1988-51
-
RESOLUTION NO. OE - 51
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
CITY OF ENCINITAS, APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, VARIANCE,
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
FOR TWO BLUFFTOP ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
LOCATED AT 430 NEPTUNE
(CASE NUMBER 88-270 DR/EIA AND 88-318V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Design Review
Permit, Variance, from required interior side yard setbacks and
Environmental Assessment was filed by Dominy Cecil Associates
to allow the construction of 2 bluff top attached single-family
homes for the property located at 430 Neptune Avenue, legally
described as;
A portion of Lot 6 in Block "c" of Seaside Gardens, according
to the map thereof, No. 1800, and a portion of Lot "B" of
Seaside Bluff, according to the map thereof, No. 1276 filed in
the office of the Recorder.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application
on October 20, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The Environmental Initial Assessment form completed
by staff and the Negative Declaration prepared; and
2. The geologic investigation report dated January 6,
1988 submitted with the application; and
3. The project model presented at the public hearing;
and
4. The staff report dated September 28, 1988; and
5. The applications, site plans, and statement of
justification submitted by the applicant; and
CC/02/CRO5-176wp 1(11-16-88-2)
6. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing; and
7. Written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board found
that the project will have no significant adverse impacts on
the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation
measures contained in the Negative Declaration for the project
and subject to the conditions of approval listed below, and
that the findings contained in attachment "A" can be made in
this instance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Design Review
application 88-270 DR and Variance Application 88-318V and the
associated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact 88-270
EIA are hereby approved subject to the following conditions
contained in Attachment "B".
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 1988, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Couglar, Hano, Kauflin, Stayaert, Tobias
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Harry Cougl ,Chairman
of Old Encinitas
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
~ ¿ --, /.,
- ,/ r->------ I ' . /-£-.~.-/\.A. ~-f:: / .--
-.6.
Tom Curriden .
Assistant Planner
CCj02jCRO5-176wp 2(11-16-88-2)
--
ATTACHMENT II A II
OLD ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. OE-51
CASE NO. 88-270DR
Findings For Design Review
(Section 23.08.076 Municipal Code)
23.08.072 Requlatorv Conclusions - Generally.
A. The project design is inconsistent with the
General Plan, a Specific Plan or the provisions of this
Code.
Evidence to Consider:
The proposed duplex is consistent with both the present
RV-ll zoning of the property and the Residential 8-11
dujacre designation on the Land Use Policy Map of the
City's Draft General Plan.
B. The project design is substantially inconsistent
with the Design Review Guidelines.
Evidence to Consider:
The proposal preserves some significant views enjoyed by
nearby properties to the full extent practical, reflects a
high quality of design appearance, takes into
consideration the privacy of occupants, preserves
significant existing landscape, and otherwise
substantially conforms with the City's adopted design
criteria.
C. The project would adversely affect the health,
safety or general welfare of the community.
Evidence to Consider:
The applicant has submitted investigation reports within
which a licensed engineering geologist states that the
structure will not be subject to or contribute to bluff
failure within its anticipated 75 year lifetime. Water
and sewer services will be provided to the property, and
there has been no other provided evidence to suggest that
the project would adversely effect public health, safety,
or welfare.
D. The project would tend to cause the surrounding
neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or
value.
CC/02/CRO5-176wp 3(11-16-88-2)
-
Evidence to Consider:
The proposal reflects a high quality of design appearance
and thus will not be materially detrimental to surrounding
properties.
E. That the project is compatible in structural
size (bulk and mass) to adjacent properties and
neighborhood;
F. There is reasonable probability that the land
use and design proposed will be consistent with the
General Plan proposal being considered or studied since
the proposed General Plan is consistent with the currently
adopted General Plan.
G. There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future adopted
General Plan if the proposed design is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan, since the project is allowed
by the proposed General Plan.
Findings for a Variance
(Section 30.78.030 Municipal Code)
A. A variance from the terms of the zoning ordinances 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 ordinance deprives such property
of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity
and under identical zoning classification.
Evidence to Consider:
The evidence submitted indicates that nearly all of the
bluff top lots in three block vicinity of the subject
property are of the 40 ft. width typical to the Seaside
Gardens subdivision. The single family homes and duplexes
which are built on these lots thus enj oy a 30ft. wide
building envelope once the interior side yard setbacks are
observed. The variance would allow the subject homes to
be a maximum 25 ft. and 24.5 ft. wide respectively, as
opposed to the 19.6 and 20 ft. widths allowable without
the variance.
B. Any variance granted shall be subj ect 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 vicinity
and zone in which such property is situated.
Evidence to Consider: The fact that the subject property
is comprised of two 30 ft. wide legal lots makes them
atypical of other bluff top lots and thus granting a
CC/02/CRO5-176wp 4(11-16-88-2)
variance would not be a "grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties"
in the same vicinity and zone.
C. A variance will not be granted for a parcel of property
which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorizes a use or activity which is not
otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulation
governing the parcel of property. The provisions of this
section shall not apply to conditional use permits.
Evidence to Consider: Use of the lots for single family
residential development is authorized under City zoning
regulations.
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;
2. 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; or
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of
any private or public nuisance.
Evidence to Consider:
(1) The "privilege enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity", namely a building envelope wider than 20
ft., cannot be attained by an alternate development
plan;.
(2) The inability to enjoy the wider envelope typical of
the area is primarily the result of the original
subdivision design and the fact that the property
straddles the boundary of two older subdivisions, not
the result of an action of the applicant or
applicant's predecessor;.
(3) The proposed variance would not authorize such a
degree of variation as to constitute a rezoning or
amendment to the zoning code;
(4) The proposed variance would not authorize or legalize
the maintenance of any private or public nuisance.
CC/02/CRO5-176wp 5(11-16-88-2)
ATTACHMENT II B II
RESOLUTION NO. OE-51
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Subject: Design Review for 2 attached bluff top
single family homes
Applicant: Dominy Cecil Associates
Location: 430 Neptune Avenue
Case No.: 88-270 DR
CITY OF ENCINITAS
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. A Coastal Permit or finding of exemption must be
obtained from the California Coastal Commission prior
to building permit issuance.
B. Prior to final occupancy, the City shall be provided
a waiver agreement by the property owner and
appl icant of all claims against the City for future
liability or damage resulting from permission to
build. All such waivers shall be acknowledged and
recorded in the Office of the County Recorder.
C. Prior to final occupancy, the owner shall provide the
City with a satisfactory recordable easement granting
access to any beach areas which are presently
accessible to the public and which may be blocked as
a result of this development. This condition is to
be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development.
D. Prior to final occupancy, the owner shall provide the
City with a recorded covenant precluding any
construction of any structure on the bluff face or at
the toe of the bluff or within any area between the
top of the bluff and that distance as specified in
development regulations.
E. No new structures, walls, or other facilities shall
be allowed on the face of a bluff. (Exceptions may
be granted for emergency situations as determined by
the Community Development Director).
F. Nothing in this permit shall relieve the applicant
from complying with the conditions and regulations
CC/02/CRO5-176wp 6(11-16-88-2)
CASE NO. 88-270 DR
generally imposed upon activities similar in nature
to the activity authorized by this permit;
G. Nothing in this permit shall authorize the applicant
to intensify the authorized activity beyond that
which is specifically described in this permit; and
H. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance
with any sections of the Zoning Development Code and
all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the
time of Building Permit issuance.
I. The appl icant shall comply with the latest adopted
Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code,
Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code,
Uniform Fire Code, and all other applicable codes and
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit
issuance.
J. This approval shall become null and void if building
permits are not issued for this project within two
years from the date of project approval.
K. Prior to issuing a final inspection on framing, the
applicant shall provide a survey from a civil
engineer verifying the building height is in
compliance with the design review permit.
L. Project is approved as modified and shall not be
altered without Old Encinitas Community Advisory
Board review and approval.
M. Any damage caused to existing public facilities shall
be repaired "in kind" to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Department prior to final occupancy.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2. SITE DEVELOPMENT
A. Revised site plans and building elevations
incorporating all conditions of approval shall be
submitted to and found satisfactorily by the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of
building permits.
B. Prior to any use of the project site or bus iness
activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of
approval contained herein shall be completed to the
CC/02/CRO5-176wp 7(11-16-88-2)
CASE NO. 88-270 DR
satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development.
C. For new residential dwelling unites), the applicant
shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but not be limited to: Permit
and Plan Checking Fees, School Fees, Water and Sewer
Service Fees, Traffic Fees, Drainage Fees, and Park
Fees. Arrangements to pay these fees shall be made
prior to building permit issuance.
D. Building elevations materials and color are approved
as submitted, subject to the following modifications:
i. That the east elevation of the northerly
building over the garage have some relief in the
stucco and that the corner windows be enlarged
and carried around further along the east
(front) wall.
E. Owner(s) shall enter into a covenant waiving any
claims of liability against the City and agree(s) 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.
F. That a plan be submitted for approval by the Director
of Planning and Community Development and the
Encinitas Fire Protection District regarding the
treatment of the site during the construction phase,
and the circulation and parking of construction
workers' vehicles and any heavy equipment needed for
the construction of the project.
3. LANDSCAPING
A. The landscape plan shall meet the standards of the
Zoning Ordinance, Grading Ordinance and off street
Parking Design Manual and is approved as submitted
subject to the following modifications:
i. An alternative species be substituted for the
proposed Melaleuca in the parkway area.
B. All required plantings shall be in place prior to use
or occupancy of new buildings or structures. All
required plantings shall be maintained in good
growing conditions, and whenever necessary, shall be
replaced with new plant materials to ensure continued
compliance with applicable landscaping, buffering,
and screening requirements. All landscaping shall
be maintained in a manner that will not depreciate
CCj02jCRO5-176wp 8(11-16-88-2)
CASE NO. 88-270 DR
adjacent property values and otherwise adversely
affect adjacent properties.
C. The landscaping shall be well maintained at all
times.
D. The conventional irrigation system shall be replaced
with the drip system at the westerly half of the
property.
E. No irrigation or vegetation shall be installed on or
adjacent to the bluff face.
F. The ivy shall be replaced with suitable drought-
tolerant plant material.
G. Landscaping shall be maintained in such a way so view
corridors are not blocked.
4. GRADING
A. Grading of the subject property shall be in
accordance with the Grading Ordinance.
B. No grading, scraping, or removal of vegetation shall
be allowed on a bluff face or within 40 feet of the
top edge of a bluff.
C. No grading, or removal or deposit of material shall
take place except pursuant to a grading permit issued
by the City Engineer in connection with a building
permit; or where no structure is involved; or
pursuant to an application to the Community
Development Department, that has been approved by the
Director, to do minor grading, where no grading
permit is required.
D. The grading plan shall incorporate drainage
provisions into site development to prevent run-off
from gaining access to the bluffs and shall be
constructed so as to allow drainage to the street.
E. A soils/geological/hydraulic report shall be prepared
by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of
California to perform such work to be found
satisfactory by the City Engineer prior to building
permit issuance.
F. The final grading plan shall be subject to review
and approval by the Public Works Department and shall
be completed prior to recordation of the final
subdivision map or issuance of building permit,
whichever comes first.
CC/02/CRO5-176wp 9(11-16-88-2)
CASE NO. 88-270 DR
5. DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL
A. A drainage system capable of handling and disposing
of all surface water originating within the
subdivision, and all surface waters that may flow
onto the subdivision from adjacent lands, shall be
required. Said drainage system shall include any
easements and structures as required by the Director
of Public Works to properly handle the drainage.
B. The applicant shall submit a drainage study showing
surface flows on the property and the impact, if any,
on adjacent properties.
CC/02/CRO5-176wp 10(11-16-88-2)