1987-99
RESOLUTION NO. 87-099
A RESOLUTION OF THE LEUCADIA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
- OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW OF A DUPLEX RESIDENCE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 194 JASPER AVENUE
WHEREAS, Peter McBride applied for Design Review of a duplex
dwelling located at 194 Jasper Avenue; and
HEREAS, public hearings were conducted on application 87-
037DR on September 17, and October 15, 1987 by the Leucadia
Community Advisory Board, at which time all persons desiring to
be heard were heard; and,
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
1. The application submitted (Attachment A) by
Peter McBride including all plans for development and
other written information, which is incorporated by
this reference as though fully set forth herein; and
2. The staff report (Attachment B) dated September 17,
1987, which is incorporated by this reference as though
fully setforth herein; and
3. Oral information submitted at the hearing; and
4. Additional written documentation.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Leucadia Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that:
1. The project design is consistent with the General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance;
jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -4-
Upon certification by the Director of the Community Development
Department for occupancy or establishment of use allowed by this
site plan, the following conditions shall apply:
- All light fixtures shall be designed and adjusted to reflect
6.
light downward, away from any road or street, and away from
any adjoining premises, and shall otherwise conform to
Sections 6322 or 6324 of the Zoning Ordinance.
7. Solar panels or appurtenances shall be built into the roof
plane and not protrude from it.
8. Mechanical equipment on the roof or on the ground shall be
screened from public view. The screening materials shall be
harmonious with the structure.
9. The landscaping shall be well maintained at all times.
10. A Coastal Permit or finding of exemption must be obtained
from the California Coastal Commission prior to building
permit issuance.
11. This Design Review expires on September 17, 1989 (two years
from date of approval except where construction or use of
the property in reliance on such Design Review approval has
commenced prior to its expiration.) If construction and use
of the property in reliance on a Design Review approval has
not commenced within the one year period, said period may be
extended by the Director of the Community Development
- Department at any time prior to the original expiration
date.
jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -6-
_.
APPENDIX A
RESOLUTION NO. 87-099
- The City of Encinitas has adopted Design Regulations of which the
following represents analysis of each of the applicable design
criteria.
1.1 Generally, the opportunities and constraints of the site
shall determine the project layout and design.
The site is gently sloping from west to east with a basic
triangular shape. The applicant proposes to only increase
impervious surface coverage on the site with two parking
spaces. As the site is already developed, the proposed
development is generally in compliance with this criteria.
1.2 Natural assets, such as valuable trees, rock
outcroppings, creeks and riparian habitats should be
preserved and incorporated into the project. These assets
should be used as aesthetic and functional elements of the
project.
As the site is an existing small size developed site, there
are no features as described above to be incorporated into
site design.
1.3 The project should be designed to avoid excessive
grading as well as steepness and exposure of graded slopes.
Slopes should be contour graded, both vertically and
horizontally to avoid abrupt changes in graded plains.
The applicant proposes only minimal grading to facilitate
parking area.
1.4 proj ects should be designed to preserve signi ficant
views. Three vantage points should be considered in project
design:
a. Views from the site. The project should take
advantage of significant and pleasant views, be it the
ocean, a distant mountain range or just a stand of
trees next door.
The proposed second floor addition has the potential
to improve applicant's view to the east and west.
jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -8-
-...
.----.-.
b. Views to the site. The project should show its best
side to the Public, while the least desirable features
should be hidden from public view. Neiqbborinq
-' properties shall be considered as public in this
context.
The applicant does not propose to "upgrade" the
existing architectural design. Though the design
could benefit by architectural changes, the proposal
will not detract from the existing neighborhood.
c. Views throucrh the site. To the extent possible,
proj ects should be designed to preserve some of the
siqnificant views enjoyed by residents of nearby
properties which could be blocked by the project.
Complete preservation of these views is difficult if
not impossible. project viability can be severely
reduced or destroyed in an attempt to preserve views
of adjacent properties. The smaller the site, the
more difficult the solution. On larqer sites,
however, portions of these views can be preserved by
clustering the buildings or creating new public view
points. Throuqh the Design Review process, the
reckless and unnecessary blockage of views can be
avoided to provide for some view preservation. View
preservation through the site shall be considered
when trees are selected for landscaping the project.
Due to the proximity of the coastal bluffs and the
ocean, views through the site are of primary concern.
However, the properties to the west are developed with
two story structures whereby the proposed structures
will not impact views which are not already impacted.
1.5 Parkinq areas shall be laid out to accommodate
automobile movements and safe pedestrian movements. Parking
spaces shall be distributed in the project in proportion to
the land uses that are intended to serve.
The proposed project complies with this criteria.
1.6 When consistent with qood neiqhborhood planninq,
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle movements shall be separated.
Safe, convenient and continuous walkways shall be provided to
buildinq from the street as well as between buildings and
activity areas within the project. Hajor pedestrian
crossinqs shall be clearly marked with siqns and special
surface material.
Not applicable to this project.
jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -9-
'-
1.7 The main entrances of buildings should be visible from
most of the parking areas. Safe and continuous pedestrian
ways shall be provided between parking areas and building
entrances.
-
The front entrance of the proj ect faces Jasper Avenue. The
proposed parking areas are to either end of the structure.
1.8 Larger parking areas shall be partly screened ~rom
public and neighbor's view by landscaping, berms, walls or
fences. Shade trees and landscape islands shall be
distributed throughout the parking area to so~ten the expanse
of pavement and cars.
1.9 On steeper parcels, roads and driveways should rise and
fall generally parallel to the contours, not against them.
1.10 In commercial and industrial projects, plazas should be
provided for employees and customers which are open and
easily seen but which give a sense of protection and well
defined space.
1.8-1.10 Not applicable to this project.
1.11 All outdoor lighting shall be shielded to avoid glare
as seen from the public street, any neighboring property or
from any residential unit in the project.
Applicant proposes residential style porch entry lights.
2.1 Buildings shall be designed with the site potentials and
constraints in mind. Pre-designed buildings or stock plans
usually do violence to the site and fail to take advantage of
the potentials.
As described previously, this site is already developed and
proposal is to place second unit above existing unit; thereby
dealing with the constraint of limited site availability.
2.2 Standard plans and designs of corporate chains for such
buildings as supermarkets, convenience stores, fast food
restaurants or service stations shall be avoided i~ they do
not meet the Design Review Guidelines. Instead, plans and
elevations shall be custom designed to meet the Guidelines
and the circumstances of the particular site.
Not applicable to this project.
2.3 No particular architectural style is required or
prohibited. However, if a traditional style is used, there
should be elements of consistency with that style throughout
the project. Abrupt stylistic breaks shall be avoided.
jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -10-
-
The proposed plans exhibit no abrupt changes.
-- 2.4 Variety in exterior materials and colors should be used
with constraint. Generally, two or three main materials are
adequate to express any architectural style. Additional
materials may be applied to small areas to emphasize certain
features, such as window trim, railings, entrances, etc.
The proposal complies with this criteria as represented by
the material sample board.
2.5 The design and appearance of buildings should ref'lect
its intended use and purpose. Residential buildings should
have a residential scale and proportion.
The proposal maintains residential style and scale.
2.6 The roof is the most visible portion of a building and
should be designed to provide architectural unity to a
building. In cases where the walls and fenestration of a
building are very lively, the rooflines should be continuous
and unbroken to provide visual balance. In cases of larger,
plainer buildings with minimum visual relief, roof lines
should be varied either vertically or horizontally or both to
provide greater visual relief.
The proposal is of a plain building. The design would
benefit by use of an "upgraded" roof material from asphalt to
tile or wood shake.
2.7 The architectural design and materials of the roof shall
be compatible with the architectural design and materials of
the building.
Except as stated above the proposal complies with this.
2.8 Solar panels should be built into the roof plane and not
protrude from it. They should also maintain the angle of the
roof to which they are attached.
Solar panels are not proposed as part of this project.
2.9 Mechanical equipment on the roof or on the ground shall
be screened from public view. The screening shall be
harmonious with the design and materials of the buildings.
Screening design shall be part of the Design Review
application.
jk/dc/cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -11-
~
._~.
The proposals show no mechanical equipment. (Should
mechanical equipment be proposed at some future time it shall
comply with this criteria).
2.10 Buildings on sloping sites should be sensitive to the
angle of the slope. They should not unnecessarily break out
of the natural plain of the slope. Graded slopes can be
partly hidden by placing buildings over the slope.
Not applicable to this project.
2.11 When roof areas are visible from adjoining properties
or from the public street, they shall be aesthetically
designed and documented in the Design Review application.
Refer to 2.6 above. As stated, "upgrading" of roof materials
would substantially improve the aesthetics of the proposed
project.
2.12 An effort shall be made on non-residential projects to
harmonize the project with some elements of adjacent
buildings, if the design quality of the adjacent buildings
justify such effort.
Not applicable to this project.
3.1 A project shall be landscaped to portray cohesive
appearance and sense of continuity throughout the
development. The number of materials is not as important as
the relationship of a few key elements throughout the
project.
3.2 Landscaping should have predominant materials, color and
texture to give a project unity.
3.3 Drought tolerant plants should be used wherever possible
to reduce the required water usage, unless reclaimed water is
used for irrigation.
3.4 Landscaped areas shall be well planned to give the
project an appearance of maturity and permanence within three
years after planting. Individual (solitary) shrubs should
usually be a minimum of 5 gallons. Individual (solitary)
trees should usually be a minimum of 15 gallons.
3.1-3.4 The applicant proposes to maintain existing
landscaping.
3.5 Whenever possible, existing significant trees, boulders,
rock outcroppings or similar assets should be retained and
incorporated into the project design. Project designers
should view such features as opportunities to the development
design and not as constraints. These existing features shall
be shown on the Design Review application.
jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -12-
-
Not applicable to this project as there are no existing
significant assets on the site.
_.. 3.6 structure, texture,
color and ultimate size should be
the basis of selecting plant materials. Care should be taken
not to place large species in a small area where the plant
would eventually outgrow the available space.
3.7 Trees, shrubs and groundcover should be used in a
landscape plan for diversity and interest. Example uses are:
Trees:
a. Provide a common theme throughout the project;
b. Unify the streetscape;
c. Consider providing for summer shading and
winter sun;
d. Soften the less attractive architectural
features;
e. Consider providing seasonal variation of tree
foliage and color.
Shrubs:
a. Screen visually less desirable project
features such as trash enclosures or outdoor
storage areas;
b. Accent major focal points of a project;
c. Define pedestrian pathways;
d. Screen for privacy;
e. Provide an understory to the overhead canopy.
Groundcover:
'- a. Slope bank planting to stabilize manufactured
slopes and to soften their appearance;
b. Reduce landscape maintenance by use of drought
tolerant species;
c. Define minor spaces such as courtyards or
recreational areas.
3.8 Hounding, walls and fences should be used to provide
visual buffers throughout the project. Of special concern is
the buffering of parking areas from the public right-of-way
and neighboring properties.
3.9 Drought tolerant plants should be used wherever
possible to reduce the required water usage to maintain them.
3.6-3.9 Applicant should consider these guidelines when
improvements to existing landscaping are proposed.
3.10 Walls and fences used within the project shall be
architecturally compatible with the buildings of the project.
3.11 Perimeter fencing around a development visible to the
public and the neighbors shall avoid monotony by the use of
recesses, planting materials and architectural features to
visually 'break uP' its lineal appearance.
jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -13-
-
3.10-3.11 No new fences or walls are proposed.
3.12 Certain natural features, topography and native
landscape areas may be appropriately left in their natural
condition and should be preserved and, where necessary,
rehabilitated to emphasize native conditions.
Not applicable to this project.
4.1 Signs shall be of a size and shape to be in scale with
the building to which it is attached. Signs which ignore
building scale tend to stand out and appear awkward and
offensive.
4.2 Individual identification signs should only display
business identification and not peripheral or extraneous
messages such as brand names of products sold at the
premises.
4.3 A sign shall state its message in a clear and concise
way with a minimum of words and confusing clutter.
4.4 Whenever possible, freestanding pole signs should be
avoided. Where freestanding signs are necessary, they should
be of a monument style composed of materials that are
architecturally related to the buildings on the site.
4.5 Roof signs shall be prohibited. Signs shall be
incorporated into the face of the building and appears as an
incorporated into the face of the building and appears as an
integral part of that building.
4.6 Signs shall be composed of high quality and durable
materials that will continue to look good after several
years. The use of carved wood signs made of long lasting,
high quality wood is encouraged. Signs shall be weather
resistant and durable.
4.7 Sign colors shall be subtle and avoid excessive
contract. The actual colors used should relate and not
contrast with the colors of the building.
4.8 Directional signs within a parking lot should be low
lying only high enough to be seen by drivers. These signs
should be made easily visible with easy to understand
directions.
4.1-4.8 Not applicable to this project as no signs are
proposed.
5.1 Natural barriers, such as dense vegetation or
topography should be used to reduce visual and auditory
intrusion.
There is no practical possibility that this can be
incorporated into the proposal.
jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -14-
-
5.2 Windows, private balconies and patios should be o~~set
from those of adj acent buildings in the proj ect and from
buildinqs located adjacent to the project. This is
particularly important for bedroom and bathroom windows.
As the site is already developed this criteria is difficult
to comply with.
5.3 Windows, private balconies and patios should be setback
as far as possible from maj or noise sources, such as busy
streets, swimming pools, schools or loading and unloadinq
areas.
5.4 Garaqes, carports, walls and landscapinq should be used
to the extent possible to provide pri vacy for residents on
the project site and on neiqhborinq properties.
5.5 Projects should be desiqned to allow visual surveillance
of common areas, entrances, qaraqes and parkinq lots.
Potential hidinq areas for intruders shall be avoided.
5.6 Project desiqn should make a distinction between
public, semi-public and private spaces. If these spaces are
well defined, casual or accidental intruders are discouraged,
and Occupants will feel more secure.
5.7 Landscapinq shall not provide convenient hidinq places.
Where low qrowinq veqetation is desired for screeninq, thorny
and very dense plant material will help to discourage
intruders.
5.8 outdoor lightinq shall be used to illuminate potential
hidinq places without causing glare to the occupants of the
project or adjacent properties.
5.1-5.8 The proposed project has incorporated these
criteria.
5.9 Dead end public corridors or walkways shall be avoided
unless they can be easily seen from other parts of the
project or from public streets.
Not applicable to this project.
5.10 The project shall be designed to prevent as far as
possible the spread of fire within the project and to
neighborinq properties.
The proposed project is to be built in compliance with
building and fire codes.
5.11 The project shall be designed to allow adherence to
fire requlations in the final project plans.
jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -15-
-
5.12 ~ adjacett ri~t-of~y, shall be P~ed as re~i~d
by Leucadia Community Advisory Board. '
The building plans will be checked for compliance.
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS to be made are as follows:
A. To ~pprove the project the board need only state that the
~roJect as submitted, with all evidence and additional
~nformation a~d materia~, is f~und to be substantially in
conformance w1th the Des1gn Rev1ew Guidelines.
B. To de~ ~e p~ject ~e ~arn -st fiM tMt one or =~ of
the following conclusions applies:
23.08.072 Reaulator~ Conclusions = Generall~.
A. The project design is inconsistent with the General
Plan, a Specific Plan or the provisions of this Code.
B. The project design is sUbstantially inconsistent with
the Design Review Guidelines.
C. The project would adversely affect the health, safety
or general welfare of the community.
D. The project would tend to cause the surroUnding
neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or
value.
23.08.074 Reaulator~ Conclusions = Desian and Site Layout.
A. The project design fails to take into account the
constraints and opportunities of the site.
B. The project design does not minimize the disturbance of
the existing topography and/or vegetation.
C. The project design fails to preserve, as far as
practical, existing natural assets, such as rock
outcroppings, valuable trees or riparian habitats.
D. The project design fails to prevent excessively high
graded slopes and retaining structure, to the detriment of
future project residents and neighboring properties.
E. The project design fails to blend the proposed grading
with the contours of adjacent property.
F. The project design does not preserve significant pUblic
views to the extent Possible, nor does it offer mitigation
for the lost views.
G. The project circulation system fails to minimize
conflicts between vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
H. The project ingress, egress or internal circulation
would have an adverse affect on traffic conditions on
adjacent streets.
I. The project design fails to reflect the topography of
the site by adjusting the design of buildings, parking areas
and circulation systems to the constraints of the site.
jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -16-
23.08.07f Reaulatory Conclusions = Building Design.
A. The project design does not coordinate the elements of
exterior building design, such as color, materials, :form,
texture and detailing to create harmony and continuity among
all elements.
B. The project design does not limit the selection of
exterior materials resulting in disharmony and discontinuity
of the exterior elevations.
C. The project design does not minimize roo:f penetrations
by grouping vent ducts and mechanical equipment together
and/or does not adequately conceal these features from the
public and private view.
D. The various bUildings and building elements are not in
proportion with one another.
E. The project is not harmonious with or is functionally
incompatible with the adj acent property in one or more of
the following aspects:
1. Color scheme;
2. Location of structures on the site;
3. Architectural features or ornaments;
4. Type and quality of exterior materials;
5. Location and use of open spaces.
F. The project would adversely affect the quality of
lighting and noise environment on adjacent properties.
G. The project design is substantially out of scale with
the predominant scale of structures in the adjacent
neighborhood.
23.08.077 Reaulatory Conclusions = Landscape Design.
A. The landscape design fails to screen, to the extent
practical, trash and storage areas, service yards, loading
docks and ramps, and utility equipment from view of the
neighboring properties and from the public streets.
B. The landscape design fails to screen, to the extent
practical, parking areas from view of neighboring properties
and from the public streets.
C. The landscape design fails to provide that all
landscape materials will obtain a mature appearance within
three years after planting.
D. The landscape design fails to preserve and incorporate
into the design valuable natural features to the greatest
extent possible.
23.08.078 Reaulatory Conclusions = Sians.
A. The project design fails to assure t~at. the size and
shape of all signs are in scale with the bu1ld1ngs to which
they are attached.
B. The building design does not provide for adequate space
and locations on the building, in harmony with the
architectural design, for the display of signs.
C. The project signing fails to relate well to the
jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -17-
-- ---'---.
~i14i~a of the project Ud to the neig~Oñood in general
in terms of size, shape, color, texture, materials and
lighting intensity, creating a visUally incompatible
- appearance.
D. The project signing does not show subtlety, is
obtrusive or does not convey the message legibly and
clearly.
E. The proposed signing is not weather resistant or
durable.
23.08.019 Re~latOQ ~DclusioDS = ~incy and security.
A. The project will cause an unreaSonable intrusion on
Privacy or aei~oriag P~erUes caused ~ the P~ject.
B. The P~jeat desi~ rails to minimhe the noise içeat
on neighboring properties caused by the project.
c. n. P~j.ot desi~ ~i18 to miDiüze the ~ise içsot
rrom exterior sources on the project.
D. The project design rails to avoid the creation of
~8af. au.. nich lack the 8ecurl~ of P~1ic 8U~il1Qc..
E. The P~ject desi~ pucludes ~se~nce or rire Ssrety
re~lations, ~e to the la~ut or the Bite or the buildings,
or due to the selection of the building materials.
P. The P~osed project and landsCçing ~uld potentially
contribute to the spreading of fire to adjacent properties.
jk/dc/Cro4-276 (4/19/89-4) -18-