HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 00-50; Quirk Residence; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (5)STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMNj^SION
^^
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4402
(619)767-2370
NOTIFICATION OF DEFICIENT
DATE February 28, 2002
TO Micheal Holzmiller, Planning Director
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department
1 635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4
FROM Bill Ponder, Coastal Program Analyst
RE: Local Permit No. 01-13 (Commission File No. 6-CII-02-028)
Please be advised of the following deficiency(ies) in the notice of local action we have
received
Applicants Roy Asaro
Descriptio The development is a single-family house on a previously
Locatio Along the west side of Carlsbad Blvd., between Cerezo
Drive and Shore Drive, Carlsbad (San Diego County)
Deficiency noted by check mark
1 . _XX _ Project description not included or not (please include staff report, plans)
2. _ Conditions for approval and written findings not
3. _ Procedures for appeal of the decision to the Coastal Commission not
4. _ Notice not given to those who
As a result of the deficiencv(ies) noted
Posf-Cert/y/caf/bn LCP
_ The effective date of the local government action has been suspended, and the 10
working day Commission appeal period will not commence until a sufficient notice of action
Post-Certification LUP
_ The effective date of the local government action has been suspended, and the 20
working day Commission appeal period will not commence until a sufficient notice of
action
is received in this office. (14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 13570, 13572.)
If you have any questions, please contact Bill Ponder at the San Diego Coast Area
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
STATF OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMfSSION
SAN DIEGO AREA
7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4402
(619) 767-2370
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
Tue9b
Filed:
49th Day:
180th Day:
Staff:
Staff Report:
Hearing Date:
3/16701
5/04/01
9/12/01
BP-SD
4/19/0
5/8-1
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON APPEAL
LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Carlsbad
DECISION: Approval with Conditions
APPEAL NO.: A-6-CII-01-20
APPELLANTS: Commissioner Patrick Kruer and Commissioner Patricia McCoy.
APPLICANT: Thoryk Architecture
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolition of an existing 3,344 -sq. ft. three unit residential
structure and construction of a two-story, 28-foot high, 3,572 sq.ft. single family
dwelling, concrete deck, attached 416-sq.ft garage, wooden bluff stairway, drainage
improvements and 40 cubic yards of balanced grading on an 8,712 sq.ft. blufftop site.
PROJECT LOCATION: 3075 Ocean Street, Carlsbad (San Diego County) APN 155-
104-04
STAFF NOTES:
At its March 2001 hearing, the Commission found "substantial issue" exists with respect
to the grounds on which the subject appeal was filed.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed project with special conditions. The
main issues raised by this proposal have been addressed by the applicant's redesign of the
project to preserve the on-site coastal bluff. Also, a wave study indicates the proposed
siting of the residence will not result in the need for additional shoreline bluff protection.
Staff recommends the Commission approve conditions requiring final plans
acknowledging City approval of the redesigned project, final seawall plans and a survey
to establish the seaward extent of shoreline protection on this lot so that any future
maintenance will be done on private property, a long term monitoring program to
document changes to the seawall and its effect on the shoreline, a future improvements
condition that would ensure ocean views would be maintained through lot sideyards and
other conditions consistent with the Commission's review of shorefronting development.
A-6-CII-01-W
Page 2
As recommended, the project can be found consistent with the new development policies
ie certified LCP.
'^4\
SUBSET ACTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: Certified City of Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program (LCP)/Mello II Segment, Carlsbad Coastal Development Permit CDP
9£$3; Appeal #A-6-CH-01-20
. !t
L* PRELIMINARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
<•'.;/
ie staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolution:
MOTION: I move that the Commission approve Coastal
Development Permit No. A-6-CII-01-20 pursuant to the
staff recommendation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL:
Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in approval of the
permit as conditioned and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion
passes only by affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PERMIT:
The Commission hereby approves a coastal development permit for the proposed
development and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the development as
conditioned will be in conformity with the policies of the certified Local Coastal Program
and with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. Approval of the
permit complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible
mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen
any significant adverse effects of the development on the environment, or 2) there are no
further feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially lessen any
significant adverse impacts of the development on the environment.
II. Standard Conditions.
See attached page.
HI. Special Conditions.
The permit is subject to the following conditions:
1. Final Plans. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicants shall submit to the Executive Director for
review and written approval, final site, building and elevation plans for the permitted
development that have been approved by the City of Carlsbad. Said plans shall be in
A-6-CII-01-20
Page 3
substantial conformance with the plans submitted by the applicant dated March 16, 2001
by Thoryk Architecture, but shall be revised to include the following:
a. No grading on the face of the bluff shall occur
The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the approved final plans.
Any proposed changes to the approved final plans shall be reported to the Executive
Director. No changes to the approved final plans shall occur without an amendment to
this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no
amendment is required.
2. Final Surveyed Seawall Plans. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT the applicant shall submit to the Executive
Director for review and written approval, final seawall plans for the proposed project that
have been approved by the City of Carlsbad. Said plans shall be in substantial
conformance with the site plan prepared by Snipes-Dye Associates, date stamped
received 4/17/2001 and the seawall survey dated 2/14/2001 by Skelly Engineering. The
plans shall identify permanent bench marks from the property line or another fixed
reference point from which the elevation and seaward limit of the seawall can be
referenced for measurements in the future, and shall indicate the following:
a. The toe of the existing seawall/riprap shall extend no further seaward than 118-
feet west of the easterly property boundary at an elevation of +4.7-ft. Mean Sea
Level (MSL).
b. The top of the seawall is at elevation +8.7 -ft MSL and the top of the riprap
slope is at +14MSL.
3. Long-Term Monitoring Program. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit for review and
written approval of the Executive Director, a long-term monitoring plan for the beach and
shoreline protection. The purpose of the plan is to monitor and record the changes in
beach profile fronting the site and to identify damage/changes to the seawail such that
repair and maintenance is completed in a timely manner to avoid further encroachment of
the seawall on the beach. The monitoring plan shall incorporate, but not be limited to the
following:
a. An evaluation of the current condition and performance of the seawall,
addressing, among other things, the exposure of any geotextile material or
underlining fabric, any migration or movement of rock which may have occurred
on the site and any significant weathering or damage to the seawall that may
adversely impact its future performance.
b. Measurements taken from the benchmarks established in the survey as required in
Special Condition #2 of CDP # A-6-CH-01-20 to determine settling or seaward
movement of the seawall and changes in the beach profile fronting the site.
A-6-CII-01-20
Page 4
c. Recommendations on any necessary maintenance needs, changes or modifications
to the seawall to assure its continued function and to assure no encroachment
beyond the permitted toe.
The above-cited monitoring information shall be summarized in a report prepared by a
licensed engineer familiar with shoreline processes and submitted to the Executive
Director for review and written approval. The report shall be submitted to the Executive
Director and the City of Carlsbad after each winter storm season but prior to July 1st of
each year starting with July 1, 2001.
The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the approved monitoring
program. Any proposed changes to the approved program shall be reported to the
Executive Director and the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department. No changes to the
program shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal
development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is
required.
4. Maintenance Activities. The permittee shall be responsible for the maintenance
of the existing seawall/riprap in its approved state. Based on the information and
recommendations contained in the monitoring report required in Special Condition #3 of
CDP #A-6-CII-01-20 above, any stones or materials that become dislodged or any
portion of the seawall that is determined to extend beyond the approved toe shall be
removed from the beach. However, if it is determined that repair and/or maintenance to
the seawall/riprap is necessary, the permittee shall contact the Commission office to
determine whether an amendment to this permit is necessary.
5. Construction Schedule/Staging Areas/Access Corridors. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE
OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to the
Executive Director for review and written approval, detailed plans identifying the
location of access corridors to the construction sites and staging areas, and a final
construction schedule. Said plans shall include the following criteria specified via
written notes on the plan:
a. Use of sandy beach and public parking areas outside the actual construction site,
including on-street parking, for the interim storage of materials and equipment is
prohibited.
b. No work shall occur on the beach during the summer peak months (start of
Memorial Day weekend to Labor day) of any year.
c. Equipment used on the beach shall be removed from the beach at the end of each
workday.
A-6-CII-01-2I
PageS
d. Access corridors shall be located in a manner that has the least impact on public
access and existing public parking areas. Use of public parking areas for
staging/storage areas is prohibited.
The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the plans and construction
schedule. Any proposed changes to the approved plans or construction schedule shall be
reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plans or schedule shall occur
without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit
unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required.
6. Assumption of Risk.
A. By acceptance of this permit, the applicant acknowledges and agrees (i) that the site
may be subject to hazards from wave action and erosion; (ii) to assume the risks to
the applicant and the property that is the subject of this permit of injury and damage
from such hazards in connection with this permitted development; (iii) to
unconditionally waive any claim of damage or liability against the Commission, its
officers, agents, and employees for injury or damage from such hazards; and (iv) to
indemnify and hold harmless the Commission, its officers, agents, and employees
with respect to the Commission's approval of the project against any and all
liability, claims, demands, damages, costs (including costs and fees incurred in
defense of such claims), expenses, and amounts paid in settlement arising from any
injury or damage due to such hazards.
B. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the
applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and content
acceptable to the Executive Director incorporating all of the above terms of this
condition. The deed restriction shall include a legal description of the applicant's
entire parcel. The deed restriction shall run with the land, binding all successors and
assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens that the Executive Director
determines may affect the enforceability of the restriction. This deed restriction
shall not be removed or changed without a Commission amendment to this coastal
development permit.
7. Side Yard Setbacks/Seawall Maintenance/Future Development. This permit is
only for the development described in Coastal Development Permit No. A-6-CII-01-20.
Pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 13250(b)(6), the exemptions
otherwise provided in Public Resources Code section 30610(a) shall not apply to any
future improvements to the single-family house authorized by this permit. Any future
improvements shall require an amendment to Permit No. A-6-CII-01-20 from the Coastal
Commission. Any revisions to the see-through fence or other improvements within the
side yards shall require a coastal development permit or permit amendment approval.
Additionally, no maintenance or augmentation to the existing seawall/riprap is approved
with this permit. Any such activities shall require an amendment to Permit No. A-6-CII-
01-20 from the Coastal Commission unless the Executive Director determines that no
amendment is required.
Page 6
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the
applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction in a form and content acceptable to
the Executive Director, reflecting the above restrictions on development. The deed
restriction shall include legal descriptions of the applicant's entire parcel(s). The deed
restriction shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be
recorded free of prior liens that the Executive Director
8. Drainage Plan. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT, the applicant shall submit for the review and written approval of the Executive
Director', a final drainage and runoff control plan, with supporting calculations, that has
been approved by the City of Carlsbad. This plan shall document that runoff from the
roof, driveway and other impervious surfaces will be collected and appropriately
discharged. The plan shall show how all runoff from the impervious surfaces of the
development shall be collected and directed away from the bluff face and towards the on-
site vegetation. This plan shall be subject to the review and written approval of the
Executive Director.
The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the drainage plans. Any
proposed changes to the approved plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No
changes to the plans shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to
this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no
amendment is required.
IV. Findings and Declarations:
1. Project Description/Permit History. The proposal includes demolition of an
existing 3,344 -sq.ft. three unit residential structure and construction of a two-story, 28-
foot high, 3,572 sq.ft. single family dwelling, concrete deck, attached 416-sq.ft garage,
wooden bluff stairway, drainage improvements and 40 cubic yards of balanced grading
on an 8,712 sq.ft. blufftop site in the City of Carlsbad.
The project site is a coastal bluff located on the west side of Ocean Street, between Oak
and Carlsbad Village Drive in the northern part of the City of Carlsbad. The eastern third
of the lot (street side) is relatively flat, with steep slopes towards the middle of the lot,
than leveling out as it reaches the beach. An existing wooden stairway provides private
access to the beach portion of the lot down the bluff face. Demolition of the stairway is
proposed and a new wooden stairway is proposed several yards south of the present
alignment. No grading of the bluff face is proposed to install the stairway. The site
contains an existing 4-foot high concrete seawall with a quarry stone toe and quarry stone
on the slope above the wall. The existing shoreline protection extends across 5
properties, is about 260 feet in length and was permitted by the Commission in CDP #6-
83-184. The Commission's approval included conditions that required an offer to
dedicate a public access easement from the seawall to the mean high tide line and that the
applicants assume the risk of developing in a hazardous area. The conditions were
complied with and the permit was issued.
Page?
As approved by the City, the project proposed grading on the face of the coastal bluff.
The grading was proposed to install a mechanical equipment room, planter, drainage
improvements and concrete stairway. Additionally, cosmetic "boulders" were proposed
on the face of the bluff. Subsequent to the City's approval and in response to
Commission staff concerns, the applicant has redesigned the project to eliminate grading
on the bluff face. This has resulted in the deletion of the preceding improvements. Thus,
the mechanical equipment room, planter, concrete stairway and cosmetic "boulders" are
no longer part of the project. Special Condition #1 requires final plans in substantial
conformance with the plans submitted by the applicant and approved by the City of
Carlsbad which indicate the previously approved improvements have been deleted and
that no grading of the face of the bluff will occur.
The project area is an established residential infill area (Residential Medium High Land
Use Designation based on a density of 19 du/ac) with nearby commercial development
located inland of the project site. Carlsbad State Beach is located approximately 300 feet
to the south of the project site; a vertical accessway is located about 220 feet to the north
of the site, providing access between Ocean Street and the beach.
The standard of review is consistency with the certified City of Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program, Mello II segment and the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal
Act.
2. Stringline. The proposed project involves construction of a single family
dwelling on a bluff top lot. The certified LCP prohibits new development along the ocean
from extending further seaward than a "stringline" drawn between adjacent sites. The
goal of limiting new development from extending beyond the stringline is to restrict
encroachment onto the shoreline and preserve public views along the shoreline. Section
21.204.050B of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay provides:
New development fronting the ocean shall observe at a minimum, an ocean
setback based on a "stringline" method of measurement. No enclosed portions of
a structure shall be permitted further seaward than allowed by a line drawn
between the adjacent structure to the north and south; no decks or other
appurtenances shall be permitted further seaward than those allowed by a line
drawn between those on the adjacent structures to the north and south. A greater
ocean setback may be required for geologic reasons and if specified in the Local
Coastal Program.
Additionally, Policy 7-12 of the Mello IILUP states:
Seaward of Ocean Street
New development on the seaward side of Ocean Street shall observe at a
minimum, an ocean setback based on a "stringline" method of measurement. No
enclosed portions of a structure shall be permitted further seaward than allowed
PageS
by a line drawn between the adjacent structure to the north and south; no decks or
other appurtenances shall be permitted further seaward than those allowed by a
line drawn between those on the adjacent structures to the north and south. The
policy shall be used on single family, "infill" parcels, and a greater ocean setback
may be required for geologic reasons.
The proposed project is new development on the seaward side of Ocean Street. The
certified LCP requires that no enclosed portions of a structure shall be permitted further
seaward than allowed by a line drawn between the adjacent structure to the north and
south. Consistency with the stringline assures, among other things, that new
development will not adversely impact public views. As approved by the City, a below
grade mechanical equipment room associated with the main residence was proposed
further seaward than the residences on adjacent lots and as such was inconsistent with the
house stringline. In response to Commission staff concerns, the applicant subsequently
redesigned the project to relocate the mechanical equipment room under the home and off
the bluff. Special Condition #1 requires final plans addressing the redesign of the project.
In one other previous permit decision the Commission has interpreted the above cited
stringline provisions of the LCP to require that the "stringline" be measured from the
nearest point of adjacent structures (ref. CDP 6-90-299/Rowe) when the nearest point
was an architectural embellishment. In all other permit decisions, the Commission has
required that new development not extend any further seaward than like development on
adjacent lots. In this particular case, the proposed structure will extend no further
seaward than the adjacent structures. Thus, while there are two ways to interpret the LCP
stringline provisions, the proposed home will extend no further seaward than the homes
on each side and will not adversely affect public views from the beach or from nearby
vertical accessways or public parklands. Thus, the Commission finds the proposed
project is consistent with the stringline provisions of the certified LCP.
Additionally, the proposed deck, which is seaward of the residence, is consistent with the
deck stringline on adjacent lots. Thus, because the proposed new development would not
extend further seaward than the similar structures on adjacent lots, the proposed project
will not result in impacts to public views along the shoreline. Consequently, the
Commission finds the proposed project can be found consistent with the stringline
provisions of the LCP with regards to both the main residence and accessory stringlines.
3. Landform Alteration/Coastal Bluff Preservation. The Mello II LCP contains
policies that address bluff preservation. Section 21.204.030A (Permitted Beach Uses) of
the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone provides:
Permitted uses and developments are limited to the following uses and require a
Coastal Development permit according to the requirements of this zone:
A. Steps and Stairways for access from the top of the bluff to the beach
Page 9
In addition, Section 21.204.050 of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone
provides:
Uses permitted by the underlying zone map may be permitted on non-beach areas
subject to granting of a Coastal Development permit for coastal shoreline
development issued pursuant to the procedures of Chapter 21.201 of this title,
unless specifically prohibited by policies or other applicable ordinances in the
approved Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. Non-beach areas are defined as areas
at elevations of 10 feet or more above mean sea level. Permitted uses are subject
to the following criteria:
a. Grading and Excavation - Grading and excavation shall be the minimum
necessary (emphasis added) to complete the proposed development consistent
with the provisions of this zone and the following requirements:
1). Building sites shall be graded to direct surface water away from the top of
the bluff, or alternatively, drainage shall be handled in a manner satisfactory
to the City which will prevent damage to the bluff by surface and percolating
water.
2) No excavation, grading or deposit of natural materials shall be permitted
on the beach or the face of the bluff except to the extent necessary to
accomplish construction pursuant to this section.
This overlay is intended to provide land use regulations along the Carlsbad shoreline
including beaches, bluffs and the land area immediately landward. The purpose of the
overlay zone is to ensure that the public's interest in maintaining the shoreline as a
unique recreational and scenic resource is adequately protected. Additionally, the
overlay ensures public safety and public access will be maintained and promotes
avoidance of the adverse geologic and economic effects of bluff erosion.
The Commission has found in past permit decisions that "the minimum necessary" for
new development on the bluff face means at-grade and ephemeral structures (like the
existing and proposed wooden stairs on the site) that do not require grading and
substantial foundations which makes such improvements more "permanent" (ref. CDP
Nos. 6-92-100/Fulton; 6-92-252/Meiberger; 6-92-232/Weldon and 6-93-006/Gilstrap).
As noted, the City originally approved improvements on the bluff face (a mechanical
equipment room, a concrete planter, concrete stairs, a drainage device and "cosmetic"
boulders). In response to concerns raised by Commission staff relative to this issue, the
applicant has redesigned the project to eliminate the previously proposed and approved
improvements. As noted, a private wooden stairway currently exists on the bluff face and
is proposed to be relocated. However, its re-installation would not require grading or
substantial alteration and as such would not be a "permanent" structure. Therefore, as
modified by the applicant, no grading or landform alteration of the bluff is proposed.
Special Condition #1 requires the applicant to submit final plans for the development that
Page 10
have been approved by the City of Carlsbad and which specifically note that no grading
will occur on the bluff face. Based on the above, the Commission finds the proposed
development can be found consistent with the bluff preservation provisions of the
certified LCP.
4. Shoreline Development/Hazards. The Mello IILUP contains policies that
address coastal erosion. Policy 4-1 provides:
(a) Development Along Shoreline
For all new development along the shoreline, including additions to existing
development, a site specific geologic investigation and analysis similar to that
required by the Coastal Commission's Geologic Stability and Bluff Top
Guidelines shall be required; for permitted development, this report must
demonstrate bluff stability for 75 years, or the expected lifetime of the structure,
whichever is greater. Additionally, permitted development shall incorporate,
where feasible, subdrainage systems to remove groundwater from the bluffs, and
shall use drought-resistant vegetation in landscaping, as well as adhering to the
standards of erosion control contained in the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan. A
waiver of public liability shall be required for any permitted development for
which an assurance of structural stability cannot be provided.
Additionally, Section 21.204.110 of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay zone
requires that new development must be sited appropriately with respect to hazards.
The above LUP policy requires that bluff stability must be demonstrated through a
geotechnical reconnaissance. The geotechnical report for the project analyzes both the
impact on the coastal bluff from the project and the risk factors involved in siting the
project as proposed. The geotechnical report concludes the project site is grossly stable
and will accommodate the project without adversely affecting bluff stability or the
integrity of the home. However, the LCP also requires that a geotechnical report evaluate
how bluff stability would be affected by marine erosion. The geotechnical report relied
on by the City did not acknowledge the existence of the existing concrete seawall with a
riprap toe and riprap on the slope above the seawall; thus, the effect of wave uprush on
bluff stability was not addressed. By failing to identify the existing shoreline protection,
the geotechnical report also failed to address the adequacy of the existing protection to
protect the proposed improvements and the potential need for future protection. Thus,
while the LCP allows shoreline protection to protect existing development, in this case,
the required findings were not made to ensure the proposed development is appropriately
sited so as to be safe from coastal erosion without requiring future additional shoreline
protection.
The site contains an existing 4-foot high concrete seawall and riprap on the slope above
the wall which was permitted by the Commission in CDP #6-83-184. As noted, the
City's approval did not recognize the seawall. In response to concerns raised by
Commission staff relative to the need for protection for the proposed development, the
A-6-CII-01-2I
Page 11
applicant has performed a wave action study on the site. The report notes the top of the
seawall is at about 8.7 Mean Sea Level (MSL) and the crest of the quarry stone protection
behind the seawall is at about elevation +14 MSL. The slope above the quarry stone is
vegetated and extends up to a concrete patio at about +28 MSL. The quarry stones that
makes up the slope protection are angular in shape and range in size from 400 Ibs. to
about 4 tons. The quarry stone at the toe of the seawall extends seaward about 4-feet
from the wall and does not extend below the footing of the wall at about +4.7 MSL. The
report concludes the existing shoreline protection is in good condition and will not be
subject to wave overtopping.
According to the wave runup study, the calculated maximum runup is to +13 MSL which
is below the top of the quarry stone slope protection. The lowest elevation of the
concrete deck is about +28 MSL; thus, the deck will not be subject to wave runup. The
report notes the shore protection has functioned with no significant damage to the slope,
and no damage whatsoever to the improvements since 1983.
The report recommends that long term stability of the site will depend on the
maintenance of the shore protection. Maintenance includes the repositioning of the
quarry stones lost due to the combined effects of settlement, scour and wave action
dislodging the stones. The report notes that no new stones are needed at this time and
that the maintenance of the shore protection does not require any further seaward
encroachment of the shoreline structure's footprint. The report also recommends that
because the vegetated slope above the shore protection will be subject to spray and
possibly wave thrown cobbles during storm events, if this vegetation is lost, new
vegetation should be placed as soon as possible.
The Commission's coastal engineer has reviewed the report and concludes the report's
findings and conclusions are well supported by analysis and present good engineering
evaluation and assumptions. Thus, based on the above, the Commission finds the
required findings are made to ensure the proposed development is appropriately sited so
as to be safe from coastal erosion without requiring future additional shoreline protection.
The Commission is interested in establishing the seaward extent of shoreline protective
devices in this area. The report indicates the seawall toe is 118- feet west of the easterly
property boundary at an elevation of 4.7-ft. Mean Sea Level (MSL). The report also
notes the top of the seawall is at elevation +8.7 -ft MSL and the top of the riprap slope
above the seawall is at +14MSL.
Based on the preceding discussion, the Commission finds that no additional rock is
authorized seaward of these locations. Special Condition #2 requires that the surveyed
toe of the seawall be shown on a final site plan to establish its permitted seaward extent
as identified above.
Special Condition #3 requires a long-term monitoring plan to monitor and record the
changes in beach profile fronting the site and to identify damage/changes to the seawall
such that repair and maintenance is completed in a timely manner to avoid further
Page 12
encroachment of the seawall on the beach. The concern is that any future development
on the site has the potential to extend shoreline protection seaward onto public beach.
This condition will assure seawall maintenance will occur in a timely and orderly way
and without adverse impacts to public access.
Special Condition #4 identifies that the applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance
of the existing concrete seawall and companion riprap in its approved state. Based on the
information and recommendations contained in the monitoring report required in Special
Condition #3 of CDP #A-6-Cfl-01-20 above, any stones or materials that become
dislodged or any portion of the seawall that is determined to extend beyond the approved
toe shall be removed from the beach. However, if it is determined that repair and/or
maintenance to the revetment is necessary, the permittee shall contact the Commission
office to determine whether an amendment to this permit is necessary.
Although the wave uprush study finds the existing revetment would protect the proposed
reconstruction, Special Condition #6 requires the applicant to execute assumption of risk
documents, providing that the applicant understands that the site is subject to hazards
based on its location on the coast and that the applicant assumes the risk of developing
the property
Special Condition #7 also requires that any future improvements to the single family
house or seawall authorized by this permit, including but not limited to repair and
maintenance identified as requiring a permit in Public Resources section 30610(d) and
Title 14 California Code of Regulations sections 13252, shall require an amendment from
the Commission. The concern is that future improvements to the seawall are limited to its
existing seaward footprint to assure no impacts to public access by further encroachment
onto the beach.
In summary, as conditioned so that no further seaward encroachment of the
seawall/riprap is permitted with this action or in the future and that maintenance and
monitoring of shoreline conditions relative to the seawall are done to minimize public
access impacts, the Commission finds the proposed project conforms to the certified
Carlsbad LCP.
5. Public Access and Recreation. Section 30604(c) of the Coastal Act requires
that a specific access finding be made for all development located between the sea and
the first coastal roadway. Additionally, Section 21.204.070(A)1 of the Coastal Shoreline
Development Overlay requires that "Development shall be sited and designed in a
manner which does not interfere or diminish the potential public rights based on historic
public use...." The subject lot extends to the mean high tide line and includes sandy
beach that has been historically used by the public. Section 21.204.060 (Requirements for
Public Access) provides:
Page 13
A. Lateral Public Access:
1. Minimum Requirements. Development shall be conditioned (emphasis
added) to provide the public with the right to a minimum 25 feet of dry sandy
beach at all times of the year. The minimum requirement applies to all new
developments proposed along the shoreline requiring any type of local permit
including a building permit, minor land division or any other type of
discretionary or nondiscretionary action.
Section 21.204.070(A)1 of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay requires that
"mechanisms for guaranteeing the continued public use of the site shall be required in
accordance with Section 21.204.080. Section 21.204.080 identifies that legal instruments
(Deed restrictions, Offers to Dedicate, Outright Grant of Fee Interest, etc.) are required
for guaranteeing public access unless an area of "equivalent public access" has been
provided in the immediate area of the project site. As noted, the Commission previously
approved shoreline protection on this site. Its approval included a requirement that an
easement for public access and public recreation be recorded to extend seaward of the
concrete seawall to the mean high tide line. Since the easement has been recorded and
runs with the land, it is not being required with this action. The Commission finds that
further encroachment of the seawall/riprap would result in rock being placed within the
public access easement area. This would result in adverse public access impacts as sandy
beach historically used by the public would be displaced by shoreline protection. The
final survey of the metes and bounds of the seawall/riprap required in Special Condition
#2 will assure this future encroachment will not happen.
Vertical access from the first public roadway to the beach exists between 200-300 feet
north and south of the project site by way of a vertical accessway and access
improvements associated with Carlsbad State Beach respectively. Thus, the Commission
finds adequate lateral and vertical access exists in the project area.
Project construction has the potential to adversely affect public access in the area. This
area includes nearby public parking spaces at Carlsbad State Beach and several on-street
parking spaces near the beach and vertical accessway located to the north that if usurped
by construction and staging equipment and materials would result in a decrease of public
access in the area. To ensure that adverse public access impacts will be avoided during
project construction, Special Condition #5 requires detailed plans identifying the location
of access corridors to the construction site and staging areas. Use of sandy beach and
public parking areas located outside of the actual construction site, including on-street
parking, for the interim storage of materials and equipment is prohibited. The condition
also includes other provisions to ensure that the project has the least impact on public
access/parking areas during its construction. The Commission finds that based on the
above, the proposed project is consistent with the public access and recreation policies of
the Coastal Act and the Carlsbad LCP.
A-6-CII-Ol-d^
Page 14
6. Public Views. The following policies and goals of the certified Mello n
LCP address protection of public views and are applicable to the proposed development:
Policy 8-1
The Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone should be applied where necessary throughout
the Carlsbad Coastal Zone to assure maintenance of existing views and panoramas.
Sites considered for development should undergo individual review to determine if
the proposed development will obstruct views or otherwise damage the visual beauty
of the area. The Planning Commission should enforce appropriate height limitations
and see-through construction, as well as minimize any alterations to topography.
In addition, Section 21.40.135 of the City's certified LCP Implementation Plan is
applicable to the proposed development and states, in part:
Within the coastal zone, existing public views and panorama shall be maintained. Through
the individualized review process, sites considered for development shall be conditioned so as
to not obstruct or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone. In addition to the
above, height limitations and see-through construction techniques should be employed.
Shoreline development shall be built in clusters to leave open areas around them to permit
more frequent views of the shoreline. Vista points shall be incorporated as a part of larger
projects.
Additionally, Section 21.204.100 (B & C) of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay
Zone of the City's certified LCP is applicable and states:
B. Appearance - Buildings and structures will be so located on the site as to
create a generally attractive appearance and be agreeably related to
surrounding development and the natural environment.
C. Ocean Views - Buildings, structures, and landscaping will be so located as to
preserve the degree feasible any ocean views as may be visible from the
nearest public street.
The proposal includes the demolition of an existing 28-foot high, 3,344-sq. ft. three unit
residential structure construction of a two-story, 28-foot high, 3,572 sq.ft. single family
dwelling. The project area contains structures of similar size and scale as the proposed
structure. As this section of beachfronting development is zoned multi-family, the
majority of the structures are large multi-unit buildings that typically range in size from
2,500 sq.ft. to as much as 5,000 sq.ft. The proposed project is actually a decrease in the
density and intensity of current development as it is proposed as a single-family dwelling.
Regarding community character, the proposed development is consistent with the scale
and pattern of existing single and multi-family development in the area, does not exceed
the height limitations imposed within the Mello n LCP, does not exceed the building
density limitations imposed by local ordinance and architecturally is in conformance with
the development and design standards within the surrounding community. Therefore, the
A-6-CII-01-20
Page 15
project can be found consistent with the LCP requirement that development must be
agreeably related to surrounding development and the natural environment.
Regarding the preservation of ocean views, as noted, the project is consistent with the
stringline of development in the area and as such, new development will not adversely
affect ocean views to and along the shoreline. The project proposes 5-foot side yard
setbacks. The site plan indicates "see through" fences will be installed in the side yards to
preserve public views. However, such fences could be replaced with a solid fence
sometime in the future and preservation of public views is required by the certified LCP.
The Commission finds that no future development should be permitted within the
sideyards that would result in public views being obstructed to the ocean. Special
Condition #7 requires that any future improvements to the single family house authorized
by this permit, including but not limited to the replacement of see-through fences with
solid materials identified as requiring a permit in Public Resources section 30610(d) and
Title 14 California Code of Regulations sections 13252, shall require an amendment from
the Commission.
Therefore, because the proposed project can be found consistent with the character of
existing development and as conditioned to require that the Commission reviews any
future development proposals that could obstruct public views to the ocean, the
Commission finds the project can be found consistent with the visual resource provisions
of the certified LCP.
7. Water Quality. Chapter 15.12.020 of the "Stormwater Management And
Discharge Control Ordinance, of the certified Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance identifies "Best
Management Practices" as follows
"Best Management Practices" or (BMPs) means schedules of activities,
prohibitions of practices, general food housekeeping practices, pollution
prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other
management practices to prevent or reduce to the maximum extent practicable
(MEP) the discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly into waters of the United
States. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and
practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or
drainage from raw materials storage.
Chapter 15.12.010 defines the purpose and intent of the ordinance. The purpose of the
chapter is to ensure the future health, safety, and general welfare of the residential,
commercial and industrial sectors of the City of Carlsbad by...:
C. Reducing pollutants in storm water discharges, including those pollutants
taken up by storm water as it flows over urban areas (Urban runoff), to the
maximum extent practicable
D. Reducing pollutants in storm water discharges in order to achieve applicable
water quality objectives for surface waters in San Diego County.
Page 16
The intent of the ordinance is to protect and enhance the water quality of watercourses
and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Clean Water Act and
California Regional Water Control Board NPDES Permit No. CA108758, Order 90-42
and any amendment, revision or reissuance thereof.
Policy 4-6 of the Mello n LUP, "Sediment Control" Practices, provides:
Apply sediment control practices as a perimeter protection to prevent off-site
drainage. Preventing sediment from leaving the site should be accomplished by
such methods as diversion ditches, sediment traps, vegetative filters and sediment
basins. Preventing erosion is of course the most efficient way to control sediment
runoff.
In its approval, the City made findings that the project must comply with its NPDES
permit by utilizing best management practices to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. The certified
Stormwater Ordinance requires that both the quantity and quality of runoff be addressed
to maintain water quality. The City found that quantity would be addressed by collecting
runoff in a proposed drainage system that uses drains, swales and an energy dissipater
near the toe of the bluff. The City found that the project maintained approximately the
same amount of impervious surfaces as the home proposed to be demolished, and for that
reason, quality of runoff need not be addressed. The certified LCP requires that best
management practices be utilized to assure the quality of the water leaving the site has
been addressed to the maximum extent practicable.
As approved by the City, the project proposed drainage improvements on the bluff face.
As noted, the project has been redesigned so the drainage swale and companion dissipater
have been relocated from the toe of the bluff to the base of the concrete deck. In this
way, no grading will be required on the bluff face to install the drainage improvements.
Below the dissipater is existing ice plant on the bluff which is proposed to remain.
Runoff leaving the dissipater will be filtered as it passes through the ice plant vegetation
before it enters the beach portion of the site. As filtered through vegetation, water quality
leaving the site should be maintained.
Special Condition #8 requires a drainage and runoff control plan which indicates that
runoff from impervious surfaces will be collected and directed away from the bluff face
and towards the on-site vegetation. The Commission finds that as conditioned the project
minimizes adverse impacts to coastal resources in a manner consistent with the
stormwater management policies of the certified LCP.
8. Consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA). Section
13096 of the Commission's administrative regulations requires Commission approval of a
coastal development permit or amendment to be supported by a finding showing the
permit or permit amendment, to be consistent with any applicable requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of CEQA
A-6-CII-01-2W
Page 17
prohibits a proposed development from being approved if there are feasible alternatives
or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant
adverse effect which the activity may have on the environment.
The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the visual, public access and
hazard policies of the Carlsbad LCP. Mitigation measures will minimize all adverse
environmental impacts. As conditioned, there are no feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse
impact which the activity may have on the environment. Therefore, the Commission
finds that the proposed project, as conditioned to mitigate the identified impacts, is the
least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and can be found consistent with the
requirements of the Coastal Act to conform to CEQA.
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and development
shall 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. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be
resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission.
4. 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.
5. 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.
(G:\San Diego\Reports\Appeals\2001 \A-6-CII-01 -20Thorykstfrpt.doc)
01/30/2881 14:86 619-523-9035 THORYK ARCHITECT IIC PAGE 02
* STATE OF CALIFORNIA- THE RESOURCES AGENCY -~-x _ CRAY PAVB. Oanmor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION =
SAN PI6GO AREA
7S75 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103
SAN DIEGO, CA wios-awz
(616) 787-2370
January 30, 2001
Thoryk Architecture, Inc.
