HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 4025*
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
9 e
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4025
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE
INSTALLATION OF SIX (6) PCS PANEL ANTENNAS
MOUNTED ON POLES, ONE (1) GLOBAL POSITIONING
ANTENNA, AND SIX (6) GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT
CABINETS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4901 El CAMINO
REAL.
CASE NAME: MAMA ACRES PCS FACILITY
CASE NO.: CUP 96-05/HDP 96-O7/SUP 96-05
WHEREAS, Cox California PCS, Inc., “Developer” has filed a vt
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Jay and Maryon Hofi
“Owner”, described as
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3451, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California filed January 31, 1975, in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, and That
portion of Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 3451, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
January 31,1975
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for Conditiona
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A”-“I” dated December 4, 1996, to allow the installation
panel antennas mounted on individual poles ranging in height from 22’3” to 26’6
global positioning antenna, and six ground-mounted radio equipment cabinets, on file
Planning Department, (Marja Acres PCS Facility CUP 96-05BDP 96-O7/SUP 96-01
provided by Chapter 19.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of December
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 testi
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by stal
~
c
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 e
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all f;
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, 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 November 1, 1996, the "PII" dated November 1,
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached heret
made a part hereof, based on the following findings and subject to the follc
conditions:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzec
considered a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Marja Acres PCS F;
project, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said corn
thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, on file in the PI2
Department, prior to approving the project. Based on the EIA Part-I1 and corn
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 Decla
for the Marja Acres PCS Facility project and Mitigation Monitoring and Rep
Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the Cali
Environmental Quality Act, State Guidelines and Environmental Protection Proct
of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration fa
Marja Acres PCS Facility project reflects the independent judgment of the Pla
Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
4. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or 1
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subst
Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
Conditions:
1. Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is granted subject to the appro
CUP 96-05, HDP 96-07 and SUP 96-05. The Mitigated Negative Declarat
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4026,
PC RES0 NO. 4025 -2-
, 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
* e
and 4028.
2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall record, on the su
property, a 30 foot wide open space easement around the base of the antenna 1
The easement shall be dedicated to the City of Carlsbad and be measured fro]
base of the poles to ensure that the structures do not accidentally collapse 01
future homes or buildings within the commercially and residentially zoned pro,
surrounding the facility. The cultivation of agricultural crops, irrigation syr
and access roads, shall be permitted within the 30 foot easement and the ease
document shall so state this provision. Upon any future termination o
Conditional Use Permit for the Marja Acres PCS Facility (CUP 96-05/HD1
07/SUP 96-05) and removal of the poles, the 30 foot wide open space easement
be quit-claimed per the procedures established by the City of Carlsbad an1
underlying land allowed to develop per the property’s General Plan lanc
designation.
10
11
12
13
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pla
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of December 1996,k
following vote, to wit:
14 AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, Ma
Nielsen, Noble, Savary and Welshons
15
16
17
18
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
19
20
21
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpedon 22 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
23 ll
28 II PC RES0 NO. 4025 -3 -
,
c
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: On the west side of El Camino Real between Kelly Drive and
Calaveras Drive
Project Description: Pole-mounted PCS antennas and 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 0 Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days
of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning
Department at (6 19) 43 8- 1 16 1 , extension 4471.
DATED: NOVEMBER 1,1996
CASE NO: CUP 96-05MDP 96-O7/SUP 96-05
CASE NAME: MARJA ACRES PCS FACILITY
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 1,l 996
MICHAEL J. mLZmLER
Planning Director
a
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894
a 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 96-05/HDP 96-O7/SUP 96-05
DATE: November 1, 1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Maria Acres PCS Facility
2. APPLICANT: Cox California PCS, Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2381 Morse Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714
(714) 660-0500
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 29,1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a Personal Communications System (PC9 facility at
4901 El Camino Real. The facility consists of 6 antenna poles, each topped with one panel
antenna, and 6 ground-mounted equipment radio cabinets with a global positioning antenna to be
enclosed by a 6’ high fence. The heights of the poles with antennas will range in height from
22’3’’ to 26’6”. The equipment cabinets will occupy an area of about 300 sf,
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 W TransportationKirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 17 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources N Aesthetics
0 Water Hazards Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise Recreation
[XI Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
r 0 0
DETERMINATION.
