Print Name
r Date: $/“i/o/ LG4-l n+,
mc MmW/)r
2Ar Pf&y /?- u, Street Address
Date:
CPAiLJ L Efi~ce~
Print Nade
g7y8 ~/1.,JJO;C Cf
CfidJb J CA Street Address
City and State
Signature
Print Name
/ Date: yq7 I j ’ 5 CJC- ,nl C-A cZ-,l>
,‘
GCLL &v C04M,P L
30-7-5- i/M(el,/ s+ .,
&dJ& d, ck4-
Street Address
City and State
Date: Kk,h/
@4ARLES W” &sseir
Ab/& Mt5s-A J&We:
Pr in t Name
Street Address
City and Stat&
u, &.-ghQJ-Y
* r* c e a
q
.A
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his home at 2873 Highland Drive,
Carlsbad, CaliforniaL 92008.
A 9
Signature
Print Name
Date: 2- .I q - tf [ - 9 I bp&j&t q&,nlr2,1
r(+ert li/?e.?l;c 16
32.5- c Ac.st04r I 3 pe
<*>+*“I- \A‘L &&( t <- L; - 59LA * ‘! d
?J\ /t,C @(-
--
Street Address
City and State
Signature
Print Name
--.
) - b/ - 6.1 / Date: - ,-
r-1 , k-? --r \Q Jpfj c& Lice
375- C\,iyjpyLr &e -&
Street Ad ress
7; k,. 4 ” p \\A L4 A cq. 7~ City and State
Signature
Print Name
- - A- UaLe:
Street Address
City and State
Signature
Print Name
Date:
Street Address
City and State
Signature
Print Name
Date:
Street Address
City and State
0 e * -44
I
PETITION
We, the undersigned hereby request that the City Council, at
their meeting of May 14, 1991, issue a building permit to LARRY
DOAN, for the construction of his
Carlsbad, California 92008.
Date:
Date: Signature
Print Name
Street Address
City and State
Signature
Print Name
Date :
Street Address
City and State
Signature
Print Name
Date:
Street Address
City and State
Signature
Print Name
Date:
Street Address
City and State
8 8 Let-
b Q 0
LAW OFFICES OF
R. THOMAS WOOD
325 ELM AVENUE, SUITE E-2
P. 0. BOX 1545
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-2918
TELEPHONE (6191 729-1159 March 29, 1991
Raymond Patchett, City Manager City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Case #PE2.89.61 Applicant: Lagry Doan
Address: 2873 Highland Drive
Dear Mr. Patchett:
Subsequent to the City Council meeting on February 19, 1991, in an attempt to resolve the concerns of the neighbors objecting to the above-referenced project, we have done the following:
1. On March 4, 1991, Mr. Doan and I met with Vincent Biondo, Martin Orenyak, Michael Holzmiller, and two representa- tives from the engineering department. We discussed the nature of the concerns and possible resolutions.
2. On March 5, 1991, Mr. Doan and I met with Michael Holzmiller and David Hauser to discuss the concerns and the possible resolutions in more detail.
3. On March 11, 1991, we met for two hours with a delega- tion of the concerned citizens, Michael Holzmiller, Hartin Orenyak, and David Hauser. At that time, we advised the people objectingtotheprojectthatwe were willing to lower the top of the house approximately four to five feet by doing the following:
a. Reduce the finished grade of the pad by one and one-half feet on the condition that the City allow Mr. Doan to bring the beginning of his driveway five feet east.
b. Reduce the first and second story ceilings from nine foot ceilings to eight foot ceilings.
c. Reduce the slope of the roof.
Since the concerned citizens had not seen the actual build-
ing plans, we gave them permission to obtain the plans from Mr. Doan's architect.
4. On March 26, 1991, Mr. Doan and I met with Hr. Schwab
I @ TI) ’.
March 29f 1991
Page 2
and several other concerned citizens to discuss their reaction to
our m!t proposal after having examined the building plans. Unfortunately, they rejected our proposal. In fact, Mr. Schwab said that his architect feels that the house would be more visually appealing as designed rather than reducing the ceilings and the pitch of the roof. Frankly, it became apparent from our conversation that the only measures that will satisfy those objecting to this project is to remove all of the fill dirt and to build a house approximately one-half the size of the house that Mr. Doan intends to build.
It is my understanding that the planning department has issued a negative enviromental impact report declaration and that publication has commenced.
In view of the above circumstances and the facts and that Mr. Doan has been diligently working on this project for over one year, has a substantial investment therein, has strictly complied with all legal requirements, and appears to me to be in entitled to the issuance of a building permit, I hereby request that this matter be calendaredbeforethe City Council as soon as possible so that we may request that they direct staff to issue a building permit.
Yours truly,
QL-.>7- ,/-+-~w+-P-G~ p L! -.JL ]A R. THOMAS WOOD
RTW/ck cc: Vincent F. Biondo, Jr. Martin Orenyak Michael Holzmiller Larry Doan
CITY OF CAR R .'BAD REQUEJ) FOR ACTION
> ' *,
,,! \it\,&,? c 1
+'>cr ,L
i
\ i ,' p.sPg 1 G ,sie 4/i f-3 /c, j Phone #
<*.*c,.* I ,-% :. s c- i. ..- I ..%.. ,. ,. ??
Explanation of Request iiLLL, \ -,-.. k> L_ c3 j '-2 i,, \kc,(- ;-(,,!f&:\ .-I 1.4 &j&~,[.~,* I
[L;J&L i2.i7&.J+ [L; yb D,$Q.+&J ... &.?$
3- >Tj 3 }+ g ,\.qi LL>[;\ . \ \
[i /~ A !I
\I
Action Taken s& I-exc?/ 7k mrp 4 fl&. 6.cIce s.cc 0&'4C4
4/2z/c// f9&q#--
Handled Byi, &La fb,LL-k c Dept./Div. f,\ 1.l~ ya '$ '4 k Date 4la.-2*/q /
[\ ,i'
c] No Requestor Notified of Action Taken: =e:!,,,; i \
Signed I ,-<ci i'\ L /,!L (,LCe. $ <.. -q;t.y 1 -3 1 i << (! : Date
w 0
City of Carlsbac
. *, *
April 22, 1991
William S. Pierce Martha H. Pierce
2870 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1 909
PROPOSED BUILDING SITE AT 2873 HIGHLAND DRIVE
Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding the grading of the lot at 2873 Highland D
The Mayor has referred your letter to this office for response.
The review and approval of the grading plan for 2873 Highland was accomplished by this of During the review process, Planning Department staff expressed their concern to the owner
the proposed fill height was excessive for the lot. The owner pointed out to staff that
proposed grading met all codes and ordinances and requested that we issue the grading pe for the grading as proposed. Since City code does not allow the City Engineer discretion in issuance of grading permits, the permit to grade at 2873 Highland was issued as requestec
Your neighbors have assembled together and filed an appeal of the project on the ground environmental review was insufficient. This appeal will be heard by City Council at their mee
on May 14,1991. You may wish to attend this meeting which begins at 6:OO PM and reque!
be heard on the matter.
In order to prevent further occurrences of this type of grading, the Planning and Engine€
Departments have drafted an ordinance revision which would give the City Engineer
discretion to deny similar projects which occur in the future. After receiving environmental re\
this new proposed ordinance will be brought forward for City Council review and approval.
Thank you for your understanding and concern on this matter. If you have further question comments, please write or feel free to give me a call at 438-1 161 extension 4362.
Respectfully,
D-d 7c-
DAVID A. HAUSER
Assistant City Engineer
DAH:rz
C: Mayor City Manager
Community Development Director
Karen Sauer '
City Engineer
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1 1
-c
sEFEE8ED TO CITY MAN)
FOR RESPONSE r 9% 3-- $y
9
e<.
i
2870 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1 909
April 1, 1991
<
,-: ..
Yayor Claude "Bud" Lewis
and Members of the City Council
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Propose ilding project at 2873 HighIan
As residents living directly across the street from the
above proposed building project, we
the approval of the building up of the
enormous proportions it has assumed.
rhood and will
ill - _. - - dwzrf - -- - - _- the s
and will certainly lower their value
S street .
Therefore, we respectfully request that you rectify this
error in judgment and not set a precedent for other lots in
this neighborhood.
William S. Pierce
Xartfia H. Fierce
.--*
May 21, 1991
Larry Doan
2873 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Enclosed for your records, please find a copy of
the following Resolution 91-147 adopted by the
Carlsbad City Council on May 14, 1991.
LEE RAUTENKRANZ
CITY CLERK
LR:lw
Enclosure (1)
-___
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive * Carlsbad, California 92008 (61 9) 434-2808
a e 2-
c
November 20, 1992
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer City of Carlsbad
2075 Los Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dear Mr. Hubbs:
I am a homeowner at 2911 Sondra Court facing the Fairways project across Corte de la Vista.
This letter is to formally protest the installation of the metal guardrail along Corte de la Vista and down Alicante Rd. They represent a major traffic hazard to residents and this morning I was almost broadsided at the intersection of Corte de la Vista and Alicante due to the visual obstruction created by the guardrail. Traffic driving up the hill on
Alicante cannot see traffic turning onto Alicante, nor can the driver on Corte de la Vista see approaching traffic unless their vehicle is totally pulled out into oncoming
traffic.
In addition, the guardrail on Corte de la Vista is hazardous because the sidewalk area left for pedestrians is so inadequate that no more than two people can pass, forcing the third pedestrian to either walk in the shrubs or climb over the guardrail and walk in the street. I have seen this occur on a daily basis. Consequently, when traffic approaches, the pedestrian forced to walk in the street cannot quickly, nor safely, jump the guardrail to the safety of the sidzvalk.
Secondly, and perhaps of less interest to the City Planners, when Fieldstone proposed the project to the area residents, we were all shown architectural renderings that included a lVsoftenedVf view of the wall created by extensive landscaping. Because the City of Carlsbad forced this visual pollution on the neighborhood, the wall cannot be landscaped properly and we are looking at our own "freewayIV
landscape. Had we been told of this major change to our neighborhood, the City and Fieldstone would have been made very aware of our dissatisfaction. This residential street which dead ends within a couple of blocks, has been turned
0 e -
r
Page Two November 20, 1992 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
into a fortress for speeding traffic, the likes of which are not even found along most of our major freeways.
I have been informed by a member of your staff that the City is already aware of the hazardous nature of the guardrail.
My letter to you advising the City of my near-miss this morning is to be considered proper notification that should I be involved in an accident as a result of this City-
imposed hazard, this message/notice will become a major issue in any potential litigation.
Please remove the entire guardrail along Corte de la Vista and along Alicante where it creates the visual barrier to
approaching traffic. THIS IS A SAFETY HAZARD THAT CANNOT BE
IGNORED ANY LONGER.
Thank you.
Sincerely, /+ Mar nn Kingsle 4%
2911 Sondra Court Carlsbad, CA 92009
CC: Members of Carlsbad City Council
Office of the City Clerk