Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-14; Thompson/Tabata; Tentative Map (CT) (132)o oDETISCH & CHRISTENSEN Attorneys at Law Charles B. Christensen 444 West C Street, Suite 200 Donald W. Detisch San Diego, California 92101 Tel. (619) 236-9343 Sean D. Schwerdtfeger Fax (619) 236-8307 Scott R Fridell e-mail dclaw@adnc.com Of Counsel Harold O. Valderhaug February 5, 2002 ^ Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail Mayor Bud Lewis City Council Members of the City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: Standard Pacific Subdivision Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members: More than one year ago this office requested the City of Carlsbad's Planning Department to place this office on the City's notice list regarding the above-referenced matter. Apparently, that request had no meaning and therefore, this office was not apprized of the City Council meeting scheduled for February 5, 2002. We do not wish to impede the Council's consideration of this map as we know the developer has had to wait a considerable period of time to seek consideration; however, responding to this matter when you are not timely noticed is difficult. We spoke with Mr. Wickham of your Engineering Department this date and he made no mention of this hearing although we are certain he was well aware of the schedule. With this short notice, we again are providing the Council with copies of our letters to the Planning Commission regarding this matter. We also have just learned that the issue which impacts our clients - namely a proposed future public road designed to serve a small 2 acre parcel accessing Camino de las Ondas - may have been dramatically changed by recent events of which we had no knowledge. In fact, it is our belief that we purposely were not advised of alleged deeds and conveyances from Lennar Development to an adjacent property owner, Mr. Noburu Tabata. Our legal position is that a proposed road dedication to be imposed on Standard Pacific is not necessary and will require deviation from the City of Carlsbad's engineering standards in a significant manner. This roadway dedication is allegedly designed to supplement an existing driveway which presently services the Tabata property. The approval of Standard Pacific's map will allow the Tabata property to obtain access from Lemon Leaf and will render the alleged roadway from the Tabata property to Camino de las Ondas unnecessary. DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN Mayor Bud Lewis City Council Members of the City of Carlsbad February 5, 2002 Page 2 We request that the proposed roadway dedication from the Tabata ownership to Camino de las Ondas be eliminated. Adequate access from Lemon Leaf will exist in the future. The cost to construct the roadway from Mr. Tabata's property to Camino de las Ondas will be extreme. It will require in our view two variations from the City road standards whereas a cul-de-sac street from Lemon Leaf would only require one variance. The City's Fire Department has already advised that this would be feasible so long as the houses would be sprinkled which apparently is not a difficult requirement. In our research regarding this road issue we discovered that Lennar/Bramlea was supposed to have conveyed a parcel "D" to the Mariners Point Homeowners Association. We discovered that this conveyance should have occurred in 1998 but for some reason never occurred. These matters took place as a result of a boundary line adjustment/Certificate of Compliance (Doc# 1998- 0105282). Parcel D was to have been conveyed to the Mariners Point Homeowners Association and added to its Lot 165 which is a small triangular property lying adjacent to the driveway access into the Tabata ownership. It is maintained by the Homeowners Association and is planted with trees, etc. The Map Act does not permit the creation of additional lots through the vehicle of a boundary line adjustment. Therefore, we believe that Lennar's continued ownership of Parcel D appears to be a violation of the Map Act and any conveyance to any third party other than the Mariners Point Homeowners Association would also appear to constitute a violation of the Act. We have been informed this date for the first time that the developer may have conveyed a portion of their ownership interest to someone other than the Homeowners Association. We believe that this still may be inappropriate. So to the extent that someone believes this roadway should be added to a proposed road dedication area we believe this to be incorrect. This proposed roadway was represented to my clients as a driveway and not a public road. Substantial funds were e? to purchase a lot which was to lie adjacent to a driveway at worst; not a future pubJie-tfOroot road. Again on short notice - we are providing our comments. We angfeciate your consideration and if this matter is continued for any reason we would again request that this office be directly noticed by the City Clerk or the Planning Department. c j j v Donald W. Detisph, Esq. DWD/sll Enclosure(s) cc: Mr. and Mrs. Mike Burris DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN Attorneys at Law Charles B. Christensen 444 West C Street, Suite 200 Donald W. Detisch San Diego, California 92101 Tel. (619) 236-9343 Sean D. Schwerdtfeger Fax (619) 236-8307 e-mail dclaw@adnc.com Of Counsel Harold O. Valderhaug November 28, 2001 Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail Mr. Jeffrey Segall, Chairman City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Commissioners City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: 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 SUBDIVISION P.C. AGENDA: December 5, 2000-6:00 p.m. Dear Mr. Segall and Commissioners: This letter is a summary and elaboration of our remarks presented at the hearing on November 7, 2001 related to the above-referenced subject. First, this material is presented on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Michael Burris, owners of 1250 Veronica Court, Carlsbad, (Lot 18 of Mariner's Point), a cul-de-sac lot immediately adjacent to the proposed subdivision. The following bullet points represent the majority of our comments: Their concerns relate to the proposed extension of Lemon Leaf Drive to Lonicera Drive - Increased traffic noise, dust and fumes, security and privacy, (e.g., off readers have driven onto portions of their property from existing driveway); DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN Mr. Jeffrey Segall, Chairman and Commissioners Page 2 November 28, 2001 At the time of their purchase, the Burrises were aware of the driveway use and open space but not construction of a major collector street adjacent to their cul-de-sac lot; All three (3) of the affected property owners in the area, including the developer here, support the elimination of Condition No. 54 of proposed P.C. Res. 5073 - the Burrises, Standard Pacific and Mr. and Mrs. Ta.bata (see attached letters from Standard Pacific and Steve Angus, Tabata's attorney); The proposed roadway is not necessary for circulation and is not necessary for safety reasons; the roadway is not necessary for the future development of the Tabata property. The extension of the Lemon Leaf cul-de-sac into the Tabata property will work fine; The proposed roadway to be dedicated is not necessary to develop the Thompson property; it is not included in the circulation element of any general or specific plan, and the traffic study of Linscott, Law & Greenspan of December 6, 2000 does not even mention this proposed roadway; The traffic to be generated on this proposed roadway does not justify its construction; The proposed roadway, if constructed, is too steep at the existing grade to meet City standards. Future costs to develop the roadway will be excessive; The proposed subdivision of this property and that of the future subdivision of the Tabata property will include a "sprinkling requirement;" and, thus, any alleged need to have Lemon Leaf connect to Lonicera is removed; Any future construction of the proposed roadway will require the relocation of water and sewer lines and also the acquisition of off-site right-of-way and/or construction of significant and expensive retaining walls; There are other instances in the City of Carlsbad where the cul-de-sacing of roadways has occurred in similar circumstances (at Aviara, Sea Brite, and Sea Breeze); ,**" ••• • ••,. DETISCH &*CHRISTENSEN Mr. Jeffrey Segall, Chairman and Commissioners Page3 November 28, 2001 • There are major inconsistencies between the vertical alignment of proposed Lemon Leaf Drive between the proposed Tabata Ranch tentative parcel map (MS 01-14) and the Thompson/Standard Pacific (T/SP) Tentative Subdivision Map at the northerly boundary of the Tabata property. If the T/SP grades are lowered to match the Tabata grades, then the T/SP will need off-tract sewer easements to achieve gravity flow. If the Tabata grades are raised to match the T/SP grades then the future grade of Lemon Leaf Drive will significantly exceed the City allowable maximum grade of 12 percent. • The City's Standards for Design and Construction of Public Works Improvements (STANDARDS) recommends that the number of dwelling units on a cul-de-sac not exceed 50. This standard has been commented upon above; however, if Lemon Leaf were to cul-de-sac in the Tabata Ranch project, 52 dwelling units would be served. This is a minor increase over the arbitrarily established limitation and only affects a 300 foot long section of Lemon Leaf Drive. My clients support a waiver from the STANDARDS to allow 52 lots and the cul-de- sacing of Lemon Leaf into the Tabata project; and • The separation between the proposed future intersection of Lemon Leaf Drive with Lonicera Street and the Lonicera/Camino de Las Ondas intersection does not meet the minimum separation distance required by the STANDARDS. In consideration of the conflicts with existing easements created by the extension of Lemon Leaf Drive to Lonicera Street, the required waiver of maximum street grade standards and the waiver of minimum street intersection separation standards, it is believed that a single waiver to allow 52 lots in lieu of 50 lots on a cul-de-sac be granted for the Tabata Ranch and that the Thompson/Standard Pacific subdivision be relieved of the requirement to provide a 60 foot wide L.O.D. adjacent to proposed Lot 224. In light of these considerations and in light of the non-existent evidence of any need for this particular roadway and especially its proposed size, the Commission should order the deletion of this condition. Of all of the proposed roads to be established by the Thompson Subdivision this proposed extension of Lemon Leaf makes the least sense. The Thompson map does not lower the elevation of Lemon Leaf Drive and thus off-site acquisition will be required in the future to make this road arguably work. The future use of the Lemon Leaf extension is almost non-existent and there is no traffic count which supports any conclusion to build the road. DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN Mr. Jeffrey Segall, Chairman and Commissioners Page 4 November 28, 2001 On behalf of my clients, please eliminate the proposed extension of Lemon Leaf Drive as a condition of the Thompson subdivision map. This letter should be included as part of the record. DWD/sll Enclosure(s) cc: Mr. and Mrs. Mike Burris Donald W. Detisch, Esq. STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES OCT - 4 September 26,2001 Donald W. Detisch Detisch & Christensen 4444 West C Street, Suite 200 S an Diego, C A 92101 RE: Poinsettia Properties Tentative Map CT 98-14 et al. Phase 2 Dear Mr. Detisch: It appears that we are on the agenda for the November 7, 2001, Planning Commission Hearing. As you are aware we have had numerous issues to resolve on this project; therefore, we are very pleased to be moving forward. We are aware that your client wishes that the "secondary access" easement, adjacent to his property, be eliminated from the project design. The City Engineering staff has consistently requested that we provide this easement. The overall project design is not dependent on this easement as a means of access nor do we need it for traffic flow. The intent of the easement is to provide the Tabata property "secondary access" in the event that the Tabata's subdivide their property. Therefore, at the City's request, we are providing this easement to the Tabata property. If during the public hearing process the City determines that this "secondary access" is not necessary, we would not object to eliminating this easement from the project design. I have encouraged the Tabata's engineer to look at a couple possible alternative designs, to show the elimination of this easement or as an emergency only access design. This would provide the City with some alternative designs if the City Council agrees with the request to eliminate the easement. We appreciated your patience and support through this process and if you have any further questions please do not hesitate to call me at (760) 602-6813. Sincerely/ STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES Kathy Baker Project Manager San Diego Dii/isi'cm 5750 Fleet Street, Suite #200, Carlsbad, CA 92008 TEL (760) 602-6800 FAX (760) 602-6880 STEVEN M. ANGUS ATTORNEY AT LAW 2611 SOUTH COAST HIGHWAY 101, SUITE 204 DECEIVED CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 TELEPHONE (760) 942-5050 CCD t o nnnt FACSIMILE (760) 436-7483 '3fcr ' 0 «-UUJ September 17,2001 Donald W. Detisch, Esq. Detisch & Christensen 444 West C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Re: Tabata property Dear Mr. Detisch: Thank you for your letter, dated September 13, 2001, regarding'the Lemon Leaf access matter. My clients have expressed no objection to taking access off Lemon Leaf Drive, but have indicated that they and their Civil Engineer, Wayne Pasco, have been advised that the City objects to such access. While I don't believe Wayne Pasco has made any formal application to the City of Carlsbad for the subdivision, he has discussed the matter with City staff and will continue to prosecute the subdivision for the benefit of the Tabatas in accordance with his own professional judgment. I have not discussed the matter with Standard Pacific and, as the Tabatas are trying to keep their costs down, will not do so at this time. I hope this makes the Tabatas' position clear to you. My office will be closed from September 20 through October 3, as I will be out of the state. ' v Sia SMA/sta cc: Mr. and Mrs. Tabata Wayne Pasco, RCE OETISCH & CHRISTENSEN Attorneys at Law Charles B. Christensen 444 West C Street, Suite 200 Donald W. Detisch San Diego, California 92101 Tel. (619) 236-9343 Sean D. Schwerdtfeger Fax (619) 236-8307 e-mail dclaw@adnc.com Of Counsel Harold 0. Valderhaug November 6, 2001 Mr. Jeffrey Segall, Chairman City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and Commissioners 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: 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 P.C. AGENDA: November 7, 2001 - 6:00 p.m. Dear Mr. Segall and Commissioners: This letter responds to the proposed subdivision entitlement request. This firm represents Mr. and Mrs. Michael Burris, 1250 Veronica Court, Carlsbad California. The Burrisses property is located adjacent to the proposed subdivision and will be further negatively impacted by a proposed roadway 60' wide dedication which would link Lemon Leaf Drive and Lonicera. The Burrisses do not oppose the proposed subdivision; however they would like to see Condition No. 54 - P.C. Resolution No. 5073, page 13 eliminated. The elimination of this dedication requirement is supported by all three (3) affected property owners: Mike and Pat Burris, Standard Pacific (the developer) and, Mr. and Mrs. Tabata, the owner of an approximate 2-acre parcel. Lying adjacent to the Burris' property is an approximate 20-foot wide paved driveway which connects Camino de Las Ondas and the Tabata property. According to many months of title research there is no recorded easement for this roadway to the Tabata property as it is presently situated. This driveway area has been the source of problems for the Burrisses. Heavy agricultural equipment has historically used this driveway and has brought with it attendant noise problems. In addition, off readers have used the driveway and have driven onto the Burris' property. The opposition to this existing driveway and its expansion because of increased noise, dust, fumes, security and privacy concerns. DETISCH & OHRISTENSEN Mr. Jeffrey Segall, Chairman City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and Commissioners November 6, 2001 Page 2 The Burrisses property will, if this new roadway is created, be bounded by public roadways on three (3) sides of their property, Camino de Las Ondas to the North, Veronica Court to the East and now this proposed new 60 foot wide road to the South . At the present the Burrisses enjoy an unequaled view and living experience which will be seriously disrupted as a result of the proposed roadway. We understand that this proposed roadway is not necessary for circulation nor is it necessary for safety concerns. The Fire Department has indicated to the Burrisses engineers (Project Design Consultants) that if certain lots of the proposed subdivisions and the parcel lots of the ultimate subdivision of the Tabata property are properly "sprinklered" that the need for any through street would not be necessary, if a road connection to Lonicera is infeasible. We believe that Standard Pacific and Tabata support this proposal as well. We believe that a cul-de-sac could serve the Tabata property in the future and there is no need to construct this proposed 60' wide connection. Candidly, the Burrisses engineers, have explored the feasibility of constructing this proposed road connection and have found it infeasible. The roadway as proposed will require the relocation of water and sewer lines as well as the potential acquisition of off-site properties. If this is the case, the cost to the future developers of Tabata's 2 acre parcel will be prohibitive. It is understood that the gradient of the proposed roadway from Lemon Leaf to Lonicera is to steep at the existing grade and will require the relocation of water and sewer lines. In addition offsite right of way will be required and/or significant retaining walls constructed. This is problematic and unnecessary if Lemon Leaf were simply cul-de-saced into the Tabata property during any future development. It should also be noted that there are other instances within the City of Carlsbad within recent years has allowed cul-de-sacing and, in circumstances where the lot count has approximated or exceeded the lot totals envisioned here. This is a minor variation from any purported standard and in these circumstances is appropriate. All in all, the elimination of Condition No. 54 from the proposed subdivision will not have a harmful affect and would be welcomed by the Burrisses, the Tabatas and Standard Pacific. The Commission is respectfully requested to eliminate this condition from the map and allow the matter to proceed without this requirement. This office met with the Engineering Department early to urge them to eliminate this condition. One of the suggestions from Engineering was to engage an engineer and plot out a proposed land use for the Tabata property. The Burrisses did this and demonstrated to the Engineering Department that a cul de sac would work perfectly for the Tabata property. The second suggestion was to place a gate across the driveway access area which would allow emergency use DETISCH & CHRISTENSEN Mr. Jeffrey Segall, Chairman City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and Commissioners November 6, 2001 Page 3 only. This alternative has apparently been rejected by staff. This letter should be included as part of the administrative record however it is our intent to speak at the Hearing on the 7th and to present the Burrisses position in a more graphic manner. Sincerely, onald W. Detisch, Esq. DWD/sll cc: Client Doug Vickery, Esq. Mr. David Ragland