(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.
H 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.
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.
Date I/- I.K 7 d2
I1 - I- 4-c(
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
I e
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.
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 4 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
1 e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
(Source #(s): () 0 0
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the 0 0
project? ()
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
0 0 0
to soils or fmlands, or impacts from incompatible 0 0
land uses? ()
established community (including a low-income or 0
minority community)? ()
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
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? () 0 o
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0
or extension of major infrastructure)? ()
housing? () 0 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? () 0 0 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? ()
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ()
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ()
~
0 0 0 0
0 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 (eg temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ()
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ()
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
!XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 w
0 0 0 0 0
0
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI IXI
[XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI o w
0 [XI
0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
1 e a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I
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
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI 0 0 H 0 0 [XI
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
existing or projected air quality violation? () IXI 0 0 o
0 0 0 [XI
any change in climate? () 0 0 0 [XI
d) Create objectionable odors? () 0 0 0 [XI
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 0 0 0 [XI
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses 0 0 0 [XI
(e.g. farm equipment)? ()
0
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
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ()
0 0 0 [XI
0 0 [XI 0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 [XI
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? () 0 0 CI [XI
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 0 0 [XI
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)?
0 0 o w
0 0 0 [XI
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? () 0 0 0 [XI
0 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () 0 0 0 [XI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
t
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ()
b) Use nonrenewable 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? ()
proposal?
e
Potentially Potentially Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 0 0
0 0
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)? 0
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? ()
cl 0
0 0
0 [XI
0 0
0 0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ()
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ()
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
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ()
e) Storm water drainage? ()
f) Solid waste disposal? ()
g) Local or regional water supplies? ()
facilities? ()
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 5 0
0 0
0 0 0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
7
LessThan No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 w
o w
0 w
0 0 o w o w
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI 0 w w 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI 0 w o w o w 5 [XI 0 [XI cl IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
e m Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ()
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ()
c) Create light or glare? ()
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
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ()
potential impact area? ()
XV. RECREATIONAL. 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 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?
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
O
w
0
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significan Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 [XI 0 [x1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
ixI 0
NO
Impact
0 0
[XI
Ix1
[XI IXI IXI
[XI
[XI w
w
0
0
8 Rev. 03/28/96
* 0 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
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:
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 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
mitigation measures are applicable or relevant to this vroiect.
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 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND BACKGROUND:
The project site is located on a part of a larger 14-acre parcel zoned for residential/agricultural uses
and a parcel zoned for general commercial. The project includes two small areas (for the
pole/antennas) and an area of approximately 300 square feet (for the equipment cabinets). The
pole/antenna areas will be located on a slope area approximately 150’ behind the existing Country
Store commercial building, and the equipment cabinet area will be located about 45’ behind the
store. The site of the pole/antennas is at an elevation of about 75’ - 85’ above mean sea level. The
project site contains disturbed non-native habitat. A review of archaeological records indicates that
there are no cultural resources within the project site. The area to the west of the project site
contains single family residential uses. El Camino Real is located approximately 300’ to the north,
and an existing single-family residential development is located approximately 300’ to the south of
the project site. The area to the east of the project site also contains residential uses. The project site
has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Low Medium (RLM) and Neighborhood
Commercial (N) and is zoned Residential Agricultural (R-A-10) and General Commercial (C-2).
The project site is approximately 25’ - 35’ higher than the roadway elevation of El Camino Real.
The PCS facility (poles and radio equipment cabinets) will be located in a portion of the property
which is unusable for agricultural purposes because of its steepness. Installation of the poles,
cabinets, and related underground cables will result in some temporary disturbance of the vegetation
on the site. However, this vegetation consists of already disturbed non-native plants, and the area
will be reseeded after installation is complete. Also, the project will be conditioned to require
additional landscaping in the areas around the poles and cabinets to provide visual screening.
