HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-26; City Council; 15912; GTE Wireless La CostaCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# _h5:q 12 m:
MTG. g/26/00 APPEAL OF GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CUP 00-13 DEPT. PLN Up
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY.
CITYMGR m
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. doOO- 300 00-13 and UPHOLDING the decision of the Planning Commission.’ DENYING the appeal of CUP
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On July 19, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for CUP 00-13 - GTE
Wireless La Costa. The unmanned cellular facility project would consist of the installation of 12
panel antennas mounted on an existing SDG&E transmission tower with a 200 square foot
equipment building near the base of the tower. The project site is located within the 100 foot wide transmission line open space easement between Esfera Street and Piragua Street, north of Cabo
Court in the PC Zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
During the public hearing, public testimony centered around concerns that the project would obstruct
views and would be unsightly, that the sound of the air conditioning units would be too noisy, that
the use was incompatible with the neighborhood and that the cellular facility may have health risks
associated with it. A petition against the project was submitted at the meeting and is included as an
attachment to this agenda bill.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts local government from denying facilities based on
health concerns related to radio frequency emissions and the licensure of the facility requires
compliance with FCC health and safety guidelines. Therefore, the Planning Commission’s
discussions focused primarily on neighborhood compatibility issues. At the request of the Planning
Commission, the meeting was continued to August 2, 2000 so the applicant could investigate
various options for lowering the equipment building into the ground so that there would be less of a
view impact.
The applicant revised the plans by lowering the building about four feet into the ground resulting in a
building height of 8’ 7” as measured from natural grade. The location of the air conditioning units
was also modified from wall-mounted units to ground-mounted units that would be set below grade.
The applicant met with the area residents at the project site on July 27th to discuss the modifications to the equipment building prior to the August 2”d Planning Commission hearing.
At the August 2nd hearing, the Planning Commission approved the project (4-l: 4 ayes, 1 nay, 2
absent) with the additional conditions that: 1) the building would be revised to a flat roof rather than
pitched roof structure so that the height of the building would not exceed 6 feet above grade; and, 2)
no other antenna would be permitted on the transmission tower.
More detailed information regarding the proposal is included in the attached staff report to the
Planning Commission and Planning Commission minutes.
The project was appealed on August 11, 2000 and the reasons for appeal are included as
attachment to this agenda bill. The attached Memo to the City Manager from staff clarifies and
responds to the reasons for appeal.
. . . .
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1 s 1 ‘? 12
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The construction and installation of small, new equipment facilities or structures is a Class 3
Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (Guidelines Section 15303).
The FCC requires compliance with radio frequency power density standards (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-
1992) for the general public, therefore, the project would not have a significant impact on the
environment.
In light of the above, a Notice of Exemption will be filed by the Planning Director upon project approval.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All required street and infrastructure improvements needed to serve this project have been
previously installed with the development of the La Costa Vale Unit #3 Subdivision.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
City Council Resolution No. -0 - 300 Location Map
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4795 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 19, 2000 and August 2, 2000
Excerpts of Planning Commission minutes, dated July 19, 2000 and August 2, 2000 Neighborhood petition submitted at the July 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
Excerpt from CC&Rs for La Costa Vale Unit #3 submitted at Planning Commission meeting
Letter of appeal, dated August 11, 2000 Memo to City Manager in response to appeal letter.
SITE PLAN (ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE)
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
C
I RESOLUTION NO. 2000-300
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
COMMISSION DECISION TO
PERMIT TO ALLOW A FACILITY ON PROPERTY G
ESFERA STREET AND PIRAGUA STREET,
COURT, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEME CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE NO: CUP 00-13
/
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2000, the Carlsbad nning‘ Commission approved a
Conditional Use Permit CUP 00-13 to allow an unman cellular telecommunications facility;
and
WHEREAS, the appellant , 2000, timely filed an appeal with the City
Clerk; and
City Council of the City of Carls
WHEREAS, upon co
relating to the appeal.
, 2000, the
red said appeal; and
ering the appeal, the City Council considered all factors
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
recitations are true and correct.
the findings of the
findings of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission
herein by reference constitute
. . . .
. . . . 3
C
PASSED, APPROVED AN
Council held on the
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
-2-
EXHIBIT 2
SITE
GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CUP 00-13
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
EXHIBIT 3
I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4795
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CELLULAR
COMMUNICATION 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 regarding property owned by BCE Development
Properties, Inc., “Owner,” 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
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3,
1974.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - uE” dated July 19, 2000, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA, CUP 00-13, as provided by Chapter 21.42 and
21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of July, 2000 and on
the 2nd day of August, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider
said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the CUP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
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
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA, CUP 00-13, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is
essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and
is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the
proposed use is located, in that the proposed use benefits the community because of
the demand for mobile voice and data transmissions; the site’s open space land use
designation does not preclude the provision of quasi-public utility uses; and the use
is not detrimental to existing permitted uses in the Planned Community zone.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the collocation of the panel antennas on the existing transmission tower does not
impact the site; the equipment building can be located on the site without the need
for variances from development standards; and there is adequate room to install
landscaping around the structure to provide additional screening.
That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that the location of the equipment room complies with the
OS and PC zone development standards; chain link fencing and landscaping will be
provided around the equipment room to reduce its visibility; and the collocation of
the panel antennas on the transmission tower will reduce the visual effect of the
cellular facility.
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the proposed use would not generate additional
vehicle trips beyond that necessary for regular maintenance and the existing dirt
road located within the open space easement will be used to access the site.
That the Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects
that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the
environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the
preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15303, which exempts the
construction and installation of small new equipment facilities or structures, of the
state CEQA Guidelines. In making this determination, the Planning Director has found
that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply
to this project.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
PC RESO NO. 4795 -2- /
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
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to building
permit issuance.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they ‘are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Conditional Use Permit.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Conditional Use Permit documents, as necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
laws in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide
school facilities.
6. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit, (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c)
Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
7. The Developer shall submit to the Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36”,
mylar copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision
making body.
PC RESO NO. 4795 -3- 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis
to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have
a substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If
the Planning Director determines that the use has such substantial negative effects, the
Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission, after providing the
permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to reduce or eliminate the
substantial negative effects.
This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of 5 years. This permit may be
revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a substantial
detrimental effect on surrounding land uses and the public’s health and welfare, or the
conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permit may be extended for a
reasonable period of time not to exceed 5 years upon written application of the permittee
made no less than 90 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission may
not grant such extension, unless it finds that there are no substantial negative effects on
surrounding land uses or the public’s health and welfare. If a substantial negative effect
on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and welfare is found, the extension shall
be denied or granted with conditions which will eliminate or substantially reduce such
effects. There is no limit to the number of extensions the Planning Commission may
grant.
The Developer/Operator shall comply with ANSI/IEEE standards for EMF emissions.
Within six (6) months after the issuance of occupancy, the Developer/Operator shall
submit a project implementation report which provides cumulative field measurements of
radio frequency (EMF) power densities of all antennas installed at the subject site. The
report shall quantify the EMF emissions and compare the results with currently accepted
ANSI/IEEE standards. Said report shall be subject to review and approval by the
Planning Director for consistency with the Project’s preliminary proposal report and the
accepted ANSI/IEEE standards. If on review, the City finds that the Project does not
meet ANSI/IEEE standards, the City may revoke or modify this conditional use permit.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
PC RESO NO. 4795 -4- 9
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
14. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
15. Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the
County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all
interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a
Conditional Use Permit by Resolution No. 4795 on the real property owned by the
Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the
file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any
conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The
Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice
which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer
or successor in interest.
16. The building shall be revised to a flat roof structure not to exceed a height of 6 feet
as measured from existing grade.
17. No other antenna or equipment shall be placed on the tower by GTE or their
successors.
18. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 18 months from the date of project approval.
Code Reminders:
19.
20.
21.
Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #l special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 6, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees and not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
PC RESO NO. 4795 -5- lD
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
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service .fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Cornmission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of August, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux, and
Trigas
NOES: Commissioner Segall
ABSENT: Commissioners Baker and Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chdrperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4795 -6-
*fhe City of Carlsbad Planning Departrum EXHIBIT 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION&
Item No. 4 0
Application complete date: May 25,200O
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 19,200O Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy
Project Engineer: Kathy. Farmer
SUBJECT: CUP 00-13 - GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA - Request for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow the installation of an unmanned cellular facility consisting of a
200 square foot equipment room and twelve (12) panel antennas mounted to an
existing SDG&E transmission tower. The site is located within the open space
easement between Esfera Street and Piragua Street, north of Cabo Court in the
Planned Community (PC) Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4795
APPROVING CUP 00-13 for a period of five (5) years, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This application is a request for a conditional use permit to allow an unmanned cellular
communications facility consisting of a freestanding 200 square foot equipment room and 12
panel antennas mounted to an existing SDG&E steel lattice transmission tower. Quasi-public
utility facilities are permitted in the Planned Community (PC) zone by conditional use permit
and all required conditional use permit findings can be made for the proposed cellular
communications facility.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The proposed communications facility, operated by GTE Wireless, is located within an SDG&E
open space easement between Esfera Street and Piragua Street, north of Cabo Court. The 100
foot wide easement, which contains SDG&E transmission towers and lines, is bordered by
single-family residential development.
The proposal consists of the collocation of 12 panel antennas mounted to a 119 foot tall steel
lattice transmission tower together with the construction of an unmanned 200 square foot
equipment building. The 12 panel antennas are each approximately 8 inches wide by 4 feet long.
The panels will be flush mounted to the tower at a height of 47 feet to the top of the antennas and
will be painted to blend in with the existing transmission tower. The proposed 200 square foot
equipment building has been designed with a stucco exterior and red tile roof to blend in with the
surrounding residential development. In order to minimize any potential noise impacts, the air
conditioning units will be located on the west elevation facing towards the easement rather than
towards the adjacent residences. The building will be located about 12 feet northwest of the
CUP 00-13 - GTE WIRL,cSS LA COSTA
July 19,200O
Page 2
transmission tower and 5 feet from the property line. The nearest residential structure is over 75
feet from the equipment building. A 6 foot high chainlink fence will surround the building and
drought tolerant shrubs will be planted around the enclosure for additional screening.
GTE Wireless is a cellular communications company licensed to operate in California by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Currently, there are four cellular sites located
within Carlsbad and two additional sites are currently being processed. Although no additional
sites are anticipated in the City of Carlsbad at this time, new sites may be necessary in the future
to provide additional capacity if warranted by customer demand. The proposed facility is needed
to provide coverage in the La Costa area. Currently, there is extremely limited coverage and the
proposed site, located at the top of the hill, will provide the necessary height to provide
unobstructed line-of-site transmission to existing cellular facilities to the south, east, and west.
IV. ANALYSIS
The proposed project is subject to the following regulations:
A. La Costa Master Plan/Planned Community Zone (PC) (Chapter 2 1.38 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code);
B. Conditional Use Permit Regulations (Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
C. Growth Management (Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code).
The recommendation for approval of this conditional use permit was developed by analyzing the
project’s consistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. The project’s compliance
with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
A. La Costa Master Plan (MP 149)/PC Zone
The proposed development is located within an SDG&E transmission line open space easement
within the La Costa Vale Unit #3 development area of the La Costa Master Plan (MP 149 (0)).
Accessory and quasi-public buildings and facilities, such as the proposed use, are allowed in all
zones including the Planned Community (PC) zone with approval of a conditional use permit per
Section 21.42.010(2)(J) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The La Costa Master Plan states that
all uses and improvements within the open space corridors shall be governed by the Open Space
(OS) Zone development standards. The only potential development standard that could be
applied is in regard to a maximum 25 foot building height limit allowed in the OS Zone. The
proposed building height of 13 feet complies with the height limit and the equipment building is
set back 5 feet from the property line. The panel antennas will be mounted on an existing
transmission tower and would not be subject to a height limitation.
Visual impacts will be minimal in that the equipment building has been designed to be
architecturally compatible with the surrounding residences in that it consists of a stuccoed
building with a wood fascia and red tile pitched roof. Landscaping is also proposed around the
exterior of the equipment building to provide additional screening. Additionally, the proposed
panels will be painted to match the tower. The collocation of panels on the existing transmission
/3
_-
CUP 00-13 - GTE WJRELcSS LA COSTA
July 19,200O
Page 3
tower also minimizes the visual impacts of the project by eliminating the need to install a new
pole structure to achieve the needed height to provide coverage.
B. Conditional Use Permit Regulations
Conditional uses such as cellular communications facilities possess unique and special
characteristics which make it impractical to include them as permitted uses “by right” in any of
the various zoning classifications (i.e., residential, commercial, office, industrial). The authority
for the location and operation of these uses is subject to Planning Commission review and the
issuance of conditional use permits. Staff has reviewed the proposed project and found that all
the necessary findings can be made to approve the conditional use permit. The required findings
and supporting facts are contained in Table 1, below.
Table 1 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS AND RESPONSES
size and shape to accommodate the use. accommodate the use in that the collocation of the
panel antennas on the existing transmission tower
will reduce the site impacts because no new pole
structures are proposed and the equipment
building can be located on the site without the
need for variances from development standards.
In addition, there is adequate room to install
and maintained.
CUP 00-13 - GTE WIRL,XSS LA COSTA
July 19,200O
Page 4
That the street system serving the proposed use is
adequate to properly handle all traffic generated
by the proposed use.
The use generates very little traffic, requiring
only routine maintenance visits twice monthly
and occasional visits in response to operational
problems. The existing dirt road located within
the open space easement will be used to access
the site.
C. Growth Management
The site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. The collocation of the panel
antennas on the existing transmission tower and construction of the 200 square foot unmanned
equipment room will not result in increased public facilities demands; therefore, the proposal
will not exceed performance standards for public facilities.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL, REVIEW
The construction and installation of small new equipment facilities or structures is a Class 3
Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (Guidelines Section
15303). The FCC requires compliance with radio frequency power density standards
(ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992) for the general public, therefore, the project would not have a
significant impact on the environment.
In light of the above, a Notice of Exemption will be filed by the Planning Director upon project
approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4795
2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Statement
5. Letter from Lettieri-McIntyre & Associates, dated May 23,200O
6. Letters from property owners, dated June 15,2000, June 25,2000, and July 8,200O
7. Reduced Exhibits
8. Exhibits “A” - “E” dated July 19,200O
BK:cs
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CUP 00-13
CASE NAME: GTE Wireless La Costa
APPLICANT: GTE Wireless of the Pacific, Inc.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: A request for a conditional use permit to allow the installation of an
unmanned cellular facility consisting of a 200 square foot equipment room and 12 panel antennas
mounted to an existing SDG&E transmission tower located within the open space easement between
Esfera Street and Pirag;ua Street. north of Cabo Court.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 401 of Carlsbad Tract No. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit No. 3, in the
Citv of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State of California, according to Map thereof No. 7950. filed in
the Office of the Countv Recorder of San Diego Countv. June 3. 1974.
APN: 223-240-23 Acres: 1.9 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: OS (Onen Space)
Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: PC (Planned Cornmunihr) Proposed Zone: N/A
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning
Site Planned Community
North
South
East
Planned Community
Planned Community
.Planned Community
General Plan
OS
Current Land Use
Open Space Transmission Line Easement
RLM
RLM
OS
SFR
SFR
Open Space Transmission Line Easement
West Planned Community OS Open Space Transmission Line
Easement
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: ENSD Water District: Olivenhain Sewer District: Leucadia
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
0 Negative Declaration, issued-
cl Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
•a Other, Cateaoricallv Exempt, Class 3, Section 15303
. JUN 19 ‘88 B3:ElPM LETTIERI-MCINTYRE & QSSOCIFITES P.218
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
AppIicant’s statement or dkiomre of ccltlin OWEI&@ irrterests on all applications which will require
i discretionary action on the pm of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The foI!owing infixmatios mm be dlsclosad at the time of appkatkm submittal. Your proiect cannot
be revrewed until this information is completed. Please JJ&
Person is adaed s ?&ly indlviQas firm, coqn~B=hip, .$d-‘ca-, associrdon, so&l club, htemal organkadon, co- W, trus& receiver, @Icat& in tU and-my .&~coumy, city and couuty, city munUpaiity, district or other politk&&dkMan ocaay,orhe? group or combinatiun acting s a Unix”
Agents may S&I this Qcpmcnt; howmr, tht legal nammnd entity of the appli&t and propaq ownor kt be provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the rpplicant’s agent)
Provide the CO- -08 and addrcsscs of A1IJ, persons having a financial
interest in the ap$icarion. If the applicant includes a -II or r&n- include the
names. title, addresses of all individti awning more than 10% of the shares. JF NO
* MDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN to% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE WICAn NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a m include the
names, tit& and addresses of the corporate officers. (A scparwe @age may be attached if
=essPry.) ‘SEE ATTACHED
Person corpht
Title Title
Address Address
2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent) .
