1992-20RESOLUTION NO. PC-92-20
RESOLUTION OF THE ENCINITAS PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A MAJOR USE PERMIT AND CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION TO ALLOW ANAS-BUILT SEAWALL
AT THE BASE OF THE COASTAL BLUFF
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1118 NEPTUNE AVENUE
(CASE NUMBER 90-052 MUP/EIA)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Major Use Permit was
filed by Ted Stroscher to allow an as-built seawall at the base of
the coastal bluff within the R-ii Zone and Coastal Bluff Overlay
Zone, as per Chapters 30.34 and 30.74 of the City of Encinitas
Municipal Code, for the property located at 1118 Neptune Avenue in
Leucadia, legally described as:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission
on July 30, 1992 and all persons desiring to be heard were heard;
and
WHEREAS,
limitation:
1.
2.
3.
the Planning Commission considered without
The Planning Commission staff report dated July 23, 1992;
The application;
The June 27, 1992 Third Party review by Artim &
Associates regarding project landscape letter/plans;
The May 19, 1992 landscape letter proposal and plan
(consisting of one sheet) from Beau Shigetomi &
Associates Inc., dated received by the City of
Encinitas July 15, 1992;
The Extended Environmental Initial Study prepared by
Craig R. Lorenz & Associates dated Revised October 1991;
DL/**/CROll-934wp51 (9/3/92-1) -1-
e
e
10.
11.
12.
The May 12, 1991 Third Party Geotechnical Review by Artim
& Associates of the March 15, 1991 Geotechnical Report by
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.;
The Geotechnical Investigation of Coastal-Erosion and
Bluff-Stability dated March 15, 1991 prepared by
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. (GEI), which includes
previous GEI reports dated February 2 and May 22, 1989
and June 4, 1990;
The January 12, 1991 letter/Third Party Review by Artim
& Associates;
The April 3, 1990 Third Party Geotechnical Review by Owen
Consultants;
As-Built Plans with proposed new berm, drainage, &
landscape improvements dated revised July 21, 1992 and
received by the City of Encinitas on July 21, 1992
(consisting of five sheets);
Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
Written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings
pursuant to Chapters 30.34 and 30.74 of the Encinitas Municipal
Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Encinitas that Major Use Permit application 90-052
MUP/EIA is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "C")
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, after their independent review
and using their independent judgement, the Planning Commission
hereby certifies the associated Negative Declaration (State
Clearinghouse Number: 92061068), which is on file within the
Community Development Department, in conformance with CEQA and the
DL/**/CROll-934wp51 (9/3/92-1) -2-
City's Environmental Review Guidelines with mitigation measures
identified in the conditions of approval together with a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program established to assure compliance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of July 1992 by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners DuVivier, Lanham,
Commissioner Bagg
None
None
lcobson, a Rotcheck
ATT T:
' Secretary
Le: H. Bagg, lrman
of the Planning Commission
DL/**/CROll-934wp51 (8/13/92) -3-
ATTACHMENT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. PC-92-20
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
1118 NEPTUNE AVENUE
APN: 256-241-10
Lot 18, in Block 12 of SOUTH COAST PARK NO. 82, in the County of
San Diego, State of California, according to the Map thereof No.
1859, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, September 21, 1925.
ALSO all that portion of Block "D" of South Coast Park No. 2, in
the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map
thereof No. 1859, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, September 21, 1925, described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 18, in Block 12 of
said South Coast Park No. 2; thence Westerly along the Westerly
prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 18, in Block 12 to
its intersection with the Easterly line of that tract of land
conveyed by the South Coast Land Company of San Diego, by deed
dated January 10, 1930 and recorded February 11, 1930 in Book 1731,
page 258 of Deeds; thence Southerly along said Easterly line of
said tract to its intersection with the Westerly prolongation of
the Southerly line of Lot 18, in Block 12; thence Easterly along
the said Westerly prolongation to the Southwesterly corner of said
Lot 18, in Block 12; thence Northerly along the Westerly line of
said Lot 18, in Block 12 to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING from the above described property that portion, if any,
heretofore, or now lying below the Mean High Tide Line of the
Pacific Ocean.
ALSO EXCEPTING any portion lying within Ponto State Beach, as
delineated and shown on Record of Survey Map No. 7038, filed in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County.
DL/**/CROll-934wp51 (9/3/92-1) -4-
ATTACHMENT "B"
RESOLUTION NO. PC 92-20
FINDINGS FOR A USE PERMIT CHAPTER 30.74
AND FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE
COASTAL BLUFF OVERLAY ZONE CHAPTER 30.34
OF THE ENCINITAS MUNICIPAL CODE
(CASE NO. 90-052 MUP/EIA)
I. Section 30.74.040 - Use Permit
A. The location, size, design and operating characteristics
of the proposed project will be compatible with and will not
adversely affect and will not be materially detrimental to
adjacent uses, residences, buildings, structures or natural
resources, with consideration given to, but not limited to:
1. The adequacy of public facilities, services and
utilities to serve the proposed project;
2. The suitability of the site for the type and
intensity of use or development which is proposed; and
3. The harmful effect, if any, upon environmental
quality and natural resources of the City.
Facts: The application is to allow an as-built seawall which
was constructed in 1988 at the base of the coastal bluff in
response to a storm on January 17, 1988 which caused the
collapse of the upper bluff and sea caves which existed on the
subject site. Similar type seawalls are constructed directly
adjacent to the site and further south. Other seawalls are
interspersed on the coast to the north and south of the
subject site. The wooden seawall maintains an exposed height
of approximately 9' to 10' which varies depending upon the
amount of cobbles which pile at the base of the wall. The
wall as noted on the as-built plans is constructed of 12"-14"
diameter wooden piles, which are located in front of 8' long
horizontally-laid, 6" x 8" treated timbers. Each pile is
tied-back with a 30' long reinforcing bar embedded a minimum
of 15' into the ardath shale. The wall itself is backfilled
with sand and cobbles with a top layer of sand exposed at the
surface.
Discussion: The project does not create the need for any
public facilities, services and utilities other than what is
already servicing the existing single family residence. The
DL/**/CROll-934wp51 (9/3/92-1) -5-
exposed height of the structure (approximately 9' - 10') and
the wood materials utilized are compatible with the
surrounding beach envirOnment and residential neighborhood.
As noted in the May 22, 1989 Geotechnical Evaluation by
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. (GEI) if the face structure of
the seawall were to be removed the property would immediately
return to the high risk condition which existed prior to wall
construction. Although the main structure atop the bluff
maintains a setback of approximately 60 feet from the top edge
of bluff, the GEI report notes that removal of the wall could
never be condoned due to the risks inherent to the geology of
the site. The report further adds that the sea cave
conditions existing north of the wall present a danger to the
subject property. Site conditions are creating the need for
the project. Based on an environmental initial study
conducted by Craig Lorenz & Associates dated revised October,
1991, it was determined that the project will not have a
significant effect on the environment because mitigation
measures such as drainage and landscape improvements have been
added to the project.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the location,
size, design and characteristics of the as-built seawall is
compatible with and ~does not adversely affect and is not
materially detrimental to adjacent uses, residences,
buildings, structures or natural resources.
B. The impacts of the proposed project will not adversely
affect the policies of the Encinitas General Plan or the
.provisions of the Municipal Code.
Facts: The application is to allow an as-built seawall which
was constructed in 1988 at the base of the coastal bluff in
response to a storm on January 17, 1988 which caused the
collapse of the upper bluff and sea caves which existed on the
subject site. Pursuant to Section 30.34.020B2.b of the
Municipal Code preemptive measures are allowed on the face of
the coastal bluff in accordance with the development
processing and approval regulations specified in Section
30.34.020C of the Municipal Code.
Discussion: The project has been reviewed for conformance
with the policies of the General Plan related to coastal
bluffs and the provisions of the Municipal Code for the
Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone and Use Permits. The project
complies or has been conditioned to comply with said
regulations and policies.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that approval of
the Use Permit allowing the as-built seawall, as conditioned,
will not adversely affect the policies of the Encinitas
General Plan or the provisions of the Municipal Code.
DL/**/CROll-934wp51 (9/3/92-1) -6-
C. The project complies with any other regulations,
conditions or policies imposed by the Municipal Code.
Facts: The application is to allow an as-built seawall which
was constructed in 1988 at the base of the coastal bluff in
response to a storm on January 17, 1988 which caused the
collapse of the upper bluff and sea caves which existed on the
subject site. PurSuant to Section 30.34.020B2.b of the
Municipal Code preemptive measures are allowed on the face of
the coastal bluff in accordance with the development
processing and approval regulations specified in Section
30.34.020c of the Municipal Code.
Discussion: The project has been reviewed for conformance
with the policies of the General Plan related to coastal
bluffs and the provisions of the Municipal Code for the
Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone and Use Permits. The project
complies or has been conditioned to comply with said
regulations and policies. No other regulations, conditions
and policies of the Municipal Code were found which conflict
with the project.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the project
complies with the regulations, conditions or policies imposed
by the Municipal Code.
II.
Section 30.34.020C2
Bluff Overlay Zone.
- Preemptive measure
findings Coastal
c.(1) 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 development site's coastal bluffs.
Facts: The application is to allow an as-built seawall which
was constructed in 1988 at the base of the coastal bluff in
response to a storm on January 17, 1988 which caused the
.collapse of the upper bluff and sea caves which existed on the
subject site. The wooden seawall maintains an exposed height
of approximately 9' to 10' which varies depending upon the
amount of cobbles which pile at the base of the wall. The
wall as noted on the as-built plans is constructed of 12"-14"
diameter wooden piles, spaced approximately 6.5 feet apart and
embedded 6 to 7 feet into the basal Ardath Shale formation
with 18" diameter, concrete-filled holes. The piles are
located in front of 8' long horizontally-laid, 6" x 8" treated
timbers. The horizontal timbers are stacked and lapped at the
ends, behind the vertical piles. Each pile is tied-back with
a 30' long reinforcing bar embedded a minimum of 15' into the
DL/**/CROll-934wp51 (9/3/92-1) -7-
ardath shale. The wall itself is backfilled with sand and
cobbles with a top layer of sand exposed at the surface.
Discussion: The seawall has been analyzed by several
engineering geologists who have found, based on site-specific
conditions that the device is designed to protect the bluff at
the subject site from erosion and/or failure. Within their
Geotechnical Investigation of the subject site dated March 15,
1991, GEI states that "... the seawall at the subject site has
provided adequate erosion protection from wave action and has
prevented further undermining of the Terrace material." It is
further noted that "By limiting further basal erosion of the
bluff, the existing seawall significantly increases the
geologic stability of the site."
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that in the soils
and geotechnical report the as-built seawall is 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: The application is to allow an as-built seawall which
was constructed in 1988 at the base of the coastal bluff in
response to a storm on January 17, 1988 which caused the
collapse of the upper bluff and sea caves which existed on the
subject site. The main structure on the subject site
maintains a setback of approximately 60' from the edge of
bluff with the attached open-air deck maintaining a setback of
approximately 53'.
Discussion: With the presence of seawalls immediately north
of the site and with the continuation of natural erosional
processes the device is necessary for the protection of the
existing single family residence on the blufftop. Within the
May 22, 1989 Geotechnical Evaluation by GEI it is noted that
bluff recession problems of the greatest degree are present at
the subject site and that it cannot be ignored "... that two
or three major recession events could occur within a short
period of time causing damage or danger to structures in a
matter of hours, days or weeks that statistics may suggest
should require an AVERAGE of tens of years." It is further
noted that "... should the wall be significantly damaged,
undermined, or completely removed by a major wave event, the
reoccurrence of risk due to recession would be immediate and
would last until a new protective structure is in place." A
Third Party Review by Artim & Associates (May 12, 1991) found
DL/**/CROll-934wp51 (9/3/92-1) -8-
addressed the
that the final GEI report adequately
geotechnical conditions of the site.
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.
Facts: The application is to allow an as-built seawall which
was constructed in 1988 at the base of the coastal bluff in
response to a storm on January 17, 1988 which caused the
collapse of the upper bluff and sea caves which existed on the
subject site. The seawall of the subject site is essentially
an extension of the seawall to the south at 1114 Neptune
Avenue.
Discussion: The geotechnical report prepared by GEI for the
site does not present evidence that the proposed measure will
directly or indirectly cause, promote or encourage bluff
erosion or failure. Within the report by Wendell Gayman,
dated October 20, 1990 entitled "Selected' Geologic and
Oceanographic Investigations in the Vicinity of the Stroscher
Seawall" which is included as part of the March 15, 1991
Geotechnical Investigation by GEI, it is stated that based on
field investigations no evidence has been found "of increased
beach or sea cliff erosion at either end of the Stroscher
seawall."
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that there is not
evidence to indicate that the proposed measure 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 is to allow an as-built seawall which
was constructed in 1988 at the base of the coastal bluff in
DL/**/CROll-934wp51 (9/3/92-1) -9-
response to a storm on January 17, 1988 which caused the
collapse of the upper bluff and sea caves which existed on the
subject site. Similar type seawalls are constructed directly
adjacent to the site and further south. Other seawalls are
interspersed on the coast to the north and south of the
subject site. The wooden seawall maintains an exposed height
of approximately 9' to 10' which varies depending upon the
amount of cobbles which pile at the base of the wall. The
wall as noted on the as-built plans is constructed of 12"-14"
diameter wooden piles, which are located in front of 8' long
horizontally-laid, 6" x 8" treated timbers. Each pile is
tied-back with a 30' long reinforcing bar embedded a minimum
of 15' into the ardath shale. The wall itself is backfilled
with sand and cobbles with a top layer of sand exposed at the
surface.
The bluff face is presently planted with primarily a small-
bladed ice plant, some large bladed ice plant does occur
sporadically. Additionally, some shrubs and aloe plants occur
at the upper portion of the bluff. Ficus repens, an evergreen
vine, is proposed to be planted 5' o.c. at the base of the
bluff. The existing and proposed plantings are proposed to be
fertilized (liquid) and hand watered on a regular basis to
stimulate new growth, spread of the existing plantings and to
establish the new plantings.
Discussion: The height of the structure and the wood
materials utilized are compatible with the surrounding beach
environment and residential neighborhood. The existing
landscaping and the proposed planting plan will work to
enhance the visual quality of the project.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the as-built
wooden seawall is visually compatible with the character of
the surrounding area; and the proposed landscape program will
enhance the appearance of the wall and the bluff face and will
not cause a significant alteration of the natural character of
the bluff face.
c.(5) The proposed device/activity will not serve to
unnecessarily restrict or reduce the existing beach width for
use or access.
Facts: Portions of the seawall encroach beyond the subject
site property lines and onto Ponto State Beach and onto the
adjacent property to the north. The applicant is working to
obtain authorization for the encroachments from both the
northerly property owner and the State Department of Parks and
Recreation. The project is conditioned to receive
authorizations from the two parties in the form of easements
or encroachment permits to allow the encroaching seawall or to
DL/**/CROll-934wp51 (9/3/92-1) -10-
modify the wall to lie solely within the property lines of the
subject site.
Discussion: It appears that the seawall was placed as close
to the base of the bluff face as possible and that the seawall
followed the bluff configuration. The actual width of the
seawall is approximately two feet. The lowest flight of
stairs does protrude out somewhat from the seawall beyond the
bluff face-, yet they are aligned and placed directly parallel
with the seawall to minimize encroachment on the beach as
opposed to the original configuration which protruded farther
onto the beach.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the as-built
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 Council policy for such preemptive treatment, for
at least the corresponding contiguous portion of the coastal
bluff. Preemptive measures approved thereafter shall be
consistent with adopted plan.
Discussion: The emergency nature of the structures
constructed on the site precludes a comprehensive plan from
being adopted as policy by City Council for this specific
site. The City Council has initiated a work program for the.
Engineering Department to research and develop a comprehensive
coastal bluff program. 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. There is an existing seawall
of similar construction directly adjacent to the south of the
subject site.
Conclusion: The seawall as constructed is consistent with the
seawall to the south. Additionally, 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 properties.
DL/**/CROll-934wp51 (9/3/92-1) -11-
ATTACHMENT "C"
RESOLUTION NO. PC-92-20
Applicant:
Case No.:
Subject:
Location:
Ted Stroscher
90-052 MUP/EIA
Conditions of approval for a Major Use Permit to
allow an as-built seawall at the base of the
coastal bluff.
1118 Neptune Avenue
I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
ao
The applicant shall submit on or before June 1 of each
year a written report by a geotechnical engineer
assessing the condition of the seawall. The report will
indicate the condition of the seawall and any
maintenance/repair actions needed on the seawall. The
assessment shall also include monitoring of the erosion
rate on both sides of the seawall. 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 geotechnical 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.
Be
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as
contained within the Negative Declaration for the project
as Certified by the Planning Commission on this date
shall be adhered to for the project and funded by the
developer or property owner. The amount necessary will
be determined by the Directors of the Public Works and
Planning and Community Development Departments.
Ce
Ail recommendations contained within the Landscape
Proposal and Landscape Plan dated May 19, 1992 prepared
by Beau Shigetomi & Associates, Inc. shall be implemented
within six months from the date of approval. Said
proposal is revised, as verbally agreed to by the project
landscape architect, so that the ficus repens shall be
planted 5' o.c. as soon as possible, rather than in one
year, at 10' o.c. if 50% to 60% of the slope is not
covered as originally proposed.
DL/**/CROll-934wp51 (9/3/92-1) -12-
De
The owner shall monitor the use of the hand held hose
irrigation system to ensure that no over-watering occurs.
Watering should be limited to once a week to avoid undue
stress on the bluff and to encourage the planting to
survive on their own.
Within six months from the date of approval of the Use
Permit, authorization in the form of an encroachment
permit and/or an easement shall be obtained from the
State Department of Parks and Recreation and the
northerly property owner for the portions of the seawall
and stairway which encroach on Ponto State Beach and the
adjacent property to the north. If authorization is not
received the seawall shall be modified so that it lies
solely within the property lines of the subject site.
Any modifications to the seawall shall be subject to
review by the Community Development and Engineering
Departments as well as subject to Third Party
Geotechnical Review. If the applicant is unable to
receive the authorizations within the six month period,
an extension of time may be granted by the Community
Development Department for compliance if the applicant
can show that a good faith effort is being made to
receive such authorization.
II. STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS
ae
Ail conditions of approval associated with Major
Use Permit 90-052 MUP/EIA shall be met within nine
months of the date of approval since the request is
for an existing seawall.
Be
This approval may be appealed to the authorized
agency within 15 calendar days from the date of
this approval.
Co
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.
Do
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.
Eo
Upon a showing of compelling public necessity
demonstrated at a noticed hearing, the City of
DL/**/CROll-934wp51 (9/3/92-1)-13-
Fe
Gm
Ho
Encinitas, acting through the authorized agency,
may add, amend, or delete conditions and
regulations contained in this permit.
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.
Nothing in this permit shall authorize the
applicant to intensify the authorized activity
beyond that which is specifically described in this
permit.
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.
The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted
Uniform Building Code, Title 24 of the California
Building Standards, 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
construction unless specifically waived herein.
Permits from other agencies will be required as
follows: Coastal Commission and Army Corps of
Engineers.
Project is conditionally approved as submitted as
evidenced by the as-built plans with proposed new
berm, drainage, & landscape improvements dated
revised July 21, 1992 and received by the City of
Encinitas on July 21, 1992 (consisting of five
sheets) and signed by a City Official as approved
by the Planning Commission on July 30, 1992 and
shall not be altered without Community Development
Department review and approval.
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
employees relative to the approved project. This
covenant is applicable to any bluff failure and
erosion resulting from the development project.
This resolution shall also be recorded as a part of
the required Covenant.
DL/**/CROll-934wp51 (9/3/92-1) -14-
The applicant shall pay all fees associated with
the processing and review of the Major Use Permit
to the Community Development Department.
Ne
Prior to final approval the applicant shall submit
a letter from the Fire District stating that all
development impact, plan check and/or cost recovery
fees have been paid or secured to the satisfaction
of the District.
An encroachment permit from the Community 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 is made
aware of the debris.
Ail required plantings shall be maintained in good
growing conditions, and whenever necessary, shall
be replaced with new plant materials to ensure
continued compliance with applicable landscaping,
buffering, and screening requirements. However, no
landscaping shall be replaced if to do so would
jeopardize the bluff/slope stability. All
landscaping shall be maintained in a manner that
will not depreciate adjacent property values and
otherwise adversely affect adjacent properties.
Ail construction and improvements must
conformance with and approved by the
Commission prior to final inspection
Community Development Department.
be in
Coastal
by the
DL/**/CROll-934wp51 (9/3/92-1) -15-