Agenda packet — Solana Beach City Council, August 24, 2022 (part 3 of 4)

The issue before the Council is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Applicant's request as contained in Resolution 2022-049 (Attachment 1 ).

DISCUSSION:

The 6,120 square-foot lot is located on the east side of Pacific Avenue, three properties north of the intersection of Pacific Avenue and Solana Vista Drive. The property is relatively flat beginning at the public right-of-way and eastward surrounding the existing building pad, but steps down approximately six feet beyond a retaining wall in the rear (east) yard. The topography steps down further beyond the rear property line to the lower lots along the west side of North Acacia Avenue. The topography is similar on both adjacent properties on Pacific Avenue. The property is currently accessed by a gated driveway at the front property line.

The Applicants are requesting approval of a DRP, SOP, and SOP Waiver to demolish the existing residence and yard improvements (except for the existing perimeter walls), construct a replacement two-story, single-family residence with a basement and an attached two-car garage, and perform associated site improvements including grading, a spa, hardscape, entry gates, and landscaping. The project plans are included in Attachment 2.

Table 1 (below) provides a comparison of the SBMC applicable zoning regulations with the Applicant's proposed design.

Table 1

LOT INFORMATION
Property Address: 506 Pacific Ave. Zoning Designation: MR (5-7 du/ac) Lot Size: 6,120 sf # Units Allowed: 1 SFR, 1 ADU, 1JADU Max. Allowable Floor Area: 3,021 sf # Units Requested: 1 SFR Proposed Floor Area: 2,944 sf Setbacks: (d) Required Proposed Below Max. Floor Area by: 77 sf Front (YV) 25 ft 25.7 ft Max. Allowable Height: 25 ft Interior Side (N) 5 ft 5.6 ft Max. Proposed Height: 24.87 ft Interior Side (S) 5 ft 5.8 ft Highest Point/Ridge: 97.95 MSL Rear (E) 25 ft 26.8 ft
Overlay Zone(s): SROZ

PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION
Proposed Floor Area Breakdown: Required Permits:

First Floor Living Area 1,388 sf DRP: grading in excess of 100 cubic yards; Second Floor Living Area 1,508 sf construction that exceeds 60% of the maximum Attached Garage 448 sf allowable floor area; and construction of a second Basement Living Area 1,274 sf story that exceeds 35% of the first floor.

Subtotal 4,618sf SDP: a new structure that exceeds 16 feet in Off-Street Parking Exemption - 400 sf height from the existing grade.

SROZ Basement Exemption -1,274 sf SDP Waiver: proposed structure located outside Total Proposed Floor Area: 2,944 sf of the story pole envelope noticed to neighbors.

Proposed Grading: 40 CY of cut and 40 CY of fill outside of the structure; 750 CY of cut for the basement; 50 CY of excavation for footings; 880 CY of removal and recompaction; an aggregate grading quantity of 1,760 CY; and 800 CY of export off site
Proposed Parking: 2 Garage
Proposed Fences and Walls: Yes
Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit: No
Proposed Accessory Structure: No
May 11 2022
DRP20-014/SDP20-020
506 Pacific Ave - Boyd Residence

Page 3 of 14 ends

Existing Development:

Single-story, single-family residence with
attached one-car garage to be demolished
Staff has prepared draft findings for approval of the DRP in the attached Resolution 2022- 049 for Council's consideration based upon the information in this report. Findings for approval of the SOP are left blank in the drafted Resolution of Approval. The applicable SBMC sections are provided in italicized text and recommended conditions of approval from the Community Development, Engineering, and Fire Departments are incorporated in the Resolution of Approval. The Council may direct Staff to modify the Resolution to reflect the findings and conditions it deems appropriate as a result of the Public Hearing process. If the Council determines the project is to be denied, Staff will prepare a Resolution of Denial for adoption at a subsequent Council meeting.

The following is a discussion of the findings for a DRP as each applies to the proposed project as well as references to recommended conditions of approval contained in Resolution 2022-049.

Development Review Permit Compliance (SBMC Section 17 .68.40):

A DRP is required because the proposed development includes grading in excess of 100 cubic yards, construction of a residence in excess of 60 percent of the maximum allowable floor area for the property, and construction of a second story that exceeds 35 percent of the first floor. In addition to meeting zoning requirements, the project must also be found in compliance with development review criteria. The following is a list of the development review criteria topics:
1 . Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses

2. Building and Structure Placement

3. Landscaping

4. Roads, Pedestrian Walkways, Parking, and Storage Areas

5. Grading

6. Lighting

7. Usable Open Space
The Council may approve, or conditionally approve, a DRP only if all of the findings listed below can be made. Resolution 2022-049 provides the full discussion of the findings.

1. The proposed development is consistent with the general plan and all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance including special regulations, overlay zones, and specific plans.

2. The proposed development complies with the development review criteria.

3. All required permits and approvals issued by the city, including variances, conditional use permits, comprehensive sign plans, and coastal development May 11 2022
DRP20-014/SDP20-020
506 Pacific Ave - Boyd Residence

Page 4 of 14 ends

permits have been obtained prior to or concurrently with the development review permit.

4. If the development project also requires a permit or approval to be issued by a state or federal agency, the city council may conditionally approve the development review permit upon the Applicants obtaining the required permit or approval from the other agency.

If the above findings cannot be made, the Council shall deny the DRP. The following is a discussion of the applicable development review criteria as they relate to the proposed project.

Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses:

The property is located within the MR Zone. Surrounding properties are also located within the MR Zone and are developed with a mixture of one- and two-story single-family residences. The project, as designed, is consistent with the permitted uses for the MR Zone as described in SBMC Sections 17.20.010 and 17.12.020. The property is designated Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and intended for single-family residences developed at a maximum density of five to seven dwelling units per acre. The proposed development could be found to be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it encourages the development and maintenance of healthy residential neighborhoods, the stability of transitional neighborhoods, and the rehabilitation of deteriorated neighborhoods.

The property is not located within any of the City's Specific Plan areas; however, it is located within the boundaries of the SROZ. The project has been evaluated and could be found to be in conformance with the regulations of the SROZ. The project is also located within the Coastal Zone. As a condition of project approval, the Applicant will be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver, or Exemption from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building or grading permits.

Building and Structure Placement:

The Applicants are proposing to demolish the existing residence and construct a replacement two-story, single-family residence with basement and an attached two-car garage, and perform associated improvements. The project would be located in the buildable area of the lot and the driveway access would be maintained from Pacific Avenue along the portion of the front (west) property line.

The 1,388 square-foot first floor would consist of the main entry, a media room with a wet bar, a laundry room, two bedrooms with a shared Jack-and-Jill bathroom, a bedroom with an ensuite bathroom, an office, and access to an attached two-car garage. The 1,508 square-foot second floor would consist of an open-concept living room, dining room, and May 11 2022
DRP20-014/SDP20-020
506 Pacific Ave - Boyd Residence

Page 5 of 14 ends

kitchen that would open to a terrace (balcony) wrapping around the majority of the second floor, a powder room, and the primary bedroom suite with a private balcony located on the southern portion of the west side of the residence. There would be a two-tiered spa located in the northeast corner of the rear yard, a fire pit and additional seating areas in the southern portion of the rear yard, a storage area for trash and recycle in the northern side yard, and a covered porch below the primary bedroom balcony in the southwest portion of the buildable area.

According to the SROZ, the proposed subterranean basement is considered "BasementNo Exposed Sides" in which the basement living area can be exempt from the calculation of floor area if there are no exposed sides. A building side is considered exposed when the finished floor of the living area directly above the basement (at any point) is more than three feet above the adjacent natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. Currently, the plans show a basement with no exposure; therefore, the proposed basement living area of 1,274 square feet would be exempt from the calculation of floor area.

The SBMC parking regulations require two off-street parking spaces per single-family residence. When required spaces are provided in a garage, 200 square feet of floor area is exempted for each required space. The proposed 448 square-foot attached garage would provide two unobstructed parking spaces; therefore, 400 square feet of the garage is exempt from the calculation of floor area.

The maximum allowable floor area calculation for this project, pursuant to the provisions of the SROZ, is as follows:

0.50 for first 6,000 n2

0.175 for 6,000 to 15,000 ft2
Maximum Allowable Floor Area:
3,000 ft 2
21 ft 2
3,021 ft 2
As designed, the project complies with all required setbacks under the designation "D" on the City's official Zoning Map. The residence would be setback at least 25 feet from the front (west) property line, 5 feet from the northern side property line, 26 feet from the rear (east) property line, and 5 feet from the southern side property line. The maximum building height for the MR Zone is 25 feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence would be 24.87 feet above the proposed grade with the highest portion of the structure to be at

97.95 feet above MSL. As designed, the project will comply with the required parking, maximum floor area, required setbacks, and maximum building height.

Neighborhood Comparison:

Staff compared the proposed project to 29 other properties within the surrounding area.

This area includes properties on the north and south sides of Pacific Avenue, the west side of North Acacia Avenue, both sides of Solana Vista Drive, and one property on the north side of West Cliff Street, as shown on the map on the following page.

Project Gross Building Area:

Delete Attached Garage:

Delete Basement:

May 11 2022
DRP20-014/SDP20-020
506 Pacific Ave - Boyd Residence

Page 6 of 14 ends

The properties evaluated in this
comparison are also located in the LR
Zone. The existing homes range in size
from 778 square feet to 4,897 square feet,
according to the County Assessor records.

It should be noted that the County
Assessor does not include the garage,
covered porch area, unfinished basement,
or non-habitable accessory building area
in the total square footage. Accordingly,
the building area of the proposed project
has been calculated for comparison
purposes by deleting the area of the
proposed garage and the outdoor covered
area. Comparatively, the project would be
2,896 square feet (see below).
4,618 ft2
- 448 ft2
- 1,274 ft2
Project Area for Comparison to Assessor's Data: 2,896 ft2 Table 2 is based upon the County Assessor's data and SanGIS data. It contains neighboring lot sizes, the square footage of existing development and the maximum allowable square footage for potential development on each lot.

Table 2
Lot Size in Existing ft2 Proposed/
# Property Address ft2 Onsite Recently Max. Zone Allowable ft2 (GIS) (Assessor's) Approved ft2
1 502 Pacific Ave 5,411 2,245 2,706 MR
2 504 Pacific Ave 5,593 2,730 2,979 MR
3 506 Pacific Ave 6,120 1,540 2,896 3,021 MR
4 508 Pacific Ave 6,962 778 3,168 MR
5 510 Pacific Ave 7,235 2,447 3,216 MR
6 512 Pacific Ave 6,731 1,414 3,128 MR
7 514 Pacific Ave 7,339 1,542 3,234 MR
8 501 Pacific Ave 6,238 1,426 3,216 MR
9 503 Pacific Ave 6,441 1,610 3,234 MR
10 505 Pacific Ave 5,321 1,994 3,128 MR
11 509 Pacific Ave 8,479 2,480 3,256 MR
12 517 Pacific Ave 10,686 2,912 3,442 MR
13 516 Pacific Ave 6,750 1,827 3,131 MR
14 520 Pacific Ave 6,808 4,601 3,164 MR
15 524 Pacific Ave 7,049 4,897 3,184 MR
May 11 2022
DRP20-014/SDP20-020
506 Pacific Ave - Boyd Residence

Page 7 of 14 ends

16 528 Pacific Ave 5,963 2,647 2,982 MR
17 202 Solana Vista Dr 5,355 1,718 2,678 MR
18 204 Solana Vista Dr 5,346 1,661 2,673 MR
19 507 N Acacia Ave 5,500 1,143 2,750 MR
20 511 N Acacia Ave 5,800 3,761 2,900 MR
21 515 N Acacia Ave 6,200 3,866 3,035 MR
22 519 N Acacia Ave 6,400 2,145 3,070 MR
23 4 75 Pacific Ave 8,449 4,753 3,442 MR
24 423 Pacific Ave 7,460 988 3,256 MR
25 424 Pacific Ave 7,100 1,026 3,193 MR
26 215 Solana Vista Dr 6,030 1,080 3,005 MR
27 209 Solana Vista Dr 5,745 1,076 2,873 MR
28 423 N Acacia Ave 6,167 3,238 3,029 MR
27 420 Pacific Ave 7,596 1,986 3,053 MR
28 414 Pacific Ave 6,304 3,155 3,053 MR
29 408 Pacific Ave 6,235 2,165 3,041 MR
30 230 W Cliff St 8,376 2,061 3,416 MR
Fences, Walls and Retaining Walls:

Within the front yard setback, the SBMC Section 17.20.040(0) allows fences and walls, or any combination thereof, to be no higher than 42 inches in height as measured from existing grade, except for an additional 2 feet that is at least 80% open to light. Fences, walls and retaining walls located within the rear and interior side yards are allowed to be up to 6 feet in height with an additional 2 feet that is 50% open to light and air.

The Applicants are proposing to maintain the existing site walls that enclose the private yard, remove the existing driveway gate, and construct new columns and walls to frame the driveway and entry walkway in the front-yard setback. Additional gates would be constructed in the side yards to secure the private yard and comply with pool safety requirements. Currently, the plans show fences and walls that comply with the requirements of SBMC 17.20.040(0) and 17.60.070(C). If the Applicants decide to modify any of the proposed fences and walls or construct additional fences and walls on the project site, a condition of project approval indicates that they would be required to be in compliance with the Municipal Code.

Landscape:

Page 8 of 14 ends

detailed construction landscape drawings that will be reviewed by the City's third-party landscape architect for conformance with the conceptual plan. In addition, the City's thirdparty landscape architect will perform an inspection during the construction phase of the project. A separate condition has been added to require that native or drought-tolerant and non-invasive plant materials and water-conserving irrigation systems are required to be incorporated into the landscaping to the extent feasible.

Parking:

SBMC Section 17.52.040 and the Off-Street Parking Design Manual (OSPDM) require two (2) parking spaces for a single-family residence. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 448 square-foot attached garage in the northwest corner of the proposed residence. The garage would be accessed by a driveway on the northwest corner of the property from Pacific Avenue. The proposed two-car garage satisfies the required offstreet parking for the single-family residence.

Grading:

The Applicants are proposing approximately 40 cubic yards of cut and 40 cubic yards of fill outside of the footprint of the structure, 750 cubic yards of excavation for the basement, 50 cubic yards of excavation for footings, 880 cubic yards of removal and recompaction, an aggregate grading quantity of 1,760 cubic yards, and 800 cubic yards of export off site.

The proposed grading outside the footprint of the structure would level the existing flat yard areas surrounding the residence and construct drainage improvements including bio retention basins located in the rear yard. The majority of the proposed grading would be associated with the excavation for the proposed 1 ,27 4 square-foot basement that would have a finished floor approximately 10 feet below the finished floor of the first floor and the finished grade of the yard areas.

Lighting:

A condition of project approval requires that all new exterior lighting fixtures comply with the City-Wide Lighting Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (SBMC 17.60.060). All light fixtures shall be shielded so that no light or glare is transmitted or reflected in such concentrated quantities or intensities as to be detrimental to the surrounding area.

Usable Open Space:

The project consists of the construction of a replacement single-family residence with basement and an attached garage and associated site improvements on a developed residential lot, therefore, usable open space and recreational facilities are neither proposed nor required according to SBMC Section 17.20.040. As a condition of project approval, the Applicants will be required to pay the applicable Park Development Fee Structure Development Permit Compliance:

May 11 2022
DRP20-014/SDP20-020
506 Pacific Ave - Boyd Residence

Page 9 of 14 ends

The proposed structure exceeds 16 feet in height above the existing grade, therefore, the project must comply with all of the View Assessment requirements of SBMC Chapter

17.63 and the Applicants were required to complete the SOP process. The original Story Pole Height Certification was certified by a licensed land surveyor on April 12, 2021, showing a maximum building height of 24.95 feet (98.03 feet above MSL) above the proposed grade. Notices were mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site establishing a deadline to file for View Assessment by June 3, 2021.

The City received one application for View Assessment (Attachment 3) from the property owner (Kathy de Paolo; "Claimant") of 504 Ford Avenue, which is located immediately south of the subject property.

The project was presented to the View Assessment Commission (VAC) on August 17, 2021. Three out of the six participating VAC members found the primary bedroom to be the primary viewing area, two VAC members found the roof deck to be the primary viewing area, one VAC member found the second-floor deck to be the primary viewing area, and one VAC member was disqualified due to a real property interest within 500-feet of the subject property. The majority of the participating VAC members (five out of six) were unable to make finding 3. Approved minutes from the August 17, 2021 meeting are included in Attachment 4. Table 3 below includes the disclosures and findings from the August 17, 2021 meeting.

Table 3
Kathy de Paolo Coad Bishop Cohen Moldenhauer Stribling Zajac Najjar 504 Pacific Ave
Date Claimant 8/13 8/17 8/17 8/9 & 8/15 8/9 8/9
Visited Applicant 8/12 8/16 8/17 8/9 8/9 8/9 & 8/13
Primary Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Roof Deck z!d Floor Roof Deck Viewing Area Deck #1. Communication y y y y y y Taken Place
#2. No Public View y y y y y y Impairment
'#3. Designed to Minimize N N N N N y View Impairment
#4. No Cumulative View y y y N y y Impairment
#5. Neighborhood y y y N y N Compatibility
At the Applicants' request, the VAC continued the project until the November 16, 2021 VAC meeting. However, the Applicants continued to revise the design and requested the VAC hearing to be continued until December 21, 2021 . The December 21 , 2021 meeting was cancelled due to a lack of quorum. The revised project was heard at the January 18, 2022 VAC meeting.

May 11 2022
DRP20-014/SDP20-020
506 Pacific Ave - Boyd Residence

Page 10 of 14 ends

Updated story poles were installed and certified to reflect the revised design. The story poles were certified on December 7, 2021 and include a maximum building height of 24.87 feet (97.95 feet above MSL) above proposed grade. The Applicants presented the following changes to the project at the January 18, 2022 VAC meeting:
• Reduced the size of the roof deck;
• Removed the roof deck storage on the east side of the deck; • Lowered the roof deck stair tower and moved it east by one foot; • Reduced the roof pitch on the south side of the structure; • Reduced the second story massing by pulling the southern wall 18 inches to the north, the eastern wall 18 inches to the west, and the western wall 18 inches to the east; and • Changes to the southern side of the structure, including the addition of frosted glass windows and railings, raised windowsill heights, and exterior siding.

The VAC was unable to make the required findings to approve the revised project. The minutes for the January 18, 2022 meeting have yet to be approved by the VAC. Table 4 below includes a draft of the disclosures and findings from the January 18, 2022 VAC meeting.

Table 4
Kathy de Paolo Coad Bishop Cohen Moldenhauer Stribling Zajac Najjar 504 Pacific Ave
Date Claimant 1/14 1/17 1/18 1/17 1/17 1/14
Visited Applicant 8/12 8/16 1/18 1/17 1/17 8/09&
8/13
Primary Master Master Master Master Master
Bedroom Roof deck Viewing Area Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Deck #1. Communication y y y y y y Taken Place
#2. No Public View y y y y y y Impairment
"#3. Designed to Minimize N N N N y y View Impairment
#4. No Cumulative View y y N y y y Impairment
#5. Neighborhood y y y y y N Compatibility
The majority of the participating VAC members found the primary viewing area to be the primary bedroom. The majority of the VAC were unable to make finding 3; that the project was designed to minimize view impairment. \/\then offered a continuance, the Applicant did not consent and instead requested that the VAC make a recommendation. Chair Cohen made a motion to recommend denial of the project which was seconded by Commissioner Coad. The motion passed 5/1 /1 Ayes: Cohen, Bishop, Coad, Moldenhauer, Nanar. Noes: Zajac. Absent: Stribling due to a real property interest within 500-feet of the subject property. The Notice of Recommendation is included in Attachment 5.

The Applicants have proposed the following additional changes to the project since the January 18, 2022 VAC meeting:
• Removed the roof deck stair tower;
May 11 2022
DRP20-014/SDP20-020
506 Pacific Ave - Boyd Residence

Page 11 of 14 ends

• Removed the southeast corner of the second story and revised the associated roof over the southern portion of the second story;
• Added approximately 50 square feet of floor area on the northern side of the second story.

The revised Project Plans dated April 18, 2022 are included in Attachment 2. The 50 square-foot addition to the dining room on the second story would be located outside of the original story pole envelope that was noticed to neighbors for the 30-day deadline for View Assessment applications in May of 2021. In addition to approval of the DRP and SDP, therefore, the Applicants are requesting City Council approval of an SDP Waiver to waive the requirement that the new massing be noticed again to the neighbors. The Applicants provided a request for approval which is included in Attachment 6.

The City Council should consider the recommendation from VAC, the information provided by the Applicants and Claimant, and the View Assessment Ordinance (SBMC

17.63) including the definition of a "Viewing Area" and the five required findings, which are provided below:

SBMC Section 17.63.020(1): "Viewing area" shall be that area of the structure (excluding bathrooms, hallways, garages or closets) or lot (excluding the building setback areas) where the view assessment committee, or the city council on appeal, determines the best and most important view exists. The finished ffoor elevation of any viewing area must be at or above existing grade adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building nearest to that viewing area. The determination shall be made by balancing the nature of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot from where the view is taken.

SBMC Section 17.63.040(F): Findings. In making a decision on a matter for which view assessment has been requested, the view assessment committee shall be required to make the following findings:

1. The applicant for the structure development permit has made a reasonable attempt to resolve the view impairment issues with the person(s) requesting view assessment. Written evidence of a good faith voluntary offer to meet and discuss view issues, or of a good faith voluntary offer to submit the matter to mediation, is hereby deemed to be a reasonable attempt to resolve the view impairment issues.

2. The proposed structure does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways, equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city's general plan, local coastal program, or city designated viewing areas.

May 11 2022
DRP20-014/SDP20-020
506 Pacific Ave - Boyd Residence

Page 12 of 14 ends

3. The structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment of views.

4. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by: (a) Considering the amount of view impairment caused by the proposed structure; and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of structures similar to the proposed structure.

5. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character.

A condition of approval has been added to the Draft Resolution of Approval (Attachment 1) to require that the Applicants submit a height certification prepared by a licensed land surveyor prior to the framing inspection certifying that the maximum height of the proposed addition will not exceed 24.87 feet above the proposed grade or 97.95 feet above MSL, which is the maximum proposed structure height reflected on the project plans, should the City Council make the necessary finding to approve the project.

The Draft Resolution of Approval (Attachment 1) reflects the Applicant's request that the City Council consider the findings of the SOP and includes findings in support of the DRP.

The Draft Resolution of Approval includes the applicable SBMC sections in italicized text and the recommended conditions of approval from the Community Development, Engineering, and Fire Departments. An additional condition of approval requires that the Applicants obtain a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver or Exemption from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of Building or Grading Permits. The Council may direct Staff to modify the Resolution to reflect the findings and conditions it deems appropriate as a result of the public hearing process. If the Council determines the project is to be denied, Staff will prepare a Resolution of Denial for adoption at a subsequent Council meeting.

Property Frontage and Public Right-of-Way Improvements
The existing property frontage is improved with a concrete curb, gutter, and five-foot wide sidewalk. If approved, the Applicant will be required to improve the existing concrete curb along the entire property frontage. An Encroachment Maintenance Removal Agreement (EMRA) will be required for the pavers, turf, landscaping, and gravel area located behind the existing concrete sidewalk in the public right-of-way. The Applicants will also be required to construct a new Americans with Disability Act (ADA) standard driveway approach. There is an existing 12-foot-wide sewer easement located along the south property line. No further improvements are required in the easement as this sewer line was rehabilitated in 2013.

Public Hearing Notice:

May 11 2022
DRP20-014/SDP20-020
506 Pacific Ave - Boyd Residence

Page 13 of 14 ends

Notice of the City Council Public Hearing for the project was published in the Union Tribune more than 1 0 days prior to the public hearing. The same public notice was mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project site on April 28, 2022. The neighbor located immediately to the south at 504 Pacific Avenue, Kathy de Paolo, has raised concerns with the proposed project, including filing for View Assessment. Correspondence from de Paolo is included in Attachment 7. Two additional neighbors (Metcalfs at 508 Pacific Avenue and Mitchells at 505 Pacific Avenue) provided support of the SOP Waiver (Attachment 8).

In conclusion, the proposed project, as conditioned, could be found to be consistent with the Zoning regulations and the General Plan. Staff has prepared draft findings for approval of the project in the attached Resolution 2022-049 for Council's consideration based upon the information in this report. Conditions from the Community Development, Engineering, and Fire Departments are incorporated in the Resolution of Approval.

The Council may direct Staff to modify the Resolution to reflect the findings and conditions it deems appropriate as a result of the Public Hearing process. If the Council determines the project is to be denied, Staff will prepare a Resolution of Denial for adoption at a subsequent Council meeting.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures. Examples of this exemption include one single-family residence or second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three-single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.

FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
WORK PLAN: N/A
OPTIONS:
• Approve Staff recommendation adopting the attached Resolution 2022-049. • Approve Staff recommendation subject to additional specific conditions necessary for the City Council to make all required findings for the approval of a DRP and SOP. • Deny the project if all required findings for the DRP and SOP cannot be made.

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Moy 11 2022
ORP20-014/SOP20-020
506 Pacific Ave - Boyd Residence

Page 14 ends

The proposed project meets the minimum zoning requirements under the SBMC, may be found to be consistent with the General Plan and may be found, as conditioned, to meet the discretionary findings required as discussed in this report to approve a DRP.

Therefore, should the City Council be able to make the findings to approve the SOP, staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Conduct the Public Hearing: Open the Public Hearing, Report Council Disclosures, Receive Public Testimony, and Close the Public Hearing.

2. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and

3. If the City Council makes the requisite findings and approves the project, adopt Resolution 2022-049 conditionally approving a DRP, SOP, and SOP Waiver to demolish a single-family residence, construct a replacement 2,986 square-foot, two.story single-family residence built above a 1,274 square-foot basement with an attached 448 square-foot two-car garage, and perform associated site improvements at 506 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach.

CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
endalion.

Attachments:

1. Resolution 2022-049

2. Project Plans Dated April 18, 2022

3. De Paolo Application for View Assessment

4. VAC Minutes from August 17, 2021 Meeting

5. NOR from January 18, 2022 VAC Meeting

6. Applicant's Request for Approval

7. correspondence - De Paolo at 504 Pacific Ave

8. Correspondence - Metcalf (508) and Mitch ell (505)
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-049

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY

APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT,

STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND STRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WAIVER TO DEMOLISH A SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE, CONSTRUCT A REPLACEMENT TWOSTORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT

AND AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE, AND PERFORM
ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 506 PACIFIC

AVENUE, SOLANA BEACH
APPLICANT: JIM AND KATHLEEN BOYD
CASE NO.: DRP20-014/SDP20-020
WHEREAS, Jim and Kathleen Boyd (hereinafter referred to as "Applicants"), have submitted an application for a Development Review Permit (DRP) and Structure Development Permit (SOP) pursuant to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC); and
WHEREAS, the View Assessment Committee recommended denial of the project on January 18, 2022 based on an Application for View Assessment from 506 Pacific Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Public Hearing was conducted pursuant to the provisions of Solana Beach Municipal Code Section 17.72.030; and
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing on May 11, 2022, the City Council received and considered evidence concerning the proposed application; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined the primary viewing area to be ; and -----
WHEREAS, the City Council found the application request exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, this decision is based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, and any information the City Council gathered by viewing the site and the area as disclosed at the hearing.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, does resolve as follows:

I. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.

II. That the request for a DRP and SOP to demolish a single-story single-family residence, construct a replacement 2,986 square-foot, two-story single-family residence with a 1,274 square-foot basement and an attached 448 square-foot twocar garage, and perform associated site improvements and the request for a SOP Waiver to construct approximately 50 square feet of additional floor area outside of ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 2022-049
DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd - 506 Pacific Ave.

Page 2 of 14 ends

the original story pole envelope at 506 Pacific Avenue is conditionally approved based upon the following Findings and subject to the following Conditions:

Ill. FINDINGS
A. In accordance with Section 17.68.040 (Development Review Permit) of the City of Solana Beach Municipal Code, the City Council finds the following:

I. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of SBMC Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance}, including special regulations, overlay zones and specific plans.

General Plan Consistency: The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and intended for single-family residential development with a maximum density of five to seven dwelling units per acre. The development is also consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it encourages the development and maintenance of healthy residential neighborhoods, the stability of transitional neighborhoods, and the rehabilitation of deteriorated neighborhoods.

Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The project is consistent with all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17) (SBMC 17.20.030 and

17.48.040), which delineates maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR), Permitted Uses and Structures (SBMC Section 17.20.020) which provides for uses of the property for a single-family residence. Further, the project adheres to all property development regulations established for the Medium Residential (MR) Zone and cited by SBMC Section 17.020.030.

The project is meets the minimum number of off-street parking spaces and the required front-, side- and rear-yard setbacks and is below the maximum allowable structure height and gross floor area for the property.

II. The proposed development complies with the following development review criteria set forth in Solana Beach Municipal Code Section

17.68.040.F:
a. Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses: The development shall be designed in a manner compatible with and complementary to existing development in the immediate vicinity of the project site and the surrounding neighborhood. The development as
proposed shall a/so be compatible in scale, apparent bulk, and massing with such existing development in the surrounding neighborhood. Site planning on or near the perimeter of the development shall give consideration to the protection of surrounding areas from potential adverse effects.

Resolution 2022-049
DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd - 506 Pacific Ave.

Page 3 of 14 ends

17.20.010 and 17.12.020. The property is designated Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and intended for singlefamily residences developed at a maximum density of five to seven dwelling units per acre. The proposed development could be found to be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it encourages the development and maintenance of healthy residential neighborhoods, the stability of transitional neighborhoods, and the rehabilitation of deteriorated
neighborhoods.

The property is not located within any of the City's Specific Plan areas; however, it is located within the boundaries of the SROZ and within the Coastal Zone. The project has been evaluated, and is in conformance with, the regulations of the SROZ. As a condition of project approval, the Applicants are required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver or Exemption from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
b. Building and Structure Placement: Buildings and structures shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and designed in a manner which visually and functionally enhance their intended use and complement existing site topography. Multi-family residential buildings shall be sited to avoid crowding and to allow for a functional use of the space between buildings.

The 1,274 square-foot basement would consist of a game room with a wet bar, two bedrooms each with ensuite bathrooms and emergency egress through a lightwell on the northern side of the structure, a mechanical room and stairway access to the first floor. The 1,388 square-foot first floor would consist of the main entry, a media room with a wet bar, a laundry room, two bedrooms with a shared Jack-and-Jill bathroom, a bedroom with an ensuite bathroom, an office, and access to an attached two- Resolution 2022-049
DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd - 506 Pacific Ave.

Page 4 of 14 ends

car garage. The 1,508 square-foot second floor would consist of an open-concept living room, dining room and kitchen that would open to a terrace (balcony) wrapping around the majority of the second floor, a powder room, and the primary bedroom suite with a private balcony located on the southern portion of the west side of the residence. There would be a two-tiered spa located in the northeast corner of the rear yard, a fire pit and additional seating areas in the southern portion of the rear yard, a storage area for trash and recycle in the northern side yard, and a covered porch below the primary bedroom balcony in the
southwest portion of the buildable area.

According to the SROZ, the proposed subterranean basement is considered "Basement- No Exposed Sides" in which the basement living area can be exempt from the calculation of floor area inhere are no exposed sides. A building side is considered exposed when the finished floor of the living area directly above the basement (at any point) is more than three feet above the adjacent natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. Currently, the plans show a basement with no exposure; therefore, the proposed basement living area of 1,274 square feet would be exempt from the calculation of floor area.

The SBMC parking regulations require two off-street parking spaces per single-family residence. When required spaces are provided in a garage, 200 square feet of floor area is exempted for each required space. The proposed 448 square-foot attached garage would provide two unobstructed parking spaces;
therefore, 400 square feet of the garage is exempt from the calculation of floor area.

With the basement exemption (1,274 square feet) and the garage exemption (400 square feet), the total proposed floor area would be 2,944 square feet, which is 77 square feet below the maximum allowable floor area for the 6,120 square-foot lot located in the SROZ. The maximum allowable floor area
calculation for this project, pursuant to the provisions of the SROZ, is as follows:

0.500 for first 6,000 ft 2

0.175 for 6,001 - 15,000 ft2
Total Allowable Floor Area:
3,000 ft2
21 ft2
3,021 ft2
As designed, the project complies with all required setbacks under the designation "D" on the City's official Zoning Map. The residence would be setback at least 25 feet from the front (west) property line, 5 feet from the northern side property line, 26 feet from the rear (east) property line, and 5 feet from the southern Resolution 2022-049
DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd - 506 Pacific Ave.

Page 5 of 14 ends

side property line. The maximum building height for the MR Zone is 25 feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence would be 24.87 feet above the proposed grade with the highest portion of the structure to be at 97.95 feet above MSL. As designed, the project will comply with the required parking, maximum floor area, required setbacks, and maximum building height.
c. Landscaping: The removal of significant native vegetation shall be minimized. Replacement vegetation and landscaping shall be compatible with the vegetation of the surrounding area. To the maximum extent practicable, landscaping and plantings shall be used to screen parking areas, storage areas, access roads, and other service uses of the site. Trees and other large plantings shall not obstruct significant views when installed or at maturity, Drought tolerant plant materials and water conserving irrigation systems shall be incorporated into all landscaping plans.

The project is subject to the current water efficient landscaping regulations of SSMC Chapter 17.56. A Landscape
Documentation Package is required for new development
projects with an aggregate landscape equal to or greater than 500 square feet requiring a building permit, plan check or development review. The Applicants provided a conceptual landscape plan that has been reviewed by the City's third-party landscape architect, who has recommended approval. The
Applicants will be required to submit detailed construction landscape drawings that will be reviewed by the City's third-party landscape architect for conformance with the conceptual plan. In addition, the City's third-party landscape architect will perform an inspection during the construction phase of the project. A separate condition has been added to require that native or drought-tolerant and non-invasive plant materials and waterconserving irrigation systems are required to be incorporated into the landscaping to the extent feasible.
d. Roads, Pedestrian Walkways, Parking and Storage Areas: Any development involving more than one building or structure shall provide common access roads and pedestrian walkways. Parking and outside storage areas, where permitted, shall be screened from view, to the extent feasible, by existing topography, by the placement of buildings and structures, or by landscaping and plantings.

SSMC Section 17.52.040 and the Off-Street Parking Design Manual (OSPDM) require two (2) parking spaces for a singlefamily residence. The Applicants are proposing to construct a 448 square-foot attached garage in the northwest corner of the proposed residence. The garage would be accessed by a
Resolution 2022-049
DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd - 506 Pacific Ave.

Page 6 of 14 ends

driveway on the northwest corner of the property from Pacific Avenue. The proposed two-car garage satisfies the required offstreet parking for the single-family residence. e. Grading: To the extent feasible, natural topography and scenic features of the site shall be retained and incorporated into the proposed development. Any grading or earth-moving operations in connection with the proposed development shall be planned and executed so as to blend with the existing terrain both on and adjacent to the site. Existing exposed or disturbed slopes shall be landscaped with native or naturalized non-native vegetation and existing erosion problems shall be corrected.

The project includes approximately 40 cubic yards of cut and 40 cubic yards of fill outside of the footprint of the structure, 750 cubic yards of excavation for the basement, 50 cubic yards of excavation for footings, 880 cubic yards of removal and recompaction, which is an aggregate grading quantity of 1,760 cubic yards, and 800 cubic yards of export off site. The proposed grading outside the footprint of the structure will level the existing flat yard areas surrounding the residence and construct drainage improvements including bio retention basins located in the rear yard. The majority of the proposed grading is associated with the excavation for the proposed 1,274 square-foot basement that will have a finished floor approximately 10 feet below the finished floor of the first floor and the finished grade of the yard areas. f Lighting: Light fixtures for walkways, parking areas, driveways, and other facilities shall be provided in sufficient number and at proper locations to assure safe and convenient nighttime use.

All light fixtures shall be appropriately shielded so that no light or glare is transmitted or reflected in such concentrated quantities or intensities as to be detrimental to the surrounding areas per SBMC 17.60.060 (Exterior Lighting Regulations).

All new exterior lighting fixtures shall comply with the City-Wide Lighting Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (SBMC

17.60.060). All light fixtures shall be shielded so that no light or glare is transmitted or reflected in such concentrated quantities or intensities as to be detrimental to the surrounding area. g. Usable Open Space: Recreational facilities proposed within required usable open space shall be located and designed to maintain essential open space values.

The project consists of the construction of a replacement singlefamily residence with a basement, an attached garage, and associated site improvements on a developed residential lot, Resolution 2022-049
DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd - 506 Pacific Ave.

Page 7 of 14 ends

therefore, usable open space and recreational facilities are neither proposed nor required according to SBMC Section

17.20.040.

Ill. All required permits and approvals including variances, conditional use permits, comprehensive sign plans, and coastal development permits have been obtained prior to or concurrently with the development review permit.

All required permits are being processed concurrently with the Development Review Permit.

IV. If the development project also requires a permit or approval to be issued by a state or federal agency, the city council may conditionally approve the development review permit upon the Applicants obtaining the required permit or approval from the other agency.

The Applicants shall obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits.

B. In accordance with Chapter 17.63 (Structure Development Permit) of the Solana Beach Municipal Code, the City Council finds the following :

I. The Applicant for the Structure Development Permit has made a reasonable attempt to resolve the view impairment issues with the person(s) requesting view assessment. Written evidence of a good faith voluntary offer to meet and discuss view issues, or of a good faith voluntary offer to submit the matter to mediation, is hereby deemed to be a reasonable attempt to resolve the view impairment issues.

To be completed based on Council findings.

II. The proposed structure does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways, equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city's general plan, local coastal program, or city designated viewing areas.

To be completed based on Council findings.
111. The structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment of views.

To be completed based on Council findings.

IV. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by: (a) Considering the amount of view impairment caused by the proposed structure; and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would Resolution 2022-049
DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd - 506 Pacific Ave.

Page 8 of 14 ends

be caused by the construction on other parcels of structures similar to the proposed structure.

To be completed based on Council findings.

V. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character.

To be completed based on Council findings.

IV. CONDITIONS
Prior to use or development of the property in reliance on this permit, the Applicants shall provide for and adhere to the following conditions:

A. Community Development Department Conditions:

I. The Applicants shall pay required Fire Mitigation, Park Development and Public Use Facilities Impact Fees, as established by SBMC Chapter 15.60, Chapter 15.65, Chapter 15.66, and Resolution 2018- 147.

II. Building Permit plans must be in substantial conformance with the architectural plans presented to the City Council on May 11, 2022, and located in the project file with a submittal date of February 18, 2022.

Ill. Prior to requesting a framing inspection, the Applicants shall be required to submit a height certification, signed by a licensed land surveyor, certifying that the building envelope is in conformance with City Council approval on May 11, 2022, and that the maximum height of the proposed addition will not exceed 24.87 feet above the proposed grade or 97.95 feet above MSL, which is the maximum proposed structure height reflected on the project plans.

IV. Any proposed onsite fences, walls and retaining walls and any proposed railing located on top, or any combination thereof, shall comply with applicable regulations of SBMC Section 17.20.040 and

17.60.070 (Fences and Walls).

V. The Applicants shall obtain required California Coastal Commission (CCC) approval of a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver or Exemption as determined necessary by the CCC, prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.

VI . Native or drought tolerant and non-invasive plant materials and water conserving irrigation systems shall be incorporated into any proposed landscaping and compatible with the surrounding area to the extent feasible.

Resolution 2022-049
DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd - 506 Pacific Ave.

Page 9 of 14 ends

VI I. Any new exterior lighting fixtures shall be in conformance with the CityWide Lighting Regulations of SBMC 17.60.060.

VI II. All light fixtures shall be appropriately shielded so that no light or glare is transmitted or reflected in such concentrated quantities or intensities that render them detrimental to the surrounding area.

IX. Construction vehicles shall be parked on the subject property at all times when feasible. If construction activity prohibits parking on the subject property, the Applicants shall ensure construction vehicles are parked in such a way to allow sufficient vehicular access on Pacific Avenue and minimize impact to the surrounding neighbors.

X. The Applicants shall connect to temporary electrical service as soon as feasible to the satisfaction of the City.

B. Fire Department Conditions:

I. ACCESS ROAD MINIMUM DIMENSIONS: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed improved width of not less than 20 feet; curb line to curb line, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Exception: Single-Family residential driveways; serving no more than two single-family dwellings, shall have minimum of 16 feet, curb line to curb line, of unobstructed improved width. Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of not less than 75,000 pounds and shall be provided with an approved paved surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities.

II. OBSTRUCTION OF ROADWAYS DURING CONSTRUCTION: All
roadways shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width during construction and maintained free and clear, including the parking of vehicles, in accordance with the California Fire Code and the Solana Beach Fire Department.

Ill. ADDRESS NUMBERS: STREET NUMBERS: Approved numbers
and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings and at appropriate additional locations as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or roadway fronting the property from either direction of approach. Said numbers shall contrast with their background and shall meet the following minimum standards as to size: 4 inches high with a ½ inch stroke width for residential buildings, 8 inches high with a ½ inch stroke for commercial and multi-family residential buildings, and 12 inches high with a 1-inch stroke for industrial buildings. Additional numbers shall be required where deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal, such as rear access doors, building corners, and entrances to commercial centers.

Resolution 2022-049
DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd - 506 Pacific Ave.

Page 10 of 14 ends

IV. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS SYSTEM-ONE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS: Structures shall be protected by an automatic sprinkler system designed and installed to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.

V. CLASS "A" ROOF: All structures shall be provided with a Class "A" Roof covering to the satisfaction of the Solana Beach Fire Department.

VI. BASEMENT:
a. All basements shall be designed and equipped with emergency exit systems consisting of operable windows, window wells or exit doors that lead directly outside via staircase and exit door or exit door at grade.
b. Window wells/light wells that intrude into side yard or backyard setbacks of five feet or less, shall require a hinged grating covering the window well/lightwell opening. The grating shall be capable of supporting a weight of 250lb person; yet must be able to be opened by someone of minimal strength with no special knowledge, effort or use of key or tool. Any modification of previously approved plans related to this condition shall be subject to re-submittal and review by City Staff (Fire, Building, Planning).

C. Engineering Department Conditions:

I. The Applicants are required to obtain an Encroachment Permit in accordance with SBMC Section 11.20 for the below frontage improvements being done in the public right-of-way. The frontage improvements shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the occupancy of the proposed project:
a. Construction of the proposed SDRSD G-14A driveway approach. b. Construction of the proposed pave rs.
c. Construction of the proposed gravel.
d. Construction of the proposed artificial turf.

II. The Applicants shall record the Encroachment Maintenance Removal Agreement (EMRA) with the County of San Diego prior to the release of the Grading Bond and Security Deposit. The EMRA shall be recorded against this property for all private improvements in the public right-of-way including, but not limited to:
a. Proposed pavers.
b. Proposed gravel.
c. Proposed artificial turf.

Resolution 2022-049
DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd - 506 Pacific Ave.

Page 11 of 14 ends

d. Proposed private improvements in the sewer easements.

Ill. The Applicants shall record a Hold Harmless Agreement prior to Final Inspection of the Building Permit. The document will hold the City of Solana Beach harmless resulting from any backflow from sewer on the Applicants' property. The Applicants shall record the Hold Harmless Agreement document prior to Final Inspection of the Building Permit.

IV. Submit proof to the Engineering Department that the required California Coastal Commission permits have been obtained prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits.

V. All construction demolition materials shall be recycled according to the City's Construction and Demolition recycling program and an approved Waste Management Plan shall be submitted.

VI. Construction fencing shall be located on the subject property unless the Applicants have obtained an Encroachment Permit in accordance with chapter 11.20 of the SBMC which allows otherwise.

GRADING:

I. Obtain a Grading Permit in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code. Conditions prior to the issuance of a grading permit shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. The Applicants shall obtain a grading plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. Onsite grading design and construction shall be in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code.
b. The Applicants shall obtain a Soils Report prepared by a Registered Soils Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. All necessary measures shall be taken and implemented to assure slope stability, erosion control and soil integrity. The Grading Plan shall incorporate all recommendations contained in the soils report. c. The Applicants shall provide a Drainage Report prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. This report shall address the design for detention basin and corresponding outflow system to ensure the rate of runoff for the proposed development is at or below that of pre-existing condition. All recommendations of this report shall be incorporated into the Preliminary Grading Plan. A detention basin easement(s) shall be recorded for maintenance of the detention Resolution 2022-049
DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd - 506 Pacific Ave.

Page 12 of 14 ends

basins by the property owner(s) in perpetuity, prior to Final Inspection of the Building Permit.
d. The Applicants shall show all retaining walls and drainage structures. Retaining walls shown on the grading plan shall conform to the San Diego Regional Standards or be designed by a licensed civil engineer. Engineering calculations for all designed walls with a surcharge and nonstandard walls shall be submitted at grading plan check. Retaining walls may not exceed the allowable height within the property line setback as determined by the City of Solana Beach Municipal Code. Contact the Community
Development department for further information.
e. The Applicants are responsible to protect the adjacent properties during construction. If any grading, construction activity, access or potential construction-related impacts are anticipated beyond the property lines, as determined by the City Engineer, the Applicants shall obtain a letter of permission from the adjoining property owners. All required letters of permission shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the grading permit. f. The Applicants shall pay a grading plan check fee in accordance with the current Engineering Fee Schedule at initial grading plan submittal. Inspection fees shall be paid prior to issuance of the grading permit.
g. The Applicants shall obtain and submit grading security in a form prescribed by the City Engineer.
h. The Applicants shall obtain haul permit for import / export of soil.

The Applicants shall transport all excavated material to a legal disposal site.
i. The Applicants shall submit certification from the Engineer of Record and the Soils Engineer that all public or private drainage facilities and finished grades are functioning and are installed in accordance with the approved plans. This shall be accomplished by the Engineer of Record incorporating as-built conditions on the Mylar grading plans and obtaining signatures of the Engineer of Record and the Soils Engineer certifying the as-built conditions. j. An Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan shall be prepared by the Applicants. Best management practices shall be developed and implemented to manage storm water and non-storm water discharges from the site at all times during excavation and grading activities. Erosion prevention shall be emphasized as the most important measure for keeping sediment on site during excavation and grading activities. Sediment controls shall be used Resolution 2022-049
DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd - 506 Pacific Ave.

Page 13 of 14 ends

as a supplement to erosion prevention for keeping sediment on site.
k. The Applicants shall show all proposed on-site private drainage facilities intended to discharge water run-off. Elements of this design shall include a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis verifying the adequacy of the facilities and identify any easements or structures required to properly convey the drainage. The construction of drainage structures shall comply with the standards set forth by the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings.

I. Post Construction Best Management Practices meeting City and RWQCB Order No. R9-2013-001 requirements shall be
implemented in the drainage design.
m. No increased cross lot drainage shall be allowed.
n. The Applicants shall obtain the Grading Permit concurrently with Building Permit issuance.

D. COUNCIL CONDITIONS
I. N/A
V. ENFORCEMENT
Pursuant to SBMC 17. 72.120(8) failure to satisfy any and all of the abovementioned conditions of approval is subject to the imposition of penalties as set forth in SBMC Chapters 1.1.6 and 1.18 in addition to any applicable revocation proceedings.

VI. EXPIRATION
The Development Review Permit for the project shall expire 24 months from the date of this Resolution, unless the Applicants have obtained building permits and has commenced construction prior to that date, and diligently pursued construction to completion. An extension of the application may be granted by the City Council according to SBMC 17.72.110.

VII. INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
The Applicants shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, damages, judgments, or costs, including attorney's fees, against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, relating to the issuance of this permit including, but not limited to, any action to attack, set aside, void, challenge, or annul this development approval and any environmental document or decision. The City will promptly notify the Applicants of any claim, action , or proceeding. The City may Resolution 2022-049
DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd - 506 Pacific Ave.

Page 14 of 14 ends

elect to conduct its own defense, participate in its own defense, or obtain independent legal counsel in defense of any claim related to this indemnification.

In the event of such election, the Applicants shall pay all of the costs related thereto, including without limitation reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In the event of a disagreement between the City and Applicants regarding litigation issues, the City shall have the authority to control the litigation and make litigation related decisions, including, but not limited to, settlement or other disposition of the matter. However, the Applicants shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless such settlement is approved by the Applicant.

NOTICE TO APPLICANT: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, you are hereby notified that the 90-day period to protest the imposition of the fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions described in this resolution commences on the effective date of this resolution. To protest the imposition of any fee, dedications, reservations or other exactions described in this resolution you must comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 66020. Generally the resolution is effective upon expiration of the tenth day following the date of adoption of this resolution, unless the resolution is appealed or called for review as provided in the Solana Beach Zoning Ordinance.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, held on the 11th day of May, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk

VICINITY MAF

PACIFIC
OCEAN
51TE DATA

SAN ELIJO
LAGOON

BUILDING ADDRESS
!:>06 FACIFIC AVE.

SOLANA BEACH, CA 9201!:>

ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
263-042-1700

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 4, BLOCK 3, MAF 2143
ZONE: MR

OVERLAYS, SCALED RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ZONE

LOT SIZE,
OCCUPANCY TYFE:
6,120 SF
R-3
SANiA. HELENA
SAN ANDR ES DR.

CONSTRUCTION TYFE, V-B SFRINKLERED (NFFA 13D)
EXISTING LIVING AREA:

EXISTING GARAGE AREA:

FROPOSED 1ST FLOOR AREA,
FROPOSED 2ND FLOOR AREA:

PROPOSED BASEMENT AREA:

FROPOSED GARAGE AREA,

TOTAL BUILDING AREA,
OFF-STREET PARKING: EXEMFTION,
BASEMENT AREA EXEMFTION:

TOTAL BUILDING: TOWARDS FAR:

MAX ALLOWABLE FAR SF,
TOTAL LIVING ADDITION AREA:

TOT AL TERRACE 4 BALCONY AREA:

TOT AL ROOF DECK AREA:
4,170 SF
82S SF
29!:> SF

MAX COVERAGE - NONE (NOT A STEEF HILLSIDE)
HEIGHT LIMIT: 2!:>'-0' MAX.

SEISMIC ZONE 4
CLIMATE ZONE 1

SETBACKS, REQUIRED
FRONT YARD 2S'-O"
SIDE YARDS 5'-0"
REAR YARD 2S'-O"
FARKING: SFACES: REQUIRED
2 EARTl-lWORK QUANTITIES

FROPOSED
26'-63/4"
51_711
26'-IO"

FROVIDED
2 1,388 SF
l,!:>08 SF
1,214 SF
448 SF
4,618 SF
-400 SF
-1214 SF
2,944 SF
3,021 SF
<SEE FRELIMINARY GRADING: FLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION).

SITE GRADING (OUTSIDE OF STRUCTURE)
CUT, 40 CY
FILL, 40 CY
NET: 0 CY IMFORT/EXFORT
EXCAVATION FOR BASEMENT: 1!:>0 CY (CUT)
EXCAVATION FOR FOOTINGS 4 FOUNDATION, SO CY (CUT)

PROJECT
SITE

PROJECT TEAM

OWNER/APPLICANT
JAMES 4 KATHLEEN BOYD
!?J06 PACIFIC AVE.

SOLANA BEACH, CA 9201S
TEL: (8!:>8) 342-9802
ARCf-llTECT
OASIS ARCHITECTURE 4 DESIGN, INC.

IOI!:> TURQUOISE STREET
SUITE 2
SAN DIEGO, CA 92109
TEL: (8!:>8) 213-!:>632

CONT ACT, MARK MORRIS

CIVIL ENGINEER
PASCO LARET SUITER 4 ASSOC.
!:>3!:> N. HIGHWAY IOI

SUITE A
SOLANA BEACH, CA 9201!:>
TEL, (8!:>8) 2!:>9-8212
CONT ACT: TYLER LAWSON
LANDSCAPE ARCf-llTECT

TOFIA LANDSCAFE ARCHITECTURE
!?JOS!:> NORTH HARBOR DRIVE
SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92106
TEL: (8!:>8)4!:>8-0SSS

CONTACT, FRANK MARCZYNSKI
\
\
\
\
TOTAL GRADING: (CUT 4 FILL OUTSIDE 4 BELOW STRUCTURE): 880 CY ( +R4R)• CUT \ \
5!-IEET INDEX
AS-I
C-1
C-2
A-I.I
A-2.0
A-2.1
A-2.2
A-2.3
A-3.I
A-4.I
A-4.2
A-6.I
A-6.2
SF-I
SF-2
SF-3
L-0
L-1
L-2
L-3
L-4
L-S

SITE FLAN

PRELIMINARY GRADING FLAN

SITE SECTIONS AND PET AILS

DEMOLITION FLAN

FROFOSED BASEMENT FLOOR FLAN

FROFOSED FIRST FLOOR FLAN

PROFOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN

PROFOSED FLOOR AREA DIAGRAM

PROFOSED ROOF FLAN

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

BUILDING SECTIONS

STORY FOLE FLAN

STORY FOLE ELEVATIONS

LANDSCAFE COVER
LANDSCAFE NOTES 4 LEGEND

LANDSCAFE DEVELOFMENT FLAN

WATER CONSERVATION FLAN

EXISTING TREE FLAN

STREET ELEVATION
5COFE OF WORK
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE.

CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY OVER BASEMENT
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED 2-CAR
GARAGE. RESIDENCE TO INCLUDE NEW 2ND FLOOR
TERRACE AND BALCONY AND NEW ROOF DECK.

PROJECT TO COMFL Y WITH THE FOLLOWING BUILDING CODES,
2019 CA RESIDENTIAL CODE
51T FOOTAG TOTA 5
Existing . Proposed
(SF! I Total (SF)
Non-landscaped Area' 3,867 SF 3,538 SF
Non-irriqated Landscape" !
_Irrigated La ndscape -- -···----- -- __ 2,253 SF _ i ---------------------- 1,71:, "' - 'Nater Featuresc 259 SF
Decorative Hardscape' i 608 SF
Total Lot Area 6,120 SF I 6,120 SF
Area of WorJ<S
' (SF)
lrriaated Landscape i 1.715SF
Water Features" ' 259 Sr i
Decorative Hardscaoe' i 608 SF
Aggregate Landscape Area• I 2,582 SF
New development proiects If aggregate landscape area > 500 sf, a landscape package is required Rel1ab1l1tated Landscape: If aggregate landscape area > 2,500 sf, a landscape package Is reqwred "A landscaped area does not include the footprint of a building, decks, patio, sidewalk, driveway, parking lot, or other hardscape that does not meet the criteria in SBMC 17.56.1 50. b An area without irrigation designated for nondevelopment such as designated open space area 1 Nith existing native vegetation.
c A design element where open water performs an aesthetic or recreational function A water feature includes a pond, lake. waterfall, fountain. artificial streams, spa and swimming pool. d Rock and stone or pervious desig n features, such as decomposed granite ground cover, that are adjacent to a vegetated area.
'Area of replacement and/or new irrigated landscape , water features, and/or decorative hardscape associated with the proJect.

NEW LANDSCAFE AREA
,,_
212119 CA BUILDING: CODE TRASH ENCLOSURE
......------ir-- cAeLE 6TTLE
e:,UARPRAIL
l..lc;,+-IT WELL TO
6A6EMENT 6ELOW

WALL MOUNTED
2019 CA ELECTRICAL CODE
2019 CA FLUMBING CODE
2019 CA MECHANICAL CODE
2019 CA FIRE CODE
212119 CA GREEN BUILDING CODE
CONDENSING UNIT----~ ,.:.l(fxt\
CONDEN61Ne:, UNIT-~
NEW 6'-<2)" HIG,H
FENCE AND GATE-~
EXIST. WALL
TO REMAIN-~

NEW EXFOSED
,1,c;,e:,REe:,A TE DRIYEWAY
WITH FE66LE 6ANDS -~

NEW STONE YENEER

DRIVEWAY COLUMNS

NEW STEEL

DRIVEWAY G,ATES

NEW DRIVEWAY FER

G,RAD ING, FLAN

NEW STONE YENEER
DRIVEWAY COLUMNS __u._,.-

NEW STEEL ENTRY

GATE AND STONE
VENEER COLUMNS --'n'
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
EXl6T.
61DEWALK
"
\\
\I
\\
I\
\
\\
I I
- \'
1 &
\v
A' 1<9
O;,-,J/) :-/ ;\' ~ _,,,,,. --.,· A
'b 0
~-NEW !:>'-e>" Hle:,H
FENCE AND e:,ATE

LINE OF ROOF EAYE
LINE OF 2ND FLR

TERRACE

NEW CONCRETE
6TEFFING FAD&
@SITE FLAN
-I
NOTES,
_,,--;--6FILLWAY
/T--\--- NEW TWO-TIER &FA

W/ VANISHING EDGE

NEW &TONE

FAYERS WITH
FE66LE 6ANDS
,--- NEW FIRE FIT FER
LAND6CAFE FLANS
.,,---- NEW RETAINING,
WALL W/ CA6LE

STYLE G,UARDRAIL

NEW STONE VENEER

FRIVACY WALL
e:,RAvEL eED
,"--- eMF FLANTER

FER GRADING
FLAN

NEW WOOD FENCE
I. SEE SHEET C-1 FOR SITE GRADING AREAS.

2. SEE SHEET L-3 FOR WATER USE CALCULATIONS.

3. A 6ACKFLOW FREVENTER 15 REQUIRED FOR THE 5EWER
LATERAL SINCE THE 6A6EMENT FINISH FLOOR 16 LOWER
THAN THE UPSTREAM MANHOLE ELEVATION.

NORTI-I
A .TTACH ENT2
w J.()
rl) ~
z • N
WOl
w >-<[
Q -<[ 0
0 '
d) -I
11-0 w 0-<[ oc -<Cw

0... lO
Q ~-<[
}--- ~z
() J.() -<[
_J
co a
u)
I. DESIGN REVIEW 5U6MITT AL
11/15/212)212)

2. DESIGN isEVIEW isESUEl'tlTT AL
IZl2 /18/21Z12 I

3. DESIGN isEVIEW isESUEl'tlTT AL
04/IZIB/2021

4. DESIGN isEVIEW isESUEl'tlTT AL
11/312)/212)21
S. DESIGN isEVIEW isESUEl'tlTT AL
04/IB/2022
OASIS

ARCHITECTURE
&
DESIGN, INC.
858-273-5632
1015 TURQUOISE ST.

SUITE 2

SAN DIEGO ,CA
92109
THIS DRAWING, >-S INSlRUf..1ENT
OF SERVICE, IS AND SHALL REMAIN TI-,E PROPERlY OF TI-,E ARCHrTECT AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, PUBLISHED OR
USED IN ~y WAY WrTHOUT THE
PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY

ALL DIMENSIONS ANO EXISTING

CONDITIONS AT THE SITE BEFORE
PROCEEDING WrTH EACH PHASE
OF HIS WORI(.

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

ELB MCM
DATE JOB NO.
12)4/18/22 180!:,

SITE PLAN
AS= 1

GENERAL NOTES

1. 2.

3. 4

5. 6
7 8.

9. 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18

19. 20

APPROVAL OF THIS GRADING PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT OF ANY PRIVATE ROAD SHOWN HEREIN FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES.

FINAL APPROVAL OF THESE GRADING PLANS IS SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL OF THE

ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENT PLANS WHERE APPLICABLE FINAL CURB GRADE ELEVATIONS MAY REQUIRE CHANGES IN THESE PLANS.

IMPORT MATERIALS SHALL BE LEGALLY OBTAINED.

A SEPARATE PERMIT FROM THE CITY ENGINEER WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

ALL SLOPES OVER THREE (3) FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE LANDSCAPED AND IRRIGATED.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. NOTICE OF PROPOSED WORK SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES:

UNDERGROUND SA (800)-227-2600

A SOILS REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT.

APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CITY ENGINEER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANY WORK OR

GRADING TO BE PERFORMED UNTIL THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PERMISSION HAS BEEN OBTAINED

AND A VALID GRADING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED

THE CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE BUILDING

OFFICIAL'S APPROVAL OF ANY FOUNDATION FOR STRUCTURES TO BE PLACED ON THE AREA COVERED BY THESE PLANS. NO WAIVER OF THE GRADING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS

CONCERNING MINIMUM COVER OVER EXPANSIVE SOILS IS MADE OR IMPLIED

ALL OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES, INCLUDING THE WARMING UP, REPAIR ARRIVAL, DEPARTURE OR RUNNING OF TRUCKS. EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

AND ANY OTHER ASSOCIATED GRADING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE PERIOD BETWEEN 700am AND 6DOpm EACH DAY. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, ANO NO EARTHMOVING OR

GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES ON SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS OR

HOLIDAYS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE CITY ENGINEER

ALL MAJOR SLOPES SHALL BE ROUNDED INTO EXISTING TERRAIN TO PRODUCE A CONTOURED

TRANSITION FROM CUT OR FILL FACES TO NATURAL GROUND ANO ABUTTING CUT OR FILL FACES

NOTWITHSTANDING THE MINIMUM STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE GRADING ORDINANCE, AND

NOTWITHSTANDING THE APPROVAL OF THESE GRADING PLANS, THE PERMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE

FOR THE PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY NO PERSON SHALL EXCAVATE

ON LANO SO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS TO ENDANGER ANY ADJOINING PUBLIC STREET,

SIDEWALK, ALLEY, FUNCTION OF ANY SEWAGE DISPOSAL SY STEM, OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC OR

PR/VA TE PROPERTY WITHOUT SUPPORTING AND PROTECTING SUCH PROPERTY FROM SETTLING,

CRACKING, EROSION, SIL TING SCOUR OR OTHER DAMAGE WHICH MIGHT RESULT FROM THE

GRADING DESCRIBED ON THIS PLAN THE CITY WILL HOLD THE PERMITTEE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECTION ON NON-OED/CA TED IMPROVEMENTS WHICH DAMAGE ADJACENT PROPERTY.

SLOPE RATIOS CUT 21 FILL 21 (PER SOILS REPORT)
NET CUT 20 CY NET FILL 120 CY EXCAVATION FOR BASEMENT 700 CY NET EXPORT 600 CY
REMEDIAL GRADING: TBD (PER SOILS REPORT)
(NOTE A SEPARATE VALID PERMIT MUST EXIST FOR OFFS/TE IMPORT OR EXPORT AREAS.) ~ THE QUANTITIES EST/MA TED ABOVE ARE FOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE

USED FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN EARTHWORK

QUANTITIES
SPECIAL CONDITIONS: IF ANY ARCHAELOG/CAL RESOURCES ARE DISCOVERED ON THE SITE OF

THIS GRADING DURING GRADING OPERATIONS, SUCH OPERATIONS WILL CEASE IMMEOIATEL Y, AND THE PERMITTEE WILL NOTIFY THE CITY ENGINEER OF THE DISCOVERY. GRADING OPERATIONS

WILL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL THE PERMITTEE HAS RECEIVED WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM THE CITY

ENGINEER TO DO SO

ALL GRADING SHOWN ON THIS PLAN SHALL BE COMPLETED AS A SINGULAR UNIT WITH NO PROVISION FOR PARTIAL RELEASES. SHOULD IT BE ANTIC/PA TED THAT A PORTION OF THIS

PROJECT BE COMPLETED SEPARATELY, A SE PARA TE PLAN ANO PERMIT APPL/CAT/ON SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH 858.7202470 24 HOURS BEFORE

GRADING OPERATIONS BEGIN

FINISHED GRADING AND PLANTING SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED ON ALL SLOPES PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, OR IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF ANY SLOPES GRADED BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND APRIL 1. PRIOR TO ANY PLANTING, ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING

DEPARTMENT AT THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAGE, OR BY SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLAN

ALL OFF-SITE HAUL ROUTES SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE CITY ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF WORK

UPON FINAL COMPLETION OF THE WORK UNDER THE GRADING PERMIT, BUT PRIOR TO FINAL

GRADING APPROVAL AND/OR FINAL RELEASE OF SECURITY, AN AS-GRADED CERTIFICATE SHALL BE PROVIDED STA TING "THE GRADING UNDER PERMIT No. SBGR-216 HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN

SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED GRADING PLAN OR AS SHOWN ON THE A TT ACHED AS-GRADED PLAN". THIS STATEMENT SHALL BE FOLLOWED BY THE DA TE ANO

SIGNATURE OF THE CIVIL ENGINEER WHO CERTIFIES SUCH A GRADING OPERATION

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGN, CONSTRUCT ANO MAINTAIN ALL SAFETY DEVICES INCLUDING SHORING, AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFORMING TO ALL LOCAL. STA TE, AND FEDERAL SAFETY ANO HEALTH STANDARDS, LAWS AND REGULATIONS.

EROSION CONTROL NOTES

1. STORM WATER AND NON-STORM WATER DISCHARGE CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

SHALL BE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED TO MANAGE STORM WATER ANO NON-STORM WATER DISCHARGES FROM THE SITE AT ALL TIMES DURING EXCAVATION ANO GRADING ACTIVITIES. 2 3

4. 5.

6. 7
EROSION ANO SEDIMENT CONTROL. EROSION PREVENTION SHALL BE EMPHASIZED AS THE MOST

IMPORTANT MEASURE FOR KEEPING SEDIMENT ON SITE DURING EXCAVATION AND GRADING

ACTIVITIES SEDIMENT CONTROLS SHALL BE USED AS A SUPPLEMENT TO EROSION PREVENTION

FOR KEEPING SEDIMENT ON SITE

EROSION CONTROL ON SLOPES SHALL BE MITIGATED BY INSTALLING LANDSCAPING AS PER

APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CONDITIONS, OR BY TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL CONFORMING TO THE FOLLOWING:

NON-/RRIGA TED HYDROSEED MIX WITH A FIBER MATRIX APPLIED AT 4,000 LB/ACRE LBS/ACRE % PURITY/ACRE SEED SPECIES
20 70% PLUS A TRIPLEX GLAUCA
50 PLANTAGE INSULAR/S
8 6
7 TOTAL 91LBS! ACRE

SCARIFIED
50%PLUS

ENCELIS FARINOSA

LOTUS SCOPAR/US

EXCHSCHOLTZIA CALIF
THE TOPS OF ALL SLOPES TALLER THAN 5' SHALL BE DIKED OR TRENCHED TO PREVENT WATER FLOWING OVER CRESTS OF SLOPES.

CATCH BASINS, DES/L TING BASINS AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS SHALL BE INSTALLED TO THE

SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER

SANO BAG CHECK DAMS, SILT FENCES, FIBER ROLLS OR OTHER APPROVED BMP'S SHALL BE PLACED IN UNPAVED AREAS WITH GRADIENTS IN EXCESS OF 2%, AS WELL AS AT OR NEAR EVERY POINT WHERE CONCENTRATED FLOW LEAVE THE SITE.