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGa names and addresses of && persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (k, partnership, tenants in cpmmoa, non-profit, corporation, etc.). if tJ% ownership includes a
orwershb include the names, title. addresses of all individuals owning more
:f the shares. IF NO INDJVJDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE JNJXATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a m
owned corwration, include the names.‘titlqs and addresses of the corporate ofilcen. (A scparart
page may pmgached if necessary.) : TOWERx
pcnon Thomas x. Casey, Esq. Grplpart San Diego Gas & Electkic
Title Chapter 7 Trustee for Title SEE ATTACHED I
pCE Development, Inc. '&&&:315l umay Avenue, Suita A-l Address
Costa ~eoa, CA 92626
Nature of Cwnerohip: Bankruptcy Estate/Nh
2075 Las Prrimas Dr. l Carisbad, CA 92009-I 576 . (760) 438-M 61. FAX (760) 438-0894
JUN 19 ‘80 83:2lPM LETTIERI-MCINTYRE & QSSOCIQTES P.3& - . .
3. NON-PROFIT ANIZAT?ON OR TRUST If my PCSOII idtif%d pUfSUmt to (1) Or (2) above is anonrrroflt wtion or a u Iin be
names and addresses of m person ~&kg tt~ an officer or director of the non-profit
organiza6on OT BS trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profiflrust WA Non ProWfrum WA
Title Title
. Address Adtires
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business uansacted with any member of City staff.
Boards, Commisdow. Commimzes and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
cl Yes q No If yes, please indicate pan(s): .*
NOTE: Atmch additianal sheem ifnecessuy.
1 CcrtifL that all the above inform&a is true and comet to the best of my knowledge.
sea Attached Letters
Signature of owncr/dm
Thatnaa Ii. Casey., Esq.
See A,ttacheU Lutter
Signature of appliuntidaw
.
San Diego Cau & Electric GTE Whelcsa/WTS .
Print or type name of owner Print Or Qpc name af applicant
Kimberly Sheredy
Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent
H:ADMINICOUNfER\Dl3CS~E SfATEMLM $198 Page 2 of 2
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ADDENDUM
GTE- La Costa Cellular Facility
1. APPLICANT INFORMATION:
GTE Wireless of the Pacific, Inc.
c/o General Dynamics/WTS
2835 Camino de1 Rio South, Suite 110
San Diego, CA 92108
GTE Wireless is a Publicly Owned Corporation
CORPORATE OFFICERS:
GTE Wireless
One GTE Place, GAlB3LGL
Alpharetta, GA 3’0004
Charles Lee
Chairman, CEO
Michael Masin
Vice Chairman, President of International
Daniel O’Brien
Executive Vice President of Finance, CFO
William Barr
General Counsel, Executive Vice President of Government & Regulatory Advocacy
J. Randall MacDonald
Executive Vice President- Administrator of Human Resources
2. OWNER INFORMATION:
San Diego Gas and Electric (subsidiary of Sempra Energy)
10 1 Ash Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Nature of Legal Ownership: Publicly Owned Corporation
CORPORATE OFFICERS:
Richard Farman
Chairman, CEO
Stephen Baum
Vice Chairman, President, COO
Neal S&male
Executive Vice President, CFO
John Light
Executive Vice President, General Counsel
Jerry Florence
Senior Vice President- Corporate Communications
S VLANNING\GTEWTSUIB\~~~M~~ dot
b’ GENERAL DYNAMICS i' 'WorldwideTelecommunic9tionSystems
Mar& X2000
Mr. Tuliiel -r . lzhctnrof~ 1 ’ =YoJ- : I~kndryAvenue~‘ c8twad,cA92008~
8#Devekpment~I~b~owrneraSthCpoperty~~wno~Pa~ oOoun~,CAand~~r~GtEW~otthePircfiSc,Inc.
weI;aningperms&==-y*~ap~~d dii on the above referenced site.
tR&
3351NrwayAvenw .
. ” =6
*cEReveb~~
cc: OebbieCoSi, uuljs:*ning mbt) ’ .
b @ -ikmlpra Energy
March 15,200o
m.MicbaelHo&riller
Direofmenning
city oftziuwad
1635 Faraday Avame
(Iwsbad, CA 92008
DcarMr. Holzrdk
sanDiegoG8sand~cistbe-oftbetfan- tower, locatsd on Assessor Pad
Number 223-240-23, to which GTE Wdess is propusing to add a cehhr ctmmicatiops
facility,,andhacbyapprovcsthe~~ccllulatfhcility#,belocatedonrhe~~~~~
site.
June 3, 1999
Wireless Products
and Services
12677 Alcosta Boulevard
P.O. Box 5011
San Ramon, CA 94583-0811
510 277-9400
To whomever this may concern:
GTE Wireless of the Pacific Incorporated author&s Let&i - McIntyre and Associates,
Inc. employees to act on behalf of GTE as its agent for all land use entitlements in the
greater San Diego, CA area.
Should you have any questions or need further proof of representation, please do not
hesitate to contact me directly at (925) 904-35 16.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mark Bullard
Administrator, Property Management
Pacific Coast Region
A part of GTE Corporation
i.t i-TII ICI-\~,t\-I ‘, lx -\\L’.A;icK-l-iTE>. I\<
May 23,200O
Barbara Kennedy
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-73 14
SUBJECT: CUP 00-13- GTE WIRELESS- LA COSTA CELL SITE e.
Dear Barbara:
GTE Wireless appreciated the opportunity to meet with you at the subject La Costa cell site to
discuss the proposed facility and issues raised in the City’s Completeness Review Letter dated April
13, 2000. The Completeness Review Letter identified aesthetic concerns with the cluttered
appearance of the proposed collocation on an existing SDG&E steel lattice transmission tower and
recommended that GTE evaluate an alternative of a stealth collocation on one of the surrounding
residences. At the site visit, you recommended that GTE submit written documentation of the
information presented at the site visit. As requested, this letter provides: 1) additional background
information on wireless technology, 2) GTE’s coverage objectives for this area, and 3) alternative sites initially considered by GTE, 4) the results of GTE’s analysis of the feasibility of relocating
their proposed facility on an existing residence and 5) project design revisions made by GTE in
response to the City’s concerns about potential aesthetic impacts.
Background Information on Wireless Technology
Wireless communication systems operate on “line-of-sight” technology to provide phone service
within a coverage area. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) allocates each cellular
provider 416 channels and one channel is needed for each phone call. To provide the needed system
capacity, the 416 channels are reused throughout the system. If sites using the same channels can
“see” each other, this creates interference within GTE’s phone system, resulting in poor call quality
or dropped cells. Consequently, sites must be located high enough to “see” the desired coverage
area, but not too high to “see” other sites, which causes interference problems.
Additional sites are added to the system to expand the coverage and capacity of wireless phone
service. As the system continues to grow and new sites are added, there is less flexibility in the
location of the new sites because the coverage areas are getting smaller and closer together. It is also
important to note that the grid pattern of sites for each wireless provider is different. While sometimes a particular site may provide the desired coverage for multiple providers, other times a
particular site will not meet the needs of different providers hased on: 1) differences in their system
grid pattern which affects coverage area objectives and 2) the radio frequency (RF) frequency of the provider (i.e., cellular versus PCS).
Cellular communication systems operate in the 800 to 900 megahertz portion of the spectrum. There
are only two cellular providers in each market. PCS (Personal Communications Service) such as
PacBell, operates in the 1800 to 2200 megahertz portion of the spectrum. Because PCS operates at
higher frequencies with shorter wavelengths, the RF signal for PCS does not propagate as far
compared to the lower frequency/longer wavelength of cellular’s RF signal. Consequently, PCS
1531 b’ourth .A\ cnuts, Suite 4.30, San Diego, Caliiornia Y21tli-3152 // (hlcJ) 23R-4241 ,i FAX (0 I Y) 2wLr72
Barbara Kennedy
May 23,200O
Page 2
systems are characterized by more, smaller facilities that are lower in elevation and provide coverage
to smaller service areas compared to cellular systems that tend to require fewer, larger sites with
taller height requirements.
GTE 3 System Design and Coverage Objectives
Approximately 85 percent of GTE’s existing facilities are “stealth” sites involving collocations on existing structures or architectural/design solutions to minimize visual impacts of the facility. GTE
Wireless pursues “stealth” facilities whenever possible to minimize the cost and time involved in
obtaining the required zoning approvals.
The proposed facility is needed to provide coverage in the La Costa area. As shown on the enclosed
map of “Current Coverage Before the La Costa Site” (Figure l), there is extremely limited coverage
in the La Costa area. The map indicates a signal strength of -80 dBm which is the minimum level
required to provide adequate coverage. The green area represents where there is existing coverage
while the gray area represents areas lacking adequate coverage. The La Costa site, located at the top
of a hill, provides the necessary height to provide unobstructed line-of-sight transmission to existing
cellular facilities to the south, east and west. The enclosed “Proposed Coverage for La Costa”
(Figure 2) map illustrates the extent of the coverage (shown in green) that will be provided in the La
Costa/southeastern Carlsbad area by the proposed site. The coverage map clearly illustrates how the
proposed facility would meet the coverage objectives discussed above as well as provide the needed
link to the adjacent sites in the surrounding area.
I have also enclosed a composite Thomas Brothers map identifying the location of GTE’s existing
and pending sites in the surrounding area to illustrate how the proposed site fits into GTE’s
established network. GTE currently has four existing sites within the City of Carlsbad, as described
below.
Cell Site Location
Carlsbad 10 15 Chestnut Avenue
Encinitas 6727 El Camino Rea
Poinsettia 760 Macadamia Drive
Racewav 27 14 Loker Avenue West
Description
Screened rooftop antennas
60’ monopole adjacent to the Twin “D” water tanks
Screened rooftop antennas
Facade mounted antennas
In addition, GTE is currently processing applications for two other cell sites in the City of Carisbad.
These include a rooftop building collocation at 5823 Newton Drive near the intersection of College
Boulevard/El Camino Real and a monopole near the intersection of Tamarack/El Camino Real. No
other sites are anticipated in the City of Carlsbad at this time. However, additional sites could be
necessary in the future to provide additional capacity if warranted by customer demand.
Alternative Sites Initially Considered by GTE
To meet the coverage objectives for this site, GTE needs antennas that are positioned to “see” the
areas surrounding the site to the south, east, and northwest (i.e., the directions the antennas would face on the tower). The SDG&E transmission towers are the only existing structures in the area that
Barbara Kennedy
May 23,200O
Page 3
provide the necessary height to meet the coverage objectives. GTE initially evaluated three different
SDG&E towers illustrated in Figure 3 (Alternative Sites Considered) as potential candidate sites:
l Tower #I 7 1 is located on a knoll on the east side of North Randho Santa Fe Road.
This tower is located too far to the east to provide the desired coverage. In addition.
this more remote location would result in problems extending the necessary utilities (telephone lines, electricity, etc.).
l Tower #172 is located between the proposed site and North Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. This tower is too low to meet the coverage objectives.
l Tower #I73 is the proposed project site. This location is at the ideal elevation to
“see” in all three directions to provide the needed coverage to the surrounding areas.
Residential Collocation Alternative
To address the concerns raised by staff regarding the cluttered appearance of the proposed facility
and their recommendation to collocate on a residence like PacBell, GTE’s RF engineers have
completed a comprehensive evaluation of the surrounding residences to determine if any of these
sites would adequately meet GTE’s coverage objectives.
GTE first evaluated PacBell’s proposed site located at 7412 Cadencia Street that was recently
approved but not yet constructed. This site is at a much lower elevation on a hillside and only shoots
down into the valley to the north. In order for PacBell to improve wireless coverage in the eastern
portion of La Costa, it requires three separate PCS facilities. As discussed previously, PCS systems
tend to have more, smaller sites at lower elevations compared to cellular service due to the difference in the spectrum frequencies that result in shorter signal propagation. In order for GTE to
provide coverage for the same area, only one facility is needed at a higher elevation. Consequently,
the location and elevation of Pacific Bell’s Cadencia Street site is not compatible with GTE’s
coverage needs for the area.
GTE then evaluated the surrounding neighborhood to determine if there were any residences with
sufficient elevation to provide the needed coverage. The residences located at the highest elevation
occur along Fosca Street immediately to the east of the SDG&E transmission tower corridor (see
Figure 4). However, even these homes are not high enough to provide the required line-of-sight
coverage.
In addition, there are significant differences in the size and type of equipment between PCS and
cellular providers that affect the feasibility of collocating a facility on an existing residence. While
PacBell could easily architecturally integrate its three “relatively small” antennas (quoted from the
Negative Declaration) into a 4’ x 4’ x 4’-8” faux chimney feature, GTE’scellular equipment is too
large to allow a stealth collocation on a residence. GTE’s cellular system requires twelve four-foot- long panel antennas, with four antennas grouped into a sector oriented in a specific direction to
interface with the adjacent cell sites. Within each sector, the antennas must be mounted to provide a
minimum of one foot of horizontal separation between the antennas. If GTE were to build a faux chimney, it would have to be very large (i.e., a minimum of eight feet wide) and would not tit into
the architectural character of the neighborhood. In addition, GTE would need to build two or three
faux chimneys to accommodate the 12 antennas and provide the required orientation. There would also be significant structural issues if GTE were to locate the antennas on the roof of an existing
Barbara Kennedy
May 23,200O
Page 4
residence or if another type of architectural feature were added. In addition, GTE needs a 10’ by 20’
equipment shelter to store the radio equipment that would need to be located on the residential lot.
Other Alternative Designs
Monopalm - GTE also considered the possibility of utilizing a monopalm (i.e.. a faux palm trees
with the antennas screened by artificial fronds) in the same area as the proposed facility as an
alternative to collocating on the transmission tower. It was felt that a monopalm would be more visually obtrusive than mounting the antennas on a transmission tower. In addition, SDG&E does
not allow other vertical elements to be added within their transmission corridors. If the monopalm
were to be located on a residential property, it would need to be approximately 50 feet tall to provide
adequate coverage and an interested property owner would need to be identified.
Monopine - Similarly, a monopine or faux pine tree could be proposed. This presents similar issues
as discussed above for a monopalm except that the monopine would need to be at least IO feet taller
to provide for pine branches above the antennas.
Four-in-One Panel Antennas - Sometimes a four-in-one (4:1) antenna configuration can be used
where four panel antennas are vertically stacked creating the appearance of one long panel antenna
approximately eight feet tall. A 4:l antenna configuration is not feasible on the SDG&E
transmission tower for two reasons. First, SDG&E’s location criteria require that the top of the
antennas be a minimum of 16 feet below the lowest power line. This spacing requirement combined
with the additional 7 feet of clearance needed for the vertically stacked antennas does not provide
the needed elevation to maintain the required line-of-sight coverage. Second, SDG&E needs to
maintain three feet of clearance around the tower legs for climbing purposes and therefore does not
allow antennas to be mounted on the legs of their transmission towers.
Relocate the Equipment Building - The City’s Completeness Review Letter requested that the
equipment building be relocated directly north of the transmission tower to minimize the impacts on
the view into the open space area. Again, SDG&E’s siting criteria precludes relocating the
equipment building since SDG&E requires that encroachments into their corridors be minimized.
