The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 5 - Enviro Assessment, SPA 19-002 and CUP 19-002 for a propose wireless comm facility at 13875 Kirkham WaySeptember 7, 2021, Item #5DATE: TO: FROM: CONTACT: SUBJECT: Summary: AGENDA REPORT CityofPoway September 7, 2021 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Robert Manis, Director of Development Services /,11'1 Austin Silva, Senior Planner ~~ (858) 888-4658 or asilva@poway.org CITY COUNCIL Environmental Assessment, Specific Plan Amendment 19-002, and Conditional Use Permit 19-002 for a proposed wireless communication facility at 13875 Kirkham Way This action is a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) request to amend the South Poway Specific Plan (SPSP) to allow freestanding wireless communication facilities to have a maximum height of 90 feet as a conditionally permitted use, and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) request to allow a wireless communication facility (WCF) consisting of an 85.5-foot-high steel monopole and equipment cabinet on a 5.37-acre lot at 13875 Kirkham Way in the Light Industrial -Storage (LI-S) land use district of the SPSP. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council take public input, close the public hearing, adopt the Resolutions (Attachments A and B) and introduce the Ordinance (Attachment C) for first reading by title only, waive further reading, and schedule the adoption for September 21, 2021. Discussion: The project is initiated by PlanCom Inc. (Applicant) and is a request for a SPA and a CUP. The SPA is a request to amend the SPSP to allow freestanding WCFs to have a maximum height of 90 feet as a conditionally permitted use where a maximum of 35 feet is currently allowed. The CUP is a request to construct and operate a WCF consisting of an 85.5-foot-high monopole allowing for three carriers on a 5.37-acre lot located at 13875 Kirkham Way in the LI-S land use district of the SPSP. The findings for a CUP are specified in Poway Municipal Code (PMC) Section 17.48.070 and provided in Section 2 of the CUP Resolution (Attachment B). The WCF is a proposed metal monopole. The 5.37-acre project site is located on the south side of Kirkham Way, west of the terminus of Stowe Drive (Attachment D). The subject property is owned by the City and is currently developed and used as a storage lot for new vehicle inventory by dealers located in the City. The City leases the storage 1 of98 September 7, 2021, Item #5lot to the Poway Auto Dealers Association. The proposed WCF would not interfere with the auto dealers' use of the leased premises. Surrounding land uses include a General Atomics industrial building to the north, ABC SD Chapter Apprenticeship Training center to the west, a modular building storage lot to the east, and vacant sloping land designated as Open Space to the south. Also, there are approximately 75 to 80-foot-high San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) transmission poles located approximately 730 feet to the west of the subject property with transmission lines that span southwards across Beeler Canyon and northwards across the business park. Pre-Development Conference On February 5, 2019, a Pre-Development Conference (PDC) was held for this project so the Applicant could get input and direction from the City Council regarding their proposal. The Applicant had three different design options for a WCF that included an 89.8-foot-high faux Eucalyptus tree, an 84.8-foot-high steel monopole, and an 84.8-foot-high three-legged lattice tower along with at-grade radio equipment within two decorative block enclosures. Staff noted in the agenda report for the PDC that there are no mature trees surrounding proposed WCF. As the monopole and lattice tower were similar in height, color, and materials to the nearby SDG&E transmission poles, staff recommended that the monopole or lattice tower design be used if the City Council were receptive to the project moving forward. However, based on feedback from the City Council, the faux tree option was the design that was chosen for the formal project submittal. Staff directed the Applicant to propose a faux pine tree tower (faux pine), instead of a faux eucalyptus, along with adjacent live pine trees to visually blend the proposed faux pine into the surroundings. Following the PDC, the Applicant prepared drawings and photo simulations for a fourth design of a faux pine tree, which staff directed the Applicant to move forward with. Illustrations of all four tower designs are included with this report as Attachment E. Amendment to the South Poway Specific Plan The SPSP was originally approved in 1985 and has been amended periodically in response to evolving real estate trends and business needs. Historically, SPSP amendments have been related to both development standards and land use designation changes. Over the past 1 O years, the City Council has approved two applicant-initiated requests for changes in development standards. In 2001, the City Council approved a request to allow three stories within the existing height limit for hotels and motels. In 2020, the City Council approved a request to allow self-storage buildings to contain a maximum of three stories within the existing allowable height. Pursuant to Section 17.47.020 of the PMC, it is required that proposed Specific Plan amendments be considered by the City Council at a public hearing. The maximum structure height permitted in the South Poway Planned Community is 35 feet, except that industrial buildings up to 45 feet in height within two stories may be allowed when it can be demonstrated that the additional height is necessary for the use anticipated for reasons such as automated warehouse, inventory retrieval or bridge cranes. No structure shall exceed 35 feet in height when located adjacent to downhill slopes along the perimeter of the business park which restricts the height of the proposed wireless facility. City-wide, amateur radio antennas, not WCFs, are permitted to be up to 65 feet in height and may be allowed above 65 feet with the approval of an antenna permit by the City Council. City Wireless Communication Policy In 2004, a City Wireless Communication Facility Policy (Policy) (Attachment F) was adopted to provide 2 of98 September 7, 2021, Item #5a uniform and comprehensive set of guidelines for the development and installation of WCFs. Section D of the Policy contains Design Guidelines for the development and installation of new wireless facilities. The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed wireless facility unless otherwise modified by the City Council: 1. The Applicant shall use all reasonable means to conceal or minimize the visual impacts of the facilities. The facilities shall be architecturally integrated with existing structures and/or screened from view. 2. The use of false trees is discouraged. 3. The facilities shall be the smallest, least visually intrusive antennas, components and other n<=cessary equipment. 4. Antennas shall be painted to match the color of the surface to which they are attached. The proposed project complies with the City Wireless Communications Policy, except as related to height, in that the WCF has been designed to have similar materials and height such as the SDG&E transmission poles to the west of the project site and is not out of character for the industrial nature of the southerly portion of the SPSP area. The proposed SPA would allow WCFs with a freestanding structure supporting antennas such as a pole, faux tree, faux water tank, etc., to have a maximum height of 90 feet. The SPA would apply to all land use districts of the SPSP, and a CUP would be required to be approved by the City Council for any new proposed WCFs. Additional provisions consistent with the City Wireless Communications Policy are included in the SPA as requirements related to height and architectural compatibility. Proposed Wireless Communication Facility The WCF is proposed within an existing landscape planter just north of an existing security fence in the front portion of the property as shown on the site plan (Attachment G). The landscape planter contains three trees and vines that are growing on the block wall. Two trees in the planter would be removed to accommodate the WCF. The telecommunications tower is an 84-foot-high monopole structure with nine antennae that would extend above the pole to a height of 85.5 feet (Attachment H). The antennae are gray and white and would be located along steel arms that are configured into three segments reaching outward from the monopole. The monopole would be constructed of galvanized steel and treated with an anti-reflective coating. An eight-foot-high wrought iron fence with screening vines would surround the base of the monopole. A 150 square-foot equipment enclosure with an eight-foot-high concrete block wall would be located just east of the monopole and wrought iron enclosure. Screening shrubs would be planted along the front of the equipment enclosure and the monopole enclosure and five Aleppo Pine trees will be planted throughout the five landscape planters in the front of the property adjacent to Kirkham Way. An existing light standard will be removed to accommodate the monopole and will be relocated onto the monopole. The Applicant identified the City-owned vehicle storage facility as a candidate for meeting the technical objectives for a wireless facility. Phoenix Tower International (PTI) will construct the steel monopole and would lease to T-Mobile for the installation of antennas and the associated ground-level equipment. PTI would be able to lease to two additional wireless providers (providers) for a potential total of three providers with antennas mounted onto the monopole. The proposed height of the pole is needed so that two additional providers could collocate onto the pole while the bottom array of antennas for a third provider at the lowest elevation could have a clear line of sight over the General Atomics building to the north. The Site Section Exhibit (Attachment I) demonstrates that the bottom array can clear the line of sight with the proposed monopole. An alternative sites analysis was 3 of98 September 7, 2021, Item #5provided (Attachment J) and indicates that seven alternate sites were considered, but they did not meet the site feasibility parameters such as having insufficient building height or the businesses located on those properties will not lease space to telecommunication companies for wireless facilities. A map is also included with this analysis showing the locations of the alternate site considered. Radio Frequency (RF) Report Prior to issuance of a building permit, Radio Frequency (RF) Report is required to be prepared that demonstrates the proposed facility will operate in compliance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards. Visual Analysis A visual analysis dated May 6, 2021 (Attachment K) was prepared by Helix Environmental Planning demonstrated that the proposed steel monopole structure would have minimal visual or aesthetic impacts. The analysis determined that the steel monopole would be a noticeable linear feature. The monopole would not cause a significant visual impact because it would not substantially adversely affect a scenic vista, damage scenic resources, significantly conflict with regulations governing scenic quality relative to their visual effect or create a new source of substantial light and glare. Views from multi-use trails towards the monopoles would be intermittent, and views from parks, especially those views of the distant mountains, would not be impeded by the monopole. The monopole would not obscure large percentages of views and is therefore not considered a dominant feature because of its linear design. The proposed monopole would be most visible from surrounding properties within the business park and from some of the homes in the Sycamore Estates neighborhood located to the south of the project site in the City of San Diego. Figure 10 in Attachment K (Viewshed Analysis) shows the project viewshed through an aerial photograph base within a three-mile radius of the project site. The majority of the viewshed (84 percent) would not have view availability to the proposed monopole based on topography. Additionally, the remaining 16 percent could have obstructed views to the site because of intervening structures or landscaping that was not considered by the computer modeling. The visual analysis first analyzed the faux pine and was updated after the neighborhood meeting to analyze the proposed steel monopole. Both visual analyses concluded that the steel monopole and the faux pine would not have significant visual impacts. Photo simulations of the proposed monopole from multiple vantage points have been provided and are included as Attachment L. Neighborhood Meeting On April 8, 2021, a virtual neighborhood meeting was held by the Applicant to present their project to the community. Mailed public notices were sent to all property owners and occupants located within the SPSP and within 500 feet of the boundaries of SPSP. The notice was also posted on the City's website. The Applicant presented the design of a faux pine tree to be used as the cellular tower. There were approximately 13 people in attendance during the meeting. Attendees expressed concerns that the South Poway Specific Plan is frequently amended to allow bigger structures, and the height of the 89.8-foot-high faux pine was too large and obtrusive. A few attendees expressed that while they weren't opposed to the project, they would prefer to see an alternative design such as a metal structure that would be similar to the metal towers supporting the SDG&E power lines to the west of the project site. Another attendee suggested that a faux water tank should be considered for an alternate design. Based on comments received from the community the monopole changed from a faux pine tower and a visual analysis was provided that considered a metal monopole. 4of98 September 7, 2021, Item #5Environmental Review: As required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Initial Study (EIS) was completed for the project. A visual study was submitted to analyze visual impacts. A letter was sent to the tribal representatives which are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area within the City of Poway's jurisdiction. The EIS determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration (ND) has been prepared. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the ND and approve the project because there are no significant impacts. The ND is included as Exhibit A of the Resolution provided as Attachment A to this report. A Notice of Availability of the EIS and ND for public review and comment was provided pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received. Any comments that are received will be provided to City Council prior to the public hearing on this matter. Fiscal Impact: The City's General Fund will receive a monthly rent payment from PTI of $36,000 for the first year, after which rent will increase three percent each year. For the first 10 years of the lease agreement, the city will receive $457,804 for the one provider. If PTI exercises all extensions of the lease agreement, the City will receive a minimum of $3,251,531 over the life of the lease agreement. PTI has the option of leasing space on the cell tower to two additional providers, for a total of three cell providers. The lease amounts above are reflective of PTI entering a lease with one provider. If PTI enters into additional lease agreements, the City will receive 30 percent of the annual rent. As it is unknown if or when PTI might enter into additional leases and the associated rent amounts, the additional revenue cannot be estimated at this time. Public Notification: A Notice of Public Review Period for a Negative Declaration and Notice for Public Hearing was published in the Poway News Chieftain on Thursday, August 12, 2021. A public notice was mailed to property owners and occupants located within the SPSP area and within 500 feet of the boundaries of the SPSP area. Attachments: A. Resolution approving the Negative Declaration (ND) B. Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19-002 C. Ordinance approving Specific Plan Amendment 19-002 D. Zoning and Location Map E. Tower Alternatives F. City Wireless Communication Policy G. Site Plan H. Elevations I. Site Section J. Alternative Sites Analysis K. Visual Analysis L. Photo Simulations 5 of98 September 7, 2021, Item #5Reviewed/ Approved By: Wendyserman Assistant City Manager 6 of98 Reviewed By: Alan Fenstermacher City Attorney Approved By: Chris Hazeltine City Manager September 7, 2021, Item #5RESOLUTION NO. 21-A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 19-002, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE SOUTH POWAY SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW FREESTANDING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES TO HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 90 FEET AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE AND TO ALLOW A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY CONSISTING OF A 85.5-FOOT -HIGH STEEL MONOPOLE AND EQUIPMENT CABINET ON A 5.37-ACRE LOT AT 13875 KIRKHAM WAY, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 323-501-02 WHEREAS, on July 30, 1985, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in conjunction with the adoption of the South Poway Specific Plan (SPSP), and a Final Subsequent EIR was certified on July 26, 1988. The SPSP EIR analyzed the potential impacts of the proposed build-out of the SPSP area in the manner permitted by the Specific Plan; WHEREAS, an Environmental Initial Study (EIS) was completed for the project, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A study was submitted relating to visual impacts. A letter was sent to the tribal representatives which are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area within the City of Poway's jurisdiction. The Viejas Tribal Government responded to a formal project notification to native tribes with influence in the Poway area and determined that the project site has cultural significance to the Viejas Band of the Kumeyaay Indians. It was requested that a Kumeyaay cultural monitor be on site for ground disturbing activities to inform them of any "new developments such as inadvertent discovery of cultural artifacts, cremation sites, or human remains." The project site is previously developed. While there has been no evidence presented during Tribal Consultation to indicate that there is a reasonable possibility of a significant impact, the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will include a condition that a Kumeyaay cultural monitor shall be on site during ground disturbing activities. The EIS determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A Notice of the Availability of the EIS and proposed Negative Declaration (ND) for public review and comment was provided pursuant to the requirements of CEQA; WHEREAS, the City Council considered Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 19-002 and CUP 19-002 for a request to amend the SPSP to allow freestanding wireless communication facilities (WCF) to have a maximum height of 90 feet as a conditionally permitted use and a WCF consisting of a 85.5-foot high steel monopole and equipment cabinet at 13875 Kirkham Way; WHEREAS, on September 7, 2021, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing to receive testimony from the public, both for and against, relative to this matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered the agenda report for the proposed project, including the attachments, and has considered all other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway as follows: 7 of98 ATTACHMENT A September 7, 2021, Item #5Resolution No. 21-Page 2 SECTION 1: In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, an EIS and a proposed ND have been prepared for SPA 19-002 and CUP 19-002 involving an amendment to the height requirements for WCFs in the SPSP and the construction and operation of an 85.5-foot-high steel WCF at 13875 Kirkham Way. The City Council has considered the EIS and ND, and public comments received on the EIS and ND. The subject EIS and ND documentation are fully incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds, on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant impact on the environment. Any anticipated impacts were determined to be below a level of significance and, therefore, do not require any mitigation. The City Council hereby adopts the ND included as Exhibit A. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Poway, California on the 7th day of September, 2021 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DISQUALIFIED: Steve Vaus, Mayor ATTEST: Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk 8 of98 September 7, 2021, Item #5STEVE VAUS, Mayor BARRY LEONARD, Deputy Mayor DAVE GROSCH, Councilmember CA YLIN FRANK, Councilmember JOHN MULLIN, Councilmember CITY OF POWAY EXHIBIT A CITY OF POWAY NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Name and Address of Applicant: PlanCom lnc.1 302 State Place1 Escondido1 CA 92029 2. Project Name and Brief Description of Project: Kirkham Wireless Facility; Environmental Assessment Specific Plan Amendment {SPA) 19-002 and Conditional Use Permit {CUP) 19-002: A proposal to amend the South Poway Specific Plan to allow freestanding wireless communication facilities to have a maximum height of 90 feet as a conditional use. A Conditional Use Permit {CUP) was also submitted concurrently with the Specific Plan Amendment {SPA) to allow a freestanding wireless communication facility consisting of an 85' 6"-tall monopole and equipment enclosure that will allow for co-location of antennas for up to three wireless carriers. The monopole would be constructed of galvanized steel and treated with an anti-reflective coating. The gray and white antennae would be situated along steel arms that are configured into three segments that reach outward from the monopole. The monopole will be setback approximately 96 feet from Kirkham Way. Five pine trees will be planted in existing landscape planters adjacent to Kirkham Way. Two new equipment cabinets will be located on new concrete pads and will be screened by a 10-foot-long by 15-foot-wide by eight-foot-tall block wall just east of the monopole on property located at 13875 Kirkham Way1 APN 323-501-021 with a Light Industrial-Storage land use designation. 3. In accordance with Resolution 83-084 of the City of Poway, implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of Poway City Council has found that the above project will not have a significant effect upon the environment and has approved a Negative Declaration. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required. 4. This Negative Declaration is comprised of this form along with the Environmental Initial Study that includes the Initial Study and Checklist. 5. The decision of the City Council of the City of Poway is final. Contact Person: Austin Silva Phone: {858) 668-4658 Attachments: 1. Environmental Initial Study City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074~0789 www.poway.org September 7, 2021, Item #5CITY OF POWAY ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND CHECKLIST A. INTRODUCTION This Environmental Initial Study and Checklist, along with information contained in the public record, comprise the environmental documentation for the proposed project as described below pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon the information contained herein and in the public record, the City of Poway has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. 8. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title: Kirkham Wireless Facility 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: __ C_it_y_o_f_P_o_w_a_y_, _D_e_v_e_lo_p_m_e_n_t_S_e_rv_i_c_es ____ _ 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, CA 92064 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Austin Silva (858-668-4658) 4. Project Location: South Poway Specific Plan area and 13875 Kirkham Way 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: PlanCom lnc./302 State Place, Escondido, CA 92029 6. General Plan Designation: _P_la_n_n_e_d_C_o_m_m_u_n_it_y_(P_C ....... ) ____________ _ 7. Zoning: Planned Community (PC) -Light Industrial 8. Description of Project: The proposed project includes a request to amend the South Poway Specific Plan to allow freestanding wireless communication facilities to have a maximum height of 90 feet as a conditional use. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was also submitted concurrently with the Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to allow a freestanding wireless communication facility consisting of an 85' 6"-tall monopole and equipment enclosure that will allow for co-location of antennas for up to three wireless carriers. The monopole would be constructed of galvanized steel and treated with an anti-reflective coating. The gray and white antennae would be situated along steel arms that are configured into three segments that reach outward from the monopole. The monopole will be setback approximately 96 feet from Kirkham Way. Five pine trees will be planted in existing landscape planters adjacent to Kirkham Way. Two new equipment cabinets will be located on new concrete pads and will be screened by a 10-foot-long by 15-foot-wide by eight-foot-tall block wall just east of the monopole. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is located in the South Poway Specific Plan (SPSP) area. The SPSP area is located at the southern end of the City and includes a variety of land uses including industriaL commerciaL residentiaL and open space. Single-family residential neighborhoods are north and west of the SPSP boundary. The southern portion of the SPSP area mostly contain natural habitat except for a mining facility. The southern boundary of the SPSP borders the City of San Diego with a single-family residential neighborhood upslope of Beeler Canyon. The east end of the SPSP area is surrounded by natural habitat except for an equestrian facility that is south of Scripps Poway Parkway. The project site for the proposed wireless communication facility is owned by the City and is 10 of 98 1 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist currently developed and used as a storage lot for new vehicle inventory by dealers located in the City. The immediate surrounding land uses include a General Atomics industrial building to the north, ABC SD Chapter Apprenticeship Training center to the west, a modular building storage lot to the east and vacant sloping land designated as Open Space to the south. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g.: permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? In accordance with Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65342.4 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, the City of Poway, as Lead Agency, sent a letter to the Tribal Representatives notifying the tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) of the proposed project in accordance with AB 52 and SB 18. The City received a response from the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians and consultation has occurred and concluded. Responses to the AB 52 and SB 18 consultation notices are discussed further in this document. NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission's Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. 11 of 98 2 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. D Aesthetics D Agricultural /Forestry D Air Quality D Biological Resource Resources D Energy D Greenhouse Gas Emissions D Cultural Resources D Geology /Soils D Land Use and Planning D Hazards/Hazardous Materials D Hydrology / Water D Population and Housing D Mineral Resources Quality D Transportation D Public Services D Noise D Mandatory Findings of D Tribal Cultural Resources D Recreation Significance □ Wildfire D Utilities and Service Systems Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment ~ and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, □ there will not be a significant effect in this case as revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and/or mitigation has been agreed to. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an □ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant □ unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier □ EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. City of Poway Date 12 of 98 3 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist C. EIS and Checklist I. a. b. C. d. II. ISSUE AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Code Section 21099, would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other reoulations governing scenic quality? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the 13 of 98 POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT UNLESS IMPACT MITIGATION INCORPORATED 4 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT X X X NO IMPACT X September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist ISSUE state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a. Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? C. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(9)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(q))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest land? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Ill. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 14 of 98 POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED X X X X X X 5 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-X attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? C. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely X affecting a substantial number of • • I? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or X regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, X regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, X vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or X with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede 15 of 98 6 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist ISSUE the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation • I ? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? C. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? VI. ENERGY. Would the project: a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: 16 of 98 POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED X X X X X X X 7 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involvin : i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based X on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, X includin Ii uefaction? iv) Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of to soil? C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the X project, and potentially result in on-or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, Ii uefaction or calla se? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), X creating substantial direct or indirect risk to life or ro ert ? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal X systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or X uni ue eolo ic feature? Generate greenhouse gas X emissions, either directl or 17 of 98 8 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the X purpose of reducing the emissions of • h • ? IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the X routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and X accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within X one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.Sand, as a X result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use X airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working within the project area f. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted X emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g. Expose people or structures either X directly or indirectly, to a significant 18 of 98 9 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or X otherwise substantially degrade surface or qround water quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the X project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a X manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or offsite? (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or offsite? X (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a matter X which would result in flooding on-or offsite; (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater X drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of X pollutants due to project inundation? 19 of 98 10 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist ISSUE e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable • d t • t I ? • XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other I d I ? • XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient, noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Generation of, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the 20 of 98 POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED X X X X X X X X 11 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist ISSUE project area to excessive noise levels? XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure ? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of re lacement housin elsewhere? a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental 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 ublic services. iii. Schools? iv. Parks? a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or ex ansion of recreational facilities 21 of 98 POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED X X X X X X X X 12 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT INCORPORATED which might have an adverse • h I ff t th t? XVII. TRANSPORTATION Would the project: a. Conflict with program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation X system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines X section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? C. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g.: sharp curves or dangerous X intersections) or incompatible uses (e.Q.: farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency X access? XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 2107 4 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined X in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial X evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in 22 of 98 13 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist POTENTIALLY ISSUE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT LESS THAN NO SIGNIFICANT UNLESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT MITIGATION IMPACT IMPACT INCORPORATED subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, X natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause siQnificant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future X development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? C. Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity X to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existinQ commitments? d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local X infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction Qoals? e. Comply with federal, state and local management and reduction statutes X and regulations related to solid waste? XX. WILDFIRE --If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands 23 of 98 14 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist ISSUE classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? C. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? 24 of 98 POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT UNLESS IMPACT MITIGATION INCORPORATED 15 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT NO IMPACT X X X X September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to substantially 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 X eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples or the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulative considerable" means that the incremental effects of a X project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial X adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly? 25 of 98 16 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please refer to the Environmental Initial Study Checklist Form above when reading the following evaluation. I. AESTHETICS: a & c. Less Than Significant Impact. There is no landmark tree, view lake, historic structure, etc., in the existing setting of this business commercial area parking lot. The project is not located in a particularly scenic location. The potential for view impacts is based more on interruption of expansive, or panoramic views. Panoramic views or vistas provide visual access to a large geographic area, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance. Panoramic views may include an urban skyline, valley, mountain range, etc. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. prepared an aesthetic analysis (May 6, 2021) which included a viewshed analysis. The viewshed analysis indicates that the proposed monopole would be visible from 16 percent of the viewsh,ed. 26 of 98 The assessment of impacts in the aesthetic analysis is based on the level of change to viewers from the existing condition of the site to after construction of the proposed monopole. The level of changes was assessed from the most critical viewpoints from parks, trails, and nearby roadways as required by CEQA. The significance of the impact was then based on how dissimilar the proposed monopole would be to the existing visible features, and the magnitude of that visual impact. Items· considered included if the project is actually seen (and when), the level of dominance it plays in the overall view, elements of distance, angle of view, length of time it may be observed, and the relative size to its surrounding setting. The analysis determined that the project would not be visible from Bette Bendixen Minipark and the Poway Sportsplex due to topography. The proposed monopole cell tower would be visible from recreational ball fields on private property off Kirkham Road northeast of the project site. Although, the cell tower is linear in design and would not obstruct overall all views from this location. Views of the rolling hillsides and slopes south of the project site would remain visible. A portion of the cell tower would be visible from Stonebridge Neighborhood Park and the Sycamore Estates neighborhood which are located south of the project site in the City of San Diego. Stonebridge Neighborhood Park is at a slightly higher elevation providing a clear view to the proposed cell tower minus intervening structures and vegetation. Views from the park are obscured by playfield structures and mature landscaping along Stone bridge Parkway as shown in Figure 8 of the aesthetic analysis. While the cell tower would be visible, it would not present a substantial disruption to the distant background views of the mountains to the north and west because it is linear in design and the mountains would remain clearly visible. The cell tower would be visible on the horizon from the northern end of Cypress Canyon Park, which is located southwest of the project site in the City of San Diego. Looking to the east from the perimeter walking path, the cell tower would be visible above the existing cluster of buildings in the project's vicinity. Again, the cell tower is linear in design and would not comprise a significant portion of the overall view from the walking path. Views of the distant mountains would remain unobstructed as users of the path 17 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist 27 of 98 move in either direction, their visual focus changes. Therefore, views of the cell tower would be momentary and would not constitute a substantial change to the existing views from this location. The proposed cell tower would also be visible from portions of trails in the area such as the Beeler Creek Trail, southern portions of the Espola Trail, and the South-Poway (Trans-County) Trail, all of which are multi-purpose trails supporting pedestrians, bikers, and equestrians. The views that are available to the cell tower are limited and users of the trails are not stationary with their viewshed changing as they traverse the trails. Visual access to the existing scenic amenities would be essentially unchanged. The introduction of the linear designed structure would not substantially obstruct or degrade views through the project to hillsides and mountains that are accessible from the trails. Views from roadways would be generally limited in duration to moving nature of drivers, passengers, and bicyclists. The viewer would be expected to approach and pass areas of visibility, or have views blocked by turning roadway alignments and intervening uses. Although drivers would be expected to notice changes of the site due to construction of the proposed monopole, their primary focus on driving coupled with the relatively short duration of view exposure to the project site minimizes visual impacts from the project. The project proposal includes the addition of five new pine trees to be planted in existing landscape planter along the northern property line adjacent to Kirkham Way. These trees will help in blend the proposed monopole with natural elements in the area reducing the visual impact. The monopole design was preferred because of a San Diego Gas and Electric (SDGE) transmission corridor approximately 500 feet west of the site consisting of 75 to 80 feet-tall tubular steel poles that support overhead transmission lines. The towers are situated 350 feet apart along a four-mile segment that connect the Pomerado substation to the north to the Sycamore Canyon substation to the south. The monopole design integrates with the SDGE transmission poles and industrial park setting. The project site is located in an urban area that is zoned Planned Community 7 (PC-7) -South Poway Business Park with a land use designation where wireless communication facilities are permitted as a conditional use. The maximum height for a structure in the PC-7 zone is 45 feet. The proposed 85'6" tall cell tower does not comply with current zoning regulations. However, a Specific Plan Amendment is proposed in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit for the wireless communication facility (WCF) that would allow WCFs to have a maximum height of 90 feet. If the Specific Plan Amendment is approved, the proposed cell tower would be consistent with zoning regulations. The City of Poway General Plan Resources Element Goal IV and corresponding strategies state that it is the goal of the City to reserve its scenic resources through the preservation of scenic areas, prominent vistas, and open space. The project site is developed as a paved parking lot with ornamental trees and security lighting in an area developed with industrial buildings and business park land uses. Therefore, the project is consistent with the goals of the General Plan by not disturbing any scenic resources. b. No Impact. The proposed cell tower is located within an existing developed lot that is void of scenic resources. The existing trees onsite are ornamental and do not constitute 18 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist a scenic resource. Additionally, there are no rock outcroppings or historic resources onsite and Kirkham Road is not considered a state scenic highway. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources. d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the removal of an existing light standard and the luminaries and light arm will be replaced on the cell tower. Light emanating from these sources would be directed downward for security and would be consistent with the lighting standards of the South Poway Specific Plan and Chapters 17.10 and 17.42 of the Poway Municipal Code. The cell tower is designed to be less obtrusive and not use reflective materials. Antenna sock overs would be installed around all antennas and the monopole trunk is designed to simulate heavy bark. Additionally, all branches will extend a minimum of two feet beyond the antennas, further shielding metal materials. Therefore, the project would not provide a new source of substantial light or glare. II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY_RESOURCES: a-e. No Impact. There will be no impacts to agricultural resources since the site is not designated, nor has it been historically or currently used for farmland. The subject site is zoned PC-7 and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. The project site does not contain, and is not zoned for, forest land, timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The project would not result in other changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Ill. AIR QUALITY: 28 of 98 a. No Impact. The City of Poway is part of the San Diego Air Basin and air quality in the area is administered by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). An air quality management plan (AQMP) describes air pollution control strategies to be taken by a City, County or region classified as a non-attainment area to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The main purpose of an AQMP is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of federal and state air quality standards, and to coordinate regional and local governmental agencies to achieve air quality improvement goals. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The RAQS outlines the APCD's plans and regulatory control measures designed to attain state air quality standards for ozone. The RAQS was initially adopted in 1992 with the most recent update occurring in 2016. Land use plans and build out projections of the General Plans of jurisdictions within the San Diego area were considered in establishing the strategies of the Regional Air Quality Strategies Plan. The Poway General Plan includes strategies that are directed toward reducing air emissions through land use patterns, transportation planning, regional agency cooperation, energy conservation, and construction. The development of a wireless communication facility will not have a significant adverse long-term impact on air quality in the area. Therefore, the project will not violate any air quality standards and no impact would occur. b. No Impact. See Ill.a above. 19 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist c. Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the project would include excavating dirt for the footing of the monopole structure which may result in the creation of dust. Standard City best management practice requirements include implementation of dust control measures and the operations are subject to San Diego Air Pollution Control District standards. Less than significant would occur. d. No Impact. The project will not result in the creation of objectionable odor. No impact would occur. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: a-d, f. No Impact. The proposed wireless communication facility would be located in an existing landscape planter on a developed lot. There is no potential for any biological impacts to occur. e. No Impact. Any trees removed in association with the construction of the project would require replacement pursuant to Chapter 12.32 of the Poway Municipal Code (Urban Forestry. No impact would occur. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: a. No Impact. The subject site is a developed lot primarily consisting of a parking lot with a small structure that does not contain any historical resources. No impact would occur. b & c. Less Than Significant Impact. The Viejas Tribal Government responded to a formal project notification to native tribes with influence in the Poway area and determined that the project site has cultural significance to the Viejas Band of the Kumeyaay Indians. It was requested that a Kumeyaay cultural monitor be on site for ground disturbing activities to inform them of any "new developments such as inadvertent discovery of cultural artifacts, cremation sites, or human remains." The project site is previously developed. While there has been no evidence presented during Tribal Consultation to indicate that there is a reasonable possibility of a significant impact, the Conditional Use Permit will include a condition that a Kumeyaay cultural monitor shall be on site during ground disturbing activities. Therefore, there will be a less than significant impact. VI. ENERGY 29 of 98 a. Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the project would create temporary increased demands for electricity and vehicle fuels compared to existing conditions. Construction of the project would require electricity use to power construction equipment. Electricity use during construction would vary during different phases of construction. The majority of construction equipment would be gas powered. Since the project site is already served by onsite electrical infrastructure, adequate electrical infrastructure capacity is available to accommodate the electricity demand during construction. Operation of the cell tower and associated equipment would result in an increase in electricity demands. However, there is sufficient electricity infrastructure in the region for the increase in electricity demand and the project would not require expanded electricity 20 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist supplies. Therefore, impacts from energy use during short-term construction activities and operation would be less than significant. b. No Impact. The project would not conflict with any state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The project would be required to comply with all state and local building codes for construction of the project. No impact would occur. VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: a.i. No Impact. No active known faults traverse the project site or are near the site. The nearest known fault is an unnamed fault located approximately three miles west of the project site. Murphy Canyon Fault is the nearest main southern California fault, located approximately ten miles southwest of the project site. Three major fault systems within the project vicinity include the Elsinore, San Jacinto and Rose Canyon faults. The active Elsinore fault trends northwest and is about 22 miles northeast of Poway. The San Jacinto fault is also an active northwest-trending fault about 45 miles northeast of Poway. The Rose Canyon fault is located about 16 to 20 miles west of Poway in the Pacific Ocean and is considered potentially active. There is potential for some local damage in the event of a major earthquake along one of these fault systems which could result in significant impacts to project facilities. While the potential for on-site rupture cannot be completely discounted (e.g. unmapped faults could conceivably underlie the site), the likelihood for such an occurrence is considered low due to the absence of known faulting within or adjacent to the site. No impact would occur. a.ii. No Impact. The project site is located in seismically active southern California and is likely to be subjected to moderate to strong seismic ground shaking. Seismic shaking at the site could be generated by events on any number of known active faults in the region, including several unnamed faults, larger faults such as Murphy Canyon Fault, and major fault systems such as Elsinore, San Jacinto and Rose Canyon. An earthquake along any of these known active fault zones could result in severe ground shaking and consequently cause injury and/or property damage in the project vicinity. The proposed cell tower will be required to be designed and constructed to meet the California Building Code. No impact would occur. a.iii. No Impact. The project is not located in an area that has potential for liquefaction. No impacts from seismically related ground failure would occur. a.iv. No Impact. The project site is not underlain by formations identified as susceptible to seismically induced landslides. No impact would occur. b. No Impact. There will be minimal ground disturbance to accommodate the proposed wireless communication facility. Standard erosion control measures will be implemented and will not result in the substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. No impact would occur. 30 of 98 c. No Impact. The project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project. The building pad and access for the monopole will be graded according to City requirements and fill material which will be compacted in compliance with City standards and inspected for adequacy before the issuance of any building permits. No impact would occur. 21 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist d. No Impact. Expansive soils change in volume (shrink or swell) due to changes in moisture content of the soil. The buildings will be constructed in accordance with geotechnical recommendations that incorporate California Building Code (CBC) standards, as required by the City of Poway. No impact would occur. e. No Impact. The proposed WCF is does not include any septic tanks or wastewater disposal systems as this project is unmanned and will not require workers to be onsite except for monthly maintenance visits. Therefore, no impact will occur. f. No Impact. Pursuant to the South Poway Planned Community Development Plan Final EIR adopted in July 1985, the geologic formations in the area are not conducive to fossil formation. Within the Pomerado Conglomerate and the Stadium Conglomerate, the large cobbles present during deposition tend to break up or crush and fossils which may have been present. Friars formation is not known to be a rich source of fossiliferous materials. Generally, the site is not considered a significant source of paleontological resources. VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: a & b. Less Than Significant Impact. Temporary impacts related to green house gas emissions may occur during construction of the project construction worker vehicle trips and from construction vehicles operating at the site. However, negligible or no greenhouse gas emissions would be generated during the ongoing operation of the WCF because it is an unmanned facility. The unmanned WCF will not generate and vehicle trips to the site except for a maintenance vehicle visiting the site once a month. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: a. No Impact. Construction activities associated with the development of the proposed project would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials, vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. However, all potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of a wireless communications facility. It is not anticipated that large quantities of hazardous materials would be permanently stored or used within the project site. Similarly, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials. Small quantities of publicly available hazardous materials (e.g., paint, maintenance supplies) may be routinely used within the project site for maintenance and cleaning. However, these materials would not be used in sufficient strength or quantity to create a substantial risk to human or environmental health. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create a permanent significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No impact would occur. b. No Impact. As the project does not propose heavy use of hazardous materials, it will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No impact would occur. 31 of 98 22 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist c. No Impact. As the project does not propose the heavy use of hazardous materials, it will not emit hazardous emissions or acutely hazardous materials into the environment. No impact would occur. d. No Impact. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, as such would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. No impact would occur. e. No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. The closest airports to the project site are Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the project site and Gillespie Field, located approximately 10 miles southeast of the project site. Thus, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area and no impact would occur. No impact would occur. f. No Impact. The project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The project would not interfere with people's ability to utilize roadways for evacuation purposes and, on a more local level, emergency vehicle lanes within the project parking lot would be kept free of vehicles and storage materials in compliance with City ordinances. Accordingly, no impact would occur. g. Less than Significant Impact. According to the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) map for Poway (CAL FIRE 2009), the project site is located within the VHFHSZ. The proposed monopole would be required to comply with construction standards for development within the VHFHSZ established by the California Building Code and related City of Poway amendments. Accordingly, the exposure to people or structures either directly or indirectly would have less than significant impact on the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: a. No Impact. The project will comply with all storm water quality regulations or waste discharge requirements surface water quality as governed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the County of San Diego, and the City of Poway. The project will require a grading permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP), which will be ensured as part of the project improvements plan review and building permit process. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. No impact would occur. b. No Impact. The project does not propose any construction activities that would directly affect groundwater, contribute to the depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. No impact would occur. c (i-iv). No Impact. The project involves the construction of a WCF with new landscaping that will be located in an existing landscape planters and will not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. The WCF would not create or contribute to additional runoff water as the existing landscape planters have been designed to handle irrigation for landscaping. No impact would occur. 32 of 98 23 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist d. No Impact. The project is not located in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone that would pose the risk of pollutants being released due to project inundation. No impact would occur. e. No Impact. See X.a and X.b above. No impact would occur. XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: a. No Impact. The project involves the development of a WCF on a lot that has been previously developed and is currently being used as a vehicle storage lot. The property to the south of the subject site is designated at open space. The project does not have the potential to physically divide an established community. No impact would occur. b. No Impact. The project site is located in an area that is zoned Planned Community 7 (PC-7) -South Poway Business Park with a Light Industrial/Outdoor Storage land use designation where wireless communication facilities are permitted as a conditional use. The maximum height for a freestanding wireless tower in the PC-7 zone is 45 feet. The proposed 85'6" tall cell tower does not comply with current zoning regulations. However, the existing height standard was not adopted to mitigate an environmental impact. A Specific Plan Amendment is proposed in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit for the wireless communication facility (WCF) that would allow WCFs to have a maximum height of 90 feet. If the Specific Plan Amendment is approved, the proposed cell tower would be consistent with zoning regulations. No impact would occur. XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: a&b. No Impact. Pursuant to the City of Poway Master Environmental Assessment prepared in conjunction with the update to the Poway General Plan in 1991, there are no known mineral resources on the site. Additionally, the site has been previously developed and the proposed WCF is located in an existing landscape planter. No impacts would occur. XIII. NOISE: 33 of 98 a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is the construction of a WCF and the installation of ornamental landscaping. The project will result in temporary noise increases that are associated with periodic generator testing or use of a generator in the event of a power outage. Noise from standard operation of the WCF is minimal and will be less than significant. b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project construction activities will result in temporary or periodic increases in the generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels typically related to construction. Per City standards, the noise generating construction activities are limited to certain times of the day and days of the week. A less than significant impact could occur. c. No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport. The closest airports to the project site are Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the project site and Gillespie Field, located approximately 10 miles southeast of the project site. Thus, the project would not expose people residing or 24 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist working in the project area to excessive noise levels no impact would occur. No impact would occur. XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: a & b. No Impact. The proposed WCF is located on a previously developed lot and does not consist of any residential uses. Residential uses are not permitted in the Light Industrial/Outside Storage land use designation for the subject property. The project will not induce growth indirectly as there is existing infrastructure within the project vicinity. Additionally, no people or housing will be displaced as the project will be constructed within an existing landscape planter. Therefore, no impact would occur. XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: a.i. Fire Protection -No Impact. The project site is served by the City of Poway Fire Department. The site is already included within the Fire Department service area. Any specific service provided should there be an (unexpected) emergency call to this project is accounted for. No new or upgraded fire protection facilities would be required as a result of establishment of this project and no physical impacts resulting from construction of new facilities are identified. A less than significant impact would occur. a.ii. Police Protection -No Impact. The City of Poway contracts with the San Diego County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement services. The project site is currently served by the Poway Station, which is located at 13100 Bowron Road. The site is included within the Sheriff's service area. Any specific service provided should there be an (unexpected) emergency call to the site is accounted for. No new or upgraded police protection facilities would be required as a result of establishment of this project and no physical impacts resulting from construction of new facilities are identified. A less than significant impact would occur. a.iii. Schools -No Impact. The proposed WCF will not generate the need for additional school facilities as no new residents would be associated with the project. No impact would occur. a.iv. Parks -No Impact. The proposed WCF will not generate the need for additional park space as no new residents would be associated with the project. No impact would occur. a.v. Other Public Facilities -No Impact. The project would not result in an increase in the need for use of public facilities or service or necessitate any physical alterations to public facilities. Additional landscaping associated with the project would be irrigated from an existing recycled water system. No impact would occur. XVI. RECREATION: a & b. No Impact. The project involves the construction of a wireless communication facility with no recreation facilities proposed. This would not result in an increase in use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. No impact would occur. XVII. TRANSPORTATION: 34 of 98 a. No Impact. The project will not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. When operational, the proposed WCF will not require any employees to be onsite except 25 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist for a monthly maintenance visit. Therefore, the project will result in a minimal increase in traffic. No impact would occur. b. No Impact. The proposed WCF will not require any employees to be onsite except for a monthly maintenance visit. It will not be in conflict or inconsistent with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). No impact would occur. c. No Impact. The proposed WCF will not increase and hazards due to a geometric design feature as there are no proposed roads or right-of-way improvements associated with the project. Additionally, the cellular tower is setback over 97 feet from the adjacent roadway (Kirkham Way) and will not obstruct the line of site for motorists. No impact will occur. d. No Impact. The proposed WCF will be located in an existing landscape planter on a previously developed site and will not affect emergency access to the site. No impact would occur. XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: a.i. No Impact. The project site is not on a "Local register of historical resources" and is not officially designated or recognized as historically significant by Poway. No impact would occur. a.ii. Less than Significant. See V.b and V.c. The City of Poway sent a formal Tribal Notification to the Native American contact list that was provided by the Native American Heritage Commission on August 16, 2019 in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (b). The Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians (Viejas Band) requested consultation on the project and the Viejas Band requested to have an tribal monitor onsite during ground disturbing activities which will be included a condition of approval for the project . Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: a -e. No Impact. The project involves the construction of a WCF that will not require employees to be onsite except for a monthly maintenance visit which will not require the use of water, produce waste wastewater, or solid waste. Further, the landscaping that will be installed will utilize recycled water from an existing irrigation system on the previously developed property. No impact will occur. XX. WILDFIRE: 35 of 98 a. No Impact. See Section XV.a.i. (Public Services -Fire Protection). b. No Impact. The proposed WCF will not require any employees to be onsite except for a monthly maintenance visit and therefore will not expose any occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No impact will occur. 26 September 7, 2021, Item #5EIS and Checklist c. No Impact. The proposed WCF would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. No impact will occur. d. No Impact. The proposed WCF is located such that it would not be exposed to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. The project site is located in an area that is not prone to flooding. Additionally, the project will not be altering drainage patterns on the site because it will be built within an existing landscape planter with no grade changes proposed. No impact will occur. XXI. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE: 36 of 98 a. No Impact. The proposed WCF will be located in an existing landscape planter on a previously developed lot and does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples or major periods of California history or prehistory. b. Less Than Significant. The proposed WCF does not have cumulatively considerable impacts as the nearest structure that is over the maximum allowable height are two utility transmission poles that are approximately 568 feet and 628 away from the proposed cellular tower. There are no cellular towers proposed currently and no additional towers are expected to be proposed within the area because the subject WCF will allow for up to two additional wireless carriers to co-locate onto the cellular tower. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow for additional freestanding cellular towers to be up 90-feet tall. Each proposed cellular tower in the future would require approval of a Conditional Use Permit to be approved by the City Council and environmental impacts of each tower would be analyzed by City staff and the City Council with the opportunity for review and comment by the public. c. No Impact. Sections I through XX of this Initial Study provide an analysis of potential environmental impacts of the Project, including adverse effect on human beings. The proposed Project would construct an unmanned wireless cell tower on private land owned by the City of Poway through a lease agreement. It was primarily determined that there would be no impacts and any impacts that would occur would be temporary during construction. 27 September 7, 2021, Item #5RESOLUTION NO. 21-A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 19-002 ALLOWING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY CONSISTING OF AN 85.5-FOOT-HIGH STEEL MONOPOLE AND EQUIPMENT CABINET ON A 5.37-ACRE LOT AT 13875 KIRKHAM WAY; ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 323-501-02 WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19-002 submitted by PlanCom Inc. (Applicant), on behalf of T-Mobile, requests to construct and operate a wireless communication facility (WCF) consisting of an 85.5-foot high steel monopole and equipment cabinet on a 5.37-acre parcel located at 13875 Kirkham Way in the Light Industrial -Storage (LI-S) land use district of the SPSP; WHEREAS, on September 7, 2021, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing to solicit comments from the public, both for and against, relative to this application; WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered the agenda report for the proposed project, including attachments, and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Poway Municipal Code (PMC) establishes findings required for granting a CUP; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway as follows: SECTION 1: As required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Initial Study (EIS) was completed for the project. A study was submitted relating to visual impacts. A letter was sent to the tribal representatives which are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area within the City of Poway's jurisdiction. The EIS determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A Notice of the Availability of the EIS and proposed Negative Declaration for public review and comment was provided pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. SECTION 2: The City Council finds that CUP 19-002 is consistent with the SPSP, including the LI-S land use designation and the amendment approved with SPA 19-002. SECTION 3: The findings for CUP 19-002, in accordance with Section 17.48.070 of the PMC (findings required before granting or altering permit), are made as follows: A. The proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed WCF are in accordance with the title and purpose of PMC Chapter 17.48 (CUP Regulations), the General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City, including, but not limited to, the City Wireless Communications Policy in that the proposed WCF will be located on a property designated for industrial uses and the monopole will have similar materials and height as the San Diego Gas and Electric transmission pole towers located approximately 730 feet west of the project site. No significant visual impacts to the community are anticipated. 37 of 98 ATTACHMENT B September 7, 2021, Item #5Resolution No. 21-Page 2 B. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed WCF will be compatible with, and will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to, adjacent uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources in that the proposed WCF will be located in an existing landscape planter on a previously developed property that is used for vehicle inventory storage with surrounding industrial uses to the west, north, and east, and open space to the south. The use will comply with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) design and operational standards. C. The WCF is in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, and density of, and is consistent with, adjacent uses in that the WCF will be located on a previously developed property and the monopole will have similar materials and height as the San Diego Gas and Electric transmission pole towers located approximately 730 feet west of the project site. D. There are adequate public facilities, services, and utilities available at the subject site to serve the proposed WCF. E. There will not be a harmful effect upon the desirable neighborhood characteristics in that the proposed WCF will be located in an existing landscape planter on a previously developed property that is used for vehicle inventory storage with surrounding industrial uses to the west, north, and east, and open space to the south and the WCF will comply with FCC design and operational standards. F. The generation of traffic will not adversely impact the capacity and physical character of the surrounding streets and/or the Circulation Element of the General Plan in that the proposed WCF is unmanned and will only require periodic maintenance, thereby generating minimal traffic. G. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development in that the proposed WCF will be located on a previously developed 5.37-acre lot, meets all development standards for the LI-S land use district, and the facility will enhance telecommunications coverage in the City with no significant visual impacts. H. There will not be significant harmful effects upon environmental quality and natural resources in that the proposed WCF will be located in an area developed with light industrial and business park uses, would not adversely affect a scenic vista, damage scenic resources (including those within state scenic highways), significantly conflict with regulations governing scenic quality relative to their visual effect or create a new substantial source of light and glare, and does not involve the removal of natural habitat resources. I. There are no relevant negative impacts associated with the proposed WCF that cannot be mitigated in that the facility will comply with FCC design and operational standards. J. That the potential impacts, and the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the WCF will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, nor be contrary to the adopted General Plan in that the WCF will be located in an existing landscape planter on a previously developed property that is used for vehicle inventory storage with surrounding industrial uses to the west, north, and east, and open space to the south, and will comply with FCC design and operational standards. 38 of 98 September 7, 2021, Item #5Resolution No. 21-Page 3 K. The proposed WCF will comply with all the applicable provisions of PMC Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance), in that the facility is a conditionally permitted use and has been designed and sited such that it will not result in significant visual impacts, and will comply with FCC design and operational standards. SECTION 4: The City Council hereby approves CUP 19-002, only upon the above refenced "effective date," allowing a WCF consisting of an 85.5-foot-high steel monopole and equipment cabinet at 13875 Kirkham Way in the LI-S land use district of the SPSP, as shown on the approved plans incorporated herein by reference and stamped as "Exhibit A" and dated September 7, 2021 on file in the Development Services Department, except as noted herein, subject to the following conditions: A. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, damages, judgments, or costs, including attorney's fees, against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, relating to the issuance of this permit, including, but not limited to, any action to attack, set aside, void, challenge, or annul this development approval and any environmental document or decision. The City may elect to conduct its own defense, participate in its own defense, or obtain independent legal counsel in defense of any claim related to this indemnification. In the event of such election, applicant shall pay all of the costs related thereto, including without limitation reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In the event of a disagreement between the City and applicant regarding litigation issues, the City shall have the authority to control the litigation and make litigation related decisions, including, but not limited to, settlement or other disposition of the matter. However, the applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless such settlement is approved by applicant. B. Approval of this CUP request shall apply only to the subject project and shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. This CUP approval shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans stamped as "Exhibit A." . C. Within 30 days of the date of this approval, and before the issuance of any permit: (1) the applicant shall submit in writing that all conditions of approval have been read and understood; and (2) the property owner shall execute a Covenant Regarding Real Property. In order for the City to prepare the Covenant the applicant must first submit a legal description of the subject site. D. The use conditionally granted by this approval shall not be conducted in such a manner as to interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of surrounding uses. E. The conditions of CUP 19-002 shall remain in effect for the life of the subject use and shall run with the land and be binding upon future owners, successors, heirs, and transferees of the current property owner. F. The CUP may be subject to annual review, as determined by the Director of Development Services, for compliance with the conditions of approval and to address unresolved operational concerns that may have been raised during the prior year. G. Prior to start of any work within the public right-of-way or City easement, a Right-of-Way Permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Division of the Development Services Department. All appropriate fees shall be paid prior to permit issuance. 39 of 98 September 7, 2021, Item #5Resolution No. 21-Page 4 H. The applicant shall obtain a Building Permit prior to work commencing. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall comply with the following: 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted building and electric codes, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 2. The site shall be developed in substantial accordance with the approved plans stamped as "Exhibit A" on file in the Development Services Department and the conditions contained herein. A final inspection from the appropriate City departments will be required. 3. A $3,000 deposit shall be submitted to the Development Services Department to ensure completion and submittal of the required Confirming Radio Frequency (RF) Report, as specified in condition of approval J.1 below. The deposit shall also be used to cover the cost of an independent consultant to review the report, as determined by the Director of Development Services. 4. The antennas shall not be activated for use until the Building Division conducts a final inspection of the proposed structures and finals the permit. 5. The Building Permit plans shall include a utility plan that shows the equipment layout. 6. An access easement will be required to be recorded prior to building permit. 7. Erosion control shall be installed and maintained by the developer from October 1 to April 30 annually. The developer shall maintain all erosion control devices throughout their intended life. 8. A minimum cash security for erosion control is required. 9. The applicant shall pay the storm water pollution inspection fee according to the latest adopted master fee schedule. 10. Landscape and irrigation on-site shall be provided in accordance with the SPSP and the Poway Landscape and Irrigation Design Manual. Plans shall be submitted and a minimum of one staff review shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit. The landscape and irrigation plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Poway Landscape and Irrigation Design Manual, Chapter 17.41 PMC, and all other applicable standards in effect at the time of landscape and irrigation plan check submittal. The landscape and irrigation plan submittal is a separate submittal from other Project plan check submittals, and is made directly to the Planning Division. Contact the Planning Division for copies of applicable City standards, the landscape and irrigation plan submittal checklist and the plan review fee worksheet. Landscape and irrigation plan review fees are required and are the responsibility of the applicant. 11. Plans for irrigation alterations must be approved by the Department of Environmental Health (DEH), the City's consulting landscape architect, and City Cross-Connection Specialist. Irrigation installation must be inspected by the City's consulting landscape architect and City Cross-Connection Specialist. The existing irrigation system must be high-lined from a construction meter with backflow device until a successful cross-connection test is complete. A DEH inspector may be required to witness cross-40 of 98 September 7, 2021, Item #5Resolution No. 21-Page 5 connection test. If so, an inspector must be scheduled in advance. There will be fees from DEH for plan inspection and test observation. 12. A Kumeyaay Cultural Monitor shall be on site during any ground disturbing activities. If any cultural artifacts, cremations sites, or human remains are inadvertently discovered, the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians shall be informed. I. Prior to activation of the antennas, the applicant shall comply with the following: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial accordance with the approved plans on file in the Development Services Department stamped as "Exhibit A" and the conditions contained herein. A final inspection from appropriate City departments will be required. 2. The applicant shall repair, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, any and all damages to public improvements caused by construction activity from this project. J. Upon establishment of the modified WCF, pursuant to CUP19-002, the following shall apply: 1. Within 30 days of the commencement of operation of the antennas, the operator shall submit a report, prepared by a qualified professional, which specifies the actual RF levels within 500 feet of the facility and includes a statement as to compliance with the FCC Maximum Possible Exposure (MPE) limit. The format of this report shall conform to City requirements. The intent of the report is to measure exposure levels at the location after the facility is in operation and shall include the cumulative RF levels of all the telecommunications facilities at the subject site. A report of these measurements, and the engineer's findings with respect to compliance with MPE limits, shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services. If that analysis determines the MPE levels are exceeded, the operator shall cease operation immediately. Modifications shall be made to the facility and the operator shall conduct a second confirming RF report of the MPE levels. Full operation of the WCF shall not be allowed until the Director of Development Services has determined that the facility is in compliance with Federal guidelines. The City may conduct an independent verification of the results of the analysis provided by the operator, at the operator's cost. Upon demonstration, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department, that the telecommunications installation is in compliance with all Federal Guidelines, any balance remaining from the security deposit shall be refunded to the applicant, upon written request by the applicant. 2. All facilities and related equipment shall be maintained in good repair. Any damage from any cause including wear and tear shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible so as to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. 3. The facility shall be operated in such a manner as to minimize any possible disruption caused by noise. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekday nights. At no time shall equipment noise from 41 of 98 September 7, 2021, Item #5any source exceed the noise standards contained in the PMC. Resolution No. 21-Page 6 4. The owner or operator of the WCF shall routinely and regularly inspect the site to ensure compliance with the standards set forth in this permit. 5. The operator of the WCF shall be strictly liable for interference caused by the WCF with City telecommunications systems or other public agency emergency communication systems. The operator shall stop operations and determine the cause prior to restarting the facility. The operator shall be responsible for all labor and equipment costs for determining the source of the interference, all costs associated with eliminating the interference (including, but not limited to, filtering, installing cavities, installing directional antennas, powering down systems, and engineering analysis), and all costs arising from third-party claims against the City attributable to the interference. 6. The WCF shall not be operated in such a manner that it poses, either by itself or in combination with other such facilities, a potential threat to public health. To that end, no facility or combination of facilities shall produce, at any time, power densities within 500 feet of the WCF that exceed the FCC's MPE limits for electric and magnetic field strength and power densities for transmitters, or any more restrictive standard subsequently adopted or promulgated by the City, County, State of California, or the Federal government. 7. If there is any change in the operating characteristics of the WCF, a report pursuant to Condition J.1 of this Resolution shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services for review and approval. The Director may also require the operator to prepare an updated RF report, and pay for a third-party review of that report, as part of any review of this CUP. 8. Any service light(s) shall only be operated when maintenance is being performed on the equipment. The service light(s) shall be adequately shielded and directed away from adjacent roadways. 9. The owner of the WCF shall remove all of the communication equipment, and associated structures, approved pursuant to this permit within 60 days of ceasing operation of the telecommunications facility. 10. The light standard installed on the monopole shall be in operation during the hours specified by the Community Services Director. The light standard shall be well-maintained at all times. Any damages that may occur to the light standard during maintenance of the WCF shall be the responsibility of the operator of the WCF. 11. The operator of the WCF shall be responsible for maintenance of any landscaping proposed and approved as part of this CUP. 12. The steel monopole shall maintain the capacity to accommodate a minimum of three wireless providers (carrier antenna arrays). 13. This CUP shall not become effective until the effective date of Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 19-002. 42 of 98 September 7, 2021, Item #5Resolution No. 21-Page 7 SECTION 4: The approval of CUP19-002 shall expire on September 21, 2023, at 5:00 p.m., unless prior to that time, a Building Permit has been issued and construction on the property in reliance on the CUP approval has commenced. SECTION 5: The parties are hereby informed that the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Poway, California on the 7th day of September, 2021 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DISQUALIFIED: Steve Vaus, Mayor ATTEST: Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk 43 of 98 September 7, 2021, Item #5ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 19-002 TO THE SOUTH POWAY SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES TO HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 90 FEET AS A CONDITIONALL YPERMITTED USE WHEREAS, Chapter 17.47 (Specific Plan Regulations) of Title 17 (Zoning Development Code) of the Poway Municipal Code provides the requirements for the initiation, preparation, and adoption of Specific Plans in accordance with Section 65450, et seq. of the California Government Code (Article 8, Specific Plan); WHEREAS, Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 19-002, is a proposal to allow wireless communication facilities (WCF) to have a maximum height of 90 feet as a conditional use. It is proposed in association with Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19-002, which consists of a proposal to allow a WCF consisting of an 85.5-foot-high steel monopole and equipment cabinet on a 5.37-acre lot at 13875 Kirkham Way; WHEREAS, on September 7, 2021, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing to solicit comments from the public, both in favor and against, relative to this application; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered the agenda report for the proposed project and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The above recitations are true and correct. SECTION 2: As required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Initial Study (EIS) and a proposed Negative Declaration (ND) have been prepared for SPA 19-002. A study was submitted related to visual impacts. A letter was sent to the tribal representatives which are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area within the City of Poway's jurisdiction. The EIS determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Any anticipated impacts were determined to be below a level of significance and, therefore, do not require any mitigation. A Notice of the Availability of the EIS and proposed ND for public review and comment was provided pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. SECTION 3: The City Council hereby approves this Ordinance (SPA 19-002), in association with CUP 19-002, and amends certain sections of the SPSP as specified below. Removals are indicated with strikethroughs and additions are indicated with underline. 