The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutER 11-02Department Of Communi, 3evelopment Planning Appication Project Address I9CI `:;A JTF, ROSA Legal Descri tion - ---"---"--. - 9 P UO2.<I8, C RECREATIO:`J -— - Zoning 1 PF ___—_. Property Owner CITY 0 SAN LIJIS OBISPC In Care Of _ _ ---- Owner Address -- AT'fl:. DMINISTRATION A P 9 "-31; M— S' SI.00/ 934Cr -3249 Parcel # )01-031-012 :�on7irg �- Applicant Name CINGUI AR 'VVIREL.ESS Address 2521 K .HELLS DRIVE 2ND FLOOR TU TIN CFI. 9.2780 - __-- Representative THE CC VSi; --AG GROUP - Address 18500 V )WARMAN AVF- #87e I R'JINE, -A 1:12312 Send correspondence tc X Gay Phone(714)734-7300 Day Phone(714)906-6273 -- 'ppllcanr represent2itive owner other (see file) Application made pursuant to -hapter/Sectior . Planning Services Summary Application # Type o^ Application U 11-02 Request o allow a wirelerd_ telecoms iurvcallons facility al. Santa Rosa Park in t. e FIF zone:. ER 11 02 Envronn meal review of proposed teleccrnr unloations facility ane Improvements to Santa Cosa Park in the PF zone. ARC 11-02Arrhhect ral review of telecommunications facility ar 1 Improvements to Santa Rosa Park in the. P'F or e. Received By TYLER Cc RE" Fee Paid by Represertalive ( 6,580) Assigned planner.htir Hearings G- City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street Sari Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (1805) 781-7172 of the San Luls Obispo Municipal Code. Received Fee 02/01/02 $2,464 02/01/02 $1,963 02/01/02 $2,153 Total fees U'l :i200? 10,:55 17i.4 Sy FLU sLAM AFFL I-E $25.00 LESLIE $6,580 LL! ESLIE � I I ilk LESLIF ��iiii��i►►i�!II �► �� iii,►iq Cl O S�►1'1 Us i f OB1Sp0 99 1 F'alnt S'lieet, San Luis ilbispo, CA 93401-324.9 INITIAL, STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 911-02 Project T tic: Manta Rnsa ['ark Wireless Telecommunication Project ?. Lead Age rc. Name and Address: City of Sa i Luis Obispo 990 Paint trcei San Luis ( bispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Lynn V. P zc,rcdo, Associate Planner 805-781.7 6o 4. Project L,t cation: 190 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 5 Project Sp msor's Name and Address: C'ingular P ircless 2521 Mich lk.. Urivc, 2i" f1i or Tustin, CA 92780 6. General Pk an Designation: Park 7. Zoning: Pt hhc facility 8. Description of the Project: Installation of two wireless telecommunication facilities in Santa Rosa Part: an approximate 8-acre park). The facilities consist of two 75-foot tall light poles which dot ble as cellular antennas and two 740 square -foot buildings for housing teleeontmui ic;ihon support equipment and City -related recreational equipment- The project also entails the i xpansion of the baseball field, redesign of the parking facilities within the park, and upgrades to the 1 fighting at the skate park. 9 Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Single-family and multi -family residential to the north, single-lami v residential to the east and south, a gas station/mini-mart to the southwest, and Santa Rosa itrt el to the west. 10. Project Em iticments Requested: Architectural Review and Use Permit. 1 1. Other pull c agencies chose approval is required: None. C � The City of San L is r po is comm tied to include the disabled in all of firs Services, programs and activities. TeleeOMMUrit(atio s I )evic-e for the Doaf (805) 781 7410 ENVIRONMF NI'AL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: I'lie environment 1 aact:ors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact t rat i,, a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Service, Agricullur ,I Reseurccs X Hazards & Hazardous R.ecrealion Materials An Qaalit Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation & Traffic Biological Re40a1'Ce3 Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural R sources Noise Mandatory Findings of Enemy an Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GF,,M1E; FEES I here i= no evidence hefore the Department that the project will have any potential adverse etfecrs on fish X and wil lit: resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualities for a de mini tis o,aiver with regards to the filing of fish and Game Fees. ,I "Ihe prc ecI has potential tc impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Gal ie tees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has beer rir ulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment STATE CLEA RINGHODSE thl, en ironmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more Statc a€en(les le.g. Cal "trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and commu lith Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines �r CITY OF SAN I JIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 DETERMINA TION: On the basis ofth s initial evaluation: I find that the pn posed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATiV'1: D7�CLARATION will be prepared. I find that althol gh the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not bt a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have, been made, or the to tigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and X agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAR=vrm will be reared. I find that the p oposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMEN fAl.IMPACT.REPORT is I find that the pr Iposcd project MAY have a "potentially significant' impact(s) or "potentially significant unles mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analy red in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed t y rrlitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENV RO'NMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that re_m_ta n to_be addressed_ I find that althol gh the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potei tially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1R or NEGATIVE I IECI.ARA7ION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pure aant to that earlier FIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation me sures that are imposed upon the oroposed project, nothing further is re aired. Sitnre Rctnalrl Whisenani,.l.:put, C'mmurdt, Developrnent-Dinxtor Printed Name !a1 CITY OF SAN L ns Ccispo Auaust.2.N 2002 _ _ Date tpr Inhn Mnmiev'lh• Community Development Director INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL (CHECKLIST 2001 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: A brief cxpl matiori is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the informal on :ourr-es it lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if he referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e., . the aroject falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on pr( ject-saecitic factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose .sensitive receptors to pollutants, b sed on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers rusttake account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumrdative as well as project -le el. indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue Should dentify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. 3. Potentially ,ignificant Impact' is appropriate If there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially ,igniticant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an t beet from "potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than siunificant level (mitigation t easures from'•iecuon 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). :i. Earlier anal, its may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process an effect has been adequtely analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 I.c) (3) (D) of the California Code of Res ,.tees. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agenci s are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information source,. for potential impacts Ie.g general plans.. zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appro riate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting I rformation Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be Cit A in the discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier � nalysis Used. Identity and state where they are available for review. b) hnpacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequat ly analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects r ere addressed by mitigation treasures based on earlier analysis. c) Miti�-,ati n Measures, For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe tht mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to w 11ci they address site -specific conditions for the project. �� CITY OF SAN I JIS OnISPo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Issues, Discussion z idSupportin,_, information Sources sources eotei. .I Signiticai Issues 1';li )9-02 y[nfiff L¢zss tan No rti Sl,niticanttrnpactdess Impact igation rporated 1. AESTHETICS. N ould the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2,35 k b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic I I X buildings within it local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1 I, 29 _ k d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 29,32 N a), b), c) Santa Rosa Areet from Montalban Street to Boysen Avenue is identified as a road of moderate scenic value (Figure 0 of the General Plan Digest Circulation Flement). The park is approximately 8 acres in size, and the project area is located approximately 500 fet east of Santa Rosa Street. The proposed wireless antennas would have the appearance of and serve as Night fixtures for tf , baseball field which is being expanded as part of this project. The accessory buildings will be of the same design as the In k iestroom building. ,Also.. the parking lot remodel will result in a more attractive parking lot than the ono, that exists there today. Based on the distance of the actual project area in relation to Santa Rosa Street, the light fixtures/antennas and accessory buildings will be difficult to see at worst, and unseen at best, from the scenic corridor. Also, this project is subjec to review by the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission who will ensure an aesthetically compatil le project, thereby minimizing any visual impacts. With respect to on e views, outdoor mechanical equipment (a/c units) are proposed on the north side of the northerly accessory structure. - he mitigation below should be incorporated to ensure proper screening of such equipment. (1) fhc City ordinance regulates the amount of light that can spill onto surrounding land uses. Section 17.18.0 ,0 of the City's Municipal Code state . "No lighting or illuminated device shall be operated so as to create glare which creates a hazard or nuisance on other prr perry,". Light spill (or glare) can be both the effect of spill and the effect of viewing the light Fixture itself- Generally, hod can he controlled by directing light down and shielding the fixture. In the case of sports lighting, the ability to do both is li sited -the new lights for III, ball ',Seld will improve field lighting and result in less glare and spill -over into the adjacent residential ❑eighborhoods. Exiting lighting levels in the ball field are approximately 20 foot candles infield and 30 foot candles outfield. The additioi of the two new lightpoles/antennas will improve lighting uniformity on the field. Based on the height of the poles, the new lie.hts will be focused downward rather than toward the other side of the field like the existing lights are, which creates les spillover and glare than the existing lighting arrangement. The skate park and roller rink will be improved with new at d additional li'A tin, as well. Existing lights will be replaced and new light poles installed to achieve a lighting level of -0 f got -candles ov r the entire skate park and roller rink. Currently the lighting is so poor, the facilities cannot be used at nig :t. No new parking, lot lighting is proposed. A lighting analysis was submitted by the applicant which provides detail on th , lighting project. The mitigation below should be incorporated to ensure minimal impacts to the adjacent neighborhoo I from the proposed park lighting. Conclusion potentially significan unless mitigation is incorporated. To minimize visual impacts to a less -than -significant level, the foDowing mitigation i recommended: Mitigation Screert outdoor I Mechanical equipment from c ite and off -site views to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. �� CITY OF SAN L ns CIEuspo 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Issues, Discussion , nd Supportit,„ Information Sources sources Site. d Signifine Issues Lk. # 29-(12 ly Potentially Less Than No mi Significant Slpnilirant Impact Unless Inapaet Mitieation Incorporated "2. The new ball fie] I lizhtss shall be directed downward as indicated in the project plans to minimize light and glare into the adjacent neighbo hood. Lighting of the skate park and roller rink shall have maximum illumination levels of 30 foot- candles within Ih use respective activity areas- Park policy shall be that lights are off at 10:00 P.M. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of 13, 14 X the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act (ontract? 10 X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland 12 X to non-agricultural use" Evaluation at, c) The project si e is comprised of Cropley clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes which is considered "prime" farmland by the U.S.D A. Soil Consei ration Service. However, this project wit not convert the property to a non-agricultual use as the site ha,, been developed � s a City Park or over 50 years. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency cl ossifies the project site as Urban or Built -Up Land, which is defined as "land occupied by structures with a building densit of at least I Unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel.` b) There is no Wilha isun Net contract in effect on the project site. Conclusion No impact. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 12,15, existing or projected air quality violation? 16,29 X b) Conflict with or (bstruct implementation of the applicable air 12,15, quality plan? 16,29 X c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations" 12,29 X d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of _ people? 12 X e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any _ criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard 12,15, X' (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative 16,29 thresholds for ozone precursors)? Evaluation a), b), e) San Lt us Ot ispo County is a non -attainment area for the State ozone and PM,, (fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter) ai quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non -attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least Y°,: per year until the standards are attained. The 1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo Countv was develope I and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a �a� CITY OF SAN t JIS Ot95Po 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Issues, Discussion t nd ` ripportt,,,, Information Sources Source- vote.eotentiauy Lcss [ban No Significant Significant Signifcant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER# 29-02 mitleatimt Incugioratcd comprehensive plarm ng document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well its from motor vehiCh use. Land Us: Element Policy I.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. One way the C y helps the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan is through the development and environmental review process. f'he use of the park is not changing as a result of the lighting and field expansion project. Therefore, there would be no additional emissions - -om vehicles. Emergency generators are proposed for one of the wireless carriers. Such generators are required to comply w th the Air PollntiOn Control District requirements per Section 17.16.120 of the City's Zoning Regulations. C) The project itself once established, would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. During project construction, owevcr, there may be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and erading activities, as well as c aaslruction emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment. Fhe City has addressed these construction rel ted impacts through standards in the Grading Ordinance and mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR. Compliance wit l these standards is monitored during the building permit plan check process and by field inspections conducted by Buildin ; Division insrectois. d) No objectionabic odors are associated with the existing park and none would result from the field expansion and lighting Improvements. Conclusion Less than significant npuci 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Droiect: al t-tave a suostanuat aaverse etrect, etmer atrecuy or mutrecuy or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantit: I adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive naaural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, of regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Gam,- or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (e.g. Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substemt tally with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 12 12 5, 12 12 X X �� CITY OF SAN I UIS CIBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Issues, Discussion a ad Sapporticu information Sorces sons es Poten .uy pote�mia� —Gees Cnan No s Significant Signl Gcnnt SVgnillranr Impact Issues Unless Irnp:mt hR # .19-02 Mitigation rnCnrnoratCd Evaluation a), b), f) the project involves improvements to the existing, 50+ year -old park. The site does not contain any species or habitat of any species identified as a. candidate, sensitive or special status species that may exist within the area, nor would there be a substantial dverse effect on Federally protected wetlands. c), e) The project wi I result in compliance with the City's Tree Ordinance, as no trees are being removed. and not conflict with any other local olic:v protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or ither approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. d) The project will r rt interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native res lent cr migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. as the creek channel is approximately 500 rci i hoar the project area. Conclusion Less than signilicant i npact. --------------- ----------------- 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 21,31 _ X b) Cause a substariti.d adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 21, 31 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 11,21 X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries ? 21, X 23,31 Evaluation a) No historical rest it( es are located on site b) Based on review )f the City's historic Site Map, the project is not located in or near a known sensitive archaeological sitc. However, the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines require preparation of an Archaeological Resource Inventory b sed on the site's proximity to Santa Rosa Creek. Also, to meet the FCC's need to comply with Section 100 of the Nationa Ilistoric Preservation Act, the applicant had prepared a Cultural Resource Assessment. An information/records s arch was conducted in 2001 by Curt Duke of LSA Associates, Inc. (report dated July ), 2001). The conclusion of the sun ey is :hat the site is not highly sensitive for historic or prehistoric archaeological resources and there is little to no potential .t impact any unrecorded historic properties. The records search did not list any historic properties within or adjacent to he project area. While; it is unlikely that substantial subsurface remains are present, the nature of the records search does I of preclude the possible existence of such remains. General Plan EIR Cultural Resources Policy 6 (Archaeological Rcs( tr(cs L7iscovc,cd During_ Construction or Through Other Activities) states that "Where substantial archaeological resour es use discovered during construction of a. new development... all activities shall cease until a qualified archaeologist can clet amine the significance of the resource and submit alternative mitigation measures." No additional mitigation is necessar . c) There are no kno vn paleontolog6cal resources or unique geologic features on the project site. the project site is mostly developed. mostly paed andwhile bordering Santa Rosa Creek, the proposed project will fully comply with creek setbacks. e) The project site i outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sires. �� CITY OF SAN L JIS CIBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 SSUCS, DISCUS$lon a id SL7ppOrtl Lt.. lttfOrmatlOn SOIICCOS Sources Pate.- ..Ily Potentially I_css Than No Signitcant Significant Slgnilieant hnpact Issnes Unless Impart I:R # 29-02 Mit gation Incorporated Conclusion No potential impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required, only compliance with City policy segarding the stopping of constructi in activities if archaeologicaVcultural resources are found. 6. ENERGY AND_MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 6 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient _ manner? 12,29 X c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource ------- ------ - that would be of, alue to the region and the residents of the 5, 10 X State? Evaluation a) The project dogs n it conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or with the Energy Conservation Element, b) The parking lot r medel may trigger compliance with the City's construction debris recycling ordinance Compliance with this ordinance re iuires the applicant to prepare a plan to show how significant amounts of construction debris will be diverted from the lam fill[he ordinance also requires reporting on compliance with the approved plan, which is verified by area recycling conlpal ies ai d through the provision of receipts for recycled materials. c) The project site in( luctcs no known mineral resource that would be lost due to the construction of the project. C011CIaslon No potential impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required, only compliance with City -established energy conservation standard aria the constuction debris recycling ordinance. ^,. GEOLOGY AN_D SOIf,S Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving: 1. Rupture of'a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other 25 X substantial eN idence of a known fault? I1. Strong seismic ground shaking'? 25 X 111. Seismic related ground -failure, including liquefaction? 13 X IV. Landslides or mudflows? 10 _ X b) Result in substamt ial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 29 X c) Be located on a g:;ologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially 13 ------- ------ result in on or of site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, X liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1 S-1-B of the Uniform Building- Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life 33 X or property? `� CITY OF SAN L JIS GBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Issues, Discussion a ul Supportir,f._, information Sources sources Potei. -dy Significant Potentia�l> I-e� ihan No Significant Si_eniGcant Impact Issues Unless Impact liR 4 29-02 Mitigation Incorporated tvatuauon a) c) San Luis Obispt County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic province, which ester is along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and racturing of variable intensity. In general. the folds and faults of this province comprise lite pronounced northwes trending ridge valley system of the central and northern coast of California. Under the Alquist-Pri to Special Studies /one Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encor (pass all potentially and recently -active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to constitute a potential I azard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near Los Osos V lie', Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active tault is the Los Osos Fault, which run , in a. northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have disp iced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are considered "active Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento, locate d approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miL s to the west. Although there arc no fault ines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of "IHO Seismic Hazards," specifically Seismic Zone l. which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria estahllshed in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact, the Uniform Building 'ode and City- Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. h) The project inert I as been developed as a park for over 50 years. The project itself includes removal of a portion of the existing parking lot at d converting it to a baseball outfield. No soil is proposed for removal, rather regraded. Once the site is redeveloped with tf - proposed project, there will be no erosion as the site will be hardscaped and improved with vep.etation. c:), d) The Safety Ele dent of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true for most of the C !y, and the site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994). A soils :nemeering report twill be required to be submitted as part of the building permit process to insure the integrity of the structt res and infrastructure. Conclusion He,,HAZARDS AND NiAZARDOUti _MA is required. g p' U ATERIALS. Would the project: to the public or through the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous 29 materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the 12,29 environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter 12, mile of an existing or proposed school? 29, 30 d) Expose people m structures to existing sources of hazardous X X X �� CITY OF SAN I JIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Issues, Discussion a id Supportir.t, information Sources sources Pote,._..dy Potcnealq Less han No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 29-02 Mitieation Incorporated emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, 12, X substances, or waste? 29, 30 e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to 12 X the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a puhlic airport, would the project result in a safety 27 X hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? _ g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 4 X plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, _ or death, involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urhaniz:ed areas or where residents are 4 X intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a) The project does n t involve the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. b), c). d) I he parkin : lot remodel, field expansion, construction of equipment buildings and lighting improvements would not result in the reh ase of hazardous materials 'into the environment. The cellular operations are subject to Federal Communications Con mission (FCC I standards, and the radio frequency transmission report for the project indicates that the cellular operations w I] fl.rlly comply with those regulations meaning that the highest calculated level of radio frequency energy in publicly act ;sslhle areas is much less than what the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. e) The project site v not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5. 1) file project sate i more than 3 miles north of he San Luis Obispo County Airport, outside the Airport Land Use Plan Area. g) The project has beer reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuatiot plan. It) The Safety Elemt at of General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires. Conclusion Less than significant npact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.? 12,29 X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local X groundwater tabb, level (e.g. The production rate of pre-existing 12, 19 nearby wells wou Id drop to a level which would not support existing land user for which permits have been granted)? �� CITY OF SAN L JIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Issues, Discussion a id Supportit,,,; InformSignifia ation Sources sources egnifies Issues ER # 29-02 c) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm -water drainage systems or 12,29 provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or 29 siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding 29 onsite or offsite:? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Flazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map 26 or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 26 h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 12,29 Evaluation Ily Potential[' I css than No rut Significant Significant Impact Unless hnpact mltl"aticn Incorporatccl___.__.— _ X X X X X a), b) '['here wiil be nF, a minor it in demand on the City's water supplies as a result of the field expansion. The project will be seivec with water by the City's Utilities Department and will not deplete groundwater resources or interfere with groundwater reel ar-,e. c), d), e), h) The pro nosed redevelopment of the site will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site which could affect the abso ption rate, drainage patterns, and the amount and rate of surface runoff nor does the project . The redesign of the site a ill be required to be designed to meet all applicable City codes, including City grading and drainage standards. Site drain ge will be evaluated with the grading plans as part of the required Architectural Review process. The project area will main ain its historical drainage pattern. 1), g) While it small torno.I of Sanla Rosa Park, that adjacent to the creek, is within the A Flood Zone which is subject to 100-year flooding, th location of the proposed project is well outside of any flood zone. Theretore, the proposed structures would not impede or redirect flood flows, and no housing will be subject to a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or I food Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. Conclusion No impact. IT LAND USE AID PC...ANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the 1,8 X purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? I X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans? 1,5 X Evaluation a) As the projec- is :ous,istent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and with the County Airport Land Use Plan, the developmer will not conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project for th purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? �� CITY OF SAN L its CHISPo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL. CHECKLIST 2001 Issues, Discussion tad Supportw,;.; Information Sources sources Pob..aauy Potrmialfy r s Phan No Significant Signitiwm Significant Impact Issues Unless Impart 1'�R d 29-02 Mitigation Incorporated b) The project will not ;physically divide an established community, rather result in improvements to the City park by creation of a more fu etional parkirr lot, construction of more attractive and permanent buildings for storage of recreational equipment, an impro\ A hall field and associated lighting. c) The project will r tt dorif ict Willi any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community eonsenation plans as discussed in the Bicd( ;ical Resources section of this study. Conclusion The project will be d veloped with the type of improvements anticipated by the General Plan and 'coning Regulations and will not create any im )a(es io land use and planning Il. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of "unacceptable" noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards 3, 18 X established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing 3, 18 X without the proje.:t? -------- ------ c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground home vibration or ground home noise levels? 3, 18 X d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within --- -- — two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the 27 project expose people residing or working in the project area to X excessive noise: lovers'? Evaluation al The proposed pr eject.. the improvements, itself will not generate noise. Also, use of the ball field is not expected to chance as a result of i becoming reeLtlation size. I)), c) The project vv II roi raise ambient noise levels in the project vicinity substantially as the normal operations of the project do not 'invoh a heavy machinery or generators other aspects that could expose people to excessive ground borne vibration or noise le, els. The project will, however, generate noise during grading and construction which activities are subject to the Noise ( rdinance to minimize impact to nearby properties. c) Jlie project i> ru within the Airport Land Use: Plan area or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore the project ) ould expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels related to aircraft. Conclusion Less than significant npurt_ 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or F29 1:] indirectly (for e,:ample, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)" �� CITY OF SAID 1 UIS t.inISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL. CHECKLIST 2001 Sties, Discussion a id '1upportitlei information Sources Sources Potct._�I)' Polen[iall) LcsslhanNsignificant Significant Significant ImpactIssues rE,'R Unless Impact 4 29-02 Mitigation Incorporated b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people —J necessitating the construction of replacement housing 29 X elsewhere? Evaluation a) The proposed par . improvements and cellular site installations will not create new professional jobs therefore would not induce substantial pol elation growth in the area. Nor would the development extend any infrastructure that could induce substantial population ;rowtli b) As there is no hot sin:, on the prcmises currently, the project will not displace existing housing of people. Conclusion No impact. l PUBLIC SERVIt ES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, or need of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection` 12 X 12 X b) Police protection' 12 X c) Schools? 12 X d) Parks? 12 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 12 X f) Other public facillties'P Evaluation a), b), c), d), e), I) ' he characteristics of the project do not present situations or conditions that would create potentially significant impact, to ;er,, iccs for fire, police, schools, parks, roads or other public facilities. The project has been evaluated by the City s Fire lvh rshall, Chief Building Official, Public Works Department, and Utilities Department. and no resource deficiencies have beet identified. Rather the project results in improvements to the City's Santa Rosa Park. Conclusion No impact. 