1992-27649611
2
O
3
t~
J 4
5
8
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COUNT PAPER
hers er uure."u
fW. IU MIX. •rL
01,
a ~arEatie a aomi~rK wlea lntE
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: S 36
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ~K DOC 1992-0276496
631 HOWARD STREET, FOURTH FLOOR p7-MAY-1992 0257 PM
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
OFFICIAL RECORDS
SAN DIE60 COUNTY I
ANNETTE EYANS, I
RF1 41.00
AFt 77.00
IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO DEDICATE Ff~ TITLE 1.00
THIS IRREVOCABLE OFFER AND DEDICATION OF FEE TITLE (hereinafter
"Offer") is made this (1)fifteenth day of April , 1992 , by
@@eder/Encinitas, Ltd., a Calif
1 Limited PartnarchiL (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor").
1. WHEREAS, Grantor is the legal owner of a fee interest of certain
real properties located in the County of (3) San Diego
State of California and described in the attached Exhibit A (4)
(hereinafter referred to as the "Property") and
IT.
WHEREAS, all of the Property is located within the coastal zone
as defined in Section 30103 of the California Public Resources Code (which
code is hereinafter referred to as the "Public Resources Code"); and
III.
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Act of 1976, (hereinafter referred
to as the "Act") creates the California Coastal Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the "Commission") and requires that any development approved
by the Commission must be consistent with the policies of the Act set forth
in Chapter 3 of Division 20 of the Public Resources Code; and
IV
for a permit to undertake development as defined in the Act within the
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the Act, Grantor applied to the Commission
coastal zone of (5) San Diego County (hereinafter the
"Permit"); and
WHEREAS, a coastal development permit, No. (6) 6-90-226
was granted on (7) February 5 , 1991 , by the Commission
in accordance with the provisions of the Staff Recommendations and Findings
(8) (Exhibit B) attached hereto and hereby incorporated by reference,
l , ssw.,r
~I
q
1
2
3
4
5
61
7
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
:unrrerae
.n er uune
ro. 11" sear. e.7
au
we
.2
subject to the following condition(s):
(9)
(See condition at page 2A of this document)
9,
10
11
12
13
14
WHEREAS, the Commission, acting on behalf of the People of the
State of California and pursuant to the Act, granted the Permit to the
Grantor upon condition (hereinafter the "Condition) requiring inter alia
that the Grantor record an irrevocable offer to dedicate the Property in fee
so as to prevent the adverse direct and cumulative effects on coastal
resources and public access to the coast which could occur if the Property
were not restricted in accordance with this Offer; and
VII. WHEREAS, the Commission has placed the Condition on the permit
because a finding must be made under Public Resources Code Section 30604(a)
that the proposed development is in conformity with the provisions of
il~
838
-2A-
SPECIAL CONDITION I.A.
1. Treatment of Remainder Parcel- The remainder parcel shall
be treated in one of the following two alternative ways:
Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the
applicant shall record irrevocable offers to dedicate to a public
agency, or to a private association acceptable to the Executive
Director, fee title for open space purposes AND an open space
easement over the entire remainder space parcel, excepting the
access road (Colony Terrace), approved under this permit, and
excepting vegetation removal for brush management purposes,
approved under Special Condition $5 of this permit. The recording
document shall include legal descriptions of both the applicant's
entire ownership and the remainder parcel which is the subject of
this fee/easement dedication.
The offer shall be irrevocable for a period of 21 years, shall run
in favor of the People of the State of California, binding
successors and assigns of the applicant and/or landowners, and
shall be recorded prior to all other liens and encumbrances, except
tax liens. The offer to dedicate shall be in a form and content
acceptable to the Executive Director.
OR
B. (NOTE: Special Condition I.E. was not selected, hence it is
not recited here.)
T 1
,
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
839
Chapter 3 of the Act and that in the absence of the protections provided by
the Condition, said finding could not be made; and
VIII. WHEREAS, Grantor has elected to comply with the Condition and
execute this Offer so as to enable Grantor to undertake the development
authorized by the Permit; and
IX. WHEREAS, it is intended that this offer is irrevocable and shall
constitute enforceable restrictions within the meaning of Article XIII',
Section 8 of the California Constitution and that said Offer when accepted
shall thereby qualify as an enforceable restriction under the provision of
the California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 402.1;
NOW, THEREFORE; in consideration of the above and the mutual
benefit and conditions set forth herein, the substantial public benefits
for the protection of coastal resources to be derived, and the issuance of
the Permit to the owner by the Commission, Grantor hereby irrevocably
offers to dedicate to the State of California, a political subdivision
thereof, or a private association acceptable to the Executive Director of
the Commission (hereinafter, the "Grantee"), fee title to the Property
specifically described in Exhibit A.
(1) BENEFIT AND BURDEN. This offer shall run with and-burden the
Property, and all obligations, terms, conditions, and restrictions hereby
imposed shall be deemed to be covenants and restrictions running with the
land and shall be effective limitations on the use of the Property from the
date of recordation of this document and shall bind the Grantor and all
successors and assigns for a period of twenty-one (21) years.
(2) CONSTRUCTION OF VALIDITY. If any provision of this
instrument is held to be invalid or for any reason becomes unenforceable,
no other provision shall be thereby affected or impaired.
PAPlO
11i ub. ,na,
' i!r
Ai
i
r
`r
v
tea- ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
--PAPER
11W MWrv ffl*
N~
-4-
840
(3) TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS. Grantor agrees to pay or cause to be
paid all real property taxes and assessments levied or assessed against the
Property until accepted.
(4) SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. The terms, covenants, conditions,
exceptions, obligations, and reservations contained in this Offer shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of both
the Grantor and the Grantee, whether voluntary or involuntary.
(5) TERM. This irrevocable offer of dedication shall be binding
upon the owner and the heirs, assigns, or successors in interest to the
Property described above for a period of twenty-one (21) years. Upon
recordation of an acceptance of this offer by the grantee in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit C, this offer shall have the effect of granting
fee title to the grantee of the Property.
Acceptance of the offer is subject to a covenant which runs with
the land, providing that any offeree to accept the easement may not abandon
it but must instead offer the easement to other public agencies or private
associations acceptable to the Executive Director of the Connission for the
duration of the term of the original offer to dedicate. The grant of
easement once made shall run with the land and shall be binding on the
owners, their heirs, and assigns.
w
it -5-
841
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
CORPOR
State f~l
Count
Executed on this fifteenth day of April, 1992 a
San Diego , Cal iforni
Dated: April 15, 1992 Si
P, 12pment, Inc.,
rtn
Genera er of
~~t-I#T--0RTW+E~IAME-A894E
Reeder/Encinitas, Ltd.
PRINT OR TYPE NAME ABOVE
NOTE TO NOTARY PUBLIC:
If your are notarizing the signatures of anyone signing on behalf of a
trust, corporation, partnership, etc., please use the correct notary jurat
(acknowledgment) as explained in your Notary Law Book.
.,STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
ATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
xo.
If Onlhistho/'5- deyof _JlPr/l In9Ieforeme,
55.
rof
the undersi ned ota Public ersonall a -eared
~ OFFICIALSEAL
IfT
' ~ MSAARN JOOaRGIE O EC. GOAUWNIy
9 ry p //y p
(de~,,Qr~~~P~IPr 1,
personally known to me
O proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) who executed the within Instrument as
Pasch rF or on behalf of the corporation therein
named, and acknowledged to me that the corporation executed It.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
( _ n D„ 1
5
27
COURY PAPfa
sm [[t ve[ns
fTO. 113 'A 11[v. 6.72.
[n
STATE
ASSOCUign. TJmt vwui. aw..
l-
4
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
eRt►A/eR
113 I4N. 6•111
M
.b-
842
This is to certify that the offer of dedication set forth above dated
April 15, 1992 , 19_, and signed by Reeder/Encinitas. Ltd. a
California Limeited Partnership , owner(s), is hereby acknowledged by the
undersigned officer on behalf of the California Coastal Commission pursuant
to authority conferred by the California Coastal Commission when it granted
Coastal Development No. 6-90-226 on February 5, 1991 and the
California Coastal Commission consents to recordation thereof by its duly
authorized officer.
Dated:
L
Eovers.~Staff'Connsel
California Coastal Commission
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF San Francisco
On 5 l y l i before me, Deborah L. Bove A Notary
Public personally appeared John Bowers personally
known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my band and official seal.
4:!t~ i Signature me] i
iE]
i
4
7-
843
Legal Description of Applicant's Property
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 9729, in the City of Encinitas, County
of San Diego, State of California, as filed In the Office of the
County Recorder of said San Diego County, February 22, 1980.
Excepting therefrom the following described portion:
Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of Parcel 2 of said Parcel
Map No. 9729; thence along the Northerly line thereof North 72
25149" West, 212.65 feet to the Northwesterly corner of said Parcel
2; thence leaving said line, North 15 45000" East, 60.00 feet;
thence South 72 25149" East, 212.65 feet to an angle point in the
boundary of said parcel; thence South 15 45100" West, 60.00 feet to
the Point of Beginning.
Said property is also known as Lots 1 through 13, inclusive, and
remainder parcel as shown on Map No. TM 88-231 of the City of
Encinitas.
Ex{i a ►T B
>'F Cr ia.a::va .•nt Lkl:"~itf a.;t•+Ce 844
- Pete Wilson CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
a0.; re. ScnF t13 4-2
NC : to
SAN C.E 7J ca, .'cs 3520 .e:= r•::,a Staff: WNP-SD
I~
Staff Report: 4/24/91
Hearing Date: 5/7-10/91
REVISED FINDINGS
Application No.: 6-90-226
Applicant: Reeder Development Agent: Nancy Lucast
Description: Subdivision of 13 lots and remainder parcel. Improvements
include construction of 11 single family homes on 11 lots (.5
acre minimum). The proposed single family dwellings are
two-story, and range in size from 3,222 sq.ft. to 3,735 sq.ft.
Improvements include grading (4,900 cu.yd. cut, and 6,900 cu.yd.
fill) of 11 lots, extension and improvements to private road,
interior street, utilities and Manchester Ave, improvements
along the project frontage.
Lot Area 14.87 acres + 3.5 ac. remainder parcel
Zoning RR-2
Plan Designation Rural Residential 2 dua
Project Density .71 dua
Site: Manchester Avenue, 700 feet southwest of Encinitas Blvd,
Encinitas, San Diego County. APN 259-190-83, 259-210-16
Substantive File Documents: Certified County of San Diego Local Coastal
Program; draft City of Encinitas LCP Land Use Plan; City of
Encinitas Tentative Subdivision Map (88-231-TM/EIA).
Date of Ccmmission Action: February 5, 1991
Commissioners on Prevailing Side: Cervantes, Franco, Giacomini, MacElvaine,
Glickfeld, Malcolm, McInnis, Gywn, Rynerson, and Wright
SUmmarV of Commission Action: The staff recommends that the Commission adopt
the following revised findings in support of the Commission's action to modify
conditional language regarding the "remainder° parcel.
FINDINGS:
Ihp. staff recommends 'the Commission adopt the following resolution:
1. Approval with Conditions.
i,
845
6 40-'1.26, Revised Findings
Page, 2
the Commission hereby grants a permit for the proposed development, subject to
the conditions below, on the grounds that the development will be in
conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of
1916, will not prejudice the ability of the local government having
jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal Program conforming to
the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and will not have any
significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
It. Standard Conditions.
See attached page.
III. Special Conditions.
The permit is subject to the following conditions:
1. Treatment of Remainder Parcel. The remainder parcel shall be treated
in one of the fo lowtng too alternative ways:
A. Open Space Dedication and Deed Restriction over Entire Remainder Parcel.
Prior to the issuance of the coastal developmeot permit, the applicant shall
record a restriction against the subject property, free of all prior liens and
encumbrances, except for tax liens, and binding on the permittee's successors
in interest and any subsequent purchasers of any portion of the real
property. The restriction shall prohibit any alteration of landforms, removal
of existing vegetation or the erection of structures of any type on the entire
3.5 acre remainder parcel, except that portion of the existing access road to
be improved under this permit, as said restriction area is shown on Exhibit
"Y" attached hereto. Limited vegetation removal for brush management purposes
may occur if approved under Special Condition #5 attached to this permit. The
recording document shall include legal descriptions of both the applicant's
entire parcel and the restricted area, shall be in a form and content
acceptable to the Executive Director, and may be combined with the deed
restriction required in Special Condition #2, below. Evidence of such action
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Executive Director.
AND
Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall
record irrevocable offers to dedicate to a public agency, or to a private
association acceptable to the Executive Director, fee title for open space
purposes AND an open space easement over the entire remainder space parcel,
excepting the access road (Colony Terrace), approved under this permit, and
excepting vegetation removal for brush management purposes, approved under
Special Condition 95 of this permit. The recording document shall include
legal descriptions of both the applicant's entire ownership and the remainder
parcel which is the subject of this fee/easement dedication.
the offer shall he irrevocable for a period of 21 year;, shall run in favor of
tiw Penple of the State of C.ilifornfa, binding successors and assigns of the
applirant and/or landowner;, and Shall he rpcnrdod Prior to all other lien,
i.
l 1
I
~SS
1
c
R'
113
0
j~
846
6 90 -226, Revised 'Findings
Page 3
add encumbrances, except tax liens. The offer to dedicate shall he in a form
and content acceptable to the Executive Director.
OR
8. Certificate of Compliance/Open Sae Deed Restriction 011er Steel) Slopes
Remainder Parcel. Prior to the issuance of the coasts development permit,
the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director, for written review and
approval, a Certificate of Compliance approved by the City of Encinitas,
certifying that the remainder parcel is a legal lot under Subdivision a. of
Government Code Section 66499.35.
AND
Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall
record a restriction against the subject property, free of all prior liens and
encumbrances, except for tax liens, and binding on the permittee's successors
in interest and any subsequent purchasers of any portion of the real
property. The restriction shall prohibit any alteration of landforms, removal
of existing vegetation or the erection of structures of any type in the area
shown on Exhibit 'Z' attached hereto, and generally described as those
portions of the remainder parcel containing natural slopes of 25% gradient or
steeper where no disturbance is proposed and where limited vegetation removal
for brush management purposes may occur if approved under Special Condition #5
attached to this permit. The recording document shall include legal
descriptions of both the applicant's entire parcel and the restricted area,
shall be in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, and may
be combined with the deed restriction required in Special Condition ,#2,
below. Evidence of such action shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Executive Director.
2. Open Space Deed Restriction. Prior to the issuance of the coastal
development permit, the applicant shall record a restriction against the
subject prcperty, free of all prior liens and encumbrances, except for tax
liens, and binding on the permittee's successors in interest and any
subsequent purchasers of any portion of the real property. The restriction
shall prohibit any alteration of landforms, removal of existing vegetation ar
the erection of structures of any type in the area shown on the attached
Exhibit 'Y' if Special Condition IA, above, is selected or Exhibit 'Z', if
Special Condition 18, above, is selected, and generally described as those
portions of the individual Lots 6, 12 and 13, and the proposed remainder
parcel, where no disturbance is proposed, except for the sewer lateral herein
approved, and where limited vegetation removal for brush management purposes
may occur if approved under Special Condition p5 attached to this permit. The
recording document shall include legal descriptions of both the applicant's
entire parcel and the restricted area to protect steep slopes and native
vegetation, and shall be in a form and content acceptable to the Executive
W rector. Evidence of such action shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Executive Director..
