Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-14; Thompson/Tabata; Tentative Map (CT) (112)May 1,2001 Planning Director, City of Carlsbad Planning Department Dear Mr. Holzmiller: We are in receipt of a copy of a report signed by you entitled "Mitigated Negative Declaration, " Case number ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/CP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-15/CDP 98-68, Thompson/Tabata. The document is dated April 4, 2001. We have examined this document carefully and find that it is filled with many inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For starters, you have completely mixed up our location. The Vista Pacifica planned unit development is not east of any of the developments you mention. It is south of Poinsettia and west of the proposed Thompson/Tabata project. There are no multi-family housing units, RV storage area or parking stalls in this neighborhood. Obviously, you have us confused with the Las Playas development on the other side of Poinsettia. This development has multi-family units, and an RV parking lot. However, it does not have parking stalls. Each unit has a 2 car garage. Therefore, your desire to "cluster" compatible housing styles adjacent to us, can only include single family homes since no other units exist here. It had been brought to our attention that originally, the 24 multi family affordable units slated for the Thompson/Tabata project were to be placed on the north side of Poinsettia near the newer and pricier Mariners Point tract. Mariners Point residents, alarmed at the possibility of having affordable housing units in their neighborhood, promptly hired a lawyer. The lawyer got in touch with the city and through some clever sleight of hand, the 24 affordable housing units were suddenly switched to the southern side of Poinsettia. In a letter to the city following his discussions, the lawyer representing some of the Mariners Point residents stated, "My clients believe, based on what they perceived at the meeting with city officials, that an alternative site within the Thompson/Tabata project, preferably south of Poinsettia Road would be the most appropriate location for the affordable housing units." The implication is, that unknown to us, the city and the Mariners Point lawyer decided that it would be more appropriate to place the affordable housing units away from the pricier housing at Mariners Point and closer to the less expensive houses in Vista Pacifica. This maneuver compromises the basic integrity of the whole planning process. It may even violate HUD policy. We are now requesting that you reveal the details of the "switch", how was it made, by whom, when and why. Were there secret negotiations and did any benefits accrue to the city as a result? Did the Planning Department favor a pricier more upscale neighborhood over an older established community? In our view, this is a very serious ethical situation that has been created here and your misrepresentation of our location and neighborhood character may possibly be explained by this. Your plan to extend Alyssum Road, a narrow residential street into the Thompson/Tabata project lacks any justification. It certainly would be of absolutely no benefit to the Vista Pacifica homeowners. You talk about connecting communities. How do you explain then, the proliferation of so many new gated communities in this quadrant? These new developments are not connected to anything; in fact, the developers want to isolate them to boost the prices of their homes. To enter Alyssum Road from Poinsettia, a driver has to make a 90 degree right hand turn onto Snapdragon. To cortnue eastward, fnoiher 90 degree turn is required. Poinsettia and Alyssum run parallel; they are separated by the width of a one story- house and patio. Even now, entering or exiting Alyssum from or onto Poinsettia is very dangerous; there is no traffic signal. We have been asked to keep the foliage trimmed at the Vista Pacifica entrance to help drivers get some visibility. Your proposal would add at least an additional 500 vehicles to this very small area creating an even more dangerous situation. To claim that Thompson/Tabata needs more acccsMhan at Rose or Daisy for emergency vehicles is ridiculous. How can you recommend this when you permit so many gated communities in our quadrant? Why would Thompson/Tabata need three access points? Gated communities don't. We have only two. Are you telling us that for years your planning department has created an unsafe environment? In fact, we have always felt very fortunate that we are a couple of minutes away from the Batiquitos Fire Station, as will the future residents of the Thompson/Tabata development. We feel that you need to review your traffic circulation plan. Funneling more traffic onto residential streets increases the danger to families and children already in this area. Motorists will use Alyssum Road as a short cut and to avoid the signal at Rose. Here in Vista