Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 01-11; Carlsbad Inn Nextel Cell Site; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (4)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: gPO\ DATE RECEIVED: ^lioln\ (To be completed by staff) BACKGROUND CASE NAME: ^CXMveer It 2. APPLICANT: U-f.^k>i CX>VUVVUM^AXXL^IrW 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: "Sl LP \ COp [tX^^^ ^hZ\ / 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: \ZZ{\iKMxMwA 4cJUx.OAA-lAAUJUAJ.(>J^/l<: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. I I Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services I I Population and Housing CJ Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems I I Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources CH Aesthetics I I Water CH ^^^^^s Q] Cultural Resources CH Air Quaiity CH Noise Q Recreation I I Mandatory Fmdings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GLTIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requkes 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 weU 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 generai standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect firom "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 levei. • "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 ail 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, inciuding 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 eariier 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. 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 measiures 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 includmg but not limited to the follov^dng 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 Overridmg 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 detennine 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 fonn under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): {^Supplem^rimiWcmen^ I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): ( ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? ( ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? ( ) IL POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existuig housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) c) ^Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil condidons from excavahon, grading, or fill? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface mnoff? ( ) b) Exposure of peopie or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significan Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incoqjorated No Impact • • • 0 • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • & • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • \Z • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperamre, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groimdwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( • ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) 0 Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( - ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) VL TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. ^ proposai result in: Would the a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g. bus mmouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Less Than Significant Significan Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated • • No Impact • • • • • • • • • & • • • • • • 0^ • • • • • • 0- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): i^^!pplmienl!3 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their Jiabitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) c) Locally designated namral communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetiand habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) VIIL ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wastefiil and inefficient manner? ( ) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health 1^ hazards? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) X. NOISE. Would the proposai result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools? ( ) Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significan Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated No Impact • • • 0^ • • • 0' • • • • • • H' • • • 0^ • • • 0" • • • 0^ • • • 0^ • • • 0^ • • • 0- • • • 0 • • • Q- • • • 0" • • • 0" • • • 0^ • • • • • • 0- • • • 0" Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads'? ( ) e) Other govemmental services? ( ) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) b) Communications systems? ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact • • • 0 • • o 0^ • • 0 • • • 0^ • 0 • 0 • • 0 0' • • • • • \Z XIIL AESTHETICS. Would the proposai: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) xrv. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Dismrb paieontological resources? ( ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) c). Affect historical resources? ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational oppormnities? ( ) • 0 o • o o [Z • • o 0^ • • • 0" • • o • o or • • • • D o {Z • • o • • • \Z Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): XVL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eluninate 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 Califomia history or prehistory? b) 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 fumre projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact O O Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated O Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact • 0^ XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify tiie following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. h 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. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less tiian 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. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please use tiiis area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors tiiat were checked "Potentially Significant Impacf or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. AIR OUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and uicluded in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in 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 emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in tiie updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality ofthe region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, 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 vehicie trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage ahemative 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 ofproject approvai. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is locatec! within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, tiie preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Finai 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" appiies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further enviromnental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 frill and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally inciude ail freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carisbad Boulevard. Even with ihe implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections 9 Rev. 03/28/96 are projected to fail tiie City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measiures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop altemative 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 unpacts 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 ofthe project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, tiie "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 Fmal 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 subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES gP APPLICABLE^ ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 10 Rev. 03/28/96 PART I EIA NEXTEL - BUCCANEER LAND USE PLANNING a) No impact. The proposed project is in conformance with the general plan and zoning designation for the property. b) No impact. The proposed project will conform with applicable environmental plans and policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. c) No impact. The project is compatible with the existing land use in the vicinity. d) No impact. The project will not affect agricultural resources or operations since the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. e) No impact. The proposed project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of any established communities. The proposed project consists ofthe installation of 3 antenna arrays within the existing development with two antennas per array. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) No impact. Since the proposed project consists of an addition within an existing building, it will not alter the planned distribution or housing in the area. b) No impact. The proposed project will not induce substantial growth in the area. c) No impact. The site for the proposed project will not displace existing housing since the site already contains existing buildings, and the location ofthe equipment is in non-residential use areas of the development. III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS a) No impact. The site is not located near active faults and no geologic conditions exist that could constrain development of the property or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards. (1) b) No impact. Due to the distance from known active faults from the sites, the proposed project will not expose people to significant seismic ground shaking. (1) c) No impact. This project will not expose people to seismic ground failure including liquefaction, due to the distance ofthe know active faults from the site. d) No impact. The site is not located in an area of volcanic activity and does not have a history of seiche or tsunami hazards. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people to impacts involving seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazards. e) No impact. The project site is not located within an area of landslides or mudflows. (1) f) No impact. The site was already mass graded when the existing buildings were constructed. g) No impact. The project site is not located in an area known for subsidence and is not expected to result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land. (1) h) No impact. The proposed project will not result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils. The property is not located in an area known to have expansive soils. (1) i) No impact. No unique geologic or physical features are known to exist at the project site. (1) IV. WATER a) No impact. The project will have no impact on absorption rates, drainage patterns, or amount of surface runoff. The antennas are proposed on top of an existing structure. b) No impact. The site is not in an area that is prone to flooding or other water hazards. (1) c) No impact. The project will not alter the quality of any surface water body. d) No impact. The project will not significantly affect the amount of surface water in any water body since no storm water will discharge directly into any water body. (1) e) No impact. The proposed project will not significantly affect currents or the course or direction of water movements. (1) f) No impact. The project will not affect the quantity or the quality of ground waters either through direct additions or withdraws or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of recharge capability. (1) g) No impact. Since the proposed project does not use groundwater, the project will not alter direction of the rate of flow of groundwater. (1) h) No impact. The project will not significantly impact groundwater quality, since there will be no direct infiltration into any known groundwater supply. (1) i) No impact. The proposed project will not cause a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies since the project will not use groundwater nor impact a significant area otherwise available for groundwater percolation. (1) AIR QUALITY a) No impact. The project will have no affect upon air quality. b) No impact. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. c) No impact. The proposed project will not alter air movement, moisture, temperature or cause a change in climate. d) No impact. The proposed project will not create objectionable odors. VI. TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION a) No impact. The project will not increase ADT. b) No impact. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. (1) c) No impact. The proposed project will not affect access. d) No impact. The proposed project will not affect parking. e) No impact. The project will not produce any hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. f) No impact. The proposed project will conform with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. g) No impact. No impacts to or from the railroad will result. No waterbome traffic occurs in the vicinity. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) No impact. The site does not have any endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats. It is a developed site. b) No impact. The site does not contain locally designated species. c) No impact. The site does not contain locally designated communities. d) No impact. The proposed project is not located on wetland habitat, so it will not impact wetland habitat. e) No impact. There will be no impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES a) No impact. The proposed project will conform with adopted energy conservation plans. b) No impact. The proposed project will not use non-renewable resources in a wasteful inefficient manner c) No impact. The proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. IX. HAZARDS a) No impact. The proposed project will not involve the storage, application, use or disposal of hazardous materials or substances and therefore will not involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances. b) No impact. The proposed project will be designed so as not to interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. The project's circulation system will be reviewed by all pertinent City departments to ensure that there will be no impacts to any emergency response procedures or evacuation plans. c) No impact. The project will not create any health hazards or any potential health hazards. d) No impact. There are no existing health hazards on the site. e) No impact. The project will be constructed in compliance with all applicable City policies and codes regarding fire suppression and low fuel planting. X. NOISE a) No impact. Development of the site will not substantially increase noise levels beyond the short term construction noise impacts. b) No impact. The project will not involve exposure of people to severe noise levels beyond the short term construction noise impacts. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES a) No impact. The project is located within the five minute response time for fire protection. b) No impact. Police protection is provided by the City of Carlsbad and demand for additional police services beyond the demand created by a typical commercial development of this site is not anticipated. c) No impact. The proposed project will not have an effect upon or result in a need for new schools. d) No impact. The proposed project will pay appropriate public facilities fees as dictated by the City. e) No impact. The proposed project will pay appropriate public facilities fees as dictated by the City. XII. UTILTITES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS a) No impact. The majority of utitlities have already been established for the existing structures. b) No impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to create significant new demand for major facilities of communication or cable nor will it require substantial alteration to existing faciiities. c) No impact. The proposed project is in conformance with the EIR 93-01 for the site and no potentially significant impacts are anticipated. d) No impact. The proposed project is in conformance with the EIR 93-01 for the site and no significant impacts to the City's sewer or septic tanks are anticipated. e) No impact. The proposed project is in conformance with the EIR 93-01 for the site and no significant impacts to the City's storm drainage system is anticipated. f) No impact. The proposed project is in conformance with the EIR 93-01 for the site and no significant impacts to the City's solid waste disposal system is anticipated. g) No impact. The proposed project is in conformance with the EIR 93-01 for the site and no significant impacts to the City's local or regional water supplies are anticipated. Xlll. AESTHETICS a) No impact. The proposed project will not affect a scenic highway or vista. All antennas will be screened from public view. b) No impact. The proposed project will not have a negative aesthetic effect. All antennas wiil be screened from public view. c) No impact. The project will be designed in such a manner as to not create significant off- site light or glare. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) No impact. buildings. b) No impact. buildings. c) No impact. d) No impact. e) No impact. XV. RECREATION a) No impact. The proposed project is non-residential, so no impact to park facilities are anticipated. b) No impact. The project will not affect recreational activities. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) No impact. The proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples ofthe major periods of California history or prehistory. b) No impact. The project will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, however, a statement of overriding consideration was adopted for this cumulative impact. c) No impact. The proposed site will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. XVII. Earlier Analysis a) Source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Phone (760) 438-1161. 1. "Final Master EIR forthe City ofCarlsbad General Plan Update", March 1994. NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT SITE CA6-404L / Buccaneer APN 203-252-06 The proposed communications site is located at 3001 Carlsbad Blvd., Carlsbad, CA 92008. Nextel Communications, Inc. and the owner (Carlsbad Inn LLC) have entered into a lease agreement for the placement of a communications facility at this location. Nextel proposes to constmct, operate and maintain an unmanned, Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) communications facility. This facility will consist of six (6) panel antennas, measuring one foot wide and four feet in length. The panel antennas will be mounted within extensions of existing false chimneys. The additional exterior fmish will be fiberglass screening painted and textured to match the existing chimney walls. Nextel will also install radio equipment in new room within the attic space of the existing building. This proposed facility would be unmanned, operating 24 hours a day. The only visits to the site will consist of any emergency calls as well as regular maintenance visits once every four to six weeks. SYSTEM BACKGROUND INFORMATION Nextel Communications, Inc. has been authorized by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to constmct and operate the first multi-purpose enhanced specialized mobile radio system (ESMR) in the United States. The system will provide superior service to the public in several ways: 1) it will be a hilly digital altemative to current "cellular" telephone systems; 2) it will provide digital dispatch services to large fleet users (this "dispatch" service will make the system able to handle a one-to-many form of communications wherein one dispatcher can contact numerous mobile parties simultaneously); 3) it will provide traditional paging services; 4) it will provide wireless data transmission. All of these functions will be available in one hand-held unit. HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS The service area is divided into a grid of theoretically hexagonal geographic areas. At the center of each area is a low power unmanned radio repeater station, which handles the calls to and from mobile customers within the area. As a mobile customer moves from one area to another with a call in progress, the call is automatically 'handed off to the next repeater station, without intermption. Telephone line connections between repeater sites and the switching office, and from the switching office to the telephone company central office permit mobile customers within the serving area to utilize their mobile phones just as they would a home or office telephone, with direct dialing. SITE SUITABILITY This specific site was chosen based on its ability to provide needed wireless telecommunications coverage in the downtown Carlsbad area. This site is necessary to provide uninterrupted service to mobile radio customers traveling from one area to another. PROPOSED USE OF FACILITY The project site location is in the C-2 zone of the City of Carlsbad. Application is made pursuant to the City's General Plan and consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The proposed use of this communications facility will fulfill Nextel's and the community's need for digital mobile radio communication service in this area. This project will not adversely impact the community. Page 2 Nextel Communications Description of Proposed Project CA6-404L / Buccaneer HEALTH AND SAFETY The proposed use of this project will not be defrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working in the area and will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. BENEFITS TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) provides better quality dispatch service through both its interconnect abilities and digital efficiencies. As discovered in the aftermath of the Northrldge earthquake, the wireline telephones had inadequate capacity to serve the emergency crews. Nextel provided radios and service to the Red Cross to assist their operation in sheltering and feeding the families whose homes were damaged. ESMR provides emergency contact to 911; has authorization to provide emergency services during periods in which normal communications facilities are disrupted as a resuh of hurricane, flood, earthquake or similar disaster; and is authorized to transmit communications necessary for the implementation of civil defense activities as assigned by local civil defense authorities.