SANO BAGS SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF ALL DRAINAGE INLETS TO MINIMIZE

SILT BUILDUP IN THE INLETS ANO PIPES

8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ANY ERODED SLOPES AS DIRECTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY

ENGINEER

9. 11

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SWEEP ROADWAYS ANO ENTRANCES TO ANO FROM THE SITE ON A

REGULAR BASIS TO KEEP THEM FREE OF SOIL ACCUMULATION AND AT ALL OTHER TIMES

DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WATER SITE ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS TO MINIMIZE AIR BORNE OUST

CREA TED FROM GRADING ANO HAULING OPERATIONS OR EXCESSIVE WIND CONDITIONS, ANO AT

ALL TIMES DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER

IN THE EVENT SILT DOES ENTER THE EXISTING PUBLIC STORM DRAIN SYSTEM REMOVAL OF THE

SILT FROM THE THE SYSTEM WILL BE DONE AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
506 PACIFIC AVENUE
mo.~w,u \

SIDEWALK TO REMAIN
45' 5,5'
21 TRANSITION

TOEX WALK
Cf)
lJ w---\~· ~
-zr W Cf)\ - W ______.-------- .~ .•. ' 1"], 1 ~ _ ..... "- .a-\_.; ~~ .. ·,. 1;ii"
\
~~ .... \ ;t
~ u:i . . .. ~ !.?ii
... ~ . ~

EX WALL

TO REMAIN

73.30 TG!LP
\
Cf)\ ~ ~ '" ); ~ ,·ig -'-"4"'.6,,_,!i_
-z ~ 741 EG ;;,-; • , • • 7325 FG· •
o '¥!/;,_"> • • ··k · · · · · 1 !M-..,,,
~.\ ~:\ 11 PROPOSEDPCC , . "'. • • ."2~:o:,7ss,.~• _ ~:. C) WALK (TYP) / ~"2 i )> 7,~ 6EG "
ii\\ "'Cfl < I i i_ \\ \ m~ PROPOSEDPAVE\RS
2 PERL 'SC~PE
:;, I 74.5EG
m ;
\
Cf/ ~X WALL
\
/ TO REMAIN 1

EX CONG. CURB & , /
'.2: SIDEWALK TO REMAIN I

4.5'
\

SSMH PROPOSED GRAVEL I
RIM= 73.97 \; P~R L'SCAPE
IE= 6204 ----\S - -- I
j
s
SSMH J
RIM= 7386
s I I IE= 61.66
S --J f/z i?-fW - - S,V-/473-c3-=- EG S
39BW)

EX WALL 7326 TG
TO REMAIN 7100 IE

EX WALL

TO REMAIN
d 40FS
I

73.35 FS

73.45 FS
733EG

73.73 FS!HP 73.8 TW
654BW
(735 EG)

PROJECT SITE
FF- 73.75
PAD=73.08
BFF-63.52

73.73FS

73.45 TG!LP
7/.45/E
7373FS

72.96 TG/LP
7080 IE

74.17 TW
7337 BW
(732 EG/
0 REPLACE

EX SEWER LATERAL
MAIN IE= 58 3±

SEE NOTE BELOW
10 20 30
6725BW
(68 1 EG)
73 48 TGILP

71.48 IE

25.0'RYSB
7363
FSIHP

73.48 TG!LP
7124 IE

66.1 EG
12" BRoo) s BOX
RIM= 7058
IE= 67 25

OUTLET /

67.2 IE I
··~-11
• '\ • •• I (67.5 EG/ 1
662EG
r ·:. ·.\ , • \ f8

66.8 EG
.. ·• ~ .... ~ .. j "I ~
\;::-:-::-:'/: i
1· •• ' ' • ~ ~ ':i·· .. ·.
\ . . . . . .
i."- ·:. -~- 1 • _.. •

67.3EG
7075 TW
6725BW
(674 EG)
676EG
678 EG!HP
12" BROOKS BOX
RIM= 70.58
/E=6725
OUTLET 67.3 IE

70.75 TW
6725BW
(674 EG)
670EG
s

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN --- ---- I
I
E. LIFF ST
VICINITY MAP t
N

NOTTO SCALE I
SCALE 1" = 10'

ZONE INFORMATION
TOTAL PARCELS. 1
TOTAL UNITS· 1
GENERAL PLAN DES/GNA TION· MRc
SPECIAL OVERLAY. SCALED RESIDENTIAL
HEIGHT 25-FT
MIN NET LOT AREA. 5,000 SF

PRESIDENT USE RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED USE. RESIDENTIAL

LOT INFORMATION
TOTAL GROSS LOT AREA. 6,120 SF
TOTAL NET LOT AREA: 6, 120 SF
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA: 6120 SF
NOTE UTILITIES ARE KNOWN TO EXIST IN THE AREA. THE

CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY

MEASURES TO PROTECT ANY EXISTING UTILITIES OR

STRUCTURES LOCATED AT THE WORK SITE

EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN PER AVAILABLE RECORD
INFORMATION. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SIZE, DEPTH,
LOCATION, AND MATERIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
---
SCALE:
-
1" = 10'

SITE AREA TABULATION
NOTE: FENCING, HANDRAILS, ANO
RAILINGS PER LANDSCAPE PLANS.

EARTHWORK QUANTITIES :

EXISTING SITE PROPOSED SITE NET CHANGE SITE GRADING {OUTSIDE OF STRUCTURE).

IMPERVIOUS 3,800SF cur 40CY
PERVIOUS 2,320SF
TOTAL 6,120 SF
% IMPERVIOUS. 62.0%

SITE SETBACKS

EXISTING SITE

FRONT YARD

REAR YARD

SIDE YARD
25FT
5 FT
25FT
3,047 SF
3,073 SF
6,120 SF

49.8%

PROPOSED SITE
25FT
5 FT
25FT

NOTE A BACKFLOW VALVE WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE SEWER

LATERAL SERVING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SOLANA

BEACH FOR THE PUBLIC SEWER WITHIN PROPERTY LIMITS

TO BE RECORDED PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY
-753 SF
+753 SF
OSF
-/22%
FILL 40 CY
NET: 0 CY IMPORT/EXPORT
EXCAVATION FOR BASEMENT 750 CY (CUT)
EXCVATAT/ON FOR FOOTINGS & FOUNDATION 50 CY (CUT)
TOTAL GRADING (CUT ANO FILL OUTSIDE & BELOW STRUCTURE)· 880 CY (+R&R)' CUT ' EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE ESTIMATED FOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY AND REPRESENT COMPACTED {IN PLACE) VOLUMES ONLY THESE VALUES ARE CALCULATED ON A THEORETICAL BASIS. ACTUAL QUANTITIES MAY VARY

DUE TO OBSERVED SHRINKAGE AND/OR SWELL FACTORS
'OVEREXCAVA TION I REMOVE & RE COMPACT VOLUME TO BE DETERMINED

PER RECOMMENOA TION OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
NOTE: BMPS ARE TO BE PR/VA TEL Y

MAINTAINED AND THE FACILITIES

NOT MODIFIED OR REMOVED
WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM THE CITY.

EMRA NOTE EXISTING ANO

PROPOSED ENCROACHMENTS WITHIN

THE SEWER EASEMENT TO BE UNDER

EMRA FILED WITH GRADING PERMIT

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 4 OF SOLANA BEACH VISTA, IN THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCORDING TO PARCEL MAP THEREOF NO. 2143, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DECEMBER 17TH, 1928
A.PN:

SITE ADDRESS ·
OWNER!PERMITTEE
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY .

WORK TO BE DONE
263-042-17
506 PACIFIC AVENUE
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075

JIM BOYD
506 PACIFIC AVENUE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075

PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES
(858)-259-8212

THE IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING WORK TO BE DONE ACCORDING TO THESE PLANS

AND THE LA TEST EDITIONS OF

STANDARD SPECIF/CATIONS
(1) STANDARD SPECIF/CATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING THE REGIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDMENTS.
(2) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 'MANUAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROLS FOR

CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORK ZONES'
(3/ STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIF/CATIONS

STANDARD DRAWINGS
(1) SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS
(2) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD PLANS LEGEND

ITEM DESCRIPTION

PROPERTY LINE I PROJECT BOUNDARY

EXISTING CENTERLINE

ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE

PROPOSED SETBACKS

PROPOSED CONTOUR LINE

EXISTING CONTOUR LINE

PROPOSED BUILDING PER ARCH'L PLAN

PROPOSED LIGHTWELL PER ARCH'L PLAN

PROPOSED ROOF OVERHANG PER ARCH'L PLAN

PROPOSED PAVERS PER L'SCAPE PLAN

PROPOSED CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PER L'SCAPE PLAN

PROPOSED GRAVEL BAND PERL 'SCAPE

PROPOSED POOL PER L'SCAPE

PROPOSED WALL PER L'SCAPE

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

PROPOSED BMP PLANTER AREA

PROPOSED RIPRAP DISPERSION STRIP

EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN
PROPOSED 4" PVC STORM DRAIN
PROPOSED 6" PERF PVC UNDERDRAIN
PROPOSED 6" NOS AREA DRAIN
PROPOSED 12' BROOKS BOX

PROPOSED SEWER LATERAL

PROPOSED WATER SERVICE

EXISTING SEWER LATERAL TO REMAIN

EXISTING WATER SERVICE/METER TO REMAIN

OWNER'S CERTIFICATE
SYMBOL
----------
------151 ------
------151------
~
---SD SD
-- SD SD
~ SD
-s s s - -w w w-
--s s s --
--w w w--

I, AS OWNER/DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN

ACKNOWLEDGE THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN PREPARED AT MY DIRECTION WITH MY FULL CONSENT I

FULLY UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE TERMS ANO CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN AND AS

ATTACHED BY REFERENCE ON THIS GRADING PLAN
IT IS AGREED THAT FIELD CONDITIONS MAY REQUIRE CHANGES TO THESE PLANS.

IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT THE OWNER {DEVELOPER) SHALL HAVE A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER

MAKE SUCH CHANGES, AL TERA TIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THESE PLANS WHICH THE CITY ENGINEER

DETERMINES ARE NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE FOR THE PROPER COMPLETION OF THE

IMPROVEMENTS

I FURTHER AGREE TO COMMENCE WORK ON ANY IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WITHIN EXISTING CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE CONSTRUCT/ON PERMIT ANO TO PURSUE SUCH

WORK ACTIVELY ON EVERY NORMAL WORKING DAY UNTIL COMPLETED, IRRESPECTIVE ANO

INDEPENDENT OF ANY OTHER WORK ASSOC/A TED WITH THIS PROJECT OR UNDER MY CONTROL

JIM BOYD
506 PACIFIC AVENUE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
DATE

DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE

I, TYLER GLAWSON, HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM THE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT, THAT I

HAVE EXCERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6703 OF THE BUSINESS ANO PROFESSIONS CODE, AND THE DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STANDARDS AND THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH RESOLUTION No. 2007-170.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF PROJECT DRAWINGS ANO SPECIFICATIONS BY THE CITY OF SOLANA

BEACH IS CONFINED TO A REVIEW ONLY ANO DOES NOT RELIEVE ME OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROJECT DESIGN
BY-__________ _

TYL ER LAWSON
RCE /lo. 80356 EXP 12/31/2020

PASCO LARET SUTIER & ASSOCIATES
PREPARED BY:

PASCO LARET SUITER ~ 1%~~©t I 1% 1r IE~
San Diego I Solana Beach Orange County
Phone 858.259.8212 I www.plsaengineering.com

SECTION KEY MAP
SCALE 1" = 20'
I I

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
0 1\ \ )z \ I
.-
. · t
,:J};,
:.-. : ;J !·:._-:,:.
\
· .. _ ... ... '
20 40 60
---
---
SCALE:
-
1" = 20'
----
I

PACIFIC AVE I
_J-- - - \ - l

25.0' FYSB
•
- - -
506 PACIFIC AVENUE
I
-1

I -- - -
I I
I I
1 5. O' I
I .. SYSB .. I
I I
I I

PROPOSED
GRADE
---------1-----------
: I
! :

I I
I I
- - - --
LW

65.42 EXISTING GRADE
FF= 73.75
---------
MATCH~ 1

EX RIW GRADE I
I
I
PROPOSED GRADE~
I
I
I
I

15.0' ±

ROADWAY
250' ±
100'±

PARKWAY

4.5'± 5.5'±

WALK L'SCAPE
Zt>:;;MH ..,_____
; .5 9,,,- // 58 ); $(9 7''''·''
'7. ,,,__~
1 EXISTING PCC _j

CURB & GUTTER
ii'
I
I
I
TYPICAL SECTION: PACIFIC AVENUE
BFF=63.52
LJ
I
SECTION 8-8

NOTTO SCALE
- -- -- -- -- _,.......:.., ~ 2" FREEBOARD

TOP OF BASIN I TW PER PLAN
8'CMU WALL
:;: -=- 6" PONDING
3" MULCH
18" BIOFIL TRATION MEDIA

OVERFLOW STRUCTURE
12"x12" BROOKS BOX

0.25'

IMPERMEABLE LINER
12"CLASS 2AGGREGATE

STORAGE WI GRAVEL

FILTER COURSE
NOTE. BMPS ARE TO BE PRIVATELY

MAINTAINED AND THE FACILITIES

NOT MODIFIED OR REMOVED

WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM THE CITY

PER PLAN
3" 0 PVC OUTLET SD

DAYLIGHT TO GRADE
:-, -._. . • '. · •.. : TREATED RUNOFF
<, DISCHARGE TO RIP RAP
"PERF PVC UNDERDRAIN 6" CONCRETE BASE SLAB

NATIVE FILL

TYPICAL BMP DETAIL

NOTTO SCALE
FF= 73.75
BFF = 63.52
I I
I I
I 5.0' 1
1 .. SYSB .. I
I I
I I
--- -r--------

STRUCTURAL

INFLUENCE ZONE
1 :

I I
I
I
I
I
I
I

EMRA NOTE EXISTING AND

PROPOSED ENCROACHMENTS WITHIN

THE SEWER EASEMENT TO BE UNDER

EMRA FILED WITH GRADING PERMIT
EX6" SEWER
IE~ 58.0

SECT/ONA-A

NOTTO SCALE
------
4"SO

PER PLAN
I
I -
I
I
C -+
I
I
I
I
I
L I
I

RAILING PERL 'SCAPEIARCH'L

WALL PERL 'SCAPEIARCH'L

BMP INLET DETAIL

NOTTO SCALE
-

25.0' RYSB
-
---------------I
I
I BMP
EXISTING GRADE_/\ __ 70.13 FG
- i-- __
---------
-I
I
I
I - I
I
---.
"""
I
I
-, I
I
f
I
I
I
I
\ __________ _

NOTE FENCING, HANDRAILS, ANO

RAILINGS PER LANDSCAPE PLANS
TW70.75
FG 70.13
No. 80356
p. 12/31/2
PREPARED BY:

PASCO LARET SUITER ~ 1%~~©t I 1% 1r IE~
San Diego I Solana Beach I Orange County
Phone 858.259.8212 I www.plsaengineering.com
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
-
- _, - -
-
- - - -

DEMOLITION NOTES
I. ALL ITEMS NOTED AS 'REMOVED' 5+-!ALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND LAILFULL T Dl5FO5ED OF.

2. DISCONNECTION AND/OR REMOVAL OF UTILITIES AND FHONE AND CABLE TELEVISION LINES SHALL BE COORDINATED AS REQUIRED WITH THE APPROPRIATE COMPANIES OR AGENCIES.

3. BEFORE SCRAPING, OR REMOVING, CEILING, LID WHERE &PRATED ACOUSTICAL CEILING, TEXTURE OCCURS, CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE MINIMUM NUMBER OF 5PRATED ACOUSTICAL TEXTURE 5AMPLE5 TESTED BT AN APPROVED LAB. IF SAMPLES TEST POSITIVE FOR ASBESTOS, CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTRACT WITH A COMPANY THAT 15 LICENSED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR ASBESTOS

REMOVAL TO REMOVE SPRAYED ACOUSTICAL TEXTURE MATERIAL BEFORE DEMOLISHING, ANY AFFECTED CE IL INCiiS.

4. SELECTED EXISTING, TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL REMAIN AND SHALL BE FROTECTED DURING, THE COURSE OF DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY TREES OR SHRUBS MUST BE TEMPORARILY

REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION, THEY SHALL BE CAREFULLY STORED, MAINTAINED AND REPLANTED IN THEIR ORICiilNAL LOCATION.
!:>. CONTRACTOR TO COMPLY WITH AND FILL OUT THE WASTE MANAGEMENT FORM FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS DEPOSIT PROCiiRAM. !:>0% OF ALL DEBRIS Ci!ENERATED FROM THE PROJECT MUST BE RECYCLED AND DOCUMENTED.

LEGEND

WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED

WINDOW TO BE REMOVED

DOOR TO BE REMOVED
-------- ---'.'.""".---~~;:::"-:::: --- _, --- ---- - ------ --- ---------=------~--- -
- --- ---
-
-
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l_
-
-
---------
-------- "-
"-
""
L REMOVE ALL EXIST.
"'
HARD5CAPE, TTP. \
/
/
/
/
/
/'
---
- -
@DEMOLITION FLAN
A
"'
/
\
\
I
I
_,
-
-
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
(!)
I
I
I
NORTi=r1/4' • l'-12'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 I
I
w J.()
rl) ~
z • N
WOl
w >-<[
Q -<[ 0
0 '
d) -I
11-0 w 0-<[ oc -<Cw

0... Ill
Q ~-<[
}-- ~z
() J.() -<[
_j
co 0
U)
I. DESIGN REVIEW 5UBMITT AL
ll/l~/2020

2. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
02/18/2021

3. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/08/2021

4. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
11/30/2021
S. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/IB/2022
OASIS

ARCHITECTURE
&
DESIGN, INC.
858-273-5632
1015 TURQUOISE ST.

SUITE 2

SAN DIEGO ,CA
92109
THIS DRAWING, >-S INSlRUf..1ENT
OF SERVICE, IS AND SHALL REMAIN TI,E PROPERlY OF THE
ARCHrTECT AND SHAU. NOT BE REPRODUCED, PUBLISHED OR
USED IN ANY WAY WrTHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
ALl DIMENSIONS ANO EXISTING

CONDITIONS AT THE SITE BEFORE
PROCEEDING WITH EACH PHASE OF HIS WORI(.

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

ELB MCM
DATE JOB NO.
04/18/22 180!:,

DEMO FLAN
A= 1.1
LEGEND
----
0 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN

NEW STUD WALLS
NEW Sl-!EAR WALLS, SEE STRUCT FOR DETAILS

WINDOW TO REMAIN
NEW WINDOW, 5EE 5Cl-!EDULE
EXISTING DOOR TO 6E REUSED
NEW DOOR, SEE SCl-!EDULE
FULL I-IE IGl-!T CA61NET

DRAWERS
-
-
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
- -- -
- -
-
-
- - -
-
\
\ - - -
\
\
I \
\
\
\
~\
\9
a,
-
~
Cl
' -
r
0,
-.
-
' C!l
- -
- -- - ~")s - - - -I -.. - c 7
- -J ,---- _J I
1,--_J
I
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
I Cl
'
'B'-10"
3'-S,'

I I I I
L -+--t-----,r.lb::""R-::-"---::--;;l.b-:--8: 'H UP STA.fl;! I 15_ T ., 11' WOOD

LINE OF FLOOR
A60VE
0 CPAIII §PAC5
8'-4" 1'-0" 13'-B 1/2'
- - - -
-
-
-
- - - - - - - - EGRE55 LADDER
-- - ---- 14'-3 112"
-
-
- - -
f
J
I
I
Q
., '
-
-
!:::=/::J'I ~=+~~a,O~....c:= ~~;;;;:=~~~~~~~~~~~;;;;::;;;;:;;;;:;msi I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-,l
I\
I
I
I
I
I
I

G RPSM 'I
WOOD
~
----
~
G-54 !2

I TILEOO
GANE SQQt1
WOOD
l':l'-0"
- -
G 6PliiM 12
WOOD
I
I
I
I
I

LINE OF FLOOR
A60VE,
I
I
I
I
I
I - -
-
0,
·,
't
' -
,II
- -
@6A5EMENT FLOOFi? FLAN
-2
- -- -
- -
(!)
NORTH
1/4' • l'-12''
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 I
I
w J.()
rl) ~ • N
z WOl
w >-<[
Q -<[ 0
0 '
d) -I
11-0 w 0-<[ oc -<Cw

0... Ill
Q ~-<[
}-- ~z
J.() -<[ () _j
co 0
U)
I. DESIGN REVIEW 5UBMITT AL
ll/l~/2020

2. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
02/18/2021

3. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/08/2021

4. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
11/30/2021
s . DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/IB/2022
OASIS

ARCHITECTURE
&
DESIGN, INC.
858-273-5632
1015 TURQUOISE ST.

SUITE 2

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
A1.1 DIMENSIONS ANO EXISTING

CONDITIONS AT THE SITE BEFORE
PROCEEDING WITH EACH PHASE OF HIS WORI(.

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

ELB MCM
DATE JOB NO.
04/18/22 180!:,
FL~PLAN5
LEGEND
0 EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN

NEW STUD WALLS
NEW Sl-!EAR WALLS, SEE STRUCT FOR PET AILS

WINDOW TO REMAIN
NEW WINDOW, SEE SCl-!EDULE

EXISTING DOOR TO BE REUSED
NEW DOOR, SEE SCl-!EDULE
FULL 1-!EIGl-!T CABINET

DRAWERS
\
\
\
\
\
\
' '
-
-
-
7 I
I
I

NEW DRIVEWAY

FER LANDSCAPE
FLAN

NEW ENTRY GATE

FER LANDSCAPE
FLAN
- -
- -- - -
\
\ - -
\
\
~ ~\:
\
~ '
-
-
-
- - ~ - -
-
A-b.l 13: • ~ ~
-- ~
- (Qi V ~ =::-- - ~-b.l ::::. - :c---- - - ::::::.-- :::=--- - -- I ::::::.-- ~
- - - CQYEgEp
I I
::::::.-- c---
- GRADE MOUNTED - PATIQ - :: ,,...... - I ;,--- 14'-3 1/2" - CONDENSING UNIT
4'-10' ~'-3 1/2 _J T-~ .:::,.-
::::
~- - ' I , ·' - --- WALL MOUNTED ~- :::- --- CONDENSING UNIT- EGRESS LADDER --,_ I / - c~,._ / - - \ . • c- Q Cll I
·- - ~l I =:::-1---_ - ' ~
\ ' -
-
- :c I<"'- - I .>_ -
_J \,~f c,
I I - -- I Cc - - Q L IGHTUELL
r ul - ' - ~ ' C,
-
it
I IT] I I -~ I C] t,
~-- --- ~FLOOR
I IF 71 I I rr 7I I
I :o Ll1= - J _1 L11= --"-- JJ -- ABOVE
~"\ +tr- i'~ - 1'5'-C'
I I - I Tl• ~ --------------------- -
I I
Q
L .J:1 <- '
I -- PI.Ot.f t. ~ ·'T -- 0' - -- WOOD
I
I I -- -== -- ---- --I
-
I 2-CAR (i4R1(,e I
--------------- I I I CONCRETE ~-

I -- I - I
1"" I -i--
-- ,., I , .,

I I I --'
l.11 '-L....!I. ------------------------- I BOll!I I. !;!

I I WOOD
I I ------------------- - [][:]~({{ I
Q n /,½
I I <C- ' L_ I -- ~~USE~ee= -
--- 0' --. -- ABOVE -. LINE OF FLOOR II / , II
\ I ~ ' ' II ,,.,- ABOVE I ---- Ii "_/ \, ... Ii ,/
-- \ [L__/ '·, ~-...ll /
1'3'-C' -- ' \LA.W../
I I - \ I II
I --- \TILE I
-- L __ . ' I ' ~1 ·.v: I, 1; 1 I I \/ I'll I , '/J : lb R " 1h8" ~- 3'-4" I / \
-
,0
~
'
-
" '
u\
c;i
~, '
"
- '
'-
-
,--7
I

I I I I
llLI __
I
,-7
I I
I I
L _ _J
-
-· .. . P f
\ V/ I ' ,1!"/ ~ 11·, 3'-b 1/2" I
~~ I
II 1' I 1' 1' I' I
\ ______ I ' DJ _ _J STAiis IT]
r 71
11= - J
i -
L_
-2"
I I
I
\NEW FIRE FIT FER
\ LANDSCAPE FLAN
WOOD I lb R., 1h8' I
~ I u~ EM,8.

I 15 T ., 11' I I I WOOD

11. 1~ L 1. 1. 1,, 1 F-
\, I
I ,.//-----
----... \
~ I
/
ENT!Qt I "
-2' WOOD I
I ··,;,.
\
[>< '!l'c.I '-Lo I l--t-1 1
:\
I
-~
I 11 I r 71 I C Ll1= --"-- J_1 c,
'
I ----------' //,,,.---- ,fl
~fi!EQ -- --=i
== I ---------' " EQRCH I \ J,gz BA:
: \
I • TILE/ I ',, ....... ___ FER -----i
.=:;;:j =..cc
---
~ 1Cf FLAN I
I I
o r,,l OD ~- I I
tlf CL
~~ LINEOF~ u I I . ABOVE z OOD ____ _J \'<:

UJ I
~"-~. □ Ill I
-- I I 1/\
FILE CAB. I I
V
/ '--
j
\
l:Zl'-:Zl v: I 32'-B 112'
~LINE OF FLOOR tll
·- ABOVE "' 0
t- ,o -"' '
I w Iii IV tl)
" U Cl Cl z[l)a_ - - - '1 <t:
t-
'I
lj l-1-
_J -
w
::Q w t07~
. -
~Pl~ '".%,
OOD
J&~IIE
F'P8t1 - WOOD
i
-
- - -
p- I
r=PYE~C2 I
I I PAil'2
I
I I
I
I I
I
-2" I I
I
I I
I
I I
I
'"\

STONE,VENEER
- I
.
0,
--
"'
'
u\
0,
~NEW FAVERS FER

LANDSCAPE FLAN
- - - -
@FIFi?5T FLOOFi? FLAN
A
- --
NEW TWO-TIER !>FA

FER LANDSCAPE
FLAN
I
I
I
__,..,..,;;:;(I)_
NORTH
1/4' • l'-12'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 I
I
J.()
w rl) ~
z • N
WOl
w >-<[
Q -<[ 0
0 '
d) -I
11-0 w 0-<[ oc -<Cw

0... Ill
Q ~-<[
}-- ~z
() J.() -<[
_j
co 0
U)
I. DESIGN REVIEW 5UBMITT AL
ll/l~/2020

2. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
02/18/2021

3. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/08/2021

4. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
11/30/2021
S. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/IB/2022
OASIS

ARCHITECTURE
&
DESIGN, INC.
858-273-5632
1015 TURQUOISE ST
SUITE 2

SAN DIEGO ,CA
92109
THIS DRAWING, >-S INSlRUf..1ENT
OF SERVICE, IS AND SHALL REMAIN TI,E PROF'ERlY OF TI,E
ARCHrTECT AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, PUBLISHED OR
USED IN ~y WAY WrTHOUT THE
PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY

ALL DIMENSIONS ANO EXISTING

CONDITIONS AT THE SITE BEFORE
PROCEEDING WrTH EACH PHASE OF HIS WORI(.

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

ELB MCM
DATE JOB NO.
04/18/22 180!:,
FL~PLAN5
LEGEND
----
0 ~
\
\
EXISTINC:i lUALLS TO REMAIN
NElll STUD lUALLS
NElll SHEAF< WALLS, SEE STF<UCT FOi'< DETAILS

WINDOW TO REMAIN
NElll lUINDOW, SEE 5CHEDULE
EXISTINC:i DOOi'< TO 6E REUSED
NElll DOOi'<, &EE 5CHEDULE
FULL HEIGHT CAEllNET
DRAWEF<&
\
\
\
\
\
I
-
-
- -
- -- -
'
~ ill
-
-
----:::::- - ~~-t
- -- ----------------------------------- I
-, ------- --- --r~§:___--------------------- \
-----~-=-~~~~;i... }J ___.. - ------- ------- ------- ------- r 1 "'\.. \ - --- -------~-------------- A-~., :-I ,~
-
~~--- -=-~~-~-~-~-:~~:::::~~ \ -- - ~ ~ I
<31\0 ~~ \A-b.l I - _. -;,'l'~\0 _;___--------- A-4.1 "-. - ....- -------_?.::-------------- \ _ -- S'-~" I-IIGr:1--1 _ - ~~ _ - WALL ----==~~~~~ 15-el 1/2'
\
U I
0 '
\ \ - - - - I ti~ ' - ~ ,- I ; ,
_ - - I L LINE OF F<OOF ___ _j=r='Jl n
I
\ ; AElOVE - -
I C ElQ :::::::, - - - - - I - - _,-.::::_:§!----I ---i-----i- \
\
~
\
-
l '.I
--
~~
~
-
N
--
r ,
-
"'
- -
I ,,,-,--42 ' HIGH
V GLA55
!'<AILING
\
\ -
c,
"'
\ ,g
' "
\
-
' -
-
"' ' -
c,
·,----
IESP4GF
TILE
~ LINE OF F<OOF
AElOVE
l'-1'
;::

I
I
I
1 --42' HIGH
GLA55

RAILING
~
\ .

I
I
I
I
I
M,BALc,
TILE
I PLANTE!'< LUI
CAElLE VEF<T.

I LATTICE --,
I I
/
l S'-6'1
L
i' C'
- -
r II . -1'

LJ PINING
WOOD
~HEAT• GLOW REDb"'
I
DIRECT VENT b"''

I I SIDE I
-I'! I T JI
1·-·
I :
4fi!EAI 8:1
WOOD
14'-I 1/2" - - »------+---'-'-'-"-=-------.fl~.c=-' ,_ ~ "
M, ec?fiM«
WOOD
-
'
Ci
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---I-
:-=- =--= c.-
i
M CL
WOOD
I
_,
I
I
I - --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 1--- :===ii:
=-= 1---~ ·
I
71 I
I
- I ., I
I- -~_J
I I I "----..

I
S'-11 /2"
~
I
---- - _,;;;;;_- _,;;;;;_- - -- =:....;;=--==;;---===--===l=t-----;;;===------===---;;=--H \.__LINE OF ROOF
Al30VE 2'3' ~ 1.12" S'-3 1/2"
- - - - I
I
I
I
I
-
N
'
-
,I)
'
~ LINE OF F<OOF
AElOVE
Q1
--
ol
Cl
'
ol
ill
~
~ LINE OF F<OOF
AElOVE
- -
@SECOND FLOO~ FLAN
- -- -
- -
(!)
NORTH
1/4' • l'-12'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 I
I
I
I
lf)
w rl) ~
z • N
WOl
w >-<[
Q -<[ 0
0 '
d) -I
11-0 w 0-<[ oc -<Cw
{L Ill
Q ~-<[
}-- ~z
lf) -<[ () _j
co 0
U)
I. DESIGN REVIEW 5UBMITT AL
ll/l~/2020

2. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
02/18/2021

3. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/08/2021

4. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
11/30/2021
S. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/IB/2022
OASIS

ARCHITECTURE
&
DESIGN, INC.
858-273-5632
1015 TURQUOISE ST.

SUITE 2

SAN DIEGO ,CA
92109
THIS DRAWING, >-S INSlRUf..1ENT
OF SERVICE, IS AND SHALL REMAIN TI,E PROPERlY OF TI,E
ARCHrTECT AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, PUBLISHED OR
USED IN ~y WAY WrTHOUT THE
PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY

ALL DIMENSIONS ANO EXISTING

CONDITIONS AT THE SITE BEFORE
PROCEEDING WrTH EACH PHASE
OF HIS WORI(.

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

ELB MCM
DATE JOB NO.
04/18/22 180!:,
FL~PLAN5
A=2.2
et% cm
-
(f)
@SECOND FLOOR AREA FLAN

NORTI-I
l/81 ■ I' -e•
i
v,
L_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ / / / /
//////
///////
,
V ' I\ \ , .
, . V ,
V

FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR LIVING; AREA,
PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR LIVING; AREA
PROPOSED 6ASEMENT AREA
PROPOSED GiARAGiE AREA,
TOTAL 6UILDINGi AREA,
OFF-STREET PA~INGi EXEMPTION,
6ASEMENT AREA EXEMPTION,
TOTAL E3UILDINGi TOWARDS FAR,
MAX ALLOWABLE FAR 5F,

TOTAL LIVING, ADDITION AREA
TOT AL TERRACE 4 BALCONY AREA

TOT AL ROOF DECK AREA

FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATION,
LOT AREA X O.SOO <FOR FIRST 6JZ)OO SF!
4,170 5F
82S SF
2':IS SF
1,388 SF
l,S08 SF
1,274 SF
448 5F
4,bl8 5F
-400 SF
-1274 SF
2,':144 SF
3,021 5F
LOT AREA X 0.17S !FOR PORTION OF LOT 6j/!)OI - IS,000 5F! LOT AREA X e>.le>e> (FOR PORTION OF LOT IBJZ)e>I - 2e>jl!)e>e> SF! LOT AREA X e>.0S0 !FOR PORTION OF LOT GiREATER Tl-!AN 2e,e,e,e, 5F!

TOT AL ALLOWABLE FAR,
__ , ------ITT 1; ---- _.. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_..1
I
I
~ ----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lia11111111111111111111111111111Ai111111111111111111111111 ... """".....i ............ 111111111111111111111111..,;,.;......._ _~ l"ROPGl&Et: l&T FLOOR UYING AAEA, 1.38& 8F
(f)
@FIF55T FLOOR AREA FLAN

NORTI-I
118' ■ 11-tD'
• 3,000 SF
e 21 5F
e e, SF
" e, SF
3,021 SF
LEGEND
6ASEMENT AREA • 1,274 SF
I' \
GiARAGiE AREA • 448 5F
\ I \ 'r
r--c -, ,- 7
,-----_:! ,---- _J I r--.J , ,--_J
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
=•• =•=
Fl'WP":;"8Et"' ~T Al'l:EA,
@6A5EMENT FLOOR AREA PLAN
171◄ F
(f)

NORTI-I
1/8' ■ l
1 -l'Z>1
w lf)
rl) ~
z • N
WOl
w >-<[
Q -<[ 0
0 '
d) -I
11-0 w 0-<[ oc -<Cw
{L Ill
Q ~-<[
}-- ~z
() lf) -<[
__j
co 0
U)
I. DESIGN REVIEW 5UBMITT AL
ll/l~/2020

2. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
02/18/2021

3. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/06/202I

4. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
11/30/2021
S. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/16/2022
OASIS

ARCHITECTURE
&
DESIGN, INC.
858-273-5632
1015 TURQUOISE ST.

SUITE 2

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
ALl DIMENSIONS ANO EXISTING

CONDITIONS AT THE SITE BEFORE
PROCEEDING WITH EACH PHASE OF HIS WORI(.

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

ELB MCM
DATE JOB NO.
04/18/22 180!:,
A=2.3
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
-
-
-
- -
-
- --
- \
\
-
-
\
FL +20'-2
3<,' ASF
3-FL 'r' TORCl-l SYSTEM
W/Ll(;l-!T COLORED
GRANULAR CAP Sl-!EET,

CLASS 'A' ROOFING
A5SEMBL 'r' FER DETAIL,
E&R-1274 ----- - -
-
-
\
\
-
-
I 4 '/
\
\
\
\
I
-
-
-
_J
SLOPE
--
I I
1,,2; 12
&LP
IO'-:V"
2 ,12
SLOPE
-
-
-
-
-
- i
2'12
SLOPE
I& T ., IIZ'.&' I
I
-
-
-
-
- -- -
- 7
--7_
DEX-O-TEX WEATl-!ERWEAR

ROOF DECK COVERING,
FER E&R-17&7 COLOR

BT OWNER
I
-
--
-
L ______ _
4' -'3' 15'-5"
-
-
-
-
-
-
---
+
~-~-
2'12
&LOPE
-
+- - - - -1- - - - -

NEW ROOF W/
ASFl-lAL T &I-JINGLE

ROOFING - CLAS& 'A'
ROOFING AS&EMEIL 'r' --
--

FIRST FLOOR ROOF
-
!P
'
- -
-
Cl
~·
-
-
I
_j_
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
-
-
J
-
-
-
- 7,
L - _J
7 I
I
I
I
I
"---+If-- TILE DECK ElELOW

I FER FLAN
I
I
I
;?'-0"
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
-,
'
I
------J--L--Jh- NEW ROOF W/
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
A&Fl-!AL T Sl-!INGLE

ROOFING - CLASS 'A'
ROOFING ASSEMEIL 'r'
- - I
--
@ROOF FLAN
-
-
-
-
(!)
NORTH
1/4' • l'-12''
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 I
I
I
I
J.()
w rl) ~ • N
z WOl
w >-<[
Q -<[ 0
0 '
d) -I
11-0 w 0-<[ oc -<Cw

0... Ill
Q ~-<[ }---- ~z
J.() -<[ () _j
co 0
U)
I. DESIGN REVIEW 5UBMITT AL
ll/l~/2020

2. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
02/18/2021

3. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/08/2021

4. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
11/30/2021
s . DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/IB/2022
OASIS

ARCHITECTURE
&
DESIGN, INC.
858-273-5632
1015 TURQUOISE ST.

SUITE 2

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
ALl DIMENSIONS ANO EXISTING

CONDITIONS AT THE SITE BEFORE
PROCEEDING WITH EACH PHASE OF HIS WORI(.

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

ELB MCM
DATE JOB NO.
04/18/22 180!:,

ROOF FLAN

EXTERIOR

TYPE DESCRIPTION
&T-1 EXTEF<IOF< 5TUCCO WALL&
5N-I &TONE WALL&

FT-I FASCIA FAINT

WI-I WINDOWS
DF<-1 ENTF<Y DOOF<
PLATE LINE$
20' -23/4' S.F.

OUTLINE OF

STRUCTURE
~ ~
,-
ffi IL
0 ~
I
0'\
'
N
EXISrlNG
I
FROF05ED
A5PHAL T &HINGLE

ROOFING, FER FLAN
~f- ---------
I /
~I
. ///
•! 12 ///
~I
2r----= //
"' ' I
/
r /
_,,/"/
FROFOSED I CEMENT _/,/

BOARD SIDIING /
/ / / PROPOSED • / GLASS ,/ /;/ ~ f· . RAILINGQ . tI ' '-'l
I
, Q
1111
I
ill
I ll' ff - ,.
:::3 ; ,~ t- ' <J
I "' _)
ll'
t-
<l)
a I
--
ill Q
--
J
- i <l) 0 '-'l
' ~ IL "'.cs () ~::::.
ll' 6=
i IL ~
/ ~ ~
I I ~ I=
~ II
I I ~-
= I=;~
I I 1 I
" -,-
MATERIAL FINl5l-l 5Cl-lEDULE EXIST. GRADE _JI ~PROPOSED f/

MANUFACTURER
EXFO
AMEF<ICAN SLATE
SHEF<WIN WILLIAMS
ANDEl"iSON
1 MATERIAL FINISH
5TUCCO &ANT A 6AF<6AF<A
STONE TILE NATUl"iAL QUAF<TZITE
1 SATIN/EGGSHELL
WINDOWS 'E' SEl"ilES

PROPOSED
GRADE

STONE VENEER - I
OUTLINE~F

BASEMENT
WALL5 I
L NATUF<AL MAHOGANY TWF
ill
7 _j
~ 1111
~)
•.
0\
111
~ _j
\I.
ll
q
[jJ
t1 IL
,l) I
- ' ill
0\ <l)
I
•
3-COAT F.C. STUCCO r---------4-__

PROPOSED CEMENT
60ARD SIDING--+---
fI
\:)
OUTLINE OF EXISTING Lj1

STRUCTURE
FROF05ED

STONE VENEER
/

FROFOSED SPA
WATER LINE r
ill
IY
=' t-
<l,) u -..._ ::::'.I
U\ [JI
('1 01
'
I~
I
-,._ __ ...._ _____ _., _J
\_ PROPOSED I_ _,,,,,,--- GRADE I
I / 6ASEMENT

WINDOWS IN I //
/ LIGHT WELL ---+-sll/
l L -I- . - --- '\ I '--
L
--------- \_EXIST.GRADE OUTLIN~,?.! _...-1 _ 6ASEM~ I
WALLS
I
L
~ -
'
'
12 2 i---
.L.
,/ I\
~-b:j ROOF DECK RAILING E30ARD 51DING BUILDING ENVELOP ~ - W/ GLASS ill Ill E
~ ~ ---- - - -
-L
>-=A> PC. e~o (I) r-0 CSMEN;
- - - -- --.-. - -- ---
12!'>'-0' MAX. HEIGHT
_j _j
Q ic-
~ ' ~
;;;
F
~--,
I •/
L
\.
\
- -
fl f ;/ j/
I
I
I
I
-
I
(.)
'
--- - ,.. __ r
~;:: -........ ..... '1'
"'
\
~ NEW SOLID FANELEf
- - -
- - -
GARAG.E DOOR - - -
I
I--
I
I
L
:/ , ·-. .
--- --. .
. ·-.. •
•.
• .
□ ·-
•
- - H ·
~
~- H · I
H · //
'//
-~ -I-~ - - ~J // ~ I --r--
- ~
-
□ d
//
n
-
· -H ·
H ·
H ·
H ·
H ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
- _J
'
//
I
I
\;'. I /
-
-
-
I /
-
• I -
)r -
-
- I \ - . I
/! I \
•'
I ~
- --
- -
I~ ,-
t-
•t IV
1111
ill
IL
ill (.)
12 I '"
II'
~ 2 IL
I ',
I I I
• '
• -. . 4
1 . ·-·- I V'. ··1 ~, -
.
- 1·.
/
1'
,"
~ +- 9
I <P G
ill
~~ > I -FROFOSED
◊ GLASS I
-,. .;- I RAILING
.
• /
-
·-
CT
I
I
I
_J
I
I
I
,....::J
I Cl
'
'-'l
I
COAT F.c. I I 3
s UCCO, TYF.

I
I
PROF05ED
GRADE
-
w
=i
t-
'-'l l )
cc 7
'1' I)' tD " ' Q
C< Q
ill
tj )
~ 0
I)' ;I: IL 01
0 @WEST ELEVATION
,/";\
A-b.1/ ,,---3-COAT P.C. 5TUCCO
..,/ 'I ROOF DECK RAILING

W/ GLASS
- ----- --
I /f I '/!! I /f
/ 12
==:::7 2
I
•
I\ \
\
/
PROPOSED A5PHAL T

SHINGLE ROOFING,

FER PLAN
I
\
_[_
2&'-0" MAX. HEIGHT
BUILDING ENVEL:PE
--- z
7 :::i
\I.

I~ t1 ~
I
,,..---PROPOSEDICEMENT
/ 60ARD SID NG /
Q
'
Ci
-'-.
- \
I
---
\ \
WALL MOUNTED AIC-\ 3-COAT F.C. ~ RADE MOUNTED --.:C -
I CONDENSING UNIT 5TUCCO I CONDENSING UNIT 1
I I
I
I
I_
I
I
J_
j
. '
I -,-
\\_EXIST. GRADE
\_PROPOSED
GRADE
7'
'
~ OUTLINE OF ~ I
L
6ASEMENT
WALL&
@NORTI-! ELEVATION
;!J"\
'-.fi"
$

PLATE LINE
1~'-234" A.5.F.
2ND FLOOR
10'-23/4" A.6.F.

PLATE LINE
'cl'-0' A.5.F.
1ST FLOOR
0'-0' A.5.F.
(EL = 73.7!'>')
6ASE PLATE
-1'-2'-«' A.S.F.
6ASEMENT
-10' -2¾' A.S.F.
(EL = b3.&2')
11-4' • I'-£>'

PLATE LINE
2ND FLOOR
liZl'-23/4.' .A-5.F.

PLATE LINE
'cl'-0' A.S.F.

All'\ 1ST FLOOR
'-JI!" 0'-0" A.S.F.
<EL - 73.7&')
6ASE PLATE
-l'-23/4." .A.SE

BASEMENT
-10'-234" A.S.F
<EL = b3.&2').
w J.()
rl) ~
z • N
WOl
w >-<[
Q -<[ 0
0 '
d) -I
11-0 w 0-<[ oc -<Cw

0.. Ill
Q ~-<[
}-- ~z
() J.() -<[
_j
co 0
U)
I. DESIGN REVIEW 5UBMITT AL
ll/l~/2020

2. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
02/18/2021

3. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/08/2021

4. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
11/30/2021
S. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/IB/2022
OASIS

ARCHITECTURE
&
DESIGN, INC.
858-273-5632
1015 TURQUOISE ST
SUITE 2

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
ALl DIMENSIONS ANO EXISTING

CONDITIONS AT THE SITE BEFORE
PROCEEDING WITH EACH PHASE OF HIS WORI(.

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

ELB MCM
DATE JOB NO.
04/18/22 180!:,

ELEVATIONS

PLATE LINE
2ND FLOOR
l&T FLOOR
eJ'-~" A.5.f=.
!EL = 13.75')

BASEMENT
-lrz>'-2•-.• A.5.F.
(EL = b3.521')
--
-
Q
en
N
' Q
1--
.l
I:)
w
I
w
z
_j
)
1-
[)I
w
IL
0 [)I
IL,
I 11
-
~--1
11 11
I I
11 I I
12 4r--
I
--
~ ~
~ ~
--
/f
~
- 3-COAT F.C. &TUCCO
ROOF DECK RAILIN(;o

W/ GLA&&
-
I // I fl
/
/
I./
I\.
•
· ..

I \
·-.
.
./
,!)
"
c,
·-..
/
1 PROPOSED A&FHAL T
&HINGLE ROOFIN(;o,

FER FLAN
--
__[_
25'-rz>' MAX. HEIGHT
BUILDIN(;o ENVELOPE
ill
7 - - - - ---,-1
--
-
--
I I
I I
ill
z
<() _j
·-
"' )- tl) t-
' [)I
"' ill
' IL
$ I
() PLATE LINE
[)I 20'-234" 6.F. IL
II
I:) Q
II I
:t
ill
[)I
I :::J
tu
:::J
"' [)I
2ND FLOOR
lrz>'-2'/4" A.5.F.
-' tc, <SJ
0 PLATE LINE
ill 9'-rz>' A.&E
<SJ
0 0
0 [)I
IL
I Q
l&T FLOOR
. I...:.... t FROFO&ED - -1- ~ 3-COAT F.C.-
&TUCCO I
I
I
I
I
\
, .I
' EXl&T. GRADE

I PROPOSED PROPOSED
rz>'-IZl' A.&F.
!EL = 13.15 ')
I
I

OUTLINE OF I

BASEMENT I
WALL& --~-1-1
I
I
I
&TONE VENEER
I
I

I PATIO GRADE &TONE VENEER
I ~- WALL MOUNTED A/C

CONDENSING UNIT
~ OUTLINE OF
L L _l _j BASEMENT
WALL&
@EAST ELEVATION

PROPOSED CEMENT

BOARD SIDING
ill
z
_j
~ -1
Ill
till
,o
BUILDING ENVELOPE ROOF DECK RAILING ~b.!)"
W/ 065CURED GLAS& ,r'

I PROPOSED ASFHAL T
&HINGLE ROOFING,
r FER FLAN
2E>'-1Zl" MAX. HEIGHT /\3-COAT F.C. STUCCO ~
- - - - - -- r=---,------1~~~--=r~""=~......,......,...-.,..,-F""--,-........,- /f ' \ /f I ;19 I § I ·"'
12 v,r--
-- ---;-----
- I Cl Q
' - - '
I ,!) -\l
I
---
12 ~2
- ;-- -
-- --~-- FLUSH WALL
HUNG PLANTER --+----1

OUTLINE OF
EXISTIN(;o

STRUCTURE
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
\EXIST.GRADE I ~ - -\ - - -Id - I
\_PROPOSE

I GRADE I I

OUTLINE OF I I I

BASEMENT
WALL& ~ I I I
l I I
•
\
\
\
\
\ - --+ -
I
I
I
I
I
. /f
' .. •
Q
' /

PROPOSED CEMENT

BOARD SIDING
•
••
/
'9
"
0 '
<()
.·' }f.
.. .
'·
/ /
//
\
-13-COAT F.C. I

STUCCO I
I
I
I
-
l
I
II
~
~
I
ill
z
_j
\I_
l)
•1
Ill
till
<SJ
'
Cl
I- '
I cn
cl
ill
I
jji
:::J - t-
•J:l u - :::J '
"' [JI
t- r <SJ
'
Q 0 N w
Cl
Cl
IL
Cl
[JI
IL
T'----.. Q
I
I
11 I
--- __J
I
i
I
·~
k ouTLINE oF
I

BASEMENT
WALLS
L ___ I_ I _J_ -- -- L _J
@soUTI-I ELEVATION
Q
~
'--/I'
$

BA&E PLATE
-1'·2',;' A.SF.

BASEMENT
-IIZl'-2•-," A.&F.
(EL = b3.52'J
11-4' • I'-£>'

PLATE LINE
19'-2'.;,' A.5.F.
2ND FLOOR
10'-23/4.' A-5.F.

PLATE LINE
9 1-011 A.5.F.

PROPOSED
&TONE VENEER
~ l&TFLOOR
'...pv 0 1-011 A.5.F.
!EL = 73.75')
- --- --....:::
..r-, BASE PLATE
-1'-2',;" A.SF.

BASEMENT
-10'-234 11 A.5.f=.
!EL = 63.52'!
--
w J.()
rl) ~
z • N
WOl
w >-<[
Q -<[ 0
0 '
d) -I
11-0 w 0-<[ oc -<Cw

0... Ill
Q ~-<[
}-- ~z
() J.() -<[
_j
co 0
U)
I. DESIGN REVIEW 5UBMITT AL
ll/l~/2020

2. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
02/18/2021

3. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/08/2021

4. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
11/30/2021
S. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/IB/2022
OASIS

ARCHITECTURE
&
DESIGN, INC.
858-273-5632
1015 TURQUOISE ST.

SUITE 2

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
ALl DIMENSIONS ANO EXISTING

CONDITIONS AT THE SITE BEFORE
PROCEEDING WITH EACH PHASE OF HIS WORI(.

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

ELB MCM
DATE JOB NO.
04/18/22 180!:,

ELEVATIONS
~ ~
~~ _
I MAX.
13UILD

I-IEIGI-IT
ING ENVELOPE ~~ - -~ -
til . ,/
/
/ <! /
iO 12 /
tw 2r---_ ~
<l) ~
// JI I I I I I I I I I I I /
~
- - w If (£/ (l / - GREAT RM. PLATE
2/Zl 1-23/4. 1 A.5.F. d)
l.2-~ / r
2ND FLOOR
1ST FLOOR
IZ)'-12)" A.SF.
<EL = 73.l!:>'J
LIGl-ffUJE:LL
-B'-4' A.5.F.
<EL = b!:>.417'!
-
\l
'
Q
(\)
I
I
L
,,
/
/'~ ~.-------~ / --+
_-,
\l
' -
u1
Q
' -
-SJ
<EJ GRADE

EGRESS LADDER
~1 7
ti
ffi1
----;c;'G;;;RE;'=;;,Ac:-Ti-RM~. -i=Fc=L"-A"-T=-E-f"l,,1-------'!- O.~ 20'-23/4. 11 A.5.F.
2ND FLOOR
I5T FLOOR
IZl'-IZI" A.S.F.
<EL = 73.7!:>'J
<!
jll
w
<l)
w
(l
<l)
_/
' 1//
11 -
,O
,, '
Q
' -
(\)
u
~<E!GRADE
-
///
-
Q - -
Q '
Q Q
' DINING KITCl-ll=! en
J.J. BA. BDRM. r.> MEDIA
-- --
-
-
v t,- ~ 7'
- '
(\)
- GAME RM.

Q
- '
(\)
- -
(\)
' -
'' -
~ ~
~::JI __C MAX. I-IEIGI-IT ~-<&.;.'
13UILDING ENVELOPE " - / /
·12 --- - ,,
//// 2r---_____, -= (\)
ROOF DECK ' ,O / - - "1
-- '
- ~ N
/
-
f ·- /I ".'.
r
/
/
3t -
/'
'\' '' \0
t" Q - ' Q
Q Q GREAT RM. ' PAN_ ' \[ en
ct)
.n I
--SJ '
- '
-.

II
BDRM. ~1 CL. LAUN. BAR
--
STOli. G. BED. G. BA.

CL.
1/. - I l
- I~ ----- w
<l)
-- 12 w '',,,, (l
- ~2 <l)
u u u u - -- - ~
. -
11 "
~o"I.
"
"",._'-..
-- -- -- M_ BA.
i--
-,Q
'
"' - - -
"' "' " re " ..

Q
' JR. SUITE BDRM.

ITT
'ct-
--
Cl
I
., N I'
-
-
Q
'
ITT
I 6UILDING SECTION
-6 ..
-
---- 1/.
lJ -- <I - '",, 12 iO -- - ~2 I- - - w - - - <l)
- -- - w - - (l
-,,,, - - - <l)
" B
·,,,, I-JI
-- --- - ---- f-lALL M. CL.
-
c1
"
Q
- ' J.6. BA.
0'
-·,1
--
"' .I
N ,.
' - -
GAME RM. -
Q
'
07 2 6UILDING SECTION
w
~ _J
7§ 0.

I~
,, Io.
·,
I
I -
Q
'
ITT
I
(\)
- I V ,~ 7'
"- r ~
f n '
'"' Cl ' '' ITT
Cl
' I -
(\)
I 7'
--
Cl
"'
'
Q
I
I
~~ -
~
7'
--
Cl
N
'
Cl
-V
V4' • l'-0'
I~
1t
oc 4's
I~ '-1"' ,, Cl - oc

0. $ ,
'
I
I -
Q
'
<P
I ..t,
(\)
- I '--Pl'
7' Cl
-- ' I ,, '
I '"' Q
$ '
ITT '"
Q
- ' I
(\)
I 'T
--
01 \",\
'
Q
I
I
~'±l ,
~
' $
.,ii",
'--Pl'
'ct-
--
(',\
"
'
Q
,
' $

ROOF DECK
212)'-7¾," A.SF.

PLATE LINE
2ND FLOOR

PLATE LINE
1ST FLOOR
0'-0" A.S.F.
<EL = 13.7!:>'!
13A5E. PLATE
-1 1-234 1 A.5.F.

LIGI-ITWELL
-B'-4" A.SF.
(EL = b!:>.4I1'!
13ASEMENT
-10' -234' A.5.F.
<EL = <&3.!:>21'!

ROOF DECK
212)'-7¾," A.5.F.

PLATE LINE
19'-29/4" A.5.F.
2ND FLOOR
IIZ>' -234 I A.5.F.

PLATE LINE
5'-12'' A.5.F.

I5T FLOOR
IZ)'-12)" A.5.F.
!EL = 13.1!'>'!
13A5E. FLA TE
-l'-234 1 A.5.F.
13A5EMENT
-112)' -234' A.5.F.
!EL = b3.!:>2I'!
w J.()
rl) ~
z • N
WOl
w >-<[
Q -<[ 0
0 '
d) -I
11-0 w 0-<[ oc -<Cw

0..... Ill
Q ~-<[ }--- ~z
() J.() -<[
_j
co 0
U)
L DESIGN REVIEW 5UBMITT AL
ll/l~/2020

2. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
02/18/2021

3. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/08/2021

4. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
11/30/2021
S. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/IB/2022
OASIS

ARCHITECTURE
&
DESIGN, INC.
858-273-5632
1015 TURQUOISE ST
SUITE 2

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
ALl DIMENSIONS ANO EXISTING

CONDITIONS AT THE SITE BEFORE
PROCEEDING WITH EACH PHASE OF HIS WORI(.

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

ELB MCM
DATE JOB NO.
04/18/22 180!:,
I 6UILDING 6ECTION6 I
I
wl
~ _J
>--
tll':
w
IL
~I
ILi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
w
z
_J
>--
lt.1
w
ILi
~ IL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~1 /"
./·
Ill
t- // 12
JU _/ <J) 2 r--- ~
JU 12 _/ /
- (l ~ - 14r---// .
;J5 .
- n /"
" •
/////// n
- ././//
'/ TERRACE Q
" Q ITT "
~i,- "l -
"1
' "' .,
Q II
,_
Q 2-CAR GARAGE
' Cl:,
1 _J
I MAX. HEIC.HT
~ ~ ~-;J? 't;J' 6UILPINC. ENVELOFE
/ -
- -·
-
-
-
-
-
-
- / -
-
--
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
- 12
I g
-
-
- ~2
----
-
GREAT RM. ,---tr
"
--7 DINING

I ITT I
: II II :

I I -
'·"'
N.
~
I
Q
" E3DRM. ~1 E3DRM. ~ 01
•j
-.
0\
,., - "
G. E3ED _ •1 Q G.E3ED-~
'
rn
0 1 ___ ...__A-1&.I I_ MAX.HEIC.HT
6UILDING, ENVELOFE ___
~ '--,;,'
----
__JJ
~
~l
Ill
tJU
<J)
w
(l
<J)
,,~~ -

ROOF DECK
212''-7
3"8" A.6.f=.
~ C.REAT l'sM. FLATE
2ND FLOOR
le:l'-2
3/4. I A.6.F.
$ FLATE LINE
9'-e>" A.5.F.
$:::IST
e>'-Q'.AS.~
FLOOR ~ !EL = 13.7
(E) C.RAPE
6A5E. FLATE
$ 6A5EMENT
I
-6
@6UILDING SECTION
ti
- ~
~ I
~
'(
Ill
tJU
<J)
JU
(l
;J5
• II......,
/"
/
'
STAIR
Q
" i--
3'-4'
Q
' r
Q ': FOW_

ROOF DECK
F
KITCf-lEN
12 ~2
__JJ I
: -0" .,
I!!
w
<J)
w
n
<J)
·1· / . r / /·" c_:
1 1r-~1,-____,,-~ -;~~- -·-k IT I~~'
'", '°' -=
'
"
Ul
01 -
r
-
•
~ ~ ,--"U....,,-----'-;r~',---,,-----------,,-------------------,,11--"----,----Q+----,--J 3 .: /2 - ~ ~17<~~->~/
·i:._J_J_/_//~~-· / / ,/
/
~ ·x~
------'le~.- ~-~~~::::1~~~~~~~~~=~==~ I
•JI._ ____ ___,,":~' -------------------,-------..,.!l~!E)C.RAPE Q
'
01 E3AR MEDIA
•
·1 !
GAME RM . L
01 ROOF PECK
$ FLATE LINE
2ND FLOOR
1ei•-2s/4" ASF.
$ FLATE LINE
9'-0" ASF.
$ ISTFLOOR
e, I - (2') '----ASE•
<EL = 13.7S'!
6A5E. FLATE
-1'-2
3/4." A.SF
$ 6A5EMENT
{n 6UILDING SECTION
~
l
V4' • l'-0'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ _J
>--
tffi I
~I
IL
_l
w J.()
rl) ~
z • N
WOl
w >-<[
Q -<[ 0
0 '
d) -I
11-0 w 0-<[ oc -<Cw

0... Ill
Q ~-<[ }--- ~z
() J.() -<[
_j
co 0
U)
I. DESIGN REVIEW 5UBMITT AL
ll/l~/2020

2. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'1ITT AL
02/18/2021

3. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'1ITT AL
04/06/2021

4. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'1ITT AL
11/30/2021
S. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'1ITT AL
04/16/2022
OASIS

ARCHITECTURE
&
DESIGN, INC.
858-273-5632
1015 TURQUOISE ST.

SUITE 2

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY

ALL DIMENSIONS ANO EXISTING

CONDITIONS AT THE SITE BEFORE
PROCEEDING WrTH EACH PHASE
OF HIS WORI(.

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
ELE3 MCM
DATE JOB NO.
04/18/22 180!:,
I 6UILDING 6ECTION6 I
5 T 0 ~ y F 0 L E 5 C 1-4 E D u L E
POLE' POINT ELEV. T OF POLE ELEV. POLE LENCH.I NOTES
I 13.'=10' 6135' l:M-5' UFFER - 63.6&' 9."5' LOIi.ER
2 OLD DE5I6N ':141'6' 20.21'
3 13.18' ':14.58' 202(!)' UFFER - C:14.e>f;' 21Zl.2&' LOIi.ER 4 13.41' 88.'aa' l&bl' UFFER - 8'7.3S' IJ.'34' MIDDLE - 83.85' IIZl.44-' LOIi.ER 5 13.55' ':'14.58' 21£13' 111 !:AYE
.. 13-'?:lS' 88.'a8' IS.'31Zl' UFFER . • EAVE - 61.36' 1421' MIDDLE - 83.s&' IIZl.71' LOIi.ER 7 OLD DE51G:N '38£>3' 24.48' UFFER - 94.58' 21£13' LOIi.ER " OLD DE5I6N 98.03' 24.38' UFFER
- ROOF
- '33.76' 20.11' LOIi.ER
~ OLD DE&IG:N 8'7.3S' 14.46' UFFER
- • EAVE
- 83.a&' IIZl.'~5' LOIi.ER
I" OLD DE5I6N ':'13.16' 20.06' UFFER
- • EAVE
- 81.35' 14,4&' MIDDLE - 63.e&' ltZl.'~S' LOIi.ER
II OLD DE5I6N '38.03' 2438' UFFER - ROOF
- '3!il4' 22.fl':'I LOIi.ER
12 OLD DE5I6N ':18£13' 24..38' ROOF
13 OMIT .
-
14 OLD DE5I6N '38£13' 2438' ROOF
IS OLD DE&luN 91.&1' 2326' ROOF
lb OMIT .
-
11 OLD DE5I6N ':14.30' 2053' 1ED WALK
18 OMIT .
-
I~ OLD DE5I6N C:11',£13' 23.12' 111 !:AYE
,,, OLD DE5I6N '38£13' 24..38' UFFER . ROOF - '35£16' 10g.;.• LOIi.ER 21 OLD DE516N ':13.16' 205' UF'FER • • EAVE - 81.35' 14.14' MIDDLE - 83.a&' 10h4 1 LOIi.ER 22 OLD DE5I6N C:13£11' 1~1· UFFER - • EAVE
- 8135' 13.'35' MIDDLE - 83.BB' 10.45' LOIi.ER
23 OLD DE5I6N ':13.16' 20.02' t1 EAVE
24 OLD DE&luN ':18£13' 24.48' UFFER - • EAVE - '33.01' la.&2' UFFER MIDDLE - 8135' 13.80' MIDDLE - 83.a&' 10.30' LOIi.ER 25 OMIT .
-
2,, OLD DE5I6N 81.35' l3h5' UFFER
- l1J/ 2.1' OR E'L 'r'
- 83.s&' IIZI.Ei' LOIi.ER
21 OLD DE5I6N '38£13' 24.13' UFFER - '34.e>b' 20.1&' LOIi.ER 28 73.87' 94.01:i' 20.19'
2g 65.77 91.$' 12.18' UFFER !<AIL - 95.98' ltZl.21' LOIi.ER ROOF 3" 64.48' 'i:11.$' 13.41' UFFER !<AIL - 95.98' l1.&181' LOIi.ER ROOF 31 64.~ 91.$' 13.55' UF'F'ERRAIL - 96.19' 11.19' LOIi.ER ROOF 32 73£l5' 81.35' 1430' !<AIL - 63.a&' l<?>.W' DECK
33 63.65' 'a3.54' W.,' UFFER F<OCf - 6135' 3.1181' RAIL 34 64£l0' 93.54' 9.64' UFFER F<OCf - 613&' 335' RAIL
35 8"3.':13' 'a3.4~' 'a.4'a' UFFER F<OCf - 613&' 3.42' RAIL 36 64.70' 91.$' 13.25' UF'F'ER RAIL - 91.n· 12.41' MID ROOF - 94.98' ltZl.28' LOIi.ER ROOF 31 8&h~' gl_$' 1226' UFFER !<AIL - 'a1.n' 11.48' LOIi.ER ROOF 38 73.b2' 91.n' 2355' UFFER F<OCf - 93.42' l'lllll' LOIi.ER ROOF - 81.35' 13.13' IOAIL as OMIT .
-
4e> 73..62' &135' 1:,.&:,' AAIL - &3.65' ltZ1£13' DECK
41 73.82' 91.n' 23.35' UFFER F<OCf - 94.01:i' 20.24' LOIi.ER ROOF 42 63~1' C:14.&8' 1131' F<OCf
43 B3JZ10' 'a4.&8' 11.&8' f<OCf
44 64.4&' 'a3.54' ,,,,.,, F<OCf
4& 63.65' 93.54' W.O' UF'F'ER ROOF - 81.35' 3.10' AAIL
TD.WALL BB.SB'
TD.RAIL 81.3!:>'
DECK 83.8!:>'
T.O.WALL 88.SB' '4
-
- T.O.RAIL 81.3!:>' *** - - DECK 83.85' - -
~============~=-=_=_=------------if---~-------~
TD.ROOF S4£lb',2a ,I< ~==-=-=-=~--L,..IN;;;E=OF.---EXISTING _T 1 Ii
Q -
c, ,I< ,I< , 1 TD.RAIL 813!:>'
DECK 83.8!:>'
OVE:::======~=-= __ -________ B_U_IL_D_ING __ T_o_:..,_ E~D_E_M_o_'_D _____ ---<. O.ROOF S458' , 42 ,I< ;I< , ~ TD.RAIL 81.3!:>'
DECK 83.B!:>'
;I< * ,I< , 38 TD.ROOF-UP Sl.11'
TD.ROOF-LOW '33.42'
TD.RAIL 81.3!:>'
:f :f , 35 TD.ROOF '33.42'

OYERI-IANG
TD.RAIL 81.3!:>'
TD.ROOF 9458'
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
• I
l
I
I
½,, 12

SLOPE I
I
TD.WALL S1.11' , 41 ;I< I
TD.ROOF S4Db'
!, ' &LAIS' • "
I
I
I
•
I• I
I I
I ~ N I
--7_ _ __J
T .O.RAIL '31.S5' , ig ;I< *
TD.ROOF '35.'38
~I*
N _J
<J)
,I< ,I< ,
3 ., T .O.RAIL S1.S5'
TD.ROOF S5.'38'
1------t-,---LINE OF EXISTING
2,12 BUILDING TO BE

SLOPE DEMO'D
I
I :I

RQQFPECK
TD.RAIL Sl.S!:>' , 31 ,I< ,I<
TD.WALL S1.11'
T .O.RAIL S1.S5' , 36 ,I< ,t ,I<
T .O.ROOF S1.11'
T .O.ROOF S4.S8'

LINE OF EXISTING

BUILDING TO BE
DEMO'D--~~
2,12
SLOPE
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
-:-_J TD.RAIL S1.S5' , 31 >I< ,I<
TD.ROOF Sb.IS'
2,12
SLOPE
I
I
I
I ~1~ I a&-
s L
TD.ROOF '3354' , 34 ,I< ,I<
TD.RAIL 81.35'
,-----
L __________ _
2'12
SLOPE
,I< , 44 D.ROOF S3.54'
,I< ,I< , 45 T.O.ROOF S354'
T.O.RAIL 81.3!:>"
1i
1i
1i
2'-6"
1i
1i
1i
1i
1i
1i
I Ii
I Ii
1 II
1 Ii
1i
TD.RAIL 81.35' '32 ,I< ,I< DECK 83.B!:>'
_J
@STORY POLE FLAN
5 '6 * * *
(!)
NORTH
1/4' • l'-12'1
w lf)
rl) ~
z • N
WOl
w >-<[
Q -<[ 0
0 '
d) -I
11-0 w 0-<[ oc -<Cw

0... Ill
Q ~-<[
}-- ~z
() lf) -<[
_j
co 0
U)
I. DESIGN REVIEW 5UBMITT AL
ll/l~/2020

2. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
02/18/2021

3. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/06/2021

4. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
11/30/2021
S. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/16/2022
OASIS

ARCHITECTURE
&
DESIGN, INC.
858-273-5632
1015 TURQUOISE ST.

SUITE 2

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY

ALL DIMENSIONS ANO EXISTING

CONDITIONS AT THE SITE BEFORE
PROCEEDING WrTH EACH PHASE OF HIS WORI(.

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

ELB MCM
DATE JOB NO.
04/18/22 180!:,
I er~ POLE PLAN I
SP=1
I
I
I
-,
/
/
l --- 1. +- -- ---
I
TD.ROOF
~ OVERl-!ANCE,

94.e>b' ff
TD.ROOF TD.ROOF

94.58'~ 94.!58' \ • 42 \.:,. \\ I
I
. .
//f
. . T.ORAIL t;;: 8735'
'-. - --,
I
•
Ii' ' L •
DECK ---- 83.85'
-
' --
--,/ ~ =
I FOINT ELEV I=;
c::; 83.21' -
=
I I :;:,
~
I
i ~ -'iW;=t
I - _tI
I !Sia
I ·,, -- FOINT ELEV./ /_ --- ----
T.O.WALL ~

88.98' 0
T.O.RAIL

13.50' t ,/ FOINT EL V

13.18'
I
I
I
I
L
FOINT ELEV.

13.81'
TD.RAIL
G 91.95'
.,,
.ff
I.V.
'
( ' ~
8135' ~ l-------___,.-----+------+-+------1 ./
DECK

83.85' ~ ---
-
l~ r
r
- - r- -
-
,r -...,,11'1 I
/
·-.. •
I
'
/
·· ..

I
I
-.v. FOINT ELEV./
Q4.412•
-
/
\

TO WALL

91.11'
\ TD.ROOF

91.11'
I // ('41) // /i! • 36
I TD.ROOF

93.54'
I TD.ROOF , 34
T =OaE..cLQill_ 93~
I
------ 93.42' I ------- ---- - - r I
E
I
·~ .
<•,;;
e I TD.RAIL ~-- TD.RAIL - /8735' 8735' T.O.RAIL
~- 87.35'
"" ~- ..
·.v
I
,;;~• - DE~ .J I <Ii -~-- - - . I - - • //DECK /// I .,3_.,,, •, .. FOINT ELEV. -r'-

83.85'
' - I / 83.93'
-
- -
[:] \
\ I
' ,, . ~ •
\~
•
I ~
• I ~
I ~
/: •
' I ~ • -
I \✓ ~
~
•
I /~ ~ • / \ ~
I -
;· I //, ••
' I ••
'
I \ ~
-- • I -
~.
- -- --- \ - - - - - - - - - --------- --
FOINT ELEV.

13.82'
.:/ I
T.O.WALL

88.98'
T.O.RAIL
8135'

I - - -
- - -
- - -
I ---
- -- -
I--
I
I
L
FOINT ELEV.

85.11'
-- - --,
. 000 = 00
DECK
.9.-•
\, r -r....,,11-.. I t:::l.t: v.
71'
I
I
--1
I
I
-=-- _J
FOINT ELEV.
13h2'
TD.RAIL

91.95'
----
(
\
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
_J
@WEST STORY POLE ELEVATION
G 7
-
TD.RAIL
8135'
DECK

83.85'
-- --
_,.,,,--_J --- -------~- _ L
_
I
'\ FOINT ELEV.

FOINT ELEV. FOINT ELEV. \ FOINT ELEV. FOINT E4-E,. 13.90'

73.08 1
I
I
/ / I"" ' /
I "' "" /
I
I
.411 13.18' 73.Bl' I
I ' /
"' / I
NORTI-! STORY POLE ELEVATION
11-4' • I'-£>'
--
w J.()
• l) ~
z • N
WOl
w >-<[
Q -<[ 0
0 '
d) -I
11-0 w 0-<[ oc -<Cw

0... Ill
Q ~-<[ }-- ~z
() J.() -<[
_j
co 0
U)
I. DESIGN REVIEW 5UBMITT AL
ll/l~/2020

2. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
02/18/2021

3. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/08/2021

4. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
11/30/2021
S. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/IB/2022
OASIS

ARCHITECTURE
&
DESIGN, INC.
858-273-5632
1015 TURQUOISE ST.

SUITE 2

SAN DIEGO ,CA
92109
THIS DRAWING, >-S INSlRUf..1ENT
OF SERVICE, IS AND SHALL REMAIN TI,E PROF'ERlY OF THE
ARCHrTECT AND SHAU. NOT BE REPRODUCED, PUBLISHED OR
USED IN ~y WAY WrTHOUT THE
PERMISSION OF THE ARCHITECT.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
ALl DIMENSIONS ~O EXISTING

CONDITIONS AT THE SITE BEFORE
PROCEEDING WrTH EACH PHASE
OF HIS WOFil(.

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

ELB MCM
DATE JOB NO.
04/18/22 180!:,
I STORY FOLE ELEY. I
SP=2
I
I
I
-
TO .. RAIL T.O.RAIL
S7.S5'
6> @ 97.95'
// l // ff I ;:

T.O.ROOF
T.O.ROOF T.O.ROOF
/95.98' T.O.ROOF

93.54' S3.54' _{,0/S4.58' T.O.ROOF
A
T.O.ROOF @ S4.:,8'
f-5)
S6.19' "1/
- - ~ - - l

I - -,-- - - -
1/:::\\ // \\, I/;/\
- . . ' lff !?----._ • I
ff
/
T.O.WALL
I./ • e 88.98'
T.O.RAIL • ff •
8735'~ /c • "" ·- / /
";/ T.O.RAIL
~
. 8735'
2> -. /
- .

PECK IPOIN LEV. -· ,_ -· . I
B3.B5'~ 1/164.45' I • '-- -~ I- .... ~ - '-- ,,_ I
POINT ELEV. I/ "' PECK //

83.6S' '-. I

83.8S'
I - '\PO r- FV.

I ' - - -
7 ~ / I \,
-- ... ff·-----.1 \ POINT ELEV.

I // . 63.IZ>IZ>' :::i
·, . .

I 1·--. /
I
. . I ·\, /
I
I I
• --
• - - -- '
~ ----------------------- i - POINT ELEV. ~ - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----
POINT ELEV.

L L
-- --
T.O.ROOF
OVERl-lAN(o \

93.42'
-- -
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
-
L
T.O.ROOF

93.:,4' \
~
-j-- - C
'
- ~ -
-I -
I I
I
I
I
I I
I_ I

73.:,5 '
_ I
-
-+
_J_
I
I
_l
I
I
I
I
I
_J
lC

73.IZ>B'
@EAST STORY FOLE ELEVATION
'
-i--
.. l.
-..
f{ ·-.
/
I
I- -
.
11-4' ■ I'-£>'
- ----------+ ___ __J ---- -...:::

I I I POINT ELEV.

73.IZ>5'
IL_ , ----------~
I I
I I
I I
L _J
@soUTI-I STORY FOLE ELEVATION
w J.()
rl) ~
z • N
WOl
w >-<[
Q -<[ 0
0 '
d) -I
11-0 w 0-<[ oc -<Cw

0... Ill
Q ~-<[ }--- ~z
() J.() -<[
_j
co 0
U)
I. DESIGN REVIEW 5UBMITT AL
ll/l~/2020

2. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
02/18/2021

3. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/08/2021

4. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
11/30/2021
S. DESIGN REVIEW RESU6'11TT AL
04/IB/2022
OASIS

ARCHITECTURE
&
DESIGN, INC.
858-273-5632
1015 TURQUOISE ST.

SUITE 2

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
ALl DIMENSIONS ANO EXISTING

CONDITIONS AT THE SITE BEFORE
PROCEEDING WITH EACH PHASE OF HIS WORI(.

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

ELB MCM
DATE JOB NO.
04/18/22 180!:,
I STORY FOLE ELEY. I
SP=3
VICINITY MAP:
•
LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR:

PROJECT-~
SITE

PRIVATE RESIDENCE
506 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, CA 92075
N
w E
s
BUILDING CODE INFORMATION:

APPLICABLE CODES
2019 California Administrative Code
2019 California Building Code (CBC), including amendments by the jursidiction having authority
2019 California Mechanical Code
2019 California Plumbing Code
2019 California Electrical Code
2019 California Energy Code
2019 California Fire Code
2019 California Green Building Standards Code
2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design
2018 International Pool and Spa Safety Code
All Work shall conform to State and Federal rules and regulations.

Notify the Landscape Architect of any discrepancies in the Documents and do not proceed with that portion of the Work until the discrepancies are resolved.

DI
811
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT DIRECTORY:

New driveway, walkways, fencing, gates, pool and
spa, as well as irrigation and planting associated with one renovated residential building.

SITE DATA:

BUILDING ADDRESS
506 Pacific Avenue
Solana Beach, CA 92075

ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
263-042-1700

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 4, BLOCK 3, MAP 2143 in the City of Solana
Beach, County of San Diego, State of California

ARCHITECT
Oasis Architecture & Design
1015 Turquoise Street, Suite 2
San Diego, CA 92109
Tel (858) 273-5632
Contact: Mark Morris
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES
535 N Hwy 101
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Tel (858) 259-8212
Contact: Tyler Lawson
www.plsaengineering.com

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
TOPIA
2030 Galveston Street
San Diego, CA 92110
Tel (858) 458-0555
Contact: Frank Marczynski
[email protected]
®
NOTES:

1. The contractor shall obtain all necessary permits and pay all related fees.

2. The contractor shall be appropriately licensed in the State of California.

3. The contractor shall notify the Owner prior to beginning the work and shall be responsible for coordinating with the Owner, Landscape Architect, Local Agencies, and other trades.

4. The Contractor shall notify the Landscape Architect immediately of any errors, omissions or discrepancies in the existing conditions or with the plans prior to starting the work.

5. Determination of "or equal" substitutions shall be the responsibility of the Landscape Architect.

6. The Landscape Architect shall be notified no less than 24 hours prior to any required site observations and/or meetings.

7. Site observations by the Landscape Architect during the installation of this project does not relieve the Contractor of his responsibility to perform all work in accordance with the plans, specifications and governing codes.

8. This firm does not practice or consult in the Field of Safety Engineering. This firm does not direct the construction operation and is not responsible for the safety of any persons other than our own on the site. The safety of others is the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor shall notify the Owner and the Landscape Architect if any of the recommendations presented herein are considered to be unsafe.

SHEET INDEX:

SHEET DESCRIPTION

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL
L-0 COVER
L-1 LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTES & LEGEND
L-2 LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
L-3 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN & CALCULATIONS
L-4 EXISTING TREE DISPOSITION PLAN
L-5 STREET ELEVATION AND GATE DETAILS
2030 Galveston Street
San Diego, CA 92110
T (858) 458-0555
www.topialand.com
Boyd
Residence
506 Pacific
Avenue
Solana Beach,
CA
PROJECT NO. 20.007.00
NOTFOR

CONSTRUCTION
ISSUED
Issue Date

THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE RESTRICTED

TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY

WERE PREPARED AND PUBLICATION

THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH
USE. REPRODUCTION, PUBLICATION, OR

REUSE BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN

PART WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN
CONSENT OF TOPIA IS PROHIBITED. TITLE

TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
REMAIN IN TOPIA V\IITHOUT PREJUDICE
'v1SUAL CONT ACT V\IITH THESE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE
PRIMA. FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE

ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS
COVER
DATE 03.31.21

SCALE N/A
L-0
PLANTING LEGEND:

PALMS

SYMBOL SIZE BOTANICAL NAME
T
12' B.T.H. CHAMAEROPS HUMILIS
~ ~, ~~
16' B.T.H. SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANUM
-
"
ACCENT PALMS ['I\Vh 15 GAL. CYCAS REVOLUTA
~ "' [,,I\~
"~/;. d 15 GAL. RHAPIS EXCELSA
~-E
v·~

ACCENT SHRUBS
~ r~ "~
15 GAL. ALCANTAREA IMPERIALIS 'RUBRA'
5 GAL. CYRTOMIUM FALCATUM
•
• 5 GAL. LEUCADENDRON 'HAWAII MAGIC' g
qJ

MEDIUM SHRUBS
•
5 GAL. PHILODENDRON 'XANADU'
~ 5 GAL. POL YSTICHUM MUNI TUM
•
5 GAL. WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'GREY BOX'

SMALL SHRUBS
@ 1 GAL. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS HOOKERI 'MONTEREY

CARPET'
~ 5 GAL. MYRTUS COMMUNIS 'COMPACTA'
~ 5 GAL. DIANELLA TASMANICA 'VARIEGATA'
•
5 GAL. DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LIL REV'
~ 1 GAL. NEOREGELIA 'EOZ'

GROUNDCOVER
v~v~v~ 1 GAL.@ FESTUCA CALIFORNIA 'RIVER HOUSE BLUES' ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ 18" 0 C vvvvvv
v~v~v~

BIOFILTRATION BASIN
++++++
f++++++
1 GAL.@ BOUTELOUA GRACI LIS
++++++
f++++++ 18" 0 C
++++++
f++++++
++++++
f++++++
++++++
f++++++
++++++
1 GAL.@ JUNCUS PATENS
18" 0 C
COMMON NAME HEIGHT/ SPREAD FORM / FUNCTION WUCOLS Water Conservation
Zone
Mediterranean Fan Palm 20' High / 16' Spread Palm Low Zone 2 Queen Palm 40'-50' High / 16' Palm Moderate/ Medium Zones 1 Spread
Sago Palm 6'-1 O' High/ 5' Spread Accent Shrub Low Zones 1 & 2 Lady Palm 8'-12' High/ 6' Spread Accent Shrub Medium Zone 1 Bromeliad 3' High / 4' Spread Accent Shrub Moderate/ Medium Zone 1 Japanese Holly Fern 3' High / 4' Spread Accent Shrub Moderate/ Medium Zones 1 Magic Royal Hawaiian 3' High / 4' Spread Accent Shrub Low Zone 2 Cone Bush
Xanadu Philodendron 3' High / 3' Spread Medium Shrub Moderate/ Medium Zones 1 Western Sword Fern 2' High / 2' Spread Medium Shrub Moderate/ Medium Zone 1 Grey Box Coast 3' High x 4' Spread Medium Shrub Low Zone 2 Rosemary
Monterey Carpet 2' High / 4' Spread Low Shrub Low Zone 3 Manzanita
Dwarf Myrtle 2' High / 2' Spread Low Shrub / Hedge Low Zones 1 & 2 Tasman Flax Lily 3' High / 2' Spread Low Shrub Moderate/ Medium Zones 1 Lil Rev Flax Lily 2' High / 2' Spread Low Shrub Low Zone 2 Variegated Fireball 8" High / 8" Spread Low Shrub Low Zones 1 & 2 Bromeliad
California Fescue 2' High / 2' Spread Groundcover Low Zone 2 & 3 Blue Grama Grass 1' High / 1' SPread Low Shrub Low Zone 4 California Gray Rush 2' High / 2' Spread Low Shrub Low Zone 4 DESIGN STATEMENT:

AS AN INFILL PROJECT, THE PRIMARY INTENT OF THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN IS TO CREATE A LANDSCAPE DESIGN THAT INTEGRATES A NEW TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OVER GRADE INTO AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD; WHILE MEETING OR EXCEEDING THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH'S REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.

SECONDARY ISSUES WI LL BE ADDRESSED WITH THIS PLAN AS WELL.

1. WATER MANAGEMENT BMP'S WILL BE INTEGRATED INTO THE DESIGN OF THE SITE AND THE LANDSCAPING.

LASTLY THE LANDSCAPE PLAN WILL CREATE A PLANT PALETTE SUITED TO THE EXPOSURE AND CLIMATE OF RENOVATED PROPERTY.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

LOT 4, BLOCK 3, MAP 2143 IN THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BRUSH MANAGEMENT:

THE PROJECT SITE IS SITUATED WITHIN AN URBANIZED AREA AND DOES NOT REQUIRE A BRUSH MANAGEMENT PLAN.

NOTES:

NO TREES OR SHRUBS EXCEEDING THREE FEET IN HEIGHT AT MATURITY SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN TEN FEET OF ANY WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES.

ALL LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF THE CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE

REGULATIONS,THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL LANDSCAPE STANDARDS, AND ALL OTHER LANDSCAPE RELATED RELATED CITY AND REGIONAL STANDARDS.

IRRIGATION:

ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH A FULLY AUTOMATIC, PERMANENT OVERHEAD SPRAY TYPE IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

MAINTENANCE:

LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION AREAS IN PROPERTY SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.

LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION AREAS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.

THE LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE OF DEBRIS AND LITTER, AND ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A HEAL THY GROWING CONDITION. DISEASED OR DEAD PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SATISFACTORILY TREATED OR REPLACED PER THE CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT.

MINIMUM TREE SEPARATION DISTANCE:

TRAFFIC SIGNALS (STOP SIGN) - 20 FEET
UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES - 5 FEET'
ABOVE GROUND UTILITY STRUCTURES - 10 FEET
DRIVEWAY (ENTRIES)-10 FEET
INTERSECTIONS (INTERSECTING CURB LINES OF TWO STREETS) - 25 FEET 'NOTE THAT THE MINIMUM DISTANCE TO ANY SEWER LINE IS TYPICALLY 10 FEET

FOR CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN,
SEE SHEET L-2.
2030 Galveston Street
San Diego, CA 92110
T (858) 458-0555
www.topialand.com
Boyd
Residence
506 Pacific
Avenue
Solana Beach,
CA
PROJECT NO, 20.007,00
NOTFOR

CONSTRUCTION
ISSUED
Issue Date

THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE RESTRICTED

TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY
\/VERE PREPARED AND PUBLICATION

THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH
USE. REPRODUCTION, PUBLICATION, OR

REUSE BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN

PART WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN
CONSENT OF TOPIA IS PROHIBITED. TITLE

TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
REMAIN IN TOPIA V\IITHOUT PREJUDICE
'v1SUAL CONT ACT V\IITH THESE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE
PRIMA. FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE

ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS
Landscape
Development
Plan
Notes & Legend
DATE 03.31.21

SCALE N/A
L-1
(
I
/)
// New Driveway
/ Gates
New
Driveway
Column
I
' I
\
\\ E . . ·\ x1stIng
\ Sidewalk
\ \
1\
'\
1 New Driveway
Column
·· .. 1 ·.
.. : . )
·· .... C
. . . . ... . . . . ..
_.··· ,-.. ·. .... ' ... . . . . . .... ··._.

Artificial
Turf
·· .. {_".

New Entry ---+
11 ------++----+---+---+---tf--+-----,-
Columns &
Pivot Gate \
I
-S-
....,, .. ,....

I\
I \
I\
11 \
C
s:
=i
0 -n
~
0 9l
J
'
~
2 IUf>I-~
rtificia ;
;".- /
Turf
Existing Wall
to remain
Stucco Finish
Existing Wall
to Remain
,--ti'I -New Exposed
Aggreg;ciie
DriVeway
with Pebble
$ands
w
... \
' . . . . . .
.. ·.·.· .• 'ti
\ , __ lw
'£ ·-1 • . . ··.. I
I
I
New Fence
& Gate
-
~ I
.F----P't-------lil't~··-c-··.··~•--21•4in ~-t\-~l\1- ==t--===t-M b+---,1'1 ~ ~! I
Artificial
Turf
)i
I
~
I
\ I
I
I I I
-
(TW79.00)
(BW73.70)
PAC:r'.IIC
f
01•/E SIDE
~-r~U2T[ v\// GA }fa_(_;[_
003";--J9',g"
-- -------------- - '7-CA ~( G.D,RAG[
co•ICRE \R G/\Pi\C I
co~JCPETE ]
·Is'-o"
r7ARl<II\~ Of\J[ SI □ =
OBSTRL :TEC -Ii/ G;R/IGE
D O ·3R-__ Lg_ , 9 '
-
ST,t;I~
WOOJ
------j
0 I
rn
-
OFFIC::

WOOJ
[1
'·
~,.// '~- ',> ,,«;;,
C l ~··}_~~
□
FF
□
BDR.11.

WOOIJ
I
7 --------------
\ CL #1
-- _J

73.75 I'
I '
J S. CL.

WDDD
L __
I
r~ g~1 : - I I
I __ _:_ _ =..1 I ___ L _____ _J __ _
I .:__-_:_.:___:_ - - - " · 1 I -
New Queen
Palms
New Concrete
Stepping Pads
New Wall Mount
Fireplace
New Fence
& Gate
"' ,, --"--"'----"'---~ ~ __.,______., ,. ., ·<- ,,.
. .
~ -~ ~_:-_.
i~a :-0 --r~ -----
I IG~TVIFI L
Cable Style -~
Guardrail 1
;:;
'__.\• -'
Y--cY,"'R'~F I
~ 1
TW73.70
BW 70.1
New Queen
Palm
G 73.63
WL6S33

1.__ Lower Basin
Coping 68.63
WL 68.13
,-- ---7
TGOPING 73Ji3 1-
/ L 73.13 : .

I I I "-1 Spa I ~
I I I Ic oping 73.13
(.,. .,.
( ' . : _, .,-
' . > "" ·;-
' "" .,,_ ( • co . .' ,. ,. I"
96· ,
;scr"·'.·
I .,_ > ;
S )- + V
l1J
z
-'
~ O'.'.
l1J
(l_
0 O'.'.
(l_
~
O'.'.
~
J.J. Bl\.

TILE bP----d
I I I 1WL'7~13 I
I Ll-1--- ~ -_J
I I I ".
,: . rn .,. + 't:~.f
( ,, .. ,
LL
0 1-
:::e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CL 1
I I-+---,
I I
I I
I ~---a
n
DUl?lv1. f/
V/CDD
Q
-
I I '
9 73. 3
I 73.13
I
I I
0 ,=----
1Spa
1Coping 74.96
IWL 74.96
I
I
L ___ _
,,r~H1m1---- 12'-6" --mITt-----t-~ r
-'
-------- ---------~~ C ~L_
I
I
, FS 3.6
cR. SLITE
BDRl1.
i
□
I I
I
! I
o'J' ATO
I
I
i-----t-11~AI / I
~ I ,-hr
• I
1--'-+ 71 1 /
~ : I

73.73 New Privacy Wall
with Wall Mt. TV
1 OPIN 73. 3 _.....,
"i. "i. J--L,1 '2 I
S 7 .50 ~ .
i1'. I I w 73. 3 ~~~--c'-~~
I
-s-s-s-s-s
I
+ + - + + + + + + +
+ + - + + + + + + +
TW74.17
BW70.17
Gravel Bed
Cable Style
Guardrail
+ + + + + + + - ,+ + + , :i: TW 7 4.17
> > 1 > > =1 1 + 1 I BW 70.17
+: +: : +: + + t,:=13~ ~ New Filtration
' ' ' ' E:"31-i/lc-,..~':OI Basin . TW70.75
BW67.25
----,-- ' New Wood
Property Line
Fence
-S- S -S->-S-S-S-C·
TW74.17
BW70.17
I--------------- 23'-411 --------------of
FOR LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT NOTES & LEGEND, SEE SHEET L-1.

FOR WATER CONSERVATION PLAN & CALCULATIONS, SEE SHEET L-3.

FOR EXISTING TREE DISPOSITION PLAN, SEE SHEET L-4.

V\I
N
s
2030 Galveston Street
San Diego, CA 92110
T: (858) 458-0555
www.topialand.com
Boyd
Residence
506 Pacific
Avenue
Solana Beach,
CA
PROJECT NO. 20.007.00
NOTFOR

CONSTRUCTION
ISSUED
Issue Date
Tl I[ U:3[ 01 Tl i=G[ "LANG AND
Sl-'t:Uf-lL:AIIU11SSH,O,LLl::lt:HCS --<ICICU
TO THF '.ml 1:CINAI "ITF F1:R 'f'IHl 1:H T-F'1
\VERE ,'C: E-,A C:E] /lJ..JD l'UBLIC.,; TINJ
I Ht:f.it:Uf- IC: CX_;f-i='.:;::;L '/ L Ml I CU I U S_CH IJ:C:,F RFP"ion1v:T1:,1..J, PIIR ICATIOf1, o:;;
r!EUff BY NJY VIETHOC, l~I \l\'HOL:C JR lr1
p;i.pT WITHO_ T EXPRESS \\'RI-TEI~
CCNSEW OF TOPIA IC: F·ROHl:CITEC. TITLE
TO THE =LNIS ,\~ID SPEC F Ci\T O~IS
PEMAIN I\ TOF·IA WITH CUT F·REclUDIC:C
\I GUA_ CO\ -.".CT v1- Tl l=G= "LANG A~ID
Sl-'t:Uf-lL:AI 1ur1s SH,O,LL CUNS 111 U IC
PRIMA FAr:IF FVlnF~Ji:F OF THF
ACC:Cl'TAl~CE CF-HEC:E R::sm CTIJI..JS
Landscape
Development
Plan
DATE: 03.31.21
SCALE: 1 /4" = 1 '-0"
L-2
... r
,;-s- v,-4 ,p, i · w .
e'
.• >\.· .. . ...... •,··•~· ...·.<.•·.•· ...·· •.•..•. ··. ·. ,. ·, .. - '•, ·, · .. . . . . . . ' .. . . ' . '. "".' ... ... _. - . ·. o· . . . . . .

V t ........... ,\ ..... ; :::\ CC J, .
•· ..·,.··•.> :.-, -: . . : ·.·
' "
. .-0. r .::.
_. . )s ·.
rs : ._ ...
ls . ·.-,
), · ..
· .. ~ ·.···.····
. . . .
w-~I;,; L ·· ·.::,·.,:._:w. ·>·-_:-.w ·. ~
. .. : -r , ..
~
. . . : ·. ·. )1
. ";-;
--
'·I . , I
' I
l
ci•
\1•
.I
HYDROZONELEGEND:-TOTALLANDSCAPE
(HYDROZONE) AREA= 1,974.2 S.F.

SYMBOL
+
+
+ +
+ + +
+ + +
+ + + +
+ + +
+ + + +
+ + +

DESCRIPTION
HYDROZONE 1: PRIVATE PLANTER - 253.33 S.F.

MIXED MEDIUM WATER USE PLANTING

NORTH/EAST EXPOSURE

10.0% OF THE TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA
(0 S.F. WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY)
(196.33 S.F. WITHIN PROPERTY LINE)
HYDROZONE 2: PUBLIC/PRIVATE PLANTER -639.32 S.F.

MIXED LOW WATER USE PLANTING

SOUTH/WEST EXPOSURE

35.3% OF THE TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA
(27.27 S.F. WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY)
(669.05 S.F. WITHIN PROPERTY LINE)
HYDROZONE 3: PRIVATE PLANTER - 274.96 S.F.

LOW WATER USE PLANTING

13.9% OF THE TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA
(0 S.F. WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY)
(274.96 S.F. WITHIN PROPERTY LINE)
HYDROZONE 4: BIO-FILTRATION BASIN -161.29 S.F.

LOW WATER USE PLANTING

8.2% OF THE TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA
(0 S.F. WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY)
(161.29 S.F. WITHIN PROPERTY LINE)
SYMBOL
vvvvvv
vvvvvv
vvvvvv
vvvvvv
vvvvvv
vvvvvv
vvvvvv
vvvvvv
---- --
s;:-GR, DE 1
\ CEN
_- -T
19'-0"
PARl<l~G 0~[ SIDI
ms-RUCTED 'N/ G.t',RAGE
[)0-0.R--1_9' :<9'
-
'I '"I "I'/ 141' ' y .,... I I • I I
C
I
-~~------
\J
ST.".IR
WCOD

DESCRIPTION
Ff\JTRY
WCOD
OFFICE
woou
□
□ CLJi1
[JF7~ LJ~
I' ! \ I
' ! ·,_!
~}~·oRL.

HYDROZONE 5: PUBLIC/PRIVATE ARTIFICIAL TURF -
244.77 S.F.

VERY LOW WATER USE PLANTING

12.4% OF THE TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA
(78.88 S.F. WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY)
(165.89 S.F. WITHIN PROPERTY LINE)
HYDROZONE 6: ARTIFICIAL TURF - 141.58 S.F.

VERY LOW WATER USE PLANTING

7.2% OF THE TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA
(0 S.F. WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY)
(141.58 S.F. WITHIN PROPERTY LINE)
HYDROZONE 7: SPA/BASIN - 258.95 S.F.

HIGH WATER USE

13.1% OF THE TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA
(0 S.F. WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY)
(258.95 S.F. WITHIN PROPERTY LINE)
Trash
I
I
I
I
I
::;Lj #
I
I
I
I
□
JF. SUITE
BD~IYI.
wnon
i

L GHTNELL
: L_J
□
WATER CONSERVATION NOTES:

1. PROPOSED TURF AREAS: THERE ARE NO TURF AREAS. THE PERCENTAGE OF TURF OF THE TOTAL DEVELOPABLE LANDSCAPED AREA IS 0.0%.

2. XERISCAPE PRINCIPLES APPLIED:

2.1. THE DESIGN OF THE LANDSCAPE IS INTENDED TO MATCH GROWTH REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANT

COMMUNITIES, TO MODIFY PLANT GROUPINGS TO ACCOUNT FOR SUN AND WIND EXPOSURE, AND TO MINIMIZE WHERE POSSIBLE, WATER AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS. PLANTS WITH SIMILAR

CULTURAL REQUIREMENT OF EXPOSURE, SOILS, AND WATER NEEDS WILL BE GROUPED TOGETHER AND

LOCATED ON THE PROJECT SITE IN MICRO-CLIMATES WHERE THEY WILL REQUIRE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF WATER FOR OPTIMUM GROWTH AND MAINTENANCE.

2.2. THE SOILS WILL BE TESTED UPON COMPLETION OF ROUGH GRADING FOR THEIR ABILITY TO SUSTAIN

PLANT GROWTH AND WILL BE AMENDED AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE OPTIMAL CONDITIONS FOR CONTINUING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLANT MATERIAL.

BOYD 506 Pacific Avenue
A.nniiwnt Last Name Project1Plan CheckNumb.er Proiect Address The project's Estimated I otal Water Use is calculated usrng the followrng formula:

ETW1J - EsLimaLe<l Lola} water use per year (gallons per year) ETo - EvapoLransprration rate (inches per year)
PF -Plant Factor from \VCCOLS (see Definitims)
HA - Hy<lro-zone Area (square feel): Define hy<lro-zones by water 1,1se: very lO\v, low, motlerale an<l high SLA - Special Landscape Area (square feet): Edible plants., irrigated with recycled waler, & turf usetl for adive play

0.62 - Cmvers1on Factor (to gallons per square foot)
IE - IrngaLion EHiciency

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE (ETWU) WORKSHEET Line Hydro-zone Number (1 - 4 Below - use as many tables as necessa to com lete all h drozones
1 2 3 4
Evapotranspiration Rate (ETo)
See "A' below 1 Use 41 (West of 1-5) / 47 (east of 1-5) Conversion Factor - 0.62 2 0.62
(Line 1 x Line 2) 3 '25.42 (west of 1-5) / 29.14 (east Df 1-5) Plant Factor (PF)
See "B' below
Hydrozone Area (HA) - in square feet
(Line 4 x Line 5)
Irrigation Efficiency (IE)
See "C" below
(Line 6 + Line 7)
4 5
6 7
8 0.6 0.3
253.33 639.32
152.0 191 .80

0.81 0.81
187 .65 236.79

0.3 0.3
274.96 161 .29

82.49 48.39

0.75 0.81
109.98 59.73
TOTAL of all Line 8 boxes + SLA 9 594.15 + 310.47 (Sheet Below)= 904.62 Line 3 x Line 9
Estimated Total Water Use - ETWU
(gallons per year)
Total shall not exceed MAWA below
10 25,42 X 904.62 = 22,995
A
ETo- RvapobruLfJlimfionmtP=
41 (west of 1-5)
47 (east of 1-5)
B
PF- P!lUlt Factor- nre Wl!C:OTSvahtPsto
detennine th.e cute~orrfor each :rpecie.-. u,rerl.

The highest water use PF must. be usedwhf!n
more than one PF is shown in a hJ'dro-zone.

0.1 = VLW- Ve1v Low Water Use Plants

0.3 - L W - Lvw ·writer Use Plimh
C
IE - Ini{.!a1it111 P,[ficie11cy.

Spray =.55
Rotor= .70
Bubbler - 75
MP rotator =. 7 5
Drip .&~Micro-:,pmy = 81
41 0.6 = Mf'V- Moderate Water Use Nanrs

1.0 =HW-Hi h Wa1er Use Plants
A dtfferem IE may be used if supponed by documentation subjec1 to a rovai by the City Planner
MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER APPLICATION (MAW A) calculation:

Evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETA.F) use .55 residential .45 non- residential MA.WA

25.42 or 29.14 Total Landscape l\rea Total SLA 27,598 ~2~5~·~4~2~ [(ETAF X 1,974 ) +(1-ETAFx_o=-~c--)] ~ I L-----------~
January 2016 ETWU DOES NOT EXCEED MAWA Page 3 of9

ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE (ETWU) WORKSHEET
BOYD 506 Pacific Avenue
Applicm1/ Lris1 N1une Projeci/Plim Check Number Projecl Address The project's Estimated Total \Vater Cse is calculated using the following formula:

ETW1J = Estimated total water use per year (gallons per year) ETo = Evapotranspiration rate (inches per year)
PF = Plant Factor from \VUCOLS (see Definitions)
HA = Hydro-zone ~1\rea (square feet): Define hydro-zones by water use: very lov,', lov,', moderate and high SLA = Special Landscape Area (s.quare feet): Edible plants, irrigated with recycled ,vater, & turf used for active play
(1.62 = Conversion Factor (to gallons per square foot)
IE = Irrigation Efficiency

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE (ETWU) WORKSHEET Line Hydro-zone Number (1 - 4 Below - use as many tables as necessa drozones
5 7
Evapotranspiration Rate (ETo)
See "A' below 1 Use 41 (west of 1-5) / 47 (east of 1-5) Conversion Factor - 0.62 2 0.62
(Line 1 x Line 2) 3 25.42 (west of 1-5) 1:i'9.14 (east of 1-5) Plant Factor (PF)
See "B' below
Hydrozone Area (HA) - in square feet
(Line 4 x Line 5)
Irrigation Efficiencv (IE)
See "C" belOw
'(Line 6 + Line 7)
TOTAL of all Line 8 boxes + SLA
Line 3 x Line 9
4 5
0 7
8 g
0, 1
244.77

24.48 0.75

32.64 310.47
0, 1 1.0
141 .58 258.95

14.16 258.95

0.75 1

18.88 258.95
Estimated Total Water Use - ETWU
(gallons per year)
Total shall not exceed MAWA below
10 SEE SHEET ABOVE
A
Ero - Ev1ipotnmspin1Jion mte -
41 (west of 1-5)
47 (east of 1-5)
B
PF- Plani Ftu:lor- Use IYVCOLSv11Jue;,;Jo
detenntne the cat(!f:!Of}'.(or each species used.

The highestwaiernse PFmnst be nsedwhf!n
more than one PF is shown in a hydro-zone.

0.-1 = VLW - ve,y I.ow Water Use I'lants

0.3 -I W,- Lvw Wale'r [he Plants
IE'- lm,,(11li1m E;[fidem:y
Spray= .55'
Rowr = . 70
Bubbler - 75
MP,wator =.75
Drip & lvficro-:,pray = SJ
C
8 SLA
41 0.6 =.lvDV- lvloderate !l''ilter Use Piants

1.0 =HW-Hi h Water Use Plams
A d{{ferem IE mcry be used if supported by documenration subjecl w a roval by the Citv Planner
MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER APPLICATION (MA WA) calculation:

Evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF) use .55 residential .45 non- residential ____ [(ETAF x_~-~--) + (1-ETAF x~~~_ )J ~ I

25.42 or 29.14 Total Landscape Area Total SLA
~-----------
MA.WA
January 2016 Page 3 of9
2030 Galveston Street
San Diego, CA 92110
T: (858) 458-0555
www.topialand.com
Boyd
Residence
506 Pacific
Avenue
Solana Beach,
CA
PROJECT NO. 20.007.00
NOTFOR

CONSTRUCTION
ISSUED
Issue Dale
Tl I[ U:3[ 01 Tl i=sc "LANG AND
Sl-'t:Uf-lL:AIIUtJSSH,O,LLl::lt:HCS ..;1c1cu
TO THF '.ml,:CINAI "ITF F('.R 'f'IHl(-:H T-F'1
\VERE ,'C: E--,A C:E] /lJ,JD l'IJBLIC.,; TINJ
I Ht:f.it:Uf- IC: CX_;k='.:;::;L '/ L Ml I CU IO S-CH
IJ:C:,F RFP:c;on1v:T1:,r.J, PIIR ICATIOfJ, o:;;
r!EUff BY NJY VIETHOC, l~I \l\'HOL:C JR WJ
P,::,.PT WITHO-T EXPRESS \VRI-TEl,J
CCNSEW OF TOPIA IC: F·ROHl:CITEC. TITLE
TO THE =LNIS ,\~ID SPEC F Ci\T O~IS
PEMAIN I\ TOF·IA VVITHCUT F·REclUDIC:C
\I SUA_ CO\ -.".CT v1- Tl 1=s= "LANG A~ID
Sl-'t:Uf-lL:AI 1ur1s SHALL CUNS 111 U IC
PRIMA FAr:IF FVlnF~H-:F OF THF
ACCCT'TAl"CE CF-HEC:E R::sm CTIJ(-.JS
Water
Conservation
Plan &
Calculations
DATE: 03.31.21
SCALE: 3/16" = 1 '-0"
L-3
EXISTING TREE NOTES:

1. THE CLIENT ASSUMES ALL RELATED REMOVAL COSTS, INCLUDING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF REPLACING ANY SIDEWALK AND/OR CURB THAT WAS DAMAGED, OR REPAIRING ANY SIDEWAY TRIPPING HAZARDS.

2. ALL MATERIALS SPECIFIED TO THE REMOVED SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF-SITE PER LOCAL CODES AND REGULATIONS.

3. PER CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE SECTION 5.408.4, 100% OF TREES, STUMPS, ROCKS AND ASSOCIATED VEGETATION AND SOILS RESULTING FROM LAND CLEANING SHALL BE RE-USED OR RECYCLED.

EXISTING TREE DISPOSITION LEGEND:

PALMS
# BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CALIPER HEIGHT DRIPLINE (RADIUS) ACTION 1 JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS Hollywood Juniper 12" 20' 16' To Be Demolished 'TORULOSA'
2 JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS Hollywood Juniper 18" 18' 14' To Be Demolished 'TORULOSA'
3 PINUS SPECIES Pine 12" 16' 7' To Be Demolished
4 SCHINUS MOLLE California Pepper Tree 8" 16' 13' To Be Demolished 5 SCHINUS MOLLE California Pepper Tree 8" 17' 16' To Be Demolished 6 MELALEUCA SPECIES Melaleuca 10" 23' 18' To Be Demolished

TYPICAL EXISTING TREE

TO BE REMOVED
TREE #1
TREE #2 /#3
TREE #4 /#5
TREE #6
2030 Galveston Street
San Diego, CA 92110
T: (858) 458-0555
www.topialand.com
Boyd
Residence
506 Pacific
Avenue
Solana Beach,
CA
PROJECT NO. 20.007.00
NOTFOR

CONSTRUCTION
ISSUED
Issue Dale
Tl I[ U:3[ 01 Tl i=sc PLA\S AND
Sl-'t:Clf-lCAI IUtL SH,O,LL l::lt: HCS -<ICI =U
TO THF '.ml,:CINAJ "ITF FOR WHl(-:H --F'1
\\'ERE ,'C:E--,ARE] /lJ-.JD l'UBLICATINJ
THEREOF 1,; :CX=R:CSSL v L MITED TO SUCH
USE. REP:c;ODIJCTIJN. PIJBLICATlrn·J. OR
PEU:SE BY Nii VIETHOC, l~I \\'HJL:C JR tJ
PART WrTHOIJT E:XPRESS \\'RI-TEI~
CCNSE\ - OF TOPv; IC: :cpoHl::ITED. TITLE
TO THE =LNIS :,ND ::;PEC FIC.'\TIO~IS
REM.ti.IN lhl TOF·IA VVITHCUT :cpE"II_IDIC:C
\I SIJAL CO\ -ACT '1 1-1 I Tl i=sc "LANG AND
Sl-'t:Clf-lCAI IUtL SH,O,LL CUNSI 11 U IC
PRIMA fll(:lf FVlnF~J(-:F OF THF
ACCCT'T f.J.JCE CF THE:~E ,! ::srn CTIJ(-.JS
Existing Tree
Disposition Plan
DATE: 03.31.21
SCALE 3/16" = 1 '-0"
L-4
b
' CD

ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE AROUND DRIVEWAY
24'-4"
30'-0" ALLOWABLE
(D
_,
LO

STREET ELEVATION AND GATE DETAILS
(N.T.S.)

ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE AROUND WALKWAY
9'-0"
12'-0" ALLOWABLE
~IO
~ Cl ---'
N I 5l
'<I"
c;,
(D
2030 Galveston Street
San Diego, CA 92110
T: (858) 458-0555
www.topialand.com
Boyd
Residence
506 Pacific
Avenue
Solana Beach,
CA
PROJECT NO. 20.007.00
NOTFOR

CONSTRUCTION
ISSUED
Issue Date
Tl I[ U:3[ 01 Tl i=sc "LANG AND
Sl-'t:Uf-lL:AIIUtJSSH,O,LLl::lt:HCS -<ICICU
TO THF '.ml,:CINAI "ITF F('.R 'f'IHl(-:H T-F'1
\VERE ,'C: E--,A C:E] /lJ-.JD l'IJBLIC.A TINJ
I Ht:f.it:Uf- IC: CX_;k='.:;::;L '/ L Ml I CU IO S_CH
IJ:C:,F RFP:c;on1v:T1:,1-J, PIIR ICATIOIJ, o:;;
r!EUff BY NJY VIETHOC, l~I \l\'HOL:C JR WJ
P;:iRT WITHO_ T EXPRESS \\'RI-TEI~
CCNSEW OF TOPIA IC: F·ROHl:CITEC. TITLE
TO THE =LNIS ,\~ID SPEC F Ci\T O~IS
REMAIN I\ TOF·IA VVITHCUT F·REclUDIC:C
\I SUA_ CO\ -.".CT v1- Tl 1=s= "LANG A~ID
Sl-'t:Uf-lL:AI IUIJS SH,O,LL CONS 111 U IC
PRIMA FAr:IF FVlnF~H-:F OF THF
ACCCT'TAIJCE CF-HEC:E R::sm CTIJIJS
Street
Elevation
DATE: 03.31.21
SCALE: 1 /4" = 1 '-0"
L-5

APPLICATION FOR VIEW ASSESSMENT
(Structure Development Permit)
Project No.: DRP20-014/SDP-020

RECEIVED
JUN O 3 2021
Community Development Dept.

City of Solana Beach

1. Address of property for which the structure development permit has been requested:
506 Pacific Ave Solana Beach, CA 92075

2. Provide the following information for the individual filing this Application for Assessment:

Name: Kathleen de Paolo
Address: 504 Pacific Ave Solana Beach, CA 92075
Phone Number: =85:;..:8._-=--37"--'6._-7..:....;8=2=0~------------------- Email: [email protected]

3. Description of the viewing area as defined in Solana Beach Zoning Ordinance, Section

17.63.020(1) and extent of impairment: ~Impaired viewing area from second floor master bedroom picture window, which faces northeast with a vegetation and rooftops view extending to hills east of I-5. Approximately 80% of window will be blocked. Proposed south facing windows and balcony create privacy concern into master bedroom.

4. Identify the portion of the proposed structure which is the most objectionable and suggestions to minimize the view impairment: The second story on the south side of the proposed home extends from the front to rear setback, 5' from property line. Potential mitigations include reducing blockage, changing south facing window configuration, and providing screening vegetation.

5. Description of the Claimants attempt(s) to resolve this issue with the owner/representative of the property for which a Structure Development Permit has been requested: Discussions in progress with representative Eric Buchanan, regarding concerns with view, privacy, and daylight impacts.
~~ igatureofApplicant for Assessment Date Submitted
STAFF USE ONLY:

Application for Assessment fee paid?
6-2019
ATTACHMENT 3

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
View Assessment Commission Action Minutes
Tuesday, August 17, 2020- 6:00 P.M. Regular Mtg.

Teleconference Location Only-City Hall/Council Chambers 635 South Highway 101, Solana Beach, CA 92075
Minutes contain a summary of the discussions and actions taken by the View Assessment Commission during a meeting are video recorded and archived as a permanent record.

The video recording captures the complete proceedings of the meeting and is available for viewing on the City's website.

1. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
Chairperson Coad called the View Assessment Commission Meeting to order at 6:04PM on Tuesday, August 17, 2021 in the Council Chambers at 635 South Highway 101, Solana Beach.

Present: VAC Members:

Staff Members:

Absent:

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Pat Coad, Paul Bishop, Matt Cohen, Robert
Moldenhauer, Robert Zajac, and Linda Najjar
Joseph Lim Community Development Director; Katie
Benson, Senior Planner; John Delmer, Junior Planner;
Elizabeth Mitchell, Assistant City Attorney;
Frank Stribling
Chairperson Coad called for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion made by Commissioner Bishop, seconded by Commissioner Zajac, passed 6/0/1 (Stribling absent).

3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Speaker time limit: 3 minutes)
There were no speakers.

4. Approval of the Minutes
No Meeting Minutes were provided in the Agenda Packet. The previous minutes will be approved at the next scheduled council meeting.

Chairperson Coad called for a motion to approve the agenda 1/21/2020. Motion made my Commissioner Moldenhauer, seconded by Chairperson Coad. 5/0/2 (Najjar and Stribling Recused)
Chairperson Coad called for a motion to approve the agenda 2/18/2020. Motion made my Commissioner Zajac, seconded by Commissioner Bishop. 6/0/1 (Stribling Recused) ATTACHMENT 4
VAC Meeting Minutes
Tuesday,August17,2020
Page No. 2

5. DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd Residence - 506 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach Applicant Information:

Name: Jim and Kathleen Boyd
Representative:

Name:

Phone:

Eric Buchanan - Oasis Architecture & Design, Inc
(619) 204-8248
Email: [email protected]
Claimant Information:

Name: Kathy de Paolo
Address: 504 Pacific Ave
Description of Project:

The Applicants are requesting the · approval of a Development Review Permit (DRP) and Structure Development Permit (SOP) to demolish a single-family residence, construct a replacement two-story, single-family residence built above a basement with an attached two-car garage, and perform associated site improvements. The 6,120, square foot lot is located within the Medium Residential (MR) Zone and Scaled Residential Overlay Zone (SROZ). The following is a breakdown of the proposed floor area:

Proposed First Floor
Proposed Second Floor
Proposed First Floor Garage
Proposed Basement
Subtotal
Required Parking Exemption
Basement Exemption
Total Floor Area Proposed
Maximum Allowable Floor Area (SROZ)
1,388 SF
1,562 SF
470SF
1,276 SF
4,696 SF
-400 SF
-1 ,276 SF
3,020 SF
3,021 SF
As specified in the SOP Notice, the maximum building height of the residence is proposed at 24.95 feet above the proposed grade with the highest pole at 98.03 Mean Sea Level (MSL).

The project requires a DRP for grading in excess of 100 cubic yards, for a structure that exceeds 60% of the maximum allowable floor area, and for a second floor that exceeds 35% of the floor area of the first floor.

Chairperson Coad read the preamble.

Katie Benson, Senior Planner, gave a PowerPoint presentation describing the project. A copy of the PowerPoint will be included in the project file.

Commissioner Bishop asked if Staff received any correspondence that demonstrates efforts VAC Meeting Minutes
Tuesday,August17,2020
Page No. 3
between the applicant and claimants to resolve the view issues.

Commissioner Cohen requested to see the photos in Staffs presentation again.

The Commissioners stated their disclosures (as shown on table below) regarding dates they visited the properties.

Commissioner Cohen disclosed that he did not enter either of the properties. He only viewed the properties from the public right of way.

Assistant City Attorney Mitchell confirmed that there were no ex parte communications.

Mark Morris, Representative of the Applicants, presented a PowerPoint presentation and described their project and the communications they had with the Claimants. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation will be included in the project file.

Commissioners had questions, and Mr. Buchanan addressed their questions.

Kathy De Paolo, Claimant, presented a PowerPoint presentation and described her concerns of view blockage they would have by the proposed project. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation will be included in the file.

Commissioners had questions for Ms. De Paolo and Staff. All their questions were addressed.

Mr. Morris addressed issues that were brought up by the Claimants.

Commissioners had questions for the Applicant and Staff. All their questions were addressed.

Chairperson Coad called for a motion to close the public hearing. No one made a motion.

Chairperson Coad called for a motion to keep the public hearing open. Motion made my Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Chairperson Coad. 6/0/1 (Stribling Absent) Comissioner Cohen asked the applicant and claimant if they would consent to continue the meeting to a later date.

The applicant and claimant stated they would be open to a continuance until he next regularly scheduled VAC meeting.

Motion made my Commissioner Cohen to close the public meeting, seconded by Chairperson Coad. 6/0/1 (Stribling Absent)
VAC Meeting Minutes
Tuesday,August17,2020
Page No. 4
The Commissioners gave their findings as shown below:

Kathy de Paolo Coad Bishop Cohen Moldenhauer Zajac Najjar 504 Pacific Ave Date Claimant 8/13 8/17 8/17 8/9 & 8/15 8/09 8/09
Visited Applicant 8/12 8/16 8/17 8/9 8/09 8/09 & 8/13
Primary Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Roof Deck 2nd Floor Roof Deck Viewing Area Deck #1. Communication y y y y y Taken Place
#2. No Public View y y y y y Impairment
#3. Designed to
Minimize View N N N N N
Im airment
#4. No Cumulative y y y N y View Impairment
#5. Neighborhood y y y N y Compatibility
Chairperson Coad called for a motion. Commissioner Cohen made a motion to reopen the meeting to ask the Applicant if they would consider a continuance. Motion seconded by Chairperson Coad, passed 6/0/1 (Absent- Stribling). The applicant and claimant agreed to consent to an extension of the meeting longer than 30 days.

Commissioner Cohen made a motion to close the public meeting, seconded by Commissioner Zajac. 6/0/1 (Stribling Absent)
Commissioner Cohen made a motion to reopen the public meeting and continue the meeting to a date no later than November 16, 2021. Motion seconded by Chairperson Coad, passed 6/0/1 (Absent - Stribling).

6. VAC MEMBER COMMENTS/ DISCUSSION
Commissioner Naflar asked about the next regularly scheduled VAC meeting.

7. STAFF COMMENTS/ DISCUSSION
There were no comments from Staff.

8. ADJOURNMENT
y
y
y
y
N
The motion made by Commissioner Zajac to close the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Najjar, passed 6/0/1 (Absent - Stribling).

VAC Meeting Minutes
Tuesday,August17,2020
Page No. 5
Chairperson Coad declared the meeting adjourned at 8:25 PM.

Minutes as approved by V.A.C. on iDj\~J]J__ . Respectfully subu---· LCU CITY OF SOLANA BEACH www.cityofsolanabeach.org
635 SOUTH HIGHWAY 101 • SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 • (858) 720-2400 • Fax (858) 720-2455

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
View Assessment Commission Notice of Recommendation
Tuesday. January 181 2022 - 6:00 P .M. Regular Mtg.

PROJECT CASE NO:

PROJECT LOCATION:

APPLICANT NAME:

APPLCIANT CONTACT:

DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd Residence
506 Pacific Ave., Solana Beach
Jim and Kathleen Boyd
Eric Buchanan
PRESENT VAC MEMBERS: Paul Bishop, Pat Coad, Matthew Cohen, Robert Moldenhauer, Linda Najjar, and Robert Zajac,
STAFF MEMBERS: Joseph Lim, Community Development Director, Katie Benson, Senior Planner, Elizabeth Mitchell, Assistant City Attorney, John Delmer, Junior Planner
ABSENT: Frank Stribling
ASSESSMENT FILED BY:

Name: Kathy de Paolo
Address: 504 Pacific Ave., Solana Beach
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The Applicants are requesting the approval of a Development Review Permit (DRP) and Structure Development Permit (SOP) to demolish a single-family residence, construct a replacement two-story, single-family residence built above a basement with an attached twocar garage, and perform associated site improvements. The 6,120, square foot lot is located within the Medium Residential (MR) Zone and Scaled Residential Overlay Zone (SROZ). The following is a breakdown of the proposed floor area:

VAC NOR

Page 2 of 3 ends

The maximum building height is proposed at 24.87 feet above the proposed grade with the highest poles at 97.95 feet above mean sea level (MSL). A SOP is required for new construction in excess of 16 feet in height.

VAC RECOMMENDATION:

The project was originally heard at the August 17, 2021 meeting which was conducted via teleconference in accordance with Government Code sections 54953(e) and 54954.3 and other applicable law. After the Commissioners presented their findings and they discussed their choices, Commissioner Cohen made a motion to reopen the meeting to ask the Applicant if they would consider a continuance, seconded by Chairperson Coad, passed 6/0/1 (AbsentStribling). The applicant and claimant consented to continue the meeting. Commissioner Cohen made a motion to reopen the public meeting and continue the meeting to a later date, seconded by Chairperson Coad, passed 6/0/1 (Absent- Stribling).

The project was continued to the January 18, 2022 meeting which was conducted via teleconference in accordance with Government Code sections 54953(e) and 54954.3 and other applicable law. During the meeting, Mr. Buchanan did not consent to a continuance and requested that the VAC make a recommendation instead of continuing the project to a later date.

After additional discussion between the Commissioners, Chairperson Cohen made a motion to recommend denial of the project, seconded by Commissioner Coad. Motion passed 5/1/1 Ayes: Cohen, Bishop, Coad, Moldenhauer, Najjar. Noes: Zajac. Absent:

Stribling
FINDINGS:

1. The Applicants for the Structure Development Permit have made a reasonable attempt to resolve the view impairment issues with the Claimants requesting view assessment. Written evidence of a good faith voluntary effort to meet and discuss view issues, or of a good faith voluntary offer to submit the matter to mediation, is hereby deemed to be a reasonable attempt to resolve view impairment issues.

Yes - Written accounts and oral testimony at the public meeting showed that there had been communication between the Applicants and the Claimant.

2. The proposed structure does not significantly impair any view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bikeways, walkways, equestrian trails), which has been identified in the City's General Plan or City designated viewing areas.

Yes - The subject property is not located within designated public viewing areas; therefore, the proposed structure does not significantly impair views from public property.

January 18, 2022

VAC NOR

Page 3 of 3 ends

3. The proposed structure is not designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment of views.

No - The majority of the VAC members found that the proposed residence was not designed or situated to minimize impairment of views. The VAC members found that more could be done to minimize the impairment of views from the de Paolo Residence.

4. There is significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application as proposed.

Yes -The majority of the VAC members found that there would not be significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application if adjacent lots were allowed to construct a development of a similar size and height.

5. The proposed structure in general is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character.

Yes - The majority of the VAC members found that the proposed development is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The development would be compatible with the existing neighboring structures in terms of design, bulk, scale, height and size.

VACVote:

Chairperson Cohen made a motion to recommend denial of the project, seconded by Commissioner Coad. Motion passed 5/1/1 Ayes: Cohen, Bishop, Coad, Moldenhauer, Nanar.

Noes: Zajac. Absent: Stribling
lssu Date ofVAC Recommendation: January 18, 2022
y e s, P 1ncipal Planner , Chair
Liaison, View Assessment Committee ent Committee
Attachment 6
Applicants' Request for Approval
This document was not available at the time of publishing and will be circulated as a Blue Folder once received.

ATTACHMENT 6
Kathleen de Paolo
504 Pacific Ave
Solana Beach, CA 92075
May 4, 2022
City of Solana Beach
Att: Katie Benson
635 S. Hwy 101
Solana Beach, CA 92075
DRP20-014/SDP20-010 Boyd Residence - 506 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach Dear Katie:

This correspondence is provided as input to City Council with regard to the above referenced application. I have concerns that the project as designed does not meet the following required DRP/SDP findings:

VAC Finding 3: SBMC Chapter 17 60.040 Subsection F, Finding 3 The structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment of views.

DRP Finding 2: SBMC Chapter 17 68.040 Subsection F, Criteria 1 and 2

1. Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses. The development shall be designed in a manner compatible with and complementary to existing development in the immediate vicinity of the project site and the surrounding neighborhood. The development as proposed shall also be compatible in scale, apparent bulk, and massing with such existing development in the surrounding neighborhood. Site planning on or near the perimeter of the development shall give consideration to the protection of surrounding areas from potential adverse effects.

2. Building and Structure Placement. Buildings and structures shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and designed in a manner which visually and functionally enhance their intended use and complement existing site topography. Multi-family residential buildings shall be sited to avoid crowding and to allow for a functional use of the space between buildings.

Please see attached for additional detail.

Sincerely,
Kathleen de Paolo
ATTACHMENT 7
Background and Attempts to Resolve
We live at 504 Pacific Ave, in the home immediately to the south of the proposed project. This has been our home since Aug 1999. Our main living area is on the north side of the first floor, directly adjacent to the project. My master bedroom window (located on the second floor) faces the project and is my primary viewing area.

When the story poles went up in May 2021, I reached out to the project architects Mark and Eric. This was the first communication to or from the applicant regarding the project, attached for reference.

Since then, we have attempted to find a mutual agreement that allows the Boyds to build a new home that meets all of their needs, while allowing my family to not lose valuable views, privacy, and daylight from our home. We met over Zoom and on property, and shared emails, photos, and documents back and forth. Jim and I also met several times in the neighborhood to discuss the matter.

The applicant has already made a number of adjustments to the design, for which I have been appreciative. The initial design maximized the applicant's utility within the building envelope, without contemplating the impacts on my property. It is no small feat to address this after the fact, and the architects have done an admirable job finding ways to make improvements within those constraints.

The question before the Council, however, is whether the SDP and DRP findings can be made for the current design as it stands today. Unfortunately, the current design still poses significant issues, which are outlined in this letter.
1 VAC Finding 3
SBMC Chapter 17 60.040 Subsection F, Finding 3:

The structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment of views.

Summary: The current design blocks most of my primary view. Modifications since the January 18 View Assessment Commission, in which 4 of the 6 commissioners could not make Finding 3, have only restored an incremental ~s% of the view.

This is not an ocean view; in fact, there are no ocean views from inside our home. This nature view is very important to me, however, due to its unique capture of the diverse features of our city, and its location in the home. It offers a serene, private view of rooftops and vegetation, extending to edge of the San Elijo Lagoon and the hills east of 1-5.

This is an area of the home that is utilized daily, throughout the day, especially since my work has transitioned to full remote and I am home all of the time. The master suite is important to 2 any home, but in particular I consider the space a sanctuary and refuge, and my bed faces this north window.

We also have outdoor views from our master balcony and roof deck. In contrast with the master bedroom, these views are used far less often. When we want to be outdoors and see the ocean, there is a better, completely unobstructed view to be had by walking across the street to the beach.

In the 2nd VAC meeting on January 18, 2022, 4 of 6 commissioners determined the view from the master bedroom window to be my primary viewing area. One commissioner picked the master balcony, and one picked the roof deck.

View Blockage
The current proposal blocks most of my primary view. Below is a rendering of the current proposal provided by the applicant's architects.

PROPOSED DESIGN
Per the VAC Toolkit, the Ordinance does not create a right to an unobstructed view. The toolkit p. 11 states: On new construction, the second story bulk should be placed to minimize the impact to existing views. The Toolkit illustrates a view corridor created by limiting the 2nd story to 50% of buildable lot width, excluding setbacks.

The VAC commissioners felt more needs to be done to alleviate 2nd story massing and improve my master bedroom view. Several mentioned the 50% buildable area guideline. 3 As the commission noted, there is also adverse impact to view due to the roof deck located on top of the 2nd story. This 3rd level of the structure creates additional massing and height that reduce the view.

Restoring a 50% view corridor to my master bedroom and alleviating the height of the overall structure would, as illustrated below, make a significant difference to the quality of light and view in this room.

Compared to the current proposal, this would more equitably represent "the best balance between the owner's desire to protect his/her property in accordance with applicable regulations, and the neighbor's desire to protect his/her view", as contemplated in the VAC Toolkit.
4 DRP Finding 2 Criterion 2
Buildings and structures shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on the surrounding properties
Summary: The current design does not minimize adverse impacts to surrounding properties, due to the size and placement of its 2nd story mass which impacts daylight as well as view. It also introduces adverse impacts to the utility of areas of our home due to privacy issues.

Daylight
The proposed design does not follow SBMC guidelines regarding daylight planes, and will have adverse impact to light in our home.

SBMC Chapter 17.20 (H) specifies Daylight Plane Height: Within the (ER-1), (ER-2), (LR), (LMR), (MR}, (MHR) and (HR) zones all new structures and structural additions shall be encouraged, but not required, to be designed to use a daylight plane beginning at a vertical height of 16 feet above any two designated setback lines and sloping toward the interior of the lot at a 30 degree angle (from horizontal) until the 25-foot height limit is reached.

In addition, the VAC toolkit p. 3 suggests that daylight planes can be used to reduce bulk and allow light and air to pass through to neighboring properties.

These guidelines are designed to alleviate the types of adverse effects introduced by the structure as currently designed.

The image below shows the street facing view of project provided in the architectural drawings.

The most important areas of my home lie immediately to the right of this view. The portion of the 2nd floor to the right of the blue line encroaches into the daylight plane. 5 Multiple architects I spoke with warned this will adversely affect light into my main living areas.

The proximity of the 2nd story mass will block light through the dining room bay window, which provides natural light to the center of our main living area. It will also block light into the kitchen meal prep and eating areas through the kitchen skylight and the kitchen transom windows. This is illustrated in the photos below.

X
X
Following the daylight plane guidelines provided by the city for this purpose would provide significant improvements in the dining area, as seen from the photos below, taken sitting at the dining table. The following visualizations based on story pole placement approximate the living space light with the current proposal (left), versus the project when modified to comply with daylight planes (right).
6 X
Daylight planes will also restore light to the kitchen through the skylight and transom windows, as seen in the photos below (current proposal on left versus with daylight planes on right). 7 Other Adverse Impacts
In addition to adverse impacts on view and daylight, both the SBMC and VAC Toolkit recognize the importance of privacy.
• "Privacy" means reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation and/or noise. (SBMC 17.63.020)
• Privacy and views are sometimes in conflict. Views are very important, but so is privacy. (VAC Toolkit p13)
Master Balcony
The planned master balcony looks directly into the master bedroom, the kitchen, and the dining area, as illustrated in the photos below.

We had previously agreed to a full height frosted glass panel on the south side of the balcony, which would solve this problem. The current drawings replace the glass panel with planting.

Unfortunately, plants can die and subsequent homeowners or renters may not maintain them.

Given the seriousness of the privacy issue, a durable, permanent solution as provided by the frosted glass is needed.
8 Roof deck
The roof deck looks directly down through my master bedroom window, as shown below.

Virtually every part of my bedroom is visible from the roof deck, notably including the bed which faces the window.

This roof deck is a bit unusual in that it is accessed directly from the main living area. It is big enough to accommodate large social gatherings and parties. This six-bedroom proposed design, which includes 2 master suites, would be a very attractive rental for large groups. As such, noise is a concern as well as visual privacy.

The roof deck presents adverse impact not only to daylight and view, but to the intended use of my master bedroom. The below visualization uses the story poles to demonstrate the problem. 9 DRP Finding 2 Criterion 1:

The development as proposed shall be compatible in scale, apparent bulk, and massing with such existing development in the surrounding neighborhood.

Summary: The project is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood due to massing of the 2nd story and the 3rd level roof deck.

The 2nd story massing of the project exceeds the norm for the neighborhood. In the January VAC meeting, the claimant provided photos of 4 large two-story homes in the immediate vicinity. However, even in these specific examples, 3 of the 4 homes have a 2nd story that is significantly smaller than the ist story, alleviating mass at the top level. The proposed development uses almost the entire buildable area of the 2nd story.

In addition, the project presents massing and apparent bulk at greater height due to the roof deck. The top of the roof deck railing is at the maximum allowable height of 25 feet.

Eliminating this element would alleviate bulk, improving daylight and view. 10 In the VAC meeting on 8/17/21, Commissioner Moldenhauer reported that he walked the immediate neighborhood, including the 400 and 500 blocks of Pacific Ave, all of Circle Dr, the 500 block of Acacia Street, and the 200 blocks of Solana Vista and Ocean St. In total he viewed 83 residences and found 60% to be single story, and 40% two story. Only 3 out of the 83 residences had 3rd level roof decks.

Commissioners Moldenhauer and Najar both felt that a roof deck on top of a 2nd story is not compatible with the neighborhood. Additionally, Commissioners Coad, Bishop and Cohen pointed out the roof deck leads to other issues with view.

Conclusion
Before this project is approved, I believe the issues identified above must be addressed. As currently proposed, the project's 2nd story bulk, height, daylight planes, as well as privacy issues, do not meet the requirements of Solana Beach Municipal Code, as VAC finding 3 and DRP finding 2 cannot be made.
11 Attachment
Gmail
506 Pacific Ave
1 m assage
Kathy de Paolo <kda1J'[email protected]>
To: aric@oasi&-ad.com
iHi Eric,
Kathy de Paolo <[email protected]>
Fri, May 28. 2021 at 7:52 Pt.1
I ho pe yoo are doing well. I was rererred 1o you by the Cily or Solana Beach notioe as ttie Bl"dlitectfrepresentaJive for lhe project al 506 Pacilio Ave in Sotana Beach.

I am the property o'lmer at 504 Pacific, immediately south or Ille i;ubjecl property: I am reacnng out because I have a few concerns vith the cun-ent plans, which I look forward lo wooong with you to address. lli!Y.!i9
!Because the seoond story on the south side of Ille proposed home extends from tile front lo rear .setback and is 5' from Iha property line. it Ml im!J'Bcl lig ht into my dining and kitchen area, which has a large first ~oor window adjacent lo the properly line and skyighl that races the propooed project. !l:tMlcy
The proposed Ylimfow configuration on the sooth side of the seoond story impacts privacy lhro'-Qh lhe same d~ i~ mom wrid:ow and kitchen skylight, as well as offering views into my main living area lhrou.gh north faci~ transom windows.

Add itional!¥, the pruposed oBcond ffoor 'Mnclows on Ille south side face d" ectly into my master bedloom 'Mndow. The propooed secood floor deck on the south side and: roof dad also create priva.c-y conoems with my master bedroom. ~
I c urrently have a priva te vegetalion and rooftops view from the above-mentioned master b-edroom window. that. extends 1o Ille hillo Dll1 the olher side of 1-5. This view is blocked by Ille structure as proposed.

I would love to gel your thougllls as to h 0\11 these concerns can be miligated.

I can best be reached et this amail. I am also happy lo set up• time to talk on Ille ph.one or over a Zoom call. Please let me know what works best for you.

Kind regards,
Ka hy de Paolo
12 4/25122, 4 02 PM
M Gmail
Requested letter for SB City Council
1 message
Cindy Metcalfe <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], Katie Benson <[email protected]> Dear members of the City Council,
Gmail- Requested letter for SB City Council
Jim Boyd <[email protected]>
Mon, .Apr 25, 2022 at 3:59 PM
We own and live at 508 Pacific /'we in Solana Beach and are neighbors to the north of the new home proposed by Jim and Kathleen Boyd at 506 Pacific /'we, Solana Beach. W/h the understanding that the Boyd's proposal for a new home will be considered by the City Council at the next May meeting, we have reviewed the story poles as of April 20,2022 and are willing to waive any requirement that the poles have been available for viewing for 30 days.

Regards,
Richard and Cindy Metcalfe
ATTACHMENT 8
https:llmail.google.o:>mlmaillu/0l?ik=847875636b&vie1,1,ept&search=all&pennthid=thread-f%3A 1731111687912286371 &simpl=msg-f%3Al 731111687912286371 Ill Text message sent from neighbors Pete and Shari Mitchell (from Istanbul, Turkey, where they were vacationing).
<•
Letter to council.

April 21, 2022
Pete
Dear Members of the City Council:

We are residents of Solana Beach, who live at 505
Pacific Ave and are
neighbors to the west of the new home proposed by --- - ----- Jim and Kathleen Boyd at 506
Pacific Ave, Solana Beach.

With the understanding that the Boyd's proposal for a
new home will be considered by
the City Council at the next May meeting, we have
viewed the story poles as of April 20,
2022 and are willing to waive any requirement that
the poles have been available for
viewing for 30 days.

Thank you for considering our input.

Regards, Pete and Shari Mitchell. 505 Pacific Av.

Solana Beach.
1 Subject
G G) lReply ----
a ~ a a
May 9, 2022
Katie Benson
Senior Planner
City of Solana Beach
635 S. Hwy 101
Solana Beach, CA 92075
OASIS
Architecture &
Design, Inc.

Re: Applicant Comment in Support of Request for DRP/SDP/SDP Waiver Reconsideration ofVAC Recommendation of Denial
506 Pacific A venue, Solana Beach
Dear Katie Benson,
5-11-22 Mtg Item B.1.

Updated Report #1
Oasis Architecture & Design represents the interests of Jim and Kathleen Boyd (the "Applicant") regarding the proposed single family residence redevelopment at 506 Pacific A venue in Solana Beach.

On January 18, 2022, the City of Solana Beach View Assessment Commission ("V AC") was able to make four of the five findings for issuance of a structure development permit required by Solana Beach Municipal Code § 17 .63.040(F). This letter addresses Findings (F)(3), the one finding the VAC purportedly could not make and that resulted in its recommendation of SDP denial. We believe the V AC erred and that the Council can in fact make these findings.

Finding #3: The proposed project is designed and situated to minimize impairment of views.

Finding (F)(3) requires that the Applicant design and situate the structure "in such a manner as to minimize impairment of views." As reflected in Attachment 2, the Applicant's original proposed building envelope would have impaired the neighbor's northeasterly views. However, after multiple discussions with the affected neighbor and staff, the Applicant made a number of meaningful revisions to address view and privacy concerns. Those revisions are as follows:

I. The roof deck has been reduced in size and relocated to the center of the structure to move it away from the view of the neighbor's property.

Original roof deck area: 44 7 sf
New roof deck area: 296 sf

2. Roof tower element on the east side of the roof has been eliminated to increase the view to the north from the neighbor's bedroom and roof deck.
1015 Turquoise Street, Suite 2
San Diego, CA 92109
www.OASIS-AD.com 858.273.5632
!ATTACHMENT 61

3. Stair tower roof has been lowered by almost a foot to increase the view to the north from the neighbor's bedroom and roof deck.

4. Reduced the roof pitch from 4: 12 to 2: 12 for all roofs along the south side of the house to increase the view to the north from the neighbor's bedroom and roof deck.

5. Reduced the 2nd floor mass on the south side by pulling the south master suite wall back 18" to the north, pulling the east bath wall back 18" to the west, and pulling the bedroom wall back 12" to the east. These reductions to the 2nd floor mass will increase the views to the north from the neighbor's bedroom.

6. Pulled the stair tower back 12" to the east foot to increase the view to the north from the neighbor's bedroom and roof deck.

7. Added frosted/obscured glass windows to the master bedroom and bath up to 6'-0" above the floor line on the south elevation to increase privacy towards the neighbor's house.

8. Added siding to the south wall elevation to soften the visual impact of the two-story mass towards the neighbor's property.

9. These design changes resulted in an overall square footage reduction as follows:
2nd floor reduced by 54 sf
Garage reduced by 22 sf
Basement reduced by 2 sf
Total area reduced by 78 sf
With these changes made to the proposed structure, the Applicant at this point had diligently followed both the City of Solana Beach Municipal Code's development standards as well as the recommendations made in the City's View Assessment Guidelines and Toolkit:
• The proposed development meets the intent of the code and guidelines:

The stated intent of the City's code and guidelines includes balancing the ability to creatively implement solutions while recognizing there is no guaranteed right to an unobstructed view.

The applicant took feedback and implemented meaningful and reasonable steps to protect the neighbors' view and privacy. Another intent of the guidelines is to preserve the existing scale and character of the neighborhood, which the V AC found the Applicant has done. (See View Assessment Commission Notice of Recommendation, Finding #5). • The proposed development respects the neighbors' side yard daylight plane.

The Applicant made significant amendments to the roofline and roof deck and eliminated bulk immediately adjacent to the neighbors' side yard adjacent to their primary viewing area. (See Guidelines recommendation that "Roof shape and configuration should minimize apparent height and view interference" and "second story bulk should be placed to minimize the impact to the existing views.") These efforts minimize view impairment and significantly reduced the privacy concerns.
1015 Turquoise Street, Suite 2
San Diego, CA 92109
www.OASIS-AD.com 858.273.5632
• View quality has been taken into account.

The @lidelines encourage the V AC to consider " totality of the view, considering not only its size and quality, but how it is utilized from within the home and its importance to the resident" The guidelines are unequivocal that " the horizon line is the most sensitive part of the view" and that applicants should "if possible, avoid cutting the horizon line of a neighbor's view." Views to the Pacific Ocean are specifically called out as " important obj eels" in a property's view. The changes made to the Applicant's ori!9nal proposal, particularly including roof height reduction and second floor wall movement, unquestionably address the quality of views claimed by the neighbor.

ConcfusDn
In light of the foregoing. coupled with the positive finding!! of the V AC, the Council canm ake all of the Municipal Code's required DPR & SDP findings for the proposed redevelopment of 506 Pacific Ave. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or concerns. We respectfully request that you make this correspondence available to the Mayor andCouncilmembers before the matter is brought before them .

Best n,gards,
141+=-
Mark C. Moms, AJA, NC ARB
Oasis An:hi!ecture & Design Inc.
101S Turquoise Stn,et, Suite 2
San Diego, CA 92109
858. Z73. 5632olf",ce
858. 442. 0870cell
mark@,>asJs.ad .com
1 01 5 Turquoiae street, Suite 2
San O ;ego, CA 921 09
www.OASIS-AO.com 858. 273. 5632
0 ...

Boyd Residence
DRP20-014 / SDP20-020
City Council Meeting
State Marine ...

Annie's Canyon Trail 0
1/)
z
<a
(l. Solana Beach~ ..,
..
v,a De La Valle
Lomas San\a fe or
m
m
05-11·22 Mtg. Item B.1.

Presented by Staff
Zoning Designation
Low Residential (MR) - 3 Dwelling Units per Acre
w 632
-25 ~ 624
M1 6
15 61 509 525
05 35
29 21
17 05
540
507 521
578
570
558
2 Note: The outline shown is approximate and is not intended to show the actual property lines.

Aeria I Photo
3 Note: The outline shown is approximate and is not intended to show the actual property lines. 4 Zoning Regulations
and Permit Threshold
• DRP Required per SBMC §17.68.040(B)(l):
d: Grading in excess of 100 cubic yards
n: i. Construction in excess of 60% of the
maximum allowable floor area.
ii. Construction of a second level that
exceeds 35% of the main level floor area.
• SDP Required per SBMC §17.63.040:

Construction of an addition in excess of 16 feet in
height above pre-existing grade
*SDP Waiver requested for revised second-story
massing outside of the original story pole
envelope.
5 Project Descri~tion
Lot Size: 6,120 ft 2
Proposed Floor Area:

Maximum Allowable Floor Area: 3,021 ft2
First Floor Living Area
Second Floor Living Area
First Floor Garage
Basement Living Area
Subtotal
Off-Street Parking Exemption
SROZ Basement Exemption
Total Proposed Floor Area
1,338 ft 2
1,508 ft 2
448 ft 2
1,274 ft 2
4,618 ft 2
- 400 ft 2
- 1,274 ft 2
2,994 ft2
Maximum Height Proposed: 24.87 ft above proposed grade, 97.95 ft above MSL Grading: 40 yd3 cut and 40 yd3 fill outside the structure, 750 yd3 cut for basement, 50 yd3 excavation for footings, 880 yd3 removal and recompaction, an aggregate grading quantity of 1,760 yd3, and 800 yd3 of export Setbacks: Required Proposed 1st Floor Proposed 2nd Floor Front (W) 25' 25.7' 25' -28'
Interior Side (S) 5' 5.8' 7'
Interior Side (N) 5' 5.6' 5-9'
Rear (E) 25' 26.8' 25-29'
View of the Site from Ford Avenue
6 7
Neighborhood Compatibility
■ Lot Size in ft2 Existing ft2 Onsite Property Address
(GIS) (Assessor's)
.. 502 Pacific Ave 5,411 2,245
- 504 Pacific Ave 5,593 2,730
.. 506 Pacific Ave 6,120 1,540
.. 508 Pacific Ave 6,962 778
- 510 Pacific Ave 7,235 2,447
- 512 Pacific Ave 6,731 1,414
- 514 Pacific Ave 7,339 1,542
11!11 501 Pacific Ave 6,238 1,426
- 503 Pacific Ave 6,441 1,610
-- 505 Pacific Ave 5,321 1,994
11111 509 Pacific Ave 8,479 2,480
11111 517Pacific Ave 10,686 2,912
.. 516 Pacific Ave 6,750 1,827
11111 520 Pacific Ave 6,808 4,601
- 524 Pacific Ave 7,049 4,897
111!11 528 Pacific Ave 5,963 2,647
IIIJI 202 Solana Vista Dr 5,355 1,718
.. 204 Solana Vista Dr 5,346 1,661
111!11 507 N Acacia Ave 5,500 1,143
IIJIIII 511 N Acacia Ave 5,800 3,761
- 515 N Acacia Ave 6,200 3,866
.. 519 N Acacia Ave 6,400 2,145
.. 475 Pacific Ave 8,449 4,753
- 423 Pacific Ave 7,460 988
11111 424 Pacific Ave 7,100 1,026
- 215 Solana Vista Dr 6,030 1,080
.. 209 Solana Vista Dr 5,745 1,076
11111 423 N Acacia Ave 6,167 3,238
.. 420 Pacific Ave 7,596 1,986
11111 414 Pacific Ave 6,304 3,155
- 408 Pacific Ave 6,235 2,165
11!!1111 230 W Cliff St 8,376 2,061
Proposed/
Recently
Approved ft'
2,896
Max. Allowable
ft'
2,706
2,979
3,021
3,168
3,216
3,128
3,234
3,216
3,234
3,128
3,256
3,442
3,131
3,164
3,184
2,982
2,678
2,673
2,750
2,900
3,035
3,070
3,442
3,256
3,193
3,005
2,873
3,029
3,053
3,053
3,041
3,416
Zone
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
NOTE: The square footage information referenced
above has been obtained from the City's Beach
Database and the San Diego County Assessor's Office .

The County Assessor's Office does not assume liability
for the accuracy of the above information. Square
footages of existing structures detailed above only
include habitable living area (not gross floor area as
defined by the City of Solana Beach). Square footages
for existing structures do not include out-building,
accessory structure, garage and/or basement.

Residences Within the Surrounding Area
8 Residences Within the Surrounding Area
- 0510 202.2
9 Residences Within the Surrounding Area
' ' - 05 10 2022
10 E
\
11 Site Plan
PROJECT TO COMPL 'I" tuiT~ ~ ..E FOLLOWING BUILD ING CODES, 20<9 CA RES-IDEi.,"TIAL CODE
201
~ CA PUILCING CODE
2€'i~ CA ELECTRICAL CODE
:2€1l'e CA PLUMB ING CODE
20i~ CA MEC~AWCAL CODE
20~~ CA Fl~ COP5:
2<lH~ CA GREEN B UILDING CODE
NEW &!OS!: VSIEER
DRl'Y'£WAY C~
\
\
Ll6Ht!LEU. TO
aA5'=c.-:eNT BELO.U ----
w.4LL ~iED
cat,.OE~~ t.Nl1' ----
NEW 1:t•.,e-• 1-\IG!,:

FENCcANDGATE
@ SITE PLAN
-
NEW &Tor-I: "1:NI:~
PRIVtGY WALL
N5;16ta-E
PAVER&W!Tl-1
~e!SL! eAN>&
at":PPL4~~
PER~DNC)
PL"'
I. &:E&i-!EEtC•I FOflt61TE~NG~.
~. &EE SI-IE=T L-3 FOR WATER C6E C~CULATION&.
, . A e.AeX.l'L_(),\,j ,-,e'-A!Nn!lt I& 111:!!atJ!MO ~ Tl-41! 5!11.!!!lt t.AT~ SINCE ti..e e.ti..5S1£NT Fl"Nl&M ~LOOR t& LQU;eR
Tl-¼N TI-e IJP&ME..t.;"'11"".AN'-!OLE El..EV4TIGIH.

E9
NORTl-1
~
12 Basement Floor Plan
--r ... ,,. ____ r \ ,
- \ --3-~ :r, - r.::==-i
~ r. ----~~~====ri ' ' ~ I
\ I
\
I\ I .. I\ I ,
~ \ ''------111.--~-r--'r.'-.....,7--"""'___. ....ar
I \ I . r
t~~ ~~
'
-'---
...
,..,.

I
'
l
.~
•
___ _._I ___ _
Elt
6'Ttt:. 00(.R'fO eE fiSJofJ:)
r
\
\
I
I
\
7 I
I
--
\1 t .... ,.,.,.,..,. FER L,.:OHDOC.:F'E
"-"'
-----r
L __ _
13 ,--7
I I
7lT7 I
llLL_ -=i- 1 I
r-7, ·
I I
I I
L _ _J
I
I
I
\
14 t l<&tllei DOQlit to~ ~ c
\
I
I
\
-----
L
Second Floor Plan
----- -----
-;";>_·•
----- - -,,
I
l'ltlt "1
I
I
I
I
-----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
15 \
I
I
\
L __ _
Roof Plan
----- - -.0.. ----- ----- - - V
I I b '-S" I
,,. I I """""" I
-"'""""""·;>t·:.:0==-i~--r I
" /Ji ~ ;:,===== I
'
----, ,. , --7
____ ! --7- _J L_J
\ /
/ .,.,,,,,. M
,.J.2 ~ 141.."'-' ..........

I
_ I
I
I
I
I
t-6@ ; +"' ""'"""- '""-=f'l-A,,___N ----~
I FLAT~ ~Nie ~ 20'- 11' S F
O\JT~'Ne Cl' eXl5T1NG
5TRJC1\R I
I
L E
16 ~I-
~I
~I
I
Pl<OP05ED
"'1.A55
,..,_~'NG l
O\J~ 'N~ Cl'
~NT
UJ~ U 5
;
I
I_.
/
West {Front} Elevation
D □ - - ~
- ~~ '/ ,~- I -
--1- J L -- ~ - f-
~~ - 1---~ u -t - -
- -
@ WEST ELEVATION
¥S1- 0 1 MAX. M!IG~f
elJIL D t-c. ENYELOFE
~ ~
i.
:,.
i.
____,/' ~ ...,, '"' -,-. """'·
!S t ~ OOR
0 '-fZ/' A.S.F
~
~
. '~:_,~,&-~
$ e ASEME;NT - t<D'-21
4 ' A,SF
<a. • &3.52')
V4 ' • 1'- 12>'
17 !!I
i
CL
-,
I
I
I I
I
I
otJWN~ CI' I eASet-ENT WAL~!>--
L
11 East {Rear} Elevation
I I
" I~ ---l 4 r---::::::::=====~
::~
I ======~::
..-
' I I
==
-
" -
I
• 6
" .--+- 1 --=-i,
7 I
-
=~
I
I
II'
,!u
r=~~ li1
I
I
-- I - ~" ?,=J'.,
~ 11 -
" ~ = 11
I •[ j ' I.I ~: : !
@ EAST ELEVATION
';
!jl
w
;'.'. I - - _, i::
iii
,,
-
-
""
I
I
-10'- 214 ' A.5F.
(EL • 6}.~2'>
V4' • 1'- 0 '
J. -1-
18 3 -COAt P.C 51UCCO +-- +----
~DCE-'1:NT
BOARD 6!D~
OJTLINE O' EX SflNc; STRUCTUIQE
f'RCPOOED
STCN.E vENEER
iii
I
-;
'3ASEMa,.ll
l..fNDOJS N
L c.Hl .ell ----f-.--,11
I
L
North (Side} Elevation
I
I
I
I
__L
I
I
_J
W·"-Z.' MAX +-EIGMT BUILOING !:NVl:LOf>E
Ol.lt LI"' Cl' 0A5f=MENT
I.W.LO
@ NORT!-1 ELEVATION
;-
,,
,,
0'-e• A.SF
/ EL • 1} 1S')
-•o•-:P:. • A.SF
(EL • 6).?>i 'J.
' • l'-e>'
19 ~I
~I
I
iiil
oescu,a, I c.LASe w NOou.& I 3-CO£r P.C.

STUCC0--
065CUR£D

GLASS RA LING
South (Side} Elevation
25'-"'° MAX HE..Gl-li BJILD t-b EN\.1:!L~
=' ~ e .. l1 :::::::ttrr-T1==~-~-,J7'1:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tr=i~-:,-:_-:_-:_-:_-;,~-::__-::___ , ------------i.;;::,ii, - 11;:;;;.r:;;;t I G\JTLl'<E OF I
;~~- 1-
G\JTL Nii OF
~ENT
WALL.5
~- \PRO~
I c,ia,.,oE I
I I
I I
I I
L ___ l_ l _
I
L _J
(2\ SOUTI-l ELEVATION
OUt L NE Cl'
eASEl"ENT
uJALLe
FROP06ED STCNE vENEER
(El.. • 63~1'>
\
20 Prelim • 1nary Grading Pia n
\ \
\
EXCONC CURB& \ /
SIDEWALK TO REMAIN \ 4 S
-"- R =
E'2
I
I I
21TRANSITION

TO EX WALK
EXWA!L

TO REMAIII
EXWALl

TO REMAIN
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN SCALE: 1•= 10'

PROJECT SITE
FF= 73.75
PAD=73.08
BFF= 63.52
0 REPCACE

EX SEWER LATERAL
MAIN IE = 58.3±

SEE NOTE BELOW
10 ~ --- --

BMP PUNTER

EX WAL[ - 28SF @FG= i 0.13
TO REMAIN 8 EG
20 30
FSIHP
i3.48 TG,!.P

71.24 IE

77.67TR

70. l i BW
(69.7 EGJ
SCALE: 1•= 10'
I
I
- - 66.2EG
668EG
... ·· ! . ...
,:
...
j
~
::,
•._.:._-:~ ' , (67.3EGJ
· .. ·.-~ :. ·: .. f ~:;~~!
(68.0EG/

10.75 7W
NOTE. FEIICJIIG, ~NDrWLS. MD
RAJIJNGS PER l.AHDSCAPc Pt.ANS.

I·-
21 ......
-
Conceptual Landscape Pia~;~/ -~,
~.,-., o Palm 6 -10'
-_7- - -fr- > - 1·
'1'-', .
7 -_-__ _
-+ 11L jtl:i!'.eJiil!~-
! - - _J__ -::c::
n.83--: -
, 1t-~
=-!---·
Artificial ~ .,,..

Twt ,c:-·
/
FOR LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT NOTES & LEGEND, SEE SHEET L- 1.

FOR WATER CONSERVATION PLAN & CALCULATIONS. SEE SHEET l -3.

FOR EXISTING TREE DISPOSITION PLAN. SEE SHEET l -4.

TW1".1<
8Wll1.2S
lW14.11 8,;,0.17
.... ,.,
tw7&.17
BWt0.17
22 Structure Development Permit
• Original Story poles certified on 4-12-21;
• Notices were mailed to property owners and residents
within 300 ft. of the property with a deadline of June
3, 2021;
• One application for View Assessment was received;
Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Ave (Attachment 3);
• VAC considered the project on 8-12-21, were unable
to make Finding #3, and continued the item;
• VAC considered revised project on 1-18-22, were
unable to make Finding #3, and recommended denial.

View Claimant Location
pplicants:
im and Kathie
23 24
Revisions after Aug 2021 VAC
• Reduced roof deck
• Removed roof deck storage (east)
• Lowered roof deck stair tower &
moved east 1'
• Reduced roof pitch on south side
• Reduced second story
- Southern wall ➔ 18" north
- Eastern wall ➔ 18" west
- Western wall ➔ 12" east
• Other: frosted glass windows/railing,
windowsill height, exterior siding
25 Revisions after Jan 2022 VAC
• Removed the roof deck stair tower;
• Removed the southeast corner of the
second story and revised the associated
roof over the southern portion of the
second story;
• Added approximately 50 square feet of
floor area on the northern side of the
second story.

Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Primary Bedroom - Northern Window (N)
26 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Primary Bedroom - Northern Window (NW)
27 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Primary Bedroom - Northern Window (NE)
28 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Primary Bedroom - Northern Window (NE)
29 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Primary Bedroom - Northern Window (NE)
30 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Primary Bedroom -West Door to Deck
31 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Primary Bedroom Deck - West
32 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Primary Bedroom Deck - Southwest
33 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Primary Bedroom Deck - Northwest
34 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Roof Deck- North
35 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Roof Deck- Northeast
36 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Roof Deck- East
37 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Roof Deck- Southeast
38 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Roof Deck- South
39 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Roof Deck- Southwest
40 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Roof Deck-West
41 Kathy de Paolo - 504 Pacific Avenue
Roof Deck- Northwest
42 43
Viewing Area Definition
Subsection 17.63.020(1)
"Viewing area" shall be that area of the structure
(excluding bathrooms, hallways, garages or closets) or lot (excluding the building setback areas) where the view
assessment committee, or the city council on appeal,
determines the best and most important view exists. The finished floor elevation of any viewing area must be at or above existing grade adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building nearest to that viewing area. The
determination shall be made by balancing the nature of
the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot from where the view is taken.
44 View Assessment - Decision Making
In deciding on a matter for which view assessment
has been requested, the Council must:
■ Provide disclosures;
■ Determine primary viewing area for the
Claimant; and
■ Determine if significant view impairment exists
from primary viewing area
45 Findings - View Assessment
In making a decision on a matter for which view assessment has been requested, the Council is required to make the following five (5) findings:

1. The Applicant for the Structure Development Permit has made a reasonable attempt to resolve the view impairment issues with the person(s) requesting View Assessment.

2. The proposed structure does not significantly impair a view from public property.

3. The proposed structure is designed and situated 1n such a manner as to minimize impairment of views.

4. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application.

5. The proposed structure 1s compatible with the immediate neighborhood character.
46 Development Review Permit
Reguired Findings
The City Council may approve or conditionally approve a Development Review Permit only if all of the following findings can be made:

1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of Title 17 (Zoning), including special regulations, overlay zones, and specific plans.

2. The proposed development complies with the development review criteria set forth in SBMC §17.68.040.F:
1) Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses; 2) Building and Structure Placement; 3) Landscaping; 4) Roads, Pedestrian Walkways, Parking and Storage Areas; 5) Grading; 6) Lighting; and 7) Usable Open Spaces

3. All required permits and approvals, including the Structure Development Permit have been obtained prior to or concurrently with the DRP.

4. If the development project also requires a permit or approval to be issued by a state or federal agency, the city council may conditionally approve the development review permit upon the applicant obtaining the required permit or approval from the other agency.
47 DRP20-014 / SDP20-020
506 Pacific Avenue
Staff Recommendation

1. Conduct the Public Hearing: Open the Public Hearing, Report Council Disclosures, Receive Public Testimony and Close the Public Hearing;

2. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and

3. If the City Council makes the requisite findings and approves the project, adopt Resolution 2022-049 conditionally approving a DRP, SDP, and SDP Waiver to demolish a single-family residence, construct a replacement 2,986 square-foot, two-story singlefamily residence built above a 1,274 square-foot basement with an attached 448 square-foot two-car garage, and perform associated site improvements at 506 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach.

BOYD residence: 506 Pacific Avenue
Built 1949
1540 sq ft.

Project number: DRP20-014/SDP-020
05°11°22 Mtg, llom B.1.

Presenlod by Applicant

North facing
window
520 Pacific
BOYD residence: 506 Pacific Avenue
Roof top decks
Opposing
bedroom windows
West facing balconies
off of
master bedroom
- -
riginally built 1956
Renovated 1980
-
Ocean view from 504 and 506 rooftop
o-ttac • itMUll SOLD Ult Pfkll $999,3-00
'ALS a-; QatMM ('>§ S""<wt Soll~ Ong: PriCil S025,000
.tJlti: ...-'6..'\04)16()0 COi: D,,r• tf/"l/ tOQO !old Pri:;cit $A-6Q,OOQ kfd.r: 504 PAClrtC AVCHui; list 01be; 5 / 12/ 199D
City,Sti Sol• nai Be.ac:h CA
\I ~ I
lull S.bm O
T. 1, 4
Zip:

Vu, 8u It; 1990
Co r."' ftU, l'litv :

U.lghbo,DC'JGCh SOI.ANA R£AC.H
CQ.rplc;,.;;

NO SHOWING W FO
0207 5 Mod Oatie:;
P~r1.!"9 c~~c ~~1 ~
••r\ng Non•G.-.;ed 'Sp,cu;
P41'1..11'9 Spi<~f Tol,il; 2
Pt ttdnc a&tiOe:

H:ri·O•ra;• Oat,cl's:

RV Porldog;
0 / 24/ 2019
P1ob¢: COYe.r-e.d
P:•b l
.1.cJ- A.~hr.:lon-u
s t:o,i..-; 2 Story
DOMlS .,. G
MT
LP,'SqF:; 299.0J
SP/S:Ft: S28!MS7
T REMODELED BEACH HOM.IE ACROSS PROM
TI-IF STRl;fT.MARD\YO(H) ~I OOAS THRIH')U
E SEPARATE QUARTERS.TWO 81\CKVARO P
'HOMES \V/OC-E.AN / CITYVUWS FROM THE ROO
HIS Lrt;HT/BRir.HT :1,060.._c;f • • 81:AUTY. RAI CONY Off NA~ •s-PRESTICOUS NEJCHBORMOOO ECK.S!Ct.UOEO BEACH ACCU.S ,R·l)OVIH$TATRS n EN/At;D/ IUt.

W/OCEAN /CITY VlE\l~S FROM THE ROOFTOP DECK
RIGHT 3, 000SF • • BEAUTY. BALCONY OFF t-lASTER-D
( Solana Beach
504 Pacific Ave
Solano Beach, CA 92075
$5,513,900
Trulia Estimate <D
as of May 10, 2022
trulia
Est. Refi. Payment $27,734/mo*
1-i 5 Beds
• 4 Baths
b.. 2,730 sqft
APPLICATION FOR vn:w ASSESS~1E.'iT
(S1ru<1utt Dndopm,111 Ptrmi1)
Project No QRP20-0)41SJ)M2Q._

RECEIVED
~ 0 3 ZbZI
~D• ; •ll>eipl
c,1y 01 Solaoa Be&Ch
Address of property for which the SINCIU"' developmenl permit has been "'IU<Sted ~tiJl~•• Solw Beach CA 92QZS
2 Pro,idc the follow,ng infonnation for the ind"idual fihng this Application for A'Sessmen1 Name Kalblcm de Paolo
Address 4iQ4 Pacific An SoJw Brach CA 92075
Phone Numl>cr 858-37§:7820
Email
l DC$Cription of the v,.,.,ng ltft a, defined ,n Solana 8-h Zoning Ordinanc,,, Section 17 63.020(l)and extern ofimpajrmern lropaarttl \r1CWJl18 ICCf Crom >«ood Qpor mura kd.(QQ(Jl.J)U:turt wt~ Y.h:t h. f,l'~ 110flh:~~ \\-lib f \CVNtion and moQgqs view cxtmdmg to hiH• CIS p( l·S APPCP:SlfflllclY Mt of window win be blocked Prooo)cd .sooth fACios »,odo» end baJconv ««le priyacy soocgn into mutrc bqltpgm 4 Identify ow por1u,n of the proposed SUUCture .,h,ch II the mml obJ<CtiOl1llble and susgestioros to minimit.c 1he vi~ 1mpiainncnt The r,ggnd SPO' on lht 101.nh sids of the RfPR9¥d ho•M C'.ltlCOdrt (rpm Jhc Cmnt 10 mu Y1hesl 4j• (mm propaty liru: PnttOhal m11iolion1,oclwk. rcducma blockHc cbansmv IOU~~ooOSWJtiop and PUZ"tid:ma 19'.PCoiu vcaeu.1ion
5 Descripuon of 1hc Claimant$ a,1cmpc(S) to ~ve this ,,sue with the ownc,-lrcpresentauvo of the property for~ h1ch a Sttuc:b.rJe ~elopment Permit has bttn requested PtSQJS>iOOS 10 PCOW:W with w,rnrn\Nrte f.ric Budwwl rc,.w:dins cooGCCO> »1th view prjypcy and davlialu lfflPAW
D>1e Submitted

STAFF USE ONLY
Applicouon f0< AsSfflment fee paid1
6-2019
Primary View:
"Impaired viewing area
from second floor master
bedroom picture window,
which faces northeast ... "

APPLICATION FOR VIEW ASSESSMENT
Kathleen de Paolo
504 Pacific Ave
Portion of structure which is most objectionable:
• The second story
(" ... extends from the front to the rear setback, 5' from the property line") Stated concerns:
• Impaired northeast viewing to hills east of 1-5
• Proposed balcony and south-facing windows create
privacy concern into master bedroom window
Suggested mitigations:
• Reduce blockage
• Change south-facing window configuration
• Provide screening vegetation
• Change south-facing window configuration
• Provide sere en in g ve getat ion
• Change south-facing window configuration
• Provide sere en in g ve getat ion
• Change south-facing window configuration
• Provide sere en in g ve getat ion
• Change south-facing window configuration
• Provide sere en in g ve getat ion
• Reduce blockage; "Improve Daylight Plane"
"Follow the toolkit and reduce the 2nd story by 50%"
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH·

VIEW ASSESSMENT
GJJIDELINES ·AND TOOLK]T
-~ .' . . . ---- . . . ... .. . --
.. - .- . . . ' . . /
'
..
'"'

2. Lot Siting and Building D~gn
On sloping Jots, structural bulk can be mitigated
•
-·-- -
-.

SIDcYARD

SETBACKS
•
-
VI f.W CORR I DOR
S0:C Of BUILDABlc
(.07 WIDTH
----
••
CuJdelines/Too\kit
Page No. IO
--- --'!::-- ··
----·-
"Your second story will block the daylight plane ... "
(image from Kathy DePaulo's VAC presentation 8/17/2021)

~ "Your second story will block the daylight plane ... " 7 • Reduce blockage
"Future owners could have parties
I

APPLICATION FOR VIEW ASSESSMENT
Kathleen de Paolo
504 Pacific Ave
Portion of structure which is most objectionable:
• The second story
Stated concerns:
r Impaired northeast viewing to hills east of 1-5 I
• Propo5ed belco1,y end 5outh•feci1,g oo i1,dovvs create p I i v a c 9 co 1 1 c E 1 1 1 i 1 1 to 1 11 as t EI b Ed I o o 1 11 vv i 1 1 d aw Suggested mitigations:

I • Reduee bloekege I
• CI I a 1 1 g E so a t I 1 -fa c i 1 1 g vv i 1 1 do vv co 1 1 Fig a I a ti o 1 1 • P1·ov ide 5c1·eeni1,g vegetl!tio1,

CONSESSIONS OFFERED AS OF MARCH 4™, 2022
-

VIEW ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
DECISION PRINCIPLES:

IX I 1) Verification of a reasonable attempt to resolve the issues.

IX 12) Views from public property.
□ 3) Minimizing private view impairment.

IX 14) Cumulative View Impairment.

IX 15) Compatibility with Neighborhood Character.

Email from Kathy de Paulo:
"We still have the issues with privacy into my master bedroom, loss of light into our first floor main living area,
and great degree of blockage to my primary view"
"If these issues can be resolved, I would be willing to sign off".

Guidelines/Toolkit
Page No. 19
City Council meeting: April 13, 2022
F. In some situations, t11e loss of a view can be compen:sated by the openin1r up of an equal....J or better view. The rem.oval or trimming of unnecessary vegetation or unwanted structures may provide a cost effective \vay to accomplish this objective. (image from Kathy DePaulo's VAC presentation 8/17/2021) F. In some situations,.the loss of a view can be compen:sated by tb1 peniqg up of an eq_ual or better view. The removal or biroroiog of unnecessary vegetation or unwanted structures may provide a cost effective \vay to accomplish this objective.

(image from Kathy DePaulo's VAC presentation 8/17/2021) F. In some situations,.tb.e loss of a view can be compe~sated by the opening_ up of an equal or better view. The removal or trimming of unnecessary vegetation or unwanted structures may provide a cost effective \\'8.Y to accomplish this objective.

North East
~
Reasonable mitigations to
Maintain/improve existing view of 504
and to
Minimize privacy issues

1. Improve the primary NE view by removing large
shade tree, replacing with Palm

2. To minimize privacy concerns,
revert to original rooftop orientation and then
move southern border of rooftop deck 1-foot
to the north

Reasonable mitigations to
maintain/improve existing view of 504
and to
Minimize privacy issues

1. Improve NE view by removing large shade tree,
replacing with Palm

2. To minimize privacy concerns,
revert to original rooftop orientation and then
move southern border of rooftop deck 1-foot
to the north
Unnecessary mitigations:
• Frost bedroom windows/ erect trellis to eliminate our view • Dramatically relocate rooftop deck, sacrifice ceiling in living room • Remove corner section of master bathroom
506 Pacific Ave.

Requesting the acceptance of our plans as submitted with these changes:
--Removal of large shade tree, replace with palm, to improve view --Return to initial design of rooftop deck layout,
but with southern wall moved 1' to the north
--Return to original design of master bathroom (no corner cutoff) Project number: DRP20-014/SDP-020
oana
-
- eac ■
I
05-11-22 Mtg. Item B.1.

Presented by K. Paolo
■
ounc1
DRP20-014/SDP20-020 506 Pacific Ave - Boyd Residence
de Paolo
1/18/22
Proposed design at 506 Pacific Ave
does not meet the following required DRP/SDP findings:

VAC Finding 3: SBMC Chapter 17 60.040 Subsection F, Finding 3 The structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize imQairment of views.

DRP Finding 2: SBMC Chapter 17 68.040 Subsection F, Criteria 1 and 2

The development as proposed shall also be com12-atible in scale, a12-12-arent bulk, and massing with such existing development in the surrounding neighborhood. Site planning on or near the perimeter of the development shall give consideration to the protection of surrounding areas from potential adverse effects.

2. Building and Structure Placement. Buildings and structures shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse im12-acts on the surrounding pro12-erties and designed in a manner which visually and functionally enhance their intended use and complement existing site topography. Multi-family residential buildings shall be sited to avoid crowding and to allow for a functional use of the space between buildings.
3 504 Pacific Ave
• Main living area
on north side of
first floor
• Master bedroom
on top level with
north facing
window
• Our home since
1999
SBMC Chapter 17 60.040 Subsection F, Finding 3:

The structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize imQairment of views.

January VAC could not make Finding 3, voted to deny approval • 2nd story massing (50% buildable area)
• Height due to 3rd level roof deck

PROPOSED DESIGN

■ ■
1n 1n
SBMC Chapter 17 68.040 Subsection F, Criterion 2:

Adverse impacts include:
• Blockage of daylight into main living area (SBMC 17 .20 (H) ) • Constant concern of unintended viewing into private areas of home (SBMC 17 .63.020)
I
iii== 6;:
-
.
'~
·~ ~
~ T:""J=
.. . .

I ~,- ·=-t= I
~ ·
~, -
~ . . • ~='..l I ~ "--.-- . I ----1._ I '
---
j I {· I I
'
\
I
I
I I \
'
I
-
-
~ ---
/f
--
,,.__.. •= -
'
--
ff ·
- -- I - ------------
1 -
Q
I
i
- 3 COA ,=,~. I
s· ·ucco, P.

I
\I\_ .

Pfii?.C)PO&E
~e
EXl6t4~E
•
l '
""
N
'
Q -
• I"
•
·IDI
1 1
12 Proposed Design Daylight Plane
"13
Proposed Design Daylight Plane
14 15
■ ■
1n 1n
SBMC Chapter 17 68.040 Subsection F, Criterion 2:

Buildings and structures shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse imQacts on the surrounding properties and designed in a manner which visually and functionally enhance their intended use and complement existing site topography. • "Privacy" means reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation and/or noise (SBMC 17.63.020)
• Privacy and views are sometimes in conflict. Views are very important, but so is privacy. (YAC Toolkit p13)
• Adverse impact is constant concern of unintended viewing into private areas of home
16 17
18 19
20 ft
SBMC Chapter 17 68.040 Subsection F, Criterion 1: ----------- The development as proposed shall be comQatible in scale, aQQarent bulk, and massing with such existing development in the surrounding neighborhood.

Compatibility issues with:
• 2nd story massing
• Height due to 3rd level roof deck
-
23 Proposed design at 506 Pacific Ave
does not meet the following required DRP/SDP findings:

VAC Finding 3
DRP Finding 2
Need to Address View (Second Story Massing, Height), Adverse Impacts to Intended Usage (Daylight Planes, Privacy), Compatibility (Second Story Massing, Height):
• SBMC Guidelines
• VAC Toolkit
• VAC Commission Aug 2021, Jan 2022
August 11, 2022
City of Solana Beach
Attn: Katie Benson
635 S. Hwy 101
Solana Beach, CA 92075
DRP20-014/SDP20-020 Boyd Residence – 506 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach Dear Katie and City Council Members:

Thank you for working with us to resolve the concerns of the City and the one neighbor, Ms. de Paolo, towards the remodeling of a beautiful home for Dr. and Mrs.

Boyd.

Since the City Council meeting of May 11th, we have been working to comply with the redesign suggestions of the council members. It has taken some time to significantly redesign the plans but we have been successful. Here is a list of the design changes made since the May 11th meeting that are represented in the revised plans dated 6/6/22.

1. Relocated the stair to the center of the house to eliminate the stair tower mass from the front elevation.

2. Revised 2nd floor to move the south wall to the north to be 11’-0” from the setback line.

3. Reduced balcony off M. Bedroom and reduced overhang to be 2’-0”.

4. Reduced 2nd floor area from 1,508sf to 1,420sf.

5. Reduced basement from 1,274sf to 1,179sf.

6. Reduced Garage from 448sf to 377sf.

7. Reduced proposed structure height from 21’-2.5” to 20’-3” OASIS
Architecture &
Design, Inc.

8. Reduced size of roof deck and moved it towards the north and away from the neighbor to the south.

Original roof deck area: 295 sf
New roof deck area: 174 sf

9. Reduced overall exterior terrace & balcony areas.

Original terrace & balcony area: 825 sf
New terrace & balcony area: 385 sf
In addition to the design changes listed above, new story poles representing the new design were installed and certified on July 18th. These poles have been reviewed by the neighbors and we have provided letters of support from a few of these neighbors.

Because of this we would like to request the SDP waiver of an additional 30-day noticing period. These poles have been up now for over 30 day and have been reviewed by the neighbors adjacent.

Please let us know if you have any questions related to design changes.

Best Regards,
Eric Buchanan
Oasis Architecture & Design Inc.
[email protected]
Kathleen de Paolo
504 Pacific Ave
Solana Beach, CA 92075
August 15, 2022
City of Solana Beach
Att: Katie Benson
635 S. Hwy 101
Solana Beach, CA 92075
DRP20-014/SDP20-010 Boyd Residence – 506 Pacific Avenue, Solana Beach Dear Katie:

This correspondence is provided as input to City Council with regard to the above referenced application. Recent modifications to the project have addressed some of the issues from the May meeting. This letter concerns the remaining issues where the project as designed does not yet meet the following required DRP/SDP findings:

VAC Finding 3: SBMC Chapter 17 60.040 Subsection F, Finding 3 The structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment of views.

DRP Finding 2: SBMC Chapter 17 68.040 Subsection F, Criteria 1 and 2

Please see attached for additional detail.

Sincerely,
Kathleen de Paolo
1 Background
We live at 504 Pacific Ave, in the home immediately to the south of the proposed project. This has been our home since Aug 1999. Our main living area is on the north side of the first floor, directly adjacent to the project. My master bedroom window (located on the second floor) faces the project and is my primary viewing area.

The development permit was reviewed at City Council on May 11 of this year, and a number of potential modifications were discussed in order to address issues with SDP and DRP findings.

Modifications by the applicant have since addressed some of these issues. Specifically, daylight into my first floor main living area has been improved by situating the 2nd story mass outside of the southern daylight plane. In addition, the privacy concerns from the master balcony have been addressed with the addition of a full height structure on the south side of the balcony.

These are substantial improvements which are greatly appreciated! With these improvements, this letter focuses on 2 remaining SDP and DRP findings that cannot currently be made, but which could be addressed with solutions on the table from the previous council meeting.

VAC Finding 3
SBMC Chapter 17 60.040 Subsection F, Finding 3:

The structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment of views.

Primary Viewing Area
• The city of Solana Beach recognizes the hillsides, canyons, and natural geographic features as a limited natural resource (SBMC 17.63.010)
• The View Assessment Committee is asked to look at the totality of the view, not just size and quality, but how it is utilized from within the home, and its importance to the resident. (Toolkit p. 12)
2 Per the VAC Toolkit, the Ordinance does not create a right to an unobstructed view. The toolkit p. 11 states: On new construction, the second story bulk should be placed to minimize the impact to existing views. The Toolkit illustrates a view corridor created by limiting the 2nd story to 50% of buildable lot width, excluding setbacks.

Also as noted previously, there is adverse impact to view due to the roof deck located on top of the 2nd story. This 3rd level of the structure creates additional massing and height that reduce the view. The roof deck has been relocated and reduced in size, however this is still a significant factor. It contributes to the overall height of the structure due to the inset design which raises the roofline across the entire 2nd story footprint. 3 Prior proposal:

Current proposal:
4 Restoring a 50% view corridor to my master bedroom and alleviating the height of the overall structure would, as illustrated below, make a significant difference to the quality of light and view in this room.

With such a solution, I will still lose significant daylight and view, including much of the view to the San Elijo Lagoon. A partial hillside view could be restored, however, with the planned removal of the trees in the back yard, and the daylight situation would be improved. (Note the planned palms in this area may offset this improvement.) Compared to the current proposal, this would more equitably represent “the best balance between the owner’s desire to develop his/her property in accordance with applicable regulations, and the neighbor’s desire to protect his/her view”, as contemplated in the VAC Toolkit.
5 DRP Finding 2 Criterion 2
Buildings and structures shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on the surrounding properties
Summary: The new proposal has incorporated SBMC guidance regarding daylight planes, addressing my previous concerns with daylight in our main living area. The remaining issues are view/daylight concerns with bulk/height, and adverse impacts to the utility of areas of our home due to privacy issues with the 3rd story roof deck.

Both the SBMC and VAC Toolkit recognize the importance of privacy. • “Privacy” means reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation and/or noise. (SBMC 17.63.020)
• Privacy and views are sometimes in conflict. Views are very important, but so is privacy. (VAC Toolkit p13)
Roof deck
The roof deck poses issues with excess bulk/height and privacy. It is accessed directly from the main living area. While the size has been reduced from the previous proposal, it is still a concern for social gatherings and parties. This six-bedroom proposed design, which includes 2 master suites, would be a very attractive rental for large groups. As such, noise is a concern as well as visual privacy.

The roof deck presents adverse impact to daylight and view, and the intended use of my master bedroom. The following visualization uses the story poles to demonstrate the problem. 6 7
Rear Balcony
It is unclear from the story poles, but from my brief access to the plans there may be a concern with bulk and privacy from the rear master balcony. Privacy could be addressed via obscured glass on the south side, or a louvered blind that would allow light and air but restrict view to the southwest.

X
34 44 33
9 balcony?
8 DRP Finding 2 Criterion 1:

The development as proposed shall be compatible in scale, apparent bulk, and massing with such existing development in the surrounding neighborhood.

Summary: The project is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood due the 3rd level roof deck.

The project presents massing and apparent bulk at greater height due to the roof deck. The inset design raises the roofline across the entire 2nd story footprint. Eliminating this element would alleviate bulk, improving daylight and view.

Conclusion
Significant progress has been made since the previous City Council session, addressing daylight concerns and privacy issues with the west facing master balcony. Before this project is approved, remaining issues with bulk/height and privacy must be addressed. As currently proposed, the project’s bulk/height and privacy issues do not meet the requirements of Solana Beach Municipal Code, as VAC finding 3 and DRP finding 2 cannot be made. 1 From: Cindy Metcalfe
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 12:10 PM
To: Katie Benson
Subject: re: 506 Pacific Ave
CAUTION: External e‐mail. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Katie,
With the understanding that the Boyd’s proposal for a new home at 506 Pacific will be considered by the City Council at the next August meeting, we have viewed the story poles as of August 17,2022 and are willing to waive any requirement that the poles have been available for viewing for 30 days.

Richard and Cindy Metcalfe
Pacific Ave
Solana Beach
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # B.3.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 24, 2022
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Request for a DRP and SDP, and to Demolish the Existing Single-Family Residence and
Construct a Replacement Single-Family Residence with a
Basement, an Attached Garage, an Attached Accessory
Dwelling Unit, and Perform Associated Site Improvements 237 Acacia Avenue. (Applicant: Shirly Hart Chwalowski;
Application: DRP21-022/SDP21-022; APN: 263-332-03;
Resolution No. 2022-99)
BACKGROUND:

The Applicant, Shirly Hart Chwalowski, is requesting City Council approval of a Development Review Permit (DRP) and Structure Development Permit (SDP) to demolish a single-story single-family residence, construct a replacement multi-level single-family residence including an 812 square foot basement, a 769 square foot main floor living area, a 390 square foot garage, an attached 568 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and a 1,152 square foot second floor and perform associated site improvements at 237 N. Acacia Avenue. The 4,000 square-foot lot is located within the Medium Residential (MR) Zone and the Scaled Residential Overlay Zone (SROZ). The project proposes grading in the amounts of approximately 680 cubic yards of cut and 260 cubic yards of fill with 420 cubic yards of export off site. The maximum building height is proposed at 24.90 feet above the proposed grade with the highest point of the residence at 124.7 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL).

The project meets three thresholds for the requirement of a DRP, including: 1) grading in excess of 100 cubic yards; 2) construction in excess of 60 percent of the maximum allowable floor area; and 3) construction of a second story that exceeds 40 percent of the floor area of the first floor. The project requires an SDP because the proposed development exceeds 16 feet in height above the existing grade.

The issue before the Council is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Applicant’s request as contained in Resolution 2022-099 (Attachment 1).

August 24, 2022
DRP21-022/SDP21-022
237 N. Acacia Avenue

Page 2 of 11 ends

DISCUSSION:

The 4,000 square-foot lot is located on the west side of N. Acacia Avenue, three properties south of the intersection of N. Acacia Avenue and Estrella Street. The property is rectangular in shape with 50 feet of street frontage on N. Acacia Avenue and a depth of 80 feet. The lot is flat and is accessed by a driveway in the northeast corner of the lot.

The Applicant is requesting approval of a DRP and SDP to demolish the existing residence and construct a replacement multi-level single-family residence with a basement and attached main floor two-car garage, an attached main floor ADU and perform associated site improvements including grading, a spa, hardscape, an outdoor kitchen, entry gates, and landscaping. The project plans are included in Attachment 2.

Table 1 (below) provides a comparison of the SBMC applicable zoning regulations with the Applicant’s proposed design.

Table 1

LOT INFORMATION
Property Address:

Lot Size:

Max. Allowable Floor Area:

Proposed Floor Area:

Below Max. Floor Area by:

Max. Allowable Height:

Max. Proposed Height:

Highest Point/Ridge:

Overlay Zone(s):
237 N. Acacia Ave.
4,000 sf
2,000 sf
1,921 sf
79 sf
25 ft

24.90 ft
124.7 MSL
SROZ
Zoning Designation:
# Units Allowed:
# Units Requested:

MR (5-7 du/ac)
1 SFR, 1 ADU, 1JADU
1 SFR and 1 ADU
Setbacks: (d) Required Proposed
Front (E) 25 ft* 20 ft
Interior Side (N) 5 ft 5 ft
Interior Side (S) 5 ft 5 ft
Rear (W) 25 ft* 15 ft * Front reduced to 20ft and Rear reduced to 15ft because lot is less than 90 feet in depth per SBMC

17.20.030.1.b&d

PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION
Proposed Floor Area Breakdown: Required Permits:

DRP: grading in excess of 100 cubic yards;
construction that exceeds 60% of the maximum
allowable floor area; and construction of a second
story that exceeds 40% of the first floor.

SDP: a new structure that exceeds 16 feet in
height from the existing grade.

Basement Level Living Area
Main Level Living Area
Main Level Attached Garage
Upper Level Living Area
812 sf
769 sf
391 sf
1,152 sf
Subtotal
Off-Street Parking Exemption
Basement Exemption
3,124 sf
- 391 sf
- 812 sf
Total Proposed Floor Area: 1,921 sf
Proposed Grading: 680 CY of cut and 260 CY of fill and 420 CY of export off site Proposed Parking: 2 Garage
Proposed Fences and Walls: Yes
Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit: Yes
Proposed Accessory Structure: No
Existing Development:

Page 3 of 11 ends

SBMC sections are provided in italicized text and recommended conditions of approval from the Community Development, Engineering, and Fire Departments are incorporated in the Resolution of Approval. The Council may direct Staff to modify the Resolution to reflect the findings and conditions it deems appropriate as a result of the Public Hearing process. If the Council determines the project is to be denied, Staff will prepare a Resolution of Denial for adoption at a subsequent Council meeting.

The following is a discussion of the findings for a DRP as each applies to the proposed project as well as references to recommended conditions of approval contained in Resolution 2022-099.

Development Review Permit Compliance (SBMC Section 17.68.40):

A DRP is required because the proposed development includes grading in excess of 100 cubic yards, construction of a residence in excess of 60 percent of the maximum allowable floor area for the property, and construction of a second story that exceeds 40 percent of the first floor. In addition to meeting zoning requirements, the project must also be found in compliance with development review criteria. The following is a list of the development review criteria topics:

1. Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses

2. Building and Structure Placement

3. Landscaping

4. Roads, Pedestrian Walkways, Parking, and Storage Areas

5. Grading

6. Lighting

7. Usable Open Space
The Council may approve, or conditionally approve, a DRP only if all of the findings listed below can be made. Resolution 2022-099 provides the full discussion of the findings.

1. The proposed development is consistent with the general plan and all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance including special regulations, overlay zones, and specific plans.

2. The proposed development complies with the development review criteria.

3. All required permits and approvals issued by the city, including variances, conditional use permits, comprehensive sign plans, and coastal development permits have been obtained prior to or concurrently with the development review permit.

August 24, 2022
DRP21-022/SDP21-022
237 N. Acacia Avenue

Page 4 of 11 ends

If the above findings cannot be made, the Council shall deny the DRP. The following is a discussion of the applicable development review criteria as they relate to the proposed project.

Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses:

The property is not located within any of the City’s Specific Plan areas; however, it is located within the boundaries of the SROZ. The project has been evaluated and could be found to be in conformance with the regulations of the SROZ. The project is also located within the Coastal Zone. As a condition of project approval, the Applicant will be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver, or Exemption from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building or grading permits.

Building and Structure Placement:

The Applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence and construct a replacement multi-level, single-family residence with basement and an attached two-car garage and perform associated improvements. The project would be located in the buildable area of the lot and the driveway access would be maintained on N. Acacia Avenue from the northeast corner of the lot.

The 812 square-foot basement would consist of two bedrooms, one bathroom, a bonus room, an elevator and storage room. A lightwell is proposed along the southern elevation in order to provide light as well as emergency egress from the bedrooms. The 769 squarefoot main level living area would consist of the main entry, open concept kitchen, living and dining room, and access to the staircase, elevator and the attached main level twocar garage. A 267 square foot covered patio is proposed off of the living room in the southwest corner of the residence and an attached 586 square foot ADU consisting of two bedrooms, a living room, laundry room, bathroom and kitchen is proposed in the northwest corner of the lot. The 1,152 square-foot upper level would consist of the primary bedroom suite, a laundry room, a bathroom, a bedroom, a family room and access to the stairs and elevator. A 136 square foot balcony is proposed along the western elevation of the upper level and is accessible from the primary suite and the family room.

The proposed site improvements in the southwest corner of the lot would include an outdoor kitchen and a hot tub as well as hardscape, landscaping and a perimeter fence.

A fenced area for trash and recycle is proposed in the northeast corner of the lot.

August 24, 2022
DRP21-022/SDP21-022
237 N. Acacia Avenue

Page 5 of 11 ends

According to the SROZ, the proposed subterranean basement is considered “BasementNo Exposed Sides” in which the basement living area can be exempt from the calculation of floor area if there are no exposed sides. A building side is considered exposed when the finished floor of the living area directly above the basement (at any point) is more than three feet above the adjacent natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. Currently, the plans show a basement with no exposure; therefore, the proposed basement living area of 812 square feet would be exempt from the calculation of floor area.

The SBMC parking regulations require two off-street parking spaces per single-family residence. When required spaces are provided in a garage, up to 200 square feet of floor area is exempted for each required space. The proposed 391 square-foot attached garage would provide two unobstructed parking spaces; therefore, 391 square feet of the garage is exempt from the calculation of floor area.

The maximum allowable floor area calculation for this project, pursuant to the provisions of the SROZ, is as follows:

0.50 for first 6,000 ft2 2,000 ft2
Maximum Allowable Floor Area: 2,000 ft2
As designed, the project complies with all required setbacks under the designation “d” on the City’s official Zoning Map. However, the lot is less than 90 feet in width, therefore, the front yard setback can be reduced to 20 feet and the rear yard setback can be reduced to 15 feet. The residence would be setback at least 20 feet from the front (east) property line, 5 feet from the northern side property line, 15 feet from the rear (west) property line, and 5 feet from the southern side property line. The maximum building height for the MR Zone is 25 feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence would be 24.90 feet above the proposed grade with the highest portion of the structure to be at 124.7 feet above MSL. As designed, the project will comply with the required parking, maximum floor area, required setbacks, and maximum building height.

Neighborhood Comparison:

Staff compared the proposed project to 27 other properties within the surrounding area.

This area includes properties on the east side of Pacific Avenue, the west side of Clark Street, both sides of Hill and Sierra Avenue and the east side of N. Acacia Avenue as shown on the map on the following page.

August 24, 2022
DRP21-022/SDP21-022
237 N. Acacia Avenue

Page 6 of 11 ends

The properties evaluated in this comparison are also located in the MR Zone. The existing homes range in size from 587 square feet to 6,718 square feet, according to the County Assessor records. It should be noted that the County Assessor does not include the garage, covered porch area, unfinished basement, or non-habitable accessory building area in the total square footage. Accordingly, the building area of the proposed project has been calculated for comparison purposes by deleting the area of the proposed garage and the outdoor covered area. Comparatively, the project would be 2,896 square feet (see below).

Project Gross Building Area: 3,124 SF
Delete Attached Garage: -391 SF
Delete Basement: -812 SF
Project Area for Comparison to Assessor’s Data: 1,921 SF Table 2 is based upon the County Assessor’s data and SanGIS data. It contains neighboring lot sizes, the square footage of existing development and the maximum allowable square footage for potential development on each lot.

Table 2
# Property Address
Lot
Size in
ft2
(GIS)
Existing ft2
Onsite
(Assessor’s)
Proposed
/ Recently
Approved
ft2
Max.

Allowable
ft2
Zone
1 312 N. Sierra Ave. 4,258 1,917 2,229 MR
2 315 N. Acacia Ave. 4,091 2,251 2,046 MR
3 308 N. Sierra Ave. 4,172 1,917 2,086 MR
August 24, 2022
DRP21-022/SDP21-022
237 N. Acacia Avenue

Page 7 of 11 ends

4 309 N. Acacia Ave. 4,171 2,251 2,086 MR
5 304 N. Sierra Ave. 4,760 2,379 2,380 MR
6 210 Estrella St. 5,544 2,013 2,772 MR
7 248 N. Sierra Ave. 5,391 2,185 2,696 MR
8 245 N. Acacia Ave. 5,350 2,642 2,675 MR
9 242 N. Sierra Ave. 3,866 0 1,933 MR
10 239 N. Acacia Ave. 3,767 886 1,884 MR
11 230 N. Sierra Ave. 8,022 1,512 3,354 MR
12 237 N. Acacia Ave. 4,000 587 1,921 2,000 MR
13 233 N. Sierra Ave. 3,968 1,373 1,984 MR
14 227 N. Acacia Ave. 4,000 1,000 2,000 MR
15 226 N. Sierra Ave. 4,090 1,880 2,045 MR
16 250 Hill Street. 10,214 6,718 3,737 MR
17 239 Hill Street 6,973 3,086 3,170 MR
18 244 Pacific Ave. 5,626 2,370 2,813 MR
19 252 Pacific Ave. 5,282 2,656 2,641 MR
20 255 Hill Street 5,956 1,670 2,983 MR
21 0 Pacific Ave. 5,153 0 2,577 MR
22 259 Hill Street 7,412 4,431 3,247 MR
23 260 Pacific Ave. 5,262 0 2,631 MR
24 265 Hill Street 8,685 976 3,470 MR
25 264 Pacific Ave. 4,981 2,296 2,491 MR
26 305 Clark Street 6,916 3,025 3,160 MR
27 274 Pacific Ave. 5,167 2,407 2,584 MR
28 309 Clark Street 6,792 0 3,139 MR
,
Fences, Walls and Retaining Walls:

Within the front yard setback, the SBMC Section 17.20.040(O) allows fences and walls, or any combination thereof, to be no higher than 42 inches in height as measured from existing grade, except for an additional 2 feet that is at least 80% open to light. Fences, walls and retaining walls located within the rear and interior side yards are allowed to be up to 6 feet in height with an additional 2 feet that is 50% open to light and air.

The Applicant is proposing to maintain the existing block walls that would enclose the private yard in the southwest corner of the lot and construct a five-foot six-inch wood fence along the northern half of the west elevation, and along the southern elevation.

Once the proposed fence reaches the 20-foot front yard setback, it would enclose the southeast corner of the front yard with a fence of 42 inches in height. A 42-inch-high fenced area is proposed in the northeast corner of the lot in order to screen the trash and recycle bins. In the northwest corner of the lot, the Applicant came to an agreement with the neighbor to the north to construct a fence/wall combination not to exceed 6 feet solid with an additional 24 inches of lattice that is 50 percent open to light and air as described in Attachment 3.

August 24, 2022
DRP21-022/SDP21-022
237 N. Acacia Avenue

Page 8 of 11 ends

Currently, the plans show fences and walls that comply with the requirements of SBMC

17.20.040(O) and 17.60.070(C). If the Applicant decides to modify any of the proposed fences and walls or construct additional fences and walls on the project site, a condition of project approval indicates that they would be required to be in compliance with the Municipal Code.

Landscape:

The project is subject to the current water efficient landscaping regulations of SBMC Chapter 17.56. A Landscape Documentation Package is required for new development projects with an aggregate landscape equal to or greater than 500 square feet requiring a building permit, plan check or development review. The Applicant provided a conceptual landscape plan that has been reviewed by the City’s third-party landscape architect, who has recommended approval. The Applicant will be required to submit detailed construction landscape drawings that will be reviewed by the City’s third-party landscape architect for conformance with the conceptual plan. In addition, the City’s third-party landscape architect will perform an inspection during the construction phase of the project. A separate condition has been added to require that native or drought-tolerant and non-invasive plant materials and water-conserving irrigation systems are required to be incorporated into the landscaping to the extent feasible.

Parking:

SBMC Section 17.52.040 and the Off-Street Parking Design Manual (OSPDM) require two (2) parking spaces for a single-family residence. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 391 square-foot attached garage in the northeast corner of the proposed residence. The garage would be accessed by a driveway at the northeast corner of the property from N. Acacia Avenue. The proposed two-car garage satisfies the required offstreet parking for the single-family residence.

Grading:

The Applicant is proposing approximately 680 cubic yards of cut and 260 cubic yards of fill with 420 cubic yards of export. The majority of the proposed grading would be associated with the excavation for the proposed 812 square-foot basement that would have a finished floor approximately 9 feet below the finished floor of the first floor and the finished grade of the yard areas. The proposed grading outside the footprint of the structure would level the existing flat yard areas surrounding the residence and construct drainage improvements including stormwater improvements in the southeast corner of the front yard.

Lighting:

August 24, 2022
DRP21-022/SDP21-022
237 N. Acacia Avenue

Page 9 of 11 ends

Usable Open Space:

The project consists of the construction of a replacement single-family residence with basement and an attached garage and associated site improvements on a developed residential lot, therefore, usable open space and recreational facilities are neither proposed nor required according to SBMC Section 17.20.040. As a condition of project approval, the Applicant will be required to pay the applicable Park Development Fee Structure Development Permit Compliance:

The proposed structure exceeds 16 feet in height above the existing grade, therefore, the project must comply with all of the View Assessment requirements of SBMC Chapter

17.63 and the Applicant was required to complete the SDP process. The Story Pole Height Certification was certified by a licensed land surveyor on May 27, 2022, showing a maximum building height of 24.90 feet (124.7 feet above MSL) above the proposed grade. Notices were mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site establishing a deadline to file for View Assessment by July 13, 2022. The City did not receive any applications for View Assessment, therefore, if the City Council can make the findings to approve the DRP, the SDP would be approved administratively.

A condition of approval has been added to the Draft Resolution of Approval (Attachment 1) to require that the Applicant submit a height certification prepared by a licensed land surveyor prior to the framing inspection certifying that the maximum height of the proposed addition will not exceed 24.90 feet above the proposed grade or 124.7 feet above MSL.

The Draft Resolution of Approval includes the applicable SBMC sections in italicized text and the recommended conditions of approval from the Community Development, Engineering, and Fire Departments. An additional condition of approval requires that the Applicant obtains a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver or Exemption from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of Building or Grading Permits. The Council may direct Staff to modify the Resolution to reflect the findings and conditions it deems appropriate as a result of the public hearing process. If the Council determines the project is to be denied, Staff will prepare a Resolution of Denial for adoption at a subsequent Council meeting.

Property Frontage and Public Right-of-Way Improvements
The existing property frontage is improved with a 6-inch concrete curb and gutter. The area between the concrete curb and property line consists of a grass area and concrete sidewalk. If approved, as a condition of approval, the Applicant will be required to reconstruct the 6-inch curb, gutter, and remove the existing 4-foot-wide sidewalk and construct a 5 foot 4-inch wide sidewalk along the entire property frontage with appropriate transitional sections to the existing improvements on both sides of the property. The driveway approach will also be reconstructed as a condition of approval to meet ADA standards.

August 24, 2022
DRP21-022/SDP21-022
237 N. Acacia Avenue

Page 10 of 11 ends

Public Hearing Notice:

Notice of the City Council Public Hearing for the project was published in the Union Tribune more than 10 days prior to the Public Hearing. The same public notice was mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project site on August 12, 2022. The neighbor located immediately to the north at 239 N. Acacia Avenue, Mr.

Johnson, submitted a letter describing an agreement between him and the Applicant which has been included in Attachment 3.

In conclusion, the proposed project, as conditioned, could be found to be consistent with the Zoning regulations and the General Plan. Staff has prepared draft findings for approval of the project in the attached Resolution 2022-099 for Council’s consideration based upon the information in this report. Conditions from the Community Development, Engineering, and Fire Departments are incorporated in the Resolution of Approval.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
WORK PLAN: N/A
OPTIONS:
∙ Approve Staff recommendation adopting the attached Resolution 2022-099. ∙ Approve Staff recommendation subject to additional specific conditions necessary for the City Council to make all required findings for the approval of a DRP and SDP. ∙ Deny the project if all required findings for the DRP and SDP cannot be made.

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council:

August 24, 2022
DRP21-022/SDP21-022
237 N. Acacia Avenue

Page 11 of 11 ends

1. Conduct the Public Hearing: Open the Public Hearing, Report Council Disclosures, Receive Public Testimony, and Close the Public Hearing.

2. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and

3. If the City Council makes the requisite findings and approves the project, adopt Resolution 2022-099 conditionally approving a DRP and SDP to demolish a singlefamily residence, construct a replacement multi-level single-family residence with a subterranean basement, an attached main floor garage, an attached ADU, and perform associated site improvements at 237 N. Acacia Avenue, Solana Beach.

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department Recommendation.
_________________________
Gregory Wade, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2022-099

2. Project Plans

3. Comment Letter
RESOLUTION 2022-099

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY

APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND

STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEMOLISH A

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, CONSTRUCT A

REPLACEMENT MULTI-LEVEL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE

WITH A BASEMENT, AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE
AND PERFORM ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 237

ACACIA AVENUE, SOLANA BEACH
APPLICANT: SHIRLY HART CHWALOWSKI
CASE NO.: DRP21-022/SDP21-022
WHEREAS, Shirly Hart Chwalowski (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”), has submitted an application for a Development Review Permit (DRP) and Structure Development Permit (SDP) pursuant to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC); and
WHEREAS, the Public Hearing was conducted pursuant to the provisions of Solana Beach Municipal Code Section 17.72.030; and
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing on August 24, 2022, the City Council received and considered evidence concerning the proposed application; and WHEREAS, the City Council found the application request exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, this decision is based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, and any information the City Council gathered by viewing the site and the area as disclosed at the hearing.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, does resolve as follows:

I. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.

II. That the request for a DRP and SDP to demolish a single-story single-family residence, construct a replacement 1,921 square-foot, multi-level single-family residence with a 812 square-foot basement and an attached 391 square-foot twocar garage, and perform associated site improvements at 237 N. Acacia Avenue is conditionally approved based upon the following Findings and subject to the following Conditions:

III. FINDINGS
A. In accordance with Section 17.68.040 (Development Review Permit) of the Resolution 2022-099
DRP21-022/SDP21-022 – 237 N. Acacia Ave.

Page 2 of 14 ends

City of Solana Beach Municipal Code, the City Council finds the following:

I. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of SBMC Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance), including special regulations, overlay zones and specific plans.

General Plan Consistency: The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City’s General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and intended for single-family residential development with a maximum density of five to seven dwelling units per acre. The development is also consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it encourages the development and maintenance of healthy residential neighborhoods, the stability of transitional neighborhoods, and the rehabilitation of deteriorated neighborhoods.

Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The project is consistent with all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17) (SBMC 17.20.030 and

The project meets the minimum number of off-street parking spaces and the required front-, side- and rear-yard setbacks and is below the maximum allowable structure height and gross floor area for the property.

II. The proposed development complies with the following development review criteria set forth in Solana Beach Municipal Code Section

17.68.040.F:
a. Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses: The development shall be designed in a manner compatible with and complementary to existing development in the immediate vicinity of the project site and the surrounding neighborhood. The development as
proposed shall also be compatible in scale, apparent bulk, and massing with such existing development in the surrounding neighborhood. Site planning on or near the perimeter of the development shall give consideration to the protection of surrounding areas from potential adverse effects.

Page 3 of 14 ends

The property is not located within any of the City’s Specific Plan areas; however, it is located within the boundaries of the SROZ.

The project has been evaluated and could be found to be in conformance with the regulations of the SROZ. The project is also located within the Coastal Zone. As a condition of project approval, the Applicant will be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver, or Exemption from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building or grading permits.
b. Building and Structure Placement: Buildings and structures shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and designed in a manner which visually and functionally enhance their intended use and complement existing site topography. Multi-family residential buildings shall be sited to avoid crowding and to allow for a functional use of the space between buildings.

A 267 square foot covered patio is proposed off of the living room in the southwest corner of the residence and an attached 586 square foot ADU consisting of two bedrooms, a living room, laundry room, bathroom and kitchen is proposed in the
Resolution 2022-099
DRP21-022/SDP21-022 – 237 N. Acacia Ave.

Page 4 of 14 ends

northwest corner of the lot. The 1,152 square-foot upper level would consist of the primary bedroom suite, a laundry room, a bathroom, a bedroom, a family room and access to the stairs and elevator. A 136 square foot balcony is proposed along the western elevation of the upper level and is accessible from the primary suite and the family room.

The proposed site improvements in the southwest corner of the lot would include an outdoor kitchen and a hot tub as well as hardscape, landscaping and a perimeter fence. A fenced area for trash and recycle is proposed in the northeast corner of the lot.

According to the SROZ, the proposed subterranean basement is considered “Basement- No Exposed Sides” in which the basement living area can be exempt from the calculation of floor area if there are no exposed sides. A building side is considered exposed when the finished floor of the living area directly above the basement (at any point) is more than three feet above the adjacent natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. Currently, the plans show a basement with no exposure; therefore, the proposed basement living area of 812 square feet would be exempt from the calculation of floor area.

The SBMC parking regulations require two off-street parking spaces per single-family residence. When required spaces are provided in a garage, up to 200 square feet of floor area is exempted for each required space. The proposed 391 squarefoot attached garage would provide two unobstructed parking spaces; therefore, 391 square feet of the garage is exempt from the calculation of floor area.

With the basement exemption (812 square feet) and the garage exemption (391 square feet), the total proposed floor area would be 1,921 square feet, which is 79 square feet below the maximum allowable floor area for the 4,000 square-foot lot located in the SROZ. The maximum allowable floor area
calculation for this project, pursuant to the provisions of the SROZ, is as follows:

0.50 for first 6,000 ft2 2,000 ft2
Maximum Allowable Floor Area: 2,000 ft2
As designed, the project complies with all required setbacks under the designation “D” on the City’s official Zoning Map.

However, the lot is less than 90 feet in width, therefore, the front yard setback can be reduced to 20 feet and the rear yard setback Resolution 2022-099
DRP21-022/SDP21-022 – 237 N. Acacia Ave.

Page 5 of 14 ends

Solana Beach City CouncilAugust 24, 2022

Solana Beach City Council
August 24, 2022