HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-10; City Council; 19742; Rhoades minor coastal development permit appealCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 12^t^y n
AB# 19,742
MTG. 03/10/09
DEPT. PLN
RHOADES MINOR COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPEAL -
CDP 08-06
M /.
DEPT. HEAD W/7?1
CITY ATTY. tUJ
CITY MGR. /
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2009-048 DENYING the appeal and
upholding the Planning Commission's decision to DENY the appeal to Planning Commission
and uphold the decision of the Planning Director to APPROVE Coastal Development Permit
application No. CDP 08-06.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The proposed project is for a Minor Coastal Development Permit to allow for the subdivision of
a .42 acre single-family residential lot into two minimum 8,343 square foot single-family
residential lots, including one panhandle lot, generally located on the south side of Triton Street,
west of Black Rail Road, south of Poinsettia Lane, and within the Mello II Segment of the City's
Local Coastal Program.
On October 15, 2008 the Planning Director approved Minor Coastal Development Permit No.
CDP 08-06 (Rhoades Minor Subdivision). A letter of appeal, dated October 25, 2008, was
submitted to the Planning Commission within a timely manner.
On January 7, 2009, the Planning Commission voted 3-2-2 (Dominguez, Douglas, and Boddy -
Deny; Whitton and Montgomery - Approve; Cardosa - Abstain; and Baker - Absent) to deny
the appeal.
On January 16, 2009, four household neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Rick and Kristen Conner, Mr.
Michael Franchek, Mrs. Sha-Li Lin and Mr. and Mrs. William and Candice Lynn filed a timely
appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to City Council.
The reasons for the appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny the appeal to
Planning Commission are stated below together with the City's responses:
1. The proposed minor subdivision has a current net square footage on Parcel #2 that is
not consistent with past projects and current standards. Additionally, the standard being
applied to the proposed subdivision is in direct conflict with [the standards applied to the
project proposed on the adjacent parcel (Preliminary Review No. 07-26).
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Shelley Esteybar 760-602-4625 seste@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED
DENIED
CONTINUED
WITHDRAWN
AMENDED
D
D
D
D
D
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN
RETURNED TO STAFF
OTHER - SEE MINUTES
D
D
D
D
Page 2
City Response:
The proposed minor subdivision complies with all of the development standards of the R-1
Zone, Coastal Overlay Zones and Subdivision Ordinance. Parcel #2 (a panhandle lot) has a
net buildable area of 8,081 square feet which complies with the 8,000 square feet minimum
of the R-1 Zone. The City has historically approved numerous other similar sized panhandle
lots within the R-1 Zone.
Furthermore, this project was reviewed and approved based upon the same standards of
review applicable to the adjacent projects. Consistent with the zoning ordinance, this
project's density (4.67 dwelling units/acre) is based upon the proposed number of dwelling
units (2) divided by the net developable acreage of the property (.42 acres). The net
developable acreage excludes undevelopable lands such as beaches, permanent bodies of
water, floodways, natural slopes with an inclination greater than 40%, significant wetlands,
significant riparian or woodland habits, lands subject to major power transmission easements,
land upon which other significant environmental features as determined by the environmental
review process for a project are located, or railroad tracks. The project site does not include
any of the above mentioned undevelopable lands. Accordingly the net acreage (.42 acres)
used to calculate the project density is correct.
2. The proposed subdivision is not in harmony with the current scheme of the neighborhood
and is in conflict with current language in the general plan.
City Response:
The neighborhood is predominantly developed with single-family residences on single family
lots ranging from 7,596 square feet to 71,438.40 square feet in area (see Attachment 7). The
proposed lots are smaller in area than some of the other surrounding single family lots;
however, the lots are clearly consistent with the applicable R-1 zoning as discussed above.
Accordingly, the project preserves the detached single-family neighborhood character while
providing a variety of R-1 lot sizes to meet the diverse economic and social demands of
residents. The proposed project density (4.76 dwelling units/acre) is above the top of the
RLM density range (0-4 dwelling units/acre). However, the General Plan Land Use Element
includes a commonly used policy that allows a density increase of 25% above the top of the
RLM density range (up to 5 dwelling units/acre) where the zone of the property (R-1) is
consistent with the land use designation (which it is in this case). This policy was
incorporated into the General Plan to acknowledge that based upon the R-1 Zone's minimum
lot size (7,500 sq. ft.), up to 5.8 dwelling units could technically be achieved on a 1 acre RLM
designated lot (43,560 sq. ft./7,500 sq. ft. = 5.8 dwelling units). Therefore, the proposed
project density (4.76 dwelling units/acre) is consistent with the General Plan.
3. There is currently an injunction being filed on the parcel. The injunction will prevent any
further development as it relates to any permanent improvement[s] made in relation to
the recorded easement on Parcel # 2, thus making the parcel undividable.
City Response:
Staff is not aware of any filed injunction. Because the view easement is a private easement
between the property owners of the project site and the property owners of the property on
Page 3
the southwest corner of Triton Street and Black Rail Road (6575 Black Rail Road, located
immediately east of the project site), the City is not required to consider it in their review.
The easement was recorded for the purpose of maintaining a western view for the adjacent
property directly east of the project site over the southern 15 feet of proposed Parcel # 2.
As an aside, the pad elevation of the adjacent lot is approximately 13 feet higher in elevation
than the existing view easement area on proposed Parcel # 2. Parcel # 2 includes a fill
slope up to 5 feet in height in a portion of this easement. However, because of the 13 foot
elevation differential between the two lots, this fill height should not significantly impact the
private view of the east adjacent property owners.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No significant fiscal impacts are anticipated.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15315 (Minor Land Division) of the
State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment
in that the property is in an urbanized area; zoned for residential; is being subdivided into four
or fewer parcels; no variances are needed for the subdivision; all services for the lots are
available; the parcel was not part of a larger subdivision within the previous two years; and
the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2009-048 .
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6519
4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 7, 2009
5. Excerpts of Planning Commission minutes dated January 7, 2009
6. City Council Appeal Receipt/Letter date stamped January 16, 2009
7. Radius Map
8. Private View Easement recorded on September 18, 2007
EXHIBIT 1
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-048
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND
3 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO
DENY THE APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND
4 UPHOLD THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO
APPROVE A MINOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
5 ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A .42 ACRE SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT ZONED R-1-7.500-Q, INTO TWO
6 MINIMUM 8,343 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, INCLUDING ONE PANHANDLE LOT,
7 GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TRITON
STREET, WEST OF BLACK RAIL ROAD AND SOUTH OF
8 POINSETTIA LANE WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE
CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND WITHIN LOCAL
9 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
10 CASE NO.: CDP 08-06
CASE NAME: RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
11
follows:
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
12
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
14 Director did, on October 15, 2008, approve with conditions, a Minor Coastal Development
Permit for the subdivision of one parcel into two residential lots (CDP 08-06); and
WHEREAS, a timely appeal of the Planning Director's decision approving CDP
17 08-06 was filed by Mr. William and Mrs. Candice Lynn, Mr. Lawrence Lin and Mrs. Sha-Li Lin,
18 and Mr. Rick Conner and Mrs. Kristin Conner pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code;
19 and
20 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
21 Commission did, on January 7, 2009, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
22
consider an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to approve a Minor Coastal Development
23
Permit (CDP 08-06); and
24
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing as required by law and upon hearing
25
and considering all of the testimony and arguments of all persons desiring to be heard, the
26
Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 6519 to deny the appeal to Planning
27"
28
4
1 Commission and uphold the Planning Director's decision to approve Minor Coastal
2 Development Permit No. CDP 08-06; and
3 WHEREAS, a condition was added to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6519
4 (Condition No. 2) to notify future property owner(s) of the project site that this property may be
5 subject to nuisance impacts from the horses located on the surrounding agricultural properties;
6 and
7 WHEREAS, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed with
8 the City Clerk by Mr. William Lynn and Mrs. Candice Lynn; Mr. Rick Conner and Mrs. Kristen
9 Conner; Mr. Michael Franchek, and Mrs. Sha-Li Lin; and
10 WHEREAS, on 3/10/2009 the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, considered
1 1 said appeal; and
12 WHEREAS, upon considering the appeal, the City Council considered all factors
relating to the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct.
17 2. That said appeal is denied.
1 O10 3. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 6519 on file with
the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference constitute the findings of the City Council in
this matter.
20 4. That the private view easement recorded on September 18, 2007 and
incorporated herein by this reference is a private agreement made between the owners of the
project site and the adjacent property owners located directly east of the project site commonly
~~ known as 6575 Black Rail Road and no known injunction related to this private easement has
been filed.23 ///
24 ///25 ///
26 ///27 ///
28
-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
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been
made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in
the appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the date on
which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the
decision becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an amount
sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such record, the time
within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than
the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally
delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A
written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be
filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, CA. 92008."
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the IQtbdav of March 2009, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulcbin, Hall, Packard & Blackburn.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
S, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M)WOOD, C^CIerk
(SEAL)^ r »* .• . ii R F ^ . •."*/**
-3-
EXHIBIT 2
NOT TO SCALE
SITEMAP
Rhoades Minor Subdivision
CDP 08-06
EXHIBIT 3
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6519
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL,
PURSUANT TO SECTION 21.54.140 OF THE CARLSBAD
4 MUNICIPAL CODE, AND UPHOLDING A PLANNING
DIRECTOR DECISION TO APPROVE A MINOR COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE
6 SUBDIVISION OF A .42 ACRE SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOT ZONED R-1-7.500-Q, INTO TWO
7 MINIMUM 8,343 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, INCLUDING ONE PANHANDLE LOT,
8 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TRITON STREET,
9 WEST OF BLACK RAIL ROAD AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA
LANE WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE CITY'S
10 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND WITHIN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: CDP 08-06
13 WHEREAS, Glen Rhoades, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified application
14 with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
15 Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 19411, in the City of Carlsbad,
16 County of San Diego, State of California, according to map
thereof filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego
17 County, January 23,2004
19
18 ("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, a Notice of a pending decision dated the 14tn day of August 2008,
20
was sent out in accordance with the Coastal Development Permit Procedures (Title 21 Section
21
21.201.080(6); and
23 WHEREAS, two (2) requests for an administrative public hearing were
24 submitted to the City and an administrative public hearing was held by the Planning Director on
25 the 9th day of September, 2008; and
26 WHEREAS, on the 15tn day of October, 2008 the Planning Director approved
27
Minor Coastal Development Permit - Rhoades Minor Subdivision - CDP 08-06; and
28
WHEREAS, three residents appealed the decision of the Planning Director
2
within the 10-day appeal period prescribed in Section 21.54.140(b); and
3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of January, 2009,4
c hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said appeal; and
6 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission
considered all factors relating to the appeal of the Planning Director's approval of Minor
9
Coastal Development Permit - Rhoades Minor Subdivision - CDP 08-06.
10
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
13 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
DENIES THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR TO APPROVE RHOADES MINOR
16 SUBDIVISION - CDP 08-06, based on the following findings and conditions:
17 Findings:
18 1. The adopted findings of the Planning Director as set forth in the Planning Director's
approval letter dated October 15, 2008 shall also constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission and are incorporated herein by this reference.
20
2. A timely appeal of the decision approving CDP 08-06 was filed pursuant to Title 21
Section 21.54.140(b) by Mr. and Mrs. Conner, Mr. and Mrs. Lin, and Mr. and Mrs.
~~ Lynn, three neighbors owning property adjacent to project site. The reasons for the
appeal, as stated within the appeal letter submitted by the three families, dated
23 October 25, 2008 and titled CDP 08-06 - Rhoades Minor Subdivision, are listed
below under Findings # 3-8, together with the Planning Department's Response.
24
3. Reason for Appeal # 1:
j-*J
The proposed subdivision is not compatible with the rest of the neighborhood.
27 Planning Department Response:
The project is a Minor Coastal Development Permit to allow for the subdivision of a .42
acre site into two single-family lots a minimum of 8,343 square feet in size. The
PCRESONO. 6519 -2-
surrounding area is developed with predominantly single-family residences on single
2 family lots with the same Residential Low Medium Density (RLM) Land Use
Designation and One-Family (R-1-7,500-Q) zoning designations. The surrounding
3 neighborhood consists of a variety of single family lots sizes ranging from 7,596 square
feet to 71,438.40 square feet. The project is designed to preserve the single-family
^ detached neighborhood atmosphere and community identity of the existing neighborhood
r while providing a variety of housing types and density ranges to meet the diverse
economic and social requirements of residents.
6
4. Reason for Appeal # 2:
7
The proposed subdivision is not in line with the General Plan of Carlsbad. The General
Plan uses descriptions such as orderly, functionally efficient, aesthetically pleasing,
9 compatible, or in harmony with neighborhood and states that site design should be
"indicated by the harmony of proposed buildings in terms of site, height and location,
10 with respect to the existing neighborhood development."
* Planning Department Response:
12 The proposed Minor Coastal Development Permit is consistent with the applicable
13 General Plan Land Use designation and is compatible and in harmony with the
surrounding neighborhood.
14
The Minor Coastal Development Permit will allow for a subdivision that will create a
subtle, yet compatible, variety of lot sizes due to the slightly higher density range (4.76
1 g Dwelling Units/Acre), allowable by the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and will
thereby help meet the diverse economic and social requirements of residents and still
17 ensure a cohesive urban form with careful regard for compatibility and retaining the
present predominance of single family residences which consists of single-family
residential lot sizes ranging from 7,569 square feet to 71,438.40 square feet. The project
, n meets the applicable development standards of the One-Family Residential Zone (R-l-
7,500-Q), which is consistent of the neighborhood's development standards and will
20 allow for the design of future single family homes to be in harmony with the
neighborhood in terms of site, height and location.
21
5. Reason for Appeal # 3:
23 The proposed panhandle lot is not consistent with designs of other panhandle lots in the
area.
24
Planning Department Response:
2/r While the proposed panhandle lot is smaller by 3,078 square feet than an existing
panhandle lot directly north of Triton Street, the proposed panhandle lot (Parcel 2) does
27 meet all the panhandle lot development standards under Title 21 Section 21.10.100(D) as
demonstrated in the Staff Report under Table B.
28
PCRESON0.6519 -3-
6. Reason for Appeal # 4:
2
The project density is too high.
3
Planning Department Response:4
c The project density is entirely consistent with all applicable density provisions of the
Carlsbad General Plan and the RLM Land Use designation. The General Plan Land Use
6 designation for the proposed subdivision is Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM).
The Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) Land Use designation allows residential
7 development at a density range of 0 - 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The RLM Growth
Management Control Point (GMCP) is 3.2 dwelling units per acre and is used for the
purpose of calculating the City's compliance with Government Code Section 65863. The
9 project site has a net developable acreage of .42 acres and at the RLM GMCP would
allow 1.34 units. The proposed project's density is 4.76 dwelling units per acre which is
10 above the GMCP of 3.2 dwelling units per acre and is also above the top of the RLM
density range of 0-4 dwelling units per acre. However, there is a provision within the
* 1 Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General Plan which specifies, "There are exceptional
, ~ cases where the base zone is consistent with the land use designation but would permit a
slightly higher yield than that recommended in the low and low-medium density
13 residential classifications. In those exceptional cases, the City may find that the project is
consistent with this element if: a) the project is compatible with the objectives, policies,
14 general land uses and programs expressed herein, b) all of the necessary infrastructure is
in place to support the project, and c) the proposed density does not exceed the maximum
density allowed at the top of the range by more than an additional 25%."
16
The proposed project satisfies the above stated findings as follows:
17
a) As demonstrated in the corresponding Staff Report under Table A, the proposed
*° project is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs of
jo the General Plan. Land Use Element Section III: Goals, Objectives and Implementing
Policies & Action Programs.
20
The project is a Minor Coastal Development Permit for a two lot subdivision for
21 single-family residential use with adequate public facilities to serve the two future
single-family residences. The surrounding area is developed with predominantly
single-family residences on single family lots with the same General Plan and Zoning
23 designations. The project is designed to preserve the single-family detached
neighborhood atmosphere and community identity of the existing neighborhood while
24 providing a variety of housing types and density ranges to meet the diverse economic
and social requirements of residents.
