HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-09-18; City Council; 19172; Appeal of City Engineer's Decision Thomas Scott10
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB# 19,172
MTG. 09/18/07
DEPT. ENG
APPEAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S DECISION
MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. MS 07-01
(THOMAS SCOTT)
DEPT. HEAD'^j^^
CITY ATTY. X^X
CITYMGR. ^dJ^Jp
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Refer to City Attorney to return with documents denying the appeal and upholding the City Engineer's
decision approving Minor Subdivision No. MS 07-01, (Thomas Scott).
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On July 18, 2007, the Deputy City Engineer, on behalf of the City Engineer, approved, with conditions,
a tentative parcel map subdividing one parcel into two residential lots (MS 07-01). The property
proposed for subdivision is owned by Mr. Thomas Scott and is located on the east side of Highland
Drive between Basswood Avenue and Pine Avenue.
On July 30, 2007, a timely appeal of the decision approving MS 07-01 was filed by Mr. William
Holleran pursuant to CMC 20.24.140. The reasons for the appeal as stated on the appeal form and
the attached letter from the Holleran's attorney, Mr. Wesley Peltzer, are listed below together with the
City's responses:
1. Inconsistencies with Carlsbad's Land Use Element of the General Plan specifically with
General Plan Policies C.6, C.7 and B.2.
General Plan Land Use Element Overall Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action
Programs C.6 reads as follows:
Review the architecture of buildings with the focus on ensuring the quality and integrity of
design and enhancement of the character of each neighborhood.
City Response:
The City has Adopted Policy No. 44, Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines. Per the
Guidelines, a new individual single-family home shall not be subject to these architectural
guidelines. Therefore, the development of a single-family residence does not require
architectural review.
General Plan Land Use Element Overall Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action
Programs C.7 contains nine criteria by which to evaluate each development application and
reads as follows:
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED
DENIED
CONTINUED
WITHDRAWN
AMENDED
D
D
D
nn
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC 13 / A I ^ 0 7
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D ' /
RETURNED TO STAFF D
OTHER -SEE MINUTES BT
Council upheld the City Engineer's
decision
MS 07-01
approving Minor Subdivision
Page 2
Evaluate each application for development of property with regard to the following specific
criteria.
1. "Site design quality which may be indicated by the harmony of the proposed buildings
in terms of size, height and location, with respect to existing neighborhood
development."
City Response:
The proposed project is for the minor subdivision of land into two single family residential lots.
The proposed subdivision complies with development standards of the R-1 Zone and the
Subdivision Ordinance. At present, there is no application on file for building plans. Any
development of the lots will be required to comply with the development standards of the R-1
Zone. The R-1 Zone standards provide minimum standards for structure setbacks and
maximums for building height and lot coverage which are standard for R-1 Zoned
neighborhoods within the City of Carlsbad, and within the neighborhood surrounding the
project site.
2. "Site design quality which may be indicated by the amount and character of
landscaping and screening."
City Response:
Single family homes which are not subject to the Hillside Guidelines or located within the
Coastal Zone do not require landscape plans or screening materials. The project is not
located on a hillside qualifying site or in the Coastal Zone.
3. "Site design quality which may be indicated by the arrangement of the site for efficiency
of circulation."
City Response:
The project consists of a two lot subdivision. The front lot takes access from Highland Drive
with a driveway to a garage in the rear yard. The panhandle lot, also taking access from
Highland Drive, provides adequate area for the required vehicle turn around and parking and
this will be analyzed at building permit issuance. Vehicles can exit the site in a forward
manner and will not be required to back out onto a public roadway. Privacy is provided by
fencing between properties.
4. "The provision of public and/or private usable open space and/or pathways designated
in the Open Space and Parks and Recreation Elements."
City Response:
The project provides adequate private space through the provision of adequate rear yard and
side yard setbacks typical of R-1 Zoned single family residences. The site is not identified on
the Open Space and Conservation Map as providing public Open Space opportunities.
^
PageS
5. "Contributions to and extensions of existing systems of foot or bicycle paths, equestrian
trails, and the greenbelts provided for in Circulation, Parks and Recreation and Open
Space Elements of the General Plan."
City Response:
The site does not have any paths or trails and is not identified as a greenbelt in the Open
Space & Conservation Element. The project is conditioned to enter into a Neighborhood
Improvement Agreement for the future construction of public improvements, including
sidewalks on Highland Drive.
6. "Compliance with the performance standards of the Growth Management Plan."
City Response:
The project is located in the northwest quadrant in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Zone 1 is identified as an infill area where public facilities are already in place. The project is
conditioned to pay impact fees which offset the cost of public facilities. The project's
proposed density is at the Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre.
7. Development proposals which are designed to provide safe, easy pedestrian and
bicycle linkages to nearby transportation corridors."
City Response:
This is not relevant to residential infill development of this scale or location.
8. "The provision of housing affordable to lower and/or moderate income households."
City Response:
The project is conditioned to pay affordable housing in-lieu fees per the inclusionary housing
ordinance which will be used toward the provision affordable housing.
9. "Policies and programs outlined in Local Coastal Program where applicable."
City Response:
The project is not within the Coastal Zone and is therefore not subject to the LCP.
Objective B.2 of the Residential Section of the General Plan Implementing Policies and
Action Programs reads as follows: "To preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of
existing residential areas."
City Response:
The proposed minor subdivision of a residential lot into two residential lots will preserve the
residential character of the existing residential neighborhood.
Page 4
2. Significant surface water impacts.
City Response:
City staff determined that the surface water impacts to neighboring properties due to MS 07-01
is less than significant. MS 07-01 proposed to maintain the rate of storm water run-off to
pre-development level at two discharge points (Holleran's Driveway and Highland Drive) as
shown on the Tentative Parcel map. Any increase in run-off will be detained on-site. MS 07-01
has been required to provide a final design of a drainage system consistent with the approved
tentative parcel map to the City Engineer's satisfaction. This requirement has been included in
MS 07-01 Conditions of Approval Letter.
Mr. Holleran's driveway was not constructed according to the City approved plan. The run-off
of the 100 year storm could overflow into the planter area even without the proposed
development, MS 07-01. Mr. Holleran has the responsibility to address the existing problem.
The solution could be as simple as providing acceptable BMP to prevent erosion (NPDES
requirement) and/or adding a berm along the edge of the driveway to contain the run-off within
the driveway. The pre-development and post development discharges for MS 07-01 shown on
the approved tentative map, and preliminary hydrology report indicate that MS 07-01 proposed
not to increase the amount of discharge as it enters Holleran's property. The final engineering
shall conform to the approved tentative map.
A concern was raised that Mr. Scott has not secured any drainage easement from
Mr. Holleran. The easement is not required. The surface run-off from the Scott's property
naturally flows onto Mr. Holleran's property. The natural drainage swale has been replaced by
the drainage system existing today when Mr. Holleran's lot was created under CT 89-14.
Pursuant to Drainage Law, Mr. Scott has the right to discharge surface water in a reasonable
manner and Mr. Holleran has the obligation the accept it. Mr. Scott is not proposing to increase
the amount and velocity of the run-off as it enters Mr. Holleran's property.
3. Visual impacts to neighboring properties:
City Response:
Building plans and elevations are not required for the review of a minor subdivision application.
Parcel B of MS 07-01 and all properties in the surrounding neighborhood are zoned R-1.
Any future home on Parcel B will be required to follow the zoning standards of the R-1 zone.
These standards include building height, setbacks, lot coverage, and parking. The proposed
project is not located within any scenic corridors. The applicant indicated on the site plan the
required setbacks for the proposed single-family residence on Parcel B. The 10 foot easterly
side yard setback provides adequate structure separation from the adjacent property.
4. Inappropriate application of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the project
should not have been determined categorically exempt.
City Response:
The project was found to be exempt per CEQA Guideline, Article 19, Categorical Exemptions,
Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions which reads as follows:
4
Page 5
Class 15 consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential,
commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance
with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and
access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in
a division of a larger parcel within two years, and the parcel does not have an average slope
greater than 20 percent."
The proposed project is the subdivision of land in an urbanized area, as defined in CEQA,
Zoned for residential use. The project is for a two lot subdivision where up to four may be
exempt. The project complies with General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Low-
Medium and meets the Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The
project complies with the Residential Single Family Zoning requirements and development
standards without the need for any variances or exceptions. All public services are available
to the subject site and access is available from Highland Drive. The subject site was not
involved in a subdivision within the last two years. The property does not have a slope greater
than 20 percent.
5. Non-compliance with City Subdivision Ordinance.
City Response:
MS 07-01 complies with the City of Carlsbad Municipal Title 20, section 24 and 28.
6. Violation of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit # 018758.
City Response:
The project complies with NPDES Permit # CAS 018758 and with the City of Carlsbad
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan dated April 2003, section II. The applicant
completed the City "Storm Water Requirements Applicability Checklist". Staff determined that
the project does not fall under the Category of "Priority Projects". Best Management Practices
(BMP's) such as bioswales have been incorporated in the preliminary grading plan to reduce
potential urban pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.
There are no construction related activities proposed for MS 07-01 at this stage of the project.
The stockpile pictures included in Mr. Holleran's appeal are not related to Mr. Scott's minor
subdivision. The stockpile pictures were taken from the property adjacent and south of Mr.
Scott, owned by Mr. Berger, who is currently building a home. There was a small temporary
stockpile on Mr. Scott's backyard when it was used as a temporary staging area during the
Storm Drain Installation in Highland Drive, a City Capital Improvement Project. Construction
BMP's such as silt fences and dust control measures were implemented during construction.
Staff determined that the proposed minor subdivision meets the requirements of Subdivision Map Act,
Carlsbad Municipal Code, City Engineering Standards and CEQA Guidelines No. 15315.
Page 6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The project is exempt per CEQA Section 15315. (See item 4 above).
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impacts are anticipated.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location map.
2. Appeal form received.
3. Preliminary approval letter dated July 16, 2007.
4. Final approval letter dated July 18, 2007.
5. Memo to Deputy City Engineer
6. Minutes of the June 18, 2007 meeting.
7. Approved Tentative Map MS 07-01.
8. City Approved Plan DWG 315-5.
9. Pictures of Existing Situation.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Tecla Levy, (760) 602-2733, tlevy@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
Chris Sexton (760) 602-4624 csexton@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
10. Letter dated September 10, 2007, from Will Holleran requesting postponment.
LOCATION MAP
SITE
NOT TO SCALE
VICINITY
MAP
NOT TO
SCALE
PROJECT NAME
SCOTT MINOR SUBDIVISION
PROJECT
NUMBER
MS07-01
EXHIBIT
1
DRAW BY: SCOTT EVANS, CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPT. 8/22/07 C: \DEVELOPUENT PROJECTS\US\US07-01.DWG
of Carlsbad
APPEAL FORM
1 (We) appeal the decision of the
to the Carlsbad City Council.
Date of Decision you are appealing:
Subject 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.
Reason(s) 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?
"SIGNATURE
tu.
PHONE NO.
NAME (please print)
-£7-
ADDRESS: Street Name .& Number
DATE City,Stats,Zip Code
120O Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO8-1989 - (619)434-2808
LAW OFFICES OF WESLEY W. PELTZER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Julv 30. 200?
Hand Delivered
Lorraine Wood
Carlsbad City Clerk
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad CA 92008
Re: Appeal of Decision Approving Lot Spill at 3320 Highland Drive, Carlsbad
CA;
MS-07-OI
Our File No. 2416.002
Dear Ms. Wood:
Our office represents Will and Mary Holleran who reside at 3311 James Drive.
Carlsbad California. We hereby appeal the decision of City staff approving the minor
subdivision at 3320 Highland Drive, M.S-07-01 (Scott Subdivision) and the City staffs
determination that the project is exempt from CEQA review in accordance with the minor
land division exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines §15315 (14 Cal. Code Regs.
§15315).
A field review completed by Piro Engineering indicates that six properties in the
project area, including the two homes proposed for the Scott subdivision and the
neighboring proposed Berger residence (205-060-07) currently contributes surface water
drainage to the flow down the Holleran's driveway. Calculations completed by Piro
Engineering indicate that this driveway as built can accommodate 4.07 cfs of surface
water. However, the combined surface water from all six properties including the two
proposed Scott homes and the adjoining Berger residence will result in 5.86 cfs of surface
flow during a 100 year storm thereby overflowing the driveway and flooding planter
boxes located on the Holleran property.
This situation is caused by the fact that the original builder did not construct the
Hollerans' driveway per the original plans. This condition is acknowledged in a July 3.
2007 drainage report prepared by Robert Sukup, the engineer for the Scott subdivision.
The original driveway plans called for a 20 foot wide driveway with a centerline swale
that was about 5 inches tower than the exterior sides of the drivewav. However, the
°1
Lorraine Wood
July 30, 2007
Page 2
builder did not build this driveway and instead opted for a narrower 17 foot wide
driveway with a centerline swale of a depth of only 2 inches instead of the 5 inches
originally shown on the plans. (Sukup Drainage Report July 3, 2007 p. 6). Both Robert
Sukup and Piro Engineering agree that this existing driveway will not handle the
projected 100 year rainstorm. In his July 3. 2007 report Mr. Sukup expressly states that:
""the existing driveway will not handle the projected 100 year rainstorm", Mr. Sukup
further notes that-in the event of a 100 year storm "the water would enter the side planters
of the driveway" located on the Holleran property. The owners of the Scott property
have not secured any easement from Mr. and Mrs, Holleran entitling them to drain water
onto the Holierans' planters or anywhere else on their property.
Fieldwork completed by Piro Engineering also indicates that a portion of the
Hollerans' planter area is Sower than their driveway which will cause this water to drain
to and Hood the Serab property north of the driveway,
A plan submitted for the Scott minor subdivision indicates one of the homes
proposed will consist of 2 stories constructed approximately 41 feet above existing
ground elevation. Given the City's setback requirement of ten (10) feet, this residence
can be constructed within ten feet of the boundary that separates the Scott property from
the Holleran property. As the attached report of Thure Stedt (an environmental planner)
indicates, this will result in significant visual impacts to the Holleran home. Other
neighbors in the area have also indicated that the two proposed homes will result in
significant visual impacts to their properties, (Copies of letters on these visual impacts are
attached).
The CEQA Guidelines recognize that "a categorical exemption shall not be used
for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a
significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances", (CEQA Guidelines
§15300.2(c}). It follows that where there is any reasonable possibility that a project or
activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption would be
improper. (Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 205-206; Banker's Hill,
HiUcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (2006) 139
Cal.App.4lh 249, 266), In Banker's Hill the Court held "We further conclude that it is
consistent with the policy behind CEQA to preclude an agency from relying on a
categorical exemption when there is a fair argument that a project will have a significant
effect on the environment". (Id p. 266). The court further held "that an agency must
apply a fair argument approach in determining whether, under Guidelines Section
15300.2(c), there is no reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment
due .to unusual circumstances''. (Id p. 264). This basic rule has been consistently
followed by the courts. (Infernational Longshoreman '$ & Wharehoitsemen "s Union,
Local 35 v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 265, 275; Dehne v. County of
Santa Clara (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 827, 842; City of Pasadena v. Stale (1993) 14
CaI.App.4th810! 824),
10
Lorraine Wood
July 30, 2007
Page 3
In addition, CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(b) recognizes that none of the categorical
exemptions apply when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in
the same place over time is significant. (East Peninsula Edc. Council, Inc. v. Paios
Verdea Peninsula Unified Sch. Dist. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 155 [failure to evaluate
cumulative impacts of other projects in the area compelled reversal of decision to close
the high school and transfer the students to other schools]).
In this ease, both engineering experts Robert Sukup and Gary Piro agree that the
existing driveway on the Holieran property will not handle the projected 100 year
rainstorm and the attached report of Piro Engineering documents significant drainage
impacts caused by the Scott minor subdivision in the area. The attached report of Thure
Stedt, an environmental planning expert, also documents that the proposed subdivision
will result in significant visual impacts to the Holieran property and other properties in
the area. These expert determinations and the attached reports foreclose the use of a
categorical exemption and require additional environmental review to adequately
evaluate the environmental impacts of the Scott minor subdivision and other development
in the area.
We are also very concerned about the fact that Mr. Scott has not secured any
easement from the Holleran's entitling him to drain any water from his property onto
their planter boxes or any other areas of the Holieran property. The general rule is that an
upper landowner has a natural easement or servitude which permits him to discharge
surface waters through the drainage mechanism of a natural swale, hollow or depression.
However, "this right is limited to disposition of the water through the chosen channels of
nature. He cannot increase the volume or velocity by collecting the water in pipes or
artificial ditches. If he does so to the damage of the lower landowner, he is liable to the
latter". (Sheffet r, County of Los Angeles (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 720, 730). "When any
person corporate or natural interferes with natural conditions and causes surface water to
be discharged upon the land of his neighbor in greater quantity or in a different manner
than would occur under natural conditions such injurious acts will be enjoined''. (LA.
Brick Etc. Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 478, 485). "It is a positive
interference with the owner's free enjoyment of his property wrongfully to divert
accumulated waters onto his land which would not naturally flow thereon". (Id p. 486).
Nothing in the original plans for this subdivision indicated that any upstream owners had
secured any easement to flow surface water over the planter boxes or any other portion of
the Holieran property.
We attach the following reports and letters with this appeal letter:
1. The Piro Engineering Report on surface drainage impacts; and
2. The Stedt Report on visual impacts: and
3. Letters from neighbors documenting visual impacts associated with the
proposed minor subdivision: and
II
Lorraine Wood
July 30, 2007
Page 4
4. A disc showing impacts to the Holleran home from former construction
activities undertakers for the project; and
5. Digital simulation of visual impacts; and
6. Pictures of view impacts.
For all of these reasons, we request that the City deny the project, We would be
happy to meet with City staff to discuss any of these issues.
Sincerely,
LAW1DFF1CES ESLE; Y W. PELTZER
Wesley W. PeStzer
Attorneys for Mr. and Mrs.'flolleran
WWP:pf
Enclosures
cc: Will and Mary Holleran (w/out end.)
H:\ClJENTS\HoHeramCofres pondenc«:i:CarisbadCi!>Cie .lr.&>c
CIVIL ENGINEERING, SURVEYING AND LAND PLANNING
930 BOARDWALK (SUITE D), SAN MARCOS, CALIF. 92078
Phone,' 744-3746 Ceil: (760) Fax; (760) 744-3750
Mr. Wesley Pelzer Date: July 30, 2007
Attorney at Law W.O.: 3099 (C)
751 Rancheros Drive, Suite 4
San Marcos, CA 92069
Re: Scott Drainage Design and Discharge Impacts (MS - 07-01)
Dear Mr, Pelzer,
Per the request of Mr, William Holieran, I have reviewed the drainage calculations prepared by
Bob Sukup dated Juiv 10,20U? tor MS-07-01, Based on my review of the data he has presented, as
well as my own an«!>sis and field survey of offsite conditions, it is any opinion that the proposed
project will have a .significant impact to drainage systems offsite to the and west which can not
adequately handle L c project drainage.
Offsite to the east. %*,„ have an "unusual"' circumstance of a drainage system which was not built to
pian which will result in oversow of the existing driveway, erosion along the "earthen"
planter/shoulders outside the driveway and overflow into an adjacent property.
Offsite to the west. \\e ha\e an "unusual" situation of a flat area of Highland Drive which cannot
handle drainage in this vicinit) due to its flat grade and lack of curb facilities. This project proposes
tu divert additional drainage to this area which will result in overburdening Highland Drive causing
drainage waters to flow outside the roadway into existing earthen shoulders.
Due to the lack of provision for erosive conditions outside of the driveway to the east and on
Highland Drive, it is also my opinion that the proposed does not sufficiently address the
requirements of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number
CASOI8758.
Unusual Conditions to the East:
According to Mr. Sukup's drainage calculations July 10, 2007, calculations prepared by my
office and & field survey of the existing driveway which serves the Hoileran property, the drainage
which ultimately flows to the Hoileran driveway comes from 6 properties (Assessor's Parcels 205-
060-4,5,6, 7, 72 and 73). Based on the data 1 have accumulated, the maximum drainage which
flows on to the existing driveway is 5.86 cubic feet \
The drainage system for Map 12888 prepared by Mr. Joseph Lukoski (R.C.E, 27542), had a
driveway design which was 20-feet wide and at a "5-inch" depth which was more than, adequate to
handle the drainage. t/afortuitatefy, the drainage system designed by Mr. Lukoski was NOT
constructed per The actually driveway was constructed only 17-feet wide and has a
maximum of 2 Inches. Per our field $mrveyed the maximum capacity of this
is 4.07 cubic feet per second.
Mr. Sukup indicates in his drainage study that the water will be handled by flowing over into the
"'side planters". It should be noted that these are primarily dirt with scattered shrubs planted,
and therefore waters flowing into these dirt shoulder areas will cause erosion on to James Drive
which is not accounted for and violates State Urban Runoff and erosion regulations.
i uithermore. we have performed a 'lleid survey" of the urheway area and have determined thai
there arc potions of the planter area north of the driveway which are lower than the delation of the
driveway, therefore ue believe that the ultimate drainage would flow over the driveway, over the
planter area to the nnrth and cause additional drainage-'flooding on to Assessor's Parcel Number
205-060-71.
Mr, Sukup"s new drainage report describes a "retention" system which would allow for drainage
waters in the proposed driveway via a 2-foot "gravel swale" in that driveway and a "sump area"
just to the west of the drainage outlet onto your property. We have several problems with this
design.
1, First, this "retention" area ONLY handles drainage waters in the driveway. The majority of
the drainage 5s within "pipes'* which do not go through this "retention" sump area
whatsoever.
2, Second, there are no calculations whatsoever regarding "detention analysis" to get the
drainage at the outlet down to the same "Q'! as pre-eonstraction.
3, Third, Mr. Sukup makes some references in his report thai the systems themselves will
"retain or detain" much of the water, but there are no calculations to support his contention
that this will reduce the at the outlet. Although reduced capacity inlets and pipes
have been proposed {with &~ inlet to 4" outlet at !%) they have the probability of becoming
clogged. The resulting drainage will then find a way to flow overland to the northeast
property corner thus circumventing the reduced capacity 4" drains.
in conclusion, with respect to Ihc outlet at yui/t property, Mr. Sukup is assuming (without am
calculations to support his assumption) that his system will 'Detain the water" within the rock
>wales, retention sump, and in undersized pipes and grates. The problem with this assumption is
that they are proposing a 5000 + square foot house which will sell for a minimum of $1.5 million,
and it has been our experience that the owners of "high end" properties will not want the
inconvenience of slow flowing drains and ponding on the site. They will simply "nil in" the grave!
swale, fill in the sump area and upsize all of the pipes causing increased drainage onto your
property. This is wh> most agencies require thai detention basins be designed "underground"1.
Unusual CotttKtians to the West:
In this direction, the City has recently constructed an 12-inch drainage pipe along Highland Drive,
however the capacity of this pipe is only 3.86 cubic feet per second, was NOT designed to
accommodate the drainage being diverted by the Scott project and does NOT provide drainage
inlets to accommodate the Scott project
Per Mr. Sukup's calculations, the area that drains to the west onto Highland Drive will be increased
by 0.3! cubic feet per second. This increase of drainage leaving the Scott property on the west by
70% is bad enough: we feel his calculations are "grossly" understated,
In reviewing the "after" condition of the easterly outlet whereby Mr. Sukup's calculations show a
drainage flow amount of 121 c.f.s, which is 3,84 CFS/acre of drainage, on the west the drainage
flow in the "after" condition is only 1,87 CFSY acre of drainage. In examining the calculations, this
is understated because Mr. Sukup has determined the front lot to be only 25% impervious,, whereas
it is in reality in excess of 50% impervious. Furthermore, he uses a "time of concentration" of 9
minutes when in fact it should be 5 minutes or less. By my preliminary calculations, the "after"
condition will not tie 70% higher than existing (as Mr. Sukup has calculated) but rather an increase
of 300% or more.
Looking at it 'logically" Mr. Sukup proposes to "divert" drainage which normally flows to the east,
to now go to the west. This will cause an increase of approximately 50% in drainage area flowing
west, plus increased runoff due to the construction of a new driveway,
The westerly direction is PARTICULARLY sensitive since a field examination of this area, the
topography map provided by Sukup, and the "200-scale" topographic map indicates that the entire
area in front of the Scott residence is very flat and waters currently pond immediately to the
NORTH. However Mr. Sukup has made no analysis whatsoever of how the "pre" and "post"
conditions will be addressed. Since this is an increase in drainage due to "diversion", it would
require a "waiver and release" from oifsite owners, primarily the owner of Assessor's Parcel
Number 205-060-05 where water appears to have ponded in the past The Scott project is adding
additional drainage Impacts and tm-mMgaMe stormwater and erosion pollutants which will pond
in Highland Drive,
As stated above the 12-inch pipe which appears solely to have been installed to remove a
ponding/flooding area on a property on the west side of Highland approximately 150-feet north of
the Scott project. Since the pipe is not of adequate size, and since it has no provision for inlets to
the Scott project, additional waters will pond to the existing graded earthen shoulders and cause
surface erosion.
Conclusion:
We understand that the City Engineering Department will review engineering calculations prior to
granting construction permits; however we do not believe that there is currently sufficient data to
determine if a system "can" be designed which would satisfy the drainage requirements due to
these unusual conditions which exist easterly and westerly of the project. Furthermore, the impacts
to surface storm water runoff and erosion appear to be "tion-mitigable.
We therefore believe a challenge could be to the CEQA finding of "urban exemption'' on
the basis of "inadequate drainage stormwater analysis".
Gary Pito, R.C.
Wes Pelteer
751 Rancheros Drive, Suite 4
San Marcos, CA, 92069
July 30, 2007
RE: Visual Impact Study of Minor Subdivision (MS) 07-01
iMroduction
This analysis was conducted at the request of Will Holteran to review the potential visual
impacts to his property, located at 3311 James Drive, in Carlsbad, California, from the
construction of a new residence immediately adjacent to his building on the westerly property
line. The project, a Minor Subdivision (MS) 07-01 with the City of Carlsbad, is owned by
Thomas L. and Jana L. Scott, Engineering plans for the proposed subdivision were provided by
The Sea Bright Company.
The current visual impacts analysis examines three building placements for the proposed
building and their associated impacts to the Holleran residence. The attached exhibit, "Exhibit -
Proposed Building Potential Impacts on Holleran Residence," was prepared to illustrate the
effects that each potential location of the proposed structure would have on the Holleran
property. Profile A shows the building location at the setback line at the side yard setback as
established by the City of Carlsbad, ten feet from the common property line. Profile B shows the
location if the building is built 2"> feet from the common property line. As conceptually depicted
on the plot plan for M.S 07-01, the proposed building height in Profiles A and B is 30 feet at the
pitch of the roof. Profile C shows the location of a split-level design at 27 feet from the common
property line (an identical location to Profile B). The first story would be located at the 27-foot
setback, with a 30-foot setback to the second level.
Wes Peltzer, Will Hollcran. Gary Piro
Visual Impact Study of Minor Subdivision (MS) 07-01
page 2
Discussion
Profile A
By right the Scotts are permitted to locate their building at a setback often feet from the common
property line. Therefore, Profile A on the enclosed exhibit shows the building location at that
setback line. The profile of the building shown in Profile A will almost completely block any
fight from the Holleran residence, Most of the use of the Holleran residence is located on the first
floor and the angle of light reaching the first 12 feet of the building will be severely diminished
as the azimuth of the sun passes westerly from a point directly above the property line. As it
passes Point A. light will begin to disappear quickly. Profile A presents the worst-case scenario
for the proposed building.
Profile B shows the conceptual structure for Minor Subdivision 07-01 as shown on plans
provided by The Sea Bright Company. This profile locates the proposed residence 2? feet from
the common property line, and will moderately improve the access to Sight for the Holleran
residence as compared with Profile A. The angle remains steep for any light passing through
Point 8, Light for the Holleran first floor remains restricted in the afternoon hours.
In the case of both Profiles A and B, the imposition of the proposed structure not only severely
restricts access to light, but presents a looming edifice at uncomfortable proximity to their living
space, blocking light and creating a claustrophobic environment for the Hollerans.
Profile C
As shown on the attached exhibit, the split-level design of the proposed Profile C has a first-story
aspect located at the 27-foot setback with the second story beginning 30 feet back from the first
setback, This split-level design significantly increases the Holleran residence's access to light as
well as reducing the imposition of the looming structure.
Conclusion
In our professional opinion, after sight-visits and analysis of potential impacts based upon the
profiles discussed above, we believe the proposal which would both address the Hollerans'
concern of loss of quality of life while providing the Thomases an opportunity to build a
significant home of 5,000 square feet or more, is the split-level design shown in Profile C. While
we understand that any structure on the Thomas property will have a visual effect, we believe
\\\-< I'elwcr, Will Hi'ik-r.in. Gary Piro
\ isual Impaci Study nf Minor Subdivision (MS) 07-01
page 3
that the effect is reduced to less than significant if either a private agreement between the
Hoilerans and the Thomases is achieved, or conditions imposed by the City of Carlsbad were to
require the Thomases to build according to Profile C.
Please feel free to contact my office at your convenience should you have any further questions
or comments.
Sincerely,
Thure R, Stedt
Principal, TRS Consultants
1
I!
Point A \ |jt
_X4iRoof Line ^>"H«
,,E*r««g Grade j * 3:12 P«* ^ j pM~
Padl73.i"~~"--~~L,! : IiXJ' "- -Bad 170.51 ™..^.^^i .r
Proposed Vteir"-'-5'*1 70-83 TW
Profile A • Proposed Building at S«
1
«M•is
f,'Points s|
/ 1/ OTi
X |
Roof Line "x*-- '- • 10'/Existing Grade at 3:12 Pitch -^ »«-"U.
"""*--•,,, ^ Proposed " 3%
~~~"~"~-~^, 1 Building i jPad 173.5 "~"--~— L s ' I1 '" |<j~--Hafl 1/0.6
Proposed wS^-'-
5'*1 70.83 TW
Profile 8 - Proposed Building at 27 feetfr
f
l|
Point c $;
Roof Line iSs^'-r-
at 3:12 Rich f x,\Split Leva) Pfoffe J~- .-,
/ Existing Grade I K" "\ t*iy-»/ '• I \ 27' <
I i Proposed ; 3%
---L, | SuiWing : "1Pad 173.5 I •*•-- -J, t 'I-" jxl- ~-Rad 170.5
5'*1T0.83TW
Profile C - Proposed Building - Split I
I
8 '' 11 205ly 02
Roof Line a!
/ /3:12pitori 195
L,J^"T~
J jff 185i i*~~ | |
j Existing WaM ^75
-| j-2.5' I Pad162.S 185
s
>tback Line
I
£»•' ^ SC ,C
x 1 205UJ 03
/ Roof Line as
/ /3:12pteh 195
J,,jf^"T~
Y 30' 185
•Existmg Wall 175
/ V*
_d -2.5 | Pad 162.5 -(65
om Property Line
t
8> I*- If
ua a
/ Roof Line a}
/ /' 3: 12 pitch 195
Z— *--s'T'rf
_ / 30' 185
(Existing Wa J •] 75
jj p-2.5' | pad 182.5 165
t
.evel Design
¥P1D ExWbit • Proposed Building Potential Impacts on HoHeran Residence
1 if U Scale: 1 " = 20' (Horte. and Vert.j
osNslf*if Prepared by TRS Consultants 7867 Convoy Court #31 2 San Diego, CA 821 1 1
July 30, 2007
TO WHOM: IT MAY CONCERN:
Subject: City of Carlsbad Notice of Approval of Tentative Parcel Map; Minor Subdivision NO,
MS 07-01, dated July 18, 2007
I responded to the subject planned redevelopment on Highland Avenue in a letter to the City
Engineer on June 26, 2007. I have yet to receive a response to the concerns expressed in that letter,
The subject plan, as currently approved, was implemented without seeking input on this proposed
subdivision from the surrounding neighbors and long-term residents of the community. The
objections raised in a meeting with the city on June 18, 2007 have not been adequately addressed,
yet the approval has been issued without further discussion. This plan (demolishing an existing
home on Highland Avenue, subdividing the property into three lots and erecting three extremely
large new houses,) permits a de facto redevelopment project to take place that significantly impacts
the nature and character of the neighborhood and degrades the quality of life for those of us on
adjacent properties.
Redevelopment is the correct word to use. In a long-established neighborhood, existing homes are
being torn down and replaced with very large houses. Contrary to the character of the neighborhood,
which was considered "unique" in the past, the residential density is now frequently being increased
by subdividing the existing lots. 1 currently have three, and potentially five, such houses being
planned or built immediately adjacent to my property. The lighting and visual and audible privacy
of my home will be degraded as a result. While not presently illegal, the construction of these
"McMansions" in existing neighborhoods has been the source of controversy and ill feeling when
residents of other local communities have felt damaged by such overcrowding. Certainly Carlsbad
can learn from the recent experience in Solana Beach and find a more open and mutually beneficial
wav of managing these changes.
Far more egregious than simple overdevelopment, however, is the demonstrated tendency on the part
of the city to allow developers to substantially increase lot elevations in order to offer expensive
"ocean view" homes where no such views exist naturally. As in the case of the first property
subdivided from this original lot, these enormous structures, now elevated on much smaller lots, will
loom high over their neighbors, dramatically altering the character and livahiiity of the
neighborhood. Without knowledge or consent, affected residents such as me can find their property
values diminished simply to provide more profit margin for the developers. The process of approval
for these elevation changes is essentially accomplished in secret, as it was in the development of the
first, parcel subdivided from this older property. The city's approvals are granted well in advance of
public notice of the building permits and de facto redevelopment has already been allowed to
progress on this property.
Page 2
No one denies Mr. Scott the right to develop his land. Some consideration of the impact of this
development on the existing residents would be appreciated, however. In my case, the size of the
planned structure (elevated above existing grade level) will destroy the privacy of my home. The
upper story windows w ill overlook the entirety of my now-private back yard and permit the curious
to look into the Jacux/i as well as my bedroom windows. Consideration of window placements and
tall plantmgs on Mr. Seott\ property could alleviate much of the problem,
1 would welcome an opportunity to discuss with the City of Carlsbad and with Mr. Scott how this
situation ipght be ixasonabK remedied for the benefit of all concerned.
Tred Bnggv
cc: W. Halleron
July 30, 2007
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Subject: City of Carlsbad Notice of Approval of Tentative Parcel Map; Minor Subdivision NO.
MS 07-01, dated July 18, 2007
I responded to the subject planned redevelopment on Highland Avenue in a letter to the City
Engineer on June 26, 2007. I have yet to receive a response to the concerns expressed in that letter.
The subject plan, as currently approved, was implemented without seeking input on this proposed
subdivision from the surrounding neighbors and long-term residents of the community. The
objections raised in a meeting with the city on June 18, 2007 have not been adequately addressed,
yet the approval has been issued without further discussion. This plan (demolishing an existing
home on Highland Avenue, subdividing the property into three lots and erecting three extremely
large new houses) permits a de facto redevelopment project to take place that significantly impacts
the nature and character of the neighborhood and degrades the quality of life for those of us on
adjacent properties.
Redevelopment is the correct word to use. In a long-established neighborhood, existing homes are
being torn down and replaced with very large houses. Contrary to the character of the neighborhood,
which was considered "unique" in the past, the residential density is now frequently being increased
by subdividing the existing lots. I currently have three, and potentially five, such houses being
planned or built immediately adjacent to my property. The lighting and visual and audible privacy
of my home will be degraded as a result. While not presently illegal, the construction of these
"McMansions" in existing neighborhoods has been the source of controversy and ill feeling when
residents of other local communities have felt damaged by such overcrowding. Certainly Carlsbad
can learn from the recent experience in Solana Beach and find a more open and mutually beneficial
way of managing these changes.
Far more egregious than simple overdevelopment, however, is the demonstrated tendency on the part
of the city to allow developers to substantially increase lot elevations in order to offer expensive
"ocean view" homes where no such views exist naturally. As in the case of the first property
subdivided from this original lot, these enormous structures, now elevated on much smaller lots, will
loom high over their neighbors, dramatically altering the character and livability of the
neighborhood. Without knowledge or consent, affected residents such as me can find their property
values diminished simply to provide more profit margin for the developers. The process of approval
for these elevation changes is essentially accomplished in secret, as it was in the development of the
first parcel subdivided from this older property. The city's approvals are granted well in advance of
public notice of the building permits and de facto redevelopment has already been allowed to
progress on this property.
Page 2
No one denies Mr. Scott the right to develop his land. Some consideration of the impact of this
development on the existing residents would be appreciated, however. In my case, the size of the
planned structure (elevated above existing grade level) will destroy the privacy of my home. The
upper story windows will overlook the entirety of my now-private back yard and permit the curious
to look into the Jacuzzi as well as my bedroom windows. Consideration of window placements and
tall plantings on Mr. Scott's property could alleviate much of the problem.
I would welcome an opportunity to discuss with the City of Carlsbad and with Mr. Scott how this
Situation might be reasonably remedied for the benefit of all concerned.
Fred Briggs
cc: W. Halleron
June 26,2007
1578 Basswood Avenue
Carlsbad CA 92008
Mr. John O'Donnell
Senior Civil Engineer
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad CA 92008
Dear Mr. O'Donnell;
On June 18,2007 I attended a public meeting in your office which was intended to discuss several
items related to a proposed property subdivision on Highland Avenue. After some reflection, there
are two issues I wish to bring to your attention:
• The manner in which the meeting was conducted gave the distinct impression of a close
alignment between the city and the developer's interests; and
• Redevelopment of established neighborhoods without seeking input from affected property
owners is very poor policy.
I have long experience managing contentious meetings. That meeting on the 18th was possibly the
most unbalanced process I have ever witnessed. Before the assembled six or seven concerned
residents, the city's engineer commenced a scheduled public comment session with this (slightly
paraphrased) statement: "I don't know why you people are here. The decision is already made. As
soon as I leave this meeting I am going to sign the approval papers."
This position was emphasized over and over again, without permitting anyone else to speak. Mr.
Will Halleron, resident of 3311 James Drive and the individual initially requesting the meeting, was
repeatedly and rudely interrupted as he and his hydrologist attempted to make a prepared
presentation of their findings. Mr. Halleron's cooler head ultimately prevailed, but the city's
intractability was clearly demonstrated. More than a lack of courtesy, this incident painted an ugly
picture of how the City of Carlsbad conducts development approvals.
Redevelopment is the correct word to use to describe what is happening around my home. In a long-
established neighborhood, existing homes are being torn down and replaced with very large houses.
Contrary to the character of the neighborhood, which was considered "unique" in the past, the
residential density is now frequently being increased by subdividing the existing lots. I currently
have three, and potentially five, such houses being planned or built immediately adjacent to my
property. The lighting and visual and audible privacy of my home will be degraded as a result.
While not presently illegal, the construction of these "McMansions" hi existing neighborhoods has
been the source of controversy and ill feeling when residents of other local communities have felt
damaged by such overcrowding. Certainly Carlsbad can learn from the recent experience in Solana
Beach and find a more open and mutually beneficial way of managing these changes.
Far more egregious than simple overdevelopment, however, is the demonstrated tendency on the part
of the city to allow developers to substantially increase lot elevations in order to offer expensive
page 1 of2
"ocean view" homes where no such views exist naturally. As in the case of the subject subdivision,
these enormous structures, now elevated on much smaller lots, loom over their neighbors, cutting off
sunlight and dramatically altering the character of the neighborhood. Without knowledge or
consent, affected residents such as me can find their property values diminished simply to provide
more profit margin for the developers. The process of approval for these elevation changes is
essentially accomplished in secret, as in this case. The city's approvals are granted well in advance
of public notice of the building permit and this instance would have gone unnoticed if not for Mr.
Halleron's intervention on the planned hydrology for the site.
I am disappointed — make that appalled - to find that the City Engineer's Office does not have the
responsibility to protect the interests of ALL of Carlsbad's residents. As your engineer so ably
pointed out, "Why are you here? The decision's already made."
1 would, however, welcome an opportunity to discuss with you how this situation might be
reasonably remedied for the benefit of all concerned.
Fred Briggs
cc: W. O'Halloran
Janice Thompson
3370 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
July 29, 2007
CITY OF CARLSBAD
To Whom it May Concern:
My name is Janice Thompson and I live at the above address. My letter is
concerning the subdivision of Tom Scott's property at 3320 Highland Drive.
This lot was part of the estate of Alta Ackerman. Alta also owned the
adjacent lot at 3340 Highland Drive, which is next to my property at 3370
Highland Drive. The owner, Richard Berger, an associate of Tom Scott and
Michael Haig, is presently developing his lot.
I have attended two meetings at Development Services regarding this
subdivision. Neighbors were notified in a letter dated March 22, 2007 and
after prodding the Development Services a meeting was held on April 12, 2007
to address concerns. I was not prepared for the arrogance and hostility shown
by staff to concerned neighbors. The staff provides a service to the public
and they need to be reminded of their manners and the reason that they are
there - to serve. A second meeting was held Monday, June 18, 2007, I was
notified late afternoon on Friday, June 15, 2007 of the meeting. I came away
from the meeting feeling let down by the City of Carlsbad. I feel very
unhappy about this subdivision, and what is being approved with no conditions.
Permission for three huge houses,elevated to astronomical heights to be built
on these two lots, a 41 foot wall to be built ten feet from a resident's
kitchen window. Has the City of Carlsbad done any comparison studies with
neighboring cities on mansionization? Olde Carlsbad is losing its charm and
character, what a loss to.the City of Carlsbad and visitors.
I have a. situation going on next to me, which may be twofold for the upcoming
development of this subdivision. Although my letter is directed to the
subdivision, what goes on the divided land is of great significance. In my
opinion, this should be required at the application for the subdivision - not
just a footprint of what's intended. Mr. Berger's setbacks are questionable,
a registered monument pin has been illegally removed, and he refuses to
remove obstruction from my wall and property to allow my surveyor to flag our
property line to assist the city in setback requirements. Why is he able to
do this? Is it because he and Scott gave the city contractor working on the
drainage requirements of this subdivision permission to stockpile mountains
of dirt on their property? Mr. Berger did get his utilities installed and
land graded, but what a price neighbors had to pay. Why are City employees
unable to monitor the permits they issue? Why are neighbors left to monitor
neighbors? Why does a resident have to get professional and legal counsel
over the City's inadequacies? I am very disappointed with my dealings with
the City of Carlsbad. I have so many questions and no answers. Where does
the buck stop?
Sincerely, Janice Thompson
June 17. 2007
John O'Donnell
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Minor Subdivision MS-07-01
Dear John O'Donnell:
I reside at 1 620 Saint James Court, which shares the corner with James Drive. It has
come to my attention that the subdivision MS-07-01 has plans for changing the natural
grade of the property in order to construct a two-story house. I have concerns about
raising the grade and creating muddier runoff to come down James Drive, having lived at
this address for the past 16 years and experiencing. Every year during the heaviest
rainstorms, the runoff from Valley Street and Highland Drive flood and backup at our
corner, leaving debris, mud and lots of oranges from local trees. This is unacceptable and
changing the natural grades nearby will just add more mud to an already existing
problem. I want it known that I am very against any plans that after the natural grade
which will create different runoff problems in order to pack more homes onto a smaller
lot area. That whole original lot would have been best served if split into two large lots
which would have avoided some of the upcoming problems instead of splitting h into
three lots. I should mention that the view we have from our second story windows is of
trees on the East Side of Highland Drive. Building a tall house on the proposed raised
grade will change this view to an unnatural one of a house above the James Drive homes.
Sincerely,
William A. Laird
1620 saint James Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-720-0664
Julv 30. 2007
Development Services
City of Carlsbad Public Works
1635 Faraday Ave
Carlsbad. CA 92008
To Whom It May Concern:
We've lived on Basswood Ave in Carlsbad for twenty-five years in an old established
neighborhood of Carlsbad. We're concerned about a newly proposed development on the
other side of our back fence and the affect it will have on us visually. Of particular
concern to us is the height of the house to be built on the east side of the Scott
subdivision. According to the subdivision map we received, it will be elevated above all
the other houses around it. This will create an eyesore in our neighborhood and take
away some privacy and enjoyment of our home.
This project requires special scrutiny and consideration. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerelv.
iris and Batty Kr/i/a
Sswxiod Ave.
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Minutes of June 18. 2007 Meeting for Scott Parcel Map MS 07-01
Subject: Scott Subdivision MS 07-01, Discuss Drainage Issues with Holleran's
Hydrologist
Time of meeting: 10:00 am-10:30 am
Subject: Scott Subdivision MS 07-01, Public Comments
Time of Meeting: 10:30 am-11:00am
Place of the Meeting: Room 120 Faraday Center, City of Carlsbad
Attendance: Michael Haig, prospective buyer of Parcel 2, MS07-01
Thomas Scott, owner
David Moore, Holleran's Lawyer
Will Holleran, neighbor
Fred Briggs, neighbor
Gary Piro, Holleran's hydrologist
Mary Holleran, neighbor
Tecla Levy, Associate Engineer
Bob Sukup, Mr. Scott's engineer
Craig Green, neighbor
Van Lynch, senior planner
Irene Strause, neighbor
Janice Thompson
Jonh O'Donnell
Chris Sexton, planner
Tecla Levy welcomed everyone and said that she would like to present a brief
history of the drainage situation in the area to give everybody a better
understanding and explain the city position on the issues raised. She opened a
City approved Dwg. No. 315-5 and asked Mr. Gary Piro if he had seen it before.
Gary Piro replied that he had not seen that plan before.
Tecla Lew posted the City approved plans Dwg No. 315-5 For CT 89-14 6, a-lot
subdivision on the board for everyone to see. She explained that this 6-lot
subdivision created four lots fronting James Drive and two flag lots at the back of
four lots. One of flag lots, lot 4 is Mr. Holleran's property, which is adjacent and to
the east of Mr. Scott's proposed Parcel Map MS 07-01.
She further explained that as shown on the approved plan, portions of Mr. Scott's
property and three other parcels fronting Highland Drive naturally drain towards
Mr. Hollerans property When the 6-lot subdivision per CT 89-14 was created, a
brow ditch that runs the western boundary of CT 89-14 was designed the capture
the ultimate run-off from Mr. Scotts property and three other parcels. The runoff
is then routed to into a 3' wide concrete across gutter in the middle of Mr.
Holleran's driveway and into James Drive. The total Q from the upper 4-parcels
that drains into Mr. Scott's Driveway is 4.2 CFS. 2.4 cfs comes from Mr. Scott's
and Mr. Berger's property.
Ms. Lew also presented Q calculations, using current hydrology manual and
using conservative assumptions: 48% impervious area, initial time of 5 minutes
and one minute travel time. She demonstrated that the resulting Q is less than
what was anticipated as shown on the approved CT 89-14 .
She said that there is no reason for the City to deny the lot split proposed by Mr.
Scott. She will recommend approval of the proposed 2-lot tentative parcel map
after Mr. Sukup complies with the remaining City comments. A more detailed
hydrology report will be reviewed when a final design is submitted to the
Engineering Department for review.
Mr. Gary Piro argued that the City approved plan is several years old and that the
hydrology should not be based upon old plans.
Ms. Lew responded by saying that the existing drainage system, the brow ditch
and Mr Holleran's driveway were designed per the approved plan to handle the
amount of water shown on this approved plan. Mr. Holleran has the obligation to
accept the same amount of water as what was anticipated and approved at the
time Mr. Holleran's lot was created. Unfortunately, Mr. Holleran's driveway, as it
exists now does not agree with the City approved plan and cannot handle the
100-year storm event.
Mr. And Mrs. Holleran and Mr. Moore. Holleran's lawyer asked to let Mr. Piro
finish talking.
Mr. Piro continued by saying that the pre-development versus post-development
should be reviewed in detail since there are existing problems at the two exit
points, at Mr. Holleran's driveway and at Highland Drive. Since Mr. Sukup's
hydrology report shows increases in run-off, on-site detention basin must be
designed.
Ms. Lew responded by saying that she already discussed the issue of increases
in run-off with Mr. Sukup, Scott's hydrologist and had already requested Mr.
Sukup to design on-site detention system in order to control run-off at the exit
point to maintain the pre-development run-off.
Mr. And Mrs. Holleran and Mr. Moore. Holleran's lawyer asked to let Mr. Piro
finish talking.
Mr. Scott said that he wants to listen to what Tecla had to say in response to
Gary Piro.
Mr. Piro continued by saying that there are existing drainage problems along
James Drive and along Highland Drive and Mr. Scots Driveway. Mr. Sukup's
hydrology did not include all drainage basins and did not address the existing
problems.
Ms. Levy asked Gary to show the map of the drainage basins to which he is
referring. According to Ms. Levy, she did not understand what other drainage
basins could possibly affect Mr. Scott's subdivision. She said that the topographic
contours show that there are no other drainage basins affecting the site in
question, except the ones already shown in Mr. Sukup's report.
Mr. Piro posted the Map on the board and pointed out the areas that have
existing problems.
Ms. Levy said the city is aware of the existing problems but it is not Mr. Scott's
responsibility to fix the existing problems if the post-development run-off is
reduced to the pre-existing level, he is not required to mitigate for any existing,
off-site problems. The engineer Bob Sukup is currently working on a detention
system.
Mr. Piro agreed concurred with Ms. Levy that if there are no increases in Q, then
Mr. Scott is not responsible for repairing the existing problem at Mr. Holleran's
driveway.
Mr. O'Donnell. senior engineer arrived.
Mr. Moore told him that Ms. Levy did not give Mr. Piro a chance to talk and has
already concluded that the minor subdivision is approved.
Ms. Lew explained to Mr. O'Donnell that she was simply presenting what was
acceptable to the City as discussed with Mr. O'Donnell earlier
Mr. O'Donnell said that according the City Attorney, Mr. Scott is allowed to
discharge up to 2.4 cfs, as shown on the approved plan CT 87-14 presented
earlier by Ms. Levy unless both private parties would agree to a compromised
solution.
Mr. Piro argued that the City Attorney maybe wrong in this case. Because of the
existing problem, Mr. Scott, cannot worsen the situation and Ms. Levy is in
agreement with Mr. Piro and that a detention system is necessary.
Ms. Lew said was not aware of the City Attorney's position earlier. She said the
new information could mean Mr. Scott do not need detention basin, since the
calculated post development run-off is less than 2.4 cfs.
Mr. Piro indicated that there is also an increase at the exit point at highland Drive.
Mr. Craig Arlene suggested that adding an inlet at a low point at Highland Drive
would solve the existing drainage problem at Highland Drive.
Mr. O'Donnell said he would look into the possibility of adding another inlet to the
proposed drainage system that has been awarded for construction.
Mr. O'Donnell asked for everyone's timeframe to resolve the hydrology issue.
Mr. Piro and Mr Sukup agreed that they will work together to come up with
compromised solution and asked for two weeks.
Mr. O'Donnell made it clear that there will be no follow-up meeting. City will
review the revised hydrology report and will then make its final decision. He also
made it clear that the project meets City requirements for tentative parcel map
approval and that any further drainage design details are final engineering
issues. The preliminary conditions is schedule to be sent on July 3. If drainage
engineers ( Mr. Sukup and Mr. Piro) decides to make changes, then they need to
do so by July 2 as agreed.
Mr. Holleran at this point wants to discuss the setback and height requirements.
He asked Mr. Scott to provide 35 feet setback and build one story house.
Mr.. Haig. prospective buyer of proposed parcel 2 disagreed. As shown on the
Parcel Map, the proposed structure is approximately 20 feet away from the
property line. The City requires 10 feet minimum setback. Mr. Holleran's house
sits six feet away from the property line. He asked why he should build his house
35 feet away?
Mr. Holleran responded: "because I ask you to". Nobody can prevent Mr. Scott
from building up to the 10 feet minimum setback requirement so Mr. Holleran is
requesting to add a condition on the map to increase the minimum. He said if
Mr. Haig will not agree, project will be delayed because they will appeal to the
City Council.
Mr. Haig. said offered to sell the lot to Mr. Holleran. He noted that if Holleran
purchased the lot, no one would build on it.
Mrs. Holleran we are simply asking for livable situation.
Mr. Haig said he couldn't decide on setback issue right now. He agreed to split
the pad into two levels pads. The pad adjacent to Mr. Hollerans will be 3 feet
lower.
Mr. Sukup. the engineer is expected to submit the revised drawing and revised
hydrology in two weeks. City will then make its final decision on the parcel map.
City of Carlsbad
Public Works
July 16,2007
Thomas L. Scott
5138DeIaneyCt.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
MS 07-01: 3320 HIGHLAND DRIVE
The City Engineer has made a preliminary decision 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.
NOTE: 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 parcel map.
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. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the tentative
parcel map and a digital copy of said map (in AutoCAD format, latest version) reflecting the
conditions approved by the final decision making body and 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,
parcel map, improvement or grading plans, whichever occurs first. The digital file copy shall be
submitted in a format as approved by the City Engineer.
3. 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 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.
4. There shall be one Parcel Map recorded for this project.
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2730 • FAX (760) 602-8562
MS 07-01: 3320 Highland Ave.
July 16,2007
Fees/Agreements
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 and/or 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.
8. Developer shall cause property owner to enter into a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement
with the City on a City Standard form for the future public improvement of Highland Avenue
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, medians, grading,
clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, street
lights.
Grading
9. 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.
10. Developer shall provide the design of proposed drainage system shown on the Tentative Parcel
Map in accordance with City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
11. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the City's SUSMP. 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.
Page: 2
MS 07-01: 3320 Highland Ave,
July 16,2007
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when
planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
Dedications/Improvements
12. Prior to issuance of building permits, grading permit or parcel map approval, whichever occurs
first, Developer shall enter into a City standard Local Improvement District Agreement to pay fair
share contributions for undergrounding of all existing overhead utilities and installation of street
lights, as needed, along the subdivision frontage, should a future district be formed.
Parcel Map Notes
Add the following notes to the parcel map as non-mapping data.
13. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate
agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available.
14. 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.
15. 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
diversion of waters, the alteration of the normal flow of surface waters or drainage, or the
concentration of surface waters or drainage from the drainage system or other improvements
identified in the City approved development plans; or by the design, construction or maintenance
of the drainage system or other improvements identified in the City approved development plans.
Fire
16. Developer shall install combination of fire and domestic service for Parcels B to accommodate
the required automatic fire sprinkler system to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall.
Utilities
21. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for
connection to public facilities.
22. The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at a location approved by the
District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
23. The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the District
Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans.
Code Reminder
Page: 3
MS 07-01: 3320 Highland Ave.
July 16,2007
A. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time the grading or building permit is issued.
B. The Tentative Parcel Map shall expire two years from the date of the approval letter
B. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on the
Tentative Map are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer
impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code,
respectively.
Developer may request a review of the preliminary decision with the City Engineer in writing within ten
(10) days of the date of this letter. Upon such written request the City Engineer shall arrange a time and
place with Developer for such review.
The City Engineer has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on 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 question, please contact Tecla Levy at (760) 602-2733.
Sincerely,
David A. Hauser
Deputy City Engineer
File
John O'Donnell, Senior Civil Engineer
Tecia Levy, Associate Engineer
Page: 4
City of Carlsbad
Public Works
July 18, 2007
Thomas L. Scott
5138DelaneyCt.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. MS 07-01
Whereas no review of the conditions of the letter of preliminary approval was requested
by the appropriate date; and whereas the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1973
relating to the subject proposed parcel map have been examined by the Planning
Director and declared to have a non-significant impact upon the environment; and
whereas negative findings delineated by Section 20.24.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal.
Code have not been made; and whereas this minor subdivision is found to be in
conformity with the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad; therefore, a final decision has
been made to approve the subject tentative parcel map subject to the conditions set
forth in the preliminary approval letter.
David A. Hauser
Deputy City Engineer
c: File
Management Analyst, Development Services
• Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2730 • FAX (760) 602-8562
City of Carlsbad
Engineering Development Services
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 16, 2007
TO: DAVID MAUSER, DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER
FROM: TECLA LEVY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
SUBJECT: MS 07-01 - SCOTT MINOR SUBDIVISION
An application for a Minor Subdivision was submitted on January 24, 2007 by Mr. Thomas
Scott. The proposed project is to subdivide a 0.634-acre parcel located on 3320 Highland
Drive into two residential lots consisting of: Parcel A, (12,506, sq. ft.) and Parcel B, (15,134
sq. ft.). The Land Use designation of the area under Carlsbad General Plan is RLM (low-
medium residential) with allowed maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre. The
proposed density is 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Both parcels meet the 10,000 sq. ft.
minimum lot size requirement for the existing R-1-10000 zoning.
Staff determined that the proposed minor subdivision meets the requirements of
Subdivision Map Act, Carlsbad Municipal Code, City Engineering Standards and CEQA
Guidelines No. 15315.
A continuing issue of concern raised by the adjacent property owner, Mr. William Holleran,
regards the drainage flowing off the proposed Scott subdivision. All of the storm water run-
off from the proposed Parcel A drains to the west onto Highland Drive. A small portion of
Parcel B drains west onto Highland Drive; however, the majority of the run-off from Parcel
B drains to the east emptying into an existing concrete brow ditch located offsite on the
adjacent property owned by Mr. William Holleran I. The existing drainage ditch flows south
to north along the westerly edge of the Holleran property and discharges onto a common
driveway owned by Mr. Holleran and his neighbors, Mr and Mrs. Serab. From there, the
drainage flows down the driveway discharging onto James Drive. The driveway is designed
with a center depression to contain drainge flows.
Mr. Holleran's property is part of a 6-lot major subdivision, known as CT 85-14, located
downstream and adjacent to Mr. Scott's proposed subdivision. The drainage facilities
described in the paragraph above are part of the drainage system designed for CT 85-14,
by a private engineer working on behalf of the subdivider and approved by the City in 1991
per DWG No. 315-5. The existing drainage system, including Mr. Holleran's driveway was
designed to handle the 100-year flows resulting from the ultimate development of all
upstream properties, including that originating from Mr. Scott's property.
It should be noted that, for unknown reasons, the Holleran/Serab driveway was constructed
three feet narrower and three inches shallower than called for on the City approved plans.
This unapproved construction change resulted in a reduction in the drainage carrying
capacity of the driveway. The existing driveway configuration cannot contain the 100-year
storm flows that were projected to occur at the time the facilities were constructed in 1991.
MS 07-01 Scott Minor Subdivision- 2
August 16,2007
Page 2 of 5
During the processing of the tentative parcel map for the Scott Minor Subdivision, staff
extended every opportunity for the adjacent property owners to be heard on the tentative
parcel map in accordance with Section 20.24 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Staff hosted
not one but two property owner meetings at which all concerned property owners were
invited to attend. Additionally, staff talked by phone or in person on numerous occasions
with concerned property owners, including Mr. Holleran. The following is a brief summary
of the sequence of written communications and activities relating to the processing of the
Scott Tentative Parcel Map with specific reference to the public review opportunities:
On January 24, 2007, Mr. Thomas Scott submitted an application for a minor subdivision of
his property, identified as Scott TPM (MS 07-01). The application included a standard
Statement of Agreement agreeing to extend the mandated 50-day processing time up to 1-
year. The agreement was required to allow for the concurrent processing of associated
Planning Application submittals.
On February 9, 2007, City notified applicant, Mr. Scott, that the application was incomplete
On March 22, 2207, application was deemed complete and public notices were mailed to
homeowners within the 300 foot radius of the project.
By letter dated March 31, 2007, Ms. Janice Thompson expressed concerns regarding the
project and requested response from the City.
By letter dated March 30, 2007, Mr. Holleran requesting to be heard on the proposed Scott
TPM.
By letter dated April 11, David R. Moore, an attorney representing Mr. And Mrs. Holleran,
stated that he was represnting the Hollerans and expressed several concerns regarding
the proposed Scott subdivision.
On April 12, 2007, a property owner meeting was held in the Library at the Faraday Center,
in City of Carlsbad. A copy of the meeting minutes and attendees list is attached.The
comments received from the public at the meeting are summarized below together with the
staff responses:
a. A concern that there would be an increase in the amount of storm water run-
off into the existing brow ditch and Mr. Holleran's driveway.
City Response:
The project proposed to maintain the rate of storm water run-off to the pre-
development level at exit points as shown on the tentative map and demonstrated
in the preliminary hydrology report prepared by a licensed civil engineer. Any
increase in run-off will be detained on-site.
b. A concern that the preliminary hydrology calculations did not account for
potential future additional impervious area.
City Response
The grading plan is preliminary. At this stage there is no building plan to determine
the actual impervious area. The preliminary report is in accordance with the San
Diego County hydrology manual. A final hydrology report will be required during
grading and building permit approval process.
c. A concern about an existing drainage problem on Highland drive.
MS 07-01 Scott Minor Subdivision- 3
August 16,2007
Page 3 of 5
City Response
The concerned neighbors were informed that the City was addressing the existing
storm drainage problems on Highland Drive. In July, 2007 the City completed a
new storm drain system on Highland Drive.
d. A concern that the proposed development will block the sunlight and air
circulation to the home of Mr. Holleran.
City Response
The set back and building height requirements of the Code will provide for adequate
light and air circulation. The project complies with Carlsbad Municipal Code, section
21.10.05, (30 feet max. building height), section 21.10.06, (20 feet minimum front
yard setback), section 21.10.07 (10 feet minimum side yard setback), and section
21.10.08 (placement of buildings).
e. A concern that development of Mr. Scott's property will have a significant
visual impact to the neighboring properties.
City Response
The proposed project is consistent with the developments in the neighborhood. The
City does not have a view ordinance.
f. A concern that the proposed development could increase fire hazards.
City Response
Fire Department determined that the future building structure will be required to be
equipped with a fire sprinkler system. The requirement is included in the conditions
of approval.
g. A concern that local public schools are at full capacity.
City Response
Carlsbad Unified District has reviewed the project. The project will be required to
pay a statutory fee to mitigate school impacts.
h. A concern regarding increase in traffic and impact to existing roads.
City Response
The project is creating additional of 10 ADT. Impact is insignificant. Highland Drive
is classified as an alternative street design. The owner of the project is required to
enter into Neighborhood Improvement Agreement with the City for future road
improvement.
Mr. Holleran, requested a revised hydrology report (with a greater impervious area
assumption), a revised preliminary grading plan to show a one story house, a lower
building pad and an increase in the building setback from 10 feet to 30 feet.
Mr. Scott did not agree to the 30 foot setback but agreed to consider splitting the
pad into two, and lowering the pad adjacent to the property of Mr. Holleran by 3
feet.
Mr. Scott's engineer agreed to revisit the hydrology report as requested by Mr.
Holleran.
By letter dated April 17, 2007, Senior Civil Engineer, John O'Donnell, responded to Mr.
MS 07-01 Scott Minor Subdivision- 4
August 16,2007
Page 4 of 5
Moore's letter dated April 11, 2007.
By letter dated April 19, 2007, Mr. Bryan Gunner expressed concerns regarding the Scott
subdivision relating to drainage issues and intrusiveness of the project.
By letter dated April 26, 2007, Mr. Moore expressed continuing concerns regarding the
drainage and building and grading setbacks for the proposed Scott Subdivision.
By letter dated May 4, 2007, Mr. O'Donnell responded to the concerns noted in Mr. Moore's
letter dated April 26, 2007.
On May 10, 2007, the applicant submitted the revised plan and revised hydrology report as
agreed to at the meeting of April 12. Mr. Holleran obtained copies of the revised
documents the following day. He requested additional time for his hydrologist to review the
revised hydrology report.
On May 14, 2007, Mr. Holleran requested a meeting with the City staff and the consulting
hydrologists hired by Mr. Scott and Mr. Holleran, Mr. Holleran, his neighbors, and Mr.
Scott. In response to the request of Mr. Holleran, City staff scheduled two meetings, a
meeting with Mr. Holleran and his consultants and an additional propery owners meeting.
The two meetings were scheduled for consecutive time slots on May 18, 2007. The first
meeting was scheduled to provide technical discussion with Mr. Holleran, Mr. Scott and
their respective consultant hydrologist. The second meeting was scheduled to allow Mr.
Scott's neighbors to be heard on any continuing or new neighborhood concerns.
On May 18, 2007, the City hosted two first of the two scheduled meetings at the Faraday
Center. However due to some misunderstanding, the other neighbors showed up at the
first meeting resulting in a single combined meeting. Due to various factors, the meeting
became a bit contentious and resulted in some frustration on the part of some of the
attendees. A copy of the meeting minutes and attendee list is attached. The following is a
brief summary of the matters discussed at the meeting:
City Staff began the first meeting by explaining to Mr. Holleran and his hydrologist that
the post development run-off rate from Parcel B of Mr. Scott's property, approximately
1.99 cfs, is less than the 2.4 cfs anticipated in the previously approved CT 89-14
hydrology report.
Mr Scott's hydrologist indicated in his revised hydrology report that Mr. Holleran's
existing driveway was not built according to the approved plan (CT 89-14 DWG 315-5).
Mr. Holleran's existing driveway is 17 feet wide with a 2" deep concrete gutter instead of
20 feet driveway with 5" deep gutter as required in the plan approved in 1991. As a
result, during 100 year storm event, the storm water could overflow into the planter area
along the driveway, even without Mr. Scott's proposed development. Below is the
summary of driveway flows during 100-year storm event (Q100):
Driveway Total Capacity if built per approved plan DWG 315-5: Q = 15 cfs
Exisitng Driveway Capacity: Q(100) = 4. 07 cfs
Exisitng Driveway Q100 (Without Mr. Scott's Development) = 5.18 cfs
Existing Driveway Q100 (With Mr. Scott's Development):
Mr. Scott's hydrologist calc: Q100 = 5.77 cfs
Mr. Holleran's hydrologist calc: Q100 = 5.86 cfs
Anticipated Q 100 per approved City DWG No. 315-5 (Tract No. 89-14):
Q100 = 6.07 cfs
Both Mr. Piro and Mr. Sukup hydrology calculations for post development Q is less than
MS 07-01 Scott Minor Subdivision- 5
August 16,2007
Page 5 of 5
the anticipated Q per City approved plan.
Despite the fact that Mr. Scott's post development Q is less than what was previously
approved, Mr. Scott agreed to include a detention basin within his property to maintain
the flow from his property to the existing pre-development flows.
Staff requested that Mr. Scott include a detention basin within his property to maintain
the flow from his property to the existing volume. Mr. Holleran's hydrologist agreed to
this addition.
Mr. Holleran repeated the height and setback issues that were discussed at the earlier
(April 12th) meeting with staff. The same responses were provided by staff.
One of the neighbors indicated that the new storm drain system being installed by the
City on Highland Drive does not completely address their drainage concerns. The
neighbor requested that the City install additional inlet at one low point at Highland
Drive. In response, the City completed installation of the additional inlet as requested.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Scott agreed to split the pad and lower the pad
adjacent to Mr. Hollerans' property by 3 feet. Mr. Scott would not agree to the setback
requested by Mr. Holleran. Mr. Scott agreed to resubmit the revised plans to include the
detention basin and split pad by July 2, 2007. The revised plans were submitted on July
2, 2007. Mr. Holleran's hydrologist reviewed the report and did not provide comments.
By letter dated June 26, 2007, Mr. Fred Briggs expressed his concern regarding the
manner in which the May 18th meeting was conducted and the City policies with regard to
the 'redevelopment' of established neighborhoods.
By letter dated June 27, 2007, Mr. Moore expressed continuing concerns regarding the
drainage, setback and grading issues and requested additional opportunity for public
comment prior to the City making a final decision on the subdivision application.
On July 16, 2007, preliminary approval letter was sent to the applicant.
On July 18, 2007 the approval letter was sent to the applicant and a Notice of Approval of
Tentative Parcel Map for Minor Subdivision No. MS 07-01 was sent to the surrounding
property owners.
An appeal was received from Mr. Holleran on July 30, 2007.
Please let me know if you wish to discuss this further. Thanks.
John O'Donnell, Senior Civil Engineer
Ron Kemp, City Attorney
MS o7-oi
June 18, 2007 Meeting Minutes
Minutes of June 18. 2007 Meeting for Scott Minor Subdivision MS 07-01
Subject: Scott Subdivision MS 07-01, Discuss Drainage Issues with Holleran's
Hydrologist
Time of meeting: 10:00 am-10:30 am
Subject: Scott Subdivision MS 07-01, Public Comments
Time of Meeting: 10:30 am-11:00am
Place of the Meeting: Room 120 Faraday Center, City of Carlsbad
Attendance: Michael Haig, prospective buyer of Parcel 2, MS07-01
Thomas Scott, owner
David Moore, Holleran's Lawyer
Will Holleran, neighbor
Fred Briggs, neighbor
Gary Piro, Holleran's hydrologist
Mary Holleran, neighbor
Tecla Levy, Associate Engineer
Bob Sukup, Mr. Scott's engineer
Craig Green, neighbor
Van Lynch, senior planner
Irene Strause, neighbor
Janice Thompson
Jonh O'Donnell
Chris Sexton, planner
Tecla Levy welcomed everyone and said that she would like to present a brief history of
the drainage situation in the area to give everybody a better understanding and explain
the city position on the issues raised. She opened a City approved Dwg. No. 315-5 and
asked Mr. Gary Piro if he had seen it before.
Gary Piro replied that he had not seen that plan before.
Tecia Levy posted the City approved plans Dwg No. 315-5 For CT 89-14 6, a-lot
subdivision on the board for everyone to see. She explained that this 6-lot subdivision
created four lots fronting James Drive and two flag lots at the back of four lots. One of
flag lots, lot 4 is Mr. Holleran's property, which is adjacent and to the east of Mr. Scott's
proposed Parcel Map MS 07-01.
She further explained that as shown on the approved plan, portions of Mr. Scott's
property and three other parcels fronting Highland Drive naturally drain towards Mr.
Hollerans property When the 6-lot subdivision per CT 89-14 was created, a brow ditch
that runs the western boundary of CT 89-14 was designed the capture the ultimate run-
off from Mr. Scotts property and three other parcels. The runoff is then routed to into a 3'
wide concrete across gutter in the middle of Mr. Holleran's driveway and into James
Drive. The total Q from the upper 4-parcels that drains into Mr. Scott's Driveway is 4.2
CFS. 2.4 cfs comes from Mr. Scott's and Mr. Berger's property.