14. RECREATRI Would the project: a) Increase the use cf existing neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical 29 deterioration ofthe facility would occur or be accelerated? -------- ------- - X b) Include recreatuonal facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an 29 adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation a), b) The addilion c cehular communication equipment to the site would not create demand for recreational facilities nor �� CITY OF SAN I UIS OnISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Issues, Discussion a id Supportt..z, Information Sources Sourees Pon...,aity Potentla0y I s"s l9ran No Significant SignII it Significant Impact Issues JIII . , irnpa:a ER # 29-02 Mitlgation Incorporated have an impact on ex. ;ting fhe project as a whole improves Santa Rosa Park with expansion of the ball field to regulation size and improvement to the parking, lot and lighting systems. Conclusion No impact. 15. TRANSPORTA'rION,'FRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 2, 12 X _ _ b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management 12 X agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. 29 X farm equipment)` 12,29 _ X d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 9 _ X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? _ _ f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e. ,. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 2 1 X g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan resulting, in substantial safety risks from hazards, 27 X noise, or a change in air traffic patterns'? Evaluation al, b), c), d) The pro posed park improvements and cellular communication equipment will not result in greater use of the park, any increase of ohich could result in greater traffic generation. No improvements are proposed that would increase any hazards due to design features or incompatible uses or affect emergency access. e) The parking lot remodel will result in the same number of parking spaces currently provided on -site. The new configuration, howev r, will result i•I more useable spaces as many of the existing parking spaces, proposed for elimination, are within striking rat ;e Hof home rmt balls. t) Alternative transp station is bein,, supported with this project as the transit stop is being maintained and hike racks will continue to be provid d. g) The project is out ide of the Airport Land Use plan area, therefore, there is no conflict with the Plan that would result in substantial safety risk fron. hazardsnoise or a change in air traffic pattems. Conclusion Nc impact. 16. UTILITIES ANIr SERyICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? 12 X b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water treatment, wastewater treatment, or storm drainage facilities, the 12 construction of v hich could cause significant environmental �� CITY OF SAIV 1 UIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 IU ssues, Discussion ar d Suppori l,t, Information Sources Sources Pole._�Oy Potentially Less han No Significant Sienlficant Sienit! rnt Impact Issues llnles's Impact R4 29-02 Mitieation Incorporated effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and 12, 19 X expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determ ination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to 12 X the provider's existing commitment? _ e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 24 X f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?1 24 X Il:vaInation a), b), c), d) No addit onal Aaslewato would be generated by the project, and there will be only a minor increase in demand on the C'ity's water ipplics as a result of the ball field expansion (irrigation). fhe increased demand will come from existing entitlements. Also, storm drainage will not be substantially altered as a result of the project. Therefore, the project will not require of re! ill it the construction or expansion of new water treatment, wastewater treatment, of storm drainage facilities, the consvuc Ion ol'which could cause significant environmental effects. e), f) Other than pole tial solid waste disposal beingnecessary as part of the construction activities, no additional solid waste is anticipated to be ge erated on a regular basis as a result of the project. The size of the project will trigger compliance with the City's constructiol debr'.s recycling ordinance- Compliance with this ordinance will require the applicant to prepare a plan to show how sigt ificaut amounts of construction debris will be diverted from the landfill. The ordinance also requires reporting on conlpliar --e with the approved plan, which is verified by area recycling companies and through the provision of receipts for recycled r aterials. The City currently provides on -site recycling facilities within the park. currently and will continue to do so In al effort to reduce the amount of solid waste that goes to the landfills. Conclusion No impacts have hecr identified relative to water service or supply, wastewater service or capacity at the Water Reclamation Facility, or storm drai la-e. Less than significant impacts have been identified relative to solid waste disposal.. The City has recently adopted a col struction-related recycling ordinance to ensure recycling of construction debris. In addition to the ordinance requiremen s, the City will centime to provide and maintain on -site recycling facilities for users of the park. 17. MANDATORY] INDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or X animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range ol'a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed in the I ological resources section of this initial study, the new development is not in proximity to the creek located in the northw st corner of the park nor does the project include tree removals. Also, the immediate project area is not known to contain or I rovide habitat for a rare or endangered plant or animal. Resource demands are limited to water which Is minimal. Imnoriai t exarnoles of the mawr period of California history or prehistory have not been identified as existing �� CITY OF SAIV 1 UIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 [��R ics, Discussion ar d Supportitr, information Sources Sources Pote,...al Signitic # 29-02 Issues ly ant Potentially Lcss Than No Significant Significant Impact unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated within the project sip. however, construction activities are required to cease should such artifacts be found during construction per City policies. Lighting will be designed properly to minimize impact to the surrounding residential neighborhood (Initigr ion measure) and the wireless telecommunication facility will perpetually comply with FCC regulations including I F emissions (City ordinance). 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 X when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 7 he proposed project loos not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts in that no additional parking or park area is being provided, lighti ig remains the same although improved. and there are no other wireless communication facilities on the premises which co ild compound RP emissions. c) Does the project save environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X indirectly`? — — Provided the mitigatic i related to lighting is followed, the project avoids substantial adverse effects on human beings. I EARLIER ANAI YSES. _ Earlier analysis may he 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 items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A _ 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 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 of the project. 19. SOURCE RF.FERF.NCES ]-,----City of SL ) General Plan Land Use Element, August 1994 --_—___- 2, — City of SL ) General Plan Circulation Element, November 1994 ,----City of S1 .) General Plan Noise Element, May 1996 _ 4 City of SL ) General Plan Safety Element, July 2000 5. City of SI O General Plan Conservation Element, July 1973 6, City of SL J General Plan Energy Conservation Element, April 1981 --- _ — 7 City of SL J Water and Wastewater Element, July 1996 8. City of SL O General Plan FIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements 9. City of Sa 1 Luis Obispo Municipal Code_ IQ City of Sa I Lois Obispo. Land Use Inventory database:__- 1. Site visit, Ugu;t 8, 12, SCaff Kno �ledt;e �� CITY OF SAN 1 UIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL' CHECKLIST 2001 sues, Discussion ai d Supportive, Information Sou rces Sources Pote.._.ally Significant Potential] Lcslhan No Significant Sig ofcant Impact ru Issues Unless Impact R 0 29-0'2 Mitigation Incorporate( 13. USDA, So Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 14 Website of :he Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://ww" consrv.ca.gov'dlrp,'FMMP/ 15. Clean Air Ilan for San Luis Obispo County., Air Pollution Control District, 1995 16. CEQA Air )uality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, 1995 _ 17. Institute of Pransportation Engineers, Trip Generation .Manual, 6'" Edition, on file in the Community Developml nt Department _ 18_ City of Sat Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook, May 1996 19_ _ 2001 City � f San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report 20. City of Sar Luis Obispo, Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Depaltner 2 I City of Sat Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Developm, at Department 22 City of Sat Luis Obispo, (EQA Reference Maps 23. City of Sat Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map _ 24. City of SL ) Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department 25. San Luis C bispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquak, Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990 26. _ Flood Insu ance Rate Map (Community Panel 0603100005 C) dated July 7, 1981 27. San lois_C bisp_o County Airport Land Use Plan 28. Architectu al Review Guidelines 29. Project Pla is, dated 2/22/02 30. Radio Frer uency Emissions Report — Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers for Cingular Wireless F oposed Base Station (Site No. LA-470-05) at 190 Santa Rosa Street, SLO, CA dated 1,24,102 31 Cultural R source Assessment for Cingular Wireless Facility No. LA 470-05, SLO County.. California by Curt Duke, I,S/ Associates, Inc. dated 7/03/01 _ 32. Lighting A nalysis. 2002 33, 997 L'nif rm Building Code All documents listed : ioyc are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, Sain w,, Obispo, California (805) 781-7172. `l CITY OF SAID 1 UIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 i��Illlll!II ! II i! �� IIIII��►IN II a O sAn US OBIS j � � po 990 Palm `dtroet, San Luir, Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Fnvironmental Review #11-02 Santa Rosa Park Wireless Telecommunication Project 190 Santa Rosa Street, SLO, CA MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM[ ALL REQUIRE,[ Mill [GA] AND MONITORING SHALL BE CLEARLY NOTED ON CONSTRIL I TION PLANS. ABSTII TIC'S 1. Screen outs oor mechanical equipment from on -site and off -site views to the satisfaction of the Archite, tural Review Commission. • Monitoring Prog,n,_am: The Architectural Review Commission will ensure any outdoor and roof -mount -d mechanical equipment will be screened from on -site and off site views. Building pl ms shall be in substantial compliance with plans approved by the Architectural Review Col inliss,ion_ ResQonsibil ty, Community Development Department, Planning Division and Architectural Review Coi Iniission 2. The neva b. II lield lights shall be directed downward as indicated in the project plans to minimize li4hi and glare into the adjacent neighborhood. Lighting of the skate park and roller rink s tall have maximum illumination levels of 30 foot-candles within those respective activity are. s. Park policy shall be that lights are off at 10:00 P.M. • Monitoring P_ rogram: fhe Architectural Review Commission will ensure compliance through tht Architectural Review process turd Building plans shall be in substantial compliance with plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission. Respons.bil t,v Community Development Department, Planning Division and Architectural RcviewCot unissiou C 1 The City of Sur, L is Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and acowles. Tolecommunicallo s I.