25
2/r b) The project either incorporates the necessary infrastructure or is conditioned to
provide it.
27
c) The maximum density of the RLM designation is 4 dwelling units/acre. The proposed
28 project density is 4.76 dwelling units/acre, which does not exceed the
PCRESONO. 6519 -4-
maximum density allowed at the top of the range by more than an additional 25% (5
2 dwelling units/acre).
3 7. Reason for Appeal # 5:
4 The following issues have been brought to the Engineering Department's attention, but
<- are still not listed [addressed] on the approval letter. Does this plan really meet the Storm
Water Management Plan (SWMP) for MS 01-04? There are several storm water
6 management issues, including but not limited to:
7 a. An increase to the amount of impervious area
b. Increase of water runoff due to proposed grading
c. Cross-lot drainage
9 d. Does not exhibit low impact design
10 Planning Department Response:
All Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) issues, including impervious area, runoff,
12 cross-lot drainage, and Low Impact Design (LID), have been addressed by the
Engineering Department through the projects design or conditions of approval for Minor
13 Subdivision application no. MS 08-02.
14 8. Reason for Appeal #6:
Inaccurate calculation of buildable square footage.
16
Planning Department Response:
17
The buildable square footage of both proposed lots is calculated accurately. In
!° accordance with Title 21 Section 21.10.100(C), in approving a panhandle lot, the
, n buildable portion shall be the entire lot exclusive of any portion of the lot less than thirty-
five feet in width that is used for access to the lot.
20
In addition, the project meets all residential density requirements under Section
21 21.53.230, in that the project site does not include undevelopable lands, which are
excluded from density calculations, such as beaches, permanent bodies of water,
floodways, natural slopes with an inclination greater than 40%, significant wetlands,
23 significant riparian or woodland habits, lands subject to major power transmission
easements, land upon which other significant environmental features as determined by the
24 environmental review process for a project are located, or railroad tracks. In summary,
the project site, excluding the portion of the lot with a width less than 35 feet used for
access, is determined as the buildable square footage for Parcel 2, which is 8,081 square
2/r feet. Parcel 1 is not a panhandle lot nor does it have any of the above listed
undevelopable lands. Therefore, the net buildable square footage for Parcel 1 is the same
27 as the gross buildable square footage (8,323 square feet).
28
PCRESONO. 6519 -5-
Conditions:
2
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the
3 approval of the Final Parcel Map.
1. The adopted conditions of the Planning Director as set forth in the Planning
,- Director's approval letter dated October 15,2008 shall also constitute the conditions
of the Planning Commission and are incorporated herein by this reference.
6
2. Prior to the approval of the Final Parcel Map, or the issuance of building permits,
7 whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this
property may be subject to nuisance impacts from the horses located at the
surrounding agricultural properties in a form meeting the approval of the Planning
9 Director and City Attorney.
10 NOTICE
11 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications,
12 reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
"fees/exactions."
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
. you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
15 processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
16 annul their imposition.
17 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
19 project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PCRESONO. 6519 -6-
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of January 2009, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Boddy, Dominguez, and Douglas
NOES: Commissioner Montgomery and Chairperson Whitton
ABSENT: Commissioner Baker
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cardosa
FRANK WHITTON, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Planning Director
PCRESONO. 6519 -7-
ty of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: January 1, 2009
Application complete date: 5/19/08
Project Planner: Shelley Esteybar
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: CDF 08-06 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION - Appeal of a Planning
Director decision to approve a Minor Coastal Development Permit to allow for
the subdivision of a .42 acre single-family residential lot, zoned R-1-7,500-Q, into
two minimum 8,343 square foot single-family residential lots, including one
panhandle lot, located on the south side of Triton Street, west of Black Rail Road
and south of Poinsettia Lane within the Mello II Segment of the City's Local
Coastal Program and within Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6519 DENYING
the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Director to APPROVE a Coastal
Development Permit application.
II.INTRODUCTION
Three residents owning properties adjacent to the project site are appealing the decision of the
Planning Director to approve a proposed Minor Coastal Development Permit to allow for the
subdivision of a .42 acre single-family residential lot into 2 lots. The Planning Director
approved the administrative Minor Coastal Development Permit application in that the project is
consistent with City's applicable Coastal Development Regulations (Chapters 21.201 and 21.203
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) as well as all other applicable City ordinances and policies.
However, the appeal letter, dated October 25, 2008 argues that not all the applicable City
ordinances and policies have been met and that the appeal provides sufficient grounds for a
requested action from the Planning Commission. Staff has reviewed and analyzed the comments
and concludes that the Planning Director approval should be upheld.
Pursuant to CMC Section 21.54.140, whenever the Planning Director is the authorized decision
maker, the decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The filed appeal shall
specifically state the reason or reasons for the appeal and the burden of proof is on the appellant
to establish by substantial evidence that the grounds for the requested action exist. The Planning
Commission action on an appeal shall be final unless appealed to the City Council.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
On February 22, 2008 the applicant (Glen Rhoades) applied for a Minor Subdivision (MS 08-02)
and a Minor Coastal Development Permit (CDP 08-06) to subdivide a .42 acre R-1-7500-Q
zoned lot into two minimum 8,343 square foot single-family residential lots, including one
panhandle lot. No houses are proposed at this time and the future homes require the approval of
separate Coastal Development Permits prior to construction. The project site is located on theo
MINmCDP 08-06 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
January 7, 2009
Page 2
south side of Triton Street, west of Black Rail Road and south of Poinsettia Lane within the
Mello II Segment of the City's Local Coastal Program and within Local Facilities Management
Zone 20.
The Minor Coastal Development Permit was deemed complete on May 19, 2008. A Notice of
Pending Decision, dated August 14, 2008, was sent out in accordance with the Coastal
Development Permit Procedures (Title 21 Section 21.201.080(8). The contents of the notice
included a statement of a public comment period of at least fifteen working days. Within the
comment period any individual is allowed to submit a request for an administrative public
hearing before the Planning Director. The Planning Director's decision shall be based upon the
requirements of, and shall include specific factual findings supporting whether the project is or is
not in conformity with, the certified local coastal program.
A Minor Subdivision (MS 08-02) application was processed concurrently with the Minor Coastal
Development Permit. The City Engineering Department is the designated lead agency for the
Minor Subdivision. Although both the Minor Subdivision and Minor Coastal Development
Permit are processed concurrently, they are handled through separate processes.
Comments were received within the 15 day noticing period for the Minor Coastal Development
Permit (ending September 5, 2008) and two requests for an administrative public hearing were
filed. The request was submitted by two surrounding property owners and interested party who
had concerns with both the Minor Coastal Development Permit and the Minor Subdivision
application. On September 9, 2008, the Planning Department and Engineering Department held
a joint administrative public hearing to consider said request. Public testimony was given.
After careful consideration of the public testimony given at the administrative hearing, a review
of the facts set forth in the application and a review of the application's consistency with the
City's applicable Coastal Development Regulations (Chapters 21.201 - 21.205) as well as all
other applicable City ordinances and policies, the Planning Director determined that the Minor
Coastal Development Permit CDP 08-06 - Rhoades Minor Subdivision met all the findings
required for approval and therefore approved the Minor Coastal Development Permit request
based on the findings and conditions contained in the Notice of Final Decision dated October 15,
2008 and attached herein by reference (Attachment 7). An appeal letter, dated October 25, 2008
(Attachment 8) was then submitted within the required 10-day appeal period (Title 21 Section
21.54.140(b)). The appellants argue that not all the applicable City ordinances and policies have
been met and that the appeal provides sufficient grounds for a requested action from the Planning
Commission. Staff has reviewed and analyzed the comments and concludes that the Planning
Director's approval should be upheld.
Concurrently, a Preliminary Decision letter for the approval of the Minor Subdivision (MS 08-
02) was sent out on October 15, 2008 to the applicant, owners and neighbors within a 600 radius
by the City Engineering Department. On October 28th, 2008, the Engineering Department sent
out a final letter of approval based on the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the
preliminary approval letter. No appeal for the Minor Subdivision was submitted within the 10-
day appeal period in accordance with the City of Carlsbad's Subdivisions Ordinance, Title 20
Section 20.24.140(f). However, the approval of the Minor Subdivision is granted subject to the
approval of CDP 08-06 and is subject to all conditions in the approval letter for CDP 08-06 dated
.0
MINmCDP 08-06 - RHOADES MINDR SUBDIVISION
January 7, 2009
Page 3
October 15, 2008 signed by the City of Carlsbad Planning Director (Attachment 7) and will not
become effective until a final decision is reached on CDP 08-06.
CDP 08-06 Application Timeline
February 22, 2008 - Application for CDP 08-06 submitted.
May 19, 2008 - Application for CDP 08-06 deemed complete.
August 14th, 2008 -Notice of Pending Decision sent out.
August 18th & August 22nd - Two requests for an administrative public hearing submitted.
September 9, 2008 - Administrative public hearing held.
October 15,2008 - Notice of final decision for CDP 08-06 mailed out.
October 27,2008 - Appeal letter submitted.
IV. ANALYSIS
The Minor Coastal Development Permit application is subject to the following plans, ordinances,
and standards:
A. Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General Plan Land Use Designation;
B. One-Family Residential, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-1-7,500-Q)
(Chapter 21.06 and 21.10 of the Zoning Ordinance);
C. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Resource
Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance); and
D. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance) and
Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan.
The recommendation to uphold the Planning Director's approval of this project was developed
by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable city regulations and policies. The
project's compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections
below.
A. Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General Plan Land Use Designation
The General Plan Land Use designation for the proposed subdivision is Residential Low-
Medium Density (RLM). The Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) Land Use designation
allows residential development at a density range of 0 - 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The RLM
Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) is 3.2 dwelling units per acre and is used for the
purpose of calculating the City's compliance with Government Code Section 65863. The project
site has a net developable acreage of .42 acres and at the RLM GMCP would allow 1.34 units.
The proposed project's density is 4.76 dwelling units per acre which is above the GMCP of 3.2
dwelling units per acre and is also above the top of the RLM density range of 0-4 dwelling units
per acre. However, there is a provision within the Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General
Plan which specifies, "There are exceptional cases where the base zone is consistent with the
land use designation but would permit a slightly higher yield than that recommended in the low
and low-medium density residential classifications. In those exceptional cases, the City may find
that the project is consistent with this element if: a) the project is compatible with the objectives,
policies, general land uses and programs expressed herein, b) all of the necessary infrastructure is
CDP 08-06 - RHOADES
January 7, 2009
Page 4
MINOFR SUBDIVISION
in place to support the project, and c) the proposed density does not exceed the maximum density
allowed at the top of the range by more than an additional 25%."
The proposed project satisfies the above stated findings as follows:
a.
c.
As demonstrated in Table A below, the proposed project is compatible with the objectives,
policies, general land uses and programs of the General Plan. Land Use Element Section III:
Goals, Objectives and Implementing Policies & Action Programs.
The project is a Minor Coastal Development Permit for a two lot subdivision for single-
family residential use with adequate public facilities to serve the two future single-family
residences. The surrounding area is developed with predominantly single-family residences
on single family lots with the same General Plan and Zoning designations. The project is
designed to preserve the single-family detached neighborhood atmosphere and community
identity of the existing neighborhood while providing a variety of housing types and density
ranges to meet the diverse economic and social requirements of residents.
The project either incorporates the necessary infrastructure or is conditioned to provide it.
The maximum density of the RLM designation is 4 dwelling units/acre. The proposed project
density is 4.76 dwelling units/acre, which does not exceed the maximum density allowed at
the top of the range by more than an additional 25% (5 dwelling units/acre).
TABLE A - GENERAL PLAN LAND USE COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES,
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES OR
ACTION PROGRAMS
COMPLIANCE
LAND USE Policy C.I (Overall Land Use Pattern
- Implementing Policies & Action
Programs) - Arrange land uses so that
they preserve community identity and
are orderly, functionally efficient,
healthful, convenient to the public and
aesthetically pleasing.
The proposed Minor Coastal
Development Permit for the
subdivision of a .42 acre site
into two single-family
residential lots will allow the
continued preservation of the
single-family community
identity. The project has been
arranged so that the single-
family lots are orderly,
functionally efficient,
healthful, convenient to the
public and aesthetically
pleasing through compliance
with City's applicable Coastal
Development Regulations, as
well as all other applicable
City ordinances and policies.
CDP 08-06 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
January 7, 2009
PageS
TABLE A - GENERAL PLAN LAND USE COMPLIANCE CONTINUED
ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES,
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES OR
ACTION PROGRAMS
COMPLIANCE
LAND USE Policy C.3 (Overall Land Use Pattern
- Implementing Policies & Action
Programs) - To ensure the review of
future projects places a high priority
on the compatibility of adjacent land
uses along the interface of different
density categories.
The proposed project is a
Minor Coastal Development
Permit to allow for the
subdivision of a .42 acre site
into two single-family lots.
The surrounding area is
predominantly single-family
residences on similar sized
lots and density (See
Attachment 9 for an aerial
photo with the lot sizes and
densities of the surrounding
properties). As such, the
proposed project is compatible
with adjacent land uses.
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
Policy C.I (Growth Management &
Public Facilities - Implementing
Policies & Action Programs) - A City
which ensures the timely provision of
adequate public facilities and services
to preserve the quality of life of
residents.
Policy C.2 (Growth Management &
Public Facilities - Implementing
Policies & Action Programs) - Require
compliance with the following public
facility performance standards,
adopted September 23, 1986, to
ensure that adequate public facilities
are provided prior to or concurrent
with development:
PUBLIC FACILITY AND SERVICE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
City Administration Facilities
Library
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water Distribution System
The project has met the
requirement for adequate
public facilities and services
or has been conditioned to
meet adequate public facilities
and services to preserve the
quality of life of the future and
surrounding residents (see
Attachment 7 - Condition No.
23).
The project does comply with
the public facility and service
performance standards to
ensure that adequate public
facilities are provided prior to
or concurrent with
development. Please see
Table C below (Growth
Management Compliance
Table) for further clarification.
CDP 08-06 - RHOADES M
January 7, 2009
Page 6
INTJF>R SUBDIVISION
TABLE A - GENERAL PLAN LAND USE COMPLIANCE CONTINUED
ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES,
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES OR
ACTION PROGRAMS
COMPLIANCE
RESIDENTIAL Policy A.I. (Residential - Goals) - A
City which provides for a variety of
housing types and density ranges to
meet the diverse economic and social
requirements of residents, yet still
ensures a cohesive urban form with
careful regard for compatibility while
retaining the present predominance
of single family residences.
The proposed two single-
family lots will contribute to
providing a variety of housing
types and density ranges to
meet the diverse economic and
social requirements of
residents. The project does
provide a cohesive urban form
with careful regard for
compatibility through the
design of single-family lots
surrounded by single-family
lots of similar lot sizes and
densities (See Attachment 9).
The proposed single-family
lots will help retain the present
predominance of single-family
residences.
Policy B.2. (Residential - Objectives)
- To preserve the neighborhood
atmosphere and identity of existing
residential areas.
The two proposed single-
family lots will preserve the
dominant single-family
neighborhood atmosphere and
identity of the existing single-
family residential area.
B. One-Family Residential, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-l-7,500-
Q)(Chapter 21.06 and 21.10 of the Zoning Ordinance)
The project meets all of the requirements of the R-1-7,500-Q zoning regulations. All required lot
sizes, lot widths, and all panhandle regulations established for the zone have been reviewed for
compliance as outlined in Table B below:
TABLE B - R-l ZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
STANDARD
Lot size
Lot Width
Buildable Area
REQUIRED/ALLOWED
7,500 square feet minimum
60 feet minimum
Parcel 1 : 7,500 square feet minimum
Parcel 2 (Panhandle Lot): 8,000 square
feet minimum in zone districts permitting
less than ten thousand square foot lots.
PROPOSED
Parcel 1 : 8,343 square feet
Parcel 2: 8,081 square feet
Parcel 1 : 93 feet
Parcel 2: 80 feet
Parcel 1 : 8,343 square feet
Parcel 2: 8,081 square feet
MINTJRCDP 08-06 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
January 7, 2009
Page 7
TABLE B - R-l ZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CONTINUED
STANDARD
Panhandle Width
Panhandle Length
Panhandle paved
driveway width for
single-family homes
REQUIRED/ALLOWED
20 feet minimum
150 max
14 feet minimum
PROPOSED
20 feet
90.23 feet
14 feet
The yard requirements of the R-1-7,500-Q zone district shall be met for all future homes as
required for interior lots. The Tentative Parcel Map, Exhibit "A" dated October 15, 2008 shows
the front, side, and rear property lines of the buildable lot, for purposes of determining the
required yards. Future homes will require the approval of a separate Coastal Development
Permit and compliance with yard/setback requirements will be evaluated at that time.
The majority of the drainage from the lot will be channeled down the private access to the public
street. All drainage from the site will be handled to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
The panhandle lot has the capacity for having three nontandem parking spaces with an approach
not less than twenty-four feet in length with proper turnaround space to permit complete
turnaround for forward access to the street. The parking and access arrangement for all future
homes will be designed and compliance evaluated at the time future Coastal Development
Permits are processed for the single family homes.
Structures permitted in the access portion of the lot will be limited to mailboxes, fences, trash
enclosures, landscape containers and nameplates. Except for mailboxes, the structures shall not
be greater than forty-two inches in height if located within twenty feet of the street property line
or greater than six feet in height beyond this point.
C. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Resource
Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance)
The project site is located within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and is not
in the appeal jurisdiction. The site is also located within and subject to the Coastal Resource
Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project's
compliance with each of these programs and ordinances is discussed below:
1. Mello II LCP Segment
The subject site has a Mello II LCP Segment Land Use Plan designation of RLM (Residential
Low-Medium Density). The projects consistency with the RLM Land Use designation was
analyzed in Section A above.
The proposed Minor Coastal Development Permit to allow for a two lot subdivision is consistent
with the surrounding development of single-family homes. The minor subdivision will not
obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right-of-way, nor
otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone. No agricultural uses currently exist on
the site, nor are there any sensitive resources located on the property. The proposed single-
family lots are not located in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazard. Since the site
CDP 08-06 - RHOADES
January 7, 2009
PageS
MINOF>R SUBDIVISION
is not located in close proximity to the coast, no public opportunities for coastal shoreline access
are available from the subject site. The single-family residentially designated site is not suited for
water-oriented recreation activities.
2.Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
(Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City's Master
Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) to
avoid increased urban run off, pollutants and soil erosion. No development is proposed in areas
of steep slopes (coastal bluff) and no native vegetation is located on the subject property. The
site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or
liquefaction.
The project meets the requirements of the Minor Coastal Development Regulations in that:
a) The total cost of the proposed development (subdivision of a .42 acre site into two lots) is
less than $60,000;
b) That the proposed development requires no discretionary approvals other than a Minor
Coastal Development Permit; and
c) That the development is in conformity with the public access and public recreation
policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, in that the properties are not located adjacent to
the shore and therefore the project will not interfere with the public's right to physical
access to the ocean, nor are public recreation areas required of the project.
D. Growth Management
The project is subject to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance, as contained in
Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance. The project's conformance with the requirements of the
Growth Management regulations is detailed in Table C below:
TABLE C - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
STANDARD
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Park
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
School Districts (Carlsbad Unified)
Sewer (Carlsbad)
Water (Carlsbad)
IMPACTS/STANDARDS
6.95 sq. ft.
3.71 sq. ft.
2EDU
.01 acre
2 CFS / Drainage Basin "D"
20ADT
Station No. 2
Elementary = 0.300
Middle School = 0.1 15
High School = 0.0951
2EDU
440 GPD
COMPLY
N/A
N/A
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
IINmCDP 08-06 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
January 7, 2009
Page 9
The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 20. There are no special
conditions or requirements within the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan that apply to
this single-family residential project. However the project is conditioned to pay the appropriate
public facility fees, water and sewer connection fees, traffic impact fees, and school fees. All
facility improvements necessary to accommodate the development will be in place prior to, or
concurrent with development. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Zone 20 Local
Facilities Management Plan.
The proposed project is .66 units above what the Growth Management Control Point density for
the RLM designated property would allow, and therefore .66 dwelling units will be withdrawn
from the City's Excess dwelling unit bank.
V. RESPONSE TO LETTER OF APPEAL
On October 27, 2008, a timely appeal of the decision approving CDP 08-06 was filed pursuant to
Title 21 Section 21.54.140(b) by Mr. and Mrs. Conner, Mr. and Mrs. Lin, and Mr. and Mrs.
Lynn, three neighbors owning property adjacent to project site. The reasons for the appeal, as
stated within the appeal letter submitted by the three families, dated October 25, 2008 and titled
CDP 08-06 - Rhoades Minor Subdivision, are listed below together with the Planning
Department's Response:
1. The proposed subdivision is not compatible with the rest of the neighborhood.
Planning Department Response:
The project is a Minor Coastal Development Permit to allow for the subdivision of a .42 acre
site into two single-family lots a minimum of 8,343 square feet in size. The surrounding area
is developed with predominantly single-family residences on single family lots with the same
Residential Low Medium Density (RLM) Land Use Designation and One-Family (R-l-
7,500-Q) zoning designations. The surrounding neighborhood consists of a variety of single
family lots sizes ranging from 7,596 square feet to 71,438.40 square feet. The project is
designed to preserve the single-family detached neighborhood atmosphere and community
identity of the existing neighborhood while providing a variety of housing types and density
ranges to meet the diverse economic and social requirements of residents (See Attachment 9).
2. The proposed subdivision is not in line with the General Plan of Carlsbad. The General Plan
uses descriptions such as orderly, functionally efficient, aesthetically pleasing, compatible, or
in harmony with neighborhood and states that site design should be "indicated by the
harmony of proposed buildings in terms of site, height and location, with respect to the
existing neighborhood development."
Planning Department Response:
The proposed Minor Coastal Development Permit is consistent with the applicable General
Plan Land Use designation and is compatible and in harmony with the surrounding
neighborhood.
MINORCDP 08-06 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
January 7, 2009
Page 10
The Minor Coastal Development Permit will allow for a subdivision that will create a subtle,
yet compatible, variety of lot sizes due to the slightly higher density range (4.76 Dwelling
Units/Acre), allowable by the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and will thereby help
meet the diverse economic and social requirements of residents and still ensure a cohesive
urban form with careful regard for compatibility and retaining the present predominance of
single family residences which consists of single-family residential lot sizes ranging from
7,596 square feet to 71,438.40 square feet. The project meets the applicable development
standards of the One-Family Residential Zone (R-1-7,500-Q), which is consistent of the
neighborhood's development standards and will allow for the design of future single family
homes to be in harmony with the neighborhood in terms of site, height and location.
3. The proposed panhandle lot is not consistent with designs of other panhandle lots in the area.
Planning Department Response:
While the proposed panhandle lot is smaller by 3,078 square feet than an existing panhandle
lot directly north of Triton Street, the proposed panhandle lot (Parcel 2) does meet all the
panhandle lot development standards under Title 21 Section 21.10.100(D) as demonstrated in
Table B.
4. The project density is too high.
Planning Department Response:
This issue is addressed above in IV Analysis, Section A. The project density is entirely
consistent with all applicable density provisions of the Carlsbad General Plan and the RLM
Land Use designation.
5. The following issues have been brought to the Engineering Department's attention, but are
still not listed [addressed] on the approval letter. Does this plan really meet the Storm Water
Management Plan (SWMP) for MS 01-04? There are several storm water management
issues, including but not limited to:
a. An increase to the amount of impervious area
b. Increase of water runoff due to proposed grading
c. Cross-lot drainage
d. Does not exhibit low impact design
Planning Department Response:
All Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) issues, including impervious area, runoff, cross-
lot drainage, and Low Impact Design (LID), have been addressed by the Engineering
Department through the projects design or conditions of approval for Minor Subdivision
application no. MS 08-02.
6. Inaccurate calculation of buildable square footage.
MINTJRCDP 08-06 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
January 7, 2009
Page 11
Planning Department Response:
The buildable square footage of both proposed lots is calculated accurately. In accordance
with Title 21 Section 21.10.100(C), in approving a panhandle lot, the buildable portion shall
be the entire lot exclusive of any portion of the lot less than thirty-five feet in width that is
used for access to the lot.
In addition, the project meets all residential density requirements under Section 21.53.230, in
that the project site does not include undevelopable lands, which are excluded from density
calculations, such as beaches, permanent bodies of water, floodways, natural slopes with an
inclination greater than 40%, significant wetlands, significant riparian or woodland habits,
lands subject to major power transmission easements, land upon which other significant
environmental features as determined by the environmental review process for a project are
located, or railroad tracks. In summary, the project site, excluding the portion of the lot
with a width less than 35 feet used for access, is determined as the buildable square footage
for Parcel 2, which is 8,081 square feet. Parcel 1 is not a panhandle lot nor does it have any
of the above listed undevelopable lands. Therefore, the net buildable square footage for
Parcel 1 is the same as the gross buildable square footage (8,323 square feet).
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15315 (Minor Land Division) of the
State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment in
that the property is in an urbanized area; zoned for residential; is being subdivided into four or
fewer parcels; no variances are needed for the subdivision; all services for the lots are available;
the parcel was not part of a larger subdivision within the last two years; and the parcel does not
have an average slope greater than 20 percent.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6519
2. Location Map
3. Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Disclosure Statement
6. Reduced Exhibit
7. Planning Director's approval letter, dated October 15, 2008 for CDP 08-06
8. Appeal Letters dated October 25, 2008
9. Aerial Photo with surrounding land uses & lot sizes
10. Exhibit "A" dated October 15, 2008
SITEMAP
NOT TO SCALE
Rhoades Minor Subdivision
CDP 08-06
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Rhoades Minor Subdivision - CDP 08-06
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 20 GENERAL PLAN: RLM
ZONING: R-l-7.500-0
DEVELOPER'S NAME: Glen Rhoades
ADDRESS: 3594 Evening Canyon Rd. Oceanside, CA 92056
PHONE NO.: 760-692-4100 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 215-070-39
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): .42 Acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: January 2009
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities:
Library:
Demand in Square Footage = 6.95
Demand in Square Footage = 3.71
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
2EDU
.01
20
D
20 ADT
Fire:
Open Space:
Schools: Carlsbad Unified
Sewer:
Water:
Served by Fire Station No. = 2_
Acreage Provided =N/A
Demands in EDU
Identify Sub Basin =
Demand in GPD =
Elementary = 0.3 00
Middle School = 0.115
High School = 0.0951
2 EDU
N/A
440
The project is .66 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance and
therefore .66 dwelling units will be withdrawn from the dwelling unit bank.
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CDP 08-06
CASE NAME: RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT: Hoffman Planning and EngineerinR
REQUEST AND LOCATION: A Minor Coastal Development Permit to allow for the
subdivision of a .42 acre single-family residential lot into two minimum 8,343 square foot single-
family residential lots, including one panhandle lot located on the south side of Triton Street, east
of Black Rail Road and south of Poinsettia Lane.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 19411, in the City of Carlsbad.
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof filed in the office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, January 23, 2004.
APN: 215-070-39 Acres: .42 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 2
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Existing Land Use Designation: Residential Low-Medium (RLM)
Proposed Land Use Designation: N/A
Density Allowed: 5 DU/A Density Proposed: 4.76 DU/A
Existing Zone: R-l-7,500-0 Proposed Zone: N/A
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
General Plan Current Land Use
Site R-l-Q RLM Vacant
North R-l RLM Single-Family Residence
South R-l-Q RLM Vacant
East R-l-Q RLM Single-Family Residence
West L-C RLM Single-Family Residence
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Coastal Zone: [X] Yes | | No Local Coastal Program Segment: Mello II
Within Appeal Jurisdiction: | | Yes [X] No Coastal Development Permit: [Xl Yes | | No
Local Coastal Program Amendment: | | Yes [X] No
Existing LCP Land Use Designation: RLM Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: N/A
Existing LCP Zone: R-l-Q Proposed LCP Zone: N/A
Revised 01/06 , _ f)
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 2 EDU
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Categorical Exemption, Minor Land Division Article 19, Class 15, Section 15315
Negative Declaration, issued N/A
| | Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated N/A
D Other, N/A
Revised 01706
City of Carlsbad
PJ an nln g_D e p ar tm e n t
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal... Your project cannot be
reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
nty^city; mUnicipality, district or
igenis"may/sten; ifiisi-dpcd^ ow
TOYidetfillOT^^ , , -.,- ,
owner must be
APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest
in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title,
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE
THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE
BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate
officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Corp/Part
Title Title
Address Address
2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership^
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership {i.e. partnership,
tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or
partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the
shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE
NON-APPLJCABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person C? "&} t<-m>+*Ot% Corp/Part
Title Qt^'AAS' Title
Address V £V-W\*z j^a Address,
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 » {760} 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.cartsbad.ca.us
COPY
3.NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust
Title
Non Profit/Trust,
Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $500 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
[ I Yes [X.I No If yes, please indicate person(s}:_
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
.. f _
Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date
K /]
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 12/06 Page 2 of 2
"7 '!
"A
VICINITY MAP 4 MS 08-02 / CDP 08-06
.TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
Q ' A / LEGEND
k/--.. - ^
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY (PROPOSED)
TYPICAL SECTIONnor TO sc*ie
t ^ --—"pz^-ir^fr^;- - -i
+r
' PUBLIC UTUTE8 AND DBTHCTB
?;
41
•^ -W ni,
1
JO-
w
sr
»•
«.'«• 01-
•
«-ttr tic
-«_
BLACK RAI. ROAD (EXETt4Q)
•nrPCAL 8ECTK3Nwor fo sour
s
c.
ITJ i,§:o
X ;
COPY
FILE COPY
City of Carlsbad "°8
g^—-— • i •• "~WBP**B*tt]&BfMBfHHBtftfBBHfH*Hi^^^^i^^m^^^m^m&i^^^^^^^^Rla n riing Department
MINOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NOTICE OF DECISION
October 15, 2008
Hofman Planning & Engineering
Attn: Michelle Alves
3152 Lionshead Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92010
SUBJECT: CDP 08-06 -RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
The Planning Director has completed a review of the application for a Minor Coastal Development
Permit for a proposed minor subdivision of a .42 acre single-family residential lot, zoned R-1-
7,500, into two minimum 8,343 square foot single-family residential lots, including one
panhandle lot, located on the south side of Triton Way, west of Black Rail Station Road and
south of Poinsettia Lane within the Mello II Segment of the City's Local Coastal Program and
within Local Facilities Management Zone 20 (APN 215-070-39).
A notice was sent to property owners and occupants within a 100' radius of the subject property
requesting comments regarding the above request. Comments were received within the 15 day
noticing period (ending September 5, 2008) and a request for an Administrative Hearing was filed.
On September 9, 2008, the Planning Department held an Administrative Hearing to consider said
request. Public testimony was given.
After careful consideration of the public testimony given at the Administrative Hearing, a review of
the facls set forth in the application and a review of the application's consistency with the City's
applicable Coastal Development Regulations (Chapters 21.201 - 21.205) as well as all other
applicable City ordinances and policies, the Planning Director has determined that the project CDP
08-06 - Rhoades Minor Subdivision meets all the findings required for approval of a Minor CoastaJ
Development Permit and therefore APPROVES this request based on the following findings and
conditions:
Findings:
1. That the total cost of the proposed development (subdivision, of a .42 acre site into two lots)
is less than $60,000.
2. That the proposed development requires no discretionary approvals other than a Minor
Coastal Development Permit.
3. That the development is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of
Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, in that the properties are not located adjacent to the shore and
therefore the project will not interfere with the public's right to physical access to the ocean,
nor are public recreation areas required of the project.
4. The project is not located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone, according to Map X of the
Local Coastal Program Mello II Segment Land Use Plan, certified September 1990 and,
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
JR '.V
08-06 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
October 15, 2008
Page 2
therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone (Chapter
21.202 of the Zoning Ordinance).
5. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City's
Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm
Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program
(JURMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil erosion. No steep slopes or
native vegetation is located on the subject property and the site is not located in an area
prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction.
6. That the request for a Minor Coastal Development Permit was adequately noticed from
August 15, 2008 to September 5, 2008, at least fifteen (15) working days before the date of
this decision pursuant to Section 21.201.080(6) and (C) of the Carlsbad Coastal
Development Regulations.
7. Two requests for an Administrative Hearing were received and an Administrative Hearing
was held by the Planning Department on September 9, 2008.
8. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Mello II Segment of the Certified
Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies in that the site is designated and zoned
for single-family residential- development and the project consists of the minor
subdivision of an existing R-1-7500 zoned single-family residential lot into two single-
family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 8,343 sq. ft., including one panhandle
lot. The development is consistent with the Mello II Land Use designation of
Residential - Low Medium Density (RLM) as discussed below; no agricultural
activities, sensitive resources, geological instability, flood hazard or vertical coastal
access opportunities exists onsite and the development does not obstruct views of
the coastline as seen from public lands or public right-of-way or otherwise damage
the visual beauty of the coastal zone.
9. The Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) Land Use designation allows residential
development at a density range of 0 - 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The RLM Growth
Management Control Point (GMCP) is 3.2 dwelling units per acre and is used for the
purpose of calculating the City's compliance with Government Code Section 65863.
The project site has a net developable acreage of .42 acres and at the RLM GMCP
would allow 1.34 units. The proposed project's density is 4.76 dwelling units per acre
which is above the GMCP of 3.2 dwelling units per acre and is also above the top of
the RLM density range of 0-4 dwelling units per acre. However, there is a provision
within the Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General Plan which specifies, "There are
exceptional cases where the base zone is consistent with the land use designation but
would permit a slightly higher yield than that recommended in the low and low-
medium density residential classifications. In those exceptional cases, the City may
find that the project is consistent with this element if: a) the project is compatible with
the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs expressed herein, b) all of
the necessary infrastructure is in place to support the project, and c) the proposed
density does not exceed the maximum density allowed at the top of the range by more
than an additional 25%."
The proposed project satisfies the above stated findings as follows:
a. The proposed project complies with the Land Use Element Section III:
Goals, Objectives and Implementing Policies & Action Programs, Overall
CDP 08-06 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
October 15, 2008
Page 3
Land Use Pattern (C.3), Growth Management & Public Facilities (C.1 & C.2)
and Residential (A.1 & B.2). The project is a two lot subdivision for single-
family residential use with adequate public facilities to serve the two future
single-family residences. The surrounding area is developed with
predominantly single-family residences on single family lots with the same
General Plan and zoning designations. The project is designed to
preserve the single-family detached neighborhood atmosphere and
community identity of the existing neighborhood while providing a variety
of housing types and density ranges to meet the diverse economic and
social requirements of residents.
b. The project either incorporates the necessary infrastructure or is
conditioned to provide it
c. The maximum density of the RLM designation is 4 dwelling units/acre. The
proposed project density is 4.76 dwelling units/acre, which is less than the
additional 25% maximum density allowed (5 dwelling units/acre) above the
top of the range.
10. That the project will provide sufficient additional public facilities, in the form of development
fees, for the density in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City's
public facility plans will not be adversely impacted.
11. That there have been sufficient developments approved in the southwest quadrant at
densities below the control point to offset the units in the project above the control point so
that approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit.
12. That the.site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site
is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed, in that the proposed subdivision meets all development standards for the
creation of a panhandle and a standard lot in terms of access, minimum lot size, lot
width and setbacks. As discussed in #8 above, the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the RLM General Plan Land Use designation.
13. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances, and with Title 21
of the City's Municipal Code.
14. That the property cannot be served adequately with a public street without a panhandle lot
due to unfavorable conditions resulting from unusual topography, surrounding land
development, or lot configuration, in that the lot Is arranged in such a way that access to
the rear lot would not be possible without a panhandle configuration. .
15. That subdivision with a panhandle lot will not preclude or adversely affect the ability to
provide full public street access to other properties within the same block of the subject
property, in that adequate access exists to service both proposed lots and this access
does not compromise access to any other lot within the same block.
16. That the buildable portion of the panhandle lot consists of 8;081 square feet, which meets
the minimum requirement of 8,000 square feet minimum, Section 21.10.100(D)(1) of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
17. That any panhandle lot hereby approved satisfies all the requirements of Section
21,10.100(0) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code in that:
CDP 08-06 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
October 15, 2008
Page 4
a. The buildable area (8,081 sq. ft.) is greater than 8,000 square feet in an R-1-7,500
zone district permitting less than ten thousand square foot minimum lots;
b. The width required for the buildable portion of the lot (80 ft.) is greater than sixty feet,
which is required for lots located in the R-1-7,500 zone district;
c. The yard requirements of the R-1-7,500 zone district shall be met for all future homes
as required for Interior lots;
d. The length of the portion of the lot (90.23 ft.) fronting on a public street afforded
access to the buildable lot is not greater than one hundred fifty feet;
e. The width of the portion of .the lot fronting on a public street has a width of twenty
feet;
f. The width of the improved driveway providing access from trie street to the parking
area on the buildable lot for a single-family development is fourteen feet wide;
g. Drainage from the lot will be channeled down the private access to a public street or
special drainage, provided to the satisfaction of the city engineer,
h. The panhandle lot has the capacity for having three nontandem parking spaces with
an approach not less than twenty-four feet in length with proper turnaround space to
permit complete turnaround for forward access to the street. The parking and access
arrangement for all future homes will be designed to the satisfaction of the city
engineer;
i. Structures permitted in the access portion of the lot will be limited to mailboxes,
fences, trash enclosures, landscape containers and nameplates. Except for
mailboxes, the structures shall not be greater than forty-two inches in height if
located within twenty feet of the street property line or greater than six feet in height
beyond this point; and
j. The property owner of such a lot shall agree to hold the city or any other public
service agency harmless from liability for any damage to the driveway when being
Used to perform a public service.
18. That the front, side, and rear property lines of the buildable lot, for purposes of determining
required yards, are shown on the approved tentative parcel map.
19. The property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation act
of 1965 (Williamson Act).
20. That the Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15315 (Minor Land
Division) of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on
the environment in that the property is in an urbanized area; zoned for residential; Is being
subdivided into four or fewer parcels; no variances are needed for the subdivision; all
services for the lots are available; the parcel was not part of a larger subdivision within the
last two years; and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent.
21. The project is consistent with the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 20 and all City public facility policies and ordinances.
The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to
ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding sewer collection and treatment; water;
drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries;
government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to
serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically,
CDP 08-06 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
October 15, 2008
Page 5
a. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad
Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school
facilities.
b. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44,
and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will
be collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
d. The Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 20 is required by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 21.90.050 and will be collected prior to issuance of
building permit.
22. The Planning Director has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this Notice of Decision, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are
imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent
and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
NOTE: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the approval of the
Final Parcel Map.
1. Approval is granted for Minor Coastal Development Permit, CDP 08-06 for the project
entitled Rhoades Minor Subdivision (Exhibit A), dated October 15, 2008, incorporated by
reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as
shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
2. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented
and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained
according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein
granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or
further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein
granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested
rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Minor
Coastal Development Permit.
3. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Minor Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
4. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws
and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
5. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of
any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless
the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all
requirements of law.
CDP 08-06 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
October 15, 2008
PaqeS
6. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly or
indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Minor Coastal Development Permit,
(b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's
installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby.
7. Prior to final map approval, the property owners shall enter into an agreement to hold the
City or any other public service agency harmless from liability for any damage to the
driveway when being used to perform a public service, subject to Planning Director and City
Attorney approval.
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director
from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to
provide school facilities.
9. Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a reproducible 24" x 36," Mylar copy of the
Tentative Map reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision-making body.
10. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as
part of the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
11. This approval is granted subject to the approval of MS 08-03 and is subject to all conditions
contained in the approval letter for MS 08-03 signed by the City of Carlsbad City Engineer
incorporated herein by reference.
12. This approval shall become null and void if a Final Parcel Map is not recorded for this
project within 24 months from the date of approval of MS 08-03.
13. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water
and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water
service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the
application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will
continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed
on the Final Map.
14. Prior to the approval of the Final Parcel Map, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of
Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors In interest that the City of
Carlsbad has issued a Minor Coastal Development Permit and a Minor Subdivision on
the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file
containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or
restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Assistant Planning
Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies
or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in
interest.
CDP 08-06 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
October 15, 2008
Page?
Standard Code Reminders:
15. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit
issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
16. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
17. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within
this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the; City Engineer for the
proposed haul route.
18. The panhandle lot shall provide three nontandem parking spaces with an approach not less
than twenty-four feet in length with proper turnaround space to permit complete turnaround
for forward access to the street. The parking and access arrangement will be designed to the
satisfaction of the city engineer.
19. Structures permitted in the access portion of the panhandle lot shall be limited to mailboxes,
fences, trash enclosures, landscape containers and nameplates. Except for mailboxes, the
structures shall not be greater than forty-two inches in height if located within twenty feet of
the street property line or greater than six feet in height beyond this point.
20. Prior to final map approval, the property owners shall enter into an agreement to hold the
City or any other public service agency harmless from liability for any damage to the
driveway when being used to perform a public service, subject to Planning Director and City
Attorney-approval.
21. The buildable portions of the panhandle lot shall include all portions of the lot that has a
width of greater than thirty-five feet.
22. The front property line for Parcel 2 shall be defined as the westerly most property line of
said parcel which runs perpendicular to Triton Way.
Fees:
23. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17,
the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.03.0,
and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities
Management Plan fee for Zone 20, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be
paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be
consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
24. Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as
required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
25. Prior to the approval of a final map, the Developer shall pay to the City an inclusionary
housing m-lieu fee as an individual fee on a per market rate dwelling unit basis in the
amount in effect at the time, as established by City Council Resolution from time to time.
CDP 08-06 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
October 15, 2008
PaaeS _
NOTICE
This decision may be appealed by you or any member of the public to the Planning Commission
within ten days of receipt of this letter. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Planning
Commission at 1635 Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad, along with a payment of $613 (plus noticing
costs). The filing of such appeal within such time limit shall stay the effective date of the order
of the Planning Director until such time as a final decision on the appeal is reached. If you have
any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Shelley Esteybar at (760) 602-
4625.
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" 'of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions."
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a),
and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in
accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure
will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES
NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning,
grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR
DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar
to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
'GARY T. BARBER10
Assistant Planning Director
GTB:SE:sm
c: Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader
Clyde Wickham, City Engineer
File Copy
Data Entry
California Coastal Commission
RECEIVED
October 25, 2008 QCT 17 2008
PlannningeDept. Director PLANNING DEPT
Shelley Esteybar
Assistant Planner
RE: Tentative Parcel Map No. 08-02
Carlsbad City Officials:
This letter is written on behalf of several residents in the area of the
referenced project We disapprove of the proposed minor sub
division of this parcel. This letter shall serve as our request of appeal
to the planning commission, and wish to have our comments heard.
Also enclosed is the fee required for the appeal process. Please
contact the following residents for any additional information required.
Sincerely,
Rick and Kristen Conner
6575 Black Rail Road
Carlsbad, CA 92011
E-Mail: rconner@ci.san-marcos.ca.us
Cell # 760-594-6300
Sha-Li Lin
Mailing address on file
E-Mail: shalilin(5).vahoo.com
Home: 1-847-945-0007
William and Candice Lynn
6585 Black Rail Road
Carlsbad, CA 92011
No E-Mail
760-931-2793
October 25, 2008
To: DonNeu RECEIVED
Planning Dept. Director
GaryBarberio OCT 2 9 »
Assistant Planning Director CITY OF CARLSBAD
Shelley Esteybar PUNNING DEPT
Assistant Planner
Subject; CDF 08-06 RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
fThis letter is to inform you that we reviewed your Notice of Decision
'letter dated October 15, 2008 and decided to appeal to Planning
Commission based on, but not limited to, the following reasons:
1. The proposed subdivision is not compatible with the rest of the
neighborhood.
2. The proposed subdivision is not in line with the General Plan of
Carlsbad. The general plan uses descriptions such as orderly,
functionally efficient, aesthetically pleasing, compatible, or in
harmony with neighborhood and states that site design should be
"indicated by the harmony of proposed buildings in terms of site,
height and location, with respect to the existing neighborhood
development."
3. The proposed panhandle lot is not consistent with designs of other
panhandle lots in the area.
4. The project density is too high.
5. The following issues have been brought to the Engineering
department's attention, but are still not listed on the approval
letter. Does this plan really meet the Storm Water Management
Plan (SWMP) for MS 01-04? There are several storm water
management issues, including but not limited to
a. an increase to the amount of impervious area
b. increase of water runoff due to proposed grading
c. cross-lot drainage
d. does not exhibit low impact design
6. 'Inaccurate calculation of buildable square footage.
This letter serves as our request of appeal to the planning commission
and we wish our voices be heard. Please note the required fee for the
appeal process has been hand delivered to the City of Carlsbad. If
questions arise, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Rick & Kristen Conner
6575 Black Rail Road
Carlsbad, CA 92011
& Lawrence Lin
2565 Riverwoods Road,
Riverwoods, IL 60015
William & Candice Lynn'
6585 Black Rail Road
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Attachment 9Aerial Photo with
surrounding land uses &
Map created try Carlsbad GfS Department
Lot*
1
2
-„ 3'-';
4
5
6
•<i •••£*•-
8
9
10
11
12
: 13 r
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Lot Size (Acres)
0:23
0.19
0.20
0.22
, 0.24
0.18
/— - • -,'»,- Qf2*
0.30
Or34
0.170;2o::
0.64
•: :.'..^WBH'-"-J- *-
1.64
0.42
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.24
0.39
0.27
0.30
0.37
0.27
0.26
0.27
: - 0.25-
0.23
Lot Size (Square Feet)
9,898.00
8,248.00
8,554.00
9,431.00
10,284.00 j
7,687.00
8,947.00
12,965.00
14,772.00
7,596.00
8,589.00
27,878.40
22,215.60
71,438.40
18,189.00
15,651.00
15,752.00
15,435.00
10,417.00
17,186.00
11,730.00
13,242.00
11,894.00
11,894.22
11,220.46
11,781.99
10,777.16
10,027.47
Land Use Designation
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
. -. RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM.
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
Zone
R-1-7,500
R-1-7,500
R-1-7,500
R-1-7,500
R-W.500
R-1-7,500
R;1-7,500
R-1-7,500
: Rr1-7,500
R-1-7,500
R-1-7,500
R-1-7.500-Q
R-1-7.500-Q
R-1-7.500-Q
R-1-7.500-Q
R-1-7.500-Q
R-1-7.500-Q
R-1-7,500-0
R-1-7,500-Q
R-1-7.500-Q
R^1:-7,500-Q
R-1-7.500-Q
R-1-7.500-Q
R-1-7,500
R-1-7,500
R-1-7,500
R-1-7,500
R-1-7,500
Average
Minimum
Maximum
0.34
0.17
1.64
14,775.03
7,596.00
71,438.40
EXHIBIT 5
Planning Commission Minutes January 7,2009 Page 3
Commissioner Montgomery asked if the new location for the solar panels would be adequate for the
panels to be used to their full potential. Ms. Mobaldi stated there is a 3rd party consultant working with
the City to ensure the new location for the solar panels will meet the necessary criteria.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked if any
members of the audience wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, Chairperson Whitton opened and
closed public testimony on Item 2.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6522 approving Planning
Commission Determination of General Plan Consistency PCD/GPC 08-03 based on
the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE: 6-0
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioner Boddy, Commissioner Cardosa, Commissioner
Dominguez, Commissioner Douglas, and Commissioner Montgomery
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Baker
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Whitton closed the public hearing on Item 2 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item.
3. GDP 08-06 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION - Appeal of a Planning Director decision
to approve a Minor Coastal Development Permit to allow for the subdivision of a .42 acre
single-family residential lot, zoned R-1-7,500-Q, into two minimum 8,343 square foot
single-family residential lots, including one panhandle lot, located on the south side of
Triton Street, west of Black Rail Road and south of Poinsettia Lane within the Mello II
Segment of the City's Local Coastal Program and within Local Facilities Management
Zone 20.
Commissioner Cardosa recused himself from the dais due to the proximity of the project to his personal
property.
Mr. Neu introduced Agenda item 3 and stated Assistant Planner Shelley Esteybar would make the staff
presentation.
Chairperson Whitton asked the appellant if he wished to continue with the item with only 5
Commissioners present. The appellant asked at what meeting the item would be heard if he chose to
postpone the hearing. Chairperson Whitton explained the procedures for postponing the item.
Commissioner Dominguez suggested the agenda item be heard last so as to give the appellant an
opportunity to make a decision.
Chairperson Whitton stated the item would be heard last and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item.
4. CUP 08-13/CDP 08-14 - UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA DRIVE-THRU - A request for
a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow for the installation of
a drive-thru teller lane at a Union Bank of California located within the Poinsettia Village
shopping center at 7180 Avenida Encinas in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal
Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 9.
Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 4 and stated Assistant Planner Dan Halverson would make the staff
presentation.
Planning Commission Minutes January 7,2009 Page 4
Chairperson Whitton opened the public hearing on the Agenda Item 4.
Mr. Halverson gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions,
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Commissioner Cardosa asked if there will be a sign to discourage traffic in the service alley. Mr.
Halverson stated he has not seen any signage but a condition could be added to the project if necessary.
Commissioner Cardosa asked how the additional ADT is determined. Mr. Halverson stated it is because
of the drive thru aspect of the bank.
Chairperson Whitton asked for clarification on the driving lanes and directional signage. Mr. Halverson
directed the Commission's attention to the slide depicting the proposed drive aisles and directional
signage and clarified how the traffic will flow through the project area.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if the signage painted solely on the drive aisles is sufficient. Mr.
Halverson stated there will be additional posted signage included with the sign program.
Commissioner Boddy asked about a no left turn lane sign being added to the site. Mr. Halverson stated
- he was not sure. Mr. Van Peski stated there will be additional signage for the drive thru.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked if the
applicant wished to make a presentation.
Reynaldo Osequeda, a representative from Union Bank, made a brief presentation and stated he would
be available to answer any questions.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if there
were any members of audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, Chairperson Whitton
opened and closed public testimony on the item.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6517 and 6518 approving
a Conditional Use Permit - CUP 08-13 and a Coastal Development Permit - CDP
08-14, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE: 6-0
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioner Boddy, Commissioner Cardosa, Commissioner
Dominguez, Commissioner Douglas, and Commissioner Montgomery
NOES: None
ABSENT; Commissioner Baker
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Whitton stated Agenda Item 3 would be heard next.
3. CDP 08-08 - RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION - Appeal of a Planning Director decision
to approve a Minor Coastal Development Permit to allow for the subdivision of a .42 acre
single-family residential lot, zoned R-1-7.500-Q, into two minimum 8,343 square foot
single-family residential lots, including one panhandle lot, located on the south side of
Triton Street, west of Black Rail Road and south of Poinsettia Lane within the Mello II
Segment of the City's Local Coastal Program and within Local Facilities Management
Zone 20.
Planning Commission Minutes January 7,2009 Page 5
Ms. Esteybar gave a detailed presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Commissioner Dominguez asked for the range of the size of lots in the area. Ms. Esteybar gave the
range of sizes.
Commissioner Montgomery asked for Staffs reasoning to allow the increase in density under a general
plan provision and the exceptional findings as to why it should be granted. Ms. Esteybar explained that
projects approved subject to this provision are standard in procedure. This provision is required to allow
for zoning consistency. Ms. Mobaldi further explained the finding.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if the area is still in flux. Ms. Esteybar stated the surrounding
neighborhood is in flux as shown on the aerial photo.
Chairperson Whitton asked if the appellant wished to make a presentation.
Rick Connor, 6575 Black Rail Road, made a brief presentation. Mr. Connor stated the panhandle lot is
significantly smaller than all the other lots in the zip code and in the RLM designation. He stated there is
a private easement which he owns in the southern 15 feet which includes no fill or improvements in that
area. Me asked that any decision be held off until he can find out if project applicants are in violation of
the easement. Mr. Connor stated the original intent of the easement was to discourage development on
that end of the property. The minimum square footage is above the allowable square footage that can be
built, and the proposed project marginally meets the criteria. Mr. Connor further urged the Commission to
look at all the requirements.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any questions of the appellant.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if he ever considered the fact that a very large house could occupy the
lot. Mr. Connor stated yes.
Candace Lynn, 6585 Black Rail Road, stated that the way the homes will be built on the property will be
across the current view easement on the property.
Mike Franchek, president of Black Rail Ridge HOA, 1529 Triton, stated the 11 home owners of the
development object to this development.
Sha-li Lin, owner of Parcel 3 from the Lynn Minor Subdivision, 2565 Riverwoods Road, Riverwoods,
Illinois, read her letter into the record.
Bob Wojcik, Hofman Planning and Engineering, 3152 Lionshead Avenue, gave a brief presentation and
stated he would be available to answer questions.
Commissioner Boddy asked what the natural slope is on the lot. Mr. Wojcik stated 5 to 10%.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if the project applicant were to build a 2,500 square foot first floor it
would preclude a yard for the home on Parcel 2. Mr. Neu stated only in a Planned Development doe the
city have minimum yard dimensions. Mr. Wojcik stated that as far as a yard the view easement could be
used. Mr. Wojcik further stated the lot does meet all of the standards.
Commissioner Dominguez stated it would be a challenge to have all the amenities a house of that range
would have. Mr. Wojcik stated there will be a Site Development Plan for the lot. Mr. Neu stated there
would not be a Site Development Plan for a single parcel. Ms. Esteybar stated a separate a CDP would
be required for each home built on the property.
Planning Commission Minutes January 7.2009 Page 6
Glen Rhoades, owner of the property, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to
answer any questions.
Chairperson Whitton opened public testimony on the item.
Barbara Rudvalis, 7316 Bolero Street, stated she does not object to the project but sympathizes with the
neighbors.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the
item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony and asked if the appellant wished to respond to any
issues.
Ms. Lin stated the calculations are not based on the natural slopes only.
Ms. Mobaldl stated the easement is a private matter and the Commission should not consider that when
making any decisions.
Mr. Neu stated that in regards to community character, the RL designation is the City's General Plan
designation for large or estate lots. The area is designated RLM which is what most single family
production home neighborhoods are designated.
Commissioner Montgomery asked Mr. Neu if all the parcels in the area are RLM. Mr. Neu stated yes.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if it would possible to state or accept the allowance of horse or
animals. Mr. Neu stated he would like to speak with Ms. Mobaldi about that issue but there is a possibility
to record a notice on the property to inform potential purchasers.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Boddy stated she supports the Planning Director's determination
Commissioner Douglas stated she supports the project but has the same concerns as stated previously
by Commissioner Dominguez.
Commissioner Dominguez commented that he supports staff on the project.
Commissioner Montgomery does not support the project as he feels the intent of the lot was established
with the previous subdivision.
Chairperson Whitton stated he cannot support the project because of the unresolved deed restriction on
the lot and too many unanswered questions.
Commissioner Montgomery stated he would like some sort of notice requirement in regards to the
allowance of animals on adjacent properties.
Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2009 Page?
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dominguez, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6519 denying the appeal
and upholding the decision of the Planning Director to approve a Coastal
Development Permit application with a notice of surrounding horse property to be
recorded for future residents of the area.
VOTE: 3-2-2
AYES: Commissioner Boddy, Commissioner Dominguez, and Commissioner Douglas
NOES: Chairperson Whitton and Commissioner Montgomery
ABSENT: Commissioner Baker and Commissioner Cardosa
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Whitton closed the public hearing and thanked Staff for their presentations.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
None.
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS
Mr. Neu commented on the CEC Workshops being held tonight and Thursday night for the proposed
Power Plant, Mr. Neu also stated the League of California Cities Planners Institute will be in March 2009.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of January 7, 2009, was adjourned at
8:00 p.m.
DON NEU
Planning Director
Bridget Desmarais
Minutes Clerk
EXHIBIT 6
REC'D FROM
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Cashier; (760) 602-2401
Water Utility Billing: (760) 602-2420
DATE /'
ACCOUNT NO,DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ft\L iJbCdb^LJt
3fe f&U-e
QOO 00
QJ PrrtaO an mcyqlod paper
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY
CASH REGISTER
TOTAL
JAN 1 6 2009
CITYOFCAHLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE
January 15, 2009
City of Carlsbad
City Council Members
RE: Appeal to City Council on CDP 08-06 Rhodes Minor Sub-Division
Carlsbad City Officials:
This letter is written on behalf of several residents in the area of the
referenced project. We disapprove of the proposed minor sub
division of this parcel. This letter shall serve as our request of appeal
to the city council, and wish to have our comments heard. Below are
a few issues that we would like to discuss and believe the planning
department has overlooked. Each item will be explained further to
the Council members.
The proposed minor subdivision has a current net square footage on
parcel #2 that is not consistent with past projects and current
standards. Additionally, the standard being applied to the proposed
sub-division is in direct conflict with an adjacent project and the
standards that were applied to that parcel.
The proposed subdivion is not in harmony with the current scheme of
the neighborhood and is in conflict with current language in the
general plan.
There is currently an injunction being filed on the parcel. The
injunction will prevent any further development as it relates to any
permanent improvement made in relation to the recorded easement
on parcel # 2, thus making the parcel undividable.
Also enclosed is the fee required for the appeal process. Please
contact the following residents for any additional information required.
We are requesting to be heard at the March 312009, Council
meeting. The neighborhood has a meeting scheduled before, and
one appellant is flying back and forth form Chicago on each occasion.
Scheduling flights in advance is an issue.
Sincerely,
Sha-Li Lin Michael Franchek
Mailing address on file 1592 Triton Road
E-Mail: shaiiiin@yahoo.cQm Carlsbad, CA 92011
Home: 1 -847-945-0007 760-931 -6011
William and Candice Lynn
6585 Black Rail Road Rick and Kristen Conner
Carlsbad, CA 92011 6575 Black Rail Road
No E-Mail Carlsbad, CA 92011
760-931-2793 760-594-6300
EXHIBIT 7
600 Foot Radius
Project! BAundaryl |fj
City of Carlsbad
Rhoades Minor Subdivision
CDP 08-06 A Map created by the City of Carlsbad CIS. Portions of
the DERIVED PRODUCT contain geographic information
copyrighted by SanGIS. All Rights Reserved
EXHIBIT 8
DOC# 2007-0611334
iff Recording Requested By
And When Recorded Mail to:
William and Candace Lynn
6575 Black Rail Road
Carlsbad, CA 92011
SEP 18,. 2007 10:14 AM
OFFICIAL RECORDS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE
GREGORY..! SMITH COUNTY RECORDER
FEES: 31.00 WAYS: 2
OC: NA
PAGES:
GRANT OF EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $_jf2Z.
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 11TH day of December, 2006, by and between
Mercedes O. Piety, Craig and Robin Griswold, and Glen and Nicole Rhoades, hereinafter
referred to as "Grantor", and William Lynn and Candace Lynn, hereinafter collectively
referred to as "Grantee".
WHEREAS, Grantee desires to acquire a certain easement("Easement") for the purpose
of maintaining a view from Grantee's adjoining property in a portion of Grantor's
property commonly known as 6575 Black Rail Rd, and more particularly described as:
Conventor, the Grantee of that certain real property conveyed herein, described as Parcel
1 of Parcel Map No. 19411 in the city of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, January 23,
2004 as File/Page No. 2004-0052211 of Official Records, by granting of this easement
agrees for themselves, and for all successors in interest to said real property, to restrict
use of the easement such that no temporary or permanent improvements including, but
not limited to structures, plants, trees, or shrubs shall be maintained within the southern
fifteen feet (15') of Parcel 1 Lynn Minor Southwest lot Subdivision Carlsbad CA
No. 19411, excepting the following:
1. A solid fence of maximum height of six (6') feet constructed within
one (1') foot of the boundary of Parcel 1.
2. Any type of trees or scrubs may not exceed the height of ten (10') feet
within the fifteen (15') feet of easement. Grantor or Grantor's
successors in interest, shall keep all plants trimmed below the ten (10')
foot maximum height by pruning as needed on a no less than annual
basis. Should Grantor or Grantor's successor's fail to prune in any 13
month period, Grantee may, at Grantee's option, hire a duly licenced
and bonded arborist to prune during regular business hours upon 48
hours written notice to the then resident of said servient property by
posting on their door. Grantor or Grantor's successor in interest shall
be liable to pay the reasonable fees and charges of the arborist.
The restriction shall apply to Parcel 1 only, with the powers of enforcement in the owners
of Parcel 4 only, for express purpose of preserving and maintaining the view corridor
from Parcel 4, Lynn Minor Subdivision Carlsbad CA No 01-04, Parcel Map 1941 1.
Grantee shall have no rights of entry, ingress or egress across said easement nor duty to
maintain said easement or any structures or plants placed thereon by Grantor except as
specifically provided herein. The operation and maintenance of the Easement Area shall
be at the Grantor's sole cost and expense.
Grantor alone shall pay any and all taxes, charges or use fee(s) levied by any
governmental agency against any of Grantor's real property unless such is levied
specifically and indentifiably as a result of the Easement herein granted.
This covenant is for the benefit of Parcel 4 described above and burdens Parcel 1
described above and shall bind all successive owners of Parcel 1 . This instrument shall
bind and mure to the benefit of the respective successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
This covenant is intended to comply with California Civil Code Section 1468 and will be
interpreted to accomplish that result.
This instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the rights
herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representations or
modifications concerning this instrument shall be of no force or effect in a subsequent
modification in writing, signed by the party to be charged.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument the day and
year first above written.
GRANTOR:
MERCEDES O. PIETY CRAIG GRISWOLD
J J_
ROBIN GRISWOLD GLEN
NICOLE RHOADES
GRANTEES
c
(03/06/2009) Clerk Internet Mailbox - letter regarding Rhodes CDP 08-06 Page 1
From: "Juintow Lin (FoxLin)" <juintow@foxlin.com>
To: <clerk@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <Seste@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
CC: "Sha-Li Lin" <shalilin@yahoo.com>, "'lawrence I Lin'" <jbs.lawrence@comc.
Date: 03/06/2009 1:49 PM
Subject: letter regarding Rhodes CDP 08-06
Attachments: CityCouncilHearing-RhodesCDP-Lin-090306.pdf
To Carlsbad City Council and Mayor,
Please see attached letter regarding the Rhodes proposed Minor Subdivision.
Please confirm receipt of this email.
Thank you.
Juintow Lin
March 3, 2009
City of Carlsbad
City Council Members and Mayor
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad CA 92008
We are the owners of parcel 3 of the Lynn Minor Subdivision MS 01-04. We purchased the lot in
2007 with the intention of building a custom-designed house and retiring to Carlsbad. We are
disappointed in learning that the Rhodes subdivision has been approved. There are several issues
with the proposed project, and we urge the City Council to please consider the following points.
1. Spacious and Unique Character of the Neighborhood
We chose this lot because it was large, 1/2 acre, and because it offered a relief to the otherwise
typical landscape of spec houses so common to the area. Our last two houses were custom-
designed, and Michael and Juintow teach Architectural Design with a focus on sustainability at Cal
Poly Pomona. So we searched a long time for a neighborhood of custom-designed homes. When
you look at the proposed minor subdivision, you can't help but think that the spacious and unique
character which initially attracted us to this site and neighborhood could be severely compromised.
We thought initially that we had found an oasis of spacious lots among larger repetitive subdivisions,
and now the cohesive harmony of these 4 custom-designed might be negatively impacted. When
looking at proposed plan, (see figures 1 and 2), one can't help but notice that it looks as if an extra
lot has been crammed in. It is not in keeping with the disposition of the immediately adjacent lots.
We question if the original Lynn Minor Sudivision proposal would have been approved if it had
presented such an awkward plan.
Figure 1 - Current layout of lots.
The original Lynn Minor
subdivision is shown shaded.
Figure 2 - Proposed condition of
lots. The proposed smaller lots
are not in keeping with scale and
disposition of the existing
neighborhood.
Page 1
In approving the Rhodes Minor Subdivision, the Planning Commission used a larger view of the
neighborhood to determine if the new proposed lots fit in, and we don't agree with this assessment.
We believe that an appropriate contextual assessment would be within the Lynn Minor subdivision. It
is important to understand that the feel of this neighborhood is affected by the lots shown in Figures
1 and 2, and not the smaller ones across Triton street. As you can see in Figures 3 and 4, one's
perception of the place includes a great amount of open space. Again, this is what attracted us to
the site. If you have an opportunity to visit the site, and I encourage you to do so, you will notice
the same.
Figure 3 - View towards the west
from our parcel
Figure 4 - View down panhandle
of our parcel toward the south
2. Exceptional Status Granted to Proposed Project
Per the Planning department's calculations, the proposed project density is 4.76 which exceeds the
Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The planning department utilized a
provision which states that "there are exceptional cases where the base zone is consistent with the
land use designation but would permit a slightly higher yield than that recommended."This provision
should not apply because this project is not compatible with the City of Carlsbad land use objectives
(discussed in Section 3 - General Plan Objectives) and because this project does not warrant an
exceptional designation. We feel that this provision has been incorrectly applied in this case,
a. We ask you - what is so exceptional about this project that it should be granted a density bonus?
In almost every regard, including buildable area of the site, house size as well as parking and
turnaround condition (see Benesh letter), stormwater issues (see section 4 - drainage and
stormwater issues), it barely meets that standards, if it meets the standards at all. This project is
Page 2
too far from Carlsbad's vision and it is not clear what particulars afford this project "exceptional
status".
It would be very difficult to build a home on this lot. As designers, if a client showed us this lot,
we would certainly advise them not to purchase it. Figure 5 shows the area of the lot that is
buildable (shown shaded) once the parking and garage is factored in. As highlighted in Michael
Benesh's letter of March 3, 2009, the parking turnaround does not really work as drawn and
would most likely need to get larger. We agree with Mr. Benesh that the City should have
rejected this document. What is left is very small and hard to layout. The house would need to
fill the entire building pad, leaving no room for a yard. This condition is very different from all the
houses in the area. In fact, Mr. Benesh calls it the "smallest most cramped house" in the
neighborhood. We believe that this project would set a poor precedent for the City of Carlsbad in
allowing such a substandard lot to be granted "exceptional status".
Figure 5 - parking plan for proposed
parcel 2. shaded area shows buildable
area / pad.
Kts'uar-TKFtmrr am rw FY ncujuj/r nmjnrr i
3. General Plan Objectives
We do not believe that this proposed subdivision is in keeping with the General Plan of Carlsbad,
further reason for this project not to be given exceptional status. The General Plan of Carlsbad
speaks at length about creating a harmonious and aesthetically pleasing environment. It is our
strong opinion that the proposed subdivision does not fit into these general plan guidelines. Please
see below for our comments.
Goals, objectives and implementing
policies & action programs
Element Comments
Goals A.I A City which preserves and
enhances the environment, character
and image of itself as a desirable
residential, beach and open space
oriented community.
A.2 A City which provides for an orderly
balance of both public and private land
uses within convenient and compatible
locations throughout the community and
ensures that all such uses, type,
amount, design and arrangement serve
to protect and enhance the environment,
character and image of the City.
Proposed subdivision does not
provide orderly balance. It also does
not enhance the environment;
rather the water retention issues
and increased density of
development negatively impact the
environment. It reduces the amount
of open space.
Page 3
CADV
Objectives B. 1 To create a distinctive sense of
place and identity for each
community and neighbor-hood of the
City through the development and
arrangement of various land use
components.
Area of existing development is a
distinctive place due to larger lots.
The proposed development is in
contrast to this distinctive, special
nature (see Figures 3 and 4)
Implementing
Policies And
Action Programs
C.I Arrange land uses so that they
preserve community identity and are
orderly, functionally efficient,
healthful, convenient to the public and
aesthetically pleasing.
Proposed subdivision is not orderly
(see Figures 1 and 2). It is not
healthful as it increases stormwater
runoff, and the panhandle approach
to the second parcel is not
functionally efficient.
C.2 Establish development standards for
all land use categories that will
preserve natural features and
characteristics, especially those within
rural, coastal and/or hillside areas.
Proposed subdivision does not
preserve the natural slope. It adds
additional grading. In fact it
significantly alters the grading in a
way that increases stormwater
runoff as well as pollutants that run
off the proposed driveway (see
Benesh letter).
C.3 Ensure that the review of future
projects places a high priority on the
compatibility of adjacent land uses along
the interface of different density
categories. Special attention should be
given to buffering and transitional
methods, especially, when
reviewing properties where
different residential densities or
land uses are involved.
Proposed subdivision is proposing a
different density standard and
negatively impacts the buffering and
transitional methods between lots
(see figures 1 and 2).
C.6 Review the architecture of buildings
with the focus on ensuring the quality
and integrity of design and
enhancement of the character of each
neighborhood.
Integrity of design is sacrificed due
to the effect of the squeezed-in lot.
The project does not enhance the
character of the neighborhood. In
fact, it detracts from it.
C.7 Evaluate each application for
development of property with regard to
the following specific criteria:
1. Site design quality which may
be indicated by the harmony of the
proposed buildings in terms of
size, height and location, with
respect to existing neighboring
development.
Proposed site design is not in
harmony with adjacent lots (see
Figures 1 and 2).
4. Drainage and Stormwater Issues
There are several drainage issues not yet addressed, and we have commented on this in
previous letters/hearings. There was also an introduction of cross-lot drainage because the proposed
parcel 2 raises the building pad in such a way as to introduce a new 2:1 slope to the south which
would cause water to drain onto our property. We were told that this will be taken care of but have
not been shown the changes. There is an increase to the amount of impervious area than in the
originally designed subdivision. Previously, water used to run at a gradual slope and therefore was
able to be retained in the ground (see Figure 6). As proposed, the entire graded pad will most likely
be covered with impervious material, a house. Also, water runoff will sheet off at a much greater
speed on the 2:1 slope and does not have the opportunity to be retained into the ground. Therefore,
Page 4
we a. no, convinced .at «, m- tne S»nn
Water Management P.an * «ne Lynn SubdMsfcn
ponds on top of the fill
should not be allowed on top of the
in his letter that the amount of
change from the current condition, which
tne atv, and we
this hasn't been studied further.
new bldg pad
squeezed in - prev
water retention areaoriginal bldg pad
reaof2:1 slope
- should not
count towards
density 100%
edqe or our pad
Figure 6 - View from our parcel
to the north. Note the large
amount of space for water
retention, which will disappear if
project is approved.
5. Density Calculations
We have problems with the
fifty percent of the portion of a site
utiMzed for calculating a.lowab 'e
this applies to natura slopes
21 53.230, clause d, "no more than
ii to forty percent slopes may bev code does lt state that
^ use the gross area of the site or
parts of the site have slopes greater than
"
" ! i *p i '. Rgure 7 - slope plan of
proposed subdivision - areas
• with slopes > 25% shown
shaded
Page 5
COPY
If only 50% of this area is allowed to be counted towards residential density, the developable lot
area is reduced from 18,230 to 17,045 square feet. Calculations are shown below.
2,370 (non-developable area, slopes over 25%) * 50% = 1,185 sf
18,230 (gross area) - 1,185 (from above) = 17,045 sf = actual developable area
17,045 sf = 0.39 acres
With two dwelling units, the density is greater than 5.
2 (dwelling units) / 0.39 acres = 5.13
6. Concluding Remarks
We would like to reiterate the sentiments expressed by Commissioner Montgomery at the last
hearing. He asked for the staff's reasoning for the increase in density under a general plan provision
and the exceptional findings as to why it should be granted. He also felt that the intent of the lot was
established with the previous subdivision.
The City of Carlsbad has set a strong vision in creating a harmonious and aesthetically pleasing
environment. We are pleased to see that a number of the City Council members have environmental
agendas and have demonstrated strong support for the environment. The simple fact is that this
project does not meet the density standards but has been given a bonus reserved for exceptional
cases. We understand that the City has used this bonus before, but not for projects with so much
opposition and with so many problems. It doesn't seem right that the City Carlsbad should reward a
project that lessens the character of Carlsbad - by 1) altering (for the worse) the historical drainage
patterns of the site and 2) modifies (for the worse) the unique character of this neighborhood.
Therefore, we strongly oppose the approval of this project, and hope that you understand and
support our position.
Sha-Li and Lawrence Lin; 2565 Riverwoods Road; Riverwoods IL 60015; 847 945 0007
Juintow Lin and Michael Fox 34586 Calle Naranja; Capistrano Beach CA 92624; 310 927 5022
Copy to:
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad CA 92008
Attn: Shelley Esteybar
Attachments:
Letter from Michael Benesh dated March 3, 2009
Page 6
ENGINEERING
Professional Civil Engineer and 1^ a n d Surveyor
March 3, 2009
Mr. Bill Lynn.
6585 Black Rail Road
Carlsbad, CA 92011
RE: RHOADES TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
Bill,
As you requested, I have reviewed the approved tentative map, the drainage study, the soils
report and the stormwater management plan for the above project. While technically, the
project meets the size requirements for creating the two lots, there are a number of troubling
issues which the City does not appear to have taken into account. They are as follows:
a) The drainage from Parcel 2 is concentrated at the southwest corner of the lot and
then dumped into a rip-rap dissipater. The result of this arrangement, if it is built as
indicated, will be to cause a fairly concentrated flow of water to exit the Rhoades
property at that location and flow down a slope onto the patio around Mr. Cardoza's
pool. The steepness of the slope will ensure that soil will erode and be deposited on
the patio and potentially in Mr. Cardoza's pool in any significant storm event. Even
in minor storm events Mr. Cardoza will be cleaning up silt pouring off the slope
onto his patio. The current drainage pattern has the water sheet flowing across the
entire property line between Mr. Cardoza and the Rhoades' property. While this has
caused some problems in the past, it is the natural drainage pattern for the site. The
proposed project drastically alters the drainage pattern and will cause many more
headaches for the property owners.
b) The exhibit submitted to planning to show that 3 cars could park on-site and turn
around, to avoid backing down the panhandle lot, is unworkable as submitted. The
24' by 28' turn around area is woefully lacking and will require a 3, 4 , 5 or 6 point
turn to back a 16' vehicle (A standard Ford Taurus is 16'-10" long. A Toyota Corolla
is 14'-11" long.) out of the garage and head it down the driveway. The attached copy
of the exhibit is superimposed with 16 foot long vehicles, and as you can see, there is
not adequate room to turn around. The city should have reviewed this document and
rejected it as inadequate.
c) The other copy of the exhibit shows approximately how much room is left on the
pad to build a home. The footprint including garage is about 1500 square feet. This
footprint leaves almost no usable flat area for any kind of yard, and limits the size of
home that can be built on the site. It will be the smallest most cramped house in the
404 SOUTH LIVE OAK PARK ROAD • FALLBROOK, CA 92028
PHONE: 760 731-6603 • FAX 760 897-2165 • E-MAIL: MBENESH@MLBENGINE ERING .COM
Lynn 090303 Rhoades PM - 2 - March 3, 2009
neighborhood. Compare the little patch of dirt I circled on the aerial photo with the
houses in the surrounding neighborhood. It really will not fit the character of the
surrounding lots.
d) The tentative map and stormwater management plan both indicate some sort of
detention basins on Parcel 2, located on top of the proposed fill slopes. The soils
report states that standing water should not be allowed on the top of the fill slopes.
The reason being the obvious increased potential for slope failure. Thus, the basins
would have to be lined, but who will ensure that they do not leak and cause a slope
failure? The homeowner will most likely not be qualified, nor have the equipment
nor the inclination to determine the integrity of the lining.
e) The stormwater management plan does not indicate any kind of treatment for the
runoff from the panhandle driveway. This will be paved and will potentially add
pollutants to the storm water.
f) The drainage study submitted for the project underestimates the impact of the
development on the downstream storm drain system. The calculations are are a
hodge-podge of assumptions and errors that come to the conclusion that there is
little impact, when in fact the impact is significant. The analysis is technical in nature,
but common sense alone would tell one that adding 2 additional lots worth of
drainage to a street that currently carries the drainage from about 10 other lots would
be about a 20% increase in flows. Currently, that AC berm is sized to carry only the
water from the paved south half of Triton and the lot on the corner where your old
house is located. The proposed parcel map is diverting the flows from the Rhoades'
property to Triton Place where it does not currently drain. This diversion will
significantly increase the storm runoff in Triton which will exceed the capacity of
the AC berm at the bottom of the street. At the very least the city should have
required the proponent of the Parcel Map to analyze the impacts and determine
what measures were necessary to mitigate them. Otherwise, how can the project have
a mitigated negative declaration approved?
In short there appear to many serious issues with the project that have not been addressed during
the tentative parcel map approval stage.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Benesh, P.E., L.S.
404 SOUTH LIVE OAK PARK ROAD • FALLBROOK, CA 92028
PHONE: 760 731-6603 • FAX 760 897-2165 • E-MAIL: MBENESH@MLBENG INHERING .COM
RHOADES CONCEPTUAL PARKING EXHIBIT
^RECEIVED
QCAnONFDomen
EX. 2' CURB
OPENING
EX. 15 VIEW
EASEMENT PER DOC. EX. DRAINAGE EASEMENT
2007-0611334, REC. PR 03-78 REC. 01/23,
9/18/07 ^AS INST. 2004-0052212
~? — -\— — \ \ V \
Exhibit for illustration purposes only and City of Carlsbad
Planning Review.
RHQAuES-PARKiNG-£XH.d*g Q7/21/2008 09:28 <G HOFMAN PLANNING AND ENQNEEfmTZOW
COPY
All Receive - Agenda Item # tZ.
For Information of
THE CITY COUNCIL,
CM CA S. CC ^
t/XDate 3 -<? From CWjS. Asst. CM_
8ECEEDWtE
MAR 9 2009
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
n\
y)
3-04-2009
TO: Bud Lewis, Mayor
FROM: William and Candace Lynn
6585 Black Rail Road
Carlsbad, CA 92011
760-931-2793
RE: CDP 08-06 RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION
March 10,2009-City of Carlsbad, City Council
We need your help! It is NOT FAIR!
A lot split is proceeding in our neighborhood. This is the RHOADES MINOR
SUBDIVISION. Every family in the area will agree that this lot split does not fit the
intent of our neighborhood. Even a current Carlsbad City Engineer stated that it DOES
NOT FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. If split, the "new" lot (Parcel 2) will barely be
8,000 sq. feet with slopes to be. used as front and back yards. We are also concerned
about drainage, fire protection, and a crowded look. We believe this is the smallest
panhandle lot ever allowed in Carlsbad. Two of the five voting Planning Commissioners,
(Commissioner Montgomery and Commissioner Whitton) agreed with our findings.
We are the original owners of the property and when we split our property into 4 lots,
your city planning commission told us these lots COULD NOT BE DIVIDED AGAIN!!
Now Mr. Bob Wojcik (HOFFMAN PLANNING), an ex-city engineer, has found a loop-
hole in your city ordinances which enables the Rhodes lot to be split. This loop-hole is
defined as an "EXCEPTIONAL FINDINGS". When our engineer ( MLB
ENGINEERING )tried to do this, we were denied the request in June,2004.
Mike Benish (MLB Engineering) has worked with every subdivision in our area. We
contacted him to review Mr. Wojcik's current plans for this "EXCEPTIONAL
FINDINGS" reason of allowing the Rhodes Subdivision to move forward. Commissioner
Montgomery also asked the same question, with a totally vague answer from Mr. Wojcik.
The following are MAJOR ISSUES which the City of Carlsbad does not appear to have
taken into account according to MLB ENGINEERING:
1. He is amazed that this panhandle lot is being considered an "EXCEPTIONAL
FINDINGS". WHY????