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, Cox California PCS, Inc., is
requesting approval of 6 pole/antenna structures of heights between 22’3” and 26’6” along the 75’ -
85’ elevation area of the slopes 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 (approximately 160 square feet for the poles and 300 feet for the equipment
cabinets). It is automated, and consists of 6 pole/antennas ranging in height from 22’3” to 26’6”
and several small electrical cabinets. Due to its nature, the project would not generate public facility
(Le. sewer, water, etc..), or housing demand, and its operation would not create noise or water
pollution. The installation of the pole/antennas and equipment cabinets will require a maximum of
approximately 10 cubic yards of grading.
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
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 Quality; (4) Construction -Air Quality; (5) Direct Impacts for Transportation/Circulation; (6)
Biological Resources; (7) Energy and Mineral Resources; (8) Noise; (9) Public Services; (10)
Cultural Resources, and ; (I 1) Recreation.
LAND USE PLANNING:
a) The project site is zoned General Commercial (C-2) and 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
General Commercial (C-2) and Residential (R-A-lo), through the approval of a Conditional
Use Permit by the City’s Planning Commission. This project also requires a Hillside
Development Permit (because of the slopes on the site) and a Special Use Permit (because
the project is within 300’ of a Scenic Corridor - El Camino Real).
1
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), contains no native habitat, and the construction of the project requires minimal
disturbance to the site.
c) Wireless telecommunication facilities (PCS) that are mounted on poles 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 and commercial neighborhoods in the City of
Carlsbad. These types of facilities are not only compatible with commercial and residential
land uses, they are, in many ways, necessary and essential to the infrastructural support of
commercial and residential land uses. The proposed PCS poles would be approximately
22’3” to 26’6” high. The pole/antennas are compatible with the nearby residential
neighborhood and the underlying residential zone, in that the bulk and scale of the pole
structures (each pole is square and is approximately 4” thick on each side) 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 property could potentially be developed with single-family homes at a
density of 3.2 dwelling units per non-constrained acre of land. The six ground mounted
radio equipment cabinets will be located behind an earthtone color 6’ high screen fence and
this will be compatible with uses allowed in the surrounding residential and commercial
zones.
d) The project site is located on the slope area behind the existing commercial building and near
an existing dirt farming access road. The project site is not under agricultural cultivation;
however, further west of the dirt road there are open agricultural fields. The project area is
very small in size and would be screened by a proposed 6’ fence (equipment cabinet) and
required landscaping. The facility is automated and the installation and operation of the PCS
facility would not impair or negatively impact access to the nearby farming operations.
e) The land surrounding the proposed facility is vacanthndeveloped or contains steep slopes.
Therefore, the project would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community.
11 Rev. 03t28196
* m - 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 (ANSVIEEE 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
ANSUIEEE 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 would be conditioned to provide a Power Density
Study to demonstrate compliance with these standards when fully operating.
The City’s Building Department requires that the proposed pole structures 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 property is
developed with residential land uses there is the potential for single-family homes to be
constructed in close proximity to the poles. To protect the safety of future residents and to
protect homes from being damaged by a structural failure of the poles during an 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 two pole clusters. This easement
would ensure that the poles do 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 approximately 300 feet from El Camino Real. Therefore, it is subject
to the requirements of the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. 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 poles 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 located
approximately 600 feet north of the project area. To reduce any potential visual impacts created by
the project, the project’s perimeter will be conditioned to be landscaped with a combination of trees
and shrubs. The proposed screening vegetation would include a hardy evergreen species with full
foliage which would reach a height of 25 to 30 feet at maturity, and would provide adequate
screening of the poles when the project is viewed ftom El Camino Real. The applicant has provided
photo-simulations from numerous adjacent locations. Review of these simulations supports staffs
conclusion that the proposed pole/antennas will not result in visual impacts. The proposed radio
equipment cabinets would also be screened from viewing by a proposed 6’ foot screen fence.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 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 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
13 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
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.
Cox California PCS, Inc. is currently in the process of creating a comprehensive PCS
telecommunications network within the City of Carlsbad that includes potential sites scattered along
I-5 and other primary travel corridors. One site is pending approval currently (N. Batiquitos Lagoon
PCS Facility - CUP 96-15). It is expected that Cox California PCS, Inc., will propose additional
facilities in the near future including up to eight sites citywide. (Two of these sites may be along El
Camino Real.) Pacific Bell Mobile Services, another PCS provider is also developing a PCS
network in Carlsbad.
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. Supplemental view analysis of proposed facility provided by Cox California PCS, Inc., as
part of the CUP 96-OYHDP 96-07/SUP 96-05 development application, on file in the
Planning Department.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
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 each of the proposed polehtenna
clusters. The easement shall be dedicated to the City of Carlsbad and be measured from
the base of the poles to ensure that the structures do not accidentally collapse on
any future 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 96-0YHDP 96-O7/SUP 96-05) and removal of
the poles, 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
ENVIRONk R TAL MITIGATION MONITORING b ECKLIST Page 1 of 1 Q
Lo
a co
a 3
h
co a
9
F
9
a a &
9
na
-: In
coo aw
2;
+i .. z
mz t- 0
x!= Za Luz -10 iiu
> .- - .- +
0
La ma
ma 0- a<
2Q
.z, 0
WL
22 a, 2:
L3
E2
..
WE ta an
W
z-1
UO 7cr OL
2 S." W"5.0
4-l ((3 32 G-gUk
mzQnoo > E- ?€OW gs u= aq Es
++a, - a,-0
; 22- a Egg 2 m v) .e -0 a, v) Z!t p
o.Pm+ 0cv)o
Cu.5 E g
0 O.0 g
.- > .E I: ms+.c
+a a, 'E 5 ? 0..,2 o+J=c sKJ+a, gzzk .- e gx.5 E.5 03 cr
v) E.2 c
2 €.E E ; c .- m22c €ZS
c a, E? .o u 5 z .a, s .- .E 5 'F; a, q
E a, g5-
&gc%w
g-c (U2.F;
.- Lmg >E2 S dm
p23 a,
a,..,,;
5 cr(J g
2Zu.E 3
- Q2
a,.$g 0
L 0): g I- FL.G m tx
ma)+
+LC c a
cam
c
+-+'L
+3
$=mm $2
a, u -=
a,.- 3 0
00.2
72 'i; 03 .- 2 0 2 a, E=?
.-
-
E.- 0- K +a 0
L
a,L+a,a,
.- 0 g EO
- 0 .- 0
cn
K
U m a, I
.-
LC
.- + 1 tu
-
W
.- 8
2
+I m -
0 3
6 IT
0
u) C 0
.-
+ 0 a, .-
a
II
E
a, Q > I-
d
+I a,
Ts tu
U C m
U .*A? 2 42 .E
2 -0 .G a,: a, E m? r'
3 m .c
Cu= 0
+tu m m 'i;
+I .- 0 3+ a,OC
2E.Z Q)
.- 02 3.G
.- m.z E E
E, U',
.- z 35:
kJ €Zi
m$d
0) E$
.- +. 0';:
05&€ €Ea, C ;; r,.O +o$g u CL.F II 3 a,.% cnOLE SL 2 ocnmu)
0) .s a, .s
0 cn.0 O >3CS
.-
L
+I!= -
QZ +
.r r -
8 *" a,
!=.Z a, L
I1
22%
p.gz
LO€?
g.g' a C E.E3E
C tu++ a,a,mo
!= .-
+tcn 0 .-
+ma,
t: cor11 b Qa, V, a,J= C Q) n 3 .;u 2;; I' II t +
ZZE2a
.-
- am
a2UaX a,
.- cnQ
+ .ska ;; KUY Q
rm>ccrr OL a, ma
CLQ 7
0) s gg I' a,
.- K 5: E I
4 iB
I -r) APPLICANT/OWNER CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Do./. y, IVd
Date I
16 Rev. 03/28/96