2002-57
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2002-57
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A MAJOR USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR AUTHORIZATION OF AN EXISTING LOWER SEAWALL AND A MID AND
UPPER BLUFF RETAINING WALL AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND
LANDSCAPING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 560 AND 566 NEPTUNE
A VENUE.
(CASE NO.: 99-078 MUP/CDP; APNs: 256-084-11 &10)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Major Use Permit and Coastal Development
Permit was filed by John Quattro and Michael Contino to allow an existing lower seawall, existing
mid and upper bluff retaining walls and proposed improvements and landscaping, in accordance
with Chapters 30.34,30.74 and 30.80 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located in
the R -8 Zone and Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone, legally described as:
560 Neptune Avenue/ APN: 256-084-11
All of Lot 4 and the Southeasterly4.00 feet of Lot 5 in Block "E" of 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; as more fully described in Exhibit A in the Grant Deed for the subject
property recorded as Document #2001-0404678 on June 15, 2001 with the San
Diego County Recorder's Office.
566 Neptune Avenue/APN: 256-084-10
All of Lot 5 (EXCEPTING THE SOUTHEASTERLY 4.00 FEET THEREOF) in
Block "E" of 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; as more fully described in Exhibit
A in the Grant Deed for the subject property recorded as Document # 2002-0521298
on June 20, 2002 with the San Diego County Recorder's Office.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing on the
application on December 19, 2002, at which time all those desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered, without limitation:
1.
The December 19, 2002 agenda report(s) to the Planning Commission with
attachments;
2.
The General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Municipal Code, and associated Land
Use Maps;
Cd/DLIRPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 1
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of December, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Commissioners Crosthwaite, Chapo, Birnbaum and Ehlers
NAYS:
Commissioner Bagg
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
u~!fw;cuiv
yc rosthwaite,
hair of the Encinitas Planning Commission
ATTEST:
/k!:/t. úl~ai ~
atnc urphy
Secretary
NOTE: This action is subject to Chapter 1.04 of the Municipal Code, which specifies time limits
for legal challenges.
Cd/DLIRPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 3
A TT A CHMENT "A"
Resolution No. PC 2002-57
Case No. 99-078 MUP/CDPIEIA
FINDINGS FOR A USE PERMIT
STANDARD: In accordance with Section 30.74.070 of the Municipal Code, a use permit
application shall be approved unless findings of fact are made, based upon the information
presented in the application or during the hearing, 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;
Facts: The Major Use Permit application includes a request to authorize an existing
seawall, existing mid and upper bluff retention system and proposed improvements and
landscaping on the coastal bluff.
The subject project has significant background history in that many original
improvements were done without benefit of permits and a settlement agreement had been
made between a previous property owner and the California Coastal Commission.
Subsequent to the agreement, due to changing site conditions and sloughing, emergency
permits were issued by the California Coastal Commission for the majority of the as-built
bluff face improvements.
The existing lower seawall consists of an approximately 107 foot long poured in place
concrete wall which ranges in height from approximately 13.5 to 15.5 feet. The structure
was constructed with caissons, tieback supports and back drains. The seawall was
backfilled with a concrete/cement fill. Pour in place forms were utilized to texturize the
face of the seawall to mimic the natural character of the coastal bluffs.
The mid-bluff wall is approximately 14 feet in height and 50 feet long, and is constructed
with vertical steel beams and horizontal wood lagging which is set back approximately
Cd/DLIRPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 4
five feet from the lower seawall. Additionally, a 24" x 36" reinforced concrete beam was
constructed to span across the base of the wood wall which is anchored with intermediate
drilled tie-backs extending 20 feet into the bluff. In order to restore the failed section of
the bluff and provide support to the undermined portion of the upper wall, the mid-bluff
wall was backfilled with clean angular aggregate at an incline of approximately 1.2:1;
said backfill is covered with a top soil to allow for planting. Rock gabion baskets were
installed along the edges and the top of the mid-bluff wall to stabilize steepened areas.
The upper bluff wall is constructed with shotcrete and tiebacks and is approximately 15
to 29 feet for a length of approximately 100 feet.
Discussion: The project does not create the need for any public facilities, services and
utilities other than those already servicing the existing residence. Although many of the
original improvements were constructed without the benefit of permits, based on past bluff
failures, the pre-construction condition of the bluff represented an imminent danger to the
existing residence. Site conditions, for the most part, created the need for the bluff face
improvements. Although the structures are out of place in an unaltered natural coastal bluff
environment, seawalls and mid and upper bluff walls have been in place along this section
of the bluff for an extended period of time. There are a number of existing bluff walls in
this section of the bluff of similar construction. The construction of the walls and proposed
improvements are not a new element in the visual landscape of the beach. A number of
measures such as color treatments, sculpted shotcrete, painting, and landscaping are
proposed to soften the visual appearance of the existing improvements.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the location, size, design and
characteristics of bluff face improvements with proposed improvements and landscaping are
compatible with and do not adversely affect and are not materially detrimental to adjacent
uses, residences, building, structures or natural resources.
2.
The impacts of the proposed project will adversely affect the policies of the Encinitas
General Plan or the provisions of the Municipal Code; and
3.
The project fails to comply with any other regulations, conditions, or policies imposed by
the Municipal Code.
Facts: The Major Use Permit application includes a request to authorize an existing
seawall, existing mid and upper bluff retention system and proposed improvements and
landscaping on the coastal bluff.
Pursuantto Section 30.34.020B2.b ofthe 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
30.34.020B9 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
Cd/DLIRPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 5
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. Emergency permits were issued for the bluff face improvements by
the California Coastal Commission.
Discussion: The criteria stipulated in Section 30.34.020B9 of the Municipal Code has been
addressed in the geotechnical reports and correspondence prepared for the project by the
project engineer, Anthony- Taylor Consultants (A TC).
Related to the emergency nature of the project, emergency permits were issued by the
California Coastal Commission and, as noted in the June 28, 2002 correspondence from
A TC, that failure to perform the recommended repairs for the lower seawall, the mid-bluff
wall and the upper wall would have continued to leave the residence in a state of real and
imminent threat of failure and collapse.
Related to an alternatives analysis, alternatives were discussed in the June 28, 2002
correspondence prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants. Analysis included alternatives
such as no mitigative repairs, removal or relocation of portions of the threatened residence,
below ground rear-yard retention system, caisson or sheet pile wall, sand replenishment, rip-
rap revetment, and curved seawall design. The as-built improvements were noted as the
preferred alternative.
Related to mitigating adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply, the improvements
were approved by the California Coastal Commission upon issuance of Emergency Permits
and a formal Coastal Development Permit for the lower seawall. The project is conditioned
as part of the Coastal Development Permit whereby the applicant shall pay a sand
replenishment fee.
The Bluff Preemptive Measure Appearance Policy (Appearance Policy) was adopted by the
City Council on September 25, 2002 with Resolution No. 2002-04. During the development
of the Appearance Policy, given the history of the project site, the existing improvements
and the on-site and adjacent site conditions, staff worked with applicant's representative to
develop proposed enhancements to the site which will mitigate the visual appearance of the
site to the greatest extent feasible. It was agreed by all parties (staff and applicant's
representative) that the full intent of the policy could not be fully implemented with the
subject site conditions.
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 30.34.020B9 of the
Municipal Code. 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 and mid and upper bluff walls with proposed improvements and
Cd/DLIRPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 6
landscaping, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the policies of the Encinitas General
Plan or the provisions of the Municipal Code.
Cd/DLIRPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 7
FINDINGS FOR PREEMPTIVE MEASURES
STANDARD: In accordance with Section 30.34.020C.2 of the Municipal Code, when a
preemptive measure is proposed, the following findings shall be made if the authorized agency
determines to grant approval:
b.(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 subject application includes a request to authorize an existing seawall,
existing mid and upper bluff retention system and proposed improvements and
landscaping on the coastal bluff. The existing and proposed bluff stabilization measures
are further described above in the findings related to the Major Use Permit.
Discussion: As noted in the June 23, 2002 letter report from ATC, "Based on the results of
the bluff stability analysis for before and after construction site conditions, ..., it is our
opinion that the proposed bluff repairs are substantially effective for the intended purpose of
bluff erosion/failure protections for the residential structure, and existing vacant parcel."
Conclusion: The Planning Commission fmds that information contained within the soils
and geotechnical reports demonstrates that the proposed measures are substantially effective
for the intended purpose of bluff erosion/failure protection, within the specific setting of the
development site's coastal bluffs.
b(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: Background information provided by the applicant, including statements from
engineers and geologists, document the fact that bluff failures occurred on the site which
resulted in the construction of the bluff improvements.
Discussion: In a letter report from A TC, the project engineer concludes that "The
primary residence on the Bradley property is presently under a real and imminent threat
of failure from conditions of unmitigated instability within the mid-and upper bluff soils
within the subject property. Additionally, in a letter report dated June 28, 2002 from
A TC, the project engineer states that "Based on the results of the bluff stability analysis,
the recommended lower bluff and upper bluff repairs were deemed necessary to protect
the primary residential structure, the neighboring residence to the north, the vacant
parcel, and to increase the overall stability of the site."
Conclusion: The Planning Commission fmds 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 reports.
Cd/DLIRPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 8
b.(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 subject application includes a request to authorize an existing seawall, existing
mid and upper bluff retention system and proposed improvements and landscaping on the
coastal bluff.
Discussion: It is noted in the June 28, 2002 letter report from A TC that "The presence of
the shotcrete and seawall located at each end of the seawall is anticipated to reduce the
likelihood of erosion adjacent to the wall ends. Related to the beam and lagging wall, A TC
further notes that "No erosion at either end of the wall can occur due to the fact that these
areas are stabilized by the use of gabion baskets." Additionally, in the June 28, 2002 letter
report, A TC certifies 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
useable life span of the bluff portions of the property." A TC further notes that they"...
expect the proposed development to be reasonably safe from failure over its lifetime."
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that there is no 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.
b.( 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 subject application includes a request to authorize an existing seawall,
existing mid and upper bluff retention system and proposed improvements and
landscaping on the coastal bluff. The existing and proposed bluff stabilization measures
are further described above in the findings related to the Major Use Permit. A number of
measures such as color treatments, sculpted shotcrete, painting, and landscaping are
proposed to soften the visual appearance of the existing improvements.
Discussion: Although the structures are out of place in an unaltered natural coastal bluff
environment, seawalls and mid and upper bluff walls have been in place along this
section of the bluff for an extended period of time. Existing bluff walls in this section of
the bluff are of similar construction. The construction of the walls and proposed
improvements are not a new element in the visual landscape of the beach. A number of
measures such as color treatments, sculpted shotcrete, painting, and landscaping are
proposed to soften the visual appearance of the existing improvements.
The Bluff Preemptive Measure Appearance Policy (Appearance Policy) was adopted by the
City Council on September 25,2002 with Resolution No. 2002-04. During the development
Cd/DLIRPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 9
of the Appearance Policy, given the history of the project site, the existing improvements
and the on-site and adjacent site conditions, staff worked with the applicant's representative
to develop proposed enhancements to the site which will mitigate the visual appearance of
the site to the greatest extent feasible. It was agreed by all parties (staff and applicant's
representative) that the full intent of the policy could not be fully implemented with the
subject site conditions.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission fmds that the seawall and upper bluff wall are
visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area since the surrounding area
includes bluff stabilization measures of similar construction. With the proposed
enhancements the walls do not cause a significant alteration of the natural character of the
bluff face.
b.(5) The proposed device/activity will not serve to unnecessarily restrict or reduce the existing
beach width for use or access.
Facts: In the June 28, 2002 letter report from A TC, the project engineer notes that "The
seawall was constructed as close as possible to the existing face of bluff." ATC further
notes that in their opinion"... that the seawall will not unnecessarily restrict or reduce the
existing beach width for use or access."
Discussion: The seawall is, for the most part, horizontally aligned with the other existing
seawalls directly adjacent to the property.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission fmds that the seawall does not serve to
unnecessarily restrict or reduce the existing beach width for use or access.
c. 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 preemptive measures were constructed in response to emergency
conditions which resulted due to bluff failures; the applicants are requesting approval of the
existing structures and additional improvements and landscaping to further enhance the
visual appearance of the structures. The fact that the structures are existing and the
emergency nature of the improvements proposed on the site preclude a comprehensive plan
from being adopted as policy by City Council for this specific site. The criteria required to
be addressed pursuant to Section 30.34.020B9 of the Municipal Code for preemptive
measures approved prior to adoption of the comprehensive plan have 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.
Cd/DLIRPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 10
Conclusion: 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.
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 geotechnical reports submitted for the project which include
the following:
Letter Report prepared by Anthony-Taylor, Consultants (A TC) re: Revised Aesthetic Bluff
Improvements, dated June 27, 2002
Letter Report prepared by A TC re: Comprehensive Respone to Request for Additional Information,
dated June 28, 2002
Supplemental Discussion, Proposed bluff Improvements, Existing Bluff-Quattro Property, prepared
by A TC, dated February 26, 2002
Response to Planning Discussions, Discussion of Proposed Landscaping, Existing bluff-Quattro
Property, prepared by A TC, dated February 25,2002
Response to Planning Discussions, Proposed Interim Hydroseed Application, Quattro Property,
prepared by A TC, dated February 21, 2002
Response to Third Party Review, Proposed Mid-Bluff Repairs, prepared by A TC, dated January 22,
2001
Revised Slope Stability Analysis, Proposed Bluff Repairs, Bradley Residence, prepared by Soil
Engineering Construction, Inc., (SEC), dated October 23, 2000
Supplemental Response, Revised Mid/Upper Bluff Repairs, Bradley Property, prepared by ATC,
dated October 31, 2000
Structural/Design Calculations, 560 Neptune Avenue, prepared by SEC, dated October 23, 2000
Supplemental Documents, revised Mid/Upper Bluff Repairs, Bradley Property, prepared by ATC
dated October 12, and October 31,2000
Revised Geotechnical Update, Bradley Property, prepared by A TC, dated September 27, 2000
Revised Statement of Justification, New Seawall and Revised Mid/Upper bluff Repairs, Bradley
Property, prepared by A TC, dated September 27, 2000
Submittal and Request for Formal Permit Processing, Revised Mid/Upper bluff Repairs, Bradley
Property, prepared by A TC, dated September 27, 2000
Letter Report - Slope Stability Analysis, Proposed Bluff Repairs, Bradley Residence, prepared by
SEC, dated September 20,2000
Structural/Design Calculations, 560 Neptune Avenue, prepared by SEC, dated September 6, 2000
Request for Emergency Permit Approval, Revised Mid-Bluff Repairs, Stabilization of Existing
Shotcrete Cover, Bradley Property, prepared by A TC, dated December 23, 1999
Structural/Design Calculations, 560 Neptune Avenue, prepared by SEC, dated December 8, 1999
Review of Response to Third Party Review, Bradley Property, prepared by Engineering Geology
Consultants, dated May 26, 1999
Response to Third Party Document Review, Proposed Seawall and mid-Bluff Repairs, Bradley,
Property, prepared by A TC, dated May 3, 1999
Cd/DLIRPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 11
Supplemental Project Discussion - Bradley Bluff Repair, prepared by A TC, dated March 11, 1999
Statement of Justification, Proposed Seawall and Mid-Bluff Repairs, Bradley Property, prepared by
ATC, dated February 1,1999
Updated Geotechnical Evaluation, Bradley Property, prepared by A TC, dated December 11, 1998
The geotechnical reports/letters were reviewed by Third Party Geotechnical Consultant
GeoPacifica, which found that said reports provide information to adequately meet the standards of
the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Section 30.34.020C and D.
Cd/DL/RPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 12
FINDINGS FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
STANDARD: Section 30.80.090 of the Municipal Code provides that the authorized agency
must make the following fmdings of fact, based upon the information presented in the
application and during the Public Hearing, in order to approve a coastal development permit:
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 Section 21000 and
following (CEQA) 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; and
3.
For proj ects 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. ofthe Coastal
Act.
Facts:. The subject application includes a request to authorize an existing seawall, existing
mid and upper bluff retention system and proposed improvements and landscaping on the
coastal bluff. A number of measures such as color treatments, sculpted shotcrete, painting,
and landscaping are proposed to soften the visual appearance of the existing improvements.
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 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. A Coastal Development Permit for the
lower seawall was authorized in June 1999 (CDP # 6-99-41) by the California Coastal
Commission. The portion of the Coastal Development Permit subject to review by the City
relates to the existing mid and upper bluff walls with proposed improvements and
landscaping.
The subject site includes two underlying legal lots, one is developed with a single family
residence and the other is vacant. The bluff face improvements span the two lots. The
project site does not currently provide private or public access to the shore, and the project
does not propose any public access or public recreational faciltiies.
Discussion: With approval of the Major Use Permit, as conditioned, the proposed project is
in conformance with the developrnent standards of the Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone, the
General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan. Based on an environmental initial study prepared
by the City of Encinitas dated October 28, 2002, it was determined that due to mitigation
measures no significant negative environmental impacts would result from the proposed
project design.
Cd/DLIRPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 13
Public access or public recreational facilities are not feasible given the project site's
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 Stonesteps, Beacon's and Grandview access. 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 fmds that 1) the project is consistent with the
certified Local Coastal Program of the City of Encinitas, 2) that with mitigation measures no
adverse impacts will be associated with the project, and 3) providing public access or
recreational facilities is not feasible or appropriate for a project of this type or scale.
Cd/DLIRPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 14
Applicant:
Location:
SCI
ATTACHMENT "B"
Resolution No. PC2002-57
Case No. 99-078 MUP/CDPIEIA
John Quattro and Jacquelyn Foster
560 and 566 Neptune Avenue
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
SC2
SC5
SC8
SC9
This approval will expire on December 19, 2004 at 5 :00 pm, two years after the approval of
this project, unless the conditions have been met or an extension of time has been approved
pursuant to the Municipal Code.
This project is conditionally approved as set forth on the application and project drawings
stamped received by the City on July 13, 2002, consisting of 13 sheets including Title Sheet
(2 Sheets), Geological/Geotechnical Site Plan, Repair Plan, Seawall/BluffElevation, Cross
Sections, Wall Details, Details, Irrigation/Landscape Plan and Repairs to Upper Bluff, all
designated as approved by the Planning Commission on Decenber 19, 2002, and shall not be
altered without express authorization by the Community Development Department.
Project participants shall agree in writing not to oppose participating in any proposed future
governmental study addressing bluff stability and/or beach sand transport along the entire
City coastline. Additionally, the applicants shall agree in writing to participate in any future
comprehensive plan adopted by the City to address coastal bluff recession and shoreline
erosion problems in the City.
All construction and improvements under the authority of the Coastal Development Permit
issued by the Coastal Commission for the lower seawall must be in conformance with and
approved by the Coastal Commission prior to final inspection by the Community
Development Department.
SC lOA Temporary Beach Encroachment Permit shall be received from the Engineering Services
Department prior to initiating any work on the beach.
SC 11 All proposed improvements associated with the project related to enhancements of the
visual appearance including, but not limited to, color treatments, painting, shotcrete,
sculpting, removal of wood members and ladders, and landscaping shall be completed
within 180 days of this approval unless otherwise approved by the Community
Development Director. The aesthetic measures are further described in the June 28, 2002
letter report and the approved Irrigation/Landscape Plan both prepared by Anthony-Taylor
Consultants which are on file in the Community Development Department.
CdlDL/RPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 15
SC 12 Prior to initiating the aesthetic measures as referenced above, samples shall be completed in
the field and presented to Community Development Department staff, in order to analyze
and select the most appropriate colors, painting and sculpting techniques for blending with
the bluff setting and minimizing the visual appearance of the bluff improvements.
SC 13 Upon completion of the plant material installation, a letter certifying that the landscape plant
material has been installed according to the City approved plans shall be prepared by the
landscape architect and submitted to the Community Development Department. Said letter
is required prior to final inspection approval by the Community Development Department.
Gl
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
CONTACT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):
G2
G3
G4
G5
G13
This approval may be appealed to the City Council within 15 calendar days from the date of
this approval in accordance with Chapter 1.12 of the Municipal Code.
This project is located within the Coastal Appeal Zone and may be appealed to the
California Coastal Commission pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30603 and Chapter 30.04
of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code. An appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision must be filed with the Coastal Commission within 10 days following the Coastal
Commission's receipt of the Notice of Final Action. Applicants will be notified by the
Coastal Commission as to the date the Commission's appeal period will conclude.
Appeals must be in writing to the Coastal Commission, San Diego Coast District office.
Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall cause a covenant regarding real
property to be recorded. Said covenant shall set forth the terms and conditions of this grant
of approval and shall be of a form and content satisfactory to the Community Development
Director.
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Municipal
Code and all other applicable City regulations in effect at the time of Building Permit
issuance unless specifically waived herein.
The applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but
not be limited to: Permit and Plan Checking Fees, Water and Sewer Service Fees, School
Fees, Traffic Mitigation Fees, Flood Control Mitigation Fees, Park Mitigation Fees, and Fire
Mitigation/Cost Recovery Fees. Arrangements to pay these fees shall be made prior to
issuance of the beach encroachment permit to the satisfaction of the Community
Development and Engineering Services Departments. The applicant is advised to contact
the Community Development Department regarding Park Mitigation Fees, the Engineering
Services Department regarding Flood Control and Traffic Fees, applicable School District( s)
regarding School Fees, the Fire Department regarding Fire Mitigation/Cost Recovery Fees,
and the applicable Utility Departments or Districts regarding Water and/or Sewer Fees.
Cd/DL/RPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 16
G14
U2
U3
U7
BLI
BL2
A plan shall be submitted for approval by the Community Development Department, the
Engineering Services Department, and the Fire Department regarding the security treatment
of the site during the construction phase, the on- and off-site circulation and parking of
construction workers' vehicles, and any heavy equipment needed for the construction ofthe
project.
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 whether the City of Encinitas should revoke this permit.
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.
Any future modifications to the approved project will be reviewed relative to the findings
for substantial conformance with a use permit contained in Section 30.74.105 of the
Municipal Code. Modifications beyond the scope described therein will require submittal
and approval of an amendmentto the use permit by the authorized agency.
Owner(s) shall enter into and record a covenant satisfactory to the City Attorney waiving
any claims ofliability 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.
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 the
issuance of building permits. Said covenant shall also provide that the property owner shall
be responsible for maintaining the approved structure(s) in good visual and structural
condition in a manner satisfactory to the Directors of Engineering Services and Community
Development.
Fl FIRE CONDITIONS:
CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):
F13
ADDRESS NUMBERS: Address numbers shall be placed in a location that will allow
them to be clearly visible from the street fronting the structure. The numbers shall
contrast with their background, and shall be no less in height than: Four inches (4") for
single family homes and duplexes; Eight inches (8") for commercial and multi-family
residential buildings; and Twelve inches (12") for industrial buildings.
Cd/DL/RPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 17
E2
El
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
CONTACT THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):
REG ARDIN G
All City Codes, regulations, and policies in effect at the time of building/grading permit issuance
shall apply.
Cd/DL/RPC99078.257 (12/31/02 - FINAL) 18