In summary, GTE has completed an exhaustive search of alternative facility locations in the
surrounding area and has determined that the transmission tower is the only hilltop location that
meets their coverage needs. The differences between PacBell’s and GTE’s technology and coverage
objectives prevent GTE from installing a facility similar to PacBell’s. The differences in antenna
design, the number of antennas required, and their orientation make it impossible for GTE to design a faux chimney on an existing residence. In addition, there are no residences in the surrounding area
with suficient roof height to provide the needed line-of-sight coverage.
The proposed collocation on an existing 119’2” tall steel lattice transmission tower is the only
feasible alternative since it is the only existing structure that provides the needed height to provide
the line-of-sight coverage. The proposed project minimizes the visual impacts by collocating the
. panel antennas on an existing public utility structure and eliminates the need to install a new pole
structure to achieve the needed height to provide coverage. The addition of GTE’s 8”-wide panel
Barbara Kennedy
May 23,200O
Page 5
antennas will have a negligible visual impact given the complex pattern of the cross pieces on the
steel lattice tower (see enclosed photo simulation- Figures 5 and 6).
To respond to the City’s concerns about potential aesthetic impacts, GTE has proposed several
design revisions listed below to make the facility as stealth as possible.
1. Painting the panel antennas to match the existing transmission tower.
2. Utilizing a state-of-the-art panel antenna that reduces.the width of the antenna from
12” to 8” (see enclosed photo- Figure 7) to blend with the crosspieces.
3. Utilizing a state-of-the-art antenna with electronic down-tilting to allow the antennas
to be flush mounted on the tower instead of being physically tilted.
4. Eliminating the microwave dish antenna.
5. Enhancing the design of the equipment building by adding a tile roof (Valencia) and a stucco exterior (Pebble) as well as a fascia (Moorwood) to the equipment building.
6. Providing landscaping (eight 15-gallon knife acacias and fourteen 5-gallon wild
lilacs) to screen the equipment shelter and the chain link fence.
We hope that with this additional information, staff will reconsider their position on the proposed
project. We would request that the CUP be docketed for a Planning Commission hearing as soon as
possible since there are no other viable alternatives for GTE to pursue.
Please feel free to contact me at (619) 238-4241 if you have further questions about the project.
Sincerely,
LETTIERI-MCINTYRE AND ASSOCIATES
Deborah L. Collins, AICP Senior Project Manager
Enclosures: Map of GTE’s Surrounding Site Locations
Figure 1 - Current Coverage Before the La Costa Site
Figure 2 - Proposed Coverage for La Costa
Figure 3 - Alternative Sites Considered
Figure 4 - Photograph of the Existing Residences along Fosca Avenue Figure 5 - Photograph of Existing SDG&E Tower
Figure 6 - Photosimulation of the Proposed Facility
Figure 7 - Photograph of the Proposed Panel Antenna
cc: Virginia Partridge, GD/WTS
Ron Enalen, GTE
S \PLANNING\GTEWTSUI8Ms inter dot
June 252000
Barbara Kennedy
City of Carlsbad
1615 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
Subject: Cup OO-13-GTE Wireless-La Costa Cell Site
Dear Barbara:
This letter is to inform you that we are vehemently opposed to this call site and
associated building proposed in the SDG&E easement adjacent to our property.
The existing large tower was there when we moved here. However, we
understood that this easement was to be used only for SDG&E. Anything added
would be obnoxious and depreciate our property value. We are asking the City
of Carlsbad and the Planning Commission to not allow this eyesore to be
constructed in our backyard.
Sincerely,
John and Ann Hopp
3329 Fosca Street
Carlsbad, CA 92009
cc: Lettieri-McIntyre & Associates, Inc.
1551 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101-3152
a9
333 1 Fosca Street
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009
June 15,200O
Barbara Kennedy
City of Carlsbad
1615 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008-73 14
Dear Barbara;
This is in reply to a letter we received from Lettieri-McIntyre & Association regarding
the proposed ‘Wireless La Costa Cell Site” for G T E. We are requesting that you not
allow G T E to put any storage facility in the open space adjoining our property. We do
not want any building of any kind, regardless of their proposed landscape plans for the
site. Also.to add anything on the big Tower would further depreciate our property value.
We chose to live in Carlsbad for many reasons, one of them being the preservation of
the natural landscape and the open space, especially here in La Costa We are trusting the
Planning Comission and the City of Carlsbad to protect us and our property from those
who would profit at our expense. Please: Please: do not permit G T E to put these eye
sores in our community.
cc;
Lettieri-McIntyre & Associates, Inc.
1551 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, Ca. 9210 l-3 152
y?
bf
Sincerely; * .-. h
” ?g$; ;$&g* &-
/
C.&j 06 Cahesbad
1635 Famiay Avenue C&bad, CA 92008-7314
JyLy 8, 2000
Re@~ence~ : Case Name-GTE UUZ.&.AA Case F&: 00-13 la Co&u
2 am exahemd!y again42 any add.Monat powa tXne4 ok wn~ZkcaXon to tie ex-
ht.ing ;buw~. &hen we puda~ed &A home aA 3325 Fodca St., we wtva awaRe 06
tie tiweh bu+t choose 20 pay an addLt.ionat amount do& a VW Lolt. Que .to unwopu~- tive neighbou ok en~oue~~& by tie city I have been d&ed my V&W.
(Lkwangtip&cead~naeeq~en;t, I &sat tie city .i.A n0.t Aflowing any wn- s.idenation dot L.& M&&I.& .tht have Ito bm tie high& 06 it. Ab heen in O&WI CMUXA .MA u&t not be tie en&o add&hat e~ui.pmenX being added and maybe a genwn sXa.Gon tuU appeiv~.
Tfti~ a&on CcLcee devatua&e my pnopWy. 12 .i.A wmmoney known many &lbznA @ul Living neuk itf& 4oti 04 ZtWe& eZc. Add&g metre Xo tie pu&en.t Atie ulouikf make p&h&m uu~~be. The Land&aping Plun Itha;t appear on Jams R. Iveh6en
a complete 0vuuU. @?tzit@ Wzae in CabL~omia doed atyzfkng g/tow u&thou*t WM ’ tie exc,qxtion 06 we& and c&u. Kim&y cfach .the w&ix wnbmvtin m&hod6 pah. 7.
They 2fu.k Lt w.iU di6gh.a tie building Cohen KUU h not needed? See la&t Aentence
pam. 7. The tandscapet~ cettahty doesn’t know much abourt pean;tS. F~uL&Jww&~,
14-5 gal. p.tan& t&U YWX di6gui.a the bf,ddhg. You tui.U need 10 521. A%UA tha+t am 15 g&n OA 25 gatton t&h a continued a&oma$ic tiehhg AyAtm.
2 am wtXa.in otierr duvlange~~~.Z~ cot&i be made avUab.te id tie &ty uwutd demand
mohe 4656euhch. The city wLt.t be 9eLti.q lthe revenue rokiee we tive tu.i#h it. I &et 2hu.t .#te &OA~AX /re~idenZ~ to 2h.i.~ pkojec2 Ahoutd be given monukky wnhdu&i.un do& lthe devnPllntidn 06 OWL p~~paib.
S.&W&j,
&&h&J h&d
EATRICE R. KANE
“‘1 *aI vu WC” IJ.‘, I-.%A IOU 103 1057 JOHS Ah-D A&N EOPP @loo1
July 18,2CMM
Barbara Kennedy
city of Carl&ad
1615 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
Subject: Cup 00-l 3-GTE Wireless-La Costa Cell Site
DearBarbaraKeunedy,
We are requesting that the planning commission does not permit GTE to use the SDG&E
tower or land surrounding it, for their company’s equipment.
The building is proposed to be next to our back fince. The entire proposal is extredy
intrusive and offensive. I take great issue with the wording of the planuing commissions
findings that this is “necessary & desirable”. This is not necessary and it is most
dewely not desirable.
When the commission states, The cobcation ofthe panel autumas on the existing transmission
tower does not impact the site-, then, they failed to complete their fesearc h. Nooneonthe
planning commission looked at the site tirn the back of our home or our neighbors.
The noise f&ztor associated with the proposed building isn’t even addressed or
researched.
We have lived in this home fbr 20 years. Ahhough we haven’t always agreed with the
City’s decisions, during those years we have been tivorably impressed with the concern
the city has had fbr it’s citizens. This would be the exception.
Regards,
Mike and K&y Welch
cc: Let&i-McIntyre & Associates, Inc.
1551 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, Ca 92101-3152
July 12, 2000
Barbara Kennedy
City of Carlsbad Planning Dept.
1615 Faraday Ave.
Cartsbad, CA 92008
Re: CUP OO-13-GTE Wireless/La Costa Cell Site
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
This letter is in response to an information packet received from Lettieri-McIntyre regarding
theproposed GTE Wireless Cell site. We are opposed to any development on the easement
which adjoins our house. When we purchased this property, our title policy quoted this area
as an “open space easement” to be used only by SDG&E for “tree planting and trimming,
underground conduits, and incidental purposes.” SDG&E’s towers are already an eyesore to
the community. To now adorn them with 12 GTE antennae would add insult to injury. To
make matters worse, GTE needs to erect a 200 square foot storage facility and City Planning
has required GTE to plan for a 15 ft tall “storage” building that “more closely resembles” the
dwellings in the neighborhood. This is not an enhancement of the open space, no matter how
much landscaping is offered. This is an area where people walk their dogs and kids ride
bikes. Based on its previously stringent policies, how can the City of Carlsbad allow this
open space easement to be utilized in this manner, particularly when so many local property
owners would be impacted because they adjoin this site?
Additionally, the photo simulation, figure 6, of the “site” which was enclosed in the info packet
(sent to only a few property owners), is not a clear representation since it fails to show the
proximity of the proposed structure to the existing homes. If this structure is built, many of us
would then have a direct view of the 15 foot high GTE storage facility surrounded by chain
link fencing, not an attractive addition to any neighborhood.
We look to the Carlsbad Planning Department for leadership in denying this request to locate
a GTE Wireless Cell Site on this open space easement
Sincer y, 9 ..-? /
/’ ’ >,,1 r/~L(~~.~~ ,,.’ ,.y.&+/(’
, c I
. 9
Monica M. Jellinek
3312 Cabo Ct.
Carlsbad, CA 92009
33
7328LasBtiCud
cadsbe4ca92009
July 16,200O
hachaclJ.Ho~ city ofcacldmd
1615 Famday Avame
CarlQaQ Ca 92008-73 14
c!as File; CUP 00-13
CaseName:GTEWirdessLaCosta .*
cc: L&aic?i~ & AssociatcL Inc. 155 1 Fourth Avam
saaDiegq ca92101-3151
34
0619 S&t OSf. ess:Lo 00 ~1 Inf
_- . $8
; ;:&
,... :G& , ‘.,5 I
PHILIP D.CANCELLIER
3323 Fosca Street Carlsbad CA 92000 July 12, 2000
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 9'2008-7314
Case File: CUP 00-13
Case Name: GTE Wireless La Costa
Dear Sir or Madame:
I am against GTE's proposal for a "cell site" to be located
adjacent to my property. The addition of GTE cells to the
SDG&E tower will create addition pollution to our
neighborhood and particularly to my property and my family
view.
The engineers at GTE are astute enough to find other sites
or means to accomplish their goals without adding to the
visual pollution in our neighborhood. I am a subscriber of
GTE cellular service and have not noticed any problem using
their service within the area outlined.
I request the Planning Department and the City of Carlsbad
to refuse GTE request to locate their cellular equipment in
our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Philip D. Cancellier
1::::: Zr.:c PpIly
s-27:;; ” - VlSWVl I .” I
ll~m&g$~,,= ‘Yq
-- -
- J -““a- - II
-
.I” .I. m.‘, . ..U . ..m> ,I” ,.,.I LT.“-. -I,.“. 1- .‘“l..mI.. I’ 3”IUUY,, # “3””
” c - “Ij)qg=F-
3
AI +
f
Ipy
,
..” IS. 11, n.5. .I .““., Y. #“.I “.a-. “.I I,.“. a-, . .,.a. _I..
,u!“u*I, :: I”3YI
I: --I-- w.so3n Ii I_ ” I*- =%ax8g -
/i I \r
/ % 8 /
(ilr:ilii:i~jJll~;i.li!.,,: “;‘~~‘..‘i‘, ‘ii !I: 1 ,: j( “,
1 ..;L;: 1 .’
-
II Ll
-
the City of Carlsbad Planning Departmbtilr
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 2 0
P.C. AGENDA OF: August 2,200O
Application complete date: May 25, 2000
Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy
Project Engineer: Kathy Farmer
su B JECT: CUP 00-13 - GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA - Request for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow the installation of an unmanned cellular facility consisting of a
200 square foot equipment room and twelve (12) panel antennas mounted to an
existing SDG&E transmission tower. The site is located within the open space
easement between Esfera Street and Piragua Street, north of Cabo Court in the
Planned Community (PC) Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4795
APPROVING CUP 00-13 for a period of five (5) years, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. BACKGROUND
This item was discussed at the July 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. At the request of
the Planning Commission, the meeting was continued to August 2, 2000 so that the applicant
could investigate various options for lowering the equipment building into the ground. The
applicant has modified the design of the proposed building as shown on the enclosed plans. The
attached letter from Deborah Collins, Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates, Inc. dated July 24,2000,
describes the proposed modifications in detail.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4795
2. Letter from Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates dated July 24,200O
3. Letter from property owners dated July 2 1,200O
4. Staff Report dated July 19,200O with attachments
5. Revised Exhibits “A” - “E” dated August 2,200O
JUL 25 ‘80 69:5EQM LETTIERI-MCINTYRE & QSSOCIATES P.2/7 .
. LE’TIIERI-MCINTYRE AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
July 24,200O
Barbara Kennedy
City df Carkbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-73 14
SUBJECT: CUP 00-13” GTE WIRELESS- LA COSTA CELL SITE
Dear Barbara: .
As directed by the Planning Commission at the hearing on July 19, 2000, GTE has modified the
design of the proposed equipment building to reduce its height above ground level. As indiCated on
the enclosed revised site plans, the equipment building will be recessed four feet below the existing
ground level. In addition, the slope of the tile roofhas been flattened from a 4:12 pitih to a 3:12 .’
pitch to reduce the height of the roof from three feet to 2’-7” while still maintaining the architectural
fkature of a pitched roof. The net effect of these two design changes is to ,reduce the height of the
building above the existing ground level by 4’-5”. This results in an above ground building height of
8’-7” feet., compared to the 13-foot-tall building height that was reviewed at the July 19, 2000
Planning Commission hearing.
Three other design changes are also included in the revised site plans. First, for kcuritj, reasons, the
vinyl-coated chain link ‘fencing will be replaced with a decorative wrought iron with outward
curving p&s to prevent anyone from being able to climb over the fence and onto the roof of the
equipment building. Second, to further address conditions about noise from the air conditioning
units, the proposed wall mounted air conditioners have been replaced with ground mounted air
conditioners to be lo,cated on the building pad four feet below the natural ground level. This below ground location will further attenuate sound from the air conditioners. Third, based on input fkm
, SDG&E, the two existing palm trees will be removed since SDG&E does not allow vertical features
above 15 feet in height in their transmission corridors.
In addition, you are invited to attend the meeting we have scheduled with interested residents for
Thursday, July 27th at 5:30 p.m. at the project site 10 review the revised site plans prior the.August
2nd Planning Commission hearing.
Sincerely,
LETTIERI-MCINTYRE AND ASSOClATES
Deborah L. Collins, AlCP .
Senior Project Mtiager
CC; Virginia Partridge, General Dynamics WTS
1551 Fourth Avenue, SuitekO, San Diego, CaIifomia 92101-3152 / (619) 2384241. / FAX (619) 238-9772
Cleo and Leif Gihbsson
3315 Cabo Court
Carlsbad, CA 92009-7803
Carlsbad, July 2lst. 2000.
