Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-58A; Carlsbad Park Estates; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (28)City of Carlsbad Engineering: Lloyd Houbbs, Ken Quon, Bob W City Planners: Michael J. Hozmiller, Joe Mc Council Members: Matt Hall, Ramona Finnila, Julie Nygaard, Ann City Attorney: Ron Bull Mayor : Bud Lewis Planning CommissionersY Bailey Noble, Compas, Heineman, Monroy, Bob Nielson, Dick Cook, Anne Hysong Kulchin Welhons We are sending the following document to duly notify the City of the actions they have taken which we consider to be illegal and unresponsive to the wishes of the residents of Carlsbad. After perusing the documents purchased from the City we find the following problems unsatisfactorily resolved and in violation of our rights: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM Responses to Questions Signed by James A. Laret Dated December 14, i997 I-a) We feel the zone change was not consistent with the majority of the abutting properties. I-c) The development is NOT compatible with the majority of the adjacent lot sizes. 11-b They failed to mention that the project is surrounded by ONE STORY single family residential homes. IV-a The site grading is such that storm runoff retention will seriously damage the homes to the east and south of the project. This has not been adequately investigated nor will the developer or the City or its Engineers guarantee our safety. VI-a Is incorli'ect. There have never been 104 trips per day involved with the nursery business. Most of the time there were 0 trips. The CONCLUSION is misleading as it states "the onsite soils are adequate for the intensity of the proposed land use". Over 22 truck loads of additional soil have been poured into the project due to the 14 ft. height of the corner lot and 6 foot height on the property to the east. It would be impossible for any layman to realize that the elevations would reach these heights by reading this conclusion. .................................. Correspondence from Engineer Quon to Anne Hysong dated January 23, 1998 speaks of the original proposal of a brow ditch behind lots 10-14. If that plan, or the plan submitted to Engineering by Paul Linden (previously a Civil Engineer) which planned for the cul-de-sac to be converted to a U shaped street entering and exiting on Park Drive with all properties draining into the required storm drain in the gutter of Park Drive, was adopted the extreme elevations would not be required. Unfortunately for the community the City, up to now, has seen fit to b i' other solutions which might preserve the integrity of the esolve the drainaqe problems. The City insists these lots drain on to Monroe Street instead of Park Drive.- The drainage to Park would maintain the natural slope of those lots, the street and the area. This would be agreeable to all of us. .................................. In Document #1998-0101135 recorded on February 26, 1998 there is reference to "the building permit valuation of the building or structures". Please aid us in obtaining a copy of this valuation of each structure as well as the total amount. .................................. Correspondence from Engineer Quon to Anne Hysong dated April 1, 1998 states "The project application does contain some engineering issues or concerns which remain to be resolved by the applicant. All engineering issues should be fully resolved or addressed prior to resubmitting <he project for our review". #l. States "No further comments can be made regarding drainage of this project until this analysis is received by the Engineering Department". We feel this issue is unresolved and request it be reinvestigated and adequately addressed and discussed with the property owners most effected. .................................. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM-PART I1 Dated May 11, 1998 Signed by: Anne Hysong and Michael J. Holzmiller on May 18, 1898 Finds no negative effects whatsoever on the environment. This is false. The schools are over crowded, the ambience of the area is destroyed, the drainage is insufficient and the danger of flooding abutting properties is obvious. .................................. The Public notice published May 21, 1998 speaks only to the rezoning. There is no mention of grading, elevations or drainage provisions nor were any of these items addressed in any of the meetings. Hysong was phoped and questioned but was reticent and rude giving a minimum of infiormation to those of us who inquired. The omissions in the Staff's presentation to Council gives us pause to reflect as to whether or not the Planning Department is deliberately deceiving us. Anne .................................. To: ANNE HYSONG FROM: Associate Engineer Quon Dated May 13, 1998 #46 says "Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer" established that the City Engineer was fully aware of the impact elevations and additional soils added to the project would have. This Z# #51 requests "The owner of the subject property (developer) shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent property." It is obvious the City realizes the danger of flodding created by this project and endeavors to protect itself but not the adjacent property owners. #56 uses duress to acquire annexation of the builder's private property "into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1" sidewalks (this is the City's responsibility) to include the properties on Monroe Street up to and including the blind curve to Sunnyhill which has been established a dangerous area where we and our Children must walk. We feel all Future Improvement Agreements were coerced and signed under duress by property owners wishing to remodel their homes as the City would not issue building permits unless FIAs were signed. Therefore we feel all these documents are illegal. There is no mention of extending the #58 mentions the "grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map" which is 0. The map has been violated, without notice to the adjacent property owners, by trucking in 22 loads of soil. #63 makes it clear that the City Engineer could require draining easements and structures yet that department never required extensive drainage structure for protection of the adjacent properties. f .................................. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Signed by Michael Holzmiller Dated May 22, 1998 Should never have been issued as it is based on the false premise that "the project will not have a significant impact on the environment". A project that removes 10 to 15 beautiful pine trees has a great impact on the environment to say nothing of the impact of block walls and two story homes surrounded by one story homes. .................................. Housing Commission Resolution No. 98-009 appears to have been adopted after "Public" meetings Housing Commission held on on June 11, 1998 and July 9,1989. None of us were informed of these meetings. This Resolution states in Paragraph four: "Whereas, said Housing Commission did, on the 11th day of June, 1998 and on the 9th day of July, 1998, hold a public meeting". No one received notice of these meetings. Therefore they could not have testified as stated in the document "Whereas, at said public meeting, upon hearing and considering dL testimony". Since all the factors of this project directly effect the abutting property owners they should have been informed. A meeting cannot be public if the public, especially those directly effected, are not personally informed. .................................. On July 1, 1998 it is noted on a single sheet headed PLANNING COMMISSION that items #3,4,5,7,&9 were to be heard as a group. is no way any of us could know what these numbers mean. There It also states "These items would NORMALLY be heard in a PUBLIC HEARING context", "staff feels that all of the issues have been resolved and they can be treated as consent items." Staff is inter,fering with our right to examine these items and judge for ourselvesLif they have been resolved to OUR satisfaction. .................................. EXHIBIT 7 MINUTE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: July 15, 1998 ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/CT 97-24/SDP 98-05/CDP 97-58-MAY SUB-DIVISION Item 1 requests approval of several items ie: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan and Coastal Development etc. etc. as well as a ZONE CHANGE. These items were never mentioned in the newspaper advertising which related EXCLUSIVELY to the zone change. They were never mentioned, explained or discussed at any of the city council meetings we have viewed on video. They were noted on the plans in the Planning Department but the significance of these elevations were never pointed out or EXPLAINED to those living in the area until the earth was raised up to 14 feet above the street and 6 feet above the adjacent property on the east. The map contained elevations which the average person could never comprehend. That is why the City, representing the non-professional residents, hires engineers to explain these factors to those concerned and protect its' residents and the City Council from these tyges of errors and projects. This City belongs to us! We pay their salaries. They should check these projects thoroughly and be fully aware of the consequences of their rulings. Our safety and land values depend on their decisions. Their mistakes should be acknowledged and paid for by the City. We request you stop this project and redesign these pads before the foundations are poured using City funds to reimburse any additional costs to the developer. We believe this would cost less than fighting class action law suits. Local .................................. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4325 States "that on July 1, 1998 and July 15, 1989 there were duly noticed public hearings, as prescribed by law." Many of the Property owners were NOT directly notified. Under FINDINGS: #l. It states "the proposed Zone Change from R-1-7,500 and R-1-15,000 to R-1-10,000 is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan Land Use Element (Policy C.l), in that it will result in the arrangement of land uses which PRESERVE COMMUNITY IDENTITY and are orderly, and functionally efficient, HEALTHFUL and AESTHETICALLY PLEASING". THE MAY SUBDIVISION DOES NOT PRESERVE COMMUNITY IDENTITY AND WILL NOT BE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING. First, over 90% of the homes in the area are one story. Second, abutting properties with the exception of 2 all Third, it totally destroys ocean views for which property owners paid dearly. over 10,000 sq. ft. THE MAY SUBDIVISION IS NOT HEALTHFUL. It creates destructive drainage problems due to it's elevation of up to 6 feet above the abutting east property without regard or consideration for drainage of other neighboring properties. This will cause flooding of the abutting properties. THE MAY SUBDIVISION IS DEFIANTLY NOT AESTHETICALLY PLEASING. I In a neighborhood of beautiful one story homes and tree lined streets this project has removed approximately a dozen beautiful old pine trees denuding the entire corner. Shooting up 14 feet from the corner this barren project will erect six foot block walls to the east and south of their two story homes. This will totally destroy the integrity & character of this "Olde Carlsbad" neighborhood. .................................. The Planning Commission Resolution No. 4330 states that on July 1, 1998 and on July 15, 1998 public hearings were held as prescribed by law yet many of us were never directly informed. It appears that the meeting originally scheduled for July 1. 1998 was postponed until July 15 and the residents were not directly informed of the new date. During that meeting Nobel's question #4 regarding "pest and herbicide" was responded to by Anne Hysong who first said: "question #4 had already been addressed in the staff report" then, when pressed, said "the staff report did address this question, in that there is a mitigation condition that requires a remediation plan if it is necessary. That will be determined through a Phase I1 site assessment. 4fter all the current structures have been demolished, &I before any grading can begin, another soils testing will be done." While this refers to soil pollution, it is obvious that the Planning Department knew, in advance, the grading elevations yet refrained from clarifying the consequences to the surrounding property owners who attending that meeting. To this day we have never been directly informed as to the condition of the soil nor the drainage problem created by the elevation of the site pads. We have been given no SATISFACTORY WRITTEN solution by the City or the Developer. .................................. PUBLIC MEETING OF: JULY 15, 1998 Notice of this meeting (Complete date: January 26, 1998) originally scheduled the meeting for July 1, 1998 then continued it to July 15 without written notice being sent to inform the residents of the change so the% could clear their busy calenders and attend this meeting. The City is allowed a great deal of time to prepare but we the people are given no notice nor are we given ample time to prepare. The City uses our money to fight us yet there is nowhere for the residents to turn for financial funds to fight for their rights. The Hosp Grove fight destroyed one woman's entire life. She is still suffering from the abuses heaped upon her by her City. Mr. Bottomly spoke for the entire neighborhood and requested lot sizes be increased to 12,000 sq. ft. parcels & the number of houses be reduced to 10 due to traffic problems. He requested the project be redesigned to be more compatible with the surrounding properties. Wayne Van der Linden pointed out "that there were no 2 story homes anywhere else in the area." Laura Ramenofsky offered the council a copy of the original Carlsbad Heights' CC&Rs which this project violates. Property owners paid dearly for their homes due to the representations in these CCfRs. Frank Radosevic pointed out the disastrous effect two story homes would have on the neighborhoods. Mat Patterson,' attorney for the May project, stated: "Regarding the subject of TWO STORY homes; THIS IS NOT THE STAGE DURING WHICH TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. The time to address that issue is when the projects come back for individual Coastal Development Permits." We have not been told WHERE OR WHEN that will be. Since there is no view ordinance in the City of Carlsbad we request one be legislated NOW. VIEWS COME AT A PREMIUM AND PEOPLE PAY DEARLY FOR THEM. The City should protect its inhabitants and their investments in the City as do other coastal cities. City Officials and Planners should go to the new developments in Carlsbad and check the difference in the price of homes with and without ocean views. Also the allegations about the amount of traffic caused by the May Nursery are untrue and the amount is grossly exaggerated. Most of the time there was practically no traffic onto Monroe Street from the nursery's activities. We know since many of us have lived in this area for over 20 years. Mr. Patterson's statement that 17 lots could be put in the project instead of 14 lots under the existing zoning is simply not true and we believe the City Engineers knew that. Anne Hysong stated it would be possible tu' get the 14 iots with the existing zoning. Ms. Hysong also substantiated Mr. Patterson's Statement regarding the issue of the two-story houses and stated that the issue would be Not 17. / addressed wheq the individual Coastal Development Permits come before the Commission and "the current proposal is for re-zoning and land subdivision." She "pointed out that the City's Coastal Development ordinance does not speak to housing design or view preservation in this area so that there would be nothing that the staff would have to find or, in terms of findings, provide to the Commission to require single-story units". We were not informed of the pad elevations & they not discussed by Anne Hysong or anyone during this meeting. This project violated the city ordnance maintaining the integrity of the area. In direct contradiction to the above statements Commissioner Welshons asked if she would be correct in stating that "if the Commission chose to condition this project to single-story homes or a mix of both single and two-story homes, now would be the time to impose that condition" MS. HYSONG AGREED THAT NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO IMPOSE THAT CONDITION. We believe we are protected by our CC&Rs. HOW ARE THOSE WHO WANT THE PROJECT RESTRICTED TO SINGLE STORY HOMES TO KNOW WHERE OR WHEN TO BRING UP THE SUBJECT? The statements are opposed and totally confusing, perhaps deliberately. Commissioner N.ielson felt that it was not in the purview of the Commission to'dictate one or two-story homes. He is apparently not aware that the integrity of the area should be maintained. That is within the Commission's jurisdiction AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. Commissioner Welshons made many statements about protecting the surrounding homes but I don't believe she will be able to tell the developer exactly.how to design his homes. After all if she has no regard for the appearance of the project and its effect on the area now, why would she do the following: "The developer will not design houses with an over abundance of glass overlooking back yards". "Staff would take care in how the homes are designed" "And how they abut the neighboring homes." This is absurd since the Commission has failed to do anything we, the public, have requested. Commissioner Heineman "feels that the problems of having two-story homes adjacent to single-story can be mitigated particularly with landscaping". Now it appears the City will be able to control the landscaping yet has been unable to control the elevations, drainage or save the old pine trees that were removed. The City should see to it they are replaced. .................................. c The Public Notice published May 21, 1998 speaks ONLY to the rezoning, There is no mention of grading, elevations or drainage provisions nor were any of these items addressed in the meetings. Anne Hysong was contacted and questioned but was reticent and rude giving only a minimum of information. .................................. The letter dated September 1, 1998 to Mayhew A Peterson Esq. Re: Alternative T.M. Layout May Property. This letter indicates that the arrangements and levels of the sites had not yet been determined nor approved. We were required to pay $600 for an appeal within 10 days of the July 15th meeting. It has been pointed out to us that we should have objected to the height of the pads at that time. First, many were not given direct notice of the meeting. Secgnd, we did not know anything about reading a plot map and had no understanding of how high these pads were to be. Third, it was never clearly pointed out to us that this was Fourth, how could we appeal the site and its elevations when they had not yet been determined. included as part of the Commission's approval. ................................... MINUTES CITY COUNCIL (Regular Meeting) September 8, 1998 PUBLIC HEARINGS #lo. AB #14,839 - ZC 97-8/LCPA 97-12 - MAY SUBDIVISION AND APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION RE CT 97-24SDP 98-5/CP 97-58. Matt Patterson states traffic increase is not significant and the City Council took his word for it. This statement is inaccurate. Herb Palmtag mentions meeting with surrounding neighbors to discuss the project but not once did he mention specific site elevations during that meeting. He stated he would be building one and two story homes and placing them in such a manner that they would avoid interfering wiith the neighboring properties views. bring maps to another meeting and go over it with us. He never did. He promised to Joe Collins expressed concern about property devaluations and presented petitions in support of the appeal. These were ignored by the Council when reaching their approval of this project. Mr. Prentice requested larger lot sizes, sidewalks, curbs & gutters on Monroe from Park to Sunnyhill to protect pedestrians' safety. Susan Ortman mentioned the disruption of the area by putting 2 story homes in a neighborhood of one story homes. Floyd Packard requested the rights of the adjoining property owners be protected. This is a sacred trust the people place in their representatives, Engineering, Planning, and Mayor and City Council. This trust has been violated. The fight for Hosp Grove and the present "Save Our Trees" and area integrity and FIAs now being fought by Carlsbad residents (we support this group due to the destruction of our beautiful pine trees) as well as those who are fighting the City's reneging on pr,omises made to them in three letters have made many of us ill, under'doctors' care due to the stress caused by our City. Pamela Wishkaemper also mentioned the safety of the pedestrians where Alder, Monroe and Sunnyhill meet. She requested Sidewalks be constructed all the way to this intersection. Matt Peterson, the developer's attorney, found it necessary to state "the applicant has no desire to increase the density in order to pick up an extra lot or two". If that is the case why not conform to the wishes of the surrounding property owners and have less but larger lots? He said the layout was "compatible with the surrounding ares." Anyone viewing the elevated pads can see this is a blatantly