-!evice for the Deaf (805) 781-74100. '�.c. ori l J JC ]III [�A C, JLTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CINGULAR WIREI.FSS FACILITY NO. LA 470-05 SAN ''LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, Submitted to: Ms. Colleen Dooley Cingular Wireless 2521 Michelle Avenue, god Floor rustiA California 92780 Prepared by: Curt Duke LSA Associates, Inc One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92614 (949) 553-0666 LSA Project No. PBM030 National Archaeological Data Base (NADB) Type of Study: Records Search Area Covered. <0.25 acre Sires Recorded: None 7SGS (Quadrangle: San Luis Obispo, Calif. 7.5' Key Words: Records Search L S A July 3, 200r rlVu u .WC_ OH. 17 )G III I IMM `I A, ISI— IA1.3J INc ]IRY 2u0 C'.ULrVlhL AZIOURCR 1e4AA9NRNT OINOULAR 41RCL6BR NO. M INTRODUCTION 1DUCTION LSA As ;ociates, Inc. (LSA) is under contract to Cingular Wireless (Cingular) to provide a cultural reso,uct assessment for Cingular facility number LA 470-05, located at Santa Rosa Park, 190 Santa Rosa SC eet, in the City and County of San Luis Obispo, California. Specifically, the facility is located In the USGS San Luis Obispo, California 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map in the northw'! ;t ' . of Section 26, Township 30 South, Range 12 East (Figure 1). The ass( samcnt was conducted to identify historic properties (prehistoric or historic sites, buildings, structim s, objects, or districts listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places F lational Register]) as required by 36 CFR Part 800, the regulations implementing Section 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966„ as amended. Cingular proposes to remove an existing light standard and install a telecommunications facility at this addr ass (Figure 2) The facility will consist of three cylinder antennas and three microwave dishes m aunted to a new light standard. Associated equipment will be located near the park', restroom approximately 150 feet from the light standard, Trenching between the new light standard and the equipment will be required. The area immediately surrounding the facility is a park. The Area of I otential Effects (APE) is considered the area where ground disturbing activities will occur. The visu d APE is considered any historic property from which the facility is visible, META+)DS A record search was conducted at the Central Coastal Information Center, located at the Universiry Of Califo nia, Santa Barbara, it included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within a one-half mile radius of the project area, as well as a review of known cultural r !source survey and excavation reports. In addition, we examined the National Register, Californi :. Register of Historic Resources (California Register), California Historical Landmarks, and Cali fonni • Points of Historical Interest. The Historic Properties Directory was inspected for the address e''LA 470-05. LSA conducted a search of the Sacred Lands File at the Native American Heritage ;Omniission (NAHC). RESUL rS The resin s of'the records search (Appendix A) indicate that there are five archaeological sites recorded vithin one-half mile of the facility. The closest of these sites, CA-SLO-1738JH, is located approxim ttely one -quarter mile northwest of the facility. There are no properties listed on the National Register, California Register, California Historical Landmarks, or the California Points of Historical Interest within one-half mile of the facility. No properties are listed in the Historic. Properties Directory that match the address of LA 470-05. Sixteen cultural resource studies and/or reports ha /e been completed within one-half mile of the project area. P:1Pbm0:I7t4nt 11%,,sMIILA470-05."d(05/0I)) riuv lu--(:uuc an UD U,r1l] V. L14 L J) A 10DO 2000 FEE - SOURCE. USGS-1.5 QUAr • SA, 4LUTS OBISPO, C,,,Ljf'. 1-M A, FIGURE I Cinplar Wirelem LA 470-05 Project Location MUU-LU _M, OHI JO JI Hfl F. U2 �fie Cons'jit,ng = GPo:-4Inc. $t'CE PItO1'OGR-,ai4S S..kNT.a Rosa. PART: ;19f:1 S XN I , ROSA STREE- SAN LC[SOBISPO, CA. 93405 aPN': 001-031-012:02^:001-03 % tE,, or l- utm T i1TE. LOOKING NORTH HM - U—'UUC OH )0 JO h' I.S. AS V,,. >TL'1 IC cut. rVIAL, ALI IVUAC a a. Ila P Ham ANT JV LY 0,01 Cl; N CULAR M3 l L.32 ...... ...... ____ PAC UTY NU. La 670.10 The Sacr A Lands File search failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the proie t area;; however, the NAHC recommended that LSA contact 18 Native American individw ls/groups (Appendix B). None of the Native Americans had specific concerns regarding the instal:ation of LA 470-05. Susie Harrison of the Santa Ynez Tribal Elders Council recommended that Nati• a American monitors be employed during construction. Details of the Native American consultat on along with the letter LSA sent to uitiate consultation are in Appendix C. IMPAX TS ANALYSIS The grou id sin -rounding LA 470-05 is disturbed by the construction of the park athletic field, Because he area where the facility is proposed is not highly sensitive for historic or prehistoric archaeoli gical resources, there is little to no potential to impact any unrecorded historic properties. In addity n, the records search did not list any historic properties within or adjacent to the project area. In ..ccordance with 36 CFR Part 800, LSA has assessed the effects of this Cingular facility on any histe- is properties The results of our assessment indicate that no historic properties will be; affected' y the installation of LA 470-05. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbarlae shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant :o State Public' Resources Code Section 5097,98, The County Coroner must be notified of the find i nme diately. I the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native A nerican Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendr,nt (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the descendant may inspect the site of the discovery. The descendant shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestr:ctive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials, If cultural r Materials are discovered during any excavation, a qualified archaeologist must be notified to assess th, significance of such material. FAPbmJ.i041 chaiaiN ALA 470'05. vgod!Y7/3/OU) Hui, IYNU� DH I Uti:Jn Hil AM, LSA Aii)u� AtrU. n0. CULTVIF.. ll00U0:Ol .A0il30MlNT �oL 1f i001 OINUVLMR-4161L830 FACILITY MO. LA 470-00 APPENDIX A RECORDS SEARCH LETTER PAPb.0l:lV ch. :uII I, enLA 47(Id1,0.wgd<(7/3/01 I) nUC- U _UU: Dn J1) JO Y I F. Ut California ��t1 � 8��1 Department of Anthropology Archaeological D,,,.,, O 0 University of California, Santa Barbara Inventory " ,&` SAN LUIS OBISPO AND Santa Barbara, CA 93106 3210 ry conUT SANTA BARBARA COUNTIES (805) 893.2474 May 8, : 00*1 Nicole V rallock LSA Associates, Inc One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, C 4 92614 Dear Ms Warlock: RFCE1VCt': BY uSA, ti MAY 0 8 2001 Enclose t are; the results of the records search you requested for the Cingular Wireless facility ([A 470-05, Job #PBM030) at 190 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obiipo County. Our records were searched for all known archaeological sites and previous cultural resource studies within a one-half mile radius of the project area. The followin£ inventories were consulted National and California registers of historic places, CA Historic Properties Directory, and CA Historic Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest, In this search, 5 archaeological sites and 16 surveys were found. According to our records, no properties within the radius are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, 3A Historic Landmarks, or CA Points of Historical Interest. There are numerous properties within the search radius listed in the CA Historic Properties Data File. I have encloses a copy of the property listings for the city of San Luis Obispo and highlighted those pr )perbes which appear to fall within the half mile search radius. Accordir g to our records, the project area has not been surveyed. Therefore, a culture: resource survey of the project area is recommended. This survey should be completed by a qualified archaeologist before any construction or development begins. Please c ontact me if you have any questions about this project. SincerelAft Bonnie ` oshida Assistar Cocrdinator HUU IU , U _ b) Ub'• 1`1 HI'I F. C6 LSn w:ao, q-i en Ana. ju APPENDIX B NAHC LETTER P,TbmC3U\1 chw,,lCCWnLA 4711-03 wpd i(9/V01 0 OULTVRA,. RRRouRCf. A,R{g{BMRM'r .'INQULAA WERRLRIR Pam(. vL, TY No La {l0-OO HUG lU �'UUZ SHI JI;:ly Hn F. L, I MAY-16-01 Z) Cl 52 I'll NA: FAX NO, 9166E 30 01 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 914 cAPM1. MALL, ROOM 364 EACRAM"Po, CA 99114 (919) ee4.40stt 962 (big) 167.9e00 Web *IN�nr.naho.w.0or May 16. 2001 Nicole WAliock LSA Associates, inc. One Park 'laze, Suits $00 Irvine, CA 92614 RE Or quiet 'Wireless Services Silas - LA 470-06 — San Lula Obispo County, SM 069-02 - Lok Angeles County, VY 080-01 — Kern County Sent By I air (949) 553-8078 Popes Son Dear Me. I Jallock A record soarch of the saoted lands file has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural rebourc.ea in the immediate project area. The absence of specific site Information n the sacred lands file does not indicate the absence of cultural resources In any project area. Other souinea of cultural resources should oleo be contacted for Information regarding (mown and reoordmd sites. Enclosed It a list of Native gmerians individualsforgenlutione who may have knowledge of cultural tesnuross In the project area. The Commission makes no recommendation or preference of a single individual. or group over another. This list should provide a starting place in bating areas of potantiel adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you Contact all of those Indicated, it they cannot supply information, they might recommend other with specific knowledge. A minimum of two weeks must be allowed for responses otter notification_ It you recei:fe notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from any these individuals or groups, 019836 notify me, With your assistance we are able to assure that out Ilsts contain current Iniomlation. If you have any Questions or need additional Information, please Contact me at (918) 653-4040. Sincerely, I 00 U Rob Wood Associate ( overnmental Program Analyst HUh 1 U NUC bH I Jb 18 fill F. 08 14n AtlY IIC A V.II INc fULV toll CUILTURAI.. RESOURCE A00a09N6NT I INOULAR wIRELES8 FACILITY NO I.N 110-06 APPENDIX C NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION P\POm0A'AI hee07eft6LA 470-1:I5.wpd HMNI)> Len ASa oe ure3 .Nr. �.... �.n AS a uv:r n34raau ur )VLY Yeat SSCf Nf:VLA4 WI4[L183 :'AGIi iTY ND LA ♦Sta4 NA a I Y L ACYIEW CAN l;il NSUL T ATiON RLCORD Facility Y_ 1.A 470=05 Date LSA reauesled Sacred Lands File Search 5/1101 Date Native American Heritaee Commission replied: 5/16/01 Results Sacred Lands File Search- failed to indicate presence of Native American cultural resources, but NANC recommended I SA contact uoupslindividuals listed below Date LSA rce'd Date tSA na'd f I Date LSA Ient letter ttrlified nail 1 teller ropome 1 Date of fo0ow- croups contacted to trill n receipt from tribes ap phot cans WOODS Chieflomph Balkrte3su 5729/01 6,10111 Na "all I ao eaane+as Cbumawsalimm I I LeiLynnOdom � 529/at S � l3alD1 Na NI/01 ao>ptel8t canon Clt■■mn i i am -..