Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 3984’I 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 e a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3984 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF TWO (2) GROUND MOUNTED PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEM EQUIPMENT CABINETS, SIX (6) PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED ON A 30 FOOT HIGH MONOPOLE, AND AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINE LOCATED AT 4901 El CAMINO REAL. CASE NAME: PBMS TAMARACK PCS SITE CASE NO.: CUP 96-01 WHEREAS, Pacific Bell Mobile Services “Developer” has filed a verifit application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Jay and Maryo Hoffman “Owner”, described as Portions of Parcel 2 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 3451, in the City of Carl! County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the Ca Recorder of San Diego County, January 31,1975 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for Conditional Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “D “ dated September 18, 1996 ( to allow the install: of two ground-mounted Personal Communication System radio equipment cabinets panel antennas mounted on a 30 foot high monopole, and an underground utility located at 4901 El Camino Real,) on file in the Planning Department, (PBMS Tamarack Site CUP 96-01), as provided by Chapter 19.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of September 1 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law 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 fac relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. e a 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 NOW, THEREFOREy BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Pla Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Pla Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration accc to Exhibit "ND", dated August 9, 1996, the "PII", dated June 21, 1996, an Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto and m part hereof, based on the following findings and subject to the folk conditions: Findinm: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed considered a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PBMS Tamarack PCS prc the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments the and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, on file in the Pla Department, prior to approving the project. Based on the EIA Part-I1 and corm thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidenc project will have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declar for the PBMS Tamarack PCS Site project and Mitigation Monitoring and Repc Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the Calif Environmental Quality Act, State Guidelines and Environmental Protection Procec of the City of Carlsbad. 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration fol PBMS Tamarack PCS Site project reflects the independent judgment of the Plar Commission of the City of Carlsbad. 4. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or pr alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subsec Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project. Conditions: 1. Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is granted subject to the approv CUP 96-01. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is subject to all conditions conb in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3985. I ~ 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall record, on the sul property, a 30 foot wide (diameter) open space easement around the base 01 monopole. The easement shall be dedicated to the City of Carlsbad anc PC RES0 NO. 3984 -2- e a 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 1 measured from the base of the monopole to ensure that the structure doe accidentally collapse on any future homes or buildings within the residentially 2 property surrounding the facility. The cultivation of agricultural crops, irrig systems and access roads, shall be permitted within the 30 foot easement an easement document shall so state this provision. Upon any future termination 1 Conditional Use Permit for the Personal Communication System Facility (CU 01) and removal of the monopole, the 30 foot wide open space easement sh: quit-claimed per the procedures established by the City of Carlsbad an1 underlying land allowed to develop per the property’s General Plan lam designation. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pla Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of September 1996,l following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, Monroy, Ni Noble, Savary and Welshons NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: - MICHAEL J. HOLZMIEER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 3984 -3- 1 - e 0 City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: APN: 207-101-1 9, West of El Camino Real & South of Kelly Drive Project Description: The construction, operation, and maintenance of an automated personal communication system (PCS) station at 4901 El Camino Real. The station consists of underground electrical utility lines, a 30.7 foot high monopole equipped with six (6) panel antennae, and two (2) ground-mounted radio equipment cabinets (bts units), all to be enclosed by a 6 foot high chain link fence within an area 250 square feet in size, and surrounded by landscaping designed to screen the facility from El Camino Real and adjacent properties. 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 Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at (61 9) 438-1 161, extension 4455. DATED: AUGUST 9, 1996 CASE NO: CUP 96-01 CASE NAME: PBMS TAMARACK PCS SITE PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 9, 1996 MJH:JG:bk MICHAEL J. HOEMILL# Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. * Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (61 9) 438-1161 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894 e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CUP 96-01 DATE: JUNE 2 1. 1996 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: PBMS TAMARACK PCS SITE 2. APPLICANT: JEFFREY CLARKE 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES, 9610 GRANITE RIDGE DRIVE, SUITE A, SAN DIEGO CA 92123 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: FEBRUARY 14,1996 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF AN AUTOMATED PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEM (PCS) STATION AT 4901 El CAMINO REAL. THE STATION CONSISTS OF UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL UTILITY LINES, A 30.7 FOOT. HlGH MONOPOLE EOUIPPED WITH SIX (6) PANEL ANTENNAE, AND TWO (2) GROUND MOUNTED RADIO EQUIPMENT CABINETS (BTS UNITS), ALL TO BE ENCLOSED BY A 6 FT. HlGH CHAIN LINK FENCE WITHIN AN AREA 250 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, AND SURROUNDED BY LANDSCAPING DESIGNED TO SCREEN THE FACILITY FROM EL CAMINO REAL AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 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. Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing [3 Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics Water Hazards [3 Cultural Resources Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation Ix] Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 a , DETERMINATION. a (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. m 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. n. r: - \I *,*. "m LL, 330 , I ?& PlaWlW3ignmJnx-e Date ' . - s/r/96 Planning Director's Sigkhture Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 0 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. 0 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. 0 “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. 0 “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. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. 0 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). 0 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. 0 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 e e 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. 0 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 e 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): () 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 (eg 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 b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or population projections? () o indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 or extension of major infrastructure)? () housing? () 0 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 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 o 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? () 0 i) Unique geologic or physical features? () U 0 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 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact 0 0 0 0 0 IXI [x] [xi [xi IXI 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI w w w [XI [XI IXI IXI El 0 IXI 17 [XI O w [XI Rev. 03/28/96 e 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 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? () 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? ( t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? () g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? () 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI cl 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats in impacts to: (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 0 animals, and birds? () b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? () c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak d) Wetland habitat (eg marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () 0 forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? () 0 0 0 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? () proposal? 0 6 e Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact R w 0 [xi 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 w 0 0 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 w 0 0 tl 0 0 0 O [XI IXI [XI w w w IXI 0 IXI 0 0 0 El w IXI IXI 0 IXI Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral inefficient manner? () 0 0 resource that would be of future value to the region and 0 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 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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? () e) Other governmental services? () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significan t Impact 0 0 0 0 173 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 No Impact IXI IXI lxl 1x1 0 IXI IXI [XI IXI €3 IXI IXI IXI €3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 El 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 IXI Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 0 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 [XI o 0 0 E3 c) Create light or glare? () 0 0 0 El XIV. 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 e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 0 O w 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 E3 would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () 0 0 0 El potential impact area? () 0 0 €XI XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 parks or other recreational facilities? 0 0 0 cl w 0 0 0 w XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 0 0 Ixl 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? Kl 0 0 0 (“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. w 0 0 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 e e a) Earlier analyses used. IdentifL earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Final Master EIR 93-01 for the uvdate to Citv of Carlsbad General Plan 1994, on file in the Planninp Department. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from 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 impacts. No proposed Final Master EIR 93-01 mitiEation measures are applicable 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 a DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND BACKGROUND: The project site is approximately 250 square feet in size and is located on a flat mesa at an elevation of 103 feet above mean sea level. The project site contains disturbed non-native habitat and is adjacent to a dirt road and agricultural fields to the west, and a 50 foot high slope to the east. El Camino Real is located approximately 400 feet to the east and an existing single-family residential development is located approximately 300 feet to the west of the project site. The property has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Low Medium (RLM) and is zoned Residential Agricultural (R-A-10). The project site is approximately 50 feet higher than the roadway elevation of El Camino Real. The roadway elevation of El Camino Real is at a topographical low point and is surrounded by foothills in the area around Tamarack Avenue and the Country Store. In addition, there are no tall industrial or commercial buildings along this portion of the corridor which is primarily zoned residential. As a result of these circumstances, and the need to fill a gap in the PCS telecommunications network along this segment of the roadway, Pacific Bell Mobile Services is requesting a monopole structure of at least 30 feet in height along the top of the flat mesa behind the “Country Store” commercial building . “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 (250 square feet). It is automated, and consists of a 30 foot high monopole and several 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 no grading and is accessed by an existing dirt 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-IO). 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 (farming and road grading), 10 Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 contains no native habit%, and the construction of the project requires minimal disturbance to the site. 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 infiastructural support of residential land use. The proposed PCS monopole would be approximately 30 feet high which complies with the building height standard of 30 feet for the underlying R-A-10 Zone. The monopole 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 potential bulk and scale of future 30 foot high single-family homes that could range in size from approximately 1,600 - 3,500 square feet. The larger existing 14 acre property could potentially be developed with single-family homes at a density of 3.2 dwelling units per non- constrained acre of land. d) The project site is located on a flat, small, and irregular shaped area of land, between an existing dirt farming access road to the west and a steep slope to the east. The project site is not under agricultural cultivation, however, fwrther west of the dirt road there are open agricultural fields. The project area is very small in size and would be fenced off for security. The facility is automated and the installation and operation of the PCS facility would not impair or negatively impact access to the adjacent farming operations. e) The land surrounding the proposed facility is vacant/undeveloped or contains steep slopes, 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 1.233 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2). Higher exposures are allowed for brief periods provided that no 30 minute time weighted average exposure exceeds 1.233 mW/cm2 . The standard was jointly published by the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (ANSIDEEE 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 Pacific Bell Mobile Services, dated May 17, 1996, on file in the Planning Department, indicates that the proposed PCS facility’s calculated worst case radio frequency power density is 0.230 mW/cmZ which is well below the 1.233 mWlcm2 standard, therefore, the project would not 11 Rev. 03/28/96 e a have a significant adverse impact on public health. The City’s Building Department requires that the proposed 30 foot high monopole structure be supported by a foundation system designed and certified by a qualified structural engineer. In addition, the facility would be located on a larger 14 acre parcel in a currently undeveloped residential zone that has the potential to eventually develop. When the larger 14 acre vacant property is developed with residential land uses there is the potential for single-family homes to be constructed in close proximity to the monopole. To protect the safety of future residents and to protect homes fi-om being damaged by a structural failure of the monopole during a unforeseen natural disaster such as an earthquake or high winds, the project will be conditioned to provide a 30 foot wide open space easement around the entire 30 foot high monopole. This easement would ensure that the monopole does not collapse onto a future home or building and reduces any potential public safety impacts to below a level of significance. AESTHETICS: The project would be located more than 400 feet from El Camino Real, therefore, it is not subject to the requirements of the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. However, the project would be partially visible from El Camino Real which is designated as a scenic roadway in the General Plan. Based