-\ ~
Barbara Kennedy
City of Carsbad
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
\ : ~
Unfortunately we were away when the Carlsbad City Council meeting on July 21st.
took place to discuss the GTE antenna in our neighbourhood. We will not be home
on Aug. 2nd. either and therefore send this letter of objection instead.
We have seen the papers and pictures and oppose the building of the antenna and
the equippment building as it is shown.
We suggest that the whole thing be placed on top of the hill near the water tank. It
should still be in the line of sight from the valley, and would not interfere with the
neighbours. The noice from the air conditioners would not be heard either.
Our house has two 2nd. floor bedrooms and a veranda which face the tower where
the antenna and equipment building is proposed being built. We are sure there
must be better alternatives for placing the antenna that would not be objectionable
to the neighbours.
Sincerely
Cleo Gihbsson
,-
PLANNING COMMISSION July 19, 2000
EXHIBIT 5
Page 5
PUBLIC HEARING:
4. CUP 00-13 - GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow the installation of an unmanned cellular facility consisting of a 200 square foot
equipment room and twelve (12) panel antennas mounted to an existing SDG&E
transmission tower. The site is located within the open space easement between Esfera
Street and Piragua Street, north of Cabo Court in the Planned Community (PC) Zone in
Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
Associate Planner, Barbara Kennedy presented agenda item #4 as follows:
GTE Wireless is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the collocation of a cellular
communications facility on an existing SDG&E transmission tower. Referring to an overhead slide, Ms.
Kennedy stated that the site is located in the open space easement between Piragua and Esfera Streets,
and abuts the rear yards of homes on the north side of Cabo Court and the south side of Fosca Street.
The proposal consists of the installation of 12 panel antennas on a steel lattice transmission tower. The
tower is 119-feet tall and the top of the panels will be 47-feet above grade level. A 200-square foot
equipment building is also proposed near the north side of the easement, slightly west of the tower. The
one story building has been designed with a stucco exterior and tile roof so that it blends in with the
neighborhood. Drought tolerant landscaping will be planted around the equipment building to screen the
structure.
In order to reduce the visual impact of the facility, the project was scaled down from the original proposal
by reducing the size of the panel antennas and eliminating a proposed satellite dish. The panels are
approximately 4-feet tall and 8-inches wide. The panels will be painted to match the transmissions tower.
Arrays of four panels will be located on three sides of the tower. By collocating the panels on the existing
tower, it eliminates the need for the construction of monopoles or unsightly support towers.
In order to recommend approval of the project, the four findings required for a Conditional use Permit must
be made:
1. It must be determined that the use is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, that it is in harmony with the General Plan, and that it is compatible with
surrounding uses.
The use provides a public benefit for individuals, businesses, and emergency services. The proposed
facility will provide the needed coverage for the La Costa area. Therefore, the use is desirable for the
development of the community.
The use is consistent with the Open Space General Plan Land Use Designation since quasi-public utility
uses can be permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
The project has been designed to be compatible with the neighborhood and the proposed collocation on
the existing tower eliminates the need for new support structures. Therefore, the proposal is compatible
with the surrounding uses.
2. It must be determined if the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use.
The site is adequate in size to support the proposed use and there is adequate room to provide plant
materials around the proposed equipment building for screening.
3. It must be determined if the setback requirements can be met and if there are other
features that would make the use more compatible with the neighborhood.
The project meets all the development standards of the OS and PC zones with regard to setback and
height. In order to make the project more compatible with the neighborhood, the building was redesigned
to match the neighborhood architectural style, and landscaping will be used to screen the building. The
/JLf
PLANNING COMMISSION July 19, 2000 Page 6
panels have been reduced in size and they will be painted to match the tower, which will further reduce the
visual impact of the facility so that it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
4. It must be determined if the street system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by
the use.
The use generates very little traffic. It will require routine maintenance visits approximately twice a month
and occasional visits in response to operational problems. The facility will be accessed by the existing dirt
road currently used to access the SDG&E transmission towers.
The project is classified as an exemption under CEQA. The FCC requires compliance with radio
frequency power density standards for the general public, and therefore the project would not have a
significant impact on the environment. The project is conditioned to submit a report, which shows that the
facility is complying with the accepted standards.
In conclusion, Ms. Kennedy stated the project meets all of the findings for approval. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4795 approving CUP 00-l 3.
Chairperson Compas asked if there were questions of staff.
Commissioner Baker asked how the landscaping would be watered.
Ms. Kennedy replied there would be an irrigation line that would run through the easement and a water
meter will be installed.
Commissioner Baker asked the height of the building.
Ms. Kennedy responded 13-feet in height and the dimensions are1 0 by 20.
Commissioner Baker asked what entity would receive the rent from the project.
Ms. Kennedy replied SDG&E.
Chairperson Compas asked to what extent landscaping would camouflage the proposed building.
Ms. Kennedy stated that the plant materials proposed for use are Acacia Cultriformis which reaches
heights of IO-15feet, with an equal spread and Ceanothus, which reaches heights of 6-7-feet with an
equal spread.
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant to make a statement.
Debbie Collins, Lettieri - Mclntrye and Associates, Inc., Planning Consultants for GTE Wireless, 1551 4th
Avenue, San Diego, CA, distributed two presentation folders containing pertinent material regarding the
project to the Commission. Referring to Figure 1 in the La Costa Cellular Facility folder, she advised the
Commission that the proposed site was needed to provide coverage in the La Costa area. Currently, the
coverage in that area is inadequate. The proposed site will be located at the top of a ridge and provides
the necessary height in order to provide unobstructed line-of-sight coverage to the coverage area. Figure
2, in the presentation folder, depict the substantial change in the extent of coverage that can be provided if
this project is approved.
Ms. Collins explained to the Commission that GTE’s first priority is to find a site in a commercial or
industrial area and to utilize collocations when searching for a new cell site location. Approximately 85%
of GTE’s existing facilities are stealth sites. GTE avoids locating in a residential area whenever possible.
When a facility must be located in a residential area it is collocated with other public utilities or institutional
uses. Within the search area for the proposed facility the SDG&E transmission towers are the only
existing structures that provide the necessary height to meet the coverage objectives for the site. A total
of three towers in the area were tested and it was determined that only the tower within the open space
easement between Esfera Street and Piragua Street, north of Cabo Court provides the needed coverage
for the service area.
PLANNING COMMISSION July 19, 2000 Page 7
As illustrated in Figure 6 in the booklet, the proposed project would result in an extremely minor addition to
an existing 119-foot tall steel lattice tower located in a residential area. GTE has agreed to implement
several design measures to minimize the visibility of the proposed collocation:
l The panel antennas will be painted to match the existing transmission tower
l The antennas will be 8 inches wide, in place of the normal 12 inch wide antenna
l The micro-wave dish antenna has been eliminated
l The design of the equipment building has been changed to a custom design building that includes a
sloping red-tile roof, stucco exterior and a wood fascia
l Landscaping screening will be installed to screen the equipment building and the chain-link fence
GTE conducted an extensive analysis of alternative locations and designs to the proposed facility. None
of the residents in the area provide sufficient height and elevation in order to meet the coverage
objectives. This issue was discussed in detail in the attachment to the staff report.
GTE requests that the Commission support staff% recommendation to approve the proposed project
based on the following facts:
8 GTE has completed an exhaustive search for alternative facility locations and designs in the
surrounding areas.
l The proposed collocation on this specific tower is the only feasible alternative, because it is the
only structure that provides sufficient height to provide the coverage needed in the area.
l The proposed project minimizes the visible impacts by collocating the smallest possible panel
antennas on an existing public utility structure, which eliminates the need to install a new support
pole structure for the antennas.
l The minor addition of the a-inch wide panel antennas will have very little visual impact given the
complex pattern of the cross pieces on the steel lattice tower
In summary, Ms. Collins declared that as a good faith effort to work with the adjacent property owners,
GTE prepared a letter and information package that was distributed to the property owners in the
immediate vicinity of the project and offered to discuss the project in detail with any of the neighbors.
Commissioner Segall asked how often the SDG&E access road would be used by GTE to maintain the
facility
Ms. Collins replied l-2 maintenance visits per month.
Commissioner Segall asked how the road would be accessed.
Ms. Collins replied off of Esfera to the site.
Commissioner Segall asked how long would each visit last.
Ms. Collins responded equipment checks would be conducted. Typically the maintenance visit would last
45 minutes.
Commissioner Segall asked if the 13-foot height structure would obscure views.
Ms. Collins stated that it would not be obstructing any views, given the lo-foot higher elevation of the
residential dwellings.
Commissioner Segall asked if the vegetation to be planted around the structure was fireproof.
Ms. Collins responded that only ice plant and other similar vegetation could be considered fireproof, but
noted there were 22 plants proposed for the site, which is not considered a significant fuel volume source,
which would create a fire hazard.
PLANNING COMMISSION July 19,200O Page 8
Commissioner Segall asked Ms. Collins to define cellular market.
Ms. Collins stated that the market for San Diego is all of San Diego County; there are two cellular licenses
in San Diego County and four other wireless providers.
Commissioner Segall asked how many additional potential sites might be developed in this area or other
areas.
Ms. Collins stated that she could not speak for the other providers. GTE has 4 existing sites in the City,
three of which are stealth sites; this project would be the fifth. In terms of long range planning there are
two other GTE sites in process.
Commissioner Segall asked what would happen to the integrity of GTE’s system if the Commission did not
approve this project.
Ms. Collins stated that a significant hole would continue in the system.
Commissioner Baker asked if the hole in the system primarily affected the customers in the La Costa area.
Ms. Collins replied yes.
Referring to Figure 4 in the handout booklet, Commissioner Baker asked for clarification on the location of
the structure as it relates to the tower.
Ms. Collins stated that it would be located on the backside of the tower.
Commissioner Trigas asked if enlargement of the tower was anticipated in the future.
Ms. Collins explained that if there was any substantial change in the design, GTE would have to come
back before the Planning Commission for approval. It is not anticipated that there will be a need for
modifications to the structure or tower.
Chairperson Compas asked for the results of the communication with the residents.
Ms. Collins stated that several telephone calls were received from residents that did not receive the
information package, but added that she did not receive any follow-up request to meet and/or talk with the
residents.
Chairperson Compas asked if there was a landscape maintenance plan in place.
Ms. Collins stated that GTE would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping and checking the
irrigation to make sure it is functioning properly.
Chairperson Compas asked if the landscape plan did not accomplish its goal of providing adequate
screening of the structure, what would be the next step.
Ms. Collins stated there would be an annual review to ascertain if the landscaping goals were being met
and any problems or shortcomings would be addressed at that time.
Commissioner Nielsen asked why the Proximity Damage Study was included in the package.
Ms. Collins stated that the residents raised the issue of reduced property values in the area. This report
was included in order to address their concerns; the report indicates there will be no reduction in property
values as a result of the installation of the proposed project.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Jay LeClair, 7328 Las Brisas Court, La Costa, CA, has resided at this location for 21 years. His home is
located north of the tower. The existing tower is an eye sore. Adding a cell site structure increases the I 47
PLANNING COMMISSION July 19, 2000
negative impact on the surrounding area. This type of cell site is incompatible with a residential area. He
showed the Commission a picture of an existing GTE cell site in the Kearny Mesa area, noting that the site
began with panels but now had a satellite dish, antenna, lights and various other items mounted on it. He
expressed concern that the proposed site would invariably have additions attached to it as well. He
suggested that GTE continue their efforts in the stealth technology. Mr. LeClair stated that he, along with
the other residents in the area, believed that the proposed project would be detrimental to the entire
neighborhood.
Chairperson Compas asked if the transmission tower was in place when Mr. Le Clair purchased his
property.
Mr. LeClair responded yes.
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Le Clair to indicate on the display map the location of his home.
Doing as asked, Mr. LeClair also stated that he lived on Las Brisas Court on the cul-de-sac, north of the
tower.
Commissioner Baker asked if the transmission tower was visible from him home.
Mr. LeClair stated the he could see the entire tower to within three feet of the base.
Trudy Richard, Coldwell Banker Real Estate, 285 North El Camino Real, Suite 101, Encinitas, CA, stated
she has been a real estate broker for 21 years. A home in the proposed project area recently sold for
nearly a million dollars. She believed installing any additional kind of equipment on the tower and a
structure in the easement area would diminish the value of the surrounding dwelling units and would be a
detriment to the neighborhood. She appealed to the Commissioners, asking them if they would relish the
cell telephone tower behind their residential dwellings. Referring to the CC&Rs outlining the things that
are permitted and not permitted in the area, e.g. “No telephone antennas or unsightly objects, pole or
wires shall be permitted on the outside of roof...,” she asked why GTE was being allowed to erect an
unsightly object and not adhere to the CC&Rs.
Commissioner Segall asked Ms. Richard where she lived in relationship to the tower.
Ms. Richard stated that she lived in Encinitas.
Mike Welch 3327 Fosca Street, La Costa, CA, referring to the display map, indicated that his backyard
and swimming pool were in close proximity to the tower and his quality of life would be severely impacted
by the proposed structure, which will be five-feet off of his property line. Noting that air-conditioners will be
installed in the building, he voiced concerns regarding the noise impacts related to the running of the air-
conditioners. The proposed 13-foot building will tremendously impact the views of the surrounding homes.
He questioned who was benefiting from the installation of the proposed project. He indicated that neither
he nor the neighborhood would reap any benefits from the installation of the proposed antenna additions
to the tower or structure. The entire neighborhood is opposed to the proposed project. He noted that the
open space easement path is used by children in the area, as well as others walking dogs or taking leisure
walks. The proposed panels on the tower and structure will not be compatible with the neighborhood.
The only entities benefiting from the proposed project will be the users of GTE wireless. He did not
believe increased cellar telephone coverage was of paramount importance, thus it did not warrant
unsightly additions to the tower nor installation of an equipment structure in the neighborhood. He did not
believe that this area was the only viable option for installation of the proposed project. Referring to the
unknown factors related to the harmful effects of microwaves to humans, he suggested that GTE find a
location not in a residential area for the proposed project.
Referring to the tower, Commissioner Heineman asked why Mr. Welch felt the proposed stucco structure
would be more of an eye sore.
Mr. Welch stated that when he purchased the property the tower was in place and he was told at the time
of purchase that by the year 2000 all the things related to the tower would be put underground. He
suggested that the Commission place on its agenda the under-grounding of the utilities and the removal of
the visual pollution. 48
PLANNING COMMISSION July 19, 2000 Page 10
Phillip D. Cancellier, 3323 Fosca Street, La Costa, CA, indicated on the display map the location of his
property and stated that he would be severely impacted by the installation of the proposed structure and
antenna additions to the tower, e.g. 8 out of the 12 antennas would be facing his home. He has lived in
the neighborhood for approximately 20 years with his wife. Referring to item 5 in the staff report and the
following statement, “The Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects
that the Secretary of State has found do not significantly impact on environmental problems,” he interprets
the findings to mean that the State cares more about what happens environmentally to the gnatcatcher,
salamander, or the kangaroo mouse than it does its human citizens. He indicted that he has spoken with
several PhD’s regarding the emission of EMF waves; and discovered that it is unknown at this time exactly
what the long-term exposure effects will be to humans, although it is known that the equipment will affect a
number of other things in a household. The people that live in the community deserve more consideration
versus the consideration that insects and animals receive as a result of environmental issues. He
disagreed with finding #I of the staff report, reiterating that the proposed project is neither desirable nor
necessary for the development of the community and it is detrimental to the neighborhood. There are
several concerned Planning Groups in the county that are bravely rejecting cellular antenna installations,
e.g. El Cajon. These planning groups, like most of us, are not sure about the effects of Electra Magnetic
Fields (EMF). In conclusion he stated that neither he, nor his family nor his neighbors wanted to live with
cellular antennas in their neighborhood or in any residential area. (Mr. Cancellier distributed copies of the
newspaper article regarding the barring of Air Touch antenna in a residential area to the Commission).
Cathleen LeClair, 7328 Las Brisas Court, La Costa, CA 92009, informed the Commission that she did not
receive an information package, until she requested one. Quoting from US & World News, about the city
officials of El Cajon sending a message to the cellular telephone companies by barring the installation of a
wireless telecommunications facility and accompanying antennas in residential areas, believed the City of
Carlsbad should do the same. It is hoped that the City of Carlsbad Officials will have the best interest of
the citizens of Carlsbad at heart and vote against the installation of the proposed antennas and
telecommunications structure. (She distributed a copy of the aforementioned article to the
Commissioners).
John Hopp, 3329 Fosca Street, La Costa, CA, stated that the tower is in his backyard and the proposed
structure will be in the corner of his backyard. The proposed 13-foot structure will be a-feet above the
five-foot fence that is in place now. The consensus of the neighborhood is that the proposed project is not
wanted in the area. 273 residents in the area signed a petition against the proposed project; he presented
the petition to the Commission. The installation of the telecommunications structure and the addition of
the antennas on the existing tower will diminish the quality of life for those living in the area.
Patrick Gravitt, 7410 Esfera Street, La Costa, CA, stated that he has a front door view of the tower and
has lived at this address for eleven years. He is opposed to the installation of the antennas on the tower
and the erection of the structure.
Diane Defrieghis, P.O. Box 260170, Encinitas, CA, stated that she resides one block from the site in
questions. She expressed concern regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed project and
questioned its legality. She stated that ANSI/IEEE guidelines for cell panels allowed 32-feet panels, yet
the proposed cell panels on this site are 47-feet, which is slightly over 14 feet from the legal guidelines
which indicate when therm0 nuclear radiation damage will occur. This guideline is for one (1) antenna;
this proposed project is slated to have twelve (12) antennas. People heavily travel the easement and the
backyards of numerous homes that directly face or abut the proposed site. The staff report indicates that
the nearest residential dwelling is 75 feet away; the dwelling may be 75 feet away, but people use their
backyards and/or swimming pools, which are only five feet away from the proposed project, and they will
be exposed to therm0 nuclear radiation damage. She questioned if the proposed project would be
policed after its installation. In summary, she asked the Planning Commission to condition GTE Wireless
to prove that the ANSI/IEEE guidelines will be followed before the proposed project is approved.
Monica Gelanick, 3312 Cabo Court, La Costa, CA, has lived in La Costa for 22 years. When she
purchased the home on Cabo Court she was not alerted to the fact that additions would be made to the
tower. She expressed concern regarding the noise impacts related to the operation of the air conditioner.
She assists with the maintenance of the grounds around the tower, along with other neighbors in the area,
because the current owner of the easement does not maintain the landscaping. In conclusion, she stated
49
PLANNING COMMISSION July 19, 2000 Page 11
that the Planning Commission would be putting the entire neighborhood at risk, if this project were
approved.
Don T. Brille, Sr., 3333 Fosca Street, La Costa, CA, referring to Figure 4 in the information package;
indicated where his home was located. Currently, he does not have a fence or shrubbery, and stated that
the installation of the structure and accompanying antennas on the existing tower would impact his view.
He is not in support of the proposed project and believes that it will severely impact the neighborhood.
Mike Chase, 7327 Las Brisas Court, La Costa, CA, stated that he had a direct line of sight to the tower.
He stated that he was alarmed by the lack of information given to the residents, by GTE Wireless, within
600-feet of the proposed project.
Chairperson Compas closed public testimony and asked the applicant to address the various issues
mentioned during public testimony.
Ms. Collins addressed the following issues:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Photo of tower in Kearny Mesa is one of the main switching towers and was approved for steel
lattice tower, cellar panel antennas and the microwave dishes. The proposed project is asking for
only 12 panel antennas; any modifications would have to be presented to the Planning
Commission.
Regarding visual pollution - GTE Wireless will do everything within their power to minimize the
visual impact that this facility would have on the neighborhood.
The equipment building has been designed to match the visual quality of the surrounding
residential units.
Regarding the distance of the proposed structure and its close proximity to residential units -
Although, the structure may be five-feet from property lines, the closest residential dwelling is 75-
feet away from the tower and proposed structure.
One major benefit of the proposed project will be better communication services for the Carlsbad
Fire Department and Carlsbad Police Department who use GTE for their wireless communications
service.
No other viable options exist for an alternative location of the panel antennas and
telecommunications structure.
The State CEQA guidelines have included a provision for exemptions for minor additions to
existing facilities. The project falls within this category.
The RF issue - The Telecom Act of 1996 preempts local jurisdictions from denying facilities based
on RF emissions, if they are in compliance with the FCC guidelines. The emissions from all 12
antennas are less than 1% of the FCC guideline.
Any further changes to the tower or proposed structure would be subject to further review and
approval by the Planning Commission.
Noise related to the air conditioners units - The air conditioners would not be running 24-hours;
the units would only be operational when the temperature rises and there is a need to cool the
inside of the equipment building. The air conditioners are regular residential type units.
GTE Wireless voluntarily sent out information packages to residents adjacent to the project site
and to anyone else that called to request the information package.
Undergrounding of the existing tower would render this project null and void.
5-o
PLANNING COMMISSION July 19,200O Page 12
. The Proximity Damage Study indicates that there would be no adverse impacts to property values
as a result of the project.
Commissioner Nielsen asked the applicant if the building could be relocated to the south or east of the
tower.
Ms. Collins replied “no” because of the SDG&E easement and deferred to Virginia Partridge, Site
Acquisition Manager.
Virginia Partridge, 2835 Camino del Rio South, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92108, informed the
Commission that the initial proposal to SDG&E called for the installation of the structure directly adjacent
to the lattice tower, however, because of the maintenance that SDG&E must do on the power lines, and
the tower itself, this was not a viable option. Because of the expanding power lines, the structure must be
a certain distance below and away from the power lines.
Commissioner Baker asked if the building could be recessed (lowered) into the ground.
Ms. Partridge indicated that because of the design of the building and foundation that must be installed
under the building, lowering the building into the ground was not an option. She suggested that a flat roof
could be used in place of the pitched roof, which would lower the height of the building by three-feet, but
cautioned the Commission that a flat roof would not be compatible with the surrounding residential units.
(Pitched roof height 13-feet/Flat-roof height 1 O-feet).
Commissioner Segall asked if any noise other than from the air conditioners would be generated from the
facility.
Ms. Partridge replied there would be no humming or noise of any kind generated from the facility. She
noted that a noise shield could surround the air conditioner units and a sound wall could be erected at one
end of the shelter to lessen any impacts related to the air conditioners.
Chairperson Compas did not understand why the structure could not be recessed into the ground.
Ms. Partridge indicated that she was not an engineer and could not answer the question. She stated that
she would be happy to talk with GTE Wireless engineers about the possibility of recessing the building.
Commissioner Segall asked the size of the vegetation that would be planted along the perimeter of the
structure for screening.
Ms. Collins replied there would be 8-15 gallons Acacia’s and 14- 5 gallon Ceanothus. Native type species
establish better with the installation of smaller size plants. They are fast growing foliage, but it will take
approximately two-years for the landscaping to mature.
Chairperson Compas closed public testimony and called for a discussion.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Segall asked if the Fire Department had to review the landscaping plan.
Ms. Kennedy replied that a landscape consultant would review the landscape plan. When landscaping is
on a permanent irrigation system, foliage tends to be less of a fire hazard.
Commissioner Segall requested clarification on the decibel levels related to the air conditioner units.
Ms. Kennedy replied it would be a standard residential air conditioning unit, noise emitted from the units
would not be above the allowable decibel levels. In addition, she noted that the sound would be muffled
somewhat by the plant material around the structure.
Commissioner Segall asked if the easement could be used for walking and other recreational uses.
Ms. Kennedy replied yes.
PLANNING COMMISSION July 19, 2000 Page 13
Commissioner Segall asked for Ms. Kennedy’s input regarding CEQA issues that were raised pertaining to
RF emissions.
Ms. Kennedy stated that staff was preempted from reviewing the RF emissions.
Commissioner Segall asked Ms. Kennedy to address the issue of additional satellite dishes or antennas
being placed on the tower.
Ms. Kennedy explained that a new Conditional Use Permit would have to be applied for.
Commissioner Segall asked what entity was responsible for the maintenance of the easement.
Mr. Wayne stated that the underlining property owner is the old property owner of La Costa; they have
signed the application and are currently in bankruptcy. The Fire Department sends a notice of weed
abatement; if the weeds are not abated the City takes care of it and places an assessment on the
property. He stated that by condition of the Conditional Use Permit SDG&E or the leasee is required to
construct and install the landscaping as shown on the approved final plans; the landscaping must comply
with the City’s Landscape manual adopted by the City Council.
Based on what has been put before the Commission, Chairperson Compas asked staff if they wanted to
change or alter their recommendation for approval.
Ms. Kennedy replied no.
Chairperson Compas stated he would like to see something done to lower the building.
Commissioner Heineman asked if the project could be conditioned to modify the building as discussed.
Mr. Wayne recommended against redesigning the building, e.g. drainage issues, and suggested that the
proposed project be returned to staff for further review. He noted that the structure has been designed to
be compatible with the residential neighborhood; the pitched roof is more aesthetically pleasing.
Commissioner Trigas requested clarification on the pitch roof versus the flat roof.
The Commission discussed this in detail; it was the consensus of the Commission not to request a change
in the roof style.
AMENDMENT:
ACTION: Motion by Chairperson Compas, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission send this agenda item back to the Planning Department to
investigate the various options to lower the building into the ground.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
MOTION:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
6-l-O
Compas, Heineman, Trigas, Baker, L’Heureux Segall
Nielsen
None
Motion by Commissioner Trigas, and duly seconded, to continue agenda item #M
until the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 2,200O.
7-o-o
Compas, Heineman, Trigas, Baker, L’Heureux Segall
Nielsen
None
Chairperson Compas closed the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION August 2,200O Page 6
2. CUP 00-13 - GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow the installation of an unmanned cellular facility consisting of a 200 square foot
equipment room and twelve (12) panel antennas mounted to an existing SDG&E
transmission tower. The site is located within the open space easement between Esfera
Street and Piragua Street, north of Cabo Court in the Planned Community (PC) Zone in
Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
Associate Planner, Barbara Kennedy presented agenda item #2 as follows: The applicant has revised the
design of the equipment building based on the comments from the Planning Commission. The equipment
building has been lowered approximately 4-feet by sinking it into the ground. The height of the building is
now a-feet 7-inches above the ground level. The air-conditioning units have been changed from wall
mounted units to ground mounted units. The landscaping will no longer be Acacia; lower growing shrubs
will be planted. The aforementioned changes have been incorporated into the plans.
In addition, in an informal meeting with members of the neighborhood, on Thursday, July 26, 2000, the
applicant discussed the various modifications of the project. Staff supports the modifications as proposed.
In conclusion, Ms. Kennedy informed the Commission that she would address any questions.
Chairperson Compas asked if there were questions of staff. As there were no questions of staff, he asked
the applicant to come forward.
Debbie Collins, Lettieri-Mclntrye and Associates, Inc., Planning Consultants for GTE Wireless, 1551 4th
Avenue, San Diego, CA, stated that GTE did meet on-site with the interested residents to review the
revised site plans. Pursuant to the Planning Commissions direction, GTE has modified the design of the
equipment building to reduce its height above the existing ground level. The building has been recessed
four-feet below ground level. The pitch of the roof has also been slightly modified to bring the height of the
roof down one-half foot, while still maintaining the architectural amenity of having a sloping tiled roof. The
net effect of these changes results in the height of the building being reduced above ground level by 4-feet
7-inches. The building height will be a-feet 7-inches above ground level, compared to the 13-feet building
height on the original design plans. Due to the reduced height and for security, GTE is proposing to
replace the vinyl coated chain-link fence with a decorative wrought iron fence with outwardly sloping
points. In response to the concern regarding noise emitting from the air-conditioning units, the units will be
ground mounted on the pad that is four-feet below the existing ground level, therefore the air-conditioning
unit will be completely below the existing ground level.
In conclusion, Ms. Collins reiterated that GTE completed an extensive analysis of alternatives and there
are no other feasible alternatives that would further reduce the impacts of this project.
Commissioner Segall indicated that he visited the project site and noticed that the homes that are
contiguous with the site have gray roofs, yet the homes across from the site match the proposed project
roof. He asked if residents in the area had indicated which type roof color was preferred.
Although GTE would be amenable to changing the roof color, Ms. Collins indicated that no specific
requests have been received regarding the color of the equipment building roof.
Chairperson Compas opened public testimony.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Philip Cancellier, 3323 Fosca, Carlsbad, CA, stated that the equipment building and antenna additions to
the tower were not wanted at this location by himself nor the neighborhood at-large. It is a visual blight
and it will be an intrusion on his, as well as the privacy of others in the neighborhood, e.g. maintenance
visits. He did not understand why the Commission could not rule on the health and safety issues. He
stated adamantly that the health hazard effects of the tower combined with the high tension wires and the
cellular antennas should be addressed. He noted that several countries, e.g. Switzerland, are following a
policy of “prudent avoidance”, when dealing with like matters. He strongly suggested that Carlsbad do the
same. He referred to the statement made by GTE regarding the upward spiral of real estate values in
conjunction with the installation of various GTE sites. He noted that real estate values were going upward 5-3
PLANNING COMMISSION August 2,200O Page 7
period, and it had nothing to do with GTE cellular sites. He believed that the installation of the equipment
building and the placing of the antennas on the existing tower would ultimately discourage prospective
buyers and reduce property values. He believed that a conflict of interest existed due to the fact that the
City of Carlsbad and Staff relied upon GTE for their cellular service.
Commissioner L’Heureux asked Mr. Cancellier if he had a cellular telephone.
Mr. Cancellier, replied that he had GTE cellular service and had no reception trouble traveling within the
area with it. He reported that the only area that anyone has reception trouble, e.g. car radio, etc., is via La
Costa Avenue before the freeway.
Mike Welch, 3327 Fosca, Carlsbad, CA, to illustrate his point regarding his privacy being invaded as a
result of this project, distributed photos of his home that showed the property line and easement. The
photo showed a five-foot hedge, he noted that the proposed equipment building would be 3-feet 7 inches
higher than the hedge. Mr. Welch stated that the proposed building would be approximately l&feet from
the pool, entertainment and recreation area in his backyard. 20-years ago believing that his property line
extended out two and a half feet further than it actually does, he placed a fence in the easement and has
subsequently maintained the area. He believes that he legally possesses the rights to the easement by
establishing a “prescriptive easement.” In conclusion, he requested the Commission to enjoin this project.
Ivan Jellinek, 3312 Cabo Court, Carlsbad, CA, distributed photos of his property to the Commission and
stated that his property is 44 feet away from the base of the SDG&E tower. He advised the Commission
that if the antennas were 47 feet off the ground, that would put the antennas diagonally 64.5 feet away
from his property. He is extremely concerned about the emission of the high-energy variable output radio
frequency transmissions from the proposed antennas, that will be directed at his home on a 24-hour - 7
day a week basis. The structure as proposed is 10 x 20 feet. The addition of the wrought iron fence will
add 5 feet, which will make the area 20 x 32 feet. Beyond the fence, there will be landscaping which will
add an additional 7 feet. This now means the area for the structure will be 30 x 40 feet. In conclusion, he
stated that not only will there be a visual impact, but a noise impact as well, because there are no other
structures in the easement; the noise of the air-conditioners will travel to the surrounding homes and down
the easement. The requirements of the electronic equipment will make it necessary to have the air-
conditioning units on virtually all of the time. He stated that the proposed equipment building, and
installation of the antennas on the existing tower, was not appropriate for a residential neighborhood and
requested that the Commission deny this project.
Commissioner Segall remarked that he heard a loud buzzing noise emitting from the power lines at the
proposed project location and believed that the air-conditioner noise would not be as loud as the buzzing
from the power lines.
Mr. Jellinek replied that the humidity determines the loudness of the high-tension wires, e.g. lots of
humidity lots of noise; no humidity in the air no noise from the high-tension wires.
