Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 2726I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e e PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2726 I A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE SATELLITE TELEVISION ANTENNA PER USE IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (P-M), HEAVY COMMERCIAL- LIMITED INDUSTRIAL (C-M) , AND INDUSTRIAL (M) ZONES WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO.: ZCA 88-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of ' April, 1988, 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 recommends APPROVAL of the ~ Negative Declaration according to Exhibit IrND1I, dated April 1, 1988, and Exhibit lrPII1r, dated March 28, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings : Findinss : 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The proposed zone code amendment is administrative in nature and will have no environmental impacts, ~ t li e e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 3. The proposed zone code amendment will not authorize any type of development. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of April, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: i AYES :: Commissioners: Marcus, McBane, Hall, Schramm, and Schlehuber. NOES : None. ABSENT: Chairman McFadden & Commissioner Holmes. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST : CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSIO - ~ 1 MICHAEL J. H~LZMMER ~ PLANNING DIRECTOR I I I 17 11 I.8 ~ 19 ~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 2726 -2- EXHIBIT I'ND" 0 ' 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (619) 438-1161 Citp of Carlsbab NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: City of Carlsbad PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that allows more than one satellite television antenna per use in .the Planned Industrial (P-M), Heavy Commercial-Limited Industrial (C- M), and Industrial (M) zones with a conditional use permit. 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 ten (10) days of date of issuance. A DATED: April 1, 1988 CASE NO: ZCA 88-2 MICHAEL J. XOLZHLLER Planning Director APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLISH DATE: April 1, 1988 e 0 EXHIBIT "Pll" ENVIRONMENT- IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. ZCA 88-2 DATE : March 25, 1988 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT : City of Carlsbad 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008 (619) 438-1161 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: March 25, 1988 [I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? - YES MAYBE NO - X X X X X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X 0 2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions' or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -2- 0 - YES MAY BE - NO " x X X X X X X X X X X 0 * - YES 4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? '5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly 7. Lisht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have increase existing noise levels? nificantly produce new light or glare? significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -3- MAYBE - NO X X X X X X X X X X 0 a 9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of UDset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? i2. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TransDortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? YES MAY BE NO - X X X V A v A X X v A V A X X -4- e m - YES 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Enersv - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following uti1.ities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? -5- MAY BE - NO X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 0 0 YES MAYBE - NO 18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? X 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Archeoloaical/Historical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the DroDosed 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) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. lot applicable. The proposed Zone Code Amendment does not authorize any pecific development. It establishes standards and guidelines which will e utilized by future projects when they develop. -6- e 0 - YES MAY BE - NO 22. Mandatorv findinss of sianificance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? X b. 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.) X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X :I. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION lis project consists of a zone code amendment which will allow more than le satellite television antenna per use on lots in the Pm, CM, and M . mes with a conditional use permit. A previous Negative Declaration was ;sued on January 13, 1988, to allow this in only the PM and M zones. )on further consideration, it was decided that the C-M zone would also be bpropriate for this use. zone code amendment establishes standards for future development. As Lch, they should not have any adverse effects on the environment. lis zone code amendment will require future satellite television antennas ) apply for a conditional use permit. At such time, each project will ldergo a complete environmental assessment. lis zone code amendment does not approve any specific development and lould not have any impact on the environment. Therefore, the City feels -7- 0 ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) omfortable in issuing a Negative Declaration. -8- e 0 V. 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. SIZist% Date . MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) -9- c e E. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE 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. 3lzdgs \ ,.J \icvfik- 1 i)*ad<d Date ( J ' Signature -10-