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.