HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 50541
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. 5054
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A FREE STANDING ARCHITECTURAL TOWER TO HOUSE
AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTH EAST
CORNER OF LA COSTA AVENUE AND EL CAMINO REAL,
7710 EL CAMINO REAL, IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: SPRINT VONS-307
CASE NO.: CUP Ol-IO/SDP 78-03(C)
WHEREAS, Sprint PCS, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the
City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Azure Investors L.L.C., “Owner,” described as
Parcel B of Parcel Map No. 10283, in the City of Carlsbad, In
the County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 30,1980, as
Instrument No. 80-240721, Official Records.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on fhe 2nd day of January, 2002 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 Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
-3 That the foregoing recitations are trne and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
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
“ND” dated October 12,2001, and “PII” dated October 4,2001, 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. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration for CUP Ol-
IO/SDP 78-03(C), the environmental impacts therein identified for this project
and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
B. The 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
C.
D.
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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of January 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, Nielsen, and Segall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Baker
ABSTAIN: None
n
4Ja-Y
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairp&on
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5054 -2-
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
South east comer of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue, 7710
El Camino Real
Construction of a free standing tower to house an unmanned
telecommunications facility consisting of nine panel antennas and
six equipment cabinets within an existing commercial center.
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 intended to be 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 the
date of this notice of intent to issue a Negative Declaration. If you have any questions, please
call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
OCTOBER 12,200l
CUF’ Ol-lo/SDP 78-03(A)
SPRINT VONS-307
OCTOBER 12,200l \%GS MICHAEL
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad. CA 92006-7314 l (760) 602.4600 l FAX (760) 602-6559 - www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: CUP 01-10
DATE: October 4.2001
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
CASE NAME: SPRINT VONS-307
APPLICANT: Snrint PCS co/ Compass Telcom Services attention Bernie Chase
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5465 Morehouse Drive, Suite 265. San
Diepo. CA 92121
4.
5.
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Auaust 10.2001
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The nroiect consists of the construction of a free standing
architectural tower for the nurnose of locating wireless antennas and SUDDOI? eauimnent. The
pronosed facilitv is located east and adiacent to the northerlv entrance off of La Costa Avenue to
the La Costa Towne Center.
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.
IXI Land Use and Planning (XI~Transportation/Circu~ation q Public Services
Cl Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems cl Energy &Mineral Resources [XI Aesthetics
cl Water [XI Hazards III Cultural Resources
[XI Air Quality C]Noise q Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev:O3/28/96
DETERMINATION.
Esl
0
cl
0
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. A(n) EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature
\o/o u/o (
Date
Planning Director’s Si&ature Date ‘o/41 ’ I I
2 Rev. 03128196
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A 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 “E&Part II”, if.a proposed project could have a potentially 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).
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 Em 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.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a)
b)
C)
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(a): (#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?
(#f:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.618)
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)
‘9
c)
Cumulatively exceed offkial regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an arca either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastmchne)? (#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 proposal result in or
a)
b)
9
4
4
f-J
9)
‘9
9
expose people to potential impacts i&Olving:
Fault mphue? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 :Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1.15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic bawd? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#l:Pgs
5.1-I - 5.1-15)
Subsidenceoftheland?(#l:Pgs 5.1-l -5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Unique geologic OI physical feahnes? (#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 nmoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
* 11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
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)
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
El
q
B
cl
B
q
q
q
cl q !!a
q q El
q q ta
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
UIlkSS
Incorporated
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
8 q
q
H
El q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
q
III
q
q
q
q
q
q
B
q
El
q
El
NO
Impact
!!a
!xJ
El
ISI
q
[51
[XI
[XI
[XI
1
IXI
1
lzl
N
4
e)
0
g)
‘9
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, 01 the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, OI &rough
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otbenvise available for public water supplies? (#1 :Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)
‘4
Cl
-3
Violate any air quality standard OI contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change itt climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION, Would the
a)
W
9
4
4
0
k9
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle tips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
ewes or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site o* off-site?
(#I:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air !&tic 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 OI 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
0
q
q
q
IXI
q
q
q
IXI
.u
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Less Than Significant Significant UllkSS Impact Mitigation
Incorporated q q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0,
d
q
q
cl
NO impact
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
C)
d)
4
VIII.
a)
W
C)
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-l - 5.12.1-5 &5.13-l - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resowce~ in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
re~cwce that would be of future value to the region and
theresidents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-l - 5.13-9)
I%. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
b)
4
d)
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
01 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-I - 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 fue hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#! :Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
151
b) Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would tbe proposal have an eifect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered eovemment
3
b)
C)
d)
4
. -~ ~~~~~~ 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-l - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Other gownmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -
5.12.8-7)
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
q
q
q
q
Cl
cl
cl
q
q
q
q
q
X’
x q
Potentially
Significant Utlk
Mitigation Incorporated
0
q
q
q
q
q
cl
0
q
q
q
cl
q
El
8 q
Less Than
Significant
impact
cl
q
q
cl
q
Cl
Cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
H
El q
NO
Impact
txl
IXI
El
El
Ed
q
IXI
El
IXI
!xl
IXI
ia
El
El
Ei IXI
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 Sowces)~
=)
‘-9
C)
4
e)
r)
g)
XIII.
=)
b)
c)
XIV.
=)
b)
4
4
9
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-l - 5.13-9)
Commttnications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities’? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-I - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-l - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
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 or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l - 5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l - 5.11-5)
Create lightorglare?(#l:Pgs5.11-1 -5.11-5)
CLJLTLJRAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5%
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5%
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have tbe potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic culhlral values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
1 - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses witbin the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposalz
=)
b)
XVI.
=)
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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 tbe 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 III
q
B q
q
q
q
q
q
B
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
UllkSS
Mitigation Incorporated q
q cl
q
El q
q
q
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
q q
B
El
q
q
q
q
q
B
q
q
q
q
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially LessThai No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact UIllW Impact
Mitigation
b)
C)
XVII.
Incorporated
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited but cumlllativelv considerable? q q q IXI
(“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, q q
either directly or indirectly?
q [XI
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.
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.
cl 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.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND BACKGROUND:
The project site is located in a landscaped slope area within an existing commercial retail center
on a commercially zoned property. The slope ranges in elevation from approximately 45’ above
sea level at La Costa Avenue to approximately 180 feet above sea level. Homes are built at the
180 foot elevation on adjacent residentially zoned property. The proposed tower is 42 feet tall
from the base and is designed with materials which are found through out the La Costa Towne
Center.
“NO IMPACT” DISCUSSION:
The Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II (Initial Study) is an all encompassing form
designed for enviromnental 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
6 panel antennas housed within three chimneys and a 12’X 20’ section of a 20’X 20’ garage.
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 significant 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
Transportation/Circulation; (6) Biological Resources; (7) Energy and Mineral Resources; (8)
Noise; (9) Public Services; (10) Cultural Resources, and; (11) Recreation.
LAND USE PLANNING/HAZARDS:
a) The project site is zoned General Neighborhood Commercial(C1). 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 Cl, 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 commercial
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 a 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
10 Rev. 03128196
a commercial zone wmch is developed with very large commercial structures Adjacent and
at a significantly higher elevation is a residential neighborhood to the southeast. Sprint PCS
Wireless services indicates that the proposed telecommunications facility’s calculated worst
case radio tkequency 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 are
an integral part of the buildout of the City. Cumulative aesthetic impacts were analyzed in the Master Environmental Impact Report for the updated General Plan. The EIR concluded
that some of the views of agricultural and natural areas would be lost or transformed to views
of residential, commercial, and industrial development and that some scenic corridors would
be degraded, however, it was determined that future development projects would be reviewed
pursuant to CEQA and mitigation measures would be developed for significant aesthetic
impacts on a project by project basis.
The buildout of telecommunication systems, citywide, will not have a significant cumulative
aesthetic impact due to the fact that the sites will be 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 and/or new residential, industrial and commercial buildings; (2) blending
the antennas into the architecture of existing and/or new 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 project panel
antennas, are housed within a new architectural tower which compliments the existing
architecture.
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-attaimnent basin”, any additional air
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
11 Rev. 03/28/96
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-attaimnent 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.
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
treeway 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
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR. 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
filing 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
12 Rev. 03128196
been known at the time the MElR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.