HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-04; City Council; 15556; Construction Of Cul-De-Sac On Althea LaneORIGINAL ^- CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL I A
I
I
9B# /A- 3-z& ,TITLE: IMPLEMENTING
FUTURE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR
DEPT. H$/+$d
VITG. l/04/00 THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARTIAL CUL-DE-SAC CITY ATTY. b&-it
ON ALTHEA LANE 3EPT. FNG
\
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Direct staff to proceed with implementing the Future Improvement Agreements for Parcels 3 and 4 of Parcel Map 12016 for construction of partial cul-de-sac improvements for Althea Lane.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Althea Lane was constructed in 1962 with the Valley Manor subdivision and stubbed to the westerly
subdivision boundary. Part of the property between the Valley Manor subdivision and Park Drive was subdivided in 1982 as Parcel Map 12016, with Parcels 1 and 2 fronting on Park Drive, and
Parcels 3 and 4 fronting on a proposed culde-sac at the end of Althea Lane. The developer
dedicated right-of-way for the cul-de-sac. Parcels 3 and 4 were purchased by Scott A. and Laura A.
Koop (“Koop”) and August0 A. and Margaret E. Gorgueiro (“Gorgueiro”), respectively. Each owner
signed a Future Improvement Agreement (“FIA”) and built a home. Neither owner constructed any surface improvements to Althea Lane. The remainder of the future Althea Lane cul-de-sac is on
property currently owned by John K. and Frances V. Fisler (“Fisler”).
A natural drainage course runs through the Koop and Fisler properties. This drainage course
contains runoff from lots on Park Drive that are below the street, and runoff from Park Drive. Koop
enclosed that portion of the natural drainage course on his property by constructing a 24” storm
drain when he built his home. This storm drain discharges through a velocity reducing structure back into the natural drainage course on the Fisler property . After flowing through the Fisler property and
the lot downstream, the runoff flows through a curb outlet into Tamarack Avenue.
Mr. Fisler requests in the letter that the City complete the Althea Lane culde-sac by implementing
the two existing FIA’s and constructing curb, gutter and pavement at public expense for the remaining third of his property. The letter discusses the drainage at length but does not request any
action pertaining to the drainage. The City Capital Improvement Program includes the construction
of a storm drain in Park Drive and Tamarack Avenue. Funding is scheduled for design in 2000-01
and construction in 2001-02. When the storm drain is constructed, it will remove the Park Drive
flows from the natural drainage course, reducing flows significantly.
In response to Mr. Fisler, staff notified Koop and Gorgueiro that they had 30 days to construct their portion of the cul-de-sac improvements. Their representatives responded, and were instructed by
staff to await more detailed instructions as to how the remainder of the culde-sac right-of-way would be obtained and who would pay for the balance of the improvements.
Staff has identified three alternative courses of action relating to Althea Lane improvements.
Alternative 1. Take No Action
The cul-de-sac area is currently soil and/or aggregate base material. It appears to be providing adequate access to the two residences. When the Fisler property is developed, Fisler would
dedicate the remaining right-of-way, the FlAs would be implemented and the entire cul-de-sac
improved.
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. $J’iG
Alternative 2. Proceed with lmplementina FIAs. Construct Partial lmorovements
Direct Koop and Gorgueiro to construct their respective portions of the cul-de-sac as shown on the
approved Drawing No. 292-4. The remainder of the cul-de-sac improvements would be constructed by the Fisler property when it develops. Without additional right-of-way or easements from Fisler,
improvements would have to allow room for a small slope within the existing right-of-way.
Alternative 3. Proceed with lmplementina FIAs. Construct Remainder of lmbrovements at Citv Cost.
Koop and Gorgueiro would construct their respective portions of the cul-de-sac as shown on
approved drawing 292-4. The remainder of the pavement and curb and gutter would be constructed
by the City as a City project.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES:
Staff recommends Alternative 2. This would construct partial improvements to provide better access for public services without using public funds to construct improvements that are the responsibility of
a private property owner.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed street improvements on Althea Lane were examined with Minor Subdivision No. 426
and declared to have an insignificant impact upon the environment per City approval dated
March 24, 1980. The future storm drain improvements in Park Drive and Tamarack Avenue were
found to be categorically exempt from the environmental review process under Section 15301 Class
1 (c) of the Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act).
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of improvements would be borne by the property owners in accordance with the terms of the Future Improvement Agreements.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map.
2. October 19, 1999 letter from Mr. Fisler with attachments.
PROJECT NAME PROJECT NAME EXHIBIT EXHIBIT ALTHEA LANE ALTHEA LANE I I nQdwN P". Cl-f-ITT FVIUC PAZ?, cl?*n FAK,MFFP,UC nrDT nQdwN P". Cl-f-ITT FVIUC PAZ?, cl?*n FAK,MFFP,UC nrDT c) c)
-
Page 1 of 2 . S f--W-&R Ew8\7 2
1 Tue's'day October 19, 1999 Request for Agenda re: 3975 Park Drive
We purchased our property at 3975 Park Drive in 1969. At that time there
w&s a'datural water flow on the West end of the lot. When it rained
heavily the water from lots to the North of us came slowly through the
area with no erosion at any time.
In 1971 Mr. Jack Kubota, engineer consultant,was somehow allowed to
divert water from a curb inlet at 3941 Park Dr. over to a storm drain
in the center of a 4-lot development. This water along with water shed
from 4 homes built below grade of Park Dr. and the Nursery on the East
side of Park Dr. was then taken South in a 24" line and discharged on-to
my neighbors lot at 3971 Park Dr. The curb inlet originally flowed back
to the above natural water flow. With the 4-lot development the natural
flow no longer existed. We then had City street water, private business
drainage and private property water concentrated into one pipe and dis-
charged with no easement of any kind. The water then eroded across 4
lots on its-:way to Tamarack.
AS a condition of the parcel map approval for the 4-lot development,
engineer;, Jack Kubota, was to form a future storm drain improvement dis-
trict. He was not required to do so, the lot was split and 4 homes were
built at 3945-3949-3951 and 3955 Park Dr.
In 1982, my neighbos to the North at 3971 Park Dr. applied for a 3-lot
split. As a condition of the split, a future improvement agreement was
signed. This agreement required construction of a cul-de-sac at the end
of Althea Lane. The co-mingled water from the 24" drain pipe was to
flow into the cul-de-sac drain and then South to Tamarack. The lot was
split and the property sold to Mr. & Ms Donahoe (developers)(3969 Park Dr.)