1235 Shafter Street
San Diego, CA 92106
Re: Coastal Development Permit" Appeal #A-6-C3I-01-2b (Quirk)
Dear Mr. Thoryk:
This letter is in regards to the Commission appeal that was filed on the Quirk proposal on
January 24,2001. Commission staff has requested the City of Carlsbad to forward the
project file within 5 days as is required when a local permit decision is appealed to the
Commission,
However, based on a preliminary"review of some file materials given to us by the Qty
and discussions with City staff, additional information will be required for staff to make a
recommendation on the de novo review of the project. It would be preferable to have the
information described below prior to staff's recommendation on the substantial issue
portion of the appeal; however, in any case, the information will be required before a de
novo review of the project can be scheduled for public hearing,
The Commission's concern regarding the proposed residential project is that the subject
area is known to be subject to hazards from wave action, and the proposed residence and
associated improvements, because they are seaward of existing improvements, could
result in the need to construct new shoreline protection on the site.
Additionally, there appears to be existing riprap on the subject site and possibly a
retaining wall or seawall that is located at the toe of the bluff across the width of the
property. The City's approval was silent on the riprap and wall. I have been unable to
find any evidence that the existing riprap or retaining wall on the subject site was placed
under an approved coastal development permit Therefore, based on existing information
provided to us, we are unable to determine the extent of shoreline protection on the site.
The City's approval failed to address the relationship of the existing and proposed
improvements to the mean high tide line by requiring a current beach profile. Although
the City acknowledged public use of the beach inland of the mean high tide line, the
certified LCP requires that "development shall be sited and designed in a manner which
does not interfere or diminish the potential public rights based on historic public use"
(Section 21.204.070(A) 1 of the certified Coastal Shoreline Overlay Zone). The City did
not require a study that determined where the proposed improvements were in relation to
the mean high tide line and how access would be affected by such improvements. By
01/30/2081 14:06 619-523-9035 THORYK ARCHITECT IMC PAGE 03
Thoryk Architecture
January 29,2001
Page 2
failing to acknowledge that lateral access opportunities exist on the site, the City failed to
require a condition which would assure that public access would be protected as required
in Section 21. 204.060.
Therefore, the following information is required before the appeal can be scheduled for
public hearing:
• Plans documenting the length, width, and seaward extent of the toe of the existing rip
rap and retaining wall (including any buried portion) relative to a fixed reference
point such as a surveyed property line or street monument, and showing whether any .
portion 7>f shoreline protection is on public property. Plans should~include a beach
profile and topographic survey of the entire site with cross-sections that shows the
configuration of the existing rock in relation to the western property line and the
current level of beach sand to determine the of visible rock and the toe of buried rock.
• An analysis of the proposed project's ability to withstand hazards from wave runup.
• A history of the riprap and retaining wall indicating when they were placed, what
function they provide and copies of any permits allowing their placement.
Please provide two copies of the information so that we can forward one copy to our
coastal engineer. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
ill Ponder
Coastal Planner
(G:\San Diego\Bffl\QaiiUir.24oc)
f STAfc OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO AREA
7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4402
(619) 767-2370
Tue lie
Filed:
49th Day:
180th Day:
Staff:
Staff Report:
Hearing Date:
1/24/01
3/14/01
7/23/01
BP-SD
2/28/01
3/13-16/01
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON APPEAL
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Carlsbad
'
DECISION: Approval with Conditions
APPEAL NO.: A-6-CII-01 -20
"* \ - -- . •. . -
APPLICANT: Thoryk Architecture
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolition of an existing 3,344 -sq. ft. three unit residential
structure and construction of a two-story, 28-foot high, 3,572 sq.ft. single family
dwelling and attached 416 sq.ft garage on an 8,712 sq.ft. blufftop site. Also
proposed is removal of an existing wooden bluff stairway and installation of a
new concrete stairway, planter, drainage structure and decks on the bluff face.
PROJECT LOCATION:
104-04
3075 Ocean Street, Carlsbad (San Diego County) APN 155-
APPELLANTS: Coastal Commissioners Patrick Kruer and Patricia McCoy
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, determine that
substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed.
SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: Certified City of Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program (LCP)/Mello II Segment, Carlsbad Coastal Development Permit CDP
99-53
I. Appellant Contends That:
The appellants contend that the City's approval is inconsistent with Carlsbad LCP
provisions pertaining to shoreline development, public access, coastal bluff protection,
ocean setback (stringline) and the water quality provisions in the certified LCP.
A-6-CH-Ol-O^i
Page 2
n. Local Government Action:
The proposed development was approved by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
on January 3, 2001. The conditions of approval address drainage impacts to the ocean,
public access and consistency with the certified Mello IILCP.
III. Appeal Procedures:
After certification of a Local Coastal Program (LCP), the Coastal Act provides for
limited appeals to the Coastal Commission of certain local government actions on coastal
development permits. Projects within cities and counties may be appealed if they are
located within mapped appeallable areas. The grounds for appeal are limited to the
assertion that "development does not conform to the certified local coastal program."
Where the project is located between the first public road and the sea or within 300 ft. of
the mean high tide line, the grounds of appeal are limited to those contained in Section
30603(b) of the Coastal Act. Those grounds are that the development does not conform
to the standards set forth in the certified local coastal program or the access policies set
forth in the Coastal Act.
Section 30625(b) of the Coastal Act requires the Commission to hear an appeal unless it
determines that no substantial issue is raised by the appeal. If the staff recommends
"substantial issue" and no Commissioner objects, the Commission will proceed directly
to a de novo hearing on the merits of the project.
If the staff recommends "no substantial issue" or the Commission decides to hear
arguments and vote on the substantial issue question, proponents and opponents will have
3 minutes per side to address whether the appeal raises a substantial issue. It takes a
majority of Commissioners present to find that no substantial issue is raised. If
substantial issue is found, the Commission will proceed to a full public hearing on the
merits of the project. If the Commission conducts a de novo hearing on the permit
application, the applicable test for the Commission to consider is whether the proposed
development is in conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program.
In addition, for projects located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the
sea, Sec. 30604(c) of the Act requires that a finding must be made by the approving
agency, whether the local government or the Coastal Commission on appeal, that the
development is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of
Chapter 3. In other words, in regard to public access questions, the Commission is
required to consider not only the certified LCP, but also Chapter 3 policies when
reviewing a project on appeal.
The only persons qualified to testify before the Commission at the "substantial
issue" stage of the appeal process is the applicant, persons who opposed the application
before the local government (or their representatives), and the local government.
Testimony from other persons must be submitted in writing. At the time of the de novo
hearing, any person may testify.
A-6-cn-(rro2o
Page 3
IV. MOTION: I move that the Commission determine that Appeal No. A-6-CII-
01-20 raises NO substantial issue with respect to the grounds on
which the appeal has been filed under § 30603 of the Coastal
Act.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF NO SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE:
Staff recommends a NO vote. Passage of this motion will result in a finding of No
Substantial Issue and adoption of the following resolution and findings. If the
Commission finds No Substantial Issue, the Commission will not hear the application de
novo and the local action will become final and effective. The motion passes only by an
affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners present.
RESOLUTION TO FIND NO SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE:
The Commission finds that Appeal No. A-6-CII-01-20 presents a substantial issue with
respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed under § 30603 of the Coastal
Act regarding consistency with the Certified Local Coastal Plan and/or the public access
and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.
V. Findings and Declarations.
The Commission finds and declares as follows:
1. Project Description/Permit History. The proposal includes demolition of an
existing 3,344 sq. ft. three unit residential structure and construction of a two-story, 28-
foot high, 3,572 sq.ft. single family dwelling and attached 416-sq.ft garage on an 8,712
sq.ft. blufftop site in the City of Carlsbad. Also proposed is removal of an existing
wooden bluff stairway and installation of a new concrete stairway, planter, drainage
structure and decks on the bluff face. The City approved approximately 40 cubic yards of
balanced grading, ostensibly for a deeper foundation for that portion of the residence that
is seaward of the existing structure.
The project site is a coastal bluff located on the west side of Ocean Street, between Oak
and Carlsbad Village Drive in the northern part of the City of Carlsbad. The eastern third
of the lot (street side) is relatively flat, with steep slopes towards the middle of the lot,
than leveling out as it reaches the beach. The site contains an existing concrete seawall
with a quarry stone toe and quarry stone on the slope above the wall. According to the
applicant, the existing shoreline protection extends across about 5 properties and is about
260 feet in length.
The project area is an established residential infill area (Residential Medium High Land
Use Designation based on a density of 19 du/ac) with nearby commercial development
A-6-CII-01-02
located inland of the project site. Carlsbad State Beach is located approximately 350 feet
to the south of the project site.
The standard of review is consistency with the certified City of Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program, Mello II segment and the public access policies of the Coastal Act.
2. Stringline. The proposed project is a single family dwelling on a bluff top lot.
The certified LCP prohibits new development along the ocean from extending further
seaward than a "stringline" drawn between adjacent sites. The goal of limiting new
development from extending beyond the stringline is to restrict encroachment onto the
shoreline and preserve public views along the shoreline. Section 21.204.050B of the
Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay provides:
New development fronting the ocean shall observe at a minimum, an ocean
setback based on a "stringline" method of measurement. No enclosed portions of
a structure shall be permitted further seaward than allowed by a line drawn
between the adjacent structure to the north and south; no decks or other
appurtenances shall be permitted further seaward than those allowed by a line
drawn between those on the adjacent structures to the north and south. A greater
ocean setback may be required for geologic reasons and if specified in the Local
Coastal Program.
