HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 4155e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4155
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE INSTAL-
TWO CELLULAR PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED ON A 55’
HIGH MONOPOLE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
AT 850 TAMARACK AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NO: CUP 97-08
CASE NAME: GERICO COMMUNICATIONS SITE
WHEREAS, AirTouch Cellular, “Developer”, has filed a verified applic
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Gerico’s, a California Gel
Partnership described as
LATION OF AN AT-GRADE EQUIPMENT BUILDING AND
Lot 2 of Tamarack Plaza, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
5944, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, August 23,1967.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 20th day of August 1997,
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testir
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fa
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plar
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plan
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative according to Exhibit “ND” c
July 25, 1997 and “PII” dated July 25, 1997, attached hereto and made a
hereof, based on the following findings and subject to the following condition
0 0
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed
considered the Negative Declaration (CUP 97-08), the environmental impacts th
identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the prc
Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission find:
there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect or
environment and thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the indeper
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration for the Gc
Communications Site project has been prepared in accordance with requirements a
California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines, and the Environmc
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
Conditions:
1. Approval of the Negative Declaration is granted subject to the approval of CUP 9’
The Negative Declaration is subject to all conditions contained in Plan]
Commission Resolution No. 4156.
...
...
....
...
...
...
...
...
I
~
...
...
I
...
PC RES0 NO. 4155 -2-
0 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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pla:
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of August 1997, E
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Heineman and Savary
NOES: Commissioner Welshons
ABSENT: Commissioners Compas, Monroy and Noble
ABSTAIN: None
_,,<F3. -+.
e<f-.> ./ ,P d .{' &,+&:*--
_LI...c..%-
V,F
.I 7- e?. -7 = ""%
" <y ,! >I ~,~~~~*~=~~,~~-~~~-~. "
-9"' ,, ".
I 5 y9 .-.-~-~...~-~.~~~~.,~
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
v MICHAEL J. HOL~~LLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4155 -3 -
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: 850 Tamarack Avenue
Project Description: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of an
equipment building and two directional cellular panel antennas on a 55’
high monopole (mock light standard) located at 850 Tamarack Avenue in
the C-2 Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. -
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 Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4477.
DATED: JULY 25,1997
CASE NO: CUP 97-08
CASE NAME: GERICO COMMUNICATIONS SITE
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 25,1997
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894 @
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 97-08
DATE: JULY 25,1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Gerico Communications Site
2. APPLICANT: Airtouch Cellular
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Chris Morrow, Morrow Consulting
Group. 4822 Santa Monica Avenue, Mailbox # 123, San Diego. CA 921 07
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: July 3. 1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The uroiect consists of the installation of an at grade 200 square
foot eauipment building and two 8’ cellular panel antennas mounted near the top of a 55’ high
monopole designed as a mock light standard or flag pole and is located at 850 Tamarack Avenue
to the north of the existinp Gerico’s Restaurant in the C-2 zone. -
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 TransportatiodCirculation Public Services
Population and Housing 0
Geological Problems Biological Resources
0 Utilities & Service Systems
1x) Aesthetics
Water
0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Cultural Resources -~ Hazards 0 Air Quality c] Recreation
Noise
1 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
W I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
.I
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 EIFUNeg Dec pursuant
to applicable standaids 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.
74a5-7 7
Date
\ *lZ%/44-
Planning Direct?s Signgure Date
I
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.
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.
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.
e “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 a 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).
I
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.
e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
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 11 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.
1
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): ()
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? ()
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
0 d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? ()
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? ()
0
0
0
0
c7
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
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
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? ()
cl 0 0 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? ()
~ ~~
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? () 0
0 0 cl
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
rate and amount of surface runoff? () 0
such as flooding? () 0
surface water quality (eg temperature, dissolved 0
oxygen or turbidity)? ()
body? () 0 d) Changes in the amount of surfaie water in any water
5
a
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
c7
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 w
0 [XI
w 17
0 IXI
0 e4
0 IXI w
o w
0 w 0 €3 0 [XI cl El a- El 0. w
0 IXI O w 0 IXI
1
0 IXI
0 w
0 IXI
U Ix1
Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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? ()
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 w
0 0 0 [XI
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ()
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ()
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
0 0 w 0 0 0 w
otherwise available for public water supplies? () 0 0. 0 IXI
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? (
f, Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ()
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ()
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 cl o
0 0.
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
cl
0 0 Ix1
0 0 w O 0 w
0 w
cl cl w 0 0 w
0 0 w
0 0 €a 0 a w 0 0' w
0 0 w
0 0 IXI
1
0 0 €3 0 U El
0 0 ix1
cl w
6 Rev. 03/28/96
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ()
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? () 0
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? o
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
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ()
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ()
b) Police protection? ()
c) Schools? ()
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0
e) Other governmental services? ()
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ()
b) Communications systems? 0
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 o 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
7
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
CI
13 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0
0
0
CI
[XI
0
0
0 0
0 0 13 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Rev. 031
NO Impact
[XI €3
1xI
w
[XI
0
[XI
€3
w Ix1
[XI
[XI w
[XI w
w w
[XI
[XI El
[XI
[XI
‘28196
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? ()
0 0
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
CI
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () CI
potential impact area? () 0
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
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? 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, El
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0 0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 [XI w 0 0 w
0 El w w 0 El
El El
0 IXI
0 w
w
w
*u w
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 CarIsbad General
Plan I994, 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. Aesthetic impacts. No
proposed Final Master EIR 93-01 mitigation measures are aunlicable 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
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND BACKGROUND:
The project site is located within an existing freeway service facility consisting of Gerico’s
Restaurant and a vacant gas station on the adjacent lot. The proposed location at the northeast
end of the site to the side and rear of an existing restaurant within the restaurant loading and
service entry area. The site is surrounded by the 1-5 freeway to the east, residential to the north,
the vacant gas station to the west, and Tamarack Avenue and another gas station to the south.
The proposed equipment structure is screened fiom surrounding development by an 8’ high wall
and landscaping. An existing 50’ high freeway service sign pole supporting the Gerico’s sign
and a blank sign, 40’+ high light standards, utility poles, and palm trees also occupy the site and
adjacent public right-of-way. This combination of “poles” visible from surrounding residential
properties will partially screen and obscure the proposed monopole. The projeft site contains no
native habitat and there is ornamental landscaping, including groundcover, trees, and shrubs,
planted within the existing commercial development.
“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
9 Rev. 03128196
0 0
Impact” and no environmental discussion is provided. This project is a quasi-public utility land
use within an existing commercially developed site. It is automated, consists of the installation
of a 55 foot high monopole with two panel cellular antennas mounted near the top, and includes a
200 square foot equipment building. Due to its nature, the project would not generate public
facility (i.e. sewer, water, etc..), or housing demand, and its operation would not create noise or
water pollution. The site requires minimal disturbance to create a building pad for a 200 square
foot equipment building and the installation of underground cable conduits connecting the
equipment building to the antenna monopole, and installation of the monopole within an already
disturbed area of the site.. the project is accessed by an existing asphalt service road, therefore,
this Initial Study primarily focuses on the following four (4) categories of environmental impact - (1) Land use compatibility; (2) Hazards - public health and safety; and (3) Aesthetics
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; (10) Cultural
Resources, and ; (1 1) Recreation.
LAND USE PLANNING:
a) The project site is zoned General Commercial (C-2). The Carlsbad Municipal Code -
Chapter 21.42.010(2)(J)(Conditional Uses - Perrnitted Uses) allows accessory public and
quasi-public buildings and facilities in all zones, including C-2 Commercial, 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, i.e., an existing
freeway service commercial development and residential units to the north, the property
contains no native habitat, and the construction of the project requires minimal
disturbance to the site.
c) Wireless telecommunication facilities 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 electqical 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 commercial and residential
neighborhoods in the City of Carlsbad. These types of facilities are not only compatible
with both commercial and residential land uses, they are, in many ways, necessary and
essential to the infrastructural support of urban land uses. The proposed project is located
within an existing fieeway service facility which contains a ,combination of 40’+ high
freeway service pole signs, palm trees, light standards, and utility poles. These existing
“poles”, which are located near the northern property line separating the Gerico’s site
from residential development, will partially screen and obscure the proposed monopole
from the adjacent residential development; therefore, it will not disrupt the physical
arrangement of the established comm~ty.
d) There is no agricultural land in the vicinity of the project site.
e) See item c) above.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
HAZARDS:
c) 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 fiequency (1.85 GigaHertz) is 1 :23 milliwatts per square
centimeter (mW/cm2). Higher exposures are allowed for brief periods provided that no
30 minute time weighted average exposure exceeds 1.23 mW/cm2 . The standard was
jointly published by the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of
Electrical and Electronic Engineers (ANSIflEEE 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 prohibits all wireless communication facilities fiom
exceeding the exposure levels set in the standard. The project’s preliminary PCS
Emission Report on file in the Planning Department, indicates that the proposed PCS
facility’s calculated worst case radio frequency power density is well below the 1.23
mW/cm2 standard, therefore, the project would not have a significant adverse impact on
public health.
d) The City’s Building Department requires that the proposed 55 foot high monopole
structure be supported by a foundation system designed and certified by a qualified
structural engineer to ensure its structural integrity against all known geologic conditions.
AESTHETICS:
b) This proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and utility type land uses
of this nature are an integral part of the buildout of the City. Cumulative aesthetic
impacts were analyzed in the Master Environmental Impact Report for the updated
General Plan. The EIR concluded that some of the views of agricultural and natural areas
would be lost or transformed to views of residential, commercial, and. industrial
development and that some scenic corridors would be degraded, however, it was
determined that fhre development projects would be reviewed pursuant to CEQA and
mitigation measures would be developed for significant aesthetic impacts on a project by
project basis.
AirTouch Cellular is currently in the process of creating a comprehensive
telecommunications network within the City of Carlsbad which incluges a potential for
approximately six cellular antenna sites. The Gerico site is the final site requiring
Planning Commission approval to complete the network.
The buildout of these telecommunication systems, citywide, will not have a significant
cumulative aesthetic impact due to the fact that the sites are dispersed throughout the City
to service major roadway corridors, and on a project by project basis, the City will be
requiring that potential aesthetic visual impacts be reduced by either; (1) incorporating
.the antennas behind screening on the roofs of existing industrial and commercial
buildings; (2) blending the antennas into the architecture of existing buildings along the
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
corridors, or; (3) requiring landscaping to screen the facilities, and natural colors or
camouflaging to reduce visual impacts when they are viewed fiom the public roadways in
circumstances, such as the proposed project, 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. AirTouch EMF (radio frequency power density) Emissions Report prepared by
dated
I
12 Rev. 03/28/96