false statement. The pad elevations were never mentioned by us because we never dreamed the City would allow such a monstrosity. Matt pressured the Council by making it clear "any further delay" "would result in costly impacts to the client". Carlsbad citizens are angry and will do all that is financially possible and legally correct to stop this proyect until the lots are enlarged, regraded and homes a mix of 1 and 2 stories. The minutes are incomplete. This is apparent when viewing the tapes. Alternative maps were presented to the Council. Matt Hall suggested the Councils wait a couple of weeks before making their final decision. Members spoke and agreed to correct our sidewalk and traffic problems. We wonder how much has been omitted and what else is the City keeping from us. We need some investigative reporting. Responses of the Appellate staff were warped. 1. 10,000 square foot lots abutting lots over 20,000 sq. feet are totally out of line. The project should be laid out in such a way that their larger lots abut the eastern project boundary. 2. If the project were laid out in accordance with the integrity of the neighborhood density would be reduced. 3. This entire area was created in extra large lots with CC&Rs protecting it. All lots abutting this project are larger than 10,000 sq. ft. except two lots to the south with are 7950 and 8890 sq. ft. I .................................. ORDINANCE NO, NS-456 Dated September 8, 1998 SECTION I11 States ."this plan is consistent with residential land use". the City's requirements to maintain the integrity of the locality. The time limit for Judicial review is too short to allow residents time to raise the funds required for judicial review. We defy anyone to view this site and find it consistent with It is no wonder that Matthew A. Peterson attorney for the developer sent a letter to Ray Patchett, September 9, 1998, thanking him for his assistance in putting through this subdivision. Mr. Patchett yau work for the residents as well as developers. We note there are no letters from them thanking you for your help. If any thanks were to be given it wquld be to Matt Hall who opposed the project. ................................... The Public Hearing notice City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Major Amendment 2-98 Road, Agoura Hills, CA. on November 5, 1998. A letter was sent by one of the residents requesting postponement and a local meeting place but no reply was received. "Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Amendment #2-98" received. was held in the Radisson Hotel at 30100 Agoura Nor was the requested copy of This meeting was held on a Thursday at 8:AM when most of us are working and can't afford to take the day off. distance for us to travel and a most inappropriate hour. The City representatives are paid with our tax dollars for their travel and time to attend these meetings, ignore our grievances t disregard our wishes. If we kept our tax money perhaps we could attend. This is an inordinate .................................. MAY SUBDIVISION (ZC 97-08/LCPA 97-12/CT 97-24/SDP 98-05/CDP 97-58) Undated Unsigned With hand written notes throughout. A. Environmendal Page 4, first paragraph, states that "the Carlsbad Unified School District, which has advised us it is at capacity and any additional children for any of its schools will result in a significant adverse impact." yet this project report states the school district is not effected. At present the traffic on Monroe from Sunnyhill to the schools is far beyond the capacity of our streets. Despite this Mr. Quan maintains that the streets, which are jammed with traffic to and from school and during lunch, are adequate to serve this additional traffic. We do not request wider streets, only less crowded schools. Somehow the City managed to persuade the School district for additional funds and fees etcetera to annex this and other projects to its' already overcrowded distract. We would like to know exactly how the school district plans to handle the additional students from these projects especially this one with 4 to 5 bedroom homes plus 2 low income family homes which could generate overd 96 additional students when they are presently holding classes in temporary trailers. Please address this in your response. .................................. LAND USE REVIEW DIVISION Prepared by Kenneth Quon PROJECT REPORT Undated GRADING, on page two, states "There are no major grading or soils related issues with the proposed project". This definitely led us to believe there would be little grading. The plans stated 0 additional soil would be needed. There have been 22 truck loads of soil dumped on the project in order to attain the unexpected 14 foot corner and 6 foot adjacent property rises. No rises, no more soil necessary. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL states "Surface runoff will drain to an existing storm drain inlet on Park Drive". But the problems created relating to tue adjacent properties are totally ignored. The property on Monroe Street east of this project will become a basin due to this project creating a dam by raising the pad 6 feet above its natural slope and requiring a six foot wall be built along the property line, as well as the property above it on the other side draining on to it. These endanger its' home & extensive grounds. In behalf of local carlsbad residents: f