The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 98-14; Thompson/Tabata; Tentative Map (CT) (8)c - City of Carlsbad October 9,2001 Donald W Detisch Esq Detisch and Christensen 444 West C St, Suite 200 San Diego CA 92101 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE THOMPSONRABATA SUBDIVISION Thank you for your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Thomsponflabata residential subdivision. Listed below are the responses to your comments. Your comment letter (copy attached) has been noted with reference letters that correspond to the responses contained below. A. The consultant report complies with the City Noise Ordinance requirements and full mitigation is achieved via the consultant's recommendations. In addition, the Uniform Building Code requires internal sound attenuation. 6. The lighting or recreation areas and/or storage will meet City standards requiring that it be shielded and directed away from surrounding residences. C. The City staff has evaluated various designs for access to the Tabata Property. In order to meet City standards a second means of access is required to adequately serve the Tabata property. The current access, as improved in conjunction with this project, meets all City standards regarding access. It is anticipated that the project will be heard by the Planning Commission in November 2001. You will receive a legal notice of that hearing at least ten days in advance. Thank you again for your participation. Sincerely, MICHAEL JHOWMILLER Planning Director Attachment c: City Attorney Assistant Planning Director Principal Planner DeCerbo Senior Planner Grim File Copy 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ti9 DETISCH & CHRISTL, ,SEN Anorneys a[ Lau Charles B. Christensen Donald W. Detisch Of Cowel Harold 0. Valdrrhaug Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director Senior Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-73 14 . City of Carlsbad Planning Department RE: Mitigated Negative, Declaration dated April 4, ZOO1 Case Name: ThompsodTabata Pubiish Date: April 3. ZOO1 Case No.: ZC 98-08/LPCA 98-03KT 98-14/PUD 0@-03!SDP 99-06/HI?P 98-15/CDP 98-68 Dear Mr. Holzmiller: I received the above Declaration on or about April 11, 2001. This was several days afier the initial publication date. I was informed that this \vas due to an oversight on the part of staff and thus, staff was kind enough to extend our response date until May 11, 2001. (See my letter of April 25, 2001 .) In any event our general comments follow: Overall the document generally covers the impacts associated with the project. The document seems to address the majority of environmental issues. It would appear that this is one of the last remaining agricultural areas surrounded by pre-existing residential communities being converted to multi- residential use. We have been in contact with Standard Pacific, the developer, during this process and have been favorably impressed with their willingness to work with this office and our clients. Mr. and Mrs. Michael Burris who reside at 1250 Veronica Court. Carlsbad. California, 92008. Ms. Baker has been particularly receptive to our concerns. My clients' concern with the proposed subdivision primarily relates to noise. visual pollution, traffic circulation, and the public safety and general welfare. These concerns are based upon the most recent iteration of the proposed subdivision. 6 DETISCI- & CHRISTEKSES Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director May 4, 2001 Page 2 We understand that any anticipated noise increase resulting from the proposed subdivision will arise through the use of Poinsettia Lane. The proposed mitigation refers to the use Of noise attenuation walls. This makes good sense and is appropriate. While it would appear that this issue has been appropriately addressed, except as set forth below, we would like to suggest that monitoring occur to confirm the prediction of rhe noise consultants. Secondly, we understand that there will be passive and active park use. My clients’ concern here is that these parks use low 8 wattage or low luminous lights (if night lighting is used ) so that harsh piercing lighting is not used. My client’s greatest concern relates to the proposed expansion and continued use of a driveway area which presently serves as access to the Tabata residence. By way of reference page 10 of the Declaration states: “The two portions north of Poinsettia Lane are separated by two existing lots totaling 2.40 acres that are not part of the proposed subdivision. The properties contain the existing single family residence and accessory strucrures for the previous agricultural operations. The residence currently takes access off of Lonicera Street. jus1 sourh of its intersection with Camino de Las Ondas, via an access easement and paved drivemy. The proposed subdivision does not affect this existing access and provides public street frontages 10 the east side of the lot through the extension of Lemon Leaf Dri\,e rhereby allowing fwm development of the site.” Here, what has transpired is that our client’s properry which lies adjacent to this driveway access has been exposed to noise due to large mechanical equipment and off road vehicle use whereby vehicles have actually driven onto my clients’ property. Overall this has proven to be an altogether unsatisfactory situation for my clients’. C We understand that the proposed subdivision includes a condition to expand this access driven.ay area to a 50 foot wide easement, i.e., Standard is required to dedicate 30 feet of right Of way for the use of the Tabata property. This is then supposed to be used in connection wth a purported 20 foot easement co create a 50 foot wide righr nf way. It is our heljrf [ha! !he rod \?‘a!,’ area where the 20 foot wide alleged easement exists is not in the ownership of Mr. Tabata but is still dedicated open space owned by the Lennar Development Company. In addition, the Tabata propem can and will be adequately accessed from Lemon Leaf Drive. Any future development of the Tabata property can take access from Lemon Leaf and does not require a second access point from Lonicera Street. The Tabata property will more than likely not be able to obtain more than two or-three lots for which a cul-de-sac street access from Lemon Leaf would be more than driveway access. Of course access to Lonicera would not be CUI off until Lemon Leaf was opened to the Tabata property. In the area of the driveway access is an access point for the Municipal Water District which obliviously would remain. My clients simply are interested in eliminating any roadway noise which emanates from this adjacent roadway area as well as protect their property from vehicles driving onto their property. In discussions with Standard Pacific Staff they have indicated a willingness to support the elimination of these roadway areas which are truly not ” adequate. This would eliminate the need for the 30 foot wide dedication as well as the existing DETISCA, & CHRISTENSES Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director May 4, 2001 Page 2 necessary. The Lemon Leaf access which would cul-de-sac on the Tabata property uould adequately address this need and candidly would reduce all of the environmental impacts associated with the addition of another roadway, e.g., air pollution, etc. It is also our understanding that there are many other instances within the City of Carlsbad where the cul-dtt- sacing of a roadway into a small area has been allowed and endorsed. If this private access and 30 foot dedication occurs, my clients' property ill become an island surrounded by SLreeLs. We do not believe this is appropriate. We [hi& this would be most appropriate and should be favorably considered by the CiQ. staff. Finally and simply by way of reference we believe that the declaration should be updared relative to the discussion of energy use. Whether rhere is anything that can be done is debatable. DWD!'sll cc: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Burris Mr. Michael Grim