HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-09; City Council; 17404; Appeal of Minor Subdivision 4132 Garfield StreetCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB# 17,404
MTG. 12/09/03
DEPT. ENG/PLN 4
- TITLE: APPEAL OF THE CITY ENGINEERS APPROVAL OF A
MINOR SUBDIVISION TO DIVIDE ONE LOT INTO
TWO LOTS, AND AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SITE
DWELLING AT 4132 GARFIELD STREET
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY, TWO FAMILY
(MS 03-05, CDP 03-20, AND SDP 03-06 GARFIELD POINT)
CITY i4GR.q
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
2003-322 and Adopt Resolution Nos. 3003 - 323 denying an appeal and upholding the City Engineer’s
approval of a Minor Subdivision (MS 03-05) to divide one lot into two lots, and denying an appeal
upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP 03-20) and
Site Development Plan (SDP 03-06) to demolish an existing single family dwelling and to construct a
two-story, two family dwelling at 41 32 Garfield Street.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The property is a 0.22 acre lot located on the east side of Garfield Street two lots south of
Olive Avenue. A 778 square foot single-story single-family home currently exists on the lot.
The developer/property owner, Sea Bisquit, Inc., is proposing to demolish this single-family home
and to build an attached two-story, two-family dwelling with vehicular access proposed near the
southern end of Garfield Street. The northerly dwelling unit, Unit “A, is 3,715 square feet and the
southerly dwelling unit, Unit ”B”, is 3,837 square feet. A two-car garage is proposed for each unit,
with one uncovered guest parking space provided on-site. The property is surrounded by two
detached single story homes to the north, a two story single-family dwelling to the east, the Hubbs
SeaWorld Fish Hatchery and Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the south, and Garfield Street to the west.
On October 20, 2003, the City Engineer approved, with conditions, MS 03-05 giving the developer
approval to subdivide the subject property into two lots. On October 30, 2003, the owner of property
at 41 10 Garfield Street (the northerly abutting property), Barbara Ryan, filed an appeal of the City
Engineer’s decision to the City Council.
On November 5, 2003, the Planning Commission approved (4-3), with conditions, CDP 03-20 and
SDP 03-06 giving the developer approval to develop a two-family dwelling on the subject property.
On November 16, 2003, Barbara Ryan filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to the
City Council.
This appeal is only for the Minor Subdivision, Coastal Development Permit, and Site Development
Plan. A Planned Unit Development Permit (PUD 03-03) is also being processed subject to the
Planning Director’s approval. The project cannot be constructed as proposed without the approval of
each of these permits.
The reasons for the appeal and staff’s response to each reason are listed below. Reasons No. 1-4
relate to the appeal of MS 03-02. Reasons No.5-11 relate to the appeal of SDP 03-06 and CDP 03-
20
MS 03-05 Appeal:
Reason No.1: The site is not suitable for the proposed density of development. Additional density
will contribute to parking and traffic problems in an already congested area. All streets in the
surrounding area have “no outlet” and additional congestion will block and limit emergency access
and egress.
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 17 I 404
The project conforms with the City’s underlying Zoning of R-2 and the General Plan density of RMH
(8-15 units per acre with a growth control point of 11.5 units per acre). The project is proposed at a
density of 9.1 dwelling units per acre. To meet the off-street parking needs of the project, each unit
will have a two-car garage and one open on-site guest space will also be provided. The 6 additional
trips generated by the development are not considered a significant impact to the surrounding
streets. In addition, the Fire Department has no objection to the proposed project.
Reason No. 2: The proposed project is not substantially surrounded by urban uses and should not
be categorically exempt from environmental impact reviews. The project borders Agua Hedionda
Lagoon and important fish and wildlife habitats.
The project is located on a previously developed lot and is part of an existing R-2 Zoned
neighborhood. The project abuts existing residences to the north and east and a road to the west.
The only vegetation suitable for supporting wildlife is located on the neighboring property to the
south. With the exception of a proposed drainage ditch, this area will not be disturbed as the
proposed project will not encroach onto this property. The project is Categorically Exempt per
Section 15315 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as described under the
Environmental Review Section of this Report. Section 1531 5 consists of the division of property in
urbanized areas zoned for residential use into four or fewer parcels when:
0 The division is in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning. The project is consistent
with the General Plan and Zoning. The General Plan Land Use Designation of RMH requires
a density of 8-15 dwelling units per acre. The project as proposed is 9.1 dwelling units per
acre. The site is in an R-2 Zone, which allows two units and the project is designed to meet
all zoning standards.
0 No variances or exceptions are required. The applicant has not requested any exceptions or
variances.
0 All services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available. The site is
currently being served by all required utilities and is accessible to a public street.
0 The parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel in the previous two years.
No division has occurred in the past 2 years.
0 The parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. The average slope is
5 percent.
Reason No. 3: The proposed subdivision will conflict with an easement for the public at large
because it will block public views of the lagoon and coastline.
The proposed subdivision will split one lot into two lots. Creation of a property line will not block any
views.
Reason No. 4: The project does not provide for natural heating and cooling opportunities, as one of
the proposed units will have no southern exposure and extensive northern exposure. It will also
block all winter sun on the adjacent parcel which has two single-family houses.
Upon further research, staff discovered that the heating and cooling requirements referenced in the
approval letter are only subject to major subdivisions, not minor subdivisions. Nevertheless, the
applicant has provided “to the extent feasible” heating and cooling opportunities. The lots are orientated in an east-west alignment to expose Unit “B to the south for heating opportunities and to
expose Unit “A” to the north to take advantage of shading. The required front, side and rear
setbacks will provide building separation from existing and future structures.
Because the project complies with the City‘s Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance,
Environmental Protection Ordinance, and all other applicable standards, staff is recommending that 3
17,404 Page 3 of Agenda Bill No.
the Council uphold the City Engineer’s decision to approve Minor Subdivision 03-05.
CDP 03-20 and SDP 03-06 Appeal:
Reason No. 5: The proposed project will negatively impact the neighborhood. It is universally
opposed by neighborhood property owners because it will decrease our property values and detract
from our quality of life.
The project conforms with the City’s underlying Zoning of R-2 and the General Plan density of RMH
(8-1 5 units per acre with a growth control point of 11.5 units per acre). No City standards or findings
require the City to evaluate the impacts of development on property values.
Reason No. 6: The proposed structure is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood,
which is all single-family homes (new and old).
The project is developing in accordance to the General Plan and Zoning classification which the
adjacent properties share. The property directly to the north of this project is a two-family
development like the proposed development. The R-2 Zoning Classification allows a corner lot to
develop a two-family development as detached. Although the neighbor’s development may appear
“less” dense because the houses are detached, the owner of the property in question does not have
this option and therefore cannot develop a detached product. In addition, the surrounding
neighborhood at large is a mix of single and two story single-family homes and multiplexes.
Reason No. 7: It will be too massive, more than twice as big as any other structure.
The project is subject to Chapter 21.82 of the Zoning Ordinance, Beach Area Overlay (BOA) Zone,
in addition to the development standards of the R-2 Zoning designations. Since the project
complies with the required development standards, the buildings size is within the parameters
intended by the underling zone. Similar size structures exist in the immediate neighborhood,
including a two story single family home on the easterly abutting property.
Reason No. 8: It is too tall, having not just the peak of the roof at 30’ but a flat roof at 30’. This flat
roof covers a “mezzanine” which is the 3d story of the building- an open room not even considered
livable floor area. It serves only to profit the developer at great expense to the public and neighbors.
The roof above the mezzanine has a roof pitch of 3.512 The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum
roof pitch of 3:12 for roof structures over 24’ in height. The maximum height of the proposed building
is 30 feet which is consistent with the R-2 Zoning.
Reason No. 9: It will block an important view of the Aqua Hedionda lagoon looking east from
Garfield Street.
No such view will be blocked. Staff evaluated this concern and has determined that no public views
of the lagoon to the east will be blocked by the proposed project.
Reason No. 10: There has not been adequate public notice. The project will be in an area that is
widely enjoyed by the public-at-large, yet no sign has been posted advising of the proposed
development.
The project was properly noticed as required by the Zoning Ordinance and State Laws. The
proposed development is not subject to City Council Policy No. 43 as it is not surrounded by single-
family development on two sides.
3
17,404 Page 4 of Agenda Bill No.
Reason No. 1 1 : The Project is too high a density. A two family project will have double the impact in
an area where parking and congestion are already issues. It will contribute to problems of
emergency access and egress in the neighborhood.
See response to Reason No. 1.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Section 15301 (Classl) of CEQA Guidelines exempts the demolition and removal of existing
structures and one single-family residence.
Section 1531 5 (Class 15) of CEQA Guidelines exempts minor subdivisions of infill development
projects in urban areas from environmental review.
Section 15332 (Class 32) of the CEQA Guidelines exempts infill development in urban areas.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impacts are anticipated. All required fees to subdivide the property will be or have been
paid by the developer. The Facility Financing Section of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management
Plan lists the financing techniques being used to guarantee the public facilities needed to serve the
development within Zone 1. The developer is financially responsible for paying the public impact
fees associated with the subdivision.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2003-322 (MS)
2. City Council Resolution No. 2003-323 (CDP and SDP)
3. Location Map.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Appeal Form received October 30,2003.
Appeal Form received November 17,2003.
MS 03-05 Approval Letter dated October 20, 2003.
Preliminary Approval of MS 03-05 dated October 6, 2003.
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 5482 and 5483.
Planning Commission Staff report dated November 5, 2003.
Various letters from the public.
Approved SDP03-06 / CDP 03-20 Exhibits dated October 15, 2003 (full size exhibits).
Approved MS 03-05 Exhibit (full size exhibits).
(EXHIBITS 11 AND 12 ARE ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: David Rick, (760) 602-2781, drick8ci.carlsbad.ca.us
Jessica Galloway, (760) 602-4631, jgall 8ci.carlsbad.ca.us
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
WHEREAS, upon considering all the evidence, testimony, and arguments of those
persons present and desiring to be heard, the City Council resolves as follows:
1.
2.
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That the findings of the City Engineer in the Approval Letter for Minor Subdivision
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-322
03-05, dated October 30, 2003, on file with the City of Carlsbad, and incorporated herein by
reference, constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE CITY ENGINEER’S APPROVAL OF MINOR
41 32 GARFIELD STREET
SUBDIVISION 03-05 TO DIVIDE ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS AT
CASE NO. MS 03-05
of that decision is hereby denied based upon the facts set out in the MS 03-05 Approval Letter,
WHEREAS, after noticing property owners as prescribed by law and hearing and
considering all evidence and testimony of all people desiring to be heard, the City Engineer did on
the 20th day of October 2003, approve a Minor Subdivision (MS 03-05) to subdivide a 0.22 acre lot
into two lots at 41 32 Garfield Street; and
dated October 20, 2003, the evidence before the City Engineer, the evidence as set forth in
WHEREAS, appeal of this approval was timely filed on October 30, 2003; and
WHEREAS, on the 9th day of December, 2003, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said appeal of the
City Engineer‘s approval of said subdivision; and
City Council Agenda Bill No. 17,404 , and the testimony before the City Council, all of
which are incorporated herein by reference.
3ty Engineer’s MS 03-05 Preliminary Approval Letter dated October 6, 2003 as referenced in the
3. That the City Engineer’s approval of MS 03-05 is hereby confirmed and the appeal
2ity Engineer’s MS 03-05 Approval Letter dated October 20, 2003, on file with the City of
Zarlsbad and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
71
3
4. That the findings and conditions of the City Engineer contained in the
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
5. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The Provisions of Chapter 1.1 6 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, ‘Time Limits for Judicial Review”
shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil
Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in the
appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the date on which this decision
becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the
record of the deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such
record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the
thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the
party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of
the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, CA 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council
held on the 16th day of DECEMBER , 2003 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finm, Kulchin, Packard
ATTEST:
/
Page 2 of 2 of Resolution No. 2003-322
(SEAL)
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-323
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO
APPROVE A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-
FAMILY DWELLING AND TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORYl
TWO-FAMILY HOME AT 4132 GARFIELD STREET JUST
SOUTH OF OLIVE AVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: GARFIELD POINT
CASE NO: CDP 03-20lSDP 03-06
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2003, the Carlsbad Planning Commission approved
a Coastal Development Permit and Site Development Plan to demolish an existing single-family
dwelling, and construct a two-story, two-family development at 41 32 Garfield Street; and
WHEREAS, the appellant on November 17, 2003 timely filed an appeal with the
City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2003, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
considered said appeal; and
WHEREAS, upon considering the appeal, the City Council considered all factors
relating to the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1.
2.
3.
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That said appeal is denied.
That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Resolutions No.
5482 and 5483 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference
constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council in this matter, except as
amended by recital No. 4.
That the applicant is required to submit a detailed landscape plan with the
objective of softening the appearance and mass of the building, to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director. Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping
in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The
Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for
Judicial Review” shall apply:
4.
5.
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
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made
applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16.
Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in the appropriate
court not later than the nineteenth day following the date on which this decision
becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a
request for the record of the deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the
estimated cost or preparation of such record, the time within which such
petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day
following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed
to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the
preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk,
City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council held on the 9th day of December 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Hembers Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin and Packard
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Hall
ABSTAIN :
ClJdtj?W A. LEWIS, hayw - ”
-I
ATTEST:
.i
-2-
AGUA HEDIONDA
LAGOON
SITE
GARFIELD POINT
EXHIBIT 3
MS 03-O5lSDP 03-06lCDP 03-20
EXW 4
-- -~ -- _---a
..e.. - ~-~ -_
OF =BAD c! In &Wd NCck r> I (We) appeal the decision of the
to the Carlsbad City Council. cm CmK'S OFFICE
y .$>/ Date of Decision you are appealing: 0P.n zo* -)m3 P'S
Subiect of ADpe al: *did
BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has
multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please
want to appeal a partpf the EhtAfieu 6
5h;;\5rDc? N JeA 41 4~2 7 G
DATE I I
lo @ 1200 Carlsbad Village Orive - Carlsbad. Cafifornia 92008-1 989 - (61 9) 434-2808
APPEAL FORM
r551 Dq 5) I (We) appeal the decision of the
to the Carlsbad City Council.
' I fl nfl\ flfi flA oq.n/\
Date of Decision you are appealing: /Ynv * %. 2003
Subiect of ARDeal:
BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has
multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here.
Reasonk) for Atmeal: Please Note Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of
the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal.
BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err7 What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local
laws plans, or policy? /# 4c Pdh, ,p fi4 L OP , raqe a Z+ i5 ;IR\~~~~~u~
h%%LU%- ,tLJIlQ &% f) rN I
W?R fleaA"CL E131DWd fk. ne,& hlrfLod2
&&- bh ulPA4 Gb EOY hw! $30 0 tJRW5
i3@0&& I n
q200g (94 Zip Code State,
I. &~lsh~.A
City,
/a @ 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1 989 - (61 9) 434-2808
.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
(760) 602-2401
1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
: I I !
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY
CASH REGISTER
TOTAL
# November 17,2003
TO: DAVID RICK
FROM: Karen Kundtz
RE: APPEAL OF GARFIELD POINT - SPD 03-06ICDP 03-20
Barbara Ryan filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision approving the
Garfield Point site development plan and coastal development permit. The appeal was
filed this afternoon, and the appropriate fee was paid.
Attached for your information is a copy of the appeal form and receipt.
REN KUNDTZ
Assistant City Clerk
C: Bob Wojcik
Bobbie Hoder
Attachments (2)
/5
EXHIBIT 6
City of Carlsbad
October 20, 2003
Sea Bisquit, Inc.
P.O. Box 2406
Carlsbad, CA 9201 8-2406
MS 03-05: GARFIELD POINTE MINOR SUBDIVISION
Whereas no review of the preliminary decision was timely requested; and whereas the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Carlsbad
Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1973 as amended, relating to the subject
proposed parcel map have been examined by the Planning Director; and that the
Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the
State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32) of the
state CEQA Guidelines, in that the project is an infill development in an urban area.
In making this determination, the Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed
in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project.
Whereas the City Engineer has found that the proposed map and the proposed design
and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all
requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious
public health problems, in that the subdivision was thoroughly reviewed for
compliance with said requirements and conforms to all public safety and health
standards; that the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the
development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential
development at the density proposed, in that the subdivision design is consistent
with R-2 zoning regulations and will create two lots on a 0.22 acre parcel at a
density of 9.1 dulac; that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, in that all easements have been identified and plotted and no conflicts
will occur; that the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the
Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act); that the design of the subdivision
provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision, in that structures are oriented in a east-west alignment
for southern exposureland to take advantage of shadelprevailing breezes; that the
City Engineer has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this
subdivision, the housing needs for the region, and balanced those housing needs
against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental
resources; that the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife
/I
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-2720 FAX (760) 602-8562 @
or their habitat, in that the property is an infill lot located in an urban setting and no
fish or wildlife habitat is known to exist on the lot; that the discharge of waste from
the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality
Control Board requirements, in that the site will generate an insignificant amount of
pollutants and erosionloff-site sedimentation will be controlled through the City’s
grading plan check and permit process.
Therefore, the City Engineer hereby approves the subject tentative parcel map subject to
the conditions set forth in the preliminary approval letter dated October 6,2003.
If you have any questions, please contact David Rick at (760) 602-2781.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Wojcik
Deputy City Engineer
C: David Rick, Assistant Engineer
Senior Office Specialist Jessica Galloway, Assistant Planner Michele Masterson, Management Analyst, Planning
EXHIBIT 7
City of Carlsbad
October 6,2003
Sea Bisquit, Inc.
P.O. Box 2406
Carlsbad, CA 92018-2406
PROPOSED MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. MS 03-05, GARFIELD POINTE
A preliminary decision has been made, pursuant to Section 20.24.120 of the City of Carlsbad
Municipal Code, to approve the tentative parcel map of the proposed minor subdivision subject
to conditions that follow in this letter.
Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the approval of
this tentative parcel map, must be met prior to approval of a final parcel map.
Enqineerina Conditions:
NOTE Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed tentative map, must be met prior to approval of a final map, building or
grading permit whichever occurs first.
General
1. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City's anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally
established by the City.
3. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the
tentative map and a digital copy of said map (in AutoCAD format, latest version)
reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body including any
applicable coastal commission approvals. The reproducible shall be submitted to the City
engineer, reviewed and, if acceptable, signed by the City's project engineer and project
planner prior to submittal of the building plans, final map, improvement or grading plans,
whichever occurs first. The digital file copy shall be submitted in a format as
approved by the City Engineer.
4. Developer shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless
the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, agents, officers, and representatives, from
and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claim and costs, including
court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a)
City's approval and issuance of this tentative parcel map, (b) City's approval or issuance
of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the
use contemplated herein, including an action filed within the time period specified in
lB
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4 (760) 602-2720 FAX (760) 602-8562 @
Government Code Section 66499.37 and (c) Developer’s installation and operation of
the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from
the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
5. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other
recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all
the private improvements: streets, sidewalks, street lights, and storm drain facilities
located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner
among the owners of the properties within the subdivision.
6. MS 03-05 is subject to the approval and conditions of CDP 03-20, PUD 03-03 and
SDP 03-06.
Fees/A areements
7. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation, the City’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
8. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding
drainage across the adjacent property.
9. Developer shall cause property owner to execute, record and submit a recorded copy to
the City Engineer, a deed restriction on the property which relates to the proposed cross
lot drainage as shown on the tentative map. The deed restriction document shall be in a
form acceptable to the City Engineer and shall:
A. Clearly delineate the limits of the drainage course;
B. State that the drainage course is to be maintained in perpetuity by the underlying
property owner; and
C. State that all future use of the property along the drainage course will not restrict,
impede, divert or otherwise alter drainage flows in a manner that will result in
damage to the underlying and adjacent properties or the creation of a public
nuisance.
10. Developer shall cause property owner to enter into a Neighborhood Improvement
Agreement with the City for the future public improvement of Garfield Street along the
subdivision frontage for a half street width of 30 feet. Public improvements shall include
but are not limited to paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, grading,
undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, and street lights.
11. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause
Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area shown
within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting
and Landscaping District No. 1 andlor to the formation or annexation into an
additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be
on a form provided by the City Engineer.
Grading
12. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and
obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for
the project.
Dedica fions//marovemen fs
13. Developer shall cause Owner to execute covenants of easement as shown on the
tentative map. The obligation to execute and record the covenant of easement shall be
shown and recording information called out on the final map. Developer shall provide City
Engineer with proof of recordation prior to issuance of building permit.
14. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed
pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water
Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable
level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be
submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include
but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvements.
Final Maa Notes
15. Developer shall show on Parcel Map the net developable acres for each parcel.
16. Note@) to the following effect@) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data
A. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available.
6. Geotechnical Caution:
1. The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in
interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad
from any action that may arise through any geological failure, ground
water seepage or land subsidence and subsequent damage that may
occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to its construction, operation . or maintenance.
C. (Covenant of easement recording information.)
Carlsibad Municipal Water District
17.
18.
19.
20.
21 *
Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water
Authority capacity charge@) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at a location approved by
the District Engineer. Via a construction change, the location of said services shall be
reflected on existing public improvement plans on file with the City of Carlsbad.
The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the
District Engineer. Via a construction change, the locations of sewer laterals shall be
reflected on existing public improvement plans on file with the City of Carlsbad.
The Developer shall provide separate potable water meters for each separately owned
unit.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be
issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has
determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of
occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map, as non-mapping data.
Code Reminder
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
A. The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map
approval becomes final.
B. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
The developer may request a review of the preliminary decision with the City Engineer in writing
within ten (IO) days of the date of this letter. Upon such written request the City Engineer shall
arrange a time and place with the developer for such review.
The City Engineer has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the developer contained in
these conditions of approval, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to
mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and degree of
the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
If you have any questions; you may contact David Rick at (760) 602-2781.
ROBERT J. WOJCIK
Deputy City Engineer
c: file
David Rick, Assistant Engineer
Jessica Galloway, Assistant Planner
1
3
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
- -.,
EXHIBIT 8
PL.ANNING CORIRlISSlON RESOLLTTION NO. 5482
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAhTING COhlhlISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFOKJIA, APPROVING CO.4ST.iL
GENERALLY LOCATED AT 3132 GARFIELD STREET hT
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: GARFIELD POINT
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 03-20 ON PROPERTY
CASE NO.: CDP 03-20
WHEREAS, Sea Bisquit, Inc., “Developer/Owner,” have filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lot 2 in Block “V” of Palisades No. 2, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, According to Map Thereof No. 1803,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
August 25,1924
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “F” dated October 15, 2003, on file in the
Planning Department, GARFIELD POINT - CDP 03-20 as provided by Chapter 2 1.201.040 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of October 2003 and
on the 5th day of November 2003 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the CDP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
3 &
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
B
Findings:
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing. ths Coniniissim
APPROVES GARFIELD POINT- CDP 03-20 based on the follolving findings ~
and subject to the folloning conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the proposed development is in conformance with the Mello I1 se,oment of the
Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies in that the site is designated
for multi-family residential developments and the development of a two-family
dwelling on a existing lot at 9.1 dwelling units per acre is consistent with this
designation (RMH, 8-15 dwelling units per acre). No agricultural activities, sensitive
resources, geological instability, flood hazard or coastal access opportunities exist
onsite and the development does not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from
public lands or public right-of-way or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the
coastal zone.
The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that the property is not located adjacent to the shore. Therefore,
the project will not interfere with the public’s right to physical access to the sea and
the site is not suited for water-oriented recreational activities.
The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone (Chapter 21.03 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City’s
Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management
Program (JURMP) to avoid increased urban run off, pollutants and soil erosion. No steep
slopes or native vegetation is located on the subject property and the site is not located in
an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction.
That the Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects
that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Sections 15301 (demolition of
accessory structures) and 15332 (infill development projects) of the state CEQA
Guidelines. In making this determination, the Planning Director has found that the
exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this
project.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
A. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified
School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities.
PC RES0 NO. 5482 -2- a3
1
- 3
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
B. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Polic>. No. 17 and iidl bc
collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
6. The project is not located in the Coastal A,griculture Overlay Zone. according to Map X o
the Land Use Plan, certified September 1990 and, therefore, is not subject to thc
provisions of the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.202 of the Zonin;
Ordinance).
