Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-17; City Council; 15935; GTE Wireless La CostaL 1 - m d m vdm OF CARLSBAD - AGENL, . BILL- w AB# TITLE: GRANT OF APPEAL AND DENIAL WITHOUT /< 935 DEPT. HD. PREJUDICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MTG. 1 O/l 7/00 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF GTE WIRELESS FACILITIES DEPT. CA APPLICANT: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA CASE NO: CUP 00-13 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 2000-323 granting the appeal and denying the project as set forth in Conditional Use Permit 00-13, GTE Wireless La Costa. ITEM EXPLANATION: At its meeting of September 26, 2000, the Council granted appellant’s appeal and denied without prejudice the application of GTE Wireless for cellular facilities (5-O) based on the law, evidence and testimony presented at the hearing. The Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents implementing this decision. Those documents are attached. The Council should satisfy itself that the findings and conditions accurately reflect its intentions. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for projects that have been denied pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines section 15270. EXHIBITS: 1. Resolution No. 2000-323 . : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 8 mWUJ yr7 aaoD 13 a08 VW% duo L%:22 14 crtsg 9 pss 15 S&g+ 0 ZE&,- ps 16 a82 p-3 l7 G 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-323 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING THE APPEAL AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN ESFERA STREET AND PIRAGUA STREET, NORTH OF CAB0 COURT IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6 CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA CASE NO: CUP 00-13 WHEREAS, GTE Wireless of the Pacific, Inc., “developer” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad on property owned by BCE Development Properties, Inc., currently in bankruptcy, hereinafter referred to as “owner” which property is generally described as: Lot 401 of Carlsbad Tract No. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit No. 3, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 7950, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3,1974. referred herein throughout as “the property”; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “E” dated July 19, 2000 on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department entitled “GTE Wireless La Costa, CUP 00-13” as provided by Chapters 21.42 and 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, there is located on the property a 119’ steel lattice tower owned by San Diego Gas & Electric Company which has signed the verified application form and given its consent to applicant to locate its cellular antennas on said tower; and WHEREAS, the bankruptcy trustee for the real property owner and the owner of said tower have signed the appropriate application and disclosure statement; and 1 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law on July 19, 2000 and August 2, 2000 to consider said verified application; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearings, the Planning Commission conditionally did approve the verified application of GTE Wireless La Costa for a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, within ten calendar days of that decision, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by John L. Hopp and Ann Hopp on behalf of themselves and as a point of contact for the surrounding neighborhood stating their reasons why the decision of the Planning Commission should be overturned; and WHEREAS, this application was timely filed pursuant to Cadsbad Municipal Code section 21.50.100; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing to consider this appeal on September 26,200O; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the law, evidence and arguments presented at this hearing and said prior public hearings held before the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, accessory and quasi-public buildings and facilities are conditionally permitted within the Planned Community (PC) and Open Space (OS) zones; and WHEREAS, the verified application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which preserves local zoning authority for the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities subject to the limitations set forth in that Act; and 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 g mwm 32-Y UU" 13 a08 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, both the Catlsbad Municipal Code and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 require that any decision by a local government to deny a request to place, construct or modify personal wireless service facilities be in writing and.supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record; and WHEREAS, recognizing that a local government may not regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the federal communications regulations concerning such emissions; and WHEREAS, the proposed site is located within an open space easement used primarily by San Diego Gas & Electric for electrical transmission; and WHEREAS, additional uses and structures within the open. space easement are proximate to existing residences and residential uses and the proposed antennas and proposed building are clearly visible throughout portions of the neigh borhood; and WHEREAS, the proposed antennas, buildings and related facilities would add to the existing visual obstructions, create further impairment of views and aesthetically degrade the site; and WHEREAS, the City Council is aware of its obligation not to unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services and not to prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; and WHEREAS, the City Council is mindful that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires it to act on the request for authorization to place, construct or modify 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time and a reasonable period of time has elapsed since the filing of the verified application in March 2000. WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that it has some flexibility in the distance limitations between the proposed building and the tower location but has not specified the degree of flexibility nor the distance limitations; and WHEREAS, testimony from a resident who is a subscriber to applicant’s service indicates there is adequate coverage without the proposed additional cell site. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, finds as follows: 1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2. That the requested use and structures are not necessary or desirable for the development of the community at this location nor is it essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan which encourage quiet neighborhoods and maintain a high quality of life preserving open space, and to preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas, nor does the proposed project preserve the aesthetics, property values nor maintain community identity, nor achieve a sense of natural spaciousness, nor provide visual relief and would therefore be detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted within these zones. 3. That although the proposed site for the intended use is sufficient in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, the collection of panel antennas on the existing tower and the equipment building cannot be located on the site without visually obscuring and degrading the views and aesthetics of nearby residences in the neighborhood. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. That the location of the proposed equipment room, chain link fencing and landscaping around the equipment room will not be sufficient to reduce its visibility from nearby residences or persons using the residential areas, and the location of the panel antennas on the transmission tower will add to the negative visual effects of the cellular facility. 5. That the air conditioning requirements in the equipment room will create noise pollution and require continual monitoring. 6. That the applicant has indicated that there may be alternative designs or alternative locations that will reduce or minimize the impacts of this proposal on the neighborhood and that these efforts have not been entirely explored or exhausted and that the Council is not satisfied that this proposal should be entertained at this time without a further showing in this regard. 7. That there are alternative ways and designs or locations that have not been exhaustively explored which would not require the intensification of uses at this location and that under the circumstances the application is premature without further study, reports and evidence which would convince the City Council that this use is both necessary and desirable and in essential harmony with the neighborhood and its surroundings. 8. The Council further finds that it is important to maintain the integrity of the residential neighborhood surrounding the proposed project and to allow the construction of wireless communication facilities would create aesthetic and environmental impacts including the introduction of additional noise into the neighborhood which could be avoided where alternative sites for such facilities could be available. The City Council realizes that the applicant might incur additional expenses 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 gj mwm y>- %B 8 13 OWg ~UCJ S~J~ 14 dtsa 9 OOB 15 a;$? ZWv)o g:i&- p 16 a:: c-3 l7 G 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in re-engineering its facilities in order to locate them in a different and more suitable area for such uses. However, the City Council finds that the detriment to the applicant in such efforts is outweighed by the avoidance of the visual, esthetic and environmental impacts to this area should the facility be permitted to be located on the subject property. The testimony and petitions of the residents in the surrounding neighborhood expressed concern that their formerly peaceful, private and quiet homes will be changed if this proposed facility is permitted and that the addition of such facilities would degrade their quality of life. The City Council finds that the concerns of the property owners are legitimate and that the evidence presented to the City Council, including oral and written testimonials, petitions and written documentation support this argument. The applicant has failed to present evidence sufficient to convince the City Council to the contrary. 9. That granting of this appeal and denial the application without prejudice will allow the applicant additional time as necessary to conduct additional studies and explore the feasibility of other locations. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD further finds: 1. That appellant’s appeal is granted. 2. That the verified application is denied without prejudice. 3. In view of the granting of this appeal, the City Clerk is directed to refund appellant’s appeals fees. 4. That the Clerk is directed to give notice to the applicant of this action pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code section 1.16.010 specifying time limits for judicial review which states: 6 t. : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “NOTICE TO APPLICANT’ ‘The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is .govemed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any- petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008.” PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held on the 17th day of October , 2000 by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, Nygaard and Kulchin NOES: None A ABSENT: None ~3mz5 WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL)