HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-12-16; Planning Commission; ; CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
Item No.
Application complete date: October 8, 2020
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 16, 2020 Project Planner: Jessica Bui
Project Engineer: David Rick
SUBJECT: CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL -
Request for a Coastal Development Permit and a Variance to allow an unpermitted
retaining wall system that exceeds standards on a manufactured uphill perimeter slope
with a gradient greater than 40 percent and an elevation differential of greater than
fifteen feet on property located at 939 Begonia Court within the Mello II Segment of the
city’s Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 4. The project site is
not within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. The City Planner
has determined pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(4) and 15270 of the state CEQA Guidelines
that the project is exempt from CEQA because CEQA does not apply to projects which a
public agency rejects or disapproves.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7394 RECOMMENDING that
the City Council DENY Coastal Development Permit CDP 2020-0026 and Variance V 2020-0004 based upon
the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Project Site/Setting: The 0.39-acre (17,146 square feet) project site is located at 939 Begonia Court as
shown on the attached location map. The site is developed with a two-story, single-family residence. The
property slopes from a high point of approximately 204 feet above mean sea level at the rear of the lot to
a low point of approximately 166 feet above mean sea level adjacent to the street, Begonia Court. The
eastern half of the property, or the backyard area (above 168 feet contour line) is comprised of an uphill
slope with a gradient of approximately 55 percent. The lot is surrounded by single-family residences to
the north, south, east and west. Table “A” below includes the General Plan designations, zoning and
current land uses of the project site and surrounding properties.
TABLE A
Location General Plan Designation Zoning Current Land Use
Site R – 4 Residential R – 1 One – Family
Residential Single – Family Residence
North,
South,
East and
West
R – 4 R – 1 Single – Family Residence
1
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 2
Project Background: The existing single-family residence is in the Coastal Zone and is used as a short-term
vacation rental (STVR)1. The property has one open Code Enforcement violation for the existing and
unpermitted retaining wall system. The Code Enforcement Division opened a case against the property
owner in late 2018 upon discovering unpermitted grading and ongoing construction on the property. Code
Enforcement issued a notice of violation against the property owner in February 2019 and a final notice
of violation in June 2019. Construction stopped in approximately June 2019 as described below, although
the violations have not been corrected to date. Instead, property owner chose to pursue this variance
application.
According to its geotechnical report, the property owner began unpermitted grading and construction of
the multi-tiered retaining wall system into the uphill slope located in the backyard in March 2016 and
continued until approximately June 2019. The city issued a notice of violation to the property owner for
violations of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 15.16.050 of the Grading Ordinance because the
property owner graded the slope to construct the walls without a grading permit; CMC Section 21.95.140
of the Hillside Development Ordinance for constructing a retaining wall system on a manufactured uphill
perimeter slope that exceeds the permitted standards; and CMC Section 21.203.040 for the construction
of the wall system without approval of a coastal development permit to ensure compliance with the
required provisions in the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. To ensure the health and safety of
STVR guests or other individuals during this review process, the Code Enforcement Division required the
area of the unpermitted walls be sectioned off with a gate and caution tape to restrict entering or
recreating on the slope that has been structurally compromised, and to disclose the restriction in rental
marketing materials.
The Planning Division, Engineering Division, Code Enforcement and City Attorney’s Office conferred with
the property owner on several occasions since 2018 regarding potential corrective actions. The actions
discussed were: A) apply for and obtain a grading permit to remove the unpermitted walls and bring the
system into compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance and restore the slope above to its
original condition; or B) apply for a coastal development permit and variance application to request the
approval for the unpermitted retaining wall system to remain. Option A may not require a coastal
development permit because bringing the wall into compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance
should avail the applicant of the standard exemption for typical improvements associated with a single-
family residence outside the Coastal appeal area. However, staff advised the property owner that a
recommendation for denial would likely result from Option B, the application for a coastal development
permit and variance, because the walls do not meet code requirements of CMC Section 21.203.040 –
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, CMC Section 21.95.140 – Hillside Development Ordinance, and
the required findings for CMC Section 21.50 – Variances. A detailed analysis for each zoning code violation
is discussed in Section III – Analysis of this staff report.
Project Description: The property owner chose to proceed with option “B.” The request for a coastal
development permit and variance is to allow an existing and unpermitted retaining wall system to remain
on an uphill perimeter slope with a gradient over 40 percent and an elevation differential of greater than
fifteen feet (“manufactured uphill perimeter slope”) located within the backyard of a single-family
residence. The wall system starts at the base of the slope and extends approximately two thirds up the
slope toward the rear property line. The wall system is multi-tiered with four levels and is accessed by
stairs that start at the toe of the slope, which is adjacent to a swimming pool and spa. The slope has been
graded and filled to accommodate the wall system without a required grading permit, and each level
1 In accordance with CMC Chapter 5.60 – Short-Term Vacation Rentals, property owners in the Coastal Zone may operate a short-term rental with the approval of a STVR permit and a business license.
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 3
between the multi-tiered system is flat and designed in a manner that could be used as recreation areas.
However, a retaining wall or walls are only permitted within an area that is a maximum height of six feet
above the grade elevation at the toe of the slope within a manufactured uphill perimeter slope per
Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.95.140.C.1(a) and the Hillside Development and Design
Guidelines Section III.B and Exhibit 9 (see Attachment 5).
Proposed Grading: The grading quantities (cubic yards of cut and the cubic yards of fill) from the
unpermitted grading that had occurred to construct the unpermitted retaining wall system is unknown.
Estimated grading quantities will be determined by the applicant’s licensed engineer’s plan to either
remove and remediate the slope or to structurally retrofit the existing wall in place.
The CDP and Variance would normally be heard by the Planning Commission as the final decision-maker.