Pacifica, cyclists, children at play and pedestrians have at least some semblance of safety now. This will disappear of course if Alyssum Road is opened and joined to the new project. However, your check list in the mitigation report indicates the extension of Alyssum Road would have "no impact". You have already stated to us that from now on, you will put signs on streets that might be extended in the future giving notice to the public of this fact. Obviously you realize that you were negligent in the past. The eastern terminus of Alyssum Road was made to look like a dead end street. It was walled in, landscaped, etc. To tell us now that we should have known that Alyssum Road eventually would be a through street is outrageous. Disclosures were never made to our homeowners by either the city of by Standard Pacific regarding an eventual extension of Alyssum and homeowners rely on disclosures. We are quite intrigued that you intend to mitigate the projects' impact on air quality by having the Thompson/Tabata homeowners association hand out bus schedules. On the one hand, you want to open Alyssum Road for better traffic circulation. Then you propose to tell the residents to take the bus. It is news to us that a homeowners association would be in the business of working for the AQMD, Caltrans or the NCTD. Furthermore, if normal behavior is any indication, we doubt that owners of $500,000 plus homes will take the bus to work or anywhere else, for that matter. Besides, what bus would they take? The recent building frenzy resulting in an amazing 25% increase in population here in Carlsbad has guaranteed deteriorating air quality for all of us. A fleet of busses can't possibly mitigate this. It is really insulting to anyone's intelligence to ask us to buy into this logic. Previously, when there were heavy rains, mud and debris has washed down Poinsettia Lane from the fields adjacent to us into our storm drains and down our streets. You claim in your report that storm drainage is adequate. How can this be the case since we have had to call the city time and time again about the problem. Our storm drains are not designed to carry the run off from the higher elevation. We object to the run off coming into our tract and you do not appear to be offering a solution to this problem. From the day it opened, Pacific Rim Elementary School was near or at capacity. In fact, new students living in Vista Pacifica, who were assigned from Aviara Oaks to Pacific Rim, will now have to go back to Aviara Oaks. Multi family housing always impacts a school district more than single family homes. That certainly has been the case in Vista and San Marcos. Your growth management policy and school enrollment here are completely disconnected. The low or affordable income housing ordinance, which has been in place about ten years, has always been administered in a completely arbitrary manner. The most notorious example is of course the Aviara development. In that case, its low income allocation ended up miles away with a wall around the units. We have been told that the city "struck a deal" with the developers of Aviara which actually was more beneficial to the city. When you look around the city and the new and old developments, it is obvious that the city has struck other deals with developers and continues to do so to this day as evidenced by the new developments along route 101 at the foot of Poinsettia. The Assistant City Attorney informed us in writing that one of the reasons the Thompson/Tabata low income units were transferred from the north side of Poinsettia to the south side, was because the city did not want to appear to be "clustering" the affordable housing units. Do you not consider Villa Lomas as a clustering of low income housing units? What about the units adjacent to the Poinsettia Station? We can name other locations and other clustering of low income housing units which clearly renders the explanation offered us by the Assistant City Attorney suspect if not totally untruthful. We feel it is no accident that in the proposed Thompson/Tabata development, the low income housing units and the RV storage lot seem inextricably linked. It is as though the low income housing units deserve to be adjacent to the RV storage lot. And further, that both these units deserve to be located adjacent to the Vista Pacifica tract. You must keep in mind, that Vista Pacifica is in effect, an affordable housing development. That is why the lawyer felt the low income housing units of the Thompson/Tabata development should be more appropriately placed adjacent to our community with the full impact of these units placed on us and not on the new development itself. The prices of homes in Vista Pacifica are far below the median price of homes in the south-west quadrant of the city. This fact obviously, was not lost on the lawyer or residents of Mariners Point. Does this not fit the definition of "clustering" as presented to us by the Assistant City Attorney or would the term discrimination seem more appropriate. If clustering of low income housing is okay, then why was it not acceptable on the north side of Poinsettia as it was originally proposed? You seem to have ignored totally the fact that placing the low income housing units on the north side of Poinsettia would have provided an extra security feature for children. The children in these units could walk to the Pacific Rim Elementary School or to the local park without being forced to cross Poinsettia , which has become a heavily trafficked and dangerous road. Your section XIII - Aesthetics - notes that the Thompson/Tabata development as currently layed out, would have "no impact" aesthetically on the area. We would ask you to visualize a typical RV parking lot where people passing by can observe the upper portions of the parked RV's with their satellite dishes and various paraphernalia stored on top of these units. Does this picture belong on Poinsettia Lane in the clear view of foreigners and tourists who are en route to and from the Aviara Four Seasons Hotel and Golf Course? Poinsettia Lane at this location is one of the most picturesque arteries in the city. Why would anyone want to deface it with an RV storage lot which would be impossible to conceal totally at its proposed location? We feel that Vista Pacifica is in fact, the type of "mixed" style community which the State of California and the County of San Diego would like to see. In addition to being the only community of its type that is affordable in this quadrant. Vista Pacifica is well maintained, well landscaped, has strong CC&R's and its own security. Over time, we will save this city tens of thousands of dollars in crime prevention, blight control, code enforcement and lower property values. You should support and appreciate our community, instead of planning to diminish us. At this point, given what we know and what you plan on doing, we propose that we sit down in an honest, open forum and resolve the issues raised here. Let us bring in all the parties involved and lay our cards on the table. We make one stipulation however, and that is that you deal with us in good faith. We certainly have with you. Sincerely, Vista Pacifica Homeowners Committee C/o GRG Management Inc. P.O. Box 1186 Carlsbad, C A 920 18- 11 86 Copies to: Mayor Pro-tern Ann Kulchin Council Member Matt Hall Assistant City Attorney DimscH & CHRISTENSEN Attorneys at Law Charles B . Christensen 444 West C Street, Suite 200 Donald W. Derisch San Diego, California 92101 _ Tel. (619) 236-9343 Sean D. Schwerdtfeger John F. Smith Carl E. Sizemore John F. Smith e-mdl Of Counsel Harold O. Valderhaug March 8, 2000 • VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL Mike Grim City of Carlsbad Planning Department Senior Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 RE: Poinsettia Properties tentative map CT 98-14 et al., Phase 2 Standard Pacific Homes Dear Mr. Grim: I am writing as a follow-up to my-previbus letter to yoifof February 24L2000jeg4rding the above-referenced subdivision^-OnlvIarch 2, 2000,ljittended an mfonnaUonal meeting of the Mariners Point Homeowners AssociatiojLjGreglSEoff of Standard Pacific made a presentation to the association members. While there were various issues raised relative to landscaping and traffic (to name a few), the most controversial issue centered on the location of the affordable housing apartments and RV park on proposed LonceraRoad. Mr. Linhoff explained that the majority of the proposed single-family residences would be" located south of Poinsettia Road while the affordable units and RV parking area would be located north of Poinsettia and adjacent to Mariners Point. He also indicated alternative locations for the affordable housing units within the project had been studied, evaluated and rejected. The location of the alternative sites and the reasons for their rejection were not disclosed. It was my sense that if the affordable housing units and RV parking were relocated to a position south of Poinsettia Road, the community opposition which was considerable would be eliminated. It would seem that physically there is no reason why this relocation could not occur. Candidly, it would seem that the goals of the housing element would be better met if this relocation to die southern portion of the project were accomplished, There would be a better blend and mix if the affordable units were thus located. -These units would be better integrated and would become part of the fabric of the community. rV Mr. Grim ">•• ^^ March 8, 2000 Page 2 ,My clients believe, based on what they perceived at the meeting, that an alternative site" within the project, preferably south of Poinsettia Road would be the most appropriate course of action. Thanks again for your assistance and consideration. Again we will expect these comments to be included as part of the administrative record. Sincerely, Donald W. Detisch DWD:sll ,cc: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Bums