The future improvement agreement was not enforced. The Donahoe-!s' were
granted a permit to build on the 1st of the 3 lots. The house was com-
pleted and moved into. They were only required to sign a future improve-
ment agreement to build the cul-de-sac. This was never enforced (exhibit
A). They sold the 2nd lot to Mr. & Xs Gorgueiro 3880 Althea Lane. A
home was built and finaled again with no drainage requikement. They also
signed a future improvement agreement to be completed in 2 years. It has
been over 3 years and this agreement has not been enforced. The 3rd lot was purchased by Mr. & Ms Koop 3886 Althea Lane. A home was built and
they were required to tie into the 24 I1 drain built in 1971 as noted earlier
in this letter. This pipe carrying drainage and City Street water was
Page Z of 2
-- -
then discharged on-to our property continuing the erosion on its way
South to Tamarack. There is now a 14' curb inlet on the East side of
Park Dr. where 14 homes areourrently being built. The water from this
inlet also.goes under Park Dr. and into this drain increasing the volume
of water across our lot. This again is without an easement on our
property. The Koops also signed a future inprovement agreement to
complete their share of the cul-de-sac. This agreement has not been
enforced.
In 1992 I was approached to donate 2609 sq. ft. of the West end of our
property to the City so that the cul-de-sac could be completed. This
was in lieu of 2/3'rds being completed with a retaining wall along the
South side. I agreed to give the property and also agreed to give the
easement necessary to get the water from the cul-de-sac to Tamarack.
Our only cost in participation was to be the donation of property as
shown in (exhibit 5). We have 3/4 of an acre. We presently have no
plan to divide the lot. Our son, the only heir, has respectfully re-
quested that we do not split the lot. For over 25 years we have lived
with this erosion problem caused by development North of us. In many
of the years with normal or heavy rainfall, we have not been able to use
the lower portion for 2 or 3 months during the winter season. We have
had to bring in fill for the erosion and much tractor work has been re-
quired. One year, we were not able to get our 2nd car out for most of
the season.
Our only gain in the completion of the cul-de-sac would be the use _
Of 0Ur lot <all year, The real gain would be for pubiic use. As the
property now stands, there is no way for trash trucks, emergency vehicles
or residents on Althea Lane to turn around. There is a senior care home
on-Althea Lane and Ambulance drivers have complained about delays getting
in and out. One recent year a trash truck buried itself above the wheels
trying to turn around. J!here is no access for a wheel chair to enter
this area. As you can see from the signed request from all residents
on Althea Lane along with photos, the cul-de-sac needs to be completed
to eliminate the unsightly area and danger.
I am 67 years old and hope to live at least another 20 years. At that
time my son would decide land use. It would not be right for everyone
concerned with this project to continue living with a bad situation
caused by failure to require builders and developers to *abide by agree-
ments.I do hereby request an agenda date as soon as possible.
'rhank YOU, n n .I -L/ 'n -4
In Recap:
we sre requesting that the Gurgueiros and Koops build their portion
of the cul-de-sac as agreed. The City would complete the remaining
spprcximately one third portion as agreed in Exhibit 3. We would
be responsible for the sidewalk. We would donate the 2906 sq, ft,
as well as the necessary easement for drainage.
The cost to the City based on estimates for the other portions,
would be around $14,000.00.
We have been residents of Carlsbad since 1946 and have never asked
the City for anything. In building three homes here, o,ver the years,
we have always accomplished City demands.
In 1994 the City decided to add curbs and sidewalks on the West side
of park Drive. Our home was built before improvements were required,
The City advised that 15 ft. of our property would be taken, Rather than have the City go:'through condemnation, we gave the property to
the City,
considering the inconvenience and out : of pocket expense for over
25 years, we feel that our request is not unreason
If !here are any questions please contact me
In ap,preciation of your careful consideration,
October 04, 1999
City of Carlsbad
Attn: Mayor Lewis
We the undersigned do hereby request the City of Carlsbad to
complete the cul-de-sac at the end of Althea Lane as soon as
possible.
This project was planned and engineered over 20 years ago. We
feel it is time for action. Curbs, sidewalks, street widening,
and wheelchair access are being installed in many places while
this site remains an unsightly mess.
There is no turn around area for l&&gency Vehicles, trash pick
up and it would be'impossible for a person in a wheelchair to
reach either of the homes.
Address
t9 x -
L-m ld
397-r ftH&u L-&he
320-l cl I-%QR be
-$i3&%0 G&&&a
3475 P& 53 R,
Exhibit ,A
t..
April 5, 1989
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. John Fistler
3975 Park Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Fistler:
Please allow us to introduce ourselves, 'I'm Ken Donahoe and
my. wife is Cathy, We are your neighbors at 3969 Park Drive,
We have purchased from Robert and.Jane Stauss the two lots '\
adjacent to your property on Althea Lane, We will be starting
cbnstruction on two homes in the near'future- We will also
-be doing street improvements 'to Althea Lane in conjuction
with the home construction, The City'sMaster Plan regarding
Roads and Improvements calls for Althea Lane to terminate in
a Cul-de-sac, This fut,ure Cul-de-sac will be effecting both
our properties. I have discussed the immediate implications
of this -with the City of Carlsbad Civil Engineers. They state
that two options are available in regards t.o our plans for
construction, The first involves the placement of a retaining
wall and guard rail along the property line between the Cul-
de-Sac and your northwest corner; resulting in half a Cul-de-sac.
The second option would require your cooperation in allowing
the entire planned Cul-'de-Sac to be graded and placed.
The Civil Engineers would like your cooperation in implementing
the second option at no cost to yourself,
We would like the opportunity to discuss this furtheq answer
any questions. However, if you are not interested in discussing
this further please indicate by signing where indicated and
return to us in the enclosed stamped and addressed envelope.
. Whh 2aM&J
JOHN FISTLER
Dated: +40-m
cc: Walter Brown, City of Carlsbad Chief Civil Engineer
Mike Smith, City of Carlsbad Fire Marshall
mhibit B
August 28,1992
Mr. John Fisler
3975 Park Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
ALTHEA LANE CULDESAC IMPRO VEMENTS AND EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC
STREiET AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, PD 312, PE 239.12, PE 2.89.13
Dear Ivfr. Fisher:
Thank you for meeting with me on August 4, 1992 regarding the subject project. Your
cooperation in dealing with the issue affecting your neighborhood is very much appreciated.
