HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-08-06; City Council; 11288; INFILL GRADING ORDINANCE - AMENDMENT OF TITLE 11 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE7 1
I
r
1
a3 \D
I m z
4
0
a
0
c)
a
k
2
k
a aJ
s
0
u G
*rl
a c
(d
n \o
N m
I 4. a
a9
S& vlcu 25
aT ;q ga
I 4.
a?
a 20 a 'd oc ae @de
4 C!l .rl Q UQ G
5a u">
?3
4
acu 2.
z 0
I- o
-
a
4 0 z 3 0 0
//
r4B # /!,&gb TITLE: DEPT. HDI
CITY ATTI TITLE 11 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. -= IVITG. S-h-91
IIEPT. PLN'ENC CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
CITY* CARLSBAD - AGEND~ILL b'f \
INFILL GRADING ORDINANCE - AMENDMENT OF
If the City Concurs, your actions are as follows:
1. ADOPT Resolution No. 9/*255 , APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director.
2. ADOPT Resolution No. 9/-256 , establishing a fee for infill grading permits,
3. Introduce Ordinance No.f)S -\68 , amending Title 11 of the Municipal Code to establish procedures and standards for infill grading.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On February 19, 1991, the City Council discussed the issue of compatibility of infill construction in single family neighborhoods. As a result of the discussion, staff was directed to prepare an ordinance which would address the placement of fill grading on existing, subdivided lots which are relatively flat and
therefore do not require a hillside permit or other discretionary
action.
Staff has prepared an ordinance which is attached. The ordinance
would be an amendment of Title 11 of the Municipal Code which
presently contains standards regarding grading in the city. The major features of the proposed ordinance are as follows:
1. An inf ill grading permit issued by the City Engineer would be required for grading on existing subdivided residential lots unless another discretionary permit is otherwise required for
the grading. For example, if development of the subject property already requires obtaining a hillside permit, a subdivision map or a site development plan under existing ordinances, then an infill grading permit would not be required. The reason for this is that if a discretionary permit is already required, the public is notified and the amount, design and compatibility of the grading is already subject to review and approval.
Unless it can be proven that more fill grading is justified, the maximum amount of fill that can be placed on an infill lot would be restricted to 3 feet.
2.
1 . 0
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. )I, 288
3. Balanced grading (no import or export) is required. Unless
it can be justified, no more than 100 cu.yds., of import or export is permitted
4. The use of retaining walls over 3 feet in height are
discouraged.
Public notification would be required whenever an application for infill grading permit is made. Surrounding property owners would have the opportunity to request a hearing with staff. Staff's final decision could be appealed to the City Council.
5.
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the proposed infill grading ordinance. It will help to ensure that
construction of single family homes on infill lots is done in a manner which is compatible with surrounding properties.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration was prepared and issued for the proposed ordinance amendment finding that the ordinance would not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment. The Negative Declaration went through a 30 day public review period during which no comments or objections to the Negative Declaration were received.
FISCAL IMPACT
Substantial staff time could be involved in processing and reviewing infill grading permits. Typically, however, the City has not applied full cost recovery for discretionary permits for single family homeowners. The application fee for a hillside development permit for single family homes is $110.00 and staff would recommend the same fee for an infill grading permit. The applicant would also be required to pay for public notification and the normal fee for grading plan checks and permit.
EXHIBITS
1. Resolution No. q1-25 5 , Approving Negative Declaration
2. Resolution No. 4 1 - 3-5 6 , Establishing Infill Grading Permit
3. Ordinance No. os-168 , Amending Title 11
4. Environmental Documents
Fee
1
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1o
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0 0
RESOLUTION NO. 91-255
A'RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE AMENDMENT OF TITLE 11,
CHAPTER 11.06 TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS FOR INFILL GRADING
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Carlsbad,
California has issued a Negative Declaration for the amendment of
Title 11, Chapter 11.06 to establish procedures and standards for
infill grading; and
WHEREAS, The Negative Declaration was submitted to the
State Clearinghouse and went through a 30 day public review period
during which no comments or objections were made to the Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
California, is satisfied that the project is in full compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Carlsbad
Environmental Protection Ordinance,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the negative declaration on the above 2o
21
28
referenced ordinance amendment is approved. I
22'"
23'''
24.O.
25***
26*.*
27*'*
I
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
0 e
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 6th day
of August , 1991 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Larson and Stanton
NOES : None
ABSENT: Council Member
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Cityklerk
( SEAL )
-2-
t
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
I1
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a e
RESOLUTION NO. -
A-RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR INFILL GRADING PERMITS
WHEREAS, the City Council has amended Title 11, Chapter
11.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to establish the procedures
and standards for infill grading; and
WHEREAS, staff time will be involved in implementing the
procedures for issuing infill grading permits and processing
applications.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That an application fee of $110.00 is established
for the processing and review of applications for infill grading
permits.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
F
k
<
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 6th day
, 1991 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Larson and Stanton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member
-2-
I
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
a 0
ORDINANCE NO. NS-168
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 11 BY THE AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 11.06 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS FOR INFILL GRADING
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California
does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Title 11, Chapter 11.06 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the amendment of Section
11.06.020 by the addition of a new Section 11.06.020(9) to read
as follows:
"(9) "infill grading" means any grading on a
residentially zoned lot which requires a grading permit pursuant
to this title and is located on a lot within a tract of land
which has been previously subdivided into legal buildable parcels
and for which no further discretionary entitlement is required. 11
Existing (9) and all subsequent ones shall be
renumbered accordingly.
SECTION 11: That Title 11, Chapter 11.06 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of new Section
11.06.031 to read as follows:
1111.06.031 Residential Infill Grading Permit
Requirements. Grading permits for infill grading must obtain a
permit from the City Engineer pursuant to this code section. The
City Engineer and Planning Director shall have the authority to
approve or deny infill grading permits. An infill grading permit
shall be approved only if all of the following findings can be made:
(a) That public notification has been made pursuant to the requirements of Section 11.06.033; (b) That the grading proposal is consistent with the
design standards, purpose, intent and requirements of this
chapter; (c) That the design of the grading is generally
consistent and compatible with the topography of existing surrounding development.11
SECTION 111: That Title 11, Chapter 11.06 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of a new
Section 11.06.032 to read as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a 0
1111.06.032 Infill Grading Design Standards.
(a) Fill height. Fill height on infill lots shall be minimized. The relative acceptability of fill heights shall be determined by the following:
(1) 0-3 feet is acceptable;
(2) Greater than 3.0 and up to 10.0 feet is discouraged unless the permit for such fill shall include specific written documentation justifying the reasons for the fill height. Potential justifications may include but not be limited to the need to sewer or drain to the public street, the need to raise the property to prevent flooding of any future
structure, to make the property compatible with adjacent graded
properties, to accommodate existing or future driveway access to the property where no other alternatives are possible or to remedy an existing or potential soil or geologic problem on the project site.
(3) Greater than 10 feet is unacceptable. Fills
which are unacceptable may be allowed only when the site has unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that necessitate corrective work that requires increased filling. (b) Retaining walls. Retaining walls over three feet in height which run parallel to and are located within ten feet of a property line are to be avoided except in unusual cases where no other method to reasonably develop the property is
available.
(c) Import and export. Import and/or export of fill or
excavation material to or from infill lots shall be minimized.
Wherever possible grading design shall be accomplishedto balance
the grading on site to reduce the import or export of soil to or from the project site. Applications for infill grading permits which contain a combined total of import and export to a project site in excess of one hundred cubic yards shall include specific written documentation justifying the reasons for such import or export. Potential acceptable justifications shall be as set forth in section 11.06.032(a) (2) .I1
SECTION IV: That Title 11, Chapter 11.06 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of a new
Section 11.06.033 to read as follows:
"Notice of an infill grading application shall be given
pursuant to Section 20.24.115 of this code.
SECTION V: That Title 11, Chapter 11.06 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of a new
Section 11.06.034 to read as follows:
"11.06.034 Appeals
Any person affected by this section may appeal a decision of the City Engineer pursuant to Section 11.06.200 of
this Chapter.
... -2-
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
m e
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective
thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify
to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at
least once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its
adoption.
5d INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council on the day of
1991, and thereafter
I
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad on the
'1991, by the following vote, to wit:
day of I
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR., City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
-3-
I
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: CITYWIDE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment of the Grading Ordinance (Title 11 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code) to regulate the grading on infill lots.
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 Michael Holzmiller in
the Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4430.
/ DATED: MAY 23, 1991
CASE NO: EIA 91-05 Planning Director
APPLICANT: CITY OF CAFUSBAD
PUBLISH DATE: MAY 23, 1991
MJH/arb
2075 Las Palrnas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (61 9) 438-1 161
a 0
RECEIPT NO:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO. EIA 91-05
DATE: MAY 16, 1991
Applicant: CITY OF CARLSBAD
Address of Applicant:
Phone Number: 1619) 438-1161, Ext. 4430
Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than applicant):
2075 Las Palmas Drive. Carlsbad, CA 92009
Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director -
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Description of Project: Amendment of Title 11 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to include
remlations renardinn the nadinn of existinn subdivided infill lots zoned R-1.
Project Location/Address: Citvwide
Assessor Parcel Number: N/A
Zone of Subject Property: All existinn R-1 zoned lots.
Proposed Use of Site:
List all other applicable applications related to this project: None
2. Descnie the activity area, including distinguishing natural and manmade characteristics;
also provide precise slope analysis when appropriate.
All existing, subdivided R-1 zoned lots in the City.
Describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design and/or operation of
the project.
N/A
3.
1,. 0 0
4. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
rents, and type of household size expected.
N/A
If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities.
N/A
If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities.
N/A
If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project.
The project is a City-initiated amendment to the Grading Ordinance to restrict tlhe amount
of fill grading that can be placed on an infill R-1 lot anywhere in the City. The amendment will also identify the process to be utilized to inform the public when grading
of infill lots is proposed. The benefits to the public include increase compatiibdity of new
development in R-1 inrm areas and increased public notification.
5.
6.
7.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate space. (Discuss all items checked "yes". Attach additional sheets as necessary.) YES - NO
1) Could the project significantly change present land uses in the vicinity of the activity? - x
The proposed ordinance amendment would not affect the existing R-1 Zoning of properties
but only add to standards regarding the amount of grading that can take plac:e.
Could the activity affect the use of a recrea- 2) X tional area, or area of important aesthetic value? - -
The proposed amendment will not apply to recreational areas.
Could the activity affect the functioning of an 3) established community or neighborhood? - x
The proposed amendment will help to ensure greater compatiiility of new dtrvelopment
in exiSting R-1 mas.
0 0 YES NO *I*
4) Could the activity result in the displacement of
community residents? - x
The project is an ordinance amendment and will not physically displace communiity residents.
Could the activity increase the number of low and 5) X modest cost housing units in the city? - -
The ordinance ammdmmts will not affect (increase or decrease) the number ad housing
units in the City.
Could the activity decrease the number of low and 6) modest cost housing units in the city? - x
The project is an ordinance amendment which would ensure greater compatibility in
existing R-1 areas but will not reduce or create a new demand for housing.
Are any of the natural or man-made features in the
activity area unique, that is, not found in other 7)
parts of the country, state or nation? - x
Proposed project does not apply to specific site.
Could the activity significantly affect an historical, paleontological, or archaeological 8)
site or its settings? - x
The proposed project is not a development project and, in an of itself, will not have
physical impacts on any natural features.
Could the activity significantly affect the
potential use, extraction, or conservation of a
scarce natural resource? - x
9)
See response to Question #8.
Does the activity significantly affect the
potential use, extraction, or conservation of
a scarce natural resource? - -
10)
X
See response to Question #8.
Could the activity significantly affect fish, 11) X wildlife or plant life? - -
See response to Question #8.
0 0 YES - NO . I, .
12) Are there any rare or endangered plant species
in the activity area? - x
See response to Question #8.
Could the activity change existing features of 13) X any of the city's lagoons, bays, or tidelands? - -
See response to Question #8.
Could the activity change existing features of 14) any of the city's beaches? - x
See response to Question #8.
Could the activity result in the erosion or 15) elimination of agricultural lands? - x
Agriddy-zoned property will not be effected by ordinance amend men^
Could the activity serve to encourage development
of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop- ment of already developed areas? - x
16)
The amendment will not impact the timing of growth or location of growth but rather only
the type of grading for R-1 development
Will the activity require a variance from established
environmental standards (air, water, noise, etc.)? - x 17)
No variances from environmental standards are involved.
Will the activity require certification, authorization
or issuance of a permit by any local, state or
federal environmental control agency? - x
N/A
Will the activity require issuance of a variance
or conditional use permit by the City? - x
N/A
Will the activity involve the application, use, or
18)
19)
20) disposal of potentially hazardous materials? - x
N/A
0 0 YES NO . I, .
21) Will the activity involve construction of
facilities in a flood plain? - x
See response to Question #8.
Will the activity involve construction of
facilities in the area of an active fault? - - 22) X
See response to Question #8.
Will the activity involve construction of 23) facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater? - x
The proposed ordinance would apply only to property that does not have slopes.
Could the activity result in the generation of 24) significant amounts of noise? - x
See response to Question #8.
Could the activity result in the generation of 25) X significant amounts of dust? - -
See response to Question #8.
Will the activity involve the burning of brush, 26) trees, or other materials? - x
See response to Question #8.
Could the activity result in a significant change in the
quality of any portion of the region’s air or water resources? 27)
X (Should note surface, ground water, off-shore.) - -
See response to Question #8.
Will the project substantially increase fuel 28) consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)? - x
See response to Question #8.
Will there be a significant change to existing
land form? - -
(a) Indicate estimated grading to be done in
cubic yards:
29) X
1 I, # 0 0
(b) Percentage of alteration to the present
(c) Maximum height of cut or fill slopes:
land form:
See response to Question #8. =s - Will the activity result in substantial increases in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets? - x
See response to Question #8.
Is the activity camed out as part of a larger
NO
30)
31) project or series of projects? - x
N/A
11. STATEMENT OF NON-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
If you have answered yes to one or more of the questionsin
Section I but you think the activity will have no signifi-
cant environmental effects, indicate your reasons below:
N/A
-
111. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE QuE!STIONS IN SECTION I
(If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach
additional sheets as needed.)
Signature L&&-4A*4LQ &f,
Date Signed: 5//3/q I
(Pexsoh.&rnp1&ng ~ep01-t)
MJH/arb FEE: $175.00
. I, . 0 e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. EIA 91-05
DATE: MAY 15, 1991
BACKGROUND
1.
2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad
3.
CASE NAME: Amendment to Title 11 of Carlsbad Municipal Code - Infill Gradinn
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad Planning DeDartment, 2(
Las Palmas Drive. Carlsbad. California 92009
4.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment of the Gradina Ordinance to renulate the nradina of ii
lots.
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 environm
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checl
8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environme
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tlhat the projec
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be chec
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 qualily for a Nega
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be dee
insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings '"YES-sig" and 'YES-ir
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form w
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discus
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
. I, . 0 0
PHYSICAL ENVIR0"T
WILL THE PROPOSAL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
big) (insig)
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
Appreciably change the topography or any
- - X
2.
unique physical features? - - X
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
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?
Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
substantially change the course or flow of
- X
4.
X - - -
5.
X - - -
6.
- X -
7.
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? - - X
water, ground water or public water supply? - - X
depletion of any natural resources? - - X
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
X - - 10.
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
X - -
. I, * 0 0
BIOLOGICAL ENVTRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (si.?) (insig)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)? - X
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of X existing species? -
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local importance? X
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects? X
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
16.
migration or movement of animals? X
HUMANENVIRONMENT
YES YES NO
(six) (insig) WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area? - - - X
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? - - X
-3-
4 .' v 0 0
HuMANE"MENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig)
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems? - - X
20. Increase existing noise levels? - - X
21. Produce new light or glare? - - X
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? - X
human population of an area? - X
for additional housing? - X
-
23. Substantially alter the density of the
-
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
-
25. Generate substantial additional traffic? - - x
create a large demand for new parking? - - x 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods? - X -
X 28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? - -
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? - - X
emergency evacuation plans? - - X
aesthetically offensive public view? - - X
existing recreational opportunities? - - -
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
31. Obstruct any scenic Vista or create an
32. Affect the quality or quantity of
X
-4-
e *. * 9 0
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (insig) (sig)
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 X of California history or prehistory. -
34. Does the project have the potential d. - to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-rem, 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.)
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
X -
35.
the effects of probable future projects.) X
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, X either directly or indirectly? -
-5-
I bC T 4
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed changes to the grading ordinance will add provisions to Tide 11 of the Municipal Code tc
regulate the amount of fill grading that can occur on existing, previously-subdivided but vacant single fan
lots in the City. These lots are commonly referred to as infill lots. The proposed ordinance would estab
limits to the amount of fill that can be placed on infill lots and would establish a public noticing proced
to inform surrounding residents of the proposed grading. These new provisions will have positive imp;
on the environment since less topographic change will be allowed on existing subdivided single family 1
-6-
* e* T 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.
-7-
4 *h 1 0 e
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGAT
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there 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 EMRONMEN
IMPACT REPORT is required.
X
I \ d 4; r
Date Signature
> ,5+ ,y" &L/x &k ,\c&&<bbl/& _i-, 1 ', 1
I ,I I! 'i 15-71 4' ', ?\,L;xi 'd -&& iyqL&k
Date Planning Directo; 1
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-8-
I
a e e
July 9, 1991
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: City Engineer
RE: SECURITY RELEASE AUTHORIZATIONS
This supersedes an authorization memo sent to you on March 7, 1990 (attached),,
The follow’ng persons are authorized to release/reduce securities, posted with the City of
Carlsbad, as specified:
Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer and David A. Hauser, Asst. City Engineer:
Any and All Releases/Reductions
John J. Cahill, Municipal Projects Mgr. and Richard E. Cook, Principal Inspector:
Warranty releases on Faithful Performance and Labor & Materials securities. Full
releases of old securities wherein replacement securities have been submitted and
YM:ym
c: Asst. City Engineer
Municipal Projects Manager
Principal Inspector
w . * e
March 7, 1990
TO : CITY CLERK
FROM: City Engineer
BOND RELEASE AUTHORIZATION
The following is a list of persons currently authorized to releaselreduce
securities posted with the City of Carisbad:
Lfoyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer Any Releases I Reductions
David A. Hauser, Asst. City Engr. Any Releases / Reductions
Richard E. Cook, Principal Inspector Warranty Releases on Faith- ful Performance and Labor &
Materials
YM : ym
c: Assistant City Engineer
Principal Inspector
Bond Clerk