7. The project is not located between the sea and the first public road parallel. to the sea and,
therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay
Zone (Chapter 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance).
8. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
Note:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a
grading or building permit, whichever occurs first.
If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Coastal Development Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
PC RES0 NO. 5482 -3- 2f
1
3 *
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
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnifJF. protect. defend and
hold harmless the City of Carlsbad. its Council members. officers. employees. agents. an3
representatives, from and against an)‘ and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands. claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising. direct&.
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Coastal Development Permit,
(b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action. ivhether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein. This obligation suwives
until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the Citjp‘s approiA
is not validated.
Developer shall submit to the Planning Department a reproducible 23” s 36.” mylar
copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making
body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its
obligation to provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures, which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
The developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of
the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifjmg all
interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Coastal
Development Permit by Resolution No. 5482 on the property owned by the Developer.
Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file
containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any
conditions of restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice Restriction. The Planning
Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice, which
modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or
successor in interest.
The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two
(2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per
Section 2 1.201.2 10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
If a grading permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can be
completed by October 1st. Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”, April
1st to October 1st of each year. Grading activities may be extended to November 15th
PC RES0 NO. 5482 -4- d 3-
1
3 &
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
upon written approval of the City Engineer and only if all erosion control nit‘asures art‘ 11-1
place by October 1 st.
13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall pa!. to the Cit! an
inclusionary housing in-lieu fee as established by City Council Resolution in affect I
at the time.
14. This approval is ganted subject to the approval of SDP 03-06 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5483 for that other
approval is incorporated herein by reference. This approval is also granted subject to
administrative approval of MS 03-05 and PUD 03-03.
Code Reminder
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
15. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.33.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
...
PC RES0 NO. 5482 -5- ad
L
i
I
E
s
1C
11
12
13
14
15
-16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AhD ADOPTED at a regular meetins of the Plannins
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of IVovember 2003. b!. the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Baker, Commissioners, Heineman, Segall, and White
Commissioners Dominguez, Montgomery, and Whitton
'u
a25 R, Chairperson
WAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOL~MILYER
Planning Director
P
PC RES0 NO. 5482 -6-
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
PLANNING CORlhlISSION RESOLUTION NO. ,5483
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAh%ING COMh4ISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVIKG SITE I
DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 03-06 ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED AT 4132 GARFIELD STREET mT
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: GARFIELD POINT
CASE NO.: SDP 03-06
WHEREAS, Sea Bisquit, Inc., “Developer/Owner,” have filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lot 2 in Block “V” of Palisades No. 2, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, According to Map Thereof No. 1803,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
August 25,1924
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan as shown on Exhibits ”A” - “F” dated October 15, 2003, on file in the Planning
Department, GARFIELD POINT - SDP 03-06 as provided by Chapter 21.06/Section 21.53.120
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of October 2003 and
on the 5th day of November 2003 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Site Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
I
-
7
I
L
C
t
7
E
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Coniniission
APPROVES GARFIELD POINT- SDP 03-06 based on the follon.ing findings
and subject to the folloiving conditions:
Findings:
1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan. nil1
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation, in that the proposed density of 9.1 dwelling units per acre is
compatible with the surrounding residential development and within the density
range allowed under the Residential Medium-High (RMH; 8 - 15 dwelling units per
acre) General Plan Land Use designation, and all facilities necessary to serve the
proposed development will be in place prior to, or concurrent with, development.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in
the staff report dated, including, but not limited to the following:
a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the
proposed density of 9.1 du/ac is within the density range of 8-15 du/ac specified
for the site as indicated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The
project’s proposed density of 9.1 du/ac is below the Growth Management Control
Point density (11.5 du/ac) used for the purpose of calculating the City’s
compliance with Government Code Section 65584. However, consistent with
Program 3.8 of the City’s certified Housing Element, all of the dwelling units,
which were anticipated toward achieving the City’s share of the regional housing
need that are not utilized by developers in approved projects, are deposited in the
City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available for
allocation to other projects. Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit
capacity and there are adequate properties identified in the Housing Element
allowing residential development with a unit capacity, including second dwelling
units, adequate to satisfy the City’s share of the regional housing need.
3. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the project site can accommodate the proposed residential development while
complying with all development standards and public facility requirements
applicable to the project.
4. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that, the proposed residential development will be
surrounded by solid masonry walls and/or landscaping and is compatible with the
surrounding single-family and multi-family land uses.
5. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the project is served by Tamarack Avenue, a
PC RES0 NO. 5483 -2- a9
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
collector street, and Garfield Street, a local street. No adverse impacts due to traffic
circulation will occur as a result of this two-family dwelling project.
6. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the De\relopt.r
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
7 That the Planning Director has determined that the project belonss to a class of projects
that, the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Sections 15301 (demolition of
accessory structures) and 15332 (in fill development projects) of the state CEQA
Guidelines. In making this determination, the Planning Director has found that the
exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this
project.
Conditions :
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a
grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Site Development Plan.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Site Development Plan documents, as necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
PC RES0 NO. 5483 -3-
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
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
The DeveloperlOperator shall and does hereby agee to indemnifl.. protect. defend and
hold harmless the City of Carlsbad. its Council members, officers. employees. asents. and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities. losses. damages. demands. clams
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising. directl)
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan. (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein. This obligation sunives
until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City‘s approval
is not validated.
Developer shall submit to the Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36,” mylar
copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making
body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its
obligation to provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures, which are required
as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
Plan prior to the issuance of building pemiits.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. Note: A note to this
effect shall be placed on the Parcel Map.
Prior to the issuance of the Site Development Plan, Developer shall submit to the City a
Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in
interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Site Development Plan by Resolutions No.
5483 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description,
location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as
well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction.
The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the
notice, which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the
Developer or successor in interest.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of CDP 03-20 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5482 for those other
approvals incorporated herein by reference. This approval is also granted subject to
administrative approval of MS 03-05 and PUD 03-03.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall pay to the City an
inclusionary housing impact fee as established by City Council Resolution in affect
at the time.
PC RES0 NO. 5483 -4- 3/
1
7 *
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
I
Planning Department revised drawings indicating the removal of the trellis entr!
feature.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications.
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/esactions. If
you protest them, ysu must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of November 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners, Heineman, Segall, and White
NOES: Commissioners Dominguez, Montgomery, and Whitton
ABSENT: None
fi ABSTAIN: None
R, Chairperson
AD PLANNING COMMISSION-
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZ~ILLM
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5483 -5-
EXHIBIT 9 rhe City of Carlsbad Planning Departmeh,
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 5,2003
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: July 10, 2003
Project Planner: Jessica Galloway
Project Engineer: David Rick
SUBJECT: SDP 03-06/CDP 03-20 - GARFIELD POINT - Request for approval of a Site
Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to demolish an existing
single-family dwelling and to construct a two-story, two-family dwelling project
on property generally located on the east side of Garfield Street just south of
Olive Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5483 and 5482
APPROVING SDP 03-06 and CDP 03-20, based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
11. BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the October 15,2003 meeting for additional noticing.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5483 and 5482
Staff Reports dated October 15,2003 with attachments
The City of Carlsbad Planning Departmen1
P.C. AGENDA OF: October 15,2003
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: July 10, 20$3
Project Planner: Jessica Galloway
Project Engineer: David Rick
SUBJECT: SDP 03-06KDP 03-20 - GARFIELD POINT - Request for approval of a Site
Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to demolish an existing
single-family dwelling and to construct a two-story, two-family dwelling project
on property generally located on the east side of Garfield Street just south of
Olive Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5483 and 5482
APPROVING SDP 03-06 and CDP 03-20, based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The project is a request to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and to construct a for-
sale, two-story, two-family dwelling on property located on the east side of Garfield Street just
south of Olive Avenue. The project requires a Site Development Plan (SDP) and a Coastal
Development Permit (CDP). The project also requires processing of a Minor Subdivision (MS)
subject to the City Engineer’s approval and processing of a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
subject to the Planning Director’s approval because less than four dwelling units are proposed.
The project’s proposed density of 9.1 dwelling units per acre is within the Residential Medium
High (RMH) density range of 8-15 dwelling units per acre, and below the Growth Management
Control Point of 11.5 units per acre. The project is an infill development of no more than four
dwelling units and is exempt from CEQA review. The project complies with the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance, the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ), and the Local Coastal Program
(LCP). Staff is recommending approval of the requests.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes to develop a two-story, two-family dwelling on a .22-acre site located on
the east side of Garfield Street just south of Olive Avenue, at 4132 Garfield Street. The General
Plan Land Use designation is RMH, which allows 8 - 15 dwelling units per acre with a Growth
Management Control Point of 1 1.5 dwelling units per acre. The zoning is R-2, which allows for
single family to four-family dm,~ellings.
A two-car garage is proposed for each unit, with one uncovered guest parking space provided on
site. The existing topography is basically level, with the southeast comer sloping towards the
Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the south. Dwelling unit “A” is 3,715.01 square feet and unit “B” is
3,837.42 square feet. Each unit has a separate exterior side entrance accented by stone veneer
SDP 03-06 /CDP 03-05 - GARFIELD POINT
October 15,2002
Page 2
garden walls. The building will have stone veneer and stucco coated walls, with a flat tile roof.
The one required guest parking space is integrated on-site adjacent to the northern garage.
The existing lot is approximately 69.83 feet wide and 130 feet deep. The site is presently
developed with a single-family home, which will be removed. Adjacent development to the east
and north is older, established, one- and two-story single-family homes, with the Hubbs-
SeaWorld Fish Hatchery and Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the south. This is an appropriate site for
a two-story, two-family dwelling within a diverse neighborhood of one- and two-story single-
family homes mixed with several condominium projects.
IV. ANALYSIS
The project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Residential Medium-High Density (RMH) General Plan Land Use Designation;
R-2 Two-Family Residential Zone (CMC 21.12);
Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ) (CMC 21.82);
Coastal Development Permit (CMC 21.201);
Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program;
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (CMC 2 1.85); and
Growth Management Ordinance (LFMP Zone 1).
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of
the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
A. General Plan
The General Plan designation for the property is RMH. The RMH designation allows residential
development at a density range of 8 - 15 units with a growth control point of 11.5 units per acre.
The project’s proposed net density of 9.1 ddac is below the Growth Management Control Point
density (1 1.5 ddac) used for the purpose of calculating the City’s compliance with Government
Code Section 65584. However, consistent with Program 3.8 of the City’s certified Housing
Element, all of the dwelling units, which were anticipated toward achieving the City’s share of
the regional housing need that are not utilized by developers in approved projects, are deposited
in the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available for
allocation to other projects. Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit capacity and
there are adequate properties identified in the Housing Element allowing residential development
with a unit capacity, including second dwelling units, adequate to satisfy the City’s share of the
regional housing need. The project complies with all elements of the General Plan as outlined in
the table below:
33-
SDP 03-06 /CDP 03-05 - GARFIELD POINT
October 15,2002
Page 3
ELEMENT
Land Use
Housing
Public Safety
Open Space &
Conservation
Noise
Circulation
GENERAL PLA:
USE, CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR
PROGRAM
Site is designated for.
Residential Medium High
(RMH) at 8 to 15 ddac
Provision of affordable
housing.
Reduce fire hazards to an
accePtable level.
Minimize environmental
impacts to sensitive resources
within the City.
Utilize Best Management
Practices for control of storm
water and to protect water
quality. .
Residential exterior noise
standard of 60 CNEL and
interior noise standard of 45
CNEL.
Require new development to
construct roadway
improvements needed to serve
proposed development.
COMPLIANCE
PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS
Two-family dwelling at 9.1
ddac.
The payment of an in-lieu fee
per dwelling unit.
Fire access is adequate.
Project does not impact
sensitive resources.
Project will conform to all
NPDES requirements and
provide a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPP).
Project is not impacted by
potential noise generating
sources such as Carlsbad Blvd.
or McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Project is conditioned to enter
into a city standard
neighborhood development
improvement agreement to
install all necessary
improvements, to include
sidewalk, driveway approach,
curb and gutter.
B. & C. R-2 Zoning and Beach Area Overlay Zone
COMPLY?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The Garfield Point two-family dwelling unit is subject to Chapter 21.82 of the Zoning
Ordinance, BAOZ, in addition to the development standards of the R-2 Zoning designations.
