Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 98-05; Jensen Tentative Parcel Map; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (7)JON A. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE SCRIPPS BANK CENTER 451 SOUTH ESCONDIDO BOULEVARD ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92025 TELEPHONE (760) 743-7966 FACSIMILE (760) 743-3793 January 12, 1998 Bob Wojack Principal Civil Engineer City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Re: Jensen Parcel Map Dear Mr. Wojack: The purpose of this correspondence is to transmit to you my application and supporting documents for the proposed parcel map which we have previously discussed. As you are aware, I intend to process this parcel map administratively, and to also administratively process a Coastal Development Permit. In this regard, I have had a conference with Mr. Gary Wayne in the Planning Department, and Mr. Rich Rudolf in the City Attorney's office. I have also had a prior informal review by your department, and a meeting with you following my original transmittal letter dated November 6,1997 and your response dated November 13,1997. Please note, that the new application incorporates all of your requested changes. Specifically, the map addresses the parking issues described in item number I of your letter and is identical to the exhibit and map shown to you during our meeting. In addition the map also provided a note regarding any open space easement needed which was described in number 2 of your letter. In addition, please allow this letter to acknowledge that the driveways must be constructed to the ultimate finish elevation of Carlsbad Boulevard at the right of way line described in item number 3 of your letter, and the need to have the planning department accept the width of the beach access lot as provided below and as described in number 4 of you letter. I believe that the parcel map is self explanatory, except for the southern most parcel which is 10' in width as we discussed in our meeting and which is intended to be designated as a non-buildable parcel. This parcel is deemed to be necessary pursuant to §846 of the California Civil Code, which provision identifies and clarifies the obligations and duties of JON A. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW Bob Wojack January 12, 1998 Page 2 a specific parcel of land opened up by the owner for recreational access and purposes. In this regard, the City, by the through their attorneys, and myself have previously entered into an agreement regarding the use of the proposed parcel which has already been recorded. Notwithstanding this fact, the agreement may need to be reviewed by the City Attorney's office in order for them to ensure that the City has appropriately restricted and controlled the use of the beach access and recreational parcel for the non-buildable parcel. To this end, I envision having further meetings with the Planning Department and/or the City Attorney's office to ensure that their concerns are incorporated into any conditions of approval that might be forthcoming regarding the project as such would relate to the non- buildable parcel. I have also had discussions with Mr. Gary Wayne, in planning, regarding this issue and fully understand that I need to ensure that planning is satisfied with the non-buildable lot ownership issues. To this end, I am presently researching some alternatives such as (1) further agreements between myself and the city, or (2) lot tie agreements. During the process, I am confident that all parties will be able to resolve this specific planning issue. Other that this issue, I am not presently aware of any other concerns of planning, but I would encourage and welcome their direct participation to ensure the best project that I can produce. I would also like to point out that the stairway shown on the access and recreational 10' parcel on the south of the project is presently under construction and anticipated to be completed in approximately three weeks. This project, as you will recall was processed and approved under a separate Coastal Development Permit. Please also allow this correspondence to remind staff that in the stairway coastal development permit process, we already addressed the issue of the interim parallel parking issues. In this regard, it was determined that the ultimate improvement of Carlsbad boulevard would ultimately resolve any interim parking issues. This is because the improvement of Carlsbad boulevard will ultimately be planned and completed to the desires of the City. Until that time, and during the processing of the stairway plan we discussed a choice between interim diagonal and parallel parking options. At that time it was determined that diagonal parking was unsafe, violated various safety and traffic concerns, and simple did not work since the cars would have to back out onto Carlsbad Boulevard. Therefore, we decided to propose and get approval to install a curb to require parallel parking along the property's eastern frontage so that cars wishing to park along Carlsbad JON A. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW Bob Wojack January 12, 1998 Page 3 Boulevard, pending the improvement, would not interfere with traffic flow and safety. During this process it was also determined that the elimination of any spaces was well worth the safety issues, and that the total distance that a pedestrian would be traveling would be less since the stairway ran directly to the beach and did not require any traversing down the bluff. During this process and during the public hearings on this stairway, it was also set forth that the beach access was primarily for local users and the subdivisions to the east of the stairway from which people would be walking to the beach. Thereafter the stairway was approved and the curb is presently be installed to allow for interim use pending the improvement of Carlsbad boulevard. The plan also called out for standard driveway access openings pursuant to the City's standard plan and the driveway entrances shown on the parcel map were left open at the same time the curb was being installed. In addition, I also met with you personally to show you and discuss the proposed configuration of the parallel spaces until Carlsbad boulevard is improved. At that time, please note that the original proposed tentative map was changed to maximize the parallel parking to the largest degree possible. As you are also aware, we even attempted to eliminate one of the driveway openings, but a detailed study showed that the elimination of one entrance was not required inorder to achieve the maximum number of spaces. In fact, the elimination of a driveway entrance even made the interim parking worse due to the fact that an inside parallel space is 24' in length and an end parallel space is only 20'. At any rate, the parking and traffic issues have been addressed. During the stairway application, an environmental assessment was completed and a negative declaration was approved at the public hearing. This conclusion was reached taking into consideration the construction which had to be completed during the construction of the stairs through the bluff. As you are aware, the parcel map merely created three buildable parcels, but no construction. Also, it should be pointed out that there use to be two parcels on this property at one time, and there are old survey maps showing that the present 60 foot parcel currently owned by Mr. Larry Richards to the north of my present site, use to be, prior to a boundary line adjustment, a 60 lot on the south of my property. Therefore, and at various previous times, this property had been partially configured in a similar manner as one of the lots that I am proposing. Apparently, however, the configurations and assessment are somewhat a moot issue and my present understanding is that no further assessment is required. If this is not the case, please notify me as soon as possible. Notwithstanding further assessment, I believe the ultimate affect of any new review, if required, would be consistent with the prior negative declaration that was previously approved. JON A. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW Bob Wojack January 12, 1998 Page 4 The only other issue that I wanted to be understood and brought to the attention of you and or your staff, is the depth of each of the parcels as shown on the map. As you are aware, this project is located next to the Pacific Ocean. As you are also aware, the mean high tide changed during tidal cycles and therefore at any given time, portions of the property described on the actual legal description are under water. This is the case for all ocean front land that fronts on the ocean and is affected by various mean high tides. This is being pointed out, because the actual depth of the lot, as such depth is determined by the mean high tide, fluctuates, but is well within your criteria for depth to width ratios after considering tidal conditions. Notwithstanding the above, and due to your responsive letter dated November 13,1997 to our preliminary review, we have also provided a note on the map to show that open space easements may be obtained and provided, if needed. As you know, I am quite eager to process the administrative parcel map as soon as possible, and to this end will be available at any time to answer any further questions or concerns by yourself or any member of your staff which this project may be assigned to. Therefore, I would like to respectfully request that I be notified as soon as possible following the assignment of this application to a staff member. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your time and cooperation. Very truly yours, JON A. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES Attorneys at Law Jon A. Jensen, Esq. JAJ/nb jajAwojack.1 Enclosure