HomeMy WebLinkAboutDI 94-01; Kaffka Residence; Discussion Item (DI) (4)January 26,1995
Mr. Ray Patchett
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Aviara Point Lot No. 264 (Ka€€ka)
RECElVED
Dear Mr. Patchett,
We are in receipt of the Planning Department Staff's revised report regarding our
proposal for construction at Aviara Point.
As you may be aware, the original date for the hearing of our appeal was
scheduled for January 18, 1995. We have spent considerable time preparing for this
appeal and were more than adequately prepared for the hearing on January 18. On
January 13, we were notified by a phone call that the hearing was being postponed due to
the StafPs revision of its report. We subsequently received a formal letter dated January
18, (original hearing date) stating that the postponement was due to an allowance for us,
the applicants, to review the new staffreport. This revision was not provided to us until
Friday, January 20, late in the afternoon.
The postponement of the hearing is actually, a result of the City Planning
Department's revision of their StaEreport that was not even ready by the date of the
originally scheduled hearing. Had we been provided with the revision by the date of the
notification, January 13, we would certainly have been prepared to proceed with the
original hearing date. Obviously, the Staffwas not prepared to do this.
We have found, throughout this process, that the City has taken substantial
amounts of time in gathering documentation and preparing its position, while providing us
with very limited time, with short deadlines, to accommodate the City's imposed deadlines
to allow us to continue with the appeal process. An example of this is the Planning
Department's request, (dated December 14, however not received by us until December
ZO), to provide address labels (very specific format ) of all property owners within a 600
ft. radius of our proposed parcel, radius map, and postage fees due back to the Planing
Department by December 27, 1994. This time requirement, of course, required that we
research the current property owners, obtain their current mailing address, prepare "left
justified in capital letters" all in a period of time that included a weekend and a legal
holiday. Another example is the above mentioned revision to the original Staffreport.
The actual revision time for the City was? at a minimum, fiom January 13 to January 20.
We were asked to respond to the revisions, by Monday, January 23, no later than 5:OO.
This time fhme provided to us was fiom delivery of Staff report revision, Friday, Jan~my
20 at 230 to Monday, January 23 at 5:OO; again, over a weekend with little time to review
with other involved parties.
It has been clear, in writing fiom the Planning Department , that our failure to
meet these deadlines will result in firther delays to our appeal process, therefore we have
been careful to meet each City imposed deadline in order to expedite our appeal in this
matter, although the City Planning Department has taken inordinate amounts of time to
provide us with notification and information and has decided to, without concurrence fiom
us, to postpone the hearing, to "allow the applicants to review the changes''. It is our
opinion that the City has provided us with short notice on these issues in order to allow
for postponement of this hearing, should we miss the deadlines, and to make this appeal
process fiustrating and diiEcult.
Although these deadlines have been inconvenient, we have met each and every one
to ensure that our appeal is heard and resolved in an expedient process. Unfortunately,
the City has not had the same objective as our hearing fiom date of appeal to current date
is now October 24, 1994 to February 1,1995.
As our position in this matter has not changed, and is not affected by the StafPs
revised report, our comments to the revision of your report will be addressed at the newly
scheduled date of February 1, 1995.
cc: M. Hoipniller, A. Landers,
L. Clemens, P. Kldcas