2002-25
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2002-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY ENCINITAS PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW STAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR
THE DEMOLITION OF AN E SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, APPROVING A
VARIANCE OF 4 FEET OF THE 5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND 16 FEET OF
THE 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, AUTHORIZING THE RESIDENCE TO
EXCEED THE STANDARD 22 FOOT HEIGHT ENVELOPE TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT
OF 30 FEET AND AUTHORIZING THE SECOND STORY PORTION OF THE
STRUCTURE TO CANTILEVER A MAXIMUM OF 5 FEET INTO THE STANDARD 40
FOOT COASTAL BLUFF SETBACK.
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 518 NEPTUNE AVENUE
(CASE NO. 01-153 V/DR/CDP; APN: 256-261-02)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Design Review Pennit and Coastal
Development Pennit was filed by Larry and Corrine Simondes to authorize the demolition of an
existing single family residence and to authorize the construction of a new single family residence,
which includes a request to allow the residence to exceed the standard 22 foot height envelope for a
maximum height of 30 feet and provide a variance of 16 feet of the R-8 25- foot front yard setback
and 4 feet of the R-8 five foot side yard setback. Additionally, the application requests a second
story portion of the structure to cantilever a maximum of 5 feet into the standard 40 foot coastal
bluff setback, in accordance with Chapters 30.34 and 30.16 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, for
the property located in the R-8 Zone legally described as:
SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 2 AND LOT 3 IN BLOCK D OF SEASIDE GARDENS, MAP NO.
1800 AS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAN COUNTY RECORDER ON AUGUST 6, 1924,
EXCEPTING THOSE PORTIONS THAT LIE WEST OF THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE.
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;
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;
01-153 VIDRlCDP June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings pursuant to
30.16,30.78 and 30.34 of the Encinitas Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT itA")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
Encinitas hereby approves application No.
of
BE IT
judgment,
Section 1
Guidelines.
pursuant to
(CEQA)
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day
to wit:
Commissioners Crosthwaite, Chapp, and Bagg
NAYS:
Commissioners Ehlers and Birnbaum
None
None
ATTEST:
Patrick Murphy
Secretary
This action is subject to
June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
2
ATTACHMENT "A"
ResolutionNo. PC 2002 -25
Case No. 01-153 V/DR/CDP
FINDINGS TO EXCEED THE STANDARD HEIGHT ENVELOPE
STANDARD: In accordance with Section 30.16.010 B.(7.d) of the Municipal Code, the
authorized agency must make the following findings of fact, based upon the information
presented in the application and during the Public Hearing, in order to approve a project
exceeding the standard height envelope:
1.
The portion of the building outside of the standard envelope maintains some of the
significant views enjoyed by residents of nearby properties.
Facts: The request to velope is made pursuant to Section
30.l6.01OB7.dofthe Municipal C ode allows buildings to exceed the
standard 12/16 or 22/26 foot heigh it can be found that the portion of the building
outside of the standard envelope of the significant views enjoyed by
residents of nearby properties, and is compatible in bulk and mass with
buildings on neighboring properties. The average lot slope of the site is less than 10% and
the proposed residence is a pitched roof structure, therefore the standard 22 foot limit as
measured from adjacent grade as well as the 26 foot limit applies to the project The
maximum chimney and structure height as measured from the adjacent grade is 30 feet. As
depicted on the project plans, the chimney, at 30 feet and the top of the roof ridge measured
at 27' 5", exceed the standard 26 foot height envelope.
Discussion: As depicted on the project plans, with exception to height, the front yard
setback and the northerly side yard setback for the existing garage which are to be retained,
the project conforms with the Development Standards of the R-8 Zone and the Coastal
Bluff Overlay Zone in which the site is located. The R-8 zone requires a 5'/10' side yard
setback. The project proposes a 10 foot side yard setback on the south side and a 5.5 foot
side yard setback for the majority of the northern side. The legal non-conforming 1 foot
side yard setback and 9 foot front yard setback currently maintained by the existing garage
on the north side will be maintained, all other components will adhere to the required
yards. The structure is able to maintain the nonconfonning setback pursuant to Section
30.76.120 of the Municipal Code, which stipulates that buildings may be reconstructed with
the continuation of the nonconformity provided such nonconfonnities are not increased in
density or intensity. With exception to the front yard setback and the northerly side yard,
the proposed residence will maintain the minimum required setbacks. The three required
parking spaces for structures over 2500 square feet are provided within the enclosed garage.
