The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-08-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 3091I 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3091 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL SATELLITE ANTENNAE AND INTERFERENCE SCREENING AT THE SQUIRES DAM FACILITY. CASE NO.: CUP 184(A) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of August, 1' CASE NAME; SQUIRES COMMUNICATION ANTENNA 8 9 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi lo ll arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by : 11 relating to the Negative Declaration. 12 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered 2 13 l6 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. l5 follows: 14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Corn B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Cc 17 hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exh dated July 19, 1990, and "PII", dated July 16, 1990, attached hereto and ma 18 hereof, based on the following findings: 19 Findinns : 20 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project rr 21 significant impact on the environment. 22 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental anal 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed PI 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantl! by this project. ..... ..... ..... a e 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of ik 2 following vote, to wit: 3 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of August, 1 4 5 6 AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, McFadden, Holmes and Marcus. NOES: None. I 7 8 ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9 11 10 11 12 13 ATTEST: *- - SHARON SCHRA", Chairpers CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMI l4 15 mwa MICHAEL J. HOLZMILMR 3.6 11 PLANNING DIRECTOR 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO. 3091 -2- 28 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: East side of the Squires Dam Facility, Carlsbad, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Addition of two satellite dishes, two 52 foot high towers 2 a 20 foot high fence at an existing facility. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proj pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality. and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of : review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a signific impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plm Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department wil 21 days of date of issuance. DATED: JULY 16, 1990 CASE NO: CUP 184(A) MICHAEL J.%OLhhILLER Planning Director APPLICANT: DANIELS CABLEVISION PUBLISH DATE: JULY 19, 1990 MG:km 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438- 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP 184L DATE: Julv 16. 19 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Squires Communication Antenna 2. APPLICANT: Daniel's Cablevision 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5720 El Camino Real Carlsbad CA 92008 (619) 438-7741 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Januarv 5. 1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Addition of two 52 foot towers, two satellite dishes arq - 11 feet in diameter and one 20 foot hinh fence at the SI Communication Facility. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the el The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. T: identifies any physical, biolo@cal and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed provides rhe City Wirh information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an En Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that th any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" wil to indicate this detennination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any 2 project may cause a sinnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can insinnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of thc DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given tl mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. - PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? 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? SubstantiaUy change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? -2- w YES YES big) (insig) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO X X X x X X - X X X X X a 0 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES P (si& (insig) 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY - - - - - - - - - - - YES YES (si& (insig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? - - - - -3- 0 HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 20. Increase existing noise levels? 21. Produce new light or glare? 22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 25. Generate substantial additional traffic? 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 4- 0 YES big) YES (insig) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 - .( - 0 MANDATORY EINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 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 of California history or prehistory. 34. 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.) 35. 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 the effects of probable future projects.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES YES Nl (si& (insig) - - - - - - - -5- 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Squires Dam Facility for Daniels Cablevision was approved in December of 1980 and involvec high communications antenna, two 16 foot high communications antenna, two 16 foot diame dishes, and a utility building. The project received a negative declaration as no environmental ir found to exist. Because extreme topography surrounding the project prevented the tower from ( serious visual impacts on future residential areas. Since the original approval, two 52 foot higf a 11 foot diameter satellite dish have been added to the site. This environmental review incorporates the existing towers not originally approved as well as a 20 foot high fence and an ac foot diameter satellite dish. 1. Earth: No earthwork is proposed for this project therefore no earth-related impacts are E 2. &: No heavy construction that would cause short term air impacts is proposed for this no long term impacts are anticipated either. 3, Water: Development of this project will produce a minor reduction in water absorption a impact is considered insigtzlficant. 4/5. Plant/Animal Life: The site is previously disturbed and all proposed development is conta the disturbed area. No impacts to plant or animal life are anticipated. 6. Noise: Some insignificant short-term noise impacts may result from installation of the satell fencing but operation of the facility is silent and no noise-related impacts are anticipated. 7. Light And Glare: No additional lighting is proposed and the additional satellite dish will I a significant amount of glare. No impacts are anticipated. 8. Land Use: The existing facility is adjacent to a single-family residential neighborhood to t open space to the north, south, and west. As determined in the previous negative declara; project, the uses are compatible and there are no land use related impacts. 9. Natural Resources; The amount of energy needed to install and operate the additional satc considered insignificant and no natural resources are known to exist on site. Therefore, nc natural resources are anticipated. 10. Risk Of UDset: This project does not increase the risk of an explosion or the release of 2 substance. 11. Population: Implementation of this project has no bearing on the population of the increased local population brought about the need for facility upgrades. No impacts are i 12. Housing: See 11 above. 13. TransPortatiodCirculation: This project will result in no transportation or circulation proposed. -6- a e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Cont’dl 14. Public Services: By increasing the quality of the cable television signal, this project produc impacts on public services. 15. Enerm: See 9 above. 16. Utilities: See 14 above. 17, Human Health: No human health impacts are anticipated either during construction implementation of this project. 18. Aesthetics: As discussed in the EIA for the previous negative declaration, the varied toposi to screen much of the project from adjacent residences. The two 52 foot high towers, whicl in place for several years, are narrow and do not substantially block views to the west. 1 will be wire mesh, and virtually transparent from a distance and the new satellite dish will 1 by the undulating topography. No significant visual impacts are anticipated. 19. Recreation: This project will have no recreation related impacts. 20. Archeolonical/Historical: The site is previously disturbed and no items of archeological c significant have been found on site. No impacts are anticipated. -7- a 0 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. a) The project is to small to phase. b) The site is very constrained and no other site design would accommodate th facilities. c) The proposed number of antennae is needed to satisfy the cable television I area, an alternate scale of development would not satisfy this need. d) The site has been operating as a communications facility for almost five considering its'proximity to mostly open space, alternate uses for the site are e) The proposed improvements are needed now to maintain a quality level of s f) Since this is an expansion of an existing facility, an alternate site for the projec g) As discussed previously, the improvements are needed now and the no projec would result in diminished levels of service. -8- * 0 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 1 DECLARATION will be prepared. - 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an att 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 ENVIRO IMPACT REPORT is required. * m& - 4. 4 Signature 6 " V Planning Dire2or LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -9- .C 0 e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT E HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature MG:h -1 0-