Additionally, Policy 7-12 of the Mello IILUP states:
Seaward of Ocean Street
New development on the seaward side of Ocean Street shall observe at a
minimum, an ocean setback based on a "stringline" method of measurement. No
enclosed portions of a structure shall be permitted further seaward than allowed
by a line drawn between the adjacent structure to the north and south; no decks or
other appurtenances shall be permitted further seaward than those allowed by a
line drawn between those on the adjacent structures to the north and south. The
policy shall be used on single family, "infill" parcels, and a greater ocean setback
may be required for geologic reasons.
The proposed project is new development on the seaward side of Ocean Street. The City
found that the project is consistent with the above stringline provisions of the LCP.
However, the City applied the stringline incorrectly. The Commission has interpreted the
above cited stringline provision of the LCP to require that the "stringline" be measured
from the nearest point of adjacent structures immediately to the north and south of the
proposed development (ref. CDP Nos. 6-90-25/Kunkel; 6-90-299/Rowe; 6-92-
107/Phillips and 6-95-144/Bownes). In this instance, however, the City measured the
stringline line from the middle portion of the adjacent structure to the north that juts
further seaward than the rest of the structure. Consequently, as approved by the City, the
above grade portion of the proposed structure is sited approximately 7 feet further
seaward than if measured from the closest corner of the building, inconsistent with the
A-6-CII-07-020
Page 5
LUP policy and shoreline ordinance. This results in new development being sited further
seaward on the bluff face and nearer the ocean, with potential adverse impacts to public
views.
Additionally, the new residential structure also includes a mechanical equipment room
which is proposed beneath the proposed elevated concrete deck on the western side of the
proposed residence. Grading into the bluff face is required to locate the mechanical
equipment room; the room would be approximately 8-feet high and will extend
approximately 3-feet above grade. It appears the mechanical equipment room, which is
attached to the main residential structure, represents the most seaward portion of the
proposed residence and as such, should comply with the stringline associated with the
principle structure. As the seawordmost portion of the home, the proposed mechanical
equipment room will extend approximately 18-feet seaward of the "principal structure"
stringline as determined by staff.
Additionally, the proposed project is also inconsistent with the stringline for accessory
structures. The proposed development includes a large concrete planter (12'x 5'),
"cosmetic" boulders, private stairs and a drainage structure, all seaward of the proposed
residence on the bluff face. The concrete stairs and drainage structure extend to beach
level at approximate elevation 10 MSL. The proposed planter extends to elevation 16
MSL, about mid way on the bluff. However, planters and other similar structures on the
adjacent sites are located at least 11-feet upland of the subject planter, no lower than
elevation 21 MSL. Finally, the proposal includes the installation of large boulders on the
bluff face seaward of the mechanical equipment room at approximate elevation 20 MSL.
According to the applicant, the boulders are "cosmetic" (are decorative and would not
affect bluff stability); however, the Commission finds they must be considered accessory
structures for purposes of determining the accessory stringline. As such, the boulders
extend approximately 5-feet seaward of the accessory stringline identified by the City.
Thus, the Commission finds the proposed development raises a substantial issue with the
stringline provisions of the LCP with regards to both the main residence and accessory
stringlines.
3. Landform Alteration/Coastal Bluff Preservation. The Mello II LUP contains
policies that address bluff preservation. Policy 4-1 provides:
(d) Undevelopable Shoreline Features
No development shall be permitted on any sand or rock beach or on the face of
any ocean bluff, with the exception of accessways to provide public beach access
and of limited public recreation facilities.
In its approval of the project, the City cited the project's conformance with the blufftop
development provisions of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay. The overlay is
intended to provide land use regulations along the Carlsbad shoreline including beaches,
bluffs and the land area immediately landward thereof. The purpose of the overlay zone
is to ensure that the public's interest in maintaining the shoreline as a unique recreational
Page 6
and scenic resource is adequately protected. Additionally, the overlay ensures public
safety and public access will be assured and promotes avoidance of the adverse geologic
and economic effects of bluff erosion. Section 21.204.050 of the Coastal Shoreline
Development Overlay zone provides:
Uses permitted by the underlying zone map may be permitted on non-beach areas
subject to granting of a Coastal Development permit for coastal shoreline
development issued pursuant to the procedures of Chapter 21.201 of this title,
unless specifically prohibited by policies or other applicable ordinances in the
approved Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. Non-beach areas are defined as areas
at elevations of 10 feet or more above mean sea level. Permitted uses are subject
to the following criteria:
a. Grading and Excavation - Grading and excavation shall be the minimum
necessary (emphasis added) to complete the proposed development consistent
with the provisions of this zone and the following requirements:
1). Building sites shall be graded to direct surface water away from the top of
the bluff, or alternatively, drainage shall be handled in a manner satisfactory
to the City which will prevent damage to the bluff by surface and percolating
water.
2) No excavation, grading or deposit of natural materials shall be permitted
on the beach or the face of the bluff except to the extent necessary to
accomplish construction pursuant to this section.
To preserve coastal bluffs, the Commission has typically interpreted the above section to
mean that only at-grade structures not requiring grading and which are consistent with the
appropriate stringline are permitted on a bluff face. The Commission has found that "the
minimum necessary" for new development on the bluff face means at-grade and
ephemeral (like the existing wooden stairs on the site) without requiring excavation
which makes such improvements more "permanent" (ref. CDP Nos. 6-92-100/Fulton; 6-
92-232/Weldon and 6-93-100/Gilstrap). As noted, the project is proposing a mechanical
equipment room seaward of the residence which would require grading within the bluff
face. The proposed mechanical equipment room would require approximately 6-feet to
8-feet of excavation below the bluff face's existing grade and would extend
approximately an additional 18-feet seaward of the residence.
Additionally, as noted, the project is proposing permanent appurtenant structures
(concrete deck, retaining area for the concrete deck, a concrete planter, concrete stairs
and a drainage device) on the bluff face which will require excavation into the bluff.
Thus, the proposed structures on the bluff face do not appear to be consistent with the
bluff protection provisions of the certified LCP. Based on the above, the Commission
finds the proposed development raises a substantial issue with respect to conforming with
the bluff preservation provisions of the certified LCP.
A-6-CII-01-020
Page?
4. Shoreline Development/Hazards. The Mello IILUP contains policies that address
coastal erosion. Policy 4-1 provides:
(a) Development Along Shoreline
For all new development along the shoreline, including additions to existing
development, a site specific geologic investigation and analysis similar to that
required by the Coastal Commission's Geologic Stability and Bluff Top
Guidelines shall be required; for permitted development, this report must
demonstrate bluff stability for 75 years, or the expected lifetime of the structure,
whichever is greater. Additionally, permitted development shall incorporate,
where feasible, subdrainage systems to remove groundwater from the bluffs, and
shall use drought-resistant vegetation in landscaping, as well as adhering to the
standards of erosion control contained in the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan. A
waiver of public liability shall be required for any permitted development for
which an assurance of structural stability cannot be provided.
Additionally, Section 21.204.110 of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay zone
requires that new development must be sited appropriately with respect to hazards.
The LUP policy requires that bluff stability must be demonstrated through a geotechnical
reconnaissance. The City's approval finds that the proposed development conforms to
the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone, but the findings are not substantiated
by the geotechnical report for the project; the geotechnical report upon which the City
relied did not conform to the requirements established by the LCP for such reports. Thus,
the City's finding regarding the geologic stability and safety of the proposed development
lacks foundation. The LCP requires a geotechnical report to consider how bluff stability
would be affected by marine erosion. The geotechnical report relied on by the City did
not even acknowledge the existence of an existing concrete seawall with a quarry stone
toe; thus, the effect of wave uprush on bluff stability was not addressed. By failing to
identify the existing shoreline protection, the geotechnical report also failed to address
the adequacy of the existing protection to protect the proposed improvements and the
potential need for future protection. Thus, while the LCP allows shoreline protection to
protect existing development, in this case, the required findings were not made to ensure
the proposed development is appropriately sited so as to be safe from coastal erosion
without requiring future additional shoreline protection.
Section 21.204.120 of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay requires an
assumption of risk be recorded as a deed restriction to address development in a
hazardous location. This was not secured in the City's approval. Thus, as approved by
the City, the development raises a substantial issue with regard to the consistency of the
proposed development with the shoreline hazard provisions of the certified LCP.
5. Public Access. Section 21.204.070(A)1 of the Coastal Shoreline Development
Overlay requires that "Development shall be sited and designed in a manner which does
PageS
not interfere or diminish the potential public rights based on historic public use...." The
subject lot extends to the mean high tide line and includes sandy beach that has been
historically used by the public. Thus, there's a possibility that the public may have
established prescriptive rights over the applicant's property. Although the City
acknowledged public use of the beach on the applicant's property inland of the mean high
tide line by finding that 25-feet of sandy beach was available on the property for public
use, the City failed to address how public access would be affected by the existing
shoreline protection and the proposed improvements. Section 21.204.060 (Requirements
for Public Access) provides:
A. Lateral Public Access:
1. Minimum Requirements. Development shall be conditioned (emphasis
added) to provide the public with the right to a minimum 25 feet of dry sandy
beach at all times of the year. The minimum requirement applies to all new
developments proposed along the shoreline requiring any type of local permit
including a building permit, minor land division or any other type of
discretionary or nondiscretionary action.
Section 21.204.070(A)1 of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay requires that
"mechanisms for guaranteeing the continued public use of the site shall be required in
accordance with Section 21.204.080. Section 21.204.080 identifies that legal instruments
(Deed restrictions, Offers to Dedicate, Outright Grant of Fee Interest, etc.) are required
for guaranteeing public access unless an area of "equivalent public access" has been
provided in the immediate area of the project site. Securing public access through a legal
instrument on the beach portion of the lot was not required by the City for the subject
development. Additionally, no findings were made with regards to the availability of
equivalent public lateral access on the site.
Section 21.204.090 (Site Plans Required) of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay
requires the location of the bluff line and beach be identified. The City's approval failed
to address the relationship of the existing and proposed improvements to the mean high
tide line by requiring a current beach profile which include the location of the mean high
tide line. Because the location of the mean high tide line is always changing, it is
important to get as accurate measurement of the current mean high tide as possible to
assure, in this case, that the existing shoreline protection is on private property and would
not adversely affect public access along the beach. As noted, the City did not address the
status of the existing shoreline protection (seawall and quarry stone) on the beach portion
of the lot. The Commission has found that shoreline protection can have adverse impacts
to public access by way of displacing sandy beach that has been historically available for
public use and by causing scour and subsequent loss of beach as wave energy is deflected
from shoreline protective devices onto the beach. By failing to address the how the
existing shoreline protection could affect public access, the Commission finds substantial
issue exists with regard to the consistency of the proposed development with the public
access policies of the LCP.
A-6-CII-01-020
Page 9
6. Public Views. Section 21.204.100(c) of the overlay states "Ocean Views -
Buildings, structures, and landscaping will be so located as to preserve to the degree
feasible any ocean views as may be visible from the nearest public street." The City did
not address long-term preservation of public views. While the City found that the project
maintains 5-foot side yard setbacks (where views could be available from Ocean Street to
the beach), it did not assure preservation in perpetuity of these public views. The site
plan indicates "see through" fences will be installed in the side yard to preserve public
views. However, such fences might be replaced with a solid fence sometime in the future
and preservation of public views should have been assured in the City's permit because
the LCP allow fences to be replaced without a coastal development permit. However, no
condition was imposed that required the side yards to be maintained as such in the future.
Thus, the City's approval raises a substantial issue with the visual resource provisions of
the certified LCP.
7. Water Quality. Chapter 15.12 , "Stormwater Management And Discharge
Control", of the certified Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance requires "Best Management
Practices" (BMPs) to prevent or reduce to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) the
discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly into waters of the United States. The
purpose of the ordinance is to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges, including
those pollutants taken up by storm water as it flows over urban areas (Urban runoff), to
the maximum extent practicable and to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges in
order to achieve applicable water quality objectives for surface waters in San Diego
County. The intent of the ordinance is to protect and enhance the water quality of
watercourses and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Clean Water
Act and California Regional Water Control Board NPDES Permit No. CA108758, Order
90-42 and any amendment or revision.
Policy 4-6 of the Mello II LUP, "Sediment Control" Practices, provides:
Apply sediment control practices as a perimeter protection to prevent off-site
drainage. Preventing sediment from leaving the site should be accomplished by
such methods as diversion ditches, sediment traps, vegetative filters and sediment
basins. Preventing erosion is of course the most efficient way to control sediment
runoff.
In its approval, the City made findings that the project must comply with its NPDES
permit by utilizing best management practices to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. However, the
City's permit does not specifically address proposed changes to existing improvements
and the potential impacts to water quality. The certified Stormwater Ordinance requires
that both the quantity and quality of runoff be addressed to maintain water quality. While
the City found that quantity would be addressed by collecting runoff in a proposed
drainage system that uses drains, swales and an energy dissipater near the toe of the bluff,
it failed to address the quality of the runoff as required in the ordinance. The City found
that the project maintained approximately the same amount of impervious surfaces as the
pre-existing project and for that reason quality of runoff need not be addressed.
Page 10
However, the certified LCP requires that best management practices be utilized to assure
the quality of the water leaving the site has been addressed to the maximum extent
practicable and this was not done. Therefore, the City's approval appears to be
inconsistent with the above provisions of the certified LCP.
For the reasons above, the Commission finds the City's approval appears to be
inconsistent with applicable provisions of the certified LCP and thus a Substantial Issue
exists with the City's approval of the project.
(G:\SanDiego\Reports\Appeals\2001\A-6-CII-01-020stfrpt.doc)
SITE
QUIRK RESIDENCE
CDP 00-50/V 00-401
EXHIBIT NO. 1
APPLICATION NO.
A-6-CI1-01-20
Location
California Coastal Commission
. C.EA .N_ SJ R E E T
EXHIBIT NO. 2
APPLICATION NO.
A-6-CII-01-20
Site Plan
California Coastal Commission
o1
LLJ_J
LJU EXHIBIT NO. 3
APPLICATION NO.
A-6-CII-01-20
Elevation
California Coastal Commission
Q
I
Os
EXHIBIT NO. 4
APPLICATION NO.
A-6-CII-01-20
Elevation
California Coastal Commission
o1
LU
O?
EXHIBIT NO. 5
APPLICATION NO.
A-6-CII-01-20
Elevation
alifornia Coastal Commission
in
rf
M
Q
I
LLJ
CO5>
EXHIBIT N?-
N0-
A-6-CII-0 -i -2°
California Coastal ^^omrnission
PARTIAL LOWER LEVEL
92 SF
EXHIBIT NO. 7
APPLICATION NO.
A-6-CII-01-20
Partial Lower Level
California Coastal Commission
EXHIBIT NO. 8
APPLICATION NO.
A-6-CI1-01-20
Mechanical
Equipment Room
California Coastal Commission
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY ' CRAY DAVIS. Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO AREA
7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4402
(619) 767-2370
APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT
DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Please Review Attached Appeal Information Sheet Prior To Completing This Form.
SECTION! Appellants)
Name: Patrick Kruer
Mailing Address: 2445-5th Avenue, #400
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone Number: 619231-3637
SECTION E. Decision Being Appealed
1. Name of local/port government: City of Carlsbad
2. Brief description of development being appealed:Demolish 3-unit residential
structure and construct new 28 ft. high single-family dwelling and accessory
improvements on blufftop lot.
3. Development's location (street address, assessor's parcel no., cross street, etc:)
3075 Ocean Street. Carlsbad. APN 203-251-08
4. Description of decision being appealed:
a. Approval; no special conditions:Q b. Approval with special conditions:[X]
c. Denial:! |
Note: For jurisdictions with a total LCP, denial decisions by a local government
cannot be appealed unless the development is a major energy or public works
project. Denial decisions by port governments are not appealable.
TO BE COMPLETED BY COMMISSION:
APPEAL NO: A-6-CII-01-020
DATE FILED: 1/24/01
DISTRICT: San Diego
EXHIBIT NO. 9
APPLICATION NO.
A-6-CII-01-20
Commission Appeal
Page 1 - 6
California Coastal Commission
APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Page 2
5. Decision being appealed was made by (check one):
a. [H Planning Director/Zoning c. Ex] Planning Commission
Administrator
b. D City Council/Board of d. Q Other
Supervisors
Date of local government's decision: January 3, 2001
Local government's file number (if any): CDP 00-50
SECTION III. Identification of Other Interested Persons
Give the names and addresses of the following parties. (Use additional paper as
necessary.)
Name and mailing address of permit applicant:
Thoryk Architecture
1235 Shafter Street.
San Dieso. CA 92106
Names and mailing addresses as available of those who testified (either verbally or in
writing) at the city/county/port hearing(s). Include other parties which you know to be
interested and should receive notice of this appeal.
SECTION IV. Reasons Supporting This Appeal
Note: Appeals of local government coastal permit decisions are limited by a variety of
factors and requirements of the Coastal Act. Please review the appeal information sheet
for assistance in completing this section, which continues on the next page.
LGCAPPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Page 3
State briefly your reasons for this appeal. Include a summary description of Local
Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, or Port Master Plan policies and requirements in which
you believe the project is inconsistent and the reasons the decision warrants a new
hearing. (Use additional paper as necessary.)
-f f\
Note: The above description need not be a complete or exhaustive statement of your
reasons of appeal; however, there must be sufficient discussion for staff to determine that
the appeal is allowed by law. The appellant, subsequent to filing the appeal, may submit
additional information to the staff and/or Commission to support the appeal request.
SECTION V. Certification
The information andjfacts/stated above are correct to the best of my/our knowledge.
Signed: \
Appellant or Agent
Date: /
Agent Authorization: I designate the above identified person(s) to act as my agent in all
matters pertaining to this appeal.
Signed:
Date:
(Document!)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS. Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ~~~
SAN DIEGO AREA
7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4402
(619) 767-2370
ATTACHMENT "A" -Quirk Appeal
The proposal includes demolition of an existing three unit residential structure and
construction of a two-story, 28-foot high, 3,572 sq.ft. single family dwelling and attached 416
sq.ft garage on a 8,712 sq.ft blufftop site within the Mello II plan area of the Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program segment. Also proposed is removal of existing wooden bluff stairway and
installation of a new concrete stairway, drainage structure and decks on the bluff face. The
project site is a coastal bluff located on the west side of Ocean Street, between Oak and
Carlsbad Village Drive. The eastern third of the lot is relatively flat, with slopes of 25% or
greater towards the middle of the lot, than leveling out as it reaches the beach. No shoreline
protection is proposed, although rock is proposed on the bluff face at the base of the seawall
or retaining wall that supports the deck. Existing riprap is located at the base of the bluff and
a small retaining wall. The City approved approximately 40 cubic yards of balanced grading,
ostensibly for a deeper foundation for that portion of the residence that is seaward of the
existing structure. The standard of review for this project is primarily the Mello n LUP and
the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone.
The City found that the project was proposed on the bluff and bluff face and cited the
project's conformance with the blufftop development provisions of the overlay. Section
21.204.050-"Uses Not On The Beach Subject to Coastal Shoreline Development Permit"
provides:
Uses permitted by the underlying zone map may be permitted on non-beach areas
subject to granting of a Coastal Development permit for coastal shoreline
development issued pursuant to the procedures of Chapter 21.201 of this title, unless
specifically prohibited by policies or other applicable ordinances in the approved
Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. Non-beach areas are defined as areas at elevations
of 10 feet or more above mean sea level. Permitted uses are subject to the following
criteria:
a. Grading and Excavation - Grading and excavation shall be the minimum
necessary (emphasis added) to complete the proposed development consistent
with the provisions of this zone and the following requirements:
1). Building sites shall be graded to direct surface water away from the top of the
bluff, or alternatively, drainage shall be handled in a manner satisfactory to the
City which will prevent damage to the bluff by surface and percolating water.
2.) No excavation, grading or deposit of natural materials shall be permitted on
the beach or the face of the bluff except to the extent necessary to accomplish
construction pursuant to this section.
b. New development fronting the ocean shall observe at a minimum, an ocean
setback based on a "stringline" method of measurement. No enclosed portions
of a structure shall be permitted further seaward than allowed by a line drawn
between the adjacent structure to the north and south; no decks or other
appurtenances shall be permitted further seaward than those allowed by a line
drawn between those on the adjacent structures to the north and south". A
Quirk appeal
January 24, 2001
Page 2
greater ocean setback may be required for geologic reasons and if specified in
the Local Coastal Program.
The Commission has interpreted the above section to mean that only at-grade structures are
permitted on a bluff face which are consistent with the appropriate stringline and do not
require grading. The Commission has found that "the minimum necessary" for new
development on the bluff face means at-grade and ephemeral (like the existing wooden stairs
on the site) without requiring excavation which makes such improvements more
"permanent". The project is proposing permanent structures (concrete deck, retaining area
for the concrete deck, equipment room, a concrete planter, concrete stairs to down the bluff
face to beach level, and a drainage device down the bluff face to beach level) seaward of the
residence on the bluff face which will require excavation and, as such, appear to be
inconsistent with the above provisions of the certified LCP.
The City found that the project is consistent with the stringline provisions of the LCP.
However, as approved, the stringline is measured incorrectly (is measured from the
seawardmost portion of the adjacent residence to the north when it should be measured from
the adjacent comer of the structure). This results in the structure being sited approx.7 feet cr* liac/lvc &
seaward of the allowable stringline, inconsistent with the overlay and resulting in new ., .
development being sited further seaward on the bluff face and nearer the ocean. ' *c ^ '
Additionally, the project is inconsistent with the stringline for accessory structures. The
proposed equipment room, planter, stairway and drainage structure are seaward of and more
substantial than similar accessory improvements on adjacent lots and as noted above would
require grading on the bluff face.
The overlay requires that new development be sited appropriately with respect to hazards.
The City's approval identifies that the proposed development will conform to the Coastal
Shoreline Development Overlay Zone but the findings are not substantiated by the
geotechnical report. The geotechnical report found that bluff stability would be unaffected
by the development. A slope stability analysis was done and the City found that appurtenant
structures were sited beyond the 500-year flood zone and as such were safe from ocean
hazards. However, the analysis did not address wave action or erosion potential as required
by the overlay. Section 21.204.110(8) requires the effects of marine erosion on bluffs be
evaluated and subsection (2) of the same section requires that "historic current and
foreseeable cliff erosion and possible changes in shore configuration" be evaluated. The
geotechnical report also failed to identify the nature and purpose of the proposed rock in front
of the retaining wall that supports the deck improvements and the existing concrete wall that
extends up to one foot high above the sandy beach portion of the lot for the width of the lot.
The geotechnical report also failed to address the need for existing protection, the potential
need for future protection and/or the associated impacts to public access. While the LCP and
Coastal Act allows shoreline protection to protect existing development, in this case, the
proposed development may be inappropriately sited so as to require future shoreline
protection.
The City's approval also failed to address the relationship of the existing and proposed
improvements to the mean high tide line by requiring a current beach profile. In Section
21.204.090 Boundaries and Topography, the LCP requires the boundaries and existing
topography of the property, the location of the bluff line and beach be identified. No beach
Quirk appeal
January 24, 2001
Page 3
profile or topographic survey of the entire site was identified or evaluated. Although the City
acknowledged public use of the beach inland of the mean high tide line, the overlay requires
that "development shall be sited and designed in a manner which does not interfere or
diminish the potential public rights based on historic public use" (Section 21.204.070(A)1).
The City did not require a study that determined where the proposed improvements were in
relation to the mean high tide line and how access would be affected by such improvements.
By failing to acknowledge that lateral access opportunities exist on the site, the City failed to
require a condition which would assure that public access would be protected as required in
Section 21.204.060.
Section 21.204.120 of the overlay requires an assumption of risk be recorded as a deed
restriction to address development in a hazardous location. This was not secured in the City's
approval and neither was the potential hazard of wave action and runup identified.
The City did not address preserving public views in perpetuity. Section 21.204.100(c) of the
overlay states "Ocean Views - Buildings, structures, and landscaping will be so located as to
preserve to the degree feasible any ocean views as may be visible from the nearest public
street." While the City found that the project maintains 5-foot side yard setbacks from Ocean
Street, it did not assure their preservation. The site plan indicates see through fences will be
installed in the side yard so that public views will be maintained from Ocean Street to the
beach. However, no condition was imposed that required the side yards to be maintained as
such in the future. As approved, the fences could be changed in the future to a design and
construction that would block views of the ocean.
The certified Stormwater Ordinance requires that both the quantity and quality of runoff be
addressed to maintain water quality. While the City found that quantity would be addressed
by collecting runoff in a proposed drainage system that uses drains, swales and an energy
dissipator near the toe of the bluff, it failed to address the quality of the runoff as required in
the ordinance. The City found that the project maintained approximately the same amount of
impervious surfaces as the pre-existing project and for that reason quality of runoff need not
be addressed.
(G:\San Diego\BilI\Quirk appeal summary.doc)
STAli: OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COM
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4402
(619)767-2370
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
TSSION
COMMISSION NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL
DATE January 25, 2001
TO Micheal Holzmiller, Planning Director
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
FROM Bill Ponder, Coastal Program Analyst
RE: Commission Appeal A-6-CII-01-020
Please be advised that the coastal development permit decision described
been appealed to the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 30602 or 30625. Therefore, the decision has been stayed pending
Commission action on the appeal pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30623,
Local Permit #:
Applicant(s):
Description:
Location:
Local
Appellant(s):
Date Appeal
00-50
Thoryk Architecture
Demolition of a 3-unit residential structure and
construction of a two-story, 28-foot high, 3,572 sq.ft.
single family residence and 416 sq.ft. garage.
3075 Ocean Street, Carlsbad (San Diego County)
Approved w/ Conditions
Patrick Kruer; Patricia McCoy
01/24/2001
The Commission appeal number assigned to this appeal is A-6-CII-01-020. The
Commission hearing date has been tentatively set for March 13-16, 2001 in San Diego. Within 5
working days of receipt of this Commission Notification of Appeal, copies of all relevant
documents and materials used in the City of Carlsbad's consideration of this coastal
development permit must be delivered to the San Diego Coast Area office of the
Coastal Commission (California Administrative Code Section 13112). Please include
copies of plans, relevant photographs, staff reports and related documents, findings (if
not already forwarded), all correspondence, and a list, with addresses, of all who
provided verbal testimony.
A Commission staff report and notice of the hearing will be forwarded to you prior to the
hearing. If you have any questions, please contact Bill Ponder at the San Diego Coast
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION