HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 3373/I 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3373
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A SEAWALL AT 2665/2667 OCEAN STREET, CASE NAME: PHILLIPS SEAWALL
CASE NO.: SUP 91-8/HDP 91-19
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of April, 1992, holl
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering a
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the informatio
submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Plannin
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissio
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannin
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhib
"ND", dated February 13,1992, and "PII", dated February 7,1992, attached here1
and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinns:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project m:
have a significant impact on the environment.
2. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significant
impacted by this project. ...
...
...
...
...
// 0 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin$
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of April, 1992, by tht
following vote, to wit:
1
2
3
4 AYES: Chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm
Holmes, Savary, Noble & Hall.
5
6
7
a
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
9
IO
11
12 ATTEST:
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
13
14
.
l5 PLANNING DIRECTOR
MICHAEL J. HO%MILJ@I
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 PC RESO NO. 3373 -2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDR&SS/LOGATION; 2965 & 2967 Ocean Street in the aty of Czhbad,
County of San Diego, State of California.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a concrete seawall and associated landscaping
to protect an existing duplex.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the PIanning Department within
30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, ple call. Mike Griin in the
Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4499. P L A
DATED: FEBRUARY 13,1992
CASE NO: SUP 91-8/HDP 91-19
&/phy5J iP= J. HOLZ~ILLER PI ' Director
CASE NAME PWS SEAWALL
PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 13,1992
MC:h
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad. California 920094859 * (619) A?"
e c
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM- PART II
("0 BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SUP 91-8/HDP 91-19
DATE: FEBRUARY 7. 1992
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: PHILLIPS SEA WALL
2. APPLICANT: DR. JACK PHILLIPS
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 9309 LA RIVERA DRIVE. SUITE
SACRAMENTO. CA 95826
(916) 362-1328
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: SEPTEMBER 20. 1991
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE SEAWALL AND
ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING TO PROTECT AN EXISTING DUPLEX
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environn
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environm
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist 8 identifie
physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the Citj
information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Ne)
Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or a
its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to in
this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the F
may cause a sipnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Decla
however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant.
findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to disc
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
*
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
2. Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site?
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
6. Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
7. Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
.8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
10. Use substantial mounts of fuel or energy?
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
-2-
e
YES. YES NO
(si& (insig)
X - - -
X - -
X - -
X - - -
X - - -
X - -
X
X - - -
X
X
- - -
- - -
X - - -
e- o
BIOLOGICAL~ENVIRONME~
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(E@ Wd
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, ,grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
- -
- -
- -
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
and insects? land animals, all water dwelling organisms
16. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
- -
- -
HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES
(rid Md
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18, Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
- -
- -
- -3-
..
NO
X -
X
X -
X
X -
NO
X -
X -
0
HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare?
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
-4-
a
YES YES
(dr) cia)
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
NO
X
X
X -
X
X
X
X -
X
X
X
-
-
X -
X -
X -
X
e e
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE,
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
(as) ws)
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory. X - -
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
35. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
siderable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
.effects of other current projects, and
' the effects of probable future projects.)
dividually limited but cumulatively
X - -
X - - -
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beiigs,
either directly or indirectly? X - - -
-5-
0 *
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project involves the construction of a concrete seawall and the installation of landscaping seaward of
existing duplex at 2965 and 2967 Ocean Street. The seawall will be a maximum of 20 feet tall, with up to 4 '
which accommodates the expected maximum wave run-up elevation. Currently, the approximately 25 foot t:
coastal bluff is unprotected and landscaped with iceplant. The adjacent property to the south has rece
constructed a similar seawall and the adjacent property to the north has received approval for a riprap type sea
along its western slope. Based upon site visits and review of the proposed improvements, is determined tha
significant adverse environmental affects will result from this proposal.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
being implanted in the bedrock below sand level. The top of wall elevation will be 19 feet above mean sea le
1. The seawall will actually enhance earth stability and reduce the chance of geologic hazards as it will prc
an easily erodible coastal bluff from wave and wind erosion.
2. . While the seawall will change the existing topography, it will not extend further seaward than the exi
wall to the south
3. The placement of the seawall is intended to prevent erosion of soils from the site. The site to the sot
already protected from soil erosion and the site to the north is approved for a protective riprap seawall. E
upon these facts, the proposed seawall will not result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or 01
site.
4. No river or stream channels exist on or near the site and, therefore, no impacts to such will result, seawall will divert slightly affect the deposition of beach sands however no beach sand loss will result
installation of the wall.
5. An incremental increase in the production of aerosols may occur during construction operations , hol
this short term, incremental increase is not considered significant.
6. The surfaces will change from iceplant and bare soil to concrete and landscaped planters, thus alterir
absorptivity and radiant qualities. The slope of the effective bluff will increase, thereby altering small
wind movements. Considering the existing development to the south and the small scale variati
climatological indices, these minor alterations are considered insignificant.
7. No fresh or flood waters occur on site, however the protective seawall will slightly change the course of
surge, directing the water upward and laterally. This shore protection is not seen as an adverse environl
impact since it preserves the existing coastline.
8. No potable surface water, ground water, or public water supplies exist on or near the are of constructio
therefore, no impacts to such will result.
9. A slight, incremental increase in the use of fossil fuels will occur during construction of the project, hc
this short term event is considered insignificant.
10. See 9 above.
-6-
0 e
11. The site is an eroded coastal bluff which has been disturbed by wave action and holds no paleontologica
historical objects. The bluff top has been developed and there is no evidence of archamlogically signific
objects. No adverse impacts to cultural resources is anticipated.
.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
12. The project will greatly enhance the diversity of species of plants, trees,and grass by the introduction
variety of domestic landscaping, while the existing sparse iceplant community will be removed.
development of the seawall and the associated landscaping is in keeping with the infill nature of
surroundings and will not produce significant adverse effects to the diversity of plants or habitats.
13. see 12 above.
14. No agricultural crop or prime farmland exist on or near the site and no affects to such will occur.
15. The project does not involve the introduction of animals and will not affect the existing diversity of urbar
habitat.
16. see 15 above.
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
17. The present and planned land use of the site is multifamily residential and the seawall is consistent witl
land use, therefore no adverse impacts to land use will result.
18. The seawall will not increase demands on any public utilities or services since it is accessory to the exj
dwellings, and no effects to such are anticipated.
19. The proposed seawall will not impact any existing sewer or waste water systems and, therefore, no nt
modified systems am required.
20. There may be an incremental increase in noise levels during construction of the wall however this short
increase in ambient noise is considered insignificant.
21. No lighting or reflective surfaces are proposed with the project and no impacts due to new light or gla
expected.
22. No explosive or otherwise hazardous substances are proposed with the seawall and, therefore, no signi
risks are anticipated.
23. The seawall has no effect on the density of human population in the &ea since the lot is already deve
to its ultimate density and the project does not increase residential density.
24. The seawall will serve to protect the existing housing on site and will no create a demand for addi
housing in the area. No adverse impacts to housing supply will occur.
-7-
0 e
25. The seawall will not adversely affect traffic in the area as it is accessory to the existing duplex and geneE
no additional traffic.
26. No parking exists in the area of construction and the seawall will not generate any demand for parking.
adverse effects to the parking supply of the area will occur.
27. No transportation systems or patterns of circulation traverse the site and, as such, no impacts to these systc
will result from this project.
28. No waterborne, rail, or air traffic utilize the project site and no adverse effects to such is anticipated.
29. Since the seawall is to be constructed on the seaward side of the lot, no hazards to motor vehicles, bicycli
or pedestrians is expected.
30. No emergency response or evacuation plans involve the project site and, therefore, no impacts to such
result.
31. No scenic vistas will be obstructed since the existing bluff blocks easterly views, The seawall will match
existing development in kind and scale and will not create an aesthetically offensive public view.
32. The existing recreational opportunities on the public beach will not be affected by the installation
existence of the protective seawall and, therefore, no adverse impacts to the quantity and qualiQ
recreational opportunities will result.
33. The project will not substantially degrade the environment as it is a small scale erosion prevention device
protects the existing bluff. No fish, wildlife, or plant .species will be affected by the project since
significant populations of such exist within the project area. Since the site has already been developed
has been subject to eroding wave action, no examples of California history or prehistory are present an(
impacts to such will result.
34. Both the short term and long term advantages are the same, coastal bluff protection. No long I environmental goals are being sacrificed for short term gains.
35. All affects of the project are well below the level of significance and, taken together, do not create an ad\
cumulative impact. The project does fit into a larger coastal bluff protection system consisting of a va
of seawalls which cumulatively provide an environmental benefit.
36. The protection of the coastal bluff, and therefore the developed property upon it, allows substantial ben
for human beings and, as such, the project does not adversely affect human beings, either directl
indirectly.
-8-
0 e
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH .AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed, and
g) no project alternative.
a) The seawall is a complete unit and cannot be phased.
b) Alternate site designs do not provide the Same protection to the existing development and may extend fur
seaward than the current proposal.
c) The scale of development proposed is in keeping with the character of other seawalls in the area and doe?
produce adverse impacts. Alternate scales of development may reduce the erosion protection of the wall.
d) The site is currently a two-unit residential structure with some landscaping. Alternate uses for the site w
be impractical and may not be consistent with the City’s General Plan.
e) The coastal bluff is currently exposed to incident wave energy and, with the installation of the seawall tc
south, the potential for bluff erosion on the site has increased. Development at a later time or no develop
would allow erosion to occur and could endanger the existing residential units.
f) Since the seawall is designed to protect the project site, and the wall is needed at this location, alternate
for the development is not considered a realistic alternative.
g) see e) above
-9-
a 0
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
- X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATI DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COUL D NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previol
certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a No
of Determination has been prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will no
a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
- I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMEN
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date Signature
Date Planning Director
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
- 10-
e
APPLICANT CONC-CE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
MG:
-1 1-
0 0