HomeMy WebLinkAboutDI 94-01; Kaffka Residence; Discussion Item (DI) (2)f
January 25, 1995
Ms. Kim Welshons Chairperson Carlsbad Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Aviara Lot #264 - Kaffl<a Residence
Dear Ms. Welshons:
Aviara has reviewed the third re-written version of the staff recommendation
report on the above referenced matter. We continue to have serious disagreement with the staff arguments in support of their interpretation that the subject side yard slope on Mr. Kaffla's lot is considered "undevelopable".
In the third revised Staff Report on this matter, staff argues that the . manufactured slope on Lot 264 "conforms with the overall terrain of the surrounding
hillside", and if development were to occur upon it, that "the natural appearance of the overall hillside ... could be lost". This appears to us to be quite a leap of interpretation.
Even the staff cross-section graphic, (Graphic "B"), demonstrates that the Kaffka design would tuck.the house into the slope where it would more accurately replicate the natural ridgeline in conformance with the Citfs objectives. Pushing the house out, to sit monolithidly on the pad, as recommended by staff, is counter to the goal of replicating the ridgeline. And of course, jhe entire area of the house at issue, the first floor level proposed for construction within the slope, is largely not visible from the exterior. Aviara Point contains some 20 similar slopes between lots which are between 10 and 15
feet in height, and thus not subject to this "undevelopable" interpretation. In each of these cases, development is allowed to the setback line. That is why a definition of the setback line exists. For staff to suggest that the Kaffka slope, were it "...to be developed, then the terrain of the hillside, as it was meant to be, would be lost ...," gives an excess of importance to a singular slope, in an attempt to rationalize what we are convinced is an
incorrect staff interpretation.
What staff does not tell you in their multiple reports, is that their position (that the
' proposed project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, the Master Plan, Hillside Ordinance, Environmental Ordinance, and Residential Density Calculations Ordinance),
is lotally predicated on the interpretation that. the subject between-lot manufactured
January 25, 1995 Page 2
slope is an "undevelopable" slope. As we pointed out and stressed in our previous correspondence, this is purely an jnterpretation that staff has made. Staffs position is
not supported by specific language from these ordinances. It appears that staffs strategy is to simply "throw the whole book" at the issue to disguise the loose interpretive nature of this staff decision.
All of the City's guiding documents are mute on the matter of whether approved manufactured slopes are applicable to the restrictions of the ordinance as if they were
natural slopes. When regulations are mute on a matter, we believe reference to the "Purpose and Intent" of the regulations should provide guidance for reasonable interpretation of the regulations. We conclude that repeated reference in the "Purpose and Intent" section of the Hillside Ordinance to "natural slope" preservation provides such guidance. We also conclude that the approved LCP definition of all Aviara preserve areas, which do not include this slope, dictate the specific areas of Aviara "undevelopable" land. Additionally, we conclude that the Master Plan, which contains no reference to this slope as undevelopable, and which stipulates a 10 foot side yard , building setback for this lot as Mr. Kaffka proposes, dictates that the portion of the
slope not within required setbacks is developable.
Aviara finds it incredible that after the lengthy discussions that have taken place on this matter, a rational interpretation has not prevailed. The subject slope is in the
middle of a lawfully approved subdivision.. A subdivision with previously approved Hillside Development Permit; full environmental approvals; and has received all the
necessary permits to continue to the next step: the use of the developable property. Aviara has had no indication that this specific slope, contained among all of the Aviara Point side yard slopes (that apparently developable), is protected, presumably in
addition to the 252 acres of 'already dedicated Aviara open spaces.
In addition, the precedent being set by the staff interpretation will create havoc. As example, will a public hearing and hillside'permit be required to fill in a 16 foot deep sewer line trench in an approved grading area? Staff's interpretation is not reasonable and lacks common sense, particularly in light of Section 21.56 which states that "...in interpreting and applying the provisions of this title they shall be held to the mi- requirement for the promotion of the public health, safety, c&nfort, convenience and general welfare. .." (emphasis added).
Furthermore, we do not follow the staffs exampled argument that approval of this house will set a precedent whereby developers can grade slopes in a manner inconsistent with the approved grading pennit.. It is ridiculous and unreasonably prejudicial to
suggest that this is the case. In no way does approval of Mr. Kaffka's appeal allow Mr.
Kaffka or subsequent developers to develop contrary to approved plans.
We are particularly mazed at the inclusion in the third revised staff report of the Planning Director's judgement that the Kaffka bouse will cause "...a significant
January 25, 1995 Page 3
(environmental) effect on land use, the earth, drainage and aesthetics...". Again, we must conclude that this statement demonstrates an unreasonable conclusion in an
attempt to justify an unreasonable interpretation.
It is our opinion that based on prior interpretation of the applicable City policies,
there is no substantive problem with the Kaffka house. There appears to be only a procedural problem resulting totally from an interpretation lacking the benefit of common sense.
The repetitive bias and prejudicial interpretation, stated as fact in the staff report, disturbs us greatly, and we urge the Planning Commission to overrule the Planning Director. The fear that "the sky will fall" from approving the Kaffka proposal is totally without merit. Aviara supports Mr. Kaffka and his home design and hopes that he will
soon be able to add his home to our most prestigious Aviara neighborhood.
Vice President/General Manager
cc: All Planning Codssioners Marty Orenyak Mike Holzder Greg Kaffka
lor264ab