Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 99-32; Jensen Single Family Residence; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (2)City of Carlsbad Planning Department April 11,2001 Mr. Jon Jensen 451 S. Escondido Blvd Escondido CA 92025 SUBJECT: CDP 99-32 - JENSEN RESIDENCE - PROPOSED ADDITIONS Dear Jon: Thanks for your input regarding the potential processing of your proposed basement habitable floor area expansion. As stated in the February 20, 2001 correspondence from the Planning Department (copy attached), the appropriate mechanism to allow the basement floor area expansion is an amendment to the Coastal Development Permit that approved the original residence (CDP 99-32). After more detailed review of the approved exhibits for CDP 99-32, most notably Exhibit "C", dated March 15, 2000, the single family residence will be located within 50 feet of the edge of the coastal bluff. Therefore, according to Section 21.201.060(A)(1 )(b), any proposed improvement to the single-family structure would necessitate a Coastal Development Permit Amendment. The submittal requirements for the Coastal Development Permit Amendment would consist of: a site plan, landscape plan, building floor plans, building elevations, completed application forms (attached) and the appropriate fee. As of today, the Coastal Development Permit Amendment fee is 50 percent of the original permit fee ($740.00 x 0.50 = $370.00). The amendment would need to be heard by the Planning Commission, however given the relatively simple nature of the permit, processing should proceed relatively quickly. Your letter dated March 16, 2001 states that the potential expansion of basement floor area was discussed at the Planning Commission hearing for the single-family house (CDP 99-32 on March 15, 2000). The minutes of that meeting are attached and contain no mention of that discussion. However, given the information currently available, staff does not anticipate any issues with the proposed expansion. Regarding the pending minor Coastal Development Permit application for debris removal on the coastal bluff, the geotechnical statement is under review by the Planning and Engineering Departments and comments will be returned shortly. Thank you again for your clarification requests. I hope that the information provided to you is clear and understandable. Sincerely, MICHAEL GRIF Senior Planner Attachments c: Chris DeCerbo 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us City of Carlsbad Planning Department February 20, 2001 Mr. Jon Jensen 451 S Escondido Blvd Escondido CA 92025 SUBJECT: CDP 99-32 - JENSEN RESIDENCE - PROPOSED ADDITIONS Dear Jon: I received your voicemail regarding the procedure needed to expand the livable floor area in the basement of your future home located at 5319 Carlsbad Boulevard and approved though Coastal Development Permit CDP 99-32. Please find attached the pertinent sections of the Carlsbad Municipal Code addressing the expansion of floor areas in the Coastal Zone (Section 21.201.030 et seq.). Since your property is located between the sea and the first public road, any proposed improvement(s) that would result in an increase of ten percent or more of internal floor area of an existing structure would require the processing of a Coastal Development Permit Amendment. Even though the code mentions "existing structure", you may process the CDP Amendment at any time. I hope this information is helpful in your house expansion efforts. The Carlsbad Municipal Code is also available on the City's website at www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us. Sincerely, MICHAEL GRIT Senior Planner Attachment c: Chris DeCerbo Clyde Wickham David Rick File Copy 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 21.201.010 Chapter 21201 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCEDURES Coastal development permits issued by Coastal Commission. 21201240 Violations of the Public Resources Code. Sections: 21201.010 21201.020 21201.030 21201.040 21201.050 21201.060 21201.070 21201.080 21201.090 21201.100 21201.110 21201.120 21201.130 21201.140 21201.150 21201.160 21201.170 21201.180 21201.190 21201200 21201210 21201220 Purpose. Definitions. Requirements for coastal development permits. Application. Determination of applicable notice and hearing procedures. Exemptions and categorical exclusions from coastal development permit proce- dures. Repair and maintenance activities requiring a coastal development permit Minor coastal permits. Notice of public hearings. Notice of local government action where hearing contin- ued. Planning commission action. Appeal of planning commission decision. Appeals to Coastal Commis- sion. Exhaustion of local appeals. Public hearing on appealable Finality of cfty action. Notice of final city action. Local government ac- tion—Effective date. Application for emergency permits. Expiration of the coastal development permit Extensions. Permit amendment 21201.010 Purpose. This chapter establishes the permit procedures for developments located in the coastal zone. This chap- ter is based on the local coastal program implemen- tation regulations adopted by the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 30620.6 and 30333, and as such shall con- stitute the minimum procedural requirements for review of developments in the coastal zone pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30600 (d). (Ord. NS-365 § 20 (part), 1996) 21201.020 Definitions. A. "Aggrieved person" means any person who, in person or through a representative, appeared at a public hearing of the city in connection with the decision or action appealed, or who, by other appro- priate means prior to a hearing, informed the city of the nature of his concerns or who for good cause was unable to do either. B. "Allowable use" means any use allowed by right which does not require a public hearing or any discretionary or nondiscretionary permit of the ap- proving authority. C. "Appealable development" means in accor- dance with Public Resources Codes Section 30603(a), any of the following: 1. Developments approved by the local govern- ment between the sea and the first public road paral- leling the sea or within three hundred feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance. 2. Developments approved by the local govern- ment not included within subsection (CXI) of this section located on tidelands, submerged lands, pub- lic trust lands, within one hundred feet of any wetland, estuary, stream or within three hundred feet of the top of die seaward face of any coastal bluff. 814-19 (Qriibad 12-96) 21.201.040 detailed review pursuant to this chapter, a legal description of the property and all other materials and information specified by the director. B. At the time of filing the application the appli- cant shall pay a processing fee in an amount speci- fied by city council resolution. C. Unless the property has previously been legal- ly subdivided and no further subdivision is required the application shall be accompanied by a tentative map which shall be filed with the director in accor- dance with procedures set forth in Chapter 20.12 of this code. If the project contains four or less lots or units, the application shall be accompanied by a tentative parcel map which shall be filed with the city engineer in accordance with procedures set forth in Chapter 20.24 of this code. D. Whenever the development would require a permit or approval under the provisions of this title, notwithstanding this chapter, the application shall include sufficient information to allow review of such permit or approval. Application for all permits or approvals under this title and the coastal permit may be consolidated into one application. E. The director may require that the application contain a description of the feasible alternatives to the development or mitigation measures which will be incorporated into the development to substantial- ly lessen any significant effect on die environment which may be caused by the development (Ord. NS-365 § 20 (part), 1996) 21201.050 Determination of applicable notice and hearing procedures. The determination of whether a development is exempt, categorically excluded, nonappealable or appealable for purposes of notice, hearing and ap- peals shall be made by the director at the time the application for development is submitted. This deter- mination shall be made with reference to the certi- fied local coastal program, including maps, categori- cal exclusions, land use designations, and zoning ordinances adopted as part of the certified local coastal program. Where an applicant, interested person, or the director has a question as to the ap- propriate procedures, the following procedures shall be followed: A. The director shall make the determination as to what type of development is being proposed (i.e., exempt, categorically excluded, appealable, nonap- pealable) and shall inform the applicant of the notice and hearing requirements for that particular develop- ment. B. If the determination of the director is chal- lenged by the applicant or an interested person, or if the director wishes to have a Commission deter- mination as to the appropriate designation, the city shall notify the Commission by telephone of the dispute/question and shall request an Executive Director's opinion; C. The Executive Director shall within two working days of the director request, (or upon com- pletion of a site inspection where such an inspection is warranted), transmit a determination as to whether the development is exempt, categorically excluded, nonappealable or appealable; D. Where, after the Executive Director's investi- gation, the Executive Director's determination is not in accordance with the director determination, the Commission shall hold a hearing for the purpose of determining the appropriate designation for the area. The Commission shall schedule the hearing on the determination for the next Commission meeting in the appropriate geographic region following the director request. (Ord. NS-36S § 20 (pan), 1996) 21.201.060 Exemptions and categorical exclusions from coastal development permit procedures. A. Exemptions. The following projects are ex- empt from the requirements of a coastal develop- ment permit: 1. Improvements to existing single-family resi- dential building except: a. On a beach, wetland or seaward of the mean high tide line; b. Where the residence or proposed improve- ment would encroach within fifty feet of the edge of a coastal bluff; 814-21 (Cvbtad 12-96) 21.201.060 vided such impoundments do not exceed twenty-five acre feet in capacity. 8. Water pollution control facilities for agricul- tural purposes if constructed to comply with waste discharge requirements or other orders of the Re- gional Water Quality Control Board. 9. Landscaping on the lot unless the landscaping could result in erosion or damage to sensitive habitat areas. 10. Repair or maintenance activities not described in Section 21.201.070 of mis chapter. 11. Activities of public utilities as specified in the repair, maintenance and utility hookup exclusion adopted by the Coastal Commission, September 5, 1978, and as modified from time to time. B. Categorical Exclusions. In addition to those projects exempted pursuant to subsection A of this section, the city council may designate by resolu- tion, after a public hearing, categories of develop- ment which have no potential for any significant adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources or on public access to, or along the coast. Development which has been so designat- ed shall be categorically excluded from the provi- sions of this chapter. The designation of any cate- gorical exclusion shall not be effective until the categorical exclusion order has been approved by the Coastal Commission. The director shall keep a record of all permits issued for such categorically excluded projects. C. Notice of Categorically Excluded or Exempt Developments. A permit issued by the city for a development which is categorically excluded or exempt from the coastal development permit requirements, shall be exempt from the notice and hearing requirements of this chapter. The city shall maintain a record for all permits issued for categorically excluded or exempt developments which shall be made available to the Coastal Commission or any interested person upon request. This record may be in the form of any record of permits issued currently maintained by the city; provided, that such record includes the applicant's name, the location of the project, and brief description of the project (Ord. NS-365 § 20 (part), 1996) 21.201.070 Repair and maintenance activities requiring a coastal development permit. A. The following repair and maintenance activi- ties require a coastal development permit because they involve a risk of substantial adverse impact to coastal resources or access. 