TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2005
SUBJECT: CASE NO. ZON2004-00409 (Revision to Height Variation No. 884 and Amendment No. 2 to Tract No. 31617) Applicant/Property Owner: Sal Ahamed; Subject Property: 6270 Ocean Terrace Drive Lot 20, Tract 31617 (Thomas Guide Page 822, J-3).
Staff Coordinator: Eduardo Schonborn, aicp, Associate Planner
Conceptually approve the applicant’s proposed modifications, which would render a tract amendment no longer necessary, thereby eliminating the need to require the applicant to enter into an agreement to realign the trail; and continue the hearing to January 20, 2006 to allow the applicant to submit a revised plan for the City Council’s final approval.
On August 2, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-83, approving Case No. 2004-00409 for a revision to an approved Height Variation and an amendment to Tract No. 31617. The approval allowed the applicant’s residence to remain in the location where it was erroneously constructed, with a condition that requires removal of 10-feet of the rear yard balcony to ensure that a 15-foot setback is maintained between the trail easement line and the balcony structure. Further, the amendment allows two balcony support columns and grading on a slope steeper than 10-percent to remain beyond the BGR line.
In addition, the Council’s decision included a condition of approval which requires the applicant to enter into an agreement with the City to either relocate the existing trail easement and trail entirely on his property, or acquire a portion of the adjoining Upper Filiorum property to maintain the trail in its current location. The applicant is now proposing modifications to his property that he believes would make the tract amendment no longer necessary and, as such, the condition of approval related to the trail issue unnecessary.
Mr. Ahamed is proposing to not only remove the balcony, as directed by the recent City Council decision on his after-the-fact applications, but to also take certain additional actions on his property that would no longer make the approval of a tract amendment necessary. Specifically, Mr. Ahamed is proposing to remove the fill material that was placed on the slope adjacent to the building pad that is steeper than 10-percent, and ensure that no vertical support columns project beyond the tract’s Building and Grading Restriction (BGR) line. He believes that by removing these improvements a tract amendment would no longer be necessary. In turn, if there is no need for a tract amendment, then the condition imposed by the City Council (condition # 6) requiring him to come up with a trail relocation solution should no longer be necessary.
In addition to conducting this work, Mr. Ahamed is proposing a 495.5 square foot addition to the residence. The addition is proposed along the rear of the residence at the location under the remaining portion of the balcony. The addition will enlarge the kitchen and family room and will not be located any closer to the easement line than allowed by the Tract’s conditions of approval.
Staff believes that if the modifications proposed by the applicant are made, the resulting project would no longer warrant a tract amendment. This is because the improvements that are proposed to be removed (the support columns beyond the BGR line and the grading on slopes greater than 10-percent) are not consistent with the tract’s conditions of approval. Since Mr. Ahamed originally sought to keep these improvements in place, a tract amendment was required to be approved by the City Council. However, if these specific improvements are now removed, a tract amendment would no longer be necessary.
Since the provision of a trail along the rear of the applicant’s property was part of the approved tract map, Staff felt that there was a nexus between the improvements that were allowed to remain through approval of the tract amendment and the trail. However, if a tract amendment is no longer necessary, Staff believes that there is no longer a nexus to require the applicant to improve or provide for a better trail solution.
There is a related issue that also needs to be addressed. As mentioned in previous reports, construction of the residence in the unapproved location also resulted in fill being inadvertently placed within the City’s trail easement and on a portion of the neighboring property to the south (i.e., Upper Filiorum). Staff believes that if the condition related to the trail relocation is removed, the issue of the unauthorized grading onto the adjacent Upper Filiorum property still needs to be addressed by the applicant since the unauthorized placement of fill on a neighboring property is prohibited by the City’s Development Code. Therefore, Staff believes that the applicant must also address this issue as part of any revised project plan that is submitted in the future for formal Council approval.
As such, Staff recommends that the City Council conceptually approve the proposed modifications and continue the hearing to January 20, 2006 to allow the applicant sufficient time to submit a plan illustrating the modifications as well as documentation from the Upper Filiorum property owner (York Long Point Associates) indicating that the applicant has permission to remove the unauthorized fill from the Upper Filiorum property.
In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration:
Joel Rojas, aicp,
Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement