HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 3974I 0 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. 3974
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE
INSTALLATION OF SIX (6) GROUND MOUNTED
PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEM EQUIPMENT
CABINETS, SIX (6) PANEL ANTENNAS AND ONE (1) TEN
INCH OVAL ANTENNA MOUNTED ON A REPLACEMENT
MONOPOLE AT THE ELLERY RESERVOIR FACILITY AT
2237 JANIS WAY.
CASE NAME: PCS 150 MOUNT KELLY
CASE NO.: CUP 96-06
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for approval of the project
fully described as a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of six ground mou
Personal Communication System equipment cabinets, and six panel antennas and on
inch oval Global Positioning System antenna mounted on a 54.6 foot high replace]
monopole, all at the Ellery Reservoir Facility, for certain property to wit:
Parcel 1 as now shown on Map No. 878, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, July 3,1972
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of August 1996,
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law and provided in Chapter 19.04 of the Carl
Municipal Code, to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testin.
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fa(
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plm
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
I1 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 I
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plsu
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to E
"ND", dated July 5, 1996, the "PII", dated June 27, 1996, attached heretc
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed
considered the Negative Declaration for the PCS 150 Mount Kelly project
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereon,
to approval of the project. Based on the EIA Part-I1 and comments thereor
Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will h
significant effect on the environment and hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaral
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Negative Declaration for the
150 Mount Kelly project has been prepared in accordance with requirements c
California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines, and the Envirom
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration for the PCS 150 M
Kelly project reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission o
City of Carlsbad.
4. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or p:
alternatives identified in the General Plan MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate tl
Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
Conditions:
1. Approval of the Negative Declaration is granted subject to the approval of CUP 91
The Negative Declaration is subject to all conditions contained in Plan
Commission Resolution No. 3975.
...
...
...
I
~
,..
1 ... 1 ...
I ...
I PC RES0 NO. 3974 -2-
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
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pla
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of August 1996, E
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, Mo
Nielsen, Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
\ I/b"/L :w_c(j,
MICHAEL J. H~LZMIL~ER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 3974 0 -3 -
0 0
-___-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: APN: 167-540-52, Ellery Reservoir, City of Carlsbsad, County of
San Diego
Project Description: The construction, operation and maintenance of an automated
Personal Communication System (PCS) station at the Ellery
Reservoir site. The project consists of the replacement of an
existing 54.5 foot high monopole which currently contains law
enforcement radio communication antennas. In addition to the
replacement of the existing radio communication antennas, the new
monopole would be equipped with six (6) PCSs panel antennas and
one (1) global positioning system antennae. The project also
includes six (6) small ground mounted radio equipment cabinets
(bts units) partially set into the side of a small manufactured slope
by the use of a retaining wall.
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.
X 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 Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at
(619) 438-1 161, extension 4455.
DATED: JULY 5,1996
CASE NO: CUP 96-06
CASE NAME: PCS 150 MOUNT KELLY
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 5,1996 "
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILl%R
Planning Director
~-___" 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-0894
"-.."."_ ~.. "~" "" ~- -~ - .~~~ "...-""" -" . ~~ ~.
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 96-06
DATE: JUNE 27.1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: PCS 150 MOUNT KELLY
2. APPLICANT: STEPHEN M. LAUB
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: JM CONSULTING GROUP. INC.,
3530 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 101, SAN DIEGO CA 92108
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: MARCH 20,1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE
OF AN AUTOMATED PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEM (PCS) STATION AT THE
ELLERY RESERVOIR SITE. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE REPLACEMENT OF AN
EXISTING 54.5 FOOT HIGH MONOPOLE WHICH CURRENTLY CONTAINS LAW
ENFORCEMENT RADIO COMMUNlCATION ANTENNAS. IN ADDITION TO THE
REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING RADIO COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS, THE NEW
MONOPOLE WOULD BE EOUIPPED WITH SIX (6) PCS PANEL ANTENNAS AND ONE
’ (1’1 GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM ANTENNAE. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES SIX
(6) SMALL GROUND MOUNTED RADIO EQUIPMENT CABINETS (BTS UNITS)
PARTIALLY SET INTO THE SIDE OF A SMALL MANUFACTURED SLOPE BY THE USE
OF A RETAINING WALL.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems [7 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
rn Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
IXI Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[x] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I 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 NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR/Neg Dec
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I 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 all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR/Neg Dec pursuant
to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR/Neg Dec, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
-3. % -.- LJ- 2% , 1 RG
Plannir gtgnatu9 Date
+/sl.ib
Planning DirectoXSignalhb Date
2 Rev:03/28/96
0 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 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 (EIR), Negative
Declaration, 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
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.’’ The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
e 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.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
If there are one or more potentially significant 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.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
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.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
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?
