HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 4050II e e
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. 4050
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE
INSTALLATION OF FOUR PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED
ON A 25 FT. MONOPOLE WITH AN ANCILLARY
EQUIPMENT CABINET LOCATED GENERALLY AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ALGA ROAD AND EL FUERTE
STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: LA COSTA HIGH COMMUNICATIONS
CASE NO. : CUP 96-23
WHEREAS, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, “Developer”, has filed a ve
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by the Carlsbad Munj
Water Company, “Owner”, described as:
A portion of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 10179, filed in the Office of
the County Recorder of the County of San Diego, State of
California, being a portion of Section 30, Township 12 South,
Range 3 west, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California
(the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for Conditional
Permit as shown on Exhibit “A” - “E” dated March 5, 1997, on file in the Ph
Department, (La Costa High Communications, CUP 96-23) as provided by Chapter 19.
the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, The Planning Department has prepared a Negative Declar
regarding said project, as provided by Chapter 19.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of March 1997, h
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testil
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff
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 0
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fr
relating to the 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 Negative according to Exhibit "ND"
January 6, 1997, and "PII" dated December 26, 1996, attached hereto and
a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzea
considered a Negative Declaration for the La Costa High Communications projec
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereo
file in the Planning Department, prior to approving the project. Based on the EIA F
and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no subst;
evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Negative Declaration for th
Costa High Communications project has been prepared in accordance
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, State Guidelines
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration for the La Costa :
Communications project reflects the independent judgment of the Plan
Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
4. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or px
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subsec
Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
...
...
...
...
~ -.- 1 PC RES0 NO. 4050 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pla
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of March 1997, 1
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heinc
Monroy, Noble, Savary and Welshons
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
.. I-j. I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/AK,2(L Np7
Q J7:! ,/ <97Jy “4,
~\,“+d-+” i i
-~~--~I=Z:I,~--~.-~-:~=~~..~~
ROBMT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HDLZMI~LER
Planning Director
9
I PC RES0 NO. 4050 -3-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Pro-ject AddresdLocation: Vacant lot located south of Alga Road between El Fuerte Street
and Melrose Avenue.
Project Description: Installation and operation of a wireless communication (PCS)
facility consisting of four antennas mounted atop a 25 ft. wood
pole and one radio equipment cabinet (BTS unit) installed at
ground level adjacent to the antenna pole.
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 20 days of date
"of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Adrienne Landers in the Planning Departmenl
at (619) 438-1161, extension4451.
DATED: JANUARY 6,1997
CASE NO: CUP 96-23
CASE NAME: LA COSTA HIGH COMMUNICATIONS
PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 6,1997
MICHAEL J. mLZMf€&,ER
Planning Director
"."" ~
2075 Lns \2i.~11~~:~.s Dr. 0 Carisbad, CP, c?:?OOi3-1576 ,. (619) 438-1 161 -. ! ,",\>' -C: ',I!
~~ . .... .."_ ~~." - ".~~ ~ ~... . . ~ ~~ -. "" ~~~ .." ~ .~ . .
,'! 38-089
.."~
a 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 96-23
DATE: December 26,1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: La Costa High Communications
2. APPLICANT: Pacific Bell Mobile Services
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 9610 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite A San
Diego, Ca 92 104
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 12,1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation and operation of a wireless communication (PCS)
facility consisting of four antennas mounted atop a 25 fi. wood pole and one radio equipment
cabinet (BTS unit) installed at ground level adjacent to the antenna pole.
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 Ix] TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources c] Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems c] Energy & Mineral Resources H Aesthetics
0 Water Ix] Hazards c] Cultural Resources
rn Air Quality c] Noise 0 Recreation
B Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
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.
[7 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 EIFUNegative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL 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.
d3 u Q-&
Planner Signature Date
\
121 3114~.
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 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.
a 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.
e “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.
a “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.
a 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 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.
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?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
0 0
0 0
0
c) Be incompatible with existing iand use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
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 (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major inkastructure)?
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? n
o 0 0 0 0 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
U cl 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
5
*
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 cl
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
LessThan No
Significant Impa
Impact ct
wcl wo
wo wo
wo
ow ow
ow
ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow
ow
ow ow
ow
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?,
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
d) Create objectionable odors?
existing or projected air quality violation? w
0
0
any change in climate? 0
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
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
w 0
0 0 0 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
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 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
LessThan No
Significant Impa
Impact Ct
ow ow
ow ow ow
nCI ow ow ow
00 ow
ow ow ow ow ow
ow
ow ow ow ow
ow
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
inefficient manner? 0
resource that would be of future value to the region and 0
the residents of the State?
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
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)?
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?
0
0
0
0
0
0
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? 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:
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
o w
0
0
cl 0
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
o
0' 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
No
Impa
ct
5
IXI
w
IXI
17 w w
[XI w
0 0 0 0 0
[XI w
[xi w
[XI
ow ow 05 ow ow ow 05
7 Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impa
Impact Unless Impact ct
Mitigation Incorporated
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
17 0 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
aj Disturb paleontological resources?
bj Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
dj Have the potential to cause a physical change which
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
o 0 0
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0
potential impact area? 0
0 0 0
o w 0
IXI o w
ow 0 ow 0 ow 0 ow
0 ow
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? 0 0 ow
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 ow
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 0 ow
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? 0 0 wo
(“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?
XWI. EARLIER ANALYSES.
0 0 ow
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(~)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
8 Rev. 03/28/96
e 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 the City 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 Quality,
Circulation and Aesthetic impacts. No mitigation measures from the Final
Master EIR 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. NA
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND BACKGROUND:
The subject site is located on a large hiill at the southeast corner of Alga Road and El Fuerte Street.
The area is undeveloped with the subject site currently being used for quasi-utility uses including a
water reservoir and a 40 ft. high cellular antenna system. The proposed wood monopole and small
equipment cabinet would occupy an approximately 200 sq. ft. area between the existing monopole
and the reservoir. The site for the monopole and equipment cabinet has been previously disturbed
by the grading and construction of the adjacent water reservoir and is devoid of vegetation.. Nearby
areas are covered with non-native grasses and ornamental trees. Based on field investigations by
staff, the site was found not to contain any significant environmental resources.
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 installation of the
pole/antennas and equipment cabinets will not require any grading.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
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 Initial Study primarily focuses on the following four categories of environmental impact: Land
Use Compatibility; Hazards; Aesthetics; and, Cumulative Impacts. Checklist categories in-
tentionally 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;
(10) Cultural Resources; and ;
(1 1) Recreation.
LAND USE PLANNING:
a) The proposed project is consistent with the existing zoning designation of Planned
Community (PC) and the existing General Plan designation of Residential Density-Low
(RL). The Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.42.010(2)(J) allows accessory public and
quasi-public buildings and facilities, such as the proposed use, in all zones including PC with
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
b) The project would not interfere with adopted environmental plans or policies, in that the site
and surrounding area was highly disturbed by construction of the water reservoir, and
includes no native habitat. Further, construction of the proposed project will require only
additional minimal disturbance to the site.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
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 infra-structure support of
commercial and residential land uses. The proposed PCS pole would be approximately 25 ft.
high and located near an existing 40 ft. monopole.. Due to the pole’s location at the top of
the hill and next to the reservoir, it is entirely screened on the east side and only slightly
visible from the west. The pole/antennas are compatible with the nearby residential
neighborhood and the underlying residential zone, in that the bulk and scale of the pole
would be considered minimal when compared to the bulk and scale of the adjacent water
reservoir.
d) The proposed project will not affect agricultural resources because there are no such
operations in the near vicinity and given the relatively steep topography, not likely to occur
in the future..
e) The land surrounding the proposed facility is vacanthndeveloped and 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 (ANSUIEEE 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
ANSI/IEEE 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.
AESTHETICS:
Based on the project’s distance from El Fuerte or Alga Road, any potential views of the poles from
these roadways would be considered distant views.. To reduce any potential visual impacts created
by the project, the project’s perimeter will be conditioned to be landscaped with drought tolerant
large shrubs. The applicant has provided photo-simulations from numerous adjacent locations.
Review of these simulations supports staffs conclusion that the proposed pole and antennas will not
result in adverse visual impacts.
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
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 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 natural areas would be lost or transformed to views of residential, commercial, and
industrial development and that some scenic vistas 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. The proposed
project has been conditioned to plant evergreen trees and shrubs on the facility perimeter to mitigate
visual impacts.
Pacific Mobile Services is currently in the process of creating a comprehensive PCS
telecommunications network within the City of Carlsbad that includes potential sites scattered along
1-5 and other primary travel corridors. 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.
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.
AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in 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 is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 * Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by 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.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in 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 fi-om 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 subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
Source Documents (Note: All the source documents are on file in the Planning Department
located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, phone (61 9) 438-1 161.
1. General Plan, City of Carlsbad, 1994.
2. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994.
3. PCS Emission Report, Pacific Mobile Services, November 4, 1996
13 Rev. 03/28/96