1992-04
RESOLUTION NO. OE92~4
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A
TWO-LOT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, A MINOR USE PERMIT
FOR AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT, AND A VARIANCE FROM
THE REQUIRED FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS OF THE R8 ZONE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 317 ORPHEUS AVE. IN OLD ENCINITAS
(CASE NUMBER 91-070TPM/MIN/V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Tentative Parcel Map
for a two lot subdivision of a .34 acre net parcel, a minor use
permit for an accessory apartment, and variance to allow the rear
portion of an existing home to encroach 15 ft. into a required 25
ft. rear yard setback and to allow the northeast corner of the home
to project a maximum 8 ft. into the required 25 ft. front yard
setback of the R8 zone, was filed by Betty Woody in accordance with
Chapter 24, Chapter 30.74, Chapter 30.78, and Chapter 30.16 of the
City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located at 317
Orpheus Ave., legally described as:
Lot 1 in Block V of Seaside Gardens Annex, in the City of
Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to the Map thereof No. 8101, filed in the Office of the San
Diego County Recorder on August 6, 1924; Excepting therefrom
the Northeasterly 30.00 ft. thereof; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
February 25, 1992 by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board,
and;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered, without
limitation:
1. The staff report with attachments dated February 19,1992;
2. The application and Tentative Parcel Map dated received
february 19, 1992;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 24.01, Chapter 30.74, and
Chapter 30.78 of the Encinitas Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 91-
070TPM/MIN/V is hereby approved subject to the following
conditions:
TC/91070TPM.RES (2-19-92) 1
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory
Board of the City of Encinitas that:
This project was found to be exempt from environmental review in
accordance with Sect. 15315 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines which exempts Tentative Parcel Maps (4
parcels or less) in urbanized areas where the average slope of the
site is less that 20%.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February, 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Birnbaum, Cartwright, Lewis, Steyaert
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Cowen
ABSTAIN: None
Vi ginia artwright,
C airperson of the Old
ncinitas Community
Advisory Board
ATTEST:
~~
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
TC/91070TPM.RES (2-19-92) 2
ATTACHMENT "A"
FINDINGS FOR A TENTATIVE MAP (TITLE 24)
FINDINGS FOR A USE PERMIT (MUNI. CODE CHAPT. 30.74)
FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE (MUNI. CODE CHAPT. 30.78)
(Case # 91-070TPM/MIN/V)
I. Findings for a Tentative Parcel Map:
a. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general
and specific plans as specified in Section 65451 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
Facts: There is no applicable specific plan. The
General Plan allows a density range of 5.01-8 dwelling
units per acre in the Residential 5-8 designation..
Discussion: The project density is 6.0 dwelling unit
per acre, within the allowable density range of the R8
Zone (5-8 dwelling units per acre).
Conclusion: The Board finds that the proposed map is
consistent with the General Plan subject to the required
specific and standard conditions contained in the
approved resolution.
b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
Facts: Chapter 24.12 of the Municipal Code sets forth
design standards for subdivisions and Chapter 30.16 of
the Municipal Code sets forth technical standards, such
as lot width and depth requirements, in the R8 zone.
Discussion: No specific plans apply to the project. The
proposed lot dimensions, access, and all other design
criteria satisfy City standards for the R8 zone contained
in Chapters 24.12 and 30.16 of the Encinitas Municipal
Code.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the project conforms to
the General Plan since all technical requirements are met
per the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code.
c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of
development.
TC/91070TPM.SR (2-19-92) 7
Facts: Nearly all of the subject property is on level or
gently sloping terrain.
Discussion: The preliminary soils report and all other
documentation submitted with the application do not
identify any constraints which would limit use of the
property beyond that proposed.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the subject site is
physically suitable for future development with a
detached unit since the site is relatively flat and poses
no known development constraints.
d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density
of development.
Facts: The project will result in a density of 6.0
du/ac. The R-8 Zone allows a density of up to 8 dwellings
per acre.
Discussion: The project density, in addition to being
within the allowable range for the zone, is suitable
since project design indicates that the allowed single-
family homes can easily be accommodated within the
building envelopes which will result.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the proposal will
result in an acceptable density since the project density
will be within the allowed range and project design
indicates that adequate building envelopes will result
for the single-family detached development permitted in
the R8 zone.
e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially or avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat.