2. There is a major drainage problem that has not been addressed. The proposed Rhodes
project drastically alters the drainage pattern and will cause water to flow down their
steep slopes into the southern neighbor's backyard pool (Planning Commissioner Mike
Cardosa). This, also, is a storm water management violation.
3. The driveway of this panhandle lot does not work. You can not turn a typical car, such
as a Toyota, around.
4. The most interesting finding shows that the biggest house to be built on this panhandle
lot is 1500 square feet, including garage. This footprint leaves no usable flat area for any
kind of yard. IT WILL BE THE SMALLEST MOST CRAMPED HOUSE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
5. See attached for full report from MLB Engineering.
Lastly, the newly created pad (Panhandle lot) is in violation of a recorded view easement
(see attached highlighted map#l). This easement was signed and well disclosed before
current owners bought this property in the original lot design. We sold the original lot to
Rhoades and partner, because the City of Carlsbad would not let us split this property up
at that time, stating it would not fit our area! Now it seems unfair that they have changed
their policies!! ]
Rhoades and partner understood the wording on the view easement included no new
structures, such as a "newly" created lot. Parcel 2 is in violation of recorded view
easement and we are working with an attorney to issue a temporary restraining order and
permanent injunction, if needed.
s '"•• - " .*••
We have tried to cooperate with HOFFMAN PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
(Michele Alves) and current owners and they don't seem to care!
Over the years we have always worked cooperatively with the city of Carlsbad and always
abided with their restrictions and policies. We feel strongly that the city is letting this slip
through without much concern! Please look at this with a careful concern to our
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Bill and Candace Lynn
03/04/2009 12:48 FAX 7608972165 0005/006
ENGINEERING
Prefe ssie nal Civil Exgineir and Land Surveyor
March 3,2009
Mr.BiIlI.ynn.
6585 Black Kail Road
Carlsbad, CA 92011
RE: RHOADES TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
Bill,
As you requested, I have reviewed the approved tentative map, die drainage study, the seals
report and the stormwater management plan for the above project While technically, the
project meets the size requirements for creating the two lots, there arc a number of troubling
issues which the City does not appear to haver taken into account They are as follows:
N **"
a) The drainage from Parcel 2 is concentrated at the southwest corner of the lot and
then dumped into a rip-rap dissipater. The result of this arrangement, if it is built as
indicated, will be to cause a fairly concentrated flow of water to exit the Rhoades
property at that location and flow down a slope onto the patio around Mr. Cardoza's
pool The steepness of the slope will ensure that soil will erode and be deposited on
the patio and potentially in Mr, Cardoza's pool in any significant storm event. Even
in minor storm events Mr. Cardooa will be cleaning up silt pouring off the slope
onto his patio. The current drainage pattern has the water sheet flowing across the
entire property Hue between Mr. Cardosa and the Rhoades7 property. While this has
caused some problems in the past it is the natural drainage pattern for the site. The
proposed project drastically altets the drainage pattern and will cause many more
headaches for the property owners.
b) The exhibit submitted to planning to show that 3 cats could park on-site and turn
around, to avoid backing down the panhandle lot, is unworkable as submitted. The
24' by 28' turn around area is woefully kcking and wifl require a 3, 4 , 5 or 6 point
mm to back a 16s vehicle (A standard Ford Taurus is 16'-10" long. A Toyota Corolla
is 14"-11" long-) out of the garage and head it down the driveway. The attached copy
of the exhibit is superimposed with 16 foot long vehicles, and as you can see, there is
not adequate room to turn around. The city should have reviewed this document and
rejected it as inadequate.
c) The other copy of the exhibit shows approximately how much room is left on the
pad to build a home. The footprint including garage is about 1500 square feet This
footprint leaves almost no usable flat area for any kind of yard, and limits the size of
home that can be built on the site. It will be the smallest most cramped house in the
404 SOUTH LIVR OAK PARK ROAD • FALLBROOK, CA 92028
PHONK: 760 731-6603 • HAX 760 897-2165 • K-MAILi MBENESH@MJ.BKNGINEERING.COM
03/04/2009 12:46 FAX 7G08972165 0002/006
Lynn 090303 Rhoades PM -2-
neighborhood. Compare the little patch of dirt I citded on the aerial photo with the
houses in the surrounding neighborhood. It realty 'will not fit the character of the
surrounding lots,
d) The tentative map and stortnwater management plan both indicate some sort of
detention basins on Parcel 2, located on top of the proposed fill slopes. The soils
report states that standing water should not be allowed on the top of the till slopes.
The reason being the obvious increased potential for slope failure Thus, die basins
would have to be lined, but who will ensure that they do not leak and cause a slope
failure? The homeowner will most likely not be qualified, nor have the equipment
nor the inclination to determine the integrity of the lining
e) The stormwatcr management plan does not indicate any kind of treatment for the
runoff from the panhandle driveway. This will be paved and will potentially add
pollutants to the storm water.
f) The drainage study submitted for the project underestimates the impact of the
development on the downstream storm drain system. The calculations are are a
hodge-podge of. assumptions and errors that come to the conclusion that there is
little impact, when in fact the impact is significant The analysis is technical in nature,
but common sense alone would tell one that adding 2 additional lots worth of
drainage to a street that currently carries the drainage from about 10 other lots would
be about a 20% increase in flows. Currently, that AC berm is sized to carry only the
water from the paved south half of Triton and me lot on the comer where your old
house is located. The proposed parcel map is diverting the flows from the Rhoades'
property to Triton Place where it does not currently drain. This diversion will
significantly increase the storm runoff in Triton which will exceed the capacity of
the AC berm at the bottom of die street At the very least me city should have
required the proponent of the Parcel Map to analyze the impacts and determine
what measures were necessary to mitigate them. Otherwise, how can the project have
a mitigated negative declaration approved?
In short there appear to many serious issues with the project that have not been addressed during
the tentative parcel map approval stage.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Benesh, RE., L.S.
404 SOUTH MVK OAK PARK ROAD • FALLBROOK, CA 52028
PHONE: 760 731-6603 • 1»AX 760 897-2165 • R-MAIL: MBHNHSH@MLBENGINEERING.COM
03/04/2009 12:47 FAX 7608972165 0004/006
RHOADES CXWCEFTUAL PARKING EXHIBIT
Exhibit for f/lusfrotfon purposes only and Cfty of Carlsbad
Planning Review.
f&CAZES-PAHKMG-EXH.d*? 07/2'/2008 09:28 (C HOFHAN PLANNING AND ENGINEERING 2008
, AA
A^Qd Papier
RODRIQUEZ MARK&DEBBIE
1587 MARITIME DR
CARLSBAD CA 92011
•f of d**ys$«t fttttice $ j
KANG-PARKHYE SEUNG
15 83 MARITIME DR
CARLSBADCA92011
FINK GAYLE M
1604 CORTE ORCHIDIA
CARLSBADCA92011
RUDVALIS BARBARA G TR
PO BOX 13 0665
CARLSBADCA92013
MORNING RIDGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSN
2131 LAS PALM AS DR # A
CARLSBADCA92011
POLLARD ALLAN&DEBRA
1564 TRITON ST
CARLSBADCA92011
J N G ASSOCIATES
2040 N BELT LINE RD #400
MESQUITETX75150
AVIARA BLACK RAIL ROAD 16 L
LC
9968 HIBERT ST #102 SAN
DIEGO CA 92131
BUSS TROY D&ANN C
1599MARITIMEDR
OARLSBADCA92011
RUSH FAMILY TRUST 05-05-97
6494 FAIRWATER PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MCGEE FAMILY TRUST 04-22-00
6499 FAIRWATER PL
CARLSBADCA92011
READ RANDALL C&DATTA-
READ PIEW
4133KARSTRD
CARLSBADCA92010
SASS LIVING TRUST 06-02-97
5680 GARLAND LN
GREENDALEWI53129
RIVERA DORY M
1603 MARITIME DR
CARLSBADCA92011
GRAUER NANCY M
6607 SITIO SAGO
CARLSBADCA92011
OLSEN MICHAEL&JOY
1607 MARITIME DR
CARLSBADCA92011
REDEEMER BY THE SEA
LUTHERAN CHURCH OF
CARLSBAD
6600 BLACK RAIL RD
CARLSBADCA92011
LINDQUIST DEVELOPMENT CO
INC
9968 HIBERT ST# 102
SAN DIEGO C A 92131
VARRIN ALBERT&AGNES E
TRUST A 01-18-80 ETAL
1595 MARITIME DR
CARLSBADCA92011
HOLINGER THOMAS A
6498 FAIRWATER PL
CARLSBADCA920H-.
MASTR ASSET BACKED
SECURITIES TRUST 2007-HE2
4837 WATT AVE
NORTH HIGHLANDS CA 95660
MARKS DANIEL S&JUDITH A
FAMILY LIVING TRUST 12-2
1579 MARITIME DR
CARLSBADCA92011
CRIDER FAMILY TRUST 06-14-05
1575 MARITIME DR
CARLSBADCA92011
COLEMAN FAMILY TRUST 02-20-
08
1403 GLEN OAKS BLVD
PASADENACA91105
UENDEAU CHR1STOPHER&T1NA
6611 SITIO SAGO
CARLSBADCA92011
3ILSKY FAMILY 2005 TRUST 10-
27-05
6617 SITIO SAGO
CARLSBADCA92011
WELLS DAVID S&SALLY J
FAMILY TRUST 10-21-04
6625 SITIO SAGO
CARLSBADCA92011
AVIARA MASTER ASSN
2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
#206CARLSBAD CA 92011
PEDRAZZANI
ALESSANDRO&TRACY
1615 MARITIME DR
CARLSBADCA92011
BAZLER LISA
1560 TRITON ST
CARLSBADCA92011
He/•harnomant
Coj le m
AaaAV-OD-008-l
Cardosa Michael J and Cardosa
Nancy C
6579 Black Rail Rd.
Carlsbad, CA 92011
ep ujje amipeq B| ? zai|dau
William and Candace Lynn
6585 Black Rail Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
ap suas }ueqe6 a|
Cosby Bruce W Trust
6609 Sitio Cedrela Rd
Carlsbad, CA 9201 1
Ganci-Ryan Michael G and Laurene
M Family
6613 Sitio Cedrela Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Dandrea John A
6615 Sitio Cedrela Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Smith Ana V
6619 Sitio Cedrela Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Thomas Stanley and Wagoner Ellie
6624 Sitio Cedrela Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Bolton
6583 Black Rail Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Homer Edward W and Homer Mardi
B
6608 Sitio Cedrela Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
McKesson Steven A and McKesson
Britta
6610 Sitio Cedrela Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Cooke Family
6614 Sitio Cedrela Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Ewing Ian and Family Diane
6618 Sitio Cedrela Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Aurigemma
6620 Sitio Cedrela Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Monaco Joseph and Monaco Nancy
S
6600 Sitio Sago Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Reynoso Carmelo and Reynoso
Bettina
6603 Sitio Sago Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Dimech Paul J
6608 Sitio Sago Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Shei Ker-Yen Shei Lin-Hwa
6618 Sitio Sago Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Jng Associates
1572 Triton St Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Francis Mark
1580 Triton St Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Sierra Santiago A Sierra Virginia T
1588 Triton St Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Abi-Samara
1596 Triton St Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Barbosa Robert J Jr Barbosa
Jennifer M
6604 Sitio Sago Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Predki Paul F Predki Kathryn J
6612 Sitio Sago Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Sass
6622 Sitio Sago Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
McNair James P McNair Rachelle R
1576 Triton St Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Willardson Family Trust
1584 Triton St Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Michael J and Amy Francek
1592 Triton St Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Kim Paul
1598 Triton St Rd
Carlsbad, CA 92011
i wj.0965 <§)A£I3AV nia6p3 dn-dod asodxa
01 auii 6uoie Duan
jadej paaj ®091S
Easy Peel Labels
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
• ^
J^Feed Paper
See Instruction Sheet j
for Easy Peel Feature ^
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DISTRICT
STE 250
255 PICO AVE
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
AVERY®5160®
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DISTRICT
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DISTRICT
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DIST
TIM JOCHEN
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OLIVENHAIN WATER DISTRICT
1966OLIVENHAINRD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AV
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA
600 EUCALYPTUS AVE
VISTA CA 92084
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
201 VALLECITOS DE ORO
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AV
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STEB
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
10124 OLD GROVE RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92131
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
ATTN TEDANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
5934 PRIESTLEY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
SCOTT MOLLOY - BIASD
STE 110
9201 SPECTRUM CENTER BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1407
Etiquettes faciles a peler
lltilka? la nahar!* AWCOV®
Consultez la feuille www.averv.com
Easy Peel Labels
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
LIN LAWRENCE I&SHA-LI Y
2565 RIVERWOODS RD
RIVER WOODS IL 60015
Ned Good
#600
70 S Lake Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91101-2601
See Instruction Sheet'
for Easy Peel Feature ^,
A •••
Paper •""••
CONNER RICK&KRISTEN
6575 BLACK RAIL RD
CARLSBADCA92011
California Coastal Commission
Suite 103
7575 Metropolitan Drive
San Diego, CA 92108-4402
SD County Dept. of Planning
Suite B
5201 Ruffm Rd.
San Diego, CA 92123
Etiquettes faciles a peler
Utilise? \f aaharit AWCDV® c-icn®Consultez la feuille www.averv.rnm
8(EdSLBDWDE
JAN 1 6 2009
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
^M
\y
January 15, 2009
City of Carlsbad
City Council Members
RE: Appeal to City Council on CDP 08-06 Rhodes Minor Sub-Division
Carlsbad City Officials:
This letter is written on behalf of several residents in the area of the
referenced project. We disapprove of the proposed minor sub
division of this parcel. This letter shall serve as our request of appeal
to the city council, and wish to have our comments heard. Below are
a few issues that we would like to discuss and believe the planning
department has overlooked. Each item will be explained further to
the Council members.
The proposed minor subdivision has a current net square footage on
parcel #2 that is not consistent with past projects and current
standards. Additionally, the standard being applied to the proposed
sub-division is in direct conflict with an adjacent project and the
standards that were applied to that parcel.
The proposed subdivion is not in harmony with the current scheme of
the neighborhood and is in conflict with current language in the
general plan.
There is currently an injunction being filed on the parcel. The
injunction will prevent any further development as it relates to any
permanent improvement made in relation to the recorded easement
on parcel # 2, thus making the parcel undividable.
Also enclosed is the fee required for the appeal process. Please
contact the following residents for any additional information required.
We are requesting to be heard at the March 31 2009, Council
meeting. The neighborhood has a meeting scheduled before, and
one appellant is flying back and forth form Chicago on each occasion.
Scheduling flights in advance is an issue.
Sincerely,
Sha-Li Lin Michael Franchek
Mailing address on file 1592 Triton Road
E-Mail: shalilin@vahoo.com Carlsbad, CA 92011
Home: 1 -847-945-0007 760-931-6011
William and Candice Lynn
6585 Black Rail Road Rick and Kristen Conner
Carlsbad, CA 92011 6575 Black Rail Road
No E-Mail Carlsbad, CA 92011
760-931 -2793 760-594-6300
REC'D FROM
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Cashier: (760) 602-2401
Water Utility Billing: (760) 602-2420
DATE _
^y Printed on recycled paper.
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY
CASH REGISTER
TOTAL
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Introduction
•These are several reasons we feel this project should not have
been approved.
1.Project does not fit the intent of the neighborhood
2.It was awarded a density bonus because of exceptional findings. The
project has not demonstrated that it merits exceptional status.
3.This is a controversial project with much opposition from surrounding
properties.
4.Violates the view easement on record –prohibits improvements on
southern 15’ of property
5.Has several stormwater and drainage problems
6.Is not in line with the General Plan of Carlsbad
7.Questionable Density Calculations, even with the bonus
8.Demonstrates preferential treatment from the City of Carlsbad
9.Sets a bad precedent
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Project Does Not Fit the Intent of the Neighborhood
•Modifies (for the worse) the unique character of this neighborhood of
larger, spacious lots
•House will be the smallest and most cramped in neighborhood
•House will not have a yard
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Project Does Not Fit the Intent of the Neighborhood
•The Planning
Commission
used a larger
view of the
neighborhood
to determine
the site
context
•We believe, as
Commissioner
Montgomery
expressed, a
smaller view
should be
used
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Project Does Not Fit the Intent of the Neighborhood
•The
perception of
this place
(Lynn Minor
Subdivision)
is very
spacious and
open, and
not like
smaller lots
common to
the area.