1. Any method of repair or maintenance of a seawall, revetment, bluff retaining wall, breakwater, groin, culvert, outfall, or similar shoreline work that involves: a. Repair or maintenance involving substantial alteration of the foundation of the protective work including pilings and other surface or subsurface structures; b. The placement, whether temporary or perma- nent, of rip-rap, artificial berms of sand or other beach materials, or any other forms of solid materi- als, on a beach or in coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries and lakes or on a shoreline pro- tective work except for agricultural dikes within enclosed bays or estuaries; c. The replacement of twenty percent or more of the materials of an existing structure with materi- als of a different kind; or d. The presence, whether temporary or perma- nent, of mechanized construction equipment or construction materials on any sandy area or bluff or within twenty feet of coastal waters or streams. 2. Any method of routine maintenance dredging that involves: a. The dredging of one hundred thousand cubic yards or more within a twelve-month period; b. The placement of dredged spoils of any quan- tity within an environmentally sensitive habitat area, on any sand area, within fifty feet of the edge of a coastal bluff or environmentally sensitive area, or within twenty feet of coastal waters or streams; or c. The removal, sale or disposal of dredged spoils of any quantity that would be suitable for beach nourishment in an area the Commission has declared by resolution to have a critically short sand 814-23 12-96) PLANNING COMMISSK^P- March 15,2000 ^ < Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING: 2. SDP 85-04(Al HOLLANDER DENTAL ASSOCIATION - Request for approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment, SDP 85-04(A), to construct a 745 square foot addition to an existing 3,310 square foot dental office located at 1273 Las Flores Drive in the R-P-Q zone and in Growth Management Zone 1. 3. SDP 99-12/CDP 99-33 - DAKMIN CONDOS - Request for approval of a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to develop a two-unit residential condominium on a site located at the northwest corner of Garfield Street and Juniper Avenue within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Assistant Planning Director Gary Wayne stated that the items #1, #2, and #3 on the agenda are normally heard in a Public Hearing context. The items consist of Coastal Development Permit for the Jensen Residence, an amendment to Site Development Plan for Hollander Dental Association and a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for Dakmin Condos. These projects are minor and routine in nature; there are no outstanding issues. Mr. Wayne summarized the errata sheets for the Jensen Residence and Dakmin Condos, thus entering the errata sheets into the record. Staff is recommending approval of all three items as follows: the items should be taken as a group, open and close the Public Hearing and vote on the items as a group. If either the Commission or any member of the public wishes to discuss one or all of the projects, the item will be pulled and Staff would respond to questions. Commissioner Welshons requested that agenda item #1 Jensen Residence, be pulled. Commissioner Segal) asked the applicant of agenda item #3 Dakmin Condos, if he was in agreement with the errata sheet. The applicant, David Mahlum, 252 Wisconsin, Fallbrook, CA, indicated that he was in agreement with the errata sheet. Chairperson Compas opened Public Testimony for agenda items #2 and #3. As no one wished to testify, Public Testimony was closed. Chairperson Compas called for a motion. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt, Planning Commission Resolution No. 4720, approving a Site Development Plan Amendment, SDP 85-04(A), to construct a 745 square foot addition to an existing 3,310 square foot dental office located at 1273 Las Flores Drive in the R-P-Q zone and in Growth Management Zone 1, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4741 and 4742, approving a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to develop a two-unit residential condominium on a site located at the northwest corner of Garfield Street and Juniper Avenue within Local Facilities Management Zone 1, including the errata sheet. VOTE: 7-0-0 AYES: Compas, Trigas, Nielsen, Welshons, Heineman, L'Heureux, Segall NOES: None ABSTAIN. None 1. CDP 99-32 - JENSEN RESIDENCE - Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow for the construction of a single family residence within the City's Coastal Zone located on the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard, between Cerezo Drive and Shore Drive within Local Facilities Management Zone 3. PLANNING COMMISSI March 15,2000 W Page 3 Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne introduced this item and introduced Project and Senior Planner Michael Grim to respond to Commission questions. Commissioner Welshons requested clarification regarding future street elevation. Senior Planner Grim stated that future plans call for the entire stretch of Carlsbad Boulevard to be upgraded and graded at a higher elevation level. Deputy City Engineer Bob Wojcik stated that preliminary designs list the proposed elevation level after the improvement of Carlsbad Boulevard. Commissioner Welshons asked if the Jensen property residence would have any type of direct beach access. Mr. Grim responded no, but stated that the applicant did take care of all public access requirements. The applicant built the public access stairway to the beach first. Commissioner Welshons asked if the applicant could now build a private access down the slopes to the beach. Mr. Grim advised the Commission that the applicant would have to apply for a Special Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit before any additional access to the beach could be installed. The proposal would be evaluated at that time, thereby addressing geo-technical concerns, environmental issues, and visual aesthetic concerns. He added that the existing stairwell is working quite well and commended the applicant for the installation and maintenance of the landscaping. Commissioner Welshons referring to the second page of the Staff Report regarding setbacks asked for clarification regarding the different setbacks. Mr. Grim stated that the property lines for all of the lots along Carlsbad Boulevard extend out onto the beach area, and a minimum rear yard setback would be that they be built on the beach, which cannot be done. The Coastal Overlay Zone states that it must be determined when building along a coastal bluff what the geo-technical concerns are regarding the bluff retreat. Based on geo-technical reports it was determined that the bluff retreat warranted a 40-foot bluff top setback. The physical topography of the area determined how far the building would be away from Carlsbad Boulevard, rather than the property line setback, which is typical in flat areas. Commissioner Welshons asked what was prohibited in the rear yard 40-foot setback. Mr. Grim stated that information was listed on the Tentative Map and Parcel Map, e.g. no structures of any kind and items requiring a tremendous amount of watering were not encouraged. He stated that the plan layout was an excellent combination of landscaping and hardscaping of the rear area. In addition, a drainage ditch has been added in the 40-foot bluff top setback, which will drain down the stairwell. The applicant, Jon Jensen, 7262 Surfbird Circle, Carlsbad, made the following presentation, stating that the development phase has been a long arduous journey lasting approximately five years, he expressed his appreciation to Staff for all of their help regarding this project. Commissioner Welshons referred to the original drawings of the plan asking about the kitchen in the guest area. Mr. Jensen stated that the revised drawing deleted the kitchen because a special permit was needed. Rather than delay the project or create a problem, the kitchen area was eliminated. Chairperson Compas wanted to know how many people would be living in the house. The applicant, Mr. Jensen responded, "two (2)." PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Bill Sides, 5320 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, wanted to know what elevation the proposed Jensen residence would start at, i.e. would it be the new elevation of the street or the existing elevation? PLANNING COMMISSK^-- March 15,2000 9~ Page 4 Mr. Jensen responded that the street elevation will be at the proposed elevation, which is slightly above street level and the house will be single story. As there was no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Compas closed Public Testimony. Chairperson Compas called for a Motion. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4734, approving Coastal Development Permit CDP 99-32 to allow for the construction of a single family residence within the City's Coastal Zone located on the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard, between Cerezo Drive and Shore Drive within Local Facilities Management Zone 3, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the errata sheet dated March 16, 2000. VOTE: 7-0-0 AYES: Compas, Trigas, Nielsen, Welshons, Heineman, L'Heureux, Segall NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Assistant Planning Director Wayne stated that the Planning Commission's decision on agenda items #1, #2, and #3 is final and any appeal would have to be directed to City Council. 4. CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-01/CP 00-001/CDP 99-02 - CARLSBAD BEACH ESTATES - Request for a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Planned Unit Development/Condominium Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to allow eleven residential units on a site located on the south side of Chinquapin Avenue between Garfield Street and the AT&SF Railroad tracks and within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Assistant Planning Director Gary Wayne introduced Senior Planner Elaine Blackburn and Project Engineer Jeremy Riddle who presented the staff report as follows: The proposed project is a request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Planned Unit Development/Condominium Permit, and Coastal Development Permit. The proposed project would provide 11 residential units on a 1.113-acre in- fill site on the south side of Chinquapin Avenue just east of Garfield Street. The 11 units would consist of 3 new single family units on individual lots, 1 existing single family structure on an individual lot, 6 new airspace condominiums on a common lot, and 1-second dwelling unit. The dwelling units range in size from 1,733 square feet to approximately 3,256 square feet. The structures are designed in a Mediterranean theme with buildings in off-white stucco, incorporating arched windows and doors, a range of neutral based trim colors, and concrete tiled roofs. The project has been designed to preserve the single-family character of the neighborhood to the east of the project site, while transitioning to the higher density of the condominium developments to the west. This was accomplished by having the single-family detached units fronting onto the street (one includes the second dwelling unit), while the attached airspace units are located more in the interior and the rear of the project site. Referring to an overhead slide presentation Ms. Blackburn stated that, with regard to General Plan and density, the site has two General Plan designations; residential high density on the west end and residential medium high density on the eastern portion of the site. The project is designed at a density below the growth point for both portions of the site. It would contribute 2 units into the excess dwelling unit bank for the northwest quadrant. The project site is zoned RD-M and it is within