Appellants responses to October 12, 2016 Council Meeting Staff Report

Staff Report Issue 1:

incapable of containing parking demand created by the
development density of the approved plan.

Staff report says, Staff has interpreted this to allow for tandem
parking in prior developments and the appellant has not
provided any basis to warrant overturning the Planning
Commissions decision based on the issue of inadequate
parking.

Appellant Response: The applicable zoning code for the project

does not allow tandem garages, they are allowed only in the
Downtown District where there is a multi-modal transit station.

The statistical information provided to the Commission is inaccurate and misleading. Not only do
all of the dwelling units with tandem garages have not two but three bedrooms (as was
previously indicated in on the plans submitted during the first iteration of the plan) but there are
many more bedrooms, disguised as dens and lofts, in the project than indicated by figures
and footnotes in the provided tables. There are 190 bedrooms in the
Planning Commission approved plan with only 132 total parking
spaces, or 0.69 parking stalls per bedroom, which is almost one-half
of the 1.125 parking stall-to-bedroom ratio of the two developments
adjacent on Vine Street. With a ratio that low, there is no wonder why
the submitted Vesting Tentative Tract Map requested much needed
on-street parking on August 22, 2016 from the Planning Commission.
Vine Street residents who have been denied for years adequate guest
parking feel offended by the Commissions granting new residents
access to on-street parking or apartment managers giving a blind eye
to their service vehicles use of illegal parking on Vine Street.

Resolution No. 2016-P33, 2016-P34, GPA 15-00002: Vine Street Collection 1

 Appellants responses to October 12, 2016 Council Meeting Staff Report

Staff Report Issue 2:

existing provision of residential off-street parking at the rate of a minimum of one parking stall
per bedroom

Staff report says, Staff recommends that the City Council find that the appellants assertion that
the implemented neighborhood parking standard of one (1) space per bedroom is not in fact
true and therefore does not constitute a basis to warrant overturning the Planning Commissions
decision to approve the project.

Appellant Response: Staff has

deceptively misquoted the appeal
letter. In fact, the letter states,
undercuts the neighborhood
residential development standard
designed on the properties
adjacent to the Vine Street
Collection project, most
importantly of which is the existing
provision of residential off-street
parking at the rate of a minimum
of one parking stall per

Resolution No. 2016-P33, 2016-P34, GPA 15-00002: Vine Street Collection 2

 Appellants responses to October 12, 2016 Council Meeting Staff Report

bedroom. There are only two developments adjacent to the proposed project on Vine Street:
the 3-Story Rowhomes located at 911-923 Vine Street and the 3-Story Multi-Family located at
959 Vine Street.

Staff Report Issue 3:

We oppose the plotting of buildings so that garages and building sides face this important
gateway to our Townsite neighborhood along Vine Street.

Staff report says, Two (2) of the four (4) buildings adjacent to Vine Street, on the upper
development pad, have their front elevationsoriented towards Vine Street. The other two (2)
buildings adjacent to Vine Street have their side elevations to the Vine Street frontage.The
project represents a vast aesthetic improvement over existing conditions at the project site and
will serve to improve the aesthetic quality of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff recommends
that the City Council find that the appellants claim that the plotting of buildings so that garages
and sides face Vine Street is inaccurate for the reasons outlined above and therefore does not
constitute a basis to warrant overturning the Planning Commissions decision to approve the
project.

Appellant Response: The southeast corner of the project is the most aesthetically sensitive
part of the project because it establishes the first impression of the Townsite District and Vine
Street neighborhood to a visitor that enters it. Over 90-degrees of viewing angles to exposed
garage doors and alleys in addition to 180-degrees of viewing angles to building sides fronting
on Vine Street can be avoided with front facades that wrap around this corner to conceal private
parking.

Resolution No. 2016-P33, 2016-P34, GPA 15-00002: Vine Street Collection 3

 Appellants responses to October 12, 2016 Council Meeting Staff Report

Staff Report Issue 4:

we oppose the provision of tandem parking

Staff report says, The Zoning Ordinance does [sic] contain any restrictions on the utilization of
tandem parking for multi-family developments.Further, staff researched the zoning ordinances
of various surrounding municipalities as was not able to find any restrictions or prohibitions on
the utilization of tandem parking stalls for multi-family developments. Given the sites in-fill
location and inherent constraints, considering its configuration and existing topography, the use
of tandem parking stalls on 40% of the units was necessary to be able to provide the necessary
code required parking.

Appellant Response: Appraisers value the forward stall of a tandem garage at 40% of the rear
stall because the forward stall is more difficult to access than the rear stall, and so people tend
to use the front stall in an attached tandem garage for storage or recreation uses. It is difficult, if
not impossible, for Homeowners Associations or (already overburdened) Municipal Code
Enforcement staff to enforce a residents use of the forward stall for parking. Tandem garages
were only recently permitted, and only in the Downtown District where convenient alternative
transportation options make this exception to established parking standards a reasonable
concession. Developers who request tandem garages for to help with odd-shaped lots dont

Resolution No. 2016-P33, 2016-P34, GPA 15-00002: Vine Street Collection 4

 Appellants responses to October 12, 2016 Council Meeting Staff Report

need more than 25% tandem

of total project garages to
make required dimensional
adjustments, and the City of
Carlsbad only allows up to
25% tandem garages in
Planned Development Zones
with the RH General Plan
designation.

Staff Report Issue 5: Traffic Calming

Appellant Response: Traffic calming street design solutions for the downhill speeding are most
apparent and urgent to the neighborhood. It appears that the proposed micro-roundabout
schemes are unnecessary, will reduce the amount of valuable on-street parking spaces
provided to the neighborhood, and may in fact contribute to peak hour congestion at Vine Street
and Oceanside Boulevard.

There are several other issues brought up in the Appeal Letter but not identified in the Staff
Report that will be addressed at the City Council meeting but nevertheless some are worth
mentioning here:

1. The vertical integrity of common walls should be maintained to minimize insurance costs.

2. Assessment of environmental, health, and cultural impacts to the neighborhood by changing

zoning from Recreational Commercial to Residential.

3. The proposed project should facilitate public access to the Townsite Arroyo by converting it
into a public park.

Additionally, procedural errors were made, and so it is worth noting the City of Oceanside
adopted the Planning Commission Code of Ethics (9-10-07) which requires that Commissioners
will:

1 Recognize the rights of citizens to participate in planning decisions;

2 Strive to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special need to
plan for the needs of disadvantaged groups and persons;
3 Assist in the clarification of community goals, objectives, and policies in plan making;
4 Strive to protect the integrity of the natural environment and the heritage of the built
environment;
5 Pay special attention to the interrelatedness of decisions and the long-range
consequences of present actions.
6 Not use confidential information acquired in the course of a commissioners duties to
further a personal interest;
9 Not misrepresent facts or distort information for the purpose of achieving a desired
outcome;
10 Not participate in any matter unless adequately prepared and sufficiently capacitated to
render thorough and diligent service.

Resolution No. 2016-P33, 2016-P34, GPA 15-00002: Vine Street Collection 5

 Appellants responses to October 12, 2016 Council Meeting Staff Report

Considering the above, I and the 28 signers of the Appeal Letter feel it is established that there
are more than enough examples of this projects unresolved problems, many unaddressed in
this letter, as well as undercutting and/or deterioration of existing development standards that
will adversely affect the health, peace, and economic wellbeing of our community enough to
merit the City Councils denial of this project.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael Odegaard

Resolution No. 2016-P33, 2016-P34, GPA 15-00002: Vine Street Collection 6