The table below demonstrates the project’s compliance with all development standards required
in the R-2 and BAOZ zones, including setbacks, lot coverage, parking and height restrictions.
36
SDP 03-06 /CDP 03-05 - GARFIELD POINT
October 15,2002
Pane 4
Standard
Density
Setbacks
Required Proposed Comply?
8-15 ddac 9.1 ddac Yes
Front entry garage - 20 feet 20 feet Yes
Residence front- 12 feet 12 feet Yes
Sides - 9 feet 9 feet Yes
Rear - 18 feet 18 feet Yes
Resident Parking Four Spaces Two two-car garages Yes
, Guest Spaces One Space One open space Yes
Building Height
Lot Coverage
30 feet* 30 feet Yes
50% 47.63% (unit A) / Yes
Section 21.82.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that a SDP be processed for
residential uses (excluding single-family residences) within the BAOZ. The intent and purpose
of the BAOZ is to supplement the underlying residential zone by providing additional
regulations for development within the beach area to: 1) ensure development will be compatible
with existing and proposed developments; 2) provide adequate parking for residential projects; 3)
ensure that public facilities exist to serve the beach area; and, 4) protect the unique mix of
residential development and aesthetic quality of the area.
-
The proposed two-story, two-family dwelling project would be compatible with the existing and
proposed developments in the area. This type of development is similar to other multi-family,
multi-story projects in the BAOZ. There are existing condominium buildings to the north and
east of the subject site and several two-story single-family homes. Adequate parking will be
provided in that the two enclosed, two-car garages satisfy the parking requirement for the two
units and one on-site parking space satisfies the guest-parking requirement of the BAOZ. All
necessary public facilities have been conditioned to be provided concurrent with development.
Each unit is articulated with balconies, roof decks, decorative stone veneer walls, copper
chimney shrouds, numerous windows, and decorative roof tile to help create an aesthetically
pleasing faqade, which will protect and enhance the unique residential mix and aesthetic quality
of the beach area and surrounding neighborhood.
The maximum allowed building height in the BAOZ is 30 feet, as measured from the peak of the
roof from the proposed grade for roofs with a minimum pitch of 3:12, with a maximum allowed
building height of 24 feet for roof decks This project proposes a 30 foot maximum height. a
minimum roof pitch of 3: 12, and roof decks not exceeding 24 feet in height.
D. & E. Coastal Development Permits and Local Coastal Program
The project site is subject to Chapter 21.80 of the Zoning Ordinance, Coastal Development
Permits, and is located in the Mello I1 Segment of the LCP Land Use Plan. The project requires a
CDP and is subject to the LCP. This project is within 300-feet of tidal wetlands and is
appealable to the California Coastal Commission. Approval of a Coastal Development Permit is
required for the project and the demolition of the existing single-family house. The LCP Land
37
SDP 03-06 /CDP 03-05 - GARFIELD POINT
October 15,2002
City Administration
Librarv
Page 5
6.95 sq. ft. Yes
3.71 sa. ft. Yes
Use Plan designates the subject site for RMH density development. Based on a maximum
density of 15 du/ac, the lot can accommodate three dwelling units. No agricultural uses currently
exist on the site, nor are there any sensitive resources. The project is not located in an area of
known geologic instability or flood hazard. No public opportunities for coastal access are
available from the subject site and no public access requirements are conditioned for the project.
Since the project is not located between the first public roadway and the ocean, the project is not
subject to the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone. The residentially designated site is
not suited for water-oriented recreation activities and the development does not obstruct views of
the coastline as seen from public lands or public right-of-way. The project does not have any
components (i.e. existing agriculture, steep slopes or vegetation, susceptibility to landslide or
slope instability, seismic hazards, or floodplains) subject to the Coastal Agriculture Overlay
Zone, Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, or Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay
Zone. The project will be required to conform with the best management practices for soil
erosion, sediment control and stonnwater/urban runoff.
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
F. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
2 EDU Yes
.01 acre Yes
Basin B Yes
20 ADT Yes
StationNo. 1 Yes
For any residential development less than seven units, the inclusionary housing requirements
may be satisfied through the payment to the city of an in-lieu fee. The project has been
conditioned to pay this fee prior to the issuance of building permit.
Open Space
Schools
G. Growth Management
N/A N/A
Carlsbad Unified Yes
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 3 in the northwest
quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance
with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in the table below.
Sewer Collection System
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE I STANDARD I IMPACTS I COMPLIANCE
.228 high school students
2 EDU Yes
.416 elementary students
.184 junior high students
I Water I 440 GPD I Yes
38
SDP 03-06 /CDP 03-05 - GARFIELD POINT
October 15,2002
Pane 6
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Section 15301 (Class 2) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA)
exempts the demolition of accessory structures.
Section 15332 (Class 32) of CEQA Guidelines exempts the construction of infill development
projects in urban areas from environmental review.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3. Location Map
4. Background Data Sheet
5.
6. Disclosure Statement
7. Reduced Exhibits
8.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5483 (SDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5482 (CDP)
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Full Size Exhibits “A” - “F” dated October 15,2003
JG:BD:mh
39
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: SDP 03-06 /CDP 03-05
CASE NAME: Garfield Point
APPLICANT: Sea Bisquit, Inc
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Permit to construct a two-family home project on property
generally located on the east side of Garfield Street just south side of Olive Avenue.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2 in Block “V” of palisades No. 2, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California. According to Map Thereof No. 1803, Filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, Au.wst 25, 1925.
APN: 206-092-17-00 Acres: 2 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 2
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RMH-Residential Medium-High
Density Allowed: Three units
Existing Zone: R-2. BAOZ
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Density Proposed: Two units
Proposed Zone: N/A
Site R-2 1 Existing Single-Family
North R-2 Two-Family Residential
South Open Space Open Space
East R-2 Two-Family Residential
West Open Space Open Space
Residence
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): Two
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT u Negative Declaration, issued
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, Exempt Sections 15301- demolition of existin? structures and 15332- In-Fill
Development Proi ects
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: SDP 03-06 /CDP 03-05 - Garfield Point
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: I GENERAL PLAN: RMH
Z0"JG: R-2
DEVELOPER'S NAME: Sea Bissuit, Inc
ADDRESS: PO Box 2406, Carlsbad, CA 92018
QUANTITY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 0.22 acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: Summer 2004
PHONE NO.: 760-434-5200 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 206-092- 17-00
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities:
Library:
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Demand in Square Footage =
Demand in Square Footage =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire:
Open Space: Acreage Provided =
Served by Fire Station No. =
6.95
3.71
2 EDU
.o 1
a
B
20
1
NIA
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDU ' 2 EDUs
Elm=.4 16, JHS=. 184, HS=.228 Total=.828
Identify Sub Basin = 1H
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD = 440
The project is .5 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
- City of Carlsbad
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ounership interests on all appiications n-hrch ~111 requlrr:
discretionary action on the pan of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Cornminee I
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. )'our project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. ..
Note:
Person is defrned as "Any individual, fins co-partnership, joint venture, association, socia1 club. fraternal
organiration, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county. citp and county. city
municipality, &strict or other political subdivision or any other proup or combination acting as a unit."
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEG& names and addresses of persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a comoration or DamIffShiD. include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
APPLICABLE @/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned cornoration, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE T" 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
Patrick W. McGuire
CorpPart Sea Bisquit, Inc.
Title +-S Title President
Address -9.B-
OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COM PLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (ix,
partnership, tenants in common, nm-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
comoration or uartnershig, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-
pwned comoratiorl, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person corp/p~ Sea Bisquit, Inc.
Title Title Pres iden t
Address Address PO BOX 2406 Carlsbad. a
Address Po BOX 2406 Carlsbad CA
92018-2406
2.
Patrick W. McGuire
92018-2406
44 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 @
3. NOX-PROFIT ORGMTZATIOIU OR TRL’ST
If any person identified pursuant to (1 ) or (2) above IS a nonurofir organizanon or 3 msi. 11s: ::lL>
names and addresses of A!!T person senring as an officer or director of the non-proii:
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profinrust Non ProfitTmsr
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Cip staff.
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? 0 Yes No If yes, please indicate pcrson(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of owner/date Signature of applicantldate
Patrick W. McGuire Sea Bisquit, Inc. Patrick W. McGuire Sea Bisquit, Inc.
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
c LSAkJ
Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date
Patrick W. McGuire
Print or type name of owner/appiicant’s agent
Paae 2 of 2
-I
I ,,,*. Q _,
t! --A- I I -.-....... I ...... 1..
! 0
I
cc P
f 8
... -n
z 0 F
I I
I
!
I I I I I I
1 1
!
I
I I !
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
,
I
I
I I ! I I I I I I I !
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I L
I
EXHIBIT 10
October 20.2003
CARLSBAD PLANNING DEFT.
Am: Jessica Galloway
163 5 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Re: Parcel # 206-092- 17
Please add our names to the many residents negatively affected by an oversized
overoccupied facility planned by the Seabisquit Corp.
We are already blocked egress to our property on weekends and this would krther
escallate the problem. We all paid premium prices for our property to enjoy the view.
This is not in conformance to the adjacent structures which consist of single story
structures.
33 1 Olive Ave #203
Carlsbad CA 92008
October 27,2003
Carlsbad City Planning Commission
To Whom It May Concern:
As residents of the Palisades neighborhood, we would like to voice our
concerns about the proposed project at the south end of Gadeld Avenue
across fiom the Agua Hedionda Lagoon'We feel that this more than 8,0000
square foot three story building is too intrusive and out of character for this
neighborhood. We think that this enormous structure will not blend in with
the neighborhood. We understand that the property owners have the right to
develop the land, but we ask that they consider the rights and wishes of the
residents here and rethink this project. Greed and self- interest should not be
allowed to take precedence over the preferences of the existing residents. It
is designed poorly and oversized for the property.
Please take into consideration that the neighbors want the charm of this area
preserved.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Kristep Blake
October 31,2003
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
Attn: Julie Baker, Chairperson
C/o Jessica Galloway
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
From: Charles J. & Rosemarie A. Kubes
33 1 Olive Avenue #20 1
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Case File: SDP 03-064CDP Oi-20
Case Name: Garfield Point
Address: 4132 Garfield Street, Carlsbac CA 92008
To Whom It May Concern:
The purpose of this correspondence is to voice our opposition to the building of the
“monstrosity” proposed at 4132 Garfield Avenue by the Seabisquit, Inc. for the following
reasons:
A 3-story “appearing” building is being built with the thought of making a big
return on investment for this size lot.
0 Every inch is a stretch including overhangs beyond the foundation measurements.
Parking on the street and access to the hatchery will be a major problem to the
local residents.
0 It will create a disturbance to the natural vegetationhabitat as well as being a
visual eyesore to the rest of the neighborhood.
A building of this size will obstruct the natural beauty of the lagoon and ocean
views for the residents.
We are total1 opposed to this project and will be attending the meeting planned for
November 5 to voice our opposition personally. x
Thank you.
October 29,2003
TO:
FROM:
CASE FILE:
APPLICANT:
PLANNING COMMISSION
Margaret J. Bonas
23 1 Olive Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 729-8137
SDP 03-06KDP 03-20
RECEIVED
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPJ
GARFIELD POINT/SEABISQUIT, INC
Thank you Charperson Baker and fellow members of the Commission for the
opportunity to comment further on my October 4,2003 letter to the commission. I firmly
believe the price of fi-eedom is ever vigilance. Let us think to smart growth.
I REQUEST DENIAL/POSTPONEMENT OF THE PROJECT FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Postpone the project until the City of Carlsbad finishes its “Connecting
Community, Place & Spirit” workshops. This project extends beyond the usual
noticing of 300 feet to the neighbors.
Downsize the project. No more Gifts of Public Right of Ways to increase the
buildable lot size. SDG&E also has a utility easement betweesthe property and
the hatchery, which exists and was not abandoned with the removal of the poles.
Rezone the neighborhood of the Beach Overlay Zone back to the 25-foot height
limit. Property owners in the zone were not noticed as to the increased height
limit and public hearings were not held regarding any changes.
Downzone to single-family homes on larger lots in this special needs area and
community.
Story poles need to be erected to show actual size of any project complete with
upper decks/mezzanines. This will enable the people to visualize the monumental
size of project of the 2 two story common wall homes, which will block the scenic
inland, lagoon, and costal views.