The project will result in a lot coverage of 27.4 %, which confonns with the maximum
allowed 40%. Additionally, the project conforms with the maximum allowed .60 FAR by
maintaining a FAR of .38.
01-153 V/DR/CDP June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
3
The chimneys proposed for the house are subjectto Section 30.26.01 OB7.c ofthe Municipal
Code wherein' authorized to exceed the standard height envelope by two feet
as long as the t exceed 30 inches on all sides. The project is proposed with a
chimney at . is included in the request to exceed the standard
height envelope. The maximum he of the proposed project are as follows:
ITEM
Top of Chimney
Top of Ridge
Standard Height Envelope
Top of Plate
Rear of Lot
Pad Elevation
Lot at Frontage
Crown of Neptune Ave
HEIGHT FROM GRADFiP AD
30.0 ft.
27.5 ft.
22.0 ft.
24.6 ft.
1.0 ft.
0.0 ft.
-9.0 ft.
-11.0 ft.
ELEVATION
127.0 ft
124.5 ft.
119. Oft.
121.6 ft.
98ft.
97 ft.
88 ft.
86 ft.
The pad is eleven feet above the crown of Neptune Avenue and the top of the chimney is 41
feet above the crown of Neptune Avenue. Also, as depicted in the project drawings, the
applicant proposes to include a second floor balcony that would cantilever five (5) feet into
the 40-foot setback from the top of the bluff.
Discussion: A site visit was made by staff to assess existing view corridors and potential
impacts with the proposed project. Based on the site visit, it appears that view corridors are
not currently maintained through the subject property by the easterly properties across the
street. The requirement for story poles or a line of sight section was waived, pursuant to
Section 30.16.01OB7 of the Municipal Code, since it was evident that no view will be
blocked by the proposed project. Properties across the street are currently developed with
two story homes that do not enjoy ocean views due to the existing topography of the site
and the existing vegetation on the site. The property maintains an elevation of
approximately 88' at the east property line and gradually rises westward up to a level
elevation of approximately 98'. As depicted on a neighborhood plat submitted as part of the
application, the residences across the street to the east on Neptune A venue maintain
elevations of approximately 85.6' at their front property line. A twenty two foot structure
above the existing site grades would attain elevations of approximately 120', therefore a
westerly view through the property would not be available even if the proposed residence
maintained the standard 22 foot height envelope since the 22 foot above the 85.6 feet would
be 107.6, or 12.4 feet below the 120 feet.
The properties directly to the north and south currently enjoy significant ocean views
directly from their existing wes observed that the westerly elevation of
the proposed residence is set b evation of the north and south properties
by at least 30 feet more than the to be demolished, therefore significant
ocean views directly to the west currently enjoyed by these properties are still maintained.
View assessment related to the cantilever portion of the structure is discussed below.
01-153 VlDRlCDP June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
4
In summary, view corridors are not maintained through the site due to the topography,
existing vegetation and the existing building locations. Therefore portions of the building
outside of the standard envelope do not block significant views currently enjoyed by
residents of nearby properties.
Neptune Avenue is generally developed with significant sized, two-story homes, whereby
the proposed residence is compatible with other homes in the surrounding neighborhood.
The stepping of the structure up the site minimizes the bulk and mass of the structure.
Additionally the offset front setback reduces the bulk and mass of the structure as viewed
from the street. Given the design elements of the project, the proposed building is
compatible in bulk and mass with buildings on neighboring properties.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that view corridors are not presently
maintained through the site due to the topography, existing vegetation and the existing
building locations. Therefore, portions of the building outside of the standard envelope do
not block significant views currently enjoyed by residents of nearby properties.
2.
The building is compatible in bulk and mass with buildings on neighboring properties.
Facts: The project proposes the demolition of the existing single family residence and
accessory structures. The project also proposes the construction of a 3,745-sq. ft. two-story
single family residence plus a 887 square foot garage. The project is designed to step up
with the existing topography. The building design offers visual variety with the use of a
one-story element on the front elevation and the use of building offsets on the side
elevations. The following materials are proposed for the structure: stucco siding, vinyl
(white) window frames, painted wood doors, and two piece clay tile roof.
Discussion: Neptune Avenue is generally developed with significant sized, two-story
homes, whereby the proposed residence is compatible with other homes in the surrounding
neighborhood. The stepping of the structure up the site minimizes the bulk and mass of the
structure. Additionally the offset front setback reduces the bulk and mass of the structure
as viewed from the street. Given the design elements of the project, the proposed building is
compatible in bulk and mass with buildings on neighboring properties.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that, given the design elements of the
project, the proposed building is compatible in bulk and mass with buildings on
neighboring properties.
01-153 V/DRlCDP June 20,2002 (FINAL)
5
FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE
STANDARD: Section 30.78.030 of the Encinitas Municipal Code provides that a Variance
may be granted only when, based upon the information presented in the application and
during the Public Hearing, all of the following findings of fact can be made:
A. A Variance from the tenus of the zoning regulations shall be granted only when, because
of the special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning regulations deprives such property
of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Facts: The applicant proposes to develop a new single family residence and in doing so to attach
an existing detached garage that is located within one foot of the north side property line setback
and nine feet from the front property line thus requiring a variance of four (4» feet of the
required five (5) foot side yard and sixteen (16) feet of the twenty-five (25) foot front yard
required in the R-8 zoning district in order for the existing garage to be retained. If the variance is
granted the legal non-confonning 1 foot side yard setback and 9 foot front yard setback currently
maintained by the existing garage on the north side will be maintained, all other project
components will adhere to all required yards..
Discussion: Some properties sharing the neighborhood with the subject site tend to have
minimal yards because several of the homes appear to have been built prior to incorporation of
the City of Encinitas. Until the City of Encinitas adopted the Municipal Zoning Code and
General Plan in 1989 the County of San Diego's zoning was in place. The staff has reviewed
other properties that exhibit similar land uses characteristics in the neighborhood and the
proposed renovations to the subject property would not cause it to be substantially different than
the established building pattern. On visiting the project site and immediate vicinity it appeared to
staff that many garages, carports, and main residential structures enjoy setbacks and yards that
are substandard for the R-8 zoning district. A strict application of the zoning regulations would
keep the applicant from enjoying a benefit enjoyed by the other properties in the same
neighborhood.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that special circumstances apply to the subject
property and that the strict application of the zoning regulations would deprive said property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
B. Any Variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the
adjustment thereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which property is situated.
Facts: The applicant proposes to develop a new single family residence and in doing so to attach
an existing detached garage that is located within one foot of the north side property line setback
and nine feet from the front property line thus requiring a Variance of four (4» feet of the
required five (5) foot side yard and sixteen (16) feet of the twenty-five (25) foot front yard
required in the R-8 zoning district in order for the existing garage to be retained.
01-153 V/DRlCDP June 20,2002 (FINAL)
6
Discussion: On visiting the project site and immediate vicinity it appeared to staff that many
garages, carports, and main residential structures enjoy setbacks and yards that are substandard
for the R-8 zoning district. A strict application of the zoning regulations would keep the
applicant from enjoying a benefit enjoyed by the other properties in the same neighborhood. The
proposed improvement, a continuation of an encroachment into the required side yard and front
yard setback, is enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the same zoning
classification.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the Variance will not authorize a special
privilege. The proposed improvements do not constitute granting the applicant privileges not
enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the same zoning classification.
C. A Variance will not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity
which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations governing the parcel of
property. The provisions ofthis section shall not apply to use pennits.
Facts: The applicant proposes to develop a new single family residence and in doing so to attach
an existing detached garage that is located within one foot of the north side property line setback
and nine feet from the front property line thus requiring a Variance of four (4) feet of the
required five (5) foot side yard and sixteen (16) feet of the twenty-five (25) foot front yard
required in the R-8 zoning district in order for the existing garage to be retained. If the variance is
granted the legal non-conforming 1 foot side yard setback and 9 foot front yard setback currently
maintained by the existing garage on the north side will be maintained, all other project
components will adhere to all required yards.
Discussion: Since the existing use and proposed use of a single family residence is pennitted by
right in the R-8 zone, the applicant is not proposing a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zoning regulations governing the parcel of property.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the Variance will not authorize a use or
activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations governing the
parcel of property .
D. No Variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy the privilege enjoyed by other
property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification:
1. Could be avoided by an alternate development plan which would be of less significant
impact to the site and adjacent properties than the project requiring a Variance;
Is self-induced as a result of an action taken by the property owner or the owner's
predecessor;
3. Would allow such a degree of variation as to constitute a rezoning or other amendment
to the zoning code;
0l~153 V/DR/CDP June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
7
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any public or private
line thus
(16)
order for the
side yard setback and
on north side will
retained. If the
foot front yard setback currently
be maintained, all other project
variation
does not authorize or legalize
finds that
or
20,2002
8
FINDINGS FOR ALLOWING A PORTION OF A STRUCTURE TO
CANTILEVER INTO THE COASTAL BLUFF SETBACK:
STANDARD: In accordance with Sect. 30.34.020 C.(l) of the Municipal Code, the
authorized agency must make the following findings of fact, based upon the information
presented in the application and during the Public Hearing, in order to approve a project to
cantilever:
No private or public views would be significantly impacted by the construction of the
cantilevered portion of the structure.
Facts: Pursuant to Section 30.34.020C.l of the Municipal Code, a second story cantilevered
portion of a structure is pennitted 20% beyond the standard 40 foot coastal bluff setback, if
demonstrated through standard engineering practices not to create an unnecessary surcharge
load upon the bluff area and if a finding can be made that no private or public views would
be significantly impacted by the construction of the cantilevered portion of the structure.
The cantilever is proposed 5 feet (12.5%) within the 40 foot coastal bluff setback, which
confonns with the maximum 20% permitted beyond the standard 40 foot coastal bluff
setback.
Discussion: The subject property is not adjacent to any existing public viewpoints,
therefore public views are not affected with the cantilever. Significant views currently
enjoyed by the adjacent properties to the north and south are directly to the west.
The criteria required to be considered in order to approve construction on the coastal bluff
maintaining the standard 40-foot setback have been addressed by the Geotechnical
Evaluation dated March 7, 2002. The geotechnical reports were reviewed by a third party
geotechnical consultant, Geopacifica, Inc.,which found that said geotechnical reports
provide information to adequately meet the standards of the City of Encinitas Municipal
Code, Section30.34.020Cand D. The issue of the cantilever portion of the structure, which
is proposed to cantilever a maximumof5 feet (12.5%) into the bluff setback, was reviewed
and accepted by the third party geotechnical consultant. As noted in the project geotechnical
report, the foundations for the structure, which includes the loading for the cantilevered
balcony, will not adversely surcharge the bluff area.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission frods that the proposed cantilever portion of the
structure will not significantly private or public views. As noted in the
project geotechnical report, the for the structure, which includes the loading for
the cantilevered balcony, will not adversely surcharge the bluff area.
01-153 V/DRlCDP June 20,2002 (FINAL)
9
FINDINGS FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
STANDARD: Section 30.80.090 of the Municipal Code provides that the authorized agency
must make the following findings 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 confonns 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 projects involving development between the sea or other body of water and the nearest
public road, approval shall include a specific finding that such development is in confonnity
with the public access and public recreation policies of Section 30200 et. seq. of the Coastal
Act.
Facts: The site is designated as Residential 5.01 - 8.0 dulac 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 bluffit lies within the Coastal Bluff Overlay zone. The project proposes the
demolition of an existing residential unit and the construction of a new two-story single
family residence, which maintains a 40 foot setback from the top edge of bluff. The new
residence also includes a cantilever portion of the structure at the second story level, which
cantilevers a maximum of 5 feet or 12.5% into the standard bluff setback of 40 feet.
Additionally, the project includes a request to exceed the standard height envelope and a
Variance of 16 feet of the 25-foot front yard setback and 4 feet of the 5-foot northern side
yard setback.
The project site does not currently provide access to the shore, and the project does not
propose any public access or public recreational facilities.
Discussion: With authorization to exceed the standard height envelope and to construct the
second story cantilever, and a Variance of 16 feet of the 25 foot front yard setback and 4
feet of the 5 foot northern side yard setback, the proposed project is in confonnance with
the development standards of the Municipal Code, the General Plan and the Local Coastal
Program. The project will not cause significant negative impacts to the surrounding area
and the project will not adversely impact public coastal access.
Public access or public recreational facilities are not feasible given the project site's
conditions as a blufftop residential erefore no condition requiring public access
is imposed with this approval. Public access to the shore is available in the vicinity with
Moonlight Beach and the Stone Steps stairway. Since there was not public access through
01-153 V/DR/CDP June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
10
the property prior to this application, the ability of the public to access the shore is not
adversely impacted with this application.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that 1) the project is consistent with the
certified Local Coastal Program of the City of Encinitas, 2) required finding No.2 is not
applicable since no significant adverse environmental impact is associated with the project,
and 3) the providing of public access or recreational facilities is not feasible or appropriate
for a project of this scale.
01-153 V/DR/CDP June 20,2002 (FINAL)
11
ATTACHMENT "B"
ResolutionNo. PC 2002 -25
Case No. 01-153VIDR/CDP
Applicant:
Larry and Corrine Simondes
Location:
518 Neptune Avenue
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
SCI
SCA North wall of garage shall be one hour construction with no openings,
vents, etc.
windows, doors,
Prior to issuance of a building pennit for the project, the applicant shall sllbmit a revised
site plan that clearly shows all property line dimensions, setbacks, topography contour lines
and off-site improvements of Neptune Avenue. The revised plan shalrbe in accordance with
this approval relative to approved setbacks..
SCC
Prior to issuance of a building pennit the project shall be reviewed and approved by City of
Encinitas Engineering for drainage and Best ManagementPractices.
This approval will expire on June 20, 2004 at
project, unless the conditions have been met
pursuant to the Municipal Code.
two years after the approval of this
an extension of time has been approved
SC5
This
conditionally approved as set forth on the application and Project drawings
of 7 sheets, including "1 Existing Condition Site Plan, Proposed Plan,
Vicinity Map and Project Data," "2 First ""3 Second Floor Plan," "4
" "5 East Elevation, South Elevation,
"7 Conceptual Landscape Plan," all dated April 1, and
of Encinitas on April 2, 2002; all designated as approved by the
June 20, 2002, and shall not be altered without express authorization
Development Department.
SC8
no irrigation system
watering
maintained on a the
the 40' bluff setback shall be done by hand via a hose. bib set
feet nom the bluff edge. However, a
safety valves and electronic control
breakage of water lines
Said system shall be
sufficient evidence is
one year, the
to establish initial
approval of the project. If
not fully established after
may be extended to ensure
20, 2002 (FINAL)
SC9
the proper establishment of the plantings. This condition supercedes the irrigation note on
the Conceptual Landscape Plan.
As agreed to by the applicant, no bluff protection for improvements within the standard 40
foot coastal bluff setback shall be authorized if said improvements are threatened in the
future. Additionally, the improvements shall be monitored and planned retreat of the minor
accessory structures shall occur with bluff erosion. When the bluff edge erodes to a point
which is within one foot of an improvement, affected improvements shall be removed, if
feasible or relocated eastward in 10 foot increments.
