Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 96-10; Cade Tentative Parcel Map; Hillside Development Permit (HDP) (23)June 30,1996 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP - MINOR SUBDMSION NO. 96-0 1 Dear Mr. Hubbs: We received the Notice referenced above, dated June 17,1996, from Mr. Robert J. Wojcik of your staff. In the Notice, it stated that a Tentative Parcel Map had been filed on Lot 8 and a portion of Lot 9 of Bella Vista Map 2152. The Notice stated: "Each property owner may request, in writing, the opportunity to be heard on the Tentative Parcel Map. Such written request must by filed with the City Engineer within fifteen (15) days of this notice." This letter is a request to be heard on the proposed Tentative Parcel Map. We have spoken to Mr. Clyde Wickham of your staff and reviewed the Tentative Parcel Map that was submitted by the applicant. We have a number of concerns regarding the proposed Tentative Parcel Map which are described in detail in the balance of this letter. First, we are concerned that this parcel map is located on the north shore of Ap Hedionda Lagoon and includes a portion of the water area and beach of the Lagoon. However, the Tentative Parcel Map that we reviewed did not include any provision for public coastal access. The State Subdivision Map Act requires maps on and adjacent to waterways to include public access dedxations. In addition, the Coastal Act requires that public access be provided to the shoreline. We understand the City may not be responsible for implementing the access provisions of the Coastal Act because you do not have coastal development permitting authority. However, it is our understanding that in processing and approving a Tentative Parcel Map, the City is responsible for enforcing provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. The Notice we received also indicated you are processing this project as a minor subdivision which does not require a public hearing, based on compliance "with all applicable codes, regulations, and zoning". Does the General Plan andor Zoning for the property include provisions for a publicly accessible trail on the north shore of the Lagoon? If they do and neither a trail nor public access is proposed, is the project in compliance with all applicable codes, regulations and zoning? Last fall, without benefit of a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission, the property owner erected a fence effectively blocking public coastal access. Prior to the erection of the fence, the beach on the property proposed to be subdivided had been publicly accessible for at least ten (10) years. The accessibility of this beach area provided an important pedestrian linkage between the Bristol Cove public access at the terminus of Cove Drive and the commercial recreation Mr. Hubbs Page 2 uses west of the property. Since the erection of the fence public access has been blocked. We believe the City, in its consideration of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, should consider restoration of public access to the shoreline a high priority. Second, the property owner has been using a portion of the beach area, accessed from Cove Drive, as an informal launch ramp for motorized vessels. We noted that the informal launch ramp is not indicated on the Tentative Parcel Map. We are concerned because the informal launch ramp is located within a designated boating comdor and may pose a hazard to boaters on the Lagoon. We believe it would be appropnate to address the issue of motorized vessel launch access to the Lagoon during the Tentative Parcel Map process. Third, from the copy of the map that we reviewed, it was unclear whether the applicant proposes to widen Cove Drive to its 111 width and install frontage improvements. It is also not clear whether the applicant proposes to take any type of vehicular access from Cove Drive. We are concerned about any loss of parking on Cove Drive related to vehicular access points to the property proposed for subdivision. Fourth, we are concerned that storm runoff from the property proposed for subdivision will add to the deterioration of water quality in the Lagoon. We would like to see filtration systems included in the storm drain design to minimize the water quality impacts of the proposed project. Finally, the version of the map that we reviewed includes three (3) parcels, all numbered as legal buildmg sites. We understand that Parcel 3 is intended as a common area for private recreation use and will not be used for construction of a third residence. If this is the case, we would like to request that Parcel 3 be created as a lettered lot, restricted to recreation uses. Further, with regard to the proposed tennis court, indicated on Parcel 3, adjacent to Cove Drive, we are concerned night lighting of this facility would disturb many residents on Cove Drive. We would like to request night lighting of the court be prohibited to ensure compatibility with the adjacent residential land uses. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. We can be contacted at 729-0294 if you have any questions regarding our comments. Sincerely, /t&/kdfld- - Richard Keith Mahler Robin Putnam (Property Owners at 45 19 Cove Drive) cc. Honorable Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council Mr. Bill Ponder, California Coastal Commission