Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-05-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 7481PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7481 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE CITY PLANNERS' DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXMEPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. CASE NAME: FPC RESIDENTIAL CASE NOS.: SDP2022-0003/CDP2022-0023/PCD2023-0001 (DEV2022-0048) WHEREAS, H.G. Fenton Property Company, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as PARCEL 1: Parcel "B" as shown on Parcel Map No. 4383 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the office of the County recorder of San Diego County, January 14, 1976. PARCEL 2: That parcel of land, situated within a portion of the South half of Southwest quarter of Section 28 and within a portion of the South two-thirds of Lot 4 Southeast quarter of Southeast quarter-of Section 29, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, according to Official Plat thereof, in the County of San Diego, State of California, and more particularly described as a whole as follows: Beginning at the corner common to Sections 28, 29, 32, and 33, in said Township and Range, thence along the Southerly line of said Section 28 North 89°59'20" East 250 feet, more or less, to the Southwesterly corner of that strip of land 200 feet wide, described in Deed to the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, recorded March 30, 1946 as Instrument No. 34729, in Book 2059, Page(s) 466 of Official Records; thence along the Southwesterly line of said 200 foot strip of land North 21 °08'18" West 856.60 feet, more or less, to the Northeasterly boundary of the 200 foot right of way of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company formerly California Southern Railroad Company, as said right of way was granted by Act of Congress and as shown on original right of way map thereof approved by the Department of the Interior, United States of America, on May 12, 1881; thence along said railway boundary South 4°40'18" East to the Southerly line of said Section 29; thence along said Southerly section line South 89°49' East to the point of beginning. PARCEL 3: All that portion of the South two-thirds of Lot 4 (Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter) of Section 29, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Diego. State of California, according to the United State Government Survey approved October 25, 1875, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the South line of said Section 29, with the Westerly line of the abandoned portion of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company's (formerly the California Railway Company) right of way across the South two-thirds of said Lot 4, said point being distant along said Southerly line North 89°49' West 209.69 feet from the Southeast corner of said Section 29; thence along the Westerly line of said abandoned railroad right of way, North 4°40'18" West to the Northerly line of said South two-thirds of Lot 4, being the South line of land conveyed to Herbert J. Estes by Deed recorded December 3, 1936 in Book 600, Page 65 of Official Records; thence retracing South 4°40'18" East a distance of 600.00 feet to the true point of beginning: thence continuing South 4°40'18" East 159.19 feet; thence South 15°17' East, 188.48 feet to the North line of the South 40.00 feet of said Lot 4; thence along said North line South 89°49' East 162.60 feet to the Easterly line of said abandoned right of way; thence along said Easterly line North 4°40'18" West 343.26 feet to a point bearing South 89°40'18" East 200.00 feet from the true point of beginning; thence North 89°40'18" West 200.00 feet to the true point of beginning. APNs: 214-160-25, 214-160-28, 214-171-11 ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its implementing regulations (the State CEQA Guidelines), Article 14 of the California Code of Regulations section 15000 et. seq., the city is the Lead Agency for the project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the proposed project; and WHEREAS, under the authority of section 19.04.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the City Planner has the responsibility to carry out the general administration of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Planner studied the proposed project and performed the necessary investigations to determine ifthe project qualified for an exemption in accordance with CEQA. After consideration of all evidence presented, and studies and investigations made by the City Planner, the -2- City Planner determined that the proposed project was exempt from further environmental review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (Class 32 "Infill" Categorical Exemption); and WHEREAS, pursuant to :Carlsbad Municipal Code section 19.04.030, the City Planner issued a CEQA Determination of Exemption on January 5, 2023. The notice was circulated for a period of 10-days, which began on January 5, 2023 and ended on January 17, 2023; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023, a timely appeal from Lance Schulte (Appellant) was received in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.140 and a de nova hearing is scheduled before the Planning Commission to review the evidence presented to the City Planner; and WHEREAS, the city duly noticed a public hearing of the Planning Commission on May 3, 2023 to consider the appeal and the project. Evidence was submitted to and considered by the Planning Commission, including, without limitation: • Written information including all application materials and other written and graphical information posted on the project website. • All factors relating to the CEQA Determination of Exemption, including the appeal thereof submitting on January 17, 2023. • Oral testimony from city staff, interested parties, and the public. • The May 3, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report, which along with its attachments, is incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. • Additional information submitted during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Record of Proceedings upon which the Planning Commission bases its decision on the appeal includes, but is not limited to: (1) the CEQA Determination of Exemption and the appendices and technical reports cited in and/or relied upon in preparing the CEQA Determination of Exemption; (2) the staff report, city files and records and other documents, prepared for and/or submitted to the city relating to the CEQA Determination of Exemption and the project itself; (3) the evidence, facts, -3- findings and other determinations set forth in herein; (4) the General Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code; (5) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted to the city in connection with the CEQA Determination of Exemption and the project itself; (6) all documentary and oral evidence received at the May 3, 2023 hearing or submitted to the city during the comment period relating to the CEQA Determination of Exemption and/or elsewhere during the course of the review of the project itself; (7) all other matters of common knowledge to the to the city, including, but not limited to, city, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the city and its surrounding areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) Record and Basis for Action. The Planning Commission has independently considered the full record before it, which includes the Record of Proceedings. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and material to this resolution; and are incorporated herein by reference. B) The Planning Commission has reviewed all aspects of the appeal and evaluated (1) whether there is substantial evidence to support the City Planner's environmental determination; and (2) whether the City Planner failed to proceed in the manner required by law. In determining whether the proposed project is eligible for a Class 32 "Infill" Categorical Exemption, the Planning Commission is able to base its decision on substantial evidence. C) Under the provisions of de nova hearing the Planning Commission has the ability to review the entire environmental determination, as well as the specific grounds for the appeal cited by the Appellant. In rending its decision, the Planning Commission can take any action that could have been taken by the City Planner (that is, deny or approve the use of the "Infill" Categorical Exemption). On that basis, the Planning Commission hereby DENIES THE APPEAL and upholds the City Planner's determination that the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review. The environmental determination (Class 32 "Infill" Categorical Exemption) has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad (Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). All the city's procedural requirements and relevant aspects of CEQA have been satisfied. No further CEQA environmental analysis is required, based on the following findings. Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: -4- a. The Record of Proceedings provide substantial evidence that the proposed project qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15332. The proposed project qualifies for the Class 32 "Infill" Categorical Exemption because: (1) the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (2) the proposed project occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; and (3) the site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; (4) the project would not result in any significant effects on the environment; and (5) it is located in area where all public facilities are available and the site can adequately be served by all required utilities and public services. b. None of the exceptions to categorical exemptions listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 or Chapter 19.04 of the Municipal Code have been triggered. No substantial evidence has been submitted to the city that would support a finding that the Class 32 "Infill" Categorical Exemption requirements would not be satisfied. There is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. c. Substantial evidence considered by the Planning Commission includes all facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. It does not include argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment. d. Public controversy over the possible environmental effects of the project is not sufficient reason to require an EIR. NOTICE TO APPLICANT/ APPELLANT An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review. -5- PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on May 3, 2023, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Hubinger, Kamenjarin, Lafferty, Meenes, Sabellico and Stine NAYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Merz KEVIN SABELLICO, Vice Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: City Planner -6-