HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 50061
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITH
PREJUDICE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7512 CADENCIA
STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES
CASE NO: CUP 00-36
WHEREAS, AT&T Wireless Services, “Developer” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad on property owned by Patrick and Viona L. Van Hoose,
hereinafter referred to as, “Owner” which property is generally described as:
“Lot 486 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 of 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 Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County.”
referred herein throughout as ( “the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the real property owner has signed the appropriate application
and disclosure statement giving consent to applicant to locate its cellular facilities on the
residential property; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “F”, dated May 16, 2001 on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, entitled “AT&T Wireless Services, CUP 00-36”, as provided by Chapters 21.42
and 2 1.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law on May 16,2001, to consider said verified application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission carefully considered the law,
evidence and arguments presented at the public hearing held before it; including the fact
that quasi-public buildings and facilities are conditionally permitted within residential
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
zones, according to the Carlsbad zone code and subject to the Telecommunications Act of
1996; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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, recognizing that a local government may not regulate the
placement, construction and modification of personal wireless 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 Planning Commission is mindful that the
Telecommunication Act of 1996 requires it to act on the request for authorization to place,
construct or modify personal wireless facilities within a reasonable period of time and a
reasonable period of time has elapsed since the filing of the application on October 18,
2000; and
WHEREAS, both the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 require that any decision by a local government to deny
requests to place, construct or modify personal wireless service facilities be in writing and
supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing at which 17 residents of
the surrounding neighborhood testified and a petition in opposition to approval of the
Conditional Use Permit signed by 37 residents was presented, the Planning Commission
voted unanimously to deny the verified application of AT&T Wireless Services for a
Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the neighbors have testified that a similar wireless cellular
service facility for another provider also concealed by the construction of an additional
PC RESO NO. 5006 -2-
faux chimney was approved by the Planning Commission on April 5,200O to be located at
7412 Cadencia Street, two lots and less than 500 feet away from the site under
consideration; and
WHEREAS, the application of AT&T Wireless Services is for a Conditional
Use permit authorizing the addition of a faux chimney and a garage-like structure at 7512
Cadencia Street, which will house the equipment are clearly visible to the neighborhood;
and
WHEREAS, several neighbors testified at the public hearing that their
residences are located adjacent to or in close proximity to both proposed wireless facilities
and, are thus subjected to the additional visual obstructions necessary to conceal the
antennas and ancillary equipment and any additional traffic generation for maintenance of
the installation, however minor in nature; and
WHEREAS, testimony at the hearing by a neighbor was that near the
proposed location at 7512 Cadencia Street is extensive existing ham radio antenna
equipment on the roof of a residence which creates a visual blight and radio interference in
the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, testimony from several residents who are subscribers to
applicant service indicate that there is adequate coverage in the neighborhood without the
proposed additional cell site; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that it has some flexibility in the
placement of the facilities necessary to remedy coverage gaps; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that the proposed location would
provide coverage for a radius of only one mile and that additional sites will also be
necessary to provide coverage outside of that radius; and
II PC RESO NO. 5006 -3-
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
WHEREAS, neighbors, one of whom was a local residential real estate sales
agent, testified that the disclosure that such facilities located in a residence or concentrated
within a residential neighborhood would have a detrimental effect on resale value of the
neighborhood homes, due in part to a perceived potential health hazard; and
WHEREAS, there was no evidence that alternative locations either on
commercially zoned or residentially zoned properties which would not require the
intensification of uses at this location have been exhaustively explored ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the testimony of
numerous neighbors to the proposed site, voicing objections to the construction of
additional protrusions and buildings in their residential neighborhood to accommodate
quasi-public facilities without adequate guidelines to avoid unnecessary concentration of
such uses and structures which in their opinion are not necessary or desirable or in
harmony with the character of the residential neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That the requested use and structures are not necessary or desirable for
the development of the community at this location, nor are they 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 the neighborhood
atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas in that other subscribers testified that
there is adequate coverage in this location and the additional structures and maintenance
related traffic to the site are undesirable and unnecessary.
3. That the proposed project does not preserve the aesthetics, property
values nor maintain community identity, in that it adds unnecessarily to visual clutter and
PC RESO NO. 5006 -4-
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
traffic and would therefore be detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted within
these zones.
4. That the proposed site for the intended use is insufficient in size and shape
to accommodate the use in that both the antenna and ancillary equipment necessary to
operate the wireless site cannot be located on the residential property without the
construction of a visually obtrusive faux chimney and additional faux garage, which
increases lot coverage in a neighborhood with primarily large homes on large lots and
degrades the aesthetics of nearby residences in the neighborhood.
5. That the location of the proposed equipment room will be visibly offensive
to the adjacent neighbor who testified that his lot is on a lower grade and will look up from
his yard to the unattractive garage addition housing the equipment, rather than open space
of the Van Hoose property side yard.
6. That the applicant has indicated that there may be alternative locations in
the neighborhood or nearby on commercial property and that efforts have not been
entirely explored or exhausted to determine if an alternative site may be more appropriate.
7. That the applicant testified that both his company as well as other
wireless providers may make application for an indeterminate number of additional sites
in the same general vicinity as this application, in the future.
8. That there are alternative ways and locations that have not been
exhaustively explored which would not require the use at this location and that under the
circumstances the application is premature without further study, reports and evidence
which would convince the Planning Commission that this use is both necessary and
desirable and in essential harmony with the neighborhood and its surroundings.
9. That the Planning Commission finds that it is important to maintain the
integrity of the residential neighborhood wherein the project is proposed to be located and
PC RESO NO. 5006 -5-
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
that to allow construction of this wireless communication facility, even without considering
other anticipated proposed facilities therein, would create aesthetic impacts in the
neighborhood which could be avoided where alternative sites for such facilities may be
available. The testimony and petition of the residents in the surrounding neighborhood
expressed concern that their formerly peaceful, private and quiet homes would be changed
if this proposed facility is permitted and that the addition of such facilities would degrade
their quality of life.
10. The Planning Commission finds that the concerns of the property
owners are legitimate, especially in light of the fact that another wireless site was recently
approved two lots away, and that the evidence presented to the Planning Commission,
including oral and written testimonials, petition and written documentation support this
argument. The applicant has failed to present evidence sufficient to convince the Planning
Commission to the contrary.
finds:
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad further
1. That the application is DENIED.
2. That the applicant is hereby notified that this decision may be appealed to
the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk within 10 days of the
adoption of this Resolution, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.50.100.
. . .
PC RESO NO. 5006 -6-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of June 2001 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Nielsen,
and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Compas and L’Heureux
ABSTAIN:
I / /-/
JEFF=. SEGALL, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H%Z&LER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5006 -7-