As we’ye discussed, the full improvement of Althea Lane cul-de-sac is necessary for several
reasons including safety and construction timing considerations. The following is a summary
of whit we’ve mutuahy decided:
1. The required easemexit for public street and public utility purposes for the
cul-de-sac’s ultimate improvement within your property will be granted. The
easement dedication documents will be submitted to you for execution as soon
as they are available.
2. The improvements to the cul-de-sac within your property will be done at no
expense to you and will incIude utility services (2 each) for sewer and water,
street paving, and curb/gutter. Construction of the sidewalk and driveway
approaches however, are not included.
3. The construction of the required full improvements to the cul-de-sac will need
to be agreed upon by the Donahoes, who are the developers of the two .
properties adjacent to yours. .
4.
c
You agreed to whatever necessary slope construction and constrktion access
into your property including the removal of the existing wooden fence.
Replacement of any fence however, will be done by you at your discretion.
5. The construtition of the sewer and water sexvices does not necessarily imply
City commitment to any future development for that portion of your lot.
- t iis ‘.
Mr. John Fisler
Ahhea Lane (M-De-Sac Improvements
August 28, 1992 . Page: 2
On August 25,1992, the Donahoes agreed to the improvement requirements as mentioned
above. Preparation, amendment and review of the improvement plans, easement
documents, and grading plans have resumed and we’re hoping that the easement documents
can be furnished to you for signature soon.
Again, thank you for your help. I will keep you informed of the project’s progress. Please
call me at extension 4428 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
BBE:rz
c: City Engineer
Assistant City Engineer
Assistant Planner Anne Hysong .
Plancheck Consultant Doug Helming
Ring File
Project Files (PE 2.89.12, PE 2.89.13, PD 312)
r , -<._ I
. .. \ \
------ .__ / - \
- - +---
, ,+ January 03,
Mayor Lewis
Sorry to be so late in getting this to you. I did not receive notice
of the schedule until Friday. It took a while to compile the infor-
2000
and City Council:
mation necessary.
I am requesting that the council approve the City's participation in
the physical construction of 1/3rd of a cul-de-sac at the end of Althea
Lane.
Two other property owners have signed future improvement agreements @IA).
I will be donating 2609 sq. ft. of land and installing the sidewalk as
my share (estimated'value $15,600.00). The cost to the City approximately
$15,000.00. Less I am sure if city employees can be used. Estimated
cost for the North 1/3rd is $21,000.00 (includes street light). The
estimated cost for the middle 1/3rd is $14,600.00.
I understand that the City does not often pay-costs for improvements on
private property. However, I think after reading the balance of this
letter, you will consider it fair in this situation.
We built our home in 1969 unaware of a drainage problem or a planned
cul-de-sac. At that time Althea Lane was a dead-end street with a perm-
anent barricade at the edge of our property. There was a natural swale
from the lots North of us over the lower portion of our 3/4 acre lot and
out to Tamarack.
The water was spread evenly over the 100 ft. width of our lot.
It is apparent from a letter dated 10/10/r/3 from my neighbor R. Stauss
- (copy furnished) prior to 1969 when we purchased our lot, there was
severe flooding on Park Dr. due
A drain was created on the East
under Park Dr. and into a basin
private lot North of the Stauss
In 19'71 a property owner to the
to development at the crest of the hill.
side of Park Dr. which carried City water
and then discharging this City water onto a.
property.
North (J. Kobota) filed for parcel split
which was approved (copy of letter with related information furnished).
The basin mentioned above became a grated drain. A curb inlet on the West
side of Park Dr. also discharged water into this drain. The water in this
drain was then piped South to.aEother drain in the middle of the &lot
split just insideY,the sidewalk. *This is all City water.which then traveled
West by pipe to another grated drain receiving water shed from the drives,
yards and roofs of the 4 new homes.
To jump ahead a little, we now have a 14 ft. curb inlet on the East side
of Park Dr., installed for the May Develppment of 14 homes, that picks up
water from the development, travels West under Park Dr. and into the grated
i ._ -_ Pg. 2-of 3
drain described above. Water from the grated drain in the middle of the
4 new homes was then routed into a 24" pipe South and discharged from the
open pipe onto my neighbors property (Stauss) and then onto our lot without
any easement or permission.
The 4 homes were built in the middle of the natural awale, so we now have
all of the natural runoff, City water and May Development water condensed
in a 24'1 pipe .with a potential output of 17 cu. ft. per second. One cu.
ft. per second.is equivalent to a fully opened fire hose. This pipe was
installed to satisfy a requirement of the permit for the 4 houses. (see
furnished letters dated ll/lO & 11/23/71).
In 1982 my neighbor to the North (R. Stauss) applied for a 3-lot split.
This was approved, he was required to sign a FIA for the participation
in constructing a cul-de-sac a,t the end of Althea Lane. The lots were
sold to -the Donahoes and of course the FIA was passed to them. They were
also required to provide approved drainage (enclosed letter dated 08/07/89).
The FIA required the completion of 2/3rds of the cul-de-sac with a re-
taining wall and barricade down the South portion of the cul-de-sac. I
contacted Engineering, stating.that this made no sense to me. I agreed
to donate the land so that the entire cul-de-sac could be constructed
and at a lesser cost. As you.can see by furnished copies dated 04/05/89
and 08/28/92 the Donahoes agreed to'the construction of.the entire cul-
de-sac as long as I gave the land. The Donahoes were allowed to build
their home with still no work on the drainage or cul-de-sac. They were
m then divorced and went bankrupt. The 2nd lot was sold to the Gorqueiros.
A letter from them dated 04/30/93 (copy provided) told about their bad
situation due to the Donahoes divorce & advising the City that if they
were allowed to build their home and allowed to move in, they would
through permanent financing take out enough money to complete the proj&ct;
Also stating that they were determined to finish the offsite. They then
finished the home, signed a FIA and were given two years to build the
cul-de-sac. Then the third lot was sold to the Koops. They were re-
quired to tie onto the 24 I1 line installed by J. Kobota, run it along the
back of their lot and discharge,.,_it onto our lot. This with no easement
or permission.
They also signed a FIA for the cul-de-sac. As you can see two parties
were allowed to split lots and 4 parties were allowed to build homes. As
of this date, there is still no drainage plan or cul-de-sac.
This letter is not to point fingers or condemn. I am looking at the City's
development and financial condition, the Council has done a great job and
had nothing to do with our problem. What branch or persons are responsible
I - -
'Pg. 3 of 3 L
for all of these failures to enforce signed agreements and commitments
is not important. What is important is the fact that we have been greatly
restricted in the full use of our 3/4 acre lot. In the rainy seasons of
the last 25 years, we have been unable to traverse or fully use the bottom
portion of our lot. Required fill has been expensive. We have seen
trash trucks buried in mud over their frames trying to turn around.
Erosion has been a great expense to repair. All residents on Althea Ln.
have' requested that the cul-de-sac be completed for many different reasons
including safety for children, seniors and emergency vehicles. Two dif-
ferent years we wer'e unable to get our 2nd car out. Also there is no
wheel chair access.
We have nothing to gain in the completion of this cul-de-sac except full
use of our land. We at one time were considering a lot split. Our son
(our only heir) recently respectfully asked us not to split it.- The.
Engineering Dept. suggested an alternative that we sign a FIA requiring
us to pay for a third of the cul-de-sac on our lot if split & sold. This
due to our inconvenience and expense for over 25 years and giving the land
is not a fair option to us. Neither would it be fair to make the other
owners and,.neighbors wait another 20 or 30 years for the cul-de-sac. We
hope to live that long or more. At that time~my son would decide land use.
We have always complied with demands by the City of earlsbad. In the
early 60's, we purchased a lot in Seacrest Estates on Charter Oak Dr. The
lot was below street grade so when we applied for a permit we were required
e to provide a pipe at the rear of the lot, running down the steep:.bank
behind us, across neighbors property and out to the street below. This
required purchasing an easement from the neighbors, which we did.
'In 1994 the City told us they were going to condemn 15 ft. across the
front of our lot here on Park Dr. for curbs & sidewalks. We .offered in-
stead to donate the property to the City. All we gained by that was much
faster traffic & the sidewalk and street with its noise, 15 ft. from our
front bedroom.
One last thought. I do not believe it has ever been legal to concentrate
City or private-water from many sources into a restricted pipe and then
discharge it on private property without an easement or written permission.
Sincerely,
John H. Fisler
P 1 z I ..+: .- i’ 8 . . . : . . .
Jack Y. Kubota - Consulting Engine‘er
I- November 10, 1971
Mr. Hunter Cook, City Epgineer
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Ave. Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
i
Subject: Permanent Drainpge Facilities alopg Park Drive
Southwesterly of Monroe Ave.
,Dear Mr. Cook:
This office has processed d grading permit for the parcel described
as Lot 4 and portions- of Lo‘t 5 - Bella Vista*,- and one of the
conditions of the permit is thdt we desjgn and construct permanent
drainpge facilities. ble:are prepared t.o proceed with this require- ment; however, we have evaluated the situation there and in our opinion there is a possibility that a more practical and permanent so'lution to. the drainpge problems can be formulated. i
Specifically, we.believe the.re is merit to the suggestion made
by Mr. Don Briggs, an interested property owner,'*0 maintain the drainage in Park Drive within the street sectidn and at the inter-
sectibn of Park Drive.and Tamarack Avenue there be constructed a catch basin and storm drain that will convey all of the drainage
in.Park Drive to Tamarack Avenue. If the City will consider such a plan we are prepared to contribute to that project our estimated
expense to provide permanent facilities on our property.
If ydu feel there is merit to our'proposat. we welcome an opportunity to meet'with you Immediately so that the needed improvements can
be insta1:l.ed.as quickly as possible.
.
2965 Roosevelt St. (P-0. 80x logs), carlsbad, Ca. 92()()$-A.C. 714: 729-1194
-.
29:. ‘,? 1 (; -: ). “:. , k . .\ * ‘._ ) j , ” _. .
t- ‘-3. . ;
. L-.
-y&Y -iy--/’
.‘. I ‘. :,y. J*,&+\ ;.’ \.
af , .:. ;.+ .a. _ _ , - - -- . , I \ ‘; i -? I. *
. . ’ c. iL 1 ~ ?- r?4
November 23, 1971
‘r i.: . c
‘. :f ., Mr;‘J&~- Y; .Ktibota;~ConsultLng Engineer . . - ,, P, 0, Box 1095 ..carlsbad, CalifqFnia 92OO8 :
C.' : . : ::
SUBJECT: Permanent Drainage'Facilities Along Park Drive, Southwesterly
Dear Jackt - .
Your letter of November owns Lot 4 and portions
of
10 of
Monroe Avenue c
indicates that your client who &ot 5, Bella Vista Estates, Xti
.
prepared to complete the drainage facilities in connection **rith your grading of that property. You further indicate that Mr, Don Briggs has suggested an alternate drainage' . '. .
solution. ' As'we subsequently discussed; you were going to
prepare the necessary sketches to enable a rational evalua-' tion of the proposed drainage facilities at Park and Tamarack. .' L . . . . . ,-.;.. 5 I- . . .
. Consideration must be given to existing undsground facili- ties in Park Drive and the.avaitable right of way on Tamarack. Additionally, any proposed 'improvements would : have to be financed entirely by the affected parties, with- out City participation.
:Another possibility you may wish to pursue would be permit- ting the water on the easterly side of Park Drive to flow onto Tamarack eastbound and into the Carlsbad Manor drainage system at Scott Drive. This water will ultimately be carried vi3 an enclosed storm drain eystem directly to the. lagoon. ThLa.would, of course, reguire the concurrence of Mr, Briggs, ,
*+ is esssrcfial that your existing drainage situation be ir z%solved bezsre the rainy season to avoid damage to adjoining xzzertias, I will-be pleased to mset with you to discuss t?x matter at your con&ience.
Very truly yours,
HUNTEE T, COOK City Engineer
FZTC: cc
October 3, -1973.
! *
:
; I- . . . ‘i . . 5 .
Hr. Robert E. Stau’ss ’ 1 a:
3971 Par!< Drive ’ . - Carlsbad, CA 32003 % .. -. _. 8. .
Split #174 (Kubota)
._-.
Subject: . z3arccl Park OriLe- ’
Grading and Ora i nage
Dear Mr, Stauss: I
In your ’ recenflconversations with engineering staff cspecifically
JaC’-: Ei I kl-: i nen) , you have objected to the grading ind drainage provisions required as condrtions of the subject parce7 split. You have as!;ed for a. letter’from the City regarding your objcc- - t ions.
Hith respect to the drainage system, I cannot speak to your al legations that surface storm waters have been diverted on to’
your property. What I can speak to is that the subject property has been required to accept storm drainage flows from an existing sto:.-n drain onto the parcel, and to carry these storm dra.inage
_ flows .across the.subject property. in such a way as to place these flows back into the existing defined channel that leads to your property. Secondly, the appl icsnt had a necessary proper grad-
ing permit for the grading ;qrork done.
. that the dltirrate solution to your (and others) back yard drainage problems cou!d be solved by the installation of area storm drainage systems,
required in new subdivisions;
sjmi lar to.those systems naq --, Qthis.end. the Citv has rewired e 9s a condition of parcel map approval. that tkaool r-t ente r
yature agJw%xmt to partrcigate in sharinu the cost of a
drainage improvement drstrict. 1
I hope that this 2 zs*,4ers yo9 r quest f ons. If not, :);case feel
free to csflj or t,<ri-:z to me .t.o,Lexpress your concerns. .
: Very truly yours,
i:y*.:r.y :.jJ,.f ,..- . I. i --.8-f ..y .'I .::D Gy; .~ T 1 g' 'F rd na ga r&'.~$\~!r4
Acting City Engineer
TCF/rrac cc’: City Manager Jack ‘Kubota Russ Morrison Jack I?I I kk i nen
- - ‘y
?
I c/rd~Ib I.,. ..w r 3 f’-> &YY . . . 3 F/&E
_ ‘R*CspfED . _- . . I
()CT12 m .
CITy 0~ CARLsBAD
~ng~~e&Ui3 tWartment 3971 Park Drive
Carlsbbd, California 92008
10 October 1973 .-.. - . .
~~~in~i~it~l~~~~~~e~ca
City zf Carlsbad .
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad,,Galifornia 92008
SUBJECT: Parcel Split #174 (Kubota) Park Drive -
Grading and Drainage 1971
Gentlemen:
I have received your response to my inquiry relative to the drainage
problem created in the most recent planning and engineering appiqvals
on property adjacent to mine. It is in order to review the history of .
this difficulty.
The initial situation was instigated with the approval of development of
the property at the crest of the hill. At that time, open land where
drainage was random, was developed in small house lots where drainage
was then directed into the gutters of Park Drive. It will be remembered
that this caused severe flooding into the built up- areas south on Park Drive. .
A drain was then created on the east side of Park Drive, north of my
property, arid which carried the water under Park Drive directly across.
Abasin was formed to accumulate, this water and to thenallow drainage
onto the Iot adjacent to mine. Unfortunately, the owners of that property
were nan-residents and did not see fit to take’action. Even with this
move;. while I had mare water on the lot, there was still a certain amount
of drainage that was random.
..-&_ --h+
.
-
P 4
‘.. ,’
. .
Mr. Tim Flanagan
Page 2
10 October 1973
The- most recently approved action now concentrates this run off into
one pipe which terminates at the north fence line of my property. I
now face a concentrated stream on the back of my property which
severely damages the value. 2’ __ *
/
I have been asked to participate in a drainage district to handle the
problem. The manner in which this. problem has been handled to date I leaves us a district with very few remaining participants and with a
consequent high cqst per participant. Such action should have been
initiated at the time of approval of the first hillcrest development, not .
You leave me ch a major jeopardy to my property through the inept
the planning and engineering departments. As a result,
fo take such action as is necessary to recover the loss
-.-operty.
: :
i
.
f I
i -
.‘\..,.. VIA CEdTIFI&M'AIL
April 5, 19s9 -. I ,. .- ._
Mr. John Fistler
3975 Park Drive
'.Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Fistler:
Piease allow us to introduce ourselves, 'I*m Ken Donahoe and
my wife ,is Cathy. We are your:.neighbors at 3969 Park Drive.
We.have purchased from Robert and'Jane Stauss the two lots. \
adjacent to your property on Althea .Lane. We .will be starting construction on. two homes .in the near'future. We will also'
,be doing str'eet improvements 'to Althea.Lane in conjuotion
:with the home construction. The City's'Master Plan regarding
,Roads and Improvements call's for.Althea Lane to terminate in ,' _ a Cul-de-sac. This future Cul-de-sac will be effecting both
our properties. I have discussed the immediate implications
of this with the City of Carlsbad Civil Engineers. They state
that two options are. av.ailab,le 'in.regards t.0, our plans for
construction. The first. involves the placement of a retaining
wall and guard rail'along the property line between the Cul-
de-Sac and your northwest corner; resulting in half a Cul-de-sac.
The second option would require-your cooper,ation in allowing
the entire planned Cul-‘de-Sac to be graded and placed.
The Civil Engineers would like 'your cooperation in implementing the second option at no cost to yourself,'
We would like the opportunity to discuss this further, answer
any questions. However r if you are not interested in discussing
this further please indicate by.signin,g where indicated and
return to us in the enclosed stamped and addressed envelope-
.
CC: Walter Brown, City of Carlsbad Chief Civil Engineer
Mike Smith, City of Carlsbad Fire Marshall .
- -
i @ ‘..
. MEMORANDUM
* /I’ . ? -*. /
,*;.- , ’
: I.
I
:, 1, .
August 7, 1989 .
TO: . PHIL CARTER
FROM: WALTER BROWN
DONAHOE GRADING &IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Dave asked me to provide historical data regarding the Donahoe’s complaint. We have been consistent with the Donahoes and with their engineers in expressing the requirements for their plans. I can ernpathize with the Donahoes. Because of the unwillingness or inability of their engineers and because of the drainage difficulties of the . property, it must seem that they are victims of an irracible bureaucracy. The lots that the Donahoes are trying to develop have been the subject of spirited debate regarding drainage problems as far back as November 1971. We have directed our master storm drain plan consultant to review the need for additional storm drain facilities on Park Drive. It does not appear likely that the entire problem will be removed fkom the Donahoe’s properties by construction of storm drain facilities on Park Drive. The requirements being imposed on the Donahoe’s are consistent and in keeping with the size and scope of their project.
The following paragraphs will provide you with detailed information regarding the progress of the three planchecks that the Donahoe’s have in process.
All Planchecks .
The Donahoes have made an effort to obtain a letter of credit to secure the work that L they propose. Their bank, La Jolla Bank, does not wish to use the format that the City requires for letters of credit. Specifically, the bank wishes to limit the term of the letter of credit. We are reluctant to do this as the project has already shown itself to be delayed in development since the early 1970’s. Additionally, a short term letter of credit would necessitate creation of a monitoring system that would siphon off personnel resources that we don’t have to spare. Curiously, La Jolla Bank has recently provided a letter of credit with no time limit on a similarly sized project.
PD 312 Improvement Plan. Street Imnrovements for Althea Lane. DWG 292-4
The plans consist of one sheet. ThFphmchecker for this plan is Doug Helming, PE. Plans. have had 5 planchecks in 6 submittals. The second plancheck was returned unchecked because the plancheck comments had not been responded to. Plans were frost received for plancheck on September 1, 1988. We. have averaged 16 days per turnaround. 338 days have elapsed since the first submittal.
Improvement Plans
. : Page: 2 ’
The plans are being prepared by Richard Conigan of Budget Planning and Engineer@. Budget Planning and Engineering is a one-man shop, Mr: Corrigan being the sole employee. Mr. Conigan has been generally resistant to correcting errors and completing omissions on the plans. We have requested meetings with the Mr. Corrigan. ‘.~r. Corrigan declined to *meet with us until January 3, 1989. As an example of the completeness of the plans, Mr. Corrigan did not address a proposed. two foot high vertical drop-off at the pavement edge until directed to do so by the planchecker.
The most recknt submittal still fails to address issues that were raised on the’ first plancheck. For example, grading data for the improvements remains to be received. .
PE 2.89.12 Gradinn PLan for Parcel 3.DWG 299-8 ; ,. t ;. . >
The plans con&t of 2 sheets.
planchecks.
The p&&&er h &‘&o~. :I ::& ph.ive ,J& 3 ,:‘-’ i
They were fkst submitted on March :?,:‘1~89.;!. .We have averaged ‘30 ‘days ‘1. y ’ ‘. :. per turnaround. 156 days have elapsed @.nce the fir&sub&tal~’ .The’plans have .been . prepared by Doug Logan and, subsequent to~&s~~:*rcsignation,’ fro?. i San Dieguito ’ . Engineeri&Stephen Dillemuth. Mr. Logan .was -consistent in .mmimumg..the level of effort required ,to complete the project; ‘For exampF<,when queried on the first plancheck .’ regarding the amount of storm water flow@g through the site, he responded to the effect :!.
that the flow of water was negligible. ‘1 Subsequent study by Mr. Dillemuth shows that the flow will be in excess of 17 cubic feet per seconds’- Computations by our master storm : : :
drain’ study consultant indicates a flow in wess,, of 39,. cubic feet per second may .occur on this site. One cubic foot per second’of water,~is’equivalent to the flow from’a.wide- ‘;!-.:i. T ,,, .L ::
corrections.
*+-.<&.‘
WALTER H. BROWN, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer
WFlB:rp : . .
-
I i_ ~ ;. ‘. ‘( ,‘.. . ; /. .: ,.” ; .’ .:; ‘:
. 3 $I- ,.!., ,.I
-# RE&&E& *3
.
July 30, 1992
Ra Patchett Ci x y Manager 1200 .Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008
or. Patchett,
AUG 06 1992 .
CITY OF CARLSBAD . ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT . , . .
* :- '- :_ _-
/
About two weeks a'o we received a notice of filing of residential infil 9 grading permits from David Hauser/City Engineer along with an exhibit that showed where the properties were located and how our cul-de-sac would be finished.
I have attached copies of these two documents along with a letter that I wrote and filed with the city regardin this matter. As you can see, the city is proposing to s on y partially finish the cul-de-sac at the end of our street. As I have already.stated in my previous letter, I.feel very strongly that this will create an extreme safety hazard.to myself, my wife, and my son as well as anyone else trying to use this street. Perhaps you are unaware that there is a retirement home operated*out of one of the houses on our street. Because of this we have an unusually large number of buses-and emergency vehicles homing onto our street that require more room to maneuver and turn around than the average passenger vehicle.
I feel certain that if this street is finished improperly the city will incure the liability should an accident occur because of this situation. I hope that I can count on your support in this matter. I have never seen a cul-de-sac that has been allowed to be left so incom let& ',,
before and I feel that it is the city's responsibili!y to : see that the proper measures are taken to ensure.that'this; - . . situation is corrected. ,' , J . c 1 :- : s . Please keep me informed as to the city's plans for this ', .I : project. If the plans continue as they are proposed,.,1 .' will have to contact my attourneyto find out what my I'- 3 legal rights are in this matter. -<. : i,
Sincerely,
Dan A&ton 3877 Althea Ln. Carl&ad, CA 92008
.
cc: Claude A. Lewis, Mayor Ann Kulchin, Mayor ProTem Julie Nygaard, Council Member Eric Larson, Council Member ,
Margaret Stanton, Council Member
.
--
I
August 28,1992
Mr. John Fisler
3975 Park Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 /
,;
..a
1 ‘
c .*
si ’
AI.,q”H.EA LANE CUL-DE-SAC IMPROVEMENTS AND EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC
STREET AND PUBLIC UTILlTY PURPOSES, PD 312, PE 2.89.12, PE 2.89.13
Dear Mr. Filler:
Thank you for meeting with me on August 4, 1992 regarding the subject project. Your
cooperation in dealing with the issue affecting your neighborhood is very much appreciated.
As we’ve discussed, the full improvement of Althea Lane cul-de-sac is necessary for several
reasons including safety and construction timing considerations. The following is a summary
of wh&t we’ve mutually decided:
1. The required easement for public street and public utility purposes for the
cul-de-sac’s ultimate improvement within your property wih be granted. The
easement dedication documents will be submitted to you for execution as soon
as they are available.
2. The improvements to the cul-de-sac within your property will be done at no
expense to you and will include utility services (2 each) for sewer and water,
street paving, and curb/gutter. Construction of the sidewalk and driveway
approaches however, are not included.
3. The construction of the required full improvements to the cul-de-sac will need
to be agreed upon by the Donahoes, who are the developers of the two .
properties adjacent to yours.
4. You agreed to whatever necessary slope construction and construction access
into your property including the removal of the existing wooden fence.
