Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 184B; Daniels Cablevision Building Expansion; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (15)EMlIRO"T& IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART IT (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP 184( B) DATE: BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: < Daniel's Cablevision B ' din 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 DESCRIFVION: To add 160-sauare feet of floor area to an existinn eauhment buildinn and add three additional mound-mounted satellite dishes to an existinn Cablevision Communication facilitv located east of Sauires Dam. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO' will be checked to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sirrnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualifv for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insinnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and 'YES-insif respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 5 - PHYSICAL E"MENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECIZY 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 mounts of fuel or energy? Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? YES YES big) (insig) NO X - X - X - X - X - X - X - X - X X - - x -2- BIOLOGICAL ENVIR0"T WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? "ENVIRONMENT WIU 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 big) NO X - X - x X - X - NO x x -3- "ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: NO Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. X X X - - - Increase existing noise levels? Produce new light or glare? Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X - Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? x Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? x X - Generate substantial additional traffic? Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? X - Impact existing transportatidn systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people andlor goods? X X - - Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X - Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? x Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? X - Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X - 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES (si@ (dig) 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 hve environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? NO X - X - X - X - -5- DtSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The Squires Dam facility for Daniel's Cablevision was approved December of 1980 and consisted of a 160 foot high communication antenna, two 16 foot diameter ground satellite dishes, and a 320 square foot equipment building. In August of 1990, an amendment to the Conditional Use Pennit was approved permitting two additional ground mounted dishes, a 52 foot high tower, and a 20 foot high fence for interference screening. Negative Declarations were issued for the original pennit and the amendment. The applicant is now requesting to install three new ground-mounted satellite dishes and expand an existing equipment building needed to accommodate the new dishes. The environmental impacts derived from the proposal are anticipated to be insidcant. Virtually no impacts are anticipated to the vegetation or animals within location of the facility. No grading is proposed and soil exposure will not be increased. In addition, views from residences to the east will not be lost due to an existing naturally occurring berm between the residences and the facility. EIA CHECKLIST 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. No earthwork is proposed for the project and therefore no unstable earth conditions or geologic hazards will be created. The existing physical features and topography'will not be altered as a result of this project. Soil exposure will not increase as a result of this project. In fact, the building addition may slightly reduce exposure. No rivers or streams channel through or near the facility, and no changes to the bed of Squires Dam will occur. The facility does not produce any emissions, and therefor no pollutants will be omitted into the air. Only minimal emissions may be omitted from senice trucks and machinery needed to install the facilities and from the maintenance or repair of the facility during operation. No person is needed to operate the facility. Operation of the facility will not change air movement, odor or moisture. Slight amounts of radiant heat may be omitted from operation of the facility, but the effects are insignificant as the small quantity of heat will quickly dissipate upon emission. See number 4. The proposed expansion will not substantially divert or increase surface runoff. Because of the small scale of the project, water infiltration into the soil will not be effected. The small amount of materials needed to establish the facility will not result in the depletion or usage of any natural resources. The amount of energy needed to install and operate the additional antennas is insignificant. -6- 11. The site is previously disturbed and no items of archeological, historical, or paleontological significance are known to or thought to exist on the site. In addition, because no grading is proposed, disturbance to any potentially existing artifacts found below the surface would not be disturbed. 12. tnstallation of the antennas and building addition will result in the removal of approximately 5 to 6 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 34 native shrubs are anticipated to be displaced by the proposed satellite dishes and no displacement wiU occur from the building expansion. AU proposed expansions are enclosed by existing perimeter chain-link fence and within a previously disturbed area. 14. The existing facility nor the proposed addition of dishes and building expansion are not located upon or encroaching into agricultural land. 15. Because only an insignificant amount vegetation will be removed, any animals using this vegetation for 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 area 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 adjacent to a single-family neighborhood to the east and open space to the south, west, and north. No change in landuse is proposed. 18. By upgrading the quality of cabletelevision service to local residences, public service will be improved. 19. No waste will be generated or stored at the facility and because the topography underlying the facility 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 and building addition, but operation of the facility is silent and no noise-related impacts are anticipated. 21. No additional lighting is proposed and the additional satellite dishes will not produce a significant 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. tts anticipated that the existing housing to the east will not be effected by the proposed addition, and that a demand for new housing will not be created as a result of an enhancement of cable vision services. 25. The facility is unmanned and requires only the occasional need of a vehicle for maintenance or rep&. No traffic impacts are anticipated. -7- e -- 26. No parking is needed because of the absence of vehicles. In addition, the site is intended for private use only and public access to the facility is prohibited. Impacts to transportation systems are not anticipated for the same reasons stated in number 26. I 27. 28. The addition of three satellites and building expansion will not interfere with waterborne, air, or rail traffic. The project is located outside the Airport Influence Zone, and no waterborne vehicles or railways exist near the site. 29. The facility is entirely enclosed by a 6 foot high chain-link fence which precludes entrance to 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 with emergency evacuation routes or plans. No impacts are anticipated. 31. ' The proposed ground-mounted antennas would be virtually screened from the single family residential units just east of the facility. The natural topography of the area consists of a berm between the project location and the single family homes. This berm adequately screens the existing ground facilities and the proposed ground facilities should also be adequately screened because the height of these proposed 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 antiapated. 33. Because of the small scale and location of the project and the minimal to no impacts imposed on all aspects of the environment, the quality of the environment will not sustain any substantial deterioration 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 Pac Tel Cellular is located northeast of the dam and a 300 foot tower for KKOS radio station is located northwest of the dam. Quigley Communications and radio facilities for several City departments are also nearby. However, considering the small amount of area these facilities incorporate, and the scale at which the cablevision facility expansion is proposed, no cumulative impacts to the environment are anticipated. 36. No substantial adverse effects are anticipated to human beings. The satellite dishes are used for the reception of microwaves only, which sustain no harmful biological, physical or mental effects to human beings. The Fedend Communications Commission, American Nation Standard Institute, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, have detennined that the frequency transmission of the satellite antenna is several orders of magnitude lower than the accepted safety standard of 5mw/cm squared. The facility is licensed to operate by the FCC. -8- 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 a scale to phase. b) The site is constrained, and an alteration to the site czsign woulc be infeasible. c) The proposed number of antennas is needed to obtain the desired increase in senrices. In turn, the d) An alternate use consistent with the surrounding uses would include open space, but the facility has building expansion is needed to accommodate the additional antennas. 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 several g) The no project alternative would not provide the needed or desired level of service to cablevision years, it would be infeasible to expand the facility at a separate location. subscribers. -9- DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: - X t find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - t 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. . LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE] @ F APPLI -10- 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 -11- c