on the project’s distance from El Camino Real, any potential views of the monopole from the roadway would be considered distant views. The surrounding natural viewshed is not considered significant due to the fact that is has been partially degraded by a commercial building between the project site and El Camino Real, a mobilehome park development to the south, utility poles and lines along El Camino Real, and several very tall SDG&E electrical transmission towers locate approximately 600 feet north. To reduce any potential visual impacts created by the project, the project’s perimeter will be landscaped with a combination of trees and shrubs as shown on the project’s landscaped plan on file in the Planning Department. The proposed screen tree (15 gallon - Rhus Lancea - “African Sumac”) is a hardy evergreen species with full foliage. They reach a height of 25 to 30 feet at maturity, and would provide adequate screening of the monopole when the project is viewed from El Camino Real. 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 12 Rev. 03/28/96 a e Management; 3) provisionsto 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 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 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 projects consistent with the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 0 a - 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 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. Pacific Bell Mobile Services is currently in the process of creating a comprehensive PCS telecommunications network within the City of Carlsbad that includes six (6) potential sites scattered along Interstate-5 and El Camino Real. One (1) site has already been approved along Interstate-5 at Las Villas de Carlsbad (CUP 95-14). In addition to this project, Pacific Bell has future plans to construct two (2) additional sites along El Camino Real. Cox California PCS Inc., another PCS provider is also developing a PCS network in Carlsbad and they have also applied for a facility within this same property on a portion of the site located on the hillside directly behind the existing commercial building (Country Store). Cox California PCS Inc. is proposing to construct eight (8) sites citywide with two (2) additional sites along El Camino Real. At this point in time, and between both PCS providers, the anticipated number of PCS sites include six (6) sites along El Camino Real, and a total of fourteen (14) sites citywide. 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 along the two 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 Network Deployment Report, for CUP 96-01 , Hofhan, SD-203-11 , prepared by Pacific Bell Mobile Services, dated May 17, 1996; 3. PCS Emission Report for CUP 96-01 , Hofhan, SD-203-11, prepared by Pacific Bell Mobile Services, dated May 17, 1996; 4. Supplemental view analysis of proposed facility provided by Pacific Bell Mobile Services as part of the CUP 96-01 development application, on file in the Planning Department. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall record, on the subject property, a 30 foot wide open space easement around the project. The easement shall be dedicated to the City of Carlsbad and be measured from the base of the monopole to ensure that the structure does not accidentally collapse on any fbture homes or buildings within the residentially zoned property surrounding the facility. The cultivation of agricultural crops, irrigation systems, and access roads, shall be permitted within the 30 foot easement and the easement document shall so state this provision. Upon any future termination of the Conditional Use Permit for the Personal Communication System Facility (CUP 96-01) and removal of the monopole, the 30 foot wide open space easement shall be quit-claimed per the procedures established by the City of Carlsbad and the underlying land developed according to the property’s General Plan land use designation, ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) SEE ATTACHED PROGRAM 15 Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 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. *w 4 d+y--" nMI / 1 \94 I 0: q- //A/: G I. I IIb - I. / "// - I Sihaturi I Y I 16 Rev. 03/28/96 ENvIRONmTAL MITIGATION MONITORING al ECKLlST Page 1 of 1 I" 0 -: a0 cnw Qn !I g ;2 mz 2s 3k Zn wz -10 iiu w m ma 00, Qb) 2- 0,- a- 2a 42 Tlu am liik za an k !zE ku mk Q .. w Z-I L3 LLlo TU OL UQ aa 2 e." mo5.2 + nJ 32 0-gd.L yEy ?EOm gg 0, cz Y- aa$> 0 .-nz $25 .o E X rn .= .u z v, zz 3a OtrnO 0.Pmc" a,.E E $ 0 O.2 g m 22 :E .e +E 3 E$..,+ ern+; LC ogma, ?.E rn= $6Gm az v) E.2 t 2? €.E s z E 2-z E22E c a, E? DG 00,: 'E a, cc? E,, a0 a, 7n5- -- 2 0 2 a, E=, e+ =w a, Esz c €:em 0 5 E a):.; .- L Lm$ >,02 t: dm p2 3 OZm.E 3 Q2 J= L m-El g L -+a, - a,"o 7 ma)+ L c"cc c Q tam .- > IJ,T c"-c"L rn o++ .E Q 5 *; a, -cI *E a,.= 3 0 .E, -0 3 c" a, C" mr;= .e s a. .- - a, &..,E% +aa, .- 0 g E0 -0 g.tr2 g (+E o - Y- k Q.5 ([J QZ v) +E E d .o ps : m.g z a & a E 83" >s P 8ZE ,E Loa c- *o "e na .- .e Lrc a, c 0 ;f c v). OE mE .E Q, EE e= P 0 g 'E En g .E L E P, c .- sg rl- t; .E >. g .% a F id S E E a, 3 rn v) m tu a, E2 %g Q :E .- BI oa, 05 5 0, 3c 02 s mg r 0 SO .- 'CI c., 3 mm v) S -0 m a, I .- + .- - + 1 W d a, -0 m 73 C m .u + .os 3 m .e z s ." g U .r a,: a, E mn_ r .0 2 3 .g &.e t= E .s .G E 6 LOL Q) 0 .t .- 2 35: kEg8 a= id- (00:: OE - F.52 a, 2 o-nz .- id -Em OEZE Eaa, s : sB.O s-0= 0 + ." .- 1 LC Z[J..v, a, L- +s -z r - s m.- a, +om+ ma s cr.? sr 2 ocnma :: .v, a, .5 >3cs 0 cn.0 0 aE.?cn 0 3 $If ??E& a0 8 mid- aamo .- y 5.E $ % 0 .- z :.gr p 2 E"g "tlE L msll u s or om p3.g L g " 11 z 2 5 Es E 2~ .c; v, a, m .-n 2 2 a X Ern an TJ a s gg I' : II ZSmA Q mn a,.z 3g ka t-zm>rrlr %or a, an -+ma, +sv) 6Qa, s g .- .- Q OLE'