the beach area overlay zone. The project is also being developed under the PUD and Condominium regulations. The project is subject to numerous development standards and regulations. Staff review concluded that the project complied with all of the applicable zoning regulations, including lot sizes, lot coverage percentages, setback requirements, requirements for separation between structures and maximum building heights. The project design also provides adjacent resident and guest parking, RV parking areas, and private and common recreation areas as required by the PUD and Condominium permit regulations. In addition, the project is consistent with the applicable architectural guidelines for small lot single family projects. The project is within the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program. It is also within the appeal area, because of the adjacency to the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. The southwest City of Carlsbad Planning Department February 7, 2001 Mr. Jon Jensen 451 S Escondido Blvd Escondido CA 92025 SUBJECT: 5319 CARLSBAD BLVD (CB 00-3808 AND CDP 99-32) Dear Jon: Thank you very much for the correspondence dated January 31, 2001 (copy attached). This letter contains the information necessary to evaluate conformance with the approved Coastal Development Permit CDP 99-32. As currently proposed, the development shown on the building permit plans for CB 00-3808 does not substantially differ from that approved through CDP 99-32. Therefore the Planning Department has recommended approval of your building permit CB 00-3808. Attached is a copy of the Planning Department's plancheck checklist. You should consult the Building Department regarding any other outstanding issues for building permit submittal. Thanks again. Sincerely, MICHAEL GR1WU Attachment c: Chris DeCerbo Raenette Abbey Taniya Wade File Copy 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW JON A. JENSEN 451 SOUTH ESCONDIDO BOULEVARD Attorney at Law ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92025 TELEPHONE (760) 743-7966 FACSIMILE (760) 743-3793 January 31, 2001 Mike Grim, Senior Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Re: Plan Check No. 00-3808. Dear Mr. Grim: Thank you very much for your letter dated January 29, 2001. The following information is provided in response to that letter. 1. Justification for expansion in building coverage and floor area. The changes that are described below that relate to building coverage and floor area adjustments were done for the following reasons and justification: (a) The adjustments were done as an upgrade in overall design features and materials. As you are aware the adjustments that were made were to the nook on the second floor, the seating area, hall, and master bedroom, on the first floor, and the office, hall- B, and cellar, mechanical in the basement. The adjustments to the first and second floor adjusted the square footage for those floors as set forth below. The adjustments to the basement area adjusted the floor plan, but not the square footage totals of the basement. Each of the adjustments that were made are considered by the owner to enhance the design of the home. In addition, these changes also allowed for an enhancement of moldings, casings, and other materials that upgraded these rooms and the exterior of the home. (b) The adjustments were done to improve the project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. In reviewing the proposed site and floor plans for adjacent and neighboring properties on the beach, the nook areas, and master bedroom areas in neighboring properties contained design elements that were desired to be incorporated into this project in terms of size and configuration. Put another way, the nook and master bedroom areas in neighboring properties were proportionally slightly larger. After consideration, it was felt that incorporating small adjustments relating to these elements of the design would improve this projects compatibility with other dwellings located on the beach in the surrounding neighborhood and would therefore improve the project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, new neighborhood design characteristics are now incorporating unique home office configurations and larger hallways as important design characteristics of a project. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Grim January 31, 2001 Page 2 Therefore, the office configuration and hall was were adjusted in the basement without any adjustment of the total square footage of the basement. All of the modifications of the elements of the home, as above described, were accomplished with slight, but important adjustments. All of these adjustments also enhance the project and the projects compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. (c) The adjustments were made to improve the structural engineering and insure that the home was in conformance with the uniform building code. In this regard, each adjustment to the home was also predicated on recommendations and drawings prepared by the designer of the home and the structural engineer. Each of these improvements to the home improved and are presently an important part of the structural engineering for the home. In addition, and as a result of the adjustment, the structural engineer for the home has been enhanced. 2.The quantitative calculations for the adjustments in building coverage, added square footage, and set backs are as follows: (a) On the westerly portion of the second floor, the nook was adjusted six inches westerly. This adjustment is not within the ordinance setback. The total increase in square footage due to the nook adjustment is 15 sq. ft. (b) On the westerly portion of the seating area on the first floor directly below the nook, the seating area was adjusted six inches westerly. This adjustment is not within the ordinance setback. The total increase in square footage due to the seating area adjustment is 15sq. ft. (c) On the westerly portion of the hall going out to the covered porch on the first floor, the hall was adjusted westerly. This adjustment is not within the ordinance setback. The total increase in square footage due to the adjustment of the hall is 20 sq. ft. (d) On the westerly portion of the master bedroom on the first floor, the bedroom was adjusted westerly underneath the covered porch two feet six inches. This adjustment is not within the ordinance setback. The total increase in square footage due to the adjustment of the master bedroom is 43 sq. ft. (e) The total square footage of added square footage to the home is the sum total of all of the additional square footage added as set forth above. This is shown in tabular form as follows: square feet added to second floor nook 15 s.f. square feet added to first floor seating area 15 s.f. square feet added to first floor hall 20 s.f. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Grim January 31, 2001 PageS square feet added to first floor master bedroom 43 s.f. Total square feet added to home by owner, designer, and engineer 93 s.f. (f) All of the additions were added to porch areas. Therefore the porch areas were reduced in the identical amount of the adjustments. (g) The ordinance setbacks for the home were not changed, nor did any of the adjustments go beyond or encroach into an ordinance setback. The area between the old building footprint and the ordinance setback and the new building footprint and the ordinance setback (.ie. the building coverage area) changed in the same identical way as the home's square footage described above and as shown on the plans. The above adjustments therefore increased the building coverage in the same identical manner as the new square footage that was added. Put another way, when the square footage went up it increased the building coverage area, which decreased the area between the old building footprint and the ordinance setback. This adjustment modified the coverage area and changed the building coverage area from 3249 building coverage to 3327 building coverage and the hard scape from 4778 to a hard scape of 4770 . These calculations were made by taking the square footage before and after the adjustments. This is shown in tabular form as follows: Hardscape area before adjustments 4778 s.f. Hardscape area after adjustments 4700 s.f. Total change in Hardscape area 78 s.f. Building coverage before adjustments 3249 s.f. Building coverage after adjustments 3327 s.f. Total change in Building coverage 78 s.f. (h) The additions of square footage as set forth above involve an approximate one percent adjustment. This figure is calculated by taking the square footage for the approved plans and the added square footage and calculating the percentage change. These calculations are: square footage added 78 square feet divided by square footage of home approved at hearing 7085 square feet, equals 1.1% percent adjustment factoring in tenths of percentages. (I) the adjustments are shown graphically as shown on the slip sheets provided with this correspondence. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Grim January 31, 2001 Page 4 3. The concerns of the staff relating to the basement have been address as follows: (a) The new slip sheets show a portion of the basement that is now marked uninhabitable space. (b) The new slip sheets show the habitable area of the basement to be 1608 square feet which is the exact amount of habitable square footage shown on the approved plans. This area, however, shows a different floor plan within the basement area. In this regard the square footage within the office has changed from 350 square footage to 446 square footage. In addition the cellar/mechanical room has been moved easterly and the square footage has been reduced from 310 to 120 . In addition, Hall-B in the basement between the two rooms was adjusted by six square feet. This is shown in tabular form as follows: Square footage in office before adjustments 350 s.f. Square footage in office after adjustments 446 s.f. Difference in square feet in office area 96 s.f. Square footage in cellar/mechanical before adjustments 310 s.f. Square footage in cellar/mechanical after Adjustments 120 s.f. Difference in square feet in cellar/mechanical area 90 s.f. Total difference in square feet of office 120 s.f. Total difference in square feet of cellar/mechanical 90 s.f. Difference in square feet of hall B 6 s.f. Total changes in basement square feet due to adjustments - 0 -s.f. (c) Please note that the total habitable square footage in the basement has not been increased beyond the habitable square footage shown on the approved plans and that the adjustments in the basement were to adjust the floor plan so that the adjustments in the office were offset by the adjustments in the cellar/mechanical and hall-B area. As a result of no additional square footage being added to the basement area totals, no adjustments in total square footage for the basement area have been made to the house totals. (d) The window, doors, and light in the basement have been deleted on the new slip sheets. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Grim January 31, 2001 Page 5 4. The floor by floor totals and the house total are shown below in tabular form. In addition, and should any differences be present that do not total the total square footage adjustment as set forth above, then such difference are due to a more precise measurement by the computer of the totals involved. Notwithstanding these types of standard deviations in measurement, the old and new totals are as follows: Old New (a) Total square footage for second floor area (upper street level) 2308 2313 (b) Total square footage for first floor area (lower level) 3169 3132 (c) Total square footage for basement area (basement level) 1608 1608 (d) Total square footage for house area 7085 7053 (e) Site coverage area 25697 25697 (f) Building coverage 3249 3327 (g) Landscape coverage 5560 5560 (h) Hardscape coverage 4778 4700 (i) Unimproved area +/- 12090 12090 It is my sincere hope that the above information is as requested. Again, I would appreciate you looking at the above information and determining if a request for substantial conformance is required or if the adjustments as so nominal as to not be material and in conformance. If you determine that the adjustments are in need of a request for substantial conformance, then again please consider this letter a request for a determination that the changes are in substantial conformance. Should you desire further explanation or information, please contact me as soon as possible. Thank you for your continued time and cooperation. Very truly yours, JENSEN & ASSOCIATES Attorneys atl.aw f ,)N A. JENSEN JAJ/dr G:\DATA\JAJ\HOUSE\Grim.3.wpd PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Plan Check No. CB Planner APN: Address Phone (760) 602 Type of Project & Use: Zoning: j General Plan: Net Project Density: ^" _ Facilities Management Zone: DU/AC CFD fin/nntl # Circle One Date of participation:Remaining net dev acres: (For non-residential development: Type of land used created by this permit: ) Legend: /\ Item Complete Environmental Review Required: DATE OF COMPLETION: YES Item Incomplete - Needs your action NO TYPE Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Discretionary Action Required: APPROVAL/RESO. NO. PROJECT NO. YES ft NO TYPE DATE OTHER RELATED CASES: Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: 1 fallr >^ • Cfyh •itions o '\7\0\ Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES CA Coastal Commission Authority? YES NO _ NO XT If California Coastal Commission Authority: Contact them at - 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego CA 92108-1725; (619) 521-8036 Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt): _ Coastal Permit Determination Form already completed? YES If NO, complete Coastal Permit Determination Form now. Coastal Permit Determination Log #: NO Follow-Up Actions: 1) Stamp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum Floor Plans). 2) Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed. H:\ADMIN\COUNTER\BldgPlnchkRevChklst I I Inclusionary Horsing Fee required: YES NO (Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21, 1993.) Data Entry Completed? YES NO (A/P/Ds, Activity Maintenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, Housing Fees, Construct Housing Y/N, Enter Fee, UPDATE!) Site Plan: PV-' I I 1. Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, ' property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensional setbacks and existing topographical lines. I | 2. Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number. Zoning: I | 1. Setbacks: Front: Interior Side: Street Side: Rear: Required Required Required Required I I 2. Accessory structure setbacks: Front: Required Interior Side: Street Side: Rear: Structure separation: I I 3. Lot Coverage: I | 4. Height: I I 5. Parking: Spaces Guest Spaces f /7 K/ Additional Corrtments^/Xt /^~- // /> 1 ~i~> Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Required „ f-jPf) / / ip'H /vifrfi. , ^xttwt Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown r\ *M cJifffr^ rtet^ j\} VV^+- irfj I 'Mr / •' ' J - .y, y- y -, U( J r J '• f „ , / ^ t ^ .<7^tr Okff 00rvt£Mhf^s&£:> f^ti^nrf <3LtouJ$ed tftrntWrvl^" , / w*.^ .n~l~> 1 f^ti s? f J^/ i / / OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER H:\ADMIN\COUNTER\BldgPlncnkRevChklst City of Carlsbad Planning Department January 29, 2001 Mr. Jon Jensen 451 S Escondido Blvd Escondido CA 92025 SUBJECT: 5319 CARLSBAD BLVD (CB 00-3808 AND CDP 99-32) Dear Jon: The City has received and reviewed your correspondence dated January 24, 2001 and your building permit plancheck resubmittal dated January 26, 2001. According to the correspondence, these items were submitted in response to the City's January 22, 2001 letter. The item submitted do not contain the information requested of you in the January 22, 2001 letter, therefore the Planning Department cannot recommend approval of your building permit. As shown on the attached correspondence, the City is requesting a quantified description of any differences between the approved Coastal Development Permit exhibits and the building permit plancheck submittal. More specifically, the information requested was a letter including "the justifications for the expansion in building coverage and floor area, as well as a quantification of the changes in building setbacks, building coverage and floor area" (bold and italics added). Your letter dated January 24, 2001, includes qualitative descriptions of the floor plan and building envelope revisions but does not include a quantified assessment of the changes. Your letter does state that the changes involve a "less than one percent" adjustment however no data is provided to support this statement. In addition, the revised floor plan of the basement still shows the remainder area as habitable space. Referring to the approved CDP exhibits, the remainder area of the basement is not accessible, nor does it have lights and windows as proposed in the building permit. In addition, it is not clear if the expansion of the office area is offset by the reduction (and relocation) of the wine cellar area. These areas should be quantified and shown. Please revise the floor plans to match the total habitable area of the approved CDP exhibits or include the added square footage in your request for substantial conformance. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us As previously requested, please submit (in tabular form) a comparison of the approved floor area, building coverage and building setbacks and the proposed floor area, building coverage and building setbacks. The floor area should include the total area, as well as a breakdown by floor. Please remember that the remainder area of the basement must be non-habitable (crawl space) to not be counted in the total floor area. Please also remember that the building setbacks are measured from the edge of the building wall. As you confirmed in your letter, the nook area has expanded (by six inches according to staff's evaluation) and the master bedroom area has expanded (by two and one half feet by staffs evaluation). These adjustments altered the square footage, building coverage and building setbacks. With regard to the timing of your building permit issuance and your claim of financial hardship, you should be aware that neither the Planning nor Engineering Department has recommended approval of your plan due to outstanding items. Esgil Corporation is currently reviewing your resubmittal of January 26, 2001, therefore their final approval has not occurred. Providing diligent and complete responses to staff's issues is the best way to expedite processing of your building permit request. I look forward to reviewing the items previously requested of you in hopes of completing the Planning Department's review of your building permit plancheck. Sincerel MICHAEL GRI Senior Planner Attachments Chris DeCerbo Taniya Wade Raenette Abbey File Copy JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW JON A. JENSEN 451 SOUTH ESCONDIDO BOULEVARD ESCONDIDO,CALIFORNIA 92025 TELEPHONE (760) 743-7966 FACSIMILE (760) 743-3793 January 24,2001 Mike Grim, Senior Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Re: Plan Check No. 00-3808. Dear Mr. Grim: Thank you very much for your letter dated January 22, 2001.1 have now had the opportunity to go over the letter and review the plans. In that regard, I wish to address the issues set forth in your letter and to inform you that each of the items has now been corrected and addressed respectively. In your letter you addressed what you felt^was an increase in the basement. If you will recall, the approved CDP for the house snowed a full basement, but also divided this area into two separate categories. The first category was shown as specific rooms and the square footage of this area was counted in the total square footage of the house. The second category was for storage or future use and was shown on the approved plans, discussed at the hearing, but was not counted as usable square footage. When the structural engineering was done for the home, the structural engineer wanted to make sure that the placement of the bearing pillars in the basement would allow for future basement improvements in a configuration that was usable. As a result, a build out alternative was designed for a portion of the basement previously shown as storage or future and was shown as set forth on the plans submitted to the building department. This was suggested by the structural engineer in order to make sure that if any future build out of the basement was desired and requested, that such build out would be in compliance with the uniform building code and not require any further structural engineering. As a result of your comments in your January 22,2001 letter, however, I have requested that new slip sheets be prepared, submitted, and attached to the plans which show and reduce the non bearing walls and area in the basement back to the amount of 1,608 square feet shown on the approved CDP exhibits. In addition, these sheets will be delivered to both you and the building department with this letter.. JON A. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS ATLAW Grim January 24,2001 Page 2 In your January 22,2001 letter, you also requested an explanation regarding the nook on the second floor, and you further requested an explanation of the bedroom seating area, end of the hallway, and master bedroom on the first floor. I have been informed by the structural engineer that the nook on the second floor was adjusted westerly by inches which reduced the deck, by inches. I have also been informed that the westerly edge of the deck on each floor did not change from the approved plans and exhibits. The first floor bedroom seating area is directly under the nook and was also adjusted by inches. The end of the hallway and the master bedroom were also adjusted so that the area underneath the covered porch was reduced in the same amount that the master bedroom and hallway were adjusted. All of these adjustments were accomplished to insure the structural integrity of the home. In addition, and since the adjustments were underneath overhang and porch areas, the landscape and site plan ratios did not have to be adjusted. Each of these adjustments were considered to be insignificant and of such a minor nature as to not raise issues of conformance to the original permit approvals. In fact, and since the standard for substantial conformance is as high as ten percent, and the adjustments that were made were less than one percent, the adjustments were not considered materially sufficient to even raise issues of substantial conformity. In my requests, I also asked that the house dimensions be precisely calculated so that I could insure that the total square footage was within the number shown on the approved plans and exhibits for the CDP. This has also been done and I can now confirm that even when the insignificant adjustments as set forth above are included in the home's square footage, the overall total square footage for the house is slightly under the approved square footage number shown on the approved exhibits for the CDP. In order to make sure that the first page of the plans shows the precise square footage of the home, I have also asked that a new slip cover sheet be prepared and delivered with this letter to you and to the building department. This sheet shows that the square footage for the house is now 7053 and is less than the approved 7085 square feet shown on the COP. It is my sincere hope that this letter has fully complied with your request and recommendations expressed in your most recent letter. In addition, and since you have the prior approved exhibits, the approved plans from the buildig department process, JON A. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW Grim January 24, 2001 PageS and the new slip sheets showing adjustments, I believe you have everything needed for planning department approval and referral back to the building department If, however, you need any other items, please contact me as soon as possible. In addition to the above, and should you believe that any aspect of the plans warrants the need to obtain a decision that the plans are in substantial conformity, then please also consider this letter to request your approval that the plans are in substantial conformity. In this regard, I have reviewed the criteria and guidelines for substantial conformity and if such an analysis was deemed to be applicable to this project, I have no doubt that the all of the criteria and guidelines have been met. Notwithstanding this fact, my main goal is to obtain a building permit as soon as possible. I have already contracted for the work on the house to begin and any delays in obtaining a permit will undoubtedly create a financial hardship. For this reason, I would like to respectfully request that you clear the project for permit as soon as possible unless I have missed something or you need additional data. Again, I would like to thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Very truly yours, JENSEN & ASSOCIATES Attorneys at I JAJ/dr F:\DATAUAJ\HOUSEVGrim.Zwpd City of Carlsbad Planning Department January 22, 2001 Mr. Jon Jensen 451 S Escondido Blvd Escondido CA 92025 SUBJECT: 5319 CARLSBAD BLVD (CB 00-3808 AND CDP 99-32) Dear Jon: Thank you for your January 19, 2001 correspondence regarding the Planning Department plancheck comments for the proposed single family dwelling at 5319 Carlsbad Blvd. As you know, the project received a Coastal Development Permit (CDP 99-32) on March 15, 2000. This Coastal Development Permit contains exhibits and, according to the conditions of approval of CDP 99-32 contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4734, all development shall occur as shown on these exhibits. The approved exhibits show a two-story house with a subterranean basement totaling 7,085 square feet with an attached 738 square foot garage. The floor area totals for each level were: 2,308 square feet for the second level; 3,169 square feet for the first level; and 1,608 square feet for the basement. The approved exhibits also contained floor plans indicating the location and proposed use of each room within the building. While the exact location and dimension of individual rooms may change within a building without raising issues of substantial conformance with the Coastal Development Permit, any increase in building coverage or floor area must be evaluated for conformity. The submitted building permit plancheck set (CB 00-3808) shows a few differences in the structure and square footages of floor area. As you stated in your January 19, 2001 letter, the foundation width was increased due to comments from the Building Department. Comparing the approved CDP exhibits with the building permit plans, it would appear that the foundation was increased from nine inches thick to one foot thick. Since the foundation is entirely below grade and the foundation revisions do not add floor area, this revision does not raise issues with staff. One significant revision that was not addressed in your January 19, 2001 is the increase in floor area on all three levels and expansion of the western edge of the structure. By comparing the approved CDP exhibits with the submitted building permit plancheck plans, the overall floor area of the single family 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us structure has increased from 7,085 square feet to 8,674 square feet. The breakdown by level is as follows: 2,140 square feet for the second level; 3,189 square feet for the first level; and 3,345 square feet for the basement. It would appear that the expansion of the second level is due to the extension of the nook area westward; and the expansion of the first level is due to the extension of the nook, bedroom, hallway and master bedroom westward. It is not clear if these extensions are reflected on the building permit site plan. The expansion of the basement floor area is apparently to accommodate added office space, added habitable storage area, a new exercise area and a new bathroom. These expansions necessitated an expansion of the boundary of the basement near the office and storage area, as well as the addition of a window well for natural lighting in the exercise area. When the proposed construction of a project differs from the approved exhibits, it is incumbent upon the project applicant to explain and quantify these differences and submit this information to Planning Department staff for review. According to Planning Department policies, if the differences amount to a change of more than ten percent of the original approval, an amendment to the project approvals are necessary. If these differences are less than ten percent of the original approval, then the project may be deemed to be in substantial conformance to the original permit approvals. Please submit a letter to the Planning Department describing the proposed changes as reflected in your building permit submittal package. The letter should include the justifications for the expansion in building coverage and floor area, as well as a quantification of the changes in building setbacks, building coverage and floor area. Should you wish to revise your building permit submittal to match the approved CDP exhibits, you may do so through the normal Building Department process. Sincerely, MICHAEL GRIM Senior Planner c: Chris DeCerbo Clyde Wickham David Rick Taniya Wade JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW JON A. JENSEN 451 SOUTH ESCONDIDO BOULEVARD Attorney at Law ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92025 TELEPHONE (760) 743-7966 FACSIMILE (760) 743-3793 Mike Grim 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 January 19, 2001 Re: Plan Check No. 00-3808. Dear Mr. Grim: Thank you very much for your review of plan Check No. 00-3808. As a result of that review, you requested in the "additional comments" section of the plan check document that I clarify the exterior dimensions shown on the basement floor plan. The purpose of this letter is to respond to that request and to provide clarification regarding the exterior dimensions shown on the basement floor plan. As you are aware, the site plan shows the entire site and the building envelope. As you are also aware, the site plan does not show the foundation system which is below ground. In addition, the foundation is the basement walls which are over one foot in width and which comprise and are the most integral part of the foundation. When the plans were submitted at the building department, the building department requested that the entire gross area beneath the ground elevation, including the foundation which is the basement, be shown and calculated as square footage for the plan check fees and other fees. While the foundation walls and the total basement area were both shown on the plans at the time of the approval by the planning commission for the Coastal Development Permit, the thickness of the foundation basement walls and the placement of portions of the foundation walls to support the bearing positions of the upper floors and the stairs were not shown on the site plan because they were underground and part of the foundation system. In addition, and when the building department reviewed the plans for conformity with the uniform building code, the building department requested that the foundation walls underneath the ground be staggered in certain well areas to allow for a safer area and exit from the basement while enhancing the structural integrity of the home. JON A. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW Grim January 19, 2001 Page 2 It is my sincere hope that the above answers your request for clarification. If you should be in need of further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. If the above is sufficient, I would appreciate you clearing the plan check from your department and notifying the building department that there are no further comments. Again, I would like to thank you for your time and cooperation. Very truly yours, JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ttorneys at Law , JON A. JENSEN JAJ/dr F:\DATAUAJ\HOUSE\Grim.1.wpd PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Plan Check No. CB Planner APN: Address Phone (760) 1 Type of Project & Use: Zoning: f^n General Plan: CFD fin/nut) # W"~ Date of participation: Circle One Net Project Density: ^~~~ DU/AC Facilities Management Zone: » _ - — " Remaining net dev acres: " •6S.o o ia (For non-residential development: Type of land used created by this permit: ) Legend:Item Complete Item Incomplete - Needs your action | | |~~| Environmental Review Required: YES NO TYPE DATE OF COMPLETION: Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: D Discretionary Action Required: YES _£_ NO APPROVAL/PESO. NO. *V7g> DATE 3 PROJECT NO. GOP ^~ OTHER RELATED CASES: TYPE Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES CA Coastal Commission Authority? YES NO X" If California Coastal Commission Authority: Contact them at - 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego CA 92108-1725; (619) 521-8036 Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt): Coastal Permit Determination Form already completed? YES__ NO If NO, complete Coastal Permit Determination Form now. Coastal Permit Determination Log #: Follow-Up Actions: 1) Stamp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum Floor Plans). 2) Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed. H:\ADMIN\COUNTER\BldgPlnchkRevChklst Inclusionary Housing Fee required: YES NO (Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21, 1993.) Data Entry Completed? YES NO (A/P/Ds, Activity Maintenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, Housing Fees, Construct Housing Y/N, Enter Fee, UPDATE!) Site Plan: | | 1. Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensional setbacks and existing topographical lines. I I 2. Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number. Zoning: 1* Setbacks: Front: Interior Side: Street Side: Rear: Required Required Required Required | I 2. Accessory structure setbacks: Front: Required Interior Side: Required Street Side: Required Rear: Required Structure separation: Required n Shown Shown Shown Shown 3. Lot Coverage:Required Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown D 4. Height:Required /^ s \/~-\~~\ I I 5. Parking: " Spaces Required Guest Spaces Required I | Additional Comments^/ Shown Shown Shown OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER H:\ADMIN\COUNTER\BldgPlnchkRevChklst DATE City of Carlsbad Planning Department January 22, 2001 Mr. Jon Jensen 451 S Escondido Blvd Escondido CA 92025 SUBJECT: 5319 CARLSBAD BLVD (CB 00-3808 AND CDP 99-32) Dear Jon: Thank you for your January 19, 2001 correspondence regarding the Planning Department plancheck comments for the proposed single family dwelling at 5319 Carlsbad Blvd. As you know, the project received a Coastal Development Permit (CDP 99-32) on March 15, 2000. This Coastal Development Permit contains exhibits and, according to the conditions of approval of CDP 99-32 contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4734, all development shall occur as shown on these exhibits. The approved exhibits show a two-story house with a subterranean basement totaling 7,085 square feet with an attached 738 square foot garage. The floor area totals for each level were: 2,308 square feet for the second level; 3,169 square feet for the first level; and 1,608 square feet for the basement. The approved exhibits also contained floor plans indicating the location and proposed use of each room within the building. While the exact location and dimension of individual rooms may change within a building without raising issues of substantial conformance with the Coastal Development Permit, any increase in building coverage or floor area must be evaluated for conformity. The submitted building permit plancheck set (CB 00-3808) shows a few differences in the structure and square footages of floor area. As you stated in your January 19, 2001 letter, the foundation width was increased due to comments from the Building Department. Comparing the approved CDP exhibits with the building permit plans, it would appear that the foundation was increased from nine inches thick to one foot thick. Since the foundation is entirely below grade and the foundation revisions do not add floor area, this revision does not raise issues with staff. One significant revision that was not addressed in your January 19, 2001 is the increase in floor area on all three levels and expansion of the western edge of the structure. By comparing the approved CDP exhibits with the submitted building permit plancheck plans, the overall floor area of the single family 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us structure has increased from 7,085 square feet to 8,674 square feet. The breakdown by level is as follows: 2,140 square feet for the second level; 3,189 square feet for the first level; and 3,345 square feet for the