HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 96-10; North Batiquitos Sewage Force Main; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (17)RUG- 8-97 FRi 11:06 CITY ATTORNEY FAX NO, 6194348^7 p. 02
AUGUSTS, 1997
TO: ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: City Attorney
DCC COMMENTS FOR DCC MEETING OF AUGUST 11,1997
Following are my comments on the two items scheduled for the Planning
Commission meeting of August 20.1997:
1. NORTH BATIQUITOS SEWAGE FORCE MAIN (GDP 96-10) RE:
APPLICANTS.
A. Please change the documents to reflect that the City is the
applicant with regard to the North Batiquitos Sewage Force Main and the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District is the applicant with regard to the water main.
/ B. Bob Greaney confirms that they are not truly replacing the existing
deteriorated pipes in the existing trenches but have selected alternate routes. It
is not clear from either the staff report or the initial study/negative declaration
(and there is no exhibit to show the actual alignment compared to the existing
alignment) that the new alignment has been environmentally analyzed.
C. The initial study/negative declaration does not appear to be relying
on the MEIR for any environmental impact, so please delete Finding No. 5 from
Resolution 4I48.
' D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Action paragraph B
of Resolution 4148 approves the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
attached thereto, but there is no such titled document. There is a
"Environmental Mitigation Monitoring Checklist: Page one of one" which is
probably intended to be the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, but it
is not so labeled. Finding No. 3 again adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and makes a reference to "(Attachment CDP 96-10)", and
makes reference at line 17 to the "Candidate Findings of Fact". The attachment
referenced is a nonsequitur and should be either deleted or corrected; and
"Candidate Findings of Fact" is a term of art with regard to findings in relationship
to the adoption of an Environmental Impact Report, and is not appropriate when
referring to a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
*S E. The three conditions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration
Resolution 4I48 should be inserted instead as conditions of the project since the
IS/Mitigated Negative Declaration says that the mitigation measures have been
- 8-97 FRI 11:07 CITY ATTORNEY FAX NO. 619434^7 P. 03
incorporated into or made conditions of the project, and the project is the Coastal
Development Permit.
F. Condition No. 1 to the Mitigated Negative Declaration Resolution
'4I48 (to become a condition in the Coastal Development Permit Resolution 4149)
is inadequate to protect the coastal sage scrub habitat. Merely staking and
flagging it and then requiring a biologist to report on its destruction during
construction and then create after-the-fact mitigation for the destroyed habitat is
not an adequate mitigation measure. The mitigation measure should require
staking and flagging of the protected area and then other reasonable steps to be
taken by the Developer (in this case, us) with suitable onsite oversight, if
necessary, to ensure that there is no encroachment and destruction during the
course^of construction.
/ G. The LCP discussion on page 4 of the staff report indicates that the
-proposed pipelines will be within an existing easement located on a slope which
has a gradient of greater than 25 percent. Does this project need a Hillside
Development Permit or a Hillside Development Permit amendment in order to
proceed?
2. GERICQ COMMUNICATIONS SITE (CUP 97-081
A. In the staff report, please address the appropriate environmental
document in Section V Environmental Review. I think you are relying on a
Negative Declaration, and I do not think you are relying on prior compliance,
although the initial study is vague. Since you are not relying on the MEIR for
prior compliance, please delete Finding No. 4 in the Negative Declaration
Resolution 4155.
B. The staff report recites that the property is governed by Specific
Plan 27 which was approved in 1972. What was the purpose of the Specific
Plan? Is it obsolete? Can it be repealed?
C. What is the legal status of the blank sign formerly used by Texaco
located behind the eight-foot block wall adjacent to the eastern property line? Is
it also located on the 50-foot high freeway service line pole supporting the Gerico
sign, or is it separate?
The tentative schedule listed the Hillside Ordinance and the Poinsettia
Commuter Rail items as being on the August 20, 1997 Planning Commission
agenda. Are there staff reports coming for those items?
D. RICHARD RUDOLF
Assistant City Attorney
afs