1997-29
I
RESOLUTION NO. PC 97-29
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ENCINIT AS APPROVING
A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF
11 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN
AN EXISTING 14 LOT SUBDIVISION
INCLUDING NOISE ANALYSIS REVIEW OF LOTS. 1-4 & 12-14
AND GRADING MODIFICATIONS FOR LOTS 1 AND 11
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1409,1414,1418,1419,1422,1423,
1426,1427,1431,1432, & 1435 ARBOR COURT
(CASE NO. 97-040 DR/CDP)
WHEREAS, Michael Galey on behalf of Kennedy Development applied for a Design
Review Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow for the construction of 11 single family
residences within a 14 lot subdivision pursuant to Chapter 23.08 Design Review, and Chapter 30.80
Coastal Development Permits of the Municipal Code of the City of Encinitas; for property located
at 1409, 1414, 1418, 1419, 1422, 1423, 1426, 1427, 1431, 1432 & 1435 Arbor Court, Encinitas,
further described as:
Lots 1,3 through 7, and 10 through 14, of City of Encinitas Tract No. 90-155, in the
City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 13325, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
May 13, 1996.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application by the Planning
Commission on May 8, 1997 and all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Project booklets including Site Plan, Design Guidelines, Colored Renderings,
Building Elevations and Floor Plans dated received by the City of Encinitas on
. April 23, 1997; Grading Modification Exhibits for Lots 1 and 11, dated received by
the City of Encinitas on April 23, 1997, consisting of two sheets; and Arbor Hills
Estates Exterior Color Schemes List dated revised February 27, 1997, dated
received by the City of Encinitas on April 29, 1997;
cdIDL/RPC97040.729 (Final- 5/14/97) 1
b. Acoustical Analysis Report dated October 1, 1996 and Addendum No.1 dated April
27, 1997 prepared by R. S. Gales;
c. Written information submitted with the application;
d. Oral testimony ftom staff~ applicant, and public made a p8lt of the record at said
public hearing;
e. Planning Commission staff report (97-040 DR/CDP) prepared for the meeting of
May 8, 1997 which is on file in the Department of Community Development;
f. The General Plan, Zoning Code, Associated Land Use Maps and the Local Coastal
Plan; and
g. Additional written documentation.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Encinitas made the following findings
pursuantto Chapters 23.08 and 30.80 of the Encinitas Municipal Code:
SEE AITACHMENT"A"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Encinitas that application 97-040 DR/CDP is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
SEE A IT ACHMENT liB II
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission in its independent judgment
finds that this project is consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted on October 29,
1991, and no further environmental review is required for the project pursuant to Section 15162 of
the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
cdIDL/RPC97040.729 (Final- 5/14/97) 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of May 1997, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Wells, Patton and Lanham
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Jacobson and Bagg
ABSTAIN: None
Rusty ell ice-Chairperson
of the Planning Commission
of the City ofEncinitas
ATTEST:
-~ ~
-s~ older, Secretary ......
cdIDLIRrc97040.729 (Final- 5/14/97) 3
ATTACHMENT"B"
RESOLUTION NO. PC-97-29
FINDINGS FOR A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT CHAPTER 23.08, AND
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CHAPTER 30.80
OF THE ENCINIT AS MUNICIPAL CODE
(CASE NO. 97-040 DRlCDP)
Standard: An application for Design Review Permit shall be approved unless findings of fact
are made based upon the information presented in the application or during the deliberations
which support one or more of the regulatory conclusions contained in Section 23.08.072 (et
seq.) of the Municipal Code.
1. The project design is inconsistent with the General Plan, a Specific Plan or the
provisions of the Municipal Code.
Facts: The subject site is designated Residential 1.0 1 - 2.0 dwelling units per acre on the
Land Use Policy Map of the General Plan and is located within the RR-2 zone in which
single family homes are expressly permitted pursuant to the Municipal Code. The site is
not located within a Specific Plan' Area. Noise Analysis Review was required as a
mitigation measure for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, and 14 in association with the Mitigated
Negative Declaration adopted as part of the approval for the original subdivision (Case No.
90-155). The Noise Analysis Review was required to ensure that the subject lots would
conform with outside and interior noise levels stipulated within the General Plan; said
review is included as part of the subject application for Lots 1, 3, 4, 12, 13 and 14; Lot 2
was handled previously under separate application.
Discussion: The project conforms or is conditioned to conform with the development
standards of the RR-2 zone in which the project is located. An Acoustical Analysis Report
prepared by RS. Gales, dated October 1, 1996, and Addendum No.1 dated April 21, 1997,
on file in the Community Development Department, was prepared for the project which
concluded that with the construction of a six foot high acoustic barrier for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4,
the 60dB outside noise exposure limit stipulated in the General Plan could be accomplished;
the report further notes that suitable noise reduction for all other lots was expected to be
provided by sound absorption by ground cover (grass and ice plållt) and shielding by other
buildings. Related to meeting the. 45 dB interior noise level requirement of the General
Plan; the report notes that specific acoustical review shall be required for each building plan
to assure that the requirement is met. It is further noted that the review will principally
involve window design and may result in a need for forced air ventilation where closed
windows are required. As agreed by the applicant, the project is conditioned whereby
building plans proposed for Lots 1, 3, 4, 12, 13 and 14 shall be reviewed by an Acoustical
cd/DL/RPC97040.729 (Final- 5/14/97)4
Consultant to determine that the design and placement of the house, together with the sound
barrier as constructed, will conform with the City of Encinitas Interior Noise Standard set
forth within the General Plan. Prior to Building Permit issuance for Lots 1, 3, 4, 12, 13 and
14 a letter report (or supplement to the October 1, 1996 Acoustical Report) prepared by an
Acoustical Consultant shall be submitted which summarizes the results of the review and
which shows that the proposed structures conform with allowed interior noise levels.
Additionally, the letter reports prepared for Lots 1, 3 and 4 shall address whether the
height, material, construction and location of the 6' high masonry wall fulfills the sound
barrier requirements outlined in the October 1, 1996 Acoustical Analysis.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the project design is consistent with the
General Plan, the Local Coastal Plan and the provisions of the Municipal Code.
2. The project design is substantially inconsistenhvith the Design Review Guidelines.
Facts: The subject application includes a Design Review and Coastal Development Permit
request for the proposed construction of 11 single family residences within a 14 lot
subdivision. Noise Analysis review for six of the lots (1-4 & 12-14) is included and
grading modificatiÇ>ns are proposed on two of the lots (1 and 11). The applicant has
submitted booklets for the project which include the proposed site plan, design guidelines,
and project plans consisting of colored rendering~elevations and floor plans. Except for
Lot 1, the subject homes have been sited in conformance wi~ the building envelopes
originally established in association with the original Tentative Map. The applicant has
requested to modify the envelope on Lot 1 whereby the structure is shifted approximately
25' to the south and oriented closer to Olympus Street. The structure will maintain a
minimum exterior side yard setback of 22' which is still greater than the minimum 15'
exterior side yard setback required within the RR-2 zone.
The project proposes a minimum of three basic floor plans (Plan 1, Plan 2 and Plan 3) with
a minimum of at least two different ftont elevations (A, B or C) proposed on the individual
plans. The _buildings have been sited such that no plan with the same elevation will be
located adjacent to another. There are occasions where the same plan (with a different
elevation) is located on adjacent lots. This scenario occurs on Lots 2 and 3 with Plan 3A
and 3B; Lots 7 and 10 with Plan 3B and 3A and Lots 13 and 14 with Plan 2B and 2C. Nine
color schemes are proposed for the project which utilize beige, grey, brown, white and off-
white in a variety of shades for the stucco, hardboard siding, wainscot, trim, fascia and
garage door. Accent colors proposed for such items as shutters and window surrounds vary
ftom greens, blue grey, dark grey, dark brown, white and off-white.. A number of concrete
rooftiles, both flat and barrel, are proposed as part of the color schemes. Some schemes are
given a choice of either flat or barrel in a specified color and some schemes utilize solely
the flat tile in a specified color.
cdIDLlRPC97040.729 (Fina1- 5/14/97) 5
Full scale plans submitted as part of the project application and which are on file in the
Community Development Department show building heights as follows: Plan lA (one
story)- 18'; Plan IB (split level) 18'/25.98'; Plan 2A, B & C (two story)- 25'-9"; Plan 3A
(two story) - 24' -9"; Plan 3B & C (two story) - 25' -6'.
The grading modifications proposed on Lot 1 and Lot 11 are depicted on Exhibits submitted
as part of the application which are on file in the Community Development Department.
Lot 1 was originally proposed as a split pad with elevations of 144 and 142; regrading of
Lot 1 is proposed in order to achieve a single flat pad. A new elevation of 147 is proposed
which will lower the north side of Lot 1 by 5 feet and raise the south side by approximately
3 feet. Lot 11 was also originally proposed as a split pad with elevations of 166 and 171;
regrading of Lot 11 is proposed in order to achieve a single flat pad. A new elevation of
166 is proposed which will lower the ftont portion of Lot 11 by 5 feet.
Landscaping has been installed on the project site in conformance with the original
Conceptual Landscape Plan approved in association with the original Tentative Map. Said
landscaping includes groundcovers, shrubs, and street trees which occur on the graded
slopes, adjacent to and within the pedestrian easement and adjacent to the street. No
additional landscaping is proposed in association with the current project; each individual
lot owner will provide the landscaping for each individual lot. The landscaping installed to
date was subject to Design Review which can fulfill minimum landscaping requirements for
the project. Other than what was constructed to date, no fencing is proposed in association
with the subject project. The fencing constructed to date includes the tan six foot high
block wall which is comprised of split face block with cap and split face block pillars at the
end of each lot. Wood gates are included within the wall in various locations to provide
access to the slopes. Additionally, a six foot high wood privacy fence has been constructed
along the easterly property line of Lot 6.
Discussion: The project substantially conforms to site, building, and privacy design
standards. The project design offers interest and variation by utilizing a variety of roof
styles, building materials, window treatments, architectural styles, an~ color schemes.
Additional variety is achieved by reversing floor plans and using a combination of side and
nont entry garages and two and three car garages. Other design changes occur due to
specific requests by the developer, which in~lude an optional room addition and accessory
unit for Plan 3C on Lot 5 and a room and deck addition for Plan 2B on Lot 13. With the
design variations proposed between the different elevations, coupled with the size of the
lots, varying building setbacks, and varying building orientations a repeat in plan on
adjacent lots (2 &3; 7 & 10; 13 & 14) will not be readily apparent visually. Although
specific color schemes have not been selected for each individual lot, criteria has been
established to ensure that no two same color schemes shall be utilized on adjacent
residences and no one color scheme can be utilized on more than 5 of the subject lots.
While still providing design variety, at the same time, elements of consistency are proposed
for the structure design and the main colors are proposed in subtle hues to ensure design
integrity and cohesiveness.
cdIDURPC97040.729 (Final- 5/14/97) 6
The grading modific;ations proposed for Lots 1 and l1aJlow for better use of the individual
lots. The modifications will be in keeping with the grading previously completed for the
project. The masonry wall and wood fencing is compatible with the colors and materials
proposed for the individual homes and is in keeping with the. residential character of the
project.
Given 1) the curvilinear nature of Arbor Court. 2) the variation in the established building
envelopes, 3) the variation in pad heights, 4) the size of the subject lots, and 5) the design
variations attained through buifding siting, plan selection, color schemes, and building
elevations; the project avoids the "cookie cutter effect" a11d len4s itself more toward a
custom home project which is compatible with the surrounding individualistic
development.
ConclusioD: The Planning Commission finds that the project design is substantially
consistent with the Design Review Guidelines.
3. The project would adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community.
Discussion: No aspect of the use has been identified which would have any significant
adverse affect on the health, safety, or general welfare of the community.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not adversely affect the
health safety, or general welfare of the community.
4. The project would cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in
appearance or value.
Discussion: No evidence has been submitted which shows that the proposed development
will cause material depreciation to the appearance or value of the surrounding
neighborhood.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not cause the
surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value.
cd/DL/RPC97040.729 (Final- 5/14/97) 7
Standard: A decision to approve a Coastal Development Permit must be based upon the
written findings found in Section 30.80.090 of the Municipal Code:
1. The project is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program of the City of
Encinitas; and
2. The proposed development conforms with Public Resources Code 21000 and following
in that there are no feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives available
which would substantially lessen any significant advene impact that the activity may
have on the environment.
3. For projects involving development between the sea or other body of water and the
nearest public road, approval shall include a specific finding that such development is
in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Section 30200 et
seq. of the Coastal Act.
Facts: The subject application includes a Design Review and Coastal Development Permit
request for the proposed construction of 11 single family residences within a 14 lot
subdivision. The subject site is designated Residential 1.01 - 2.0 dwelling units per acre on
the Land Use Policy Map of the General Plan and is located within the RR-2 zone in which
single family homes are expressly permitted pursuant to the Municipal Code. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration was adopted in association with the original Tentative Map which
required mitigation measures to be implemented in association with the project to
substantially lessen any significant adverse impact the activity may have on the
environment.. The subject site is located east of Interstate 5, adjacent to Olympus Street
between Piraeus Street and Caudor Street.
Discussion: With the approval of the Design Review Permit and with the conditions of
approval, the project is in conformance with the provisions of the Local Coastal Plan which
includes the General Plan and appropriate chapters of the Municipal Code. The Mitigation
Measures required in association with the original subdivision have or are conditioned to be
met in association with the subject application. Finding No.3 is not applicable to the project
since the project street is not the nearest public road to the sea.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that 1) the project is consistent with the
certified Local Coastal Program of the City of Encinitas; 2) mitigation measures have been
or are conditioned to be implemented in association with the project which substantially
lessen any significant adverse impact the activity may have on the environment; and 3)
finding No.3 is not applicable.
cd/DL/RPC97040.729 (Final- 5/14/97) 8
ATTACHMENT "C"
RESOLUTION NO. PC-97-29
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Applicant: Mike Galey on behalf of Kennedy Development
Case No.: 97-040 DR/CDP
Subject: Conditions of approval for a Design Review Permit and Coastal Development
Permit for the proposed construction of 11 single family residences within an
existing 14 lot subdivision.
Location: 1409,1414,1418,1419,1422,1423,1426,1427,1431,1432 & 1435 Arbor Court.
A. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
1. Since the site plan developed for the current application is not to scale; the
dimensions depicted on the original approved Site Plan dated revised September 24,
1991 and received by the City of Encinitas on October 1, 1991 related to Case
Number 90-155 TM/EIAlDR on file in the City of Encinitas Community
Development Department shall be utilized at time of building permit plan check. In
instances where setback dimensions denoted on the original site plan are not
accurate to scale, the noted dimension typically shall take precedence. However,
where major discrepancies occur between scale and the actual dimension, the scaled
dimension shall be utilized. The areas where the scaled dimension shall take
precedence over the noted dimension are denoted and highlighted on the Site Plan
Exhibit submitted as part of the subject application which is on file in the
Community Development Department dated received April 25, 1997.
2. The building envelopes depicted on the original approved Site Plan, as noted above,
shall apply to the construction of primary and detached accessory structures.
Projections of architectural features into the setbacks established by the building
envelopes can be authorized in conformance with Section 30.16.01 OE.6 of the
Municipal Code. The allowed projection into the side yard setback shall be based
on the setback established by building envelope and not necessarily the required 10
foot side yard setback of the underlyingRR-2 zone.
3. Building permit plans shall conform with the design.details depicted on the colored
renderings included within the project booklet dated received April 23, 1997. In
addition, shutters or window surrounds shall be added to the large window which
occUrs on the left elevation of Plan 1 A on Lot 1 and the extra treatment, such as
wood Window surrounds, shall be added to the side elevations for Plan 2B on Lot
13.
cd/DL/RPC97040.729 (Final- 5/14/97) 9
4. No two same color schemes shall be utilized on adjacent residences and no one
color scheme shall be utilized on more than 5 of the subject lots. The chosen color
scheme to be utilized for each individual home shall be referenced on the building
plans with each building permit application. Revisions to the fascia or accent color
of the 9 color schemes can be authorized if the revisions are compatible with the
approved color scheme. Revisions to the roof tile color designated on the approved
color scheme can be authorized as long as the proposed roof tile is of the same type
(flat or barrel) and manufacturer as designated on the approved Color Scheme List
and as long as the proposed color is compatible with the selected color scheme. A
colored elevation and/or color and material board/sample shall be submitted if
revisions to the accent, fascia or roof tile colors are proposed.
5. Except for Lots 1 and 11, building heights for the proposed structures shall be
measured from the base pad elevations (finished grade) depicted on the approved
Tentative Map (No. 90-155) dated revised September 24, 1991 and received by the
City of Encinitas on October 1, 1991. Building heights for Lot 1 and 11 shall be
measured nom the base pad elevations depicted on the Grading Modification
Exhibits, dated received April 23, 1997, submitted in association with the subject
application (Lot 1/147; Lot 11/161). The structures shall conform with the standard
building heights stipulated in Section 30.16.010B7 of the Municipal Code (22' +
4'), however at no point can a portion of a structure exceed 30 feet as measured
nom the lower of natural or finished grade as shown on the approved Tentative
Map. Some lots cannot achieve the maximum building height over the entire
building envelope; those lots with limitations are depicted on the original approved
Site Plan, dated revised September 24, 1991 and received by the City of Encinitas
on October 1, 1991, related to Case No. 90-155 TM/EIAIDR. An exhibit clearly
depicting the areas of limitation on Lot 1 in relation to the approved grading
modification shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance on Lot 1.
Detailed information shall be depicted on the building permit plans related to
original natural grade, approved Tentative Map grade, and finished grade to ensure
that the proposed structures are in conformance with building height criteria. Prior
to receiving a final inspection on the naming, the applicant shall provide a survey
nom a licensed surveyor or a registered civil engineer verifying that the height of
the structure is in compliance with approved building permit plans.
6. Building plans for Lots 1, 3, 4, 12, 13 and 14 shall be reviewed by an Acoustical
Consultant to determine that the design and placement of the house, together with
the sound barrier as constructed, will conform with the City of Encinitas Interior
Noise Standard set forth within the General Plan. Prior to Building Permit issuance
for Lots 1, 3, 4, 12, 13 and 14, a letter report (or supplementto the October 1, 1996
Acoustical Report) prepared by an Acoustical Consultant shall be submitted which
summarizes the results of the review and which shows that the proposed structures
conform with allowed interior noise levels. Additionally, the letter reports prepared
cdIDL/RPC97040.729 (Final- 5/14/97) 10
for Lots 1, 3 and 4 shall address whether the height, material, construction and
loçation of the 6' high masonry wall fulfills the sound barrier requirements outlined
in the October 1, 1996 Acoustical Analysis.
7. The applicant shall execut~ and . reco(d a covenant setting forth the terms and
conditions of this approval. Additionally, since an accessory unit is proposed on
Lot 5 in order to conform with Chapter 24.21 of the Municipal Code, a covenant
shall be recorded on Lot 5 to replace Attachment "A" to Covenant Regarding Real
Property which was recorded on May 7, 1996 as County Recorder Document No.
1996-0230509, related to providing an accessory unit on Lot 6. The same
provisions stipulated in Attachment "A" of the previous covenant shall be recorded
to pertain to Lot 5 of the subject project. Following receipt of the signed covenant
noted above for Lot 5, the Community Development Department shall prepare and
record a release of covenant relative to the accessory unit required for Lot 6.
8. Additional fencing (not included as part of the subject application) may be
constructed by the individual homeowners based on the following: a) chain link
fencing is prohibited; and b) any proposed wood privacy fencing (5' - 6' high) shall
be constructed to match the fencing already constructed on Lot 6; c) all fences/walls
shall be constructed in conformance with Section 30.16.010F of the Municipal
Code. The masonry walls constructed on Lots 1, 3 and 4 for noise purposes shall be
maintained.
B. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. This approval will expire in two years, on May 8, 1999, at 5:00 p.m., unless the
conditions have been met or an extension has been approved by the Authorized
Agency.
2. This approval may be appealed to the authorized agency within 15 calendar days
ftom the date of this approval.
3. At all times during the effective period of this permit, the applicant shall obtain and
maintain in valid force and effect, each and every license and permit required by a
governmental agency for the operation of the authorized activity.
4. At no time during the effective period of this permit shall the applicant be
delinquent in the payment of lawful assessments relating to the property which is
the subject of this permit.
5. In the event that any of the conditions of this permit are not satisfied, the
Community Development Department shall cause a noticed hearing to be set before
the authorized agency to determine why the City of Encinitas should not revoke this
permit.
cd/DLIRPC97040.729 (Final - 5/14/97) 11
6. Upon a showing of compelling public necessity demonstrated at a noticed hearing,
the City of Encinitas, acting through the authorized agency, may add, amend, or
delete conditions and regulations contained in this permit.
7. Nothing in this permit shall relieve the applicant ftom complying with the
conditions and regulations generally imposed upon activities similar in nature to the
activity authorized by this permit.
8 Nothing in this permit shall authorize the applicant to intensify the authorized
activity beyond that specifically described in this permit.
9. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Zoning
Code and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of construction
unless specifically waived herein.
10. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code,
Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code,
Uniform Fire Code, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the
time of building permit issuance if applicable.
11. Project is conditionally approved as submitted as evidenced by the project booklets
including Site Plan, Design Guidelines, Colored Renderings, Building Elevations
and Floor Plans dated received by the City of Encinitas on April 23, 1997; Grading
Modification Exhibits for Lots 1 and 11, dated received by the City of Encinitas on
April 23, 1997, consisting of two sheets; and Arbor Hills Estates Exterior Color
Schemes List dated revised February 27, 1997, dated received by the City of
Encinitas on April 29, 1997 and signed by a City Official as approved by the
Planning Commission on May 8, 1997, and shall not be altered without Community
Development Department review and approval.
12. All existing plantings and irrigation systems shall be maintained in good condition,
and whenever necessary, shall be replaced with new materials to ensure continued
compliance with applicable landscaping, buffering, and screening requirements. All
landscaping and irrigation systems shall be maintained in a manner that will not
depreciate adjacent property values and otherwise adversely affect adjacent
properties.
13. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall pay all fees associated with the
processing and review of the Design Review Permit and the Coastal Development
Permit to the Community Development Department.
THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS BUILDING DIVISION
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
cd/DL/RPC97040.729 (Final- 5/14/97) 12
C. BUILDING
1. The applicant shall submit a complete set of construction plans to the Building
Division for plan check processmg. The submittal shall include a
Soils/Geotechnical Report, Structural calculations, and State Energy compliance
documentation (Title 24). Construction plans shall include a site plan, a
foundation plan, a floor ftaming plan, a floor plan, section details, exterior
elevatioP$, and materials specifications. Submitted plans must show compliance
with the latest adopted editions of the California Building Code (The Uniform
Building Code with California Amendments, the California Mechanical,
Electrical and Plumbing Code). Commercial and multi-residential construction
must also contain details and notes to show compliance with State disabled
accessibility mandates. These comments are preliminary only. A comprehensive
plan check will be completed prior to permit issuance and additional technical
code requirements may be identified and changes to the originally submitted plans
may be required.
2. All sanitary sewer systems serving a subdivision must be designed and constructed
per public sewer standards.
THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINIT AS FIRE DEPARTMENT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
D. FIRE
1. Fire apparatus access roadways shall have an unobstructed paved width of not less
than 24 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 14 feet 6 inches.
Access to one (1) single family residence shall not be less than 16 feet of paved
width. Exception with Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems Installed: A fire access
roadway providing access to not more than three (3) single family dwellings shall
not be less than 16 feet in paved width with an unobstructed vertical clearance of not
less than 13 feet 6 inches.
2. All dead-end fire access roadways in excess of 150 feet in length or serving four (4)
or more dwelling units shall be provided with a cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac radius
for public streets shall comply with city road standards. Streets constructed to
private road standards where a turnaround is required shall have a cul-de-sac with a
paved radius of not less than 36 feet. Alternate types of turnarounds may be
considered by the Fire Chief as needed to accomplish the purpose of the Fire Code.
3. Prior to the delivery of combustible materials on the project site, water and sewer
systems shall satisfactorily pass all required tests and be connected to the public
water and sewer systems. In addition, the first lift of asphalt paving shall be in place
cd/DLIRPC97040.729 (Final- 5/14/97) 13
to provide a permanent ~l-weather surface for emergency vehicles. Said access
shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Encinitas Fire Department.
4. Emergency access roadways when required shall be properly identified as per
Encinitas Fire Department standards.
5. All traffic lanes shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width during construction and
shall be maintained clear and ftee of obstruction during construction in accordance
with the Uniform Fire Code.
6. Address numbers shall be placed in a location that will allow them to be clearly
visible ftom the street nonting the structure. The height of numbers shall conform
to Encinitas Fire Department Standards. NOTE: Where structures are located off a
roadway on long driveways a monument marker shall be placed at the entrance
where the driveway intersects the main roadway. Permanent numbers shall be
affixed to this marker.
7. Structures shall be protected by an automa~ic fire sprinkler system installed to the
satisfaction of the Encinitas Fire Department.
8. Prior to building pennit issuance. the applicant shall submit a letter ftom the Fire
Department to the Department of Community Development stating that all fees,
including plan check reviews and/or cost recovery fees, have been paid or secured
to the satisfaction of the Encinitas Fire Department.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE CITY EN G INEERIN G DEPARTMENT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
E. En¥ineerinf ::
All City Codes, regulations, and policies in effect at the time of building permit
issuance shall apply.
cd/DL/RPC97040.729 (Final- 5/14/97) 14