HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 3376. e 0
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO- 3376
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 160 SQUARE FEET
OF FLOOR AREA TO AN EQUIPMENT BUILDING AND THREE
EXISTING COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY.
CASE NAME: DANIELS CABLEVISION BUILDING EXPANSION
CASE NO: CUP 184(B)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of April, 1992, ha
ADDITIONAL GROUND-MOUNTED SATELLITE DISHES TO AN
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimo~
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by sta
and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered i
factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissic
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
€3) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannil
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "NL
dated February 13, 1992, and "PII", dated February 11, 1992, attached hereto a]
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinns:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project m
have a significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analys
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed projet
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significanl
impacted by this project.
t II e a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannir:
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of April, 1992, by tl
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schram
Holmes, Savary, Noble & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
MICHAEL J. H~ZMIL~R
PLANNING DIRECTOR
16
17
18
19
2o I 21
22
23
24
E5
26 II
27 II
28 I/ PC RES0 NO. 3376 -2-
0 e
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The project site is located east of Squires Dam and west
of the VistdCarlsbad City border on a portion of Lot
"C", Rancho Agua Hedionda, County of San Diego, Map
823.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To add 160 square feet of floor area to an existing equipment
building and add three additional ground-mounted satellite
dishes to an existing Cablevision Communication facility
located east of Squires Dam.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
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 Palrnas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
21 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call David Rick in the
Planning Department at 438-1161, extension 4328. /3
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
DATED: FEBRUARY 13, 1992 <dl& (34 -
I-b$L, J. HOLZ LLER
CASE NO: CUP 184(B) Planning Director ' kM
CASE NAME: DANIEL'S CABLEVISION BUILDING EXPANSION
PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 13,1992
DR:km
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161
* 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
CASE NO. CUP 184(B)
DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1s
1. CASE NAME: Daniel's Cablevision Buildinn Emansion
2. APPLICANT: Daniel's Cablevision, Inc. - Joni R, Odum
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5720 El Camino Real
Carlsbad. CA 92008
(619)438-7741
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 20. 1991
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To add 160 sauare feet of floor area to an existing eauim
building and add three additional mound-mounted satellite dishes to an existing Cablevj
Communication facilitv located east of Squires Dam.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduc
Environmental impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environn
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This chec
8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmc
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the proje any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment, On the checklist, "NO" will be che to indicate this detemination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect a
project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Neg
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be dec
insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-i
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form I
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discu
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
0
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?
Substantially 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-
.,
e
YES
(sigl
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
YES
(insig)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO
X -
X
X
X -
X -
X
X -
X -
X
X
-
-
X -
0 e
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
big) (insig)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)? - - - X
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?
X - - -
- - X -
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects? - - X
16. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals? - 7 X
HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
YES YES NO
(sig) (insig)
X - - -
X - - -
-3-
a HUMANmoNMENT
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 traffk?
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-
YES
big)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
YES NO
(insig)
X - -
X
X -
X -
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
X -
x - -
X -
X - -
e e
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES YES NO
(si@ (insig)
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.)
X -
X - -
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.) - - X
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? X - -
-5-
e 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The Squires Dam facility for Daniel's Cablevision was approved December of 1980 and consisted of a 160 f
high communication antenna, two 16 foot diameter ground satellite dishes, and a 320 square foot equipm
building. In August of 1990, an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit was approved permitting 1
additional ground mounted dishes, a 52 foot high tower, and a 20 foot high fence for interference screenj
Negative Declarations were issued for the original permit and the amendment.
The applicant is now requesting to install three new ground-mounted satellite dishes and expand an exis
equipment building needed to accommodate the new dishes. The environmental impacts derived from
proposal are anticipated to be insignificant. Virtually no impacts are anticipated to the vegetation or anir
within location of the facility. No grading is proposed and soil exposure will not be increased. In addit
views from residences to the east will not be lost due to an existing naturally occuning berm between residences and the facility.
EIA CHECKLIST
1. No earthwork is proposed for the project and therefore no unstable earth conditions or geologic haz
will be created.
2. The existing physical features and topography will not be altered as a result of this project.
3. Soil exposure will not increase as a result of this project. In fact, the building addition may slig
reduce exposure.
4. No rivers or streams channel through or near the facility, and no changes to the bed of Squires I
will occur.
5. The facility does not produce any emissions, and therefor no pollutants will be omitted into the
Only minimal emissions may be omitted from service trucks and machinery needed to install
facilities and from the maintenance or repair of the' facility during operation. No person is neede
operate the facility.
6. Operation of the facility will not change air movement, odor or moisture. Slight amounts of rac
heat may be omitted from operation of the facility, but the effects.are insignificant as the small qua
of heat will quickly dissipate upon emission.
7. See number 4.
8. The proposed expansion will not substantially divert or increase surface runoff. Because of the s
scale of the project, water infiltration into the soil will not be effected.
9. The small amount of materials needed to establish the facility .will not result in the depletion or u of any natural resources. ,.
