Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-10-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 3436II 0 e 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. 3436 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND SHORELINE PROTECTION IN A COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA. CASE NAME: WELDON RESIDENCE CASE NO: SUP 92-1/HDP 91-23/AV 91-13 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of October, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated August 27,1992, and "PII", dated August 27, 1992, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project, 3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significant11 impacted by this project. ... ... 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 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannin; Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of October, 1992, b: the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Noble, Welshons 4 Savary. NOES: Chairman Erwin. ABSENT: Commissioner Hall. ABSTAIN: ATTEST: cA TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION . PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 3436 -2- e - NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: West side of Tierra Del Oro between Cannon Road and Carlsbad Boulevard PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A single family residence and rock revetment shoreline protection. 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 Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4471. DATED: AUGUST 27,1992 CASE NO: SUP 92-1/HDP 91-23/AV 91-13 Planning Director CASE NAME: WELDON RESIDENCE PUBLISH DATE: .AUGUST 27, 1992 EB:vd 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1 161 4 e e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND - CASE NO. SUP 92-l/AV 91-13/HDP 91-2 DATE: JULY 20. 1992 1. CASE NAME: Weldon Residence 2. APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Charles Weldon 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 8405 Eves Street Paramount. CA 90723 (213) 864-3737 4. DATE EIA FORM PART 1 SUBMITTED: November 8, 1991 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A single family residence and placement of ri~ - raD for Drotection frc wave action. ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct Environmental Impact Assessment. to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environme The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. T checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the propol project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the projecl any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NOf will be checl to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Nega Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deer insinnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings YES-sig" and 'YES-in respectively. .A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form UT DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discus: mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT VILL 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 amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? -2- 0 YES big) - - - - - - - - - - - YES NO (insig) X - X - X - - X - - X - X - X - X - - X X - - - X - I * e BIOLOGICAL FibMRONMENT ~LL THE p~op0SAL DIRECTLY OR INDIREEI'LY: YES big) - 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? 13, [ntroduce 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, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HuMANmoNMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? - - - - - YES (&I - - -3- YES (insig) - - - - - YES (insig) - 7 NO X X X X X NO X - X - 0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WLL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 20. ~ncrease 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 substantia1 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? e YES YES (si@ (insig) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - 4- NO X X - - X - X - X X X X - X X - - X - x X - X - 0 e MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO big) (insig) 33. Does the project have the potentid 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 plqt 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. 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- dividually limited but cumulatively 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.) X - - X - - 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X - - - 7 X - -5- 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Project Description: The proposed project is a two story single family residence and placement of stone revetment short protection. The project site is a coastal blufftop lot and is the only undeveloped lot in a single famil: neighborhood. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. The project site is presently subject to erosion by wave action. The proposed design will stabilize th site (and protect adjacent sites) by adding rip rap dong the western property line. Rip rap is alread in place on adjacent properties to the north and south. A Geotechnical Investigation and Coast; Engineering Study was prepared for the project prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants includc recommendations for the development of the site. That study concludes that a rock revetment (or otht shore protection) is necessary to protect the subject site and adjacent sites from further erosion. Tk Geotechnical study also includes recommendations for earthwork and grading, management of surfac drainage, slope stability. The project will be conditioned to be developed in accordance with tk recommendations of this Geotechnical Investigation and Coastal Engineering Study. 2. The topography of the site will not be changed sigmficantly. The project involves 574.9 cubic yarc of cut and 155.6 cubic yards of fill for a total of approximately 5227 cy/ac of grading. The majoril of the cut area results from excavation for the basement and pilings. The primary area of fill placemel on the site is the western edge of the site where compacted backfill (and rip rap) will be added. Son backfill will also be needed to buttress structural retaining walls. (The project design steps the buildir down the western slope utilizing stem walls.) The height of the proposed structure will be consistel with surrounding development. 3. The subject site (and adjacent sites to the north and south) are currently experiencing erosion due wave action. (The subject site is the only lot which does not have shoreline protection in place.) Tj project design includes provision of compacted fill and rip rap as recommended by the Geotechnic Investigation and Coastal Engineering Study to prevent further erosion. The project will be condition) to provide the rock revetment as recommended in the Geotechnical Study, thus preventing fbrth erosion of the subject site and adjacent sites. 4. The Geotechnical Investigation and Coastal Engineering Study for this site indicates that, althou; beach sand on this site fluctuates somewhat (especially after storms), the sand level has not been abo approximate elevation +10 feet since 1981. The study states that a rock revetment is needed prevent further erosion due to future high tides, rising sea level and extreme storm waves. T proposed revetment will align with those to the north and south on adjacent properties. 5. The project will generate an average of only 10 vehicle trips per day, thus producing no substan1 adverse impacts on ambient air quality. 6. The proposed development will provide for air movement to adjacent structures. Mztximum buil4 height of the proposed structure is approximately 28 feet. Thus, there will be no substantial chmr in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature. -6- 0 e 7, The project will change slightly the course Of marine waters by limiting the landward enend to which waves will reach. This bitation is necessary to Protect the proposed development and adjacent properties during coastal storms and is not considered a negative impact. 3. The quantity or quality of surface water, ground water, or public water supply will not be significantlq impacted by the project-; The Geotechnicd Study includes several recommendations for managing surface drainage from the site including finish grading measures, landscaping measures, and footing anc floor slab recommendations. Any project approval will include conditions requiring adherence to the recommendations of the Geotechnical Study. 9. The proposed residence will not substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources The site contains no natural resources. 10. The proposed single residence would not be expected to use substantial amounts of fuel or energy. I I. The project site is the only undeveloped lot in a developed area, It is previously disturbed and contair no evidence of significant archaeological or historic significance. The site is, however, located in a area containing soils determined to have a High Potential Fossil Content. Therefore, the City's standaI mitigation measure concerning the soils report checking for the presence of fossil bearing material ar the related program will be required. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of introduced species, including ice plant. The site surrounded on three sides by similarly developed residential uses which also include introduced specic Therefore, there should be no adverse impacts to species or habitats. 13. Existing species of vegetation on the property are not environmentally significant, therefore, t introduction of new plant species would not cause an adverse impact. 14, No agricultural crop is pawn on the site, and the site contains no farmland of state or local importan 15. As a result of existing development adjacent to the site, it is not valuable as habitat for any anir species. 16. Any domestic animals introduced to the site will not result in a barrier to the migration or movem of animals because of the existing level of human activity in the area. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 17. The project will not alter the existing or planned land use of the area. The site is designated E (Residential - Low to Medium Density) on the General Plan and is zoned R-1 (Single Fa Residential). 18. Public utilities and public services exist to serve the proposed residence. The proposed developr was anticipated in the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3. -7- (E w 19. Sewer lines exist to serve the project. 20. The proposed residence is bordered by existing development and the beach and will not significant1 increase noise levels. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. The project will not PrdUCe significant new light or glare. This is a residential project, which would not be expected to result in significant risk of explosion c the release of hazardous substances. The proposed density of 8.8 du/ac is within the range allowed by the General Plan (0 - 4 Wac) fc the site and exceeds the growth control point of 3.2 du/ac. The Local Facility Management Plan fc Zone 3 anticipated development of this lot as a single family unit. The project will provide a new housing unit to meet existing need. A total of 10 average daily trips will be generated by the project. This will not significantly impact t! circulation system. The demand for parking facilities created by the project will be satisfied on site by the provision ol garage. The proposed single residence will not adversely impact the existing transportation system or all present patterns of circulation or movement. 28. The project does not extend into the ocean to alter waterborne traffic. It is not located near a rail 1i1 nor within the airport influence area for McClellan-Palomar Airport. 29. Adequate sight distance will be provided for vehicle access points to the site to facilitate safe vehicu: movement and protect bicyclists and pedestrians. 30. Development of the site as proposed will not interfere with emergency response plans. 31. The proposed structure will not obstruct a scenic vista as sideyard setbacks will be provided similar those of adjacent structures. The project design, including architectural details and landscaping pla must meet all City standards assuring that the structure does not create an aesthetically offensive pul view. 32. The project will not affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. -8- e w ANALYSIS OF VIABLE fiTERNATrv'f% TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the ptc$ect, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed project, and g) no project alternative. d) alternate uses for the site, a) Phasing would be impractical for this single family residence. b) The proposed site design meets City standards and sufficient justification exists to grant tl requested sideyard variance. c) The scale of the proposed development is consistent with surrounding homes and satisfies Ci requirements. d) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and zoning of the site. An alternate u would not provide additional environmental benefits. e) Delayed development of the site would not result in additional environmental benefits. Wa action is currently eroding the site because of the discontinuity of the existing adjacent shoreli protective devices. f) Development of site with this residential use is appropriate and does not preclude such developme elsewhere. g) The no project alternative would not result in environmental benefits. Wave action is curren eroding the site (see e above). -9- c‘ 0 DETERMINATION (TO Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: - X 1 find the proposed project (XHJLD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATM DECLARATION will be p_repared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the envi,ronment, because thl environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction wid previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wi not be 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 ENVIRONMENTP IMPACT REPORT is required. ,,-! 4 - ;I ‘i . - j 2 Ql,,, , /y;/h ,” - / 4, -. Jd/h/ Date Signdture I ” *UdJA Planning Direct0 LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE1 -10- e e W APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR Wmr THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. - Date Signature EB:km:vd -11-