(Source #(s): 0
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?
0 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)? ()
0
0
0
0
0
11. 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 (eg through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? 0
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ()
o
0
0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ()
b) Seismic ground shaking? ()
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ()
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ()
e) Landslides or mudflows? ()
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
g) Subsidence of the land? ()
h) Expansive soils? () n
o 0 0 0
0 o conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 0
i) IJnique geologic or physical features? () U
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? () 0
0
0
0
5
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 0 IXI
0 0 w
0 0 [XI
0 0 w
0 0 w
0 0 [x1
0 o w
0 o w
0 0 [x1 0 0 €3 0 0 IXI 0 0 w 0 0 [x1 0
0 0 CI
0
0 0 0
IXI
[XI w
[x1
0 o w
0 0 IXI
0 0 [x1
0 0 [x]
Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ()
f) Changes 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? 0
0
0 0 0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ()
d) Create objectionable odors? ()
existing or projected air quality violation? ()
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ()
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? 0
0
VII. 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)? ()
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ()
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ()
0
w
0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0 o
0
0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ()
proposal?
6
e Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
LessThan No
Significan Impact t Impact
o w
0 w
0 w 0 €3 0 €3
0 0
0 [XI o w
0 [XI
0 w O w
o w
0 €4 €3 0 w o w
o [XI
0 (XI o w
cl IXI
0 El
0 w
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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
hazards? ()
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:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ()
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0
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? 0
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
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ()
e) Storm water drainage? ()
f) Solid waste disposal? ()
g) Local or regional water supplies? ()
facilities? ()
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
7
0
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated 0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 El
0 0 0 Ixl
0 0 0 Ixl
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
o 17 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 -0 IXI
0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0 [XI 0 0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ()
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? () 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 IXI c) Create light or glare? () ~ ~ - 0 0 0 [XI
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? 0
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ()
c) Affect historical resources? ()
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
o 0 0 0 would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ()
potential impact area? () 0
0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI
0 El
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? ()
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 0 IXI
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 wildlife 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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
0 0 0 [XI
€4 0 0 0
0 0 cl [XI
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review. Final Master EIR 93-01 for the update to Citv of Carlsbad General
Plan 1994, on file in the Planning Department.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fi-om the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Cumulative Air Oualitv,
Circulation and Aesthetic imvacts. No vrovosed Final Master EIR 93-01
mitigation measures are apvlicable or relevant to this project.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project. N/A
9 Rev. 03/28/96
e e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND BACKGROUND:
The project site is approximately 300 square feet in size and is located adjacent to the southern
side of the large water reservoir tank at the Ellery Reservoir site. The project site contains a
very large circular water tank with accessory water pumping equipment, an existing 54.5 foot
high monopole containing radio communication antennas, an asphalt access road around the
entire water tank, and a chain link security fence around the entire perimeter of the reservoir
property. The project site is located between the 33.5 foot high water tank directly to the north
and a 13 foot high manufactured cut slope planted with existing lush ornamental landscaping
directly to the south. The entire Ellery Reservoir is surrounded by existing single-family homes
with access provided to the property by Janis Way. The project site contains no native habitat
and there is ornamental landscaping, including groundcover, trees, and shrubs, planted along the
slopes ad the perimeter access road surrounding the water tank.
“NO IMPACT” DISCUSSION:
The Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part I1 (Initial Study) is an all encompassing form
designed for environmental analysis on all the various types and complexities of private and
public projects, therefore, not all of the checklist categories are applicable or relevant to this
project. Checklist categories that are not particularly applicable to this project are checked “No
Impact” and no environmental discussion is provided. This project is a quasi-public utility land
use within a small disturbed area (300 square feet). It is automated, consists of the replacement
of an existing 54.5 foot high monopole, and includes six (6) small electrical cabinets. Due to its
nature, the project would not generate public facility (i.e. sewer, water, etc..), or housing demand,
and its operation would not create noise or water pollution. The site requires minimal excavation
for a six foot retaining wall and the project is accessed by an existing asphalt service road,
therefore, this Initial Study primarily focuses on the following four (4) categories of
environmental impact - (1) Land use compatibility; (2) Hazards - public health and safety; (3)
Aesthetics, and; (4) Cumulative Impacts. Checklist categories intentionally not discussed
because they are not applicable to the project include; (1) Population and Housing; (2) Geologic
Problems; (3) Water Quality; (4) Construction - Air Quality; (5) Direct Impacts for
TransportatiodCirculation; (6) Biological Resources; (7) Energy and Mineral Resources; (8)
Noise; (9) Public Services; (1 0) Cultural Resources, and ; (1 1) Recreation.
LAND USE PLANNING:
a) The project site is zoned Residential Agriculture (R-A-10). The Carlsbad Municipal Code -
Chapter 21.42.010(2)(J)(Conditional Uses - Permitted Uses) allows accessory public and
quasi-public buildings and facilities in all zones, including residential (R-A- lo), through the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the City’s Planning Commission.
b) The project would not interfere with adopted environmental plans or policies, in that, the site
and surrounding area is highly disturbed by past human activities (construction of water tank
and access road, and development of the surrounding residential streets and subdivisions), the
property contains no native habitat, and the construction of the project requires minimal
disturbance to the site.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
e e c) Wireless telecommunication facilities (PCS) that are mounted on monopoles are very similar
in form to the various existing public utility structures currently located throughout the
community. Similar existing public utility facilities, including electrical and communication
transmission lines, poles, and towers (i.e. electric, phone and cable TV), street and parking
lot light standards, traffic signals, television and radio antennas, and satellite dishes, are all
commonly found within existing residential neighborhoods in the City of Carlsbad. These
types of facilities are not only compatible with residential land uses, they are, in many ways,
necessary and essential to the infi-astructural support of residential land use. The project is a
replacement of an existing 54.5 foot high monopole structure that has been located on the site
for many years. The new replacement monopole is no higher than the existing one and is
compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood and the underlying residential zone, in
that the bulk and scale of the monopole structure would be considered minimal when
compared to the bulk and scale of the existing 33.5 foot high water tank.
d) There is no agricultural land in the vicinity of the project site.
e) The existing 54.5 foot high monopole and the existing water tank were both in place before
the surrounding single-family residential community developed around the Ellery Reservoir
property , therefore, the project would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community.
HAZARDS:
a) The facility would not create a health hazard to people based on the project’s required
compliance with the current Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) adopted standard
for public exposure to radio waves. The standard for continuous public exposure for PCS
radio frequency (1.85 GigaHertz) is 1.23 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2). Higher
exposures are allowed for brief periods provided that no 30 minute time weighted average
exposure exceeds 1.23 mW/cm2 . The standard was jointly published by the American
National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
(ANSI/IEEE Standard C95.1-1992). The standard was not set at the threshold between safety
and known hazard, but rather at 50 times below a level that the majority of the scientific
community believes may pose a health risk to human populations. The ANSIDEEE standard
has been adopted by the FCC as a regulatory guideline. The FCC requires all wireless
communication facilities, including PCS, not to exceed the exposure levels set in the
standard. The project’s preliminary PCS Emission Report, prepared by Cox California PCS
Inc., dated March 8, 1996 on file in the Planning Department, indicates that the proposed
PCS facility’s calculated worst case radio frequency power density is 0.037 mW/cm2 which
is well below the 1.23 mW/cm2 standard, therefore, the project would not have a significant
adverse impact on public health.