Bea Kane, 3325 Fosca Street, Carlsbad, CA, has lived in this home for 23 years. She noted that she
purchased this home with a view, paying an additional fee of $25,000 for the view. The tower was in place
when she purchased the property and it has always been an eye sore and a concern. Noting that her
husband and another resident in the area died from brain cancer, she believes the tower and the
proposed antenna additions will be a major health hazard to the residents in the area. Residents and
taxpayers should be able to express their concerns thoroughly. This project will take away views,
inundate the area with unwanted noise and cause area residents to fear for their safety and health. The
additional equipment decreases property values. It is feared that if GTE is allowed to erect the equipment
building and add antennas to the tower, it will only be a matter of time before others are permitted to do
the same. She takes exception to the need for cellular telephones for emergencies. Cellular telephones
are a luxury, not a necessity. She requested that the legality of this commercial enterprise be shown
before proceeding with the project.
Cathy LeClair, 7328 Las Brisas Court, Carlsbad, CA 92009, has lived at this location for 21-years.
Referring to page 4, #7 of a handout outlining the protective conditions and restrictions of the CC&Rs, she
noted that it clearly stated that no antenna would be allowed on any property. As the Planning
Commission represents the City of Carlsbad and all of its residents, she believed that the Commission had
a moral obligation to vote no on this project.
PLANNING COMMISSION August 2,200O Page 8
Commission Segall specified that the CC&Rs stated, “no television antenna” shall be erected.
Ms. LeClair responded that the addition of antennas to the existing tower would cause additional visual
blight. She revealed that none of the residents in the area could place television antenna on their
property, therefore GTE should not be allowed to add antennas to the existing tower. The CC&Rs cover
all of the residents and should also hold for a commercial entity as well.
Jim Morgan, 3331 Fosca Street, Carlsbad, CA, stated that this project would obstruct his view of the
lagoon and the ocean. It is his belief that GTE wants this site approved in a residential neighborhood to
assist with the sale of GTE to AT&T. In addition, he believes that if this project is approved it will only be a
matter of time before other cellular entities will petition to put additional antenna or satellite dishes thereby
making a bigger eye sore in the community. Summarizing, Mr. Morgan declared that he was sure that
none of the Commissioners would want this proposed project in their backyard and reiterated that the
cellular site was not wanted in this neighborhood.
Ann Hopp, 3329 Fosca Street, Carlsbad, CA, stated that she and her husband purchased the property for
the open space and the view. The tower was in place at the time of purchase and the easement in
questions borders her property. She advised the Commission that since moving into this location she has
been diagnosed and treated for breast cancer. She questioned if her cancer is due to the SDG&E power
lines. She noted that five out of twenty people in her cancer support group live in close proximity to power
lines. Although studies have not been conclusive as to the effect of the power lines relating to cancer, she
does not want to see any additional devices with unknown emissions factors attached to this existing
tower or erected anywhere in the easement. Ms. Hopp asked the Commission to think about the many
products that were not known to cause cancer, but in fact do, e.g., tobacco and pesticides. In closing she
requested that the Commission deny this project.
Donald T. Brill, Jr., 3333 Fosca Court, Carlsbad, CA, commented that the home was sold to him with a
view of the ocean. The placement of the equipment building and the installation of the antenna on the
existing tower would greatly impede his view if not negate the view all together. This proposed project
would devalue his property. Mr. Brill asked the Commission to vote as if the project were proposed in their
backyards.
Patrick Gravitt, 7410 Esfera Street, Carlsbad, CA set forth that many questions should be answered
before this project proceeds forward. He appreciated the fact that Commissioner Segall visited the
proposed site and suggested that the other Commissioners do the same. He disagrees with the course of
action being taken and believes that there exist other alternative locations for this project, as well as the
possibility of having this project completely underground. He raised the issue of how GTE would maintain
the property. He expressed concern relating to the fact that the completion and approval of the proposed
project has been expedited, but not thoroughly analyzed for compatibility with the area. The mere fact that
the lagoon and ocean views will be impeded is reason enough to deny this project. Mr. Gravitt requested
that the Commission take an in-depth look at the EMF studies and alternative location sites before this
project is allowed to go forward.
John Hopp, 3327 Fosca Street, Carlsbad, stated that the tower in question is directly adjacent to and in full
view of his backyard. He did purchase the property with the knowledge of the existing SDG&E easement
tower and was led to believe that the tower would only be for the use of SDG&E for the purpose of
maintaining their equipment. It is absolutely inconsistent to start decorating the tower with antennas and
constructing buildings that will obstruct the open space view. He expressed doubt regarding GTE being
the only additional user of the tower. The fact that any other additions to the tower will have to be
reviewed by the Commission does not guarantee that the Commission will not approve other projects and
additions to the tower. Mr. Hopp asserted adamantly that this project does not belong in a residential
area. He suggested that the City of Carlsbad and the Planning Commission should have specific plans
and guidelines for the installation of cellular sites. Outlining the position of his home in relation to the
tower and proposed antenna, he voiced concern for his health and safety, noting that the tower and
proposed antenna is in direct line of sight from his bedroom. Giving a complete detail regarding the
distance of the tower and antenna from his dwelling and the emission of the radio waves, he informed the
Commission that the distance was IO-feet less than the federal standard allowed. Mr. Hopp declared that
this is a serious potential problem that must be addressed with a comprehensive and independent
engineering study. In addition, he would like the Commission to address the question regarding
PLANNING COMMISSION August 2,200O Page 9
ownership of the easement. In closing Mr. Hopp advised the Commission that there are alternative sites
available in the area that are not in a residential area.
Ron DeFreitas, P.O. Box 260170, Encinitas, CA 92024, submitted and read into evidence the City of
Carlsbad Environmental Impact assessment form part one for CUP-00-13, page 7, section 13 titled
Aesthetic subsection B, which asked the question, “Would the proposal demonstrate negative aesthetic
effects?” He noted that the checked answer on the report indicated, “Less than significant impact”. In the
attached summary of impacts, section 13, titled, Aesthetic subsection B, GTE downgrades the impact and
indicates that the proposed transmission tower wireless site and equipment building project, “Would not
demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect.” In addition, he submitted and read into evidence, the Planning
Commission’s minutes from April 5, 2000, pages 3 to 5, pertaining to agenda item #2, CUP 99-11,
regarding Pacific Bell’s antenna facility for 7412 Cadencia Street, approximately a block and a half from
GTE’s requested site. He noted that on page 4, Pacific Bell states that, “The residence on Cadencia
Street is the optimum site in our area for three antenna panels. The only other alternative is the SDG&E
transmission towers.” However, it was determined that the SDG&E transmission tower was not a viable
solution because of the visibility and its inability to screen the antenna and equipment. The discrepancy is
very apparent. Mr. DeFreitas asserted that the wireless providers had a strong profit motive and would
state whatever is necessary in order to secure the desired sites, regardless of the invasive visual impact
to residents. In closing, Mr. DeFreitas declared that the rights of the Carlsbad homeowners were not
being taken into account, while out-of-town providers wants were being met at the expense of the
homeowners.
Commissioner Trigas requested clarification regarding Mr. DeFreitas place of residence.
Mr. DeFreitas stated that he lived 3 blocks over from the tower, but did have an Encinitas post box
address.
Diane DeFreitas, P.O. Box 260170, Encinitas, CA, stated that the issue at hand was GTE’s desire to
increase their commercial wireless coverage in a residential community, due to an alleged coverage gap,
versus the community’s right to enjoy their homes with freedom from fear; preserve the neighborhoods
scenic character; monetary value and retain their accustomed quality of life without a cellular site five-feet
from their property. Citing the legal mandate of the 9th Circuit Appellate Court, Air Touch cellular versus
City of El Cajon, Ms. DeFreitas declared that the issue at hand is a legal issue. Other wireless service
providers are already serving the area and therefore this project should be denied. An informal survey
indicated that none of the neighbors in the area experience cellular coverage problems. The invasive
needs of the applicant’s facility bring zero benefit to the neighborhood. Other U.S. District Courts have
repeatedly ruled against wireless carriers and in favor of residents in carriers’ lawsuits when CUPS were
denied. Wireless providers may have gaps in service, the FCC does not mandate optimum services, but
only substantially better than mediocre service. The detriment to the surrounding area, due to adverse
visual impacts and property devaluation, outweighs the public’s interest in improved service. Gaps or
unavailable wireless service does not oblige local boards to approve virtually every application to improve
service without regard to the impacts on the surrounding areas. Legislative history is clear, noting that
residential permits for wireless carriers do not have to be granted. She informed the Commission that six
(6) cellular sites were visible from the area in question. In closing Ms. DeFreitas stated that she did
anticipate a lawsuit regarding this project and urged the Commission to deny the project.
Monica Gelanick, 3312 Cabo Court, Carlsbad, CA, referring to the display map of the area, indicated
where her residence was in relationship to the proposed project. She stated that it was her understanding
the City of Carlsbad was developing a plan for wireless communications systems and asked the status of
the plan.
Chairperson Compas closed public testimony and asked the applicant to address the various issues
mentioned during public testimony.
Ms. Collins addressed the following issues:
l The Proximity Damage Study compared sales of residence in the same neighborhood based
on proximity and views of a wireless facility. The study determined that a view of a wireless
facility did not devalue the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION August 2,200O Page 10
l Each facility costs approximately a half million dollars and GTE does not build sites where
they are not needed.
l Regarding the privacy invasion; the fence in question is built three-feet within the SDG&E
easement.
l If the site is not approved, it has not been determined what the next step will be, because no
viable alternative sites exist.
l Regarding the health issue, the emissions are less than 1% of the FCC guidelines in terms of
health hazards.
l The CC&Rs are for television antennas. This is an antenna that is regulated in the City of
Carlsbad’s zoning ordinance.
l The sloping roof of the equipment building can be replaced with a flat roof to help address the
privacy and view issues. The flat roof would reduce the building height to 6-feet above the
ground level.
l The application for this project was filed before the sale of GTE to AT&T.
l Three other alternative sites were specifically addressed and found not to be viable options.
l GTE met with SDG&E regarding placing the equipment building further to the north. SDG&E
determined that this was not a viable option because of the needed access for maintenance of
the tower.
l Placement of the antenna on the power lines to the north cannot be done, because it has a
direct line of sight to another GTE cellular site and two sites cannot have direct line of sight to
each other because it creates interference. In addition, the power line is a concrete type
tower with two-cross arms and it would be necessary to add an additional support structure to
attach the antennas.
l The open space easement is in place because it is a utility corridor.
l There are significant separation requirements that would limit the ability of another wireless
provider to have equipment on the same tower. There are vertical and horizontal separation
requirements if two providers are collocating.
l This is GTE’s first SDG&E collocation in San Diego County. GTE has approximately 17 sites
throughout the San Diego County that are in or adjacent to residentially zoned areas.
Commissioner Heineman asked for clarification on the location of the air-conditioning units.
Ms. Collins responded that the air-conditioning units would be installed one-foot below the existing ground
level.
Referring to comments made by Mr. Hopp, Commissioner Segall asked for clarification regarding the
location of the antennas in relationship to Mr. Hopp’s residence.
Ms. Collins stated that based on the contour, there is a 450 contour on one side of the equipment building,
and a 460 contour along the side bordering the residences. The top of the antenna will be 47 feet above
the base of the tower.
Commissioner Segall requested that Ms. Collins address the RF wave emission issues, because Mr.
Hopp raised the question, due to the fact that his property is on a higher elevation and the tower is parallel
to his property.
57
PLANNING COMMISSION August 2,200O Page 11
Deputy City Attorney, Cindy McMahon advised the Commission that the issue could be addressed, but no
decisions could be based on the testimony relating to RF wave emissions.
Ms. Collins reported that the FCC guidelines based on their knowledge of exposure levels, exempts
facilities that are more than 10 meters in height from having to file for RF, based on the very low emission
levels. The project would be less than one percent at the base of the tower. Based on the topography of
the area there is a difference between the antenna height in relation to Mr. Hopp’s residence. However,
the emission levels drop dramatically with distance.
Chairperson Compas asked if the RF emission levels directed toward Mr. Hopp’s bedroom window were
higher than at the base of the tower.
Ms. Collins stated not to her knowledge.
Ms. Kennedy interjected that there would only be antenna panels on three sides of the tower, thus there
are no antenna panels facing Mr. Hopp’s residence.
Referring to tower 171, which is located two towers to the east of the proposed site, Commissioner Segall
noted that it appeared to be at the same elevation. He asked if this tower would be an acceptable site for
the proposed project.
Ms. Collins stated that the problem with the tower, which is east of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, is that it is a
half mile further to the east. This location precludes the ability of the equipment to adequately transmit
and an additional site in a residential area would be needed. The difference in the equipment needs do
not allow GTE to do a collocation that would be compatible with the architectural character of a residence.
Referring to the EIR mentioned in public testimony, Commissioner Segall stated that an EIR was not part
of this project and requested clarification regarding the conflict noted in public testimony. GTE’s statement
indicates that, “the proposed project will not demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect” and yet there was a
statement by staff indicating that it would have a “slight aesthetic impact.’
Ms. Collins deferred to staff.
Ms. Kennedy stated that an initial study was submitted, which staff reviewed, however this is a categorical
exemption through CEQA.
Ms. Collins replied that the residential co-location that Pat Bell obtained approval of, located on Cadencia
Street, was a completely stealth solution because they have smaller equipment needs. Regarding this
project, it is GTE’s position that the addition of a-inch wide panel antennas on an existing steel lattice
tower that is 119-feet tall, would not result in significant impacts.
Commissioner Trigas asked if panels could be added to the site east of Ranch0 Santa Fe, thus meeting
GTE’s needs.
Ms. Collins stated that additional antennas could not be added to gain coverage of an area that could not
be seen from the tower.
Commissioner Trigas requested clarification regarding changing the roof on the proposed equipment
building.
Ms. Collins replied that a flat roof would reduce the height of the equipment structure by 2 and a half feet,
which would render the building height the same as the adjacent hedge that is approximately six-feet in
height.
Commissioner Trigas wanted clarification regarding the scenic view of the corridor.
Ms. Collins replied that she had not had the opportunity to analyze the view from the Hopp’s backyard and
could not give testimony regarding that issue. However, she noted that a six-foot hedge does presently
exist in the Hopp’s line of view, therefore she assumes that a six-foot tall building would not create an
additional obstruction. 58
PLANNING COMMISSION August 2,200O Page 12
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant if a condition were placed on the project prohibiting the adding
of any additional items to the tower ever, would the applicant accept the condition.
Ms. Collins replied that the condition would be acceptable to GTE and its successors.
Chairperson Compas requested clarification regarding the bankrupt company that GTE is dealing with.
Ms. Collins deferred to Virginia Partridge.
Virginia Partridge, General Dynamics representing GTE, 2835 Camino del Rio South, Suite 100, San
Diego, CA 92108, stated that pursuant to the Master Agreement between GTE and SDG&E, GTE has
legal rights to be on the SDG&E easement. The real estate issue is not a criteria that is approved at the
planning level, however, if the permit is granted it could not be activated without all the necessary
approvals.
Deputy City Attorney, Cindie McMahon informed the Commission that it is noted in the staff report that the
bankruptcy trustee gave permission on behalf of the bankruptcy estate, VCE, to GTE regarding the
installation of the equipment on the property.
Chairperson Compas asked if there were questions of staff.
Commissioner Segall requested clarification on the prescriptive easement.
Ms. McMahon responded that there is a concept in the law regarding “prescriptive easement”, but in
California in addition to all of the criteria, it also requires that the person claiming the easement to have
paid taxes on the portion of the property at issue. She was not sure how SDG&E’s ownership factored
into the prescriptive easement issue. Generally, the rights of prescriptive easement do not become vested
until after a required title action has been obtained via legal proceedings.
Commissioner Segall requested clarification regarding the City of Carlsbad’s plan for wireless systems.
Mr. Wayne stated that there was not a plan in place. However, the development of wireless policy
regarding City facilities and public rights-of-way is currently underway. He indicated that ultimately it is the
City’s intention to have all of the wireless facilities stealth.
Commissioner Trigas asked if this project could be conditioned to become stealth if the technology
became available before the end of the five-year CUP.
Ms. McMahon stated that the difficulty with conditioning a project in the matter suggested by
Commissioner Trigas, is that the development of the technology is an unknown factor and from the
neighborhood’s perspective it is not known whether it would be better or worst. To require GTE to use
new technology without a public hearing could cause greater discontent than is witnessed tonight. She
noted that the CUP’s had a five-year time frame built into them and there is a natural mechanism that will
bring this back to the Commission. If there is a dramatic change in conditions, the law does allow the City
to move to modify CUP’s.
Chairperson Compas requested that the air-conditioning expert come forward.
Landis Schmehr, General Dynamics, construction consultant for GTE Wireless, explained that two, three
ton air-conditioning units would be installed. The units would not run simultaneously, but will run in cycles.
When the temperature reaches 78 degrees inside the structure, one of the units will be activated. He
distributed handouts listing various sounds; their decibel levels and indicated that the noise level of the air-
conditioning units would be between 45dB (refrigerator sound) and 60 dB, (sound of normal conversation).
Because the air-conditioners will be below ground the decibel level will be reduced by 30%, which would
result in the sound from the air-conditioner being approximately 40 to 50 decibels, or the sound of a
birdcall.
Chairperson Compas asked if there were additional questions of staff. Seeing none, he called for
Commission discussion. 59
PLANNING COMMISSION August 2,200O Page 13
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Heineman stated that he was impressed by the sincerity and concern of the residents. He
noted that the residents by choice elected to build their homes next to a power line tower. He did not
believe the addition of the antenna would be unsightly. In addition, he stated that the noise issue should
be attenuated with the air-conditioners units being placed underground and therefore supports the project.
Commissioner Trigas stated that the majority of the concerns have been addressed. Noting that if the
building height can be decreased to six feet, she stated that the issue of the views being impacted will be
addressed to her satisfaction and supports the project.
Commissioner L’Heureux concurred.
Commissioner Segall stated that even with the reduction in the height of the equipment building, he did not
believe the project was compatible with the community and could not support the project.
Chairperson Compas stated that since the RF emissions are only 1% of the FCC guidelines; the panel
antennas will not obstruct views; and the building height will be reduced to g-feet, therefore, he reluctantly
supports the project.
Chairperson Compas called for a motion.
MOTION:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4795 approving CUP
00-13 for a period of five (5) years, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein, and amended to reduce the height of the equipment
building to 6 feet, with air conditioners placed at the bottom level of the building
and with the provision that no other antennas besides the ones already described
shall be placed on the tower by GTE or their successors.
4-1-o
Compas, Heineman, Trigas, L’Heureux
Segall
None
EXHIBIT 6
PETITION
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carisbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #173 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find thkto be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood. bL$
(PRINT) NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
\i~i\2~~~J,L~$ 323v rC>cA- Ei x...l~ FL ifit&. ‘7)[</;/eO
2. Dm 5Gfi~&T& z /(&Yj I
6.
7.
6.
9.
3. AMK s-w-r me m\/ r’ e ,
I//s-/h
PETITION
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #I73 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We findp to be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood. hzti
NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
~.MtbfrE ki&wx 7-w 027
2.
3.
4.
5
6.
7.
a.
’ 1
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #I 73 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find th&to be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood. %K
6. 14, Le. 733j L I . L‘c 5 /" ;: j‘,<:r;i ct. ,;Q 'q. d :.A ~ & -c .gg? T- / si/-&L,
7. 6d;/l,& R, CLKI~, JTO i &&,er;~ st dmN 7 h/Do
a. A&- r&pc/;/\l 330 1 Cude&.? St LA&A- elzbk#- 7- / y- 0 0
9. n\fqs L3\Kw ‘.3303 cf+&&\~ 5ii.. +-I-\+m
f
~ih- -?3iq B.I.4 Q\ &k -?-/(/ c CL7 1
PETITION
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Cartsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #I73 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find th&to be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood. a*
(PRINT) NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
1.
2.
3.
4.
r 5.
6.
7.
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #I 73 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find thkto be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood. aid
NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
1. 8 Lc/j-;t )L c
2 Awl D/l L-23 332(5 /=--5’cA ‘577: Q~~kz’-aw4L . 7-/,3--00
)’
PETITION
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #I 73 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find th&to be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood. is&
NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
/I 141 II/ t;f iWl%i , . 117L (&jh
ff-l-;914 5w3 52-w-L Dr-
8. jfo,.j-& @-/i/l&k 3-336 cAb cdby I L
3395
15.s#%/ eJ I 4s’A-LL 33/4LfTDu $8 ,Y&& 74f@ c -%zqiLf .d a/’
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carl&ad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #I73 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find th&to be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood. aw
NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
4 EGtiL9 -7//4/d I I
/ a 13. Dlc-hs &?CT,L 3 .3& r-lx< 4 ,s$ e/J, 4,3ckin // _ 6 cc
IS.&?J& A : SE 1 kiAIi?Ghk~~ &j$J f%Gd S’T
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #173 including the, 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find thF;to be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood.
NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
PETITION
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #173 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find the to be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood. -y,,d
NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
1. &I~/~--.&‘+,’ L. ,Ls f&,, .:I ‘7.3, j* fx<;r,Ta,i I$* ‘1” ,’ ‘, :I..{’ +>- i .-A , *‘F-- /;,‘,‘,Lp;
2. $'/,r,~ '1) ,, ,;;. .<! '7, ,; -;:,&i <$;.I !'. ) ,, ,-i ', --
. .\ I
3. ---kLLcv rhL?iys /qf+c 1 73(3 %,A
4 *f / cesn-- &f-z)3ccr, 7313 G&9- pi. //
6.
7.
a.
9.
10.
11.p , ' 7 -/g -00 I 11, r
12.
13.
14.
b9
PETITION
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #I 73 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find? to be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood. :4 c, c
(PRINT) NAME ADDRESS
1 f s.& . -
- s+s~G~R~~y~/&i3 33537 he
2.K &dd- .35%7 fsiiczG=4 --1----.. - z &$h. / /
PETITION
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #I 73 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find th$!to be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood.
NAME (PRINT)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
SIGNATURE
PETITION
.
,
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #I 73 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find th&to be
inconsistent and incompatible with ouc’neighborhood. UY
NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
> c
//z&&/u~ c&p I 7 3/ () L-Z&r, di; c t /g ; - ,/, l,‘i / / i7fl c4 r. i. ‘Q 2 -/6 I cr , 1 ,
-
PETITION
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale} Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #I 73 including th? 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find theto be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood. i&’
SIGNATURE
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
73
-
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #173 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find th$to be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
PETITION
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #173 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find t e to be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood. I F &
NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
1. ,9nn t/c!wo 532!? fisc# &+/ 797. /ib.#il g$7& /I I I /
5. Llzdcl ~ur&cL 43aR FOSG? 6T 7’134
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. -HA@ kM&L p%2/
11. KE$FJm tAAy&L kr
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carisbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #173 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find tt$to be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood.
NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
L ,
PETITION
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #I73 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We ftnd th& to be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood. , rl .’
NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
1. .5&J&$& 3 3xryt-*s +&g&&L4 ?-,-Ca c
4.
5.
6.
7.
6.
9. ESta C,hnmb . ,P$ ‘3317 Fortx St-. 7 -I? -00
11.
12.
13.
7-18-00
15.
PETITION
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #I 73 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find th&to be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood. IlV
NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
15.
PETITION
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 0013
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #I 73 including the 200 square
fopt equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find tkto be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood. %;54,
NAME {PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
1. & 12” CA& I%&kFx 333g7%C~~~ , I
4.
5.
6.
7.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
79
PETITION
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carlsbad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #I 73 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood.
NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS DATE
73w Ll.( &JG$ (4. , A&/-- 07~/7-m _
5.
6.
8.
12.
13.
14.
15.
PETITION
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
CASE FILE: CUP 00-13
We the undersigned of Lot 401, Carlsbad tract NO. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit
NO.3 in the city of Carl&ad are hereby opposed to the installation of cellular
communication equipment on the SDG&E tower #173 including the 200 square
foot equipment building to be erected at this same site. We find MO be
inconsistent and incompatible with our neighborhood. #I&#
NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS
/ /
3. bb .<A f \.,iJ --
* .“’ y’, ,tk, ,,_ ;): ,,,’ ;-f.(l&// -pJ &r* :k < &&0 /y&&?&T p / L*’ -y /gx ,.i&) : 3 f / ‘ il’, L’ ‘,>>.
4.
5.
6.
9.
10.
11.
Sent.8~: ; 760 804 BINI;
‘-en ZZecurdcd X,Iail To: n % : ,.
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY Costa Del ,'lar Road Carlabad, CA 92000 ATT!;: , BURTON L. KRAMER
X
z X x
: x
; X X x
Aug-3-00 5:i3P~; Paae l/2 Space Below for Recckcr’s ’ - -
Xhs frrqcing inrtmme*t ;I d 6. trua end PY~H! ~3~:
A rtl. wiq’d r.~ard.r oe . . ..,.
aa Oc.wnmt Ns . . .._....._ _._, _,,.. ,!lm$ 9397s” I. .,
pap .-........ -....-. ol OK,i;l fL.;s*:‘r. i.. !L.* or., ‘.:
h. Cevncr Racwdr at s.., oi.qa c :pn,".
Tie lnruroncr end Trust Ccmpzn.,
. .76:41l224
DECLARATION AND ESTABLISF%‘IENT OF
PROTECTIVE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
Lots 296 &rough 504
LA COSTA VALE UNIT h’0. 3
THIS DECLAHATIOP! AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTECTIVE
CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, made this 9th day of December 1976,
1976, by LA COSTA LAND .COMPANY, an Illinois corporation; duly qualified
and au*horized to transact business in the State of California, hereinafter rc-
fcrrcd to as “Declarant”.
WITXESSETIK:
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of a certain tract of land it1
San Diego County, California, more particularly described as falLows:-
Lot 296 through 504, inclusive of Carlsbad Tract No. 72-20 Unit No. 3 (La Costa Vale Unit No. 3) according to %Iap No. 7950 fil,cd in the Office of the County Recorderof San Diego County, California, on June 3, 1974
WIIl7REAS, i!, is the! desire and intention of De&rant to sc11. the
EXHIBIT 7
property described above. and to impose upon it mutual beneficial restrictions
i~r the benefit of all the land in that tract and the future owners of these lnnds.
NOW, THFi~EPORE, k~?ow all II'LCII by these presents:
i)ecl.;uxnt hereby declares that said lots, all parcels 2nd portions of
Sent By: ;
780 804 eiee; W-3-00 5:14pM;
f ,,++ed her&o, marked Es:tiBIT lnd incorporated herein by US rcIcrelt Page 2/2
As to Open Sp3c.e Lots, untj- such park arKi recrcatio2isl stru~*urcS as may hc
appx~~~cd by the Al-chitcctural C:ulIl mittcc and the City of Carlsbncl .A111 bc
allowed and orovidcd furtllcr no rcsidcntial building sl~all he allowed thewon.
4 I xo horses. cattle, cows, goats, shtep. rabbits. hares,
reptiles, or other animals, pigeons, pheasants, game birds, or game or
other birds. To~vl or poultry shall bc raised, kept or+pormittcd upon said
property or any part thereof, exc’ept,that dogs and cats and other household
pets may he kept, provided that they arc not kept, bred or raised for cammcrcial
purposes or in unreasonable quantities, and provided that they do not
become a nuisance to the owners of, or occupants of said property, and
that although horses may not be kept, stabled or maintatned, they may be
permitted on the premises.
5. No part of said property shall be used for the purpose of
drilling thereon for, or producing therefrom, water, 011, gas or any
mineral substance. Declarant hereby reserves all crude oil, petro1eu.m.
gas, brea, asphalturn and all kindred substaixcs and other minerals undbr
and in said land.
6.. No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried
on upcm said property or any part thereof, nor shall anything be done
or maintained thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance
to the neighborhood.
7. No teletiston antenna or antennae or unsightly objects,
poles or wires shall be permitted on the outside or roof of any dwelling
or other building; and, in the,case 04 television antennae, ths other of the
property may, at his option, hook on to the underground television
antenna system which De&want msy cause to be installed.
8. Said real property and the building sites included therein
are subject to such’ easements and rights- of- way for erecting, constructing.
maintdining and operating public sewers, and poles, wires and conduits
for ligting, heating, power, telephone, cable telex+sion and any other
method OS conducting and performing any public or quasi-public utility
service or function beneath the surface of the ground, such easements and
‘. ; : r- 83
I (We) appeal the decision of the
to the Carisbad Cii Council.
Date of Decision you are appealing:
Subiect of Ameal:
BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the actii is a Cii Engineer’s Decision, please say so. If a project has
multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please
list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here.
Reason(s) for ADDeal: l Please Note l Failum to specify a reason may result in denial of
the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal.
BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local
laws, plans, or policy?
F {j$@&
SIGNATURE
mifl ffwl / Awl
NAME (plea& print)’
a?/// /zcw DATE
F&=-f! 57
ADDRESS: Street Name & Number
c&uSBt+& CA 9-9
CM State, Zip Code
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808
CASE NUMBER CUP 00-13
GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
^’ 1. This ruling is inconsistent with planning commission’s decision of April 5,
2000 on another cell site in this area.
2. Visual blight, incompatible and inconsistent with our properties, and
adversely changes the fabric of our residential neighborhood.
3. Property values will be decreased due to unsightly equipment and at this
time unknown risks.
4. Noise pollution and increased traffic in the easement.
‘- 5. Possible non-conformance with. FCC regulations regarding placement of
antennas in relation to residential property.
’ 6. Possible intrusion on homeowner’s property.
-7. A building would be inconsistent with an “open space” easement as
described in our property titles.
- 6. Precedent of the city council’s decision in El Cajon in favor of their
residents in a similar situation.
-- 9. Only one member of the planning commission visited the proposed site
and that member was the only one to vote in favor of the residents.
10. Inaccurate drawings presented by the applicant.
11. Cellular service already available in area from other companies.
12. All additional material presented by residents of this area at the planning
commission’s meetings of July 19, and August 2, 2000.
f5
EXHIBIT 9
August 17,200O
TO: CITY MANAGER
VIA: Planning Director
FROM: Associate Planner
CUP 0043 - GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
This memo is intended to clarify and respond to some of the issues outlined in the letter of
appeal for CUP 00-13.
7. This ruling is inconsistent with Planning Commission’s decision of April 5, 2000, on
another cell site in this area.
The April 5, 2000, project ( CUP 99-11) was for the installation of a Pat Bell Wireless facility
on a residence located at 7412 Cadencia Street. The facility consists of the construction of
a faux chimney on the existing residence which will be used to house the panel antennas.
In the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant states that the nearby
SDG&E transmission towers were the only alternative site and that it was “not a viable
solution because of the visibility and the inability to screen the antennas and equipment,,. In this instance, the Planning Commission did not discuss the merits of locating the facility on
the SDG&E tower since it was not included as part of the project.
In regard to the current GTE Wireless proposal, the applicant analyzed the potential for
locating the panel antennas in a faux chimney however, it was determined to be infeasible. This is discussed in more detail in the letter submitted by the applicant which is included as
an attachment to the staff report.
2. Visual blight, incompatible and inconsistent with our properties, and adverse/y
changes the fabric of our residential neighborhood.
In order to be more compatible with the neighborhood and decrease the potential for visual clutter on the transmission tower, the original proposal was modified by eliminating a
satellite dish and by reducing the width of the panel antennas from 12” to 8” to be more
compatible in scale with the structural members of the transmission tower. The panels will
also be painted to match the tower structure. The equipment building was designed with a
stucco exterior and red tile roof so that it would match the architectural style of some of the
surrounding residential properties. Based on the neighborhood concerns about views, the
applicant was directed to try to reduce the height of the building by lowering it into the
ground. Revised plans were submitted which reduced the height of the equipment building from 13’ to 8’ 7”. In order to further mitigate any potential impacts to views, the Planning
Commissions approval of the project included a condition to construct the equipment
building with a flat roof so the overall height does not exceed 6 feet above existing grade.
Shrubs are also proposed around the equipment building for screening.
3. Property values will be decreased due to unsightly equipment and at this time
unknown risks.
The applicant presented a Proximity Damage Study to the Planning Commission which indicates that cellular facilities mounted on pole structures (monopoles) do not have an
adverse impact to surrounding property values. This project is not proposing a new 8b
MEMO TO CM - CUP 00-13 GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
AUGUST 17,200O
PAGE 2
monopole, but would be collocating on an existing 119 foot tall steel lattice transmission
tower.
4. Noise pollution and increased traffic in the easement.
The project will be equipped with ground-mounted air conditioning units placed below the level of the existing grade. Noise levels from the air conditioning units range between 45
and 60 dB(A). Mounting the units below grade will further mitigate noise levels to between
40 and 50 dB(A) which is below the City’s 60 dB(A) CNEL exterior noise level threshold.
The project generates very little traffic, requiring only routine maintenance visits twice
monthly and occasional visits in response to operational problems.
5. Possible non-conformance with FCC regulations regarding placement of antennas in
relation to residential property.
Telecommunications facilities are licensed by the FCC. As a condition of licensure,
providers are required to comply with American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
standards for safe human exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields. Non-
compliance may result in revocation of an FCC license. The Telecommunications Act of
1996 preempts local government from denying facilities based on RF emissions, if they are
in compliance with the FCC guidelines.
6. Possible intrusion on homeowner’s property.
Based on field surveys, the applicant has indicated that the adjacent property owner to the
north has constructed a fence approximately 3 feet into the SDG&E easement area. The
fence will be removed and a new fence will be installed on the property line as part of the
development proposal.
7. A building would be inconsistent with an “open space”easement as described in our
property titles.
Quasi-public utilities such as the proposed cellular telecommunications facility are permitted
within the SDG&E transmission line open space easement with approval of a conditional
use permit. The open space easement granted to the City of Carlsbad, as described in the
preliminary title report, would permit construction of a building, structure or other thing in
conjunction with approval of a special use permit (Conditional Use Permit) issued pursuant
to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad.
8. Precedent of the City Council’s decision in El Cajon in favor of their residents in a
similar situation.
On May 25, 1999, the El Cajon City Council denied a proposed Air-touch cellular facility to
be collocated on a water tank. There presently exists a Nextel wireless facility on the tank which consists of 6 panel antennas and a 200 square foot equipment building. When Nextel
was approved, the Planning Commission expressed concern that additional facilities might create an over-intensification of wireless communications facilities in one location. The
Air-touch proposal included 30 panel antenna, 6 whip antenna, 2 dish antenna, and an equipment building. This increased the number of antenna more than seven-fold and
doubled the number of equipment buildings. The El Cajon City Council found that the
addition of the proposed Air-touch facility would cause an over-intensification of such facilities in this particular area, especially where alternative sites for such facilities should be
83
MEMO TO CM - CUP 00-13 GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
AUGUST 17,200O
PAGE 3
available and that the proposal would negatively impact the property values of the
surrounding residential neighborhood.
Currently, El Cajon is in the process of developing a new Wireless Ordinance and has
placed a moratorium on any new facilities in residential zones or within 100 feet of a
residential zone until the ordinance is adopted.
9. Only one member of the Planning Commission visited the proposed site and that member was the on/y one to vote in favor of the residents.
Planning Commissioners are not required to visit the site and are supplied with photos of
the site. Photo simulations of the proposal were also presented at the public hearing.
10. Inaccurate drawings presented by the applicant.
This may refer to item # 6.
Il. Cellular service already available in area from other companies.
This may be true, however, the proposed site is needed to provide coverage in the La Costa
area for GTE subscribers. Currently, there is extremely limited coverage and the proposed site, located at the top of a hill, will provide unobstructed line-of-site transmission to existing
cellular facilities to the south, east and west. Furthermore, reliable cellular communications
services are an important method of communication in the event of an emergency situation
or natural disaster.
12. All additional materials presented by residents of this area at the Planning
Commission’s meeting of July 19 and August 2, 2000.
Please refer to the attachments to the staff report and minutes for additional items brought
up by the residents.
w- &(.,,L-,
BARBARA KENNEDY
c: Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director
Adrienne Landers, Principal Planner
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in
the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk
of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have
been adjudged newspapers of general
circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
San Diego, State of California, for the cities of
Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and San Diego County; that the notice of which
the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper
and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
September 15, 2000
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
San dMarcos , California Dated at
day 15th this
eptember, 2000 -
,* \, of ii ,.
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
CLF Q us rir
-.
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearing
.-
PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL CUP 00-13 GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad wi hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Villag Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, September 26, 2000, t consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a reques
for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of an unmanned cellula facility consisting of a 200 square foot equipment room and twelve(l2) pane antennas mounted to an existing SDG&E transmission tower. The site i:
located within the the open space easement between Esfera Street and Piragui Street, north of Cab0 Court in the Planned Community (PC) Zone in Loca Facilities Management Zone 6 and more particularly described as.
Lot 401 of Carlsbad Tract No. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit No. 3, in the City o Carlsbad, County of Sari Diego, State of California, according to Map thereo; No. 7950, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, June 3, 1974
Those persons wishing to speak on this Proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing Copies of the staff re be available on and after September 22 you have any questions, please call lennedy in the Planning Department 502-4626, extension 4328
f you challenge the Conditlonal Use Permit ourt you may be limited to raising only tho
sues raised by you or someone else at t wblic hearing described in this notice or
vritten correspondence delivered to the City :arkbad City Clerk s Office at or prior to, t ublic hearing
GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA ASE FILE CUP 00-13 ASE NAME GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA
ARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL Legai 68108 ;eptember 15, 2000 -'
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use ternpiate for 5:r.
City Clerk 1 .Ibl
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S WLCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE
1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B STE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME LAFCO
STE 50 1600 PACIFIC HWY
330 GOLDENSHORE SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LONG BEACH CA 90802
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
I. P.U.A.
CA COASTAL COMMISSION SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
STE 103 URBAN STUDIES
7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
GTE WIRELESS
BCE DEVELOPMENT INC c/o GENERAL DYNAMICS/WTS
c/o Thomas Casey STE 110
3151 AIRWAY AVE STE A-1 2835 CAMINO DEL RIO S
COSTA MESA CA 92626 SAN DIEGO CA 92108
SDG&E LETTIERI-MCINTYRE & ASSOC
JOHN B BURTON LAND MANAGER DEBORAH COLLINS
101 ASH ST 1551 qTH AVE STE 430
SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3152
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
SERVICES DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
BARBARA KENNEDY
8/22/2000
AVERYO Address Labels Laser 5 160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
CORONA HOMEOWNERS ASSN La Costa Property Owners c/o HORIZONS
within 600‘ 343 RICHMAR AVE
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JAMES & AURORA SHRIVER
TRUST
7346 CADENCIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT & ANNE SCHMIDT
1336 CADENCIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
YOUNG FAMILY TRUST
3230 VENADO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHARLES STOOPACK TRUST
3240 VENADO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM & MAUREEN HOPSON
3251 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BCE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES
INC
33 S SIXTH ST
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402
DAVID & KAY DOKE
3240 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD & TERRI MACY
3306 VENADO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHU SHENG FAN
3316 VENADO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LARRY & JEANETTE YGLESIA
7412 CADENCIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID & DEB1 CAPR
3322 VENADO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
EDMUND & MONICA SPRAGUE
3323 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
M AWE RY” Address Labeis
BRAUNSTEIN FAMILY TRUST
3230 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WARD & JANE KAO
SUITE B
1042 N EL CAMINO REAL
ENCINITAS CA 92024
DENNIS & WENDY HODNET
3315 VENADO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MIHOLOCH FAMILY TRUST
2735 CAZADERO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DANIEL FAMILY TRUST
3332 VENADO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HAROLD & VIVIAN GANO
3321 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARK & JACCUELINE STZVZNS
7356 CADENCIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92039
CALDWELL TRUST
3221 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL & MARY GUNN
3250 VENADO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AGNES KIM
3250 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN & STEPHANIE MITCHELL
3302 VENADO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHISTOPHER & VELYN ANDERSON
3314 VENADO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
YOURE & LINDA SHADIAN
3321 VENADO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAUL & MAIA MARANGOS
7402 CADENCIA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEE & DIANE WOOD
3336 VENADO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS & SUE CHEN
3319 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use tern3late fc- E
MAXWELL & LINDA COLON
3317 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD & CLAUDIA
3311 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEFFEREY & KRISTI
3320 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BARBOUR
GEOFFREY & MARIE
HILDEBRANDT
3315 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT MILLER
SUITE E
1386 POINSETTIA AVE
VISTA CA 92083
DALZ & CHA KIMBALI,
3313 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FORD FAMILY TRUST
3322 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PETERSON DAVID & KIMBERLY CLARKiN MARIANNA ADAM
3322 PIRAGUA ST 3324 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RONALD & JUDY BOLTON ROY & ROSEMARY WISE CANDACE & MARK WEISS
3326 PIRAGUA ST 3328 PIRAGUA ST 7461 ESFERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
NATHAN & FARBIA SALEHI
7451 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BARTL REVOCABLE TRUST
3305 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HOLLAND FAMILY TRUST
3302 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM & ANNE HALL
3308 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
HOWARD & TERRI WIEDRE
7441 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GIHBSSON FAMILY TRUST
3315 CABO CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
P WOODCOX & JANE FISHER FREDERICK & HELEN ARBUCKLE
3309 PIRAGUA ST 3307 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LUTFI & DIANE SHAKHSHIR EDWIN & MARION ALLARD
3303 PIRAGUA ST 3301 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOUIS ROSANOVA FAMILY TRUST SAMUEL & CATHY PA1
3304 PIRAGUA ST 3306 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRADLEY & LAURIE OWEN
3310 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES & KAREN HANSEN
3319 CABO CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT & MARY HELEN BAKER
3313 CABO CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ISAK & LIMA KHANIS
3312 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL & JOYCE COWEN TRUST
PO BOX 1480
MURRAY KY 42071
JORDHEIM FAMILY TRUST
3311 CAB0 CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Address Labeis Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
IVAN & MONICA JELLINEK
3312 CABO CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KENNETH & SARA WAHL
7421 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM 6 CARCLYK SF-:IX:I;ECT' EDWARD & PATRICIA CERDA
3314 CABO CT 3316 CABO CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92003
XAVIER & GLORIA MARTINEZ
7411 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DONALD & GRACE BRILL TRUST MORGAN FAMILY TRUST
3333 FOSCA ST 3331 FOSCA ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
WELCH LIVING TRUST
3327 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AVA DAVIS TRUST
3326 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS & JEANNE MEADOWS
3332 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARY HAY
3320 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BEATRICE KANE
3325 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MURDOCK FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
3320 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN & BECI CONNOLLY
3316 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHRISTOPHER & ADRIENNE
DURSO
3322 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLARD & IONA ROBERTS TIMOTHY & SUSAN SULLIVAN
7322 LAS BRISAS CT 7324 LAS BRISAS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ARTHUR & CATHLEEN LECLAIR DONNA KANE
7328 LAS BRISAS CT 7330 LAS BRISAS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN & JEANETTE KOESTNER KENNETH & JULIE CHASE
7329 LAS BRISAS CT 7327 LAS BRISAS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
B C E DE VE L 0 PM E N T
I NC
33 S SIXTH ST
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402
P R 0 P E R T I E S
HOPP FAMILY TRUST
3329 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CANCELLIER FAMILY TRUST
3323 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LARRY & PENNY GUNDERSEN
3330 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEORGE & SUSAN BOSTROM
FAMILY TRUST
3318 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD & DAVOS DWYER
3324 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSEPH & SUSAN KILKENNY
7326 LAS BRISAS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FRANK & JOANN NOLAN
7331 LAS BRISAS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEOFFREY HILDEBRANDT
3315 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
FREDERICK & KAREN ZERLAUT
TRUST
7323 LAS BRISAS CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ESTA CHAMBERS TRUST
3317 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSEPH & ANGELA BEAR TRUST
3311 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRIAN TULLOCH
7314 BORLA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT & SANDRA COLER
16060 ROSE AVE
MONTE SERENO CF. 95030
FRANK & LUCILLE CHEVASKY
3315 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARK THIEMENS & NASRIN
MAR2 BAN
7313 BORLA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WAIEL ALI
7312 BORLA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID & CATHERINE BROWNIE STELLA MILES TRUST
7317 ESFERA ST 7319 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CANCELLIER FAMILY TRUST ROBERT & DIANE BOSTIC
3323 FOSCA ST 3336 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHRISTOPHER & DIETKE FEUGE SCOTT & SANDRA HOOK
3340 FOSCA ST 7325 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD & SUSAN PODGORSKI
7321 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEONARD OBERMAN & NANCY
HUTTEN
7314 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GREG & JENNY CHRISTOPHERSON KIPP & ELIZABETH ANDERS
7318 ESFERA ST 7320 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSEPH & HEIDI GROSSHART CLARK & AURA DEARMOND
7328 MUSLO LN 7330 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAUREN & LAUREL WASSER?:A?:
FAMILY TRUST
3319 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PERRY & MARY WILLSON
3313 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RAY LIPSON TRUST
7315 BORLA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM & JODY REED
7315 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KING TRUST
PO BOX 1524
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
LACKEY FAMILY TRUST
3338 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PETER & PHOEBE OHNSTAD
7323 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEVE & GINA PARKER
7316 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TIMOTHY & DANNIELLE
MI LLIKEN
7326 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TURALBA LIVING TRUST
7332 MUSLO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
TIMOTHY & JANEAN STRIPE
7149 ARGONAUTA WY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STANLEY & GIEDRE MILAS
3339 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PATRICK & SANDRA GRAVITT
7410 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ELEANOR DEMPSEY
3328 CABO WY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DONALD & SUSAN HARTLEY
3334 CABO WY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SOUKUP FAMILY TRUST
7432 TRIGO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BARRY & FELICIA SHEERMAN
7446 TRIGO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM & TODDY DUNKLE
3336 PIRAGUA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCOTT & DIANE KAATS
811 MORNING SUN DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024
NANCY COLMER
7157 ARGONAUTA WY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL & NADINE ZINSS
FAMILY TRUST
3341 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROGER & LINDA NIEMEYER
3343 FOSCA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHANG FAMILY TRUST MICHAEL & JAINAIN HONARD
PO BOX 7028 3335 FOSCA ST
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARYAM TAHMASEBI
7420 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN & LAURA ELMORE
3330 CABO WY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES & MARY CLARK
3336 CABO WY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARY POPOVICH
7436 TRIGO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BCE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES
INC
33 S SIXTH ST
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402
KAHLAN & MAHIN ATASSI
FAMILY TRUST
3326 CAB@ WY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BERNARD DORMAN TRUST
3332 CABO WY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM & BETTY BILLSTEIN
PO BOX 1274
CARDIFF CA 92007
JAMES & KIRSTEN RECCE
7442 TRIGO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
YOURE & LINDA SHADIAN
3321 VENADO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ABRAHAM & MARILYN
ARKINZADEH
7441 TRIGO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
NORM & SHERYL NICOLSON
7445 TRIGO LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD & MARCIA MOLNAR WILLIAM & FELICIA HAYS
3329 CABO WY CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
3327 CABO WY
BRIAN & SUSAN YORK
3323 CABO WY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KATHY FRAZ E R
7450 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
DIANNE VENNARD
7460 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Address Labeis
LORRAINE CLARK FAMILY TRUST
7466 ESFERA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Laser 5 160@