3. Gradlpg(LCosion Control. Prior to the issuance of the coastal
development permit, the at•plir.ant Shall submit to the Executive Director for
review and written apprnvat, final Site, grading and erosion control plans
approved by the Uty which intnrpnraU' the following requiremenis:
1
l_
847
6 90 926, Revised findings
Page a
a. All grading activity shall be prohibited between October 1st and April
1st of any year. Prior to commencement of any grading activity, the
permittee shalt submit a grading schedule which indicates that grading
will be completed within the permitted time frame designated in this
condition and that any variation from the schedule shall be promptly
reported to the Executive Director.
b. All areas disturbed by grading and sewer installation shall be planted
within 60 days of the initial disturbance and prior to October 1st with
temporary or permanent (in the case of finished slopes) erosion control
methods. Said planting shall be accomplished under the supervision of a
licensed landscape architect, shall provide adequate coverage within 90
days, and shall utilize vegetation of species compatible with surrounding
native vegetation, subject to Executive Director approval.
c. All permanent runoff and erosion control devices shall be
developed and installed prior to or concurrent with arty on-site grading
activities.
4. Runoff Control. Prior to the issuance of a coastal development permit,
the applicant shall submit a runoff control plan designed by a licensed
engineer qualified in hydrology and hydraulics, which would assure no increase
in peak runoff rate from the developed site as a result of a ten-year
frequency storm over a six-hour duration (10 year, 6 hour rainstorm). Runoff
control shall be accomplished by such means as on-site detentionldesilting
basins, if required. Energy dissipating measures at the terminus of outflow
drains shall be constructed. The runoff control plan including supporting
calculations shall be submitted to and. determined adequate in writing by the
Executive Director.
5. Brush Management Program. Prior to the issuance of the coastal
development permit, the applicant shall submit for the review and approval in
:,ri!ing of the Executive Director, a brush management program for lots 6, 12
and 13, consistent with that approved by the City of Encinitas Fire and
Planning Departments. The plan shall include a site plan showing a
one-hundred foot distance beyond all planned structures, designating those
areas subject to clear-cut vegetation removal for fire protection purposes,
and all those areas subject to selective thinning and pruning. Said program
shall indicate that no clear-cut vegetation removal for brush management
purposes shall be permitted within adjacent open space areas. Therefore this
program shall establish a minimum 30 foot setback for residential structures
from open space areas. The approved clearing shall be conducted entirely by
cranual means and shalt be the absolute minimum for reduction of fire hazards.
A greater than 30 foot setback may be required if the fire Dept. indicates
substantial clearing is necessary within the 30 ft. to 100 ft. setback area,
sr:bject to Executive Director discretion. The requirements of the brush
management program shall he recorded as a deed restriction against each lot
affected by the brush management program, pursuant to Condition #6 of this
permit.
f,. Residpntiai,r,nnstrnr.tion. Prior to isSuanre of the coastal development
permit, the applicant shall rerard a deed restriction, in a farm and ronipnt
arc rplable to the lxpnrtive pirrclor, prior to all liens and encumbrances and
i
ti
i
r i
:fl
im
p
848
6 90.226, Revised Findings
Page 5
binding on the applicant and any successors in interest. The restriction in
subsection (a) shall be recorded against lots 6, 12 and 13. subsection (b)
applies to lots 12 and 13 only. The recorded document shall provide the
following:
a. Building setback and brush management practices on these lots are
limited, pursuant to Coastal Development Permit No. 6-90-226 on file in the
Coastal Commission office. The specific restrictions shall also be recorded,
with exhibits of required setbacks, pursuant to Condition #5 of this permit.
b. Building colors and materials are limited to earth tones, including
deep shades of green, brown and grey, with no white or light shades, and no
bright tones, except as minor accents, to minimize the residential
development's contrast with the surrounding hillsides and open space areas.
1. Final Building and Road Improvement Plans. Prior to the issuance of
the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit to the Executive
Director for review and written approval, final plans, approved by the City of
Encinitas, for the residences proposed on Lots 1 through 11. Plans for
improvements to Coloy Terrace Drive, extending from Manchester Ave. to the end
of the access easement shall also be submitted. Said plans shall be
accompanied by a slope analysis and vegetation survey for the remainder
parcel. No encroachment on naturally vegetated steep slope areas, associated
with the access road improvements, is herein permitted. If, after submittal
of a slope analysis for the remainder parcel and determination of the design
of the easement turn around, it is determined that encroachment on steep
slopes is proposed, an amendment to this coastal development permit shall be
required.
S. Future Development. This permit is for a 13 lot subdivision, grading
of building pads and construction of residences on lots I through 11, private
road improvements and improvements along the Manchester Ave. frontage. All
other development proposals for the site, including, but not limited to,
future residential construction on Lots 12 and 13, shall require review and
approval by the Coastal Commission, or its successor in interest, under a
separate coastal development permit. A revised tentative map resulting in
more than 13 lots shall require an amendment or new coastal development
permit.
9. Revised Landscaping Plan. Prior to the issuance of the coastal
development permit, the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan
indicating the type, size, extent and location of all plant materials, the
proposed irrigation system and other landscape features. Native and
naturalizing drought tolerant plant materials shall be utilized to the maximum
extent feasible. Special emphasis shall be placed on the treatment of
;greening the development from views from Manchester Ave., and blending the
dovelopment with the neighboring vegetation on the hillsides. Said plan shall
be submitted to, reviewed and approved in writing by the Executive Director,
in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game.
ly. Findi Uj and Decla rations.
i
i
849
6-110.226, !revised Findings
Page 6
The Commission finds and declSres as follows:
1. Detailed Protect Description. Proposed is a 13 lot subdivision on
approximately 15 acres and a 3.5 acre remainder parcel. The subject site is
located on the northwest side of Manchester Ave., about 700 feet southwest of
the intersection of Manchester Avenue and Encinitas Boulevard in the City of
Encinitas. Improvements include construction of 11 single family homes on 11
lots (.5 acre minimum) clustered in the relatively flat, previously disturbed,
southern portion of the property near Manchester Avenue, a major public
street. The proposed single family dwellings are tws-story, and range in size
from 3,222 sq.ft. to 3,735 sq.ft.
Proposed Lots 12 and 13 and the remainder parcel are located on an escarpment
on the northern part of the property and contain large areas of steep (greater
than 25% slopes), naturally-vegetated hillsides. No residential development
is proposed on these lots at this time, although an existing single family
residence and garage on lot 12 will be demolished. Lots 12 and 13 and the
remainder parcel are 3-4 acres in size.
Access to Lots 1-11•are by way of Pine Street, an interior street taking
access from Manchester Ave. and resulting from this subdivision. Access to
first the remainder parcel and then hillside Lots 12 and 13 are by way of
Colony Terrace Drive, an existing, paved private road extending from
Manchester Ave. via a driveway located one parcel west of the subject
property. A 40 ft, wide access easement through the remainder parcel and Lots
12 and 13 is proposed to accommodate Colony Terrace Drive improvements, which
are, paved road improvements to a 20 ft. width for the entire length, from Lot
13 to.Manchester Ave. Approximately 4,900 cubic yards of cut and 6,900 cubic
yards of fill is proposed for development of Lots 1 through 11. Off site
street improvements along the Manchester Avenue frontage are also proposed.
The southerly portion of the property, near Manchester Avenue, where Lots 1-11
are proposed, was formerly a Christmas tree farm and has been recently
disturbed by the clearing of the trees (this was done prior to the applicant
buying the property). in this area the site slopes up at about a 10% grade
from Manchester to the toe of the natural slopes that define the southern
boundaries of lots 12 and 13 and the remainder parcel. All proposed
development on lots 1-11 would be sited upon these relatively level, disturbed
areas with grading required to construct building pads on these lots.
The City of Encinitas is requiring that the applicant record an irrevocable
offer to dedicate an open space easement over the steep slopes of lots 12 and
13. A six inch sewer lateral will be required to serve residential
development on Lots 12 and 13. The sewer lateral will cross the steep slopes,
and will extend for a 300 ft. length from the cui-de-sac of Pine Crest Drive,
between Lots 6 and 7, to the eastern terminus of Colony Terrace Drive between
Lots 12 and 13. The City is also requiring an environmental monitoring
rrogram on these lots, developed in consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Game, requiring future lot owners on Lots 12 Ind 13 to
install and maintain "cater guiders" to serve local wildlife water needs.
As mentioned, l.ot 12 presrnthy contains a single family dwelling that is
arrr•.•.ed by Colony W rare Ilrivr, a liriv:ile street. Thr huilding site for lot
1~:
6 90-226, Revised Findings
Page 1
13 lies adjacent to the east of the building site for Lot 12 and is proposed
on the flat portion of the knoll that comprises the buildable areas for Lots
12 and 13. No residential structures are proposed on these lots with this
application, and future residential construction will require a separate
coastal development permit, subject to any lot development restrictions
established herein.
The "remainder" parcel contains steep, naturally-vegetated slopes and,
although not stated by the City as part of the subdivision, appears on the
tentative map. Because it is a contiguous area under the same ownership as
the subject subdivision (adjoins Lot 12), it is shown on the map as required
under the Subdivision Map Act. The area encompassing the proposed remainder
parcel is shown as part of the larger 14.87 parcel in past Commission action
on the subject property (CDP# F8551). There is no record of any subsequent
Commission action creating the proposed remainder parcel as a separate legal
parcel.
The site is located within the Coastal Resource Protection (CRP) overlay zone
as identified by the County of San Diego's certified LCP. The site is
currently zoned RR-2 by the City, and is planned for residential development
at densities not to exceed two dwelling units per acre. The site is bounded
on the south by Manchester Avenue, to the east by an office park, to the west
by single family residences and by vacant land to the north.
2. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat. Section 30240(b) of the Act is
applicable to the proposed project and states, in part:
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be
protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only
uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive
habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed
to prevent impacts which :could significantly degrade such areas, and shall
be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas.
Section 30231 states:
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams,
wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations
of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be
maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means,
minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment,
controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and
substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water
reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect
riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.
Section 30253 of the Act states, in part:
New development shall:
851
6 90226, Revised Finding:
Page 8
(2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither
create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or
destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the
construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural
landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
Finally, Section 30251 cans for the preservation of the scenit and visual
quality of coastal areas through minimizing the alteration of natural
landforms.
The site of the proposed development is located on the north side of
Manchester Avenue near its intersection with Encinitas Blvd. Escondido Creek
lies to the south and west of the project site, and is located downstream of
the site. This creek and its floodplain drain directly to the San Elijo
Lagoon, one of the 19 "high priority" wetlands identified by the Department of
Fish and Game.
The site's proximity to the floodplain of this creek and the lagoon area and
the potential for sedimentation impacts to the lagoon resulting from upstream
construction has resulted in the application of the Coastal Resource
Protection (CRP) Area overlay identified in the certified County LCP to the
project site. Due to the location of the site and the recognized problems of
steep slope development upland from the lagoon, the grading of slopes in
excess of 25% could result in significant sedimentation impacts to the
downstream wetland resources. Grading on steep slopes, vegetation removal,
and the alteration of natural landforms all raise the potential of significant
on-site and off-site erosion resulting from the project's implementation and
subsequent off-site sedimentation impacts, inconsistent with Coastal'Act
policy. The certified County LCP is used for guidance in review of
development proposals in this area, until the City has a certified LCP
document.
Policy 5951 of the Coastal Resource Protection Area regulations read:
Steep Slope. No development, grading, planting, excavation, deposit of
soil or other material, or removal of natural vegetation, except as may be
necessary for fire safety or installation of utility lines, shall be
permitted on steep natural slopes of 25% grade or greater. This standard
may be modified only to the extent that its strict application would
preclude the minimum reasonable use of a property, as defined herein;
provided that such a modification is consistent with the other provisions
of this section and that clustering, setback variances, and other
appropriate techniques have been utilized to the maximum extent feasible
in order to avoid or minimize alteration of such natural steep slopes. No
alteration of such natural steep slopes shall be permitted in order to
obtain use of a property in excess of the minimum reasonable use. For
purposes of this provision the term "minimum reasonable use" shall mean a
minimum of one (1) dwelling unit per acre. Any encroachment into steep
slope areas over 25% shall not exceed 10% of the steep slope area over 25%
grade....
4111ilp Lots 1 11 are proposed on the gently sloping portion of the properly,
jot.,. 12. 13 and the prnpn;ed rrmainder parcel arp romprispd of Stepp, slnpinq,
852
6 .90 226, Revised Findings
Page 9
hillside terrain; therefore, over 41% of the subject site (excludirg the
remainder parcel), is comprised of slopes in excess of 255 grade.
The City of Encinitas has approved a tentative map for this project and has
placed restrictions upon the subdivision. The proposed subdivision does not
propose any grading on slopes greater than 25%, either vegetated or previously
disturbed, for either residential construction or access improvements. Minor
encroachment will be required for the installation of a sewer lateral to serve
Lots 12 and 13. Moreover, it appears the City attempted to minimize future
encroachments onto steeply sloping areas of Lots 12 and 13 by configuring the
lot lines to accommodate clustering of these two building sites.
Remainder Parcel/Open Space
The 3.5 acre "remainder" parcel contains naturally-vegetated steep slopes and,
although not approved by the City as a building site, appears on the tentative
map as part of the subdivision. This is so because it is a contiguous parcel
under the same ownership as the subject subdivision (adjoins Lot 12), and
therefore is shown on the map as required under the Subdivision Map Act.
Apparently, the applicant proposed to develop the remainder parcel at one time
but was informed by the City that an existing cemetery near it was in
consideration for "historical" status and that development of the remainder
parcel would consequently be required to undergo further environmental review
(resulting in discouraging the applicant from pursuing its development
potential).
It appears that the remainder parcel does not have standing as a legal,
buildable lot. At this writing the applicant has not adequately demonstrated
that the parcel has been legally created or at least created under the local
subdivision ordinance in effect at the time of its creation. Additionally, a
previously approved County tentative map for this property (TM 15499)
indicates that the County found the remainder parcel to be "part of parcel 1"
(i.e., that property comprising lots 1 - 13 of the currently proposed
tentative map), and therefore not a separate legal entity.
The Commission also approved TM 15499 in COP (8557 (Oenk, 1919) adopting the
County's findings regarding the remainder parcel's legal status as part of lot
1 and not as a separate legal lot in and of itself. While the applicant
maintains that a submitted preliminary title report confirms that a
certificate of compliance for the remainder parcel was recorded in 1981, no
legal description linking the remainder parcel as the subject of the
certificate of compliance has been provided.
More importantly, there is no record that the Commission has legalized the
remainder parcel as a separate, legal lot through the coastal permit process.
While it appears that the County approved a subsequent subdivision on this
property (TM 9729) in 1980, there is no record that the Commission approved
that subdivision. The resolution of approval and tentative map indicating
what was the subject of that subdivision has not been provided by the
applicant. Therefore, based on the above discussion, the Commission finds
that it is reviewing the remainder parcel based on its permit action in the
Ilenk decision; that is, pot aS a separate., legal lot that has been properly
853
6.90 nb, Revised Findings
Page 10
reviewed and approved by the Commission, but rather as a 3.5 acre area
indistinguishable from the remaining approximately 15 acres which comprises
the proposed subdivision.
Additionally, while an existing paved road traverses this parcel to provide
access to the existing residence on proposed Lot 12, the City is requiring
additional road improvements on the remainder parcel (widen pavement to 20
feet and install drainage control) and a 40 foot wide road easement as part of
this subdivision approval. As mentioned access to Lots 12 and 13 must first
pass through the remainder parcel before reaching Lots 12 and 13. Because
additional improvements, and therefore potential impacts, are proposed on this
parcel resulting from the subdivision, the Commission is reviewing both the
tentative map and the remainder parcel against the resource protection
policies of the Coastal Act and the CRP regulations.
The genesis of the CRP regulations is Policy Group 30 contained in the San
Dieguito LCP Land Use Plan. Pursuant to Section 30240, the policies sought to
minimize development impacts on the coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats
within the major inland bluff systems. The policy called for preservation of
all native vegetation on natural slopes of 25% grade and over by extinguishing
the development potential of these slopes through open space dedications or
deed restrictions. The CRP regulations were designed to implement the habitat
preservation policies of the LUP and indicate no development or removal of
natural vegetation shall occur on steep natural slopes of 25% grade or
greater. The Commission finds that all steep slope areas on the subject site,
including the remainder parcel, are worthy of protection under the LCP
policies.
The slope analysis of the remainder parcel indicates that approximately 85% of
its area contains naturally vegetated slopes of at least 25% grade. While
development is not proposed on.this parcel at this time, the Commission is
reviewing its development potential along with the development potential of
the rest of the property that is the subject of this subdivision request.
with the exception of the existing paved road that traverses the parcel from
south to north, only an approx. 40 foot wide corridor widening to approx. 60
feet near the boundary of Lot 12 (ref. Exhibit 2) of less steep area remains
on the remainder parcel, comprising its extreme northwestern edge and
traversing almost its entire length from south to north. Accessing this area
from the existing road would require encroachment onto steep, naturally
vegetated slopes with the corresponding adverse environmental effects. While
some encroachment is permitted under CRP regulations, it is evident that the
development potential of this area is severely constrained.
The applicant recognizes the issues regarding the parcel's legal status,
development constraints, and the CRP regulations and has offered three
potential options for treatment regarding the remainder parcel (see
attached). First, the applicant proposes to revise the tentative map to
indicate the conversion of the remainder parcel to an open space parcel. Any
development potential of the remainder parcel in this option would be
transferred to the developable portions of the contiguous holding where lots
through 11 are proposed. Or. as a second option, the applicant proposes to
rerord an open spare dedication over the entire remainder parcel, except the
859 _ -
6-90.226, Revised Findings
Page 11
access road, as shown in the attached Exhibit Y. Additionally, with this
option the applicant proposes to record an irrevocable offer to dedicate fee
title for open space purposes and an open space easement over the entire
remainder parcel, excepting the access road. Finally, the applicant's third
option would be to produce a Certificate of Compliance certifying that the
remainder parcel is a legal lot under Subdivision A of Government Code Section
66449.35. Additionally, if this option is invoked, the applicant proposes to
record a restriction prohibiting disturbance of natural 25% grade slopes on
the remainder parcel (Exhibit Z) where no disturbance is proposed and where
limited vegetation removal may occur if approved under Special Condition 115 of
this permit.
As mentioned, the City of Encinitas did not consider the remainder parcel in
any way, including environmental review, in its review Of the subdivision
request. The City has noted the historical significance of a cemetery near
this parcel, which may be adversely affected by residential development of
this parcel. The City has also noted the environmental and biological
significance of an expanse of undisturbed watershed cover on the property in
the form of large, contiguous areas of coastal sage scrub and has conditioned
future owners of these hillside lots to provide water "guzzlers" for area
wildlife.
Additionally, allowing the designation as a remainder parcel, as originally
proposed, to occur with this subdivision, in essence, eliminates the ability
to deny its creation as a legal building site through the certificate of
compliance or subdivision process. As mentioned, at this writing it has not
been adequately demonstrated that this remainder parcel is a legal lot and
consequently it can not be considered "separate" from the rest of the
subdivision the Commission is reviewing.
Further, the development potential of the remainder area consistent with the
CRP regulations and past Commission precedent is very limited. If developable
area exists, it would only be sufficient to accommodate one dwelling unit,
with some encroachment on naturally vegetated steep slopes required. The
applicant has the option of pursuing the environmental review on the entire
18f acres to confirm its development potential in accordance with City Zoning
and Coastal Act policies.
There are additional concerns regarding the City's processing of the proposed
subdivision. Under CRP regulations approved as part of the County's certified
LCP for this area, subdivision requests on 10 acres or more are required to be
reviewed under Planned Residential Development (PRO) standards. These
standards call for subdivision buildout of large properties to minimize
adverse environmental impacts to coastal resources by clustering development
and other site and design considerations. While this property is almost 19
acres in size, including the remainder parcel, this subdivision has not been
reviewed under PRO regulations. Rather, the City has made findings that
because lots 1-11 are clustered near Manchester Avenue, en the disturbed areas
of the property, the major environmental effects of the subdivision have been
miti;ated. Additionally, the City has found that the, large open space areas
on lots 12 and 13 mitigate some of the imparts associated with the subdivision
as l.irge, r.nntignous npen spare areas over these lots have been required.
x
.
855
6 90226, Revised Findings
Page 12
However, when evaluating this subdivision against the PRO regulations, which
require that suhdivision design be consistent with good planning and be
protective of coastal resources, the development potential of the remainder
parcel is more appropriately transferred to the disturbed area of the property
near Manchester Avenue. This could be done by modifying the tentative map as
stated in the preceding statement and then converting the remainder parcel to
open space. This would result in a considerably larger, contiguous area of
coastal sage habitat for area wildlife and habitat preservation.
The Commission notes, however, that the applicant's revised proposal has merit
and acknowledges the applicant's wish to not go back before the City of
Encinitas to revise the tentative map. To revise the tentative map in this
way would cause further costly time delays in getting the project started.
However, the Commission recognizes the concern about creating the remainder
parcel as a legal lot through this permit action, if the remainder parcel is
not currently a legal lot, as the applicant asserts, under the State
Subdivision Map Act and the City's local subdivision controls and
requirements.
The Commission notes that the applicant, through the proposed conditional
language, is willing to put the entire remainder parcel into open space if the
applicant can not demonstrate through a certificate of compliance obtained
under Subdivision a. of Covernment.Code Section 66499.35 that the lot was
legally created prior to the Commission's Jurisdiction. The applicant
realizes that this option would permanently extinguish the development
potential of the remainder parcel; consequently, no environmental damage to
this sensitive parcel would occur if this course of action is invoked.
Conversely, if the applicant demonstrates through the above certificate of
compliance process that the lot had legal standing prior to the passage of the
Coastal Act, the Commission finds that it must recognize the remainder parcel
as a legal lot, and thus would require the applicant to deed restrict as open
space the naturally-vegetated slopes of 25% grade consistent with both the
applicant's proposed language and the coastal resource protection component of
the County of San Diego's certified Local Coastal Program. This understanding
is outlined as option C of the applicant's revised proposal.
