HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-05-03; Planning Commission; ; Hom Residence: Retaining Wall VarianceItem No. 5
Meeting Date: May 3, 2023
To: Planning Commission
Staff Contact: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner, 442-339-2611,
kyle.vanleeuwen@carlsbadca.gov
Subject: Hom Residence: Retaining Wall Variance
Location: 2170 Twain Avenue/ APN: 208-180-27-00
Case Numbers: CDP 2022-0019, V 2022-0002 (DEV 2022-0005)
Applicant/Representative: Robert Hom, Applicant, 714-403-5406, 14bobhom@gmail.com
Paul Klukas, Planning Systems, Representative, 760-931-0780,
pklukas@planningsystems.net
CEQA Determination: ☐Not a Project ☒ Exempt ☐ IS/ND or IS/MND ☐ EIR
☐Other:
Permit Type(s): ☐SDP ☐ CUP ☒ CDP ☐ TM/TPM ☐ GPA ☐ REZ ☐ LCPA
☒Other: Variance
CEQA Status: ☐The environmental assessment IS on the Agenda for discussion
☒A CEQA determination was already issued. That decision is final and
IS NOT on the Agenda
Commission Action: ☐Decision ☒ Recommendation to City Council ☐ Informational (No Action)
Recommended Actions
Hold a public hearing and ADOPT a resolution RECOMMENDING that the City Council Approve Coastal
Development Permit CDP 2022-0019 and Variance V 2022-0002 based upon the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein (Exhibit 1).
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 1 of 70
Existing Conditions & Project Description
Existing Setting
The project site consists of one parcel totaling 0.32
acres, located at 2170 Twain Avenue (Exhibit 2)
within the Mello II Segment of the Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management
Zone 8. The site is a corner lot and contains a single-
family home. The site was originally developed with
a single-family home containing a five-foot
retaining wall and manufactured slope in the rear
of the lot. The rear of the site was recently
developed with the addition of a pool, a four-tiered
retaining wall, and a deck; which all remain
unfinished. The site is bordered on the north and
east by public streets; to the west by undeveloped
land designated as open space; and a developed
single-family lot to the south.
Site Map
Table “A” below includes the General Plan designations, zoning and current land uses of the subject site and
surrounding properties.
TABLE A – SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USE
Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Current Land Use
Site Residential, 0-4 dwelling units
per acre (R-4)
One-Family Residential; Qualified
Development Overlay (R-1-Q)
Single-Family Dwelling
North Right-of-way / Residential, 0-4
dwelling units per acre (R-4)
Right-of-way/ One-Family Residential;
Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-Q)
Hemmingway Dr. /
Single-Family Dwelling
South Residential, 0-4 dwelling units
per acre (R-4)
One-Family Residential; Qualified
Development Overlay (R-1-Q)
Single-Family Dwelling
East Right-of-way / Residential, 0-4
dwelling units per acre (R-4)
Right-of-way/ One-Family Residential;
Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-Q)
Twain Ave. / Single-
Family Dwelling
West Open Space (OS) Open Space (OS) Open Space
General Plan Designation Zoning Designation
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 2 of 70
Proposed Project
The applicant, owners of the property at 2170 Twain Avenue, are requesting a coastal development permit and
variance to allow a series of four keystone retaining walls and a wood deck, which are currently built but
unpermitted, to be kept in place. The retaining walls step up the cut slope in the rear yard of their property, with
stairs and a path leading to the deck. These improvements were installed without required grading or building
permits. A location map is included as exhibit 2.
In 2020, the retaining walls were installed, in part, to push back the toe of an existing slope to expand the usable
rear yard area and to allow room for the installation of a swimming pool. A permit was issued for the swimming
pool and during a routine inspection of the swimming pool construction in 2021, the inspector also noticed the
grading and construction of the retaining walls and deck. These were not represented on the pool permit or any
other issued permit. A notice of violation was subsequently issued for the unpermitted portions of the project,
and the property owners stopped all construction at that time. The retaining walls and deck are approximately
95% complete, and the swimming pool and concrete patio are approximately 70% complete.
The property owners had the option to either remove the features or to process a permit to attempt to legalize
the improvements, and selected to process a variance to request authorization to retain the in order to avoid
the alternative of demolishing the unfinished improvements and returning the rear yard to its previous state.
The property owner submitted plans showing the rear yard improvements they would wish to permit (Exhibit 3,
Project Plans). The owners are also requesting the following permits:
•A coastal development permit, the work is considered development under the Coastal Act to allow for
grading of the slope;
•A variance to two sections of the Hillside Ordinance;
o Variance 1: Allow retaining walls into an uphill perimeter manufactured slope beyond the limit
of six vertical feet from the toe of slope, where six vertical feet is the standard limit per section
21.95.140(C)(1)(a)(i).
o Variance 2: Allow a deck to be constructed upon an uphill perimeter manufactured slope within
the required setback, where decks are required to be setback a distance consistent with the
required building setback in the underlying zone (at least five feet) per section
21.95.140(c)(1)(a)(ii).
Additional information is included in Exhibit 4: Project Analysis; additional information from the applicant
supporting the request is included in Exhibit 5: Justification for Variance. Approval of both permits would allow
for the development of the retaining walls and deck to be completed with building and grading permits; and
allow the property owners to complete the construction of the swimming pool and patio in their rear yard.
The CDP and Variance would normally be heard by the Planning Commission as the final decision-maker.
However, an aspect of the project’s CDP application for deviations to grading of steep slopes within the Coastal
Zone (CMC Section 21.203.040 (A.)) 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 to City Council.
Public Outreach & Comment
Public notice of the proposed project was mailed on April 17, 2023, to property owners within 600 feet and
occupants within 100 feet of the subject property. Additionally, the project is subject to City Council Policy No.
84 (Development Project Public Involvement Policy). As such, a notice of application was sent, by the applicant,
to surrounding property owners and a notice placed on the site informing neighbors of their application. These
early notices were carried out in March of 2022.
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 3 of 70
Response to Public Comment & Project Issues
No comments in opposition to the project were received. However, signatures of neighboring homeowners who
are in support of the completion of the retaining wall and deck are provided in Exhibit 5.
Project Analysis
General Plan Consistency
The City of Carlsbad General Plan includes several goals and policies that guide development and land use
within the city. A discussion of how the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies is
summarized in Exhibit 4.
Municipal Code Consistency
The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, most notably Tile 21 Zoning Code, includes requirements and provisions
that guide development and land use within the city, consistent with the General Plan. Specific compliance with
these relevant requirements is described in Exhibit 4.
Local Coastal Program Consistency
The project site is in the Coastal Zone and requires a Coastal Development Permit. The project complies with the
Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment), including all goals and policies of the General Plan and all zoning code
standards, as referenced above.
Discretionary Actions & Findings
The proposed project requires approval of a Variance, which is discussed below.
Variance (V 2022-0002)
The requested variance would provide relief from strict enforcement of certain provision of the Hillside
Development Regulations (CMC Chapter 21.95). Specifically, the hillside development and design standards that
call for retaining walls to be limited to six vertical feet, as measured from the toe of slope, and which only allows
decks constructed upon an uphill perimeter manufactured slope up to the required building setback of the
underlying zone. (CMC §21.95.140.) Staff finds that the required findings for this application can be met (Exhibit
4).
Environmental Review
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, the City Planner has
determined that the project qualified for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15303(e) – New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. A notice of intended decision regarding the environmental
determination was advertised on March 9, 2023 and posted on the city’s website. No comment letters or appeal
was received and consistent with Chapter 21.54 (Procedures, Hearings, Notices, and Fees) of the Zoning Ordinance
the City Planner’s written decision is final. Refer to Exhibit 6 for additional support and justification.
Conclusion
Considering the information above and in the referenced attachments, staff has found that the proposed Coastal
Development Permit and Variance are consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal
Program and provisions of the Municipal Code.
The project is conditioned to ensure the proposed project’s compatibility with the surrounding properties and
that the public health, safety, and welfare of the community are maintained. The project has been reviewed by
engineering staff and the applicant has shown that constructed retaining wall is compliant with engineering
standards, or that verification of compliance can be achieved by future inspection. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission adopt the resolution, recommending approval of the proposed project described in this staff report.
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 4 of 70
Exhibits
1.Draft Resolution
2.Location Map
3.Project Plans
4.Project Analysis
5.Justification of Variance (Paul Klukas)
6.CEQA Determination Letter
7.List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 5 of 70
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7483
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN UNPERMITTED
RETAINING WALL SYSTEM AND WOOD DECK 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 LOCATED ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2170
TWAIN AVENUE WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE CITY'S LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 8.
CASE NAME:
CASE NO.:
HOM RESIDENCE: RETAINING WALL VARIANCE
CDP2022-0019/V 2022-0002(DEV2022-0005)
Exhibit 1
WHEREAS, ROBERT HOM, "Developer/ Applicant," has filed a verified application with the
City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by HOM FAMILY TRUST, "Owner," described as
LOT 68 OF CARLSBAD TRACT N 97-16A, KELLY RANCH CORE ACCORDING
TO MAP THEREOF NO.14340, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ON
FEBRUARY 1, 2002
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal Development
Permit and Variance as shown on Exhibit(s) "A" -"H" dated May 3, 2023, on file in the Planning Division,
CDP 2022-0019/V 2022-0002 (DEV2020-0026) -HOM RESIDENCE: RETAINING WALL VARIANCE, as
provided by Chapter 21.201 and 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Division studied the Coastal Development Permit and Variance
applications and performed the necessary investigations to determine if the project qualified for an
exemption from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA,
Public Resources Code section 21000 et. seq.), and its implementing regulations (the State CEQA
Guidelines), Article 14 of the California Code of Regulations section 15000 et. seq. After consideration of
all evidence presented, and studies and investigations made by the city planner and on its behalf, the city
planner determined that the project was exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 6 of 70
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303{e) of CEQA exemptions {Class 3), which exempts accessory (appurtenant)
structures from environmental review. The project consists of the construction of retaining walls and a
deck which are accessory to the existing single-family residence on site. The proposed project and site
meet the criteria of the Section 15303(e) Class 3 new construction or conversion of small structures. The
project will not have a significant effect on the environment and all of the requirements of CEQA have
been met; and
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2023, the city distributed a notice of intended decision to adopt
the ((New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures" exemption. The notice was circulated for a 10-
day period, which began on March 9, 2023 and ended on March 20, 2023. The city did not receive any
comment letters on the CEQA findings and determination. The effective date and order of the city planner
CEQA determination was March 10, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on May 3, 2023, held a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to
the Coastal Development Permit and Variance; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
A)That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B)That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CDP 2022-0019/V 2022-0002 (DEV2022-0026) -HOM
RESIDENCE: RETAINING WALL VARIANCE, based on the following findings and subject to
the following conditions:
-2-May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 7 of 70
Findings:
Coastal Development Permit, CDP 2022-0019
1.The proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all
applicable policies in that the site has an LCP Land Use Plan designation of R-4, which allows for
development of a single-family home. No changes are proposed to the existing home, which
has previously been found to be consistent with the LCP Segment. The proposed retaining walls
and deck will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right
of-way. No agricultural uses or sensitive resources currently exist on this previously graded site.
The retaining walls and deck are not located in an area of known geological instability or flood
hazard. Given that the site does not have frontage along the coastline, no public opportunities
for coastal shoreline access or water-oriented recreational activities are possible from the
subject site. The project is consistent with the LCP Mello II Segment.
2.The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act in that the property is not located adjacent to the coastal shore; therefore, it will
not interfere with the public's right to physical access or water-oriented recreational activities.
3.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. The site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to
accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction.
4.The project involves the grading of steep slopes that do not possess endangered plant/animal
species or coastal sage scrub. The project is consistent with the provision of the Coastal
Resource Protection Overlay Zone {CMC Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance} to allow such
grading in that:
a.The applicant provided a soils investigation conducted by a licensed soils engineer that
has determined the subject slope area to be stable and grading and development
impacts mitigatable for the life of the structure. This investigation was reviewed by city
staff and a third-party geotechnical consultant to verify the stability of the slope, the
grading performed, and the installed retaining walls.
b.The grading of the slope is essential to the development intent and design to allow for
reasonable use of the rear yard.
c.The slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major
wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas as the manufactured slope had been
previously disturbed and no wildlife habitat or native vegetation was identified. Native
vegetation located on the adjacent open space lot will not be impacted.
d.The area disturbed or proposed to be disturbed is less than ten acres.
e.No interruption of significant wildlife corridors will occur as no corridors have been
identified on the site.
f.The slope is not a north facing.
-3-May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 8 of 70
Variance (V 2022-0002}
5.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 in that:
a.The single-family lot was constructed with a "cut-back" slope which was required by the
Coastal Commission in order to preserve a natural ridge immediately behind the
manufactured slope at the rear of the lot, greatly reducing the usable rear-yard area of
the lot from what was originally approved by the City.
b.The 2:1 cut slope on the property occupies approximately 43.6% of the applicant's lot
area and approximately 81.4% of the applicant's rear yard area. No other lot with a
rear yard "cut-back" slope is impacted to the same degree as the subject property.
c.The peak of the "cut-back" slope in the rear of the subject property is approximately 25
feet in height above the back yard elevation, which is higher than other properties in
the area that are adjacent to the ridgeline, affecting available views from the lot to a
higher degree than all other properties in the area.
d.The "cut-back" slope on the property results in a disproportionately small usable rear
yard area, and an unusually tight 15-foot distance between the house and the 5-foot
retaining wall built into the slope constructed by the original developer. This shallow
depth of the owner's usable rear yard area severely limits the rear yard buildable area.
e.Strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the subject property from
installing rear-yard improvements that are typical for a single-family residence on lot
zoned R-1.
6.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 in that no other lots in
the vicinity have as great of an elevation differential or have the same percentage of lot area
occupied by the slope, which disproportionately impacts the subject property. The variance will
allow use of the subject property consistent with, and not more than, other properties in the
vicinity for such back-yard improvements as a patio, patio cover, and swimming pool.
7.That the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized
by the zone regulation governing the subject property in that the construction of retaining walls
and other yard improvements is considered accessory to the primary use of the property as a
single-family residence, which is a permitted uses in the R-1 Zone.
8.That the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and any
applicable specific or master plans in that the variance is consistent with the general purpose
and intent of the general plan and zoning ordinance because the project complies with all
policies of the Land Use Element, does not affect the density of the property, does not affect
the Growth Management program, and complies with all the development standards of the R-
1 zone, except for the retaining wall height limit and deck requirements of the Hillside
Development Regulations. Approval of the variance will comply with the purpose and intent of
the Hillside Development Ordinance (Chap 21.95.010} as it will continue to implement the goals
and objectives of the Land Use and Open Space Elements of the General Plan. Approval of the
-4-May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 9 of 70
variance will also assure that hillside conditions are properly incorporated into the planning and
permitting process through the review of the integrity of the slope by City Staff to ensure that
it is structurally sound, and subsequent building plan review and permit.
9.The minor 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 in 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. The subject retaining walls will not impact
the ridge identified for protection by the Coastal Commission behind the cut-back slope on the
subject property. The variance also does not adversely affect views of the coast; it protects
existing views from the_coast;Jt wilLnoLdjsrupt access to the coast; the slope/retaining wall
design is stable; it will not diminish the effectiveness of the onsite storm water and
runoff/treatment on the property or in the neighborhood; and it will not disrupt any adjacent
wildlife.
General
10.The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with
the Elements of the city's General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated May
3, 2023.
11.The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to
mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree
of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
12.The Planning Commission expressly declares that it would not have approved this Coastal
Development Permit application to use the Property for completing and implementing the project,
except upon and subject to each and all of the conditions hereinafter set, each and all of which
shall run with the land and be binding upon the Developer and all persons who use the Property
for the use permitted hereby. For the purposes of the conditions, the term "Developer" shall also
include the project proponent, owner, permittee, applicant, and any successor thereof in interest,
as may be applicable. If the Developer fails to file a timely and valid appeal of this Coastal
Development Permit within the applicable appeal period, such inaction by the Developer shall be
deemed to constitute all of the following on behalf of the Developer:
a.Acceptance of the Coastal Development Permit by the Developer; and
b.Agreement by the Developer to be bound by, to comply with, and to do all things required
of or by the Developer pursuant to all of the terms, provisions, and conditions of this
Coastal Development Permit or other approval and the provisions of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code applicable to such permit
-5-May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 10 of 70
Conditions:
NOTE: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of grading
permit or building permit, whichever comes first.
1.Approval is recommended for CDP 2022-0019/V 2022-0002 as shown on Exhibits "A" -"H", dated
May 3, 2023, on file in the Planning Division and incorporated herein by reference. Development
shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
2.The information contained in the application and all attached materials are assumed to be correct,
true, �and complete. The Planning Commission is relying on the accuracy of this information and
project-related representations in order to process and approve this Coastal Development Permit
application. This permit may be rescinded if it is determined that the information and materials
submitted are not true and correct. The Developer may be liable for any costs associated with
rescission of such permits
3.If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented
and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained
according to their terms, the city shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein
granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke, or further
condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted;
record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained
by Developer or a successor in interest by the city's approval of this Coastal Development Permit
and Variance.
4.Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and
modifications to the Coastal Development Permit and Variance documents, as necessary to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development,
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
5.Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
6.If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any
fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged,
this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such
condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council
determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law.
7.Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and
costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the city arising, directly or indirectly,
from (a) city's approval and issuance of this Coastal Development Permit and Variance, (b) city's
approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in
-6-May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 11 of 70
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and
operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities
arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or
emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues
evenif the city's approval is not validated.
8.This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within
24 months from the date of project approval.
9.Prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall
submit to the city a Notice of Restriction executed by the owner of the real property to be
developed. Said notice is to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the City Planner, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of
Carlsbad has issued a(n) Coastal Development Permit and Variance by the subject Resolution on
the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file
containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or
restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The City Planner has the authority
to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon
a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest.
Engineering Conditions:
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the approval
of this proposed development, must be met prior to approval of a grading permit.
General
10.Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within
this project, developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the city engineer for the proposed
haul route.
Fees/ Agreements
11.Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation,
the city's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
12.Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation
the city's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement.
Grading
13.Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site plan,
a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall prepare and submit plans and
technical studies/reports as required by city engineer, post security and pay all applicable grading
plan review and permit fees per the city's latest fee schedule.
-7-May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 12 of 70
Storm Water Quality
14.Developer shall comply with the city's Stormwater Regulations, latest version, and shall
implement best management practices at all times. Best management practices include but are
not limited to pollution control practices or devices, erosion control to prevent silt runoff during
construction, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices,
maintenance procedures, and other management practices or devices to prevent or reduce the
discharge of pollutants to stormwater, receiving water or stormwater conveyance system to the
maximum extent practicable. Developer shall notify prospective owners and tenants of the above
requirements.
15.Developer shall complete and submit to the city engineer a Determination of Project's SWPPP
Tier Level and Construction Threat Level Form pursuant to City Engineering Standards. Developer
shall also submit the appropriate Tier level Storm Water Compliance form and appropriate Tier
level Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
Developer shall pay all applicable SWPPP plan review and inspection fees per the city's latest fee
schedule.
16.Developer is responsible to ensure that all final design plans (grading plans, improvement plans,
landscape plans, building plans, etc.) incorporate all source control, site design, pollutant control
BMP and applicable hydromodification measures.
17.Developer shall complete the City of Carlsbad Standard Stormwater Requirement Checklist Form.
Developer is responsible to ensure that all final design plans, grading plans, and building plans
incorporate applicable best management practices (BMPs). These BMPs include site design,
source control and Low Impact Design (LID) measures including, but not limited to, minimizing
the use of impervious area (paving), routing run-off from impervious area to pervious/landscape
areas, preventing illicit discharges into the storm drain and adding storm drain stenciling or
signage all to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the 11imposition" of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as 11fees/exactions."
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest
them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the
protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent
legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT
APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other
similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any
fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute
of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
-8-May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 13 of 70
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad,
California, held on May 3, 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Merz, Hubinger, Kamenjarin, Lafferty, Meenes, Sabellico and Stine
NAYES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PETER MERZ, Chair
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMIS
ATTEST:
ERIC LARDY
City Planner
-.....::::::::
-9-May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 14 of 70
T
W
A
I
N
A
V
H
E
MINGWAY
D
R
COL
E
R
I
D
G
E
C
T
E
L
C
AMINO
R
E
A
L
LA COSTA AV
A L G A R D
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
V 2022-0002 / CDP 2022-0019
Hom Residence: Retaining Wall Variance
SITE MAP
J
SITE!"^
Map generated on: 3/15/2023
Exhibit 2
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 15 of 70
Exhibit 3
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 16 of 70
16.2'
10
.
7
'
54
.
1
'
18.
3
'
15
.
9
'
16.
9
'
49
.
2
'
14.7
'
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 17 of 70
54
.
1
'
14.
1
'
18.3'
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 18 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 19 of 70
8.5'
10.0'
7.9'
18.3'
8.1'
14.7'
17.0'13.6'
3.4'7.8'
8.3'
2.8'
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 20 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 21 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 22 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 23 of 70
PROJECT ANALYSIS Exhibit 4
(GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS)
Page 1
PROJECT ANALYSIS
The project is subject to the following regulations:
A.General Plan R-4 Land Use Designation
B. R-1 Zone (CMC Chapter 21.24); Qualified Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.06); Variance (CMC Chapter
21.50); Hillside Development Regulations (CMC Chapter 21.95); and Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203)
C.Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment)
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency
with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above regulations
is discussed in detail within the sections below.
A.General Plan R-4 Residential Land Use Designation
The General Plan Land Use designations for the property is R-4 Residential. The R-4 land use designation
allows for development of single-family residential within a density range of 0-4 du/ac. The applicable
subdivision (CT 97-16(A)) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 98-18(A)) was approved by the City
Council on June 12, 2001, with findings of consistency with the General Plan Elements and the Growth
Management Plan. The project proposes no change to the existing single family residential unit on the
property and no changes to the approved subdivision.
B.R-1 Zone (CMC Chapter 21.24); Qualified Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.06); Variance (CMC Chapter
21.50); Hillside Development Regulations (CMC Chapter 21.95); and Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203)
One-Family Residential (R-1) Zone (CMC Chapter 21.10)
The project is subject to applicable regulations and development standards for the R-1 Zone (Chapter
21.10). The project proposes no change to the existing single-family residence on the property and
therefore is consistent with the R-1 Zone.
Qualified Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.06)
The Qualified Overlay Zone is supplemental to the underlying R-1 zoning and provides additional
regulations for development within designated areas requires the processing and approval of a Site
Development Plan (SDP) for development projects within the Q Overlay Zone. The site received
approval of an SDP at the time of subdivision approval and no substantial change to the approved SDP is
proposed. Therefore, the existing single-family lot and residence is consistent with the Q-Overlay Zone.
Hillside Ordinance (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 and wood deck are 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
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 24 of 70
PROJECT ANALYSIS Exhibit 4
(GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS)
Page 2
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. 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; therefore, since 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. Since there is no natural habitat present on the site, 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.
The proposed project does not presently comply with two sections of the Hillside Ordinance (CMC
Chapter 21.95), as discussed below as the subject of the variance request.
As required by the Hillside Ordinance and Grading Ordinance, the project must also be issued a grading
permit prior to completion of the work associated with the retaining walls and slope integrity. In an
effort to determine the long-term stability of the installed retaining wall system, the City Engineer
requested and analyzed a geotechnical report summarizing an after-the-fact geotechnical investigation
of the wall system. This report provides conclusions and recommendations relative to the suitability of
the constructed retaining walls and improvements from a geotechnical standpoint. The report assesses
the global slope stability, compaction testing and safety factor observations with respect to the project.
The analysis, by qualified geotechnical and retaining wall experts, provides information as to the as-built
condition of the retaining walls with respect to the design requirements for the Keystone walls used.
In an effort to gather the information needed to assess the as-built condition of the retaining wall,
without fully disassembling it, the applicant hired geotechnical experts to conduct a field investigation,
testing and reporting on the slope, the wall structures, and soil in the slope behind the walls. The
applicant also hired an expert in the Keystone retaining wall industry, to analyze and provide
calculations and opinions on the overall stability of the wall system.
Four exploratory test pits behind the retaining walls were performed in order to evaluate the relative
compaction of the backfill, the number of layers and length and type of geogrid placed behind the walls,
and the presence of subdrains. These four test pits were thought to be representative of the overall
structural and geotechnical circumstances, considering that additional test pits would have the potential
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 25 of 70
PROJECT ANALYSIS Exhibit 4
(GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS)
Page 3
to decrease the stability of the wall, as test pits sever the geogrid reinforcement and disturb the soil
compaction. A report on the findings was prepared and reviewed by the City and its third-party
consultant.
The technical reports conclude that, in general, the tiered Keystone walls are spaced far enough apart to
where they do not negatively place a surcharge on each other. In one location however, it is suggested
that minor remedial work should be conducted to avoid potential future surcharge. A condition to this
effect is included with the draft resolution. However, with this single exception, it is concluded that the
Keystone walls were constructed consistent with the Keystone Construction Manual guidelines, that the
walls show no sign of distress, and it is expected that they would continue performing as intended. It is
also noted that the wall system has been constructed for almost three years at this point, through two
and a half rainy seasons, with no visible slumping of the soil backfill or movement in the pavers. The
technical reports indicate that the factors of safety against deep-seated failure are determined to be at
an acceptable level, that no structural issues with the wall have been observed, that the walls will not
impact improvements on any adjacent properties, and that the walls have been constructed in a manner
suitable for their intended use.
Variance (CMC Chapter 21.50)
Pursuant to 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. The
applicant is requesting a variance to sections of the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the authorized
construction of the stepped retaining wall system and wood deck. The following Hillside Development
regulations apply to manufactured slopes which have a gradient of greater than forty percent and an
elevation differential of greater than fifteen feet.
Section 21.95.140(C)(1)(a)(i); "[Retaining walls] on or into an uphill perimeter manufactured
slope shall be limited to a maximum of six vertical feet as measured from the existing grade at
the toe of the slope."
Section 21.95.140(C)(1)(a)(ii); "Decks may be constructed upon an uphill perimeter
manufactured slope up to the required building setback(s) of the underlying zone."
In order to support an approval for a variance, all five required findings of fact from CMC Section
21.50.050 must be made. These five required findings and analysis are discussed below.
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.
The subject property possesses unusual topographic constraints which result in special
circumstances which other properties in the vicinity do not possess. The subject lot was constructed
with a “cut-back” slope.
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 26 of 70
PROJECT ANALYSIS Exhibit 4
(GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS)
Page 4
The cut-back slope on the subject lot was the result of the Coastal Commission’s appeal of the City-
approved subdivision, resulting in Coastal Commission requiring modification (Coastal Permit 6-84-
617-A) to the proposed grading in order to preserve the west-facing natural slope directly behind
[west of] the applicant’s lot, up to the top of the natural ridge immediately behind the lot. The
ensuing cut-back excavation to preserve the ridge line and natural open space behind the lot
resulted in the loss of square footage to the single-family lot as originally approved by the City. This
cut-back grading design also eliminated any view from the hilltop lot and reduced the flat area of
the applicant’s back yard substantially.
The resulting 2:1 cut slope occupies approximately 43.6% of the applicant’s lot area and
approximately 81.4% of the applicant’s rear yard area. Only four other lots (all directly adjacent to
the subject lot) in the Kelly Ranch area possess this cut-back-slope circumstance, and none of the
cut-back ridges are as high or take up as large a percentage of the subject property. Additionally, not
all of the adjacent cut-back ridges in the area are subject to the Hillside Development Regulations,
as some slopes have an elevation differential of less than 15 feet. The graded cut-back slope of the
subject property is up to 25 feet higher than the applicant’s back yard padded area.
The cut-back slope created resulted in a disproportionately small usable rear-yard area, and an
unusually tight 15-foot distance between the house and the 5-foot retaining wall built into the cut-
slope constructed by the original developer. This factor created an unusual circumstance for the
property. This shallow depth of the owner’s usable rear yard area severely limits the rear yard
buildable area and is of insufficient depth for the construction of a typical patio and patio cover, and
for the installation of a swimming pool. Most other properties in the vicinity do possess rear-yard
development, such as patio covers and/or swimming pools, or do not have manufactured slopes
subject to the Hillside Development Regulations limiting the development of rear-yard
manufactured slopes.
The subject lot subdivision is built on the top of a natural plateau. Almost all other properties in the
vicinity and under the identical zoning have larger, more usable rear yards and expansive views,
because they are not encumbered by this cut-back slope design. Most other properties rear-yard
areas can accommodate a patio, patio cover, and a swimming pool without the need for the
additional retaining of the slope. Thus, without the stepped retaining walls and the wood viewing
deck, the property owners are being denied privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity, as
the majority of neighbors have a larger and more usable rear-yard area.
Staff concludes that applicant’s property has special circumstances in that, without the requested
variance, the rear yard could not accommodate reasonable back yard improvements or enjoy views
most other residents in the area can enjoy due to limits created by the unique topography of the lot.
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.
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 27 of 70
PROJECT ANALYSIS Exhibit 4
(GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS)
Page 5
The variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges because, while other lots in the vicinity
do have rear “cutback” slopes, no other lots have as great of an elevation differential or have the
same percentage of lot area occupied by the slope. For example, the lot immediately south of the
subject lot has a maximum elevation differential of approximately 18 feet with approximately 30%
of the lot covered by manufactured slope. Comparatively, the applicant’s lot has maximum elevation
differential of approximately 25 feet with over 40% of the lot covered by manufactured slope. The
lot immediately to the south has the most comparable topographic condition as the applicant’s lot,
with other comparable lots having less severe slope characteristics.
Furthermore, strict adherence to the 6-foot retaining wall height limit would disallow the owner’s
ability to build a typical patio, patio cover, swimming pool and standard patio improvements in their
rear yard. Many swimming pools and patios exist in rear yards in the vicinity of the subject lot and
throughout the single-family-zoned properties in this area of the city.
For these reasons the approval of the requested variance is not considered the granting of a special
privilege.
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.
The variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the
zone regulations because the construction of retaining walls and other yard improvements is
considered accessory to the primary use of the property as a single-family residence, which is a
permitted uses in the R-1 Zone.
4. That the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and the
zoning ordinance.
The variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and zoning
ordinance because the project complies with all policies of the Land Use Element, does not affect
the density of the property, does not affect the Growth Management program, and complies with
all the development standards of the R-1 zone except for the retaining wall height limit and deck
requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations.
Approval of the variance will comply with the purpose and intent of the Hillside Development
Ordinance (Chap 21.95.010) because:
A. The project will continue to implement the goals and objectives of the Land Use and Open Space
Elements of the General Plan as originally approved with the subdivision, such as protecting
environmentally sensitive lands and wildlife, and conservation of the existing ridgeline.
B. The hillside conditions have been properly identified and are incorporated in this review.
C. The manufactured slope modified in the project is only visible from a small segment of Twain
Avenue (approximately 240 feet of street length) and Hemingway Drive (approximately 50 feet
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 28 of 70
PROJECT ANALYSIS Exhibit 4
(GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS)
Page 6
of street length) and does not damage or diminish the aesthetic quality of natural hillsides and
manufactured slopes that are located in highly visible public locations. The project site cannot
be seen from any arterial streets, major thoroughfares, or public spaces.
D. No alterations of natural hillsides are included in the project, and no impacts to natural resource
areas, wildlife habitats or native vegetation will occur.
Approval of the variance will also assure that hillside conditions are properly incorporated into the
planning process through the review of the integrity of the slope by City Staff to ensure that it is
structurally sound, and subsequent building plan review and permit issuance.
5. 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.
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. The subject retaining walls will not impact the ridge protected by the Coastal
Commission behind the cut-back slope on the subject property. The variance also does not
adversely affect views of the coast; it protects existing views from the coast; it will not disrupt access
to the coast; the slope/retaining wall design is stable; it will not diminish the effectiveness of the
onsite storm water and runoff/treatment on the property or in the neighborhood; and it will not
disrupt any adjacent wildlife corridors.
C. Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment)
1. Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies
The proposed site is in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and is within the non-
appealable jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. The project site has an LCP Land Use
designation of R-4.
The R-4 designation analysis allows for development of single-family homes and associated accessory
structures. No changes are proposed to the existing home, which has previously been found to be
consistent with the LCP Segment. The proposed retaining walls will not obstruct views of the coastline
as seen from public lands or the public right-of-way. No agricultural uses or sensitive resources
currently exist on this previously graded site. The walls are not located in an area of known geological
instability or flood hazard. Given that the site does not have frontage along the coastline, no public
opportunities for coastal shoreline access or water-oriented recreational activities are possible from the
subject site. The project is consistent with the Mello II LCP Segment. Since the work and issuance of a
variance can be classified as Development under the Coastal Act and CMC 21.201, a Coastal
Development Permit is required. This permit is not within the appealable area for the city.
2. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 29 of 70
PROJECT ANALYSIS Exhibit 4
(GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS)
Page 7
The development is subject to the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203). The
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone identifies areas of protection: a) preservation of steep slopes
and vegetation; b) drainage, erosion, sedimentation, habitat; c) seismic hazards, landslides, and slope
instability; and d) floodplain development. The project’s compliance with each of these areas of concern
is discussed below:
a. Preservation of Steep Slopes and Vegetation. For the project site, the City Council may allow the
grading of the steep slope provided all the following applicable mandatory findings to allow
exceptions are made as specified in CMC 21.203.040.A.3:
a) A soils investigation conducted by a licensed soils 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 soils investigation conducted by a licensed soils engineer that has
determined the subject slope area to be stable and grading and development impacts
mitigatable for the life of the structure. This investigation was reviewed by city staff and a
third-party geotechnical consultant to verify the stability of the slope, the grading
performed, and the installed retaining walls.
b) Grading of the slope is essential to the development intent and design.
The grading of the slope is essential to the development intent and design to allow for
reasonable use of the rear yard.
c) Slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major wildlife
habitat or native vegetation areas.
The slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major wildlife
habitat or native vegetation areas as the manufactured slope had been previously disturbed
and no wildlife habitat or native vegetation was identified. Native vegetation located on the
adjacent open space lot will not be impacted.
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.
The area disturbed or proposed to be disturbed is less than 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.
No interruption of significant wildlife corridors will occur as no corridors have been
identified on the site.
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 30 of 70
PROJECT ANALYSIS Exhibit 4
(GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS)
Page 8
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.
The slope is not a north facing.
b. Drainage, Erosion, Sedimentation, Habitat. 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 run-off, pollutants, and soil erosion.
c. Landslides and Slope Instability. The project site is not located within areas susceptible to
accelerated erosion or prone to landsides.
d. Seismic Hazards. Per the Safety Element of the Carlsbad General Plan, Figure 6-6, the project site is
not located in a liquefaction prone area.
e. Flood Plain Development. No structures or fill are being proposed within a one-hundred-year
floodplain area as identified by the FEMA Flood Map Service Center.
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 31 of 70
6/23/22 1
JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE
ROBERT AND ELIZABETH HOM
2170 TWAIN AVE., CARLSBAD, CA 92008
Mr. and Mrs. Hom are requesting a variance to the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance;
Section 21.95.140(C)(1)(a)(i);
"[Retaining walls] on or into an uphill perimeter manufactured slope shall be limited to a
maximum of six vertical feet as measured from the existing grade at the toe of the slope."
Section 21.95.140(C)(1)(a)(ii);
"Decks may be constructed upon an uphill perimeter manufactured slope up to the required
building setback(s) of the underlying zone."
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.
Response: The Hom's property possesses unusual topographic, environmental and coastal constraints
which result in special circumstances which other properties in the vicinity do not possess. These special
circumstances are that the subject single family lot has been constructed with a cut-back slope which
was required by the Coastal Commission in order to preserve a steep natural ridge covered with coastal
sage scrub habitat that exists immediately behind the manufactured slope at the rear of the Hom's lot.
The graded cut-back slope results in an artificial ridge, the tip of which is 18 feet higher than the Hom's
back yard pad. Please see Exhibit A; Illustrative Section of Hom Residence exhibit, attached.
The Hom's cut-back slope takes up 43.6% of the Hom's lot area and 81.4% of the Hom's rear yard area.
Please see Exhibit B; Rear Yard Percentage Calcs, attached. Only four (4) other lots (all adjacent to the
Hom lot) in the entire Kelly Ranch possess this special circumstance, and none of the cut-back ridges are
as high and large as the Hom's. Please see Exhibit C; Spyglass Hills Cut-Back Slope Exhibit, attached.
We can find no other examples of this extreme type of cut-back slope anywhere in the City of Carlsbad.
The cut-back slope on the Hom lot was the result of the Coastal Commission requiring this particular
portion of the west-facing natural slope to be preserved in its natural state all the way up to the natural
ridge immediately behind [west of] the Hom's lot. The loss of square footage to this lot resulted in
increased natural open space behind the lot. Please see Exhibit D; CCC Action Kelly Ranch Appeal, pp.
7, 8 and 9, attached. This unusual requirement also eliminated any view from the hilltop lot.
The unusual Hom back yard neither impacts nor violates the terms of Coastal Permit 6-84-617-A, but the
ultimate design does unduly constrain the property. See the attached Exhibit A schematic cross-section
of the Hom lot. Based on the developer's original grading and house construction, this cut-back slope
Exhibit 5
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 32 of 70
6/23/22 2
created via CDP 6-84-617-A set the Hom lot into a "hole", resulting in a disproportionately small usable
area, and results in an unusually tight 15-foot distance between the house and the 5-foot retaining wall
built into the cut-slope that was constructed by the original developer. This factor created an unusual
circumstance. Only natural open space [no urban development] exists at the top and on the opposite
side of this cut-back slope. This shallow depth of the Hom's usable rear yard area severely limits the
rear yard buildable area, and is of insufficient depth for the construction of a patio and patio cover, and
for the installation of a swimming pool. Therefore, the Hom's hired a contractor to remove the original
retaining wall and replace it with a series of five smaller retaining walls stepping up the slope, with stairs
and viewing area*.
The Hom lot subdivision is built on the top of a natural plateau. Almost all other properties in the
vicinity and under the identical zoning have larger, more usable rear yards and expansive views, because
they do not possess this cut-back slope design. Most other properties can accommodate a patio and
patio cover, and a swimming pool without the need for the additional retaining of the slope. Thus
without the stepped retaining walls and the viewing deck, the Homs are being denied privileges enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity, as almost all of the neighbors have a larger and more usable area in
their rear yards.
No other single family lot (except for the Hom's immediate neighbor) in the City of Carlsbad possess this
extreme cut-back slope situation. Indeed, almost all of the Hom's neighbors in their Spyglass Hills
subdivision possess larger usable rear yard depth and expansive views of the Carlsbad area and beyond.
Please see Exhibit E; Rear Yard Sq. Ft. Analysis Table for the 76 lots in the Spyglass Hills Subdivision,
attached. Thus the Hom's property is exceptional in that, without the requested variance, the rear yard
could not accommodate reasonable back yard improvements and view enjoyed by most other residents
in the area. These stepped retaining walls are practical, aesthetically pleasing, safe, and thus will not
create a hazard or a negative visual impact. This variance has the endorsement of the neighborhood as
demonstrated with a list of neighbor supporters signed by forty-six neighbors. Please see Exhibit F;
Neighbor Supporter List, attached.
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 findings.
Response: The variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges because the Hom's lot (as
originally developed) grading and topography is unusual due to its large cut-back slope design. Strict
adherence to the 6-foot retaining wall height limit would disallow the Hom's a right to build a patio and
patio cover, swimming pool and standard patio improvements in their rear yard. Many swimming pools
and patios exist in rear yards in the vicinity of the Hom lot and throughout the single-family zoning areas
of the city, so the approval of the requested variance would not be considered the granting of a special
privilege.
* The retaining walls were installed by a licensed wall contractor who indicated to the Homs via email that his wall
had been issued the appropriate permits from the City; however the Homs subsequently learned that only the
swimming pool had been issued a permit. The contractor and subcontractor installed the swimming pool and walls, accepted payment for the work, and the wall contractor subsequently fled the state, apparently to avoid
taking responsibility for misleading the Homs regarding the permit.
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 33 of 70
6/23/22 3
Further, the Hom retaining walls and deck will not impact neighbors or the public. They are situated on
a corner lot. Their lot has only a single direct neighbor, and that neighbor is on the south side. They do
not have neighbors on the west or north sides. The Hom’s rear yard is hidden behind slopes on two
sides which renders the rear yard almost totally not visible to other residences.
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.
Response: The variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized
by the zone regulations because the construction of retaining walls and rear yard patios and
improvements is authorized as permitted uses in the R-1 Zone.
4. That the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and the
zoning ordinance. In that the project is consistent with the land uses designated for the area by
the Land Use Element, it does not affect density ranges or the Growth Management program,
and is in compliance with all other Element policies of the General Plan,
Response: The variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and zoning
ordinance because project continues to comply with all policies of the Land Use Element, does not affect
the density of the property in any way, does not affect the Growth Management program in any way,
and complies with all the development standards of the R-1 zone except for the retaining wall height
limit. Approval of the variance will comply with the purpose and intent of the Hillside Development
Ordinance (Chap 21.95.010) as it will continue to implement the goals and objectives of the Land Use
and Open Space Elements of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will also assure that hillside
conditions are properly incorporated into the planning process through a review of the integrity of the
slope by City Staff to ensure that it is structurally sound, and building permit issuance. The surrounding
neighbors are extremely supportive of the Hom's variance as revealed in a supporter list with forty six
signatures of homeowners in the area (Please see Hom Supporter List, attached).
5. 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.
Response: 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. The Hom's retaining walls will not impact the coastal sage scrub ridge protected by
the Coastal Commission behind the cut-back slope at all. The variance also does not adversely affect
views of the coast; it protects existing views from the coast; it will not disrupt access to the coast; the
slope/retaining wall design is stable, it will not diminish the effectiveness of the onsite storm water and
runoff/treatment on the property or in the neighborhood, it will not disrupt the adjacent wildlife
corridor, and it has the endorsement of the neighborhood.
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 34 of 70
4' Wall
20.5'
Natural
Slope
P
Tw
a
i
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
L PL
HOM Residence
Standard Grading
Practice
Usable Rear
Yard
Cut
-
b
a
c
k
S
l
o
p
e
HOM RESIDENCE - Cross Section (Original Conditions)
2170 Twain Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008
January 4, 2022
ILLUSTRATIVE SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
Exhibit A
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 35 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 36 of 70
NORTH
23
1
4
5
6
7
93
2
1 4
5
6
7
9
Photos 1-3:
Cut-back slope occurring in rearyards.
Photo Key Map
Photos 4-9:
No cut-back slope occurring in rearyards.
8
8
Kelly Ranch - Spyglass Hills
Location of Cut-back Slopes in Rearyards
January 4, 2022
HomHomResidence
Cut-back slope
in rearyards
Hom
Residence
Hom
Residence
Hom
Residence
Cut-back slope
in rearyards
Cut-back slope
in rearyards
Exhibit C
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 37 of 70
EXHIBIT D
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 38 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 39 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 40 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 41 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 42 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 43 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 44 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 45 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 46 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 47 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 48 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 49 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 50 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 51 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 52 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 53 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 54 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 55 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 56 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 57 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 58 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 59 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 60 of 70
EXHIBIT E
SPYGLASS HILLS SUBDIVISION CT 97‐16(A)
Usable Rear Yard Square Footage Analysis (Revised)
Order – Largest to Smallest
30 2121 Twain Ave. 4,365
31 2117 Twain Ave. 4,139
52 5217 Clemens Ct. 3,710
54 5216 Clemens Ct. 3,603
29 2125 Twain Ave. 3,247
23 2149 Twain Ave. 3,083
55. 5220 Clemens Ct. 3,035
11. 5263 Coleridge Ct. 3,005
63. 2150 Twain Ave. 2,940
33. 2109 Twain Ave. 2,906
72. 2190 Twain Ave. 2,770
4. 5246 Coleridge Ct. 2,731
19. 2165 Twain Ave. 2,723
58. 5232 Clemens Ct. 2,709
56. 5224 Clemens Ct. 2,650
18. 5235 Coleridge Ct. 2,642
39. 2090 Twain Ave. 2,639
34. 2105 Twain Ave. 2,632
14. 5251 Coleridge Ct. 2,567
53. 5212 Clemens Ct. 2,351
24. 2145 Twain Ave. 2,319
3. 5242 Coleridge Ct. 2,292
15. 5247 Coleridge Ct. 2,252
1. 2177 Twain Ave. 2,247
13. 5255 Coleridge Ct. 2,213
60. 2138 Twain Ave. 2,162
36. 2097 Twain Ave. 2,160
71. 2186 Twain Ave. 2,152
42. 2102 Twain Ave. 2,140
35. 2101 Twain Ave. 2,140
32. 2113 Twain Ave. 2,126
73. 2186 Twain Ave. 2,032
2. 5238 Coleridge Ct. 2,021
61. 2142 Twain Ave. 1,999
9. 5266 Coleridge Ct. 1,992
57. 5228 Clemens Ct. 1,986
50. 5225 Clemens Ct. 1,937
10. 5270 Coleridge Ct. 1,921
28. 2129 Twain Ave. 1,885
62. 2146 Twain Ave. 1,869
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 61 of 70
7. 5258 Coleridge Ct. 1,862
48. 2126 Twain Ave. 1,852
27. 2133 Twain Ave. 1,841
25. 2141 Twain Ave. 1,836
37. 2093 Twain Ave. 1,826
51. 5221 Clemens Ct. 1,809
6. 5254 Coleridge Ct. 1,712
43. 2106 Twain Ave. 1,678
8. 5262 Coleridge Ct. 1,634
26. 2137 Twain Ave. 1,623
22. 2153 Twain Ave. 1,605
76. 2181 Twain Ave. 1,598
64. 2154 Twain Ave. 1,592
21. 2157 Twain Ave. 1,501
70. 2182 Twain Ave. 1,498
12. 5259 Coleridge Ct. 1,479
44. 2110 Twain Ave. 1,447
74. 2189 Twain Ave. 1,441
16. 5243 Coleridge Ct. 1,437
20. 2161 Twain Ave. 1,398
68. 2170 Twain Ave. (HOM) 1,395
40. 2094 Twain Ave. 1,392
46. 2118 Twain Ave. 1,389
66. 2162 Twain Ave. 1,386
5. 5250 Coleridge Ct. 1,380
45. 2114 Twain Ave. 1,352
59. 2134 Twain Ave. 1,206
65. 2158 Twain Ave. 1,192
49. 5229 Clemens Ct. 1,167
67. 2166 Twain Ave. 1,076
47. 2122 Twain Ave. 1,042
17. 5239 Coleridge Ct. 1,040
38. 2089 Twain Ave. 985
41. 2098 Twain Ave. 947
75. 2185 Twain Ave. 904
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 62 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 63 of 70
EXHIBIT F
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 64 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 65 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 66 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 67 of 70
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 68 of 70
Exhibit 6
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 69 of 70
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Exhibit 7
This is a list of acronyms and abbreviations (in alphabetical order) that are commonly used in staff
reports.
Acronym Description Acronym Description
APA American Planning Association LCPA Local Coastal Program Amendment
APN Assessor Parcel Number LOS Level of Service
AQMD Air Quality Management District MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
BMP Best Management Practice NCTD North County Transit District
CALTRANS California Department of Transportation ND Negative Declaration
CC City Council PC Planning Commission
CCR Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions PDP Planned Development Permit
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
CFD Community Facilities District PUD Planned Unit Development
CIP Capital Improvement Program ROW Right of Way
COA Conditions of Approval RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
CofO Certificate of Occupancy SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
CT Tentative Parcel Map SDP Site Development Permit
CUP Conditional Use Permit SP Specific Plan
DIF Development Impact Fee SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program
DISTRICT City Council Member District Number TM Tentative Map
EIR Environmental Impact Report ZC Zone Change
EIS Environmental Impact Statement (federal)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GP General Plan
GPA General Plan Amendment
GIS Geographic Information Systems
HCA Housing Crisis Act 2019
IS Initial Study
May 3, 2023 Item #5 Page 70 of 70