10. The amount of energy needed to install and operate the additional antennas is insigntficant.
-6-
0 0
11. The site is previously disturbed and no items of archeological, historical, or paleontological significar
are known to or thought to exist on the site. In addition, because no grading% proposed, disturbal
to any potentially existing artifacts found below the surface would not be disturbed.
12. Installation of the antennas and building addition will result in the removal of approximately 5 tc native shrubs, but this is an insignificant loss of coastal sage scrub habitat.
13. No new species of plants are proposed to be installed. Only 3-4 native shrubs are anticipated tc
All proposed expansions are enclosed by existing perimeter chain-link fence and within a previol
disturbed area.
displaced by the proposed satellite dishes and no displacement will occur from the building expansi
14. The existing facility nor the proposed addition of dishes and building expansion are not located u
or encroaching into agricultural land.
15. Because only an insignificant amount vegetation will be removed, any animals using this vegetatior
food or shelter would not be adversely affected in regards to its numbers or diversity.
16. No new species of animals will be introduced and the only known migrating animals within the
are birds, which should not be effected by the proposed project.
17. The existing and proposed use is compatible with the surrounding landuses. The facility is adjacer
a single-family neighborhood to the east and open space to the south, west, and north. No chang Ianduse is proposed.
18. By upgrading the quality of cabletelevision service to local residences, public service will be imprc
19. No waste will be generated or stored at the facility and because the topography underlying the fa1
is in its natural state, drainage or sewer facilities are not need to collect any surface runoff.
20. Some insignificant short-term noise impacts may result from installation of the satellite' dishes
building addition, but operation of the facility is silent and no noise-related impacts are anticipal
21. No additional lighting is proposed and the additional satellite dishes will not produce a signif
amount of glare. No impacts are anticipated.
22. No explosives or hazardous waste materials will be stored or used on site.
23. No impacts to human populations are anticipated as the facility is an unmanned facility.
24. Its anticipated that the existing housing to the east will not be effected by the proposed addition
that a demand for new housing will not be created as a result of an enhancement of cable I
services.
25. The facility is unmanned and requires only the occasional need of a vehicle for maintenance or r
No traffic impacts are anticipated.
-7-
a a 26. No parking is needed because of the absence of vehicles. In addition, the site is intended for pr
use only and public access to the facility is prohibited.
27. .Impacts to transportation systems are not anticipated for the same reasons stated in number 26.
28. The addition of three satellites and building expansion will not interfere with waterborne, air, o
traffic. The project is located outside the Airport Influence Zone, and no waterborne vehicll
railways exist near the site.
29. The facility is entirely enclosed by a 6 foot high chain-link fence which precludes entranc
pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. In addition, no public trails or roads access the site.
30. The proposal consists of an expansion within an existing facility which would not interfere
emergency evacuation routes or plans. No impacts are anticipated.
31. The proposed ground-mounted antennas would be virtually screened from the single family residc
units just east of the facility. The natural topography of the area consists of a berm between the PI
' location and the single family homes. This berm adequately screens the existing ground facilitie
the proposed ground facilities should also be adequately screened because the height of these pro]
facilities does not exceed the height of the existing facilities.
32. The proposed project is not located near any recreational facilities and no impacts are anticipatc
33. Because of the small scale and location of the project and the minimal to no impacts imposed (
aspects of the environment, the quality of the environment will not sustain any substantial deterior
or damage.
34. No short-term or long-term impacts are anticipated.
35. Other similar facilities do exist within the same vicinity. A tower antenna and facility for Pa
Cellular is located northeast of the dam and a 300 foot tower for KKOS radio station is lo
northwest of the dam. Quigley Communications and radio facilities for several City departmen
also nearby. However, considering the small amount of area these facilities incorporate, and the
at which the cablevision facility expansion is proposed, no cumulative impacts to the environme~
anticipated.
36. . No substantial adverse effects are anticipated to human beings. The satellite dishes are used fc
reception of microwaves only, which sustain no harmful biological, physical or mental effects to h
beings. The Federal Communications Commission, American Nation Standard Institute, an
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, have determined that the frequency transm
of the satellite antenna is several orders of magnitude lower than the accepted safety stand2
5mw/cm squared. The facility is licensed to operate by the FCC.
-8-
8 e
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATlVES 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 a scale to phase.
b) The site is constrained, and an- alteration to the site design would be infeasible.
c) The proposed number of antennas is needed to obtain the desired increase in services. In turn, I
building expansion is needed to accommodate the additional antennas,
d) An alternate use consistent with the surrounding uses would include open space, but the facility :
already been established and is consistent with the surrounding land use.
e) The proposed improvements are needed now to maintain a quality level of service.
f) Because the Daniel’s Cablevision facility has already been established at a particular location for sew
years, it would be infeasible to expand the facility at a separate location.
g) The no project alternative would not provide the needed or desired level of service to cablevir
subscribers.
-9-
0 DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) 0
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
- X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a sigruficant effect on the environment, and a NEGAT
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction v
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is requi
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
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 ENVIRONMEN IMPACT REPORT is required.
,+ Pdk r
lgnature
2-&q+? * ,>&,A/ ,I &d-
Date #&pl&+pfy
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-10-
0 0
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.
Date Signature
DR:km
e
-11-