basement. It would appear that the expansion of the second level is due to the extension of the nook area westward; and the expansion of the first level is due to the extension of the nook, bedroom, hallway and master bedroom westward. It is not clear if these extensions are reflected on the building permit site plan. The expansion of the basement floor area is apparently to accommodate added office space, added habitable storage area, a new exercise area and a new bathroom. These expansions necessitated an expansion of the boundary of the basement near the office and storage area, as well as the addition of a window well for natural lighting in the exercise area. When the proposed construction of a project differs from the approved exhibits, it is incumbent upon the project applicant to explain and quantify these differences and submit this information to Planning Department staff for review. According to Planning Department policies, if the differences amount to a change of more than ten percent of the original approval, an amendment to the project approvals are necessary. If these differences are less than ten percent of the original approval, then the project may be deemed to be in substantial conformance to the original permit approvals. Please submit a letter to the Planning Department describing the proposed changes as reflected in your building permit submittal package. The letter should include the justifications for the expansion in building coverage and floor area, as well as a quantification of the changes in building setbacks, building coverage and floor area. Should you wish to revise your building permit submittal to match the approved CDP exhibits, you may do so through the normal Building Department process. Sincerely, MICHAEL GRIM Senior Planner Chris DeCerbo Clyde Wickham David Rick Taniya Wade JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW JON A. JENSEN 451 SOUTH ESCONDIDO BOULEVARD Attorney at Law ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92025 TELEPHONE (760) 743-7966 FACSIMILE (760) 743-3793 January 19, 2001 Mike Grim 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Re: Plan Check No. 00-3808. Dear Mr. Grim: Thank you very much for your review of plan Check No. 00-3808. As a result of that review, you requested in the "additional comments" section of the plan check document that I clarify the exterior dimensions shown on the basement floor plan. The purpose of this letter is to respond to that request and to provide clarification regarding the exterior dimensions shown on the basement floor plan. As you are aware, the site plan shows the entire site and the building envelope. As you are also aware, the site plan does not show the foundation system which is below ground. In addition, the foundation is the basement walls which are over one foot in width and which comprise and are the most integral part of the foundation. When the plans were submitted at the building department, the building department requested that the entire gross area beneath the ground elevation, including the foundation which is the basement, be shown and calculated as square footage for the plan check fees and other fees. While the foundation walls and the total basement area were both shown on the plans at the time of the approval by the planning commission for the Coastal Development Permit, the thickness of the foundation basement walls and the placement of portions of the foundation walls to support the bearing positions of the upper floors and the stairs were not shown on the site plan because they were underground and part of the foundation system. In addition, and when the building department reviewed the plans for conformity with the uniform building code, the building department requested that the foundation walls underneath the ground be staggered in certain well areas to allow for a safer area and exit from the basement while enhancing the structural integrity of the home. JON A. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW Grim January 19, 2001 Page 2 It is my sincere hope that the above answers your request for clarification. If you should be in need of further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. If the above is sufficient, I would appreciate you clearing the plan check from your department and notifying the building department that there are no further comments. Again, I would like to thank you for your time and cooperation. Very truly yours, JENSEN & ASSOCIATES torneys at Law JON A. JENSEN JAJ/dr F:\DATA\JAJ\HOUSE\Grim.1.wpd JON A. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 451 SOUTH ESCONDIDO BOULEVARD ESCONDIDO. CALIFORNIA 92025 TELEPHONE (760) 743-7966 FACSIMILE (760) 743-3793 July 3, 2000 Bill Ponder . California Coastal Commission. 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103 San Diego, 92108 RE: Lateral Beach Access Dear Mr. Ponder: As you are aware, I have previously processed applications for beach stairs and access, a subdivision or minor parcel map number 18236 and a single family residence. 'As you are also aware, you requested my assistance in giving and obtaining from other owners, an irrevocable offer to dedicate lateral beach access over and across all three parcels comprising the parcel map number 18236. These parcels and their parcel numbers are 210-120-32, 210-120-33, and 210-120-34. Please be advised that this has now been accomplished and completed and that an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Lateral Beach Access was recorded on June 30, 2000, document number 2000-034635 for all of the parcels requested and listed above. I would like to thank you for your time and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, JON A. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES (Jpn A. Jefiserj Esq JAJ/dr F:\DATA\JAJ\LOTSAI_E\Ponder. 1 .wpd cc: Mike Grim »City of Carlsbad Planning Department FAX TRANSMITTAL TIME SENT: /• -^TO:Vbi COMPANY: PHONE #: K FMUt: Number of Pages Being Transmitted (Including Cover Sheet):_ FROM: DEPT.: PLANNING PHONE: (760) 602- FAX: (760) 602-8559 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: AfyMty Jb ( &WcJ\<W 6p>£ /J i / ^ ^ i-ee&bc- &dxy{S/S/} Return Fax 1635 Faraday Avenue * Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 N 59'21'10" E 174.90' (175.00') 210.00' PARCEL 1 GROSS AREA= 0.5899 AC NET AREA= 0.3134 AC N 59'2110 E OPEN SPACE EASEMENT GRANTED HEREON PARCEL 2 GROSS AREA= 0.4813 NET AREA= 0.2480 AC <o N 59*21'10" E 120.00 85.00' 108.83' 180.00' PARCEL 3 ..%\ ^ ' GROSS AREA= 0.5328 NET AREA= 0.2656 AC £/ o N8713'S ,2. li L1-7.? 74.00^ (100*000322.00,' DETAIL "A POJNSETTIA EASEMENT f*TES: THE PRIVILEGE AND RIGHT TO EXTEND DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT SLOPES BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE RIGHT OF WAY GRANTED THEREIN TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD WHERE REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY AS CONTAINED IN DEED RECORDED AUGUST 30, 1935, IN BOOK 432, PAGE 60, OFFICIAL RECORDS. (EASEMENT NOT PLOTTABLE) AN EASEMENT FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PEDESTRIAN BEACH ACCESS, TO THE PAUL ECKE, III AND JULIANE REBECCA HAMPTON, RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 1990, AS FILE NO. 90-0646075, OFFICIAL RECORDS. (EASEMENT NOT PLOTTABLE) ' AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS. FOOT ACCESS TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, BETWEEN CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 3, 1997, AS FILE NO. 1997-0427136, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. COVENANT OF EASEMENT FOR CROSS LOT DRAINAGE 45' SETBACK FROM TOP OF BLUFF PER DOCUMENT RECORDED /3>/«m. AS RLE NO. 1999-^2^2^2^1 EXCEPTION AND CLARIFICATION TO ANY USE OR CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED IN THIS 45' SETBACK AREA SHALt BE REVIEWED, AND IF ACCEPTABLE, APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE CITY ENGINEER. SPECIRC DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION THAT IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE 45' SETBACK ARE, BUT NOT UMITED|TO, AS FOLLOWS: 1. COASTAL PROTECTIVE DEVICES OR WALLS PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 2. YARD LANDSCAPING, PLANTERS OR GARDENS WITH DRAINAGE DEVICES AWAY FROM THE BLUFF EDGE TO AN APPROVED DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 3. DECORATIVE FENCING, WALLS, SAFETY RAILS OR STAIRS TO APPROVED STRUCTURES. 4. PATIOS, WALKWAYS, OR HARDSCAPE SURFACES WITH DRAINAGE TO AN APPROVED DRAINAGE COURSE. 5. ROOF OVERHANGS OR CANTILEVERED DECKS WITH DRAINAGE TO AN APPROVED DRAINAGE COURSE. SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION THAT IS PROHIBITED IN THE 45' SETBACK ARE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, AS FOLLOWS: 1. BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, OR SHEDS EXCEPT AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. 2. STAIRS, DECKS, PORCHES, CATWALKS OR GAZEEBO'S NOT CANTILEV- ERED TO APPROVED CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE OF THE 45' SETBACK. 3. SWIMMING POOLS, SAUNA'S, SPA'S OR HOT TUBS. ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE EASEMENTS MAY BE REQUIRED. DRAINAGE STRUCTURES SHALL BE PROVIDED OR INSTALLED PRIOR TO OR CONCURRENT WITH ANY GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. RONALD R. BALL CITY ATTORNEY JANE MOBALDI ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DAMIEN B. BROWER DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CINDIE K. McMAHON DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989 (760) 434-2891 FAX: (760) 434-8367 May 25, 2000 RANDEE HARLIB SECRETARY TO CITY ATTORNEY ARDIS SEIDEL LEGAL SECRETARY/PARALEGAL Jon A. Jensen, Esq. Jon A. Jensen & Associates 451 South Escondido Boulevard Escondido, California 92025 RE: REQUEST OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION FOR LATERAL BEACH ACCESS Dear Mr. Jensen: I am in receipt of your letter of May 17, 2000, offering an easement to the City of Carlsbad for lateral beach access. I am returning that executed easement to you, since the City or Carlsbad has not required the granting of such an easement, as you state in the easement document. Rather, it is the Coastal Commission which is making this request and, therefore, the Commission itself or its designee should appropriately be the grantee on the easement. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, 'JANE MOBALDI Assistant City Attorney afs enclosure c:Mike Grim 5-23-OO ; 1 2 : O5PM ; ;~76O4348367 JON A. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE SCRIPTS BANK CENTER 451 SOUTH ESCONDIDO BOULEVARD ESTONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92025 TELEPHONE (760) 743-7966 FACSIMILE (760) 743-3793 May 17, 2000 jffl ^^^Jane Mobaldi Assistant City Attorney ' 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive ' Carlsbad, CA 92008 ' Dear Ms. Mobaldi: Re: Request of the Coastal Commission for Lateral Beach Access As you are aware, I have previously obtained approvals regarding parcels of land which I own on the Beach in Carlsbad. The first action was a CDP for Beach Stairs and access. The second action was for a three lot parcel map. The third and most recent approval was for a single family residence. Recently, I received a phone call from Bill Ponder at the Coastal Commission who stated that although the appeal period had run for the parcel map and although the parcel map application was completed and final, the Coastal Commission staff would like to see lateral beach access granted to the City of Carlsbad for the three lots that comprise the parcel map. He further stated that while he could probably request this action on a lot by lot basis, the Commission staff wanted one grant at the same time. In addition, the above request was made to Mr. Mike Grim who was the lead planner for all of the projects that I have submitted. During the discussion, I informed Mr. Ponder that his request may not be possible since I no longer owned all of the parcels. Following this, Bill Ponder stated that if I could get the three property owners to grant the requested easement, that it would be of great assistance to the Commission. After my phone conference with Bill Ponder, I contacted and discussed the request with all of the property owners. In this regard, and although the property owners do not think the easement is necessary or