HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-21; Seaview; Tentative Map (CT) (31)August 16, 1999
RECEIVED
City of Carlsbad Planning Dept. Alir 1 c 1QQQ
2075 Las Palmas Dr. AUb ] b 193y
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009-1576 CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT.
Attn: Barbara Kennedy, Project Planner
Re: 9 Lot subdivision of Seaview APN 167-070-04
As previously stated in our letter dated August 9th, we wish to present
appropriate and professional input regarding the above referenced
project. Enclosed, please find the Review and Analysis issued by Urban
Logic Consultants.
We hope this Analysis clarifies our concerns and will serve to open the
necessary mitigation process.
As recommended henceforth and as stated in our letter dated August 4th,
we again request an expanded and revised Environmental Impact
Assessment to include grading, engineering, drainage, geotechnical and
aesthetic issues. We defer to the enclosed report for all legal and
professional basis concerning this matter.,
We continue to believe these issues can be resolved and appreciate the
co-operative efforts of the Planning Department.
Contacts for the residents listed on Notice of Opposition delivered 8-4-99
Kenneth Hardesty 729-8684
Stephen Masula 728-8375
Sent By: URBAN LOGIC GROUP; 909+676+2054; Aug-13-99 2:24PM; Page 2/8
-Urban Logic Consufashts
Planning, Municipal Services.
Public Works, Environmental Management
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Steve Masula
Mr. Ken Hardesty
From: Ernest A. Egger, AlCP, REA
Urban Logic Consultants, Inc.
Date: August 13,1999
Subject: Review of Tentative Tract Map for "Seaview 9-Lot Subdivision",
Carlsbad, California
In response lo your request, we have conducted a review of the above-referenced development
project. The items which were available for our review and analysis included a Tentative Tract
Map/Grading Plan, architectural elevations, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by the
Carlsbad Planning Department.
In conducting this analysis, we evaluated the general design of the proposed subdivision, with a focus
upon its impact upon the surrounding neighborhood, and the method in which the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been addressed.
This memorandum provides (1) a summary of our findings and conclusions, (2) our comments on the
CEQA documentation prepared by the City, (3) an evaluation of the grading, subdivision and
architectural design, and (4) recommendations to lessen the project's impact upon the neighborhood.
JL Summary and Conclusions
The following points represent a summary of our evaluation and recommendations. These points are
substantiated in much greater detail in the following sections.
» The subdivision and grading design appears to be based simply on two objectives: 1) gravity
sewering of all parcels to Seaview Drive, and 2) maximizing the view opportunities,
particularly ocean views, for all parcels which are proposed. The approach taken is
understandable and relatively logical from an engineering design perspective, given these
project objectives.
» The objectives cited above, however, appear to be paramount in the project design approach,
and in our opinion are carried out with very minimal compromise with regard to existing
conditions, and without appropriate sensitivity to surrounding developed properties.
43517 Ridge I'ark Drive, .fu/'/e 200 • Temecula. California 92590
Tel..: (909)676- 1944 • Fax: (909) 676 - 2054
Sent By: URBAN LOGIC GROUP; 909+676+2054; Aug-13-99 2:24PM; Page 3/8
Memorandum
August 13,1999
Page 2
The proposed grading design would obliterate the views from adjoining properties and, while
we are not real estate economists, there would likely be a severe impact on the value of the
surrounding developed lots. A series of unsightly slopes are proposed, which would be highly
visible from surrounding vistas. The proposed architecture appears to make some efforts to
keep roof lines and building heights reasonable, however the grading concept makes this
concession largely irrelevant.
Good engineering practice customarily involves the balancing cut and fill operations on-site,
while the proposal would result in the importation of over 13,000 cubic yards of fill material.
Spread out over the area which is proposed to be graded, this would effectively place about
2.4 of fill over this entire area, thus raising the graded property an average of 2.4 feet.
Furthermore, the project appears to propose alterations and diversions of current and natural
drainage patterns, by diverting current sheet flows to Seaview Drive. In addition, the project
proposes a series of large fill slopes which require further evaluation to determine structural
stability, as detailed further herein.