The City’s Building Department requires that the proposed 54.5 foot high monopole structure
be supported by a foundation system designed and certified by a qualified structural engineer.
The existing single-family residential building located closest to the monopole is situated
approximately 62 feet to the south. The eight (8) existing residential lots located adjacent to
the Ellery Reservoir property all contain single-family homes and the homes are all situated
over 54.5 feet from the base of the existing monopole. In the event of a collapse of the
monopole due to an unforeseen natural disaster such as an earthquake or high winds, the
monopole would not fall onto a home.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
AESTHETICS:
The existing 54.5 foot high monopole is located next to a very large existing water tank,
therefore, the monopole is not visible from Janis Way to the north, nor is it visible from single-
family lots located east and west of the project site. In addition, the property contains mature
landscaping around the perimeter of the site which helps to screen the water tank and the existing
monopole when viewed from single-family lots located directly south, southwest, and southeast
of the Ellery Reservoir property. Portions of the project site are currently visible from the rear
yards of three single-family lots. The viewshed in this area is highly degraded by the existence
of the large circular water tank which entirely blocks the rear yard views from the surrounding
single-family homes. The six (6) equipment cabinets would be placed partial into the existing 13
foot high manufactured cut slope by use of a retaining wall. The opening to the cabinet area
would directly face the water tank and would not be visible from the surrounding homes. Under
the existing site conditions the replacement and retrofit of the existing monopole with seven (7)
additional antennas and the placement of the new equipment cabinets would not constitute a
significant visual aesthetic impact to the community.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS:
1. Air Quality:
The implementation of projects that are consistent with the updated 1994 General Plan will result
in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently
result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen
and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution
in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-
attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant:
therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist, under
cumulative impacts, is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with
the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of
Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding
Considerations” applies to all projects consistent with the General Plan’s Final Master EIR,
including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
2. Circulation:
The implementation of projects that are consistent with the updated 1994 General Plan will result
in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
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 the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulativelv 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 projects consistent with the General Plan’s Master EIR,
including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is
required.
3. Aesthetics:
This proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and utility type land uses of this
nature are an integral part of the buildout of the City. Cumulative aesthetic impacts were
analyzed in the Master Environmental Impact Report for the updated General Plan. The EIR
concluded that some of the views of agricultural and natural areas would be lost or transformed
to views of residential, commercial, and industrial development and that some scenic corridors
would be degraded, however, it was determined that future development projects would be
reviewed pursuant to CEQA and mitigation measures would be developed for significant
aesthetic impacts on a project by project basis.
Cox California PCS Inc. is currently in the process of creating a comprehensive PCS
telecommunications network within the City of Carlsbad that includes approximately eight (8)
potential sites located citywide. Pacific Bell Mobile Services, another licensed PCS provider, is
also developing a PCS network in Carlsbad which includes a potential for approximately six (6)
PCS sites citywide.
”
13 Rev. 03/28/96
0 4 The eventual buildout of these telecommunication systems, citywide, will not have a significant
cumulative aesthetic impact due to the fact that large distances would be provided between the
facility sites, they would be dispersed to service major roadway corridors, and on a project by
project basis, the City will be requiring that potential aesthetic visual impacts be reduced by
either; (1) incorporating the antennas behind screening on the roofs of existing industrial and
commercial buildings; (2) blending the antennas into the architecture of existing buildings along
the corridors, or; (3) requiring landscaping to screen the facilities, and natural colors to reduce
visual impacts when they are viewed from the public roadways in circumstances where a
monopole is the only viable development alternative.
SOURCES:
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR 93-01) for the 1994 Update to the Carlsbad
General Plan;
2. PCS Emission Report for CUP 96-06, prepared by Cox California PCS Inc., dated March 8,
1996;
14 Rev. 03/28/96
0 6 . LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
NIA
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
15 Rev. 03/28/96
1:
L e 6 APPLICANT/OWNER CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION 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
16 Rev. 03/28/96