HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-17; City Council; Resolution 2000-3231
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 2 g mua (jr-;
%80 8 13
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-323
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING THE APPEAL AND
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN ESFERA
STREET AND PIRAGUA STREET, NORTH OF CAB0 COURT
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE NO: CUP 00-13
WHEREAS, GTE Wireless of the Pacific, Inc., “developer” has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad on property owned by BCE Development
Properties, Inc., currently in bankruptcy, hereinafter referred to as “owner” which
property is generally described as:
Lot 401 of Carlsbad Tract No. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit No. 3, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 7950, filed in the Offtce of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3, 1974.
referred herein throughout as “the property”; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a
Conditional Use Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “E” dated July 19, 2000 on file in the
Carlsbad Planning Department entitled “GTE Wireless La Costa, CUP 00-13” as
provided by Chapters 21.42 and 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, there is located on the property a 119’ steel lattice tower
owned by San Diego Gas & Electric Company which has signed the verified application
form and given its consent to applicant to locate its cellular antennas on said tower; and
WHEREAS, the bankruptcy trustee for the real property owner and the
owner of said tower have signed the appropriate application and disclosure statement;
and
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2 3 mwm 227
%8$
13
OWg *ILo SO-J5 14
.crg =U'O 9 I2" 15
a>rn< ZW(I)(j $E&- 16 p"
azz C'&t l7 u 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold duly noticed public
hearings as prescribed by law on July 19, 2000 and August 2, 2000 to consider said
verified application; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearings, the Planning
Commission conditionally did approve the verified application of GTE Wireless La Costa
for a conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, within ten calendar days of that decision, an appeal of the
Planning Commission’s decision was filed by John L. Hopp and Ann Hopp on behalf of
themselves and as a point of contact for the surrounding neighborhood stating their
reasons why the decision of the Planning Commission should be overturned; and
WHEREAS, this application was timely filed pursuant to Carlsbad
Municipal Code section 21.50.100; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing to consider this
appeal on September 26,200O; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the law, evidence
and arguments presented at this hearing and said prior public hearings held before the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, accessory and quasi-public buildings and facilities are
conditionally permitted within the Planned Community (PC) and Open Space (OS)
zones; and
WHEREAS, the verified application is subject to the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 which preserves local zoning authority for the placement, construction and
modification of personal wireless service facilities subject to the limitations set forth in
that Act; and
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 % o) mu8 22-7
SE@ 13
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, both the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 require that any decision by a local government to
deny a request to place, construct or modify personal wireless service facilities be in
writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record; and
WHEREAS, recognizing that a local government may not regulate the
placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the
basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such
facilities comply with the federal communications regulations concerning such
emissions; and
WHEREAS, the proposed site is located within an open space easement
used primarily by San Diego Gas & Electric for electrical transmission; and
WHEREAS, additional uses and structures within the open space
easement are proximate to existing residences and residential uses and the proposed
antennas and proposed building are clearly visible throughout portions of the
neig hborhood; and
WHEREAS, the proposed antennas, buildings and related facilities would
add to the existing visual obstructions, create further impairment of views and
aesthetically degrade the site; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is aware of its obligation not to unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services and not to prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is mindful that the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 requires it to act on the request for authorization to place, construct or modify
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 9 g mum yr-7 8 & 13
YLL, a, SO=jS 14
,ggiE
s on9 a;$? 15
ZWv)(J
2$&a-
oaa 16
E 8 a%$ c-5 l7 G 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
h -
personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time and a reasonable
period of time has elapsed since the filing of the verified application in March 2000.
WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that it has some flexibility in the
1 distance limitations between the proposed building and the tower location but has not
~ specified the degree of flexibility nor the distance limitations; and
WHEREAS, testimony from a resident who is a subscriber to applicant’s
1 service indicates there is adequate coverage without the proposed additional cell site.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
~ finds as follows:
I. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That the requested use and structures are not necessary or desirable
i for the development of the community at this location nor is it essentially in harmony
with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan which encourage quiet
neighborhoods and maintain a high quality of life preserving open space, and to
preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas, nor
does the proposed project preserve the aesthetics, property values nor maintain
community identity, nor achieve a sense of natural spaciousness, nor provide visual
relief and would therefore be detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted within
these zones.
3. That although the proposed site for the intended use is sufficient in
size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, the collection of panel antennas on
the existing tower and the equipment building cannot be located on the site without
visually obscuring and degrading the views and aesthetics of nearby residences in the
neighborhood.
1 4. That the location of the proposed equipment room, chain link fencing
2 and landscaping around the equipment room will not be sufficient to reduce its visibility
3 from nearby residences or persons using the residential areas, and the location of the
4 panel antennas on the transmission tower will add to the negative visual effects of the
5 cellular facility.
6 5. That the air conditioning requirements in the equipment room will
7
8 create noise pollution and require continual monitoring.
9 6. That the applicant has indicated that there may be alternative designs
10 or alternative locations that will reduce or minimize the impacts of this proposal on the
11 neighborhood and that these efforts have not been entirely explored or exhausted and
12
2 o) mu8 'Sr-; 13 aag s;:: Juclm $044 14 PAZ ciz
9 'g IS" 15
a,mg zwv)o gztia- 0za 16
L % 68J c 2% 17
G v 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
that the Council is not satisfied that this proposal should be entertained at this time
without a further showing in this regard.
7. That there are alternative ways and designs or locations that have not
been exhaustively explored which would not require the intensification of uses at this
location and that under the circumstances the application is premature without further
study, reports and evidence which would convince the City Council that this use is both
necessary and desirable and in essential harmony with the neighborhood and its
surroundings.
8. The Council further finds that it is important to maintain the integrity of
the residential neighborhood surrounding the proposed project and to allow the
construction of wireless communication facilities would create aesthetic and
25 environmental impacts including the introduction of additional noise into the
26 neighborhood which could be avoided where alternative sites for such facilities could be
27 available. The City Council realizes that the applicant might incur additional expenses
28
5
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- h
in re-engineering its facilities in order to locate them in a different and more suitable
area for such uses. However, the City Council finds that the detriment to the applicant
in such efforts is outweighed by the avoidance of the visual, esthetic and environmental
impacts to this area should the facility be permitted to be located on the subject
property. The testimony and petitions of the residents in the surrounding neighborhood
expressed concern that their formerly peaceful, private and quiet homes will be
changed if this proposed facility is permitted and that the addition of such facilities
would degrade their quality of life. The City Council finds that the concerns of the
property owners are legitimate and that the evidence presented to the City Council,
including oral and written testimonials, petitions and written documentation support this
argument. The applicant has failed to present evidence sufficient to convince the City
Council to the contrary.
9. That granting of this appeal and denial the application without
prejudice will allow the applicant additional time as necessary to conduct additional
studies and explore the feasibility of other locations.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
further finds:
I. That appellant’s appeal is granted.
2. That the verified application is denied without prejudice.
3. In view of the granting of this appeal, the City Clerk is directed to
refund appellant’s appeals fees.
4. That the Clerk is directed to give notice to the applicant of this action
pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code section 1.16.010 specifying time limits for judicial
review which states:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-.
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be
sought is ‘governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section
1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of
Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in
the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following
the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if
within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for
the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required
deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of
preparation of such record, the time within which such petition
may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth
day following the date on which the record is either personally
delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he
has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of
the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of
Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California
92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad held on the 17th day of October , 2000 by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, Nygaard and Kulchin
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)