HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 49281
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. 4928
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE
INSTALLATION OF A MONO-PALM WITH TWELVE
ANTENNAS AND AN ASSOCIATED 200 SQUARE FOOT
EQUIPMENT BUILDING ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 4901 EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: TAMARACK WIRELESS
CASE NO.: CUP 00-32/SUP 00-l l/GDP 00-58
WHEREAS, Nextel Communications, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Jay Franklin Hoffman and
Maryon Dooley Hoffman, “Owner”, described as
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3451, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, filed January 31, 1975, in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, and that
portion of Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 3451 in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, as
shown on Parcel Map filed on page 3451 of Parcel Maps on
January 31,1975, under tile No. 75023997
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of April, 2001, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration according
to Exhibit “ND” dated February 26, 2001, and “PII” dated February 15, 2001,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
APPROVING the project; and
The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RESO NO. 4928 -2
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 Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of April 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PC RESO NO. 4928 -3.
City of
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: APN 207-101-19, -24, & 25
South side of El Camino Real east of Kelly Drive
Project Description: Unmanned telecommunications facility consisting of a mono-palm
with 12 panel antennas and a 200 square foot equipment building.
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, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on tile in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on tile 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 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4626.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
FEBRUARY 26,200l
CUP 00-32SUP 00-l l/GDP 00-58
TAMARACK WIRELESS
FEBRUARY 26,200l
MICHAEL J. HaZMItiER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92006-7314 . (760) 602.4600 - FAX (760) 602.8559 - ww.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 00-32iSUP 00-l XDP 00-58
DATE: February 15.2001
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
CASE NAME: Tamarack Wireless
APPLICANT: Nextel Communications
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5761 Coalev Drive. Suite 100, San
D&o, CA 92111
4.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 7/19/00
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Unmanned telecommunications facilitv with panel antennas mounted
within a “mono-ualm” and a 200 square foot equipment shelter.
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.
q Land Use and Planning txl Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
q Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems
q Water
[XI Air Quality
q Energy & Mineral Resources El Aesthetics
[XI Hazards q Cultural Resources
0 Noise 0 Recreation
cl Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/X/96
DETERMINATION. -
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
q
El
0
Cl
q
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 MITIGATED
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.
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 Dee
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 EIRiNeg Dee pursuant
to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR/Neg Dee, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Pl&ner Signature ’ I l/a.lor
Date
7h 0 I
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
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 identities 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 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.
. “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,
. “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.
. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, 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).
. 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 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
--
. 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.
. 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 II 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.
Rev. 03/2X/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:,
a)
b)
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
C)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections’? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing’? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the orooosal result in or . ,
4
b)
Cl
4
e)
cl
8)
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking’? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l 5.1.15)
S&he, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils’? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l 5.1-15)
Unique geologic or physical fealures? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15)
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-l 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 5.,2-I 1)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
8 q
q
EJ
El q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
B q
q
B
q
B
q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
q
q
0
0
0
q
q
B q
q
El
B q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
IXI
IXI
IXI
Ed
Ed
IXI
Es4
E3
B
El
IXI
El
El
Ed
•l
IXI
El
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l 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-l 5.,2-l 1)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l 5,.2-l 1)
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-
1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION.
movosal result in:
Would the
a) ix&eased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l 5.722)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pas 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
d) &f&at parking’ capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22)
fl Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l 5.7.22)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts’? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l
5.7.22)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
El
q
q
0
IXI
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated q
q
Cl
q
q
0
q
q
q
0
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
NO Impact
!El
LZJ
IXI
El
Ed
!I3
q
El
Lxl
!zl
q
•zl
IXI
El
lzl
El
El
IXI
IXI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
VIII.
4
b)
C)
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -5.12.1-5 & 5.13.
1 5.13-9)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-l 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
Cl
4
e)
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-l 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, ortrees?(#l:Pgs5.10.1-l-5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9.
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the nronosal have an effect
a)
b)
Cl
4
e)
L . upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ()
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l
5.12.8-7)
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
H
El q
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
Less Than
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
B
El q
NO
Impact
El
Ix]
IXI
El
Exl
El
IXI
El
q
[XI
IXI
Lxl
IXI
E!
H Ix1
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
7 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
b)
C)
d)
e)
fl
9)
XIII.
a)
b)
Cl
XIV.
a)
b)
Cl
d)
e)
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-t 5.13-9)
Communications systems? ()
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer “I septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-S)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-l - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic “r vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8.
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.8-10)
Have the potential to case a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
1 - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l 5.X-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-l - 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 “I
wildlife population t” 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?
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q q
El q q
q
q
q
0
q
B
q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
lncorporatcd q
El
q
El q
q
q
q
III
q
B
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant
l”lpXt
q
q q
B
B
q
q
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
q
NO
Impact
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
Cl
XVII.
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant I”lpWt
q
q
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless l”lpZ3
Mitigation
Incorporated q q El
q q
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:
4 Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review. Final Master EIR 93-01 for the Update to the Citv <f Carlsbad
General Plan 1994. on file in the Planninp Department.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, Cumulative Air Oualitv,
Circulation, and Aesthetic impacts. No proposed Final Master EIR 93-01
mitipatioa 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
Rev. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located on part of a larger 14-acre parcel zoned for residential/agricultural uses
and a parcel zoned for general commercial. The proposal includes installation of an unmanned
telecommunications facility consisting of a “mono-palm” with 12 panel antennas and an
associated equipment shelter. The property already supports sites for unmanned
telecommunications facilities for Sprint (formerly Cox) which consists of 6 pole/antenna
structures and for Pat Bell which consists of a mono-pole. The proposed mono-palm would be
located at the top of the slope in the residentially zoned portion of the site midway between the
two existing facilities. The proposed 200 square foot equipment building would be located
behind the commercial development.
The site for the mono-palm contains disturbed non-native vegetation and agricultural lands. A
review of archeology records indicates that there are no cultural resources within the project site.
The project site is bounded by existing commercial development (Marja Acres) on the north, and
residential uses beyond the parcel boundaries on the south, a mobile home park is located east of
the site and a nursery is located west of the site.
El Camino Real is located along the north boundary of the site adjacent to the commercially
zoned property. The roadway elevation of El Camino Real is a topographically low point and is
surrounded by foothills in the area around Tamarack Avenue and Marja Acres. There are no tall
industrial or commercial buildings along this portion of the corridor. As a result of these
circumstances and the need to till a gap in the Nextel service area, the applicant is requesting
approval of the proposed mono-palm structure.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project site is zoned general Commercial (C-2) and Residential Agriculture (R-A-10). The
Carlsbad Municipal Code - Chapter 21.42.010(2)(J) (Conditional Uses) allows accessory public
and quasi-public buildings and facilities in all zones through the approval of a Conditional Use
Permit by the City’s Planning Commission. The project also requires a Special Use Permit
because the project is within 300’ of a Scenic Corridor (El Camino Real) and a Coastal
Development Permit due to the projects location in the Mello II Segment of the Coastal Overlay
Zone.
v. AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of 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
10 Rev. 03128196
- -’
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
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 build-out, 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
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by
City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR
This document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
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 build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out 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
11 Rev. 03128196
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MElR This document is available at the Planning
Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
tiling of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
IX. HAZARDS
The project would not create a health hazard to people based on the project’s required
compliance with the current Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) adopted standard for
public exposure to radio waves. The FCC requires compliance with radio frequency power
density standards (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992) for the general public, therefore, the project would
not have a significant impact on the environment. Furthermore, the project will be conditioned
to submit a project implementation report which provides cumulative field measurements of
radio frequency (EMF) power densities of all antennas installed at the subject site to ensure that
the project meets current ANSI/IEEE standards.
The mono-palm structure would be located on a larger 14 acre parcel in a currently undeveloped
residential zone that has the potential to eventually develop with homes that could be in close
proximity to the mono-palm. The City’s Building Department requires that the proposed mono-
palm pole structure be supported by a foundation system designed and certified by a qualified
structural engineer. In addition, to protect the safety of future residents, and to protect homes
from being damaged by a structural failure of the mono-palm during an unforeseen natural
disaster such as an earthquake or high winds, the project will be conditioned to provide a 30 foot
radius open space easement around the mono-palm. This easement would ensure that if the
support structure were to fail, it would not collapse onto a future home or building and reduces
any potential public safety impacts to below a level of insignificance.
XIII. AESTHETICS
The project would be located approximately 300 feet from El Camino Real and therefore is
subject to the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. The project would be partially
visible from El Camino Real which is designated as a Scenic Roadway in the General Plan. The
surrounding natural view shed is not considered significant due to the fact that it has already
been partially degraded by a commercial building between the project site and El Camino Real, a
mobile home park development to the east, utility poles and lines along El Camino Real, several
tall SDG&E transmission towers, and two existing telecommunications facilities.
To reduce any potential view impacts, the telecommunications facility has been designed as a 30
foot tall mono-palm which will be surrounded by five mature palms ranging in height from 25 to
40 feet so that the facility will blend in with the natural palms. The mono-palm has also been
designed so that a second carrier can collocate within the trunk of the mono-palm which will
12 Rev. 03/28196
reduce the future cumulative aesthetic effects of numerous carries within this area. The proposed
equipment building will not be visible from the public street since it is located behind the
commercial structures. The equipment room has been designed to complement the existing
buildings on the site and foundation shrubs will be planted around the base of the structure.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on tile in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
13 Rev.03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall record, on the subject
property, a 30 foot radius open space easement around the base of the proposed mono-palm. The
easement shall be dedicated to the City of Carlsbad to ensure that if the mono-palm were to fail
due to an unforeseen act of nature, that it would not collapse onto any future homes or buildings
within the residentially zoned property surrounding the facility. The cultivation of agricultural
crops, irrigation systems, and access roads shall be permitted within the easement area and the
easement document shall so state this provision. Upon any future termination of the Conditional
Use Permit (CUP 00-32) and removal of the mono-palm, the 30 foot radius open space easement
shall be quit-claimed per the procedures established by the City of Carlsbad and the underlying
land developed according to the property’s General Plan land use designation.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
SEE ATTACHED PROGRAM
14 Rev. 03128196
APPLICANT CONCUR&&E WITH MITIGATION MEASURE<
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
q&&u&q/ N+?mY
Date u
15 Rev. 03128196
ENVIRONMENTAL MITk-.TION MONITORING CHECKLIST: .-age 1 of 1