The commission finds that it is appropriate to address the development
potential of the remainder parcel with this permit decision. The Commission
finds that selecting the applicant's revised 8 and C options meets the intent
of the coastal resource protection regulations and the habitat preservation
policies of the Coastal Act in that the development potential of the remainder
parcel would be extinguished by the implementation of option B. Therefore,
the Commission finds that by adopting option 8 it is not necessary to include
option A in this permit approval as the appropriate level pf environmental
protection for the remainder parcel is assured in option B. The Commission
finds, that based on the above discussion, the proposed subdivision can be
found consistent with the CRP regulations contained in the San Dieguito LCP
land Ilse Plan and Section 30240 of* the Coastal Act.
Additionally, Special Condition #9 requires submittal of final plans fnr the
residences and road improvenumts prnpo,,ed along Colony Terrdrr Drive. the
856
6 90 226, Revised Findings
Page 13
applicant has indicated no encroachment on naturally vegetated steep slope
areas is required for such improvements. However, final design of the
easement turnaround is subject to Fire Department approval. Therefore, the
condition indicates no encroachment on steep slopes is herein permitted;
however, allows for Commission review of an amendment to this permit should
such encroachment be required. At that time the Commission would review any
proposed encroachment under the CRP and Chapter 3 policies.
The application of an open space deed restriction prohibiting the removal of
natural vegetation, alteration of natural landforms and the erection of any
structures would provide adequate protection of the high quality undisturbed
watershed cover on this parcel. Therefore, the Commission finds that to be
consistent with the policies of the LCP, the proposed subdivision design must
be revised through the tentative map and major use permit to incorporate the
required revisions. Additionally, and to memorialize the City required open
space on Lots 12 and 13, Special Condition #2 would require the recordation of
an open space deed restriction over those areas not approved for development,
i.e. portions of Lots 6, 12 and 13 and the remainder area. The Commission
required open space areas are identified in the attached Exhibit 3. This
exhibit includes the naturally vegetated slopes on Lot 6 north of the building
pad, which will remain undisturbed as part of the proposed project.
Grading Season and Runoff Control.
Special Conditions (t3 and q4 reflect additional concerns addressed by the CRP
regulations. The conditions require submittal of a drainage plan designed to
assure no increase in the peak runoff rate associated with developed.
conditions, when compared to existing undeveloped conditions. This
,requirement is consistent with the language in the CRP regulations and past
Commission precedent on numerous coastal development permit applications. In
this particular case, compliance with the condition criteria may involve
installation of an on-site detention basin to slow runoff water. In any
event, the design of the discharge point of the existing outflow drainage pipe
will have to be adequately addressed to assure protection of downstream
resources.
Additionally, Special Condition /3 restricts grading during the rainy season,
October 1 to April 1, and requires installation of erosion control devices
prior to or concurrent with grading activities.
The applicant has requested an exemption form the rainy season restriction and
has submitted a drainage plan and an enhanced erosion control plan which
includes a siltation basin in the southeast corner of the site near an
existing storm drain inlet (that carries storm water off-site to eventually
drain into San Elijo Lagoon) as well as other erosion control measures
(sandbagging, hydroseeding, haybales etc.) The applicant states that debris
and particle runoff is virtually eliminated by the implementation of the
erosion control plan.
In effect, the applicant is requesting that all the proposed grading (4,900
cubic yards of cut, 6,900 cuhic yards of fill) be allowed to occur in the
rainy season. However, in response to the, applicant's stalemail that not
11
857
6 90 2?..6, Revised Findings
Page 14
allowing grading to proceed as proposed :could be more detrimental to area
resources, the Commission notes that based on the lower site's relatively flat
topography, it appears that storm runoff from this area could be neutralized
by stabilizing the site with a suitable seed mix. The seeding and subsequent
stabilizing of the site would, therefore, obviate the need for additional
disturbance of the site during the rainy season as proposed by the applicant.
Additionally, the Commission notes that it would not be equitable to allow
this project to go forward in the rainy season in fairness to others who have
had to design their projects around the Commission's rainy season grading
prohibition.
In this particular case, no erosion control measures are currently in place,
and the project site drains directly to the floodplain and ultimately to
wetland resources. The condition will restrict the grading for the project's
implementation to the non-rainy season. Given the proximity to the lagoon's
tributary creek, such a restriction is imperative to protect against
inappropriate introduction of sediment into the lagoon, and is consistent with
Sections 30240 and 30231 of the Coastal Act and past Commission precedent.
3. Visual Resources Section 30251 of the Act states, in part:
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be
considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted
development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the
ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land
forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas,
and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually
degraded areas.
The project site is visible from Manchester Ave., a scenic coastal access
route, and is subject to the Scenic Area regulations contained in the
certified County LCP due to its inclusion in the CRP Area. While the effect
of the LCP policies regarding visual protection is to prohibit development
which Could break the ridgeline above the prime viewsheds, the policies also
encourage clustering, ridgeline setbacks, and preservation of significant
views. While residential development is not proposed on the hillside lots
with this application, the Commission notes that removal of vegetation
associated with fire control on these upper lots has the potential to create
adverse visual impacts from Manchester Avenue, and Encinitas Blvd., both major
coastal access routes.
Special condition ,y5 addresses the protection of natural habitat areas within
and adjacent to the hillside lots, Lots 12 and 13. Lot 6 would also be
affected due to the presence of undisturbed steep slopes on this parcel after
grading. This condition requires submittal of a brush management program
consistent with that approved by the City of Encinitas Fire and Planning
^epartments in similar development proposals. The plan shall include a site
plan showing a one hundred foot distance beyond all planned structures,
designating those areas ;object rd clear-cut vegetation removal for fire
protection purposes, and all those areas subject to selective thinning and
pruning.
858
6 90 226, Revised findinr.5
Page 15
Said program shall indicate that no clearcut vegetation removal for brush
management purposes shall be permitted within adjacent open space areas; thus,
a 30 ft. setback for structures from open space areas shall be required. The
approved clearing shall be conducted entirely by manual means and shall. be the
absolute minimum required for reduction of fire hazards. As conditioned, the
Commission finds that the project would avoid visual impacts from vegetation
clearance and the conditions help the project to achieve consistency with LCP
and Chapter 3 policies dealing with visual resources and the protection of
adjacent environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Additionally, Condition 95
requires that building materials for future residential construction on Lots
12 and 13 should be earth toned colors, responsive and compatible with the
surrounding natural hillsides. Therefore, the Commission finds that the
subject proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with Section 30240 and 30251
of the Coastal Act.
Due to the presence of the steep slopes on the project site and the proximity
of the lagoon's tributary creek, some protection against future development of
the remaining steep slopes is appropriate for visual reasons as well.
Although public ownership is the preferred method of preserving open space,
the application of an open space deed restriction prohibiting the removal of
natural vegetation, alteration of natural landforms and the erection of any
structures would provide adequate protection. Special Condition #2 requires
the recordation of an open space deed restriction over those areas not
approved for development. Those areas are identified in the attached Exhibit
3.
The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan indicating use of non-native
exotic species, including iceplant and gazania as ground cover on graded
slopes. The attached condition requires submittal of a revised landscaping
plan which utilizes native and naturalizing vegetation to the greatest extent
possible. This is to include the screening trees that line Manchester Ave.
-dhich 'Aill reduce the visual impact of the project on the surrounding scenic
area. Additionally, the native and naturalized vegetation will not impact the
.rater needs of the community that an otherwise landscaped development of this
size would have. Also, the conditions require submittal of a hydroseed mix
for erosion control purposes which utilizes native species compatible with the
adjacent hillsides to revegetate the sewer easement and graded slope areas.
Only as conditioned can the Commission find the subject proposal to be
consistent with Sections 30240(b), 30251 and 30253 of the Act, the Coastal
Resource Protection Area regulations of the certified County Local Coastal
Program and past Commission precedent on similar development proposals in the
Fncinitas area.
3. Local Coastal-Plannin-g. Section 30604 (a) also requires that a
roastdl development permit Shall be issued only if the Commission finds that
the permitted development will not prejudice the ability of the local
government to prepare a I.orai Coastal Program (LCP) in conformity with the
provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. In this case, such a finding can
be made. A; stated above., the subject development proposal is consistent with
the applicable policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
I •j`
i
Rte subject site wd, prrvin+r.ly in Ihr County of San iliego inral Coastal
Prngr,tm (I U'1 jari<.,I it I irm, hi,I i,. and within the br, mdarir; of Ihr Cily of
859
6 90-226, Revised Findings
Page 16
Encinitas. The City is in the process of preparing for the Commission's
review a new or revised LCP for the area.
Because of the incorporation of the City, the certified County Local Coastal
Program no longer serves as the valid LCP for the area. However, the issues
regarding protection of coastal resources in the area have been addressed by
the Commission in its review of the County of San Diego LUP and Implementing
Ordinances. As such, the Commission will continue to utilize the County LCP
documents for guidance in its review of development proposals to the city of
Encinitas until such time as a new or revised LCP is submitted by the City.
In addition, the City of Encinitas has adopted zoning regulations for the site
and its surrounding area, including, in part, the provisions of the CRP
regulations. In the ordinances currently in place in the City of Encinitas,
encroachment onto steep slopes would be subject to a sliding scale, with the
total allowed encroachment onto steep slopes subject to design review. In its
review of the project, the City has found the project to be consistent with
those regulations.
While these ordinances are currently in use in the City of Encinitas, the City
has not yet submitted either its LUP or implementing ordinances for formal
Commission review. White Commission staff has informally reviewed and
commented upon the City's general plan and zoning ordinance, these documents
have no official status as UP documents. As such, the Commission will
continue to enforce the previously certified CRP regulations.
The commission finds the proposed subdivision, as conditioned, conforms to
Coastal Act Chapter 3 policies and with the Coastal Resource Protection
regulations contained in the certified County of San Diego LCP. The
development's approval, with conditions which limit encroachment onto steep
slope areas for the proposed project and future residential development, will
not prejudice the ability of the City of Encinitas to complete a certifiable
Local Coastal Program.
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
1. Notice of Receip and Acknowledgement. The permit is not valid and
development shalt l not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the
permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and
acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission
office.
2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two
years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application.
Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a
reasonable period of time, Application for extension of the permit must
be made prior to the expiration date.
3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the
proposal as sot forth he.lnw. Any deviatinn from the approved plans must
be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval.
~i
860
t
690.226, Revised Findings
page 17
!A
'
4, interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any
condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission.
5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site
`
and the development during construction, subject to 24-hour advance notice.
-
6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided
assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and
conditions of the permit.
m
7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall
be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee
to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the
terms and conditions.
.
(022br)
to ~
j
f
.
;O
'm
:o
o.
Ll--'
l M'
t
861 I
'i A'
,•YZ': fJ5 , e r; i t! ~~,r'fl''' iJ~ll ''r+`ap, ~ 1:. f ;\l.u y
- ~ + ~ i qty. f \ R' 1'~ •y
• L )9 .
PROJECT LOCATION
• : N r~1n: ::+..~iu 1 + i~ ice..
a en
1. 41
i - , I• - I: ~ ' r is %F°-.:''it :i~~•;j1b'"•cF "
•tia I::'•! ~ , -Rf~,4'_~-~v iR ~:,,•t~:,j.l~'+'1:~
0 2000 - :li•,'~i-'~_''~.ri~+=-~•:~ ~..01 7 t'
!eel . - _ •~\n- - ~,I!'1 i p. r iy-
i r-f
1
FIGURE 2. PROJECT LOCATION ON U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE T EXHIBIT NO.
RANCHO SANTA FE AND ENCINITAS QUADRAN APPLICATIONNC
I
~r
?o
7
m
z
i
t
(A
'O.
r
Ar.
862
EXHIBIT NO. VL-
A i NO
_ •V
a
t !IT
S~
L„
z`
\ N\
1 ~Y
T-
d
z
Q
J
a
tw-
H
o'
w
w
f
I
fA
Af
,d
EXHIBIT N0. _
APPLUT N N0.
-Al
i
864
APPLICANT'S SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO
STAFF'S RECOMMENDED SPECIAL CONDITIONS
NODIFIRM'.00ALLY, %I.,. Tani APPLICANT
eubmitUiCita --AT-"-"-'44th"by,:"th
Caliloinfrs'Co"tAI.0omo
_..a......
Application No. 6-90-226 (Reeder)
EXHIBIT NO.
A LIC OON
it- -
Rt bwa . Ce C.m.anbn
l.. Treatment of remainder parcel. The remainder parcel
shall be treated in one of the following three alternative
ways (applicant's option):
A. Revised Tentative Map. Prior to the issuance of
the coastal development permit, the applicant shall
submit to the Executive Director for review and
written approval, a revised Tentative Map #88-231,
approved by the City of Encinitas, incorporating
the revisions required herein, to the satisfaction
of the Executive Director. The revised map shall
indicate the conversion of the remainder parcel to
an open space parcel. Any development potential
for the remainder parcel may be transferred to the
developable portion of the contiguous holding where
Lots 1 through 11 are proposed, subject to City and
Coastal commission approval. All subsequent
modifications to the local approvals resulting from
this requirement shall be reported to the Executive
Director and may require an amendment to the
permit.
OR
B. open space Dadiohtionad Deed Restriction Over
Entire Remaindir."'PriW to the issuance of the
coastal development permit, the applicant shall
record a restriction against the subject property,
free of all prior liens and encumbrances, except
for tax liens, and binding on the permittee's
successors in inttrest and any subsequent
purchasers of any portion of the real property.
The restriction shall prohibit any alteration of
1
865
landforms, removal of existing vegetation or the
erection of structures of any type on the entire
3.5-acre remainder parcel, except that portion
within the existing access road to be improved
under this permit, as said restriction area is
shown on Exhibit "Y" attached hereto. Limited
vegetation removal for brush management purposes
may occur if approved under Special Condition N5
attached to this permit. The recording document
shall include legal descriptions of both the
applicant's entire parcel and the restricted area,
shall be in a form and content acceptable to the
Executive Director, and may be combined with the
deed restriction required in special condition A2,
below. Evidence of such action shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Executive
Director.
AM
t
OR
C
Certificate of Compliance/open Space Deed
Restriction over steep slopes of Remainder. Prior
to the issuance of the coastal development permit,
2
866
the applicant shall submit to the
Director, for review and written
Certificate of Compliance approve
Encinitas, eertifXing that the re
a legal lot "di SutidtviYidfi>' a
AND
Executive
pproval, a
by the City of
winder parcel is
Prior to the issuance of the coastal development
permit ;'"the applicant shall record a restriction
against the subject property, free of all prior
liens and encumbrances, except for tax liens, and
binding on the permittee's successors in interest
and any subsequent purchasers of any portion of the
real property. The restriction shall prohibit any
alteration of landforms, removal of existing
vegetation or the erection of structures of any
type in the area shown on Exhibit "Z," attached
hereto, and generally described as those portions
of the remainder parcel containing natural slopes
of 25% gradient or steeper where no disturbance is
proposed and where limited vegetation removal for
brush management purposes may occur if approved
under Special Condition #5 attached to this permit.
The recording document shall include legal
descriptions of both the applicant's entire parcel
and the restricted area, shall be in a form and
content acceptable to the Executive Director, pnd
may be combined with the deed restriction required
in Special condition #2, below. Evidence of such
action shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Executive Director.
open space Deed Restriction. Prior to the issuance
of the coastal development permit, the applicant
shall record a restriction against the subject
property, free of all Prior liens and encumbrances,
except for tax liens, and binding on the
permittee's successors in interest and any
subsequent purchasers of any portion of the real
property. The restriction shall prohibit any
alteration of landforms, removal of existing
vegetation of the erection of structures of any
type in the area shown on the attached Exhibit "Y,"
if Special condition 1A. or 1H., above, is selected
or Exhibit "Z," if Special Condition 1C., above, is
selected, and generally described as those portions
3
-
867
of the individual Lots 6, 12 and 13, and the
remainder parcel containing natural-olepeo-o
S
where no
disturbance is proposed, except as the sewer
lateral herein approved, and where limited
vegetation removal for brush management purposes
may occur if approved under Special Condition A5
attached to this permit. The recording document
shall include legal descriptions of both the
applicant's entire parcel and the restricted area
to protect steep slopes and native vegetation, a
shall be in a form and content acceptable to the
Executive Director. Evidence of such action she
be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Executive Director.
(No modifications are proposed
for remaining Special Conditions
3 through 9, inclusive.]
. z
i
i}
i
m
L
nd i
11
to
s
v
'm'
O
4
T ;
868
C -ao-2 2.0
Ap" o=
OMP SOACE
ajm-t~)ie,,ATioN
f~~Hi~3rF -f
. op~N 5P~ 1~1[.~T' lob( .
poi. S~I~►L GoNb~T lo~
i
{
3
cn
f,
:c
m'
op~N Sp~c~
pEt>lc~TloN
. F-XH8IT Z
0mg Space. pEDICAl
869
...87.0 . _ -
Recording Requested by and
When Recorded Mail To:
California Coastal Commission
631 Howard Street, 4th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Attention: Legal Department
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
OFFER OF DEDICATION OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENT
This is to certify that hereby accepts
the Offer to Dedicate Fee Title executed by
on , 19, and recorded on 19 - in
Book Page ` of the Official Records in the Office of the Recorder of
County.
By
Dated
Notary Public in and for said I
County and State
Page 1 of Two Pages
M-:-
For
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
On , 19_, before the undersigned, a Notary Public in
and for the State, personally appeared
Title known to me to be the
of the , who executed the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
872
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
This is to certify that
is a public agency/private association acceptable to the Executive Director of
the Commission, California
Coastal Commission to be Grantee under the above described Offer to Dedication.
Dated Executive Director
Coastal Commission
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
On , before the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for
said State, personally appeared
Name
Title
of the California Coastal Commission and known to me to be the person who
executed the within instrument on behalf of said Commission, and acknowledged to
me that such Commission executed the same.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public in and for said
County and State
Page 2 of Two Pages
EXHIBIT P
873
REMAINDER PARCEL OPEN SPACE LEGAL DESCRIPTION -
ALL THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9729, IN THE CITY
OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 22,
1980 AS FILE/PAGE NO. 80-060096 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO.
9729; THENCE SOUTH 15 46000" WEST, 800.94 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 09 33'59" EAST, 891.80 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 15 46'25" EAST, 754.05 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 72 25'49" WEST, 40.06 FEET; ~r
THENCE NORTH 15 45100" EAST, 40.03 FEET;
THENCE NORTH,72 26100" WEST, 341.81 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM T$E FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PORTION:
AN EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR INGRESS THERETO AND EGRESS
THEREFROM, FOR ROAD, SEWER, WATER, GAS, POWER AND TELEPHONE LINES
AND APPURTENANT THERETO OVER, UNDER, ALONG AND ACROSS THAT PORTION
OF PROPERTY PARTICULARLY HEREIN DESCRIBED AS 40 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT
WHOSE CENTERLINE IS PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO.
9729; THENCE SOUTH 15 46'00" WEST, 800.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 72
26100" EAST, 287.81 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 05 44140" WEST, 200.61 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE ARC bF A $30.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT,
175.82 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 03 48146" EAST, TO A
POINT OF TERMINUS LYING NORTH 15 46125" EAST, 433.20 FEET FROM THE
SOUTHERN MOST CORNER OF PARCEL 1.
THE SIDELINES OF SAID EASEMENT SHALL BE LENGTHENED OR SHORTENED TO
BEGIN AT A SOUTHEASTERLY LINE THAT BEARS SOUTH 72 26'00" EAST FROM
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 1, WHICH CORNER LIES SOUTH 15 46!010"
WEST, 800.94 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL
MAP NO. 9729.
• e
THE SIDELINES OF SAID EASEMENT SHALL BE LENGTHENED OR SHORTENED TO
TERMINATE AT A NORTHEASTERLY LINE THAT BEARS NORTH 15 46125" EAST,
FROM THE SOUTHERN MOST CORNER OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9729.
SAID PARCEL I$ ALSO KNOWN AS !REMAINDER PARCEL;'! AS SHOWN ON CITY OF ENCINITAS
SUBDIVISION MAP NO. TMz88-231.
ALL AS SHOWN ON MAP ATTACHEO HERETO.
Page 1 of 2
i
A r
8 7 4 {1
pMVinV 1~~M.7NYW q
zee~aaaem 0 i
ae.rq-.+.•sst•.r+eprtrw+rsyr~rr ~ t
j+AAir1 A.jj'A!dt~1^2 ti 1 ---+•-.e ' t # v 1
#F#o##>#a#Si?###ii# # i
ti ~n F I +
lSV k)k4kk!!Ykt4Y4kYkklYYkkU `~t, 1iy "a~ A'•S `
i o 0 diAF•aagaxe:xi•eitxx~•daa ~ i~~ ;."hy+S ' ~ 1
2 'n r, n oa likY!Y4k)lYkkklSSYlkik!k! I '`r ,
Cl _ •.Ma xgtq_x wr'xrggta'adx } 7 ~ ~ ~
Q ~ 00 I SS)h4kY64aYikkkY)!kM)k!kk ~ a~~~i ~ 0 p~l
a ~ N ~ Ci2G•'aaq}xdagp algtaM'taa /•'p C
2 O {I ly i► R e #
I~ k1Y)•):!kk:kpkk)Ykik6!Y!k • t
i k4l is:k)'s'sk!!\Y4Y!4!Y h 1 `\~}a+
I!_!spdkkkk!kksN.p!.p.~wN tt l ~ # 9 l
Q s kk!!YI►lYkYkYtlkYlk►YYYk! f'j1Y ~ t• 1-+:i' _ i• a
I3 rg4gaaaaaaaakiGR=A111{tl!{ i'` llf !S E ,i i ~ RL" 114 _p} is3 g`
U cgcscgcauxcoacc'cE55AHSB i•t tit ~1
u it, IS
_ ~ t{till .
err,
tit
ga=;N a vi
r.rowr +w.~~'~~t,.fir
~~c'j$2
irl:' ~rli X-:. ~l,l. o f a}}} tE t, { l i k s } i
.=1;i ,♦/n ~'r'~I~~rf `iY i~i ~t~ i• Qv~ { f~ 1
z 1t , a ~ { >r 1 a o\
~'if..p.n_ o~l h. ~l,^~'heJ1Ri Ywt~.~ i ~ YYYtt, Q;i
t!,i}lt: w. a i.t 'm.. `t..`N~.,„P~~~~ S~ F4l, itiiL~9,{~ ~ .~W ` .j
III l# it 2 e
it
C
♦ , + tt i,i+ a ,,Y ~p i ! i
Si:If(i t1li +~~IIi .~ty_ •.a„ ~ ~ / j)d:
/.!iii #i~k ~~'."Nw ~r.i i~`^ liill.nx,~.
~ i l ltii I.i t N.w•~
iii1 $ 1.w1' .0 if
t
F:i 7• na scy
LL G7 ' y+;J I \
Page 2 of 2