Facts: The project is exempt from Environmental Review
pursuant to Sect. 15315 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), which exempts minor subdivisions in
urban areas where the average slope of the site does not
exceed 20%; and Sect. 15305, which exempts minor setback
variances and use permits such as this type.
Discussion: No aspect of the subdivision has been
identified which could result in any significant adverse
environmental impact.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the project is exempt
from Environmental Review and that no adverse
environmental impacts will result from the subdivision.
TC/91070TPM.SR (2-19-92) 8
f. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
Facts: The applicant has obtained letters of sewer and
water availability and all public utilities and services
are in place to serve the project.
Discussion: All applicable services required by the
subdivision can be provided, therefore, the project will
not cause serious public health problems.
Conclusion: The Board finds that since all necessary
services can be provided for the subdivision, and since
no other adverse health impacts can be identified with
the project, the subdivision is not likely to cause any
adverse health impacts.
g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large,
for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision.
Facts: All easements of record are required to be
identified on the tentative map.
Discussion: No easements have been identified on the
subject property with which the existing buildings on
Parcel 1 or future buildings on parcel.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the proposed
subdivision will have no conflict with any easements
since no easements have been identified on the subject
property with which the proposed map would create
conflicts.
h. The Final or Parcel Map is not in substantial compliance with
the previously approved Tentative Map.
Conclusion: Not applicable for consideration of the
Tentative Parcel Map.
i. The City Council and the authorized agency have not acted in
accordance with Section 66747.5 of the act relating to land
projects.
Conclusion: The City Council has not acted to revert the
subject property to acreage.
j. In accordance with Sections 66473 and 66472.5 of the Map Act,
the Map does not comply with the conditions or requirements
imposed by Title 24 and the Map Act.
TC/91070TPM.SR (2-19-92) 9
Facts: The subdivision is required to meet all Map Act
and Municipal Code standards in effect at the time the
application was deemed to be complete.
Discussion: Staff and the Board have identified no
provisions of The Act (in effect at the time the
application was deemed to be complete) with which this
proposed tentative parcel map would not comply. The map
complies with all standards contained in Title 24 of the
Municipal Code, including the design standards contained
in Chapt. 24.12.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the proposed
subdivision meets all the Map Act and Municipal Code
standards in effect at the time the application was
deemed to be complete.
k. The proposed subdivision is not entirely within the corporate
boundaries of the City.
Conclusion: The subject property is entirely within City
boundaries.
1. The property is served by an on-site sewage disposal system
and the health Department has certified. that the system is
satisfactory to support the proposed subdivision.
Conclusion: The subject property will be served by off-
site sewer facilities in place and available to the
property as evidenced by letters of availability
submitted with the application.
II. Findings for a Variance
A. A variance from the terms of the zoning regulations shall be
granted only when, because of the special circumstances applicable
to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of the zoning regulations
deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in
the vicinity and under the same zoning classification. .
Facts: The zoning ordinance (Chapt. 30.16) requires 25
ft. front and rear yard ietbacks in the R8 zone.
Discussion: Without setback variances as proposed, the
applicant would not be able to subdivide the property,
since no east-west division of the property is possible.
The ability to subdivide can be seen as a privilege
enjoyed by others in the same vicinity and zone since
other parcels this size have been subdivided in the R8
zone along Vulcan in the area.
TC/91070TPM.SR (2-19-92) 10
Conclusion: The Board finds that the location of the
existing structures on the site in combination with the
configuration of the site create a situation where strict
application of the setback standards contained in the
zoning ordinance would preclude the applicant from
enjoying a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the
same vicinity and zone (Le. the ability to subdivide
parcels of this size).
B. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will
assure that the adjustment thereby authorized will not constitute
a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which such
property is situated.
Facts: The variance would constitute a grant of special
privilege if the subject property were identical or
similar to others in the area, such that the entitlement
of the variance would be applicable to them as well.
Discussion: Since the special circumstance in this case
is related to the location of an existing structure on a
corner lot and the configuration of that lot, it is
improbable that other property owners would find
themselves in the same position and thus no conditions
would be necessary to insure that approval of this
variance would not constitute a grant of special
privilege.
Conclusion: The Board finds that no conditions are
necessary to insure that approval of this variance does
not constitute a grant of special privilege since few if
any other properties in the area would be under similar
circumstances.