-- i Beverly Salazau Fot►o I ili9.N i Na Na i 6J1/DI j no specific concert. She offered to mouser if Judith BMW (isindrufT S29e01 Sdimn Sala Ynez Bard of M'nsioa ]ndi ws, 529161 Viocc s Atmnns, Chaiwerwat Clownish San Luria Obispo County Chum 5129)91 Comil Munk Sievert Vigil Puittriaw lfhw ]sate i S1i9Nt Cbamash 1 Peggy (Mole W9101 Ot m ol, Julie Lynn Tumanaii 1 v"191 Churaash nla -- _ _- 1 Ns SAIAI ' Na needed ... kO mail 614MI I failed m reply NUBI Tiey Real their letter to the Saom You Tribal FlIden Cosaril. See below For eommeoL 5MR! 1 t-wail 5241111 1 Na S01101 6P"I P:tPlRa@3 miwu \NAHMA Consuhaeontacood LA 47045.wpd OW10 ) Set awtYed 1 ten mug U13401 1 failed to reply left mtg 6l19A)l I ! failed M reply I left Meg 615)1 I_. failed to reply Groups Cootarted Diane Garcia Nepol:une Cls=ash Sautes, Ufflao-Llrtatmdt Nabors Xielolisil C.".6 Chief Salaam Naliw.. Doug Atge: Alfred l_ Valaaaein ChummWfateviariv Gabvicliao9Gteaem W VaeywnNSenun Safiten Nation Bonnie Pierce Saola Vm Tribal Eden Coursed Art Lope, Chairperson Raady(hrmtmrFolhes ChumaWFouasoluof ••llL'•.V[nc. 9[_v m:ucu .cn. cS WYur CINCVI.AY W:BE I. I.. .fir. i •.� a N' . �4 {.: I- I n.h l.Ca —.A I %.r s are .,_..a Wh LSA trot INler certified Dail Ietter.tspa.,e +I I Dote of Idtew. is hiA- "Capf from naheo as, phone alh Rn..pe 5J29111 I j SMM I ; Die I j left mot 66MI failed to reply S^9,T.! rt.Mt 1 ith moR 5:I%*! � failed W repyy S29A7 I His nfe !M Mg 6.119/0! faBed to "ply 4I9A1 da da i kR mag h!sldl i failed to "Ply 51rir01 i Vim 1 I I da fell =996/19A1 I failed tore h _� 5li9A1 sa ids SIE9AI i i 6JTA1 da "log � S7dUB1 da p tell mall 644A1 i failed to reply j — 6NAI Naspeedie eoseeras. 7TIa6 CbWdar shard employ, Native Amerieso morlon. 649A1 He staled he is still restarehing the sna dad A call if he has a" cooterso. ?APbm03VArehseoSNANCWA ConsulMWo{Reoord LA 478,05.wpd (W3100) - 2 �111 CVVL On] .IC 1-I ❑:'I I . I.I. Ir LPA ♦A6OC1ASL1, INO. OTHTP OP110111 AT. COLLINS 11 OWN PA ac rLu.A, AVlrs goo 949.997,0666 T=L BRAXILlY kIIVI211D1 4�' IIVINI, OALIPOYNTA 91614 949.553,8076 PAX PT. RICHMOND 10OHLIN Judy 3, 20011 Ms. Natalie Lindquist Califor aia Office of Historic Preservation 11116 r inth Street, Room 1442-7 Sacran ento, CA 95814 Suhjec Review of Cingular Wireless Facility LA 470-05 Dear N s Lundquist: LSA A csociiaies, Inc (LSA) is under contract to Cingular Wireless (Cingular) to evaluate and make recorm lendations to the California Office of Historic Preservation (OPP) regarding telecommunication facilities. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has directed Cingular to consult with OHP regarding the following undertaking. The basis for this consultation is 36 CFI Part 800. FACIIL TY INUMSER; LA 470-05. ADDRESS: Santa Rosa Park. 190 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Ohlsoo PROJE CT DESCRIPTION: 1 iM Standard/150 feet oftrenching EXIST, NG CONDITIONS: The facility is located in a park. WORK COMPLETED: Records Search Sacred Land& File Search, and Native AmerConsultation___ REStJI rS Rer ords Search I% mile radius): Five archaeological sites. no other bistoric omoerties. —_ Soc -red [ands File Search! No Native American cultural resources. NAIWe American Consultation: No specific concerns Fie d Survey:'_----- EFF'EC rS RECOMMENDATION: No historic properties affected. Cinguh r requests that OHP review and comment on the enclosed supporting documentation within the time allotted under 36 CFR Part 800. I appreciate your assistance on this project. If you have any questio is or comments regarding the letter, please contact me by phone at (949) 553-0666 or by e-mad ,.t curt.duke@lsa-assoc.com. Sincere y, LSA A dSOC''IATES, INC. Curt Dr ke Archae dogistProject Manager Attachr.enr Cultural Resource Assessment 1/310.,((P. Pbm.030'.Ar4h=olshpoll.A470-05wpd)> )IANNIbOI RWVIIONYENT1L 00720CRI 10.616. nVa-IU cuuC. Jn I .0 1. H11 06t•10-01 C4 IIF her - MR T-Ul F 001/003 F-656 STATE OF CALMMIA THE RESOURCES AWCY OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION OePARTUENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.0.9oX$40" SACPAW NTO. CA e629.4001 (tile) ass," a Foe P' .7 Como* Gunwoftra 4s.0c., Ocllober 4, 2001 Post -it* wand fe: transmktai memo 7871 r d r.w■ To l c 0 41� as e■►� W f Repy To: FCCO10621 C FC00107M Curt Dukr LSA Associates, Inc. One PaAc Plaza Suite 500 IMno, (A M14-5981 Re: Cirlgr.lar 1Wireieae Teleaommunlcadon Fadlkles Dear Mr. )ike: .. e2oar' You have provided me with the results ofyour offortstor determine for the benefit of the FCC, whether the following cellular Installations may affect hletodc pmpwtkw: ■ FCCC 1062.1 C — SD 207-04, Buena Vista Park, Melrose Drive, Vista, CA ■ FCC010705V — LA 470.05, Santa Rosa Park,190 Santa Rosa &treat, San Luis Obispo, CA You have done tni6, and are consulting with me, in ortler to enable the POO to comply with Section 106 of the Nadoral Historic Preservation Act and implementing regulations coddled at 30 CFR Part 800. I have Wowed the documentation furnished and considered your recommendation to the FCC that there are no historic properties that may be affected by these undertakings. Based on that review, I haw the following comments: 1) The nape taken to identify historic properties that may be affected by those undertakings are saft6wtory. 2) 1 coat it in your reoommwWaticn that there are no historic properties that may be affected by these undertakings. 3) 1 would not object to an oflblal finding by the FCC trial there are no historic properties that may he affectmd try Own* undertakings. 4) 1 will "owns that the FCC has made this finding unions I hear to the Contrary from them within 15 oalen+Bar days after you have furnished them with a Copy at this letter. " 5) 'Be aavttied that In the date of unanticipated discovery, Cingular, as a representative of the FCC, should notify the appropriate Native Americans about the discovery. In adr5ddn the FCC may have additirnal responsibilitim for this undertaking under 36 CPR Pan 800. Thank you for oor skterkng hh t ft properties during project planning. it you have tiny questions, plea" contact Natalie Undquist at (916) 854-0831 or Llmds ohv.>%Tks.ea ew_ Sincerely, Dr. Knox Mellon State Historic PFomaNatlon Officer Noticir of Determination To: _ _ Office of PI inning and Research FROM: City of San Luis Obispo 1400 Tentl Street, Room 121 Community Development Department Sacrarnen c, CA. 95814 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 _ _ _ _ — — — — —I County CIE rk t I Applicant Cingular Wireless I County of San Luis Obispo I Address: 2521 Michele Drive, 2na Floor I 1144 Mor terey Street, Suite A I Tustin, CA 92780 San Luis Dbispo, CA 93408 Phone Number: (714) 734-7300 ---———— — — — — — I Subject: Filing of Notice of De ermination in compliance with Section 21108or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title Santa Rosa Park Wirele •s I Clecomrnunication Project (ER 11-02) State Clearinghouse Nuiiber Lead Agency Area Code/Telephone/Ext. (If Submitted to Clearingho is() Contact Person Lynn Azevedo, Associate Planner (805) 781-7166 Ort.ip.Cf I ocation (inclu( e county): 190 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo (San Luis Obispo) STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY DePAR tMENT OF FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL VIRONMENL FILING FEE CASif RECEIPT DFG 793.5a (e-011 Lead Agency. --- A Coun State Agency of I Pro)e tie: Se"of( Protect plicant Name: _ Project Applicant Address: i- Santa Rosa Park. (an approximate 8 212 1 hd two 740 square )ment. The projec nd upgrades to th( .Date: ��- cd a f,.7 iiJl 5 Docu nt N 11E1.Cf?IYtIYft(.Y70 �-= �— approved the abov( he above describe( Project Applicant (GhBGK appropriate b.04' Local public Agency 0 gchod Mtriot r CHECK �nw mr c cca State Agency F1 P ( ) Environmental Impact Report ( ) Negative Declaration ( ) Application Fee Water Diversion State Water Resources Con tro! Bob tfOigyJ ( )Projects Subject to Certified RegtAatory Programs ( ACounty Administrative Fee ( ) Project that is exempt from fees ignature and fine of person receiving payment: _ $850.00 $ a11,250.00 $ 3550.00 $-- $25.G0 $ isions of CEQA. :,EQA. e to the general TOTAL RECENEO $..r0 n. naan.; r_. Aa"�_, po, CA 93401 Date re (Public Agerib, ) Whisenand, D(:p jity Community Development Director Date received for filing a OPFi: ILE OCT ,3 0 2002 JULIE L RODEWALD, COUNTY CLERK by SANDY CURRENS DEPUTY CLERK CAI ORNIA DEPARTMENT OFFISH P ) GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title/t ocation (include county): Santa Rosa P uk Wireless Telecommunication Project (ER 11-02) 190 Santa Ro a Street, San Luis Obispo Project Applil ant Project Desc iption: Cingular Wireless Installatior of rwo wireless telecommunication facilities in Santa Rosa Park (an approximate 8- acre park). T e facilities consist of two 75-foot tall light poles which double as cellular antennas and two 740 : quare-foot huildirgs for housing telecommunication support equipment and City - related recre< tional equipment. The project also entails the expansion of the baseball field, redesign o' th , parking facilities within the park, and upgrades to the lighting at the skate park. Findings of E xemption (attach as necessary): The initial stu iy conducted by the Community Development Department evaluated the project for any adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources. Based on information In the application, a field inspec ion, and a review of relevant references in the Department, staff has determined that there is r o ev,dence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fis i and wildlife::; resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, staff has dete rmined that the project qualifies for a "de minimis" waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and 1 aarne fees. The environmental document on file in the Department includes a detailed disc ussiort of all relevant environmental issues including evidencf how the eeveloprrWnt Nill not result in changes to wildlife resources. Certification I hereby cer fy that the public agency has made the above finding that the project will not individually o cumulatively have an adverse affect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the I ish and Game Code. Section 711,4 F=h an, Ga' iCode DFG 12/90 Ronald Whisenand braleMUR •uu . b- - ••I -• - • CU of .. Luis QbiSpo .• Agency Octoher 9q- 2002 _.—..—_.._..__ Date Planning Cornet isioin Minutes October 23, 200 ' Page 3 Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo explained any finding made by this Commission must be supported oy substantial evidence in the record. AYES: ;ornmr. Cooper, Osborne, Aiken, Boswell, Caruso, and Loh NOES: Vone ABSENT: Vone ABSTAIN: Vone The motion c irned 6-0 with one vacancy on the commission 2. 190 Santa Rosa Street. U and ER 11-02; Request to allow a wireless telecommunication facility at Santa Rosa Park including replacement of two ball field light and environmental review; PF zone; Cingular Wireless, applicant Associate Pl Inner Lynn Azevedo presented the staff report recommending adoption of the Mitigatec Negative Declaration and approval of the use permit, based on findings, mitigation mE asures, and conditions. Commr. AikE n cornmented that this project is larger than just antennas and questioned who is payin i for it. Paul LeSagii, Director of Parks and Recreation, replied this is in the City's Capital Irnprovemen Plan, and the applicant is willing to do the improvements. Commr. AIkE n questioned how the lost parking spaces would be replaced. Director L.ec age replied they would expand the existing, larger parking lot by about 30- feet to add s :)me spaces. Planner Aze jedo explained where the pole lights would be located. Chairwoman Loh commented about the candlelights height of 30-feet and questioned where they ' Vould be located. Planner A23ved0 presented a photograph of where the existing and the new candlelights would be placed. Director Le:Sage explained that 30-foot candles are a standard that has been adopted and noted) he lower candle would light the two smaller facilities and the standard is small enouc h that it would not be very visible. Planner Azr !vedo clarified the use permit is only for the antenna lights, but the Mitigated Negative Declaration covers the entire project. Commr. Aiken asked if they would be looking at a tot of clutter around the installation or would it be 3 neat installation. Planning Commi: sion Minutes October 23, 2002 Pa4e 4 Mr. Bell repliE d they would be looking at a neat installation and explained how the antennas wou d be mounted. Director LeSa, le addressed a few of the environmental issues for the project. Nicole Keenei Recreation Coordinator, gave a brief summary on a couple of points on the skate park aspect of this project, which is the lighting. Vice -Chair Os )ome asked how much electricity the lights would consume. Director LeSa 3e rE:sponded he did not know, but the light cost is around four dollars per hour per field. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beih : chroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, expressed disapproval of the wiring, antennas and heavy lighting. She noted it has not been proven that it is not dangerous to the childre i and suggested a more thorough environmental review be done for the entire project. There were n ) funher comments made from the public. COMMISSIOA COMMENTS: Vice -Chair Osborne moved that they adopt the mitigated negative declaration and approve the use permit_ based on findings mitigation measures and recommended conditions_,a: noted in the staff report. Seconded by Commr. Caruso. AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Caruso, Aiken, Cooper, Boswell, and Loh NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion c arned 6-0 (with one vacancy) Chairwoman Loh reminded the public that they could appeal the decision made by the Commission within 10 days of the action. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast; November (+, 2002: Bed and Breakfast Establishments Text Amendment. November 3, 2002: Special Meeting with the PC and ARC. 'ki-Ag"ee--UL Ub :4F1 J1, C:YtY C:r Y' SL.i:i-{.. C7 E]6!F)'t._ $U6 7$i 7173 P.03 " • r This a,rr rrrent is entered in 77 y and between the'Pity of n Lws Obispo and Cingular Wireless on the . _ i _.� .__. . day of .. r , 200'2 The tollowir g measures are included in Inn, proud to atittgate potentlai adverse envtroreoerdal impacts. Please sign the original and return it to the Community Geveb nnent Department MITIGA.TION R11EA5URES: Sc nen outdoot mechanical equipment s;af ifai:lion of it* Architedural Review Commission. • ! � i+ f i ifi If they ;ornmunity Oevok4vmnt Director or hearing body determines that the, above mitiameasures are ineffective or physicaky infeasible, tie may add, delete or modify the mitigation to nit the intent of the original measures. Pleta,e note that section 15070 ib) (1) of the Catifornia Administrative Code requires the apliks it to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Nogafh-e Declaration is released for puW review. This project wfll not be schatioted for pvbfic review and hearing tattil this signed original Is rretumaa3 to the Community Development Deparumnit fHtalC Vy)ii8etlafid i� petty [3SieGtflr Comm tnity Develof)htent Representative fur Cingular Wirss �C2U,��a�i'A �JGtce:%,j� 4'` /A'rinrJao /77/IgG/ ;ingular Wh.,,ess • Proposed Base Station (Sh- No. LA-470-05) 190 Santa Rosa Street • San Luis Obispo, California Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of F ammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on hehalf of Cingular Wireless, a v ircicss telecommunications carrici, to evaluate the proposed PCS hau station (Site No. LA-4?0- )5to be located at 190 Santa Rosa Street in San Luis Obispo. California, for compliance vt Ith appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S.: o Igrcrs requ_res that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC') evaluate its actions for p( sstble significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62.. effective October 15. 1997, the F 'C' .Idopied the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommender in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagrit tic Fields," published in '1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation F'rr tection and Measurements ("NCRP"). A summary of the exposure limits contained in NCRP-86 is shown in F�igare I. Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, w th the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical am Ebectronicr, Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human E posure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz. to 300 CHz," includes nearly idern:ir at exposure limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures and «re intended to provide a pru lent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, ur health. The most re trictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to radio ircquency ("RF") energy for se veral personal wireless services are as follows: P,rsc 1,11 N'.relesscrating Frequency Occupntiooal Limit - 'Public Limit Personal C Imrnunication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/cm' 1.00 1nW/cm2 Cellular Fe ephone 870 2.90 0..58 Specialized Mobile Radio 855 2.85 0..57 [most restr divc frequency range.j 30--300 1.00 0.20 General Facility Requirements Base station . typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceiver, (also called "radios" or `cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive ante mas that send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual su 11;critier units. 'The transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about I inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the HAMMETI' & EmSON, INC. 000628-470 CONSULTING PN( TNFERi Page 1 of 4 SAN FRANCISL'O C ingular Wirrrass • Proposed Base Station (Sit(- Ao. LA-470-05) 190 Santa Rosa Street • San Luis Obispo, California frequencies as.igned by the FCC fowireless services, the antennas require line -of -sight ht paths for their signals t i propagate well and so are installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed t i concentrate their energy toward the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible f( r exposure "Ouditions to approach the maximum permissible exposure limits without being physicaly very near the. antennas. Computer Modeling Method The FCC pi ov des direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. ( 5, ' Fvaluating Compliance with FCC -Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Freque icY Eradiation,"' dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation methodologies . reflecting the: facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at locations vt ry c'ose by (thc "near -field" effect) and that the power level froin an energy source decreases wit the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature of this nethod for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. Site and Facility Description Based upon it formation provided by Cingular, including zoning drawings by Omni Design Group, Inc., dated N rvember 15, 2001, it is proposed to mount three EMS Model RR6518-02DPL2 directional pt ncl antennas on a new 75-foot light pole, located southeast of the skate Link at 190 Santa Ro a Street in San Luis Obispo. The antennas would be mounted at an effective height of about 69 f -et .above ground and would be oriented at 120' spacing, to provide service in all directions. "he rnaximurrt effective radiated power in any direction would he 800 watts, representing f rur channel.; operating simultaneously at 200 watts each. Proposed to b ; located or another new light pole. about 150 feet north are similar antennas for use by Verizon R fireless, another wireless telecommunications carrier. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the Verizon operation is similar to others that carrier has installed: Allen Telecom Mod -1 D13844H6O directional panel antennas, with a maximum effective radiated power of 1,500 watts. Study Results The maximur i amhient RF level anywhere at ground level due to the proposed Cingular operation by itself is ca culated to be 0.00030 mW/cm2, which is 0.03017o of the applicable public limit. The maximuut cal :ulate:d cumulative level at ground for the simultaneous operation of both carriers is HAMMETr & EDISON, INC. 000628-470 CONSULTING LNG'�F[ zs Page 2 of 4 SAN FR NCL4 0 ;inqular Wii%�tess • Proposed Base Station (Sit,, No. LA-470-05) 190 Santa Rosa Street • San Luis Obispo, California 0.30% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results includr_ several "worst - case" assumftion' and therefore arc expected to overstate actual power den,;ity ]wets. Recommended Mitigation Measures Due to thee: nounting location on a tall light pole, the Cingular antennae, arc not accessible to the general publ e, and so no mitigation ❑icasures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure gui relines. To prevent ( ccupationa; exposures in excess of the FCC guidelines. no access within 5 feet directly in fir -nit of the antennas themselves, such as might occur during maintenance work on the lights, shouh he allowed while, the base station is in operation, unless other treasures can be demonstrate( io erasure that occupational protection requirements are met Posting explanatory warning sigr s' al the base of the pole and at each antenna, such that the signs would be readily visible from my angle of approach to persons who might need to work within that distance, would be sufficient o meet FCC -adopted guidelines. Conclusion Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base station acili=.iies proposed by Cingular Wireless at 190 Santa Rosa Strcct in San Luis Obispo, California, ca n comply with the prevailing standards for limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy and. I ierefoie, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the envuonment. The highest calct lated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exl osures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure cor ditions taken at other operating base stations. Warning sit us should comply with ANSI C95.2 color, symbol, and content convertionn. In uddhtion, contact information should be pi-midc(I (r.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted arcaa. '['lie selection of language s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or hcti.lth authority, or appropriate �rol'essionals way be required. HAMMETp ,Y EDISON, INC. 000628-470 CONSULTING EN, tNFEPs Page 3 of 4 SAN NRANCLtio- C ingular Wlrb.sSS • Proposed Base Station (Site .io. LA-470-05) 190 Santa Rosa Street • San Luis Obispo, Calitornia Authorship The undersigi -d a.tthor o9 this statement is it qualified Professional Engineer, holding California Registration P o� F,-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June. 30, 2005. This work haw been carried out wder his dn.:ction, and all statements are true and correct of his (mn knowledge except, where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believc, r) be correct. January 24, 2C )2 HAMMETr & EDISON, INC. 000628-470 CONSULTING IING4 V Ff Rs' Page 4 of 4 SAN FR NCISCO National t,,,uncil on Radiation Protection an_. Measurements Report No. 86 (Published 1986) "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" Radio Frequency Protection Guide Frequeucv _ _______ Electromagnetic Fields _..- Currents __Contact, Applicahle filectric Magnetic Equivalent Far -Field lmA) Rang, Field Strcm_th Field Sirength Power Density (M1 1z) IV/ml (Nm) (ntW/cm2) 0.3 — 1 '4 614 144 1.63 L.63 100 100 200 1.34 -- 3 0 614 n'.113.8 / 1.(i3 2.19/f 100 180//' 200 84 f d 3.Y/( 4.891i 2.19/f 900/i2 180�1f 200 30-300 6L4 27.` 0.163 0.,7729 1.0 0.2 nolimit 300— I, 0( 3.54, 1 /. Wf JT/106 ✓jI238 1'/300 f/1500 no limit 1500— 1 )0,( 00 137 o L 4 0.364 0 163 5.0 1.0 no limit Note: I is ire ucuey of emi,gon, in MHz. 1000 100 �ensitt � 1 0.1 C. ntact 1000 - 4]ufcnt ni.1) 100 rl.l Occupational Exposure Public F_xposure — — — i ID 100 103 frequency (MHz) 104 W HAMMETT & EDI SON, INC. NCRP-86 Standard coNSUCTP7G Eh ;1T1+ '6 Figure 1 SAN FH N(T (O k, .t.CALC'm Calculation Methodc._gy Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with Human Exposure Limitations The ti., . ('oligress requires that the Federal Communications Commission (" FCC"i evaluate its actions for poss hll significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted tl e human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, `Biological Effects and li.xposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," puhlished in 1986 by the Congrcr,ionelly chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limit's generally five times more rexnu've. 'The more recent Institute of Electrical and Flectionicr Lngincers ("IEEE") Standard C95 1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure io Radio Frequency Electromagrieti Fields, 3 k1lz to 300 GHz,' includes nearly identical exposure limits. "These limits apply for continuous exposures front .ill sources and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regard ess of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total expl sure levels averaged over six or thirty mmutes, for occupational of public settings, respectively tit not xceed the limits. Near I ield. Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip ((,mnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell site;. The near field zone is the distan,;e rout m antenna before which the manufacturer's published. far field antenn,l patterns have formed; the nee r field is assumed to he in effect for increasing D until three conditions have been met: hl 2) D > Sh 3) D > 1.0, where I - aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. OET-65 gives i ii, formula Ior calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: 180 X ❑ct power density = 6Fi w" - x D x h in'nWYen) where OB v - half -power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and P❑ .1 = net pov✓er input to the antenna, in watts. The factor of I .1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This fouuula has been built into a prc rriciitry program that calculates the distances to the FCC public and occupational limits. Far Fl(,ld. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for cal ukoing power density in the far field clan individual RF source: 2 56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP mm' r power density S= 4 x rz x_ -- , incull - , where El P total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, RI F = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and D distemc from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters The factor of : 50 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming it reflection coefficient,d 1 00,6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half -wave dipole relative to an isotropic radixrr The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has N on built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total xpected power density from any number of individual radiation sources. The program also allows for the ler',cription of uneven terrain at the site, to obtain more accurate projections. HAMMETI' 8:: EDISON, INC. Methodology CONSULTING F.NC. NFFr'`, Figure 2 SAN FRANC:Is4 C Cl san luis oBis a po 99G f aim >treet. 'a � Liars Obispo, CA 9340�-3249 May 15, 2002 Samantha Kim The Consulting G oup 18500 Kartnan A' eti Suite 0870 Irvine, CA 92612 Subject Applicai on # 1 1-02 — New telecom facility at Santa Rosa Park in San Luis Obispo Dear Samantha: A preliminary rcv ew A your application indicates the following information is needed to complete the application and er ible staff to (prepare necessary reports for environmental review, the Planning Commission and I ie Architectural Review Commission: I . Archaeolo Beall survey report. A list of qualified archaeologists is attached. 2. Generator nl rrmation: What type of emergency generator would be used? Please specify the horse power amid the proposed) location of the generator. Please indicate the estimated decibel level of the generator( urirt) operation. 3. Provider ii formation: Please show on a city map all of the providers' existing and proposed cell sites within the ity and outside the city but needed to provide coverage for the city. 4. Color and vlatc_rial.s: Submit a color and materials board for the new structures. Setbacks: t 'all out the set back from the property line for the proposed Verizon shelter. 6. Parking: f rovide a parking calculation, including existing and required parking. Revise the site plan to show he ov anti where required parking will be proved. Clarify the impact on existing trees and landscapin Include grading and retaining wall information and a plan for landscaping. my understand rig is that the City will do the actual construction of the replacement parking, but that the applicant reeds to provide the design and construction documents. Please verily this with Paul Le Sage at (8( 5) 781-7294. Pole dimes sion: Please specify the diameter of the proposed light pole. The City of : it it s Obispo ic, committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and achvilles- JJ Teleoommun ati r, Device for the Deaf (805) ?131-7410. U, ARC 1 1 -01 Santa Rosa Park Laitial completene.;s e\ ice' I he project hcts 1' yen routed tr, various City departments for comment. The following comments have been received so far: All existi ig public utilities shall be shown in detail on these plans. All existing private park facilities shall be it Mailed on these plans. Underground utilities including but not limited to gas piping, phone lines, clec Irical service, it controller circuits, remote sensing circuits, landscape irrigation, domestic eater services, sewer laterals, water mains, and sewer mains shall be shown in detail to the appiovat � I'the Parks Maintenance Supervisor. • All-wcatl- -,r ;:access shalt be maintained to all sanitary sewer manholes. No permanent structures shall be c instructed within 31n of the existing sewer main. If conduit will be installed with directiom drilling techniques, contractor shall be responsible for video inspecting all sewer mains and lateira s in the vicinity and immediately repair any damaged pipes and manholes. All undergror ❑d conduits shall maintain 2m minimum horizontal separation from the sewer. Conduit crossing a iy sewer main shall maintain 0.5m minimum separation. An access blc, path of travel shall be provided to the existing facilities that are now served by the parking Ic being removed. A new 4 foot wide path with an all weather surface such as concrete or asphalt sh ill he installed between the ball field facilities (restrooms, baseball play field, bleachers), the skate 1 ark/skate rink, the existing path to Murray Street, the new buildings and The remaining existing; p Irking lot. Path shall comply with requirements for surface material, cross slope, slope in the directi m oP travel and any other applicable sections for walkways (see UBC 1 133B.7). • Existing r abl is utilities should be shown on the plans to ensure conflict with Proposed improvements is avoided Any additional cc nments will be forwarded to you as soon as our Department receives them. They may include requests f tr additional information. Please call me at (805) 781-7164 if you have questions or wish to discuss any of 1 he above items before June 14th. After that date, this project will lie assigned to Lynn Azevedo (805) 7F 1- 7175. Sincerely Whitney Mcllvaii e Associate Planner city of san Us osispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Cingular Wir tless 2521 Michell , Drive, 2o' Floor Tustin, CA 9 1780 SUBJECT: ER 11-02 190 Santa Rosa Street Dear Applica it: On August 2 ), 2002, 1 reviewed your project's potential effect on the environment. I found that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures either incorporated into the project ?r developed during our environmental analysis of your project. .A Mitigated Negative De;laration of Environmental Impact will be prepared. A copy of the initial study, which was th � basis for my determination, is attached for your review. State law recuires that the applicant agree to project mitigation measures prior to your project being scheduled for action by a City decision -making body. I have enclosed an Applicant Acceptance If Mitigation Measures agreement for your review and signature. The agreement lists the recc mrnended mitigation measures as well as provides a signature block to indicate your accepta ice. It is recommended that you sign and return the attached agreement as soon as possible it order to avoid project -processing delays. A Notice of wr intention to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared and a public hearirg on the environmental document and the project will be scheduled before a decision making body. The decision making body may reverse my decision to prepare a Mitigated Ne,lative Declaration or may add or delete mitigation measures based on their review of the project and public comment received at the public hearing. If you have a 1y questions, please contact my office at 781-7171 as soon as possible. Sincerely, k Rona his nand Deputy Cornlnuni'ty Development Director Development Review Enclosures: Initial Study Mitigation .Agreement Return Envelope cc: The Consulting Group 18500 Vonkarman Avenue #870 Irvine, CA, 92612 / The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and acuvihes. lJ Telecornmi nicatiions Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures Project: ER 11-02 190 Santa Rosa Street This agreen ent us entered into by and between the City of San Luis Obispo and Cingular W',reless on the day of , 2002. The following measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environment it impacts. Please sign the original and return it to the Community Developmer t Department MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Screen outdoor mechanical equipment from on -site and off -site views to the satisfact on of the Architectural Review Commission. 2. The nevi ball field lights shall be directed downward as indicated in the project plans to minim ize light and glare into the adjacent neighborhood. Lighting of the skate park an( roller rink shall have maximum illumination levels of 30 foot-candles within those re ;pec:tive activity areas. Park policy shall be that lights are off at 10:00 p.m. li the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the n itigation to meet the intent of the original measures. Please note :hat section 15070 (b) (1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative De .lanstion is released for public review. This project will not be scheduled for public review and hearing until this signed original is returned to the Community Development Department. Ronald Whi.enand, Deputy Director Representative for. Community Development Cingular Wireless