Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 93-10; Seapointe Resort; Tentative Map (CT) (11)Tommy B. White, D.M.D. 6910 Sandcastle Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 April 17, 1994 Christer Westman City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 RE: SEAPOINTE RESORT - CONTINENTAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION - LCPA 93-04 Dear Mr. Westman, Thank you for meeting with the La Costa Downs lot owners on April 11, 1994 and allowing us to express our concerns about Seapointe Resort. The following is a summary of my concerns about the project. 1. The proposed entrance into Seapointe Resort via La Costa Downs subdivision in most inappropriate. 78 Unit with 6-8 car trips per day will route over 624 cars through the La Costa Downs per day. During our meeting you express a deep concern about the safety of the Seapointe Resort vacationers. Please consider over 624 jolly vacationers driving through a residential area with children playing. Recommend the entrance be moved out of the La Costa Downs subdivision. 2. Seapointe Resort propose 99 parking places for its tenants, with 21 to spare. From my experience and observations most vacationers invite relatives and friends in the area to join them at their vacation residence. The 21 spare parking slot soon will become none with over flow parking into the La Coast Downs subdivision. Recommend Seapointe Resort provide additional on-site parking and modify plan that will prevent overflow parking into the subdivision. 3. Seapointe Resort is proposing a three story structure at or about 45 ft tall. This is 20 ft and 10 ft more than allow for residential and office buildings respectively. The 45 ft flat walls would be unsightly adjacent to residential property, and would not blend into the surround landscape. Recommend the structure be stepped to blend with landscape and conform with the City of Carlsbad's plan for La Costa Downs. Also recommend elimination of the third floor. 4. As a Harbor Pointe resident, $30,000 to $40,000 has been paid for an unobstructed ocean view, Seapointe Resort could potentially interfere with that view. 5. A new bridge entering La Costa Downs subdivision is not necessary. The existing bridge could be retrofitted (similar to retrofitting a bridge for earthquakes) thus meet the needs of all parties with reduced cost. 6. For the safety of Seapointe Resort and La Costa Downs residents a pedestrian bridge could be built over Carlsbad Blvd, eliminating a need for a traffic light. Sincerely, Tommy B. White April 22, 1994 To Whom ft May Concern: I own a lot in the La Costa Downs subdivision in Carlsbad. Recently an associate was made aware of and viewed plans for a proposed time share development directly to the north of La Costa Downs. I understand that for this proposed development to proceed, a zoning change is required. I would like to voice my strong opposition to a change in the existing zoning . I believe that a time share development would negatively impact the La Costa Downs subdivision as well as the City of Carlsbad. It took much time and consideration to prepare the specific plan for La Costa Downs. The property in question was described as "a vacant office site located to the north" in a staff report from the planning department dated April 3, 1991. I urge you to consider the reasons this property was designated an office site, as opposed to a high density, 78 unit time share development Thank you for your time and consideration. Leslie Devlin 1131 Amethyst St Mentone, Ca 92359 EL CAMINO <v£ l^^x PROPERTIES HIGHWAY 101 AT LA COSTA AVE. ' A: y A April 18, 1994 ' s-v'V' C'.~-.'-.0 Mr Michael Holtzmiller City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, Calif 92009 Subject: LCP Amendment Summary - Seapointe Resort LCPA - 93-04 Dear Mr Holtzmiller, Last week a group of surrounding property owners had a meeting to discuss our concerns regarding the subject project with Christer Westman and Ken Quon. Our concerns were verbally discussed and this is my attempt to summarize my concerns. POSITION: A general plan amendment is a significant land use change to an area. The resulting use should be compatible with the surrounding development both existing and planned. The traffic circulation as planned at a new grade intersection at Carlsbad Blvd and Descanso is NOT acceptable. The general plan amendment should include a Specific Plan to provide the criteria for the development just as the City required for the lots in La Costa Downs. It is my opinion the height, scale, and bulk of the project is completely out of character for the area west of the railroad tracks for miles in either direction. The general plan amendment should have the option to zone the property single family consistent with the area west of the railroad tracks. BACKGROUND: I have been working with all of the other owners of La Costa Downs since Oct 1991 to put together an Assessment District. Just before I got involved the Seapointe property was residentially zoned. A new buyer came in and bought the land. It was his dream to build an office complex. The City of Carlsbad approved an office zoning based on the application. In my opinion an office use is quite compatible with residential because in the evening and weekends during the time I most enjoy my home, the traffic and noise from such a use is at its minimum. Now, with a time share, all of a sudden the higher intensity of use is exactly when I will be enjoying the environment around my home. Through the Specific Plan process you forced the La Costa Downs Specific Plan to have many grant deed disclosures on the problems of the area. Quite frankly, you have limited my ability 1967 NORTH HIGHWAY 101 • LEUCADIA, CALIFORNIA 92024 • (619) 436-LAND to sell the lots because of it. Disclosures of trains, planes, sewer plants, noise and roads that have to be filed upon application of the building permit. Nowhere, though, did you mention a new intersection at the point where Descanso Road hits Carlsbad Blvd. with a signal. In fact, the old office project, called Seapointe too, never had any comments to reroute traffic back towards our lots. You failed in your disclosures to notify us. In our meeting we discussed the evolution of the new grade intersection at Carlsbad Blvd and Descanso. It grew from a staff opinion that the project have a condition to provide beach access to the Seapointe Resort. Beach access can be provided by a tunnel; beach access can be provided by a pedestrian signal on the southbound lane of Carlsbad; beach access can be provided by shuttle; beach access can be provided by a pedestrian bridge. If the traffic from the Seapointe project must go through a grade crossing of Carlsbad Blvd, I recommend rejection of the general plan amendment on the basis unmitigated impacts of tra.ffic in the surrounding neighborhood combined with inherently poor geometry feeding the traffic into the intersection. All of the night life traffic from a time share would be directing their lights into a single family neighborhood. Also, the time share users are unfamiliar with the community and vicinity causing many wrong turns into our single family neighborhood. About La Costa Downs...this is a subdivision created in 1927 that have been owned by families and passed on through generations. It is not a paper subdivision...there are legal parcels that are waiting for your City to approve an Assessment District. It is a single family neighborhood of small beach lots to build beach homes for our families to enjoy. I have sold some of the lots in La Costa Downs in the last year to some new people. I have given them the specific plan and stacks of paperwork to give them an understanding of the area. I point to the north and notify them of office zoning, to the east and to the south to discuss zoning. I discuss the new transit station for NCTD. In the last six months I have talked about the time share and their proposal for a new use. Until two weeks ago the grade crossing a Descanso and Carlsbad Blvd was unknown. The stretch of road from La Costa Ave to Palomar Airport Road is one of the most pleasurable coastal drives remaining in San Diego County. Just last weekend my wife and I made the drive to enjoy the views. I read in the papers last year about the historical significance of the many older homes in Carlsbad. Have you considered the historical significance of removing the Ponto Bridge? I realize the bridge was built in 1952. I feel it might have some significance to the Carlsbad residents who also enjoy that stretch of Carlsbad Blvd. PROJECT SPECIFIC COMMENTS Plan Amendment - The LCP amendment should have provisions for a specific plan so that design constraints are on the land use for this development as well as for a future land owner in the event this project is not built. The constraints should include all of the issues addressed in the La Costa Downs Specific Plan such as set backs, height, building footprint, road improvements, shuttle service, etc., encompassing answers to all of the issues for the knowledge of future owners to this property as well as future homeowners of our neighborhood. Why should this project be treated any differently than our single family lots? Traffic/control - In the background of this letter I summarized some of my reasons for opposing the Descanso grade intersection on Carlsbad Blvd. The proposed intersection at Descanso has poor geometry; the traffic from a commercial facility will enter through a residential neighborhood; the guests to the Seapointe Resort will be lost and wandering through a single family neighborhood. The existing bridge is great access combined with a suitable beach access by shuttle or pedestrian bridge or pedestrian signal is a preferable solution. It seems wasteful to stop traffic on Carlsbad Blvd and change the feeling of the road for such a small number of daily trips coming from 40 single family lots plus the unknown number from the development of the Resort property. Height - our discussions with Mr Westman showed a height of 45 feet from existing grade. Outrageous!!!!!! We spent two years going through the specific plan process. At the final hearing on the specific plan the owners wanted 26 feet instead of 25 feet. As I recall the city council discussed for at least a 30 minutes the pros and cons of an extra foot. The decision was made to stay at 25 feet. Now, a general plan amendment process, the height being proposed is 45 feet....almost twice as high as our homes. Fair is Fair; height of a house or hotel almost adjacent should have the same height standard; otherwise, why is our height limited to 25 