Page 2
6. No Grading on the Wind Blown Blm of the lagoon. A soils test and
environmental survey needs to be done by an independent company.
7. Termites constantly swarm fiom the current structures on the property in warm
weather. A tenting of the buildings should precede any demolition of the
structures.
8. Grants are available to the city to purchase a Neighborhood View Park, which
has not been done along the bluffs south of Tamarack even though recommended
in past surveys of the citizens and supported by previous commissions and
councils as part of the Lagoon Trail program.
In conclusion it is time for peace and reflection. It is time for new ordinances and
sensitivity. Carlsbad, as well as California, has to realize we cannot build on every inch.
Leave some place for our children to play out of the street and in the safety of their yards.
It is the right thing to do.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Margaret J. Bonas
53
October 4, 2003
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION:
JULIE BAKER, CHAIRPERSON
BILL DOMINGUEZ
COURTNEY HEINEMAN
MARTY MONTGOMERY
JEFF SEGALL
MELISSA WHITE
FRANK WHITTON
FROM: Mrs. Margaret Bonas
231 Olive Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 729-81 37
CASE FILE: SDP 03-06/CDP 03-20
APPLICANT: GARFIELD PO INT/SEABISQU IT, INC.
Thank you Chairperson Baker and fellow members of the Commission for this
opportunity to respond to your notice of the October 15, 2003, public hearing on
the above-noted project.
I REQUEST DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
FOLLOW I NG REASONS:
I REQUEST:
That 30' story poles be placed at two (2) western points of
the building: Two (2) on the north side of the building; two
(2) on the east side; and two (2) on the south side. As it
impacts 'THE PUBLIC VIEW" of a 'SCENIC COASTAL
CORR I DOR".
I request story poles be placed as requested above as I am directly impacted.
My light and air space will be completely destroyed on the west side of my 28 ft.
high home (see photos). The west side is approximately 59 ft. long by 35 ft.
wide.
MOLD
Without sunlight on the west side of the wood siding of my home and lack
of free 'air flow" a condition is set for MOLD and MILDEW. A very serious
health problem for me and my family. I already take allegra for a control of
54
October 4,2003
PLANNING COMMISSION
PAGE 2
asthma and pneumonia for the past four years. (The surrounding
community is already subject to Ya//out'from the power plant.) We need
the power plant.
FRAGILE SOIL
Will the massive size and weight of the cement and steel building require
pilings drive to stabilize it on the windblown bluffs or would it require
massive, wide, deep foundations - possibly causing vibration damage to
my property?
LOSS OF PROPERTY VALUE
Four realtors have told me the project could lower my property value from
20% to 50%. The #Dream Home"my husband and I worked for all our
lives will be turned into a nightmare!! Streets get narrower, cars get
bigger, no room for sidewalks. Is it a case of "Money Talks and People
Walk"?
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX - 'DOWNZONE"
Some people call the area south of Tamarack to the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, west of the railroad tracks to Carlsbad Boulevard a danger zone!
Overbuilt, land-locked, no escape route in case of a serious emergency.
All streets east on Garfield are dead-end. Only way out of this palisades
area is Sequoia, Tamarack or on foot. Downzone remaining in-fill lots to
larger single family homes so children have yards to play in. Too much
traffic to play ball in the street. Is this in the redevelopment area or what?
An island? The load on the power lines increases with the density. Many
of the older trees (20 years old) are taller than the power lines sparking the
danger of fire and blackouts. Delayed maintenance? The power lines
should be under-grounded on Garfield north of Sequoia to the Buena Vista
Lagoon, not only for Pete sake, but safety and avoidance of lawsuits. I
know there are other areas of the city with similar problems. Here is a
challenge for you. An adjustment in planning now could make a big
difference for generations to come. "What is good for the people is good
for Carlsbad".
October 4,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION
PAGE 3
Thank you for your attention and consideration in this regard.
Sincerely,
MARGmET J. BONAS
Cc: Jessica Galloway, Project Planner
Robert Wojcik, Engineering Manager
David Rick, Assistant Engineer
Raymond Patchett, City Manager
Mayor Lewis
Council Members: Hall, Finnilla, Kulchin, Packard
SD Coastal Commission
October 4, 2003
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Margaret J. Bonas
RE: SDP 03-06KDP 03-20
GARFIELD POINT/SEA BISQUIT, INC.
ADDENDUM
Dangerous Traffic Intersection:
Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack (East): No left turn lane at Vigillugi's. There
is room for a short left turn and one more going straight to Garfield.
Cannon and Carlsbad Boulevard - (South): Omit the merge mows and widen the
road to two (2) lanes and left at Cannon. People speed on the merge lane and cut
sharply across in fiont of you to turn left onto Cannon.
*Not much money involved. Traffic engineers could handle it and prevent some accidents
and possible lawsuits.
Sincerely,
MARG~T J. BONAS
/
BIU WECm / STAFF hK7KGRAI"ER
Three-story markers help illustrate the dimensions of a proposed hotel and condominium complex at the north end of Beach.
5-9
.'1;
b
* 'p
William and Ehbeth Dickinson
4072 Garfield Street
Carkbad,CA 92008
(760) 434-5388
October 14,2003
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad,CA 92008
HAND DELIVERED
Re: Garfield Point, SDP 03-06/CDP 03-20
Applicant: Seabisquit, Inc.
Address: 4132 Garfield Street, Carkbad, CA 92008
Dear Commissioners:
A public hearing on the above referenced project is scheduled for October 15,2003 at 6:OOpm in
Council Chambers. We have some concerns about the proposed development that we would like to
bring to your attention prior to the hearing.
1. The proposed building is too large for the lot. The current plan calls for a 8647 square foot
structure, 2 stories high (plus a "mezzanine"), with a 30 foot tall flat roof A building of this
magnitude will substantially impact the coastal view corridor, is not in keeping with the
character of our neighborhood, and violates the building code since the "mezamine" is actually a
third story.
2. The proposed two-fidy dwelling project will add to the already substantial, well-docmnted
parking problem that exists at the southern end of Garfield Street due to lagoon and beach users.
And the wide driveway cut will exacerbate the problem by reducing premium street parking.
Due to these concerns, we respectw request that you deny approval of the Site Development Plan and
Coastal Development Permit to demolish the existing one-story, single-fidy dwelling and to construct,
in effect, a three-story, multi-fhmily dwelling.
Thank you for your consideration,
William and Elizabeth Dickinson
Cc: Jessica Galloway, City of Carkbad, Assistant Planner /
California Coastal Commission, San Diego Office
Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission,
My grandmother is a long-time resident (40 years) of this neighborhood, and
I have lived here for two years.
We feel that this project will be a disaster for our neighbor hood.
It is too big and will block a view that is important to all of us. It does not fit
the character of our neighborhood. We are already burdened by the excess
traffic fiom the fish hatchery and the trash, traffic, and noise at the lagoon.
This project will make parking worse.
This is a great place to live. Please do not ruin it with this project!
TO: City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
Julie Baker, Chairperson
FROM: Carolyn Funes
33 1 Olive Ave. #202
Carlsbad CA 92008
RE: Case File: SDP 03-06KDP 03-20
Case Name: Garfield Point
Address: 41 32 Garfield Street, Carlsbad CA 92008
I plead with all sincerity that you recommend modification of this proposed project.
It seems you have given approval for a commercial project in a neighborhood. The
proposal is not for a home to live in but a piece of land to make money on. There is no
heart and love, merely financial gain as an impetus for the project. Many people have
lived here since they were children and they are now in their 50’s and 60’s. It is a
neighborhood of modest homes. If this project is approved, it will be completely out of
character with the rest of the neighborhood.
Of course there are many other reasons that the project should be reduced in size. There
is a concern about traffic and turn around capability.
There is also concern about preserving the beauty of the view for all citizens to enjoy.
Please reconsider this proposal.
b4
OCTOBER 10,2003
CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT.
Attn: JESSICA GALLOWAY
1635 FARADAY AVE.
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Re: parcel #206-092- 1 7
Please add OUT names to the many persons negatively affected by an oversize over-
occupied facility pianned by The Seabisquit Corp.
We are already blocked egress to OUT property and this would further escallate the
problem in addition to blocking a view we all paid a premium for.
Sincerely,
.. "" Michael "and Rith McNiff, oGers
33 1 Olive Ave # 203
Carlsbad CA 92008
17
TO.
cc:
FROM
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Julie Baker, Chairperson
California Coastal Commission, San Diego Office
7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103
San Diego, CA 92108-4402
Barbara Ryan
4110 Garfield Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-720-2289
RE: Case File: SDP 03-06/CDP 03-20 Case Name: Garfield Point
Address: 4132 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Chairperson Baker and members of the I-’ianning Comnussion, I am grateful to you for the opportunity to express my concerns regarding ttus project. I am also grateful that our city
recognizes its responsibilty to hear its citizens, and its duty to preserve the quality of life in our communities.
Until recently I had not planned to try to intervene regarding this project. I mistakenly felt that since it conforms to the codes and regulations of the City there was nothing anyone could do
about it.
Over the recent weeks I have been surpnsed that several of my neighbors have come to my
door to discuss their opposition to this project as it is currently planned. They have shared their concerns about the proposed development, and they have encouraged me to voice mine.
This has caused me to have an important realization: Our system of government is specifically
designed to allow for inpu,t from the community precisely because there are instances when conformance to codes and regulations does not sufficiently safeguard the best interests of the community! THIS IS ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES.
I respectfully request that the Site Development Plan and the Coastal Development Permit for
this project be denied for the following reasons:
1. The Notice of Public Hearing as sent out is erroneous. The Notice incorrectly states
that the “site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area”, yet this project IS
within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. This is important because it misinforms the
citizens regarding their rights and opportunities to intervene under the law. 2. The Notice of Public Hearing as sent out is misleading. The Notice is misleading in that it desaibes the proposed project as a “two-story two-family dwelling project”. The project is actually three stories, including a third floor ”mezzanine” of >77+ square feet in total. Because of a technicality in the code definitions, this large third story area is not considered a third story. Never-the-less, any layman would look at the finished building and say it is THREE STORIES TALL.
3. The proposed project will substantially block the public view of Aqua Hedionda Lagoon to the east From Garfield Street looking east across a portion of the subject lot, all three sections of Aqua Hedionda can be seen. This is the only place in Carlsbad that affords a view of the entire lagoon from west to east, and many people come to the end of the street to enjoy it. The proposed project will block this view. This is an important consideration for the Coastal Commission. I request story poles showing the height and
location of the proposed structure, so that its impact on this coastal view corridor can
be clearly demonstrated.
4. The proposed project is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and will detract from our quality of life and property values. Our neighborhood is entirely single-family detached homes, with the exception of a small condo development that is tucked away out ofviau at the end of Olive. Our neighborhood has the potential to
become a community of fine single-family custom homes. This is in the best interests of the property owners who LIVE here, because it maintains the property values and
the quality of rife. The newest homes in the neighborhood demonstrate hs. The
proposed project will detract from our neighborhood, giving an appearance of crowding, over-built congestion, and density, in a neighborhood that is uniquely valued by the residents and visitors for its beauty. As a property owner, I am concerned that the hgher-density project will lead to more of the same and ruin our neighborhood. It
would be a shame for the people who have bought property here and invested in beautiful new single-family homes to be surrounded by multi-family developments. A beautiful single-family home would still allow the current owner-developer a reasonable profit and would enhance the neighborhood. 5. The proposed structure is too massive. If allowed, this 8647 square foot structure wili be TWICE AS BIG as any other home in the neighborhood, and will STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB perched on the BLUFF in the middle of a SCENIC spot. One or two of the homes in our neighborhood have roofs that touch the 30 foot mark at the
peak, but this structure will have a very large area at the 30 foot height covering the combined "mezzanines", ie. the third story. The proposed structure, if permitted, would dwarf even the largest of the other houses in the neighborhood, and it will loom over the bluff to the south like a giant wall. I request a model or other rendering
showing the building in the context of the neighborhood, to show how it's really going to impact us neighbors and how it will look from the lagoon below. I also request story poles indicating the height and area of the roof covering the combined "mezzanines", and indicating the height at the penphery of the building so that its true mas is adequately conveyed.
6. It will add to parking problems at the end of Garfield Street. It is highly likely that these
two big houses will need more than the parking provide on-site, and guests will park on
the street. The wide driveway cut will also reduce the parking available on the street. Two houses will bring twice as many guests and twice as much congestion as one house would. This part of Garfield Street is already subject to high usage by visitors to the lagoon, and we do not need anytlung that makes the parking problem worse than it already is. Additional parking congestion at the end of the street will result in even more
turn-wounds in neighboring driveways, especially mine.
In summary, the design of this project shows absolutely no sensitivity to the neighbors or
the community, and will detract from the quality of life for both the nearby residents and all who now enjoy the lagoon view- It is designed only to maximize square footage and
profit A single he custom home could stiU afford the developer a reasonable profit while preserving and enhancing the quality of life for the neighborhood, and while pmerving the public view corridor.
Members of the Planning Commission, on behalf of our neighborhood, on behalf of the many visitors to this scenic area, and on my own behalf as the adjacent property owner, I Urge you to deny approval of this project. Such action on your part will preserve the quality of life for the surrounding community, as is your mandate. Moreover, it will encourage the developer-owner to devise a plan that enhances our community instead of detracting from it. Thank-you for your attention to the welfare of our neighborhood.
19
ADDENDUM
There has been nothing done to notify the general public about this project - ie, no story poles, no sip indicating that something will be built, no sign regarding the public hearing and the opportunity for
public input. Only the immediate neighbors within 300 feet were
notified.
There are public views in question - views that are important to and a predated by many people who do not live in this neighborhood. TK e fact that the views were not identified twenty years ago doesn’t
mean they don’t exist and are not important today.
Before any action is taken on this project, the public should be notified and invited to comment.
. . SusanMcQuade
306 Olive Ave.
Carlsbad. CA 92008
To the Carlsbad Planning Commission:
This letter is to express my concern about the proposed project next to 4 1 10 Meld The planned
structure is too large for our neighborhood and the look will not fit in. Most homes in ttus area are
2000-2500 square feet. The view which we all share from that location will be gone. I suggest that
there be a large glass fence which supports the view for all. I do not believe the homes with view
should be allowed to be the largest. They should be the smallest and graduate bigger to allow some
type of view for others.
The PUD on Olive Avenue provided guest parking in a driveway! Needless to say there are no guests
parking there. The guest park in front of my home and there is no parking for my guest. This is very
impom issue, being at the beach with a shortage of parlung already.
I strongly suggest this project be wised to a smaller homethat does nottaww over dhem and
matches the size homes in the neighborhood, one that provides a sign that states gwst parking, and a pject that shares the view without hogging it!
SusanMcQuade
............................
.. .I-------. ......... ... _I_
............. .... tz.y-Q
William and Elizabeth Diekinson
4072 Garfield Street
Carlsbac&CA 92008
(760) 434-5388
July 23,2003
Enghming Department CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
an: DavidRick
Dear Mr. Rick:
Re: Minor Subdivision 03-05
Sea Bisquit, Inc.
Yesterday we had the opp~rtunity to meef with Mi. Pat McGuire, a developer wfro represents the above
referenced project located at the southernmost end of Gdeld Street generidy known as 4132 Garfield
Street. After reviewing the site plans we have some concern regarding the right-of-way in hnt of this
development:
1. At the request of the developer, it appears that the City of Carlsbad is considering Vacating;
approximately 70 feet of city property fiontage, 8 feet wide, and awarding it to the developer.
The developer will then be able to place his buildings approximately 8 feet closer to Gadield
Street than the rest of the property owners on the street. If this is approved, his proposed
structures would then eflkctively block ocean and lagoon views, especially those of the existing
home next door at 41 10 Garfield Street. In addition, that end of the street would become
narrower than the rest of the street. We do not understand why the City of Carlsbad would allow
this to occur.
2. Since Garfield Street dead ends in fkont of this project, we believe that the reasonable approach
would be for the developer to install a cul-de-sac similar to what other developers have been
required to do in OUT neighborhood. A cul-de-sac would alleviate some of the traffic and parking
problems on our busy street and make it a better and safer place fbr everyone.
In surnmuy, we are opposed to the City of Carlsbad vacating any of the Garfield right-of-way in eont of
this development and recommend that a cul-de-sac be installed at this dead end street.
Thank you for your consideration,
William and Elizabecti; Dickinson
Cc: Jessica Galloway, City of Carlsbad, Assistant Planner
Michael J. Holzmiller, City of Cadsbad, Planning Director
Glenn Pruim, City of Carlsbad, Engineering Director /’
74
Barbara Ryan 4110 Garfield Street Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Mr. Robert J. Wojcik Deputy City Engineer City of Carlsbad Public Works Engineering
1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
July 21,2003
RE: Notice of Filing of Tentative Parcel Map /
Minor Subdivision 03-05
Dear Mr. Wojak,
Regarding the Tentative Parcel Map, which has been filed on 4132 Garfield Street, here is my input:
The proposed structure is too big and not in keeping with other homes in the surrounding neighborhood,
which are detached single-family residences. Furthermore, the proposed project requires a street vacation that is inappropriate and counterproductive.
Some years ago another PUD was approved in our neighborhood, with six detached homes, three fronting Olive and three fronting Date. Although the developer was required to widen the street and put in a 1 /2 cul-de-sac turn around, the result of the increased density is unsightly congestion, unlike any other part of the neighborhood.
As the immediate neighbor to the project in question, I am very concerned about the congestion it could cause in an already congested and problem-ridden dead end.
The proposed project is predicated on the assumption that the city will give the builder additional land in the form of a street vacation. This is a speculative assumption, made only with the profitability of the project in view, and it is not clearly in the best interests of anyone but the developer. The appropriateness of such a street vacation is highly questionable (see below), both for the immediate neighborhood, and for
our city and community as a whole.
If the street vacation is granted, the square footage of the lot will be increased. This is a great benefit to the developer at a potentially high cost to the community. A larger lot allows a bigger project, thus increasing the probability that congestion on the street will result.
The proposed project maximizes every possible constraint: Maximum height, minimum setbacks, cantilevering, maximum square footage, maximum lot coverage - all based on the street vacation and the PUD. It is just too massive! It demonstrates no concern for the neighbors or the neighborhood. The city will make a big mistake if it chooses to benefit a single non-resident speculative builder at the expense of the resident taxpayers.
I own and reside at 4110 Garfield Street, immediately next to the proposed project. I have no interest in having the street in front of my property vacated. However, if the City chooses to vacate land for the development of the property next to mine, I want to receive the same benefit.
The proposed street vacation will allow the proposed structure to extend farther west than the current setbacks allow, and it will then block even more of my view. I paid dearly for that view, and I pay high property taxes for that view, and I should be able to assume that the existing setbacks adhere for all neighboring properties, and not just for mine.
I
There have been and continue to be many problems at this dead end of Garfield Street. They include: 1) littering (trash, broken bottles, used condoms, toilet paper, discarded and/ or forgotten clothes, fishing line, fish hooks, knives); 2) loitering, 3) drug use,
4) drinking,
5) people having sex in their cars, 6) people sleepin in parked cars and RVs,
8) unleashed dogs on the street and in private yards (they’ve even run into in my house)
9) dog droppings along the street and lagoon trails, 10) theft, 11) congestion, 12) noise (loud partying, drumming, car alarms-one is going off as I write this--, car horns, boom boxes, people fighting) 13) cars turning around in our driveways, thus disturbing the residents and sometimes damaging landscaping.
14) speeding.
I and other residents of the community have made great efforts to find solutions to these problems, and our complaints are well documented. Photos taken by me illustrating some of the above-identified problems have been forwarded to Jessica Galloway, the Planner assigned to this project.
These problems stem from the fact that the lagoon is used in many different ways, by many people who
drive to the area, with no single entity responsible for overseeing what happens here. Much of the
lagoon serves as a de facto public park, but it is not a public park, and it is not regulated, managed or maintained as a public park. These problems need to be addressed before changes are made.
The use, future uses, and rules of use of this area need to be determined, keeping in mind the needs ofthe
residents as well as those of the lagoon users. Until a better plan for this area has been developed, it is unwise for the City to make any determinations about the street, which could end up in conflict with the future uses of the lagoon, and the best interests of the residential neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration of my input on this matter. Please make sure that I am informed
regarding any further developments, and all other opportunities for feedback on this project.
7) defecation on ft e street,
Cc: David Rick, Jessica Galloway, Carlsbad City Council, Planning Commission, Coastal Commission
Bahra Ryan 4110 Garfield Street Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Mr. Robert J. Wojcik
Deputy City Engineer, City of Cdsbad Publicworks Engineering 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
July 19,2003
RE: Notice of Filing of Tentative Parcel Map / Minor Subdivision 03-05
Dear Mr. Wojak,
Regarding the Notice of Filing of Tentative Parcel Map, which has been filed on 4132 Garfield Street
First of all, thank you for getting a wpy of this notice to me. As one of two immediate neighbors, I am dearly the party who will be most impacted by this project, and I appreciate being informed.
For the record, I would like it noted that I did not receive this notice when the mailing went out. I found out about it through
one of my neighbors, and I had to do considerable legwork to determine where the letter came from and to have a copy sent to me. Consequently, although I am responding within fifteen days of receiving the notice, I am responding after the fifteen-day limit for response as indicated in the notice. I trust that my request to be heard will be honored nonethe-less.
The owners of the property at 4092 Garfield likewise did not receive a notice. Of twelve property owners who should have been notified, at least two were not. Perhaps there were more than two owners who were not notified. Does anyone bother to check?
If I had not happened to be in my yard when I was, and if I had not been told about this notice by a neighbor who happened by, my right to comment would be involuntarily "waived", according to the wording of the notice.
My understanding is that your de artment relies on a mailing list provided by the developer, and that there is no standard policy or procedure for assuring $e accuracy of the mailing list. The lack of such a policy or procedure is a violation of the public trust. It potentially usurps my right to be heard in a matter of great significance: my home, my real property, my greatest asset, my biggest investmen6 my community. As a property tax payer, I should rest assured that my rights and interests are protected by city policies.
I respectfully request that the City of Carlsbad rectify this problem and implement a policy including three points: 1. That the accuracy of any mailing list used to now citizens of their right to comment must be verified for completeness and accuracy before such notification is mailed; 2. That any notice informing citizens of an opportunity to be heard on a matter of their interest should be sent by certified mail, or some other method that allows verification of delivery; 3. That if inaccuracies or omissions in such a mailing list are discovered, any deasion-making on the matter under consideration must be postponed until proper notifications have been made, and the time period for responses to those notifications has elapsed.
With all of that said, I would like to note that I am not implying that anyone has purposefully tried to keep me or my neighbors from commenting on this pq-ect. Rather, I am pointing out a weakness in our city's system for public input, and I
am asking that this weakness be corrected.
My comments regarding the proposed minor subdivision at 4132 Garfield are attached in a separate letter.
Barbara Ryan
Cc: Mayor Lewis, carlsbad City Council
77
July 7,2003
Mr. Robert J. Wojcik, P.E.
Deputy City Engineer
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Engineering Dephent
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carkbad, California 92008
RE: MINOR SUBDMSION NO. 03-05 - SEABISQUIT, INC.
Dear Mr. Wojcik:
I am responding to your letter dated June 26,2003 requesting comments on the proposed
tentative parcel map of Garfield Point - Seabisquit, Inc.
I am happy you have given me the opportunity to do .so, until now I felt my First
Amendment Rights had been vklated.
Followinp are mv comments and concerns:
1. The City should not grant a “Street Vacation” of the public right-of-way. No
study has been made as to fbture uses of the street and surrounding properties.
Keep the public right-of-way.
2. Environmental concerns of grading and drainage fiom the project, using the fish
hatchery swale for run-off down to the Hubbs Hatchery (who monitors the
pollutants that will be eventually discharged into the Agua Hedionda Lagoon:
water quality control board fsh and game or coastal commission run-off - into
the lagoon and ocean?)
Note: As one of the founding members of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Foundation I am very concerned about health and fiture of the lagoon our
mission was to “Preserve, Protect and Enhance”, not to degrade and pollute.
3. Increasing commercial uses on the lagoon have created and environmental
sanctuary for displaced animals such as: birds, raccoons, possums, snakes, rabbits,
ground squirrels, etc. My protected Torrey Pine has become a Rookery for Blue
Herrons (also protected) they have eight nests.