The documentation prepared pursuant to CEQA is wholly inadequate and is legally
indefensible. H is very curious that substantial text is devoted to construction-related air
quality matters, while aesthetic and land use compatibility issues are dismissed simply with
"no impact" responses on the checklist. We would submit that the key environmental issues
with this project are design, aesthetics and compatibility, as opposed to larger scale issues.
It is important to note that an earlier General Plan level environmental analysis is cited as
addressing most concerns, but we fail to understand how this macro-approach deals with any
of the development-specific issues of this project. The mitigated negative declaration is
clearly inadequate and requires substantial revisions for legal adequacy.
The project, in order to establish a reasonable level of compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood, should be redesigned based upon the following recommendations:
a. The grading plan in our opinion should provide for a balanced cut and till operation.
This approach likely will not permit the same number of lots and the ability to sewer
to the project's roadway. This approach will require elimination of parcels which are
situated below the roadway, or the use of an alternative approach to sewering the
lower parcels. It is our understanding that a drainage easement exists to the west,
which could potentially be used or expanded for this purpose.
b. The pad elevations should be lowered to the degree that all rooflines are at least three
(3) feet below the pad elevations of the properties which have views across this site,
towards the Pacific Ocean. This would permit the preservation of these significant
viewsheds, and the mitigation of significant environmental impacts.
Sent By: URBAN LOGIC GROUP; 909+676+2054; Aug-13-99 2:25PM; Page 4/8
Memorandum
August 13,1999
Page 3
c. The project should be re-engineered with a tbcus on reducing slope heights and the
excessive use of retaining walls. While all of these elements can be designed to meet
applicable codes and standards, there is nevertheless the potential for failure.
d. A hydrology study and slope stability study should be provided to evaluate the manner
in which drainage is proposed to be handled and the stability of proposed fill slopes.
2* Comments on CEQA Documentation
As staled previously, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is inadequate and requires
substantial revision for legal adequacy. Following is a brief discussion regarding the deficiencies
which require remedy.
Page 1 - The Summary of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected, at an absolute
minimum, needs to provide for the identification and evaluation of "Land Use and
Planning" and "Aesthetics" as areas of concern and further analysis. These issues,
with respect to the surrounding neighborhood, are much to important and potentially
significant to warrant simple dismissal with a "no impact" determination in the
checklist.
Page 5 - Item I, Land Use and Planning, requires re-evaluation and substantiation. Of
particular importance is subsection "c", compatibility with existing land uses. The
manner in which this project is proposed to be graded and the proposed homes sited
is highly incompatible with the manner in which the surrounding area was developed.
A qualitative evaluation of compatibility issues is necessary to address project
impacts.
Item 111, Geologic Problems, requires further substantiation. Are the conclusions
regarding hazards and soils based upon a geotechnical investigation? Tf so, this should
be noted and the public should be informed as to where this documentation can be
reviewed.
Item IV, Water, also requires further discussion. Will the construction of a roadway,
semi-permeable slopes and a series of large residences really result in "no changes in
absorption rates and drainage patterns"? This conclusion is erroneous and requires
re-evaluation. In addition, conversations with residents in the area reveal possible
surface water issues which are not addressed, and the diversion of existing drainage
patterns is not discussed and evaluated.
Sent By: URBAN LOGIC GROUP; 909+676+2054; Aug-13-99 2:25PM; Page 5/8
Memorandum
August 13,1999
Page 4
Page 6 - As stated previously, it is interesting thai so much attention is paid to regional air
quality concerns, but none to local, neighborhood-level impacts. The focus of the
reviewer is not sensitive to localized concerns.
Page 7 - item X, Noise, requires further discussion with regard to construction related noise,
which can be significant for the short-term during construction.
Page H - Item XIII, Aesthetics, as addressed, completely ignores the most significant issues
relating to this project. The surrounding neighbors surely purchased their homes
based largely upon having an ocean view. The elimination of this view, replaced by
large cut and fill slopes and very large residences, most surely is a significant impact
as defined by CEQA. This matter requires a detailed visual impact analysis and
mitigation.
Page 9 - The fact that item "b" at the top of this page, cumulative impacts, is checked as
potentially significant, is testimony to the misguided nature of the MND. The
rationale that the construction of nine homes can be cumulatively significant, while
site-specific impacts are not significant, is difficult to fathom, and cannot be supported
by facts.
Page 10- Earlier Analysis - The relevance of a city-wide, broad environmental analysis is
marginal at best. One cannot reasonably conclude that this prior work wfll
appropriately address the site-specific details of this project. This broader base of
data could be used to deal with air quality and traffic issues, but not with the design
impacts of the project.
Page 16 - The list of Mitigation Measures requires expansion to deal with impacts on
surrounding properties. In the absence of a complete redesign of the project,
measures need to be included to lower pad and roof elevations to protect existing
viewsheds, and to minimize the excessive use of unsightly slopes and retaining walls.
CEQA
Issues - A number of legal issues are pertinent relative to the CEQA statutes and guidelines.
As currently drafted, the adoption of a MND cannot be supported, as insufficient
factual data is provided to support the conclusions reached.
CEQA requires that a lead agency describe and evaluate possible mitigation measures
which could eliminate or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of
a project. In order to accomplish this, however, an adequate description of baseline
conditions and project-related impacts is required.
Sent By: URBAN LOGIC GROUP; 909+676+2054; Aug-13-99 2:25PM; Page 6/8
Memorandum
August 13,1999
Page5
The proposed MND lails to provide sufficient analysis as required by CEQA to make
these determinations. Most importantly, the proposed MND fails the test of CEQA
adequacy because it provides insufficient information and analysis to support the
Planning Department's proposed finding that the project will not result in any
significant environmental impacts.
•L Evaluation of Grading. Subdivision and Architectural Design
As indicated in the summary, the design of this project appears to be based solely on the ideals of
maximizing views from this site (without regard to elimination of the existing views) and the sewering
of aD nine lots to the proposed street. These ideals necessitate the establishment of elevated pads to
maximize views, and the elevation of the westerly portion of the site to allow gravity sewerage to the
street.
While the proposed design achieves these objectives, it does so at the expense of the surrounding
neighborhood and with littk regard to customary engineering objectives, such as the balancing of cut
and fill operations on-site and the minimization of slope heights and retaining walls.
A review of the proposed grading and totting scheme reveals that roadway servicing this site is based
on the minimum grades necessary to allow sewerage to gravity flow from all of the proposed lots to
the south. Based on the presumption that the only available alternative is to sewer the proposed lots
southerly along Seaview Drive, and that there is no compromise on the number of lots to be created,
the proposed solution is the only one reasonably available. However, the City of Carlsbad should
question these assumptions and determine (1) if mere are feasible alternatives for sewerage, such as
an off-road easement to the west or development of a small pumping station on-site, and (2) if the
number of lots proposed is reasonable and appropriate.
Modification of the sewerage scheme based on the potentially available alternatives could result in
a significant improvement in the grading scheme, which could lower grades through much of the
project, would allow for a balanced cut and fill operation and would retain natural drainage patterns.
Also, it is possible that a redesign with fewer lots could accomplish much of the same benefit.
Other engineering concerns involve hydrology and slope stability. The project as proposed appears
to alter natural drainage patterns, and a hydrology study should be required by the City to provide
a thorough evaluation of the project's drainage impacts. This analysis should be required either
before or in conjunction with the drainage plan. A geotechnical investigation should also be
performed to evaluate slope stability in detail, particularly the fill slopes under saturated and seismic
conditions
Sent By: URBAN LOGIC GROUP; 909+676+2054; Aug-13-99 2:26PM; Page 7/8
Memorandum
August 13,1999
Page 6
The subdivision, in order to be approved, requires the City of Carlsbad to make a series of findings
relative to the State Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Specific findings
required under the Map Act, which are pertinent to the concerns for this project, include:
The project is consistent and compatible with adjoining and surrounding land uses and will
be accommodated by the circulation system in the vicinity.
and
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community.
and
The design of the project, to the extent feasible, provides opportunities for future passive or
natural heating or cooling, consistent with Government Code Section 66473. 1.
and
The site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed.
Based upon the information available, it is very questionable that these findings can be prudently made
by the City of Carlsbad.
With regard to the architectural styles proposed, as indicated previously, these are largely conducive
to keeping elevations for two-story structures to a minimum. The benefits of this approach are,
however, limited and token due to the grading design proposed. The benefits of the architecture will
only be realized with a modification of the grading plan.
Following befow are recommendations which, if followed, have the potential to drastically reduce the
project's impacts on the neighborhood:
A. The grading plan should provide for a balanced cut and fill operation. This approach likely
will not permit the same number of lots and the ability to sewer to the project's roadway.
This approach will require elimination of parcels which are situated below the roadway, or
t her use of an alternative approach to sewering the lower parcels, ft is our understanding that
a 1 0-fixrt drainage easement exists to the west, which could potentially be used for this
Sent By: URBAN LOGIC GROUP; 909+676+2054; Aug-13-99 2:26PM; Page fl/8
Memorandum
August 13,1999
Page?
B. The pad elevations should be lowered to the degree that all roo nines are at least three (3) feet
below the pad elevations of the properties which have views across this site, towards the
Pacific Ocean. This would permit the preservation of these significant viewsheds, and the
mitigation of significant environmental impacts.
C. The project should be re-engineered with a focus on reducing slope heights and the excessive
use of retaining walls. While all of these elements can be designed to meet applicable codes
and standards, there is nevertheless the potential for failure.
D. A hydrology study should be required by the City of Carlsbad to fully evaluate project
drainage and changes and diversions of natural drainage patterns.
£. A geotechnical evaluation should be performed, focussing on the stability of the proposed
slopes under saturated and seismic conditions.
F. The MND must be expanded and revised to deal with the concerns indicated herein. This re-
evaluation will surely result in the identification of prudent mitigation measures which can
reduce the significant impacts of the project on the neighborhood.
08/15/99 18:31 BOB HICKS -» 760 720 0111 NO.243 501
MENTS
August 15, 1999
City of Carlsbad Planning Dept.
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576
Attn. Barbara Kennedy, "Seaview" Project Planner
9 lot subdivision - APN 167-007-04
Dear Ms. Kennedy.
Over the last month I have become aware of the proposed 9 lot subdivision at the north end of
Seaview Way. It appears that all of the neighbors are expressing their concern regarding the
grading plan, that would import thousands of cubic yards of fill to create proper sewer flow.
This would require over 20 feet of fill for the Western most three lots and would also require
Seaview Way and Chestnut to be torn up for sometime to accommodate the lowering of (a
perfectly good) existing sewer line. It also would reduce the usable lot size and increase our
already existing drainage problem.
When our home was built 10 years ago we used an existing sewer line that runs from Chestnut
to the south west corner of our lot. During the course of planning for the construction of our
home the engineering department advised us against importing any dirt onto our lot. They had
great concern regarding potential drainage and earth slippage problems that would effect the
homes below us. We were still able to build a beautiful home with an ocean view. I would have
assumed that there would have been some consideration for the possibility of using this line
However as of today I have not heard any word from the developer.
There may be a simpler solution. I would consider granting a sewer easement across my
property, under the right conditions. It would appear to me that every option should be
explored prior to any massive undertaking such as the one above before approving a plan that
would create so much inconvenience for the entire neighborhood.
I believe that the only one to benefit from this grading plan may be the developer, in order to
improve the view of his lots. The sewer issue is only to mislead the planning department, but if
further study is done.city of carlsbad.doc then I feel that the proper direction will be taken.
Sincerely, a concerned resident of Carlsbad.
John R. Hicks
3601 Seaview Way