However, one aspect of the project’s CDP application for deviations to grading of steep slopes within the
Coastal Zone requires action by the City Council. Therefore, per CMC Section 21.54.040, Decision-making
authority for multiple development permits, both applications require City Council action. The Planning
Commission’s action on the project will be a recommendation. If the project is denied by the City Council,
the walls will be conditioned to be removed and the slope must be restored in accordance with the
provisions of CMC Chapter 21.95 – Hillside Development Regulations. The removal of the walls,
restoration of the slope, and the retainment or construction of a compliant retaining wall that is a
maximum height of six feet tall measured from the grade at the toe of the slope will require the applicant
to obtain a grading permit. Furthermore, if the removal and restoration is consistent with the Hillside
Development Regulations it will not require a hillside development permit due to the exemption for single
family residences. If no impacts are found to coastal resources, a CDP will not be required because
improvements normally associated with residences such as this are exempt from the CDP procedures. A
CDP may be required if the remediation impacts the property or adjacent properties to an extent that
would be considered an impact on coastal resources. The extent of the remediation and CDP requirement
would be determined at the time that specific details provided by the applicant’s engineer are submitted
to the city for review.
III. ANALYSIS
The project is subject to the following regulations and requirements:
A. Grading and Erosion Control (CMC Chapter 15.16);
B. Hillside Development Regulations (CMC Chapter 21.95);
C. Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program
(CMC Chapter 21.201) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter
21. 203); and
D. Variances (CMC Chapter 21.50).
The recommendation for denial of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s inconsistencies
with the applicable city regulations and policies. The project is not in compliance with the applicable
regulations and is discussed in detail in the sections below. Furthermore, there is no known alternative
design or modifications that can be made to this project that would be compatible with the
aforementioned applicable regulations short of the removal of the walls, restoration of the slope, and the
retainment or construction of one compliant retaining wall that is a maximum height of six feet tall at the
toe of the slope.
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 4
A. Grading and Erosion Control (CMC Chapter 15.16)
The Engineering Department determined that the property was in violation of CMC Section 15.16.050
because the hillside was cleared and graded to construct the retaining wall system without the approval
of a grading permit. If the project is denied, the applicant will be required to apply for and obtain a grading
permit to restore the slope and bring it into compliance with CMC Chapter 21.95 – Hillside Development
Regulations
B. Hillside Development Regulations (CMC Chapter 21.95)
The project site has a manufactured uphill perimeter slope as defined in CMC Section 21.95.140.C with a
gradient greater than 40 percent and an elevation differential of greater than fifteen feet located in the
backyard into which the unpermitted retaining wall system is constructed. CMC Section 21.95.140
contains provisions related to design standards for development of manufactured uphill perimeter slopes,
and development is limited to a main building, accessory structure and a retaining wall up to a maximum
cut into the slope of six vertical feet measured from the existing grade at the toe of the slope. Stairs are
also allowed to be constructed onto the slope in order to access the area for landscape maintenance. In
addition, CMC Section 21.95.140 allows the construction of decks on the manufactured uphill perimeter
slope up to the required building setback of the zoning designation. Per CMC Section 21.95.040,
improvements to single family residences are exempt from having to apply for a hillside development
permit (HDP), provided that the development complies with CMC Section 21.95.140 of the Hillside
Development Regulations and the city’s hillside development and design guidelines. However, walls and
retaining walls built beyond the maximum six-foot cut as measured from the toe of the slope such as the
project in question are not permitted per those standards and guidelines, so the project would not be
exempt from an HDP.
Modifications to the development and design standards of the Hillside Development Ordinance and
Hillside Development and Design Guidelines are only permitted outside of the Coastal Zone with the
approval of a HDP. Because the subject property is in the Coastal Zone, modifications to the design
standards are prohibited unless it is necessary to preserve onsite natural habitat as required by the city’s
Habitat Management Plan. There is no natural habitat present on the site. Therefore, an application for a
HDP to seek design standards and guidelines modifications would not be applicable, and the applicant is
instead seeking approval of a variance to deviate from the requirements of the CMC Chapter 21.95 –
Hillside Development Regulations.
C. Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Coastal
Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.201 and 21.203)
The project site is located within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and is not in the appeal
jurisdiction. The site is also located within and subject to the Coastal Resources Protection Overlay Zone.
Improvements typically associated with a single-family residence outside the Coastal appeal area, such as
retaining walls, are exempt from a coastal development permit (CDP). The exemption assumes the
proposed work complies with the rest of the Zoning Ordinance, so a project that does not comply with
the Hillside Development Ordinance is not exempt from a CDP. Therefore, the request to allow the
unpermitted retaining wall system to remain is subject to a CDP and the regulations in CMC Sections
21.201 and 21.203 as described below:
1. Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies.
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 5
The project is located in the Mello II Local Coastal Program Segment. The project consists of the
construction of an unpermitted retaining wall system more than six vertical feet above the toe of a
manufactured uphill perimeter slope. The proposed retaining wall system is not compatible with the
surrounding development of one and two-story single-family structures in that construction of retaining
walls extending more than six feet above the toe of the slope is not permitted for manufactured uphill
perimeter slopes. The retaining wall system is in an area of known geologic instability that has been
created by the applicant due to the unpermitted grading, construction of unengineered retaining walls
and filling of the slope. Each finding below must be met in order to support a coastal development permit:
a. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and
all applicable policies.
The proposed development is not in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and
all applicable policies in that the site is known for geologic instability due to the unpermitted
grading and construction of an unpermitted retaining wall system. A geotechnical evaluation
provided by the applicant and prepared by Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., dated October
9, 2019 (see Attachment 7) confirms the slope stability has been compromised and does not meet
minimum safety standards for static or seismic conditions. The geotechnical evaluation offered
conceptual options to mitigate the structure; however, the applicant’s engineer did not provide
adequate technical information to determine if the subject slope area would be stable or if the
impacts would be mitigatable for at least seventy-five years or for the life of the structure. The
city requested specific structural details related to the retaining walls and retrofitting of the walls.
The applicant refused to provide the information and the applicant’s engineer stated that the
specifics regarding the retrofit would be on a design-build basis (see Attachment 8). A design-
build basis implies that the necessary information to demonstrate the feasibility of the retrofit
would only be provided after the coastal development permit and variance are approved, but the
city does not have the information to rely upon in order to approve the project. Therefore, staff
does not have the necessary information to make the determination that the slope would be
stable, or if the impacts would be mitigatable for at least seventy-five years or for the life of the
structure. In addition, the geotechnical evaluation did not address compliance with the
requirements of the Coastal Zone or Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the project is not consistent
with the intent and purpose of the Certified Local Coastal Program in that it does not preserve or
protect steep manufactured slopes, nor does the project ensure structural stability of the slope
from erosion, geological instability or destruction of the site or surrounding area. The project does
not meet this finding.
b. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act.
This finding is not applicable because the property is not adjacent to the coastal shoreline; and
therefore, will not interfere with the public’s right to physical access or water-oriented
recreational activities.
c. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
(Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the city's Master
Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and
Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants,
and soil erosion. No steep slopes or native vegetation is located on the subject property and
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 6
the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion,
floods, or liquefaction.
The project is not consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
(Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) because the geotechnical evaluation did not provide
adequate information for staff to confirm that the project will avoid increased urban runoff,
pollutants and soil erosion and there is a steep slope (equal to or greater than 25 percent gradient)
of approximately 55 percent located on the subject property. The project does not meet this
finding based on the analysis in finding number 1 above.
2. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
The project is not consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC
Chapter 21.203) in that the subject property includes a steep slope (equal to or greater than 25 percent
gradient) and development is proposed on a steep slope. In addition, due to the unpermitted grading of
the slope, the site may be prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion.
Furthermore, CMC Section 21.203.040(A)3 contains specific development standards that are applied to
areas within the coastal resource protection overlay zone related to grading and preservation of steep
slopes (equal to or greater than 25 percent gradient) and those standards differ depending on the
geographic area within the coastal zone. For the project site, the city council may allow exceptions to
grading of the steep slope provided all the following applicable mandatory findings to allow exceptions
are made:
a. A soils investigation conducted by a licensed soil engineer has determined the subject slope area to
be stable and grading and development impacts mitigatable for at least seventy-five years, or life
of structure.
The applicant provided a geotechnical evaluation that was prepared by a licensed engineer who
inspected the unpermitted retaining wall system and determined the wall system is structurally faulty
because the fill has not been compacted to a minimum percentage that is safe. In addition, the
evaluation finds that the slope is not safe for long term stability for static conditions or seismic
conditions. The geotechnical evaluation included three options to remediate the wall system to make
it structurally sound which are: A) remove the existing walls and undocumented fill and replace it with
a new five-foot wall near the toe of the slope with an ascending fill slope located above the wall, and
rebuild a new wall system constructed near the top of the fill slope; B) remove the walls and
undocumented fill and restore the existing slope; or C) leave the existing walls in place with
considerable reinforcement effort, which may require encroachment onto the adjacent properties
that will require authorization from the property owners. Although the geotechnical evaluation
offered conceptual options to mitigate the structure, the applicant’s engineer did not provide
adequate technical information to determine if the subject slope area would be stable or if the
impacts would be mitigatable for at least seventy-five years or for the life of the structure as described
in more detail in Section III(C)(1)(a) of the staff report above. The project does not meet this finding.
b. Grading of the slope is essential to the development intent and design.
The grading of the manufactured uphill perimeter slope is not essential for the development intent
and design of a single-family residential property. If it were essential, it would have been done with
the original grading of the overall subdivision development. Grading is only necessary to retain the
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 7
unpermitted retaining wall system, but the walls are not a permitted structure on a manufactured
uphill perimeter slope in accordance with CMC Chapter 21.95 – Hillside Development Regulations. In
addition, grading on a manufactured uphill perimeter slope beyond the six-foot limitation is only
allowed in the Coastal Zone when it is necessary to preserve onsite natural habitat as required by the
city’s Habitat Management Plan. The project site is in the Coastal Zone but there is no natural habitat
onsite that is required to be preserved; therefore, the grading of the slope is not essential to the
development. The project does not meet this finding.
c. Slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major wildlife habitat or
native vegetation areas.
This finding is not applicable to the site. The slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage
or alteration to major wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas because the site is a previously
developed lot with an existing single-family residence and there is no wildlife habitat or native
vegetation areas existing onsite.
d. If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and is in excess of ten acres,
no more than one-third of the total steep slope area shall be subject to major grade changes.
This finding is not applicable to the site. The finding applies to sites greater than 10 acres, and the
area proposed to be disturbed is not in excess of ten acres.
e. If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and is less than ten acres,
complete grading may be allowed only if no interruption of significant wildlife corridors occurs.
The area proposed is less than ten acres and would not interrupt significant wildlife corridors. The
project would meet his finding.
f. Because north-facing slopes are generally more prone to stability problems and in many cases
contain more extensive natural vegetation, no grading or removal of vegetation from these areas
will be permitted unless all environmental impacts have been mitigated. Overriding circumstances
are not considered adequate mitigation.
This finding is not applicable to the site. The slope is not north-facing and does not contain more
extensive natural vegetation. Moreover, this finding is understood to apply to natural, not
manufactured, slopes as manufactured slopes are engineered and not inherently prone to stability
problems.
In summary, to comply with CMC Chapters 21.201 and 21.203. Within the Mello II Segment of the Local
Coastal Program, all required findings must be made in the affirmative, but finding “a” and “c” cannot be
made. Within the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone all mandatory findings must be made to allow
grading of a steep slope but finding “a” and “b” cannot be made. Therefore, the coastal development
permit cannot be supported, and staff recommends denial of the CDP.
D. Variances (CMC Chapter 21.50)
Variances are granted to resolve practical difficulties or physical hardships that may result from the unique
size, shape, topography or dimensions of a property. Variances are not approved which would have the
effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other properties in the surrounding area. In order to
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 8
support an approval for a variance, all five required findings of fact from CMC Section 21.50.050 must be
made. The following five findings with justifications stated by the applicant (see Attachment 9) and staff’s
analysis are as follows:
1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning
classification.
Applicant’s Justification:
The applicant states that the location and size of the existing wall, topography of the area and
accessibility make approving the variance and issuing a permit of the current retaining wall with
approved retrofitting the optimal alternative in remedying the code violation.
Due to the location of the existing retaining wall as constructed, removing it would not only pose a
threat of danger of destabilizing the slope/hill, removing the wall, which spans close to 100 feet long
and 21 feet in height also poses extreme challenges regarding access to the wall. Such challenges
would not only cause substantial nuisances to the neighborhood but would also require considerable
use and intrusion of and onto neighboring lots. The applicant included a petition with some 67
signatures of property owners in the neighborhood that not only support permitting the existing wall
and allowing it to remain with retrofitting, but that clearly show that requiring the wall to be removed
will cause serious concerns of neighboring residents and could possibly result in litigation (see
Attachment 6).
Staff Response:
The applicant’s justification does not speak to special circumstances related to the subject property,
or loss of privileges enjoyed by other properties, but instead speaks to circumstances the applicant
created through the illegal grading and construction of the retaining wall system. There are no special
circumstances associated with the property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, such that the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by the other homes in the vicinity and in the R-1 Residential zone. The property is
of average size (17,146 sq. ft.) in the neighborhood and is a typical pie-shaped lot that is found on a
cul-de-sac street. The other lots in the vicinity range in size from about 12,000 to about 19,000 square
feet in size. The 55 percent manufactured uphill perimeter slope is characteristic of the adjacent
properties and other properties in the vicinity. The strict application of the zoning code does not
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property owners because retaining walls that
exceed the hillside development standards on a manufactured uphill perimeter slope are unpermitted
for all residential properties. The retaining wall system is decorative and does not constitute relief
from unique difficulties or hardships associated with the property in question.
In regard to nuisances to the neighborhood, construction that occurs within the city boundary must
comply with CMC 8.48.010 – Construction Hours Limitations, which limits any type of construction,
including the demolition of a structure or grading between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and is not permitted on Sundays and any federal holiday.
Therefore, the removal and remediation of the wall would be subject to the regulations that are
imposed on all types of construction, demolition or grading. The removal and remediation work would
be temporary, must operate during the permitted days and times, and noise and parking impacts
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 9
would be temporary and minimal to the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the engineer’s
evaluation also includes possible impacts on adjacent properties as a result of grading and
construction which include encroaching onto the adjacent parcels to reinforce the existing walls if the
walls were to remain. The property owner will also be required to obtain authorization from the
adjacent property owners to reinforce the existing wall if encroachment is necessary.
2. That the variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located and is subject
to any conditions necessary to assure compliance with this finding.
Applicant’s Justification:
The applicant states that granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with any limitation upon other properties in the vicinity. On the contrary, granting of the
variance would be absolutely consistent with the city’s explicit or implicit approval of extremely similar
retaining walls not only within the City of Carlsbad, but within the very neighborhood of the subject
premises. The applicant provided examples of 10 retaining walls within the city limits that appear not
to be consistent with CMC Section 21.95.140 (see Attachment 9). The cited retaining walls are on
properties including Grand Pacific Palisades Resort/Karl Strauss, Salk Avenue above El Camino Real,
Robertson Ranch development, The Crossings Golf Course, and two neighboring single-family
residential properties on Azalea Place and Poppy Lane. The applicant states that these walls are
evidence that the city has allowed variances to the code and is selectively enforcing the code, so denial
of this project would be inconsistent. The applicant further indicates that other homes in the area have
retaining walls so approving this project would not prejudice or harm those homeowners. The subject
retaining walls not only beautify the subject property but also raise the property values of the property
and the surrounding neighborhood. Only one complaint has been filed with the city about the walls
since construction began in 2016, more concerned with noise than the wall system. Lastly, the
applicant indicates that the wall system does not impede views and states the wall system stabilized
the slope and makes the slope more attractive.
Staff Response:
The variance would constitute a grant of special privileges that is inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. All properties in the vicinity and the R-1 Residential
zoning designation in the Coastal Zone are subject to the same Hillside Development Ordinance
regulations that are in effect, which prohibit retaining walls from being constructed beyond what is
allowed on a manufactured uphill perimeter slope. No other properties in the vicinity have similar,
permitted retaining walls on the manufactured uphill perimeter slope. To approve the subject
variance would be a grant of special privileges to this property that other properties in the vicinity do
not enjoy.
Staff has reviewed the list of walls provided by the applicant. Walls listed by the applicant that are not
located within the Coastal Zone are not subject to the same CMC Chapter 21.95 – Hillside
Development Regulations as the project site. The majority of the walls listed by the applicant are
located on project sites that were part of a master plan or other major discretionary action for
complex projects that are not similar to the subject project. Those projects included components that
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 10
do not apply to the subject property which were subject to other sections of the code or provisions
within a master plan development, including preservation of significant natural habitat as required by
the city’s Habitat Management Plan or the county Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, were
necessary for slope instability corrective work, or were approved as offsets or concessions for the
provision of affordable housing. It appears that some of the sites are not subject to the Hillside
Development Regulations because the topography of the site does not meet the criteria for the
regulations to apply. Some of the properties have retaining walls with no record of permits issued by
the city. Lastly, the Hillside Development Regulations were comprehensively updated in 2012, and
some of the walls cited by the applicant predate the current code requirements. None of the examples
are relevant to the subject request, and do not provide justification to meet this finding.
3. That the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized
by the zone regulation governing the subject property.
Applicant’s Justification:
The applicant states that granting of the variance does not authorize any use or activity unauthorized
by the code. The applicant does not seek a building permit in order to conduct an unauthorized activity
or to construct an object that is not there. The subject retaining wall system has already been
constructed and the variance seeks to permit the existing wall system after retrofitting. The wall is
intended to beautify the subject property, not for any other use or activity and no unauthorized use
will be conducted at the property if the project is approved.
Staff Response:
The granting of this variance would authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property. The fact that the retaining wall
system is existing because it has been constructed without city approval is not appropriate
justification to approve the variance. As designed, the unpermitted retaining wall system is prohibited
per CMC Chapter 21.95 – Hillside Development Regulations which governs development on
manufactured uphill perimeter slopes. CMC Chapter 21.95 allows for modifications to development
on slopes; however, modifications are prohibited in the Coastal Zone unless it is necessary to preserve
natural habitat as required by the city’s Habitat Management Plan. The subject property is in the
Coastal Zone, but there is no native habitat on site and the project is not necessary to preserve natural
habitat. Therefore, granting the variance would authorize an activity that is expressly not authorized
within the applicable zoning regulations.
4. That the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan, and this
title and any applicable specific or master plans.
Applicant’s Justification:
The applicant states that granting the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of
the General Plan as it protects and enhances natural resources. The applicant contends that the
retrofitted retaining wall system will protect the integrity of the slope it is built upon, which protects
the natural topography of the coastline. The applicant further states that removal of the retaining wall
system will not only endanger the integrity of the slope but may cause the slope to become unreflective
of its natural state prior to the wall being built. The applicant has added landscape to the slope, and
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 11
is open to installing native vegetation and trees , which they state will enhance and restore the overall
quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and man-made resources, pursuant to the
Coastal Act.
Staff Response:
The granting of this variance is not consistent with the general purpose and intent of the General Plan.
The subject property is designated Residential (R – 4) General Plan Land Use designation and although
walls are a typical component of residentially designated areas, the subject retaining wall system is
not consistent with the development of single-family lots with a manufactured uphill perimeter slope
within the Coastal Zone. The subject retaining wall system also does not promote the Hillside
Development Ordinance intent to enhance the aesthetic qualities of manufactured slopes and is not
consistent with the Hillside Development and Design Guidelines acknowledgment that manufactured
slopes of greater than 40% gradient and greater than 15 feet in height are regarded as important
aesthetic, visual resources because they provide visually open, vertical separations between
developed pads in hilly areas and between developed pads and roadways. As a result, the project
does not preserve the existing neighborhood atmosphere and identity of the existing residential area.
The stability of the slope has already been compromised by the unpermitted grading and construction
that has occurred. The existing slope is a manufactured slope and not a natural slope as described by
the applicant. The removal of the walls would not endanger the integrity of the slope because the
applicant would also be required to restore the slope to bring it into compliance with CMC Chapter
21.95 – Hillside Development Regulations which is consistent with the general goals and purpose of
the General Plan. Appropriate landscaping of hillsides is required by the city’s Landscape Manual,
including use of native and drought tolerant species when possible.
5. In addition, in the coastal zone, that the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent
of the certified local coastal program and does not reduce or in any manner adversely affect the
requirements for protection of coastal resources.
Applicant’s Justification:
The applicant states that the city is to take into consideration what will assure balanced utilization and
conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people
of California. The applicant contends the project offers such a balance by retrofitting the existing walls
to conserve the coastal zone and add natural resources, while benefitting both the social and economic
needs of the community in that the wall brings value to surrounding properties. The applicant raises
the previously cited retaining walls and states the city must protect the rights of property owners by
allowing similar desirable walls within reason such as the subject retaining walls. The subject wall
follows the hillside, it does not reduce or extend it, but was dependent upon its natural state when
constructed. The wall merely covers what was there and stabilizes the hillside and will also aid in
erosion control. The applicant further contends that approving the retaining wall system will prevent
further development on the hillside, minimizing the density of development, and will minimize the
opportunity for toxic compounds, oil and grease, heavy metals, nutrients, suspended solids and other
pollutants from entering the storm water conveyance system through the hillside. In contrast, denying
the variance not only poses a risk to the hillside, will be oppressive to the surrounding neighborhood
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 12
and a logistical nightmare that some 67 local residents object to. Removal of the wall. The applicant
states the hope that the code will not be arbitrarily enforced by the city in a discriminatory and
draconian manner that will thwart the city’s efforts of coastal protection since the wall system’s
retrofitting will work to protect the hillside.
Staff Response:
The granting of this variance would not be consistent with the general purpose and intent of the
certified local coastal program and does reduce or adversely affect the requirements for protection
of coastal resources. One of the purposes of the certified local coastal program is to preserve and
protect natural and manufactured slopes in the coastal resource protection overlay zone area and to
ensure stability and structural integrity of the slopes from erosion, geologic instability, or destruction
of the site. The unpermitted grading that has occurred to construct the unpermitted and
unengineered retaining wall system has compromised the stability of the slope. To retain the wall
system will require considerable reinforcement and the structural integrity of reinforcing the walls
has not been determined since the applicant has refused to provide such information at this time as
described in detail previously in this staff report. Therefore, the feasibility of retaining the wall system and stabilizing the slope in accordance with the requirements for protection of the local coastal
resources is unknown.
The wall system is not related to density or the city’s policies on density or growth management.
Allowing the walls to remain will not discourage development on the manufactured slope because
housing development is not permitted on this manufactured uphill perimeter slope. Furthermore,
because there was not enough information provided by the applicant, it is unknown if there are
drainage issues that resulted from the unpermitted grading and construction and if the walls could be
retained and retrofitted without drainage issues. The removal and remediation work would not cause
impacts to the neighborhood because the work will be temporary and must be completed during the
permitted days and times in accordance with city regulations. Noise and parking impacts related to
the removal and remediation would be temporary and minimal to the surrounding neighborhood
during construction. Furthermore, the code is not being arbitrarily enforced in a discriminatory or
draconian manner because the retaining wall system as designed is strictly prohibited and the
regulations are applied consistently for all single-family residential property owners in the vicinity and
zoning designation. No variances for walls on manufactured uphill perimeter slopes have been
approved in the city. Retaining and retrofitting the wall system has not yet been determined to protect
the hillside, and retrofitting may require encroaching onto the adjacent neighbor’s property, thereby
potentially impacting the slopes within the vicinity.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
If this Coastal Development Permit No. 2020-0026 and Variance No. 2020-0004 is denied, the project is
exempt from environmental review pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(4) and 15270 of the State CEQA
Guidelines because CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 13
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Planning Commission Resolution No. 7394
2.Location Map
3.Disclosure Form
4.Reduced Exhibits
5.Hillside Development and Design Guidelines Section III.B and Exhibit 9
6.Petition of 67 Signatures
7.Geotechnical Evaluation dated October 9, 2019
8.Geotechnical Addendum – Response to Engineering Comments dated September 10, 2020
9.Applicant’s Justification for Variance
10.Exhibit(s) “A” dated December 16, 2020
11.Public Comments
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
NOTE ADDED REFERRING TO FINAL
ENGINEERING DESIGN AND
CONTRACTOR MEANS AND METHODS.
NOTE ADDED PER GEOTECHNICAL
REPORT, CURRENT AND
FORTHCOMING FINAL ENGINEERING .
EQUIPMENT PER CONTRACTOR DURING
CONSTRUCTION
ATTACHMENT 5
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 7
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
485 Corporate Drive, Suite B Escondido, Ca 92029 Telephone: (619) 867-0487
ORANGE AND L.A. COUNTIES INLAND EMPIRE SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES (714) 786-5661 (619) 708-1649 (619) 867-0487
FUSION ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY September 10, 2020 4231 Balboa Avenue, Suite 619 P/W 1907-03 San Diego, CA 92117 Report No. 1907-03-B-4
Attention: John Rivera, PE
Subject: Geotechnical Addendum, Response to City of Carlsbad Engineering Review Comments, Lichtman Residence, 939 Begonia Court, City of Carlsbad, California.
References: Appendix
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request and authorization, Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., has prepared
this response to Engineering Review Comments provided by the City of Carlsbad Community Development
Department regarding the existing Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls in the rear yard of
the Lichtman Residence located at 939 Begonia Court, City of Carlsbad, California. More specifically, this
letter has been prepared in response to Engineering review comments 1a through 1g from the 1st Review
for CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV 2020-0134) - Begonia Court Retaining Wall dated June 29, 2020
and provided to AGS on September 9, 2020. Unless superseded in the text of this addendum report, the
conclusions and recommendations presented in referenced geotechnical report (AGS 2019) remain valid
and applicable and should be properly implemented. In preparing this response to cycle review comments
we have first presented the review comment followed by our response.
City of Carlsbad- Submit supplemental geotechnical report to the report dated October 9, 2019 by AGS
expanding on analysis and recommendations of the third option chosen to reinforce the existing system.
Include in the supplemental geotechnical report:
1a – Recommendations for anchor locations, lengths, spacing, etc. and specify which walls shall be
anchored.
AGS Response – It is our understanding that stabilization of the existing MSE retaining walls will
be performed on a design-build basis. The design-build contractor will provide the locations, lengths,
spacing, etc. of the soil nails/tie-backs and determine which walls will be anchored. Any MSE
retaining walls not stabilized with a shotcrete and soil nail/tie-back system should be evaluated by
AGS and may require reconstruction using the appropriate geogrid type, length, and spacing and the
reinforced and retained soils compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the dry density per ASTM D-
1557. The shotcrete with soil nail/tie-back system should be designed by a licensed engineer familiar
with these systems. The soil nail/tie-back capacity is dependent on the drilling and grouting methods
and should be estimated by the design-build contractor. Testing should be conducted during
construction. For preliminary estimating purposes, ultimate anchor capacities in the formational
materials (sandstone) can be assumed to be 4,300 pounds per square foot (30 psi). Since the above
friction capacities are considered ultimate, an appropriate factor of safety should be incorporated into
the design. Soils nails should be embedded a minimum of 10 feet into competent formational
ATTACHMENT 8
Page 2 September 10, 2020
Report 1907-03-B-4 P/W 1907-03
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
materials. The soil nail/tie-back reinforcement system should be designed to support an active
pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid weight of 40 pcf for level backfill and 60 pcf for sloping
backfill, and should also consider the surcharges of the tiered walls. When a design is available, it
should be reviewed by AGS and a global stability analysis performed.
1b – Installation methods and procedures.
AGS Response – Installation methods and procedures should be provided by the design-build
contractor. Typically, this type of reinforcement may first include coring through the MSE wall
blocks at predetermined locations. Hand drills would be used to advance an inclined hole to the
design length. The soil nail would be placed in the hole and possibly tubes for primary and post
grouting. Testing of selected soil nails would be completed after grouting. Drain boards may be
installed on the outside of the MSE wall blocks and a reinforcement mat may be installed. Bearing
plates would be affixed to the end of the nails and possibly tied to the reinforcement mat on the
outside of the MSE wall. Shotcrete would then be applied to complete the wall.
1c – Assess overall feasibility of the project.
AGS Response – Stabilization of the existing MSE retaining wall system with soil nails/tie-back
anchors is considered feasible from a geotechnical perspective. Plans for the stabilization of the
existing retaining walls should be reviewed by AGS when they are available.
1d – Location Map.
AGS Response – Figure 1- Site Location Plan is included herewith.
1e – Describe impacts on adjacent properties/improvements as a result of site grading and construction.
AGS Response – It is anticipated that the impacts on adjacent properties/improvements as a result
of site grading and construction will be negligible to favorable. It should be noted that depending on
the final design length of the soil nails/tie-backs, they may encroach into the superjacent parcel(s)
and require permission from the adjacent property owner(s).
1f – Reference applicable building/grading codes/ordinances.
AGS Response – Applicable building/grading codes/ordinances should be provided by the design
engineer and included on the project plans.
1e – Recompaction requirements as the fill has not been recompacted to a minimum of 90% of relative
compaction per the conclusions in Section 6.0 of October 9, 2019 report. Is recompaction of slopes and
level areas between wall required for this remediation option? Design engineer shall also estimate
remediation quantities for recompaction in their grading quantity assessment.
AGS Response – AGS is unaware of slopes between walls with the exception of the stairs. Provided
that there are no structural or settlement sensitive improvements constructed in the project area and
that some settlement of the retained soils is acceptable to the property owner, recompaction of the
existing retained fill soils is not required. The recommended design active pressure for the
Page 3 September 10, 2020
Report 1907-03-B-4 P/W 1907-03
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
reinforcement system and the shear strengths provided in the referenced report that should be used
for the global stability analysis have considered the current condition of the existing fill.
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide you with geotechnical
consulting services and professional opinions. Should you have any questions, please contact the
undersigned at (619) 867-0487.
Respectfully Submitted,
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
___________________________________ ________________________________ JOHN J. DONOVAN PAUL J. DERISI
RCE 65051, RGE 2790, Reg. Exp. 6-30-21 CEG 2536, Reg. Exp. 5-31-21
Distribution: (3) Addressee
Attachments: References Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Page 4 September 10, 2020
Report 1907-03-B-4 P/W 1907-03
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
REFERENCES
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. (2010). “Geotechnical Evaluation of Existing Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Walls, 939 Begonia Court, City of Carlsbad, California,” dated October 9, 2019,
Report No. 1907-03-B-3.
Fusion Engineering and Technology, Preliminary Site Plan for Lichtman Residence, 939 Begonia Court,
City of Carlsbad, California, Map 1 of 1, 10-Scale, undated.
Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California
Geological Survey: Scale 1:100,000.
FIGURE 1
SOURCE MAP U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE-7.5 ,ENCINITAS MINUTE QUADRANGLE,SAN DIEGO COUNTY CALIFORNIA(2018)
N
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS INC,.485 Corporate Drive, Suite BEscondido, 92029CATelephone: (619) 867-0487 Fax: (714) 409-3287
SITE LOCATION MAP
939 BEGONIACOURT,
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA,
PROJECT
SITE
PROJECT
SITE
P/W 1907-03
SCALE 1:48000
ATTACHMENT 9
From:Linda Kranen
To:Planning
Subject:Begonia Ct retaining wall, CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
Date:Friday, December 4, 2020 1:28:47 PM
Regarding the request for a permit and variance to allow an unpermitted retaining wall system at the site below and
to the south of my property according to your map (you didn’t provide an address), I see no reason why this request
should not be approved, considering that there are a multitude of similar retaining walls throughout the old
Spinnaker Hill neighborhood; it’s likely that more downhill homes have them than not. Given the prevalence of
these walls, I’m guessing that the city’s involvement is the result of a complaint from a cantankerous neighbor.
L. Kranen
7305 Lily Pl, Carlsbad
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
ATTACHMENT 11
From:g n
To:Planning
Subject:Begonia Court Retaining Wall CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
Date:Tuesday, December 8, 2020 1:21:30 PM
This property has been the OUTLAW of the neighborhood ! Non-stop party with blasting
music and screaming children! Have you had child protective services there? ! Parties havegone ALL NIGHT on many occasions for over a year.
The MASSIVE TERRACE cuts into the hillside, and from our view, has no rebar, mortar,
drainage OR RAILINGS! It's amazing a kid hasn't fallen to his death already!.
We are not using our name but we can see it and we have no doubt these scumbags will takeretribution on us . On one weekend, they left a BLARING MEXICAN ( in Spanish) RADIO
STATION ON! directed to the south, our way...We assumed it was because someonecomplained.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:YNmabey
To:Planning
Subject:939 Begonia Ct permit
Date:Sunday, December 13, 2020 10:44:16 AM
I and my other neighbors living near to the 939 Begonia Ct airbnb short term rental home, runby absentee business owners Puddle Escapers, agree completely with the planning dept
enforcing the city building codes being violated by said business. We will not be disturbedenough by the removal process enough to to want it to stay there instead. That is silly idea. I
also want to remain anonymous after read comments from his guests when they make anykind on negative comment he viciously attacks them making it look like they are the problem,
not him. Go figure
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:YNmabey
To:Planning
Subject:939 Begonia Ct wall permit
Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 10:28:36 PM
This wall was build by workers paid under the table who had no workerscomp insurance
coverage.The twisted 3rd world logic used by ABSENTEE airbnb business owner 'Puddle Escaper
LLC'and their attorney, demanding they should be allowed to continue their multiple city codebreaking, is just mind boggling. Constant cycling of noisy airbnb renters going up on the hill
high on booze (or whatever) hootin & hollerin into the darkness at sunsets (and other times)lighting bottle rockets and small bonfires, pointing lazer lights at us, blasting outdoor
amplified wall thumping music (provided free by the 'host'- how neighborly), even AFTER itwas taped off by the city for its danger for their own safety (Absentee owners don't hear or see
anything - doesn't bother them at all). This wall must come down and STVR license revoked
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Jessica Bui
To:Melissa Flores
Subject:FW: Begonia Court Retaining Wall CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
Date:Friday, December 11, 2020 4:45:03 PM
Attachments:image001.png
FYI – Begonia Ct. public comment follow up.
Jessica Bui, AICP
Associate Planner
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-602-4631| jessica.bui@carlsbadca.gov
DURING THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY:
FOR ONGOING PROJECTS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR PROJECT PLANNER TO SCHEDULE A RESUBMITTAL
DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT.
FOR NEW PROJECT SUBMITTALS AND LANDSCAPE SUBMITTALS/RESUBMITTALS/ASBUILTS, PLEASE
CALL OR EMAIL YOUR REQUEST FOR A SUBMITTAL DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT:
Phone: 760-602-4610
Email: planning@carlsbadca.gov
From: g n <gn7292186@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 4:22 PM
To: Jessica Bui <Jessica.Bui@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Re: Begonia Court Retaining Wall CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
Thanks for the update. We want to remain anonymous, because as I told you, the property has
installed blaring spanish music radio boombox pointing our way, even though we have never made a
complaint. We assume they LEFT FOR A WEEKEND, AND LEFT THIS BLARING MUSIC! It was for 2
days. They have built at least 20 feet of vertical block, and it looks like they are NOT DONE carving-
out the slope, ( what does the resident above have to say about this? ! ...because we can see
another 6-8 feet of columns indicating they are not done.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:32 AM Jessica Bui <Jessica.Bui@carlsbadca.gov> wrote:
Hello,
I am the project planner working on the Begonia Court project. I just wanted to reach out to you
to let you know I have received your comment and it will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Jessica Bui, AICP
Associate Planner
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-602-4631| jessica.bui@carlsbadca.gov
DURING THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY:
FOR ONGOING PROJECTS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR PROJECT PLANNER TO SCHEDULE A
RESUBMITTAL DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT.
FOR NEW PROJECT SUBMITTALS AND LANDSCAPE SUBMITTALS/RESUBMITTALS/ASBUILTS, PLEASE
CALL OR EMAIL YOUR REQUEST FOR A SUBMITTAL DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT:
Phone: 760-602-4610
Email: planning@carlsbadca.gov
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
From:Jessica Bui
To:Melissa Flores
Subject:FW: Begonia Court Retaining Wall CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
Date:Friday, December 11, 2020 4:44:49 PM
Attachments:image001.png
FYI – Begonia Ct. public comment follow up.
Jessica Bui, AICP
Associate Planner
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-602-4631| jessica.bui@carlsbadca.gov
DURING THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY:
FOR ONGOING PROJECTS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR PROJECT PLANNER TO SCHEDULE A RESUBMITTAL
DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT.
FOR NEW PROJECT SUBMITTALS AND LANDSCAPE SUBMITTALS/RESUBMITTALS/ASBUILTS, PLEASE
CALL OR EMAIL YOUR REQUEST FOR A SUBMITTAL DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT:
Phone: 760-602-4610
Email: planning@carlsbadca.gov
From: g n <gn7292186@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 4:31 PM
To: Jessica Bui <Jessica.Bui@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Re: Begonia Court Retaining Wall CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
Let me get this straight! !! You allowed them to build a dangerous terrace w/ wall without railing,
mortar, rebar, wire, and they continue to build higher, judging by their unfinished columns... WE
ALERTED YOU A YEAR AGO... You did NOTHING. Because the neighborhood doesn't have an active
HOA they got away with this... So now, you are going to approve this CRAP? We live in Aviara HOA, if
we tried this CRAP, they would have shut us down in a heartbeat.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:32 AM Jessica Bui <Jessica.Bui@carlsbadca.gov> wrote:
Hello,
I am the project planner working on the Begonia Court project. I just wanted to reach out to you
to let you know I have received your comment and it will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Jessica Bui, AICP
Associate Planner
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-602-4631| jessica.bui@carlsbadca.gov
DURING THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY:
FOR ONGOING PROJECTS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR PROJECT PLANNER TO SCHEDULE A
RESUBMITTAL DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT.
FOR NEW PROJECT SUBMITTALS AND LANDSCAPE SUBMITTALS/RESUBMITTALS/ASBUILTS, PLEASE
CALL OR EMAIL YOUR REQUEST FOR A SUBMITTAL DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT:
Phone: 760-602-4610
Email: planning@carlsbadca.gov
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
From:j phelps
To:Planning
Subject:Public Hearing Comment -- CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) -- Begonia Court Retaining Wall
Date:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:12:31 PM
Subject: Public Hearing, Wednesday, December 16, 2020
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) -- Begonia Court Retaining Wall
Dear Sirs:
We received a letter from your office on the subject public hearing that invited us to comment via email.
The subject property is to the rear of ours. While it is not contiguous, the topography is such that the
subject property is very visible from the rear of our property.
This notice inaccurately describes the non-permitted improvement as a retaining wall. Although it has a
retaining wall as a feature, it includes a very large patio area that has been used to hold large gatherings
of people. This non-permitted improvement has greatly degraded the character of the neighborhood
through its unsightly aesthetics and, just as importantly, the very loud noise that comes from large parties
that frequently run late in the night.
The Planning Commission should order this eyesore and noise polluter removed immediately to restore
the character of the neighborhood.
Renee & Jack Phelps956 Whimbrel CourtCarlsbad, CA 92011December 15, 2020
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:YNmabey
To:Planning
Subject:RE: 939 Bebonia Ct wall permit
Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 8:48:32 AM
This wall was build by workers paid under the table who had no workerscomp insurance
coverage.The twisted 3rd world logic used by ABSENTEE airbnb business owner 'Puddle Escaper
LLC'and their attorney, demanding they should be allowed to continue their multiple city codebreaking, is just mind boggling. Constant cycling of noisy airbnb renters going up on the hill
high on booze (or whatever) hootin & hollerin into the darkness at sunsets (and other times)lighting bottle rockets and small bonfires, pointing lazer lights at us, blasting outdoor
amplified wall thumping music (provided free by the 'host'- how neighborly), even AFTER itwas taped off by the city for its danger for their own safety (Absentee owners don't hear or see
anything - doesn't bother them at all). This wall must come down and STVR license revoked.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:tomtribute
To:Planning
Cc:tomtribute44@gmail.com
Subject:RE: Begonia Ct retaining wall, CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
Date:Monday, December 14, 2020 5:37:26 PM
RE: Begonia Ct retaining wall, CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
I am Thomas Ward and I live at 937 Begonia Ct next to (South of) this
property. I am concerned about excess drainage coming onto my property
from 939 Begonia during our first heavy rains last season since the
drought years began, during which this wall project was constructed.
Water was coming up very close to my framing level. I could also see a
large visible stream pouring onto my side from the higher level of 939
close to my side gate. Will this be corrected by the repair plan, or will I be
out of luck if this unpermitted wall is approved as is? Who will I go after
for damage? The city? Another problem is that the storage shed in same
area on 939 side appears to take a jog over the property line onto to my
side in one spot. Maybe his recent survey would have detected this? My
level is lower than 939 so water will always seek a lower level. Appreciate
your help. How will I know you received this message? Thank You
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:carrie ward
To:Planning
Subject:Thank you :Begonia wall
Date:Friday, December 11, 2020 8:02:44 PM
Thank you to whom it may concern on the planning commission.
This guy whos mother bought the house at 939 begonia court has made my family and I's Lifea living hell for the past 5 years. Rene doesn't care about rules or laws or getting permission
from our city to do anything and he's dangerous and has created a nuisance with his SpinnakerGem Beach Villa Hotel/motel.
Even in the midst of a pandemic the number of persons staying there only increased afterMarch and these guests would have pool parties and birthday parties with different households
obviously because no house has this many people living under it's roof , why else would theybe renting this one and yelling and screaming outside at all hours of the day and night blasting
music and never not once wearing any masks. They did this on the hill on top of the wall-which by the way this wall only adds to the deafening sounds of screaming and yelling
because it's stone and the sound bounces everywhere I think a lot of neighbors were hesitantto complain because of fear of the organized crime Rene is clearly involved in. He was
arrested for possession with intent to sell meth in June of 2017 in san Diego county by the SanDiegos sheriff's office . How that even ended up happening I don't know maybe he was on
probation or maybe he's one of them which if so would be a huge relief to find out. Anyhow on behalf of me and my elderly folks thanks
Carrie Ward937 Begonia CT
760 809-0078
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.