feet? Have you noticed the two story home in Solimar lately? It is so large and imposing while driving on Carlsbad Blvd. Can you imagine a 45 foot high building? Parking - As I recall there are 99 spaces for 70 units. At time shares it seems that guests of guests arrive as well as others attending the restaurant, perhaps as at Dino's in Carlsbad. There needs to be some assurance that no overflow parking will spill into our neighborhood. I suggest more parking. Design - The south elevation from our neighborhood is a huge wall. It was my understanding the view would be stepped or staggered to give a more single family feel to the project. The Harbor Point view from the east is apartment-like. I thought this is planned to be an attractive destination resort. The proposed specific plan should state design criteria. Use - Most time share hotels are located in commercial areas or high density condominiums. The use here is primarily residential with mobile homes and single family homes. The use should not be permitted unless the traffic, noise and scale questions can be mitigated by the applicant. No information is known to us regarding the size and intent for the restaurant. Entrance - The entrance to the facility in their renderings is perfect for access over the bridge or via the deceleration lane. The guests to the Seapointe resort would immediately enter the facility with no impact to our neighborhood. A stop sign for our traffic could be provided and each of us would know to be careful at the intersection, knowing the guests are probably anxious to get to their destination. Bulk & Scale - The Wavecrest project in Del Mar is low profile in height, bulk and scale. It is also more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The project should address the height and bulk visually compared to the height and bulk of La Costa Downs homes. I hope you understand these comments are not exclusionary and anti-development. I hope you take these comments as criticism that can be used to make a better neighborhood for Seapointe Resorts, the City of Carlsbad residents and the adjacent owners in La Costa Downs like myself. Thank you for taking the opportunity to review my comments. I am available to discuss them further at your request. Sinaewely, Robert H Barelmann April 20, 1994 Mr. Christer Westman Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, CA 92009 Dear Mr. Westman, On Monday, April 11th, Robert Barelmann, Marty Montgomery, Tom White, and I were invited by the Carlsbad Planning Staff to review a proposed project which had been sent to them by developers. Although this project had been verbally described to Mr. Barelmann earlier, at this time it was presented by Planning Staff in the form of 8 or 10 archhectually drawn sheets. Proposed were 78 time share unhs in several 4-story, 45 foot high buildings. Since this parcel to the north of our La Costa Downs tract is presently zoned for office use, the developers propose to re-zone this to Travel Bureau to accomodate a motel-type use. Besides myself, I represent Leslie Devlin and Marie Stanton. Together we own 7 lots. We feel that this proposed developement is a terrible idea for the following reasons: 1. It will increase the density of the nearby area immeasurably. Vehicle noise and vehicle pollution, resulting from 8 to 10 vehicle trips per day, per unit, will overburden our quiet residential neighborhood. 2. The type of tenancy, i.e. time share, generates usually several visitors each and every week to each time share holder, further exacerbating the congestion. It should also be noted that usually the shares are sold one week at a time and buyers have absolutely no stake in the welfare of our city, dont vote, and have no hopes and aspirations in our future. In addition, these time share owners too frequently opt to use time shares in other states or countries. Vacant time shares are usually rented by the week to anyone off the street and are therefore basically motels. 3. Under state law, each city must maintain a current general plan. Carlsbad just a few years ago adopted a new plan which zoned the subject parcel for office use. There has been modest development in Carlsbad since, and conditions have not changed. Therefore, there is no need whatsoever to start hacking to pieces our new general plan to accomodate would-be developers. 4. In addition to all of the above, they propose 2 really onerous conditions which I vehemently intend to fight, namely to dump the cars directly south onto my front door (Lot 20) onto tiny Anacapa Road which would be terrible for a small residential street. The other outrageous condition proposed is a height of 45 feet, while the city held us to 25 feet! This will block the view of those to the east and would probably be impossible to justify to the Coastal Commission in view of our recent La Costa Downs specific plan adoption. To sum up, with a newly adopted general plan and a quiet residential tract adjacent to the south, putting a busy transient type operation right next door, towering 20 feet over our residences, seems not only a terrible idea, but not in the long term best interests of our beautiful city. Would you want to live next door to this? We recommend you reject this scheme. Thank You, Richard T. Donahue BICBARD T. DONAHUE 4964 DAVID WAY SAW BERiY4RDCVO, CA.