1997-18
RESOLUTION NO. PC-97-18
RESOLUTION OF THE ENCINIT AS PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A MAJOR USE PERMIT MODIFICATION
ANDCOASTALDEVELOPMENTPERNUT
AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADDENDUM
ALLOWING FOR THE EXTENSION
OF A LOWER SEA WALL AND UPPER BLUFF RETENTION SYSTEM
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 528,532 AND 554 NEPTUNE AVENUE
(CASE NUMBER 95-137MUP/MOD/CDPIEIA)
(pREVIOUS CASE NOS. 93-111 MUPIEIA AND 95-047 MUP/MOD)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Major Use Permit Modification and Coastal
Development Permit was filed by Bob Trettin on behalf of Paul Gozzo and Jerry Sawtelle to allow
for the extension of a lower seawall and upper bluff retention system within the R-8 Zone and
Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone, as per Chapters 30.34, 30.74, and 30.80 of the City of Encinitas
Municipal Code, for the property located at 528,532 and 554 Avenue, legally described as:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 6, 1997, and
all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered without limitation:
a.
Project Plans for the coastal bluff protective devices including Site Plan, Plan View,
Details, Sections and Profile for the Lower Seawall, dated revised January 1, 1996
and received by the City of Encinitas on February 8, 1996, consisting of two sheets
total; and Site Plan, Plan View, Profile, Details and Section for the Upper Bluff
Retention System, dated August 12, 1996 on Sheet 1 of2 and August 13, 1996 on
Sheet 2 of 2 and received by the City of Encinitas on September 25, 1996,
consisting of two sheets total.
b.
Written information submitted with the application;
cd/DLIRPC95137.718 (Fina13/l1/97)
c.
Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a part of the record at said
public hearing;
d.
Planning Commission staff report (95-137 MUP/MOD/CDPÆIA) for the meeting
of March 6, 1997 which is on file in the Community Development Department;
e.
Project Geotechnical information which includes 1) the October 26, 1992
Geotechnical and Geological Investigation prepared by Earth Systems Design
Group, 2) the May 9, 1995 Geotechnical Letter Report prepared by SEC, 3) the
December 11, 1995 Update Geotechnical Review Report prepared by SEC, 4) the
August20, 1996 Updated Geotechnical Review/Reportprepared by SEC, and 5) the
September 24, 1996 Responses to Third Party Geotechnical Review prepared by
SEC; and .
f.
Third Party Geotechnical Reviews of the above listed project geotechnical
information, dated June 24, 1995, May 19, 1996, and October 18, 1996 prepared by
Ernie Artim.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings pursuant to Chapters
30.34, 30.74 and 30.80 of the Encinitas Municipal Code:
(SEE A IT ACHMENT liB ")
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in its independeIt judgement finds that
with incorporation of the mitigation measures prescribed in the original Environmental Initial Study
prepared by Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates for the original project (Case No. 93-111 MUPÆIA)
the project is not likely to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative
Declaration Addendum is hereby adopted in conformance with CEQA.
cd/DLlRPC95137.718 (FinaI3/1l/97)
2
" '-..
. ..'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Encinitas that Major Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit application No. 95-137
MUP/MOD/CDPÆIA is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "C")
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of March, 1997 by the following vote, to wit:
.
AYES:
Commissioners Jacobson, Wells, and Patton
NAYS:
Commissioner Bagg
ABSENT:
Commissioner Lanham
ABSTAIN :
None
Alice Jacobson,
of the Planning 0
4~
'Sandra Holder
Secretary
cd/DLIRPC95137.718 (Fina13/11197)
3
ATTACHMENT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. PC-97-18
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(Assessor Parcel Nos. 256-084-08 and 09)
Assessor Parcel Number 256 -084-08 (554 Neptune Avenue)
Parcel 1 :
Lot 3 in Block "E" of South Coast Park No.3, in the County of San Diego, State of California, as
per Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August
17,1926.
Parcel 2:
All that portion of Block "F" of South Coast Park No.3 in the County San Diego, State of
California, according to Máp thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of the County. Recorder of San
Diego County, August 17, 1926, described as follows; BEGINNING at the'Northwesterly corner
of Lot 3, Block "E", said South Coast Park No.3; thence Westerly along the Westerly prolongation
of the Northerly line of said Lot 3, Block "E", to a point on the Easterly line of that tract of land
conveyed by the South Coast Land Company to the County of San Diego by deed dated January
1 0, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 Deeds; thence Southerly along said Easterly line of
County land to its intersection with the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 3,
Block "E", thence Easterly along said Westerly prolongation to the Southwest corner of said Lot 3
Block "E", thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Lot 3, Block ""E" to the point of
beginning.
Assessor Parcel No. 256-084-09 (528 & 532 Neptune Avenue)
Lots 1 and 2 in Block "E"; and all that portion of Block "F", in South Coast Park No.3, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1935, filed in the office of
the County Recorder of San Diego County August 17, 1926, described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 1, Block "E", South Coast Park No.3; thence
Westerly along the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 1 to its intersection with
the Southerly line of said South Coast Park No.3; thence Easterly along the said Southerly line of
South Coast Park No.3 to the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 1; thence Northerly along the
Westerly line of said Lot 1 to the point of beginning.
Also all that portion of Block "F" described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 2, Block "E", South Coast Park no. 3; thence
Westerly along the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 2 to a point on the
cd/DL1RPC95137.718 (Final3/1l/97)
4
Easterly line of that portion of Block "F" as con:veyed by South Coast Land Company to County of
San Diego by Deed dated January 10, 1930 and recorded in Book 1731, page 256 of Deeds; thence
Southerly along said Easterly line of land so conveyed to the County to a point on the Southerly
line of said South Coast Park No.3; thence Easterly along the said Southerly line of South Coast
Park No.3 to its intersection with the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 2,
Block "E"; thence Easterly along said Westerly prolongation to the Southwesterly corner of said
Lot 2, Block "E"; thence Northerly along the Southwesterly line of Lot 2, Block "E" to the point of
beginning.
Excepting fÌ'om all of the above described property that certain portion thereof, if any, heretofore or
now lying below the mean high tide line of the pacific Ocean.
cd/DLIRPC95 137.718 (FinaI3/1l/97)
5
ATTACHMENT "B"
RESOLUTION NO. PC 97-18
FINDINGS FOR A USE PERMIT CHAPTER 30.74,
FINDINGS FOR PREEMPTIVE MEASURES IN THE
COASTAL B¡'UFF OVER,LA Y ZONE CHAPTER 30.34, AND
FINDINGS FOR A OOAST AL DEVELOPMENT PERMit CHAPTER 30.80
OF THE ENCOOT AS MùNlCIP AL CODE
(CASE NO. 95-137 MUP/MOD/CDPIEIA)
I. Section 30.74.040- Use Permit
An application for Use Permit shall be approved unless findings of fact are made based upon the
information presented in the application or during the hearings which support one or more of the
following conclusions.
1.
The location, size, design or operating characteristics of the proposed project will be
incompatible with or will adversely affect or will be materially detrimental to adjacent
uses, residences, buildings, structures or natural resources, with consideration given
to, but not limited to:
a.
The inadequacy of public facilities, services and utilities to serve the proposed
project;
b.
The unsuitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or development
which is proposed; and
c.
The harmful effect, if any, upon environmental quality and natural resources
of the City;
2.
The impacts of the proposed project will adversely affect the policies of the Encinitas
General Plan or the provisions of this Code;
3.
The project fails to comply with any other regulations, conditions or policies imposed
by this code.
No substantial evidence has been submitted to support any of the above conclusions.
cd/DLIRPC95137.718 (Fina13/11/97)
6
II.
Section 30.34.020C2 - Preemptive measure rmdings Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone.
c.(I) The proposed measure must be demonstrated in the soils and geotechnical report to be
substantially effective for the intended purpose of bluff erosion/failure protection, within the
specific setting of the developmentsite's coastal bluffs.
Facts: The subject application is a Major Use Permit Modification and Coastal
Development Permit request to allow the extension of the lower seawall and the upper bluff
retention system to remain on a permanent basis.
The lower seawall is of the same design previously constructed with the original Major Use
Permit No. 93-111. The seawall ties in with the northerly terminus of the previous walls
and extends approximately 120 feet north to the northerly property line of the subject
properties. The wall is approximately 13' above mean sea level and extends approximately
24 inches from the bluff face. The project plans denote that the toe of the wall is to be
embedded at least two feet into bedrock. Additionally, the plans depict two rows of anchor
bolts to be used at the top and bottom of the wall, approximately every 10 feet, in order to
secure the wall into the bluff.
The upper bluff retention system ties in with the previously developed upper bluff retention
system at the southerly boundary of the subject properties and extends 75 linear feet to the
north. Approximately 40 feet at the northern end of the subject property does not maintain
upper bluff protection. The system features the same design characteristics as those
previously developed and consists of caisSOIl$, tie-back, grouting and a grade beam all
placed below ground level at the bluff-top. A surface counter-weight slab has been
anchored to the grade beam.
Discussion: The extension of the lower sea wall and the upper bluff retention system have
been analyzed by engineering geologists who have found, based on site-specific conditions,
that the bluff stabilization measures are designed to protect the bluff at the subject site from
erosion and/or failure. Related to the lower seawall, within their December 11, 1995
correspondence, SEC (the project engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer) stated
that "based on the findings presented in the earlier (October 26, 1992) geotechnical report, it
was recommended that construction of a lower bluff seawall would restore a qualified factor
of safety a degree sufficient to impact the residential structures on the site." Within said
report, SEC also certified that "the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on
the stability of the bluff, and is intended to prevent further degradation and extend the
usable life span of the bluff portions of the property." Additionally, within said report, SEC
stated that "based on the design of the proposed structure, .. . scouring at the base of the wall
will be minimal. The existing undermined portions of the bluff will be protected from
continued wave action, and the concrete seawall will be more resistant to erosion than the
existing sandstone materials. After construction, the rate of bluff erosion is assumed to be
significantly reduced."
cd/DLIRPC95137.718 (Fina13/1l/97)
7
Related to the upper bluff retention system, within their August 20, 1996 Updated
Geotechnical Review Report, SEC states that their "engineering analyses, supported by
recent survey data, indicates that the recommended construction of the upper bluff retaining
system proceed immediately and it's presence is imperative to prevent imminent substantial
failure of a degree sufficient to impact the residential structures on the site."
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that in the soils and geotechnical reports the
proposed measures are demonstrated to be substantially effective for the intended purpose
of bluff erosion/failure protection, within the specific setting of the development site's
coastal bluffs.
c.(2) The proposed measure must be necessary for the protection of a principal structure on
the blufftop to which there is a demonstrated threat as substantiated by the geotechnical
report.
Facts: Based on review of the application material and site inspections, the subject
properties experienced some mid and upper bluff failures and undercutting of the bluff toe.
Two Emergency Permits were issued by the California Coastal Commission (6-96-6-G and
6-96-1 22-G) which authorized construction of the subject improvements.
Discussion: Within their October 26, 1992 Geotechnical and Geological Investigation,
SEC states that based on their investigation "... the failures which occurred in the lower and
upper portions of the sea bluff, present a permanent hazard to the up-slope existing
structures and improvements ...." Within their report of December 11, 1995 SEC states that
"... it is recommended that the lower bluff seawall be constructed to increase the overall
stability of the site." Additionally within said report, SEC states that "the existing condition
of these bluffs are presently a permanent hazard to the existing up-slope structures and their
appurtenant improvements...?' Related to the upper bluff retention system, within their
August 20, 1996 report, SEC states that "... the sudden and unexpected failures occurring
during the past 120 days have promoted a level of bluff instability which places the
residences located on these properties under potential imminent threat of failure." Finally,
the Emergency Permits issued by the California Coastal Commission note that an
unexpected occurrence in the form of failure of the mid- and upper-bluff and undercutting
of the blufftop requires immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life,
health, property or essential public services."
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed measure is necessary for
the protection of the principal structure on the blufftop to which there is a demonstrated
threat as substantiated by the geotechnical report.
c.(3) The proposed measure will not directly or indirectly cause, promote or encourage bluff
erosion or failure, either on site or for an adjacent property, within the site-specific setting as
demonstrated in the soils and geotechnical report. Protection devices at the bluff base shall
be designed so that additional erosion will not occur at the ends because of the device.
cd/DLIRPC95137.718 (FinaI3/1l/97)
8
Facts: The application includes a Major Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit
request to authorize the as-built extension to a lower seawall and upper bluff retention
system to remain on a permanent basis.
Discussion: Within their December 11, 1995 report, SEC states that ".... the proposed
structure will, at no time, have a negative impact on the general geologic stability of the
site. In fact, the proposed seawall will enhance the gross stability of this site. This work
will not impact the structural integrity of the surrounding properties, sea bluffs, or public
lands as it has been successfully been constructed at adjacent sites." Within said report,
they further state that "the proposed project ... is design~d, and will be constructed per
submitted engineering plàns, to mitigate the potential for additional erosion at the project's
northern terminus. The project's southern terminus will be integrated into the northern
terminus of the lower bluff seawall already approved at 524 Neptune Avenue as a part of
Major Use Permit 93-111." Within their August 20, 1996 report related to the upper bluff
retention system, SEC notes that their "engineering analyses, supported by recent survey
data, indicates that the recommended construction of the upper bluff retaining system
proceed immediately and it's presence is imperative to prevent imminent substantial failure
...." The conditions set forth in this resolution require that the applicant file periodic reports
on any such impacts as well as the condition of the walls and that these assessments shall
determine need and make recommendations for remedial measures.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that there is not evidence to indicate that the
proposed measures will directly or indirectly cause, promote or encourage bluff erosion or
failure, either on site or for an adjacent property, within the site-specific setting as
demonstrated in the soils and geotechnical report.
c.( 4) The proposed measure in design and appearance must be found to be visually
compatible with the character of the surrounding area; where feasible, to restore and
enhance visual quality in visually degraded area; and not cause a significant alteration of the
natural character of the bluff face.
Facts: The application includes a Major Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit
request to authorize the as-built extension to a lower seawall and upper bluff retention
system to remain on a permanent basis.
Discussion: In order to provide texture and undulation resembling the surrounding bluffs,
the forms utilized on the previous project were utilized in construction of the subject
seawall. As stated by the applicant the wall has received at least one color treatment. As
observed on site during an inspection by staff, natural discoloration of the concrete has also
occurred due to moss and the natural weathering process. Additional color treatments will
be applied in order to more closely match the adjacent walls to the south and the
surrounding bluff. The project is conditioned accordingly. The characteristics of the lower
seawall and the fact that there are many seawalls of different types on the Encinitas
coastline works to make the project visually compatible with the character of the
cd/DLIRPC95137.718 (Final 3/11/97)
9
surrounding area. The 'upper bluff retention measure is not readily visible from the public
beach below.
ConclusioD: The Planning Commission finds the lower seawall and the upper bluff
retention system are visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area and do
not cause a significant alteration of the natural character of the bluff face.
c.(S) The proposed device/activity will not serve to unnecessarily restrict or reduce the
existing beach width for use or access.
Facts: The lower seawall is approximately two feet in depth and is placed at or near the toe
of the bluff in front of the subject properties.
DiscussioD: The qesign of the seawall places it as close as is practical to the toe of the bluff
in order to maximize the effectiveness of the seawall. The wall generally follows the bluff
configuration. The actual depth of the seawall is a maximum of two feet. Thus, the wall
will result in an insignificant amount of encroachment to the public areas of the beach.
ConclusioD: The Planning Commission finds that the seawall does not serve to
unnecessarily restrict or reduce the existing beach width for use or access.
d. No preemptive measure at the base of the bluff or along the beach shall be approved until
a comprehensive plan is adopted as Çouncil policy for such preemptive treatment, for at least
the corresponding contigq.otJsportion of the coastal bluff. Preemptive measures approved
thereafter shall be coDsistentwith adopted plan.
DiscussioD:. The structures are existing and were constructed pursuant to Emergency
Permits issued by the California Coastal Commission. The emergency nature of the
improvements proposed on the site precludes a comprehensive plan from being adopted as
policy by City Council for this specific site. Pursuant to Section 30.34.020B.9 of the
Municipal Code, the City is able to authorize the preemptive measures prior to adoption of
the comprehensive plan since an Emergency Permit has been issued. Preparation of the
comprehensive plan 'is currently in process. If feasible from a geotechnical point of view
and, not resulting in an economic hardship based upon evidence submitted to the City
Council, the applicant may be required to participate in the future comprehensive plans
which include their properties.
ConclusioD: If feasible from a geotechnical point of view and not resulting in an economic
hardship based upon evidence submitted to the City Council, the applicant shall be required
to participate in the future comprehensive plans which include the subject property.
cd/DLIRPC95137.718 (FinaI3/1l/97)
10
Criteria for Preemptive Measures:
The criteria required to be considered in order to authorize preemptive measures on the top or face
of the bluff have been addressed by the 1) May 5, 1995 Geotechnical Letter Report prepared by
SEC; 2) October 26, 1992 Geotechnical and Geological Investigation prepared by Earth Systems
Design Group; 3) December 11, 1995 Update Geotechnical Review Report prepared by SEC; 4)
August 20, 1996 Updated Geotechnical Review/Report prepared by SEC; and 5) September 24t
1996 Responses to Third Party Review prepared by SEC. The geotechnical reports/letters were
reviewed by Third Party Geotechnical Consultant Ernie Artim, who found that said reports provide
information to adequately meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Section
30.34.020 C and D.
'cdIDLIRPC95137.718 (Fina13/1l/97)
11
Findings Pursuant to
Chapter 30.80 (Coastal Development Permit)
of the Encinitas 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 adverse impact that the activity may
have on the environment.
Facts: The site is designated as Residential 5.01 ~ 8.0 du/ac on the Land Use Designation
map of the General Plan and is zoned R -8 on the Zoning Map. Additionally, as the site sits
atop the coastal bluff it lies within the Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone. The lower seawall
which is included as part of the Major Use Permit applìcation lies within the boundaries of
the original jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission and requires a Coastal Development
Permit under the authority of the Coastal Commission. The portion of the Coastal
Development Permit subject to review by the City relates to the upper bluff retention
system.
Discussion: With approval of the Major Use Permit, the subject project is in conformance
with the Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone and the General Plan. Additionally, with approval of
the Coastal Development Permit for the upper bluff retention system, the project is
consistent with the Local Coastal Plan. The project is conditioned to receive a Coastal
Development Permit fÌ'om the California Coastal Commission for the lower seawall. With
implementation of the mitigation measures established through the environmental initial
study for the original Major Use Permit No. 93-111, which are addressed within the
Negative Declaration Addendum and required as a condition of approval, there will not be
a significant effect on the environment.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission fmds that 1) the project is consistent with the
certified Local Coastal Program of the City of Encinitas, and 2) that the potential adverse
impacts associated with the project will be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance
with implementation of the required mitigation measures.
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 site, located within the Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone, is comprised of
'two lots which are currently developed with residential dwellings on the bluff top, an upper
bluff retention system on the bluff top, a stairway on the bluff face (which does not
cd/DLIRPC95 137.718 (Final3/1l/97)
12
maintain direct access to the beach below) and a lower seawall at the base of the bluff. The
project site does not currently provide public access to the shore, and the project does not
propose any public access or public recreational facilities.
Discussion: Public access or public recreational facilities are not feasible given the project
. site condition as a bluff-top residential property. Therefore, no condition requiring public
access is imposed with this approval. Public access to the shore is available in the near
vicinity with Moonlight Beach and the Stone Steps stairway and with Beacon's Beach
public accessway further to the north. Since there was not public access through the
property prior to this application, the ability of the public to access the shore is not
adversely impacted with this application.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the project is in conformance with the
public access and public recreation policies of Section 30200 et seq. of the Coastal Act.
cd/DLIRPC95137.718 (FinaI3/1l/97)
13
Applicant:
Case No.:
Subject:
Location:
A.
ATTACHMENT "C"
RESOLUTION NO. PC-97-18
Bob Trettin on behalf of Paul Gozzo and Jerry Sawtelle
95-137 MUP/MOD/CDPÆIA (Previous Case Nos. 93-111 MUPÆIA and 95-047
MUP/MOD)
Conditions of approval for a Major Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to
authorize (on a permanent basis) an extension to an existing lower seawall and a
bIufftop retention system.
528,532 and 554 Neptune Avenue
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
1.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as contained within
the original Negative Declaration for the previously approved Case No. 93-111
MUPÆIA and referenced within the Negative Declaration Addendum for the
subject project as adopted by the Planning Commission on this date shall be adhered
to for the project and funded by the developer and/or property owner. The amount
necessary will be determined by the Directors of the Engineering Services and
Community Development Departments in coordination with the project proponent.
The mitigation measures required are as follows:
a.
The property owner( s) shall submit on or before September 1 of the calendar
year following the calendar year in which the seawall receives final
approval, and on or before September 1 every three years thereafter, a
written report by a professional engineer assessing the condition of the upper
bluff retention system and the lower seawall. The report shall indicate the
condition of the upper bluff retention system and the lower seawall and any
maintenance/repair actions needed on the protective measures. The
assessment shall also include monitoring of the erosion rate on the north side
of the sea wall. If erosion is occurring that may eventually expose the cliff
wall, remedial measures shall be made to prevent the erosion. Said
monitoring program shall be submitted to, and, corrective measures shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and
the Engineering Department prior to implementation of any corrective
measures. Any maintenance/repair work needed shall be completed prior to
the next winter storm period.
A report by a professional engineer indicating completion of the
maintenance/repair work must be submitted on or before November 1 of the
year in which the work is completed, or such other time period as deemed
necessary by the City Engineer.
b.
The property owner(s) shall agree in writing not to oppose participating in
the Comprehensive Coastal Bluff and Shoreline Plan as determined by the
cd/DLIRPC95137.718 (FinaI3/1l/97)
14
City Council and not to oppose participating in any proposed future federal
study addressing bluff stability and/or beach sand transport along the entire
City coastline.
2..
An as-built geotechnical report reviewed and signed by both the soil/geotechnical
engineer and the project engineering geologist shall be completed and submitted to
the City within 15 working days after completion of the project. The project shall
not be considered complete until the as-built report is received and the content of the
report accepted by the Engineering Department.
3.
The property owner( s) shall execute and record a covenant to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Department setting forth the terms and conditions of this
approval prior to issuance of building permits. Said covenant shall also provide that
the property owner( s) agree not to oppose formation of an assessment district by the
City for purposes of maintaining the wall and upper bluff retention devices. Said
covenant shall also provide that until and. unless such a district is formed, the
individual property owner( s) shall be responsible for maintaining the portions of the .
wall and upper bluff retention system fronting their properties in good structural and
visual condition consistent with the Planning Commission approval as determined
by the Directors of Engineering Services and Community Development. Said
maintenance shall include restaining the wall as necessary to match the color of the
surrounding bluff areas.
4.
Prior to final approval of the project, additional color treatments shall be applied to
the lower seawall to the satisfaction of the CQmmunity Development Director to
more closely match the adjacent walls to the south and the surrounding bluff.
5.
The owner( s) shall enter into and record a covenant satisfactory to the City Attorney
waiving any claims of liability against the City and agreeing to indemnify and hold
harmless the City and City's ~mployees relative to the approved project. This
covenant is applicable to any bluff failure and erosion resulting from the
development project. This resolution setting forth the terms and conditions of this
approval shall also be recorded as part of the required covenant.
B. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1.
2.
This approval will expire in two years, on March 6, 1999, at 5:00 p.m., unless the
conditions have been met or an extension has been approved by the Authorized
Agency.
This approval may be appealed to the City Council within 15 calendar days from the
date of this approval. This approval by the Planning Commission is also appealable
to the Coastal Commission. Appeals to the Coastal Commission must be filed
within 10 working days after the Coastal Commission has received mailed notice of
cd/DLIRPC95137.718 (Final 3/11/97)
15
11.
final local action. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the
date when the Commission's appeal period concludes.
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.
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.
5.
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.
6.
Nothing in this permit shall relieve the applicant from complying with the
conditions and regulations generally imposed upon activities similar in nature to the
activity authorized by this permit.
7.
Nothing in this permit shall authorize the applicant to intensify the authorized
activity beyond that specifically described in this permit.
8.
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.
9.
Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: Coastal Commission, State
Lands Commission (unless júrisdiction is waived by that agency), and any other
governmental agencies with appropriate jurisdictional claims and permitting
requirements.
10.
Project is conditionally approved as submitted as evidenced by the project plans for
the coastal bluff protective devices including Site Plan, Plan View, Details, Sections
and Profile for the Lower Seawall, dated revised January 1, 1996 and received by
the City of Encinitas on February 8, 1996, consisting of two sheets total; and Site
Plan, Plan View, Profile, Details and Section for the Upper Bluff Retention System,
dated August 12 and 13, 1996 and received by the City of Encinitas on September
25, 1996, consisting of two sheets total and signed by a City Official as approved by
the Planning Commission on March 6, 1997 and shall not be altered without
Community Development Department review and approval.
The applicant shall pay all fees associated with the environmental review process
regarding the Major Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to the Community
Development Department.
cd/DLIRPC95137.718 (FinaI3/1l/97)
16
..,
~
12.
All construction and improvements under the authority of a Coastal Development
Permit issued by the Coastal Commission must be in conformance with and
approved by the Coastal Commission prior to final inspection approval by the
Community Development Department.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
C.
ENGINEERING
All City Codes, regulations, and policies in effect at the time of building permit issuance
shall apply.
An encroachment permit from the Community Services Department and Engineering
Services Department is required for all work on the beach. All debris resulting from bluff
failure and construction shall be removed from the beach as soon as feasible after the
property owner or authorized representative is made aware of the debris.
cd/DLIRPC95137.718 (FinaI3/1l/97)
17