44 of 98 ATTACHMENT C September 7, 2021, Item #5Ordinance No. *** Page 2 SECTION 4: Chapter 4, Section IV, Subsection A, Item 3 (g) of the SPSP Volume 2 shall be added as follows: 3. Height [Excerpt only] g. The maximum height of a monopole or other freestanding wireless communications facility shall not exceed 90 feet. Monopoles shall only be considered when structures such as buildings, streetlights, and public water tanks are unsuitable. A site justification letter shall be submitted to justify the need or requirement for the proposed monopole location and design. The applicant shall use all reasonable means to conceal or minimize the visual impacts of the monopole. The monopole shall be architecturally integrated with existing structures and/or screened from view as much as practical. Telecommunication facilities shall avoid scenic areas, prominent vistas, open space areas, mountains. hillsides and prominent ridgelines to the largest extent feasible. Collocation shall be encouraged to the largest extent feasible. SECTION 5: Chapter 4, Section IV, Subsection B, Item 3 (f) of the SPSP Volume 2 shall be amended as follows: 3. Height [Excerpt only] g. The maximum height of a monopole or other freestanding wireless communications facility shall not exceed 90 feet. Monopoles shall only be considered when structures such as buildings, streetlights. and public water tanks are unsuitable. A site justification letter shall be submitted to justify the need or requirement for the proposed monopole location and design. The applicant shall use all reasonable means to conceal or minimize the visual impacts of the monopole. The monopole shall be architecturally integrated with existing structures and/or screened from view as much as practical. Telecommunication facilities shall avoid scenic areas. prominent vistas. open space areas. mountains. hillsides and prominent ridgelines to the largest extent feasible. Collocation shall be encouraged to the largest extent feasible. SECTION 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted each section subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact of any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. SECTION 7: This Ordinance shall be codified. SECTION 8: All references to the Government Code are inclusive of any amendments that may occur following adoption of this Ordinance. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its adoption. CERTIFICATION/PUBLICATION: The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it or a summary of it, to be published with the names of the City Council 45 of 98 September 7, 2021, Item #5Ordinance No. *** Page 3 members voting for and against the same in the Poway News Chieftain, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Poway within fifteen (15) days after its adoption and shall post a certified copy of this Ordinance in the Office of the City Clerk in accordance with Government Code § 36933. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Poway, California, held the 7th day of September, 2021, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held the 21st day of September, 2021, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DISQUALIFIED: Steve Vaus, Mayor ATTEST: Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk 46 of 98 September 7, 2021, Item #50 155 310 ----47 of 98 620 Feet □Do Subject Location: 13875 Kirkham Way CITYOF POWAY Zoning I Location Map Item: SPA19-002/CUP19-002 ATTACHMENT D September 7, 2021, Item #5Proposed monoeucalyptus ----Proposed equipment enclosure 48 of 98 ATTACHMENT E September 7, 2021, Item #5Proposed lattice tower-~--Proposed equipment enclosure 49 of 98 September 7, 2021, Item #5Proposed monopole -----Proposed equipment enclosure 50 of 98 September 7, 2021, Item #5u, ....i. 0 -+t U) 00 E,; O:J1 .li l!J / I These simulations are intended for graph to be part of or to replace the information provi 5/10/2019 Proposed mono pine----- Proposed equipment enclosure r~!~~~~:1 SO07954 13875 Kirkham Way Poway, CA 92064 San Diego County i -~!J!'_!Jr; ... ..,-!!1!!!11!!!1!'!!!""""~~ PHOENIX TOWER Photosimulation of proposed telecommunications site September 7, 2021, Item #55 Policy & Procedure ls/James L. Bowersox City Wireless Communications Policy 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of guidelines for the development and installation of wireless communication and related facilities in accordance with the City of Poway land use regulations. These guidelines are intended to .set forth clear and reasonable criteria to assess and process an application in a consistent and expeditious manner, while protecting the community's visual quality. This policy identifies preferred design standards and locations for such facilities in order to minimize visual impacts to the surrounding community and preserving land uses within the City. At the same time these guidelines allow for the orderly and efficient development of wireless networks consistent with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) pursuant to the Telecommunication Act of 1996 (TCA). 2. APPLICATION This policy contains development guidelines that the City applies to all applications for Wireless Communications Facilities within the City of Poway, including new proposals and amendments to existing Wireless Communication Facilities in all zones, overlays, specific plan areas, and City-owned properties, including public rights-of-way. These guidelines ensure minimal land use impacts on the surrounding community by encouraging preferred locations, providing design guidelines, and monitoring health and safety issues within the limits of the TCA. 3. POLICY 52 of 98 A. General The City is the regulatory agency responsible for issuing permits for the development of Wireless Communications Facilities in the City of Poway. For projects on private property, the City acts only in its Tegulatory role; for City-owned property, the City has dual roles as property owner and government regulator. The City's Development Services Department is responsible for design review, regulatory compliance, zoning administration, and permit processing of applications for Wireless Communications Facilities. In addition, for Wireless Facilities proposed on City-owned properties, the Administrative Services Department is responsible for the negotiation and administration of leases. ATTACHMENT F September 7, 2021, Item #5Wireless Communication Facilities Policy September 2004 Page 2 of 5 53 of 98 B. Permits Required Depending on the zoning of the property and the type of facility proposed, Title 17 of the Poway Municipal Code requires the approval of either a Conditional Use Permit or Minor Development Review Permit. In addition, a Building Permit is required. C. Facility Location 1. The preferred location for Wireless Communications Facilities shall be on structures such as buildings, streetlights and public water tanks. Collocation of facilities for different carriers is encouraged. 2. Location on properties with residential uses is discouraged. 3. If not located in a preferred area or with a preferred design, a site justification letter shall be submitted to justify the need or requirement for the proposed antenna location and design. The letter shall include other sites that were analyzed but not selected with an explanation as to why the analyzed sites did not meet the objectives (include engineering, coverage and location justification) and why the collocation of the facility with others in the area cannot be accomplished. D. Design Guidelines 1. The applicant shall use all reasonable means to conceal or minimize the visual impacts of the facilities. The facilities shall be architecturally integrated with existing structures and/or screened from view. 2. The use of false trees is discouraged. 3. The facilities shall be the smallest, least visually intrusive antennas, components and other necessary equipment. 4. Vertical elements, designed as flagpoles or light standards, shall replicate the design, diameter and proportion of the vertical element they are intended to imitate. 5. All equipment associated with a wireless facility located within the public right of way shall be undergrounded, except for small service connection boxes, unless the Director of Development Services determines that no other feasible alternative for the wireless facility design or location exists and that the equipment is properly screened from view. 6. Antennas shall be painted to match the color of the surface to which they are attached. September 7, 2021, Item #5Wireless Communication Facilities Policy September 2004 Page 3 of 5 54 of 98 7. The height limit of the antenna and supporting structure shall not exceed the maximum allowed height for building and structures of the underlying zone. When attached to a structure or building, the combined height of the support structure and the antenna shall not exceed the maximum allowed height for building and structures of the underlying zone. Antennas mounted on the top of a structure or building shall be architecturally integrated or screened from view such that no more than 2 feet of the antenna is visible above the screen. Antennas architecturally integrated into structures or buildings that exceed 3 5 feet in height, are allowed provided the height of the existing structure or building is not increased. Antennas attached to a street light pole shall not exceed the height of other street lights within the area. 8. Antennas mounted on sports field lights, security light poles, parking lot light poles or streetlights shall be mounted below the light source. All antennas on flagpoles shall be concealed within the pole. E. Pre-development Conferences and Neighborhood Meetings 1. Any request for a "fabricated" telecommunication facility such as a separate tower, fake water tanks, fake trees, light poles etc. must be scheduled for a pre-development conference with the City Council prior to the submittal of an application to the City. 2. Any request proposed within or in close proximity to a residential neighborhood shall conduct a Neighborhood Meeting as early in the process as feasible. F. Standard Conditions for facilities on City-owned property In additipn to project-specific conditions, the following standard conditions shall be applied to any facility on City owned property in order to ensure that the City obtains the proper leasing documents prior to installation: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Obtain a right-of-way permit and provide a $5,000 security to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b. Submit a request for and attend a pre-construction meeting with a City Engineering inspector. The applicant/developer shall be responsible to ensure that all necessary individuals such as, but not limited to, contractors, subcontractors, project civil engineer and project soils engineer, attend the pre-constmction meeting. c. The building permit plans shall include a utility plan that shows the equipment layout. September 7, 2021, Item #5Wireless Communication Facilities Policy September 2004 Page 4 of 5 55 of 98 d. Submit all required leasing documentation, including but not limited to insurance certificates and the annual rent check, to the satisfaction of the Department of Community Services and City Clerk and obtain their authorization for issuance of a building permit. e. The applicant shall enter into a Master Communications Site License Agreement, prepared and agreed to, by the City Attorney and City Council. 2. Prior to energizing the switch gate, the applicant shall receive final approvals from the Administrative Services Department, Public Works Department, Fire Department and Development Services Department (Planning, Engineering and Building Divisions). G. Standard Conditions for Facilities on Private Property and City-Owned Property In addition to project-specific conditions, the following standard conditions shall be applied 1. The approval may be subject to annual review, as determined by the Director of Development Services, for compliance with the conditions of approval and to address concerns that may have been raised during the pnor year. 2. Prior to building permit the operator shall submit calculations specifying the FCC's Maximum Possible Exposure (MPE) levels in inhabited areas within 500 feet of the facility in the areas that the levels produced are projected to be highest. Upon issuance of the Building Permit and installation of the facility, the applicant shall hire a qualified electrical engineer licensed by the State of California to measure exposure levels at the location after the facility is in operation. A report of these measurements, and the engineer's findings with respect to compliance with MPE limits, shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services. The facility shall not commence normal operations until it complies with or has been modified to comply with this standard. Proof of compliance shall be a certification provided by the engineer who prepared the original report. In order to assure the objectivity of the analysis, the City may require, at the applicant's expense, independent verification of the results of the analysis. 3. The antennas shall not be activated for use until a final inspection is conducted by the City. 4. The Building Permit plans shall include a utility plan that shows the equipment layout. September 7, 2021, Item #5Wireless Communication Facilities Policy September 2004 · Page 5 of 5 5. All facilities and related equipment shall be maintained in good repair. Any damage from any cause shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible so as to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. 6. The facility shall be operated in such a manner as to m1mm1ze any possible disruption caused by noise. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekday nights. At no time shall equipment noise from any source exceed the noise standards· contained in the Poway Municipal Code. 7. The owner or operator of the facility shall routinely and regularly inspect the site to ensure compliance with the standards set forth in the permit. 8. The wireless telecommunications facility shall not be operated in such a manner that it poses, either by itself or in combination with other such facilities, a potential threat to public health. To that end, no facility or combination of facilities shall produce, at any time, power densities in any inhabited area that exceed the FCC's Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for electric and magnetic field strength and power densities for transmitters, or any more restrictive standard subsequently adopted or promulgated by the City, County, State of California, or the Federal government. If there is any change in the manner in which the facility is operated or change in the MPE, the applicant shall submit calculations specifying the FCC's Maximum Possible Exposure (MPE) levels in inhabited areas within 500 feet of the facility in the areas that the levels produced are projected to be highest. The applicant shall hire a qualified electrical engineer licensed by the State of California to measure exposure levels at the location after the facility is in operation. A report of these measurements, and the engineer's findings with respect to compliance with MPE limits, shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services. to the Director of Development Services for review and approval. The Director may also require an updated report as part of any review of this Conditional Use Permit. 9. The owner of the wireless telecommunications facility shall remove all of the communication equipment, and associated structures, approved pursuant to this permit within 60 days of ceasing operation of the telecommunications facility. m:\plaru1ing\memo04\wireless policy.doc 56 of 98 September 7, 2021, Item #5U1 ...... 0 .... U) 00 l> -I -I l> n :I: s: m z -I ~ (N) PtiOEf'IX TOWER INTERNATlONAL ---·--·-·•...__ TELCO POINT OF CONNECTION AT (E) PULL BOX (N) PHOENIX rowEH INTERNATIONAL POWER POINT OF CONNECTION AT (E) soG,E TRANSFORMER (E) SEWER LINE, FIELO VERIFY EXACT LOCATION flHIOR TO GONSTH.UCTION. (E) 6UIL01NG (SHED) SECTOR I A7.IMUTHJ20' • --2.:.::.:-····- (EI BUN.DING --. KIRKHAM WAY ~~~~~'~;~Jis~~w~~~E4D~ \. ~1 · j t1nr-0· CONTAAClOR SHALL HAVE THIS AREA \ it-· SCANNED FOR UNOERGROUNO \ tr IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO Tl-IE STAAT \ SECTOR 3 OF CONSTRUCTION \ 51(~~~E~ , AZIMUTH l'.!O~ TRENCHING NOTES i'Hlll~ JO Tllli. IITAAT 0:-C(INSTA.VCnON. Tilli (ON11V•Cl0~ lo•"6l.LLOl.:IIU AU. ut,l;IIHC:«lllNOJM·•li(lVf.._l;;Nnt INTll! Y,OM.KAiU: .. loU.UCISTIN(I llrt.mU .O!VK:El~O ST~VCT,111:HI StlA.l.Lali: Po40Tit.:'fli.O.N.Pt,,cli. l.:t(HCH•IITO'-ATl()NI-WLHN"CCO!\O,.,.,CIWIT'HTrll"CllY~t•,01NIIYUJNICt""'-COOt liJKl SfNI 01rc.:o :t.l.UIUtll-,L UIIN'.)A),10 OAAYll'IQI u.J.t,lr,t~:l 0.::5, ON,.l,t,Ol;O GONCtlifilllOGWA.U(SQR01,t111C:\'1"y1J1;,.1Au.Dll:1ltf'l,-C!':0..1tWIT•W•J0'4T10111Z s ... TlliF11cno,,o=-111tc.:rrvi:t1c,..r,n FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTE ENGINEERING NOTES: 1 NO EXISTING PAnKING SPACES Wlt.L HE USED OR REMOVED 6Y THIS PROJECl. 2 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION PEAAIT J'HI: PERMITTEl:: SHALL SUBMIT A WATEH POLLUTION CONTRCI. PLAN (WPCP). THE WPCP SHAll BE PREPARED IN ACCOROANCf. WITH THE OUIOELINl:S OF THE OTY Of POWAY STORM WATER STN«>ARDS. ,\ LOT LINE, rYP. \ ! i i I ~ /"., PROPF.RTV .. '. LINE. fYP. ' ',"" APN: 323-501-02 '-. ·,., ''-. '-. '··", "·, ""· c>I$ "·,,, SITE PLAN(~.·-, __ ,-''--··-··-··-'· sCALE:1·"'sa-0· D (N) UVE PINE TREES & SHRUBS IN (E) I.MOSCAPE PLANTERS. SEE CONCEr>l LANOSCAPE l'LAN SHEET l.· 1 SECTOR2 A2.1MUTH50' • -.. .• _ FUTURE C:QlNPMENT AREA. (N)PHOENIX TOWER INTERNATIONM.. 10'-0" x 15"-0~ x 0'-0~ t-MG11 CONCRETE BLOCK £0U1Pt.1CNT ENClOSlJRC AT GAAOt: LEVEL. $EE EOUIPMENl PLNtONSttl::El' A·l (N)PHOENIK TOWER INTERNATIOl'W. (II) ANTE~ 6 (GI RRU AADIO UNITS ~UNTEOON;..(NJIM'-0' HGH MONOPOLE. SEE ANTE:NN.a. Pl.AN & ~.Jt«JPO\.E ELEVATION ON StEET A·2 BOUNOAlitY NOTE: THE PROJECT OOUNOARY Slf:JWN ON THIS DRAWING IS APPROXIMATE ANO IS SHOWN fOR REFERENCE ONl Y. A. COMPLE le BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS NOT PERFORMED ISSUE STATUS ;r,~~ltil~i Tfti::••!Jl:fftltf l!±' PLANCOMI 3ll2 STATEl'U\CE, ESCONOIOO, CA.UFORMA O:..>o?Y PROPRIETARY INFORMATION •1-.~,-~-.·,r,, .... ,.,.,,.,"Cf.,·,.-.. ,· .... ,:.·,,:,;.,.,._, .... ,. .. ., .. ~~ zUJ UJ$ ~o p,. .... ~ <( I ~ a: S2 § ~~ :::,.., Ul_, Q°LL_ <( z ~~ ~~ <( < ~8 >-m ~ ~~ :::i: a, < <( :r(.) :,:: . a: >-~ ~ ~o ~a_ SHEETTITLF. SITE PLAN A-0 September 7, 2021, Item #5u, 00 0 "'"" \0 00 TRENCHING NOTES j'l~I~ TOTltE !HA!-tfOFCONSnrucOON, ttF.:CONT:-U.Cro:tSll,l,Ll L(lC-.Ti:M.l ~~~~s~~~:A~~•~~~~~::;~~:AA!"-A1.L iXISTNG U"U.ITlU, 0£',IClS ;.HO T-tlcr«:il IG5TOAA1lflN SUN.I.■!" N M~CO~#IC:f wnu lltS<:rn oi l"O'flAl'M\!NIC:~"'lli co,>;; l,NO ~AN OlfC'.0 A.(CIONAI. $TNIOA~O O~VINGS (';.'4 ANOC-J!, ~;o {:()HCIF.lF. SLOii\'IAltl!l (\Q •'l'~I\H\tlAY'!. s11-.u BE 1-U:~...Cf,') Jt:)lfif-Ttl-JOINT lTl t◄f. SJr.11 •. •A(;Til')Nt)ITlli(lfW'iM-N((M {-·ffiii:i~ I TRENCH 0 .•. ·~ -~ SECTOA1 AZIMUTH 320~ .. . ;~:-S.1· ! ',, ,.;Y':··,, ' . ·~1: i;- . -· -, •· .. ----------'r-· -, :: 0-- FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTE ··~ ... ~ ,,:·,0 ~--t ·t tr ' ii (NI PHOEMX TOWER IN n:R1'4A.TtONAl. 10·-0· x ,s·-0·,; a·-o• HIGH CONCRETE BLOCK EOUPMENT ENCLOSURE FOOT-MOBILE AT GRADE Lt'VEL '\ ~~ '-'h ~9,Y)fMENT PLAN r:2r I 7'-6" I IN) PHOENIX TOWER INIERNATIONAL (0) /INTEN,""5 & (G) RRU RADIO UNITS MOUNTEOONA(N)OC·-o· HfGli MONOPOLE. Sl:E ANTENNA PLAN & MONOPOLE ELEVATION ON SHEET A-2 SECTOR.2 AZIMUTH SO• • .'• .. ••.:#.:.. ;1 ~1 A _;;{ \\ bi \\ ;;I r. ·\\:=~1 :! 11 i;,l ~ ----ij :J __ ···+r:~"~J ,:i~.~ ~., _ J~ EQUIPMENT PLAN KEY NOTES: 0 (N) PHOENIX TOWER INTERNATIONAL 10'·0" )( 15'·0"), e·-o· HGH CONCRETE BLOCK f:OUIPMENl ENCLOSURE fOR T-MOS.LE (150 SO. FT. 1.EASF. AR(~A) W1TH PRECISION ANISl-t 0 (N) S'-4" WIDE OPENING WITl-i5'-0" 1t8'-0• STEEL~ ACCESS GATE ANO T-MOEULE SJGNAC",f:. ~ 0 {N) 5'·0" ), ti' -0" CONCRETE LANDING 0 fN) SCREENN'fG SHRUB, TYPICAL Of 13. SEI:: GONU:Pl lANOSCAPE PLAN SHEHl-1 0 (N) T.MOM.E ~102 MUAC EQUIPMENT CA84NET INStOE {N) ~ EQUIPMENT ENCl.OSURE ON A CONC..Rf:TE PAO (l) l'OTAL '(&] <l> (N} T-MOAlt..E ◄'-0" 1: fi'-0" CONCRETE PAO 12) TOT AL 0 (N) PPG CA61NC:T fAOUNTED TO UNISTI~UT ON WALL \;,,\BINET INCUJOES 200A DISCONNECT N«J ATS I (NI CIENA CABINET MOUNTED TO UNISTRUT ON WALL (NI TELCO BOX MOUNTED TO UNISTRUT ON WALL (NI CONCRETE: fOOTING FOH MONOPOLE (SHOWN SHADElll (N) FIRE EXTINGUISHER, CLASS '2.A-t08C', M{)Ul4TE0 TO W/\ll IN ACCORDANCE YrlTH FIRE DEPARTMENT REOJIREMENTS 12 (NJ WALL MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTUR!:: (1YP1CAl Of 21 13 (NJ TERMINATION H-flV1ME WITH MASTER GROLM> OUSS 8AR 14 (N)il)6'0CONOIJl[SWl:El'STOMONOPOLE 15 (NJ FIRE OEPAATMENT KNOX OOX MOUNTED TO (Nt M.fJlAME 10 (N) GENERATOR REC(PTA.CLE MOUNTED TO WAI.L 17 (N) <400 NJI> PHOENIX TOWF.R INTERNA.TK>NAL ,.10LTI-GANG METl':R AASE ON (N) ►t,fl{AME 0 NOl'USt U <S> ~~.~~:~u~~;6~~~)=~~!.·,;1~;~~~~E SITE Pl.AH ON SHEET A-0 FOR ENTIRE ROUTE, APPt..l\:.ANT IS NOT SEEKING AN EASEMENT OEDtCATION FOR Tl-IS ACCESS ROUJI:: <@> (E) CONCRETE CURS <8> (N) 5·.o· wI{'1f: ROUTE FOR PHOENIX TOWER INTERNAT~ POWEii 6 TELCO TRENCH iSHOl'l'N DASHED) ~TIIACTUR S1111U. LOCATE Al.L EXISTING UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMF.Nrs PRIOR TO nte ST.A.Ill OF CONSmVCTtON j (Nt GPS ANTENNA MOUNTED ro (N)'NAU {!!) WROUGHT IRON GATE ro Rf~ (EJTREE. TYP (NI COAXIAi. CABLE CONOLNT TRENCH (N) J/4' CRUSHED STONE GRAVEL OVER WEED BARRIER INSl0£ EQUIPMENT EMCl.OSURE <e> (N) e·-o· HIGH WROUGHT IRON fC~' GATE w,rn 5(.;HEl:NING VINt:: L.ANOSCAPINCi. SE(; CONGEP I LANDSCAPE PLAN St-tEET l•1 ~ (E) s·-o· BIGl-i CONCRETE ALOC.'( WALL ro REt.WN ~ {E) GATE CONTROL KEYPAOTORft.WN <%> =~~r~c:;.;~:1~=0Lt~~~·ro (N) MONOl'OLE i (E) ELECTRIC PU.t COX lE) TELCO PULL BOX FUTURE EQUIPMENT AREA (N) SCREENING VINE, TYPICAL OF 7. SEE CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PL,\N SUF.ET l-t ISSUE STATUS 't\~;~~i~ -~-·~-~~:-r-·1-l;r~~~~~:u~ PLANco~I 302~TATEl'tJ\Gf., ESC-ONOIOO. CALIFOft"4tA U20:M<I PROPRIETARY INFORMATION ,i,....~ v.. tt. ~r•.• · · -, ·-< ....... ..-.-:» ...... "•.·· ..... ,,.--.,1\ ... ·y . .,_,· )<'.~ ~ zLU ; w>•-o>; :cO ~: Q.. ....... ~ ~~ ::, ,., (/)-' g~ O'.I:? ~ <( I ~ a: S2 ~! ::i; u <o >-m ~ i~ ~er, <( <( I(.) ::.::: -a: >-:.:: ~ ~o ~(l_ EQUIPMENT PLAN A-1 September 7, 2021, Item #5U1 \0 0 """' \0 00 )> ---4 ---4 )> n :c s: m z ---4 :c [·-PROPOSED ANTENNA SCHEDULE 1i "-· (N} MONOPOLE-·-' )"•~wJ · PROVIDE (l}G"x 12• CABLE PORTS @ POLE Pl.AN AT UPPER CMILE PORTS ~-; .J. .. =;;-=~~~;~;~~~~-~'. ... l I .~ ! ;~~!~t~~ii'EitJf!,;/ ·;_1 ... El\~UQNAlfU..-.,W10Ctn1 l ,, iiiic1sciNAl~1>1114'\C\CTO) l t ·: Lo:~~:·i t~l~t;t+.~;:;;-: ---+--~ ! AAO ! ~lN'll:'-1 ';£,~I-~i~*·:~i~·,1:·n~f ;r~d:=" .. ·--Li-.J"l 1 I! i 11 : ....... 1.· .. r==WJ1:= .... 1 ;r· ... :.il, .. ®.~·,,. (N} MONOPOlE PROVIDE (2)9"x24'~ HANDHOl.fS WITtt COVERS ,>!; 0 POLE PLAN A_T POLE BAS€ (3'-0-} 0 _,- . I MONOPOLE HANDHOLES SCAI.E: 3~••1' .• (f" SECTOR I AllMUTH320~ • ,;~--~~·. ,-· •.:>. ,.· ·r· ©···· TYPICAL (N) RRUS UNITS MOUN TEO TO CROS..~ ...... .. ARM. (2) PER SECl"OR (0 TOTAL) SCE 01::TAIL@· IN) GALVANIZED STEEL AAM & · CROSS ARM (T'VP1CAL) (N) MONOPOlE NOTES: TYPICAL HYORIOCABLE {l)GX121tC..C\(1 PER.SECTOR! TYPICAL FIBER JUMPER l.ENGTH (4} 18' FOR ERICSSON ANTENW.S 12) •~· FOR RFS ANTENNAS (2} 16' FOR ANDREW ANTENNAS 3 COAXIAL CNJLl: L(NGTlt • 100' ;-:~ -~'o. ':~i,. '-' -s-• . -.,, SECTOR2 AZIMUTH SO" • (N) PHOENIX TOWER INTEl~lfONN.. (0} ANTENNAS & (G) RRU AAOIO ._..,-s MOUNTED ON A (N} M'-0" HGH MONOPOLE -<JifJifJifJi) ,.JJJ· ' ~.:;~~ • • woo~,~~•-~ /! "ff 1.. ·, '·:~.'---(g)ANTt:HNI\S&(6)RRUFWltOIH --.. ,'i)::::::: t. ',,,___...~ '\ , ····~···--MOUNTEOONA(N)M'-O"t-lGH ·,(,i --., _,>'"' MONOPOLE j,'. ' ~)ll-~)ll •f L~-=="~=-._.-=_;...=:1;:-:-· ·:::::--l,s·-::: ___ A'='.;' ... · .I ./· .·, .. )?o_. • SE'CTOr~ 3 AZIMlJTl-1130" it. ;j>,~~l.116. ,· A.M.S.l. ~~l.!fc:·· ·,)JU tf:'J,J.~~NA PLAN(u"' FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTE ~, ~ · · FUTURE CARRIER ANTf.NNA ARRAY r--/" . ·; "·( i; ; I !f ,~[ l-; --' /_j:,i j j i' i ! ; I• .. --_.1.(; ·1:,r i::' _.- PRO\I\OE (3)6', ,,. __ )' I C;\BLE PORTS IN) MONOPOLE ©\ \ · · · FUTURE CARRIER. NHENNAMAAY · · PA.OVIOE (2) a· X 24· HN«:>t10t.ES AT RA.SF. WITH COVF.RS --(N)CO'ICAETEPIER ~~~~~=:,~~~,t~ii~ill;~;~i ---·1 ! I ~g~oPOLE ~~LEVATtON ISSUE STATUS 1u~. OA1i o· 01,:0-~, 1 w:.100i1r..c.-vt1Y1 :, .. i·· _,,o-all i!A,otftJ~1:~-i :,-_·_··~--~: .. ~--~~~-.1~-~-~--~~~-~-~-~ .. r.~;· l . :-:~::: l'·:::~~=h~~~: :-:: · '"i~~!H1~:s~~!if i PLANcOMK ll:ll•..:.AH l'fl<"')Jl.l \ 301 STATEPlACI:. F.SCONOIOO, CAllfOHNIA 8102Q PROPIU[TI\RY INF~TION ,-... , .................... Y, ...... ""'/,0 ,1 ... •-•""'•~'l"'"'••\l,..~'Oe"-• .... ,e-....... tf\••~'1,..r'f.•-.\,...,_, ~0:::;;'. zUL~ LU>:: o>~ :r:O .., p.. t-~ § ~~ ::) M rJ)·ii ~ z· Oo a:..., 8~ ~ <( I ~ cc sz << ~u <( 0 >-a, ~ i~ ::E O') c( <( Iu ::.: " a: >-~ ~ ~o ~ 0. SHr:Ei TITLE: ANTENNA Pl.NI & MONOPOLE ELEVATION A-2 September 7, 2021, Item #5en 0 0 -ft \0 00 FUTURE CARRIER ANTENNA AA.RA 'r FUTURE CARRIER ... ANTENNA ARRAY ,~:~~;--±t) ~-.. l-· NORTH ELEVATION SCAI.E: 1/6~ • 1•-0- FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTE nas r-... Hl.;n lijl(~.I\ICOl'I r,t1, Vl'.;t"( tlC"ill ~~! !l"-Ul;(0#\!11! .... o,-'111i,:.rrr \ll'Ol:M'I (N) PI-K>ENIX TOWER INTERNI\TkJHAL (9) ANTF.NNAS (SHOWN SIIAOED) & (6) RRU RAOIO UNTS {SHOWN OASUEO) MOUNTED ON A. (N) 84'--0" 1-IGH MONOPOLE I,, i-i i rr··, •Ulr1··1· ~,.j L,,hl+~!IUI ,,11,Jt!i!~ • I. ! I . i :q:· --, I 1: 1,;.l, .. l (N)f'I KJCNIX l'OWER INTCR~TK>NAL to·-o-.-.; 1'.J-O•:.. e·-o~ t-llGH $PLIT•l:A..:I:; CONCRt:n: [)LO,'.;!( l:QUIPMIENT ENC.LOSUHE FOR T-M091l.E AT GRADE. 8'J~~ .,,F.t • .(.~~~ -; "~-\ Ji'':.,.t,.:i/f' ~:<.tt1•r..J~:R· ~~rJ~?-i-" ~:~J-"•.' ~ {N) I'.()" ttlGH WROUGHT IRON F(NCC WIT! I SCHIZC::N4NG VINES SEE CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEETL·1 .. (El WROUGHT IRON GATE(TYPICAL) ---(E)GRAOE (E) CONCRETE 0lOGK ... WALL TO REMl'IIN 1 1 ifi JJ:ib-1/Hfill (N) PHOENIX TOWF..R INTf.RNATIONAl (9) ANTENNAS • 1 (SHOWN SHADED) & (6) RHU RAO!O l.NlS (SliOYYN OASliEOI MOUHl ED ON A (NI k "--0" l·t<it1 MOf'lt'.JPOLI: ! .•-··· FUTURE CARRK;R 17 T Jr 7 .-1 · ANTENNA Al<RAY :.J "·frj r ·]t,j + l ) ; : i I ' ,"'·'"· 1· + I I /· ' 'j u ~i~i~~ ;f.•~ '\ jf:~:/-1-'l:' '~~t)~~::t 11 [:':·:::·;:'.,-,'~:·,,i······· ... FUTURE CARRIER /\NTE.NNA/lrlPJl,,,Y .. {EJGIWJ€ ,.. .~ i i ~ I !i;hi ti~~~~ t ~ ~ 8 ~ (NI PHOENIX TOWER INTeru.,.r,aw_ <0'-0-< 15'-0' x a·-o· HIGH sr,uT-FACE CONCRETE 8lOCK EQt.HA.ENT ENCLOSURE FOR. T-M091L£ AT GRACE. ~~§!._,.ELEVATION ISSUE STATUS o lor,1u.-,1 ! t(lj,tO..No~v11w , .... tt~~1liit~i~l1i~ ·,r,·· i ·o,,,,Of..21 i-·•.-xr,,..,.,,tyc()'\',.~"~ , ....... T-l::tl~ff:!.:itt~~1i~~t:~;t: PLANCOMI 302 STATE PLACE, ESCONDIDO. \..ALIFORNIA Q20N PROP~IETARY INfORMl\lK)N :r,,,.,.,"1 ,•oC,,~••·4 .. ,Clio '<, .. .C .. , .... ",,;_-·, ........... , ~a:::~ zLU ~ ~$~ §~ ~~ ::::,"' <I)_, :co : ~t-:· ci u.._ <z Oo o::,.... g~ ~ <( I ~ a: ~ c( .;( ~g >-co ~ i~ ~ m c( < I(.) :,.: . cc>-:.: ~ ~o ~a.. SHEET TITl.f EXTERIOR ELEVA'IIONS A-3 September 7, 2021, Item #5O'\ -0 -ti \.0 00 I FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTE I I THIS PARCEL IS LOCATED N THE VERY HIGH , .. E HAZARD AREA OF THE CITY OF POVIAY I ~ r LINE OF SIGHT FROM THE TOWER THIRD LEVEL 1 J :=:::::::t :: :::----L= _ -_-_-:cc __ ~==~=~-----=--------------------------------------___ __ ___----------------, -- :I: ! I GENERAL ATOMICS I I GENERAL ATOMICS r------------============r= D I / ~ z , I --t I SCRIPPS POWAY KIRKHAM WAY PARKWAY SITE SECTION (EAST ELEVATION) SCALE: 1" = 50'-0" ISSUE STATUS 0 07/20/18 90% Z.ONNG REVIEW ,_ 1 OS/10/18 100% ZONING REVIEW 1cw 2 0e.130/18 ANTitt-NA CONFIG REV rcw 3 09106/18 IOJ'l'.ZOFll'MI.FORSUl!MTI rew 100"!.ZD·CITYCOMMENTS - 100,.zo.cmCOMMENrs I )dn PLANcoM; 302 STATE PLACE, ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92029 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION TIC-'10NC0tif-DIH-tlle#~ ISl"IIOl'fll€fAI\T&C,-_l(Nn""-,o~~ ..,.TUHOll.l)IK;l()-Onc,111_ ... "..._.,~10 "tllllOH""111russ,ss11UQ.tM01-.~ ~~~ z~~ ~~~ o ... O·.: § ~~ ::::, <') en ...J ~~ X : ~~; Oo a: I- ~ ~ ~ <-,: ::Eu <o >-ID ~ ~ <( I ~ cc ~ ~;i; s: 0 ~ Sl <( <( Io ::.:: -er: >-~ ~ ~o g;i a. SHEET TITLE: SITE SECTION A-4 September 7, 2021, Item #5)> -I -I )> n :::c s: m z -I '- °' N 0 """' \0 00 ALTERNATIVE SITES CONSIDERED Alternative Site Analysis Site Feasibility Parameters Map# Site Name 7 8 City of Poway Auto Storage Lot ABC Training Academy WillScot Office Trailers Costco Home Depot General Atomics Saia Freight SDG&E 77' High (Estimated) Steel Transmission Towers PHOENIX TOWER 1Nf£11N"TIONAL Address Current Land Use I Automobile 13875 Kirkham Way Storage Lot 13825 Kirkham Way Office Building 14015 Kirkham Way Industrial Commercial Retail 12155 Tech Center Dr. (Big Box) Commercia I Retail 12175 Tech Center Dr. (Big Box) 14107 & 14115 Stowe Dr. 14004 Kirkham Way Military Defense 12055 Tech Center Dr. Freight Distribution Adjacent to Kirkham Way Electrical ROW@ GA West Driveway Transmission In/Out of Search Area (Yes/No) Technical Viability (Yes/No) Technical Comments Leasing Viability Leasing Comments September 7, 2021, Item #563 of 98 September 7, 2021, Item #5HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com May 6, 2021 Darrell Daugherty PlanCom, Inc. 302 State Place Escondido, CA 92029 HELIX Environmental Planning 00662.00130.001 Subject: Kirkham T-Mobile Wireless Telecom Facility Project (SPA 19-002/CUP 19-002) Dear Mr. Daugherty: This analysis is being prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) to support the City of Poway (City) in preparing a supplemental or subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Kirkham T-Mobile Wireless Telecom Facility project (project). The analysis addresses visual effects associated with the installation of an 84-foot high telecommunications facility (cell tower) within the current paved parking area of 13875 Kirkham Way, Poway, California. The regional and local locations of the project are shown on Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Location Map. The analysis addresses the existing visual setting in the vicinity of the project; identifies adopted land use plans, policies, and regulations applicable to the proposed project; and evaluates potential for adverse impacts associated with implementation of the cell tower. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The cell tower would be installed as a monopole structure extending 84 feet in height with nine antennae that extend to a height of 85.6 feet. The antennae, which would be gray and white in color, would be situated along steel arms that are configured into three segments that reach outward from the monopole at a center point of 81 feet. The monopole would be constructed of galvanized steel and treated with an anti-reflective coating. Concrete footing and reinforcement would extend below pavement and would not be visible. An 8-foot tall wrought iron fence with screening vines would surround the monopole. A 150-square foot equipment enclosure with an 8-foot concrete block wall would be located just east of the pine and wrought iron enclosure. Screening shrubs would be planted along the front of both the concrete equipment enclosure and the pine enclosure. To accommodate the new monopole, an existing light standard would be removed, and the existing luminaries and light arm would be relocated to the monopole. Similar to current conditions, lighting 64 of 98 ATTACHMENT K September 7, 2021, Item #5Letter to Mr. Darrell Daugherty May 6, 2021 Page 2 of 16 would continue to be directed downward to provide security and would not create spillover into neighboring land uses, in compliance with the City of Poway Municipal Code Chapter 13.15 as required. Figure 3, Site Plan -Antenna Plan, Figure 4, Site Plan -Elevations, and Figure 5, Concept Landscape Plan, contain technical design data and landscape plans for the facility. Currently, the South Poway Specific Plan states that antenna and supporting structure should not exceed the maximum height for building structures in the underlying zone, which for the Industrial zone is 35 feet and may extend to a height of 45 feet under specific circumstances. However, there is a proposed amendment to the South Poway Specific Plan. That Specific Plan Amendment would allow wireless communication facilities to have a maximum height of 90 feet. PHYSICAL SETTING General Land Use Patterns The City of Poway is generally located within a large valley surrounded by mountainous terrain. Beyond the lowlands of the valley floor, the majority of the planning area consists of hillside/canyon/ridgeline topography. Toward the south of the city, where it approaches City of San Diego jurisdiction, canyons (e.g., Beeler Canyon, Sycamore Canyon) provide notable elements, cutting through higher areas of mesa top. The project is located in this southern area, on a mesa top that is currently developed with commercial and light industrial uses (see Figure 6, Existing Views -Kirkham Way). The existing height limit for structures in this area is 35 feet, with exceptions for industrial buildings which may be 45 feet in height required for warehouse operations. The project site and nearby parcels are all zoned PC-7 (Planned Community-South Poway Business Park) (see Figure 7, Existing Views -Kirkham Way). Scripps Poway Parkway provides primary access to this area, with Kirkham Way tying into that larger parkway at both its eastern and western termini. Kirkham Way provides direct project access and is a four-lane road with two lanes in each direction and a center paved median. Consistent roadway elements include sidewalks, metal-poled streetlights, street signs, business signs and ornamental streetscape including trees, shrubs and groundcover that generally varies in specific style by lot ownership. This area contains manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, research and development, and administrative land uses in a landscaped setting. Kirkham Way businesses include big box retail (e.g., Costco), research/development facilities (e.g., General Aeronautics), as well as a variety of smaller commercial uses. Structures housing these uses are business park (concrete/glass) or warehouse (including expanses of solid wall) buildings of one to two stories in height. Structural density is greatest on the north side of the road. On the south side, where the project is located, pads with built uses are located on mesa area abutting Beeler Canyon to the immediate south. In some areas, natural open space comes up to the road edge; in others, it comprises the southern boundary to the built uses. Parking areas are surface facilities in proximity to the structures. Approximately 500 feet west of the project site is a San Diego Gas and Electric transmission line corridor developed with tubular steel poles that support 67 kilovolt (kV) double circuit overhead transmission lines. The towers are situated 350 feet apart along a four-mile segment that connect to the Pomerado substation to the north and the Sycamore Canyon substation to the south (California Energy Commission 2021). Field measurements indicate these tubular poles extend to a height of 75 to 80-feet. 65 of 98 HELi Env·r nme ta/ Pl,. 1nwg September 7, 2021, Item #5Letter to Mr. Darrell Daugherty May 6, 2021 Page 3 of 16 Because of the generally "flat" nature of the mesa, views that encompass built uses can be fairly truncated -the viewer is not able to see over them. Where the viewer is looking in line of direction along roadways trending east, however, mountains may be seen. The mountains that surround Poway are identified by the City as "significant visual features." Alternatively, for viewers moving west, just beyond the abutting lot to the west, views of open space and canyon are available where development on the south side of Kirkham Way does not resume until west of Paine Street. As noted in the Community Design Element of the City General Plan (see more below), the "proximity of these natural areas to the developed area of the City contributes to Poway's unique character." South of Beeler Canyon, the developed uses along mesa top are located in the City of San Diego. These uses are generally residential in nature with some associated school and park uses. They are aligned along more winding streets, with development "fingers" extending northerly wherever mesa top extends northerly into the canyon and between ravines. Parks and Trails The City maintains a substantial trail system for pedestrian, equestrian, and bicyclist use throughout its jurisdiction. The closest is the Beeler Creek Trail, which generally trends along the bottom of Beeler Canyon, immediately south of the City south mesa area. Where trail users would look up from canyon bottom, users of this trail (as for Beeler Road) can currently see the edge of development at the canyon top, as well as residential uses rimming the ridges to the south. Other trails in the general vicinity may also offer views toward the project site based on topography alone (i.e., without taking into account intervening built uses or vegetation). These include, for instance, limited but possible views from the southern portion of the Espola Trail and the eastern portion of the South Poway (Trans-County) Trail. Parks in the vicinity include facilities in the City of Poway, as well as in the City of San Diego. Poway parks/recreational areas include Bette Bendixen Minipark and the Poway Sportsplex Park. In the City of San Diego, Stonebridge Neighborhood Park and Cypress Canyon Park are both located within 2.0 miles of the project site. These facilities are briefly described below. Bette Bendixen Minipark is located in a valley accessed via Old Pomerado Road. The park contains a playground, picnic tables, and sand lot shaded by several mature trees. It is abutted by a nearby creek and wooded setting; residential properties are located across the street to the east. The project site is approximately 2.0 miles southeast of the park. Sportsplex Poway is a jointly owned (the City owns the land and the facility is privately maintained and operated) recreational sports complex with three baseball/softball fields, two multi-use soccer fields, a batting cage, and sports pub located north of Stowe Drive. Views off the Sportsplex are partially obscured by several mature pine and eucalyptus trees along Stowe Drive. Stonebridge Neighborhood Park is in a new development adjacent to Stonebridge Parkway in San Diego. The park includes a large grassy field with two baseball/softball diamonds, a basketball court, and playground; and is located less than a mile to the southeast (approximately 0.85 mile) of the project site across Beeler Canyon. The photograph shown on Figure 8, Existing Views -Stonebridge Neighborhood Park, were taken facing northwest toward the project site. Views towards the project site are dominated by the mature landscaping that line Stone bridge Parkway to the north and west of the park and the upper story and rooflines of the nearby homes. In the distant background are views of the mountains. 66 of 98 HELIX Environmental Planning September 7, 2021, Item #5Letter to Mr. Darrell Daugherty May 6, 2021 Page 4 of 16 Cypress Canyon Park consists of four baseball/softball fields and a tennis court adjacent to Cypress Canyon Park Drive in San Diego. The park is located approximately 2.0 miles to the southwest of the proposed tower location. The park is screened by eucalyptus trees to the east, which largely obscure views toward the project site. The photograph on Figure 9, Existing Views -Cypress Canyon Park, was taken facing toward the project site from the walking path on the perimeter of the park at the northernmost corner near the baseball field. REGULATORY SETTING California Environmental Quality Act Section 15382 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a substantial effect on the environment as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including ... objects of...aesthetic significance." State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) states that "the significance of an activity may vary with the setting ... an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area." While the Guidelines do not provide specific threshold criteria for visual impacts, the CEQA environmental checklist form provided in Appendix G of the Guidelines identifies evaluation criteria for visual impacts, including determination of substantial adverse effects to scenic vistas, resources (e.g., trees and rock outcrops), visual character and illumination (i.e., new light sources). City of Poway General Plan The City of Poway General Plan (1991, as amended) sets forth goals, policies, strategies, principles, and standards that comprise a comprehensive, unified program for physical development within the City. The policies and strategies contained in the General Plan are intended to guide the City's officials and staff in decisions concerning the use of land, as well as a wide range of issues relevant to growth and development within the City and generally are explained in detail in the varying Master Elements. Community Development Master Element Land use policy in Poway is guided by stated City ideals, including (among others) preservation of open space, and compatibility of adjacent uses. The Community Development Master Element (CDME) of the General Plan ensures the organization of the City into a functional, aesthetic pattern, and establishes design policies to provide an attractive environment that preserves the unique character of the community. The CDM E contains several elements, including the Land Use Element, Community Design Element, and Energy Conservation Element. The COME incorporates two City goals particularly relevant to all projects: • • 67 of 98 It is the Goal of the City of Poway to preserve Poway's unique and desirable character as a "city in the country" and to maintain high quality design and environmental standards in all new development and redevelopment. It is the Goal of the City of Poway to provide for an orderly balance of both public and private land uses in convenient and compatible locations throughout the City and to ensure that all such uses serve to protect and enhance the environment, character, and image of the City. HELIX Environmental Planning September 7, 2021, Item #5Letter to Mr. Darrell Daugherty May 6, 2021 Page 5 of 16 Resources Master Element Poway, as a foothill community, contains canyons, creeks, channels, grasslands, and mountains. The Resources Master Element {RME) contains provisions to conserve and manage the City's natural resources and to ensure that development of the City does not interfere with the intrinsic value of these resources. The RME contains a Natural Resources Element {divided into Land Resources, Water Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Open Space) and a Prehistoric and Historic Resources Element. Goal IV of the RM Estates: "It is the Goal of the City of Poway to preserve its natural, scenic, and cultural resources for the future benefit and enjoyment of its residents and to protect biological and ecological diversity." The applicable policy of Goal IV is: • Policy A-Scenic Areas: Scenic areas, prominent vistas, and open space areas that typify Poway's rural history and image should be preserved and protected through appropriate land use policies. Specific strategies include protection/retention of significant open space areas and scenic vistas along local scenic roadways; and identification of mountains, hillsides, and prominent ridgelines as valuable natural resources to be preserved through appropriate land use policies. City of Poway Wireless Communications Policy The purpose of the policy is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of guidelines for the development and installation of wireless communication and related facilities in the City in accordance with the land use regulations. The 2004 policy sets forth the preferred design standards and locations of such facilities in order to minimize visual impacts to the surrounding land uses and preserving land uses within the community. The design guidelines state that the height limit of the antenna and supporting structure should not exceed the maximum height for building structures in the underlying zone. Additionally, the guidelines state that an applicant shall use all reasonable means to conceal or minimize the visual impacts of wireless communication facilities and that the facilities shall be architecturally integrated with existing structures and/or screened from view. EXISTING VISUAL RESOURCES To provide an objective basis for evaluation, this analysis looks at both character and quality of the existing and proposed conditions within the area{s) from which they are most likely to be seen. This general area of visibility is shown in Figure 10, Viewshed Analysis. A "viewshed" is an analytical tool to aid in identification of views that could be affected by a potential project. The viewshed is defined as the surrounding geographic area from which the on-site elements of a project are likely to be seen and is delineated initially based on topography. The viewshed boundary for the proposed project was primarily determined through the computer analysis of local topographic maps. The viewshed boundary represents the geographic limits for this visual assessment. Figure 10 illustrates the project viewshed on an aerial photographic base. Although features can lose sharpness at approximately 0.5 mile depending on atmospheric conditions, 3.0 miles is considered close 68 of 98 HELIX Environmental Planning September 7, 2021, Item #5Letter to Mr. Darrell Daugherty May 6, 2021 Page 6 of 16 enough to allow viewers to visually note the proposed tower as a notable view element and see its spatial mass and form as different from surrounding uses. Although built versus natural elements are distinguishable for further distances, it is noted that beyond even 1 mile, details begin to become visually muted and distinguishable only as facets of the larger regional landscape. The area within 3 miles of the proposed cell tower covers approximately 18,864 acres, or 19.5 square miles. As shown, based on topographic information alone coupled with a conservative analysis using a 90-foot structure height, approximately 2,978 acres, or approximately 16 percent of the viewshed (inclusive of on-site areas), within 3 miles of the project site potentially would have views to the tower. This means that, under worst-case conditions of open visibility, approximately 84 percent of areas within the viewshed would not have view availability to the proposed tower based on topography. It also should be understood that the percentage of visibility is a conservative assessment of potential visual effect. This is because visual "shielding" by intervening structures or landscaping is not considered by the model. Because of intervening structural or vegetation elements, the monopole would not be visible from all of the identified points based solely on topographic elements within the viewshed area. Even under conditions in which topography or other intervening elements do not obstruct views, views to any given point within a viewshed may not be clear due to levels of humidity or haze. Visual Character Visual character generally can be defined through objective description of visual attributes within a project's existing landscape. This is a descriptive and non-evaluative exercise (i.e., it is based on defined attributes that are neither good nor bad when viewed individually). A change in visual character cannot be described as having good or bad attributes until it is compared with the viewer response to that change. If there is public preference for the established visual character of a regional landscape and a resistance to or a preference for a project that would change or contrast with that character, then changes in the visual character can be evaluated. Visual attributes include: (1) pattern elements and (2) pattern character components. Pattern elements are the basic art composition elements such as form, line, color, and texture. For example, rounded topographic forms, or protruding boulders can be example of form, while a line of trees or utility poles may provide line elements. Pattern character refers to the dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity of the landscape. An example would be the existing block structures that line Kirkham Way along the roadway. As indicated above, this portion of the Poway community has specifically been identified for commercial/business park uses. As such, its character is generally developed in nature, and variation between built elements is more focused on structure massing (height and width) than variety in use. Some variation is associated with window presence and size, specific building color, and proximity to road edge of developed uses. The amount of variation, however, is subsidiary to the consistent impression of business built uses. There are some views to open space areas trending through these developed areas, including Beeler Canyon immediately to the south of the mesa top area upon which the project would be located. Due to their downslope nature, these areas provide natural element integrated into a developed setting rather than the primary character element within the viewshed. Depending on the season, the non-irrigated 69 of 98 HELIX Environmental Planning September 7, 2021, Item #5Letter to Mr. Darrell Daugherty May 6, 2021 Page 7 of 16 vegetation of Beeler Canyon may be tan to ashy green in color. The greens to muted brown-greens of native scrub habitats predominate in the area undeveloped hillsides. These color patterns are overall visually "soft." Located above these slopes is additional development. As seen from Kirkham Way, these areas primarily consist of residential neighborhoods in the City of San Diego. Overall, the project site area is representative of a developed (and still intensifying) visual environment. Although specific structure style and size largely vary by lot (as can the sizes of the lots themselves), the area is primarily commercial/industrial in nature. Buildings are geometric and rectilinear features, with an emphasis on straight lines and sharp angles. Some buildings incorporate substantial amounts of glass, while others have few to no windows. Some variation is, therefore, associated with window presence and size, specific building color, and proximity to road edge of developed uses. The amount of variation, however, is subsidiary to the consistent impression of business built uses. Angles on structures are acute, and architectural detailing is relatively limited, fitting the business nature of the structures. Ornamental species chosen and intensity of landscaping varies within this setting, but the presence of streetscape (as opposed to absence of landscape) is notable fronting all developed uses along Kirkham Way. The vegetative colors in the landscaped areas vary less over the year, being more consistent shades of darker green. Roads and built structures, which are linear in nature and smaller in scale, respectively, provide some variety of form and line. Colors of existing built structures in the area vary and have a commensurate tendency to draw the eye (white or cream structures). The SDG&E transmission corridor provides a linear pattern of vertical elements. Visual Quality Visual quality is evaluated by identifying the vividness, intactness, and unity present in the viewshed. The three criteria are defined as follows: • Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole. It frequently attests to the careful design of individual components in the landscape. • Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements. It can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, as well as in natural settings. • Vividness is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in distinctive visual patterns. While the larger hills and mountains that are notable in so many areas of Poway are visible from some vantage points, they are at some distance from the project site and do not comprise part of the immediate visual experience. In this area, the visual character of the project area is notably disparate -consisting of the mesa top with its commercial/business park developed uses, edged on the south by the canyon rim and the topography falling away toward canyon bottom, edged by the north-facing south canyon slope on the other side. 70 of 98 HELIX Environmental Planning September 7, 2021, Item #5Letter to Mr. Darrell Daugherty May 6, 2021 Page 8 of 16 The existing visual quality is based on the width of the paved travel way, with its multiple lanes and median, and abutting business uses. Glimpses to "natural" elements are afforded along the roadway, but the substantial (and visually prized) hills and mountains rimming the City are at a distance and form horizon lines rather than comprising a primary view element. The consistent road elements and continuity of built uses with surface parking does result in a visually unified setting. It is also a relatively intact setting, as indicated in the discussion of visual character, above. The setting is not particularly vivid or memorable, however, as the visual pattern is not particularly distinctive. It is generally organized and consistent, but nothing stands out as a landmark or marks this area as unique. Within the larger visual setting, visual unity of the overall landscape is moderate to moderately low. Development has occurred in the business area, as well as in housing tracts to the south, and the setting also contains varied densities within those residential uses. Large expanses of retained open space (primarily scrub habitats) on hillsides provide visually unifying natural elements as they are located within and around structural development. The shared distant views to rimming hill and mountain forms also provide an overall unifying feature. The intactness of the larger visual area also is moderately low. The existing setting includes small uses to larger uses. Visually mature vegetation edges many of the residences and other structures and some stands of trees are notable. Uniformity of use or view is not high within the viewshed. The site setting is not particularly vivid due to its many competing visual elements and lack of a single visual focus. Viewer Response Viewer response is composed of two elements: viewer sensitivity and viewer exposure. These elements combine to form a method of predicting how the public might react to visual changes associated with a proposed project. Viewer Sensitivity. Viewer sensitivity is defined both as the viewers' concern for scenic quality and the viewers' response to change in the visual resources that make up the view. Local values and goals may confer visual significance on landscape components and areas that would otherwise appear unexceptional. Viewers include drivers/passengers of vehicles on Kirkham Way in particular, but also from numerous more distant areas given the height of the proposed tower. Viewers on their way to or from work are not expected to be particularly sensitive to changes in setting. It is assumed that, in general, views from passers-by are momentary, and the focus of the viewer is on reaching a particular locale and what happens there, as opposed to what it looks like. Area residents using trails or bikeway system (e.g., along Beeler Canyon Road or other area roadways) would be expected to be more sensitive to changes in the view. Although not immediately adjacent, for these viewers, the roadway setting can provide an often seen and intimately known view that contributes to the sense of home or the broader community. These viewers are expected to be extremely aware of all changes in their vicinity. Past experience shows that a number of these residents will strongly desire retention of existing conditions. Although home orientation or screening vegetation would obstruct many views, residential viewers are expected to be highly sensitive to changes in the immediate viewscape. 71 of 98 HELIX Environmental Planning September 7, 2021, Item #5Letter to Mr. Darrell Daugherty May 6, 2021 Page 9 of 16 Viewer Exposure. Viewer exposure is typically assessed by assessing the relative number of viewers exposed to the resource change, type of viewer activity, duration of the view, the speed at which the viewer moves, and position of the viewer. Exposure from roadways would generally be of limited duration due to the moving nature of the roadway user. The viewer would be expected to generally approach and pass areas of visibility, or have views blocked by turning roadway alignments and intervening uses. Although drivers passing through the area are expected to note project-related changes to the roadway vicinity and be affected by them, their primary focus on speed of travel and interaction with other drivers on the road, together with the relatively short duration of exposure time, are expected to render aesthetics changes secondary concerns. Bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians also would make up part of the viewer population, both within the City of Poway and the City of San Diego {e.g., from roads such as Old Creek Road). These viewers would also follow travel ways that twist and turn, sometimes offering open views and sometimes having views blocked, but their exposure would be extended, as they would be expected to move at slower speeds than vehicular passengers. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the State CEQA Guidelines. The project would result in significant impacts to visual/aesthetic resources if it would: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; 3. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings {public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, an impact would occur if the project conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; and/or 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts The assessment of impacts is based on the level of change from the existing condition that the project would bring to identified sensitive receptors in the vicinity. Contrast is assessed from the most critical viewpoints, which included scenic or valued views {e.g., from park areas or scenic trails), as well as views along commonly traveled routes. Significance of that impact is then based on how dissimilar introduced features would be to those currently present in the landscape, and the magnitude of that effect. Items considered include whether the project is actually seen, and when seen, the level of dominance it plays in the overall view. Elements of distance, angle of view, length of time it may be observed, and relative size {scale and special 72 of 98 HELIX Environmental Planning September 7, 2021, Item #5Letter to Mr. Darrell Daugherty May 6, 2021 Page 10 of 16 relationship) relative to its surrounding setting. In addition to field checks of the area, this analysis relies on the viewshed graphic presented in Figure 10. Issue 1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Scenic views can be quite focused (e.g., on a particular scene, setting, or feature of visual interest), or panoramic in nature. In this portion of Poway, near views do not apply. There is no landmark tree, view lake, historic structure, etc., in the existing setting of this business commercial area parking lot. The project is not located in a particularly scenic location. Project elements would be sited in a business area parking lot. Potential for view impacts, therefore, is based more on interruption of expansive, or panoramic, views. Panoramic views or vistas provide visual access to a large geographic area, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance. Panoramic views might include an urban skyline, valley, mountain range, etc. The locations from which such views may be affected (parks, trails, public roadways) are addressed below. The starting point of this analysis is the limited nature of views to the project overall. As noted above, views toward the project site and monopole cell tower are available from only 16 percent of the viewshed. Within the viewshed, there are several locations identified as visually sensitive due to their nature (public parks, trails, and roads with views to scenic areas). As indicated by the viewshed map (Figure 10), the project would not be visible from Bette Bendixen Minipark due to the local topography. The project site is less than a mile to the south of the Poway Sportsplex, but it is also expected that it would not be visible due to the sloping terrain of the mesa (see Figure 10). Moreover, users of this facility are expected to be primarily focused on the field activities as either a participant or spectator; thus, the visual environment is not the precursor for use of the site and would not be the primary intent for visiting this location. From Stonebridge Neighborhood Park, both Figure 8 and the viewshed graphic in Figure 10 indicate that at least a portion of the monopole would be visible from this vantage point due to its height. The project locale also is visible from the Sycamore Estates neighborhood (located across the street from the park and visible in the figure) and the streets that wind within it. Stonebridge Neighborhood Park sits at a slightly higher elevation at an average of 941 feet above mean sea level (amsl) (versus the project site at an average of 767 amsl). As a result, minus intervening structures and vegetation, there would be a clear view of the monopole tower. However, while the introduction of a new linear feature would be visible to the park visitors (as shown in Figure 8), there are features that obscure the view into the project site from the park. From ground level, the views at the park are dominated by the playfield structures and the mature landscaping along Stonebridge Parkway. Further distant in the middle ground, portions of the homes in the Sycamore Estates development are visible. The small associated structure would not be visible, but the monopole would rise above the height of the homes and be partially visible, thereby becoming a feature of the middle ground views. Moreover, while the introduction of the project would be notable, it would not represent a substantial disruption to the distant background views of the mountains to the north and west since it is linear in nature and the mountains would remain clearly visible. For a point of reference, the light standards at the park, visible in Figure 8 and much closer to the viewer, do not disrupt the overall expansive mountain views. Similarly, the project would not obstruct 73 of 98 HELIX Environmental Planning September 7, 2021, Item #5Letter to Mr. Darrell Daugherty May 6, 2021 Page 11 of 16 the distant views or represent a substantial change to the overall visual environment and would therefore result in a less than significant impact. Similarly, although not required under the CEQA thresholds, it is noted that the project would be visible from some of the homes in the Sycamore Estates with a rear yard with a northwest orientation. There is a relatively low number of residents with potentially direct and close views. Other residences may experience views onto the site, but from additional distance and with other residential (or related) uses intervening that may themselves block views. Regardless, where views exist, they can be expansive, particularly for the homes situated along Boulder Ridge, Whispering Ridge, and the Via Santa Brisa cul-de-sac, as well as the streets that access them and similar areas. On average, these homes sit at an elevation of 791 feet amsl, slightly higher than the project site. With the monopole rising to a height of 84 feet, it would be in the line of sight of these residences as they look towards the project site. However, residential landscaping also provides frequent shielding of view elements, both from the home where the landscaping is installed, as well as for adjacent structures. Therefore, not every structure along these roadways has uninterrupted views to the project site. Similar to the parks discussion, while the monopole would be visible, the linear nature of its design would not represent a substantial change of a scenic vista because it would not dominate the overall viewshed or obstruct views beyond the project to the distant mountains in the background. The overall character of the visual environment would not be substantially changed to a degree that would constitute a significant impact. From Cypress Canyon Park (see Figure 9), the monopole would be visible on the horizon from the northern end of the park particularly from the perimeter walking path, where the foliage is thinner, or trees are not present. Looking to the east from the path, the monopole would rise above the existing cluster of light industrial, research, and business park buildings in the project area. While visible, it would be linear in design and would not comprise a significant portion of the overall view from this path. Views of the distant mountains would remain virtually unobstructed. Further, as users of the path continue in either direction, the visual focus changes; thus, any view of the monopole would be momentary and would not constitute a substantial change to the existing views. No significant impact would occur to a scenic vista at this location. As noted previously, the monopole also would be visible from various portions of area trails, such as the Beeler Creek Trail, Espola Trail, and the South-Poway (Trans-County) Trail, all of which are multi-purpose trails supporting pedestrians, bikers, and equestrians. These trails wind through various topography that would offer views of the monopole from different vantage points along the trails. As shown on Figure 11, Viewshed Trails, however, these views are limited. The viewshed map shows that even users of the closest "nature trail," Beeler Creek Trail, would have constrained views toward the monopole. The introduction of the linear structure into the landscape would not obstruct substantially obstruct or degrade views through the project to the various sloping hillsides and mountain views that are accessible from these trails. Although notable and potentially useful as a future directional guide point, the monopole would not be a dominant feature in terms of viewshed percentage. Even where visible from a trail, users of these facilities are not stationary; as users move, their viewshed changes. The overall exposure to the monopole in relation to the expansive and panoramic views of the mountains -or even the more focused views along canyon slopes --would be minimal. Thus, the future intermittent views encompassing the monopole as hikers move along the trail would not constitute a substantial change to views of a scenic vista. Visual access to the existing and continuing scenic amenities would be virtually unchanged and impacts are assessed as less than significant. 74 of 98 HELIX Environmental Planning September 7, 2021, Item #5Letter to Mr. Darrell Daugherty May 6, 2021 Page 12 of 16 Issue 2: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The project footprint is within an existing paved parking lot in an area of Poway defined as the South Poway Business Park. As shown in Figures 6 and 7, the project site is fully developed and devoid of scenic resources. The existing trees on site are ornamental in nature and do not constitute a scenic resource. There are no rock outcroppings or historic resources, and the nearest officially designated state scenic highway is a portion of State Route 52, approximately 8 miles to the southeast (Caltrans 2017). As a result, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources. No impact is assessed. Issue 3: In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The project site is in an urban area that is zoned as Planned Community-South Poway Business Park and designated as Light Industrial -Storage, where cellular towers are a conditional use. As previously discussed in this memorandum, the City of Poway General Plan Resources Element Goal IV, and corresponding strategies state in part that it is the goal of the City to reserve its scenic resources through the preservation of scenic areas, prominent vistas, and open space. The project site is developed as a paved parking lot with ornamental trees and security lighting in an area fully built out with light industrial and business park land uses. Thus, consistent with the General Plan goals and strategies, the project does not directly disturb any scenic resources. As detailed in the discussions above, the project also would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views to the site and its surroundings as views to the site within the viewshed are obscured from a minimum of 84 percent of potential view locations. This is based on topography alone and does not take into account potential intervening vegetation, abutting structures, etc. Impacts associated with the first element of this threshold would be less than significant. Relative to conflict with zoning and other regulations, the project is sited in an appropriate zone for such uses. As noted above, however, the City's Wireless Communication Facilities Policy design guidelines state that the height limit of the antenna and supporting structure should not exceed the maximum height for building structures in the underlying zone. The City is currently considering a Specific Plan Amendment to allow a cell tower height of 90 feet, in which case the proposed use would strictly conform. At this time, however, the Amendment has not yet been approved. Potential visual effects of the height variance are therefore addressed below. The project is a monopole cell tower at a proposed height of 84 feet (antennae extending to a height of 85.6 feet), exceeding the current 45-foot height limit for the underlying South Poway Business Park zone. Relative to the associated visual impact, however, at this location, views from Kirkham Way and other adjacent roadways within the business park would be fleeting as vehicles approach and pass the site. From these vantage points (where visible and not blocked by intervening structures or ornamental landscaping) the block building would fade into its setting and the monopole would be distinct, but quickly passed and out of view. Figure 12, Photosimulation A of Proposed Telecommunications Site, provides a depiction of the view of the monopole from the intersection of Kirkham Way and Stowe Drive west of the project. As illustrated in Figure 12 the rise of a new linear element is replicating the vertical pattern established by the existing light standards, and the color is consistent with existing structures. 75 of 98 HELIX Environmental Planning September 7, 2021, Item #5Letter to Mr. Darrell Daugherty May 6, 2021 Page 13 of 16 Figures 13 and 14 (Photosimulations Band C of Proposed Telecommunications Site) are taken from east of the project site -immediately east of the driveway, and a bit further east, illustrating the smaller on-site structures and the eastern portion of the property and parking uses, respectively, as well as the existing level of lighting poles and relative height of the monopole. As shown in the simulations shown in all three figures, in the immediate vicinity of the project site, although the form would be notable, the linear nature of the tower would be similar to the light standards seen along Kirkham Way. Further, the new landscaping would provide a buffer at eye level. It would not substantially affect views in the vicinity, would not affect overall scenic quality of this area, and therefore is not assessed as significantly impacting regulations governing scenic quality. Where viewed from parks, trails, and public streets accessing residential areas south of the site, the features of the monopole would be less distinct and blend more naturally with the foreground and middle viewsheds as it would be similar in design and color as the existing light standards along Kirkham Way and the SDG&E transmission towers to the west. This is depicted in Figure 15, Photosimulation D of Proposed Telecommunications Site, which demonstrates that while the tower is more prominent than the existing light standards, the design mimics the existing vertical elements in the area, replicates the linear pattern of the spaced light standards on the project site, and does not have any accentuating features that draw attention. The galvanized steel pole and muted colors of the antennae are similar to the color palette of the onsite landscape and surrounding structures. Even from the relatively close location on the south side of Beeler Canyon (vicinity of Green V Alley Court, off of Old Creek Road) as depicted in Figure 15, it is evident what a small percentage of the view the monopole would comprise. Figure 15 further demonstrates that although visible, even this short distance away it is lesser in scale than the SDG&E transmission towers. It would not substantially affect views toward the industrial park uses and hills beyond, would not affect overall scenic quality of this area, and therefore is not assessed as significantly impacting regulations governing scenic quality. It is also recognized that the project height would exceed the maximum height limit of the underlying zoning. However, given that this is a single linear structure, the monopole is not obstructing or disrupting the overall visual pattern of the area. Views from the south would continue to be of the distant mountains. Additionally, consistent with the City's Wireless Communications Policy, the design of the cellular facility as a monopole integrates architecturally with existing structures such as the light standards onsite and along Kirkham Way and the SDG&E transmission towers. Issue 4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Upward-pointing or upward-reflected light from outdoor lighting is a significant source of nighttime light. Nighttime light that spills outside of the intended area, can be annoying to neighbors and potentially harmful to motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. Nighttime lighting can result in skyglow (the brightening of the night sky) and light trespass (a result of spill light shining in undesirable locations). Nighttime lighting in excess of what is necessary for its purpose is called light pollution. Light pollution cannot completely be eliminated, but it can be minimized to help create dark skies and to decrease energy consumption. Glare is the result of sharply reflected light caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from highly finished surfaces such as windows or brightly colored surfaces, and from the direct view of a bright, 76 of 98 HELi Environmental Planning September 7, 2021, Item #5Letter to Mr. Darrell Daugherty May 6, 2021 Page 14 of 16 unshielded light source. Glare can be uncomfortable (discomfort glare) or disabling (disability glare). Glare decreases visibility, but the level of receptor sensitivity to glare can vary widely. As previously discussed under the Project Description, the project would result in the removal of an existing light standard and the luminaries and light arm would be replaced on the new monopole. Light emanating from those features would continue to be directed downward for security and in accordance with the City of Poway Municipal Code Chapter 13.15. Any additional lighting would be provided only as required by federal or state agencies. The monopole structure itself would be designed as a vertical element and would be treated with an anti-reflective coating. Therefore, given that: (1) the project would not introduce new sources of lighting other than those required by federal and state agencies; (2) would comply with applicable lighting regulations; and (3) buffer/shield viewers from the antenna and other metal components that might reflect glare; the project would not provide a new source of substantial light or glare and impacts would be less than significant. CONCLUSION The project is an 84-foot monopole and associated small enclosure and fencing constructed in an existing paved parking lot in an area developed with light industrial and business park uses. The surrounding structures, conforming to the existing land use regulations, do not exceed a height of 45 feet; thus, the introduction of this monopole would be a noticeable linear feature of the landscape. Consistent with the goals, policies, and strategies of the City of Poway General Plan, however, the monopole is not proposed in an area noted for scenic value (i.e., significant open space areas and scenic vistas along local scenic roadways; and/or identified mountains, hillsides, or prominent ridgelines). A review of the surrounding land uses within the project viewshed determined that while the monopole would be visible, it would not constitute a significant visual impact because it would not substantially adversely affect a scenic vista, damage scenic resources (including those within state scenic highways), significantly conflict with regulations governing scenic quality relative to their visual effect or create a new source of substantial light and glare. In many instances, views along the multi-use trails would be intermittent and fleeting, views from parks, especially those of the distant mountains would not suffer obstruction of the overall visual pattern, and similarly the monopole would not obscure substantial percentages of seen views. It is therefore not considered dominant. In the great majority of the viewshed (84 percent) intervening topographical features obstruct views to the site. This percentage is increased by landscaping and intervening structures that also provide some shielding and interrupt direct views of the monopole. Therefore, this analysis has determined that the visual impacts as they relate to CEQA are less than significant. 77 of 98 HELIX Environmental Planning September 7, 2021, Item #5Letter to Mr. Darrell Daugherty May 6, 2021 CLOSING Page 15 of 16 We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any further information. ·~V}l, ~ ~~ Lisa Kay Capper, J.D. Senior Project Manager Attachments Figure 1: Regional Location Figure 2: Location Map Figure 3: Site Plan -Antenna Plan Figure 4: Site Plan -Elevations Figure 5: Concept Landscape Plan Figure 6: Existing Views -Kirkham Way Figure 7: Existing Views -Kirkham Way /q···--·-, 1·-; <-' r __ ):, / -s,:: .. :::./-{__._...),<(_ __ ~ _) -.... _"'-_,_; ·--~-------~·_,,.,.· Kara Palm Visual Analyst Figure 8: Existing Views -Stonebridge Neighborhood Park Figure 9: Existing Views -Cypress Canyon Park Figure 10: Viewshed Analysis Figure 11: Viewshed Trails Figures 12-15: Photosimulation of Proposed Telecommunications Site 78 of 98 HELIX Environmental Planning September 7, 2021, Item #5Letter to Mr. Darrell Daugherty May 6, 2021 REFERENCES Page 16 of 16 California Department ofTransportation (Caltrans). 2017. List of Eligible and Officially Designated Scenic Highways. California Energy Commission. 2021. Energy Maps of California. Accessed at https://cecgis-caenergy.opendata.arcgis.com/. Poway, City of. 2004. Wireless Communications Policy. 1991. Poway Comprehensive Plan, Volume One -The General Plan. 79 of 98 HELIX Environmental Planning September 7, 2021, Item #50 E---3 E---3 HELIX RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY Pacific Ocean 8 Miles I Environmental Planning 80 of 98 .,..l..,..r .. ' FALLB ' ei/1 Lake Kirkham T-Mobile Wireless Telecom Facility / ,:· ,, ' ? ~ ·-··-·.'( ,J k::_ i i (,," } { Regional Location Figure 1 September 7, 2021, Item #5Kirkham T-Mobile Wireless Telecom Facility 0 3,000 Feet E---3 E---3 HELIX Environmental Planning Location Map 81 of 98 Figure 2 September 7, 2021, Item #500 N 0 """' \0 00 HELIX Environmental Planning (N} PHOENIX TOWER INTERNATIONAL ;~~~~:INT OF CONNECTION AT (E) {N) PHOENIX TOWER INTERNATIONAL ~~: T~~~~~;R~OE~NECTION AT (E} SECTOR 1 AZIMUTH320' \._(E)BUILDING~ (E)SEWERLINE.FIELOVERIFYEXACT ~ / 6 LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION t I~;,-6) , ~ . -• ,-cf ii om -I r (E)BUILDING(SHEO) i \l~'-0:S~ "'}\', ~ TRENCHING NOTES !d.;H~~~•~~~~~~~!~:eN:~~e~L ROUTE THROUGH PARKING LOT (SHOWN DASHED) ~~-~:~i::oru~~~~N~~R~~t~NAL ~~~;~;~~~~~s:i.~~v~"i:1;0iREA SCANNED FOR UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION PRIOIITOTI-lESTARTOfCOHSTIU.ICTIOH.Tl-lECONTllACTORSHALlLOCATEAll UNOERGROUNOIMPROV'EMENTS,..Tl-iE\\011.KAII.EA.A.LlEXIST,..GUTILITIES.OEVX::ESNtO STIIUCT\JIIESSHA.Lt&EPIIOTECTEO.IN-Pl.ACE TII.ENCHII.ESTOfV.TIONSHAI.LSEIHACCORDANCEwmtlttECITYOl'PQWt.YMUNICIPAl COOEANOSNtOIEGOREGIOHAI.STNIOAll.0011.AWINGS0-24AN00-250AMAGEO CONCII.ETESIOEWA.LIISOROfl.1\/fWAYSSW.llSEREPLACEOJOINT-TO.JOtHTOTHE SATISl'ACTl(:INOflliECITYENGtfEEII. 1----,:~:::~~:::.:·.::._ I ENGINEERING NOTES: 1 NO EXISTING PARKING SPACES Vv1LL BE USED OR REMOVED BY THIS PROJECT 2 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT THE PERMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT A WATER POLLUTION ;~~~:~~~t~~~E TGH~~~:E~H;FL~~~ ~~~p;;eD IN POWAY STORM WATER STANDARDS \_~,,., PROPERTY LINE. TYP ~/~k~~~~~~~ I APN: 323-501-02 I ,of, ~ ·f SITE PLAN ·N D < ~~ .... ~~::t;;;~~!~::t~::~;J!~~A~~!ciiET L-t SECTOR2 AZIMUTH50' • (E) CONCRETE CURB. ~~:TER & SIDEWALK, {N) PHOENIX TOWER INTERN ... TIONAL 10'-0'"x 15"-0-x :·~~~;/l~~~~-e;:e8~~1~~~~~~~~T ;:;~~:~~~1 (N) PHOENIX TOWER INTERNATIONAL (9) ANTENNAS ~I~~ R:iN~A~~Eu~~: :N~~~~op~~NAiN) 89'-6N MONOPOLE ELEVATION ON SHEET A-2 BOUNDARY NOTE THE PROJECT BOUNDARY SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING IS APPROXIM,&.TE ,&.NO IS 51-10\J\IN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. A COMPLETE BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS NOT PERFORMED Kirkham T-Mobile Wireless Telecom Facilit Source: PLANCOM, Inc 2019 Site Plan -Antenna Plan Figure 3 September 7, 2021, Item #500 w ...... U) 00 HELIX EnvironmtntalPlanning ~ (N) PHOENIX TOI/VER INTERNATIONAL (9) ANTENNAS (SHOWN SHADED) & (6) RRU RADIO UNITS (SHOWN DASHED) MOUNTED ON A (N) a.4'-0-HIGH MONOPOLE (N) PHOENIX TOVVER INTERNATIONAL 10'-0" x 15'·0" )( 8'-0" HIGH SPLIT-FACE CONCRETE BLOCK EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE FOR T•MOBILE AT GRADE (N) 8'-0-HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCE \IVITH SCREENING VINES. SEE CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET L-1 (E) WROUGHT IRON GATE (TYPICAL) (E)GRADE NORTH ELEVATION (ALTERNATE) SCALE: 118"• 1'-0" (E) CONCRETE BLOCK WALL TO REMAIN Kirkham T-Mobile Wireless Telecom Facilit {N) PHOENIX TOWER INTERNATIONAL (9) ANTENNAS (SHOWN SHADED) & (6) RRU RADIO UNITS (SHOV.,., DASHED) MOUNTED ON A (N) 84'·0" HIGH MONOPOLE llll'F'illlir'll,,l==rn-------- (E)GRADE (N) PHOENIX TOWER INTERNATIONAL 10'-0" x 15'-0" x 8'-0" HIGH SPLIT-FACE CONCRETE BLOCK EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE FORT-MOBILE AT GRADE. EAST ELEVATION (ALTERNATE) SCALE: 1/8" • 1'-0" Source: PLANCOM, Inc 2019 Site Plan -Elevations Figure 4 September 7, 2021, Item #500 ~ 0 ...., \.0 00 HELIX Environmental Planning PROPERTY LINE, TYP. Kirkham T-Mobile Wireless Telecom Facilit KIRKHAM WAY -· -· -· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-•-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·- (N) PINUS HALEPINEIS (ALEPPO PINE) (E) CONCRETE CURB. SCREENING TREE, (TYPICAL OF 5). GUTTER & SIDEWALK. 48-INCH BOX AT PLANTING. TYP. ~~ -e-15-n:_ ___ o ____ :'._7() LJ O I "\_-1El.VEHICLE STORAGE AREA Offe;! ~ 0/§ 1~ N I LANDSCAPING NOTES: 1 NEW IRRIGATION HEADS SHALL BE TIED INTO THE EXISTING CITY OF POWAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM 2. SPECIES TYPE AND QUANTITY IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF POWAY. Source: PLANCOM, Inc 2021 Concept Landscape Plan Figure 5 September 7, 2021, Item #500 u, 0 -ti \0 00 a, ~ 0) $ ~ ~ ~ <.) a: Kirkham T-Mobile Wireless Telecom Facility Looking Southwest across the Project site from Kirkham Way at the Project site Frontage HELIX Existing Views -Kirkham Way Environmental Planning Figure 6 September 7, 2021, Item #5-~ 2 >-r--.. ·u C Q) ro ·c:;;; !I-u. u ~ :J E b.O 0 (I) u::: u ·a Q) E ~ ct V) (I) C V) Q) £ ~ E .c 3 g ~ ~ .... :.a >-·-0 ~ ~ 0 f-!. ~ E E ro Cit .c 0 ~ -t: ..c :;2 ~ ~ a, C ·-3 > 0 "O Cl -V) C (I) ~ ·-.,._ 0) Cit ·-C >< :s2 0 w 0 _J 86 of 98 September 7, 2021, Item #500 -.J 0 """' \0 00 ex:, ~ 0-, s ~ ~ C ~ u ~ :g .s Kirkham T-Mobile Wireless Telecom Facility View from Stonebridge Neighborhood Park looking Northwest towards the Project site HELIX Environmental Planning Existing Views -Stonebridge Neighborhood Park Figure 8 September 7, 2021, Item #500 00 0 -ti \0 00 a, ~ 0\ s ~ ~ 0 ~ <.J ~ :g ·'= <: i a ~ J 0\1 5 ~ ~ g' ~ g: .$ I § ~ ~I ~ G ~ i5::' 0 ~ 0 Kirkham T-Mobile Wireless Telecom Facility View from Cypress Canyon Park looking Northeast towards the Project site !.._ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ___. HELIX Environmental Planning Existing Views -Cypress Canyon Park Figure 9 September 7, 2021, Item #500 \.0 ~ 3 Mile Buffer ~ Viewshed 3,500 Feet ~E--3~-..,.E--3-..-----, HELIX Viewshed Analysis Envlronmenta/Plannlng Figure lO September 7, 2021, Item #5\0 0 -t\ \0 00 ..... , I 3,000 Feet ! ,-E----3--,-"TE----3--,----, 'f HELIX Environmental Planning ... ,..."-'"' / --=~~.'-\'(! r, I ~ . -,, ' ~ ,1;_:., Ro11d ~ r ~-=,,,. .. :,._ ("'·~ i. ( . '\\ -/ ti ,·, ' \ I I I __J / I j 1.--1 ... ,., ] .,.·,,·-',r'. /' ,,../1/ _:.., J i' I . ,..,-" ' f /( ': ' ·, CQ 3MileBuffer ''· 11 Q Project Site J Municipal Boundary / \ / '1 San Diego County Trails -Viewshed Source: Trails (County of San Diego) Viewshed Trails Figure 11 September 7, 2021, Item #5ID -0 -ti ID 00 CQ ~ .... ~ ~ "' ~ (, ct :g .s ~ El ! ~ E' i E: ~I s E ~ gl $ 1 ~ I ~ ~ o' ~ ~ Cl.. i E' ~ £ ~ E ~ 0 ! Kirkham T-Mobile Wireless Telecom Facility E/J~'f11 ;, Looking at the Project site from the Intersection of Kirkham Way and Stowe Drive Proposed monopole~ oenix Tower 2021 HELIX Environmental Planning Photosimulation A of Proposed Telecommunications Site Figure 12 September 7, 2021, Item #5\0 N 0 ..... \0 00 a:, ~ ..... ~ ~ "' C) :'.1 u 1i: :g .!;, ~ E' E 8 ~ E' ~ 0 t ::i' s ~ ~ g' :S g: ~ I j ~ a' "" :::: 1i: i E' ~ ~ 1'i:' f ~ 0 ~ Kirkham T-Mobile Wireless Telecom Facility ::t Looking Southwest at Project site along Kirkham Way .._ m••-•----------Proposed equipment enclosure HELIX Environmental Planning Photosimulation B of Proposed Telecommunications Site Figure 13 September 7, 2021, Item #5'° w 0 ..., '° 00 cc, ~ .... ~ ~ IJ") C, ~ \.J ~ ::g .£ ~ V) El E .§ ~ El ~ 0 it ';!,I 5 ~ ~ gl $ 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~I i i El ~ £ c;::-0 ~ 0 ~ Kirkham T-Mobile Wireless Telecom Facility Looking West down Kirkham Way towards Project site Proposed monopole~. Source: Phoenix Tower 2021 HELIX Environmental Planning Photosimulation C of Proposed Telecommunications Site Figure 14 September 7, 2021, Item #5\.0 ~ 0 -ti \.0 00 a, ~ ... ~ ~ "' ~ u ~ :g .!:, .~ V) E' E ~ ~ E' t ct ~I ~ 0 i ]1 $ ct ! ~ ~ ~ o' ~ ~ i El ~ ~ 0::-;0 ~ 0 r Kirkham T-Mobile Wireless Telecom Facility 3/1~I!JJ0 Looking Northeast from Beeler Canyon Road towards Project site Proposed monopole~ .:..: Source: P oenix Tower 2021 HELIX Environmental Planning Photosimulation D of Proposed Telecommunications Site Figure 15 September 7, 2021, Item #5'° u, 0 ~ '° 00 )> -I -I )> n ::c s: m z -I r- These simulations are intended for graph to be part of or to replace the informatio 4/26/2021 Proposed monopole Proposed equipment enclosure Proposed landscaping Kirkham T-Mobile 5D07954 1 13875 Kirkham Way Poway, CA 92064 San Diego County PHOENIX TOWER IMfl .HA.flONA.l Photosimulation of proposed telecommunications site September 7, 2021, Item #5Proposed monopole------------.. These simulations to be part of or to rep 4/26/2021 Kirkham T-Mobile 5D07954 13875 Kirkham Way Poway, CA 92064 1 San Diego County PHOENIX TOWER Photosimulation of proposed telecommunications site September 7, 2021, Item #5,... -:J5;I 1/J Proposed monopole --------------- These simulations are intended for graphical p to be part of or to replace the information prov 4/26/2021 Proposed additional landscaping Kirkham T-Mobile SO07954 13875 Kirkham Way Poway, CA 92064 San Diego County Photosimulation of proposed telecommunications site September 7, 2021, Item #5~ -~l:JI!.1 J Ci \0 00 0 ..., These simulations are intended for graphical purposes only and not intended to be part of or to replace the information provided on the construction drawings 4/26/2021 Proposed monopole-------------.. Kirkham T-Mobile SO07954 13875 Kirkham Way Poway, CA 92064 San Diego County PHOENIX TOWER IN fl .NAT IO N'4.l Photosimulation of proposed telecommunications site