Loading...
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-