1996-03
RBSOLUTXOII NO~ PC-96-03
USOLUTXON 01' TBB BHCDlXTAS PLUDtDTG COIIKJ:8SXOIt
APPROVDtG A KAJOR US. p.mœr
AND COASTAL DBVBLOPIIJDI'l' PDJaT
AND CBRTXI'Y::tHG A HBGAT:IVI: DBCLARATIOIf
ALLOwntG I'OR A SDIU 01'
BXXST::tHG COASTAL BaJPI' >PRODeTIU DBVICBS
(KID-BLUI'I' CR:t~S ~ ALOWBJt SIWfALL)
AND ADDITXOHAL 8LUI'I' S'rABILXZATI<* DØROVBIID1'1'S,
AND AH ADDITION TO TIIB BXISTINQ SDlCJLJ: I'ØILY RUIDBHCB
I'OR PROPBRTY LOCA'l'BD AT 103 0 OP-j:udB A VBIIUB
(CASB MUMBBR 94-224 MDP/CDP/BIA)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Major Use Permit and
Coastal Development Permit was filed by Gary and Gail Hooker to
allow for a series of existing coastal bluff protective devices
(mid-bluff cribwalls and a lower seawall) and additional bluff
stabilization improvements, and an addition to the existing single
family residence within the R-11 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 1030 Neptune
Avenue, legally described as:
(SEE ATTACHMENT" A " )
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission
on February 15ì 1996 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 and Sections dated revised August 29,
1994 and received by the City of Encinitas on November
18, 1994 (consisting of 5 sheets) and project plans for
the residential remodel/addition including Site Plan,
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 1-
b.
Floor Plan, Elevations and Sections dated January 15,
1995 and received by. the City of Encinitas on February 6,
1996; consisting of 7 sheets.
Written information submitted with the application;
c.
Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a
part of the record at said public hearing;
Planning Commission staff report (94-224 MUP/CDP/EIA) for
the meeting of February 15, 1996 which is on file in the
Community Development Department;
d.
e.
Environmental Initial Assessment prepared by Craig R.
Lorenz & Associates, dated May, 1995 and addendum dated
February 8, 1996 including 1) the Bluff Stability
Analysis dated August 29,1994, the Response Letter dated
March 8, 1995, the Addendum: Bluff Stability Analysis
dated September 20, 1994 with the Clarification letter to
said AddendUm dated June 5, 1995, and the letter report
dated August 11,1995, all prepared by Civil Engineering
Consultants; 2) the Landscape and Irrigàtion Letter
Report prepared by Studio Katz dated August 11,1995 and
the Supplemental Conceptual Slope Protection Plan dated
April 17, 1995; and 3) the Third Party Geotechnical
Reviews of said reports prepared by Ernie Artim dated
December 19, 1994, March 14, 1995, April 12, 1995, June
25, 1995, September 12, 1995 and September 25, 1995.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings
pursuant to Chapters 30.34,
30.74 and 30.80 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 and Coastal Development
Permit application No.
94-224 MUP/CDP/EIA is hereby approved
subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "C")
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, after their independent review
and using its independent judgement, the Planning Commission hereby
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 2-
finds that with incorporation of the mitigation measures prescribed
in the Environmental Initial Study prepared by Craig R. Lorenz &
Associates this project is not likely to result in any significant
adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is hereby
certified in conformance with CEQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of February, 1996 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Commissioners Jacobson, Patton, Lanham and ~lls
NAYS:
None
ABSENT: Commissioner Bagg
ABSTAIN:
None
~
~ ({ uJ JU-j ~~ ~
Sandra Holder
Secretary
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 3-
ATTACBIODIT -A-
RBSOLUTION NO. PC-96-03
LBGAL DBSCRIPTION
(A8....or Parc.l Ho. 254-301-01)
PARCEL 1:
Lot 5, Block 12, SOUTH COAST PARK NO.2, in the County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1859,
filed in the Office of the Recorder of said San Diego County,
September 21, 1925.
PARCEL 2:
That portion of Block D of SOUTH COAST PARK NO.2, in the County of
San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1859,
filed in the Office of County Recorder of San diego County,
September 21, 1925, described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 5, Block 12, said
SOUTH COAST PARK NO.2; thence Westerly along the Westerly
prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 5, Block 12, to its
intersection with the Easterly line of that tract of land conveyed
by South Coast Land Company to County of San Diego, by deed dated
January 10, 1930, recorded February 11, 1930 in Book 1731, Page
258, of Deeds; thence Southerly along said Easterly line to its
intersection with'the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line
of said Lot 5, Block 12; thence Easterly along said Westerly
prolongation to Southwesterly corner of said Lot 5, Block 12;
thence Northerly along Westerly line of said Lot 5, Block 12 to
POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING any portion lying within Ponto State Beach as delineated
and shown on Record of Survey Ro. 7038, filed in the Office of
County Recorder of San Diego County.
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 4-
ATTACBIIBHT . B.
RBSOLUTIOH NO. PC 96-03
PDJDDtGS POR A USB PBlUIIT CBAP'1'BR 30. 7. ,
PDlDmos POR PRBJDlPTIVB IlBASURBS III TIIB
COASTAL BLUPP OVBRLAY ZONB CBAP'1'BR 30 . 3. , AIm
PDlDXNGS POR A COASTAL DBVBLOPIIBN'r. PBlUIIT CDP'l'BR 30.80
OP '1'BB BNCIN'ITAS MUNICIPAL CODB
(CAS. NO. 9.-224 MUP/CDP/BXA)
I. Section 30.74.0.0 - U.e per8dt
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.
Pact.: The Major Use Permit application includes the request
to approve existing mid-bluff cribwalls with additional
stabilization work and to construct a new lateral bluff
support system along the south end of the c;fib walls. The Use
Permit also includes a request to approve the existing lower
bluff concrete seawall, to approve an existing concrete
stairway and to approve proposed landscápe and irrigation
measures. The stabilization work for the existing cribwalls
includes adding a row of tie-back anchors to each of the upper
three cribwalls and connecting them to a concrete grade beam
which will run along the bottom face of the three upper
cribwalls. The lateral support system at the south end of the
cribwalls includes the installation of a continuous grade beam
underground which will run from the bottom of the lower
cribwall to the top of the upper cribwall. Five tie-back
anchors are proposed to be connected to the grade beam and
installed underground in a northerly direction; seven caissons
are also proposed as support for the grade beam which will be
placed intermittently up the slope. A combination of ground
covers, medium and large sized shrubs are proposed to be
installed on all exposed areas and unhealthy vegetation is
proposed to be replaced. All selected plant material is to be
compatible with a first exposure seacoast environment. An
above ground fully automatic irrigation system is proposed on
a temporary basis until plantings are established. The lower
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 5-
concrete seawall is a gravity-based retaining system that
maintains a maximum height of approximately 19 feet which also
maintains a 3 foot high concrete retaining wall on top. The
lower seawall is of an irregular shape and configuration and
is covered with shotcrete or gunite.
DiscussioD: The proj ect does not create the need for any
public facilities, services and utilities other than what is
already servicing the existing residences. With installation
of the proposed landscape measures, the crib walls should be
adequately screened to appear predominantly as plantings
rather than walls. The site will then be more compatible with
the surrounding beach environment and residential
neighborhood. The irregular shape and configuration of the
lower seawall avoids a "block wall appearance" and some
natural discoloration of the concrete has occurred due to
rust, moss and natural weathering and erosional processes.
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 surrounding area.
The project engineer, Charles Randle, certifies in his March
8, 1995 "Response to Third Party Review of Geotechnical
Reports of Bluff Stability Analysis" that "... the proposed
repair/mitigation work will not have an adverse effect on the
stability of the bluff, and is intended to extend the usable
life span of the bluff portions of the property." , and that
"the proposed repair/mitigation work will not create an unsafe
condition that might endanger life or property, and the work
is intended to lessen the impact toward life and property."
Mr. Randle further notes that" At no time will this structural
system have a negative impact on the general geologic
stability of the site. In fact, the proposed system will
enhance the overall gross stability of this site.
Furthermore, this work will not impact the structural
integrity of the surrounding properties, sea bluffs, or public
lands." Furthermore, Mr. Randle notes in his August 11,1995
letter report that the"... slope represents a group of
supporting systems all of which are necessary to maintain
overall stability. Removal of any of the parts will
jeopardize the whole." It is further noted that"... the
repaired bluff will exceed a factor of safety of 1.5.", and
that "... this condition will not deteriorate over the
estimated life of 75 years, or longer." Based on an
environmental initial study conducted by Craig R. Lorenz &
Associates, dated May, 1995 and the Addendum dated February 8,
1996, it was determined that the project will not have a
signifiç~nt effect on the environment with incorporation of
the mitigation measures prescribed therein and required under
this resolution.
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 6-
CoDclusiQD: The Planning Commission finds that the location,
size, design and characteristics of the existing cribwalls
with proposed bluff stabilization measures and the existing
lower sea wall are compatible with and do not adversely affect
and are 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; and
C. The project complies with any other regulations, conditions or
policies imposed by the Municipal Code.
Pacts': The Major Use Permit application includes the request
to approve existing mid-bluff cribwalls with additional
stabilization work and to construct a new lateral bluff
support system along the south end of the crib walls. The Use
Permit also includes a request to approve the existing lower
bluff concrete seawall, to approve an existing concrete
stairway (predicated on the removal of an existing tram rail)
and to approve proposed landscape and irrigation measures.
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. Additionally, Section 30.34.020B.9 of the
Municipal Code stipulates that until the comprehensive plan is
adopted, the City shall not permit the construction of
seawalls, revetments, breakwaters, cribbing, or similar
structures for coastal erosion except under circumstances
where an existing principal structure is imminently threatened
and, based on a thorough alternatives analysis, an emergency
coastal development permit is issued and all emergency
measures authorized by the emergency coastal permit are
designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local
shoreline sand supply. Pursuant to Section 30.80.180.B of
the Municipal Code, the Coastal Commission is the authorized
agency for issuing emergency permits for any development that
falls within an area in which the Coastal Commission retains
direct permit review authority, or for any development that is
appealable to the Coastal Commission. In order to construct
a Dew seawall or any erosion control device on the face of the
bluff at this time, prior to adoption of a comprehensive plan,
an emergency permit is required from the Coastal Commission.
However, both Coastal Commission staff and City staff have
agreed that property owners trying to legalize existing
seawalls shall be subject to the standard Major Use Permit and
Coastal Development Pe~it Process. The criteria stipulated
in Section 30.34. 020B. 9 of the Municipal Code related to
imminent threat, thorough alternatives analysis and mitigating
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 7-
adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply shall be
addressed as part of the project review.
A 1972 coastline photo, submitted with the project
applica~ion, clearly shows that the existing tram. rail, which
runs parallel along the northerly property line down the bluff
face, existed on the site previous to the effective date of
the Coastal Act (January 1, 1973). The applicant admits that
the concrete stairway which is constructed adjacent to the
tram was constructed in approximately 1982 in conjunction with
the cribwalls. The effective date of the Coastal Act is
utilized by staff to determine if coastal bluff stairways
maintain non-conforming status since the construction of new
stairways was prohibited with the initiation of the Coastal
Act. The construction of new stairways on the bluff face is
still prohibited today by the Coastal Act and they are
prohibited today pursuant to the Municipal Code.
Discu..ionl The criteria stipulated in Section 30.34.020B.9
of the Municipal Code has been addressed by the proj ect
engineer, Charles Randle, in the geotechnical reports prepared
for the project and in correspondence from the applicant's
representative, Bob Trettin, dated December 28, 1995. Related
to imminent threat, it is documented from engineering
statements and photos (depicting the mid-bluff failure) that
a severe bluff failure occurred in 1982 which necessitated the
lower seawall and the mid-bluff cribwalls. Additionally, in
his August 11,1995 letter report, the project engineer notes
that the slope "represents a group of supporting systems all
of which are necessary to maintain overall stability. Removal
of any of the parts will jeopardize the whole." It is further
noted that "The bluff stability, though stable across the west
facing slope is currently being threatened by the
deterioration of the southerly property line. an
immediate repair is necessitated.... Without immediate
response, imminent slope failure will impact the currently
stable bluff face leading to potential loss of improvements on
either adjacent properties, possibly beyond the two
neighboring property owners. In this light an emergency
response is required to avoid considerable damage and property
loss." It has been demonstrated that a threat was present at
the time of initial construction in 1982 and a threat is
present now which requires the additional lateral support
system at the south end of the property.
Related to an alternatives analysis, the project engineer
notes in the August 11,1995 letter report that "There are no
alternate designs, as removal or revision of the existing
bluff system will have a severe impact on the site gross
stability." In the August 29, 1994 Bluff Stability Analysis
the project engineer also notes that in considering alternate
solutions" . .. this solution will provide the most cost
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 8-
effective 'preemptive' measure and similarly the nature of the
proposed system will have the least impact on the bluff's
natural appearance. Additionally, a discussion of
alternatives (available at the time of the 1982 bluff failure)
is provided in the December 28, 1995 letter from the
applicant's representative. This discussion addresses the
following alternatives: 1) No project, 2) Relocation of
Residential Structure, 3) Expansion of Pre-existing seawall
(without development of mid-bluff crib walls). In summary,
the no project alte~ative would have resulted in the loss of
the residential structure; relocation of the structure without
repairs to the bluff would have been cost prohibitive and
cause additional bluff failure and possibly lateral failure,
and expansion of the pre-existing seawall without mid-bluff
cribwalls would have necessitated an extensive wall of
indeterminate height and visual impact.
Related to mitigating adverse impacts on local shoreline sand
supply the project engineer notes that the bluff stabilization
measures at this site have a minimal impact on local shoreline
sand supply.
The tram rail maintains non-conforming status since there is
clear evidence that it was constructed prior to the Coastal
Act. The concrete stairway does not maintain non-conforming
status since it was constructed after the Coastal Act. The
applicant is requesting approval of the concrete stairway
predicated on the removal of the tram rail. The proj ect
engineer, in essence, has stated within correspondence dated
September 20, 1994 and August 11, 1995 that the concrete
stairway is an integral part of the bluff retaining system
(cribwalls) and removal of the stairway will create a
potential failure. Although the concrete stairway is not
considered legal non-conforming, the stairway is authori.ed to
remain due to the potential bluff failure if it were to be
removed. This authorization to remain does not approve the
stairs to be in conformance with the General Plan and
Municipal Code. The project is conditioned to remove the tram
rails and the anchor supports at ground level as proposed by
the applicant.
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 including the criteria stipulated in
Section 30.34.020B.9 of the Municipal Code. Excluding the
concrete stairway which is authorized to remain, 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,
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 9-
will not adversely affect the policies of the Encinitas
General Plan or the provisions of the Municipal Code The
existing concrete stairway is not approved in conformance with
the General Plan or Municipal Code, yet it is authorized to
remain because removal could cause potential bluff failure.
II.
Section 30.34.020C2 - Preemptive measure findings Coastal
Bluff Overlay Zone.
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 includes the request to approve
existing mid-bluff cribwalls with additional stabilization
work and to construct a new lateral bluff support system along
the south end of the crib ",.lls. The Use Permit also includes
a request to approve thê existing lower bluff concrete
seawall, to approve an existing concrete stairway and to
approve proposed landscape and irrigation measures. The
stabilization work for the existing cribwalls includes adding
a row of tie-back anchors to each of the upper three cribwalls
and connecting them to a concrete grade beam which will run
along the bottom face of the three upper cribwalls. The
lateral support system at the south end of the cribwalls
includes the installation of a continuous grade beam
underground which will run from the bottom of the lower
cribwall to the top of the upper cribwall. Five tie-back
anchors are proposed to be connected to the grade beam and
installed underground in a northerly direction; seven caissons
are also proposed as support for the grade beam which will be
placed intermittently up the slope. A combination of ground
covers, medium and large sized shrubs are proposed to be
installed on all exposed areas and unhealthy vegetation is
proposed to be replaced. All selected plant material is to be
compatible with a first exposure seacoast environment. An
above ground fully automatic irrigation system is proposed on
a temporary basis until plantings are established. The lower
concrete seawall is a gravity-based retaining system that
maintains a maximum height of approximately 19 feet which also
maintains a 3 foot high concrete retaining wall on top. The
lower seawall is of an irregular shape and configuration and
is covered with shotcrete or gunite.
Discus.ion: The sea wall and crib walls 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. In the March 8, 1995 Response to Third Party Review
of Geotechnical Reports of Bluff Stability, the project
engineer, Charles Randle, states that "the proposed
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 10-
repair/mitigation work will not have an adverse effect on the
stability and is intended to extend the usable life span of
the bluff portions of the property.- and that -At no time
will this structural system have a negative impact on the
general geologic stability of the site. In fact, the proposed
system will enhance the overall gross stability of this site."
CoDc:lu8ioDI 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 bluff top to which there is a
demonstrated threat as substantiated by the geotechnical report.
l'ac:t81 It is documented from engineering statements and
photos (depicting the mid-bluff failure) that a severe bluff
failure occurred in 1982 which necessitated the lower seawall
and the mid-bluff cribwalls.
Di8C:U88ioDI In his August 11, 1995 letter'report, the project
engineer notes that the slope "represents a group of
supporting systems all of which are. necessary to maintain
overall stability. Removal of any of the parts will
jeopardize the whole.- It is further noted that "The bluff
stability, though stable across the west facing slope is
currently being threatened by the deterioration of the
southerly property line. an immediate repair is
necessitated .... Without immediate response, imminent slope
failure will impact the currently stable bluff face leading to
potential loss of improvements on either adjacent properties,
possibly beyond the two neighboring property owners. In this
light an emergency response is required to avoid considerable
damage and property loss." It has been demonstrated that a
threat was present at the time of initial construction in 1982
and a threat is present now which requires the additional
lateral support system at the south end of the property.
CoDc:lu8ioDI The Planning Commission finds that the proposed
measure is necessary for the protection of the principal
structure on the bluff top 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 sit~ 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/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 11-
Pact8. The application includes the request to approve
existing mid-bluff cribwalls with additional stabilization
work and to construct a new lateral bluff support system along
the south end of the crib walls. The application also
includes a request to approve the existing lower bluff
concrete seawall, to approve an existing concrete stairway
(predicated on the removal of an existing tram rail) and to
approve proposed landscape and irrigation measures.
ni.cu88ioD. In the August 29,1994 Bluff Stability Analysis,
Charles Randle states that ""At no time will this structural
system have a negative impact on the site general geologic
stability. In fact the proposed system will enhance the
overall gross stability of this site. Furthermore, this work
will not impact the structural integrity of the surrounding
properties, sea bluffs or public lands." Mr. Randle further
states in the March 8, 1995 Response to Third Party Review
n... additional erosion will not occur because of the
devices." 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.
CoDclu8ioD. 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 visuàlly co~atible with the character of the surrounding
area; where feasi.ble,to restore. and enhance visual quality in
visually degraded area; and not cause a significant alteration of
the natural character of the bluff face.
Pact.. The stabilization work for the existing cribwalls
includes adding a row of tie-back anchors to eaoh of the upper
three cribwalls and connecting them to a concrete grade beam
which will ruI! along the bottom face of t-he three upper
cribwalls. The lateral support system at the south end of the
cribwalls include~ the installation of a continuous grade beam
underground which will run from the bot tom of the lower
cribwall to the top of the upper cribwall. Five tie-back
anchors are proposed to be connected to the grade beam and
installed underground in a northerly direction; seven caissons
are also proposed as support for the grade beam which will be
placed intermittently up the slope. A combination of ground
covers, medium and large sized shrubs are proposed to be
installed on all exposed areas and unhealthy vegetation is
proposed to be replaced. All selected plant material is to be
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 12-
compatible with a first exposure seacoast environment. An
above ground fully automatic irrigation .ystem is proposed on
a temporary basis until plantings are established. The lower
concrete seawall is a gravity-based retaining system that
maintains a maximum height of approximately 19 feet which also
maintains a 3 foot high concrete retaining wall on top. The
lower seawall is of an irregular shape and configuration and
is covered with shotcrete or gunite.
Discus.ion: With installation of the proposed landscape
measures, the crib walls should be adequately screened to
appear predominantly as plantings rather than walls. This will
be more compatible with the surrounding beach environment and
residential neighborhood. The irregular shape and
configuration of the lower seawall avoids a "block wall
appearance n and some natural discoloration of the concrete has
occurred due to rust, moss and natural weathering and
erosional processes. 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 surrounding area.
Conclusiolu The Planning Commission finds that with proposed
improvements, the cribwalls and the seawall 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. (5) The proposed device/activoit}' wi:L,l not serve to unnecessarily
restrict or reduce the existing beach'width for use or access.
Pacts: The existing lower seawall is of an irregular shape
and configuration; it varies in size and shape horizontally
and vertically. The wall, which is covered with shotcrete or
gunite, ties in with other walls to the north and appears to
follow the curving nature of the coastal bluff in this
location. As depicted on the project plans, the majority of
the seawall stairway is built into the seawall and runs
parallel with the bluff; however, at the base of the bluff,
the stairs turn and are constructed perpendicular to the
seawall/bluff and extend approximately 4 feet further onto the
beach than the seawall. It is estimated, based on field
measurements, that the existing seawall itself projects
approximately 9 - 10 feet out from the base of bluff at the
most extreme point. Since the wall is irregular in
configuration, the projection varies depending on the location
of measurement.
~iscussionl It is noted by the applicant's representative and
, the proj ect engineer that the existing seawall was constructed
in the same location as the pre-existing seawall and was not
expanded seaward. Although the wall does project out at one
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 13-
point approximately 9-10 feet, the wall does appear to follow
the natural curved configuration of the bluff in this area
whereby encroachment onto the beach is minimized and does not
unnecessarily restrict or reduce the existing beach width for
use or access.
Conclu8ionc 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
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.
Di8cU8,ion c The preemptive measures were constructed in
response to an emergency in the early 1980's; the applicants
are requesting approval of the existing structures and
additional bluff improvements which are necessary to meet the
required factor of safety and which are necessary due to the
state of the bluffs on the southerly end of the property. The
structures are existing and 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. The criteria required to be addressed pursuant
to Section 30.34.020B.9 of the Municipal Code for preemptive
measures approved prior to adoption of the comprehensive plan
has been addressed. 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.
Conclu8ionc 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.
Preemptive Xea8ure and Bluff Setback Dete~ationc
The criteria required to be considered in order to approve
construction on the coastal bluff maintaining the standard 40 foot
setback and the criteria required to authorize preemptive measures
on the face of the bluff have been addressed by the 1) Bluff
Stability Analysis dated August. 29, 1994, 2) the Response Letter
dated March 8, 1995, 3) the Addendum:' Bluff Stability Analysis
dated September 20, 1994 with the Clarification letter to said
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 14-
Addendum dated June 5, 1995,4) and the letter report dated August
11, 1995; all prepared by Civil Engineering Consultants. The
geotechnical reports/letters plus the Landscape and Irrigation
Letter Report prepared by Studio Katz (dated February 6, 1995) were
reviewed by Third Party Geotechnical Consultant Ernie Artim, which
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.
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 15-
r-
1.
1'1Ddlags'Ptìrswmt to
Chapt~r 30.80 (Coastal DeYeloplMDt ..ndt)
of the BDciDi t.s IIuDlci¡)al Code I
The project is consistent with the certifi~ Local Coastal
Program of the Ci ty of BDcini tas; and'
2.
The proposed developuDt confona8 wi~ Public Resources Code
21000 aDd following in that there are lip f..sible aitigation
measures or fe.sible alternatives aVailable which would
substantially les.~ any signiflcaat adverse impact that the
activity may have on the environment.
Pacts: The site is designated as Residential 8.01 - 11.0
du/ ac on the Land Use Designation map of the General Plan and
is zoned R-11 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 application 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 existing crib walls, additional bluff stabilization
measures and a proposed residential remodel/addition.
Additionally, as part of the project application request the
applicant has requested approval of an existing concrete
stairway predicated on the removal of an existing tram rail.
The existing single family residence is setback approximately
25.25 feet from the coastal bluff edge and also maintains a
wooden deck that is setback a minimum of 11' from the bluff
edge. The proj ect proposes to remodel the area of the
existing structure which is located within the 40 foot
setback. No foundation work, expansion of living area, or
changes to roof lines are proposed in this area. The area of
the existing structure outside the 40 foot bluff setback is
proposed to be demolished and reconstructed with additional
living area.
Discu8.ion: With approval of the Major Use Permit and the
bluff setback and preemptive measure determination, the
proposed project, excluding the concrete stairway, is in
conformance with the development standards of the R-11 zone,
the Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone and the General Plan.
Additionally, with approval of the Coastal Development Permit
for the remodel/addition and the mid-bluff cribwalls and
additional bluff stabilization measures, the project,
excluding the concrete stairway, is consistent with the Local
Coastal plan. As discussed in further detail as part of the
Use Permit findings, the stairway is authorised to remain
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 16-
..,
since the project engineer has stated that removal would most
likely result in bluff failure. This authorization to remain
does not approve the stairs to be in conformance with the
General Plan, Municipal Code or Local Coastal Pr09ram.With
implementation of the mitigation measures establi&h~d through
the environmental initial study and r~quired as a condition of
approval there will not be a significant effect on the
environment.
Conclusion I The Planning Commission finds 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.
Por projects involving clevelopaent between the s.. or other
body of water aDd. the nearest public road., approval shall
include a specific finding that such cSevelop88llt is in
confondty with the public acces. ancI public recreatioD
policies of SectioD 30200 et seq. of the Coa.tal Act.
Pacts I The subject site is currently developed with a single
family residence, mid-bluff cribwalls, a lower seawall, a tram
rail and a concrete stairway on a coastal bluff lot in the
Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone. 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.
DiscussioDI Public access or public recreational facilities
are not feasible given the project site's condition as a
bluff-top single family property. Therefore, no condition
requiring public access is imposed with this, approval. Public
access to the shore is available in the near vicinity with
Beacon's access and further to the south with Moonlight Beach
and the Stone Steps stairway. 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.
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 17-
ATTACBIOD1'1' .C.
RBSOLUTION RO. PC-96-03
Applicant: Gary & Gail Hooker
Case No.: 94-224 MUP/CDP/EIA
Subject: Conditions of approval for a Major Use Permit and Coastal
Development Permit to,allow for a series of existing
coastal bluff protective devices (mid-bluff cribwalls and
lower seawall), additional bluff stabilization
improvements, and a residential remodel/addition.
Location: 1030 Neptune Avenue
1.
SP8CIPIC CONDITIONS
A.
The Mitigation Monitoring and ~epqrtin9 Program (MMRP) as
contained w~thin the Negative beclaratioJ:1 for the proj ect
as Certified 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.
An as-built geotechnical report reviewed and signed by
both the spil/Sleotechnical engin_er 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.
B.
C.
After completion and final approval of the proposed bluff
stabilization measures, the applicant shall submit on or
before September 1 every three years a written report by
a professional engineer assessing the condition of the
cribwalls and the sea wall. The report will indicate the
condition of the cribwalls and the seawall and any
maintenance/repair actions needed on the cribwalls and/or
seawall. The assessment shall also include monitoring of
the erosion rate on both sides 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/or 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
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 18-
H.
completed, or such other time period as deemed necessary
by the City Engineer.
The applicant may be relieved of the above requirement,
if a city-wide inspection and repair program is initiated
which will accomplish the same measures as noted above.
D.
proj ect applicants shall participate in the Comprehensive
Coastal Bluff and Shoreline Plan as determined by the
City Council.
E.
The applicant 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 shall be
responsible for maintaining the lower seawall aftd
cribwalls in a condition consistent with the Planning
Commission approval.
The additional stabiltzation measures proposed for the
cribwalls shall be completed prior to final approval of
the remodel/addition of the existing single family
residence.
F.
G.
All recommendations contained within the Landscape and
Irrigation Letter Report prepared.by Studio Katz dated
August 11, 1995 and the Supplemental Conceptual Slope
Protection Plan dated April 17, 1995 shall be implemented
prior to final acceptance of the additional stabilization
measures for the cribwalls. The proj ect Landscape
Architect shall submit to the Community Development
Department written certification that all landscaping has
been installed in conformance with the Landscape Report.
The plantings shall be maintained in good condition, and
whenever necessary, shall be replaced with new materials
in compliance with the project's approved Landscape and
Irrigation Letter Report and the Conceptual Slope
Protection Plan. The owner shall monitor the irrigation
system to ensure that no over-watering occurs. The
proposed irrigation system shall be disconnected as
specified in the approved Landscape and Irrigation Letter
Report within one year from final acceptance of the
project. If sufficient evidence is submitted which shows
that the plantings are not fully established the time
period for the irrigation system may be extended to
ensure the establishment of the plantings.
As proposed by the applicant, the tram rails and anchor
supports shall be removed at ground level prior to final
acceptance of the additional stabilization measures for
the crib walls. Expansion or extension of the concrete
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 19-
2.
stairway is prohibited; only routine repair and
maintenance shall be allowed in conformance with Section
30.34.020B.4 of the Municipal Code.
I.
To cover the rust, the gate on the lower seawall shall be
repainted in an off-white or beige color comparable to
the color of the seawall.
J.
The portion of the open trellis, proposed with the
remodel/addition of the existing single family residence,
which extends beyond the legal non-conforming front
setback shall be removed.
K.
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 employees relative to
the approved project. This covenant is applicable to any
bluff failure and erosion resulting from the development
project.
All drainage shall be directed away from within five feet
of the edge and face of the bluff.
L.
GBNBRAL CONDITIONS
A.
This approval will expire in two years, on February 15,
1998, 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 final
local action. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal
Commission as to the date when the Commission's appeal
period concludes.
B.
C.
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.
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.
D.
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 20-
,I.
K.
L.
E.
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.
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.
F.
G.
Nothing in this permit shall authorize the applicant to
intensify the authorized activity beyond that
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.
H.
J.
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 submittal.
Permits from other agencies wi.ll be required as follows:
Coastal Commission, State Lands Commission (unless
jurisdiction is waived by that agency), and any other
governmental agencies with appropriate jurisdictional
claims and permitting requirements.
Project is conditionally approved as submitted as
evidenced by the project plans for the coastal bluff
protective devices including Site Plan and Sections dated
revised August 29, 1994 and received by the City of
Encinitas on November 18, 199. (consisting of 5 sheets)
and project plans for the residential remodel/addition
including Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations and Sections
dated January 15, 1995 and received by the City of
Encinitas on February 6,1996; consisting of 7 sheets and
signed by a City Official as approved by the Planning
Commission on February 15, 1996 and shall not be altered
without Community Development Department review and
approval.
The applicant shall pay all fees, associated with the
processing and review of the Major Use Permit and Coastal
Development Permit to the Community Development
Department.
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 21-
Q.
M.
Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall
submit a letter from the Fire Department stating that all
development impact, plan check and/or cost recovery fees
have been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the Fire
Department.
Prior to receiving a final inspection on framing, the
applicant shall provide a survey from a licensed surveyor
or a registered civil engineer verifying that the height
of the structure is in compliance with approved plans.
N.
o.
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 by the
Community Development Department.
For new residential dwelling unit (s), the applicant shall
pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but not be limited to: Permit and Plan
Checking Fees, School Fees, Water and Sewer Service Fees,
Traffic Fees, Drainage Fees, and Park Fees. Arrangements
to pay these fees shall be made prior to issuance of
building permits.
P.
A plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director of
Community Development and the Encinitas Fire Department
regarding the treatment of the site during the
construction phase, and the circulation and parking of
construction workers' vehicles and any heavy equipment
needed for the construction of the project.
TBBSB ITBIIS WST BB COIIPLBTBD PRIOR TO PINAL PIg DDARTKBNT
APPROVAL. APPLICAHT SHALL CONTACT TBB BHCDrITAS PIg DBPARTKBNT
RBGAJtDIHQ COJIPLIANCB WZTB TBB I'OLLOWDrG CœmITIOHS I
3.
nil
A.
B.
Address numbers shall be placed in a location that will
allow them to be clearly visible from the street fronting
the structure. The height of the numbers shall conform
to Fire Department Standards.
Prior to building permi~iss~ance the applicant shall pay
all development impact, plan check and/or cost recovery
fees to the satisfaction of the Encinitas Fire
Department.
APPLIc.urr SHALL CONTACT TBB BHODIBDDtCJ DBPARTKBNT RBGAJtDIRG
COKPLIANCB WZTB TBB POLLOWINO CONDITIONS I
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 22-
4.
D.
E.
F.
G.
>f~lrlf",,:,:If\r
All City Codes, regulations, and policies in effect at the
time of building permit issuance shall apply.
A.
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.
The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to the
commencement of any clearing or grading of the site.
B.
C.
The grading for this project is defined in Chapter 23.24
of the Encinitas Municipal Code. Grading shall be
performed under the observation of a civil engineer whose
responsibility it shall be to coordinate site inspection
and testing to ensure compliance of the work with the
approved grading plan, submit required reports to the
City Engineer and verify compliance with Chapter 23.24 of
the Encinitas Municipal Code.
A drainage system capable of handling and disposing of
all surface water originating within the site east of the
bluff top edge, and all surface waters that may flow onto
the site from adjacent lands, shall be required. Said
drainage system shall direct the runoff from within five
feet of the edge and face of the bluff top to the gutter
in Neptune Avenue.
Concentrated flows across driveways and/or sidewalks
shall not be permitted. '
The property owner shall apply for acceptance into the
Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GRAD).
The property owner shall comply with all the rules,
regulations and design requirements of the respective
utility agencies regarding services to the project.
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 23-
APPLICAft SVTrr. COHTACT TIll: BUILDIXG DIVISIOH UGUDDIQ COIIPLI.UJCK
WITH TBB POLLOWDIc; CONDITIONS I
5.
BUILDING
The applicant shj¡ll submit. a complete set of construction
plans to the Building Division for review. The submittal
shall include structural calculations and details, complete
framing plans and details, a site plan and floor plan, State
Energy compliance documentation and a Soils Report which
includes recommendations for the design of the foundation.
Submitted plans will be reviewed for compliance with State
Title 24, the latest adopted editions of the Uniform Building
Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code
and the National Electrical Code. Please note that project
review comments are not intended to be a comprehensive plan
review of applicable Building Codes and additional comments
will be made after plans have been submitted to the Building
Division for plan check.
cd/DL/RPC94224.603 (2/29/96 Final) - 24-