Encinitas planning commission approves Martin Residence with front-yard and cantilever conditions

The Encinitas Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote approved the Martin Residence project, a proposed two‑story single‑family home at 444 Neptune Avenue that required multiple variances and a coastal development permit.

Staff recommended approval of the project, including a reduced front yard setback and a reduced interior side yard setback, and the commission adopted that recommendation with two amendments: (1) a condition memorializing the memo that limits second‑story cantilever roof eave encroachment into the bluff setback to the permitted 20% and (2) a requirement that the garage/laundry wall be shifted westward toward the bluff‑setback line to the extent feasible so the rear wall touches the setback line if possible.

Takoma Eastland, Associate Planner for the City of Encinitas, told commissioners that the proposal (case Multi0052182022) would build a 2,560‑square‑foot two‑story house with a 546‑square‑foot attached garage on a vacant bluff‑top lot. The applicants requested three variances: reduce the 25‑foot front yard setback to 13 feet, reduce one required interior side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet, and waive the requirement to provide a third off‑street parking stall for homes over 2,500 square feet. Eastland said the site lies within Encinitas' R‑8 zone, the Coastal Bluff overlay and the Coastal Commission's appeal jurisdiction, and that staff found the project consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program and exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15303(a) for single‑family residence construction.

Craig Lewis, speaking for the applicant, described the project history and explained that the California Coastal Commission’s earlier appeal led to a 79‑foot bluff edge setback that, he said, left only a narrow buildable area. Lewis said the design attempts to fit the neighborhood pattern, including a second‑story cantilevered living area that encroaches into the bluff‑setback allowance for architectural projection and a smaller two‑car garage. Jim Knowlton, the project's geotechnical consultant, explained that the Coastal Commission’s 79‑foot figure reflects a combined factor‑of‑safety and erosion setback and that the commission’s restrictions prohibit foundations within the 79‑foot zone but allow non‑foundation “flat work” such as pavers where removable hardscape is preferred.

Commissioners questioned the staff and applicant about whether the house could be shifted to increase driveway depth, how much living area sits on the cantilever, and precedents for past variances along Neptune Avenue. Commissioner discussion showed split views: some commissioners said the narrow lot and the Coastal Commission setback constitute a unique hardship that justifies variance relief; others were concerned about creating precedent and about the shallow driveway that could leave a parked car projecting into the public right of way.

A public speaker, Ned Sahin, said he supported the project and described it as consistent with the character of Neptune Avenue. No public speakers opposed the application at the hearing.

The commission approved the resolution adopting staff findings and granting the requested variances and coastal development permit with the amendments described above. The motion passed 3‑2. The record shows the commission also added a condition addressing the west‑facing roof eave encroachment identified in the staff memo.

The project record notes an earlier version approved by the city in 2016 (Planning Commission resolution PC2016‑16) and subsequent Coastal Commission action culminating in a larger geologic setback. The applicant’s filing, neighborhood participation meeting, and staff analyses are part of the administrative record.