HomeMy WebLinkAboutV 312; DOMINY, LEWIS; Variance (V)Receipt No.
APPLICATION NO. VARIANCE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
(Pkase Typ.tt or Print)
Date:
I.. REQUET: Variance to Qflpw an increase of. the building height limit, a reduction
(briefly explain and indicate section of Zone
of the frontyard and sideyard requ i rements for the building and the guest parking
OiITiiiñice affected)
respectively, and tandem parking. Sections 21.16.020, 21, 16.030, 21. 16.040 and
21.44.120 (5) (b).
2 LOCATION: The subject property is generally located on the
West sidt of Ocean Street between Del Mar
and Beech -
.30 ASSESSOR'S NUMBER: Book 203 Page 140 Parcel 2.8
Book Page Parcel (If more, please list on bottom of
thi page).
4. 0W11ER(S): Nane Address City Zip Phone
Gordon A. Klett and Edna Mae Klett, individuals 960 Avonoak Terrace, Glendale,
- California 91206
50 PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARATION OF APPLICATION:
N&iiie Address City Zip Phon€
- DOMINY & BOKAL ARCHITECTS 244 Ninth Street, Del Mar, California 92014
481-8244
6. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: I hereby declare that all information contained
witin this açlication is true; and that all standard conditions, as indicated
on the attac1 rrent ha been read, understood and agreed to.
La2-,av Address City Zip Phone
A. Lewis Dominy L 244inth Street, Del Mar, California - 92014 - 481-8244
Reiresenting (Company or Corporation) DOMINY & BOKAL ARCHITECTS
Relationship to' Property Owner(s) Agent
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department would appreciate the opportunity to work
with the aipplicant toughout the Planning Stages cf the proposed development. In
an effort to aid the applicant, the Planning Department requests that it be given
an opportunity to evaiate and discuss the application and plans prior to submittal.
This request is not arequirement; however, it may avoid major redrafting or re-
vision of the plan which only serves to lengthen the processing time.
ATTACHMEffS: Supplemental Information Form - Planning 23
Standard Conditions - Planning 27
Preparation Check List - Planning 32
Procedures - Planning 36
Date of Planning Commission Approval
FORM: Plannir.j
6/11, ,J
n
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
VARIANCE
T1) Gross Acres (or square footage, if less than acre) 8428sq- ft
.) Zone R-3
3Y Gene -'al Plan Lin'rd Use Designation R-
4) By law a Variance may be approved only if certain facts are
found to exist. Please read these requirements carefully and
expilain how the proposed project meets each of these facts.
Useadditiorl sheets if necessary.
• a) Explain why there are exceptional or extraordinary circum-
stances or conditions applicable to the property or to the
intended use- that do not apply generally to the other property
or classof use in the same vicinity and zone: There are xp;rinrt
- or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the sub jeci - prnprFy 'lint do not aaplv
r1ricrr,ll%i 1n Fk nFkr nrooertv in the same vicinity and zone: (a) The subied prbperty
t,rc riT.d fir-it rirnnvoilable to vehicular access which can be feasibly develooed
b)Explain why such variance is necessary for the preservation
aindenjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to
the property in question: The variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial .property right possessed by other properly in the same vicinity
and zone but which is denied to the properly in question. (a) Other properties in vicinity
have additional lot area available for building. (b) Oilier properties in the vicinity have
been previously developed with residences which do not meet curreht R-3 development
- requirements. (c) 21 variances of a similar nature have been granted to properly
owners on the west side of Ocean Street.
c) Explain why the granting of such variance will not be
niaterially detrimental to the public welfare. or injurious to
the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which
the property is located: The granting of the variabcewill not be materially deFri-
mental to the public welfare or injurious 1-0 the property or improvements in the vicinity
- and zone in which the property is located. (a) Properties in the area have been allowed
similar variances. (b) The variance would not interfere with emergency access or the
circulation of light- and air to the property. (c) The site is located in Fire Zone II
which necessitates special building practices in order to reduce fire potential. (d) A
- street realignment will be provided in order to widen the right of way and paved
surface of Ocëñ Street and to reduce any existing potential traffic safety problems.
d): Explali why the grantinq of such variance will not adversely
aft-fect the comprehensive general plan: The graningof this variance will
not adversely affect the City's Comprehensive General Plan. (al The project is
consistanl- witht-he underlying land use designation. (b) The variance would not
affect the dwelling unit density for the subject location. (c) The project is consistant
- with all other elements of the City's General Plan. -- -
FORM Mar Ing 23 Date of Planning Commission Approval
.-..--. .
Reei;tNo.
APPLICATIOJ NO. VARIANCE
£ITY OF CARLSBAD
S c,
I . re~_4~
(Picase Type or Print)
Date:2L8Q_
1. REQUEST: Variance to Allow (1) the construction of biIflding.4AfeF tnJ.eigJt - (bFiefly explain and indicate section of Zone
where 35 feet is allowed (Sec. 21. 16.020) and (2) the reduction of the front yard setback -
Ordinance affected)
to six feet where eight feet is required (Sec. 21.46.070 and 21.46.120).
2. LOCATION: The subject property is generally located on the
West side of Ocean Street between Del Mar
and Beech
30 ASSESSOR'S NUMBER: Book 203 Page 140 Parcel 28
Cook Parcel (If more, please list on bottom of
this page).
4. OWNER(S): Name Address City Zip Phone
-Gordon A. Klett and Edna Mae Klett, individuals, 960 Avonoak Terrace, Glendale,
California 91206
5. PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARATION OF APPLICATION:
Name Address City 1JR Phone
DOMINY & BOKAL ARCHITECTS 244 Ninth Street, Del Mar, California 220 14 48 1-8244
6. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: I hereby declare that all information contained
within this application is true; and that all standard conditions, as indicated
on the attachment have been read, understood and agreed to.
Nameeo hL n X -71. Address city Zip Phone
- - 2
Re presenting (Company or -
Relationship to Property Owner(s) i16iT
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department would appreciate the opportunity to work
with the applicant throughout the Planning Stages of the proposed development. In
n effort to aid the applicant, the Planning Department requests that it be given
an opportunity to evaluate and discuss the application and plans prior to submittal.
This request is not a requirement; however, it may avoid major redrafting or re-
vision of the plan which only serves to lengthen the processing time.
ATTACHMENTS: Supplemental. Information Form - Planning 23
Standard Conditions - Pla-nning 27
Preparation Check List - Planning 32
Procedures - Planning 36
Date of Planning Commission Approval
FORM: Planning 5
6/11/79
A.
•
•:- 0' I
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
VARIANCE
1) Gross Acres (or square footage, if less than acre) 8498 sq. ft.
2) Zone R-.3
3) General Plan Land Use Designation R-H
4) By law a Variance may be approved only if certain facts are
found to exist. Please read these requirements carefully and
explain how the proposed project meets each of these facts.
Use additional sheets if -necessary.
a) Explain why there are exceptional or extraordinary circum-
stances or conditions applicable to the property or to the
intended use that do not apply generally to the other property
or class of use in the same vicinity and zone: The subject lot isof
irrp,ilar_ shape _and _less _than _standard width. The lot has an hour glass thape Wiichreduces
th width to less than 44 feet at a point 40 feel' back from the front lot line. These
exceptional conditions do not apply to other property in the same vicinity and zone.
b) Explain why such variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to
• the property in question: The variance requested is the minimum requiredto
- allow the applicant preservation of substantial property rights possessed b other properties
in the same vicinity and zone. The variance would permit this project' to be -
constructed to the same front yard setbacks and to a height less than the-established
•
building heights in the vicinity. Without this minimum variance, the applicant_would
- be denied eniovment of these substantial property rights.
c) Explain why the granting of such variance will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which
the property is located: The proposed project would not be detrimental tothe
p ublic welfare or injurious to p perty in the vicinity. 1he intill at this higH density
residential site i _in conformance _with _the _(_arlsbad_(.eneral_ Plan, _Ihedesign_of_the_-
proposed constructionis__within_the__limit's_of_existing_construction_in_the_ vicinity _and _will
not establish any new precedents detrimental or injurious to the public welfare.
d) Explain why the grantinq of such variance will not adversely
affect the comprehensive general plan: The roosed project isin
_conformance with the general plan and will not adversely_ affect _its _implimentation.
FORM Planning 23Date of Planning Commission Approval ___• •
o
PUBLIC FACILTTIES FEE REQUIREMENTS
City Council Policy Number 17 requires' that all developers
requesting a discretionary action for a project pay a public
facilities fee in the amount of two-percent of the building
valuation. The fee is computed by the Building Department and
paid at the time the building permit is obtained. In the case
of a condominium conversion, the fee is calulated on the
building valuation at the time the fee is paid and the fee must
be paid prior to obtaining a final map on the project.
In addition to the above, a completed, signed and notarized
agreement to pay 'the public facilities fee must be submitted
with any application for a discretionary action. This agreement
form should be completed as follows:
1. Selected the appropriate form for either (a) the developer
and owner are the same party, or (b) the developer and owner
'are different.
2. Fill in the date the agreement is completed, the name and
address of the' developer (and owner, if appropriate) and
state if each is an individual, partne:;hip, corporation,
etc.
3. Fill in the type of. project proposed to be constructed
such as "a 12-unit condominium" or "30,000 square foot
shopping center," etc. and the proposed name (if any).
4. Fill in the date the request will be (or was) submitted
and the type of request such as "a tentative map," a
"condominium permit," "rezoning", etc.
5. Fill in the short legal description of the property on
the last sheet.
6. Sign the form in the presence of a notary and have the
notary attach an acknowledgement of execution to the form.
RHA:mmt .
2/14/80
ECØRDING REQUESTED BY
756
b (6
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
Name r Gordon A. IUett and
Street Edna Mae Klett
Address 960 Avonoak Terrace
City & Glendale, CA 91206
State
FILE/PAGE NO..S171
HOOK 1979
RECORDED REQUEST OF
TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST C&
DEC31 8:00AM79
OFFICIAL RECORDS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CAUF,
RECORDER
1400
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Individual Grant Deed
TI
THIS FORM FURNISHED BY TICOR TITLE INSURERS 203-140-28
IQ4CA (T74i A.P.N.
¶NSFER TAX PA
The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s): SAN DIEGO CQUNTY RECORDER
Documentary transfer tax is $ 167. 20
( ) computed on full value of property conveyed, or
() computed on full value less value of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale.
) Unincorporated area: ( x) City of Cr1 s1d , and
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
CARMEN L. MARINELLA and EDNA M. IfARINELLA, husband and wife
hereby GRANT(S) to
GORDON A. ICLETT and EDNA MAE ICLETT, husband and wife as ccunity property
the following described real property in the city of Carlsbad
County of San Diego , State of California:
As more particularly described in Exhibit ttA' attached hereto and made a part hereof,
comprising one page.
Dated October 4, 197
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CO N F_'S Le-c }ss.
On ('9 7/ before me, the under-
si"ned, a Notary Publicin a d for said State, perspnally appeared
/ : , ii .LdT " ' • "[1 ' ' " —
!D414" 4' . VIRGft F. FREDERKING
NOTARY PU8LIC - CAUFORMA
known to me LOS ANGELES COUNTY
to he the person-22--whose name ? subscribed to the within My comm. expires OCT 17, 1981
instrument and acknowledged that -executed the same. 631?. Narbonne Avenue, Lomita, CA 90717 WITNESS my hand and official seal. . -2so .a •' . .
Signature / !t B I 1 flat art it M 1)
-
rTit], Order No. 7 71 V , Escrow or' Lnn N0.J150093
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE
I
MAIL TAX STAItMENTS TO
Name
Street
Address Return Address Above
City &
State
iZtzA d
Carmen L. Marinella
//2) .JJ'J
Edna M. Marinella
757 e
EXHIBIT "A"
THE LAND REFERRED TC.IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE STATE. OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1:
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT ]. IN BLOCK "A" OF HAYES LAND COMPANY. ADDITION To.
CARLSBAD, MAP NO. 2, IN THE CITY OF CARLS8AL), 114 THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,:
STATE Of CALIFORNIA, ACCORDiNG TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1221, FILED IN THE
OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, NOVEMBER 4, 1909, TOGETHER
WITH THAT CERTAIN 5.00 FOOT STRIP OF LAND LYING NORTHERLY OF AND ADJOINING
THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1, ALL LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWSi . .
BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER 'CF LOT 2 IN SAID BLOCK '!A";. THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A STRAIGHT LINE TQA POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE
OF SAID LOT 1, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 36.°O0'00 WEST, 35.QOFEET
NORTHWESTERLY FROM THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT I.
EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POUT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT I t DISTANT THEREON NORTH 36 0 00'00" WEST, 103.57 FEET FROM THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER
OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE AND THE NORTHWESTERLY
PROLONGATION THEREOF NORTH 36 000'00" WEST, 24.59 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY
LINE OF SAID MAP NO. 1221; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH
8941 9 00" EAST, 42.15 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH
54000'00" WEST, 34.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2:
THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF LOT 1, IN BLOCK 2 Of OCEANSIDE ADDITION TO
CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, IN-THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 893, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK I*4U OF THE HAYES LAND COMPANY ADDITION TO CARLSBAD, MAP NO. 2, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1221,.FILED.IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, NOVEMBER 49 1909 1 WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF OCEAN STREET, 40
FEET WIDE, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP NO. 1221; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG D,
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF OCEAN STREET BEING ALSO THE ARC OF A 60 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY 24.15 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
23 0 03 1 30" TO A POINT IN A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 7703' 30"
WEST TO SAID POINT; THENCE LEAVING THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND SAID
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF OCEAN STREET,. SOUTH 54 0 00 1 00" WEST 37.51 FEET TO A POINT IN SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF MAP NO. 1221; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY
LINE NORTH 890 41'00" EAST 40.28 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
H
After recording return to:
,u
City. of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEVELOPER-OWNER
AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD FOR THE
PAYMENT OF A PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 3rd day of September
1980, by and between 'Gordon A. KIeM .and Edna Mae Kl.ett -
(name of developer-owner)
)(indviduoIs ,hereinafter referred to as
(Corporation, partnership, etc.)
"Developer", whose address is 960 Avonoc!k Terrace
(street)
Glendcl'e, California 91206 , and THE CITY OF
(City, state, zip code)
CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation of the State of California,
hereinafter referred to as "City", whose address is 1200 Elm
Avenue, Carlsbad,. California, 92008.
WITNES SETH:
WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of the real property described
on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part of this agreement,
hereinafter referred to as "Property"; and
- WHEREAS, the Property lies within the boundaries of City;
and
WHEREAS, Developer proposes a development project as follows:.
Three unit condominium
I.
on said Property, which development carries the proposed name
of Puesl'a Del Sol - 3 unit condominium
and is hereafter referred to as Development"; and
WHEREAS, Developer filed on the 10th day ofSepternbr
19 , with the City a request for Condominium Permit
(hereinafter referred to as "Request"; and
WHEREAS, the Public Facilities Element of the City General
Plan requires that the City Council find that all public
facilities necessary to sel'vé a development will be available
concurrent with need or such development shall not be approved
(said element is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated
by this reference; and
WHEREAS, Developer and City recognize the correctness of
Council Policy No. 17, dated August 29, 1979, on file with the City Clerk and'
Incorporated by this reference, and that the City's public facilities and services
are-at capacity and will not be available to accommodate the
additional need for public facilities and services resulting
from the proposed Development; and
WHEREAS, Developer has asked the City to find that public
., facilities and services will be available to meet the future
needs of the Development as it is presently proposed; but the
Developer is aware that the City cannot and will not be dble to
make any such finding without financial assistance to pay for
such-services and facilities; and, therefore, Developer proposes
- 2.- .
to help satisfy the General Plan as implemented by Council Policy
No. 17 by payment of a public facilities fee.
• NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the
covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. The Developer shall pay to the City a public facilities
fee in an amount not to exceed 2% of the building permit valuation
of the buildings or structures to be constructed in the Development
pursuant to the Request. The fee shall be paid prior to the
issuance of building or other construction permits for the develop-
ment and shall be based on the valuation at that time. This fee
shall be in addition to any feps, dedications or improvements
required pursuant to Titles 18, 20 or 21of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code. A credit toward such fee shall be given for land which has
been dedicated for park purposes or for any fees paid in lieu
thereof pursuant to Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
• Developer shall pay a fee for conversion of existing buildings or
structures into condominiums in an amount not to exceed .2% of the
building permit valuation at the time of conversion. The fee for a
condominium conversion shall be paid prior to the issuance of a
condominium conversion permit as provided in Chapter 21.47 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. Condominium shall include community
apartment or stock cooperative. The terms "other construction
permits", "other construction permit" and "entitlement for use" as
used in this agreement, except in reference to mobilehome sites or
projects, shall not refer to grading permits or other permits for
the construction of underground or street improvements unless no
• • other permit is necessary prior to the use or occupancy for which
• . 3.
0
the development is intended. Developer shall pay to City a publià
facilities fee in the sum of $1,150 for each mobilehome space to be
constructed pursuant to 'the Request. The fee shall be paid prior
to the issuance of building or other construction permits for the
development. This fee shall be in addition to any fees, dedications
or improvements required according to Titles 18, 20 or 21 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. A credit toward such fee shall be given
for land which has been dedicated for park purposes or for any Lees
paid in lieu thereof pursuant to Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code,
2. The Developer may offer to donate a site or sites for
public facilities in lieu of all or part of the financial obligation
agreed upon in Paragraph 1 above. If Developer offers .to...
donate a site or sites for public facilities, the City shall
consider, but is not obligated to accept the offer. The time for
donation and amount of credit against the fee shall be determined
by City prior to the issuance of any building or other permits.
Such determination, when made, shall become a part of this agree-,
ment. Sites donated under this paragraph shall not include improvements
required pursuant to Titles 18 or 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code.
3.. This agreement and the fee paid pursuant hereto are
required to ensure the consistency of the Development with the
City's General Plan. If the fee is' not paid as provided herein,
the city will not have the funds to provide public facilities and
services, and the Development will not be consistent with he
General Plan and any approval or permit for the Development shall
4 .
t
be void. No building or other construction permit orentitlement
for use shall be issued until the public facilities fee required by
this agreement is paid.
4. City agrees to deposit the fees paid pursuant to this
agreement in a public facilities fund for the financing of public
facilities when the City Council determines the need exists to
provide the facilities and sufficient funds from the payment of
this and similar public facilities fees are available.
5. City agrees to provide upon request reasonable assurances
to enable Developer to comply with any requirements of other public
agencies as evidence of -adequate public facilities and services
sufficient to accommodate the needs bf the Development herein
described.
6. All obligations hereunder shall terminate in the event
the Requests made by Developer are not approved.
7. Any notice from one party to the other shall be in
- writing, and shall be dated and signed by the party giving such
notice or by a duly authorized representative of such party. Any
such notice shall not be effective for any purpose whatsoever
unless served in one of the following manners:
7.1 If notice is given to the City by. personal delivery
thereof to the City or by depositing same in the United States
Nail, addressed to the City at the address set forth-herein,
enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed to the City for attention
of the City Manager, postage prepaid and certified.
7.2 If notice is gi\ien to Developer by personal delivery
thereof to Developer or by depositing the same in the United States
5.
Mail, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed to Developer at the
address as may have been designated, postage prepaid and certified.
8. This agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to
the benefit of, and shall apply to, the respective successors and
assigns of Developer and the City, and references to Developer
or City herein shall be deemed to be reference to and include their
respective successors and assigns without specific mention of such
successors and assigns. If Developer should cease to have any
interest in the Property, all obligations of Developer hereunder
shall terminate; provided, however, that any successor of Developer's
interest in the Property shall have first assumed in writing the
Developer's obligations hereunder.
9.. This agreement shall be recorded but shall not create
a lien or security interest on the Property. When the obligations.
of this agreement have been satisfie, City shall record a release.
I/I
I .
• IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed in San Diego
County, California as of the date, first written above.
DEVELOPER-OWNER: CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal
• corporation of the State of California
(Name)
By By_________________
• City Manager
(Title)
By______
I
(Title)
TO 447 C
(Individual)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES }
t On September 8, 1980, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
State, personally appeared Gordon A. Klett and Edna Mae Klett
Ill z known to me
to be the person S whose nameS are subscribed
W to the within instrument and acknowledged that-
they-executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal. S OFFICIAL SEAt -
DOROTHY F. PAGE
Signatur _ I PRINCIPAl. OFFICE IN
Dorot1?fF. Page
• NOTARY PUBLIC -CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
December 15, 1980
Name (Typed or Printed)
(This area for official notarial seal)
(Notarial acknowledgement of execution by DEVELOPER-OWNER must •
be attached.)
'7.
a * 757
EXHIBIT 1tA
THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE STATE. OF
C4LFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO v AND LS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS
PARCEL 1:
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT I IN BLOCK A' OF HAYES LAND COMPANY. ADDITION TO
CARLSBADv MAP NO. 2, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBADIa IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
STATE OF CALIFRNIA Q ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO 1221v FILED IN THE
OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY 9 NOVEMBER 4 v 1909 TOGETHER
WITH THAT CERTAIN 500 FOOT STRIP OF LAND LYING NORTHERLY OF AND ADJOINING
THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT I v ALL LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE-DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOSz . . . . . ..
BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER 'CF LOT 2 iN SAID BLOCK !A; THENCE
NWtHWESTERLY ALONG A STRAIGHT LINE TO POINT IN THE SOUTH4ESTERLY LINE
OF SAID LOT I, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 36.0 00OO WEST 9 3500FEET
NORTHWESTERLY FROM THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT L
EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTUJN DESCRiBED AS FOLLOWS: .
BEGINNING AT 4 POINT N THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF .54.10 LOT l o DISTANT
THEREON NORTH 36 0 0000 WEST9 10357 FEET FROM THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER
OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE AND THE NORTHWESTERLY
PROLONGATION THEREOF NORTH 360000 WEST 9 2459 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY
NE OF SAID MAP NO 1221; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH
4L 9 OO EAST v, 42:15 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LiNEs SOUTH
540000 WEST, 3424 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING..'
PARCEL 2
THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF LOT 1 9 IN BLOCK 2 OF OCEANSIDE ADDITION TO
CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IN -THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO 8939 FILED IN THE OFFLCE OF
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY9 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS.:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE Of BLOCK OF THE
HAVES LAND COMPANY ADDITION TO CARLSBAD, MAP NO. 29 ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 1221, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY9 NOVEMBER 4, 1909 WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF OCEAN STREET 9 40
FEET WIDE, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP NQ 1221; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALDNGSAI[)
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF OCEAN STREET BEING ALSO THE ARC OF A 60 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE9 CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY 24.15 FEET THROUGH 'A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
2303030il 10 A POINT LN A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 7703 30,'
WEST TO SAID POINT; THENCE LEAVING THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND SAID
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF OCEAN STREET, SOUTH 5400°00 WEST 375I FEET TO A
POINT, IN SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF MAP NO. 1221; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY
LINE NORTH 89 0 4100' EAST 4028 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.,
f
SECURED AGREEMEUI BETWEEN
OWNER AS DEVELOPER AM CARLSBAD UNIFIED
• SCHOOL DISTRICT
THIS SECURED AGREEMENT is entered into this day of
1980, by arto between 1'
(T1nrov (ve oper)
(CFi7rtT
hereinafter referred to as Develoer", whose address and phone number
• iS $4
&\Q 4 -
• (tity ; State (Ph , Zip Códe) one NUiibr)
and
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT of San Diego County, California,
hereinafter referred to as "District", whose address is 801 Pine
Avenue, Carlsbad, California92006
W I T N E S E I H:
A WHEREAS, Developer is the owns of the real property described
on EXHIBIT "A" attached hereto and by I is reference incorporated herein
by reference, and hereafter referred to as "Property" V; and
B. WHEREAS, the Property lies within the boundaries of District; and
C. WHEREAS, Developer proposes to construct 3/
on said Property, which development carries the proOsed name:-
of c\ o\ . and is
hereafter referredto a "Development"; and
D. WHEREAS, Developer________
(Flied on the _day of ,198)
WOS' with the C 'inty of San Diego and/or the City
(Intends tti'T1iJ
of Carlsbad a request for 4/ iwç
4I ,- ..&r. r
E. WHEREAS, Developer and Discri' recognize that school facilities
and services will not be available to accommodate children who may subsequently
move into the proposed development; and
F. WHEREAS, Developer has requested of the District assurances that
school facilities and services will be avaiiable to meet the needs of the
future residents of the development as It is presently proposed and the
'Developer is aware that the District ctnot, and will not, be able to give *
Developer any such assurances without financial assistance to pay for such
services and facilities; and
G. WHEREAS, the Developer agrees to provide such financial assistance
in accordance with the terms of this a, 'cement and the District agrees to
provide asurances that school facilitfts and services will be available
to meet the needs of the future residents of the development as it is
presently proposed.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO i-EREBY AGREE as follows:
-2-
1. The Developer shall pay to the District the sum of
• One Thousand, twenty-nine and no l00---.---------------DeijJ$ i,02)
Or whatever stm Is in e?rect —a_t__tFi__1MW building permit s are issued)
for each dwelling unit to be constructed in the Development. The number of
• Dwelling units tob constructed shall be detrnined from the approved
• subdivision map of the Development, as icorded In the Office of the County
Recorder.. The term "dwelling unit" a used In this agreement means a place
of residence and may be located 1n eitP ing1e or multiple dwelling •
unit building. Such payments shall be de in accordance with the following
provisions: *
• 1.1 The total amount due hert under shill be paid to the District
in installments equal to $ 1 029 times the number of dwellin units
(Or whatever sum Is in effec at the time building permits are issued)
for which building permits are issued until the total amount as specified
in paragraph 1 above has been paid or until the agreement has been
canceled by mutual consent due to the abandonment Of a portion of the
Development. Such installments shaH be due and payable to the District
concurrent with application b' Developer for issuance of said building
permits.
1.2 Any payments not made b he Developer when due and payable
shall bear interest at the rate V .even (7) percent per annum.
2. The Owner and Developer may in e future offer to donate a school
site in lieu of all or pare of the fincocial obligation agreed upon in
paragraph 1 above, which offer the District shall consider but is not obligated
to accept.
3. To secure Developer's obligation hereunder, Developer shall provide
to District the securities called for in subparagraph 3.1 or 3.2 or 3.3:
-j
'V
.3.1 A surety bond in favor or District in a form acceptabJe
to District from an insurer acceptable to District in thb sum of
to insure Developer's performance of the terms of
this agreement: J . *
3.2 A bank or savings and loan time certificate of deposit in .the
amount of $______ in a form acceptable to District naming
the District as an irr'vocab1e assic)nee for the term of this agreement,
and expressly providing that any interest accruing on the time certificate
of deposit shall be solely the pror arty of depositor and the District
sWI have no rights to any such it erest. 5/
:3.3 Such other security as may be acceptable to the District. 5/
4. District agrees to provide school facilities and services which will
be available to meet the needs of the future residents of the areas to be
developed as described herein. District further agrees to provide in writing
for Developer, and upon his request, assurances necessary to enable Developer
to comply with any requirements of public agencies as evidence of adequate
;chool facilities and services sufficient to accommodate the needs of the
ievelopments herein described.
5 All obligations hereunder shal terminate in the event
and the District shall within ten (10) after written notice to District
by Developer, deliver to Developer necessary documents for releasing the
security provided to District pursuant to paragraph 3 hereof.
6. Any notice from one party to the other shall be in writing, and
'3
-4-
____ _____•
?8.
shall be dated and signed by the party giving such notice or-by a duly
authorized representative of such party, Any such notice shall not be effective *
for any purpose-whatsoever unless served in one of the' following manners:
6.l.. If notice is given to the District, by personal delivery
thereof to the District or by depositing the same in'the United States
Wt.' addressed to the District at the address set forth herein, enclosed
In a sealed envelope addressed to whe District for attention of the
Superintendent, postage prepaid an., certified.
6.2 f notice is givers to D& .loper, by personal delivery thereof
to Developer or by depositing the ime in the United States Mati,
enclosed in a sealed envelope addri'sed to Developer at the address
set forth herein or atsuch other addresses as may have been designated,
postage prepaid and certified.
6.3 if notice is given to a surety or other person, by personal
delivery to such surety or other person orby depositing the same in
the Unitied States Mail, enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed to such
surety or person at the address at which such surety or person last
communicated to the party giving n' ice,postage prepaid and certified.
7. This agreement shall be bindin upon and shall inure to the benefit
of, and shall apply to,the respective s cessors and assigns of Developer
nd the District, and references to Dv oper or the District herein shall, be
deemed to be reference to and include their respective successors and assigns
without specific mention of such sucessars and assigns. If Developer should
cease to have any interest in the Property, all obligations of Developer
hereunder shall terminate; provided, however, that any successor of Developer's
_L
• H
interest in the Property shall have f1t assumed inriting the Developer's
Ct
obligations hereunder and shall have complied with paragraph 3 hereof.
IN WHirNES$ WUEREQF this Agreement is execute in San biego County, California
as of the date first written above.
DFVEL
• itle ___ ___________
Title
• DISTRICT:'
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
By _______ ________________________
• AuthorTThdAgent
* RATIFIED BY GOVERNING BOARD:
198_
- •*.-
QUALITY
ORIGI .NAL (S)
P00TNOTS
1.
Full lnformatin concerning the Owner and Developer should be set
out here and tbe. name of the Owner should be identical to that used
by the Owner In holding title to thq property.
V The exadt legal description of the property shoUldbe set forth on
EXhibit:, "A'. -
Insert the number of residential budiigs to be constructed and describe the
ndsand.ntnber of residential uniti to beiconstructed, e.g., 100,
two-bdroorn s.i-ngl fmi1y residenc; 4apartment buildings consisting
of 60 -two-.bedroom apartrneht; one i ,ilhomC park. with 200 mobilehome
space. ' - •
J State whether the Developer has or will, apply for a rezoning and/or
conditional use permit or some othe' permit or application. Where the
property Is to be rezoned, state th present zoning and the proposed *
zoning. Where an application number has been assigned by the County or
the City, state the number.
• j The prdpóed .fdnii of bond or time certificated of deposit .should be
submitted to the District before the Developer sihs this Agreement to
aure 'tbát the bondor certificate will be in a fOrm satisfactory to the
District When later delivered. *
/ This event will probably be a denial of rezning application.
0 *
IS
7 .
EXRI1iI "A"
THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS:PQLICY SITUATED IN THESLATE OF
CAL IFOiNIA. COUNTY bF S AN DIEGU, AND .; OESCRI.3E0 AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL I:
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK WAI OF HiYES LAND COMPANY AOITION 111-
CARLSBAD, MAP NO, 2, IN THE CITY OF CRLS8ALJ, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN QVGO.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO NAP THEREOF NO. 1221, FILED IN THE
OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGLJ COUNTY, NOVEMBER 49 19099 TDGE1EIER
WITH THAT CERTAIN 5.00 FOOT STRIP OF LAND LYING NORTHERLY OF AND ADJOINING '•.
THE NORTHERLY LINE Of SAID LOT 1w .ALk LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE DgSC*(ED
AS FOLLowsx
• BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 2 IN 'SAID BLOCK 'ATM;. THENCE-
NORTHWESTERLY .ALONG A STRALGHT LINE 10 A POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE
OF SAID LOT 1, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 36 0 00 4 00" WEST. 35.00 FEET
NORTHWESTERLY FROM THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1.
EXCEPT -THEREFROM THAT PORTION DECRIVED AS FOLLOWS:
bEGINLNG AT' A POiNT IN THE SO HWES 'ERLY LINE O SAID LOT. 1. DISTANI
THEREON NORTH 36 0 00 1 00" WEST 103.5r FEET FROM TI4E.MOST SI THER.LY GO. mpt
OF SAID LOT l; THENCE ALONG 'SAID SDuFHWESTERLY LINE AND THE N0RTHWER*
PROLONGATION THEREOF NORTH 3600'00 WEST, 24.59 FEET TO THE NORTHER((
LINE OF SAID MAP NO. 1221; THENCE -Al'iNG SAID NORTHERLY LINEr NORTH
894000" EAST, 42.15 FEET; THENCE AVXNG SAID NORTHERLY LINE. SUU
54000 0 00' WEST, 34.24 FEET TO THE POINT Of BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2: i
THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF LOT t, jN BLOCK 2 OF OCEANSIDE ADDITION TO
CARLSBAD, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING Td MAP THEREOF NO. 893, FILED.. IN THE OFFICE w'
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, OESCRL8O AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF T* NORTHERLY LINE OF BLOCK "A", OF THE
HAYES LAND COMPANY ADDITION TO CARLSBAD, MAP NO. 2, ACCORDING TO MA
THEREOF NO. 1221. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEjO
COUNTY, NOVEMBER 4 1909, WITH THE 3OUTKWESTERLY LINE OF OCEAN 5TREIt,4.
FEET WIDE, A5.SHOW4 ON SAIQ MAP NO..-122L; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AL01.4f'SAiD
-SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF OCEAN STREET iEING ALSO THE ARC UF 4 60 FOOT :'ArflU$
CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEAStERLY Z4.15 EET THROUGH * CENIgAL ANGLE OF
$ 23003 4 30" TO A POINT INA RADiAL L'IE OF SAID CURVE BEARS $OUTH 77' 4' .30'
wEsl:.ro SAIDPOIN:T; THENCE LEAVING THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND SAID
SourHwESTELY LINE OFOC:EAN TREET1 SOUTH 34°00'00'WST 37451FEEY rO 4
• POINT IN SAID NORTHERLY 1.1 4EO:t4 NO 1221, THENCE ALONG SAID N0MHERL1. .
LINE NORTH 8944t'QQ E4,T 4O.28 FE 4 TO THE POINT OF GLNNING.
THE PO EN Z1 C' "PAN. INC.
114 &7 Mi.&io,i Road • Los 4' ,Ies 3, Cdlifolwia
2v
:
• Nrm Wo., I"' Orlotnish Fc' Assignee
ASSIGNMENT ASECURITY
FOR PAYMENT OF ALL BILLS STATEMENTS OR CHARGES FOR ANY SERVICES
ASSIGNMENT to Car].sbaô. Tuified School 1strict of' San D iego Comty
Kiett
(NAME)
heraafter called ASSIGNOR, whose principal place of busino •_960 Avonoak Teac
(STREET)
- , Cáltfornia, (do) (does). hereby assign and et over to the.._..
(CITY) sUnifeed School Di&x'ict of San- Mo OO,Ue address is Carl sbarl__,
(NAME OF ASSIGNEE) (STREET)
CtIfornI, hereinafter ii eferr. to at. the ASSINF.E, all right, title and interest of any kind
wh 'icr owned or held by AsSIgnor irk and to the insure -count bf Assignor in the
,whose address is
(NAME OF SAVINGS ANP WAN A$St ATIO01
._CA2oQ_. ._._, CaUFornia, as evidenced by an account in the
.t ot __.. doflare ($_3,aLOO ), identified as account
A, which account Is delivered by if e A4,.nor to the Assignee. Assignor agrees and stipulates that
this sl frcbrrs with it the right In and to The inurnce of this account by the Federal Savings and Loan tnsursne
Coily Include gives the right to the Assignee to ,deem, collect, and withdraw the full amount of such account
at bti/ time WITHOUT NOTICE TO ASSIGNOR. This assignment Is given as security for the payment of all bills, statements or
chøs for ay ervIces furnished Or rendered at any time from md after— -_,JePt. 8
MONTH DAY
and it any and 'all pernise;. at which service has been or may tø ordered or contracted for by the assignor.
Ailgnor, 1-er,l-,V ntifie1 the above-named savings and 'oan assOciation of this assignment.
'D.ted'thi I day'of _Sept. -. ic'._130 endalg Californa.
*in cot4nce with that "secured agreement"
between ehe ownerJ6ve16per and the Carlsbad ASSIGNOR
1jfxjfjed 1 oo3. District, -dated 9/8180, copy attached.
FIRST ENDO EN FOR NOTICE OF ASSIG
Receipt is hereby acknowt3dged to the Assiçlnea of wrt1m notice of Assignment of the above-Identified account.
W noted isr reeords to show the Interest of the- Assignee i mid account We hereby certify that we have not received
anli lotio pf fteP, eiCumbrance, hold, claim, or other obligbyi . against the above.k{enIfled account prior to its assign-runt
to 'We certify that the eount is fully Inured b 'e Federal Sevings and loan Insurance Corporation, We roine
to tke pmoflI tt 'the Assignee upon written request Ir. aco j once wti the savings arid loan laws applicable to t"j5
iad
atI
day of .., ___._at.._.....,..._...— , California.
NAME OF SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION
By - (SIGNATURE OF OFFICER)
• (TITLE OF OFFICER) -
V
- SE(OND ENDORSEMENT —RECEIPT FOR SECURITY AND DIRECTION TO PAY EARNINGS :-'-- _.;_.••._--_-
Rce1pt is acknowtedge1 of the assgnment above and the account identified in tke assignment above The savings
ani 5oan assotiefion nanêcI in the assignme$ above is hereby aj horized and directed to pay any earnings on the above identi
fled cco4t-tb the above-named assignor. -
of ______________ - - .___ at ___________ _______ C&ifoinia 19
j. • "• -. . • - ,- _______________ _______________________________________
ASSIGNEE -
By
By
ci 'it*d toy tha Colifornla Savirifia and Lato Lo ,ciue, Y.,MJ,. C,,I1t,mIs
. S
V
SAVI NGS 0SITNO. 001-43206-9
DATE
--------- -.- -
WITHDRAWALS INTEREST DEPOSITS TOTAL SAVINGS
Wtvou deposit any,check to your savings account, pleuse allow a few days for the
It,., 4k' to cIer the before requesting a •ItidijwaI on these funds. hlorrneily, a
'cdk1rep an loe*bank will deer In 7 ca*idat days, an out.of-towri chø.k in 14
dIudar days and 8j),6ut';of ,state check in 20 f,Ier(cjar days. On hew account,, please 41ä'wi additional 494'66r days in eah catuguy.
'G FORM 403-I (R 4-78)
TYPE 11 RATE
DaZlew 07.100 ,D8700 0178
SAVE TIME WHILE YOU SAVE MONEY. SAVE BY MAIL.
WE PAY POSTAGE 1OTH WAYS.
a.
6 .
September 2, 1980
To Whom It May Concern:
This memorandum authorizes the architectural firm
of Dominy & Bokal, 1049 Camino del Mar, Suite 7,
Del Mar, California, 92014, and/or Joel G. Klett,
No. 3, 190 Del Mar Shores Terrace, Solana Beach,
California, 92075, to act as our agents on behalf
of all matters relating to obtaining permits from
any public body, executing agreements with public
bodies, or otherwise representing the undersigned
in connection with application for such permits,
all as may be required in order to commence con-
struction on a proposed three-unit condominium
structure to be erected at 2601 Ocean Street, City
of Carlsbad, of which we are the legal owners.
This authority to act on behalf of the owners shall
be valid until otherwise revoked in writing by said
owners.
M-l" m "; - A;0.
TO 447 C
(Individual) (;j;j)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 5> SS.
On September 3, 1980, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
State, personally appeared
Gordon A. Klett and Ecing Mae Klett
known to me
to be the person 5 whose nameS are subscribed
to the within instrument and acknowledged that they
executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal. OjF)CIAt
DOROTHY P. PAGE -
Signature NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA
ii
PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN
LOS ANGLE$ COUNTY Ii Dorothy F. Page My Ire^ December 15, 198()
Name (Typed or Printed)
(This area for official notarial seal)
S •S
AGREEMENT
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD AND GORDON A. KLETT AND
EDNA MAE KLETT FOR THE EXCHANGE
OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR
STREET PURPOSES.
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on this day of
, 1980 between the City of Carlsbad, a municipal
corporation (hereinafter called "City") and Gordon A. Klett and
Edna Mae Klett (hereinafter called "Kletts").
D'tTn17T C
1. On February 5, 1980 the City Council approved an align-
ment of Ocean Street requiring a forty foot paved section on a
fifty foot right-of-way. In order to insure that this alignment
is made in the safest manner possible, with the greatest protection
to the public health, safety and welfare and the least private
injury, the alignment of the roadway in the vicinity of the
intersection of Ocean Street and Cypress Avenue must be altered,
as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by
this reference.
2. In order to properly align Ocean Street, it is necessary
that a right-of-way for street purposes be acquired across
certain property denoted on Exhibit A by the notation "to be
acquired". The property to be acquired is described in Exhibit B
attached hereto and incorporated by this reference and is herein-
after called "Parcel 1". Kletts intend to acquire either an
. I
easement for street utility and access purposes or fee interest
in Parcel 1 and to exchange Parcel 1 for the City's interest
in that portion of Ocean Street, shown on Exhibit A by the
notation "to be vacated". The property to be vacated is
described in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated by
this reference and is hereinafter called "Parcel 2". Once the "
interest in Parcel 1 is transferred to the City, Parcel 2 will
no longer be necessary for present or future street purposes
and may then be vacated. Title to Parcel 2 shall be transferred
to the property owner except for certain dedicated utility
easements which may be reserved by the City according to the
provision of Section 8370 through Section 8374 of the California
Streets and Highways Code. If title to Parcel 2 permits/-'the
exchange of the property shall occur according to the provisions
of Streets and Highways Code Section 8374.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and of
the mutual covenants expressed in this Agreement, the City and
Kletts agree as follows:
A. Kletts shall acquire that portion of Parcel 1. Such
acquisition may be of a fee interest or an easement for public
street utility and access purposes.
B. Kletts agree to dedicate Parcel 1 to the City.
C. City agrees to initiate proceedings according to
California Streets and Highways Code Sections 8300 et seq. for
vacation of that portion of the Ocean Street right-of--way refer-
red to in this Agreement as Parcel 2. On completion of the
-2-
. .
vacation proceedings, if the determination is made that Parcel 2
should be vacated, City agrees to deed the City's interest in
Parcel 2 in exchange for the Kletts' interest in Parcel 1.
D. It is expressly understood that Parcel 2 shall not be
vacated until the Kletts have acquired or entered into a
binding contract to acquire the necessary interests in Parcel 1.
Exchange of property interests between the Kletts and City
shall occur according to Section 8374 of the California Streets
and Highways Code. The final order of vacation shall not be
made until title to Parcel 1 has first vested in the City. With-
out this condition precedent to the vacation, the City Council
could not make the findings required by California Streets and
Highways Code Section 8323 and no vacation of Parcel 2 could
occur.,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement on the day and year first above written.
CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation
of the State of California
ATTEST:
By
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ,
City Clerk
PROPERTY OWNER
By
GORDON A. KLETT and
By
EDNA MAE KLETT
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR., City Attorney
By
DANIEL S. HENTSCHKE, Asst. City Attorney
-3-
OcupcinP
I
2640 Garfled Street
CtrkIxd, CtForn 9200S
Occupant
2641 Garfield Street
Ccrkbad, CcUfomc 92008
• OtCUp(ifl - •
2642 Garfield 5frt
Ccsbcd, CUrornk • 92008 •
Ocpn •
2643 Garfield Street • -
Carkbod, Ca3iior&o 92008
: ••
Occupant
• •
- • •
2633 Garfield Street • •
California 92008 : •
• --
• •
•. •:
• •
. S
Occupant
t 2627 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
'I
• Occupant
2633 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
• •
• Occupant
• 2634 Ocean Street
Carhad, CaUfornia 92008
• '- •
• Occupant
2635 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, California 9200
• Occupant •
• 2636 Ocean Street •
• Carlsbad, Ca lifornia 92008
• Occupant
2637 Garfletd Street
• Ca1bad Cdforre 92008
Occupant •
2638 Garfield Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
.-:;r I •
• Occupant •
2639 Garfield Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
• -•••• •
.• .
E4ward Hubbard
2649 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
Occupant
260.5 Ocean Sweet
Carbcd, California 92008
Occupant
2606 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
Occupant -:
2607 Ocean Street
(
• Carlsbad, California 92008 •
I
Occupant :.
• 2609 Ocean Street
• Carlsbad, California 92008
Occupant • -
2617 Ocean Street •
Carlsbad, California 92008
:
Occupant
2621 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, California 92003
r
Occupant
• 2623 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
1'
I
S S
Joyce Toy
2501 E, ornmonwooIh Sret
Fullerton, Ca 0 92631
Richard & Carol Dickey
1311 RdeoRood
Arcadia, Caiffornia 91006 -
Harrison E. Silver
Ethel M. Mullen
5841 Grand Avenue
Riverside, California 92504
'S
Raymond & Barbara Mullen
2110 Arroyo Drive
Riverside, California 92506 :..
David Easterbrook5
Jack & Rosemary Clifton
•
S. 999 N. Pacific 310
Oceanside, California 92054
John & Wendy Craven -S
24434 Malibu Rood
'Malibu, California 90265
• ItIsky & Perkins '•
3428 North Circle Road S
Son Bernardino, California 92405
Jean E. Walker S S
2643 Ocean Street
S Carlsbad, Cot Ifornki 92008
5
I . a
Army Navy Academy
Carlsbad,
California 92008
-S
Raymond & Dorothy Edo
• 2600 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, California $2008
Edwin & Joyan filsicy
3428 North Circle Road
San Bernardino, California 92405
• Norman & Jane Schokel
• 2819 Reed Rood '
• Escondido California 92027 •.
• Albert & Jomie Polhamus • • 2642 Ocean Street
• • -- Carlsbad, California 92008
• ••.:
Irma Algover
2650 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, CdiFornk 92008
Richard & June Gronqulst
2651 Garfield Street •
Carlsbad, California 92008
:, •• _-•
-
• Ethel H. Bliss
•
PeO. Box 542
Mentone, California 92359
Assessor's
Name Address Parcel No.
1. Army Navy Academy
2. Army Navy Academy
3. Raymond & Dorothy Ede
4. "Not Used"
5. Army Navy Academy
6. Edwin & Joyan Iljsley
7. Norman & Jane Schakel
8. Ai.ber& Jamie Poihamus
9. Irma Algover
10. Richard & June Gronquisi
11. Ethel H. Bliss
12. Joyce Toy
13. Army Navy Academy
14. Richard & Carol Dickey
15. Harrison E. Silver
Ethel M. Mullen
16. Raymond & Barbara Mullen
17. Raymond Mullen
Carlsbad,
California 92008 203 041 01
Carlsbad,
California 92008 203 041 01
2600 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, California 92008 203 141 01
Carlsbad,
California 92008 203 141 02
3428 N. Circle Rd.
San Bernardino, Ca. 92405 203 141 03
2819 Reed Road
Escondido, Ca. 92027 203 141 04
2642 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 203 141 05
2650 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 203 141 06
2651 Garfield Street
Carlsbad, Ca, 92008 203 141 17
P. 0. Box 542
Menione, Calif. 92359 203 141 18
2501 E. Commonwealth Si.
Fullerton, Ca. 92631 203 141 19
Carlsbad,
California 92008 203 141 23
1311 Rodeo Road
Arcadia, Ca. 91006 203 140 02
5841 Grand Avenue
Riverside, Cc,. 92504 203 140 03
2110 Arroyo Drive
Riverside, Ca. 92506 203 140 04
2110 Arroyo Drive
Riverside, Ca. 92506 203 140 05
.
999 N. Pacific #310
Oceanside, Ca. 92054 203 140 06
24434 Malibu Road
Malibu, Ca. 90265 203 140 07
3428 N. Circle Road
San Bernardino, Ca. 92405 203 140 08
2643 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 203 140 09
2649 Ocean Street
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 203 140 10
Carlsbad,
California 92008 203 043 04
Carlsbad,
California 92008 203 043 05
18. David Easerbrooks
Jack & Rosemary Clifton
19. John & Wendy Craven
20. lllsley & Perkins
21. Jean E. Walker
22. Edward Hubbard
23. Army Navy Academy
24. Army Navy Academy
a
'NOTICE OF PUBLIC UEPRING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad
will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, California, at 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday, October 22, 1980, to con-
sider approval of a variance to reduce the required front yard and to exceed
the height JJ.init on property generally located on the west side of Ocean
Street between Beech Street and Cypress Avenue and more particularly des-
cribed as:
Lot 1 in Block "A" of Hayes Land Co. additions to Carlsbad, Map No. 2,
according to map thereof No. 1221, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder, Nove1Ter 4, 1909 and a protion of Lot 1, in Block 2 of Ocean-
side Addition to Carlsbad, according to map thereof No. 893, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
the public hearing. If you have any questions please call the Planning Depart-
ment at 438-5591.
CASE FILE: V-312
APPLICANT: Doininy
PUBLISH: October 11, 1980
CITY OF CPRLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
0
-150
\\ 6
ma QE3) Cob 9 5
Al
0 9
\ \ ,...•' - - .. \\'
IN
C YPRESS
L!
0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
)TIE IEY 37ET'T that the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Charrers., 1200
Elm Avenue,
Carl bad0 Jo0urnal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
3088 PlO PICO AVENUE • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 0 729-2345
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SS.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in the said
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year
- next preceding the date of publication of the
NOTICE OF?UBLIC notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice
HEARI1G of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
_______ Bech, and more Particlil'arly de-
NoIcElsI1EB'yqNthat scribed as: published in each regular and entire issue of said That portion LotThf Block "N'
the Planning Commission of the aordidg to Mg:122i, fild newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on City oCarlsbad wiIl}soldà public November4a909,
heamngat téty Council ckI Those persittis'wisbi tng to sneak the following dates, to-wit:
bers,'120O EIn Avenu UarlsOaU,
aliforWa: at700-P.M. on Wedies- on this proposal are .cordially in-
day, Decethber 10, 1980, to consider vited to attend the public haing. If you have a'n quetions,pea'se approval of a Variance to allow an increase of the building height call the Planning Pepa;tmertt at
limit from 35' to42'6". a reduction " 4385591 Case File: V-312 of the front and side yard setback tpplicant: LEWIS A.-DOMINY requiremedts to 0, and to permit
tandem parking on property gener-
® /
November26
19....
19....
19....
L:. •
11 19....
2M/5-79
'CITY OF CAR1SBAD : . •
'PLAN1N4'COMlXISSION. c.t'o: November i6,980
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California on the 26th
day of November 1980 /
Clerk of the Printer
S .
CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: CATHERINE NICHOLAS, DATE: 1-7-81
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
SUBJECT: v-312 DOMINY
After attending the recent meeting concerning the requested
variances for the subject project and hearing an explanation
of the potential impacts due to the granting of the variances,
I must conclude that the granting of the requested variances
would not have an adverse effect on firefighting operations.
The possible alternatives to this project could create a similar
situation with respect to firefighting. While I recognize the
adverse effects with respect to the visual and aesthetic, I
must confine my comments only to those problems associated with
fire protection and control.
As we have commented before, the cedar shingles proposed for
use should be a type which has been pressure impregnated with
an approved fire-retardant material.
BriS. Wat ,eñ, B
Fire Mars13aX
cc: A. Lewis Dominy, AlA
244 Ninth Street
Del Mar, CA 92014
I
-ro t
FAD 464
wffllmm~= ~
an a—~— __L1t J
__- -
4 _ -- ------
2 LQi LJ1421
----'-
- ---------- --- -- -- - ----
Of
- ---- -
- ---------
------
-- ------------ --- - --------
----------
1/
-- --- - ----- -
-- -- --
H I .
- AA-
--
:i
ek
44
-90
}eJ
7A
--
Ar
- rfl~~
; (IL
--- V
-- -----H
1/[R1TE IT-DON'' SAY IT INTER-DEPARTMEW MEMORANDUM
TO La1t DATE Oct3l 19 P.M.
J
fA1 k,eL,t( £1e1
141
(~— Q ),rJd p/9Wfr
V-e,
~-t~ CIL X, ~,
/.
REPLY ON THIS SHEET FROM
WILMER 5ERRtCE)E STANDARD INTER DEPT. MEMO FORM 1 1-24-PD
H
OM
DATE
AREA COL .PHONE NO-OR OPER.
f2 /7
EXTENSION #
FROM____________
OF
AIA-y Az1zii
a — T,L ,2O2
SIGNED
0 Call Phoned E Back
Returned f
Call L_1
Wants To Will Call o
See You 0 Again
Was See
In Operalor E
I
TO:
)
44 ,
-
L244LL
--
_L4&1'
'7
4 / A
C'
--
6 .
CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: CATHERINE - CURRENT PLANNING DATE: 9-29-80
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: FIRE MARSHAL
SUBJECT: V-312 DOMINY
I've reviewed the subject site plan and would like to see
the following comments incorporated in the staff report.
1. The fire department does not object to the height
variance since the area in question is on the ocean
side of the property and is not accessible to our
equipment. We would object to any sideyard and front
setback variances due to the already congested nature
of the area.
2. The building will have to conform to building code
requirements relating to fire rating of exterior
walls and protection of openings within 10' of the
property line.
3. While asthetically pleasing, the use of cedar shingles
as exterior wall covering materials presents a potential
firefighting problem of great proportions. A fire
originating in the building in question could spread
rapidly over the surface of that building and extend
to adjoining buildings. Conversely, a fire originating
in an adjacent building could very easily spread to the
subject building.
- IN ~1,eM
ed
SEP 29 1980
CI1TY. OF ARLSBAD
0 0 VIA k y
fkd.41 1O A)1
c flt (- L
G
5rw1 -ec
ppox 1z
Q_
&t1drv 7 -
5 -
p 1 ; 5;o cd
0,1
/DaML
-r)
access to public natural resources.
scy shall approve either a tentative
urhdivision to be fronted upon a public
tith does not provide, or have available,
or easement from a public highway
the river or stream bordering or lying
ess shall be determined by the local
thdivhion is to be located. In making
be reasonable access, the local agency
highway, root trail, bike trail, horse
vet
ion.
nd the various appropriate recreation-
; including, but not limited to, swim-
rater skiing, scientific collection, and
os on private property and reasonable
river or stream for the purposes of Sec-
166478.16 means •those waterways, rivers
100 through 106 of the Harbors and
oclared to be a public highway for
GO through 25662 of the Government
1505 of the Fish and Game Code as
ers and streams downstream from any
-ad fish ha.tcicries.
ney shall approve either a tentistive
thdivision to be fronted upon a pu'Iic th does not provide for a dedication of
M of the bank of the river or stream
'oposed subdivision.
haraeter of the public casement shall
reasonable public use of the public
sistent with public safety. The reason-
itut shall be determined by the local
bdivision is to be located. In making
defining the extent, width, and char-
local agency shall consider all of the
be for a foot trail, bicycle trail, or
S5O2L
and the various appropriate recrea-
uses including, but not limited to,
water skiing, scientific collection
40-
(4) The likelihood of trespass on private- property and reasonable
means of avoiding such trespasses.
66478.6. Any public access route or routes and any easement
along the bank of a public waterway [sic] river or stream provided by the
subdivider shall be expressly designated on the tentative or final map,
and such map shall expressly designate the governmental entity to
which such route or routes are dedicated and its acceptance of such
dedication.
[Amended, Chapter 24, Statutes of 19751
66478.7. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit any
powers or duties in connection with or affect the operation of beaches
or parks in this state or to limit or decrease the authority, powers,
or duties of any public agency or entity.
66478.8. Nothing in Sections 0478.1 through 66478.10 of this
article shall require a local agency to disapprove either a tentative
or final map solely on the basis that the reasonable public access
otherwise required by this article is not provided through or across
the subdivision itself, if the local agency makes a finding that such
reasonable public access is otherwise available within a reasonable
distance from the subdivision.
Any such finding shall he set forth on the face of the tentative or
final map.
[Amended, Chapter 24, Statutes of 1975]
66478.9. Nothing in Section 66478.5 shall apply to the site of
electric power generating facilities.
66478.10. Nothing in Sections 66478.1 through 66478.10 of this
article shall apply to industrial subdivisions.
66478.11. (a) No local agency shall approve either the tentative
or the final map of any subdivision fronting upon the coastline or
shoreline which subdivision does not provide or have available reason-
able public access by fee or easement from public highways to land
below the ordinary highwater mark on any ocean coastline or bay
shoreline within or at a reasonable distance from the subdivision.
Any public acCess route or routes provided by the subdivider shall
be expressly designated on the tentative or final map, and such map
shall expressly designate the governmental entity to which such route
or routes are dedicated.
(b) Reasonable public access, as used in subdivision (a), shall be
determined by the local agency in which the subdivision lies.
(c) In making the determination - of what shall be reasonable
public access, the local agency shall consider:
(1) .That access may be by highway, foot trail, bike trail, horse
trail, or any other means of travel.
(2) The size of the subdivision.
(3) The type of coastline or shoreline and the various appropriate
recreational, educational, and scientific uses, including, but not limited
—41-
1.
FOAT1QN( '7Liu
• -A N a C4 f7 3V Ar
1/
FRONT YARD REDUCTIONS .• •'
OCEAN AVENUE
V-301 Sandy 3/26/80 FY to 4' SY to 7'
SYto7' * V-295 JEsker :0
SYto3' -
V-285 Crag 1O/i1/S ' FY to 91.0 1 Sy to 0' 0"
. to50"
V-233 - Bryant 10/1O FY 1115,41 O'
V-200 ' Smart 7/28 0 SY to 0' 0"
- - - FY to 5' 0"
V-267 1/26177 fY & SY reduction
V-222 9/14/72 FY, SY, RY reduction
V-205 5/25/71 FY & SY reduction
V- 197 1/27/70 Reduce all yards
V-179 --. - - • . : 1/5/68 -Garage in SY
V-177 •-\- •• 1 10/10/67 FY, SYond RYreducti6n
V-174 1 • 8/17/67 FY and SY reduction
• V141 • 9/30/64 FY, SY & RY reduction
V-92 9/12/61 •-• SYreduclion
V-91 9/5/61 FY reduction
V-90 8/8/61 FY reduction
V-76 9/13/60 SY reduction
• V-47 - - 1 1/29/59 - - FY & SY reduction
• •V_12 -. - Y&SYreduction
• 1-- • • •
• PARKING IN SETBACKS
• • WEST SIDE OCEAN AVENUE •.
I
V-285 Craig Parking & Carports • FY to 4' 91 Sy to 0' 0"
V-276 Zipser with Garage SY to 5' 0"
V-290 Zipser • Omit one space
V-179 • Garage in SY
V-150 - Parking in FY and SY
I,
2
1. BuiIdinighIs in the neighborhood: (meas from street elevation)
Army and Navy Academy .
Administration Building 55' 0"
Chapel (1 parcel north of site) 261 6"
2609 Ocean Street . 131 6" : .
2623 Ocean. Street (V295) . 261 011 ..
Approved .12/12/79
2608 Ocean Street 20' 6"
2459 Ocean Street 24' 0"
2723 Ocean Street . . .. •. . •.: 20'.O" :.. .
2729 Ocean Street .
. 19' 0" -
2731 Ocean Street . .'18'0"
2747.-Ocean Street 20' 0"
. . 2775;ocean Street • .. :. : :;22' 0" . .. .
2. The çroposed heighoF the building subIc1 to this Application has been
reduced
0491na1 Revised
West Elevation 43' 6" 41' 6"
East Elevation 25' 6" 23' 6"
••. •
. .••,
;. .
HEIGHT
WEST SIDE OCEAN AVENUE WEST
Variances
V-301 Sandy 3/26/80
V-285 Craig 10/11/78
(Note, Extra height without Variance)
V-200 Smart
to 401
to 49'
five stories
to 601 *
• S
dIft
6 0
Richard D. Bokai Architects RE J j J :/• J J
244 Ninth Street
Del Mar, California 92014
(714)481-8244,453-0548 OCT 13 198
14 October 1982 Planni- 'r,- ment
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Aitn: Catherine Nicholas Re: Puesfa del Sot Condominiums
CONFERENCE REPORT
Those Attending: Catherine Nicholas
Richard D. Bakal
1. This meeting was held to review proposed rooftop projections above the
required height limit.
2. Richard reviewed 8 projections: Five chimneys, one projection containing
mechanical equipment, and two projections at the street elevation which
contain skylight wells. It was assumed by this office that these elements
were permitted to project beyond the height limit as stated in Zoning
Ordinance Article 21.46.020 Height of penthouses and roof structures.
Penthouses or root structures for the housing of elevators,
stairways, tanks, ventilating fans or similar equipment
required to operate and maintain the building; fire or
parapet walls, skylights, towers, roof signs, flagpoles,
chimneys, smokestacks, wireless masts and similar structures
may be erected above the height limits of this ordinance
prescribed, but no penthouse or roof structure, or any other
space above the height limit prescribed for the zone in
which the building is located shall be allowed for the pur-
pose of providing additional floor space. (Ord. 9060 S1601).
3. Catherine stated that this article was only applicable to commercial projects
(not residential). No specific zoning reference was given for this limitation.
She did state, however, that chimney projections are permitted beyond the
height limit in residential zones. She also stated TFi} the projections
containing skylights at the street elevation were no problem, since the height
at the street is only 25'. This leaves only the one equipment well projection
as a problem.
4. Richard stated that the equipment would be screened from public view if it
were allowed to be enclosed by this proposed projection. Catherine stated
that in residential zones mechanical equipment cannot be roof-mounted unless
unless it is screened, and such screens are not permitted above the height limit.
No specific zoning reference was given for this regulation.
0
City of Carlsbad/Planning Department 14 October 1982
Re: Pueski del Sol Condominiums Page Two
5. Catherine stated that the Planning Department had already: ruled favorably
on several issues where clear-cut application of the Zoning Ordinance
was difficult. Richard acknowledged that statement.
Submitted by:
hard D. Bokal
RDB/jn
cc: A. Lewis Dominy
Joel KIeli
Gordon KleH
.
.
Richard D. Bokal Architects
244 Ninth Street
Del Mar, California 92014
(714) 481-8244,453-0548
19 August 1982
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attn: Catherine Nicholas
RECEPrEØ
AUG2 Ot 198
:cffY o CARLSBAD
Planning Department
Re: Puesta del Sot
Conference Report
Those Attending: Lew Dominy
Catherine Nicholas
1. Lew reviewed the contours and building line with Catherine to confirm that
the 5' out line must be used in the measurement of the building height.
(The site is not steep enough to qualify for the exemption.) The base
measurement natural contour appears to be elevation 23.
2. Lew reviewed a sketch showing how the natural cntour must be maintained
at the 231 elevation line to comply with the zoning ordinance. Some of the
proposed decks may have to be reworked. Catherine accepted the concept of
a "well" within the 5' line (as shown on the sketch) to allow access into the
basement.
3. Catherine stated that it was her recollection that the "boxes" were going
to be removed from the roofs in order to achieve compliance with the
height limits. Lew stated tki t this had been resolved favorably with
Mr. Jim Hagaman long ago; however, he did not have the confirming
correspondence with him. Since Mr. Hagamari is on vacation, we will
have to wait for his return to resolve this item. Catherine accepted
the height of the chimneys.
A. Lewis Dominy
A LD/j n
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
• Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
• Building Department
(714) 438-5525
• Engineering Department
(714) 438-5541
• Housing & Redevelopment Department
(714)438-5611
• Planning Department
(714) 438-6591
-
of, C A
c$'
IF 0
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
May 18 9 1981.
California Coastal Commission
Lenard Grote, Chairman
SUBJECT: Appeal No. 77-81 Klett
The City of Carlsbad's policy is to accept a minimum of a ten
foot vertical access easements. We certainly recognize the
difficulty this policy sometimes creates to proposed development,
however we feel that it is an absolute minimum for the City.
The alternative suggested in this case Appeal 77-81 (Klett) to
obtain five foot easements from two adjoining properties seems
reasonable if the walkway improvements are put in now and some
agency other than the City accepts and maintain the access until
the Cities required 10 feet minimum easement is obtained.
The City feels quite strongly that the required off street
parking is necessary and would not look favorably on any attempt
to reduce the number of parking spaces.
Sincerely,
mesC.
/ Director of Planning
JCH:rh
5/18/81
i r
Lq
QUALITY
ORIGINAL (S)
DOMINY & BOKAL ARCH•TS 244 Ninth Street
DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92014
'J1T1T• OF
DATE fl May 6, 1981
JOB NO.
TI ON
James C. Hagamari
RE:
Condominium Permit #c_ 132
Klett Condominiums, 2601 Ocean Street
I
4818244 453-0548 RECEIVE
TO CITY OF CARLSBAD MAY LINE
1200 Elm Avenue
CITY OF CARLSB
Carlsbad, California 92008 ppjg pamz
- WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached 0 Under separate cover via the following items:
• Shop drawings t Prints 0 Plans 0 Samples 0 Specifications
• Copy of letter 0 Change order 0
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
2 5/5/81 Roof Plan and Section A-C
talu
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
• For approval 0 Approved as submitted 0 Resubmit-copies for approval
• For your use 0 Approved as noted 0 Submit ______copies for distribution
o As requested 0 Returned for corrections 0 Return -corrected prints
o For review and comment 0
.0 FOR BIDS DUE 19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS Per our discussion of May 4, 1981 I am sending the enclosed drawings which should
' further clarify our compliance with the height limit. I appreciate your effort to resolve this matter
and look forward to the timely processing of the tentative map and condominium permit. Unless I
hear otherwise from you or your staff in the next few days, I will assume that this matter is finally
resolved, and our processing is being finalized.
As we also discussed at our 6 April meeting, the City does not by policy enforce other
agencies regulations (i.e. Coastal Commission) and, therefore, our approval is not contingent upon
their actions. This, of course, does not relieve us as the applicant from their requirements, but it
does allow an orderly processing procedure. For your information, our Coastal Application is pending
c80sce1
SIGNED:________________________
7)
J2 4fk/-
PRODUCT 240-3 Inc. Grojnn, M 01450 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
,
Lewis miny
/
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION -
631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105— (415) 543.8555 -
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Appeal No. 77-81
(Klett)
Hearing Opened: 4/15/81
DECISION OF
REGIONAL
COMMISSION: Permit granted with conditions by San Diego-Coast Regional
Commission -
APPLICANTS: Gordon and Edna Mae Klett
APPELLANTS: Commissioners Naomi Schwartz and Lenard Grote; Gordon and
Edna Mae Klett
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION: 2601 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County (Exhibit 1) -. -
DEVELOPMENT
DESCRIPTION: Construction of three three-bedroom condominium-units on an
8,860 beachfront lot (Exhibit 2)
PUBLIC HEARING: Hearing opened April 15, 1981 in Marina del Rey - -
ADDITIONAL SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS:
1. Interpretive Guidelines on Public Access (2/20/80)
2. Joint Staff Report of the Coastal Commission and the State Coastal
Conservancy on Coastal Access: Standards and Recommendations (November, 1980)
3. Access Inventory
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: --
The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution:
I. Airoval with Conditions.
The Commission hereby grants, subject to the conditions below, permit for the
proposed development on the grounds that the development as conditioned will be
in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976,
will not prejudice the ability of the local government having jurisdiction over the
area to prepare a Local Coastal Program conforming to the provisions of Chapter 3
of-;the Coastal Act, is located between the sea and the first public road nearest
the shoreline and is in conformance with the public access and public recreation
policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and will not have any significant adverse
impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality
Act. ee lo ,i&-3
5/19-P-1/81
-2-
II. Conditions.
This permit is subject to the following conditions:
Prior to issuance of the permit, the Executive Director shall certify
in writing that the following conditions been satisfied.
'4
1. Stringline. The applicants shall submit revised site and building plans
for review and acceptance in writing by the Executive Director. Said plans shall
show no portion of the proposed buildings and decks extending farther seaward than
the "stringline" shown on the attached exhibit 'T' (the applicant's site plan). The
redesigned building shall be for no more than three units, shall riot exceed the
height and bulk of the previously proposed building and shall. provide parking in
accordance with Regional Commission Interpretive Guidelines with tandem parking
being allowed provided that on tandem set is used by no more than one unit.
2. Vertical Access. The applicants shall record an irrevocable offer to
dedicate an easement to the City of Carlsbad or other public agency or private
association approved by the Executive Director. Said irrevocable offer shall be
for a 10 foot wide easement for public access from Ocean Street to the beach an
shall be located along the applicant's south property line. Said easement shall
be recorded free of prior liens or encumbrances except for tax liens. -The offer
shall be irrevocable for 21 years, running from the date of recordatin and shall
run With the land and shall be binding on all successors and assigns of the
applicant.
3. Lateral Access. The applicants shall execute and record a document, in
a form and content approved in writing by the Executive Director of
the Commission, irrevocably offering to dedicate to a public agency
or private association approved by the Executive Directoz.T an easement
for public access and passive recreational use along the shoreline.
Such easement shall extend from the seaward property line to the toe
of the bluff, as shown on the attached Exhibit 11 3". Such easement
shall be recorded free of prior liens except tax liens, and free
of prior encumbrances which the Executive Director determines may
affect the interest being conveyed.
The offer shall run with the land in favor of the People of the
State of California binding successors and
or landowner. The offer of dedication shall be irrevocable for a
period of 21 years, such period running from the date of recording.
4. open Space Easement. The applicants shall record an irrevocable
offer to dedicate to a public agency or to a private association an
open space easement over the area between the "beach line" shown on ..
Exhibit 11 3" and the seaward extent of the structure as finally
approved pursuant to Special Condition 1, above. Said -open space
easement shall prohibit any development unless approved by the
California Coastal Commission or its successor in interest.
The offer shall be irrevocable for a period of 21 years, shall
run in favor of the People of the State of California, binding
successors and assigns of the applicant and/or landowners, and shall
be recorded prior to all other liens and encumbrances except tax
liens. The offer to dedicate shall be in a form and of content
acceptable to the Executive Director.
/
/
-. - -
5. Assumption of Risk. The applicants shall submit to the
Executive Director a deed restriction for recording free of prior liens
except for tax leins, that binds the applicant and any successors in
interest. The form and content of the deed restriction shall be subject
to the review and approval of the Executive Director. The deed
restriction shall provide (a) that the applicants understand that
the site may be subject to extraordinary hazard from waves during
storm and from erosion, and the applicants assume the liability from
hazards; (b) the applicants unconditionally waive any claim of liability
on the part of the Commission or any other regulatory agency for any
damage from such hazards, as a consequence of approval of the project;
and (c) the applicants understand that Construction in the face of
these known hazards may make them ineligible for public disaster funds
or loans for repair replacement, or rehabilitation of the property in
the event of stroms.
6. Final Plans. Any exterior deck areas shown on final approved
plans shall not be enclosed with opaque materials without prior approval
of the San Diego Coast Regional Commission or its successor in interest.
III. Findings and Declarations
The Commission finds and declares as follows:
1. Project Description. The applicants are proposing to
construct a three-unit condominium on a 8,860 sq. ft. vacant parcel
on Ocean Street in Carlsbad (Exhibit 1). The structure will be 23
feet high (2 stories) on the street side and 39 feet (4 stories)
on the seaward side. Each unit will contain three bedrooms and
approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of floor space. The exterior of the
building will be finished with cedar shingles. Six tandem parking
spaces will be provided for residents of the building in accordance
with Regional Interpretive Guidelines. Two guest parking spaces
will be provided as required by the City of Canibad. The project will
be sited on an hour-glass shaped lot which is 55½ feet wide along the
street, 43 feet wide at its narrowest point, and 66½ feet wide along
the ocean. The lot itself extends from the bluff-top, down the bluff-
face, and over the beach to the mean high tide line.
The project site is located directly south of the AQiny Navy
Academy. The Academy chapel is located immediately to the north,
followed by several residential and auxiliary structures belonging
to the Academy. Immediately south of the project site is a two to
three story residence. Except for the Army Navy Academy, the entire
beachfront in this area is developed with single and mul.ti-faxnily
dwellings.
2. Public Access. Because the project site is located between
the first public road and the sea, the following Coastal Act policies
must be considered:
.. ',
:
.1
-4-
In carrying out the, requirement of Section 4 of Article X
of the California Constitution, maximum access ... and recreational
opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent
with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights,
rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from
overuse. (30210)
Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline
and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects
except where... (2) adequate access exists nearby,... (30212(a)
Wherever appropriate and feasible, public-facilities ...
shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against
the impacts, social and otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse
by the public of any single area. (30212.5)
The public access policies of this article shall be
implemented in a manner that takes into account the need to
regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending
on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not
limited to, the following...
(3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the
right to pass and repass depending on such factors as the
fragility of the natural resources in the area and the proximity
of the accss area to adjacent residential uses.
U) The need t Eoide 'for the management of ac-ess areas
so' as to protect the privacy of adjacent property owners.(30214(a))
The project site is one of the few and one of the largest vacant
parcels located between 'the first public road and the sea in the
northern half of the City of Carlsbad.. The nearest existing public
access points to the beach are located approximately 1..200 ft. to the
south at Grand Avenue and 600 ft. to the north at the end of Ocean
Street. According to the Standards and Recommendations for Coastal
Access developed jointly by the Commission and the' Coastal Conservancy
vertical access should be provided every 500 ft. or once every six
residential parcels in urban areas to evenly -d±stribute beach use.
Because of the lack uf nearby access, the scarcity of Va ant lots,
the relatively large size of the subject parcel, and the proximity
of the site to a nearby Street end, the draft LCP specifically
identified the subject site as suitable for the provision of an
additional vertical accessway along this stretch of beach. Any new
development is required to provide access to and along the shoreline..
unless the Commission finds that adequate access exists nearby. In
this case, the Commission finds that both vertical and lateral access
is needed on this parcel to maximize and evenly distribute public use
of the beaches and state owned tidelands in Carlsbad, and to find
this project consistent with Sections 30212, 30212.5 and 30210 of the
Coastal Act.
The major issue presented by the appeal and of concern to the
applicant, however, was not the provision of access itself but the
appropriate width for the vertical access easement. The City of
Carlsbad, the draft LCP, the Commission, and the Coastal Conservancy
have all established access standards which provide that vertical
accessways should be a minimum of ten feet wide in order to protect the
public interest. The rationale for this standard is explained most
clearly in the Commission's Interpretive Guidelines for Public Access.
Briefly, the guidelines state that vertical access easements should be
at least ten feet wide, both to ensure that the physical proximity
of buildings does not inhibit the use of accessways and to minimize
conflicts between private residents and beachgoers. The City of
Carlsbad has informally established a similar standard for the development
of accessways with its jurisdiction; it has obtained series of 10 foot
wide access easements and developed them with six foot trails and
landscaping. In addition, it has historically refused to accept
easements that are less than ten feet wide. The subject parcel
embodies precisely the type of conflicts which led to the establishment
of these standards. A three story building is situated two feet away
from the proposed access route, and the subject four story development
will abut it. Not only would the physical proximity of the -buildings
create a narrow tunnel which would intimidate users of the assessway,
but it would also necessitate the relaxation of the Commission's
established policy of requiring a five foot buffer between vertical
access ways and adjacent structures to minimize use conflicts.
The applicants contend that the imposition of a ten foot wide
accessway easement would restrict development of their pro.erty.
They propose to offer to dedicate a five foot wide easement along the
southern boudary of their lot, and suggest that another five foot wide
access easement could be obtained along the property line on the adjacent
property line to the south, thereby distributing the responsibility
for providing access more equitably among private residents. The
Commission believes this would be a viable approach if the adjacent
property were currently vacant; however, this is not the case. The
subject property is bounded on the south by a structure sited within
2 feet of the common property line, and on the north by the Army
Navy Academy, thereby negating the ability to fulfill the public access
mandates of the Coastal Act through the applicant's suggested approach.
This situation is reflected in the Land Use Plan for Carlsbad which
requires that, as a condition of development, vertical access through
the subject development be provided.
In addition, the Commission notes that it is not unreasonable to
require such an access dedication 10 ft. in width in approving a
project as proposed by the applicant. The Commission has, in fact,
consistently found that provision of vertical as well as lateral
access sufficient to assure public use must be provided in new develop-
ment projects to offset the impacts of private development on the
public's right to use the state owned tidelands.- The Statewide
Interpretive Guidelines on public access state that:
MM
Private development imposes an impediment to or burden on
the public's ability to gain access to or along the shoreline,
either incrementally or cumulatively in the following ways:
(1) physically precluding public access; (2) discourages them
from visiting the shoreline in the first place because of physical
proximity of development; (3) creates use conflicts in which
landowners harass and intimidate the public and seek to prevent
them from using tidelands based on disputes over the exact
boundary between private and public ownership; (4) takes up
existing road capacity of off-street parking thereby making it
more difficult to gain access to and use of the coast by further
congesting existing access roads and recreational areas; (5)
increasing the intensity of use of beach andupJand areas thereby
congesting currently available support facilities; and (6)
creating impediments to public access by placing structures
along the shoreline (e.g. sea walls) that impede access or that
alter shoreline processes thereby affecting the amount of beach
available and even the location of the mean high tide line.
In assessing the need for access, the Commission must also
consider that the burdens generated by new development, in
conjunction with tidal and storm conditions can creaje..physical
barriers to safe public access absent the provisions of new public
accessways. Recognizing these potential impacts of development,
the Legislature has thus focused the application, of Section 30212
on the appropriateness (i.. e. need) of access rather than on the type
of development proposed.
The Commission has concluded that the impacts of a non-priority
use on a parcel adjacent to the shoreline required that public access
be guaranteed to find such developments consistent with coastal act
policies. This analysis has been found true for the impacts of single-
family residential development and is even heightened when viewed
in terms of the impacts of .a project of the intensity proposed by
the applicant.
Hence, the Commission finds that in order to satisfy the access
burden triggered by new development on this parcel, the vertical
access easement must be of sufficient width to ensure the development
of a viaable accessway. The Commission further finds that only by
requiring a ten foot wide access easement pursuant to the Commission's
guidelines and adopted standards for public access will the requirements
of the Coastal Act be met.
3. Scenic and Visual Qualities. Section 30251 of the Coastal
Act States:
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall
be considered and protected as a resource of public importance.
Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect
views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize
the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible
with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to
restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
/
L . - ....
I
-7- -
In order to preserve the scenic qualities of an area and prevent
the visual encroachment of buildings onto the beach, the Commission
typically requires new development to be set back behind an imaginary
stringline drawn between the adjacent structures. The project as
proposed by the applicants would extend 32 feet seaward of the "string-
line" drawn between the residential structure to the south and the
Army-Navy Chapel to the north; decking would extend approximately
48 feet beyond this stringline. The applicants contend that the
criterion used to draw the stringline should be modified in this instance,
since the Army-Navy Chapel is set 24 feet further back from the shoreline
than surrounding structures and is not representative of the general
seaward extent of residentiàl development in the neighborhood. They
contend that strict compliance with the stringline condition as well
as compliance with the vertical access setback and City imposed
setbacks would leave little building area. While the Commission
believes that adequate area would be retained for the construction of
a single-family dwelling, it also recognizes the merit of the applicants'
arguements concerning the cumulative restrtctions placed in the develop-
ment of their property. For this reason, the Commission believes
that a modified stringline condition can be imposed. Pursuant to
condition l, the applicants must resite and redesign their--structure
so that it extends no further than an imaginary stringline drawn
between the adjacent structure to the south and the, structure located
two lots to the north (Exhibit 3). The decking on the project may
extend no further than the imaginary stringline drawn between the
decking on the structure to the south and the southernmost corner of
the structure located two lots to the north. To further protect the
visual qualities of the shoreline, the applicants must offer to dedicate
an open space easement over the bluff-face between the toeof the
bluff and the proposed development. The Commission finds that, as
conditioned the intent of the stringline to protect visual quality
of coastal areas will still be attained. The Commission concludes,
therefore, that the development will protect coastal views consistent
with the provisions of Section 30251 of the Coastal Act.
4. Hazard. Section 30253 of the Coastal Act provides:
New Development shall: (1) Minimize risks of life and
property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.
(2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither
create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geol'ogic
instabliity, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or
in any way require the construction of protective devices that
would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and
cliffs...
In addition, Section 30251 provides that: "Permitted development
shall be sited and designed— to . to minimize the alteration of natural
landforms ... 1I
The proposed development will be sited on a moderately sloping
bluff and bluff-top abutting a sandy beach in a residential neighbor-
hood in Carlsbad. According to the Technical Support Paper on Geologic
• .
-8- -
Hazards prepared in conjunction with the draft Local Coastal Program,
the area is subject to moderate risk from shoreline erosion which
could result in structures along this shoreline eventually being
undercut by wave erosion. In addition shorefront structures may be
susceptible to damage from severe storm waves. According to the
Commission's Interpretive Guidelines on Bluff-top development, such
projects must be sited and designed to assure stability and structural
integrity for their expected economic lifespars while minimizing
alteration of natural landforms., In addition, they must neither
create nor contribute significantly to problems of erosion or geologic
instability. The Commissith, therefore, finds that the applicants
must redesign and resite their proposed development so that it
encroaches no further seaward than a 'stringline 1 dran between the
structure immediately to the south and the structure two lots to the
north, as required in condition 41. In addition, the applicants must
register their understanding of the hazards associated with development
on this site through the recordation of a waiver of liability as
required in Condition 5. The Commission concludes that with these
conditions the project can be found consistent with Sections 30251
and 30253 of the Coastal Act. • -
5. Preparation of Local Coastal Program. Section 30604(a)
requires that a coastal development permit shall-be--issued only if the
Commission finds that the permitted development will not prejudice
the ability of the local government to prepare a local coastal program
(LCP) in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal
Act.
The draft Carlsbad. Local Coastal Program (September 1980) identifies
existing verticalaccessways as being to the south at Cedar Street and
to the north at the north end of Ocean Street. The LCP (in Policies
and implementation, Section 3.7.6., page 115, Policy 7-1 states that:
Since there is a lack of adequate access in the northern
portions of the study area, an additional access point shall be
provided. The site of this accessway should be a vacant parcel
located adj-acent to the Army/Navy Academy at Del Mar Street.
This access proposal shall be pert of a development proposal
for the site.
In addition, the draft Land Use Plan Policy No. 7-14 states that
"It is recommended that vertical accessways to the beach generally
be at least ten-feet in width." Approval of this prpject with a
10 foot wide vertical access easement would conflict with the draft
LCP policy and could result in serious prejudice to the City of carLsbad's
efforts to prepare an LCP consistent with Coastal Act policies on
Public Access. Only as conditioned can the Commission find the proposed
project consistent with Section 30604(a) of the Coastal Act.
'I
PRC Toups .
February 25, 1981 875-200-0
Mr. Chuck Damm
San Diego Coast Regional Commission
6154 Mission Gorge Road, Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92120
Dear Chuck:
It has been brought to my attention that the Commission is requiring the Klett
property at 2601 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, CA to provide a complete 10 foot wide
walkway to the beach. In view of the fact that the City of Carlsbad did not make
an allowance for this requirement, but instead required eight (8) on-site parking
places to serve three (3) units, I feel some relief should be considered.
As you and I have previously discussed, I don't feel that I should meddle in your
affairs, however, in this case some interpretations are apparently being made from
my report which I did not intend to happen. For example: Policy 7-14 of the PRC
Toups report states that vertical accessways to the beach generally be at least ten
feet in width. I still feel they should be at least ten feet in width, however, I
envisioned this would mean 5 feet along the property line combined with an
adjacent owner's 5 feet. This would provide the 10 foot easement without taking
building space away from the rather narrow lots. Further, if it is impossible to
accept only 5 feet from a specific property owner, it seems logical to allow some
compensation in terms of other zoning requirements. For example, why must eight
(8) parking spaces be required? It would seem that six (6) spaces would be more
than adequate in return for more important beach access.
In the final analysis, if a 10 foot easement dedication recuirement of the property
at 2601 Ocean Street coupled with eight (8) parking spaces makes it impossible to
reasonably design a project that will pay for these items, we all lose. It this is the
case, perhaps your staff report should go for 5 feet on not only the lot on 2601
Ocean, but on the other vacant lots in the area as well. The other vacant 50 foot
ownership consists of Lots 15 and 16. Two other 25 foot lots also exist in the area.
As a last resort, a couple of 5 foot easements in place of a 10 foot easement might
be feasible since the beach access here is a local one mainly serving "walk-in"
traffic from the surrounding neighborhood.
Sincerely,
PRC TOUPS
d
J mes L. Fisk
Senior Project Manager
JLF:alc
D1416 4f
A Plarrat., Research Cpniy
1ti)Ii 14) 45-) 1)L_
STATE Or CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA CO MISSION EDMUND a BROWN GOrnOr
SMA COCO C ISSI IN
6154 MIE,ON GORGE ROAD, SUITE 220 -
SAN DIEGO, CAUFONiA 92120--TEL (714) 280-6992 y
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS
CONTROL NO:
APPLICANT:
LAST DAY FOR
ACTION:
P9613
Gordon & Edna Mae Klett
960 Avonoak Terrace
Glendale, CA 91206
February 27, 1981
AGENT: Dominy & Rokal Architects
244 Ninth Street
- Del Mar, CA 92014
DATE OF PUBLIC
HEARING February 6, 1981
VOTE REQUIRED: Majority of Commission members present, with a quorum
necessary for action (7 members constitute a quorum).
Bates Francis, Galinson, Hedgecock
OTHERS SUBMITTING WRITTEN
COENTS AT OR PRIOR TO
None PUBLIC HEARING: None
2601 Ocean Street, Carlsbad (APM 203-140-28)
Construction of 3-unit condominium on vacant parcel
(2 stories at street level; 4 stories at beach level).
Each unit has three bedrooms. Six parking spaces and
two guest spaces (all 8 in 4 tandem sets) provided.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
FROM PUBLIC HEARING:
OTHERS WHO SPOKE OR
REGISTERED TO SPEAK
AT PUBLIC HEARING:
PROJECT
LOCATION:
PROJECT
DESCP\IPTICR:
Lot area
Building coverage
Paved area
Landscape coverage &
unimproved area
Parking
Zoning
General plan
Project density
Hgt.abv.avg. fin.grade:
2,710 sq.ft. (30%)
680 sqft.( 3%)
5,470 sq.ft. (62%)
R-3
Med. High Density RosidntiE11
14.75 dna
39 ft. max.
ADDITIONAL SUBSTANTIVE -
FILE DOCUMENTS: - Regional Commission File No. P7154
- Carlsbad Local Coastal P.cogram (draft), September 1980
- Regional Commission Interpretive Guidelines -
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the San Dieqo Coast peional Commission ISSUE a
development permit for the proposed project subject to the following special conc3itouf
-. 2-17--21
•. I
Recommendation and Findings
P9613
Page -
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Prior to the transmittal of a coastal development permit for this
project, the applicant shall submit revised site and building plans
for review and acceptance in writing by the Executive Director.
Said plans shall show no portion of the proposed buildings and
decks extending farther seaward than the "stringline" shown on the
attached exhibit "A" (the applicant's site plan). The redesigned
building shall be for no more than three units, shall not exceed
the height and bulk of the previously proposed building, and shall
provide parking in accordance with Regional Commission Interpretive
Guidelines with tandem parking being allowed provided that one
tandem set is used by no more than one unit..
2. Prior to the transmittal of a coastal development permit for this
project, the applicant shall record an irrevocable offer to dedi-
cate to the City of Carlsbad or other public agency or private
association approved by the Executive Director.. Said irrevocable
offer shall be an easement for public access from Ocean Street to
• the beach and shall be no less than 10 feet in width and shall be
located along the applicant's south property line. Said easemeut
shall be recorded free of prior liens or. encumbrances except for
tax liens. The offer shall be irrevocable for. 21 years-, running
from the date of recordation and shall run with the land and shall
be binding on all successors and assigns of the-applicant.
3. Prior to the transmittal of a coastal development permit for this -
project, the applicant shall record an irrevocable offer to dedi-
cate to the City of Carlsbad or other public agency- or private
association approved by the Executive Director. Said irrevocable
offer shall be an easement for public access and passive recreational
use on that portion of the applicant's property lying seaward of
the "beach line" as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" (the applicant's
site plan). Said easement shall be recorded free of prior liens or
encumbrances except for tax liens. The offer shall be irrevocable
- for 21 years, running from the date of recordation and shall run with
the land and shall be binding on all successors and assigns of the
applicant. -
FINDINGS:
1. Conformity. with the Provisions of Chapter 3of the California
Act OIL 1976 - Section 30604(a) of the California Coastal Act of 1976 requires
that the Regional Commission find, prior to issuance of a permit, that the
proposed development is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act. The Commission finds that this proposed development, as conditioned,
is consistent with the Chapter 3 policies. Additional consistency findings arc
made below.
Recommendation and Fi•ns I
F9613
Page 3
The applicant proposes to construct a three-unit condominium project on a
currently vacant parcel. The project will be 23 ft. high (2 stories) at
street level and 39 ft. (4 stories) at beach level. Each unit will have
three bedrooms and approximately 2,000 sq. ft. The exterior finish of the
building will be cedar shingles. The parking to be provided consists of
six garage spaces (3 tandem sets) for the three units and two guest spaces
(in tandem), all with access from Ocean Street.
The building is proposed to extend approximately 92 ft. seaward from curb line
and decks will extend andther 18 ft. for a total of 110 ft. seaward encroachment.
The building to the north extends approximately 68 ft. from curbiine and the next
building to the north extends approximately 98 ft. Additionally, improvements
(BBQ and benches) exist to the north which extends 2854 ft. The building to the
south extends approximately 80 ft. and decks for an additoinal 16 ft. (total of
96 ft.). The proposed building and decks thus extend 25-50 feet beyond the
"strict" building and deck stririgline. (-See site plan attached to project summary).
The project site is located directly south of the Army and Navy Acadamy. The
building Lmiediately to the north is the academy chapel. The residence immediately
to the south is a two-story at street-level and three-story at beach level building.
Other development in the area is residential. Other development has improvements
(decks-, patios, walls, etc.) of varying seaward encroachment.
The most applicable Coastal Act sections -are:
Sectioi30211 - Development shall not interfere with the public's right
of aczess to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorizatiOn
including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal
beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.
Section 30212 - Public access from the nearest public roadway to the
shoraline and along the coast shall be provided in new development
projects except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety,
military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal re-
sources; (2) adequate access exists nearby, or; (3) agriculture would
be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to
he opened to public use until a public agency or private association
agrees to acect responsibility for maintenance and liability of the
accessway.
Section 30250(a) - New development... shall be located within, contiguous
with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to ac-
comniodate it.,, .and where it will not have significant adverse effects,
either individually or cumulatively, on cbastal resources.
Section 30251.1 - The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall
he considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Per-
mitted development shall he sited and designed to protect views to and
along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize Lhe alteration
- 3 -
Recommendation and *in'gs
F9613
Page 4
of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character
of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual
quality in visually degraded areas.
Section 30253 - New development shall: (1) Minimize risks to life and
property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (2) Assure
stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute
significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the
site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of
protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms
along bluffs and liffs..J(5) Where appropriate, protect special corn-
raulnitias and neighborhood which, because of their unique characteristics,
are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.
The proposed development would, as conditioned, be consistent with surrounding
development and would preserve the scenic and visual qualities of the area.
The buildings as proposed, would extend seaward of a stringline' drawn - between
the two adjacent buildings and would result in a new precedent being set for
the seaward extent of development. The proposed development would not protect
views to and along the coast and would not be compatible with the scenic and
visual qualities of the area and thus would not be consistent with Section 30251.
As cqnditioned, the project is consistent with Section 30251. The height, bulk,
and use of the proposed building are compatible with surrounding development
and the project is consistent with Section 30250(a). -
The access do'nsiclerations of this project are discussed in Sections 3 and 4 below.
The proposed project is designed with tandem parking. The Commission generally,
does not nlrefer the use of tandem parking, especially in areas in close proximity,
because of accompanying problems with traffic and usefulness. Also, the three
units prorosed for this site when combined with required parking, and the somewhat
constrained site, produce a building with considerable bulk. Were it not for the
considerable public benefit to he gained through increased access, the proposed
building design may not have been acceptable.
In summary, the proposed project, as conditioned, and only as conditioned, is
consistent with all Chapter 3 policies and is not anticipated to result in any
substantial adverse impacts on coastal resources or qualities.
2. PreviousCommission Action - The Commission has previously considered
another project on this site (F7154, July 1978, Marinella). The project was for
three, 2-bedroom units with 24 feet in height above Ocean Street and 27 feet at
the beach level. The building was proposed to-extend seaward to the extant of
the building to the south. The building did not observe a "strict" "string1ine.
The project was approved with special conditions for lateral beach access, a five-
foot wide vertical access from Ocean Street, and assignment of parking spaces.
The permit conditions were not fulfilled and the permit has expired. -
This approval is consistent with past Commission action.
. 0
Recommendation and Findings
F9613
Page
3. Access - The proposed project is located in a developed urban area. The
nearest existing access points to the beach are at Grand Avenue (approximately.
1,200 ft. to the south) and the north end of Ocean Street (approximately 600 feet
to the north). The applicant's property has been identified in the Local Coastal
Program draft as a location at which additional access should be provided. The
LCP is also discussed below in Section 4.
Section 30212 of the Coastal Act requires that public access to and along the
coast be provided in new-development. except where adequate access exists nearby.
The Commission finds that adequate access does not exist nearby and that the
access easements are necessary to fulfill Section 30212..
4 Preparation of Local Coastal Program - Section 30604(a) also requires
that a coastal development permit shall be issued only if the Regional Commission
finds that the permitted development will not prejudice the ability-of the local
government to prepare a local coastal program (LOP) in conformity with the pro-
visions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
The draft Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (September 1980) identifies existing
vértical accessways as being to the south at Cedar Street,- to the north at the
north-end of Ocean Street, and a private access nearby at the Army and Navy
Academy. The LCP(in Policies and Imple:entation, Section 37.6, page 115,
Policy 7-1) states that:
"Since there is a lack of adecuate access in the northern portions of
the study area, an additional access point shall he provided. The site
Of this accessway should he a vacant parcel located adjacent to the Army/
Navy academy at Del Mar Street. This access proposal shall be part of a
development proposal for the site."
Approval of this project without Special Condition No. ..Z would be In conflict
with the draft LOP policy and could result in serious prejudice to the City of
Carlsbad's LOP preparation abilities. The LOP has identified an access defi-
ciency and has recommended that additional access be provided..
The project, as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable
Coastal Act policies and should not result in any serious prejudice to the City's
LOP preparation abilities. -
5. Feasible Alternatives of Mitigation Measures - Alternatives to the
proposed project would be a greater or less number of units or the "no project"
alternative. A greater number of units would likely result in substantial adverse
impacts as the height and bulk of the proposed building would be greater to
accommodate the increased number of units. This would result in possible conflict
with Section 30250(a) and 30251. There is also the possibility that adequate
parking would not he provided in suhstantialiy less environmental impact. The
"no project" alternative also would not result in substantially less impact
E nd would not allow the owner the ability to develop his property. There would
not be substantially grcatir public access or other benefits other than the
-i-;-.
Recommendation and Filing - I
F9613
Page
acccssway to be gained from the "no project" alternative. There are no
additional mitigation measures which would result in a project with substantially
less environmental impact.
NOTE IO ?PICT PJ OTRET PERSS:/L
Color slides pertaining to this project may be shown to the Commission at the
time of th Final Vote Those wishing to see these slidcs as well as other recent
material rcceivcd pursuant to this application, are welcome to do o at the
Côrn.ssions offices prior to the day of the Commission. i'neeting
IMPORTANT
Jill appeals of Regional Commission decisions must be received in the State
Conunission office not later than 10 worming days from the date of thá Regional
Conriission 1 s decision. Appeal forms are available at the Regional CQlanission officc
--6--
PAC 1
0613
flOTI CE t:o 'd'rJCZTS :
All perni. is granted by the San Dteqo Coast Fegi enal Commi;ioil are uabect to the
follo-wing standard terms .atiçl coclitions and standard L OVJ.SIOflS
.. STANDAFD TFNS .r\ND Ol1)TTtONS:
1. That the applicant agrees to adhere strictly to the current plans
for the project as approved by the Regional Commission.
2. That the applicant agrees to notify the Regional Commission (or
State Commission if there is no Regional Comrnission) of any changes in the
- project.
3.. That the applicant will meet all the local code requi-rements and
ordinances- and obtain all necessary permits from State and Federal Agencies.
4. That the ap-plicant agrees to conform to the prrait rules and regula-
tions of the California Coastal Commission.
5. That the applicant agrees that the Commission staff may make site
inspections of the project during construction and upon completion.
Terms and Conditions are to run with the land.- These terms and condi-
snall be perpetual and it is the intention of the parties to bind
al], future owners and possessors of the subject property to said terms
and conditions.
J. STANDD PROVISIONS:
l STRICT COPLIANCg: Per;nittee is under obligation to conform strictly
to permit under penairies cstablished by California Coastal Act of 1076.
2. TINCLY DR FLOP NT AND CONPLETT.O:i: Permittee shall commence cleveloo-
irtent within two years following final approval of the project by the San Oig co
Regional Commission. Construction shall be pursued in a diligent manner and
completed within a reasonable period of time.
3. REQUEST FOR EXTENSIONS: Permittee may request; an extension of time
for the comncncerncnt of construction provided the request is applied for prior
to expiration of the permit.
4. AsSICW\RILTrPY OP PERNTT: This permit is. not assignhle unless the per-
rtittcc's obligations under the permit arc assumed by assijuee in writing within
oniyear and a copy of the required assumption agreement delivered to the Regional
Commission or State Commission if there is no Regional Commission.
5, 7.PPE1\t Unless appealed to the State -Commission within ten (10) working
clays followinq final action by the San Diego Coast Regional Commission, all terms
and conditions shall be final.
6. Dl'SCt.\l.NER: ' The permit is in no way i nicndecl to affect the rights and
oh] iqation:; 110ro Ere existi sq unclr private ircement; nor to affect the exis
311g regul t: ;ns ol oLlier puli 1 i c boI i es.
7. PF1;ITPFR TO '1:TWE COP'i': TI , permit. shall. not be val (i uni s; within
ten ()0) w(u k irq cLty:; ''j t t.t': ret.urs it siynct copy acki wi_edging •it_wL; to
-7
\
\
C
•.y .", .
6 \
S
\\\
4
'y
P.1.'\ '.'..:'o' 1;' . •\ \
(_\ C.CFT.) \
_
'S
-7
.-
'z- •'/
.1
) .
EXlTIt1 Ufl.DG
3 C '\ C qU.s E2JIJ.N \,
-\H
--
221 22 .. 1,7
—°—I1 \ Lt- '• '
C(TP.Y
\\
XS'TIG (3LJLP?C
-
jWAK- 13
-- -
S.,.
\ 57rt( •5 L '
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
• Assistant City Manager
(714) 438-5596
• Building Department
(714) 438-5525
• Engineering Department
(714) 438.5541
• Housing & Redevelopment Department
(714) 438.5611
• Planning Department
(714)438.5591
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
January 21, 1981
Jim Kelly-Narkuin
1049 Camino Del Mar, Suite 6
Del Mar, California 92014
RE: cP-132
A preliminary check of the proposed three unit condominium project has
revealed the following concerns:
1. The trash area is inadequate in size and must be enlarged.
2. At least 480 cubic feet of enclosed storage space accessible
to the outside must be provided for each unit.
3. The Engineering Department has informed the Planning Depart-
ment that a ten foot wide storm drain easement will be re-
quired along the southerly property line to replace the ex-
isting pipe. The site plan should be revised to reflect this
requirement.
4. The Engineering Department has also informed the Planning
Department that city standards do not permit rrore then a 30
foot wide curb cut to serve any one parcel. The site plan for
the proposed project should also be revised to reflect this
requirement.
5. The elevations of the proposed building shall be revised to
a maximum building height of 35 feet.
The above mentioned problems must be resolved before the Planning De-
partment can approve the requested condominium permit. If you have any
questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact this office.
Sincerely,
, 9 ~- ~ W", ~--' -
MIKE HOWES
Assistant Planner
NH: j
1/22/81
.
11
December 4 1980
Engineering Department and
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 E. Elm
Carlsbad, California
92008
Dear Sirs:
Re: Minor Subdivision 504
Case File: V-312
Regarding the above cited request for Variances as cited:.
We are the owners of the adjacent property on the south side viz.
2605-7 Ocean Street. We are opposed to all the requested Variances.
The request for an Increase In the building height would be even more
oppressive for our neighboring property than the 35 feet currently permitted.
The setback requirements on the front would make access to our current garage im-
possible. Without the setback requirement it is difficult to concieve of any
practical us, for our current parking facility viz, our two car garage.
Although I understartd that the requested side yard setback does not involve
our south side it would certainly press the building close to the School Chapel
and obliterate any street view of the ocean or beach.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard K. Dickey, MD.
Carol •L. Dickey
. RIE1[VEI3
-i r) 1980
CITY OF CARLSBAD
P ngjnsaring Departrnefl,
.
0
DOMINY
& BOKAL ARCHITECTS
244 Ninth Street
Del Mar, California 92014
(714)481-8244, 453-0548 Received
A. Lewis Dominy, AlA
Richard D.Bokal,AIA
NOV 19 1980
November 18, 1980
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Catherine Nicholas
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Ms. Nicholas:
Per our meeting yesterday afternoon, enclosed please find ten copies each
of the revised Site Plan, indicating 26' back up aisles, and exterior
elevations of Service Building A and B.
Should you require additional information,. please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Bakal
RDB/mmd
Enclosures
.
.
DOMINY
& BOKAL
ARCHITECTS
244 Ninth Street
Del Mar, California 92014
(714) 481-8244,453-0548
A Lewis Dominy, AlA
Richard S. Bokal, AlA
November 14, 1980
TO: CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information for Revised Variance Application
City of Carlsbad Reference: V-312
1. Building heights in the neighborhood: (measured from street elevation)
Army and Navy Academy
Administration Building 55' 0"
Chapel (1 parcel north of site) 26' 6"
2609 Ocean Street 13' 6"
—2623 Ocean Street (V295) 26' 0"
Approved 12/12/79
2608 Ocean Street 20' 6"
2459 Ocean Street 24' 0"
2723 Ocean Street 20' 0"
2729 Ocean Street 19' 0"
2731 Ocean Street 18' 0"
2747 Ocean Street 20' 0"
2775 Ocean Street 22' 0"
2. The proposed height of the building subject to this Application has been'
reduced:
Original Revised
West Elevation 43' 6" 41' 6"
East Elevation 25' 6" 23' 6"
. I
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 14, 1981
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: V-312, DOMINY, Request for Variances to reduce the
required front yard setback to 5 feet, to allow
parking in the required front and side yards, to
allow tandem parking, and to exceed the 35' height
limit by construction of a 41' - 6" condominium
building on property generally located on the west
side of Ocean Street between Beech Street and
Cypress Avenue in the R-3 zone. Continued from
the Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1980.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As the Commission will recall, this request was originally
heard at the meeting of December 10, 1980. The applicant was
requesting approval of four variances to the zoning ordinances,
specifically:
1) To reduce the required front yard setback to 5'
for the building.
2) To reduce the required front and side yard setbacks
to 0' for required parking spaces.
3) To allow tandem parking.
4) To exceed the 35' building height limitation by
construction of a 41' - 6" building.
II. DISCUSSION
During discussion of the various requests, the Commission
expressed concern regarding the proposed building and visitor
parking in the front and side yard setbacks and less concern
with the proposed building setbacks and resident tandem
parking. The Commission then directed staff to work with the
applicant to resolve these concerns.
Members of the planning staff and a representative of the
Fire Department have met with the applicant, in the interim,
to address these concerns. As shown on Exhibit "B", the
applicant has revised the design to eliminate the need for
the height Variance. All other requests remain unchanged.
.
I
At this meeting, the concerns regarding potential fire
hazards were discussed. Battalion Chief Brian Watson, of
the Fire Department, expressed no serious objection to the
proposed reduced setbacks, from a fire-fighting standpoint.
(Please see attached memorandum from the Fire Department,
dated January 7, 1981.
As previously discussed in the attached staff report of
December 10, 1980, staff has numerous concerns regarding the
potential impacts and precedent-setting nature of approval
of the requested Variances. In re-evaluating this project,
staff is still unable to make the findings required for
approval of the Variances. Staff feels, further, that the
cumulative effect of all the requested Variances additionally
compounds their potential impacts. For all the reasons
discussed in the staff report, dated December 10, 1980,
staff recommends that the project be redesigned to bring it
into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from environmental review per Section
19.04.070(F) (4) of the Environmental Ordinance.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution
No. 1736, DENYING V-312, based on the findings contained
therein.
ATTACHMENTS
PC Minutes of December 10, 1980
Staff Report dated December 10,
Memorandum from Fire Department
PC Resolution.No. 1736
Background Data Sheet
Location Map
Reduced Site Plan
Disclosure Form
1980
dated January 7, 1981
Exhibit "A" dated May 12, 1980
Exhibit "B" dated January 7, 1981
Exhibits "C" and "D" dated November 17, 1980
CDN:ar
1/7/81
-2-
. I
RESOLUTION NO. 1733, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO
A 40 UNIT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO ADD
10 ADDITIONAL UNITS TO A PROJECT ON EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH OF
SWALLOW LANE, WITH AN AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT G CHANGING "FUTURE
STREET WIDENING" TO "PROPOSED STREET WIDENING".
MOTION: COMMISSIONER LARSON
SECOND: COMMISSIONERROMBOTIS
AYES: CHAIRMAN MARCUS, COMMISSIONERS ROMBOTIS, LARSON,
LEEDS, FRIESTEDT, L'HEUREUX AND JOSE.
4. V-312/PCD-27, DOMINY - Request for variances to reduce the
required front and side yards to 0 1 , to allow tandem
parking, and to exceed the 25' height limit by construction
of a 41' - 6" condominium building on property generally
located on the west side of Ocean Street between Beech
Street and Cypress Avenue in the R-3 zone.
Mike Holzmiller advised that the request for variances was to
allow the applicant to develop a 3 unit condominium project.
He pointed out that there had been differences of opinion
between the applicant and staff over the zoning ordinance and
he further brought to the Commissioners' attention that it was
important to keep in mind it was necessary to make four
specific findings before a variance can be approved. Therefore
the discussion should focus on whether each of the findings
can be made with respect to the variance requests. Also,
he indicated the Commission should consider the cumulative
effect of the variances.
Bill Hofman, with the aid of a wall map exhibit, showed the
location of the building, parking in side and front setbacks,
tandem parking and the building height which exceeds the
height limitation for the R-3 zone. He advised that staff
could not make the previously mentioned four mandatory findings
and, in addition, the cumulative effect of approving so many
variances was also a factor in recommending denial.
Chairman Marcus then opened the public hearing at 7:42 P.M.
The Commission recognized Mr. Ronald Knoll, an Attorney with
Hicks, Fletcher & Mack, representing the applicant, who
advised it is the owner's intention to occupy one of the units
with a second being occupied by his son. He indicated that
the type of development proposed conforms with the R-3 zoning
for the area and to build the structure as envisaged the owner
needs the variances requested. Mr. Knoll then covered each
of the variance requests and, with the aid of the wall map
exhibit, indicated the irregular shape of the 1st, placement
of the building and the proposed parking. As regards height,
Mr. Knoll showed, with the aid of photos, how the height of
neighboring properties exceeded those of this structure and
stressed that the building would be no taller than any other
on Ocean Street. On the subject of fire hazards, Mr. Knoll
advised that discussions had been held with the Fire Department
who adivsed that they had no objections to the proposed
structure. He also drew to the attention of the Commission
Paae 5
.
the fact that as a result of this project, the street would
be widened and realigned to remove the jog at that point and
a sidewalk would also be added.
The Commission then recognized Mr. Gordon Klett of 960
Avonock Terrace, Glendale, the owner of the lot. Mr. Klett
advised he had purchased this property in 1979 with the
specific purpose of building a condominium on It. One unit
was intended to be a second home and eventually their per-
manent retirement home, with at least one other unit occu-
pied by members of his family. He expressed the feeling
that the project reflected quality in the neighborhood and
would be of benefit in upgrading the area. He further
expressed the hope that the Commission would agree to the
variances to allow them to occupy their dream home.
The next speaker to be recognized was Mr. Lou Dominy of
Dominy & Bokal, 244 Ninth Street, Del Mar, the Architect on
this project. Mr. Dominy commented that he felt there
should be no problem in granting the variances given the
irregularities of the lot and it was felt the project did
not exceed any of the requirements on this street. He
further pointed out that he had gone to great lengths to
provide extra parking for this project and felt what was now
offered conformed with requirements.
The Commission then recognized Mr. Raymond Eade who resides
at 2600 Ocean Street. Mr. Eade stated that he lived dir-,
ectly across from this project and, after examining the
plans, wished to advise that he felt it would be a definite
asset to the area and he was in favor of the application.
Speaking against the project, the Commission recognized Mrs..
Carol Dickey, 2605-2607 Ocean Street. Mrs. Dickey advised
that she was the immediate neighbor on the south side of the
proposed project. Mrs. Dickey indicated that she agreed
with the Planning Department regarding the cumulative impact
of the number of variances requested and she pointed. out
that other problems also existed such as the projection. of
the chimneys and balconies. She expressed her feeling that
there were no extenuating circumstances to allow the vari-
ances and the granting of them would set a precelent for
further variances on Ocean Street.
The next speaker was Dr. Ray Mulland, 2617 Ocean Street..
Dr. Mulland advised that he had resided here for 23 years
and in that time had seen a great many changes. He indi-
cated that, while he sympathized with Mrs. Dickey, he was in
favor of the tandem parking because of the difficulties
always encountered along the beach with the lack of parking.
He felt that any restrictions in the plan which would take
away some parking would be a grave mistake. Dr. Mulland
informed the Commission that he had no objections to any of
the variances.
The public hearing then closed at 8:20 P.M.
Page 6
The Cornmssionere 1 t the tandem parking arbuildin9 set-
backs would not cause any particular problems. The CQXR-
mission was concerned, however, with the building height
and visitor parking in the front and sideyard setback and
suggested the applicant work with staff to address these
concerns.
After discussion by the Commissioners concerning various
concerns regarding the variances and upon advice from the
Assistant City Attorney, the following motion was adopted:
THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE REOPENED AND THAT THIS ITEM BE
CONTINUED TJNITL JANUARY 14, 1981, AND THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED
TO GET TOGETHER WITH THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF DIFFERENCES
CAN BE RESOLVED TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE COMMENTS
COMMISSIONERS HAVE MADE.
MOTION: COMMISSIONER JOSE
SECOND: COMMISSIONER ROMBOTIS
AYES: CHAIRMAN MARCUS, COMMISSIONERS ROMI3OTIS,
LARSON, LEEDS, FRIESTEDT, L'HEUREUX AND
JOSE
After further discussion the Commission then directed Staff
to prepare a study on development standards on Ocean Street
especially height.
RECESS
The Commission recessed at 8:50 P.M. and reconvened at 9:07
P.M.
5. CT 7-9--25(A),-RANCHEROS - An amendment to an approved
99 unit Tentative Tract Map relating to phasing and
street dedication and improvements located on the east
side of El Fuerte Road, south of Alga Road extended
in the P-C Zone.
Mike Holzmiller introduced the Staff Report and explained the
modifications, indicating that the Planning Commission had
previously seen the project as a discussion item at the
October 22, 1980 meeting.
Chairman Marcus opened the public hearing at 9:10 P.M. and,
since no one wished to speak on this application, the hearing
was then closed.
The Commission then adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 1734 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT
TO A 99 LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP RELATING TO PHASING AND
STREET DEDICATION AND IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF ALGA ROAD, EAST OF EL FUERTE STREET IN THE
P-C ZONE.
MOTION: COMMISSIONER JOSE
SECOND: COMMISSIONER L'HEUREUX
AYES: CHAIRMAN MARCUS, COMMISSIONERS ROMBOTIS,
LARSON, LEEDS, FRIESTEDT, L'HEUREUX AND
JOSE.
Page 7
S
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 10, 1980
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: V-312/PCD-27 - DOMINY - Request for Variances to
reduce the required front yard setback to 5 feet,
to allow parking in the required front and side yards,
to allow tandem parking, and to exceed the 35' height
limit by construction of a 41 1 -6" condominium
building on property generally located on the west
side of Ocean Street between Beech Street and
Cypress Avenue in the R-3 zone.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting the subject variances in order
to develop a three unit condominium project, on a .19 acre
parcel, located as described above. The subject property is
a irregularly shaped vacant lot, sloping downward from Ocean
Street to the beach.
The applicant is requesting four variances to the zoning
ordinance as follows:
1) To reduce the required front yard setback to 5'
for the building.
2) To reduce the required front and side yard setbacks
to 0' for required parking spaces.
3) To allow tandem parking.
4) To exceed the 35' building height limitation by
construction of a 41 1 -6" building.
As shown on Exhibit "A", the applicant has designed the
project assuming a realignment of his front property line
and Ocean Street. The design is based on a request, initiated
by the applicant, for vacation of approximately 300 square
feet of right-of-way on the west side of Ocean Street in
front of the subject property which was made on November 18,
1980. In response to the request, the City Council adopted
a Resolution of Intention to vacate that portion of Ocean
Street. The applicant is prepared to acquire and dedicate
680 sq.ft. of additional land on the east side of Ocean
Street in exchange for the right-of-way vacation. The
proposed land exchange and vacation is in conformance with
an Ocean Street alignment approved by Council in February
1980.
.
S
In accordance with state law governing acquisition and
vacation of land, the proposed exchange was evaluated for
conformance to the General Plan. Staff found the exchange
to be consistent with the general guidelines of all applicable
elements of the General Plan. A finding, to that effect,
has been attached to this report for Commission adoption
under separate resolution. This resolution will be forwarded
to the City Council, to be considered with the proposed
exchange.
As staff is recommending approval of the land exchange and
vacation, staff has proceeded with an evaluation and recommendation
on the requested variances. Any subsequent approvals would
be contingent upon the successful vacation and exchange of
right-of-way.
II. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1) Can the four mandatory findings, required for the
approval of a variance, be made for each request
specifically:
a) That there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property or to the intended use that do
not apply generally to the other property
or class of use in the same vicinity and
zone.
b) That such variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property
in the same vicinity and zone but denied
to the property in question.
c) That the granting of such variance will not
be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in such vicinity and zone in
which the property is located.
d) That the granting of such variance will not
adversely affect the comprehensive general
plan.
III. DISCUSSION
Front and Sideyard Setbacks
In 1971 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 709,
subsequently upheld by the City Council, denying a request
-2-
. S
for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback
from 20' to 1.5' and the sideyard setback from 5' to 3 1 , for
the subject property. In the same resolution, the Planning
Commission approved a reduction to 5' for the required front
yard, citing other non-conforming setbacks along Ocean
Street.
The applicant is requesting a reduction in the required
front yard from 20' to 5' to accommodate building placement
and a reduction in the front and side yard to 0' to
accommodate tandem guest parking. The zoning ordinance
makes provision for modification of front yard setbacks for
lots intervening between other lots having non-conforming
front yard-s. The ordinance specifies, however,that in no
instance shall the front yard be reduced greater than 60%
(12 feet) of the required front yard depth.
Staff has several concerns regarding the proposed reduction
of the yard setbacks. Numerous variances have been granted
along Ocean Street for reduced front and side yards. Consistently,
these reductions have been to approximately 5 1 , predominately
on substandard lots. Placement of the subject building,
itself, would require the front yard to be reduced to 5 1 ,
generally consistent with adjoining buildings. Design of
the tandem guest parking would require that both the front
and side yard setbacks be reduced to 0 1 . Taken together,
staff feels that this would be inconsistent with other
properties and contribute to existing congestion in the
area.
Although the subject property is somewhat irregularly shaped
and has sloping topography similar to all other lots on the
west side of Ocean Street, this lot has more buildable area
and street frontage than the majority of surrounding lots.
While reduced yards have been commonly granted to 5 1 , other
properties in the vicinity do not enjoy 0' front and side
yards for required parking. Staff is, therefore, unable to
make the required findings that exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances are applicable to this specific property nor
that the subject property is being denied a substantial
property right enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity.
Staff had additional concern that approval of reduced setbacks
could be materially detrimental to the public welfare. The
west side of Ocean Street presents a unique situation from a
fire-fighting standpoint. The developments have access from
only the street side. This access is further restricted by
the general congestion of the area and the close proximity
of existing buildings to one another. Staff feels that
further reductions in setbacks would compound existing fire
hazards and set a dangerous precedent for future developments.
The Fire Department has indicated that they do have concern
with the subject project as presently proposed and especially
the reductions to the side yard setbacks.
-3-
.
S
Tandem Parking
Staff had difficulty with the proposed yard.reductions and
tandem parking from a design perspective. The proposed
guest parking would be inconvenient and difficult to use.
Aside from the obvious problems when the first guest chooses
to leave prior to a second, the first stall would be difficult
to enter and exit. A vehicle would have to maneuver between
a wall. and the property line, overhanging the walkway. Not
only would this impair access to the rear units, the position
of the wall, relative to the property line, would make it
impossible for a driver or passenger to exit from the
vehicle. In all probability a vehicle would not pull fully
into this space, causing a second guest vehicle to overhang
into the public right-of-way. Passengers in the second
vehicle would have similar difficulty exiting from their
vehicle, due to the proximity of the 6' wall along the side
property line.
With respect to the driveway
for guest parking causes the
maximum standard of 40% of p
lots (Section. 20.16.040(1)).
required for the condominium
property may not be approved
frontage.
frontage, the second driveway
project to exceed the city's
operty frontage on residential
A parcel map which will be
permit approval on the subject
because of the excessive driveway
The zoning ordinance permits tandem parking within the front
yard setback for substandard frontage lots (width of less
than 50') provided that the front yard building setback be
no less than 20'. The subject property is not substandard
in width since the building will not be setback 20 feet.
Therefore, a variance for tandem parking is required.
While staff had less concern with tandem parking for the
required resident parking, the 8½' stall width would make
access to and exit from vehicles very difficult, and access
to storage and the stairway to the units, nearly impossible.
As previously mentioned, however, staff did have even more
significant concern over providing guest tandem parking, due
to impaired accessibility-to the units and to the rear of the
property, to passengers entering and exiting vehicles, and
useability of the spaces due to design constraints.
Due to the sloping topography, common to all lots of the
west side of Ocean Street, limited area exists to provide
the required amount of parking on-site. Although one instance
of tandem parking was observed by staff in the area, the
project appeared to maintain required setbacks. Staff
could find no variances approved for tandem parking in
the area. It would not appear, therefore, that the subject
-4-
. S
property is being denied a substantial property right enjoyed
by other properties. Compounded by the additional design
considerations, staff must recommend denial of this variance.
Height Limit
The final requested variance is to exceed the 35' height
limit by construction of the 41'6" building. Staff, again,
could not make the findings required for approval of this
variance. Although the property is irregularly shaped, the
lot has more buildable area than many of the lots which are
substandard, along Ocean Street. Additionally, the sloping
topography is common to all other lots on the west side of
Ocean Street. Staff is, therefore, unable to find that
there are exceptional circumstances applicable to this
particular parcel.
The subject property is bordered to the south by a split
level development, approximately 10' in elevation at street
level, and to the north by the Army-Navy Academy Chapel,
approximately 25' at the same level. Staff was, again,
unable to find that approval of the height variance was
necessary for the preservation of a property right.
Most all other developments, on the west side of this block,
are one level at the street and conform to the 35' height
limit of the zoning ordinance.
Only one variance for height has been granted by the Planning
Commission on Ocean Street. On March 26, 1980, the Commission
approved a variance to construct a 14 unit motel, not to
exceed 40 1 . Although some developments, exist on the west
side of Ocean Street in excess of 35 1 , none have received
approval of a variance. Staff is concerned that granting of
a variance for height will set a definite precedent for
future developments in the area.
Staff is of the opinion that maintaining height limitations
is most important in the sensitive beach areas. Approval
of variances for height could have numerous potential
impacts on other properties and the public welfare.
Aesthetically, increased heights, particularly with reduced
setbacks on Ocean Street creates a wall effect. Exceeding
height limits would also obstruct the views of numerous
properties. Finally, such variances.would,. at certain
hours, block the sun on public beaches. Due to the
inability to make the required findings and the
ramifications of setting such a precedent, staff would
recommend against approval of a variance for height.
-5-
. .
In evaluating this project, staff was unable to make the
findings required for approval for any of the requested
variances and additionally felt that such approvals could be
detrimental to the public welfare. As the applicant is
requesting several variances to the zoning ordinance 1 it was
difficult for staff to overlook the cuinmulative effect of
the variance requests. Staff has previously recommended
to the applicant and would continue to recommend that the
project be redesigned to bring it into conformance with the
Zoning Ordinance.
Environmental Review
This project is exempt from environmental review per Section
19.04.070(f) (4) of the Environmental Ordinance.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT
Resolution No: 1736, DENYING V-312, based on the findings
contained therein, and Resolution No. 1737, finding the
proposed acquisition and vacation of land to be in conformance
with the General Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
PC Resolution No. 1736 and 1737
Background Data Sheet
Location Map
Reduced site plans and elevations
Disclosure Form
Exhibit "A" dated May 12, 1980
Exhibits "B","C","D" dated November 17, 1980
CDN:ar
12/4/80
S
Zoning Land Use
North R-3
South R-3
East R-3
West Ocean
Army-Navy Academy
Ocean
Single Family Residence Duplex
Single Family Residence Duplex
6 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET •
CASE NO: v-312
APPLICANT: IX)MINY
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Reduce the requir ed, front & aide yards to 0'.prntt tanceni
parking and exceed the 35' height limit by construction of a 4216 condominium building
on the west side of Ocean Street between Beech Street and Cypress Avenu.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1 in Block "A" of Hayes T.rn9 Cn addition i-n Carlsbad,--Map
No. 2, according to map thereof No. 1221, filed November 4, 1909 and a portion of Lot
1, in Block 2 of Oceanside addition to Carlsbad according to rrp thereof No. 893,
filed in the office of the County Recorder.
Assessors Parcel Nuniber: 203 - 140 - 28
Acres .19 No. of Lots 1
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
General Plan Land Use Designation
Density Allowed 20-30 Density Proposed 15..8
Existing Zone R-3 Proposed Zone R-3
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Unified - Agreement dated September 8, 1980
Water District
City of Carlsbad
Sewer District EDU's
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Septeer B, 1980
(Other:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued
E.I.R. Certified, dated
. 0
0 •
I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1736
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF'
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 3 VARIANCES TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD,
TO ALLOW PARKING IN THE REQUIRED FRONT AND 4 SIDE YARD, AND TO PERMIT TANDEM PARKING FOR
A CONDOMINIUM BUILDING GENERALLY LOCATED ON 5
THE WEST SIDE OF OCEAN STREET BETWEEN BEECH
STREET AND CYPRESS AVENUE.
APPLICANT: DOMINY
7 CASE NO: V-312
8 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to
9 Wit:
Lot 1 in Block 'A" of Hayes Land Co. addition to Carlsbad, 10 Map No. 2, according to map thereof No. 1221, filed
November 4, 1909 and a portion of Lot 1, in Block 2 of
Oceanside addition to Carlsbad according to map theeof
12 No. 893, filed in the office of the County Recorder.
13 has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the
14 Planning Commission; and
15 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
16 as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
17 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 10th day of
18 December, 1980, hold a duly noticed public hearing and on the 14th
19 day of January, 1981, a continued public hearing as prescribed by
20 law to consider said request; and
21 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering
22 all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to
23 he heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to
V-3l2. 24
0
25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
26 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
27 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing,
the Commission APPROVES V-312, based on the following findings:
APN: 203-140-28
S
.
1 Findings:
1) That there are exceptional or extraoidinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to this property that do not apply
generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone,
because of the lots irregular configuration which are typical
on the west side of Ocean Street.
2) That the sub5ect property is being denied a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone because other properties have tandem
parking and reduced setbacks.
3) That the granting of such variances would not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the
property in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
located.
4) That the granting of such variances would not adversely
affect the City's General Plan.
Conditions
1) Approval is granted for V-312, as shown on Exhibit A, dated
May 12, 1980, incorporated by reference and on file in the
Planning Department. Development hall occur substantially
as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
2) Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all
other sections of the Zonin'j Ordinance and all other appli-
cable city ordinances in effect at time of building permit
issuance.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California,-held on
the 28th day of January, 1981, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: MARCUS, ROMBOTIS, LARSON, LEEDS, JOSE, FRIESTEDT,
L'HEUREUX
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST: MARY MA US, Chairman
CARLS D PLANNING COMMISSION
C. HAGAMAN, •Sec]etary
BAD PLANNING' COMMISSION
PC RESO #1736
6
7
8
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-2-