appropriate, we decided to accede to the request of the Commission staff. Following that determination, I contacted Mr Ponder and informed him of the decision and requested further instructions. Therefore, and pursuant to the request and instructions of Bill Ponder of the Coastal Commission, please find enclosed a fully executed original grant of easement for lateral 5-23-00;12:OSPM; ;76O4348367 Recording Requested by: When Recorded Mail to : City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 210-120-32 210-120-33 210-120-34 COVENANT OF EASEMENT FOR LATERAL BEACH ACCESS (Government Code Article 2.7 commencing with Section 65870 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of Title 7; Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 20.04.140 The Owners as set forth below, and hereinafter collectively referred to as Grantor, create a non exclusive covenant of easement in Gross for Lateral Beach Access in favor of the City of Carlsbad, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Grantee, upon the terms and conditions set forth below. This covenant of easement may be released only according to the procedures established by law, or if it is determined by the Grantee that the covenant is no longer needed to achieve the land use goals of the Grantee. The property which is burdened by the easement is described as follows: See Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The easement granted by Grantor to Grantee is described as follows: See Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The easement set forth herein is being granted at the request of Grantee pursuant to the provisions of California State Law, including but not limited to California Civil Code §846, and is granted for the sole purpose of "passive recreational purposes"for human ingress and egress, over, across, and upon that certain area set forth herein and described as the easement area. The easement granted herein shall be subject, at all times, to reasonable restrictions as may be provided for under California State Law and is further subject, at all times, to reasonable restrictions Grantee desires to place on the tune, manner, and use of the easement by Grantee in order to promote and protect health, welfare, safety and enforcement of the municipal codes of 5-23-00; 1 2 :O5PM;;7604348367 Grantee. The easement granted herein shall be subject, at all times, to the free use and enjoyment of the property by the title owner, and nothing in this document or grant shall interfere with or limit the use or enjoyment of the property by the title owner of the property. The easement granted herein shall be a covenant of easement and shall run with the land, and the burdens and benefits of the covenant for easement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of all successors in interest to the real property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument effective this 5* day of May, 2000. PROPERTY OWNERS: Parcel No. 210-120-33 By: Dean A. Goetz Of the Dean AXSoetz and Barbara J. Goetz Trust UTD September 21, 1989 By: Parcel No. 210-120-32 Parcel No. 210-120-34 By:Mr££A.AA&.0JL Trustee Trust By: Barbara J. Goetz Co^rustee CarofL. Jensen Co^rustee Of the Dean A. Goetz and Of the Jensen Family Trust Barbara J. Goetz Trust UTD UTD July 4,1992 September 21,1989 APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY By: Assistant City Attorney 5-23-OO;12:OSPM;;7604348367 EXHIBIT "A" PARCELS 1,2 & 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 18236, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY APRIL 13,1999, AS FILE NO. 1999-0247276, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 0219-EXAiGL 5-23-OO;1 2 :O 5 PM;;7604348367 EXHIBIT "B" SHEET 1 BEING THAT PORTION OF PARCELS 1,2 & 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 18236, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY APRIL 13,1999, AS FILE NO. 1999-0247276, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LYING WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3, NORTH 59°21'10" EAST, 154.68 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE, LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 30°41(34" WEST, 87.79 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65°23'35" WEST, 51.74 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47051'34n WEST, 111.80 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NOTHERLY LINE OF SATO PARCEL 1, BEING NORTH 59°21'10" EAST, 124.74 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF. EXCEPTING ANY PORTION LYING WESTERLY OF THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE, THE MEAN HIGH TIDE WHICH IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE AMBULATORY FROM DAY TO DAY. 0219-EXBiGL 5-23-OO;12:OSPM;;7604348367 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of County of On.me, personally appeared D personally known to me - OR - n proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), ifttmn • or the ent'ty uP°n behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the Information below Is not required oy law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Tide or Type of Document: Document Date: fflflLU _ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Number of Pages: Capacities) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: D Individual D Corporate Officer Title(s):. D Partner — D Limited D General D Attomey-in-Fact D Trustee D Guardian or Conservator D Other: _ Signer Is Representing: RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER Top of thumb here Signer's Name: . D Individual D Corporate Officer Title(s):. D Partner — D Limited D General D Attorney-in-Fact D Trustee D Guardian or Conservator D Other: Signer Is Representing: RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER T°P °' thumb here © 1994 National Notaiy Association • 8236 Ftemmet Ava., P.O. Box 7184 • Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 Prod.No.S90T Reonten Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-68Z7 5-23-OO;12:OSPM; ;76O4348367 #8/9 WAIS Document Retrieval •& httpV/wv^.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/^^a...cID=^24917219-KWHO&WAISaction=retrieve 845. (a) The owner of any easement in the nature of a private right-of-way, or of any land to which any such easement is attached, shall maintain it in repair. (b) If the easement is owned by more than one person, or is attached to parcels of land under different ownership, the cost of maintaining it in repair shall be shared by each owner of the easement or the owners of the parcels of land, as the case may be, pursuant to the terms of any agreement entered into by the parties for that purpose. If any owner who is a party to the agreement refuses to perform or fails after demand in writing to pay the owner' s proportion of the cost, an action for specific performance or contribution may be brought against that owner in a court of competent jurisdiction by the other owners, either jointly or severally. (c) In the absence of an agreement, the cost shall be shared proportionately to the use made of the easement by each owner. Any owner of the easement, or any owner of land to which the easement is attached, may apply to any court where the right-of-way is located and that has jurisdiction over the amount in controversy for the appointment of an impartial arbitrator to apportion the cost. The application may be made before, during, or after performance of the maintenance work. If the arbitration award is not accepted by all of the owners, the court may enter a judgment determining the proportionate liability of each owner. The judgment may be enforced as a money judgment by any party against any other party to the action. (d) In the event that snow removal is not required under subdivision (a) or under any independent contractual or statutory duty, an agreement entered into pursuant to subdivision (b) to maintain the easement in repair shall be construed to include snow removal within the maintenance obligations of the agreement if all of the following exist: (1) Snow removal is not expressly precluded by the terms of the agreement. (2) Snow removal is necessary to provide access to the properties served by the easement. (3) Snow removal is approved in advance by the property owners or their elected representatives in the same manner as provided by the agreement for repairs to the easement. (e) The provisions of this section do not apply to rights-of-way held or used by railroad common carriers subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission. 846. An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on such premises to persons entering for such purpose, except as provided in this section. A "recreational purpose," as used in this section, includes such activities as fishing, hunting, camping, water sports, hiking, spelunking, sport parachuting, riding, including animal riding, snowmobiling, and all other types of vehicular riding, rock collecting, sightseeing, picnicking, nature study, nature contacting, recreational gardening, gleaning, hang gliding, winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, natural, or scientific sites. An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, who gives permission to another for entry or use for the above purpose upon the premises does not thereby <a) extend any assurance that the premises are safe for such purpose, or (b) constitute the person to whom permission has been 2 of 6 5/23/2000 11:05 AM 5-23-OO ; 1 2 : O5PM; ;76O4348367 #9/9 WAIS Document Retrieval |A http:/AvwwJeginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/i^Ba...cID==0424917219+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve granted the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed, or (c) assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by any act of such person to whom permission has been granted except as provided in this section. This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists (a) for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; or (b) for injury suffered in any case where permission to enter for the above purpose was granted for a consideration other than the consideration, if any, paid to said landowner by the state, or where consideration has been received from others for the same purpose; or (c) to any persons who are expressly invited rather than merely permitted to come upon the premises by the landowner. Nothing in this section creates a duty of care or ground of liability for injury to person or property. 846.1. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), an owner of any estate or interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, who gives permission to the public for entry on or use of the real property pursuant to an agreement with a public or nonprofit agency for purposes of recreational trail use, and is a defendant in a civil action brought by, or on behalf of, a person who is allegedly injured or allegedly suffers damages on the real property, may present a claim to the State Board of Control for reasonable attorney's fees incurred in this civil action if any of the following occurs: (1) The court has dismissed the civil action upon a demurrer or motion for summary judgment made by the owner or upon its own motion for lack of prosecution. (2) The action was dismissed by the plaintiff without any payment from the owner. (3) The owner prevails in the civil action. (b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), a public entity, as defined in Section 831.5 of the Government Code, that gives permission to the public for entry on or use of real property for a recreational purpose, as defined in Section 846, and is a defendant in a civil action brought by, or on behalf of, a person who is allegedly injured or allegedly suffers damages on the real property, may present a claim to the State Board of Control for reasonable attorney's fees incurred in this civil action if any of the following occurs: (1) The court has dismissed the civil action upon a demurrer or motion for summary judgment made by this public entity or upon its own motion for lack of prosecution. (2) The action was dismissed by the plaintiff without any payment from the public entity. (3) The public entity prevails in the civil action. (c) An owner of any estate or interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, or a public entity, as defined in Section 831.5 of the Government Code, that gives permission to the public for entry on, or use of, the real property for a recreational purpose, as defined in Section 846, pursuant to an agreement with a public or nonprofit agency, and is a defendant in a civil action brought by, or on behalf of, a person who seeks to restrict, prevent, or delay public use of that property, may present a claim to the State Board of Control for reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the civil action if any of the following occurs: (1) The court has dismissed the civil action upon a demurrer or motion for summary judgment made by the owner or public entity or upon its own motion for lack of prosecution. (2) The action was dismissed by the plaintiff without any payment 3 Of 6 5/23/2000 11:05 AM City of Carlsbad Planning Department PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION March 21,2000 Mr. Jon Jensen 451 So. Escondido Blvd. Escondido, CA 92025 SUBJECT: CDP 99-32 - JENSEN RESIDENCE At the Planning Commission meeting of March 15, 2000, your application was considered. The Commission voted 7-0 to APPROVE (AS AMENDED) your request. The decision of the Planning Commission became final on March 15, 2000. 