Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 38912. /I 0 e 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3891 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF SIX (6) PANEL ANTENNAS AND TWO (2) EQUIPMENT CABINETS ON A SITE DEVELOPED WITH A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY. CASE NAME: SD-088-01 (LAS FLORES) CASE NO: CUP 95-14 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of Januaq 9 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tes 10 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, a] 11 12 13 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by sta considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all 14 15 Commission as follows: 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 17 relating to the Negative Declaration. 18 19 20 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the P1; Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration accord Exhibit "ND", dated November 22, 1995, and "PII", dated November 8 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findi 21 11 Findings: 22 23 24 25 26 27 1. 1 The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project ma a significant impact on the environment as the project consists of the installa six facade mounted panel antennas to the exterior of the existing resic structure and the addition of two equipment cabinets adjacent to the structurc antennas will be placed on the parapet, will not extend above the parapet, ml 6O"x6"x3", and will be painted to match the exterior of the building. TI equipment cabinets will be ground mounted adjacent to the buildings east side the parking lot and the freeway. They measure 5' x 4'4" x 2'4" and will be mc on a concrete pad and painted to match the building. 28 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental an ll 1 2 3 4 5 6 ~ 0 0 ! 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed 1 as the project only requires periodic maintenance. 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be signi impacted by this project. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of JI 7 li 1996, by the following vote, to wit: 8 9 10 AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Erwin, Monroy, P Noble, Savary and Welshons NOES: None l1 I1 ABSENT: None 12 13 14 ABSTAIN: None 15 16 17 18 ATTEST: 'VFjILLIAM COMPASfChairpersor CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMI 19 20 21 I! Planning Director 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I PC RES0 NO. 3891 -2- 0 0 - NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: West side of interstate Highway 5 between Knowles Avenue and Laguna Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of 6 facademounted panel antennas and 2 ground-mounted equipment cabinets The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act 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 Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1 161, extension 4471. /7 DATED: NOVEMBER 22,1995 $$? MIgZHOLZM% 5@ CASE NO: CUP 255(B) u Planning' Director ' CASE NAME: SD-088-01 (LAS FLORES) PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1995 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 0 e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 1I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO. CUP 2551 DATE: Novembe~ 1. CASE NAME: SD-0888-01 (Las mores) 2. APPLICANT: Grace Manues. representing Pacific Bell Mobil Services 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 9610 Granite Ridge Dr.. Suite A. S; California 92123 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 25.1995 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of 6 facade-mounted panel antennas and 2 ground-mou eauiDment cabinets. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involvir one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless h Incorporated’’ as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Land Use and Planning - X Transportation/Circulation - Public Services - Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service - Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources X Aesthetics - Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources - X Air Quality - Noise - Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGAT: DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have b added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applic: legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as descri on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATll is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL N be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequal in an earlier EER / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) h been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATI( including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a No of Prior Compliance has been prepared. c /&- 7.5 Date 7 ./ /’ /” .( /i e ,- ,fu/ 2 &/&I I/,/ /7 yLj- Planning Director Signature Date EB:h 2 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that fhe City conduct an Envirc Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Envin Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with hf to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report FIR), Negative Dec or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequate1 supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impac answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simp does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained whc there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as gene1 standards. e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impa is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policit “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigati measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significa Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigati measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect significant. Based on an “EM-Part E’, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on 1 environment, but & potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstan requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures requi by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additio environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prer an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicz standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Ovemding Considerations” has b made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the pro or any of its aspects may cause a sigrufkant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 3/281 a 0 0 If there are one or more potentially sigruficant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limitec to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed o mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree tc mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overridin; Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) propow mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Pa II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, ( determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially sigTllfcant effect 1 below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fo~ DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to d mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 3/28 0 Issues (and supporting Information sources): Potentially Significant Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? - b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? - c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? - d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? - e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? - II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? - b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? - III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? - b) Seismic ground shaking? - Potentially Significant UdesS Mitigation hncorporated - - - - - - - - - - LessThan Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? - - - d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? - - - 5 Rev. 3/28/91 0 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): e) Landslides or mudflows? Potentially Significant Potentially Untess LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant hpct Incorporated Impact - - - f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? - - - g) Subsidence of the land? - - - h) Expansive soils? - - - i) Unique geologic or physical features? - - - IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? - - - b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? - - - c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? - - - d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? - - - e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? - - - f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? - - - g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? - - - h) Impacts to groundwater quality? - - - i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? - - - 6 Rev. 3/28/9! a 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially UdeSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant ImFt Incorporated Impact V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? - X - - b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? - c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? - d) Create objectionable odors? - VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffk congestion? - X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? - c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? - d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? - e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? - f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? - g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? - VU. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? - b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 3/28/! a 0 Issues (and Supporting Wormation Sources): Potentially Significant Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? - d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? - e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? - VIE ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? - b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? - c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? - IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? - b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? - d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? - e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? - X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Potentially Significant UdeSS Mitigation Incorporated - - - - - - - - - - - LeSThan Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - 1 a) Increases in existing noise levels? - - - 8 Rev. 3/28/! 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact - XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? - b) Police protection? - c) Schools? - d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? - e) Other governmental services? - XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? - b) Communications systems? - c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? - d) Sewer or septic tanks? - e) Storm water drainage? - f) Solid waste disposal? - g) Local or regional water supplies? - XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? - b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? - c) Create light or glare? - 9 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incarporated - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LessThan Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 3/28/92 e e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact XN. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? - b) Disturb archaeological resources? - c) Affect historical resources? - d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? - e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? - XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? - XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to 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 endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? - b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a 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) - Potentially Significant UIlleSS Mitigation Incorporated - - - - - - - - - LaSThan Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - 10 Rev. 312815 0 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - - XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA PI one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative decla Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached I a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for revie b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were with scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standarc state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier anal c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Signifcant with Mitigation Incorpo describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier docume the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 11 Rev. 3/28}! e 0 . DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESClUPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project involves the installation of 6 facade-mounted panel antennas and 2 ground equipment cabinets on a site developed with an existing senior residential care facility. The propo: antennas are each approximately 60" tall, 6" wide, and 3" deep. They will be mounted on three fac existing buildings at the roof-level parapet. The antennas will not extend above the existing building h will be painted and textured to match the surrounding building. The two equipment cabinets the existing parking lot. 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: A. Non-Relevant Items B. Environmental Impact Discussion I. Land Use And Planning a) The proposed project will not conflict with the General Plan or zoning on the site. The City' Plan and zoning allow the proposed use (a public utility use) on the subject property with the of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). approximately 62'' tall, 52" wide, and 28" deep, They will be located on the ground below the antennas I b) There are no environmental plans (except CEQA) applicable to the subject property. c) The proposed use will not be incompatible with existing land uses in the area. The panel ante be painted and textured to match the building. The equipment cabinets will also be requi painted to be inconspicuous and will be located near the parking lot. d) There are no agricultural resources or operations on the subject site. e) The proposed antenna and equipment installations will occur within, and will not disrupt or d. arrangement of the existing community. II. Population and Housing a-c) The installation of this communication equipment is not expected to have any impact on popu housing. IIl. Geologic Problems a-i) The project involves no grading activities. The site is heady fully developed with a senior rc care facility. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site. 12 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 IV. Water a-i) Installation of the proposed equipment will not involve any grading. Therefore, there will be from the existing condition for absorption rates, drainage patterns, Surface runoff amounts, water hazards, currents, or conditions or amounts of Surface water or ground water. V. Air Quality a-d) The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the up General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mile: These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive orga oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major cont air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air “non-attainment basin“, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have ( significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) pro7 roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Manag provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) 1 to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth m strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is loca a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially : Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an : required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution Nc included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Stat Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s F~I EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts i5 This document is available at the Planning Department. VI. Transportation/Circulation a-g) The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the upd General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be ad accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely itr regional through-traffk over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally i freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, 13 Rev. 3/28/9 mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of tie project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. VII. Biological Resources a-e) The site of the proposed project is already fully developed with a residential care facility and is in an urbanized area. There are no known endangered, threatened, or rare species or habitats located on the site. There is no wetland habitat on the site. The site also does not serve as a migration corridor. In addition, the project involves only the installation of antennas onto existing buildings and the installation of 2 equipment cabinets near an existing parking lot. Therefore, there should be no impact to biological resources. VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources a-c) The proposed project will not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans. The communications equipment is not expected to use non-renewable resources wastefully and will not result in the loss of any known mineral resource. IX. Hazards a-e) The project is not expected to result in any hazards. The radio equipment used is not expected to result in explosion and does not release hazardous substances. The equipment is also not expected to create any health hazards or fires. The placement of the equipment will not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. X. Noise a-b) The proposed antennas and equipment cabinets are not expected to generate any noise. 14 Rev. 3128195 0 0 XI. Public Services a-e) All necessary public services are already provided for the existing residential care facility. The project (the installation of communications equipment) will not result in an increased requirc such services. XII. Utilities And Services Systems a-g) The proposal will not result in addition demand for utilities and services systems. The placem equipment will assist in meeting current and future demand for wireless communications fac XIII. Aesthetics a-c) The project will not have a negative aesthetic effect and will not affect negatively a scenil highway. The panel antennas will be painted and textured to match the building surfa equipment cabinets will be required to be compatible with the adjacent structures and will 1 on the ground by an existing parking lot. No light or glare will result from any of the equil XIV. Cultural Resources a-e) The site is fully developed and in an urbanized area, and there are no grading activities assoc: the project. Therefore, there should be no impact to cultural resources. XV. Recreation a-b) The proposed equipment installation should have no impact upon recreational facilities d supply - 15 Rev. 3/28/!