MS 07-01 2
June 18,2007 Meeting Minutes
Ms. Levy also presented Q calculations, using current hydrology manual and using
conservative assumptions: 48% impervious area, initial time of 5 minutes and one
minute travel time. She demonstrated that the resulting Q is less than what was
anticipated as shown on the approved CT 89-14 .
She said that there is no reason for the City to deny the lot split proposed by Mr. Scott.
She will recommend approval of the proposed 2-lot tentative parcel map after Mr. Sukup
complies with the remaining City comments. A more detailed hydrology report will be
reviewed when a final design is submitted to the Engineering Department for review.
Mr. Gary Piro argued that the City approved plan is several years old and that the
hydrology should not be based upon old plans.
Ms. Lew responded by saying that the existing drainage system, the brow ditch and Mr
Holleran's driveway were designed per the approved plan to handle the amount of water
shown on this approved plan. Mr. Holleran has the obligation to accept the same amount
of water as what was anticipated and approved at the time Mr. Holleran's lot was
created. Unfortunately, Mr. Holleran's driveway, as it exists now does not agree with the
City approved plan and cannot handle the 100-year storm event.
Mr. And Mrs. Holleran and Mr. Moore. Holleran's lawyer asked to let Mr. Piro finish
talking.
Mr. Piro continued by saying that the pre-development versus post-development should
be reviewed in detail since there are existing problems at the two exit points, at Mr.
Holleran's driveway and at Highland Drive. Since Mr. Sukup's hydrology report shows
increases in run-off, on-site detention basin must be designed.
Ms. Lew responded by saying that she already discussed the issue of increases in run-
off with Mr. Sukup, Scott's hydrologist and had already requested Mr. Sukup to design
on-site detention system in order to control run-off at the exit point to maintain the pre-
development run-off.
Mr. And Mrs. Holleran and Mr. Moore. Holleran's lawyer asked to let Mr. Piro finish
talking.
Mr. Scott said that he wants to listen to what Tecla had to say .in response to Gary Piro.
Mr. Piro continued by saying that there are existing drainage problems along James
Drive and along Highland Drive and Mr. Scots Driveway. Mr. Sukup's hydrology did not
include all drainage basins and did not address the existing problems.
Ms. Levy asked Gary to show the map of the drainage basins to which he is referring.
According to Ms. Levy, she did not understand what other drainage basins could
possibly affect Mr. Scott's subdivision. She said that the topographic contours show that
there are no other drainage basins affecting the site in question, except the ones already
shown in Mr. Sukup's report.
Mr. Piro posted the Map on the .board and pointed out the areas that have existing
problems.
MS 07-01 3
June 18, 2007 Meeting Minutes
Ms. Levy said the city is aware of the existing problems but it is not Mr. Scott's
responsibility to fix the existing problems if the post-development run-off is reduced to
the pre-existing level, he is not required to mitigate for any existing, off-site problems.
The engineer Bob Sukup is currently working on a detention system.
Mr. Piro agreed concurred with Ms. Levy that if there are no increases in Q, then Mr.
Scott is not responsible for repairing the existing problem at Mr. Holleran's driveway.
Mr. O'Donnell. senior engineer arrived.
Mr. Moore told him that Ms. Levy did not give Mr. Piro a chance to talk and has already
concluded that the minor subdivision is approved.
Ms. Levy explained to Mr. O'Donnell that she was simply presenting what was
acceptable to the City as discussed with Mr. O'Donnell earlier
Mr. O'Donnell said that according the City Attorney, Mr. Scott is allowed to discharge up
to 2.4 cfs, as shown on the approved plan CT 87-14 presented earlier by Ms. Levy
unless both private parties would agree to a compromised solution.
Mr. Piro argued that the City Attorney maybe wrong in this case. Because of the existing
problem, Mr. Scott, cannot worsen the situation and Ms. Levy is in agreement with Mr.
Piro and that a detention system is necessary.
Ms. Levy said was not aware of the City Attorney's position earlier. She said the new
information could mean Mr. Scott do not need detention basin, since the calculated post
development run-off is less than 2.4 cfs.
Mr. Piro indicated that there is also an increase at the exit point at highland Drive.
Mr. Craig Green suggested that adding an inlet at a low point at Highland Drive would
solve the existing drainage problem at Highland Drive.
Mr. O'Donnell said he would look into the possibility of adding another inlet to the
proposed drainage system that has been awarded for construction.
Mr. O'Donnell asked for everyone's timeframe to resolve the hydrology issue.
Mr. Piro and Mr Sukup agreed that they will work together to come up with compromised
solution and asked for two weeks.
Mr. O'Donnell made it clear that there will be no follow-up meeting. City will review the
revised hydrology report and will then make its final decision. He also made it clear that
the project meets City requirements for tentative parcel map approval and that any
further drainage design details are final engineering issues. The preliminary conditions is
schedule to be sent on July 3. If drainage engineers ( Mr. Sukup and Mr. Piro) decides to
make changes, then they need to do so by July 2 as agreed.
Mr. Holleran at this point wants to discuss the setback and height requirements. He
asked Mr. Scott to provide 35 feet setback and build one story house.
MS 07-01 4
June 18, 2007 Meeting Minutes
Mr., Haig. prospective buyer of proposed parcel 2 disagreed. As shown on the Parcel
Map, the proposed structure is approximately 20 feet away from the property line. The
City requires 10 feet minimum setback. Mr. Holleran's house sits six feet away from the
property line. He asked why he should build his house 35 feet away?
Mr. Holleran responded: "because I ask you to". Mr. Holleran said that nobody can
prevent Mr. Scott from building up to the 10 feet minimum setback requirement. He
requested to add a condition on the map to increase the minimum requirement to from
10 feet to 30 feet. He said if Mr. Scott will not agree, the project will be delayed because
they will appeal to the City Council.
Mr. Haig. offered to sell the lot to Mr. Holleran. He noted that if Holleran purchased the
lot, no one would build on it.
Mrs. Holleran said that they are simply asking for a livable situation.
Mr. Scott and Mr. Haig did not decide on setback issue. They needed more time to think
about it. He agreed to split the pad into two levels pads and lower the pad adjacent to
Mr. Hollerans by 3 feet.
Mr. Sukup, the engineer is expected to submit the revised drawing showing the split pad
and detention basin and revised hydrology within the next two weeks. City will then
make its final decision on the parcel map.
<s£t'%'T7
§
September 10, 2007
Mr. Ray Patchett
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Scott Minor Subdivision Case File MS-07-01
Dear Mr. Patchett:
I just received notice advising me that the City Council is scheduled to consider my
appeal of the above-referenced subdivision on 9/18/07. I'm writing to ask for a
postponement as I will be out of the country on that date. I respectfully request that it be
rescheduled for October 9th. Please let me know as soon as possible. Thank you in
advance for your understanding.
leran
Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SEP 1 1 2007
CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Oct 05 07 01:59p M. B. Holleran, Per. Asst 760-434-7349 P-2
October 5, 2007 OCT -5 2007
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Q <L
AGENDA ITEM*.
cs Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
IO
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive w"~ •;; •
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
Re: Agenda Item AB# 19,172
MS 07-01 (Thomas Scott)
Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members:
Will and I are grateful for the time you are taking to listen to and consider our appeal of
MS07-01. In an effort to provide you with complete information and assist you in
evaluating the issues we've enclosed the following additional items:
Digital simulation of planned development from our perspective - 5 copies
California Environmental Quality Act
Article 19ofCEQA
Drainage Reports for the properties to be developed
Excerpts from City Final Report dtd 2/23/2000.
Maps showing Scott plan for development and drainage calculations
Resume of our hydrologist
Copy of our letter to you dtd. 9/18/07.
In an effort to keep our focus on the important issues of drainage and environmental
impact we've only included a sampling of our emails to Tom Scott attempting to solve
the dilemma. We think you'll find all these documents illustrate the unusual
circumstances related to the proposed Scott subdivision. Again, we are asking for a
reasonable plan for redevelopment of the Highland property that minimizes the injury to
our home and others in the neighborhood.
Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Mary B. Holleran
PRACTICE UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
Authors
Stephen L. Kosclca
Michael H. Zischke
Edited by CEB Attorneys
Craig H. Scott
Project Supervisor
Mary Gerber
October 2006 Update
Authors
Stephen L. Kostka
Michael H. Zischke
Project Managers
Nancy A. Black
Ann H. Davis
CEB Publications Attorneys
CONTINUING EDUCATION "OF THE BAR • CALIFORNIA
Oakland, California
For update information call 1-600*232-3444
Website: ceb.com RE-32062
§5.54 Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act • 246
• Projects thai may cause a substantial adverse change in the sig-
nificance of an historical resource as specified by Pub Res C
§21084.1. Pub Res C §21084(e); 14 Ca! Code Regs §15300.2(0-
§5.54 C. General Exceptions to Exemptions
The categorical exemptions are not absolute. Although a project
might otherwise be eligible for a categorical exemption, an exemption
must be denied if one of the following exceptions applies:
(1) There is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on
the environment due to unusual circumstances (14 Cal Code Regs
§15300.2(c); see §5.55);
(2) Significant cumulative impacts from projects of the same type
will result (14 Cal Code Regs §15300.2(b); see §5.56); or
(3) With respect to five classes of projects, the project will have
impacts on a uniquely sensitive environment (14 Cal Code Regs
§15300.2(a); see §5.57).
When an agency finds that a proposed project is subject to a
categorical exemption, it is not required to also determine that none
of the exceptions applies. A determination that an activity is categori-
cally exempt constitutes an implied finding that none of the excep-
tions to the exemptions exists. Association for Protection of Envt'l
Values v City of Ukiah (1991) 2 CA4th 720, 731, 3 CR2d 488;
Centinela Hasp. Ass'n \> City oflnglewood (1990) 225 CA3d 1586,
1599, 275 CR 901; Lewis v Seventeenth Dist. Agric. Ass'n (1985)
165 CA3d 823, 828, 211 CR 884. At the administrative level, the
objecting party has the burden of producing evidence that an excep-
tion to an exemption exists. Banker's Hill, Hillcresl, Park West Com-
munity Preservation Group v City of San Diego (2006) 139 CA4th
249, 261, 42 CR3d 537; Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v
City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 CA4th 786, 796, 124 CR2d 731;
Magan v County of Kings (2002) 105 CA4th 468, 474, 129 CR2d
344; Apartment Ass'n of Greater Los Angeles v City of Los Angeles
(2001) 90 CA4th 1162, 1175, 109 CR2d 504: Davidon Homes r
City of San Jose (1997) 54 CA4th 106, 115, 62 CR2d 612. For
discussion of procedures for making an exemption determination,
see §§5.88-5.97.
247 • Is the Project Exempt? §3.55
§5.55 1. Significant Effects
If there is a "reasonable possibility" that an activity will have
a significant effect on the environment due to "unusual circum-
stances," an agency may not find the activity to be categorically
exempt from CEQA. 14 Cal Code Regs §15300.2(c). This exception
was adopted to codify the court's ruling in Wildlife Alive v Chickering
(1976) 18 C3d 190, 204, 132 CR 377. The Wildlife court held that,
because the Secretary of the Resources Agency may only exempt
activities that do not have a significant effect on the environment
(Pub Res C §21084), a reasonable possibility that an activity will
have a significant effect on the environment precludes a categorical
exemption. See also International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's
Union, Local 35 v Board of Supervisors (1981) 116 CA3d 265, 275,
171 CR 875; Define v County of Santa Clara (1981) 115 CA3d
827, 842, 171 CR 753. As the court explained in Azusa Land Recla-
mation Co. v Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 CA4th
1165, 61 CR2d 447, this exception apparently was adopted to allow
agencies to determine which specific activities, within a class of
activities that do not normally threaten the environment, should be
excluded from the exemption and given further environmental evalua-
tion. The unusual circumstances exception applies when the circum-
stances of a project differ from the circumstances of projects covered
by a particular categorical exemption, and those circumstances create
an environmental risk that is inconsistent with the exemption. See
also Fairbank v City of Mill Valley (1999) 75 CA4th 1243, 1260,
89 CR2d 233 (exception can be triggered by showing that some
feature of project distinguishes it from ordinary use of categorically
exempt project).
Under 14 Cal Code Regs §15300.2(c), an activity that would other-
wise be subject to a categorical exemption is excluded from the
exemption if "there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will
have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circum-
stances." (Emphasis added.) See City of Pasadena v State (1993)
14 CA4th 810, 824, 17 CR2d 766. Application of this test involves
two distinct inquiries: (1) whether the project presents unusual cir-
cumstances and (2) whether there is a reasonable possibility of a
significant environmental impact due to those unusual circumstances.
Banker's Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Presen>ation Group
v City of San Diego (2006) 139 CA4th 249", 261, 42 CR3d 537.
§5.55 Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act • 248
"A negative answer to either question means the exception does
not apply." Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v City of Santa
Monica (2002) 101 CA4th 786, 800, 124 CR2d 731.
Whether an unusual circumstance resulting in a reasonable possi-
bility of a significant impact exists is a question of fact for the
agency. San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible
Educ. v San Lorenzo Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (2006) 139 CA4th
1356, 44 CR3d 128 (no evidence traffic, parking, and access prob-
lems are unusual circumstances in context of school consolidations);
Fairbank v City of Mill Valley (1999) 75 CA4th 1243, 1260, 89
CR2d 233 (no showing that addition of building to commercial
area would result in unusual traffic impacts); Bloom v McGurk
(1994) 26 CA4th 1307, 1316, 31 CR2d 914 (presence of comparable
facilities in immediate area adequately supported agency's implied
finding that there were no unusual circumstances precluding applica-
tion of categorical exemption for ongoing operation of existing
facilities to medical waste treatment plant); Centinela Hasp. Ass'n
v City of Inglewood (1990) 225 CA3d 1586, 1599, 275 CR 901
(evidence in record supported (a) city's determination relating to
traffic and public health and safety issues and (b) city's implied
finding that 15-bed psychiatric facility would not cause significant
environmental effects); Meridian Ocean Sys. v State Lands Comin'n
(1990) 222 CA3d 153, 164, 271 CR 445 (newly available scientific
research showing reasonable possibility of significant impacts from
geophysical testing supports State Lands Commission's decision to
revoke regulations finding physical survey operations to be exempt
from CEQA); City of Santa Clara v LAFCO (1983) 139 CA3d
923, 932, 189 CR 112 (inconsistency between prezoning and general
plan is unusual circumstance justifying LAFCO's denial of exemp-
tion for annexation).
An agency need not make an explicit determination that the project
will not have a significant effect on the environment when finding
it categorically exempt. Association for Protection ofEnvt'l Values
v City of Ukiah (1991) 2 CA4th 720, 731, 3 CR2d 488; Centinela
Hasp. Ass'n v City of Inglewood, supra. An exemption determination
that ignores evidence of an unusual circumstance creating a reason-
able possibility of a significant environmental impact, however, will
be set aside. See, e.g., McQueen v Board of Directors (1988) 202
CA3d 1136, 1148, 249 CR 439 (presence of hazardous wastes on
property to be acquired by regional open space district is an unusual
§5.57 Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act * 250
district had found that the physical changes to the schools that would
be receiving new students were categorically exempt, but the district
had not evaluated the cumulative impact of other school closings
over time. The court set aside the approvals and required the district
to evaluate cumulative impacts in determining whether the physical
changes were categorically exempt.
The cumulative impact exception applies when the impact at issue
generally affects the environment of persons in general, and does
not apply to activity that has an impact only on some particular
persons. Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v City of Santa Monica
(2002) 101 CA4th 786, 799,124 CR2d 731 (adverse impact of park-
ing restrictions on certain categories of drivers did not trigger excep-
tion).
§5.57 3. Sensitive Environment
Five of the classes of projects designated as categorically exempt
are qualified by the requirement that the location of the project be
considered in determining whether a categorical exemption applies.
14 Cal Code Regs §15300.2(a). The classes are:
(1) Class 3: New construction, installation, or conversion of limit-
ed number of small structures, facilities, or equipment (14 Cal Code
Regs §15303);
(2) Class 4: Minor alterations to land, water, or vegetation (14
Cal Code Regs §15304);
(3) Class 5: Minor alterations to land use limitations (14 Cal Code
Regs §15305);
(4) Class 6: Information collection (14 Cal Code Regs §15306);
and
(5) Class 11: Construction or placement of accessory structures
(14 Cal Code Regs §15311).
Because an activity that ordinarily will not have a significant envi-
ronmental impact may have a significant effect if it is located in
a uniquely sensitive environment, the exemptions for these five
classes of projects do not apply if the activity may have an impact
on an environmental resource of "hazardous or critical concern where
249 • Is the Project Exempt? §5.56
circumstance threatening the environment, precluding a categorical
exemption); Lewis v Seventeenth Dist. Agric. Ass'n (1985) 165 CA3d
823, 211 CR 884 (exemption for stock car racing at fairgrounds
as ongoing activity at racetrack is improper due to unusual circum-
stance of proximity of residences).
The issue under this exception is not whether an activity will
have an adverse impact on some persons, but whether it will adverse-
ly affect the environment of persons in general due to unusual
circumstances. Association for Protection of Envt'l Values v City
of Ukiah, supra (because concerns about height, view obstruction,
privacy, and water runoff are normal and common considerations
in construction of hillside residence, they are not unusual circum-
stances).
A use that is consistent with existing uses in the area does not
constitute an unusual circumstance. City of Pasadena v State, supra
(decision by State Department of Corrections to lease space in exist-
ing building in civic center area for use as parole office is not unusual
circumstance given the presence of other custodial and criminal jus-
tice facilities in immediate area).
A reasonable possibility of a significant impact on the environment
may be found only if the proposed project will have an impact on
the physical environment. The exception does not apply if the project
will have only a social impact and will not result in a potentially
significant change to the physical environment. Santa Monica Cham-
ber of Commerce v City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 CA4th 786,
801, 124 CR2d 731; City of Pasadena r State (1993) 14 CA4th
810, 826, 17 CR2d 766.
§5.56 2. Cumulative Impacts
None of the categorical exemptions applies when the cumulative
impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place
over time is significant. 14 Cal Code Regs §15300.2(b).
In East Peninsula Educ. Council, Inc. v Palos Verdes Peninsula
Unified Sch. Dist. (1989) 210 CA3d 155, 258 CR 147, the school
district determined that the closing of a high school and the transfer
of its students to other schools were statutorily exempt under Pub
Res C §21080.18, which provides a statutory exemption for school
closures if the only physical changes involved are categorically ex-
empt. In determining that the closure was exempt from CEQA. the
The California Environmental Quality Act
Tide 14. California Code of Regulations
Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act
Article 19. Categorical Exemptions
Sections 15300 to 15333
15300. Categorical Exemptions
Section 21084 of the Public Resources Code requires these Guidelines to include a list of classes of
projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which
shall, therefore, be exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
In response to that mandate, the Secretary for Resources has found that the following classes of
projects listed in this article do not have a significant effect on the environment, and (hey are declared
to be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents.
Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21084, Public
Resources Code.
15300.1. Relation to Ministerial Projects
Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code exempts from the application of CEQA those projects
over which public agencies exercise only ministerial authority. Since ministerial projects are already
exempt, categorical exemptions should be applied only where a project is not ministerial under a
public agency's statutes and ordinances. The inclusion of activities which may be ministerial within
the classes and examples contained in this article shall not be construed as a finding by the Secretary
for Resources that such an activity is discretionary.
Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21084, Public
Resources Code.
15300.2. Exceptions
(a) Location. Classes 3,4,5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be
located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a
particularly sensitive environment be significant Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all
instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical
concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state,
or local agencies.
(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact
of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
(c) Significant Effect A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual
circumstances.
(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in
http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/guidelines/artl9.html 5/18/2006
DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR
SCOTT PROPOSED MINOR SUBDIVISION
MS - 07 - 01
APN 205 - 060 - 06
PREPARED FOR
Tom and Jana Scott
3320 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
PREPARED BY
Robert O. Sukup
4322 Sea Bright Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
July 3,2007
The proposed project is to subdivide a .725 acre parcel with an oid existing
house on it into 2 single family tote. The property presently flows to the west to
Highland Drive and to the east into an existing concrete drainage swale just
offsite and paralleling the property line. The proposed lot split will add about .13
acres of area to Drainage Area "A" and reduce Drainage Area "B" by the same
.13 acres. It is better to have Area "B" reduced because it is flowing towards
existing homes.
The projected increase in drainage to Area "A" for the 100 year storm is .31 cfs.
This potential increase of water goes to Highland Drive. It is not a large volume
of water. To mitigate the minor increase in water, 2' wide gravel swales have
been proposed along the south side of each driveway to promote filtering,
energy reduction, and drainage absorption. In addition, the City of Carlsbad is in
the process of installing a new storm drain in Highland Drive to collect standing
water in existing low points. This new storm drain will assist in the conveyance of
drainage water.
Drainage Area "B* is seeing a projected increase of flow for the 100 year storm
of .59 cfs. This likewise is not a huge amount of water. Development to the east
of this project several years ago anticipated this future development and
installed a concrete swale and spillway to collect offsite drainage water. Their
calculations showed 2.4 cfs of water. My calculations show a total of 2.01 cfs [
1.27 cfs from the proposed lot split and .74 cfs from the adjacent lotto the south
]. Concerns were raised by the neighbors to the east of drainage area "B" about
the capacity of the concrete drainage swale on their property which is meant to
convey the drainage. I have done calculations that show the concrete swale is
adequate to handle both "Area B" water and the lot just to the south of this
project that also drains to the concrete swale. To give the neighbors to the east
a better feeling, I have designed our drainage to exit the northeast corner of our
project through a 6" pipe that would enter onto a concrete drainage pad aimed
directly at the concrete spillway that relieves the aforementioned concrete swale.
This way, none of the project's water enters into their paralleling concrete swale.
in addition, I have proposed a combination of on site retention and reduced pipe
sizes on the feeder lines to the 6" outlet pipe to maintain outlet flows dose to the
pre development Q of .68 cfs.
The proposed project will not create any downstream flooding of homes or
erosion problems. The drainage water flow into existing concrete swales and
gutters to the existing City storm drain system in James Drive.
SCOTT KUMoR ,30&Dl VI 3 10*4
, DM DRlVSMIV TO TtfE
HIS \$ A
6 "56. Tfc GONVe/dNCfc.
CKAUNEL FOR. seveizaL U>TS IK) TME IMM6P1WT6
5"
&QOA110N T^IS "VlfetDS A (2 A3
4-Zlc-^s WiU ^OOOtO OM TiiE
"TUOO P/a^l4-AMDtg. LOT^* «2Acfi U)T * ,
|,5- 5-T7
HOT "8\)ILO TUB
OPTEX) FOR. A HARROUDfel^ PRW5UMIV OF ABOUT 17'
OP 4eoCTT 2*503 5"", Tti£ 6RADlb UJA3 ABOUT e>7
NOT HANDLE, THfe PRCXTOCTHIO
IT
no T\4E ev^vnr op
T6
OcCVJtl . yog H&V& A 301 WlDT^' & 2% TO
TO
C^AH
STREET AND SffiEWALK
POLICY COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 23,
FINAL REPORT
Cs *
TABLE 2
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STREETS
Street
Highland Dr.
Highland Dr.
Highland Dr.
Highland Dr.
Highland Dr.
Highland Dr.
Highland Dr.
L4inHlan*t 1"Wnigniana ur.
Highland Dr.
Hillcrest Cir
Hillside Dr.
Holly Brae Ln.
Home Ave.
Hoover St.
Jam's Wy.
Jefferson St.
Jefferson St.
Karen Ln.
Knowles Ave.
Knowles Ave.
Laguna Dr.
Laguna Dr.
Laguna Dr.
From
N. of Butters Rd.
Forest Ave.
Buena Vista Wy.
Oak Ave.
Basswood Ave.
Chestnut Ave.
Magnolia Ave.
Tamarack Ave.
Chinquapin Ave.
SeacrestDr.
Highland Dr.
Alder Ave.
Hope Ave.
Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Ann Dr.
Las Ftores Dr.
1-5
Monroe St.
Jefferson St.
Pio Pico Dr.
Roosevelt St.
To
Forest Ave.
Arland Rd.
Oak Ave.
Basswood Ave.
Chestnut Ave.
Magnolia Ave.
Tamarack Ave.
Chinquapin Ave.
Adams St
cul-de-sac
Park Dr.
cul-de-sac
cul-de-sac
Highland Dr.
Donna Dr.
1-5
MarronRd.
cul-de-sac
Davis Ave.
Elmwood SL
.
East of Kremeyer Cir.
E. of Davis Ave. il-5
Pio Pico Dr. Elmwood St.
Larkspur Wy. i Adams St. cul-de-sac
SIDEWALK AND STREET COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
1. The Committee recommends that a General Plan Amendment be considered to reflect ax
slowdown and management of growth in the Northwest Quadrant. Lot size and densities |
will be an element of this amendment. The Committee recommends an adoption of a / *.&*
philosophy distinguishing the Northwest Quadrant as a unique, quaint, and special \,. a .
'community. This philosophy would recognize the necessity for the protection and
preservation of the qualities unique to each area. These qualities to include, but not be
exclusive of: tree-lined narrower meandering streets, alternative pedestrian pathways,
traffic calming and parking options. Special attention to the quality of life the residents
have come to expect as delineated in V^e^Mima^J^e^ot^^^^ii^ano& Section
J8.40. Dedications and Improvements. Specifically section 1840.100 waiver or
"modifications. The street fronting on the subject property has already been improved to
the maximum feasible and desirable state, recognizing there are some such streets
which may have less than standard improvements when necessary to preserve the
character of the neighborhood and to avoid unreasonable interference with such things
as trees, wall, yards and open space.
VOTE: 8-6-0
AYES: Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis
NOES: Mamaux, Schlehuber, Spano, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Noble
SOUND WALLS
2. The Committee recommends sound walls on freeways, 1) City should begin negotiating
with Galtrans for construction of soundwalls as part of freeway widening, and 2) City
(or Caltrans) should construct sound walls where no freeway widening is anticipated.
VOTE: 13-1-0
AYES: Dweiley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis,
Mamaux, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher
NOES: Spano
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Noble
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
3. The Committee recommends that "The Council direct staff to explore alternative funding f
approaches to accelerate the undergrounding of overhead utilities". '
VOTE: 14-0-0
AYES: Dwelley, Wickham, Piro, Gamache, McBane, Chartier, Leger, Lewis,
Mamaux, Schlehuber, Wischkaemper, Kubota, Gallagher, Spano
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Noble
16
>v
'""'
Mary Hoileran
From: Piroengr@cs.com
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 6:46 AM
To: sukup@adelphia.net
Cc: thomas.scott@ubs.com; david@mooreskiljan.com; jodon@ci.carlsbad.ca.us;
ho!!er4us@adelphia.net
Subject: RE: Highland Property
Dear Bob,
On Thursday, I reviewed your proposal with my client Will Hoileran and we still have some
concerns about your project.
With regard to the "drainage/hydrology" proposal, I believe it holds promise, but we would
first have to see the calculations. My personal preference is NOT to use an "outlet
control" with the smaller pipe at the outlet. First of all, the water coming out of the
"restricted" pipe will be possibly under pressure and certainly at an "increased"
velocity, so we will need velocity calculations to confirm that it is not erosive. My
second criticizm of "outlet control" is that it works for "detention" by "backing up" the
water within the on-site system, i.e. pipes fill up, inlets back up higher and possibly
water ponds at entrance to system, and my fear is that future owners would replace the 4-
inch pipe to push drainage off their property to the Hollerans. I prefer a "detension"
device (I've used a 48-inch underground pipe in a similar situation), since it proydides a
location underground for water to be "detained" without backing up homeowner system.
Anyway, please furnish your calculations as soon as possible so we can meet the 2-week
deadline established by the City.
With regard to Mr. Hoileran's conceren about "visual and grading impacts", We appreciate
the fact that you are dropping the back portion of the pad by 3-feet, however no mention
has been made of if any portion will be reduced to 1-story. Also, of particular concern is
that no mention of an increase in the 10-foot "side yard" setback is offered, even though
your plot plan indicates a building sited more than the 10-feet minimum zoning
requirement. Please elaborate on how the "visual impact" can be mitigated.
Gary Piro, R.C.E. 24000
"William J. Hoileran" <holler4us@adelphia.net> wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I left you a detailed message on your cell phone regarding your faxed
>notes on hydrology ideas. The fax is difficult to read and Gary left
>you a message middle week asking you to resend the ideas via email. To
>the best of my knowledge this has not been done. From what I can read,
>I don't see any mention of retention basins etc. Also, I've had no
>contact from Mr. Scott regarding our concerns for grading, elevation,
>proximity and vegetation. Would like to move forward but need more
>information. Please contact me.
^>>Will Hoileran
Fa.y3 1 of 1
From: William Hoileran pio!ier4us@roadrunner,eornj
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 8:32 AM
To: Piroengr@es.com'
Subject: RE: Sukup Email Address
Gary,
On the meeting signup sheet. Bob Sukup gave his email address as seabright@adeiphia.net. This is not
correct as adelphia has changed its email to roadmnner. I'm assuming Bob's at
seabright@roadrunner. com. I had success sending it to his address at roadmnner.com. Also, note that
my address is holler4us@roadrunner.com.
Will
—Original Message—
From: Piroengr@cs.com [mailto:Piroengr@cs.com]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 7:28 AM
To: hoffer4us@adelphia.net
Subject: (no subject)
Will,
I hit "reply all" on your e-mail to Slkup and his correspondence came back to me "non-deliverable".
Please try and get his e-mail for me.
This morning is terrible for me (lots of deadlines), but I want to be sure he gets my e-mail response.
Gary
10/5/2007
Paae 1 of 'i
From: Pirpengr@cs.eorn
Thursday, July 06, 2007 7:25 .
To: seabrightorsukup@adeiphia.n8t
Cc: thomas.scott@ubs,com; hol!er4us@roadrtmner.com; mbhoiieran@roadrunner.com
Subject: Fwd: Highland Property
Bob,
Thanks for the e-mail and I apoiogize for the difficulty getting in touch with each other. I received your calls, but
when I called back each feme, i kept leaving messages for you to send the e-mai! address. The SOLV transmittal
you received had over 100 names on a master list, I didn't even know you were on that list.
If you listen to my phone message, at the end it says to "send a E-MAIL" if you want prompt response. I have
been in the field a lot, so it is harder to reach me by leaving a phone message, but I remotely check my e-mails
several times a day. Anyway, I DID finally get your address and sent you an "e-mail" on July 2 (Monday) with my
comments which were as follows:
1. We were not "keen" on an outlet control for the drainage, but would keep our mind open based on seeing your
final calculations. It appears the City also did not like the "outlet control," so I will immediately review your calcs if
you "E-MAIL" them to me today.
2. We still have great concern about the "visual and grading" impact. Although there was discussion of an
increased setback and reduced house height and pad elevation in your first phone message left at my office,
there was no indication of either on your FAX. There IS a reference to a lowered pad, which we appreciate, but
the proposed plot plan indicates that the building will be more than 10-feet from the property line and would like a
verification of that fact and possibly agreement to a condition.
Bob, with phone messages "flying around," FAXES, he said she said, etc. I've been trying to
communicate everything by "e-mail" so there is no miscommunication, I am optimistic we can present
some solutions to our dilemma, but it will go faster and more clearly if we communicate by e-mail,
Gary P/ro
10/5/2007
Fags 1 of 1
From: William Holleran [ho!ier4iis@rQadrunner,coiTi]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 12:11 PM
To: 1homas.scott@ubs.com'
Subject; Highland Home
Tom,
I left a message for you on your home answer machine responding to your invitation to
get together and work out a solution so your home project can proceed. Mary and I will
be around all weekend and will be available if you'd like to come over. I'd like to
extend an invitation to your family to come along as well. If we assume that the
hydrology is nearly finalized, then we should be able to make progress.
Will
10/5/2007
Page 1-'of 1
Subj: Highland Subdivision
Date: 7/21/2007 8:30:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: I scli5r4us@roadairj;isi'. so;/.
TO: iilQiTi£!S.£COutUiU3S.Cw^^
File: CityofCarlsbad2.doc (41984 bytes) DL Time (TCP/IP): < 1 minute
Received from Internet cSicu h-sm for rawe information
Tom,
To date, I haven't received an official notice from the city regarding the status of your
potential subdivision. I continue to be hopeful that you'll reconsider your hard stance on
the bulk and scale of the proposed Highland project mat threatens my property and home
life. My engineer, Mr. Piro, stopped his analysis of your revised hydrology report when
you agreed to talk with me. However, after your refusal to offer any solutions, I asked Gary
to complete his review. See his attached report to me. Disregard the unedited draft report
attached to the July 20 email from Mr. Thure Stedt. As you'll note, Mr. Piro finds serious
flaws in your hydrology plan. I still recommend that we get together and try to work out a
solution so that you can build a house and my family can still maintain the livability of our
home. Once again I'm asking for reasonableness.
Will Holleran
Friday, July 27,2007 CompuServe: Piroengr
Resume for GaryParo
Owner: Piro Engineering
Address: 930 Boardwalk, Suite D
San Marcos, Ca 92069
1. Graduated from U.CX.A in 1971, with a degree in Civil Engineering.
2. Registered Civil Engineer 24,000, received in 1973.
3. I've been practicing CivU Engineering in San Diego County for 33 years including:
a. Three (3) years as a County of San Diego employee reviewing Improvement Plans,
Grading Plans and Subdivision Maps.
b. Thirty (30) years in private practice, 26 of which as company owner. The vast
majority of nay work (approximately 90%) has been for private developers in the
unincorporated area of San Diego County. I have had as many as 30 employees and
supervised tiie design, processing and construction of more than 3000 lots
throughout the unincorporated area of San Diego County.
c. Thirty years .(30) as an authorized Percolation Test Engineer with the County of San
Diego Department of Public Health.
d. Seven years (7) of work with private land consenrancies including the creation of
north San Diego County's first mitigation bank (lor the Fallbrook Land
Conservancy) and San Diego County's first environmental subdivision (for the Back
Country Land Trust).
4. I have been active in a number of political, laud development, and conservancy
organizations including:
a. The NoEiii Comity Cwfl Empmeeirs & Lamd Surveyors AssaciaftioE (of which I
served as Vice President in 1981 and President in 1992).
1. In 1981, as Vice President, I served on the County of San Diego Ad Hoc
Committee for Private Road Standards which developed of the first set of
rural road standards in the San Diego region.
2. In 1992, 1 served as a member of the Coafiaty of San Diego Streamiinimg Task
Force charged with making the development process fester &, less expensive,
especially for smaller projects.
b. In 1994,1 was appointed by Supervisor Bill Horn to the County of San Diego
Pfenning Commission on which I served until 1998 (I served as chairman
In 1995).
1. In 1995, while serving as chairman of the County of San Diego Planning
Commission, I Co-Chaired with Commissioner Michael Beck (of the Endangered
Habitats League) the Planning Commission Sub-Committee for County
Private Road Standards.
That Sub-Committee was historic in the County because it consisted of planning
group leaders, conservancy group leaders (such as Wallace Tucker of the
Fallbrook Land Conservancy and Richard Wright of the Back Country Land
Trust), fire agency officials (such as Ralph Steinhoff of the North County Fire
Protection District) and County planning and public works staff
Out of that Sub-Committee ultimately came recommendations for the updated
private road standards, which were adopted in 1999 by me Board of Supervisors.
2. In 1995,1 served on the County Rural Future's Task Force on which I
Campaigned for safer, narrower and more "Community Friendly" road standards
And "Open Space Subdivisions" which allow the permanent preservation of
Agricultural and natural habitat by giving incentives to developers to "Cluster"
Developments in "Less Sensitive" areas of the project.
c. In 2000,1 was a founder of Citizens for the Preservation of Olde Carlsbad.
1. In July of 2000, as the representative of the Citizens for the Preservation of
Olde Carlsbad, I was appointed Vice-Chair of the City of Carlsbad Streets
and Sidewalks Committee also authored the San Diego Area's first set of
"Modified" Standards for urban dedicated streets in Existing Neighborhoods,
which allow people in "Olde Carlsbad" to retain their "Narrow Tree Lined
Street's", rather than have them Improved with flat, wide & straight streets
induce speeding and destroy community character.
d. In 2001,1 served on the City of Sam Diego Road Standards Committee, which
examined narrower road standards for urban areas, much like Carlsbad.
e. In 2001,1 was appointed by the County Board of Supervisors to represent Save Our
Land Values on the General Plan 2020 Interest Group Committee with
environmental groups, farming interests, and developer interests. On the committee
we pursued a Transferred Development Rights program for San Diego County.
f. I currently serve on the San Biego Coalition of Land Conservancies as an advisor
and the Sam Diego CoaMetois for Tramspoitatum Choices as a director.
5. I also prepare periodic editorial/newsletter called livable Communities on new land
development approaches which "being bade the neighborhood." I strongly advocate and
lobby for development criteria that allow "narrow, tree-lined streets" which are more
environmentally sensitive, reduce speeding, reduce urban runoff and induce people to walk
more. I'm a contributing editorial wntter for the San Diego Da%T^
Diego Earth ThBes but my editorials are also often printed in the San Diego Union, San
Diego Business Journal, North County Times as well as several smaller newspapers in the
Rural San Diego County area.
I probably contribute 5% to 10% of my workweek to these political and conservation issues, but I
believe that it pays dividends to my company because my clients appreciate the feet that I am on
the top of the latest technology in the land development field.
I like to tell my clients that I might be the only engineer in San Diego County who has written
County Development Ordinances (as a Planning Commission and Committee Chair)
enforced County Ordinances (as a County Employee) and complied with County ordinances (as the
owner of an engineering firm).
September 18,2007
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA. 92008-1989
Re: Agenda Item AB#19,172
MS 07-01 (Thomas Scott)
Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members,
Thank you for honoring our request for postponement of the hearing on our appeal of the
Scott subdivision. In my husband's absence, I attended tonight's council meeting to ask
for your consideration when there seemed to be some confusion as to whether the hearing
would go forth without us, our neighbors, and the professionals who intend to speak on
October 9th.
It was very difficult to listen to Mr. Scott characterize my husband, Will, as an
obstructionist and repeatedly suggest that he is intentionally working to prevent Mr. Scott
from achieving his family dream. I can assure you that we've made every attempt to
resolve this issue before asking for your help. Mr. Scott's suggestion is also unfounded
in light of the fact that there are currently two new homes being built on the east and west
sides of our home for which we've made no comment. We gave much thought to the
appeal before filing, especially in light of the significant cost to our time and finances.
I am also writing to assure you mat our concerns are not trivial, especially water run-off
which has been a significant problem on Highland and James Dr. We're simply asking
for a common sense redevelopment plan to make sure that the neighboring properties are
not flooded in heavy storms like those a few years ago. The delays have principally been
due to the fact that hydrology plans from Mr. Scott's engineer have been flawed and
required further study and alteration.
Please be assured that my husband and I would like to see this matter resolved as soon as
possible. Thank you again for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mary B. Holleran
3311 James Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Page 1 of 2
Scott, Thomas L.
From: Thure Stedt [Thure@trs-sandiego.com] jQ^JTn 10
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 3:48 PM - ^ R>b it- l-fedf \OQ
To: Scott, Thomas L. lO-CU
Cc: holler4us@adelphia.net; Piroengr@cs.com '
Subject: RE: Highland Minor Subdivision 07-01
Attachments: City of Carlsbad2.doc
VIA E-Mail
Thomas Scott
3320 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Minor Subdivision (MS) 07-01
Mr. Scott:
I have been in touch with both Will Holleran and his civil engineer, Gary Piro, and am writing to request you
reconsider your position on the building and the building footprint for the proposed strcuture on the minor
subdivision. Our greatest desire is to come to an agreement before we have to go to the City to ask for relief.
One of the biggest disappointments in my planning career has been seeing neighbor disputs. People who have
the most invested in cooperating are sometimes those whose differing views of quality of life drive them toward
conflicts which create wedges between being good neighbors.
In Mr. Holleran's case he wishes to preserve some basic quality of his situation while allowing you to enjoy the
property rights attendant to your ownership and the minor suvdivision you are pursueing. We believe the
compromise Mr. Holleran has proposed permits you to still contstruct a home with at least 5000 square feet of
living area, and move the bulk and scale away from his home. We believe there are grounds to evoke CEQA at
the City Coucil level, with the minimum outcome being long delays in you realizing your vision. Additionally, Gary
Piro has raised significant concerns with regards to the drainage that wioll make the City think twice before
approving your split without considerable additional work on your part. (Please see attached)
Again we ask you to consider the 27 foot set back you show on the Minor Subdivision plan as well as a private
agreement to build to two storys only on the west half of the structure.
Please get back to Will Holleran at your earliest convenience.
Regards,
Thure
Thure R. Stedt
Principal
7/23/2007
Page 1 of 1
Scott, Thomas L.
From: William Holleran [holler4us@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 8:30 AM
To: Scott, Thomas L.
Cc: Piroengr@cs.com; thure@trs-sandiego.com
Subject: Highland Subdivision
Attachments: City of Carlsbad2.doc
Tom,
To date, I haven't received an official notice from the city regarding the status of your
potential subdivision. (l continue to be hopeful that you'll reconsider your hard stance on
the bulk and scale of the proposed Highland project that threatens my property and home
life.1'My engineer, Mr. Piro, stopped his analysis of your revised hydrology report wher^
you agreed to talkwith me. However, after your refusal tojiffer any solutions. I asked
Gary to complete his review. See his attached report to me. Disregard the unedited draft
report attached to the July 20th email from Mr. Thure Stedt. As you'll note, Mr. Piro
finds serious flaws in your hydrology plan. I still recommend that we get together and
try to work out a solution so that you can build a house and mv family can still maintain
the livability of our home. Once again I'm asking for reasonableness.
Will Holleran
7/23/2007
PIRO ENGINEERING
CIVIL ENGINEERING, SURVEYING AND LAND PLANNING
930 BOARDWALK (SUITE D), SAN MARCOS, CALIF. 92078
Phone: (760) 744-3700 Cell: (760) 889-3170 Fax: (760) 744-3750
William Holleran Date: July 20, 2007
3311 James Drive W.O.: 3099 (C)
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Scott Drainage Design and Discharge Calculations
Dear Mr. Holleran,
Per vour request. I have resumed the review of the drainage calculations prepared by
Tom Scott's engineer, Bob Sukup, on July 3,2007. Based on my review of the data he
has presented, it is my opinion that the proposed design does not sufficiently address
detention requirements caused by increased drainage flows both to your property as well
as properties to the west on Highland.
It is also my opinion that the proposed design does not sufficiently address the
requirements of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
Number CAS018758 including San Diego Regional Quality Control Board updated
permit as adopted on January 24, 2007.
hi simple terms, the proposed development INCREASES drainage runoff at BOTH the
easterly and westerly "points of exit" on the project and there is not only "insufficient"
detail of water detention provided, but in the case of the westerly exit none whatsoever.
We have been advised on other Carlsbad projects that it is the City's policy that NO
increase in runoff be allowed due to the sensitivity of the waters in the Carlsbad
"Hydrological Unit (904.00). This is especially true of the outlet of waters into areas
wherein offsite facilities are inadequate to accommodate an increase. My determination
that there are increases in both exits is not solely from my preliminary calculations, but
from the calculations presented by Bob Sukup.
Drainage exiting to the East:
According to Mr. Sukup's drainage calculations dated July 3,2007, there will be an
increase in flow to the east of 1.27 (proposed) -0.68 (existing) =0.59 cfs onto your
property. As argued in our meeting, the driveway constructed from your property to
James Street was NOT constructed per the plans of that development and is already
October 3, 2007 ALL RECEIVED
1578 Basswood Avenue
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad City Council AGENDA ITEM #
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive c: Mayor
Carlsbad CA 92008 City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council Members; ^ity Clerk
Subject: Planned Redevelopment in Carlsbad Village Area
Reference: Letter to Mr. John O'Donnell, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Carlsbad, dated June
26, 2007
There are three issues I wish to bring to your attention:
• City of Carlsbad Notice of Approval of Tentative Parcel Map; Minor Subdivision NO.
MS 07-01, dated July 18, 2007
• Redevelopment of established neighborhoods without seeking input from affected property
owners
• Increased lot elevations to create "ocean view" homes where no such views exist naturally
I communicated my opinion of the subject planned redevelopment (Minor Subdivision NO. MS 07-
01) in a letter to the City Engineer on June 26, 2007. I have yet to receive a response to the concerns
expressed in that letter. Objections raised in a previous meeting with the city on June 18, 2007 have
not yet been adequately addressed, but approval of the subdivision was granted July 18, 2007.
The subject plan, as currently approved, was implemented without seeking input on this proposed
subdivision from the surrounding neighbors and long-term residents of the community. This
redevelopment significantly impacts the nature and character of my neighborhood and degrades the
quality of life for those of us on adjacent properties.
Redevelopment is the correct word to use. In a long-established neighborhood, numerous existing
homes are being torn down and replaced with extraordinarily large structures. Contrary to the
character of the neighborhood (formally designated as "unique" in the past), the residential density is
now frequently being increased by subdividing the existing lots. I currently have five such houses
being planned or built immediately adjacent to my property; six if the one across the street is
counted. The lighting and visual and audible privacy of my home will be degraded as a result. While
not presently illegal, the construction of these "McMansions" in existing neighborhoods has been the
source of controversy and ill feeling when residents of other local communities have felt damaged
by such overcrowding. Certainly Carlsbad can learn from the recent experience in Encinitas/Solana
Beach and find a more open and mutually beneficial way of managing these changes.
1.
Page 2 of 2
Far more egregious than simple overdevelopment, however, is the demonstrated tendency on the part
of the city to allow developers to substantially increase lot elevations in order to offer expensive
"ocean view" homes where no such views exist naturally. As clearly demonstrated by first property
to be subdivided under MS 07-01, these enormous structures, now elevated on much smaller lots,
will loom high over their neighbors, dramatically altering the character and livability of the
neighborhood. Without knowledge or consent, affected residents such as me can find their property
values diminished simply to provide more profit margin for the developers. The process of approval
for these elevation changes is essentially accomplished in secret. The city's approvals are granted
well in advance of public notice of the building permits.
No one denies an owner the right to develop his land. Some consideration of the impact of
development on the existing residents should be required, however. In my case, the size and
location of the five planned structures will totally destroy the privacy of my home. Several of these
houses are or will be elevated above existing grade level and the upper story windows will overlook
the entirety of my now-private back yard and permit the curious to look into the Jacuzzi as well as
my bedroom windows. Simple as consideration of window placement and tall plantings could have
alleviated much of this intrusion.
Unfortunately, I will be traveling when the appeal of Subdivision NO. MS 0,5-01 conies before the
council. I would welcome a future opportunity to discuss with the City Council how this situation
might be reasonably remedied for the benefit of all concerned.
cc: W. Halleron
»o-1-67
October 7, 2007
Dear City Council Members:
As the current residents at 3315 James Drive, Carlsbad, we have deep
reservations regarding the proposed Drainage Design Plan as submitted for
approval for the Scott development on Highland Drive. After reviewing two
independent hydrology reports concerning the development, we can only
reach a conclusion that indicates our property would be severely inundated
by an excessive overflow of water caused by a severe storm. The resulting
damage to our personal property would be unacceptable and is preventable.
According to the hydrology report submitted by the developer, "The existing
driveway will not handle the projected 100 year rain storm". The driveway
mentioned here, refers to the driveway adjacent to our property on James
Drive, which is proposed to assist the drainage of the Scott property on
Highland Drive. A separate hydrology report issued by Piro Engineering
states that, "the proposed project . . . can not adequately handle the project
drainage". The report specifically states that the driveway can, "overflow
into an adjacent property".
These statements give us reason for having great concerns about the
proposed Scott development and the possible negative impact it may have on
our personal property. It is our hope that the City of Carlsbad will review
the current development/drainage plan and require significant modifications
that will eliminate possible detrimental outcomes for neighboring residents.
Bryan and Carole Gunner
3315 James Drive
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
729-5163
|O
cc
October 3, 2007
1578 Bass wood Avenue
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad CA 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council Members;
Subject: Planned Redevelopment in Carlsbad Village Area
Reference: Letter to Mr. John O'Donnell, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Carlsbad, dated June
26,2007
There are three issues I wish to bring to your attention:
• City of Carlsbad Notice of Approval of Tentative Parcel Map; Minor Subdivision NO.
MS 07-01, dated July 18, 2007
• Redevelopment of established neighborhoods without seeking input from affected property
owners
• Increased lot elevations to create "ocean view" homes where no such views exist naturally
I communicated my opinion of the subject planned redevelopment (Minor Subdivision NO. MS 07-
01) in a letter to the City Engineer on June 26, 2007. I have yet to receive a response to the concerns
expressed in that letter. Objections raised in a previous meeting with the city on June 18, 2007 have
not yet been adequately addressed, but approval of the subdivision was granted July 18, 2007.
The subject plan, as currently approved, was implemented without seeking input on this proposed
subdivision from the surrounding neighbors and long-term residents of the community. This
redevelopment significantly impacts the nature and character of my neighborhood and degrades the
quality of life for those of us on adjacent properties.
Redevelopment is the correct word to use. In a long-established neighborhood, numerous existing
homes are being torn down and replaced with extraordinarily large structures. Contrary to the
character of the neighborhood (formally designated as "unique" in the past), the residential density is
now frequently being increased by subdividing the existing lots. I currently have five such houses
being planned or built immediately adjacent to my property; six if the one across the street is
counted. The lighting and visual and audible privacy of my home will be degraded as a result. While
not presently illegal, the construction of these "McMansions" in existing neighborhoods has been the
source of controversy and ill feeling when residents of other local communities have felt damaged
by such overcrowding. Certainly Carlsbad can learn from the recent experience in Encinitas/Solana
Beach and find a more open and mutually beneficial way of managing these changes.
1.
Page 2 of2
Far more egregious than simple overdevelopment, however, is the demonstrated tendency on the part
of the city to allow developers to substantially increase lot elevations in order to offer expensive
"ocean view" homes where no such views exist naturally. As clearly demonstrated by first property
to be subdivided under MS 07-01, these enormous structures, now elevated on much smaller lots,
will loom high over their neighbors, dramatically altering the character and livability of the
neighborhood. Without knowledge or consent, affected residents such as me can find their property
values diminished simply to provide more profit margin for the developers. The process of approval
for these elevation changes is essentially accomplished in secret. The city's approvals are granted
well in advance of public notice of the building permits.
No one denies an owner the right to develop his land. Some consideration of the impact of
development on the existing residents should be required, however. In my case, the size and
location of the five planned structures will totally destroy the privacy of my home. Several of these
houses are or will be elevated above existing grade level and the upper story windows will overlook
the entirety of my now-private back yard and permit the curious to look into the Jacuzzi as well as
my bedroom windows. Simple as consideration of window placement and tall plantings could have
alleviated much of this intrusion.
Unfortunately, I will be traveling when the appeal of Subdivision NO. MS 07-01 comes before the
council. I would welcome a future opportunity to discuss with the City Council how this situation
might be reasonably remedied for the benefit of all concerned.
c6: W. Halleron
tar/it*\j
PIRO ENGINEERING
CIVIL ENGINEERING, SURVEYING AND LAND PLANNING
930 BOARDWALK (SUITED), SAN MARCOS, CALIF. 92078
Phone: (760) 744-3700 Cell: (760) 889-3170 Fax: (760) 744-3750
City Council Date: October 9, 2007
City of Carlsbad W.O.: 3099 (C)
1635 Faraday
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Update of Drainage Report Review for (MS - 07-01); Response to City Comments
Honorable Councilpersons:
Per the request of Mr. William Holleran, I have been asked to review the response of the
City Engineering Department with regards to our appeal and comments regarding the
drainage study by Bob Sukup dated July 10, 2007 for MS-07-01. Based on my review of
the data he has presented, as well as my own analysis and field survey of offsite
conditions, it is still my opinion that the proposed project will have a significant impact
to drainage systems offsite to the east and west which can not adequately handle the
project drainage.
Exhibit A:
Again, I would like to "revisit" our original concern that this project has not provide an
"overall drainage analysis" of the drainage contributing to the Scott project. As you can
see from Exhibit A, there are 6 properties which drain to the Holleran driveway of which
Scott is one of the properties. Offsite to the east, we have an "unusual" circumstance of a
drainage system which was not built to plan which will result in overflow of the existing
driveway, erosion along the "earthen" planter/shoulders outside the driveway and
overflow into an adjacent property.
Offsite to the west, we have an "unusual" situation of a flat area of Highland Drive which
cannot handle drainage in this vicinity due to its flat grade and lack of curb facilities. This
project proposes to divert additional drainage to this area which will result in
overburdening Highland Drive causing drainage waters to flow outside the roadway into
existing earthen shoulders.
As you can see from Exhibit A, there which is a copy of the City 200-scale toporgrphical
map with an "overlay" of the properties which contribute to the Holleran drainage.
Also from that map you can see that there are 4 properties which contribute to drainage
onto Highland Drive.
Exhibit B; Unusual Conditions to the East:
According to Mr. Sukup's drainage calculations dated July 10, 2007, calculations
prepared by my office and a field survey of the existing driveway which serves the
Holleran property, the drainage which ultimately flows to the Holleran driveway comes
from 6 properties (Assessor's Parcels 205-060-4,5,6, 7, 72 and 73). Based on the data I
have accumulated, the maximum drainage which flows on to the existing driveway is
5.86 cubic feet per second (Mr. Sukup's calculations show 5.77 cubic feet per second).
Exhibit B shows a copy of the plans approved for the drainage system for Map 12888
prepared by Mr. Joseph Lukoski (R.C.E. 27542). His design provided for a driveway
design which was 20-feet wide and at a "5-inch" depth, plus there were "planter areas"
which were planter areas on both sides of the driveway which were to drain to the
driveway, the combination of which would have been more than adequate to handle the
drainage.
Unfortunately, the drainage system designed by Mr. Lukoski was NOT constructed per
design. The actually driveway was constructed only 17-feet wide and has a maximum
depth of 2 inches. Furthermore, the "planter areas" slope AWAY from the driveway in
some areas which means that if the driveway were NOT to handle the drainage, the
overflow would NOT be contained by the planters but rather flow into the two
neighboring properties yard. Our field review shows that this is already occurring.
Exhibit C; Analysis of Constructed Driveway Capacity:
Exhibit Cl shows Mr. Sukup's calculations on the maximum capacity of the driveway
which shows that although the original driveway was designed for 5.77 cubic feet per
second, in reality by Mr. Sukup's calculations show that it, in fact has only a capacity of
3.22 cubic feet per second.
Exhibit C2 shows the difference between the design of the driveway and the actually built
driveway. Mr. Sukup addresses the driveway differences and indicates that the overflow
will be handled by the "planter areas".. In their response to our letter, City staff has
indicated that they agree that this is the case. In in certain areas of the road (for example
the area which Mr. Sukup may have measured the road section), this is correct, however
the road is NOT uniform and there are areas where the planter areas are, in fact LOWER
than the driveway as we have shown in Exhibit C3.
Mr. Sukup did NOT provide design sections for the entire driveway, and City staff did
NOT have the benefit of additional design sections when they analyzed the driveway and
assumed the planter areas could handle the drainage. At the request of Mr. Holleran, we
surveyed the entire driveway and found several areas where the planter areas were below
the driveway. Section C3 shows the WORST of these areas which is located 540 feet
WEST of James Drive at which point the capacity of the driveway is only 1.04 cubic feet
per second which is even less than the existing situation for the drainage for the area.
Exhibit D: Sukup 's Drainage Calculations:
Exhibit D shows an exhibit of Mr. Sukup's anlysis of the drainage. As you can see from
the calculations., In reviewing the "after" condition of the easterly outlet whereby Mr.
Sukup's calculations show a drainage flow amount of 1.27 c.f.s., an increase of nearly
100% over what exists there now which is 0.67 percent, and he has no provision to
reduce the drainage.
We have two major concerns about the Sukup analysis. First is that it ONLY addresses
the Scott property and NOT an analysis of the entire area which affects the offsite system.
Secondly, he is showing a 100% increase in drainage, JUST FOR THEIR PORTION OF
DRAINAGE CONTRIBUTING TO THE DRIVEWAY and we believe they should be
providing for a "detention" of drainage to assure that no drainage increases onto the
Holleran system which is already at or exceeding capacity in the existing condition.
Also, the area that drains to the west onto Highland Drive will be increased by 0.31 cubic
feet per second. This increase of drainage leaving the Scott property on the west by 70%
and this drains to a KNOWN area of ponding and flooding on to neighbor's properties to
the west.
We have asked for an "analysis" of this increased drainage, and have not received any
from Mr. Sukup and the City Engineer's letter does not answer this portion of our
documented concern.
The westerly direction is PARTICULARLY sensitive since a field examination of this
area, the topography map provided by Sukup, and the "200-scale" topographic map
indicates that the entire area in front of the Scott residence is very flat and waters
currently pond immediately to the NORTH. However Mr. Sukup has made no analysis
whatsoever of how the "pre" and "post" conditions will be addressed. Since this is an
increase in drainage due to "diversion", it would require a "waiver and release" from
offsite owners, primarily the owner of Assessor's Parcel Number 205-060-05 where
water appears to have ponded in the past. The Scott project is adding additional
drainage impacts and un-mitigable stormwater and erosion pollutants which will pond
in Highland Drive.
As stated above the 12-inch pipe which appears solely to have been installed to remove a
ponding/flooding area on a property on the west side of Highland approximately 150-feet
north of the Scott project. Since the pipe is not of adequate size, and since it has no
provision for inlets to the Scott project, additional waters will pond to the existing graded
earthen shoulders and cause surface erosion.
Very truly yours,
OaiyPiro, R.C.E. 24000
Citv of Carlsbad
Office of the Oitv/
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the decision of the
to the Carlsbad City Council.
Date of Decision you are appealing:.
1 UWlfi
JUL so ma
CITY OF CARLSBADXHY CLERK'S OFFICE
Subject 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.
Reason(s) 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?
'SIGNATURE
NAME (please print)
"7-
DATE
PHONE NO.
ADDRESS: Street Name & Number
City,State,Zip Code
12OO Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO8-1989 • (619)434-2808
LAW OFFICES OF WESLEY W. PELTZER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
751 RANCHEROS DRIVE, SUITE 4
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92O69
TELEPHONE (76O) 744-7125
FAX (76O) 744-8259
E-MAIL: WWPELTZER@AOL.COM
July 30,2007
Hand Delivered
Lorraine Wood
Carlsbad City Clerk
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Appeal of Decision Approving Lot Split at 3320 Highland Drive, Carlsbad,
CA~
MS-07-01
Our File No. 2416.002
Dear Ms. Wood:
Our office represents Will and Mary Holleran who reside at 3311 James Drive,
Carlsbad California. We hereby appeal the decision of City staff approving the minor
subdivision at 3320 Highland Drive, MS-07-01 (Scott Subdivision) and the City staffs
determination that the project is exempt from CEQA review in accordance with the minor
land division exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines §15315 (14 Cal. Code Regs.
§15315).
A field review completed by Piro Engineering indicates that six properties in the
project area, including the two homes proposed for the Scott subdivision and the
neighboring proposed Berger residence (205-060-07) currently contributes surface water
drainage to the flow down the Holleran's driveway. Calculations completed by Piro
Engineering indicate that this driveway as built can accommodate 4.07 cfs of surface
water. However, the combined surface water from all six properties including the two
proposed Scott homes and the adjoining Berger residence will result in 5.86 cfs of surface
flow during a 100 year storm thereby overflowing the driveway and flooding planter
boxes located on the Holleran property.
This situation is caused by the fact that the original builder did not construct the
Hollerans' driveway per the original plans. This condition is acknowledged in a July 3,
2007 drainage report prepared by Robert Sukup, the engineer for the Scott subdivision.
The original driveway plans called for a 20 foot wide driveway with a centerline swale
that was about 5 inches lower than the exterior sides of the driveway. However, the
Lorraine Wood
July 30, 2007
Page 2
builder did not build this driveway and instead opted for a narrower 17 foot wide
driveway with a centerline swale of a depth of only 2 inches instead of the 5 inches
originally shown on the plans. (Sukup Drainage Report July 3, 2007 p. 6). Both Robert
Sukup and Piro Engineering agree that this existing driveway will not handle the
projected 100 year rainstorm. In his July 3, 2007 report Mr. Sukup expressly states that:
"the existing driveway will not handle the projected 100 year rainstorm". Mr. Sukup
further notes that in the event of a 100 year storm "the water would enter the side planters
of the driveway" located on the Holleran property. The owners of the Scott property
have not secured any easement from Mr. and Mrs. Holleran entitling them to drain water
onto the Hollerans' planters or anywhere else on their property.
Fieldwork completed by Piro Engineering also indicates that a portion of the
Hollerans' planter area is lower than their driveway which will cause this water to drain
to and flood the Serab property north of the driveway.
A plan submitted for the Scott minor subdivision indicates one of the homes
proposed will consist of 2 stories constructed approximately 41 feet above existing
ground elevation. Given the City's setback requirement often (10) feet, this residence
can be constructed within ten feet of the boundary that separates the Scott property from
the Holleran property. As the attached report of Thure Stedt (an environmental planner)
indicates, this will result in significant visual impacts to the Holleran home. Other
neighbors in the area have also indicated that the two proposed homes will result in
significant visual impacts to their properties. (Copies of letters on these visual impacts are
attached).
The CEQA Guidelines recognize that "a categorical exemption shall not be used
for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a
significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances". (CEQA Guidelines
§15300.2(c)). It follows that where there is any reasonable possibility that a project or
activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption would be
improper. (Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.Sd 190, 205-206; Banker's Hill,
Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (2006) 139
Cal.App.4th 249, 266). In Banker's Hill the Court held "We further conclude that it is
consistent with the policy behind CEQA to preclude an agency from relying on a
categorical exemption when there is a fair argument that a project will have a significant
effect on the environment". (Id. p. 266). The court further held "that an agency must
apply a fair argument approach in determining whether, under Guidelines Section
15300.2(c), there is no reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment
due to unusual circumstances". (Id. p. 264). This basic rule has been consistently
followed by the courts. (International Longshoreman's & Wharehousemen's Union,
Local 35 v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 265, 275; Dehne v. County of
Santa Clara (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 827, 842; City of Pasadena v. State (1993) 14
Cal.App.4th810, 824).
Lorraine Wood
July 30, 2007
Page 3
In addition, CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(b) recognizes that none of the categorical
exemptions apply when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in
the same place over time is significant. (East Peninsula Edc. Council, Inc. v. Palos
Verdes Peninsula Unified Sch. Dist, (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 155 [failure to evaluate
cumulative impacts of other projects in the area compelled reversal of decision to close
the high school and transfer the students to other schools]).
In this case, both engineering experts Robert Sukup and Gary Piro agree that the
existing driveway on the Holleran property will not handle the projected 100 year
rainstorm and the attached report of Piro Engineering documents significant drainage
impacts caused by the Scott minor subdivision in the area. The attached report of Thure
Stedt, an environmental planning expert, also documents that the proposed subdivision
will result in significant visual impacts to the Holleran property and other properties in
the area. These expert determinations and the attached reports foreclose the use of a
categorical exemption and require additional environmental review to adequately
evaluate the environmental impacts of the Scott minor subdivision and other development
in the area.
We are also very concerned about the fact that Mr. Scott has not secured any
easement from the Holleran's entitling him to drain any water from his property onto
their planter boxes or any other areas of the Holleran property. The general rule is that an
upper landowner has a natural easement or servitude which permits him to discharge
surface waters through the drainage mechanism of a natural swale, hollow or depression.
However, "this right is limited to disposition of the water through the chosen channels of
nature. He cannot increase the volume or velocity by collecting the water in pipes or
artificial ditches. If he does so to the damage of the lower landowner, he is liable to the
latter". (Sheffet v. County of Los Angeles (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 720, 730). "When any
person corporate or natural interferes with natural conditions and causes surface water to
be discharged upon the land of his neighbor in greater quantity or in a different manner
than would occur under natural conditions such injurious acts will be enjoined". (LA.
Brick Etc. Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 478, 485). "It is a positive
interference with the owner's free enjoyment of his property wrongfully to divert
accumulated waters onto his land which would not naturally flow thereon". (Id p. 486).
Nothing in the original plans for this subdivision indicated that any upstream owners had
secured any easement to flow surface water over the planter boxes or any other portion of
the Holleran property.
We attach the following reports and letters with this appeal letter:
1. The Piro Engineering Report on surface drainage impacts; and
2. The Stedt Report on visual impacts; and
3. Letters from neighbors documenting visual impacts associated with the
proposed minor subdivision: and
Lorraine Wood
July 30, 2007
Page 4
4. A disc showing impacts to the Holleran home from former construction
activities undertaken for the project; and
5. Digital simulation of visual impacts; and
6. Pictures of view impacts.
For all of these reasons, we request that the City deny the project. We would be
happy to meet with City staff to discuss any of these issues.
Sincerely,
)FFICES 0PWESLEY W. PELTZER
Wesley W. Peltzer
Attorneys for Mr. and Mrs^"Hblleran
WWP:pf
Enclosures
cc: Will and Mary Holleran (w/out encl.)
H:\CLIENTS\Holleran\Correspondence\CarlsbadCityClerkAppeal.Ltr.doc
*ai'
f?13Oa
PIRO ENGINEERING
CIVIL ENGINEERING, SURVEYING AND LAND PLANNING
930 BOARDWALK (SUITED), SAN MARCOS, CALIF. 92078
Phone: (760) 744-3700 Cell: (760) 889-3170 Fax: (760) 744-3750
Mr. Wesley Pelzer Date: July 30,2007
Attorney at Law W.O.: 3099 (C)
751 Rancheros Drive, Suite 4
San Marcos, CA 92069
Re: Scott Drainage Design and Discharge Impacts (MS - 07-01)
Dear Mr. Pelzer,
Per the request of Mr. William Holleran, I have reviewed the drainage calculations prepared by
Bob Sukup dated July 10,2007 for MS-07-01. Based on my review of the data he has presented, as
well as my own analysis and field survey of offsite conditions, it is my opinion that the proposed
project will have a significant impact to drainage systems offsite to the east and west which can not
adequately handle the project drainage.
Offsite to the east, we have an "unusual" circumstance of a drainage system which was not built to
plan which will result in overflow of the existing driveway, erosion along the "earthen"
planter/shoulders outside the driveway and overflow into an adjacent property.
Offsite to the west, we have an "unusual" situation of a flat area of Highland Drive which cannot
handle drainage in this vicinity due to its flat grade and lack of curb facilities. This project proposes
to divert additional drainage to this area which will result in overburdening Highland Drive causing
drainage waters to flow outside the roadway into existing earthen shoulders.
Due to the lack of provision for these erosive conditions outside of the driveway to the east and on
Highland Drive, it is also my opinion that the proposed design does not sufficiently address the
requirements of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number
CAS018758.
Unusual Conditions to the East:
According to Mr. Sukup's drainage calculations dated July 10,2007, calculations prepared by my
office and a field survey of the existing driveway which serves the Holleran property, the drainage
which ultimately flows to the Holleran driveway comes from 6 properties (Assessor's Parcels 205-
060-4,5,6,7,72 and 73). Based on the data I have accumulated, the maximum drainage which
flows on to the existing driveway is 5.86 cubic feet per second.
The drainage system for Map 12888 prepared by Mr. Joseph Lukoski (R.C.E. 27542), had a
driveway design which was 20-feet wide and at a "5-inch" depth which was more than adequate to
handle the drainage. Unfortunately, the drainage system designed by Mr. Lukoski was NOT
constructed per design. The actually driveway was constructed only 17-feet wide and has a
maximum depth of 2 inches. Per our field surveyed measurements the maximum capacity of this
driveway is only 4.07 cubic feet per second.
Mr. Sukup indicates in his drainage study that the water will be handled by flowing over into the
"side planters". It should be noted that these areas are primarily dirt with scattered shrubs planted,
and therefore waters flowing into these dirt shoulder areas will cause erosion on to James Drive
which is not accounted for and violates State Urban Runoff and erosion regulations.
Furthermore, we have performed a "field survey" of the driveway area and have determined that
there are potions of the planter area north of the driveway which are lower than the elevation of the
driveway, therefore we believe that the ultimate drainage would flow over the driveway, over the
planter area to the north and cause additional drainage/flooding on to Assessor's Parcel Number
205-060-71.
Mr. Sukup's new drainage report describes a "retention" system which would allow for drainage
waters in the proposed driveway via a 2-foot "gravel swale" in that driveway and a "sump area"
just to the west of the drainage outlet onto your property. We have several problems with this
design.
1. First, this "retention" area ONLY handles drainage waters in the driveway. The majority of
the drainage is within "pipes" which do not go through this "retention" sump area
whatsoever.
2. Second, there are no calculations whatsoever regarding "detention analysis" to get the
drainage at the outlet down to the same "Q" as pre-construction.
3. Third, Mr. Sukup makes some references in his report that the pipe systems themselves will
"retain or detain" much of the water, but there are no calculations to support his contention
that this will reduce the drainage at the outlet. Although reduced capacity inlets and pipes
have been proposed (with 6" inlet to 4" outlet at 1%) they have the probability of becoming
clogged. The resulting drainage will then find a way to flow overland to the northeast
property corner thus circumventing the reduced capacity 4" drains.
In conclusion, with respect to the outlet at ySS^property, Mr. Sukup is assuming (without any
calculations to support his assumption) that his system will "Detain the water" within the rock
swales, retention sump, and in undersized pipes and grates. The problem with this assumption is
that they are proposing a 5000 + square foot house which will sell for a minimum of $1.5 million,
and it has been our experience that the owners of "high end" properties will not want the
inconvenience of slow flowing drains and ponding on the site. They will simply "fill in" the gravel
swale, fill in the sump area and upsize all of the pipes causing increased drainage onto your
property. This is why most agencies require that detention basins be designed "underground".
Unusual Conditions to the West:
In this direction, the City has recently constructed an 12-inch drainage pipe along Highland Drive,
however the capacity of this pipe is only 3.86 cubic feet per second, was NOT designed to
accommodate the drainage being diverted by the Scott project and does NOT provide drainage
inlets to accommodate the Scott project.
Per Mr. Sukup's calculations, the area that drains to the west onto Highland Drive will be increased
by 0.31 cubic feet per second. This increase of drainage leaving the Scott property on the west by
70% is bad enough; we feel his calculations are "grossly" understated.
In reviewing the "after" condition of the easterly outlet whereby Mr. Sukup's calculations show a
drainage flow amount of 1.27 c.f.s. which is 3.84 CFS/acre of drainage, on the west the drainage
flow in the "after" condition is only 1.87 CFS/ acre of drainage. In examining the calculations, this
is understated because Mr. Sukup has determined the front lot to be only 25% impervious, whereas
it is in reality in excess of 50% impervious. Furthermore, he uses a "time of concentration" of 9
minutes when in fact it should be 5 minutes or less. By my preliminary calculations, the "after"
condition will not be 70% higher than existing (as Mr. Sukup has calculated) but rather an increase
of 300% or more.
Looking at it "logically" Mr. Sukup proposes to "divert" drainage which normally flows to the east,
to now go to the west. This will cause an increase of approximately 50% in drainage area flowing
west, plus increased runoff due to the construction of a new driveway.
The westerly direction is PARTICULARLY sensitive since a field examination of this area, the
topography map provided by Sukup, and the "200-scale" topographic map indicates that the entire
area in front of the Scott residence is very flat and waters currently pond immediately to the
NORTH. However Mr. Sukup has made no analysis whatsoever of how the "pre" and "post"
conditions will be addressed. Since this is an increase in drainage due to "diversion", it would
require a "waiver and release" from offsite owners, primarily the owner of Assessor's Parcel
Number 205-060-05 where water appears to have ponded in the past. The Scott project is adding
additional drainage impacts and un-mitigable stormwater and erosion pollutants which will pond
in Highland Drive.
As stated above the 12-inch pipe which appears solely to have been installed to remove a
ponding/flooding area on a property on the west side of Highland approximately 150-feet north of
the Scott project. Since the pipe is not of adequate size, and since it has no provision for inlets to
the Scott project, additional waters will pond to the existing graded earthen shoulders and cause
surface erosion.
Conclusion:
We understand that the City Engineering Department will review engineering calculations prior to
granting construction permits; however we do not believe that there is currently sufficient data to
determine if a system "can" be designed which would satisfy the drainage requirements due to
these unusual conditions which exist easterly and westerly of the project. Furthermore, the impacts
to surface stormwater runoff and erosion appear to be "non-mitigable.
We therefore believe that a challenge could be made to the CEQA finding of "urban exemption" on
the basis of "inadequate drainage and stormwater analysis".
Very truly yours
Gary Piro, R.C.E. 24000
OS
I
**>
IOa
TBS
CONSULTANTS
Project Management ^ Development Processing 4} Land Use Planning
EnviromentaI Analysis P Project Representation
Wes Peltzer
751 Rancheros Drive, Suite 4
San Marcos, CA, 92069
July 30, 2007
RE: Visual Impact Study of Minor Subdivision (MS) 07-01
Introduction
This analysis was conducted at the request of Will Holleran to review the potential visual
impacts to his property, located at 3311 James Drive, in Carlsbad, California, from the
construction of a new residence immediately adjacent to his building on the westerly property
line. The project, a Minor Subdivision (MS) 07-01 with the City of Carlsbad, is owned by
Thomas L. and Jana L. Scott. Engineering plans for the proposed subdivision were provided by
The Sea Bright Company.
The current visual impacts analysis examines three building placements for the proposed
building and their associated impacts to the Holleran residence. The attached exhibit, "Exhibit -
Proposed Building Potential Impacts on Holleran Residence," was prepared to illustrate the
effects that each potential location of the proposed structure would have on the Holleran
property. Profile A shows the building location at the setback line at the side yard setback as
established by the City of Carlsbad, ten feet from the common property line. Profile B shows the
location if the building is built 27 feet from the common property line. As conceptually depicted
on the plot plan for MS 07-01, the proposed building height in Profiles A and B is 30 feet at the
pitch of the roof. Profile C shows the location of a split-level design at 27 feet from the common
property line (an identical location to Profile B). The first story would be located at the 27-foot
setback, with a 30-foot setback to the second level.
7867 Convoy Court Suite 312 4} Son Diego California 92111 ^ 858.496.2525 4} 858.496.2527 fax ^ www.trs-sandiego.com ^ trs@trs-sandiego.com
Wes Peltzer, Will Holleran, Gary Piro
Visual Impact Study of Minor Subdivision (MS) 07-01
page 2
Discussion
Profile A
By right the Scotts are permitted to locate their building at a setback often feet from the common
property line. Therefore, Profile A on the enclosed exhibit shows the building location at that
setback line. The profile of the building shown in Profile A will almost completely block any
light from the Holleran residence. Most of the use of the Holleran residence is located on the first
floor and the angle of light reaching the first 12 feet of the building will be severely diminished
as the azimuth of the sun passes westerly from a point directly above the property line. As it
passes Point A, light will begin to disappear quickly. Profile A presents the worst-case scenario
for the proposed building.
Profile B
Profile B shows the conceptual structure for Minor Subdivision 07-01 as shown on plans
provided by The Sea Bright Company. This profile locates the proposed residence 27 feet from
the common property line, and will moderately improve the access to light for the Holleran
residence as compared with Profile A. The angle remains steep for any light passing through
Point B. Light for the Holleran first floor remains restricted in the afternoon hours.
In the case of both Profiles A and B, the imposition of the proposed structure not only severely
restricts access to light, but presents a looming edifice at uncomfortable proximity to their living
space, blocking light and creating a claustrophobic environment for the Hollerans.
Profile C
As shown on the attached exhibit, the split-level design of the proposed Profile C has a first-story
aspect located at the 27-foot setback with the second story beginning 30 feet back from the first
setback. This split-level design significantly increases the Holleran residence's access to light as
well as reducing the imposition of the looming structure.
Conclusion
In our professional opinion, after sight-visits and analysis of potential impacts based upon the
profiles discussed above, we believe the proposal which would both address the Hollerans'
concern of loss of quality of life while providing the Thomases an opportunity to build a
significant home of 5,000 square feet or more, is the split-level design shown in Profile C. While
we understand that any structure on the Thomas property will have a visual effect, we believe
Wes Peltzer, Will Holleran, Gary Piro
Visual Impact Study of Minor Subdivision (MS) 07-01
page 3
that the effect is reduced to less than significant if either a private agreement between the
Hollerans and the Thomases is achieved, or conditions imposed by the City of Carlsbad were to
require the Thomases to build according to Profile C.
Please feel free to contact my office at your convenience should you have any further questions
or comments.
Sincerely,
Thure R. Stedt
Principal, TRS Consultants
I!
Roof Line at
3:12 pitch
Roof Line
at 3:12 PitchExisting Grade
Existing Wall
5'±-Rad 170.5
Pad 162.5 165Proposed Wall
5'170.83 TW
Profile A - Proposed Building at Setback Line
I
PointB 8
Roof Line
•Existing Grade at 3:12 Pitch ^
•Pad 173.5
6'
Proposed
Building
--Rad
27'
oCO
170.5
"101* *•*
3'
Proposed Wall
5' ± '
170.83 TW I
::
Roof Line at
3:12 pitch~
Existing Wall
51*
Pad 162.5
Profile B - Proposed Building at 27 feet from Property Line
205
195
185
175
165'
Roof Line at
3:12 pitch
Split Level Profileat 3:12 Pitch
Existing Grade
Proposed
Building Existing WallPad 173.5
Proposed Wall
5' ±170.83 TW
Pad 162.5 165
Profile C - Proposed Building - Split Level Design
18
CONSULTANTS
Exhibit - Proposed Building Potential Impacts on Holleran Residence
Scale: 1" = 20' (Horiz. and Vert.)
Prepared by TRS Consultants 7867 Convoy Court #312 San Diego, CA 92111
n
S.3
HH 5
3
July 30, 2007
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Subject: City of Carlsbad Notice of Approval of Tentative Parcel Map; Minor Subdivision NO.
MS 07-01, dated July 18, 2007
I responded to the subject planned redevelopment on Highland Avenue in a letter to the City
Engineer on June 26, 2007. I have yet to receive a response to the concerns expressed in that letter.
The subject plan, as currently approved, was implemented without seeking input on this proposed
subdivision from the surrounding neighbors and long-term residents of the community. The
objections raised in a meeting with the city on June 18, 2007 have not been adequately addressed,
yet the approval has been issued without further discussion. This plan (demolishing an existing
home on Highland Avenue, subdividing the property into three lots and erecting three extremely
large new houses) permits a de facto redevelopment project to take place that significantly impacts
the nature and character of the neighborhood and degrades the quality of life for those of us on
adjacent properties.
Redevelopment is the correct word to use. In a long-established neighborhood, existing homes are
being torn down and replaced with very large houses. Contrary to the character of the neighborhood,
which was considered "unique" in the past, the residential density is now frequently being increased
by subdividing the existing lots. I currently have three, and potentially five, such houses being
planned or built immediately adjacent to my property. The lighting and visual and audible privacy
of my home will be degraded as a result. While not presently illegal, the construction of these
"McMansions" in existing neighborhoods has been the source of controversy and ill feeling when
residents of other local communities have felt damaged by such overcrowding. Certainly Carlsbad
can learn from the recent experience in Solana Beach and find a more open and mutually beneficial
way of managing these changes.
Far more egregious than simple overdevelopment, however, is the demonstrated tendency on the part
of the city to allow developers to substantially increase lot elevations in order to offer expensive
"ocean view" homes where no such views exist naturally. As in the case of the first property
subdivided from this original lot, these enormous structures, now elevated on much smaller lots, will
loom high over their neighbors, dramatically altering the character and livability of the
neighborhood. Without knowledge or consent, affected residents such as me can find their property
values diminished simply to provide more profit margin for the developers. The process of approval
for these elevation changes is essentially accomplished in secret, as it was in the development of the
first parcel subdivided from this older property. The city's approvals are granted well in advance of
public notice of the building permits and de facto redevelopment has already been allowed to
progress on this property.
Page 2
No one denies Mr. Scott the right to develop his land. Some consideration of the impact of this
development on the existing residents would be appreciated, however. In my case, the size of the
planned structure (elevated above existing grade level) will destroy the privacy of my home. The
upper story windows will overlook the entirety of my now-private back yard and permit the curious
to look into the Jacuzzi as well as my bedroom windows. Consideration of window placements and
tall plantings on Mr. Scott's property could alleviate much of the problem.
I would welcome an opportunity to discuss with the City of Carlsbad and with Mr. Scott how this
Situation might be reasonably remedied for the benefit of all concerned.
' Fred Briggs
cc: W. Halleron
June 26, 2007
1578 Basswood Avenue
Carlsbad CA 92008
Mr. John O'Donnell
Senior Civil Engineer
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad CA 92008
Dear Mr. O'Donnell;
On June 18, 2007 I attended a public meeting in your office which was intended to discuss several
items related to a proposed property subdivision on Highland Avenue. After some reflection, there
are two issues I wish to bring to your attention:
• The manner in which the meeting was conducted gave the distinct impression of a close
alignment between the city and the developer's interests; and
• Redevelopment of established neighborhoods without seeking input from affected property
owners is very poor policy.
I have long experience managing contentious meetings. That meeting on the 18th was possibly the
most unbalanced process I have ever witnessed. Before the assembled six or seven concerned
residents, the city's engineer commenced a scheduled public comment session with this (slightly
paraphrased) statement: "I don't know why you people are here. The decision is already made. As
soon as I leave this meeting I am going to sign the approval papers."
This position was emphasized over and over again, without permitting anyone else to speak. Mr.
Will Halleron, resident of 3311 James Drive and the individual initially requesting the meeting, was
repeatedly and rudely interrupted as he and his hydrologist attempted to make a prepared
presentation of their findings. Mr. Halleron's cooler head ultimately prevailed, but the city's
intractability was clearly demonstrated. More than a lack of courtesy, this incident painted an ugly
picture of how the City of Carlsbad conducts development approvals.
Redevelopment is the correct word to use to describe what is happening around my home. In a long-
established neighborhood, existing homes are being torn down and replaced with very large houses.
Contrary to the character of the neighborhood, which was considered "unique" in the past, the
residential density is now frequently being increased by subdividing the existing lots. I currently
have three, and potentially five, such houses being planned or built immediately adjacent to my
property. The lighting and visual and audible privacy of my home will be degraded as a result.
While not presently illegal, the construction of these "McMansions" hi existing neighborhoods has
been the source of controversy and ill feeling when residents of other local communities have felt
damaged by such overcrowding. Certainly Carlsbad can learn from the recent experience in Solana
Beach and find a more open and mutually beneficial way of managing these changes.
Far more egregious than simple overdevelopment, however, is the demonstrated tendency on the part
of the city to allow developers to substantially increase lot elevations in order to offer expensive
page 1 of2
page 2
"ocean view" homes where no such views exist naturally. As in the case of the subject subdivision,
these enormous structures, now elevated on much smaller lots, loom over their neighbors, cutting off
sunlight and dramatically altering the character of the neighborhood. Without knowledge or
consent, affected residents such as me can find their property values diminished simply to provide
more profit margin for the developers. The process of approval for these elevation changes is
essentially accomplished in secret, as in this case. The city's approvals are granted well in advance
of public notice of the building permit and this instance would have gone unnoticed if not for Mr.
Halleron's intervention on the planned hydrology for the site.
I am disappointed - make that appalled - to find that the City Engineer's Office does not have the
responsibility to protect the interests of ALL of Carlsbad's residents. As your engineer so ably
pointed out, "Why are you here? The decision's already made."
I would, however, welcome an opportunity to discuss with you how this situation might be
reasonably remedied for the benefit of all concerned.
Fred Briggs
cc: W. O'Halloran
Janice Thompson
3370 Highland Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
July 29, 2007
CITY OF CARLSBAD
To Whom it May Concern:
My name is Janice Thompson and I live at the above address. My letter is
concerning the subdivision of Tom Scott's property at 3320 Highland Drive.
This lot was part of the estate of Alta Ackerman. Alta also owned the
adjacent lot at 3340 Highland Drive, which is next to my property at 3370
Highland Drive. The owner, Richard Berger, an associate of Tom Scott and
Michael Haig, is presently developing his lot.
I have attended two meetings at Development Services regarding this
subdivision. Neighbors were notified in a letter dated March 22, 2007 and
after prodding the Development Services a meeting was held on April 12, 2007
to address concerns. I was not prepared for the arrogance and hostility shown
by staff to concerned neighbors. The staff provides a service to the public
and they need to be reminded of their manners and the reason that they are
there - to serve. A second meeting was held Monday, June 18, 2007, I was
notified late afternoon on Friday, June 15, 2007 of the meeting. I came away
from the meeting feeling let down by the City of Carlsbad. I feel very
unhappy about this subdivision, and what is being approved with no conditions.
Permission for three huge houses,elevated to astronomical heights to be built
on these two lots, a 41 foot wall to be built ten feet from a resident's
kitchen window. Has the City of Carlsbad done any comparison studies with
neighboring cities on mansionization? Olde Carlsbad is losing its charm and
character, what a loss to the City of Carlsbad and visitors.
I have a situation going on next to me, which may be twofold for the upcoming
development of this subdivision. Although my letter is directed to the
subdivision, what goes on the divided land is of great significance. In my
opinion, this should be required at the application for the subdivision - not
just a footprint of what's intended. Mr. Berger's setbacks are questionable,
a registered monument pin has been illegally removed, and he refuses to
remove obstruction from my wall and property to allow my surveyor to flag our
property line to assist the city in setback requirements. Why is he able to
do this? Is it because he and Scott gave the city contractor working on the
drainage requirements of this subdivision permission to stockpile mountains
of dirt on their property? Mr. Berger did get his utilities installed and
land graded, but what a price neighbors had to pay. Why are City employees
unable to monitor the permits they issue? Why are neighbors left to monitor
neighbors? Why does a resident have to get professional and legal counsel
over the City's inadequacies? I am very disappointed with my dealings with
the City of Carlsbad. I have so many questions and no answers. Where does
the buck stop? __
Sincerely, Janice Thompson --^ Q s v_a_ \V-,
June 17. 2007
John O'Donnell
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Minor Subdivision MS-07-01
Dear John O'Donnell:
I reside at 1620 Saint James Court, which shares the comer with James Drive. It has
come to my attention that the subdivision MS-07-01 has plans for changing the natural
grade of the property in order to construct a two-story house. I have concerns about
raising the grade and creating muddier runoff to come down James Drive, having lived at
this address for the past 16 years and experiencing. Every year during the heaviest
rainstorms, the runoff from Valley Street and Highland Drive flood and backup at our
corner, leaving debris, mud and lots of oranges from local trees. This is unacceptable and
changing the natural grades nearby will just add more mud to an already existing
problem. I want it known that I am very against any plans that alter the natural grade
which will create different runoff problems in order to pack more homes onto a smaller
lot area. That whole original lot would have been best served if split into two large lots
which would have avoided some of the upcoming problems instead of splitting it into
three lots. I should mention that the view we have from our second story windows is of
trees on the East Side of Highland Drive. Building a tall house on the proposed raised
grade will change this view to an unnatural one of a house above the James Drive homes.
Sincerely,
William A. Laird
1620 saint James Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-720-0664
July 30, 2007
Development Services
City of Carlsbad Public Works
1635 Faraday Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
To Whom It May Concern:
We've lived on Basswood Ave in Carlsbad for twenty-five years in an old established
neighborhood of Carlsbad. We're concerned about a newly proposed development on the
other side of our back fence and the affect it will have on us visually. Of particular
concern to us is the height of the house to be built on the east side of the Scott
subdivision. According to the subdivision map we received, it will be elevated above all
the other houses around it. This will create an eyesore in our neighborhood and take
away some privacy and enjoyment of our hqine.
This project requires special scrutiny and consideration. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerel,
_
iris and B^tty Krziza
1574BaSswbodAve.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
?=>O MS
— —I£5 3» T3-5 sa
»» O^4-w>
DVD disc exhibit on file with the
City Council Minutes of 09/18/2007
g
cfq'
< ff#£.
3 03
HH 5'
ll$9 »
«at
s =r•H Oso 3« -.••<• ci*> Bcrq
eSi
PIRO ENGINEERING
CIVIL ENGINEERING, SURVEYING AND LAND PLANNING
930 BOARDWALK (SUITED), SAN MARCOS, CALIF. 92078
Phone: (760) 744-3700 Cell: (760) 889-3170 Fax: (760) 744-3750
Mr. Wesley Pelzer Date: July 30, 2007
Attorney at Law W.O.: 3099 (C)
751 Rancheros Drive, Suite 4
San Marcos, CA 92069
Re: Scott Drainage Design and Discharge Impacts (MS - 07-01)
Dear Mr. Pelzer,
Per the request of Mr. William Holleran, I have reviewed the drainage calculations prepared by
Bob Sukup dated July 10, 2007 for MS-07-01. Based on my review of the data he has presented, as
well as my own analysis and field survey of offsite conditions, it is my opinion that the proposed
project will have a significant impact to drainage systems offsite to the east and west which can not
adequately handle the project drainage.
Offsite to the east, we have an "unusual" circumstance of a drainage system which was not built to
plan which will result in overflow of the existing driveway, erosion along the "earthen"
planter/shoulders outside the driveway and overflow into an adjacent property.
Offsite to the west, we have an "unusual" situation of a flat area of Highland Drive which cannot
handle drainage in this vicinity due to its flat grade and lack of curb facilities. This project proposes
to divert additional drainage to this area which will result in overburdening Highland Drive causing
drainage waters to flow outside the roadway into existing earthen shoulders.
Due to the lack of provision for these erosive conditions outside of the driveway to the east and on
Highland Drive, it is also my opinion that the proposed design does not sufficiently address the
requirements of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number
CAS018758.
Unusual Conditions to the East:
According to Mr. Sukup's drainage calculations dated July 10,2007, calculations prepared by my
office and a field survey of the existing driveway which serves the Holleran property, the drainage
which ultimately flows to the Holleran driveway comes from 6 properties (Assessor's Parcels 205-
060-4,5,6, 7, 72 and 73). Based on the data I have accumulated, the maximum drainage which
flows on to the existing driveway is 5.86 cubic feet per second.
The drainage system for Map 12888 prepared by Mr. Joseph Lukoski (R.C.E. 27542), had a
driveway design which was 20-feet wide and at a "5-inch" depth which was more than adequate to
handle the drainage. Unfortunately, the drainage system designed by Mr. Lukoski was NOT
constructed per design. The actually driveway was constructed only 17-feet wide and has a
maximum depth of 2 inches. Per our field surveyed measurements the maximum capacity of this
driveway is only 4.07 cubic feet per second.
Mr. Sukup indicates in his drainage study that the water will be handled by flowing over into the
"side planters". It should be noted that these areas are primarily dirt with scattered shrubs planted,
and therefore waters flowing into these dirt shoulder areas will cause erosion on to James Drive
which is not accounted for and violates State Urban Runoff and erosion regulations.
Furthermore, we have performed a "field survey" of the driveway area and have determined that
there are potions of the planter area north of the driveway which are lower than the elevation of the
driveway, therefore we believe that the ultimate drainage would flow over the driveway, over the
planter area to the north and cause additional drainage/flooding on to Assessor's Parcel Number
205-060-71.
Mr. Sukup's new drainage report describes a "retention" system which would allow for drainage
waters in the proposed driveway via a 2-foot "gravel swale" in that driveway and a "sump area"
just to the west of the drainage outlet onto your property. We have several problems with this
design.
1. First, this "retention" area ONLY handles drainage waters in the driveway. The majority of
the drainage is within "pipes" which do not go through this "retention" sump area
whatsoever.
2. Second, there are no calculations whatsoever regarding "detention analysis" to get the
drainage at the outlet down to the same "Q" as pre-construction.
3. Third, Mr. Sukup makes some references in his report that the pipe systems themselves will
"retain or detain" much of the water, but there are no calculations to support his contention
that this will reduce the drainage at the outlet. Although reduced capacity inlets and pipes
have been proposed (with 6" inlet to 4" outlet at 1%) they have the probability of becoming
clogged. The resulting drainage will then find a way to flow overland to the northeast
property corner thus circumventing the reduced capacity 4" drains.
In conclusion, with respect to the outlet at your property, Mr. Sukup is assuming (without any
calculations to support his assumption) that his system will "Detain the water" within the rock
swales, retention sump, and in undersized pipes and grates. The problem with this assumption is
that they are proposing a 5000 + square foot house which will sell for a minimum of $1.5 million,
and it has been our experience that the owners of "high end" properties will not want the
inconvenience of slow flowing drains and ponding on the site. They will simply "fill in" the gravel
swale, fill in the sump area and upsize all of the pipes causing increased drainage onto your
property. This is why most agencies require that detention basins be designed "underground'".
Unusual Conditions to the West:
In this direction, the City has recently constructed an 12-inch drainage pipe along Highland Drive,
however the capacity of this pipe is only 3.86 cubic feet per second, was NOT designed to
accommodate the drainage being diverted by the Scott project and does NOT provide drainage
inlets to accommodate the Scott project.
Per Mr. Sukup's calculations, the area that drains to the west onto Highland Drive will be increased
by 0.31 cubic feet per second. This increase of drainage leaving the Scott property on the west by
70% is bad enough; we feel his calculations are '^grossly" understated.
In reviewing the "after" condition of the easterly outlet whereby Mr. Sukup's calculations show a
drainage flow amount of 1.27 c.f.s. which is 3.84 CFS/acre of drainage, on the west the drainage
flow in the "after" condition is only 1.87 CFS/ acre of drainage. In examining the calculations, this
is understated because Mr. Sukup has determined the front lot to be only 25% impervious, whereas
it is in reality in excess of 50% impervious. Furthermore, he uses a "time of concentration" of 9
minutes when in fact it should be 5 rninutes or less. By my preliminary calculations, the "after"
condition will not be 70% higher than existing (as Mr. Sukup has calculated) but rather an increase
of 300% or more.
Looking at it "logically" Mr. Sukup proposes to ^'divert" drainage which normally flows to the east,
to now go to the west. This will cause an increase of approximately 50% in drainage area flowing
west, plus increased runoff due to the construction of a new driveway.
The westerly direction is PARTICULARLY sensitive since a field examination of this area, the
topography map provided by Sukup, and the "200-scale" topographic map indicates that the entire
area in front of the Scott residence is very flat and waters currently pond immediately to the
NORTH. However Mr. Sukup has made no analysis whatsoever of how the "pre" and "post"
conditions will be addressed. Since this is an increase in drainage due to "diversion", it would
require a "waiver and release" from offsite owners, primarily the owner of Assessor's Parcel
Number 205-060-05 where water appears to have ponded in the past. The Scott project is adding
additional drainage impacts and un-mitigable stormwater and erosion pollutants which wilt pond
in Highland Drive.
As stated above the 12-inch pipe whjch appears s,olely to have been installed to remove a
ponding/flooding area on a property on the west side of Highland approximately 150-feet north of
the Scott project. Since the pipe is not of adequate size, and since it has no provision for inlets to
the Scott project, additional waters will pond to the existing graded earthen shoulders and cause
surface erosion.
Conclusion:
We understand that the City Engineering Department will review engineering calculations prior to
granting construction permits; however we do not believe that there is currently sufficient data to
determine if a system "can" be designed which wpuld satisfy the drainage requirements due to
these unusual conditions which exist easterly and westerly of the project. Furthermore, the impacts
to surface storm water runoff and erosion appear to be "non-mitigable.
We therefore believe that a challenge could be made to the CEQA finding of "urban exemption" on
the basis of "inadequate drainage and stormwater analysis".
Very truly yours - Gary Piro, R.C.E. 24000
3£
>!£i
31 mm enO w
m E
"Smo
m
3
OQ
•o
s
•-»\
00
i
5
M
OOoc
zo
Dm
RIPO
H
3)mo
•n
3DO
V.
01
1
m o
D
m
-<}
•^
> 5Poo
o3)Z
<o
o
RONALD R. BALL
CITY ATTORNEY
JANE MOBALDI
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1949
(760) 434-2891
FAX: (760) 434-8367
RONALD KEMP
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
PAUL G. EDMONSON
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
September 19, 2007 SEP I 9 2007
CiTY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Wesley W. Pelzer, Esq.
Law Offices of Wesley W. Pelzer, P.C.
751 Rancheros Drive, Suite 4
San Marcos, California 92069
Re: Appeal of Decision Regarding Lot Split at 3320 Highland Drive, Carlsbad
(MS-07-01)
Dear Mr. Pelzer:
This appeal came on regularly for hearing before the City Council at its meeting of Tuesday,
September 18, 2007. As you know, the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map
Act both require the appeal to be heard within 30 days of its filing unless there is no City Council
meeting during that time. The Council was on recess during that 30-day period and the first
available meeting following the recess was the Council's meeting of September 18, 2007. The
Council received a copy of your client's letter dated September 10,2007 requesting that the
appeal be continued until October 9, 2007 because he was out of the country. Mr. and Mrs. Scott
appeared at the hearing and were ready to proceed. The Council considered your written request,
received testimony from Mr. Scott and, after discussion, determined to continue the appeal to
your requested date of October 9, 2007 with the understanding that there will be no additional
continuances. Please be prepared to proceed on that evening.
The law requires a prompt hearing, and upon conclusion of that hearing, that the Council declare
its findings based on the testimony and documents produced before it within 10 days. The
recommended action is to refer the Council's determination to the City Attorney to return with
documents denying the appeal and upholding City Engineer's decision approving the Minor
Subdivision No. MS-07-01.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Ronald R. Ball
City Attorney
kr
cc: Mayor and City Council
City Clerk
City Manager
Interim City Manager
Public Works Director
City Engineer O'Donnell
City Engineer Levy
Mr. Thomas Scott
September 10, 2007
Mr. Ray Patchett
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Scott Minor Subdivision Case File MS-07-01
Dear Mr. Patchett:
I just received notice advising me that the City Council is scheduled to consider my
appeal of the above-referenced subdivision on 9/18/07. I'm writing to ask for a
postponement as I will be out of the country on that date. I respectfully request mat it bs
rescheduled for October 9th. Please let me know as soon as possible. Thank you in
advance for your understanding.
Sincjsrely,
H$>tleran
"33'1-Hames Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
0
FE? fr^ 1 <s' (1 \\/7 i '"=?telLc- u^U w Us
CCD 1 1 '}rri7i/i. ; ! i L\JJ!
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
;c\
H/
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2007, to consider the appeal of the city engineer's decision
approving minor subdivision no. MS 07-01 (Thomas Scott) on property generally located on the
east side of Highland Drive between Basswood Avenue and Pine Avenue, and more particularly
described as:
That portion of Tract 123 of Carlsbad Lands, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
1661, filed in the office of the county recorder of San Diego County,
March 1, 1951.
Those persons wishing to speak on this appeal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing.
Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after August 28, 2007. If you have any
questions, please call Tecla Levy in the Engineering Department at (760) 602-2733.
If you challenge the appeal 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, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: MS 07-01
CASE NAME: Thomas Scott Minor Subdivision
PUBLISH: August 30, 2007
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010& 2011 C.C.P.)
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in
the above-entitled matter. I am the principal
clerk of the printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have
been adjudicated newspapers of general
circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
San Diego, State of California, for the City of
Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court
Decree number 171349, for the County of San
Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpariel), has been published in each regular
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
September 08th, Tfltn ft C2"d, 2007
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
Proof of Publication of
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that theCity Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold apublic hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carls-bad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m.on Tuesday September 18,2007, to consider the ap-peal of the City Engineer's decision approving MinorSubdivision No. MS 07-01 (Thomas Scott) on proper-ty generally located on the east side of Highland Drivebetween Basswood Avenue and Pine Avenue andmore particularly described as:
A portion of Tract 123 of Carlsbad Lands, in the Cityof Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,according to Map thereof No. TB61, filed in the officeof the county recorder of San Diego County, March 1,
Those persons wishing to speak on this appeal arecordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copiesof the agenda bill will be available on and after Sep-tember 14, 2007. If you have any questions, pleasecall Tecla Levy in the Engineering Department at(760) 502-2733.
If you challenge the appeal in court, you may be lim-ited to raising only those issues you or someone elseraised at the public hearing described in this notice orin written correspondence delivered to the City ofCarlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 CarlsbadVillage Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to thepublic hearing.
CASE FILE: MS 07-01
CASE NAME:Thomas Scott Minor Subdivision
PUBLISH: September 08, 2007 NCT 20^5061
CITY OF CARLSBADCITY COUNCIL
This 24th, day of September, 2007
OUi
Signature
Jane Allshouse
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Easy Peel Labels
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 8160™
APN 205-051 -06-00
JOHN R & SUE C BOSIO
3242 MCKINLEY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-051-09-00
JOSEPH S & JUDITH A POUNDS
3250 MCKINLEY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-051 -12-00
FRED E MITCHELL
3280 MCKIN LEY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-051-15-00
JAN WJANSSEN
3307 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-051 -19-00
SALLIE L DAVIS
1432 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-05-00
GILDRED DEVELOPMENT CO
550 WCST #1820
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
APN 205-060-27-00
MARVIN & MARIE C CARKHUFF
83 FEDOR RD
HUNLOCK CREEK PA 18621
APN 205-060-35-00
MARCIA S STAPLETON
1550 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-39-00
BRIGGS FAMILY TRUST 11-20-03
1578 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-46-00
MICHAEL C & GREENE ALLISON D
BERWALD
3296 JAMES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
A
Feed Paper for Easy Peel Feature
APN 205-051-07-00
JORGENSON FAMILY 2002 TRUST
01-10-02
3247 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-051-10-00
RAYMOND & GILLIS-GAUTIER
DARLENE GAUTHIER
3580 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-051 -13-00
HEADRICK FAMILY TRUST 11-20-02
3300 MCKINLEY ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-051 -16-00
CATHRINE GREENE
3333 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-051-20-00
HOWARD L BRYAN
1443 AVOCADO RD
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
APN 205-060-07-00
RICHARD S & JENNIFER BERGER
2331 DANA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-28-00
LLOYD E STEIN
1630 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-36-00
IONE M KRATT
1570 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-42-00
GARY F & MARY FAIRBANKS
1412 TENNIS CLUB DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024
APN 205-060-47-00
THOMAS D & PATRICIA A LAMM
3286 JAMES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
^AVERY®18660""|
APN 205-051-08-00
GLENN G & CAROL A PEARSON
3265 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-051-11-00
STRAUSE FAMILY TRUST 11-04-91
3291 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-051 -14-00
GAIL L POWELL
3755 AVOCADO BLVD #422
LA MESA CA 91941
APN 205-051-17-00
JOEL & MUNOZ-AROYO LETICIA
AROYO
3375 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-04-00
B AS TRUST SEPERATE
PROPERTY TRUST
3276 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-08-00
ROBERT & JANICE THOMPSON
3370 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-34-00
DIANE GARRETT
3384 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-38-00
KRZIZA FAMILY 2006 TRUST
06-01-06
1574 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-43-00
WILLIAM T & ANNE D BARKER
3308 JAMES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-49-00
ROSE A TALLEY
3312 JAMES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Etiquettes faciles a peler
Cane
Consultez la feuille www.avery.com
Easy Peel Labels
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 8160™
APN 205-060-50-00
CAMPBELL 1998 TRUST 04-21-98
2781 BERKELEY AVE
CARLSBADCA92010
APN 205-060-58-00
WILLIAM A & PAMELA A LAIRD
1620STJAMESCT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-67-00
MOORE FAMILY 2004 TRUST
12-16-04
3265 JAMES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-70-00
STEPHEN E & KIMBERLY J SHAW
3260 WESTWOOD DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-73-00
HOLLERAN FAMILY TRUST 07-15-97
3311 JAMES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
A
Feed Paper See Instruction Sheet
for Easy Peel Feature
APN 205-060-52-00
JOHN J & KELLY K MCLAUGHLIN
6245 ALVERTON DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
APN 205-060-64-00
WILLIAM & JACQUELINE SEWELL
1625STJAMESCT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-68-00
MUSSER FAMILY TRUST 04-27-99
3252 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-71-00
STEPHEN & MCMANIGAL JILL R
CRAFT
3303 JAMES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-74-00
BRYAN & CAROLINE GUNNER
3315 JAMES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AVERY® 18660™«
APN 205-060-55-00
GARCIA/THOMAS FAMILY L L C
1051 LYNN ST
LIVERMORE CA 94550
APN 205-060-66-00
DALE TIGLIO
3264 HIGHLAND DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-69-00
ALISA V TREJO
3255 JAMES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-72-00
RONNIE D & MARTHA A SERAB
3307 JAMES DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-75-00
DAVID & OLIVIA MALDONADO
1590 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-060-76-00 APN 205-120-34-00 APN 205-120-35-00
DAVID & OLIVIA MALDONADO
1590 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DONALD R & KATHLEEN M ERBE
1397 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JOHN J & GRACE F MAMAUX
1393 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-120-36-00
GROSSMAN FAMILY TRUST
10-04-89
1387 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-130-38-00
RICHARD M & MORTON HOLLI
AXTELL
3410HIGHLANDDR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-130-41 -00
APN 205-120-37-00
MAURICE B & MARY R MASTHAY
1385 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-130-39-00
LINDA E JOYCE
1511 BASS WOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-130-42-00
APN 205-120-69-00
BARNEY TRUST 01-16-80
419 NORMANDY ST
GARY NC 27511
APN 205-130-40-00
RUSING LIVING REVOCABLE
TRUST 01-23-01
4310 BROOKS WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-130-61-00
GLIDDEN D & STEPHANIE R SCOTT
1551 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DANIEL R NOUGIER
1571 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DANIEL & HEATHER BENSEN
1635 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
APN 205-130-62-00
HARRY G HEALEY
1645 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Etiquettes faciles a peler
Cone Ho rharnomont
Consultez la feuille
/I'inff 1*1 i/-f istn
www.avery.com
(08/24/2007) Sherry Freisinger - Public Hearing Notice Page 1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sherry Freisinger
legals@nctimes.com
08/24/2007 1:50 PM
Public Hearing Notice
Holleran Appeal.doc
0
Another one!! Hi again, Tammi. Can you also publish the attached appeal on MS 07-01 on August 30, 2007 using the city
seal and simple border.
Thanks so much. Have a great weekend!
Sherry
Sherry Freisinger
Administrative Secretary/Deputy Clerk
City Clerk's Office/City of Carlsbad
760.434.2809
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
(760) 602-2401
REC'D FROM era n DATE
ACCOUNT NO.
ool-*3J/a- 4% is
t .-.'
\
DESCRIPTION
(bfi.1QJltJLjP ( j /-(. C/01 (.C'XJLA^ 5
/ • . (_/
y^u.«y \6<y (?' /^x-/c ^ 4(*i3
rJ txL : 1-30 • <JQ07
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL.
AMOUNT
4 %no <m
•
!
^5 810
*0r O "~j S\
s=^ O / Cx
<fD
(P}
P«»d on rscyded paper CASH REGISTER
City of Car'lsbad"
Faraday Center
Faraday Cashiering 001
0721201-1 07/31/2007 32
Tue Jul31,2007 07:54 AM
Name: WILLIAM HOLLERAN
MISC - MISC FINANCIAL $870.00
Tran Nbr: 072120101 0002 0002
1 ITEM(S): TOTAL:
Check (Chk# 4612)
Total Received:
Have a nice day!
$870.00
$870.00
$870.00
**************CUSTOMER COPY*************
MS 07MS 07--01 SCOTT MINOR 01 SCOTT MINOR SUBDIVISIONSUBDIVISIONResponse to Appeal
IntroductionIntroductionzOn July 18, 2007, City approved Mr. Scott’s two-lot Minor Subdivision on Highland Drive.zAppeal received from adjoining property owner, Mr. Holleran on July 30, 2007.
Project LocationProject LocationScott PropertyHolleran PropertyH ig h la n d D riv e
J a m e s D riv e
ApprovalApprovalzEngineering approved the minor subdivision as it met all City requirements in the:–Subdivision Map Act–Carlsbad Municipal Code–CEQA Guidelines No. 15315–Land Use Element of General Plan–Drainage & other utility requirements–City Storm Water Standards–Engineering Standards
Engineering Issue: Engineering Issue: Appeal Issue # 2Appeal Issue # 2zAppeal issue: MS 07-01 has significant surface water impactzCity Response: MS 07-01 has insignificant storm water impact –Any increase in storm water runoff will be detained on-site.–Conditions of approval: requirement to design adequate detention system during final engineering.–Run-off before the development = Run-off after development
Existing Drainage PatternExisting Drainage PatternScott PropertyHolleran PropertyH ig h la n d D riv e
J a m e s D riv e
E x is tin g
B ro w D itc hExisting
B ro w D itc h
H o lle ra n D riv e w a yHolleran D riv e w a y
125643
1991 City Approved Plan1991 City Approved PlanScott PropertyHolleran PropertyExisting SpillwayExistingBrow DitchHolleranDrivewayJames DriveHighland DriveExistingBrow Ditch1234
Existing SituationExisting SituationScott PropertyHolleran PropertyBrow Ditch
Existing SituationExisting SituationScott PropertyHolleran PropertySpillwayFrom top looking down
Existing SituationExisting SituationScott PropertyHolleran PropertyHolleran DrivewayLow point - Subject to inundation
Approved MS 07Approved MS 07--01 Tentative Map01 Tentative MapPreliminary Grading PlanPreliminary Grading Planz(show map and highlight exit points and pre and post Q and velocities)Runoff before development = Runoff after developmentDetention systemDetention system
Engineering Issue: Engineering Issue: Appeal Issue # 2Appeal Issue # 2zAppeal Issue: MS 07-01 not categorically exempt per CEQA due to unusual circumstance, Holleran’sexisting driveway not built per City approved plan, DWG 315-5, not adequate to handle major storm event.zCity Response: –CEQA guidelines: categorically exempt if project have no significant impact to the environment. –The amount of storm water run-off before the development is expected to be the same after development, therefore project has no significant impact to existing situation.
Engineering Issue: Engineering Issue: Appeal Issue # 2Appeal Issue # 2zAppeal Issue: Portions of planter area lower than the driveway, project will cause additional drainage/flooding. Cannot be mitigated.zCity response: –The project proposed no increase in run-off, therefore no additional drainage/flooding.–Problem can be mitigated. The driveway owners has the responsibility to fix the existing problem within their property. –Floor elevations are higher than planter area, therefore no flooding of homes is anticipated.
Engineering Issue: Engineering Issue: Appeal Issue # 2Appeal Issue # 2zAppeal Issue: No drainage easement was obtained. zCity response: –Mr. Scott’s property historically drains onto Holleran’s driveway. –The project proposed no increase in run-off and velocity, no additional drainage/flooding is anticipated, therefore no drainage easement is required.
Engineering Issue: Engineering Issue: Appeal Issue # 2Appeal Issue # 2zAppeal Issue: Proposed detention system will not work. zCity response: –The project is in the preliminary stage. Final design details and calculations will be required during the review of final parcel map and final grading plan.
Engineering Issue: Engineering Issue: Appeal Issue # 2Appeal Issue # 2zAppeal Issue: Proposed pipe system has the probability of becoming clogged. zCity response: –Redundant system provided - secondary inlet proposed at the Northeast corner of the lot–Detention system will be designed to capture the increase before entering the secondary inlet–Property owner is responsible for the maintenance of the proposed storm drain system.
New Storm Drain on Highland DriveNew Storm Drain on Highland DriveAScott PropertyHolleran PropertyInletCleanoutCleanout
Engineering Issue: Engineering Issue: Appeal Issue # 6Appeal Issue # 6zAppeal issue: Mr. Holleranbelieves the application violates a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System PermitzCity Response–The project complies with the NPDES Permit and the City of the Carlsbad Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan.–The temporary stockpile was part of the recent storm drain improvement by the City on Highland Drive and not related to this TMP.Temporary Stockpile
Planning IssuesPlanning Issues
Issues Raised in AppealIssues Raised in AppealzAppeal Issue # 3 - Visual impact to neighboring properties will be significant. –All properties in the surrounding neighborhood are zoned R-1. Any future home on Scott’s Minor Subdivision will be required to follow Zoning standards of the R-1 zone including building height, setbacks and lot coverage.
Issues Raised in AppealIssues Raised in AppealzAppeal Issue # 1: Inconsistencies with Carlsbad Land Use Element specifically with General Plan Policies C.6, C.7 and Objective B.2 of the Residential Section of the General Plan Implementing Policies and Action Programs.
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.6Action Programs C.6zReview the architecture of buildings with focus on ensuring the quality and integrity of design and enhancement of the character of each neighborhood. zThe City has adopted Policy No. 44, Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines. Per the guidelines, a new individual single-family residence does not require architecture review.
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.7zC.7 contains nine criteria by which to evaluate each development application. Each application needs to be evaluated for development of property with regard to the following specific criteria.
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.71) “Site design quality which may be indicated by the harmony of the proposed buildings in terms of size, height and location, with respect to existing neighborhood development.”
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.7zThe proposed project is for the minor subdivision of land into single-family residential lots. zThe proposed subdivision complies with development standards of the R-1 Zone and the Subdivision Ordinance.
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.7zPresently, there are no building plans on file. zAny development on the lot will be required to comply with the R-1 development standards.zThe R-1 zone provide minimum standards for structure setbacks and maximums for building height and lot coverage which are standard for R-1 Zoned neighborhoods.
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.72) “Site design quality which may be indicated by the amount and character of landscaping and screening.”
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.7zSingle family homes which are not subject to the Hillside Guidelines or located within the Coastal Zone do not require landscape plans or screening materials. The project is not located on a hillside qualifying site or in the Coastal Zone.
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.73) “Site design quality which may be indicated by the arrangement for the site for efficiency of circulation or on site and off site traffic safety, privacy, etc.”
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.7zThe front lot takes access off of Highland Drive with a driveway to a garage in the rear yard. zThe panhandle lot, also taking access from Highland Drive, provides adequate area for the vehicle turn around and parking and this will be analyzed at building permit issuance. Vehicles can exit the site in a forward manner and will not be required to back out into a public roadway. zPrivacy is provided by fencing between properties.
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.74) “The provision of public and/or private usable open space and/or pathways designated in the Open Space and Park and Recreation Elements.”
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.7zAdequate private space is provided through the provision of adequate rear yard and side yard setbacks typical of R-1 Zone.zThe site is not identified on the Open Space and Conservation Map as providing public Open Space opportunities.
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.75) “Contributions to and extensions of existing systems of foot or bicycle paths, equestrian trails, and the greenbelts provided for in Circulation, Parks and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan.”
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.7zThe lot does not contain any paths or trails and is not identified as a greenbelt in the Open Space and Conservation Elements. zThe project is conditioned to enter into a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement for the future construction of public improvements, including sidewalks on Highland Drive.
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.76) “Compliance with the performance standards of the Growth Management Plan.”
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.7zThe project is located in the northwest quadrant in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. zZone 1 is identified as an infill area where public facilities are already in place. zThe project is conditioned to pay impact fees which offset the cost of public facilities. zThe project’s proposed density is at the Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre.
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.77) “Development proposals which are designated to provide safe, easy pedestrian and bicycle linkages to nearby transportation corridors.”
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.7zThis is not relevant to residential infill development of this scale or location.
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.78) “The provision of housing affordable to lower and/or moderate income households.”
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.7zThe project will pay affordable housing in-lieu fees per the inclusionary housing ordinance which will be used toward the provision of affordable housing before issuance of the building permit.
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.79) “Policies and programs outlined in Local Coastal Program where applicable.”
General Plan Land Use Element Land General Plan Land Use Element Land Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Use Pattern Implementing Policies and Action Programs C.7Action Programs C.7zThe project is not within the Coastal Zone and is therefore not subject to the LCP.
Objective B.2 of the Residential Objective B.2 of the Residential Section of the General Plan Section of the General Plan Implementing Policies and Action Implementing Policies and Action ProgramsProgramsz“To preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas.”
Objective B.2 of the Residential Objective B.2 of the Residential Section of the General Plan Section of the General Plan Implementing Policies and Action Implementing Policies and Action ProgramsProgramszThe proposed minor subdivision of a residential lot into two residential lots will preserve the residential character of the existing residential neighborhood.
Issues Raised in AppealIssues Raised in AppealzAppeal Issue # 4:Inappropriate application of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the project should not have been determined categorically exempt.
CEQA issueCEQA issuezCEQA exempt per CEQA Guideline, Article 19, Categorical Exemptions, Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions zClass 15 consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within two years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent.
CEQACEQAzThe proposed project is the subdivision of land in an urbanized area, as defined in CEQA, zoned for residential use. zThe project is for a two lot subdivision where up to four lots may be exempt. zThe project complies with the General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Low-Medium and meets the Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre.
CEQACEQAzThe project complies with the Residential Single-Family Zoning requirements and development standards without the need for any variances or exceptions. zAll public services are available to the subject site and access is available from Highland Drive.
CEQACEQAzThe subject site was not involved in a subdivision within the last two years.zThe property does not have a slope greater than 20 percent.
Issues Raised in AppealIssues Raised in AppealzAppeal Issue # 5:–Mr. Holleran claims that the project does not comply with the City of Carlsbad Subdivision Ordinance.zCity Response–City staff determined that the project complies with City of Carlsbad Subdivision Ordinance and Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Project LocationProject LocationAScott PropertyHolleran Property