Loading...
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