HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 98-27A; Poinsettia Shores Planning Area C; Coastal Development Permit (CDP)Lynn Donnelly
618 Compass Court
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
1(760) 603-9835
October 12,1999
RE: Santalina. Poinsettia Shores Area C
CT 98-06 /CP 98-05
Dear Mrs. Hysong:
There are several new facts that have come to light since the last Planning Meeting on Area C that need to
be addressed before further development should proceed.
1. At the City Council Meeting in February 1999, Greystone Homes affirmed that they could be
held accountable if Area C caused any water problems to other developments. This conversation took AV-/« *,-
place because Area B-2 homes have already incurred possible water problem from Area C. After the City ' , * e f
Council Meeting, Greystone immediately severed the over used irrigation lines on Area C in March of ***"'
1999. All the existing landscaping on Area C wilted, but yet it has not died. In the mean time, an
r, additional water problem have arisen, this time in Greystones other project of San Sabastion Area A-2.
*, tf* Jfhis project position is only about fifty feet west and about twenty feet lower than Area C. The "75**'' ^
n*fl. Jj^^nomeowners in this development have developed wet foundations, buckling in their wood floors and water *'
"** that creeps out of holes in the ground. If Area C has had no irrigation on it for the last seven months f^r~L, h>& *f
. IL«. where is all this underground water coming from ????? It should be mandatory for the builders of '
i* ' • Ar63 C to hirer a Geoloist under cit direction to do a New Environmental Study for the area of " *t, s • C to hirer a Geologist, under city direction to do a New Environmental Study for the area of o"^ f* 7
' jv 1* fe Poinsettia Shores to determine where the underground water is coming from prior to building on Area C. p ^ i k-1*
" ,VW'* I do not believe adding 52 landscaped condo/homes to an all ready existing problem is very prudent until ' -h -ft**-
** *Jl> *7 all avenues to determine the problem have been followed. ^ ,*>/•**" ^
,/»«i 2. The Homeowners in B-2 and Roselena are still not satisfied with the builders explanation on why n<u»|/v"")
f /*? •* an Entrance / Exit onto a privet street is compulsory. We don't object to a Entrance only, an Exit though ^ «<*• ~.
f s *** would considerable lower our property values due to the fact that our walls and fences were not design to " I <!'v'
stop car head lights from shining directly into our homes. Our masonry walls around our property on B-2
are anywhere from two feet to four feet with a band of steel tubular fencing on top. Even if heavy
plantings were installed it would not obstruct that kind of nuisance.
rt<A«i It has recently come to our attention that Greystone might be selling Area C to another developer. How
<?' *" _jv would this possible change in ownership effect the water damage liability that Greystone has already
'ft" agreed to? If a new developer exists do they plan to change the density on Area C creating an even larger
traffic impact on Navigator Court? (A privet street) I would really appreciate it if these issues would be
addressed at the October 20,1999 Planning Meeting.
Sincerely,
Lynn Donnelly f
v-v] -"-txitsCC: Ramona Finnila / / ~-D ^ >••"*-
Mayor Lewis
Kim Welshons " " •>
DonRideout '"'"' '' ""' ""^ ' " ' " *$-*
IT - DON'T SAY JT!
Date /6>/2* 19 ff
To /4/)/l& /7ysO/}4 DReply Wanted
From //m '&S}S)£.SflS D No Reply Necessary
«/7
V^
'»3 awX" f
«j We Go*"!* O* s
of S"~^ £* *~2 *»<* A'2 "*
a .