Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-11-16; City Council; 12476; APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION UPLHOLDING A PLANNING DIRECTOR DECISION DENYING AN ADMINISTRAVIE VARIANCE - AV 91-12A - HILL-- DECISION UPHOLDING A PL24”ING DIRECTOR DECISION DENYING AN ADMINISTRATIVE MTG. /I-/% - ??3 -- 4 PLN a DEPT. VARIANCE - AV 91-12(A) - HILL c DEPT. ClTYA CITY N L .rl g cd a c h a a m 4 cd a, a %- e aJm u .rl s + M 3 CQJ .rl a !ik U M M ’w ’ ’ m mal uu 22 c) o aJ v1 a aJ0 G o a ma, aJ- )-I cdm M a .rl ,, a, d s &J -d uc 0 hc) Mu 0 .d h 5 5 .: cd 5 aJ a .5 u cd Mrn a~ +J a G 4 E g 2 u3 Vb a> aJu Ub 4 .rl .rl .rl a c)cd G vu z 0 F 0 = 0 z 3 0 0 a Y OF CARLSBAD - AGW A BlLL )’ AB #72; rqb *E: APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ACTION: Both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council c lhs Ciry Am-nny IO prepare documents UPHOLDING the denial of Administrative Yar 91-12. JTEM EXPLANATION On September 15, 1993, the Planning Commission upheld (5-2) a Planning dir decision denying an administrative variance to allow for a reduced sideyard setback family residence. The property is located at 3317 Cadencia Street between Perdiz 5 and Borla Place in the Planned Community zone. The applicant has done improvements to the property to solve an alleged ground I problem. The residence has a sunken living room of 4 to 5 inches which has flood the property line, then the construction of a roof structure that spans from the ex residence to the retaining wall, which covers 930 square feet (20’ x 46.6‘). Both ( improvements were in an attempt to divert and reduce the amount of ground water structure. the required 8 feet (10% of lot width) to 2 feet for a storage structure attached to a 5 the past. The first correction was the construction of an 8 foot retaining wall 2 fe sideyard area. A building permit was obtained for the retaining wall, but not for thc At the Planning Commission meeting of December 2, 1992, the Administrative Val for the retaining wall was approved. However, the Planning Commission requestec the applicant provide a report from a soils engineer as to the appropriateness ( storage structure to solve the alleged ground water problem before making a decisi that structure. The Planning Commission subsequently continued the item or occasions in order to clarify what information it wanted from the soils engineer and the Hills adequate time to get the soils report. The Planning Commission found th applicant’s soil report was unable to provide satisfactory evidence that the structure best and only way to resolve the alleged ground water problem. The Commission d the appeal for the reduced sideyard setback, for the storage structure, on Septemb 1993. A more complete background of this item is contained in the staff reports Planning Commission and the related minutes. The denial of the of the Administrative Variance request requires that the applicant a to the sideyard setback of 8 feet. This would reduce the width of the storage stn from 20 feet to 14 feet in width. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No environmental review was performed since ministerial projects are exempt fro requirements of CEQA. 8 I) 0 PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /a, y .7& , Y FISCAL IMPACT None. EXHIBITS 1. Location Map 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Letter of Appeal Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3465 & 3511 Staff Report dated September 15, 1993 w/attachments Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes dated September 15, 1993 Memo dated September 10, 1993 from Assistant City Engineer to Plan Technician I1 w/attachments Letter dated May 27, 1993 from Property Development Engineers to Mr. Hill * c 8 4 +r 44 00 3 P 0 b City 04 CIrtsc~ I HILL RESIDENCE (APPEAL) AV 91-12 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2v 28 8 a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO- 3465 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A PARTIAL APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN EIGHT FOOT RETAINING WALL IN THE REQUIRED SIDEYARD SETBACK AND A REDUCED SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM EIGHT FEET TO TWO FEET LOCATED AT 3317 CADENCIA STREET. CASE NAME: HILL RESIDENCE CASE NO: AV 91-12 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit: Located in Lot 309 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 Unit No. 3, has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commiss WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as pro Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 2nd day of Dc 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considi testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Cor considered all factors relating to AV 91-12. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning COI of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) B) That the above recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commissic partially overturned the Planning Director's denial of AV 91-12, GRANTIb a partial APPROVAL, specifically, allowing the 8 foot wall but not t reduced sideyard setback, based on the following findings: i I .... .... .... c c 1 2 3 4 5 6 '1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 0 e Findings: 1. Section 21.46.130 allows the Planning Commission to approve fences tha six feet if special circumstances exist. Planning Commission found thal conditions do exkt as outlined in the minutes of the December 2,1992 I The wall is not detrimental to the surrounding properties as evidenced b] surrounding neighbor opposition to the 8' wall. 2. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the E Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of Decembe by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Sc Noble, Welshons, Savary & Hall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -L Cd-2 TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMl ATTEST: . &A iHAELJ.rn ,- /La]E - j PLANNING DIRECTOR 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 3465 -2- .. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 e PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 351 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1 OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLA"1R FOR A REDUCED SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM EIGHT FEET 1 TWO FEET LOCATED AT 3317 CADENCIA STREET. DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY AN ADMUWI"TNEVA€UAN( CASE NAME: HILL RESIDENCE CASE NO: AV 91-12(A) WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit: Located in Lot 309 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 Unit No. 3, has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commis: WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as prc Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of Ap consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consic testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Lo considered all factors relating to AV 91-12(A). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Ca as follows: 1 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Cc UPHELD the Planning Director's denial of AV 91-12(A), specifically, th sideyard setback from 8' to 2' based on the following findings: .... .... ' .... h 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25! 26 e e Findinns: 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions a to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to 1 property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone because surroun has a slope to the adjacent lot. The lot is also similar in size and shape to lots in the area and has ample developable area. There are other locatio the area that have ground water conditions. These properties have enclosed structures to resolve the ground water condition. The subsoil does not constitute an unnecessary hardship. The requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoy substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vic zone but which is denied to the property in question because no other I in the area have structures in the required side yard setback. All properi surrounding area must also comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The granting of this variance will be materially detrimental to the publj or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in 1 property is located because reduced setbacks, would in turn reduce for emergency access. The granting of the Administrative Variance 1 precedence and other properties may request the same privilege as gran property in question. have similar topography. The lots in the area are graded such that eve 2. 3. separation and amount of light available to properties and di-dsh avaL .... .... .... .... I .... ...e .... .... .... 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 3511 -2- I + . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 l5 16 17 e 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of April, the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Schlehuber, P Savary & Erwin. NOES: Commissioners: Betz & Hall. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. A2 nd BAILEY NO E, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMh ATTEST: 1 MICHAEL J. HOLZMIYLER PLANNING DIRECTOR l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I PC RES0 NO. 3511 -3- Io APPLd iION COMPLETE DATE: JULY 27, 1992 @ @ 0 STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 1993 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AV 91-12 HILL RESIDENCE - Appeal of the Planning Director's decisioi denying the request for an Administrative Variance for a reduced side yare setback, for a storage structure, from the required eight (8) foot to two (2 foot at 3317 Cadencia Street in the Planned Community (PC) Zone and i Local Facilities Management Zone 6. . 1. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Cornmission Resolution No. 351 UPHOLDING the Planning Directors decision denying AdministrativeVariance No. 91 -12(P( based on the findings contained therein. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Please refer to the attached Staff Report for a full discussion and analysis of tk Administrative Variance application. This item was continued from the July 21, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. At tl meeting, the Commission requested the applicant to provide a more detailed analysis fro a Soils Engineer of the site for justification of the structure. The report was due from tJ applicant on September 1, 1993 and was received on August 26, 1993. After the Pld and Engineering Departments review the report, a memorandum discussing the report w be sent to the Planning Commission prior to the hearing on September 15, 1993. A coi of the report is attached. @ AV 91-12 HILL RESIbLt: 0 SEPTEMBER 15, 1993 PAGE 2 rn. SUMMARY All four findings must be made in the affirmative prior to approving a variance. Sinc three findings cannot be made for the approval of the Administrative Variance, stal recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Dkectofs decision an deny the request. Per Section 21.51.060(c), the decision of the Planning Commission shall be final unlez appealed to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3511 Letter to Mr. Hill from Property Development Engineers, Inc. dated August 19,199 Staff report AV 91-12 dated July 21, 1993, With attachments Excerpt from Planning Commission minutes dated July 21, 1993. VL:lh AUGUST 17, 1993 @ a PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER! 1859 S. ESCONDIDO BLVD., ESCONDIDO, C .. e JOHN E VERNON, PRESIDENT, RCE 21 CHARLES W DAVIS, VICE PRESIDENT August 19, 1993 BARRY L. MUNSON, PROJECT ENGINEER, FREDERICK F. BRONSON, CHIEF OF SUWE DELBERT C. DANIELS. CHIEF OF MAPPll Mr. Steve Hill Carlsbad, CA 92009 Site: 3317 Cadencia St., La Costa 3317 Cadencia Street Carlsbad, CA To whom it may concern: I am addressing the following numbers corresponding to numbers on letter of August 3, 1993 from David Hauser, Ci Car 1 sbad : 3. The winter rains have reportedly caused additional se damage after the installation of the subdrains and before roof was placed to reduce water damage (27,000 gal. would on the subject roof during a 100 year storm). 4. & 5. It is my opinion from review of plans, existing dr fractured rock subsoil conditions allows passage of underg seepage water to bypass the drainway and hydrostatically into the sandbed under the house slab. Reducing the cont absorption by roofing has decreased the added underground fl an acceptable amount. The unsurfaced slab allows percol outside the living area. and my experience of subsoil conditions in the area, that 6. In the event that the roof structure is required removed and an alternative method is required to alleviate problem, the following recommendations are secondarily sugge An 8'2 deep french drain with a waterproof curtain (mirrad Encadrain or equal) on the house side be constructed betwee house and property line wall to intercept and remove seepage the strata adjacent and upstre'am from the house slab. The cost of saw-cutting the,slab, excavating the trench ir approximately $15,000. Cost of removing the roof and unpern walls would be another $15,000. Permits for a 'French Drain" 3' deep through "State Water Quality Control Board" xri~ impossible. subgrade and constructing the drain is estimated to Surveys and plans to apply for all required permits woulc approximately $8,000 if accomplished by an engineer. RECEIVED AUG 2 6 1993 CITY OF CARLSBAD ENCUNEERING SOU TESTlNQ 8wNEYIWa PLANNING DEna EL. (619) 743-8808 FAX (6 e e In summary: Since there is no way of guaranteeing that any alternative method would protect the house from unusual an2 anpredictable underground seepage, and since the owner has found a way eliminate the problem that is proven an8 acceptable to both him and his neighbors, I would recommend that the "unusual circumstances" be recognized by the planning commission or council and approve the variance. Property Development Engineers, Inc. to b*fL4L- John E. Vernon RCE 21121, GE 858 Exp. 9/30/93 Q 0 APPLICATION COMPLETE DA? JULY 27. 1992 STAFF PLANNER: VAN LYNCH 6 STAFF REPORT 0 DATE: JULY 21, 1993 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AV 91-12CAI HILL RESIDENCE - Appeal of the Planning Director's decisj denying the request for an Administrative Variance for a reduced side y' setback, for a storage structure, from the required 8' to 2' at 3317 Caden Street in the Planned Community (PC) Zone and in Local Facilit Management Zone 6. I. RECOMMENLlAnON That the Planning Cornmission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 35 UPHOLDING the Planning Directors decision denying Administrative Variance No. 91 -12( based on the findings contained therein. II. PROJJiCX DESCRPTION AND BACKGROUND The originally requested Administrative Variance was for an eight-foot retaining wall in t required sideyard setback and for a reduced sideyard setback, from eight feet to two fe for a storage structure. See attached staff report dated December 2, 1992 for a f &scussion of the project. The Planning Director denied the request for the Administrative Variance on October : 1992. The applicant subsequently filed for an appeal of the decision on October 21,19! On December 2, 1992 and on April 21, 1993, the Planning Commission considered t applicant's appeal of the Planning Directois decision to deny the variance. St recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Directofs decision deny AV 91-12(A) because in stas opinion, the findings necessary to grant the &an could not be made. At the hearing on December 2, 1992, the Planning Commission made findings for t overheight eight-foot retaining wall in the sideyard setback However, the Commissi continued to a date uncertain the request for a reduced sideyard setback for a stora structure. This was to allow the applicant time to consult with an expert as to t appropriateness of the storage structure to solve an alleged sub-surface water conditia At the hearing on April 21,1993, the Planning Commission again continued the project additional three months to give the applicant extra time to consult with a soils engine @ e a AV 91-12(A) HILL RESIDENCE JULY 21, 1993 PAGE 2 To date, the applicant has be unable to provide any reports that substantiate appropriateness of the method used to solve the alleged sub-surface water condition. m. ANALYSIS Can the four findings for an Administrative Variance be made, specifically: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applica to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other prope or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substan property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but wh is denied to the property in question; That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the put welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone which the property is located; and 2. 3. 4. The granting of tk;s vadance d not adversely affect the comprehensive Gene Plan. Iv. DISCUSSION Excerdonal or extraordinary circumstances or conditions There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to t property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or cl: of use in the same vicinity and zone because surrounding lots have similar topograpl The lots in the area are graded such that every parcel has a slope to the adjacent lot. T lot is also similar in size and shape to adjacent lots in the area and has ample developal area. There are other locations within the area that have ground water conditions. Thc properties have not used enclosed structures to resolve the ground water condition. T subsoil problem does not constitute an unnecessary hardship. Preservation and eniownent of a substantial ~r~~err~ rinht The requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substant property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which denied to the property in question because no other properties in the area have stntctu~ in the required sideyard setback, All properties in the surrounding area must also corn1 with the Zoning Ordinance. e AV 91-12(A) HILL RESIDENCE JULY 21, 1993 PAGE 3 Matenally detrimental The granting of this variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the prop: is located because reduced setbacks, would in turn reduce structure separation and mol of light available to properties and diminish available space for emergency access. T granting of the Administrative Variance will set a precedence and other propemes r request the same privilege as granted to the property in question. Comprehensive General Plan The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General P1 because the site is developed with a single family home in a residentially designated are V. ENVIRO~~REVEEW The project is Categorically Exempt Per Subsection 15305(a) of the Califon Environmental Quality Act, which exempts variances not resulting in the creation of a new parcel. VI. SUMMARY The applicant is unable to provide the Planning Commission with a report that states th the improvements made to the property are an appropriate means of solving a sub-surfa( water condition. There are preferred options to rectifying a sub-surface drainage proble that do not require structures needing a variance. All four hdings must be made in the affirmative prior to approving a variance. Sin( these findings cannot be made for the approval of the Administrative Variance, sta recommends that the Pldg Commission uphold the Planning Directois decision ax deny the request. Per Section 21.51.060(c), the decision of the Planning Commission shall be final unle: appealed to the City Council. A'ITACHMENTS 1. 2. LocationMap 3. 4. 5. Planning Codsion Resolution No. 351 1 St& report dated April 21, 1993, With attachments Staff report dated December 2,1992, with attachments Excerpt from Planning Commission minutes dated April 21,1993 and December 2 1992. VLAh Junc 17,1993 8 a Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting- 6.00 P.M Date of Meeting: July 21, 1993 Place of Meeting: CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noble called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The pledge of allegiance was led by Chairman Noble. ROLL CALL: Present: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hail, Savary, Schlehuber, and Welshons Absent; None Staff Present: Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director Robert Green, Principal Planner Van Lynch, Planning Technician I1 Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Walter Brown, Principal Engineer Pat Entezari, Associate Engineer Evan Becker, Director of Housing & Redevelopment Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Erwin requested a correction to the minutes on page 4, paragraph 5, to read as follows: "...no EIR is required because there are no significant impacts that can't be mitigated." Commissioner Erwin also noted a typographical error on page 5, paragraph 3. The word "ours" shoulc correctly read "hours." ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 7, 1993, as amended. Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Savary, and Welshons VOTE: 6-0-1 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Schlehuber CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. AV 91 -1 2(A) HILL RESIDENCE - Appeal of the Planning Director's decision denying the reques an Administrative Variance for a reduced side yard setback, for a storage structure, fram the MINUTES a July 21, 1993 PAGE 2 8 PLANNING COMMISSION required 8 ft. to 2 ft., at 331 7 Cadencia Street, in the Planned Community (PC) Zone and in Ll Facilities Management Zone 6. Van Lynch, Planning Technician II, reviewed the background of the request and stated that on April 1993 the Planning Commission continued the hearing, for the second time, on this Administrative Vi in order to give the applicant extra time to consult with a soils engineer as to the appropriateness of t structure to solve an alleged sub-soil water condition. The applicant built the structure in the side yi with the idea that the additional roof area would keep the side yard area more dry. Staff contends tt, concrete slab below the roof serves the same purpose as the roof structure. There are more accepta ways to solve a surface water problem, i.e. subterranean drains. Staff feels that the method the appl has used is not appropriate to solve the sub-water problem. The applicant has been unable to provic water problem. The Planning Department is not asking that the applicant remove the entire structurt to reconstruct it to conform to the required side yard setback which is 8 ft. This would allow about 9- of the structure to remain, which would still provide a useful storage area for the applicant. Tonight': decision on this Administrative Variance can be appealed to the City Council. Since all the four findii for the Administrative Variance cannot be made in the affirmative, staff recommends that the Plannir Commission upholding the Planning Director's decision denying Administrative Variance 91 -1 2(A). Chairman Noble opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Carol Hill, 3317 Cadencia Street, Carlsbad, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that the improvements which she and her husband added to the side yard were remedies that had been recommended by staff members of the Planning Department. She stated that they have been able to obtain a letter from a soils engineer, Mr. John E. Vernon, of Property Development Engineers in Escondido. Mrs. Hill read the engineer's letter aloud which stated that he had made a field review of underground seepage problems at the site, which are common in this area of La Costa hillside. In hi: professional opinion, the roof structure being questioned displaces the rainfall 20 ft. away from the hc which has minimized inundation of storm waters into aquifers leading to problem seepage areas insic Commission or staff with a report or proof that the structure is necessary as an appropriate way to sc house. Mr. Vernon's letter dated May 27, 1993 is on file in the Planning Department. Mrs. Hill stated that her home has been flooded 15 different times and only after the roof was built did flooding stop. Her neighbors have no objection to the roof because many people in the La Costa Hills are annoyed by water seepage and so they understand the problem. She stated that she had contact Mr. Ray Lopez of the Olivenhain Municipal Water District who stated that there has been a consistent flow on the Cadencia hill for over 20 years. Other soils engineers that they have spoken to all knew o water problems. Many realtors in the area and heavy equipment operators that worked on these lots Y they were graded knew of water problems. She stated that the water starts above her home and man' people down Cadencia have had their homes flooded. Eight homes on Carlena Street have had so m flooding problems that they are almost not sellable. Water flows 10 months out of the year. Hataca a Meadow Vista Way have flooding problems. The Seapoint Condominiums have experienced water problems and have been sued because of the flooding. Water seeks its own level and some homes 01 Paragua Street, off Cadencia, have had water coming out of their houses 24 hours a day until about i month ago. Many people on Hataca Street cannot grow anything in their back yards because everyth too sopping wet. Mrs. Hill feels that her circumstances are far beyond extenuating and she and her husband are not try 10 do anything other than keep the water from flooding their home. Most people remember the floodin problems in San Diego earlier this year and currently in the Midwest. She has a real big question in h mind as to when government and the community step in to help people like her make their homes liva She urged the Commission to approve her request for an Administrative Variance. MINUTES 8 PLANNING COMMISSION July 21, 1993 PAGE 3 Commissioner Hall inquired when her husband had constructed the roof. 'Mrs. Hill replied that the roc added two years ago. Commissioner Hall inquired if they had experienced flooding during last year's bad rains. Mrs. Hill rei that they did not; in fact, it was the first winter since they moved in that they didn't have flooding prob Commissioner Betz inquired how old the home is. Mrs. Hill replied that they are the original owners a moved into the home in 1978. Commissioner Erwin inquired if it had rained between the time that the slab was poured and the roof 'r constructed. Mrs. Hill replied that it had rained after the slab was poured, and her house had flooded. husband then painted something on the stucco and the concrete in an attempt to stop the water seep2 but, when that didn't work either, he added the roof. Commissioner Erwin noted that the engineer's letter is dated May 27, 1993 and inquired why it had nc been submitted to staff so it could be reviewed before tonight. Mrs. Hill replied that her secretary had neglected to send it in. Commissioner Erwin would like staff to be given a few moments to review the letter so they can respor Stephen Hill, 331 7 Cadencia Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he installed many drains and gutters, in various areas, at the suggestion of Planning staff. He also has three 4 dr with rain gutters, within a 20' area, which run to the street. When it rains the 4" drains are literally gus water. All of his drains have been inspected by a City inspector. commissioner Hall inquired if he could review the dates that various steps were taken to stop the flooc Mr. Hill replied that he originally came to the Planning Department and took out a permit for the wall. asked for other ideas at that time. Mr. Lynch recommended that he install a drain behind the wall and with gravel. He also suggested that the wall be waterproofed. Mr. Hill did these things, which were approved and inspected. Then it rained and the hOlJSe flooded. So he waterproofed the slab and seal all of the cracks. Water still came in. It took two years before he decided to build the roof. He went to Planning Department and was told that he needed to go through a series of steps in order to install the roof. Since it was getting close to winter, and time was of the essence, he asked what would happen il installed the roof and went through the steps after the fact. Staff told him that he would have to pay double. He decided to do that because he was concerned about the approaching rainy season. He bi the roof. When the rains came, they were fierce, but the roof stopped the rain from flooding the house That is the only time that his house hasn't filled with water. Commissioner Welshons inquired where the rainwater goes after it falls on the easterly side of the slop roof and meets the 8' retaining wall. Mr. Hill replied that there is a gutter along the roof line which senc the runoff to a 4' line that goes completely to the street. No rainwater touches the ground. Commissioner Welshons inquired if that gutter is able to handle 4.3 inches of water per hour, as statec Mr. Vernon's letter. Mr. Hill replied that he cannot verify that fact but he knows that it handled all of thc rainwater during the terrible rains this spring. He said the water coming out of the pipe at the street wi like it was being shot out of a hose. Chairman Noble said that a neighbor, whose driveway slopes towards the house, has a water problem because the rain all runs into one corner. He installed a one inch pipe with a pump which extricates 500 gallons of water per minute. Accordingly, a 4 inch pipe would accommodate four times that much Mr. Hill stated that he has three 4 inch pipes. He said the water was shooting out 6' from the pipe near his driveway. MINUTES e July 21, 1993 PAGE 4 8 PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Welshons inquired where the water goes which comes from behind the retaining wall Hill replied that he has a 4 inch drain from the gutter out to the street and another drain at the bottor the retaining wall, also going out to the street. These two drains exit next to one another and were ir at the suggestion of Planning staff. Commissioner Welshons inquired what size pumps were installed under the slab. Mr. Hill replied th: putting on the roof, it was not necessary to run the pumps. Prior to the roof, he had a small pump, \n connected to a 2-1 /2 inch line, which ran 24 hours a day. In addition, when it rained, he would plact horsepower pump down in the sump to try to keep ahead of the water. Commissioner Erwin inquired if any other fix was attempted to stop the water. Mr. Hill stated that he everything. He installed a sump near the house where he would monitor the water level. He sealed slab with Hydro 60, which "grows" into the concrete, expands and seals it. He has caulked inside an He has replaced the dry wall. He sealed the exterior stucco with Dry Lock. Commissioner Erwin inquired if there is anything else he could have done to solve the problem other the roof. Mr. Hill replied that he has done everything anyone could think of. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Noble dec the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Cornmissioner Schlehuber is satisfied that the retaining wall should stay. His real question concerns roof. Although Mr. Vernon's letter states that the roof minimizes the water inundation, it does not adc other methods which might also have corrected the problem. He would have preferred that staff had given some time to review the engineer's letter. David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, agreed with Commissioner Schlehuber's assessment of the IE He is certain that there are other solutions which will correct the water problem as well as the roof doc Commissioner Savary stated that underground seepage seems to be the problem. She doesn't unde how a roof can protect damage caused by underground water. Mr. Hauser replied that if the water is originating underground, underground seepage could be starting at the top of the hill and running dc through various properties to Mr. Hill's house. The combination of the surface water plus the undergi water could be enough to create the problem. Mr. Hauser has not reviewed the site himself. Commissioner Savary inquired if staff would let Mr. Hill retain his roof if he met the setback standard Lynch, Planning Technician il, replied that the roof would have to come back to the setback line, whic would be about 8 ft. Commissioner Savary inquired if the slab would still have protective coverage if the roof were brough 8 ft. Mr. Lynch replied that it would. Commissioner Welshons inquired how fast water can be pumped with underground pumps like Mr. k has. Mr. Hauser does not feel he has sufficient expertise in this area, however, in his opinion, all wat could be removed with the proper pump and line size. A larger pump can force more water through small pipe. Commissioner Welshons feels a solution would be to bring the roof back 8 ft. and eliminate the wall. Chairman Noble reopened public testimony to allow Mr. Hill to speak. Stephen Hill, 331 7 Cadencia Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that the reason roof is where it is, is because of the permit he obtained for the retaining wall. He was told where to pl MINUTE 8 e PLANNING COMMISSION July 21, 1993 PAGE 5 the retaining wall. The footing for the wail is 6 ft. wide and 2 ft. deep. He put bolts at the top of the W~ secure the roof. After the wall was half built, an inspector happened to drive by and told him the wall illegal. He has $30,000 invested in the wall, drains, and roof trying to keep the water out of his house roof was his idea, but he was told exactly where to build the wall, and that's where he put it. The cost be astronomical if he has move the roof back 8 ft. Commissioner Schlehuber commented that he doesn't think the wall is in the wrong place, but that it i: high. It is 8 ft. high rather than 6 ft. high. He inquired why he didn't have the permit include the roof. Hill replied that he did not plan on building the roof when he took out the permit. Commissioner Schlehuber told Mr. Hill that, as a contractor, he should know better than to build a roo without a permit. He replied that he does know better. He went to the Planning Department and was what needed to be done. However, it was approaching the rainy season and he didn't feel there wouk time to get the roof built before the rain started, so he asked what would happen if he built the roof wit a permit. He was told by staff that he would have to pay double for the permit and he would be fined. decided to do that, without the permit. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired who the staff person was that gave him this information. Mr. Hill replied that it was the same person who had issued the permit for the wall. He doesn't know his name Chairman Noble inquired if staff had additional comments. Van Lynch, Planning Technician 11, stated that staff's whole contention is that the concrete slab which Hill poured between the house and the wall is an impervious material. Water will not pass through concrete. Mr. Hill also sealed the concrete. Theoretically, the roof structure should not correct the wa runoff problem. Mr. Hill does not understand how Mr. Lynch could think that concrete is impervious. He stated that if ( looks at a house after a rain, they can plainly see huge water marks on the stucco. The only thing kee the water out of the house is the tar paper behind the stucco. Water goes through concrete the same ( way--that is why they make sealers for concrete. Chairman Noble reclosed the public testimony. Commissioner Betz commented that this process has gone on for several years and she feels that bot1 staff and Mr. Hill have made every attempt to solve the Water problem. She believes that the COrTlrYIUfl might be better served to rule in favor of the applicant, considering the time, money, and effort Mr. Hill expended. She believes that 11 or 12 floods in one house is more than enough. She would be incline vote in favor of the applicant. Commissioner Erwin stated that, at the last meeting when this was discussed, Mr. Hill was told to get i soils report which would make recommendations to mitigate the problem. He inquired if the soils repo that Mr. Hill has provided is adequate. David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, replied that the report v prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer. However, it does not respond to our original question which was "Is the roof the only method possible to prevent the flooding problem?" This particular repo does not go far enough to answer that question. The report states that the roof helps correct the probl but it does not say that the roof is "necessary" or is the "most cost effective method" to solve the probk As far as concrete being pervious or impervious, it is a known fact that very little water can penetrate 6 inches of concrete to get to the ground underneath. What concrete does do, would allow the water ti spread unless it is channeled to a specific point. The only thing a roof will do is create a better grade ti remove the water, i.e. the roof elevation would allow more water to be directed to the collector drain wf goes to the street. Because a slab lacks an elevation differential, water tends to pool in some areas. MINUTES rn e July 21, 1993 PAGE 6 PLAN N I NG COM M IS S I ON Commissioner Erwin inquired if we would be setting a precedent by approving this. Gary Wayne, As Planning Director, replied that there are other engineering practices which have not been explored or they have, they were not included in the report. Without documentation that this is the only solution available, other residents could attempt to solve subterranean water problems with roof structures wh violate the setback standards. On the other hand, Mr. Hill has offered a long history of hardship that make his situation unique. The Commission would have to determine whether other people were bei denied something which Mr. Hill was given. In essence, you would be granting him a right to violate I setback. Commissioner Hall believes that because Mr. Hill has suffered with flooding problems for over 10 yea and, since the cost to relocate the wall or roof back 8 ft. would be so expensive, he doesn’t feel that w be a fair solution. He believes the applicant has done everything possible in an attempt to save his hc He could support granting the Hills a variance. commissioner Schlehuber has a problem ruling in favor of the applicant because the time has draggc so long and the report still does not answer the question. He feels that because Mr. Hill is a contractc should know the rules about permits. If we grant this variance, others will try the same thing. He can support it. ,About the farthest he could go would be to continue the item and let staff go out and makt detailed examination. However, the burden of proof is on the applicant and he does not feel that Mr. provided adequate proof. Commissioner Betz understands that variances should not be taken lightly. However, they are desigr address situations which do not fit the norm. She does not feel that the Hills situation is the norm. St thinks it would serve the community to grant the variance. She noted that the neighbors don’t seem ti have a problem with the structure. If other residents attempt to do the same thing, each case should I addressed on its own merits. Commissioner Savary thinks the roof needs to be brought back, but not the concrete. Commissioner Erwin agrees with Commissioner Schlehuber. He would agree to a continuance to all( engineering staff an opportunity to make sure this is handled correctly. Commissioner Welshons stated that, although she is not an engineer, she understands the problem b caused by the combination of ground water and rain water and she is well aware that it is hard to get excess water quickly. She would like to see the best solution to the problem, however, she is also concerned about the setbacks being observed. She would be inclined to uphold the Planning Directoi recommendation but could agree to allowing more time to solve the problem. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that at the last hearing, he specifically told the applicant to get the s report to staff ten days early so they could review it. He could accept one last two week continuance i feels that will resolve the problem. Commissioner Hall inquired if staff wants more testing to be done to determine how much water we a dealing with. David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, replied that a proper report would require some subsurface testing as well as check a topographical map unless the engineer doing the work felt confi that the subsurface drainage problem had already been corrected. Commissioner Hall inquired when the best time would be to do the testing. Mr. Hauser replied that ar engineer would probably not get the same results by going out in the summer. it may be possible to ti with a pool of water but that might not work. Commissioner Hall wouldn’t want to venture how much this might cost; he thinks it might be very expensive. MINUTE! a 0 PLANNING COMMISSION July 21, 1993 PAGE 7 Commissioner Erwin inquired if a soils report already exists. Mr. Hauser replied that there is a compaction report on file but that it most likely it does not address permeability of the soil. Commissioner Hall thinks the basic problem is ground water, compounded by tremendous amounts o rainwater. The point is that this man has already spent a considerable amount of money trying to cor the problem. Commissioner Hall personally knows of people in that area who have spent $1 00,000 to correct water problems. He thinks staff will agree that there is an underground water problem. Chairman Noble responded to Commissioner Erwin's comment that we may be Setting a precedent. t doesn't know what good another soils report would be at this point. It is plainly evident that there is a ground water problem. Why spend more money on another soils report to tell us what we already knc Chairman Noble agrees with Commissioners Hall and Betz. It has gone on for a long time. He thinks is a special situation. Commissioner Welshons inquired what would have happened if he had gotten a permit for the roof. h Lynch replied that the applicant would have had to go through the administrative variance process. Commissioner Welshons concluded that the problem seems to be that the applicant put the roof on fir and is now going through the administrative variance process. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that water above the ground can usually be channeled. Ground wa can't be channeled easily. He thinks the applicant is missing the whole issue. The Commission askec Hill if there was another solution to the problem, i.e. What would a pump do? What is the volume of \n Commissioner Welshons doesn't see how the ground water can be eliminated by putting up a wall. Chairman Noble replied that when it rains, there is additional water which causes the flooding. Cornmissioner Erwin would like to see the soils engineer state what the options are, and that this is thl option. Commissioner Schlehuber could agree to another continuance but he wants the engineer's report to b the hands of staff at least five days prior to the meeting. Chairman Noble would also be interested in knowing how much it will cost to move the wall back 8 ft. Chairman Hall inquired if staff had any suggestions. Mr. Hauser replied that it might be best for him tc meet with the soils engineer and see what he would feel comfortable about putting in the letter. If we f out that the underground water problem has been eliminated, and that we are only looking at a surfac water problem, there may be alternatives to the roof acting as the collection point. It might only requir few simple grades to see what would help the water flow out quickly before it has a chance to seep intc ground. Commissioner Hall stated that it sound as though it will not be necessary to do any underground testir Mr. Hauser replied that if it turns out that the problem is caused by surface water, there might not be a need for testing. However, if it is a subsurface problem, the engineer may be putting himself at risk if I doesn't do testing. It depends on what the engineer is willing to put in writing. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if Mr. Hauser would be willing to be the point man to meet with thc soils engineer. He said that he would, however, he added that if the engineer states he would be uncomfortable making a statement without doing $40,000 worth of testing, staff may be coming back ii two months with nothing. If the engineer is willing to check it out but says he needs more time, we ma coming back to request another continuance. MINUTES W e PLANNING COMMISSION July 21, 1993 PAGE 8 Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if a continuance is needed, he would be the one to recommend i. Hauser replied to the affirmative. Commissioner Schlehuber thinks that is reasonable but he doesn't the applicant to think that just because he put a lot of money into the roof and wall that we will let hin it without justification. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to continue to adequately respond to the original question, Le. provide the alternatives and in that this is the best option available for resolving the problem; and (2) serve said response on the Planning Director and City Engineer no later than September 1, Commissioners Erwin, Hall, Schlehuber and Welshons AV-SI -1 2(A) to September 15, 1993 to: (1 ) allow sufficient time for the soils engi VOTE: 4-3 AYES: NOES: Commissioners Noble, Savary, Betz ABSTAIN: None Chairman Noble stated that he voted against the continuance because it was not definitive enough ar didn't specify what kind of testing might be required. RECESS The Plann.ing Commission recessed at 7:15 p.m. and reconvened at 7:29 p.m. PUBLIC HEAkENG: '.. 2. '\ \. x, j PCD/GPC 93-0'3- ADAMS STREET ALIGNMENT STUDY - Request for approval of a Condit Negative Declarationand Planning Commission DeterminationiGeneraI Plan Consistency for 2 of the ultimate alignmentqf Adams Street, between Harrison Street and Park Drive, north of thc Agua Hedionda Lagoon, is-al Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. L-. Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner, reviewed?% background of the request and stated that the City is requesting approval of a Conditional NegativeDeclaration and Planning Commission Determination i General Plan Consistency for the study of the ukqte alignment of Adams Street between Harrison ! and Park Drive, along the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Staff is recommending that the alignment of the I be established based on the recommendations of the stuwand the findings of the staff report and approving resolutions and that the Planning Commission fin'd..that the alignment is consistent with thc General Plan. Approval of the alignment study with the recommended alternatives would facilitate th development of the properties along the roadway by providing a plhQr the coordination of future rOi- dedication, grading and improvement plans, and future improvement aweements for individual vacar properties that propose development along the roadway. He turned the tideover to Pat Entezari for 1 Engineering portion of the staff report. '. '\-,, In response to numerous telephone calls which he has received, Pat Entezari, Assoche Engineer, Sti that the city has no plan to widen the road at this time. He stated that the main purpose o?lQe projec the alignment study is to facilitate the orderly development of the properties along Adams Str&t,, In November 1992, the City Council changed the designation of Adams Street from a collector to a '$e hillside street," reduced the curb-to-curb width from 40 ft. to 34 ft., and maintained the ultimate right-of-way of 60 ft. The City Council also approved the following street configurations: one travel in each direction, one bike lane in each direction, and one sidewalk on the lagoon side of the road. TI City Council directed staff to devise alignment plans and evaluate various alternatives to increase the safety and reduce the impact of the widening on the adjacent properties. The City's consultant, Dude' Associates, proposed and recommended several alternatives with varying degrees of impact to the properties along Adams Street. Staff reviewed the pros and cons of all of the alternatives and selecte Alternative #1 for the overall alignment, and the alignment of critical sections as follows: MINUTE! w e DATE: APRIL 21, 1993 0 APPLICATION COMPLETE DAT JULY 27. 1992 STAFF PLANNER: VAN LYNCF STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AV 91-12(A) HILL RESIDENCE - Appeal of the Planning Directofs decisi denying the request for an Administrative Variance for a reduced side yz setback, for a storage structure, from the required 8' to 2' at 3317 Caden, Street in the Planned Community (PC) Zone and in Local Facilit Management Zone 6. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 351 UPHOLDING the Planning Directois decision denying Administrative Variance No. 5 12(A) based on the findings contained therein. II. PROJEm DESCRlPTION AND BACKGROUND The original requested administrative variance was for an eight foot retaining wall in i side yard setback and for a reduced sideyard setback, from eight feet to two feet, fo storage structure. See attached staff report dated December 2, 1992 for full discussion the project. The Planning Director denied the request for the Administrative Variance on October ' 1992. The applicant subsequently filed for an appeal of the decision on October 21,19' On December 2, 1992, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's appeal of 1 Planning Dkectois decision to deny the variance. Staff recommended that the Plw Commission uphold the Planning Directois decision to deny AV 91-12 because in sta opinion, the findings necessary to grant the variance could not be made. At the hearing on Decemk 2, 1992, the Planning Commission was able to make findings for the overheight wall and approved the request for an 8' retaining wall in side yard setback. However, the commission continued to a date uncertain, the request a reduced sideyard setback for a storage structure. This was to allow the applicant ti to consult with an expert as to the appropriateness of the storage structure to solve a s surface water condition. d 0 AV 91-12(A) HILL RESIDENCE APRIL 21, 1993 PAGE 2 The applicant was given notice on December 21, 1992 and on March 3, 1993 to ad&€ the sub-soil condition of the property. As of April 12, 1993, the applicant has not submitted any reports to the plk Department regarding this situation. m. ANALYSrS Can the four findings for an Administrative Variance be made, specifically; 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applical or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substant property right possessed by other property in the same viicinity and zone but wh is denied to the property in question; That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the put welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone which the property is located; That the granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehens General Plan. N. DISCUSSION Exceptional or extraordinary ckumstances or conditions There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to 1 property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or cl of use in the same vicinity and zone because surrounding lots have similar topograp The lots in the area are graded such that every parcel has a slope to the adjacent lot. 1 lot is also similar in size and shape to adjacent lots in the area and has ample developa area. There are other locations within the area that have ground water conditions. Thi properties have not used enclosed structures to resolve the groiund water condition. 1 subsoil condition does not constitute an unnecessary hardship. Preservation and eniovment of a substantial Droperty right to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other prope 2. 3. 4. ?he requested dance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substan property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but whid denied to the property in question because no other properties in the area have structu in the required side yard setback. All properties in the surrounding area must also corn with the Zoning Ordinance. e 0 AV 91-12(A) HILL RESIDENCE APRIL 21, 1993 PAGE 3 Materially detrimental The granting of this variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the prope is located because reduced setbacks, would in turn reduce structure separation and am01 of light available to properties and diminish available space for emergency access. 1 request the same privilege as granted to the property in question. Comprehensive General Plan The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General P because the site is developed with a single family home in a residentially designated ar V. m0"TALREVlEw The project is Categorically Exempt Per Subsection 15305(a) of the Califor Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, which exempts variances not resulting in creation of any new parcel. VI. SUMMARY The applicant is unable to provide the Planning Commission with a report that states tl the improvements made to the property are an appropriate means of solving a sub-surf water condition. There are preferred options to rectifying a sub-surface drainage probl that do not require structures needing a variance. All four findings must be made in the affirmative prior to approving a variance. Si three findings cannot be made for the approval of the Administrative Variance, SI recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Dkectois decision a deny the request. granting of the Administrative Variance will set a precedence and other properties n ATTACHMENTS 1. 2. Planning Cornmission Resolution No. 3511 Original Staff report AV 91-12, dated December 2, 1992, with attachments vL:lh:vd MARCH 9,1993 APP d). uATION COMPLETE DATE July 27, 1992 m &&L STAFF REPORT (9 DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1992 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AV 91-12 HILL RESIDENCE - Appeal of the Planning Directoh decisia denying the request for an Administrative Variance to allow an eight foc retaining wall in the required side yard setback and for a reduced side yai setback, for a storage structure, from the required eight (8) feet to two (2 feet at 3317 Cadencia Street in the Planned Community (PC) Zone and i Local Facilities Management Zone 6. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Cornmission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 346 UPHOLDING the Planning Director's decision DENYING an Administrative Variance No. 91 12 based on the findings contained therein. 11. PROJECX DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval of an Administrative Variance to allow an eight foc retaining wall in the required side yard setback, and for a reduced side yard setback fro1 eight feet to two feet for a storage structure attached to the house. The City received complaint from the public regarding the structure. The property is in a single family neighborhood and is zoned Planned Community. Thl property has 16,276 square feet of area with 12,562 square feet that is not constrained b the slopes created during the development of the subdivision. The 2:1 slope on the easten side of the property has been cut back and an eight foot retaining wall was built. This lef a flat area between the house and retaining wall about 14 feet in width, which wa covered with concrete. The applicant then built the roof structure that is attached to th house and spans across to a short wooden wall built on top of the retaining wall. Thi storage structure is 45 feet in length, 14 feet wide, 12 feet tall and covers 630 square fee of area. The property owner claims that all of the structures noted above were constructe sequentially to rectify a sub-surface drainage problem. @ AV 91-12 - HILL RESImCE 8 DECEMBER 2,1992 PAGE 2 A building permit was obtained for the retaining wall. However, it was subsequent discovered that the building permit was issued in error because the wall &d not confor to Zonir ; Ordinance section 21.46.130 which states "On an interior lot a wall or fence nl more than six feet in height may be located anywhere to the rear of the required fro1 yard." In the time frame that the permit was issued, the Planning and Engineerir departments did not review all building permits. Currently both Planning and Engineerin review all relevant building permits, so it is unlikely that this type of error would I: duplicated. Concrete slabs do not normally require city permits and they are permitte within setback areas. The attached roof structure which covers the sideyard has been bui without required building permits. The applicant claims that the purpose for the retaining wall is to prevent ground wate from upslope of his property, from seeping into his home, specifically the sunken livir room which is about 4 inches lower than the rest of the floor. Were the wall's purpo: only to reduce ground water, there would be no benefit to cut a slope back the addition distance and increase the wall height to eight feet. The retaining wall built to eight (t feet has created a larger buildable sideyard than would have been created if the wall hs been built at six feet Kgh. It appears that the original purpose for the eight foot retainin wall was not to reduce ground water but to create a larger pad for a larger storag structure. The applicant states that the structure in the sideyard is to shed rainwater fro1 the sideyard area to help with the alleged ground water problem. Staff believes that there is a water problem the concrete pad alone would seem to do the same job withoi violating setback requirements. The applicant has submitted a transmittal from the Olivenhain Water District requestin inspection of his property to see if there were any leaks from District water lines. Th response was that any water appeared to be from over-irrigation upslope or from rai water and not leaking District pipes. No other proof of an excessive water problem h; been submitted to the Planning Department. Construction of surface structures such as retaining walls and storage facilities are no normally considered acceptable engineering solutions to rectify sub-surface drainag problems. There are preferred options available to the property owner. For example, th source of the water should be determined. It may be possible to fix the problem at th source especially if the problem is a leak, in either the Hill's water system or in that of neighbor's. It could also be associated with a neighbor's over watering practice. If th solution is not at the source, then it may be necessary to install sub-surface barriers and/c drains. The applicant should retain a qualified engineer to review the problem an recommend solutions. There is no evidence that the structures the applicant ha constructed are either needed or are effective. AV 91-12 - HILL RESBNCE * DECEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 3 111. ANALYSIS Can the four findings for an Administrative Variance be made, specifically; 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicab to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other proper or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substanti property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but whic is denied to the property in question; That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the pub1 welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone which the property is located; The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive Gener Plan. 2. 3. 4. Iv. DISCUSSION Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to tl property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or cla of use in the same vicinity and zone because surrounding lots have similar topograph The lot complies with minimum required dimensions and has no unusual constraints su( as topography which differentiate this lot from others in the vicinity and zone and whic mandate construction in the required yards. The lots in the area are graded such that eve parcel has a slope to the adjacent lot. The lot is also similar in size and shape to adjace lots in the area and has ample alternative buildable area so the sideyard is not the on place on the lot that is buildable. The applicant has not submitted any evidence that tl structures are necessary to correct a sub-surface drainage problem. Preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property rinht The requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substanti property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which denied to the property in question because no other properties in the area have eight fo retaining walls or structures in the required side yard setback. All properties in t surrounding area must also comply with the Zoning Ordinance. There are prefer options available to the applicant for solving an alleged sub-surface drainage problc whkh do not hclude the structures for whkh the applicant has requested a vadance. AV 91-12 - HILL RESBNCE 0 DECEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 4 Materially detriment a1 The granting of this variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the proper is located because reduced setbacks, would in turn reduce structure separation and amou of light available to properties and diminish available space for emergency access. TI properties may request the same privilege as granted to the property in question. Comprehensive General Plan The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Pli because the site is developed with a single family home in a residentially designated are V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is Categorically Exempt Per Subsection 15305(a) of the Californ Environmental Quality Act, which exempts variances not resulting in the creation of ar new parcel. VI. SUMMARY There are preferred options to rectifying a sub-surface drainage problem that do not requi structures needing a variance. All four findings must be made in the affirmative prior approving a variance. Since three findings cannot be made for the approval of tl Administrative Variance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold tl Planning Director's decision and deny the request. ATTACHMENTS granting of the Administrative Variance could set an adverse precedent since 0th 1. 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3465 Administrative Variance Letter of Denial, dated October 14, 1992 Exhibits "A"-"B", dated December 2, 1992. VL:lh:vd OCTOBER 21,1992 -- - --_-- -- - - .- I- - - - - I_ --I - 9 e CASE NO: AV91-1 GASE NAME; Hill Residence APPLICANT: Stephen HiU REQUEST AND LOCATION: sidevard setback. for a storage structure. from 8’ to 2’ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 309 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 Unit No. 3. APN: 223-212-03 Acres .37 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 0 (Assessor‘s Parcel Number) An 8’ retaininz wall in the sidevard setback and a reduc GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation Residential Low Medium (RLM) Density Allowed 0 Density Proposed 0 Existing Zone PC Proposed Zone 0 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad‘s Zoni Requirements) zoning Land Use Site PC RLM Residential North PC Residential south PC Residential East PC Residential West PC Residential PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Enchitas Water District Olivenhah Sewer District Leucadia Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 1 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Not Reouired ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Negative Declaration, issued - Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, Exempt Der Subsection 1535(a) of CEOA mu October 14, 1992 Stephen Hill 3317 Cadencia Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 SWCR ti ADMINISI’RAT’IW VARIANCE NO. 91-12 - Request for an admuzlstra variance to allow an 8’ retaining wall in the required side yard setback a to 2’. .. for a reduced sideyard setback, for a storage structure, Erom the required Dear Mr Hill: The Planning Director has completed a review of your application for an Administrati Variance, for an 8’ retaining wall and reduced sideyard setback, for a storage structu from the required 8’ to 2’ at 3317 Cadencia Street. After careful consideration of t circumstances surrounding this request, the Planning Director has determined that the fa findings required for granting an Administrative Variance cannot be made and, therefo DENIES this request based on the following findings and conditions. FindinES: 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other propel or class of use in the same vicinity and zone because sum>unding lots have simi topography. The lots in the area are graded such that every parcel has a slope the adjacent lot. The lot is also similar in size and shape to adjacent lots in t area. The requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment o substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zc but which is denied to the property in question because no other properties in 1 area have eight foot retaining walls or structures in the required side yard setba All properties in the surrounding area must also comply with the Zoning Ordinant The granting of this variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which 1 property is located because the granting of the Administrative Variance will se precedence and other properties may request the same privilege as granted to * property in question. 2. 3. 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1 1 a a AV 91-12 - HILL PROJECT OCTOBER 14,1992 PAGE 2 4. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive Gener Plan because the site is developed with a single family home in a residential designated area. %s decision may be appealed by you or my member of the public to the Planni~ Commission within ten days of receipt of this letter. Appeals must be submitted in writi~ to the Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas Drive in Carlsbad, along with a payme of $120.00, The filing of such appeal within such time limit shall stay the effective date the order of the Planning Director until such time as a finai decision on the appeal reached. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Vi Lynch at (619) 438-1161, extension 4325. Assistant Planning Director GW:VL:vd c: Bob Wojcik Bobbie Hoder Don Neu Jim Davis Data Entry File Copy 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 21 Commissione.r+chramm can support the project because she thinks the City needs it. Affordable hol is needed in allbyr quadrants. She feels this will be a nice project in this area but she doesn't want t many more in the nithwest quadrant. She would like to see staff study the parking issues as they re persons of 55 years ibge. She thinks they should do that quickly before we encounter problems. Motion w& made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to adopt Plan Commissiohqesolution No. 3266 recommending approval of the Negative Declara issued by the PQning Director and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3: recommending apKoval of CUP 90-15, based on the findings and subject to the conditions containedqherein, with the following changes; (1 ) Add Mr. Waynes con to Condition #32 and rhove Item H as suggested by Commissioner Erwin and thc Attorney; (2) change the I&,t paragraph of Condition #32 to read Condition #27 in: of Condition #26; (3) relocateve handicapped units closer to their parking spaces (4) correct Condition #1 of Resobtion No. 3267 to read Exhibits A-I. Chairman Noble, Commissioners Savk , Schlehuber, and Schramm Commissioners Erwin, Hall, and Welsh0 \ ACTION: VOTE: 4-3 \ AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: None y.m, 5. AV 91 -12(A) - HILL RESIDENCE - Appeal of the Planning Director's decision denying the req for an Administrative Variance for a reduced side yard setback, for a storage structure, from thl required 8 ft. to 2 ft. at 331 7 Cadencia Street in the Planned Community (PC) Zone and in Loci Facilities Management Zone 6. Van Lynch, Planning Technician 11, reviewed the background of the request and stated that this item Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision to deny an administrative variance because the findings necessary to grant the variance could not be made. The Commission approved the retainin! but could not agree to a reduced sideyard setback for a storage structure. The continuance was grai allow the applicant time to consult with an expert as to the appropriateness of the storage structure tc a ground water problem. To date, the applicant has not been able to provide this information to staff Since the required findings for an administrative variance of exceptional circumstances and for preservation of substantial property rights cannot be made, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision to deny the requested administrative variance. Commissioner Erwin inquired if staff is requesting that Mr. Hill pull his storage structure back to the E setback line. Mr. Lynch replied to the affirmative. Commissioner Hall inquired if this was the house with the swimming pool in the living room. Mr. Lyn replied to the affirmative. Chairman Noble opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Steve Hill, 331 7 Cadencia, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he no longer has a swimming pool in his living room. It was corrected with the wall and the roof. He was going to get a inspector but he was unable to come up with the $4,000 to have it done due to some major medical expenses his wife incurred. He might be able to do it within six months. Even with all of the recent r is the first time in 11 years that his living room did not flood. He stated that the streets are even rusl the huge amounts of water flowing through the neighborhood. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Noble dec the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. continuance of a Planning Commission item heard on December 2,1992. Staff recommended that tl MINUTI e CORRECTED PLANNING COMMISSION April 21 I 1993 PAGE 22 commissioner Hall inquired if this is Mr. Hill's final appeal. Mr. Schlehuber replied that it is. Commissioner Erwin knows Mr. Hill and that he has, indeed, had some major medical problems. Hf be willing to give him three more months but not longer than that. Commissioner Schlehuber could give him three more months but there has to be a showdown then. Commissioner Savary inquired if staff could accept the slab without the storage structure. Mr. Lynct replied that they could. Mr. Hill commented from his seat that the slab didn't work until he added the Mr. Hill doesn't really know what he is supposed to do, and what it will achieve. He feels it is a lot of to spend and he would like more information. He stated that he secured a permit before he built it. the improvements inspected and everything was fine. He only did was he was told to do. Commissioner Schlehuber asked Mr. Hill if he was a contractor. He replied that he is a subcontractc Commissioner Schlehuber asked Mr. Hill if he deals with the City on permits. He replied that he doe that is why he went in and asked the questions. Pat Kelley, Principal Building Inspector, stated that the wall was originally permitted, however there L application made or a permit issued for the roof over the structure. In order for Mr. Hill to substantial warrant an administrative variance. The linkage could probably be made that he has extraordinary sub-surface ground water problems on his property. If the soils engineer recommends roofing the p to the property line, staff could accept it. Mr. Hill inquired if by spending $4,000 the soils engineer will tell him that the area needs to be cover Commissioner Schlehuber replied that he will either say this is the only way to fix the problem, and t needs to convince the City that this needs to be done, or he will say something else will correct it. Mr. Hill inquired if Commissioner Schlehuber would come out and see the problem. Commissioner Schlehuber replied that he is not a soils engineer and he is not as familiar with the problem as Mr. H He has to rely on the testimony of experts. Mr. Hill stated that the neighbor up from him has such significant water problems that he borrowed a money he could on the house and then let the Bank repossess it. That property is directly above his and it drains down onto his property. findings, he needs to demonstrate that there are unusual circumstances relative to his property that ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to continue AV 91 July 21, 1993, with the stipulation that this will be his final continuance on this ma Chairman Noble, Commissioners Erwin, Hall, Savary, Schramm, and Welshons VOTE: 6-1 AYES: NOES: Commissioner Schlehuber ABSTAIN: None Deputy City Attorney Hirata stated that in most appeals to Title 21, the Planning Commission is the I authority and there is no appeal to the City Council. However, in this particular instance, the decisioi into a peculiar category which does allow appeal to the Planning Commission's decision. She advise Hill that in order to justify this need for a variance, it is his sole responsibility to prove that a roof is "needed" in order to prevent the flooding of his residence. If he can prove that need, and the Plannir Commission denies the variance, Mr. Hill would have the right of appeal to the City Council. MINUTE e 0 PLANNING COMMISSION April 21, 1993 PAGE 23 ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to reconsider AV 91 -12(A), based on new information received from the City Attorney. Commissioners Savary, Schlehuber, and Welshons Chairman Noble, Commissioners Hall, Erwin, and Schramm VOTE: 3-4 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: None + OFFSITE REAL ESTATE SIGNAGE - Request for recommendation of approval of: (1) a Negative Declaration, and (2) an amendment to Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municii Code to conditionally allow the placement of offsite real estate signage on private property. he to the late hour, Chairman Erwin called for a motion to continue ZGMQ-2 to the first meeting in Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to continue ZG4-N May 5, 1993. Chairman Noble, Commissioners Erwin, Hall, Savary, Schlehuber! Schramm, and ZCA 93-02 6. ZCA 93-02 ZCA 93- ACTION: VOTE: 7-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Welshons ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS: Chairman Noble announced that this would be Commissioner Schramm's last meeting and there wou a farewell luncheon for her on May 4, 1993 at the Aviara Brigantine Restaurant. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular meeting of April 21, 1993 was adjourned at 10:16 p.m. to 12:OO noon c at the Aviara Brigantine Restaurant. BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVE MINUTES PAGE 5 0 December 2,1992 0 PLANNING COMMISSION Ms. Blackburn replied tha reation area is passive sin ented about the one compact parking space between the garages; he has be e a standard size space rather than a compact one. Ms. Blackburn rei on the plans) and striped as a standard size parking space. stimony and issued the invitation to speak. that the area can Chairman Erwin opened the Michael Dooley, 3543 Cedar Bridge he agrees with the staff reCOmMend applicant, addressed the Commission and statec be happy to answer questions. ommission on this topic, Chairman Erwin dec size. Chairman Erwin, Commissioners Hall, Noble, Savary, Schlehuber, Schra Welshons AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None AV 91 -1 2 - HILL RESIDENCE - Appeal of the Planning Director's decision denying the reque an Administrative Variance to allow an 8 retaining wall in the required side yard setback, and reduced side yard setback for a storage structure, from the required 8' to 2', at 331 7 Cadencia in the Planned Community (PC) Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 6. 6) Van Lynch, Planning Technician II, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the appli appealing the Planning Director's decision denying an Administrative Variance for an 8' retaining wa structure, both located in the required side yard setback at 331 7 Cadencia Street. A complaint aboi structure has prompted code enforcement action. The applicant has built two structures in the side j setback to remedy an alleged underground water problem which floods the sunken living room of tht residence. The first structure built was an 8' retaining wall in the side yard setback. The applicant c the slope in the side yard and attempted to divert the flow of water. The applicant did secure a build permit for the retaining wall in September 1989. At that time, the Planning Department and Engine€ Department were not required to review all building permits. Currently, both Planning and Engineeri staff review all building permits so it is unlikely that this type of error would be duplicated. Since the retaining wall did not solve the water problem, the applicant poured a slab between the hor and retaining wall, which is about 14' across. This was in an attempt to remove rainwater which fell the side yard area. The slab did not require any permits from the City. The applicant, still having wt problems, then constructed, without building permits, a cover which extends from the home to the re wall. This was to eliminate the potential rainwater which fell on the slab area. The applicant claims ' these improvements have solved his problem. MINUTES 0 0 December 2,1992 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION The construction of the surface structures, such as the retaining wall and the roof, are not normally considered acceptable engineering solutions to a subsurface drainage problem. The more acceptab, practice is to install subsurface barriers and drains. There is no evidence that the structures construc are either needed or effective. The homeowner's association was going to bring a letter tonight statir their opposition to the approval but it has not yet been received by the Planning Department. Since 1 are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property, and the variance does r preserve a substantial property right, staff recommends upholding the Planning Director's decision tc AV 91 -1 2. He showed photographs of the retaining wall and side yard structure. Chairman Erwin opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Stephen Hill, 331 7 Cadencia Street, Carlsbad, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that originally constructed the retaining wall at the suggestion of the Building Department staff. When th; not correct the problem, he poured the slab with a French drain to divert the water, again at the suggl of staff. This did not correct the problem so he added a second French drain. Again, it did not corm problem, so he waterproofed the side of his house. Yet again, the problem persisted, so he installed i pump operating 24 hours a day in an attempt to stop the flooding. He was then informed by the Watc Department that the excessive water was caused by an underground spring in the yard above his lot. Finally, in desperation, because his living room had been flooded 11 times, a friend suggested he bui cover over the slab, with rain gutters, which finally corrected the problem. He did not know that it wa: illegal roof. He showed photographs of the water which collects in his side yard. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired why he did not contact a soils engineer to remedy the problem. h Hill replied that he originally contacted the City requesting information. They suggested the retaining Following their suggestion, he secured a building permit and built the retaining wall exactly to their specifications and schematic drawing. Since staff did not suggest retaining a soils engineer, he did n know that was the correct approach* Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if he took the roof plan to the Planning Department for approval. replied that he did not. He stated that when the inspector came out to inspect his wall, he asked if he construct a roof in case the retaining wall didn't work. He was told by the inspector that he would hav put anchor bolts on top of the wall, which he did. Commissioner Savary inquired how the covered space is currently being used. Mr. Hill replied that h uses it for storage now but that was not his original intention. The structure actually resembles a patiL cover and he only built it to solve his water problem. Carol Hill, 331 7 Cadencia Street, Carlsbad, co-applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that I did not know any details about the wall or roof but she wanted the Commissioners to know about the terrible water problem that their family has endured while trying to correct the water problem. All of ht furniture has been damaged, the carpet had to be pulled up on many occasions, the carpet pad replac and the concrete slab beneath it cured. In addition, walls have had to be replaced and there is always mildew smell. She was not happy about putting a lot of money into a storage structure but she is very happy that the water problem has now been corrected. The whole ordeal has been very traumatic for family, Andy Anderson, 7251 Carpa Court, Carlsbad, representing 12 adjacent homeowners (Mass, Royal, La Baylog, Bergen, Borg, Anderson, Rosenberg, Lozak, and 3 others) addressed the Commission and st; that he is very familiar with the water problem which the Hills have experienced and the 11 times that I home has been flooded. He can attest to the fact that their furniture and carpets have been ruined anc replaced and that they have had major carpentry done to the interior of their home as a result of the MINUTES e 0 PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1992 PAGE 7 floodjng, He feels the outside roof, which is under condemnation, is inconspicuous and totally comp; with the surrounding area. He feels that the staff findings are erroneous because the Hills do have extraordinary and exceptional circumstances due to the underground spring which causes the floodir He feels that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of their property right, espc since the retaining wall, slab, and roof have corrected the water problem. He does not feel that the variance will be detrimental to the public welfare and there is no adverse impact to any neighboring property owner, nor will it have an adverse effect on the General Plan, In fact, all of the neighbors SU the approval of a variance. He commented that he is a municipal employee for the City of Dana Poin One Of the policies of their Planriing Department is to offer advice and suggestions to the residents of Point, which is obviously contrary to Carlsbad's policy. Since the improvements made by the Hills thr years ago have corrected the water problem, he feels that the Commission would be within their right! under the Carlsbad Municipal Code and Title 10 of the California Government Code to grant the Hill's request for a variance. He urged the Commission to grant the variance because it is the right thing tc Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the water problem, in fact, is caused by rain rather than an underground spring. Mr. Anderson did not know that information. Stephen Hill, applicant, returned to the podium to answer Mr. Schlehuber's question. Mr. Hill replied l the water is coming from an underground spring in his neighbor's yard directly above him. This can t substantiated by the Water Department. However, when heavy rains come and saturate the dirt on th hillside, it cannot hold any more water so it floods his home. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that he visited Mr. Hill at his home but was unaware of the undergrc spring. Mr. Hill replied that the spring is located in the yard of his neighbor above him. According to hold any more water. The roof does not stop the ground saturation but stops the rains from exacerba, the runoff problem. The rain gutter takes the water to the street. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired why, if the rain gutter is taking the water to the street, the addition roof is needed. Mr. Hill replied that without the roof, the water collected in his side yard, even though slab is slanted and has drains every 8. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Erwin decl the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Welshons inquired why the variance is being denied if the applicant was granted a builc permit. Mr. Lynch replied that the basis for the denial of the retaining wall is that it doesn't meet the Z( Ordinance. There is a section in the code which states that if a retaining wall does not meet the code requirements, the permits are null and void. The applicant did not receive a building permit for the ro[ structure. Robert Green, Principal Planner, added that even though a building permit was issued fort retaining wall, it should also have had a variance because it was over the height allowance. Water Department, the water table rises and water bubbles out of the ground because the hillside can Commissioner Welshons inquired whose mistake this was. Mr. Green replied that it was the City's mis because, at that time, building permits were only reviewed by the Building Department and not Seen bl Planning Department, to make sure that the code requirements were being adhered to. He stated thal incumbent upon the applicant to make sure he complies with all regulations. commissioner Schlehuber stated that he cannot believe staff will not grant the variance for the Wall if i building permit was issued and the man did what he was told to do. He can see the problem on the rc structure. Commissioner Schlehuber feels that there are two separate issues involved. Chairman Erwin agrees. MINUTES e December 2,1992 PAGE a 0 PLAN N I NG COMMISSION Commissioner Schramm stated that if the roof is removed, Mr. Hill will be faced with a water problerr again. Chairman Erwin replied that he would have to bring the roof back about 6' and make it self-supporting without connecting it to the retaining wall. He could use gutters to run the water to tt street, Robert Green, Principal Planner, stated that Mr. Hill would not need a variance if the roof strL is moved back inside the setback. By doing this Mr. Hill would essentiaily have a walkway where a pc of the storage structure would have been. Commissioner Welshons inquired if Mr. Hill removes the roof, what would prevent the water from coll again and flooding his home. She feels that is the problem. He needs the roof to extend all the way 1 retaining wall in order to prevent the flooding, because the pumps cannot handle all the water. COmmiSSiOner Schlehuber iS concerned that a soils engineer hasn't even looked at the water problem soils engineer testifies that this is the only way to stop the flooding, then it becomes a different matter Right now, Commissioner Schlehuber cannot make the findings to grant a variance. Commissioners Noble and Savary agree with Commissioner Schlehuber. Commissioner Welshons stated that she has had water problems herself in the past and she went to t insurance company. She didn't know enough to consult a soils engineer and she feels that most peoc would not think of that either. Commissioner Hall commented that the applicant only tried to stop his flooding problem. If there is an underground spring causing the problem, then he thinks Mr. Hill definitely has a problem. If the neigh have no problem with the current remedy, Commissioner Hall could support the issuance of a varianci Chairman Erwin believes the applicant should be granted a variance for the retaining wall; however h cannot agree with a variance for the roof structure within the setback. Before he could approve a variz for the roof, he would also have to hear expert testimony that this is the only solution. ACTION: AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to grant the issuance of an Administrative Variance for the retaining wall. Chairman Erwin, Commissioners Hall, Noble, Savary, Schlehuber, Schramm, and Welshons Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, commented that staff cannot design a remedy for the applic to alleviate his water problem. A soils engineer needs to investigate the problem and determine an appropriate SOlUtiOrl. If the engineer tells US that this roof is the only solution, then staff can grant the variance. However, Mr. Wayne doubts that will be the case. In any event, this is not something that st4 should handle but, rather, something the applicant needs to take care of himself. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Schramm, and duly seconded, to grant a continuance, to a date uncertain, to allow the applicant reasonable time, to be determined by staff, to consult with an expert to support his position. Chairman Erwin, Commissioners Hall, Noble, Savary, Schlehuber, Schramm, and Welshons AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MINUTES 8 e PLANNING COMMISSION September 15, 1993 PAGE i AXTION: 8. AYES:'~\ NOES: ', None ABSTAlN:'\Commissioner Savary Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes Regular Meeting of September 1, 1993, as amended. Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Schlehuber, and Welshons VOTk, 6-0-1 CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. 2. CT 89-38 - COSTA^ PALMAS - Request for a one year extension of a Tentative Map. CT 90-1 3 - RANCHO REAL - Request for a one year extension of a Tentative Map. ACTION: VOTE: 7-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None \ Motion was made by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Item the Consent Calendar and pull Item #2 for discussion. Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Savary, Schlehuber and Welsl Commissioner Hall inquired if the applicant had\approved the change to Condition t16 as outlined ir staff memo dated September 13, 1993. David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, replied that it was or minor technical change in verbiage and the applicant had not specifically approved it. Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, explained the reason for the change and stated that there was nc change in the intent of the condition. She therefore saw no reason to request the applicant's formal consent. Commissioner Hall feels that the applicant should accept the change to Condition tl6 since it relata legal document. Cornmissioner Savary stated that the comment regarding Condition #68 on page 2 of the staff report should read "drainage" attenuation instead of "sediment" attenuation. Motion was made by Commissioner Hall, and duly seconded, to continue CT 90-1 ' October 6, 1993 so that the applicant has an opportunity to accept the engineering changes to Condition #16 of Resolution No. 3544. Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Savary, Schlehuber and Welst ACTION: VOTE: 7-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 3. AV 91 -12(A) - HILL RESIDENCE - Appeal of the Planning Director's decision denying the req for an Administrative Variance for a reduced side yard setback, for a storage structure, from thc required eight (8) feet to two (2) feet at 331 7 Cadencia Street in the Planned Community (PC) i and in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Van Lynch, Planning Technician II, reviewed the chain of events as follows: ..lLII lvrl 8 * PLANNING COMMISSION September 15, 1993 PAGE : . On December 2, 1992, the Planning Commisslon approved the Administrative Variance for the 8' retaining wall in the sideyard setback. The Commission also requested expert testimony as to the appropriateness of the structure to solve the water problem which the Hills were experiencing. . On April 21, 1993, no report was yet available for the Planning Commission and the Hills were gik three more months to comply. On July 21, 1993, the Planning Commission determined that the report from the soils engineer Wi letter to the soils engineer and advise him what should be included in his report. . inadequate and did not address all of the issues, They requested the Assistant City Engineer to v Mr. Lynch stated that he had visited the site to measure the size of the storage structure. The interic dimensions are 20' by 46'6" which works out to an interior square footage of 930 s.f. The Planning Department is not asking that the structure be removed, but only that the structure be modified to cc to the sideyard setback of 8'. Using an overhead projector, he showed an exhibit of the storage struc which showed that the roof extends over to the retaining wall, leaving a setback of only 2'. Mr. Lync: stated that staff is proposing that the storage structure be moved back to the 8' setback. The retainil would remain as shown. There would be a 6' setback between the retaining wall and the storage str which would bring it into conformance with the code and would nullify the need for an Administrativ Variance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision deny the requested variance. David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer, referred the Commission to his memo of September 10, 199: which contained his response to the soils engineer's report dated August 19, 1993. He stated that hc visited the site and met with the applicant in late July. He advised the applicant that he would write i to his soils engineer outlining the six points of information which needed to be provided to staff in or( them to make a determination that the roof was necessary to avoid future flooding. Mr. John Vernor soils engineer, acknowledged receipt of his letter and provided his report dated August 19, 1993. AI his report did not contain all of the information which had been requested, staff had enough informa{ determine the cause of the flooding problem and why the roof structure seemed to solve the problem Apparently when the Hills built the slab alongside their house, they had installed a French subsurfacl system to intercept water flowing beneath the slab. That same drain was connected to their rear yarc drains and the side yard drain which ran under the slab, and out into the street. The French drain pi contained small holes which allowed water to percolate into the ground under the slab. Because the used the same drainage pipe for the surface and subsurface drainage, any water that got into the dri system from the rear or side yard went through the pipe system which was full of holes. Some of thc percolated into the ground under the slab as it traveled out to the street. The reason the Hills added the slab to their side yard was to prevent water from getting into the fOUni of the house. However, by having perforations in the pipe which drained the slab, they defeated the purpose of trying to remove the water and bypass the foundation slab. The correct method would ha been to have two pipes--one without holes for the surface drainage and a second pipe with holes in subsurface area encased in a bed of crushed rock material so that it would drain properly without in\ the foundation slab. When Mr. Hill combined the two pipes, he defeated his purpose and created a situation that, during a heavy rain, forced more water into the ground than it would have without the did not suffer flooding after the roof was installed. There is still a possibility that a heavier Storm WOl force water under the foundation slab and into their living room because the rear yard continues to fli through this drain system. Mr. Hauser stated that when he visited the site, Mr. Hill told him that they were still experiencing som minor problems because water pools in the valve wells located in the pavement near the front of the I By installing the roof, it compensated for the design deficiency of having the two pip(% combined an( MINUTE 8 * PLANNING COMMISSION September 15, 1993 PAGE d It is possible that the pooled water is Caused by the rear yard water that continues to drain through ti percolated pipe. Commissioner Welshons inquired how staff was able to conclude that the faulty design caused the problem. Mr. Hauser stated that in his letter to the soils engineer he had requested a copy of scale drawings showing what had been built. including ground elevations, types of pipes. etc. The drawin! Mr. Hill created, which was then accepted into Mr. Vernon's report, provided the information JQardjr perforated pipe. Commissioner Hall inquired if staff had discussed the drawing with the applicant to make sure it was accurate and not a typo. He thinks it is odd that someone would purposely let a solid pipe drain into perforated pipe because it would be tantamount to injecting water under the foundation slab. Mr. Ha stated that he had not had time to discuss it with the applicant. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that if the roof is taken back 6' it looks as though the drain would s' under the roof overhang. Mr. Hauser replied that even when the roof is pulled back, the Hills will still to deal with the subsurface drainage problem due to the perforated pipe. Mr. Vernon's report states 1 the Hills would probably need to build a new 8' deep French drain system with a curtain wall around I only would that be expensive, it would require approval from the Water Quality Control Board. There be other solutions, but that is the one presented by the soils engineer in his report. Commissioner Erwin stated that he had interpreted Mr. Vernon's comments to mean that the 8' trenc alternative would be needed only if the entire roof was removed. Mr. Hauser replied that this was cor Commissioner Erwin inquired if the Hills would need to cut a new drain whether the roof is there or nc Hauser replied that the rear yard drainage will continue to go through the perforated pipe unks it is changed. The only way to ensure that a rainstorm won't flood their living room again would be to dirc the rear yard drainage through an unperforated pipe. Commissioner Betz inquired if the reason perforated pipes are installed is to collect water from underground and wouldn't that still occur. Mr. Hauser replied that this is true when it is not raining. I rains and the pipe is full of water, the water pressure moves the water out more forcefully and it create hydrostatic head that drives the water into the ground. When the rain stops and the Water recedes, s( of the water which was driven into the ground will again seep up into the pipe system and then run ou Because the gravel around the pipe allows the water to flow freely, by the time the rain stops the watel already have found its way into the sunken living room. Commissioner Hall inquired how the wall would be sealed if it is moved back. Mr. Hauser replied that some holes will probably have to be chiseled into the concrete in order to construct footings. A curb li could also be added when the concrete is cut which would direct the water out to the front of the hous, Unfortunately, it won't be cheap. Chairman Noble opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Stephen Hill, 331 7 Cadencia Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he had just received staffs response to the soils report in today's mail. He obviously made a mistake because no perforated drain was ever installed. When Mr. Van Lynch came out to his house yesterday, he saw thl pipe and should be able to attest that there were no holes in it. It is a solid drain pipe. Mr. Lynch acknowledged that he remembered seeing the solid pipe. Mr. Hill stated that the perforated pipe is located behind the retaining wall. The footings for the Wall an solid concrete, 3' deep and 6' wide. He exceeded the code on the footings and included the perforated WIN1 ITEC a 0- PLANNING COMMISSION September 15, 1993 PAGE ! pipe, to intercept the water. His back yard also has a solid drain pipe and he assured the Commissi there was no perforated pipe in his slab. He would invite anyone who wants to to come out and insC He also stated that his entire back yard does not drain out through that one pipe, as Mr. Hauser indi There is another pipe which runs out along the other side Of the house to the street. He purposely QI soil engineer's report to staff over three weeks ago So there would be ample time to discuss it with st However, he did not receive any word from staff until today. COmmiSsiOner Schlehuber inquired who had done the drawings. Mr. Hill stated that he drew them t obviously made an error. He is not an architect. He is a brick layer. He stated that the fall is 33 inc which is more than adequate. Staff's reply states that the fall was almost flat. He does not feel that 33 inches is almost flat. There needs to be one inch of fall for every 10 feet. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired why Mr. Vernon did not respond to all of staff's concerns. Mr. t- had to base his decision on the drawing because the soils report did not respond to all the issues. h, replied that he thinks all of the points were addressed by Mr. Vernon. Mr. Vernon also thinks he ans everything that staff cited. However, Mr. Vernon told him he had a hard time understanding exactly Mr. Hauser wanted. Had Mr. Hill received the staff response before today, he feels he could have gc additionai information for tonight's meeting. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if Mr. Vernon was present. Mr. Hill replied that he was not pres Commissioner Hall inquired about the 3" pipe and 12" of Oravel shown on the drawing. Mr. Hill repli the 3" pipe is located behind the retaining wall. He installed the 3" pipe based on a diagram contain pamphlet that he had received from the Planning Department. Commissioner Savary inquired when the building permit for the storage structure had been pulled. I replied that he pulled a building permit for his wall two years ago. When he went down to get a builc permit for the roof, he was in a hurry because the rainy season was due. He asked if he could build get the permit later. Staff told him that if he did, he would have to pay double for the permit and alsc fine. Mr. Hill decided to do that instead because his wife was frantic that the house would flood agai during the coming rain. He went ahead, knowing he would be punished for it. Commissioner Savary inquired if Mr. Hill was aware that he was violating the code when he built the Mr. Hill did not think he was violating any code. He is a brick layer and not a contractor. Commissioner Schlehuber advised Mr. Hill that he had been told to get the information to staff so thc would have plenty of time to review it. He has listened to tapes of the meetings and knows he said tt more than one occasion. Now Mr. Hill is again giving staff the blame because they did not get their I to him until today. commissioner Schlehuber feels that Mr. Hill has had plenty of time to get this prC worked out Mr. Hill stated that he attempted to get the requirements early so he could start working on the probll He asked staff for the tapes was told that they were lost. Nevertheless, he worked with the soils engi and made sure his report was in to staff in plenty of time. Staff received the report on August 26, 19 they took almost three weeks to evaluate it. He just got their response today. If he had received the! response even two or three days ago, he could have compiled additional data for tonight's meeting. Commissioner Erwin inquired who had told him the tapes were lost. Mr. Hill replied that it was the la the front desk. He also tried to get a copy of the soils report when his home was originally built. He strange that a soils report was not on file for his home or the home above him. Every other home On street had a soils report on file. Furthermore, every other house on his block had a retaining Wall bus the time the house was built ... except his house. MINUTE 8 e PLANNING COMMISSION September 15, 1993 PAGE E Carol Hill, 331 7 Cadencia Street, Carisbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she is a fligh attendant and not a contractor. All she knows for sure is that she and her husband have had a tremendous hardship. Their home has been torn apart. They have been flooded 15 times. They ha done everything they could possibly do to stay in their home. When they considered building the ret wall, her husband went to the Planning Department and they recommended several things which he do. He did everything that was recommended by anyone, and more. He took out a permit for a reta wall and later found out that the permit was given with the wall in the wrong place. If that permit hac been given for the wall to be placed where it is, they would never have started this, and would haye ; With the feblnlflg Wall they had previously. When he pulled the permit, he was told that he should ir lag bolts in case he needed to construct a roof at a later date. If he had not been given this permit, ti wouldn't have spent $30.000 on. the wall and drains to try and correct their problem. They wouldn't t be here today. If they had intended to build a storage structure, they would have done it legally, on 1 the retaining wall that was there before. Mrs. Hill stated that she has never been given such a run-around in her life. She has worked in professional fields and has dealt with many businesses since she was very young. She has been to City of Carlsbad a dozen times. First she was trying to get the minutes of the meeting. Nobody kne\ where the tapes were. She went back and forth from the Planning Department to City Hall and back Planning Department. She finally located the tapes. Since she could not get a copy of the minutes, went down to the Planning Department with her son's stereo and copied the tapes. Some of the deb; very unrealistic. She has analyzed the paperwork and read the minutes. However, every time they c back to the Commission, they are asked for additional material which was not requested before. On April 21, 1993 the building inspector, Mr. Pat Kelley, stated that her husband needed to substantiate unusual circumstances relative to their property which would warrant a variance. The linkage could probably be made that there is extraordinary subsurface ground water problems on the property. If t soils engineer recommends roofing the property to the property line, Mr. Kelley stated that staff could accept it. After the July meeting, Mr. Hauser gave her husband a list of what needed to be done and told them they could do items one and two. However, in his response received today, Mr. Hauser criticized Mr. Vernon for failing to include these things in his letter. The report and drawing were turned in to staff August 26, 1993, which should have been ample time for them to get a response back before today. realizes that an error was made about the pipe with holes in it; however, one of the very first suggesi they received from staff when they had their first flood was that they should install a perforated pipe ir bed of gravel. When she tried to get a copy of the original soils report, she was advised by staff that ! reports were Only done at random. She thinks it is very strange that their lot and the lot above them : the only ones on the street without soils reports. She has talked at length to the Water Department ai they told her they would put it in writing that there are underground water problems in that area and 1 becomes worse when it rains. The Water Department stated they have even dug up the street to mal sure there was no leak. The entire process that she and her husband have gone through has been a comedy of errors. She thinks staff is making assumptions which may not be correct. Granted, they r a site visit, but it was a very quick one. She is frustrated and confused and hopes the Commission wi them in their plight. Commissioner Erwin inquired if she had asked Mr. Lynch for any of the documents. Mrs. Hill replied she did. She spent hours at the City. She wanted to get the material to Mr. Vernon as Soon as possil he could get started preparing his report. She asked Mr. Hauser to be very specific as to what the Commission needed so there would be no more problems. She double checked everything and think they have done exactly what was asked of them. Commissioner Erwin inquired who told her they couldn't locate the tapes. Mrs. Hill replied that first St was told that they couldn't find them. Then Mr. Lynch told her they were at City Hall. Then, when the MINUTE! e PLANNING COMMISSION September 15, 1993 PAGE were located, Mr. Lynch told her they couldn't be released. She thinks it is interesting that there arc many employees in the Planning Department yet nobody seems to know what is going on. Commissioner Hall inquired about the first retaining wall which she spoke about. Mrs. Hill replied tr when they first moved into their house. they built a retaining wall exactly where they are now being move it back to. The retaining wall had drains behind it and there was a slab which had drains hen- But it didn't stop the house from flooding. They wanted to stop the flooding, Commissioner Hall inquired where the slab was at that time. Mrs. Hill replied that the slab was beRn the wall and the house, just as it is now. They dug it all up and went to the Planning Department ar pulled a building permit for a new wall. They were told by staff and others that they needed to put tl further back in order to get the water further away from their house. They took out a lot of soil to PL hill back and spent a tremendous amount of money. Commissioner Hall inquired about the size of the footings on the first retaining wall. Mrs. Hill didn't but stated that her husband would probably know. Larry Sebastian, 331 5 Cadencia, Carlsbad, addressed the Planning Commission and stated that he next door to the Hills. He has lived there since 1985. He hears a lot of animosity between everyone involved. He has no problem with the roof that seems to be protecting the Hill's home and all the ne down hill from them. He is an indirect beneficiary. Prior to the roof being built, he had a lot of wate pooling in his yard. Since the roof was built, neither he nor his neighbors have experienced any wa problems on their property. Mr. Sebastian sees no benefit to moving the wall back. He looks at the and the roof structure every single day and feels that it looks good and blends into the neighborhooc urged the Commission to be practical, grant the variance, and move on. Commissioner Schlehuber asked Mr. Sebastian if Mr. Hill's roof is protecting his property. Mr. Cebi replied that he used to have a lot of standing water in his back yard and it concerned him. However the roof was built, he has not had problems, even with all the heavy rains this past year. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if he feels that the retaining wall which is more important than tl structure. Mr. Sebastian replied that he thinks the roof structure helps deflect the water but he is no expert. Commissioner Schlehuber told Mr. Sebastian that the retaining wall does not have to be moved. Th Commission approved a variance to leave the wall where it is. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Noble de the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Mr. Hauser stated that he did meet with the Hills at the front counter and he did list some items on t1 of a sheet of paper of what he was looking for. He asked for a drawing which showed the SubsUrfaC drains, the kind of pipes, the sizes, if there were perforations, the bedding material and/or impermei membranes, and any other construction techniques which were used. He wanted that information furnished to the soils engineer so the soils engineer could present to staff the mechanism for failure, the roof structure provided more protection than the slab. At a previous meeting, Mr. Hill stated thal everyone knows that concrete is porous and water goes through it. He strongly disagrees with this statement, and used Hoover Dam as an example. Mr. Hauser stated that Hoover Dam has 400 ft. 0 behind it. It is made of concrete, which is impermeable to water. Granted, some water gets througt only very minute quantities. The two items which Mrs. Hill referred to were incorporated in the soils engineer's report but the dra was not drawn to scale, as he had requested. Mr. Vernon did not mention anything in his report ab MlNUT 8 e PLANNING COMMISSION September 15, 1993 PAGE 1 adequacy of subsurface drains nor did he include calculations supporting hydrology. The soils engi should have measured how much water is draining into the back yard, into the side yard, and into 0' areas, etc. Based on that information, he should have stated what unusual circumstance exists so t, would give the Commission a basis for approving the variance. He needed to say how the roof struc solved the problem. He did not do that in his report. He included no discussion on the perforated, pi Mr. Hauser stated that he had made his assumptions regarding the perforated pipe because he was given any other possible causes. If there are no perforations, there is no difference in putting a seal( over a Sealed Surface material. There would be no mechanism for the water to get into the ground i everything is sealed. However, if there are holes in the pipe, or the pipe fittings are no good, there ~r be a way for the water to g,et in there. It still gets back to the basic issue, i.e. what is the mechanism failure and why is the roof so important that it creates an unusual circumstance which could not be s by another means. The issue is not money. The issue is whether or not there is an unusual circum: so that the Commission can make the finding to approve the variance. At this time, staff knows of n unusual circumstance and they continue to support their original recommendation to deny the variai request . Commissioner Betz feels she must disagree with staff on the findings. When she visited the site, shl noticed significant height differences between the Hill's property and that of their neighbors. She fef anyone who has had their living room flooded 14 times definitely has an extraordinary circumstance response to Finding #2, she feels that a dry living room is a substantial property right. In response tc Finding #3, she feels that obstruction of light may occur in houses which are on the same level. Hov the Hill's property, and the one above it, are at great distances from each other. There is no light obstruction, That is an unusual circumstance in this case. If the houses were on the same level, it i! probably be made on the other side of the house. There are many homes in this city which are built together than the homes in this neighborhood. She agrees with Finding 94. As far as the engineerii comments are concerned, she heard it mentioned that it may be necessary to install a perforated piF depth of 8. That is not workable because the pipe would not connect with the city's water system. 1 would also be the problem that the State Water Quality Board might not allow it. The one solution w was proposed is unattainable so, in her opinion, it constitutes a very unique situation. She realizes tl Hill did not go about this in the correct way, but his solution has been successful and she can vote in of granting a variance. Commissioner Schlehuber asked staff to respond to the 8' French drain and whether or not it would connect with the City's drainage system. Mr. Hauser is not sure what type of drainage is in that area also doesn't know if 8' is the correct depth that would be needed. He would not want to dispute Mr. Vernon's finding in that regard. He is a qualified expert and is willing to stake his reputation on that solution so Mr. Hauser would not be inclined to argue the issue. Maybe the drain pipe would have tc extended down the street a distance to meet an Outlet. Commissioner Schlehuber asked Mr. Lynch if he had told Mrs. Hill that the tapes were not available. Lynch replied that this was his first experience with someone asking for tapes. He directed her to Cit They sent her back to the Planning Department. He then located the tapes and advised Mrs. Hill tha had a tape recorder which she could use to listen to the tapes. Commissioner Hall realizes that Hoover Dam is made out of concrete and it does, in fact, hold back i water. However, in this case, the Hills had a concrete slab and a retaining wall and they had floodin! They removed the wall and slab, built another wall with extensive footings, built another slab, and wt- rained, their living room flooded again. He doesn't know when the roof was constructed, but the flWi stopped. The only thing that would make any sense at all is if that pipe is perforated. However, he Ci believe that anyone, even a novice, would put in a perforated pipe and drain the entire back yard into He has never had a house flooded but he can't think of anything much worse unless it would be a fir( possible that there might be an obstruction of light. As far as emergency access is Concerned, acce! MINI ITC a e PLANNING COMMISSION September 15, 1993 PAGE S can't explain it, but if the testimony is Correct, the roof stopped the flooding. He would like to know H the rationale is. Mr. Hauser stated that he cannot come UP with a logical reason unless it is a bad pipe fitting or some similar. He has looked at the concrete. It is relatively uniform and he did not see any cracks or joint structure3 WiGh GOUld be leaking, Commissioner Hall inquired what will happen if Mr. Hill moves everything back and his house floods Mr. Hauser replied that it is always possible that the water came from some other external source wt- was resolved about the same time the roof was built. Maybe upstream someone diverted water whic another way. They could have put in their own subsurface drains to solve their problem, which also the Hill's problem. The Hills could have had a plugged drain and not known it, and it finally unplugg itself. There are many things which could have happened. Mr. Hauser doesn't pretend to know wh; are or could have been. Commissioner Erwin agrees that there has been a lot of confusion because it has gone on for so Ion! read aloud from the minutes of December 2, 1992 which stated that he was in favor of a variance for retaining wall but not for the roof structure unless he heard expert testimony that this was the only sc At that meeting, Mr. Wayne advised the Commission that it was up to the applicant, and not staff, to determine an appropriate solution. The Hills were then given a continuance to allow them time to co an expert. It was not an indefinite delay. It was up to staff to determine a period which was reasonal When Mr. Hill came back 4-1/2 months later, he stated he had not been able to do anything about it because there had been medical problems in the family. Commissioner Erwin stated that he again fi for a continuance and the Commission granted Mr. Hill another three months. When Mr. Hill came t July he brought a letter from a soils engineer which staff felt did not contain sufficient information. h given another continuance to this evening and we still don't have the necessary information. In Commissioner Erwin's opinion, a 930 s.f. structure has been built without a permit and now Mr. Hill ii trying to justify it. He has placed much of the blame on city staff. Commissioner Erwin has a problei accepting that because Mr. Hill is a contractor. Even though Mr. Hill stated that he talked to many p' about the problem, he has yet to provide the information requested by the Cornmission in December As a result, Commissioner Erwin will support staffs position to deny the variance. Commissioner Welshons agrees with Commissioner Erwin. Mr. Hill knew enough to get a building p for the wall but chose to bypass the permit process when he built the roof. The only proof that the ro works, or is the only solution, must be validated by disproving that all other legal measures would no accomplished the same goal. One reason for codes and ordinances is to create standard guidelines everyone has to live by. These standards protect the rights of the homeowner, as well as those of tht neighbors and the community as a whole. Staff does not spend their time looking under rocks to finc permit violations. The side issue is that Mr. Hill did not go through channels to pull a permit for the ri structure. But the bigger issue is the code violation and the question of just cause. In order to suPw Hill's variance, the Commission needs conclusive evidence to make the four findings. She has not hl that evidence and, therefore, cannot support a variance. Commissioner Schlehuber staUed that he cannot make the findings either. It is not a personal issue. Commission has to follow the law. Even though he has sympathy for the Hills, he must support the ! recommendation. Commissioner Hall inquired if any Commissioner knows anyone who has had their home flooded 14 He realizes the Hills did not follow the process but Mr. Hill's primary concern was to protect his home tore out a retaining wall and replaced it. He tore out a concrete slab and replaced it. He installed dr: Finally, in desperation, he built a roof and his living room was finally dry. Soils reports should be On Why wasn't there a soils report for the Hill's property. Staff has done their job to the best of their abili Commissioner Hall thinks we also need to consider what is best for the citizen. Commissioners shou MINUTE a 0 PLANNING COMMISSION September 15, 1993 PAGE to put themselves in the applicant's shoes. Commissioner Hall inquired about Mr. Hill's appeal righ was advised that the Planning Commission's decision may be appealed to the City Council within 1 calendar days. Mr. Hill would need to file his appeal with the City Clerk at City Hall. Motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to adopt PI; COmTIiSSiOfl Resolution NO. 351 1 upholding the Planning Director's decision den Administrative Variance No. 91 -1 2(A), based on the findings contained therein. Chairman Noble, Commissioners Erwin, Savary, Schlehuber and Welshons ACTION: VOTE: 5-2 AYES: NOES: Commissioners Betz and Hall ABSTAIN: None Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, commented regarding the reference to tape recordings of vario meetings. She stated that tapes are not an official record of a meeting. They are only used to assi: creating the written minutes. Normally, tapes are erased once the minutes have been approved. Ir Case, Commissioner Erwin provides the blank tapes at his own evpense and likes to keep them on f his own reference. Regardless of the tape recordings, the written, approved minutes are the official RECfSS The Planning Commission recessed at 7:43 p.m. and reconvened at 753 p.m. INFORMATION4TEM: 4. Staff Presentation on the Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airwri Terri Woods, Associate Planner, gave a presentation on the draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan (C for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. She focused on the proposed changes to the CLUP which inclb enlarging the airport influence area. Among other things, she stated that staff is concerned about ti expansion of the airport influence area because it gives the County authority to place restrictions on uses within the City of Carlsbad. The land use issue, as it relates to the proposed expansion of the airport influence area, was discus Motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to accept th report and to urge the City Council to use their utmost ability to oppose expansioi airport influence area as proposed in the SANOAG document of March 1993. Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Hall, Savary, Schlehuber and Web \\ detail. ACTION: VOTE: 7-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None For the record, Commissioner Erwin stated that he wants to retain the three mile notification requir€ At the same time, however, hs doesn't want to give the Land Use Commission any authority over 01 use. ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS: Chairman Noble stated that the annual Christmas party would be held on October 1, 1993 at Camp All they need to do is provide proof of registration and insurance. Although the space for a party Ca reserved, Chairman Noble does not feel there will be any problem since summer is behind US. Del Mar, Camp Pendleton. There is no problem with persons entering the base in their private vehic .l\hl\ IT e September 10, 1993 TO: Planr,,ng Technician II - Lynch - FROM: Assistant City Engineer ENGINEERING REPORT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE 91-1 2 - HILL RESIDE" I completed my review of the August 19, 1993 engineering report for the t residence which was prepared by Mr. John Vernon. As presented, the report did r comply with the report requirements outlined in my letter to Mr. Hill dated August 1993. Specifically, the report did not include a scaled site plan of the property discussion of the adequacy of the existing installed subsurface drains or, a discussi of the potential reasons why the surface and subsurface treatments failed to resol the drainage problem absent the installation of the side yard roof structure. Despite the report omissions, there appears to be adequate information for me render a professional opinion on the mechanism of failure and therefore, I do r recommend that we request any further revision or addendum to Mr. Vernon's repc It had been previously stated by Mr. Hill that installation of the retaining wall, concrc surfacing and subsurface drains did not resolve the problem of the water seepage ir his residence. It was further stated by Mr. Hill that construction of the side yard rc between his house and retaining wall together with the installation of a roof dr; gutter effectively eliminated the problem. The question thus raised is what protecti did the roof provide that the concrete surfacing did not? Based upon the site plan included in Mr. Vernon's engineering report, it is apparc that there was a critical flaw in the design of Mr. Hill's subsurface drainage syste The pipe beneath the concreted area of the side yard which carries the surfa drainage from the back yard and the side yard (prior to construction of the roof) constructed using perforated pipe. Therefore, much of the water which enters into t pipe is distributed directly into the ground adjacent to Mr. Hill's house. During a hea rainfall, the small size and relatively flat grade of this subsurface pipe could ea2 create a situation of pressure flow potentially forcing even more water into the grou than occurred prior to the concrete surfacing of the side yard. It was apparently Mr. Hill's intention to utilize the perforated pipe to intercept t underground flows prior to their reaching his house. For such a design to work, it necessary to utilize a drainage system separate from the system used to convey t surface drainage. Had such a dual system been utilized, I am confident that t drainage problem would have been resolved to a greater extent than is presen enjoyed by the Hills. As it presently exists, the roof structure only diverts the si e e September 10, 1993 Hill Residence Page: 2 yard rainfail flows from the subsurface drains. The rear yard drainage continues to t: carried within the perforated pipe and presumably percolates into the ground next 1 the house. This may be the reason for the continued existence of subsurface watl found in the sprinkler valve wells by Mr. Hill. Mr. Vernon’s report does include a recommended alternative for an 8 foot deep frenc drain with an accompanying curtain wall that would completely resolve the Hill drainage problems without need for the side yard structure. In my opinion, the roof structure was clearly not the most economical solution to th Hill’s drainage problem. The roof structure was ‘necessary‘ to solve the Hill‘s drainas problem solely because of the improper installation of the subsurface drainage syster constructed by Mr. Hill. DAVID A. HAUSER Assistant City Engineer c: City Engineer Assistant Planning Director John Vernon. Property Development Engineers Inc. Mr. Steve Hill attachments - tetter to Mr. Steve Hill dated August 3, 1993 Letter report from John Vernon dated August 19, 1993 v- August 3, 1993 Mr. Steve Hill 331 7 Cadencia Street Carlsbad, Ca 92009 ENGINEERING REPORT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE 91-1 2 - HILL RESIDEN( Pursuant to our discussions at your residence last week, I prepared the following 11 of criteria which should be included in the addendum to Mr. Vernon's engineerii report: 1. A site plan of your property drawn to scale showing the location of your hous retaining wail, driveway and side yard structure. The plan should include sp elevations of the rear yard, tap of wall, bottom of wall [front and back l structure), pavement elevation next to the house (front and back), each of tt surface inlets (including the one in the back yard), each of the pipe outlets ar the curb flowline at the driveway. Include on the site plan a depiction of the subdrainage pipes which we existing or installed behind the wall and beneath the slab and driveway. Indica pipe size, type of pipe, presence of perforations, presence and location of ai permeable membranes or rock beddings, and invert elevations where availablc Include cross section of construction techniques used for subsurface drains Include in the report a discussion on the adequacy of the installed surfac subdrains. Include calculations and supporting hydrology where necessary. Include a discussion on the potential reason why the surface and subsurfac protection measures may have failed and how the presence of the ro( structure 'solved' the problem'. Were the surface drains or pavement grad( inadequate or was there some other design or construction deficiency 1 Include a characterization of the existing soils and how it may have contribute to the problem. Provide recommended measures to alleviate the problem assuming the rot structure is required to be removed from the sideyard setback. Include a co: estimate for the proposed remedial measures. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-08s e e if Mr. Vernon needs further clarification on what these items mean, please have h give me a call at 438-1 161 Ext 4362 and I will be happy to discuss them with hi Thank you for your time and patience in resolving this rnaner, Respectfully, Lida"+ Assistant City Engineer cc City Engineer Assistant Planning Director Planning Technician II - Lynch PROPERTY DEV @ uPMENT ENGINEER 1859 S. ESCONDIDO BLVD., ESCONDIDO, ( JOHN E. VERNON, PRESIDENT, RCE 2 CHARLES W, DAVIS, VICE PRESIDEN' BARRY L MUNSON, PROJECT ENGINEER. FREDERICK F. BRONSON, CHIEF OF SURVE DELBERT C. DANIELS, CHIEF OF MAPPIt 8 May 21, 1993 Mr. Steve Hill 3317 Cadencia St. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Subject: Engineer's Review of Wall/Roof to ease drainage prok Site: 3317 Cadencia St., Carlsbal: To whom it may concern: This is to confirm that I have made a field review of repor seepage problems at the subject site. Evidence of under S seepage was observed along the base of the easterly property 1 retaining wall as well as at other critical locations along 1 house footing area. Evidence also is visible on the adjacent : uphill from this site. Underground seepage is common in tl area of La Costa hillside (as evidenced by seepage through . road surface and in gutters of /Cadencia nearby). In a 100 year design storm with rainfall intensity of 4 inches per hour, about 27,000 gallons of rain would fall on t subject roof and approximately 5000 gallons more would fall c the adjacent roof. This volume is displaced 20' away from t footings by the roof. With the persistent seepage problem inside the house adjace to the subject roof, it stands to reason that removing 27,O gallons of storm water from the problem area would be beneficial method to mitigate excess moisture in the probl area. In summary, it is my professional opinion that the addition I the 20'x501 roof has minimized inundation of storm waters in aquifers leading to problem seepage areas inside the house. PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS, INC. ENGINEERING SOILS TESTING SURVEYING TEL. (619) 743-8808 FAX (619) 7 I) 0 This opinion is not intended to address other aspects of t project such as permits, waivers, plans, etc., being accomplish by others. I recommend approval of the roof where it is located. Property Development Engineers, Inc. *$/- John E. Vernon by RCE 21121, GE 858 Exp. 9/30/93 T'd 7- e $STELEPk ~ - .--z 8 -.- - 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 434 Office of the C/fy Clerk ai& of anrlsbub APPEAL FORM ," I (we) appeal the following decision of the w &7mz,d& y3?,?&?7L c'J&&w Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): fiu - 9/ -lz(/ ,) to the City Counc PRJ Date of Decision: -i..--- 2"%nd14*a, & (y -71. ZL -a &&&&9#/4// // c....,i/. /A7 33i7 edDGHbe sT Name (Please Print) Add res s &L/i: 92&99 /- &q) qq2-3875 - %47-/552- Telephone Number * -'&7T 25 e * Mr. and Mrs. Harold H. Mortensen Carlsbad, CA 92009 3336 8ajo Court '.PC. Mayor Claude A. Lewis 9' Q Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Hi?? Residence 3317 Cadencia AV 91-12 A November 5, 1993 Dear Mayor Lewis: to their request for a variance in the required side yard the city's setback requirements but we feel that there is also very good Justqfication for allowing a variance in this case. home with a hidden defect. They have no recourse with the builder and without the structure they have attached to their home they are almost certainly sentenced to continued flooding of that side of their home. This means further damage to the contents of those rooms as well as the costs of pumping and drying out walls and carpeting, if not replacement. All that has happened repeatedly in the past, until they extended their roofline close to the property line. Consider this, how can they possibly ever even sell this house with its history of flooding if they have to go back to the previous solutions which failed. Are they doomed to stay in a flood zone AND also have to incur the cost to remove the present structure? That can't possibly be fair when they are given no other rec~urse for a home that was defective to begin with. lous care of their home and its landscaping. They are good neighbors and are active in the community. Please don't enforce the city's building codes rigidly but deal with the Hills justand grant them a var-lance for very good reasons. We are writing as neighbors of the H3lls to lend support setback for their home, We realizes there are good reasons for The Hill's have had the misfortune to have purchased a The structure is not unsightly. The Hill's take meticu- Thank you. Sincerely, .c, 9 Ltyfub- f e a - 1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPH( CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 434-; & Office of the City Clerk r fx @ita of aarlBbab DATE : 9/21/93 TO : Planning Director FROM : Assistant City Clerk d/ RE : AV 91-12 - Hill Residence THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by - all parties.) Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call. _______________-_-_------_--_----------------------------------------------- r the City Council Date a 4 0 '1200 ELM AVENUE TELEPHOI CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 434-2E I Office of the City Clerk aitg of @nrlsbnb DATE : 9/21/93 TO : Planning Director FROM : Assistant City Clerk 4/ RE : AV 91-12 - Hill Residence THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council- within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by all parties.) Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call. ___________________--------------------------------------------------------- . The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council Meeting of S i gna t ur e Date 3- a. . #KTELEPH( .- 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 434-2 Office of the C~ty Clerk Mitp af aarlsttnb APPEAL FORM I (We) appeal the following decision of the 7?&72L 77L iJ&W to the City Counc I Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): fib! - 71 -/';?(A, Date of Decision: AI 337 k/$-DGhi?/@ s7- Address L/rn4/?5AD /2 ~ &LiK 9&&y , (&) qg$3&?73- - 7%2-,/55L Telephone Number CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 CARLSBAO VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 438-5621 REC’D FROM DATE ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION RECEIPT NO. @Printed on recjcled paper 0 e NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL AV 91-12(A) - HILL RESIDENCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hol a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO P.M., on Tuesday, November 16, 1993, to conside an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a request for an Administrativl Variance for a reduced side yard setback from the required 8 feet to 2 feet, fo a storage structure on property generally located at 3317 Cadencia Street in th Planned Community (PC) Zone, in Local Facilities Management Zone 6, and mor particularly described as: Lot 309 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 (La Costa Vale), Unit No. 3, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 7950, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on June 3, 1974. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Van Lynch, in th Planning Department, at 438-1161 extension 4325. If you challenge the appeal of the request for Administrative Variance in court. you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else ai the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondencc delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk‘s Office at, or prior to, the public hearing. APPELLANT: Stephen and Carol Hill PUBLISH: November 4, 1993 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 9 3 city II 4 cub HILL RESIDENCE (APPEAL) AV pn-12 I a 0 Carlsbad SUN Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to W.C.C.N. Inc. 2841 Loker Ave. East, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 431-4850 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled ma I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which ne is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which per at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscril which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the said Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one ye preceding the date of publicatio notice hereinafter referred to; and notice of which the annexed is a copy, has been published in eack and entire issue of said newspaper ing dates, to-wit: -_. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL AV 91-12(A) - HxLL RES1DENCE Lot 309 of Carlsbad Tract 72-2G (La Costa Vale). Unit No. 3. in the City of Carlsbad. County of .$an Diego. State of California. accord- ing toMap thereofNo. 7950, filed in the Office ofthe County Recorder of San Diego County on June 3. 1974. Ifyou have any questions regard. ing this matter. please contact Van NoT1CE1S HEREBY G1VEN that the City Council ofthe City ofCarl- ' shad will hold a public hearing at Carlsbad Village Drive. Carlsbad. November 16, 1993. to consider an appeal of the Planning Commis- sion's denial of a request for an Administrative Variance for a re- required 8 feet to 2 feet. for a stor- age structure on property generally located at 3317 Cadencia Street in the Planned Community (PC) Zone. in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6. and more particularly described as: the City Council Chambers, 1200 Lynch, in the planning D~~~~~. in any supplement thereof on the merit. at 438-1161 extension 4325. request for ~d~i~i~t~~ti~~ Variance in court. you may be 1,. mited to raising only those issues raise,j ~yyouorsomeonee~sea~~~~ notice, or in written correspond. ; ence delivered to the city of Carl. &ad City clerks Office at. or prior to. the public hearing. Appellant: Stephen and carol ~jll CARLSBAD CITY COLXCIL California. at 6:Oo p.m.. on Tuesday. Ifyou cha]lenge the appeal ofthe November 04 duced side yard setback from the publie hearing described in this I certify under penalty of perjury thl foregoing is true and correct. Execu' Carlsbad, County of San Diego, Sta. California on the 4th day of November, 1993 \R^m (I L -'a Clerk of thc - C I f,?74 \ow tw 6 II'~', D 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HF.ARIN a NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will holc a public hearhg at the Council chambers, 1200 Carbad vdage Eve, brhbac California, at 6:OO p.m. on Wednesday, April 21,1993, to consider approval of an app of the Planning Director’s decision denying the request for an Adminislxative Variance fc a reduced side yard setback, for a storage structure, from the required 8’ to 2’ on propert gendy located at 3317 Cadenaa Street in the Planned Community (PC) Zone and i Local Facilities Management Zone 6 and more particularly described as: Lot 309 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit No- 3, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 7950, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3,1974. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the pub’ hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after April 15, 1993. If yc have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at 438-1161, e 4325. If you challenge the Administrative Variance Appeal in court, you may be limited to raish only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this noti or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the pub hearing. i CASE FILE: AV 91 12(A) CASE NAME: HILL RESIDENCE PUBLISH: APRIL 8,1993 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION I I VLkm I @ I) 0 (Form P TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice APPEAL OF PLANNIN( COMMISSION DECISION UPHOLDING A PLANNING DIRECTOR DEClSlOl DENYING AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE (AV 91-12(A) for a public hearing beforl the City Council. Please notice the item for the Council meeting of Thank you. MARTY ORENYAK OCTOBER 4, 1993 Assistant City Manager Attachments . 0 0 nwm P, wrt ~ P(D P -m m=t azp, -cool 33 no a P P* oln P, amy Nrt 0 0' P 0 ET8 "E P P c SHULTZ a HARDING CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBADCA 92009 0 HILL RESIDENCE - AV 91-12 3308 FEBO CT 3306 FEBO CT BUCHAN DIXON sABA!jTrAN 7301 BORLA 3313 CADENCIA ST 3315 CADENCIA ST CARLSBADCA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 HILL WEATHERlLL GOULD 3317 CADENCIA ST 3319 CADENCIA ST 3320 CADENCIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANDERSON ROSENBERG CHEN 7251 CAPRACT 7249 CARPA CT 3302 FEBO CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 MTEIGANl3 LOWE WHITING 3304 FEBO CT 3310 FEBO CT 3312 FEBO CT CARLSBADCA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 HALL CONNOLLY BOSTROM 3314 FOSCA ST 3316 FOSCA ST 3318 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBADCA 92009 CARLSBADCA 92009 HAY BOBBllT DWYER 3314 FOSCA ST 3322 FOSCA ST 3324 FOSCA ST CARLSBADCA 92009 CARLSBADCA 92009 CARLSBADCA 92009 AMBROGIO LEECHUNG BUUCK 7303 BORLA PL 7305 BORLA PL 7307 Born PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBADCA 92009 CARLSBADCA 92009 ADAMS TROUT LEWIS 7309 BORLA PL 7311 BORLA PL 7312 BORLA PL CARLSBADCA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 WMPIERCEETAL BEN GRIFFITH ET AL RONALD DEFREITAS 3324 CADENCIA ST 3322 CADENCIA ST PO BOX 182 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARDIFFCA 92007 t 0 * % :MARY RYAN JOSEPH & CARMEN BORG JAMESBOYLAN 7245 WA CT 7247 CARPA CT CARLSBADCA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 5207 CADENCIA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 LAWRENCEBAKER JOHN SPEtOPLAUS THOMAS MASSIP 32007 CADENCIA ST 3205 CADENCIA ST 7300 BOFUA PLACE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHRIS mom =LON FAMILY TRUST RICHARD BEAUCHAMP CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 7302 BORLA PLACE 7306 BORLA PLACE 73018 BORLA PLACE RICHARDHAEMMERLE LARRY YGLESIA 4951 CLAIREMONT SQ #D SAN DIEGO CA 92117 CARLSBADCA 92009 7313 BORLA PLACE