Replacement of any fence however, will be done by you at your discretion.
5. The construction of the sewer and water services does not necessarily imply
City commitment to any future development for that portion of your lot.
207.5 I a= Pslmms l3r - Carkhnri CA QPfXk157R - 1fii91 b!~-il 61 l FAX ml’91 438-0894 a
Mr. John Fisler
Althea Lane G&De-Sac Improvements
August 28,1992 Page: 2
On August 2!5,1992, the Donahoes agreed to the improvement requirements as mentioned
above. Preparation, amendment and review of the improvement plans, easement
documents, and grading plans have resumed and we’re hoping that the easement documents
can be furnished to you’for signature soon.
Again, thank you for your help. I will keep you informed of the project’s progress. Please
call me at extension 4428 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
dancheck &nsult&
, BBE:&
c: City Engineer
Assistant City Engineer
Assistant Planner Anne Hysong
Plancheck Consultant Doug Helming
Ring File
Project Files (PE 289.12, PE 2.89.13, PD 312)
1_ ., ! 4.. b
).* I
c
‘. !... - - . .I ,I’
,~ e .- .-
*;. .’ I -, .‘. _ - >,> c-s
.- “- ,Y“ *
April 30, 1993
. ., .t’ i
- :
-..- .:7 \ .
Mr. Lloyd Hobbs
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009
-I .
.~ .’ *
. .
. ‘.
_. .’ .
Dear Mr. Hobbs,
yp “y&P
Qd *’
This letter is a continuation of a letter to Mr. David Hauser dated
February 22, 1993. 8
As of Feb. 1993, Marty Montqomerv. Enqineer, was hired by us to
. comply with city requirements to fully improve a culdesac at 3880
Althea, Parcel #41 Bella Vista, Map 2152. The plans as anreed. were
drawn up and submitted to the City for approval. We, as owner-
builder, do not have either a contractors license nor a Class A license,
in order to be able to pull bonds, which the City requires, as stated on
the last transmittal by Ben Ellorin.
1
‘..<a
We have in qood faith contacted numerous firms tind bond companies,
includinq general contractors of different aspects of the trade for the
last four weeks. We have not been successful in findinn a contractor
that is willinq and able to pull the required bonds. Because we are
owner-builders, we have been told bv several bond companies that thev
do not want to deal with us primarily because we have no license nor
previous track record in developinq prober& We attempted to use our
property as collateral and have been told that is not adequate.
Therefore, we as owner-builders would like tosubmit a request, which
will satisfy the City’s requirements as w&II as the neiqhborhoods akng
with preventing us from losinq evemhinq. We feel there must be a
positive solution to a terrible problem:’ We request that a future
improvement aqreement be aqreed uoon the Citv and us. Just as we
. .
.:
‘.., . ,.,..
3’ -< ,,:,’
:
5 . ‘,-. :
I. : .,
< ;‘.;
.’ .,
.’
:
are determined to build our house, we too are determined to finish the
otisite. We too want to live on a finished ktreet. However, as stated in
the previous letter, we are a family of eiqht and need to complete our
house by Nov. I, 1993. If we cannot complete our home in the
remaininq time, we will not only default on the construction loan, we will
aisoqo beyond the 2 year requirement to avoid capital Rains. In other
words, we will lose the house, and owe a tremendous amount of
money to the IRS. Since we are unwillinq victims of this situation, due
to a developer backing our of his commitment to us and to you, we
cannot believe that the City is unable to help us in a situation like this.
As we are committed to this proiect, our home, to comply with your
request, we will at the completion and occupancy of the house, throuqh
our permanent financinq. will take out enotiqh monev to complete the .
proiect. This way the City qets what it needs, we qet our home and
the neiqhborhood is satisfied. If the City could aqree to this intent
quickly, we will have accomplished our coal and improved the
community.
At this point in time, the crucial question should be, which is more
critical and should take priority, the neiqhborhood qettinq the culdesac
immediately or the family qettinq its home? With this aqreement we all
win, without it, we all lose.
Respectfully,
;
b i
i
!
i
I
I
‘. ‘.
J . ‘1
.
/
Response to
City of Carlsbad - Agenda Bill #15,556
Good evening. My name is Gus Gogueiro. I live at 3880 Althea Lane, Carlsbad, in the
home that I and my wife as owner-builders constructed in 1994. I am employed as a technician
for Pacific Bell and have worked long and hard to save enough to build my home. I have a
modest income and have exhausted my extra means to comply with the demands of the city by
working many hours of overtime.
Although this matter directly affects me and+my property, the City did not give me
written notice of this matter being on calendar. I only learned of it this morning and have rushed
to prepare this response. I have prepared a copy for each of you and would respectfully request
that you carefully consider it before you make your decision.
The contractor/developer who had originally signed the Future Improvements Agreement
(“FIA”) refused to honor his agreement. At that time we had already committed substantial
resources to the construction and would have had great financial loss had we tried to cancel our
purchase. The City Department of Public Works insisted that we sign a novation of the FIA
which estimated our costs for the required improvements at $25,695.00. This was a four fold
increase of the estimated costs of the original FIA recorded in 1982. Feeling financially
trapped by the situation, we reluctantly agreed to sign the new FIA.
Soon the reality of the situation hit us. The estimated costs by the city were substantially
wrong. We were forced to spend $7,000.00 just for the plans and fees. The installation of the
sewer, water, electricity and hydrant cost another $27,000.00, and as you know as a result of us
being here, the work is not completed as curbs, gutters and paving have yet to be completed. The
estimated costs for the remainder is over $SO,OOO.OO. My wife and I simply cannot afford to bear
this cost and would be forced to sell our home and dislocate our family if we are forced to do so.
Legally, I am informed that I should not be forced to bear such costs for the following
reasons:
1. The Item explanation is factually misleading and incorrect. It states that “neither owner
constructed any surface improvements to Althea Lane.” The true facts are that my wife
and I paid for the construction of the sewers, drains, water, hydrant and grading without
reimbursement or offset.
2. The original FIA estimated the costs of required improvements at under $6,000.00. That
is the information that my wife and I had in hand when we began the purchase. When the
dishonest developer we purchased from refused to make the improvements, the City
estimated the costs of the required improvements to be just under $26,000.00,
approximately l/3 of what the actual costs are. My wife and I relied to our detriment on
these estimates. We proceeded in good faith and began the work of improvements
required, only stopping when the real costs exceeded the estimates by over $9,000.00.
3. The lien granted by the FIA signed by my wife and I in 1993, on page 3, Section 3 limits
the lien to $25,695.00 which sum I have already paid in good faith in the performance of
the requirements of the FIA within months of signing it.
4. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Council by John K. Fisler. Mr. Fisler
owns an adjacent property which also fronts Park. Mr. Fisler has acted in bad faith in
bringing this matter forward for several reasons:
a. In 1982, Mr. Fisler agreed to donate a comer of his land to the City for the
construction of the proposed cul-de-sac. He in fact did not donate this land to
date. His refusal to co-operate in this way resulted in that comer of the cul-de-
sac not being graded and improved when the rest of the cul-de-sac was in 1994
and has now resulted in much higher costs.
b. Mr. Fisler has made no financial contribution to the completion of the cul-de-
sac, nor does he propose to do so at this time. He is not under contractual
obligation with the city to make a contribution, but he will clearly gain
financially by it by waiting to split or sell his property till after the cul-de-sac
work has been completed, regardless of his self serving protestations to the
contrary.
C. Mr. Fisler has waited 18 years to attempt to get action on this matter. The
doctrine of lathes applies in this case even if the statute of limitations does not
(which I do not conceed). The combined delay of the City and Mr. Fisler has
resulted in the costs of construction going up by a factor in excess of 13! Far
beyond the rate of inflation. In 1994 the grading equipment was on site, the
engineering was approved and the costs would have been more manageable.
d. Mr. Fisler’s property fronts Park, not Athea. This fact not only highlights his
ulterior motives, but also illustrates that he does not need the improvements to be
made for his own access. As the Item l?xplanation indicates, the improvement of
the Koop property resulted in a drainage problem on the Fisler property. Mr.
Fisler has not complained of that, which further highlights his ulterior motives.
The Proposals of the staff are inadequate. Mr. Fisler should not be allowed to benefit at
my expense. The city severely erred in its estimates of cost and my wife and I should not further
be required to bear that burden, we have paid more than our fair share. Since the city made the
mistakes, the city should bear the cost of completing the cul-de-sac. If the city cannot require the
adjoining property owners to bear a fair share of the costs, then my wife and I should be
reimbursed for our expenses as a matter of equity. I believe equity is squarely on my side and I
am willing to respond to any legal action which attempts to require further payment from me for
this cul-de-sac.
I have six children and our family’s dream home has truly turned into the nightmare on
Althea Street. We are an ordinary working family we cannot afford to expend another $5,000.00,
let alone $50,000.00. This fiasco, which I believe resulted from first a dishonest developer and
then from a city that did not properly estimate and co-ordinate the development, has landed its
full burden upon me and my family which has contributed to various health and financial
burdens directly related to the stress of the situation. I would much rather remember the city as the knight in shining armor come to the rescue than the bully on the block forcing me to sell my
property after I have done all I could to remedy the situation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
August0 A. Gorgueiro
January 4,200O
$7020.08
$7500.00
$ 380.00
$ 3200.00
% 607.96
$ 923.00
$3054.64
$ 3760.00
9J9?wzdz $26,445.68
City Council Meeting
January 4,1999
I would first like to address the inaccurate and incomplete information given in the
report presented to you this evening by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department.
The inaccuracy deals with what the Engineering Department calls “A natural drainage
course.” The incompleteness of the report is due to the lack of mention of the other
FIA’s on record for the Althea Lane Cul-de-sac.
The water coming across our property is not natural drainage - it is diverted city water.
Prior to the water being diverted it drained strait down Park Drive to Tamarak. When
Jack Kabota, a consultant for the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department, subdivided
his own personal property, which adjoins ours to the North East, the City allowed him to
divert the public storm drain runoff to flow across our property, rather than down Park
Drive. All of this was done under the written protest of Mr. Stauss, the owner of our
property at that time, and Mr. John Fisler.
As a result, in order for us to build our home, not only did we have to repair the erosion
damage caused by the diverted water, we also had to pay well over $30,000 to
accommodate this same city water. We now have two permanent 5’ x 5’ x 6’ cement
box cleanouts (which by the way are extremely ugly), one 14’ x 8’ block water
dissipater, 186’ feet of 24” storm drainpipe, and 90’ of cinder block retaining wall
coming across our property. We now find out that according to the Engineering
Department’s explanation for the construction of a partial cul-de-sac, 7 3, sometime in
2001 that storm drain will no longer be necessary. (Why didn’t they tell us that two
years ago and allow us to do a temporary above-ground system?) Any money we had to
develop public street improvements was used to pay for accommodating the public
street water.
When we purchased our land in 1995, the title report showed that Mr. Stauss was, and
according to our attorney still is, legally responsible to complete the construction of the
Althea Lane cul-de-sac, The title report did not show any requirements on us as
potential builders. Therefore we proceeded with our plans to build with the
understanding that the City would have the cul-de-sac completed with the FIA’s already
on record.
Once our construction loan had closed, we went to the city to pull our grading permits
and were verbally instructed that we would be required to complete the entire cul-de-
sac. Which we now know, according to Section 18.40.040 of the Municipal Code, ti
is unlawml.
Well, we were stuck. Since our loan had already closed and we had already begun
paying interest, we felt as though we had no other choice but to sign an FIA to complete
a portion of the cul-de-sac. We signed the qfh FIA for the Althea Lane cul-de-sac.
The City Engineering Department is now recommending that a partial cul-de-sac be
constructed, with the Gorguerros and us each completing our portions. Who will
complete Bob and Mike’s portions at the entrance of the cul-de-sac? They do not have
FIA’s with the city of Carlsbad and therefore can not be held financially responsible for
their frontage. We feel that a partial cul-de-sac is unsafe and unacceptable. Public
service and emergency vehicles will not be able to turn around and therefore access will
be extremely limited. A partial cul-de-sac would also establish a visual and practical
hindrance to the traffic flow, creating a hazard to the many children in the
neighborhood.
Therefore, since both the Gorguerros and we have already completed 10’s of thousands
of dollars worth of public improvements, we ask that the City of Carlsbad construct the
entire Althea Lane cul-de-sac as a city project.
In a time when we see so many in Carlsbad not wanting their portion of paradise paved,
we respectfully ask that you please pave ours.
Thank you for your time.
3886 Althea Lane
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 434-348 1