SC12 The following conditions shall be met to the satisfactionofthe San Dieguito Water District:
a.
The existing water meter shall be located outside of the proposed driveway. The
cost of relocation shall be the responsibilityofthe owner/developer.
b.
The developer shall comply with the District's fees, charges, rules and regulations.
SC 13 As agreed to by the applicant, the following design criteria shall be utilized as part of the
project and shall be clearly denoted on the building pennit plans:
Gl
a.
Exposed posts & beams at the entry veranda and second story porch shall be 10" x
1 0" wood with a stained sandblasted finish.
b.
Exposed rafter ends at the roof eaves shall be 4" x 6" wood flat with a stained
sandblasted finish.
c.
The roof material shall be two-piece terra cotta clay tiles.
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
CONTACT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):
G2
G3
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.
01-153 V/DR/CDP June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
13
G4
05
G7
013
014
G19
DRl
BL1
Prior to building pennit 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 fonD 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 Pennit
issuance unless specifically waived herein.
Prior to issuing a final inspection on framing, the
licensed surveyor or a registered civil
compliance with the approved plans.
licant shall provide a survey from a
ing that the building height is in
The applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include,
but not be limited to: Pennit 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 pennit 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 District(s)
regarding School Fees, the Fire Department regarding Fire MitigationiCostRecovery Fees,
and the applicable Utility Departments or Districts regarding Water and/or Sewer Fees.
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 of the
project.
Garages enclosing required parking spaces shall be kept available and useable for the
parking of owner/tenant vehicles at all times.
Any future modifications to the approved project will be reviewed relative to the findings
for substantial confonnance with a design review pennit contained in Section 23.08.140 of
the Municipal Code. Modifications beyond the scope described therein may require
submittal and approval of an amendment of the design review pennit by the authorized
agency.
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.
01~153 VIDRlCDP June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
14
BL3
BL4
Bl
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 perfonned 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.
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
within 15 working days after completion of the project. The project shall not be considered
complete (and thereby approved for use or occupancy) until the as-built report is received
and the content of the report is found acceptable by the Community Development and
Engineering Services Departments.
BUILDING CONDITION:
CONTACT THE ENCINITAS BUILDING DIVISION REGARDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):
B2R The applicant shall submit a complete set of construction plans to the Building Division for
plancheck processing. The submittal shall include a Soils/Geotechnical Report, structural
calculations, and State Energy compliance documentation (Title 24). Construction plans
shall include a site plan, a foundation plan, floor and roof framing plans, floor plan(s),
section details, exterior elevations, and materials specifications. Submitted plans must
show compliance with the latest adopted editions of the California Building Code (The
Uniform Building Code with California Amendments, the California Mechanical, Electrical
and Plumbing Codes. These comments are preliminary only. A comprehensive plancheck
will be completed prior to permit issuance and additional technical code requirements may
be identified and changes to the originally submitted plans may be required.
FI 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 height of the address
numbers shall conform to Fire Department Standards.
FI5A AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM - SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND
DUPLEXES: Structures shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system installed
to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system
shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to issuance of building pennits.
01-153 V/DRfCDP June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
15
FI8
CLASS "A" ROOF: All structures shall be provided with a Class "A" roof assembly to
the satisfaction of the Encinitas Fire Department.
EI
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
CONTACT THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):
REGARDING
All City Codes, regulations, and policies in effect at the time of building/grading pennit
issuance shall apply.
EGI
Grading Conditions
EG3
The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to the commencement of any clearing or
grading of the site.
EG5 No grading shall occur outside the limits of the project unless a letter of permission is
obtained from the owners of the affected properties.
EG6
A separate grading plan shall be submitted and approved and a separate grading pennit
issued for the borrow or disposal site iflocated within the city limits.
01~153 V/DRlCDP June 20, 2002 (FINAL)
16