Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 47490 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 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4749 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW A PCS FACILITY LOCATED AT 7412 CADENCIA STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: SD 369-02 TELECOM FACILITY CASE NO. : CUP 99-1 1 WHEREAS, Pacific Bell Wireless, “Developer”, has filed a verified applicati with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Larry and Jeannette Ygles “Owners”, described as Lot 475 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 La Costa Vale Unit No. 3, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 7950, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3,1974. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with si project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of April, 2000, holc duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimo and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, a considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factc relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planni Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planni Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhi “ND” dated February 14,2000 and “PII” dated August 14,1999 attached her1 and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Findinm: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration, the environmer impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior APPROVING the project; and B. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City Carlsbad; and D. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evider the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planni Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of April, 2000, by 1 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners L’Heureux, Nielsen, Sega: and Trigas NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Heineman and Baker ABSTAIN: 22 d!& -- 23 WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpersdh 24 11 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 25 26 ATTEST: 27 28 MICHAEL J. H@ZM@LER Planning Director )I PC RES0 NO. 4749 -2- 0 0 - City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddressLocation: 7412 Cadencia Street Project Description: The installation of three relatively small PCS panel antennas within a 4’ x 4’ x 4’8” high faux chimney to be located along the front roof line (western elevation) of a single family residence and two wall mounted Base Tranceiver Station (BTS) cabinets located along the northern elevation of the structure. 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, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. 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 Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622. DATED: FEBRUARY 14,2000 CASE NO: CUP 99-1 1 CASE NAME: PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS SD369-02 TELECOM FACILITY PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 14,2000 MICHAEL J. HMZMIUR Planning Director 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CUP 99-1 1 DATE: August 14,1999 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: SD369-02 Telecom Facility 2. APPLICANT: Pacific Bell Wireless 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Darrell Daughertv, Pacific Bell Wireless, 617OCornerstone Ct., #180, San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 642-9444 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: June 17,1999 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the installation of 3 relatively small PCS uanel antennas within a 4’ x 4’ x 4’8” high faux chimney to be located along the front roofline (western elevation) of the Yglesia residence at 7412 Cadencia Street in the PC zone and southeast Quadrant of the Citv. Supporting eauipment consisting of two 10’ x 3.5’ x 5’3” high self-contained. all weather Base Tranceiver Station (BTS) cabinets, one electric meter uanel, and one teleuhone interface are affixed to the wall along the northern exterior elevation of the residence. An existing 3’ high chimnev will be raised 18” to be the same height as the urouosed faux chimnev. 6. 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. IX1 Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation Public Services Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources IXI Aesthetics 0 Water [x] Hazards c] Cultural Resources - u Air Quality 0 Noise Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 0 0 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) IXI I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONlMENTAL WACT 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 EIRlNeg Dec 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 EIRlNeg 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. J-pm Date z/"iIoo Date 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. 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 0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect is significant. effect on the environment, but fl 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. 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 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. e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) I7 policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the 0 project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 0 to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible 0 landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or 0 populationprojections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 5.5-6) 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 0 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 5.1-15) 0 17 o 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 0 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 1 1) 0 5 0 Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 lxl 0 0 0 No Impact [XI El El 0 OEl 0 ON OM 0 OB 0 OEl 17 nw 0 ow 0 ow 0 ON 0 ON 0 ow 0 ow 0 ON 17 Ella 0 OM Rev. 03/28/96 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 1 1) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 0 0 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farmequipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - proposal result in: 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 5.7.22) 0 0 0 I7 0 0 0 0 0 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats in impacts to: (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 0 animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) I7 6 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 I7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact ow nIsr OIXI ON ON ON ON OIsr OIXI OH ow ON OIXI OH OH UIXI nw ON UN ON Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 OH - 5.4-24) 0 n[XI VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 UBI 0 0 ON 0 UBI 1 - 5.13-9) & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#1 :Pgs 5.10.1-1 - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 0 ow 0 0 urn 0 0 OH 5.10.1-5) hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) I7 0 ow grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0 ON X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) 0 175 1 - 5.9-15) 0 0 ow 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? () e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0 I7 o El o 17 0 0 0 [XI w [XI Kl lxl 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0 OH 7 Rev. 03128196 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact b) Communications systems? () c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8) 0 Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 0 0 facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) B 5.12.3-7) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) o 0 0 o 0 17 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 10) 10) 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs 17 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 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? 0 e Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incoroorated 0 0 I7 B 0 I7 I7 0 Less Than Significant Impact IXI 0 0 B 0 El 0 0 0 0 0 NO Impact 0 [XI [XI [XI i El 0 lxl IXI Ix1 El lxl Ix1 IXI Ix1 IXI 0 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incomorated b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0 0 OB (“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? 17 0 rn 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. FiBal Master EIR 93-01 -for the uvdate to Citv of Carlsbad General Plan 1994. on file in the Plannina 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 mitiaation measures are applicable or relevant to this project. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. N/A DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND BACKGROUND: The project site is located in a single family residential neighborhood at 7412 Cadencia Street in the Planned Community (PC) zone. The residence is located on a .95 acre hillside through-lot with frontage on Cadencia Street and Venado Street. The lot ranges in elevation from approximately 240’ at Cadencia Street to 322’ at Venado Street. The residential structure is terraced in three levels and is set back from Cadencia street approximately 160’ and from Venado Street approximately 60’. The proposed faux chimney is located on the roof of the second terrace which is 23’ high from grade (283.5’). The existing structure has two 3.5’ high chimneys and the proposed faux chimney which houses the 3 digital panel antennas is approximately 4’8” in height. Ample distance between surrounding structures to the north and south is provided. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 0 “NO IMPACT” DISCUSSION: 0 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 an existing residentially developed site. It is automated, consists of the installation of 3 PCS panel antennas housed within a 4’8” chimney and two 10’ x 3’4” equipment cabinets attached to the 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 project requires no disturbance to the site; therefore, this Initial Study primarily focuses on the following three (3) 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/HAZARDS: a) The project site is zoned Planned Community (P-C). 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 P-C, 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 are highly disturbed by past human activities, i.e., existing residential development, the property contains no native habitat, and the construction of the project requires minimal disturbance to the site. c) Wireless telecommunication facilities that are integrated into the design of the structure (stealth) are less obtrusive than 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 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 in a low density residential neighborhood which is developed with very large residential structures as well as an adjacent medium density neighborhood to the west. Pacific Bell Wireless indicates that the proposed PCS facility’s calculated worst case radio frequency power density is well below the FCC standard; therefore, the project would not have a significant adverse impact on public health. AESTHETICS: a) This proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and utility type land uses 0 e EIR concluded that some of the views of agricultural and natural areas would be lost or transformed to views of residential, commercial, and industrial development and that some scenic corridors would be degraded, however, it was determined that future development projects would be reviewed pursuant to CEQA and mitigation measures would be developed for significant aesthetic impacts on a project by project basis. Pacific Bell Wireless is currently in the process of creating a comprehensive telecommunications network within the City of Carlsbad which includes a potential for approximately three additional PCS antenna sites to serve the La Costa area. The proposed site, along with two other sites located at La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real and Alga Road and El Camino Real are required to provide complete coverage to the La Costa area. 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 to expand service to residential neighborhoods (in-building coverage). 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 residential, industrial and commercial buildings; (2) blending the antennas into the architecture of existing buildings or; (3) requiring landscaping to screen the facilities, and natural colors or camouflaging to reduce visual impacts when they are viewed from the public roadways. The proposed panel antennas, which are housed within a faux chimney on the roof of a residential structure, are blended into existing architecture. SOURCES: 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR 93-01) for the 1994 Update to the Carlsbad General Plan;