HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 53881
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. 5388
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COASTAL
INSTALLATION OF A MONO-PALM WITH TWELVE
ANTENNAS AND AN ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT AREA ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 4901 EL CAMINO
CASE NAME: HOFFMAN CINGULAR
CASE NO.: CDP 02-40
WHEREAS, Cingular Wireless, “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Jay Franklin Hoffman and Maryon
Dooley Hoffman, “Owner,” described as
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 02-40 TO ALLOW THE
REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
That portion of Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 3451 in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, as
shown on Parcel Map filed on page 3451 of Parcel Maps on
January 31,1975 (APN 207-101-28)
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “E” dated April 2,2003,on file in the Planning
Department, HOFFMAN CINGULAR - CDP 02-04 as provided by Chapter 21.201.040 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 2nd day of April, 2003, 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the CDP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES HOFFMAN CINGULAR - CDP 02-04 based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the proposed development is in conformance with the Mello I1 Segment of the
Certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) and all applicable policies in that no sensitive
resources, geologic instability, flood hazard, or coastal access opportunities exist on
site and the development does not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public
lands or public right-of-way or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastline.
The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that the project is located outside of the coastal shoreline
development overlay zone. Therefore, compliance with the public access and
recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act is not required.
The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.03 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the proposed mono-
palm is a “stealth” design which will blend in with the natural view shed; no steep
slopes will be affected by the project and no native vegetation is located on the
subject property; and the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or
susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction.
The project is not located in the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone, according to Map X
of the Land Use Plan, certified September 1990 and, Agricultural Conversion
Mitigation Fees are not required in accordance with the provisions of the Coastal
Agriculture Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.202 of the Zoning Ordinance).
The project is not located between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea and,
therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay
Zone (Chapter 2 1.204 of the Zoning Ordinance).
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Conditional Use Permit document(s) necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different fkom this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two
(2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per
Section 21.201.210 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
3. This approval is granted subject to the approval of CUP 02-21 and SUP 02-10 and is
subject to all conditions contained in Resolutions No. 5386 and 5387 for those other
approvals incorporated herein by reference.
PC RES0 NO. 5388 -2-
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
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively’ referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of April, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson
COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5388 -3-