C. A variance will not be granted for a parcel of property which
authorizes a use or acti vi ty which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the zoning regulations governing the parcel of
property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to use
permits.
Conclusion: Use of the subject sites for single family
residences is expressly allowed in the R8 zone (as well
as accessory apartments), and no other use will be
authorized through this permit.
D. No variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy the
privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification:
1. Could be avoided by an alternate development plan which would be
TC/91070TPM.SR (2-19-92) 11
of less significant impact to the site and adjacent properties than
the project requiring a variance.
2. Is self-induced as a result of an action taken by the property
owner or the owner's predecessor;
3. Would allow such a degree of variation as to constitute a
rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code;
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any public or
private nuisance.
Facts:
( 1) There is an alternative strategy available which
would avoid the variance: demolition of existing
structures and rebuilding them in compliance with
required setbacks. No subdivision strategy is available
which would meet code and avoid variances.
(2) The need for the variance is a result of the location
of the existing home on the property, the configuration
of the lot (it could not be subdivided any other way),
and the fact that Parcel 1 must thus front on Orpheus
which must in turn become the front property line.
( 3) The variance would be of such a degree of variation
as to constitute a rezoning if other properties in the
area were similar and could thus assert the same
entitlement.
( 4) The variance would not legalize maintenance of any
public or private nuisance as none has been identified.
Discussion:
( 1) Demolition of the existing home and (proposed)
accessory unit would eliminate the need for a variance
but would not be of equal or less impact to the site
since such demolition would involve disturbance to the
. si te.
(2) None of the factors which identified above under
"Facts" which result in the need for a variance are an
action taken by the applicant or the applicant's
predecessor.
(3) Since few if any properties in the same vicinity and
zone are under the same circumstances, they would not be
able to assert the same entitlement and this variance
would thus not constitute a rezoning in effect.
TC/91070TPM.SR (2-19-92) 12
( 4) The variance would not legalize maintenance of any
public or private nuisance as none has been identified.
Conclusion:
(1) The Board finds that although an alternative strategy
is available (Le. demolition and rebuilding), that
alternative would not be of equal or less impact to the
site since in would involve extensive disturbance of it.
(2) The Board finds that none of the factors resulting in
the need for the variance are the result of any action of
the applicant or the applicant's predecessor.
( 3) The Board finds that approval of the variance will
not constitute a rezoning since few if any properties in
the area are under comparable circumstances and could
thus claim rights to the same entitlement.
( 4) The Board finds that the variance will not legalize
maintenance of any public or private nuisance since none
has been identified.
III. Findings for a Minor Use Permit:
a. The location, size, design or operating characteristics of the
proposed project will not be incompatible with and will not
adversely affect and will not be materially detrimental to
adjacent uses, residences, buildings, structures or natural
resources, with consideration given to, but not limited to:
( 1) The adequacy of public facilities, services and
utilities to serve the proposed project;
(2) The suitability of the site for the type and
intensity of use or development which is proposed;
and
(3) The harmful effect, if any, upon environmental
quality and natural resources of the City.
Facts: All public facilities are in place to serve the
subject property, and are presently serving the unit
proposed to be converted to an accessory apartment. The
unit proposed to become an accessory unit has existed on
the property to be subdivided for some time and there
have been no aspects of that use identified which are
unsuitable for the site. No potentially harmful impacts
to the environment have been identified and the
application is exempt from further environmental review
pursuant to Sects. 15315 and 15305 of CEQA.
Discussion: The project will be adequately served by all
necessary facilities, will conform to density
TC/91070TPM.SR (2-19-92) 13
requirements, and constitutes a land use which is
compatible with the surrounding residential character.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the proposed Accessory
Apartment will be served adequately by public facilities,
will be suitable for type and intensity of use, and will
be exempt from Environmental Review.
b. The impacts of the proposed project will not adversely affect
the policies of the Encinitas General Plan or the provisions
of this Code; and
c. The project complies with all other regulations, conditions or
policies imposed by this Code.
Facts: Accessory units are allowed by right under Sect.
30.48.040 (W) when the criteria established thereunder
are met.
Discussion: The Zoning Code requires that Accessory
Apartments be limited to a maximum size of 640 Square
feet (Section 30.48.040W). The proposed Accessory
Apartment is an existing unit which is approximately 796
square feet in size. This approval is conditioned upon
reduction in the size or that unit to 640 sq. ft. This
approval is also conditioned upon the applicant recording
an agreement to comply with code requirements as to
eligibility to occupy the unit. The additional parking
space required by the accessory unit is provided in the
front driveway area, the unit is consistent in character
with the single-family character of the area, and subject
to the conditions of the approved resolution, all
provisions of the General Plan and Municipal Code (sect.
30.48.040 (W» will be complied with.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the proposed Accessory
Apartment will be fully consistent with the policies of
the Encinitas General Plan and Municipal Code with
compliance with the conditions attached as "Attachment B"
of this resolution.
.
TC/91070TPM.SR (2-19-92) 14
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. OE 92- 04
ATTACHMENT "B"
Applicant: Woody
Case No: 91-070 TPH/HIN/V
project Description: Two Lot Tentative Parcel Hap, Hinor Use
Permit for Accessory Apartment, Variance
for Front and Rear Setbacks of R8 Zone.
Location: 317 Orpheus Avenue
I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
A. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the
applicant shall provide verification to the
satisfaction of the Community Development that the
accessory unit on Parcell permitted hereunder does
not exceed the maximum allowable 640 sq. ft. in
area, or record a covenant limiting occupancy of
the accessory apartment to persons age 62 years or
older in accordance with section 65852.1 of the
Government Code, and shall comply with all other
provisions of Part I of this resolution regarding
recordation of a covenant setting forth the terms
and conditions of this approval.
B. Prior to Final Map recordation, the 6.5 ft. wood
fence located in the westerly yard area of Parcell
shall be removed so as to not interfere with
required parking and/or relocated so as to conform
with the applicable provisions of the Municipal
Code.
C. One of the dwelling units shall be occupied by the
property owner. The dwelling unit not occupied by
the owner shall only be occupied by person(s) that
qualify as elderly, handicapped, or immediate
family members.
D. Separate sale or ownership of accessory apartment
from the primary dwelling on a lot or parcel is
prohibited.
TC/03/PF4-364wp51 (2-21-92-1) CASE NUMBER: 91-070 TPM
Page 1 of 6
E. On a form provided by the Department of Planning
and Community Development the owner shall file with
the application a signed affidavit agreeing to
accessory apartment occupancy requirements. The
affidavit shall include provisions stating that 1)
the owner consents to inspection of the premises by
the Code Enforcement Officer in order to verify
occupancy and 2) that owner shall furnish a new
affidavit to said officer upon request.
F. Prior to issuance of a building permit for an
accessory apartment the owner shall submit a
notarized recorded copy of an agreement between the
owner and the City of Encinitas on a form supplied
by the Department of Planning and Community
Development. Said agreement shall be filed with
and become a permanent part of the minor use permit
which granted the Accessory Apartment.
G. On a form provided by the Department of Planning
and Community Development, subsequent owners shall
be required to file an affidavit to establish
eligibility before occupy ing the second dwelling
unit on said property.
Per Zoning Code Chapter 30.48.040, Accessory Use
Regulations in Residential and Agricultural Zones.
II. STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. This approval will expire in two years on February
25, 1994, at 5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have
been met or an extension has been approved pursuant
to sections 30.78.060 and 30.78.070 of the
Municipal (Zoning) Code.
B. This approval may be appealed to the (authorized
agency) within 15 calendar days from the date of
this approval.
C. In the event that any of the conditions of this
permit are not satisfied, the Planning and
Community Development Department shall cause a
noticed hearing to be set before the authorized
agency to determine why the City of Encinitas
should not revoke this permit.
D. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance
with any sections of the Zoning Development Code
and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect
at the time of Building Permit issuance unless
specifically waived here.
TC/03/PF4-364wp51 (2-21-92-1) CASE NUMBER: 91-070 TPM
Page 2 of 6
E. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted
Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code,
Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code,
Uniform Fire Code, and all other applicable codes
and ordinances in effect at the time of building
permit issuance unless specifically waived here.
F. This approval shall become null and void if
building permits are not issued for this project
within two years from the date of project approval.
If the applicant is not able to obtain building
permits due to a growth management program within
the two year period, this approval may be extended
by the Director of Planning and Community
Development to allow for the issuance of building
permits.
G. Permits from other agencies will be required as
follows:
Coastal Commission
H. Project is approved as submitted/modified as
evidenced by the plan dated received by the City of
Encinitas on February 19, 1992 and signed by a City
Official as approved by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board on February 25, 1992 and shall not
be altered without Planning and Community
Development Department review and approval.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2. SITE DEVELOPMENT
A. For new residential dwelling unit(s) , the applicant
shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but not be limited to:
Permit and Plan Checking Fees, School Fees, Water
and Sewer Service Fees, Traffic Fees, Drainage
Fees, inclusionary housing, and Park Fees.
Arrangements to pay these fees shall be paid prior
to final map approval as deemed necessary by the
appropriate agency.
B. Any change to the natural drainage or concentration
of drainage shall be adequately handled and shall
not impact adjacent properties.
TC/03/PF4-364wp51 (2-21-92-1) CASE NUMBER: 91-070 TPM
Page 3 of 6
3. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. Numbers shall be clearly visible from the street
fronting the structure. Where structures are
located off a roadway on long driveways, a monument
shall be placed at the entrance where the driveway
intersects the main roadway. Address numbers shall
be displayed on this monument.
B. structures shall be protected by automatic fire
sprinkler systems. sprinkler systems shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the Encinitas Fire
Protection District.
C. Prior to final recordation, the applicant shall
submit a letter from the Fire District stating that
all development impact, plan check and/or cost
recovery fees have been paid or secured to the
satisfaction of the District.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
All city Codes, regulations, and policies in effect at the time of
final map submittal shall apply.
4. Gradina Conditions
A. No grading permits shall be issued for this subdivision
prior to recordation of the final map.
B. The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to the
commencement of any clearing or grading of the site.
5. Drainaae Conditions
A. The developer shall pay the current local drainage area
fee prior to approval of the final map for this project
or shall construct drainage systems in conformance with
the Master Drainage Plan and City of Encinitas Standards
as required by the City Engineer.
B. Concentrated flows across driveways and/or sidewalks
shall not be permitted.
6. street Conditions
A. The developer shall make an offer of dedication to the
City for all public streets and easements required by
these conditions or shown on the TENTATIVE MAP. The
offer shall be made BY A CERTIFICATE ON THE FINAL MAP for
this project. All land so offered shall be granted to
TC/03/PF4-364wp51 (2-21-92-1) CASE NUMBER: 91-070 TPM
Page 4 of 6
the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and
without cost to the city. streets that are already
public are not required to be rededicated.
,
B. 15 FEET shall be dedicated by the developer along the
subdivision frontage based on a center line to right-of-
way width of 70 feet and in conformance with City of
Encinitas Standards for a local circulation element
street with bike lane for Vulcan Avenue.
C. 8 FEET shall be dedicated by the developer along the
subdivision frontage based on a center line to right-of-
way width of 56 feet and in conformance with City of
Encinitas Standards for a local street for Orpheus
Avenue. A spandrel with radius of 20 feet at the corner
of the two streets shall also be dedicated.
D. Direct access rights for all lots abutting Vulcan Avenue
shall be waived on the final map.
E. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-
way, a right-of-way construction period shall be obtained
from the Public Works office and appropriate fees paid,
in addition to any other permits required.
F. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all
improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. Prior to approval of the final map, the
Subdivider shall install, or agree to install and secure
with appropriate security as provided by law,
improvements shown on the tentative map and the following
improvements to City standards to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer:
Half width improvements according to adopted City
Standards for Urban Local Street for Orpheus Avenue and
Augmented Local Street for Vulcan Avenue.
G. Developer shall execute and record a covenant with the
County Recorder agreeing not to oppose the formation of
an assessment district to fund the installation of right-
of-way improvements.
7. utilities
A. The developer Shall comply with all the rules,
regulations and design requirements of the respective
utility agencies regarding services to the project.
B. The developer shall be responsible for coordination with
S.D.G. & E., Pacific Telephone, and other applicable
authorities.
TC/03/PF4-364wp51 (2-21-92-1) CASE NUMBER: 91-070 TPM
Page 5 of 6
c. All proposed utilities within the project shall be
installed underground including existing utilities unless
exempt by the Municipal Code.
D. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation and
undergrounding of existing public utilities, as required.
TC/03/PF4-364wp51 (2-21-92-1) CASE NUMBER: 91-070 TPM
Page 6 of 6