Does the department of fish and game protect them fiom noise and dust flom a
new building project? Ventura County does (Ed Massey and Erin Brockovich)
care about the environment.
78
July 7,2003
Mr. Bob Wojcik, P.E.
Deputy City Engineer
4.
5.
6.
What future “Park Plans” does SDG&E have for protecting their property from
erosion? (fiom west side of Garfield Street, hatchery gate to top of hill and down
to waters edge, sidewalks and seawall?)
Underground high voltage power lines to Buena Vista Lagoon: The beach overlay
area west of railroad tracks should have priority with increased population in areas.
A fire hazard for transformers in mature trees (I have alreudy experienced afire
situation on my property due to exploding transfomers in the trees back in 1994).
I am violently opposed of the massive size of the minor subdivision. It is
incompatiile with the surrounding neighborhood. To place an 8000 sq.ft., building
on 0.22 acres is like trying to squeeze 10 lbs. of tomtoes into a 5 lb bag! (sack?)
plus a 30 ft. high wall. This will cut my light and air on the west side of my
property, give me tunnel vision and destroy my property value. There goes my
quality of Me - now what? Not again, time to rally the troops?
Attached are a few photographs of traf€ic on Garfield Street and a personal biography for
your review and consideration.
Thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this regard.
Sincerely,
MARG~T J. BON~
Attachments
Cc: MayorLewis
Council Members (Hall, Finnila, Packard, Kulchin )
SDG&E
Peter Douglas, Coastal Commission
Jessica L. Galloway, Assistant Planner
79
BIOGRAHY - MARGARET J. BONAS
I have lived in Cmlsbad on Olive Avenue since 1965. My late husband Arthur Bow and
I saved all our lives to build our “Dream Home’’ - we moved into 231 Olive Avenue in
1982.
I served on the City’s first Personnel Board (appointed by then Mayor Ron Packard). In
the late 60’s I joined the League of Women Voters and was encouraged to get involved in
local government. I became an observer of the school board and served on their budget
committee one (1) year and was also an observer at the Carlsbad Municipal Water District
and when a vacancy occurred I ran and won and served until 1992. my tenure we
built the current water utilities building; formed a wter reclamation agency of north
county by inviting all neighboring water districts to “get acquainted” meetings and soon
were promoting water reclamation and drip irrigation - which became a model for
agriculture all over the state. I also simultanmusly served on the ACWA - Water
Reclamation Committee in Sacramento. I also served on the San Diego County Water
Authority for three (3) years, served on Finance, Engineering and Audit Committees,
Vice-Chairperson of Audit Committee.
In the late 80’s the Beach Overlay Committee was formd in my living room and Mario
Monroy was elected the Chairman. The purpose was to limit height restrictions to 20-25
feet so more people could enjoy the ocean view.
My home was also where neighbors met to plan opposition to the Hubbs Fishery. 1500
signatures were gathered fiom residents all over Carlsbad and presented to the City
Council, but politics were against us.
In 1994 my husband passed away with Non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and I tried to put my
life back together. Cancer struck my youngest daughter three (3) years ago and I spent
the last six weeks caring for her aRer reconstructive surgery. She is now recovering
happily. Happily life goes on .............. A day-at-a-time. I plan on hosting the next
Agua Hedionda Board meeting (August) at my residence.
In the past six years I have also had time to drive thru California, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming
and Canada. Everyone seems to be concerned about water quality and quantity - gearing
towards less density and environmental concerns. We in Carlsbad need to take notice.
We must be part of the whole.
Thank you!
July 8,2003
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attn: David Rick Re: Minor Subdivision 03-05
Dear Mi. Rick:
The undersigned are property owners who live within 300 feet of the
above noted project. Upon review of the plans for the project we noted that
some of the Garfield right of way would be given to the property owners and
that there would be no cul-de-sac bulb at the end of Garfield. We would
object to the cessation of the right-of way and would strongly urge that the
developer be required to provide a cul-de sac as was done at the end of Olive
Ave and Date Ave. We get a tremendous amount of beach traffic on the street
and the inability of the beach goers to turn around has led them to use our
driveways with some risk to our property. Parking has become a major
problem in ow neighborhood and anythmg the City of Carlsbad could do
would be helpful.
Thank you
James and Lii Vine
241 Date Ave
Bud and Betty Meese
4078 Garfield Ave.
William and Beth Dickinson *&& D&$-A--/
4072 Garfield
Dec 08 03 ll:27p By the Sea 7607303903 P- 1
mii ___ --- MEMO
Date: December 8,2003
To: Mayor Lewis, Carlsbad City Council, Ray Patchett, City Manager
From: Barbara Ryan, Appellant
Re: "Garfield Point" Public Hearing, Request for Postponement
The Appellants in this matter have requested a postponement because one of the three people who jointly filed the Appeal is unable to attend the Hearing currently scheduled for December 9*.
I oripally contacted the City Managefs office on Friday, December 5'h to request a postponement. In a callback, I was told that the first available date for rescheduling would be January ZO*, 2004. I asked if I could check with the other Appellants regarding the January 20th date, and confirm .on Monday, December 8th (today.)
Perhaps through a misunderstanding, I got the impression that the postponement had been granted, and that all that was left to be determined was the new Hearing date. Consequently, in order to avoid inconveniencing everyone, all those wishing to attend and/or speak at the Hearing were notified that it has been postponed.
Ln the meantime, I have checked with the other Aptgellants, and two of the three of us cannot attend on January 20*. Today, December 8 , I contacted the City Manager's office to request a rescheduled for January 2Yh. I was informed that there would be no City Council Hearings that night. Much to my surprise, I was also told that it was not clear that the Hearing on December 9": tomorrow, would be postponed.
Ultimately, I spoke with Mr. Patchett, who informed me of the procedure regarding postponement requests, and I now understand that this is a decision that must be made
by the City Council. Unfortunately, at this point, all those supporting the Appeal think
that the Hearing has been cancelled for tomorrow.
Since Janu 2p is unavailable, we would like to request a reschedule for February 31d, February 17 or February 24* (notFebruary 10"').
We respectfully request that the Hearing be postponed to one of the aforementioned dates, and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused by the delay. We feel
strongly that we cannot present our Appeal tomorrow night, December 9'h, especially now that everyone involved in the Appeal has been notified that it will not be heard at that time.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
November 17,2003
TO: DAVID RICK
FROM: Karen Kundtz
RE: APPEAL OF GARFIELD POINT - SPD 03-06/CDP 03-20
Barbara Ryan filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision approving the
Garfield Point site development plan and coastal development permit. The appeal was
filed this afternoon, and the appropriate fee was paid.
Attached for your information is a copy of the appeal form and receipt.
‘dREN KUNDTZ
Assistant City Clerk
C: Bob Wojcik
Bobbie Hoder
Attachments (2)
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the decision of the
to the Carlsbad City Council.
Date of Decision you are appealing:
flJ m.v?/\ ( Sf( Dlq
/Y *V, %. 2003
Subiect of Appeal: BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here.
Reasonb) for Appeal: Please Note Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of
the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal.
BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local
laws, plans, or policy? I, 4c pnand ,Pr3T@ - vc G, tmpd +L m&l bl)&dLQ. U 72- is bvll;eNbauol ORnhA C bh flP?G% uLbdOVhOrX puaclp/vrh o tJReN-5
l.2c&u% ,5WllQ &&Jkf7- 0 u/ %>@ap/yT r 1 5 iJA1Jeb &$fi~-&m-, OW 4~a)\b 4 i,G<. b
/
j7bb 17243. 2264
PHONE NO.
kkL& --.. /'* &&& 4\10 G~r..Cl,\d s-t.
ADDRESS: Street Name 8, Number NAME (please print)
@ 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1 989 - (61 9) 434-2808
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
(760) 602-2401
I I ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION I AMOUNT
68, Printed on recycled paper.
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY
CASH REGISTER
October 3 1,2003
TO: DAVID RICK
BOB WOCIK
FROM: Karen Kundtz
RE: APPEAL OF CITY ENGINEER’S DECISION - MS 03-05
Barbara Ryan filed an appeal of the City Engineer’s decision to approve the tentative
parcel map for MS 03-05. The appeal was filed on October 30,2003 and the appropriate
fee was paid.
Attached for your information is a copy of the appeal and receipt.
WREN KUNDTZ
Assistant City Clerk
Attachments (2)
-- -- -_
7 - -._ - I (We) appeal the decision of the e I73 E-,-%<[ N GE OF c4EusBAD ClN CLEFWS OFFICE to the Carlsbad City Council.
Subiect of Apeeal: BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has multide elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please
Reasonk) for Appeal: 0 Please Note 0 Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of
the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal.
BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad. California 92008-1989 - (619) 434-2808 @
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DESCRIPTION:
Appeal of the City Engineer’s decision to approve a Minor Subdivision and appeal of the
Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Site Development Plan and Coastal
Development Permit to divide one 0.22 acre lot into two lots located on the east side of
Garfield Street, two lots south of Olive Avenue in the R-2 zone and is more particularly
described as:
Real property in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, described as follows:
Lot 2 in Block “V” of Palisades No. 2, according to Map thereof
No. 1803, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, August 25, 1924. Excepting therefrom that portion lying
Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on
the Southwesterly line of said Lot 2, being distant thereon South
38’32’45” East 60.00 feet from the Northwest corner of Lot 1 in
Block V of said Palisades No. 2; thence North 65”04’45 East
86.90 feet; thence North 53’43’10” East 35.38 feet to the terminus
thereof.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located on the east side of
Garfield Street just south of Olive Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER:
206-092-1 7
APPLICANT:
Seabisquit, Inc.
P. 0. Box 2406
Carlsbad, CA 92018
A public hearing on the appeal of the City Engineer’s decision to approve a Minor Subdivision
and an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Site Development Plan and
Coastal Development Permit will be held by the City Council in the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 at 6:OO p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with
any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be
described and a staff recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a
decision. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on or after Friday, December 5, 2003.
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact either
David Rick at the City of Carlsbad Public Works, Engineering Development Services (760-602-
2781) or Jessica Galloway (760-602-4631) at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department,
Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 530 p.m., Friday 8:OO a.m. to 5:OO p.m. at 1635
Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
APPEALS
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Minor Subdivision, Site Development
Plan and/or Coastal Development Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city
ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Minor Subdivision, Site Development Plan
and/or Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk’s Office, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 prior to or at the public hearing.
1. Appeals to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council,
appeals must be filed in writing within ten (IO) calendar days after a decision by the
Planning Commission.
2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project:
This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. 0
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the
Coastal Commission within ten (IO) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a
Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal
Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego Office of the
Coastal Commission is located at 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, California
921 08-4402.
CASE FILE: MS 03-05/SDP 03-06/CDP 03-20
CASE NAME: GARFIELD POINT
PUBLISH: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 29,2003
SITE
GARFIELD POINT
SDP 03-06/CDP 03-2O/MS 03-05
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
TR MEESE
4078 GARFIELD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-7403
TR OSTERKAMP
315 STEWART CANYON RD
FALLBROOK CA 92028-9665
VINCENT G & SARA TERAN
305 DATE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7432
KIP K MCBANE
2691 CREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1504
JAMES E & LII VINE
280 CHINQUAPIN AVE A CARLSBAD CA 92008-7409
ROBERT K & WENDY HART
349 DATE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7432
TR DNW-EPW
8204 S PECAN GROVE CIR TEMPE AZ 85284-2312
MARGARET J BONAS
231 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7426
TR OSHIMA
352 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7427
JAMES C MITCHELL
515 W MONTECITO AVE :IERRA MADRE 91024-1717
DIXON VINCENT R&CHERI L
4084 GARFIELD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008-7403
ANNE N MARGERY
220 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7425
EDWIN C & GENNIE VIVANT
815 E LONGDEN AVE ARCADIA CA 91006-5446
MARGARET C ELDRIDGE
2690 WORDEN ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92110-5885
ESSIE GHAFFARY
353 DATE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-7432
RALPH D GONZALES
346 OLIVE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-7427
BRYAN J & RITA BONAS
241 OLIVE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-7426
VIRGINIA W WRIGHT
331 OLIVE AVE 101 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7437
TR KELLEY
331 OLIVE AVE 104
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7437
Address Labels
Use template for 5160@
BLAIR G & PAULA OTA
4 BELLEZZA IRVINE CA 92620-1815
MARY L DAVIS
236 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7425
SUSAN HARGIS-MGQUADE
306 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7427
TR OSHIMA
352 OLIVE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-7427
GERMAN LLANO
335 DATE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008-7432
JAMES J HLAWEK
324 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7427
PACIFIC POINTE AT CARLS
29712 AVENIDA DE LAS BA
RCHO STA MARG 92688
MARY L RYAN
331 OLIVE AVE 102
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7437
TR KUBES
331 OLIVE AVE 201
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7437
baser 5 160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM 0 Use template for 5160@
206-070-16 206-092-02 206-092-03
PROVIDENT SAVINGS BANK MARGARET J BONAS BRYAN J & RITA BONAS
3756 CENTRAL AVE 231 OLIVE AVE 241 OLIVE AVE
RIVERSIDE CA 92506 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7426 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7426
206-092-16 BARBARA RYAN
41 10 GARFIELD
CARLSBAD CA 92008 BAD CA 92008-7426
*** 4 Printed ***
Address La bels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@
206-092-02 206-092-03 206-092-16
OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS OCCUPANTS
231 OLIVE AVE 241 OLIVE AVE 217 OLIVE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7426 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7426 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7426
*** 3 Printed ***
mAVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 0
PROVIDENT SAVINGS BANK TR BUCKLAND FLORENCE E MILLIKEN
3756 CENTRAL AVE 4060 GARFIELD ST 4062 GARFIELD ST RIVERSIDE CA 92506 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7401 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7402
TR FITZPATRICK JULIE 0 DAUN PERCY D & LUCILLE CLOUD
PO BOX 932 334 DATE AVE 5201 SHORE DR SAN JUAN CAPI 92693-0932 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7431 CARLSBAD CA 92008-4349
ERIC F & ATRICA GERUM TR FITZPATRICK FRANCIS X MCCORMACK
6601 KIRKLUND CIR PO BOX 932 975 SINGINGWOOD DR HUNTINGTON BE 92647-5626 SAN JUAN CAPI 92693-0932 ARCADIA CA 91006
TR MCCAULEY ROBERT P & MYRNA KLOSE JOHN & SUSAN STEINKAMP
965 HOLLY AVE 2906 SAN JUAN DR 4028 GARFIELD ST IMPERIAL BEAC 91932-3436 FULLERTON CA 92835-1755 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7401
BRUCE J CUTHBERT LLEWELLA T DAVIES EARLYNE! T GERSHON
4026 GARFIELD ST 4044 GARFIELD ST 72334 CANYON LN CARLSBAD CA 92008-7401 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7401 PALM DESERT C 92260-6273
JOSEPH T ARTINO OSCAR B ORTIZ GREGORY M & RUTH GAZDA
7007 EDGEWILD DR 1609 W BARBARA WORTH DR 13666 ORCHARD GATE RD RIVERSIDE CA 92506-5002 EL CENTRO CA 92243-7103 POWAY CA 92064-2126
JON M JAMES WILLIAM H RAWLINGS THOMAS & ERESA GONZALEZ
1119 E SANDPIPER DR 3680 BARTLETT AVE 19437 WINDROSE DR TEMPE AZ 85283-2022 OCEANSIDE CA 92057-8607 ROWLAND HEIGH 91748-3994
RICHARD K ROBERTS MATTHEW L HALL KIMBERLY D COODY
11995 EL CAMINO REAL 30 4046 GARFIELD ST 2636 WORDEN ST 112
SA" DIEGO CA 92130-2567 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7401 SAN DIEGO CA 92110-5843
RONALD H HAUSCH ROLLAND A & MARY MADDEN ANTHONY J PITALE
25 E ALGONQUIN RD 245 CHINQUAPIN AVE 241 CHINQUAPIN AVE
DES PLAINES I 60016 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7410
K PARK GREGORY W PRICE TR DICKINSON
237 CHINQUAPIN AVE 233 CHINQUAPIN AVE 4072 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7410 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7410 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7403
Address Labels Laser 5 160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@
CAROLYN H FUNES TERRY MCNIFF JEROME CO L L C
331 OLIVE AVE 202 331 OLIVE AVE 203 30970 N 77TH WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7437 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7437 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85262-2790
CHARLES H COLLETTE E & G SEBEK BARBARA RYAN
5715 CHANNEL DR NW 10 WESTPORT RD 217 OLIVE AVE
CANTON OH 44718-1605 WILTON CT 06897-4522 CARLSBAD CA 92008-7426
CABRILLO POWER I L L C
1000 LOUISIANA ST 5800
HOUSTON TX 77002-5021
*** 67 Printed ***
WAVERW Address Labels laser 5160@
Dr. Julie Khoury
353 Date Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
12-7-03
Mayor Bud Lewis and Members of the carlsbsd City Council
C/O City Clerk’s Office
1200 Carlsbad V&ge Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
AGENDAITEM#
U Mayor
city Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
To Mayor Bud Lewis and Members of the Carlsbad City Council:
This letter is in regards to the ‘‘Garfield Point” project, the subject of an AppeaI And Public Hear& on December 16,2003, case file: MS 03-0YSDP 03-06/CDP 03-20.
I am a very concerned resident of Carlsbad who resides in the neighborhood of the
proposed “Meld Point” project. When the city of Carkbad made the area enclosed
between the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon and the railroad tracks a medimhigh density
development zone, a huge error in judgment was made. Mowing a large number of
multiple housing units with several members in each family into this very small-enclosed
area, is both a dangerous and irresponsible act imposed by the Mayor and City Council.
When I came to California in 1996, I searched many coastal cities for the right
location for my fhmily and myself We were very concerned about quality of life in
Southern California. Having moved from a small town environment in the east coast, we
chose not to live in the City of San Diego. Carlsbad appeared to be a safe and My
oriented location.
Before purchasing our house on 353 Date Avenue, we called city-zoning office and
asked ifthey could tell us of any negatives in moving to this location. We were told that
one of the major negative aspects of living behind the lagoon and in hnt of the railroad
tracks was one entrance in and out of Garfield. Going west to the coast we can exit using
Sequoia or Tamarack. Going east we can only go by Tamarack. We were told that in the
event of an emergency, exiting out would be delayed or stopped all together. If a fire or
earthquake occurred at a point south of Sequoia, none of us living south would be able to
evacuate by automobile. If fire trucks or ambulances blocked Garfield befbre Sequoia
Street, no one else with an emergency would be fi.ee to leave the area by automobile,
for the safety of all living here. If more multiple units are allowed to be built, the city
intentionally puts its citizens m a dangerous situation. You on the City Council have the
power to make us safe. Our neighborhood must be re-zoned into a Low-density
development area. This is why I am imploring the City Council to VOTE AGAINST the
“Garfield Pointe” project. Thank you for protecting the citizens of Carlsbad.
The area behind the lagoon is congested already. The density zoning must be changed
Sincerely,
Dr. JulieKhoury LJ
.... .
?,
I
_* ____.. -._ ...............
I
.... .-_.-... . _..-. .
c
. , ..
e -.-
/
6
7
I
0-A -
ALL RECEIVED 12 46Q3 245 Chinquapin Avenue Carlsbad, CA
92008-7410
becembet 8,2093
Maym Bud Lewis
C/O City Clerk‘s Office
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
City Cannel!
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Dear Mayor Bud Lewis,
!hbject: Gameld Point Project case file:RlS 03-05EDP O-DP 03-20
I would like to register my objections to the Garfield Point Project. This project is too high density
for this lot. This neighborhood has more of a village character with mostly single family homes. To
introduce a massive structure of this type which is more than twice as big as any other dwelling in the
area will be aesthetically displeasing and will block the welcome view of AguaHionda lagoon .from
Garfield Street. This is a quality of life issue which should be considered in fairness to the present
community who live in this area.
As the Mayor and City Council, you should be concerned to preserve the character of Old Carlsbad.
It has the charm of a type of beach community that was common in days gone by but has all but
disappeared from the California coast. Let’s be unique! It is up to you to preserve our community’s
integrity on a basic level. 3 is challenging to promote growth in a creative way so that the character of
developmeat with all of its problems. With your help we can meet the challenge and grow our
ueighbwboods and preserve their wonderfulness. Please consider this plea.
Type your text here.
old section of the city is preserved. Please do that for us! Other places are full of high density
Mary Agnes Madden
9 D
\
I
1.
\ 'P'
November 4,2003
Carlsbad City Council Meeting
ALL RECEIVED
ACBNDA ITP ?\I# 1 8
C: Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City CIerk
Dear Sir or Madam:
I was born and raised in Del Mar, Ca. I have lived on Date Avenue in Carlsbad for 6 years,
lam writing to plead with you regarding the recent properties sold and are for SALE in our
neighborhood. I have first hand knowledge of building to much, to big, on to small of
space. My neighbors are nice people, but they have no room to live. There are 3 homes that
are directly across the street starting with 335 Date Ave., the houses are built with 10 feet
between each other and another 3 on Olive Ave. as well. The people in the 3 houses on Date
all have teenage children and there is no place for them to play other than the STREET.
When their driving age fiends come to visit the cars pile up in the street, and the basketball
hoop is on the street, and the football games are on the street, in other words their outdoor
life is lived on the street, as the developer was allowed to crm these 6 houses and providing
no yard, Ok 5 feet of yard. There are too many cars and not enough parking as it is, and
soon 3 more teenagers will be driving adding more parking problems.
I am really concerned about the sale at 234 Date Ave. and the new owner is saylng he will
build 15 homes on lac. This neighborhood with all the dead end streets cannot handle that
kind of development, or that kind of traffic, as well as being very dangerous.
My immediate concern is the proposal at the end of Garfield, I have heard it's a Monster
Condo, Twin House, duplex, or what ever the new name for multiple developments is on a
postage size lot.
PLEASE, PLEASE this is and old established neighborhood with great old charming
houses on it, we want to keep it that way, please know we do not mind building reasonable
home on reasonable size lots.
Thanks for listening and I will see you at the hearing on the 5* regarding the property at the
end of Garfield.
Mary Oshima
352 Olive Avenue
Carlsbad, California
92008
December 15,2003
Dear Sir or Madam:
My name is Mary Oshima and I am writing regarding the building that is planning to go up at the
south end of Garfield Street, I have lived on Olive Avenue for 43 years and saw many things happen
Our quality of life has been impacted; too many condo’s and apartments that now encroach on
single-family homes in our community. There are too many cars and with only one outlet, which is
Garfield Street, it concerns my immediate family and me. In case of am emergency how will help
arrive in a timely manner?
On October 14,1994 our neighborhood suffered from a fwe which was started when the transformer
blew up and since Santa Ana winds fueled tbis inferno it caused severe damage to several
homeowners’ property. One neighbor even tried to move his vehicle out of the way of the flames but
was impeded by fie trucks and onlookers blocking his escape. His car was destroyed but tbankfdly
no lives where loss. This emergency proved how over building in an area could cause havoc on its
citizens.
Sincerely,
Mary ahima
... o........................
.
December 15,2003
Dear Council Members of Carlsbad:
My name is Patrick Oshima; I am a fellow resident of Olive Avenue. I have lived on Olive
Avenue for 43 years. After viewing the project of Garfield Point I believe it is very impressive, but in
this area a structure of that magnitude would not enhance the natural surroundings. A structure that
large is not appropriate in this size of lot. There are numerous homes of this magnitude on Carlsbad
Blvd. Olive Avenue has always been cherished to my family and neighbors, and should remain that
of a home not a spectacle. On the possible cite of this development one would see a large date palm
tree, which would show the height of the structure planned on being built. The dimension of this
building is not in anyway similar to this neighborhood. Parking on Garfield has always been open,
but viewing this project indicates that there would be numerous cars blocking the street. I believe that
the issue of developing a structure of this size is just another money issue. It shows no concern for the
residents in this area. Our quality of life will be forever impacted by the transformation of a family
oriented neighborhood to an area of highdensity projects. This development proposal would be more
form fitting if it was at least two-thirds the size of the original plan. This project in my opinion would
not benefit the residents of this area, but benefit the developer and his associates. This is an issue that
should concern all residents and neighborhoods of Carlsbad.
Sincerely,
Patrick Oshima