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Project Does Not Fit the Intent of the Neighborhood
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Project Does Not Fit the Intent of the Neighborhood
•Here is the
proposed project
•It looks as if an
extra lot has
been crammed
in.
•We ask you -if
the original Lynn
Minor
Subdivision had
proposed such
an awkward plan
(w/ two
panhandle lots),
would it have
been approved?
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Project Does Not Fit the Intent of the Neighborhood
•The Lins purchased this lot in 2007 with the intention of building a
custom-designed house and retiring to Carlsbad.
•We chose this lot because it was large, ½ acre, and very spacious.
•The spacious and unique character which initially attracted us to
this site and neighborhood could be severely compromised, if the
proposed project is realized.
•
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Project Does Not Fit the Intent of the Neighborhood
•We thought
that our
neighbor’s
house would
be at least
130 feet
away
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Project Does Not Fit the Intent of the Neighborhood
•It could be as
close as 55
feet away.
•We are
limited to a
height
restriction of
10 feet in
terms of what
we can plant
within a view
easement
between the
two lots.
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
•Proposed project density is 4.76 which exceeds the Growth
Management Control Point of 3.2 dwelling units per acre.
•The planning department utilized a provision which states that
“there are exceptional cases where the base zone is consistent
with the land use designation but would permit a slightly higher
yield than that recommended.”
–The project is not compatible with the City of Carlsbad land use
objectives
–It does not permit a slightly higher yield, but in fact doubles the
density.
Exceptional Status
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Substandard Lot –Exceptional Status?
•What is so exceptional about this project that it should be granted a
density bonus? It barely meets the standards, if at all, of the
following criterion:
–Buildable area
–House size
–General plan objectives
–Parking and turnaround conditions
–Drainage and stormwater issues
•Commissioner Montgomery asked for the staff’s reasoning for the
increase in density under a general plan provision and the
exceptional findings as to why it should be granted.This question
has not been answered
•This project is too far from Carlsbad’s vision and it is not clear what
particulars afford this project “exceptional status”.
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Substandard Lot –Exceptional Status?
•It would be very
difficult to build a
home on this lot
(buildable area shown
shaded)
•The footprint including
garage is about 1,500
square feet.
•The house would
most likely fill the
entire building pad,
leaving no room for a
yard.
•View easement
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Substandard Lot –Exceptional Status?
•All the other
houses in the
area have
yards
•Why should
this lot be
given
exceptional
status when
it does not
even afford
the owner a
yard?
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Substandard Lot –Exceptional Status?
•No yard
possible if
house fills the
pad.
•The rest of
the site is
driveway or
2:1 slope
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Substandard Lot –Exceptional Status?
•Here we’ve zoomed into the neighborhood of larger lots that we
consider to be the correct context.
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Other Panhandle lots are bigger
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Substandard Lot –Exceptional Status?
•Parking
turnaround does
not really work as
drawn
•Note the cars
shown have
actually gone
beyond the
turnaround area.
•This document
should have been
rejected by the
City
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Controversial Project
•The planning commission voted 3:2 against the appeal. There was
doubt expressed by Commissioners Montgomery and Whitton.
•All the adjacent neighbors in the original Lynn Minor Subdivision are
strongly against this project and are trying to appeal this project.
•Many other neighbors are opposed and have written letters to the
City
•Has there ever been a case where a density bonus has been
awarded with so much opposition?
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
View Easement
•There is a view easement
on record that states that
no temporary or
permanent improvements
are allowed on the
southern 15’ of the
property
•Only exceptions named
in the easement are a 6’
fence and some
trees/shrubs
•Grading is considered an
improvement
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Drainage and Stormwater Issues
•This project has
several drainage and
stormwater issues
–There is an
increase to the
amount of
impervious area
than originally
designed
–Wwater used to run
at a gradual slope.
The water runoff, as
proposed, will sheet
off at a much
greater speed on
the 2:1 slope and
does not have the
opportunity to be
retained into the
ground.
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Drainage and Stormwater Issues
•We are not convinced that this meets the Storm Water Management Plan
for the Lynn Subdivision.
•Michael Benesh’s letter dated March 3, 2009
–Historically, water has drained across the entire property line between the
proposed project and the Cordoza lot.
–Proposed project concentrates the runoff in the southwest corner, resulting in soil
degradation due to steepness of slope
–Proposed plan is calling for retention ponds on top of the fill slope
–Soils report states that standing water should not be allowed on top of the fill
slope.
–Retention ponds will further reduce the available space for a house
–Stormwater quantity being diverted to Triton Way would be a significant change
from the current condition, causing problems with stormwater capacity at the
bottom of the street.
–There may be increased levels of pollutants draining to the street from the
driveway on the proposed panhandle lot.
•These drainage issues can have serious consequences to the City of
Carlsbad, and we don’t understand why this hasn’t been studied further.
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Project does not meet General Plan Objectives
Element Goals, objectives and
implementing policies &
action programs
Comments
Goals A.1 A City which preserves and
enhances the environment,
character and image of itself as
a desirable residential, beach
and open space oriented
community.
A.2 A City which provides for an
orderly balance of both public
and private land uses within
convenient and compatible
locations throughout the
community and ensures that all
such uses, type, amount, design
and arrangement serve to
protect and enhance the
environment, character and
image of the City.
Proposed subdivision does not
provide orderly balance. It
also does not enhance the
environment; rather, the
water retention issues and
increased density of
development negatively
impact the environment. It
reduces the amount of open
space.
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Project does not meet General Plan Objectives
Objectives B.1 To create a distinctive sense
of place and identity for each
community and neighbor-hood
of the City through the
development and arrangement
of various land use components.
Area of existing development is
a distinctive place due to
larger lots. The proposed
development is in contrast
to this distinctive, special
nature.
Implementing
Policies
And Action
Programs
C.1 Arrange land uses so that they
preserve community identity
and are orderly, functionally
efficient, healthful,convenient
to the public and aesthetically
pleasing.
Proposed subdivision is not
orderly and definitely not
functionally efficient (esp.
panhandle parcel).
Implementing
Policies And
Action
Programs
C.2 Establish development
standards for all land use
categories that will preserve
natural features and
characteristics,especially
those within rural, coastal
and/or hillside areas.
Proposed subdivision does not
preserve the natural slope.
It has additional grading. In
fact, it significantly alters
the historical drainage
patterns and increases
stormwater runoff.
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Project does not meet General Plan Objectives
Implementing
Policies
And Action
Programs
C.6 Review the architecture of
buildings with the focus on
ensuring the quality and
integrity of design and
enhancement of the character
of each neighborhood.
Integrity of design is sacrificed
due to the effect of the
squeezed-in lot. The project
does not enhance the
character of the
neighborhood. In fact, it
detracts from it.
Implementing
Policies And
Action
Programs
C.7 Evaluate each application for
development of property with
regard to the following specific
criteria:
1. Site design quality which
may be indicated by the
harmony of the proposed
buildings in terms of size,
height and location, with
respect to existing
neighboring development.
Proposed site design is not in
harmony with adjacent lots
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
•According to 21.53.230, clause d,
“no more than fifty percent of
the portion of a site containing
twenty-five to forty percent
slopes may be utilized for
calculating allowable
residential density.”
•Please note that this clause of the
code does not refer to natural
slopes, as does section
21.53.230, clause b4.
•Therefore, it is not correct to use
the gross area of the site, or 0.42
acres for this calculation.
–On the existing site, some parts
of the site have slopes greater
than 25%.
–We calculated this area with
slopes over 25% to be 2,370
square feet (see figure 7).
Density Calculations
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Density Calculations
•If only 50% of this area is allowed to be counted towards residential density, the developable lot area is reduced from 18,230 to 17,045 square feet. Calculations are shown below.
2,370 (non-developable area, slopes over 25%) * 50% = 1,185 sf
18,230 (gross area) –1,185 (from above) = 17,045 sf = actual developable area
17,045 sf = 0.39 acres
With two dwelling units, the density is greater than 5.
2 (dwelling units) / 0.39 acres = 5.13
•We can also illustrate this using the equation from section 21.53.230, clause e of the code, shown below. In this case, we have used the maximum allowable density (includes 25% overage) and according to table A, should be rounded down to the nearest whole number which is 1 dwelling unit.
developable lot area (in acres) x density = unit yield
0.39 x 5 = 1.95
1.95 rounds down to 1
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Unfair and Preferential Treatment
•Bill Lynn was not allowed to declare exceptional findings on this
same site in 2004. However, an ex-city engineer from Hofman
Planning has found a way to do this in 2008/2009
•Buildable Area
–We were informed that we were to calculate the build-able lot area
based on slopes less than 2:1 -inclusive of ALL slopes and not
restricted to natural slopes.
–This differing interpretation is what limited us severely in our
design approach and what has allowed this new subdivision to be
possible.
•We do not feel that the treatment of the various parties has been
fair.
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Sets a Bad precedent
•Commissioner Montgomery thought that the intent of the lot was
established with the previous subdivision.
•Sets the stage for approved minor subdivisions to be split again and
again.
•If the density bonus is utilized for this project, won’t it be used for all
future projects seeking planning approval?
–If and when the horse property to the west is split, won’t they request a
density bonus too?
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Concluding Remarks
•Project should never have been approved
1.The project has not demonstrated that it merits exceptional status.
2.Project does not fit the intent of the neighborhood
3.This project has too much opposition to be afforded exceptional status.
4.Violates the view easement on record
5.Has several stormwater and drainage problems
6.Is not in line with the General Plan of Carlsbad
7.Questionable Density Calculations
8.Demonstrates preferential treatment from the City of Carlsbad
9.Sets a bad precedent
March 10, 2009Appeal to City Council and Mayor re: Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Concluding Remarks –Exceptional Status
•Why is this density bonus warranted?
•How is this project beneficial to the City?
•“During the last hearing, Commissioner Montgomery asked for the
staff’s reasoning for the increase in density under a general plan
provision and the exceptional findings as to why it should be
granted.”This question has not been answered
•It doesn’t seem right that Carlsbad should reward a project that
lessens the character of the City.
•Therefore, we strongly oppose the approval of this project, and hope
that you understand and support our position.
Rhoades Minor Subdivision
Appeal
CDP 08-06
Minor Coastal Development Permit
Location Map
POINSETTIA LN
BLACK RAIL RDTRITON ST
ZEPHYR CT
SITIO SAGO SITIO CEDRELA CDP 08-06
Rhoades Minor Subdivision
SITE MAP
EL CAMINO REA
L
LA COSTA AVCOLLEGE B LCARLSBAD
BLAVIA
R
A PY ME
LROSE
DR
General Plan: RLM
Zoning:
R-1-7,500-Q.42
acres
POINSETTIA LN
BLACK RAIL RDTRITON ST
ZEPHYR CT
SITIO SAGO SITIO CEDRELA 0 100 20050
Feet
CDP 08-06
Rhoades Minor
Subdivision
Water
Facility
Existing
Church
CDP 08-06 Request
Site: .42 acres
Zoning: R-1-7,500-Q
Proposal:2 minimum
8,343 sq. ft. lots
including one
panhandle lot.
View facing south
View facing southeast
View facing northwest
View facing west
Project Background
October 15, 2008 –The Planning Director
Approved CDP 08-06. A timely appeal to
Planning Commission was later submitted.
January 7, 2009 –The Planning Commission
voted 3-2-2 to deny the appeal.
January 16, 2009 -four household neighbors
filed a timely appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision to City Council
Appeal to City Council
Reason #1:
The proposed net square footage on Parcel #2
is not consistent with past projects and current
standards. Additionally, the standard being
applied to the proposed subdivision is in conflict
with the standards applied to the project
proposed on the adjacent parcel.
R-1-7,500-Q Zoning Ordinance
Consistency
STANDARD REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROPOSED
Lot Size 7,500 square feet minimum Parcel 1:8,343 sq. ft.
Parcel 2: 8,081 sq. ft
Lot Width 60 feet minimum Parcel 1: 93 ft.
Parcel 2: 80 ft.
Buildable Area (Excluding
environmentally sensitive
/undevelopable lands listed under
Section 21.53.230)
Parcel 1: 7,500 sq. ft. min.
Parcel 2 (Panhandle Lot): 8,000
sq. ft. min. in zone districts
permitting less than 10,000 sq.
ft.
Parcel 1:8,343 sq. ft.
Parcel 2:8,081 sq. ft.
Panhandle (PH)Width 20 feet minimum 20 feet
PH Length 150 max 90.23 feet
PH paved driveway width 14 feet minimum 14 feet
Appeal to City Council
Reason #2:
The proposed subdivision is not in harmony with
the current scheme of the neighborhood and is
in conflict with current language in the general
plan.
71,438.40
square
feet
7,596
square feet
General Plan Land Use
Compliance
RLM Density Range: 0-4 du/acre
Growth Management Control Pt: 3.2 du/acre
Proposed Density: 4.76 du/acre
General Plan provision allows projects
designated RLM to go up to 25% above top of the
density range (4 du/acre* 1.25 = 5 du/acre)
R-1-7,500 allows 7,500 sq. ft. min. lot sizes
1 Acre = 43,560 sq. ft.
43,560 sq. ft. divided by 7,500 sq. ft. = 5.8 du/acre
Appeal to City Council
Reason #3:
There is an injunction being filed in relation to
the recorded easement on Parcel #2.
Private View
Easement
Total Square feet:
Approx. 1,693.20
sq. ft.
Setback: 15 feet
from south property
line
Project Consistency
2.Growth Management Ordinance
1.Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General Plan
Land Use Designation
4. One-Family Residential, Qualified Development
Overlay Zone (R-1-7,500-Q)
3. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and
the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
Recommendation
ADOPT City Council Resolution No. 2009-048,
DENYING the appeal to City Council and
upholding the Planning Commission’s decision
to DENY the appeal to Planning Commission
and uphold the decision of the Planning
Director to APPROVE Coastal Development
Permit application No. CDP 08-06.
View facing west
View facing south (northwest corner)
-
Th~s space is fr le County Clerk's Filing Stamp
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
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 matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer
of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-
Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of
Escondido, Court ~ecree number 171349, for .the
County of San Diego, that the notice of which the
annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpariel), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
February 27th, 2009
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at OCEANSIDE, California
/7
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Proof of Publication of
NorlCE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTiCE IS HEREBY GIVEN to youthat the Ci Council of the City of Carisbad wtll hold a pu%iic heailn at the Council Chambers 1200 Carlsbad Vllla e8rive. Carlsbad. California. ai 6:00 p.m. on ~ues8ay March 10 2009 to consider denying an appeal and uphoidingihe ~IAnnin Cam mission's declslon to deny the appeal to ~?~~~!~g CommiSSlOn and uphold the dscision of the Plann~ng Diiector to ap rove Coastal Development Permit ap- plication No ~DP 08-06 on pro erly generally locat- ed on the south side of Triton Rreet west of Mack Rail Road sovth of Poinsenia Lane 'and within the Mello Ii Sigment ot the CiYs Local doastal Program and more particularly described as:
Parcel 1 of Parcel Ma No 19411 in the Clx qf Carlsbad County of &n 01s o State of Cal or nla, assoidins to map thereo?llb in the olticc of the Coun Recorder of Ssn Dlego County, Janu- ary 23.20%
Those ersons wishing to speak an this proposal are cordial6 invited to anend the public hearin Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and afer~arch 6 2009. If YOU have any questions please call Shel- fj2~ygIyYbar in the Planning De6artment at (760)
if you challenge the Coastal Development Permit in
court, YOU may be limited to raising on1 those issues you or someone else raised at the pubk hearin de scr~bed in this notice or in wrinen correspandtenc; delivered to the City of Carlsbad, ,Ann: C Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Dnve, ~arl%ad. CA 92008, at or prlor to the publlc hearing.
CASE FiLECDP 08-06 CASE NAME:RHOADES MINOR SUBDIVISION PUBLISH: FEBRUARY 27.2009 NCT2200222 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL