2002-27
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ENCINIT AS APPROVING A MAJOR USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR
THE APPROVAL OF AS-BUILT UPPER BLUFF RETENTION SYSTEMS ON
EACH OF THREE (3) RESIDENTIAL PROPERITES LOCATED AT 492, 510 &
518 NEPTUNE AVENUE
(CASE NO. 98-089 MUP-MOD-APNs: 256-261-02,03 & 06)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Major Use Permit Modification
application was filed by Paul T. Harlow, Larry and Corinne Simondes for the approval
of as-built upper bluff retention systems, in accordance with Chapters 30.34 and 30.74
of the Encinitas Municipal Code on three (3) residential properties located in the R-8
zone legally described as:
Harlow:
(492 Neptune Avenue)
LOT 7 AND LOT 8 OF BLOCK "D" OF SEASIDE GARDENS, COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1800,
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
AUGUST 6, 1924. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION, IF ANY,
HERETOFORE, OR NOW, LYING BELOW THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE OF THE
PACIFIC OCEAN.
Simondes:
(510 Neptune Avenue)
LOT 4 OF BLOCK "D" OF SEASIDE GARDENS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1800, FILED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 6,
1924. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION, IF ANY, HERETOFORE, OR
NOW, LYING BELOW THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN.
(518 Neptune Avenue)
LOT 3 AND THE SOUTHERLY 20 FEET OF LOT 2 OF BLOCK "D" OF SEASIDE
GARDENS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO
MAP THEREOF NO. 1800, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 6, 1924. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT
PORTION, IF ANY, HERETOFORE, OR NOW, LYING BELOW THE MEAN HIGH
TIDE LINE OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing on
the application on June 20, 2002, at which time all those desiring to be heard were
heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered, without limitation:
1.
The June 20, 2002 agenda report to the Planning Commission with
attachments;
98-089 MUP/MOD June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
2.
The General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Municipal Code, and associated
Land Use Maps;
3.
Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4.
Written evidence submitted at the hearing;
5.
Project drawings consisting of 8 sheets, including the following
drawings: "Harlow Residence 492 Neptune Avenue, 1 of 3, Neptune
Group Location Plan" dated June 26, 1997; "Harlow Residence 492
Neptune Avenue, 2 of 3, Site Plan and Profile Section A-A" dated June
26, 1997; "Harlow Residence 492 Neptune Avenue, 3 of 3, Details and
Notes" dated June 26, 1997, all date stamped received by the City of
Encinitas on April 15, 1998. "Sbordone Property 510 & 518 Neptune
Avenue, 1 of 5, Cover Sheet" dated December 7, 1998; "Sbordone
Property 510 & 518 Neptune Avenue, 2 of 5, Neptune Avenue Group
Location Plan" dated December 7, 1998; "Sbordone Property 510 & 518
Neptune Avenue, 3 of 5, Site Plan" dated December 7, 1998; "Sbordone
Property 510 & 518 Neptune Avenue, 4 of 5, Profile Sections" dated
December 7, 1998; "Sbordone Property 510 & 518 Neptune Avenue, 5
of 5, Sections, Details and Notes" dated December 7, 1998 and date
stamped received by the City of Encinitas on February 5, 1999.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings pursuant to
Sections 30.34.020 and 30.74.070 of the Encinitas Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of Encinitas hereby approves application 98-089 MUP-MOD subject to the
following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, in its
independent judgment, accepts the Addendum to a previously approved Environmental
Initial Study which found that the project is not likely to result in any significant
adverse environmental impacts. The Addendum, reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission as part of this project, found that since the subject project is a
modification to an existing Major Use Permit and involves similar activities within the
same vicinity, the conclusions of the original Negative Declaration issued for Case No.
MUP 93-111 (Richards et. at) are applicable to the subject application now before the
Planning Commission for consideration. Additionally, the Addendum found that the
subject project would not have significant impacts on the environment, based upon the
fact that the design features and conditions of approval required to avoid significant
environmental impacts associated with the original project have been included and / or
required of the subject project.
98-089 MUP/MOD June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
2
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of June, 2002, by the following vote,
. to wit:
AYES:
Commissioners Birnbaum, Crosthwaite, Bagg, Chapo, and Ehlers
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
(!j i!UJ JIM ~
ATTEST:
y Crosthwaite, Chairperson
ncinitas Planning Commission
/Si¿ ~4e~ ~~
Patrick Murphy Secretary
NOTE: This action is subject to Chapter 1.04 of the Municipal Code, which specifies
time limits for legal challenge.
98-089 MUP/MOD June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
3
ATTACHMENT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -27
FINDINGS FOR MAJOR USE PERMIT
STANDARD: Section 30.74.070 of the Encinitas Municipal Code provides that an
application for a Major Use Permit shall be approved unless findings of fact are made
based upon the information presented in the application or during the hearings which
support one or more of the following conclusions:
1. The location, size, design or operating characteristics of the proposed project
will be incompatible with or will adversely affect or will be materially
detrimental to adjacent uses, residences, buildings, structures or natural
resources, with consideration given to, but not limited to:
a. The inadequacy of public facilities, services and utilities to serve
the proposed project;
The unsuitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or
development which is proposed; and
The harmful effect, if any, upon environmental quality and
natural resources of the City.
b.
c.
2. The impacts of the proposed project will adversely affect the policies of the
Encinitas General Plan or the provisions of the Municipal Code; or
3. The project fails to comply with any other regulations, conditions or policies
imposed by the Municipal Code.
Facts: In mid-1993, the California Coastal Commission provided emergency
permit authorization for the construction of upper bluff retention systems for
several adjoining properties (470, 478, 498,502-504 and 524 Neptune Ave.)
and since the issuance of the permit these systems have been completed.
These properties, with the addition of the subject of 492,510 & 518 Neptune
Avenue, subsequently received Encinitas approval of a Major Use Permit in
1993, permitting the construction of a lower coastal bluff seawall
(Resolution # PC93-24- "Richards et al"). The approved lower seawall was
subsequently completed. This permit also approved upper bluff retention
systems to the north and south of the subject properties. Occurrences of
geologic instability and failure in the immediate vicinity of the subject sites
persuaded the applicants that immediate action was warranted for the
installation of structural devices to protect their properties. Therefore
engineered upper bluff retention systems were installed, pursuant to Special
Condition #2 of Regular Coastal Development Permit #6-93-131. The subject
permit application as submitted by the applicants is to modify existing Major
Use Permit 93-111 to authorize the upper buff retention systems on a
permanent basis. Municipal Code Section 30.34.020C designates the
Planning Commission as the decision-making authority for development
within the Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone.
98-089 MUP/MOD June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
4
Discussion: Bluff-top properties within the Leucadia community are subject
to special geologic conditions in which land sliding may occur, with a
resultant loss of property values, including the possible loss of principal
residential structures. It is therefore recognized (by the Encinitas Municipal
Code and the California Coastal Act) that under conditions of imminent
geologic instability, the utilization of certain preemptive measures is
justifiable (Municipal Code Section 30.34.020C2b). The subject properties
had constructed lower seawall protection devices, after which landsliding
events occurred within the immediate vicinity of the project site. This local
geologic instability posed an immediate threat to the subject properties (492,
510 & 518 Neptune Avenue). In response to this threat, the subject property
owners, in reliance upon Special Condition #2 of Regular Coastal
Development Permit #6-93131, installed the upper bluff retention systems
on each of the subject properties. The installation of these upper bluff
retention systems have eliminated gaps in an otherwise continuous band of
upper bluff retention devices, extending from 470 Neptune Avenue to 524
Neptune Avenue, as anticipated by the previously referenced Coastal
Commission permit. Appropriate Environmental Review has been conducted
on the upper and lower mid bluff retention devices, and it has been found
that the project(s) will pose no significant adverse impact on the project site
or to the surrounding area. No additional public facilities are necessary for
this project.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the subject upper bluff
retention systems will generate no harmful effects upon environmental
quality and natural resources of the City and that the impacts of the proposed
project will not adversely affect the policies of the Encinitas General Plan or
the provisions of the Municipal Code.
98-089 MUP/MOD June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
5
FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
COASTAL BLUFF OVERLAY ZONE
STANDARD: Section 30.34.020C2b of the Encinitas Municipal Code provides that an
application for development within the Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone shall be approved
subject to the following findings:
b.
When a preemptive measure is proposed, the following findings shall be made if
the authorized agency determines to grant approval: (Ord. 91-19)
(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. The report must analyze specific site
proposed for development. (Ord. 91-19)
Facts: Under "Conclusions and Recommendations" on page 3 of the
"Updated Geotechnical Review/ Plan for Emergency Construction
Proposed Upper Bluff Retention System, 510 & 518 Neptune Avenue"
dated January 12, 1999 and prepared by Soil Engineering Construction
the document states that the upper bluff retention system is needed "to
prevent imminent substantial failure (of the bluff) of a degree sufficient
to impact the residential structures on the site." Also, on page 3 of the
July 14, 1997 "Updated Geotechnical Review / Request for Emergency
Processing Proposed Upper Bluff Retention System Harlow Residence
492 Neptune Avenue" report prepared by Soil Engineering Construction,
Inc. it states "Based on the findings presented above, it is recommended
that a upper bluff retaining system be constructed at the site." And "It is
our opinion that if the upper bluff retention system proposed is not
constructed, imminent failure of the upper bluff will occur and loss of
the existing residence will also occur."
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that, based on the results
of the bluff stability analyses of the project geotechnical reports, the
upper bluff retention system is substantially effective for the intended
purpose of bluff erosion / failure protection for the residential structures
on 492,510, and 518 Neptune Avenue.
(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 site specific geotechnical report. (Ord. 91-19)
Facts: Under "Conclusions and Recommendations" on page 3 of the
"Updated Geotechnical Review / Plan for Emergency Construction
Proposed Upper Bluff Retention System" dated January 12, 1999 and
prepared by Soil Engineering Construction the document states that the
upper bluff retention system is needed "to prevent imminent substantial
failure (of the bluff) of a degree sufficient to impact the residential
98-089 MUP/MOD June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
6
structures on the site." Also, on page 3 of the July 14, 1997 "Updated
Geotechnical Review / Request for Emergency Processing Proposed
Upper Bluff Retention System Harlow Residence 492 Neptune Avenue"
report prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., it states "Based
on the findings presented above, it is recommended that a upper bluff
retaining system be constructed at the site." And "It is our opinion that if
the upper bluff retention system proposed is not constructed, imminent
failure of the upper bluff will occur and loss of the existing residence
will also occur."
Discussion: Based on the results of the bluff stability analyses of these
geotechnical reports, the upper bluff retention system is substantially
effective for the intended purpose of bluff erosion / failure protection for
the residential structures on 492, 510, and 518 Neptune Avenue. As
presented in these geotechnical reports the results of the slope stability
analyses clearly demonstrate that the factors of safety against sliding,
without an upper bluff retention system, are less than, which is required
to protect the residential structures from a potential bluff failure.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed measure
is necessary for the protection of principal structures on the blufftop to
which there is a demonstrated threat as substantiated by site specific
geotechnical reports.
(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 internally installed upper bluff stability systems at 492
Neptune Avenue and 510-518 Neptune Avenue are flanked on both sides
by existing upper bluff stability systems.
Discussion: The upper bluff retention system installed at the site is a
buried wall. This type of system allows the bluff on the seawall site to
erode at its normal rate of erosion. The system is flanked by existing
upper bluff systems that add stability and prevent erosion. No erosion at
either end of the Harlow wall (492 Neptune) can occur due to the fact
that the upper bluff retention system abuts the existing upper bluff walls
at the residences both north and south of the subject site. Similarly, no
erosion at either end of the Simondes wall (510-518 Neptune Avenue)
can occur due to the fact that the upper bluff retention system abuts the
existing upper bluff walls at the residence at the south end (502-504
Neptune Avenue) and the residence at the north end (522 Neptune
Avenue).
98-089 MUP/MOD June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
7
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the upper bluff retention
systems 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.
(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 areas;
and not cause a significant alteration of the natural character of the bluff
face.
Facts: The upper bluff retention system is constructed primarily below
existing grade in the subject properties blufftop and is not visible on the
bluff face.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the upper bluff
retention system does not adversely affect the character of the
surrounding area and does not significantly alter the natural character of
the bluff face.
(5) The proposed device/activity will not serve to unnecessarily restrict or
reduce the existing beach width for use or access.
Facts: The upper bluff retention system is constructed primarily below
existing grade in the subject properties blufftop. The subject properties
do not offer beach access. The installation of the bluff stability system
does not require any reduction in beach width.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the upper bluff
retention systems are constructed at the top of the bluff and therefore will
not restrict or reduce the width of the existing beach 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; the applicants are requesting approval of the existing structures. The
fact that the structures are existing 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 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
98-089 MUP/MOD June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
8
required to participate in the future comprehensive plans, which include their
properties.
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.
98-089 MUP/MOD June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
9
SC5
A TT ACHMENT "B"
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-27
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SCI SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
SC2
This approval will expire on June 20, 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 consisting of 8 sheets, including the following drawings: "Harlow
Residence 492 Neptune A venue, 1 of 3, Neptune Group Location Plan" dated
June 26, 1997; "Harlow Residence 492 Neptune Avenue, 2 of 3, Site Plan and
Profile Section A-A" dated June 26, 1997; "Harlow Residence 492 Neptune
Avenue, 3 of 3, Details and Notes" dated June 26, 1997, all date stamped
received by the City of Encinitas on April 15, 1998. "Sbordone Property 510 &
518 Neptune Avenue, 1 of 5, Cover Sheet" dated December 7, 1998; "Sbordone
Property 510 & 518 Neptune Avenue, 2 of 5, Neptune Avenue Group Location
Plan" dated December 7, 1998; "Sbordone Property 510 & 518 Neptune
Avenue, 3 of 5, Site Plan" dated December 7, 1998; "Sbordone Property 510 &
518 Neptune Avenue, 4 of 5, Profile Sections" dated December 7, 1998;
"Sbordone Property 510 & 518 Neptune Avenue, 5 of 5, Sections, Details and
Notes" dated December 7, 1998 and date stamped received by the City of
Encinitas on February 5, 1999, all designated as approved by the Encinitas
Planning Commission on June 20, 2002, and shall not be altered without express
authorization by the Community Development Department.
SCA Municipal Code Section 30.34.020B.6 provides that no irrigation system shall
be maintained within the 40' bluff setback area. All watering within the 40'
bluff setback area must be done by hand utilizing a standard hose bib, which
itself shall have a minimum setback of 40 feet from the edge of bluff. The
irrigation system located on the Harlow property (492 Neptune) west of the
primary residential structure shall therefore be removed within 30 days of the
date of this approval.
SCB
Should erosion or incremental bluff failure cause these internal elements of the
project to become exposed in whole of in part, they are to be reassessed for
engineering integrity and faced with a treatment that would cause them to blend
into the bluff.
SCC Project participants shall agree in writing to not 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
98-089 MUP/MOD June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
IO
City to address coastal bluff recession and shoreline erosion problems in the
City.
SCD 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 final inspection approval. 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.
SCE
An "as-built geotechnical report", reviewed and signed by both the
soils/geotechnical engineer and the project engineering geologist, shall be
completed and submitted to the City prior to final inspection approval. The
project shall not receive final inspection approval until the as-built report is
received and the content of the report is found acceptable by the Community
Development and Engineering Services Departments.
SCF
Prior to issuance fmal inspection approval the project shall be reviewed and
approved by the Engineering Services Department for drainage and Best
Management Practices.
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
CONTACT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
G2
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.
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 building permit issuance,
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
Districts) 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.
98-089 MUP/MOD June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
] ]
U8
BLI
BL3
Ul
At all times during the effective period of this permit, the responsible party 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.
U2
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.
U3
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.
U4
Nothing in this permit shall relieve the applicant from complying with
conditions and regulations generally imposed upon activities similar in nature to
the activity authorized by this permit.
U5
Nothing in this permit shall authorize the applicant to intensify the authorized
activity beyond that which is specifically described in this permit.
U7
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 amendment to the use permit
by the authorized agency.
All project grading shall conform with that shown on the approved project plans.
If no grading is proposed on the approved plans, or subsequent grading plans are
inconsistent with the grading shown on the approved plans, a use permit
modification for such grading shall be obtained from the authorized agency of
the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
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.
An "as-built geotechnical report" shall be submitted to the Community
Development and Engineering Services Departments, for review and acceptance,
prior to approval of the foundation inspection. The report shall outline all field test
locations and results, and observations performed by the consultant during
construction of the proposed structure(s), and especially relative to the depths and
actual location of the foundations. The report shall also verify that the
recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared
and submitted in conjunction with the application, have been properly
implemented and completed.
98-089 MUP/MOD June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
]2
BL5
The applicant shall submit on or before September 1 of each year a written report
by a qualified professional engineer assessing the condition of the approved
structure(s). The report shall indicate the condition of the approved structures as
well as any maintenance/repair actions needed to maintain the efficacy of the
structure(s). The assessment shall also include monitoring of the erosion rate on
both sides of the bluff control measure. 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
Engineering Services Department, prior to implementation of any corrective
measures. Any maintenance/repair work needed shall be completed prior to the
next winter storm period.
Fl FIRE CONDITIONS:
CONTACT THE ENCINIT AS 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 residential structure.
The numbers shall contrast with their background, and shall be no less in height
than: Four (4") inches for single family homes and duplexes; Eight (8") inches
for commercial and multi-family residential buildings; and Twelve (12") inches
for industrial buildings.
98-089 MUP/MOD June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
I3