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 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of 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 Planning Director, Michael J. Holzmiller, Secretary of the Planning Commission, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at (760) 602-4600. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:MG:mh Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolution No. 4734 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (76O) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 March 16,2000 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department CDP 99-32 - JENSEN RESIDENCE Subsequent to distribution of exhibits for the Jensen Residence (CDP 99-32), it came to staff's attention that two aspects of the project did not comply to the applicable regulations and ordinances. Specifically, the exhibits included a second kitchen (not allowed in the R-1 zone) and a driveway gate (not allowed within the front 20 feet of the property). Therefore, exhibits "A", "C", and "G" have been revised to eliminate the kitchen and relocate the driveway gate to 20 feet behind the Carlsbad Boulevard right-of-way. These replacement exhibits are attached. Given the project as described in these revised exhibits, staff has no issues with the proposal and is recommending approval of CDP 99-32. City of Carlsbad Planning Department February 23, 2000 Jon Jensen 451 South Escondido Blvd Escondido CA 92025 SUBJECT:CDP 99-32 - JENSEN RESIDENCE The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be available for you to pick up on Friday, February 25, 2000, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on March 6, 2000. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 9:00 a.m. If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC meeting. It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibit(s) with you to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission. Your colored exhibits must be submitted at this time to ensure review by the Planning Commission at their briefings. If the colored exhibits are not available for their review, your project could be rescheduled to a later time. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s) here by the scheduled time above. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact your Planner, Mike Grim at (760) 602-4623. CITY OF CARLSBAD GARY E. WAYNE Assistant Planning Director GEW:MG:cs c: File Copy 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-46OO • FAX (760) 6O2-8559 JON A. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 451 SOUTH ESCONDIDO BOULEVARD ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92025 TELEPHONE (760) 743-7966 FACSIMILE (760) 743-3793 TO: Mike Grim FROM: Jon Jensen RE: Change to plan DATE: December 22, 1999 MEMORANDUM T?J r. I would like to submit to you a few sheets showing a small change to the building foot print for my home. The change that was made was to add another bathroom to the master bedroom area on the middle floor of the home. This change is shown on the attached exhibit so that you can find it easily. Since the addition was to the middle floor and is up against the restraining wall, it will not affect or change the finish elevation of the main roof or the pad. I sincerely hope that the present time line can be maintained for the hearing. However, and if the change requires a delay, I will certainly understand. Either way, please notify me. Thank you for your continued efforts and assistance. G:\DATA\JAJ\HOUSE\GRIM.1 1\0:-<Z>" 150'-#" SCIjEEN HALL BEYOND 920' FRONT SETBACK i.<s> WkiH MASONRTSCREEN WALL BEYOND' FRONT SETBACK ALL WALLSWITHIN FRONTYARP SETBACKSHALL BE 4J- MltiM MAX. THENSTEP UP City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 31, 1999 Mr. Jon Jensen 451 S Escondido Blvd Escondido CA 92028 SUBJECT: COP 99-32 - JENSEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning and Engineering Departments have reviewed your Coastal Development Permit, application no. CDP 99-32, as to its issues of concern to staff. Listed below are staffs issues of concern. These issues of concern must be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. Please note that, in addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. Please contact your staff planner, Michael Grim, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4499, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAELS HOtZMILLER Planning Director MJH:MG: eh Attachments c: Gary Wayne Chris DeCerbo Kathy Farmer File Copy 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-O894 ISSUES OF CONCERN No. CDP 99-32 - JENSEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 1. Please provide a cross-section of the proposed walls in the front and side yard setback areas. The maximum wall height in the front yard is three and one-half feet (3.5) and the maximum height in the side yard is six (6) feet. These wall height limitations include the combined height of all walls in the setback. 2. Please label and clearly show driveway width. 3. Based upon the information provided on your application, a grading permit will be required (please note that a grading permit must be issued and rough grading approved prior to issuance of a building permit). Show several finish grade elevations throughout the pad and the resulting drainage flow. Please also state on the plans the specific cut, fill, import and/or export quantities. 4. Please show the existing and proposed cross sections from centerline of Carlsbad Boulevard extending to the top and bottom of bluff. 5. Please show the existing and proposed cross section 50 feet beyond both sides of the property at the garage/driveway section. Attached are red-lined checkprints. Please return these checkprints with your resubmittal. CITY O^bARLSBAD REVIEW AND COM^T MEMO DATE: -T REVISED PLAN 'POLICE DEPARTMENT - J. SASWAY / i^ TIRE DEPARTMENT - MIKE SMITH 'BUILDING DEPARTMENT - PAT KELLEY 'COMMUNITY SERVICES/RECREATION - MARK STEYAERT 'PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • VIRGINIA McCOY * _ WATER DISTRICT LANDSCAPE PLANCHECK CONSULTANT - LARRY BLACK _ SCHOOL DISTRICT *NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT - Planning Department SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC - BICH TRAN (Memo Only) HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT - LORI ROSENSTEIN •ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: Planning Department REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON APPLICATION NO. NOTE: Please use this number on all correspondence. PROJECT TITLE: APPLICANT: _J S<Qf\ PROPOSAL: }^ ^ /«. Please review and submit written comments to /&0. fe^K. thetSYJ /-///&0._ Project / Plainer in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, by / // *£ I0O _ . (If vou have "No Comments", please so state.) If not received by'the date indicated, it will be assumed that you have no comment and the proposal has your/endorsement as submitted. If you have any questions, please contact ^(^ _ at 438-1161, extension tyf?^ . The request for conditions will foHow at the appropriate time. THANK YOU COMMENTS: __ / / _ / / / _ / // _ i _ - ht. PLANS ATTACHED FRM0020 MEMORANDUM TO: MIKE GRIM, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM: Kathy Farmer, Engineering Technicia DATE: December 13, 1999 SUBJECT: CDP 99-32; JENSEN RESIDENCE, 5319 CARLSBAD BLVD. ENGINEERING CONDITIONS The Engineering Department has completed its review of the above referenced project. Please add the following conditions of approval to the approving resolution: 1. CDP 99-32 is subject to all conditions of MS 98-01. 2. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. 3. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site plan, a grading permit for this project appears to be required. The developer must submit and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with City codes and standards prior to issuance of a building permit for this project. 4. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required. If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or contact me at extension 4374. cc: Deputy City Engineer, Bob Wojcik I Mike Grim - Jensen Res.Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: Kathleen Farmer Mike Grim 10/5/99 10:38AM Jensen Res. Mike, Per our conversation, Mr. Jensen-CDP 99-32 is providing Eng. with 2 additional profiles and then we'll be ready for conditions. Thanks again. Kathy MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Grim, Associate Planner FROM: Kathy Farmer, Engineering Technician DATE: August 27, 1999 SUBJ: CDP-99-32; JENSEN RESIDENCE-5319 CARLSBAD BLVD. COMPLETENESS & ISSUES REVIEW Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed project are currently incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the following incomplete items: 1. Label driveway and clearly show width. 2. Based on the information provided on your application, a grading permit will be required. (The Grading Permit must be issued and rough grading approved prior to issuance of a Building Permit.) Show several finish grade elevations throughout pad and drainage flow. Also state on plans specific cut, fill, import and/or export quantities. 3. Show existing and proposed cross section from centerline of Carlsbad Blvd. extending to top and bottom of bluff. 4. Show existing and proposed cross section fifty feet beyond both sides of property at garage/driveway section. If you or the applicant have any questions, please contact me at extension 4374. cc: Principal Civil Engineer • • FILE COPY City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 16, 1999 Jon Jensen 451 S Escondido Blvd Escondido CA 92025 SUBJECT: CDP 99-32 - JENSEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Coastal Development Permit, application no. CDP 99-32, as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. The second list is issues of concern to staff. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, July 15, 1999, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact your staff planner, Michael Grim, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4499, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting'to discuss the application. Sincerel MICHAE1 J. HOLZMH.LER Planning Director MJH:MG:mh Gary Wayne Chris DeCerbo Kathy Farmer Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 2O75 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-O894 ( f ,' LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. CDP 99-32 - JENSEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 1. Please provide ten (10) copies of a preliminary landscape plan that indicates the type of planting and irrigation proposed for the side and rear yards. The existing lot is encumbered with a blufftop easement that require specific drainage information. 2. Please include on the cover sheet of the site plan the total grading quantities (i.e. amount of cut/fill and import/export). 3. Please provide a detailed drainage plan, indicating how each part of the site will drain to an approved drainage structure. ISSUES OF CONCERN 1. Issues of concern to the Planning and Engineering Departments will follow under a separate correspondence.