HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-18; City Council; 16348; AT&T Wireless Appeal 7512 Cadencia Stc /+ CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL ”
AB# jb;#Y( m:
zj-dl/ -01 MTG.
DEPT. PLN d
APPEAL: AT&T WIRELESS
7512 CADENCIA STREET
CUP 00-36
DEPT. HD. G
CITY ATTY. c/UC/
CITY MGR$&
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
_ That the City Council DENY the appeal and refer the matter to the City Attorney to return with
; documents.
ti 2 ITEM EXPLANATION:
8
g The request is for approval of a wireless facility consisting of six antennas and a 240 square foot
k radio base station. Each of the antennas is proposed to be housed within a working chimney or faux
g chimney on the roof of an existing single family detached home and will not be visible. The Radio
5 base station is proposed within a new 400 square foot “garage” adjacent to an existing 4 car garage.
z The property is 1.07 acres and all associated new and modified structures maintain more than the 2 minimum setback requirement or height limit established for the R-l Zone. A nearly identical facility
$I was approved and is in operation at 7412 Cadencia Street, two houses up the street.
3 Several residents of the general area, including adjacent property owners, stated concern over the
2 facility with respect to health, compatibility of a “commercial” use in a residential neighborhood,
2 visual impact of the new faux chimney, “garage” structure and appurtenant utility boxes, and traffic.
i2 pI The Planning Commission denied the project because of a stated concern regarding the
“5 compatibility of a wireless facility within a residential area and the potential for a proliferation of
&’ wireless facilities in residential neighborhoods.
E
’ ENVIRONMENTAL:
d
!? A negative declaration was prepared for the project based on the conclusions that per studies
2 conducted by the FCC, there are no health risks associated with these types of wireless facilities, the
1 addition of maintenance vehicle traffic will not overburden the street system, and the faux chimney
E+ and new “garage” will not be visually inconsistent with the existing neighborhood.
a 2 FISCAL IMPACT:
cl i No fiscal impact. $
8 GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
2 Local Facilities Management Plan 6
ob Growth Control Point N/A
i Net Density N/A
Special Facilities N/A
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5006 and 4750
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 16, 2001
4. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 16, 2001
5. Appeal Letter dated July 2, 2001. 6. Site Maps
@ii?
NORTH
SITE
AT&T WIRELESS -
7512 CADENCIA ST
CUP 00-36
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITH
PREJUDICE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7512 CADENCIA
STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Z0N-k 6.
CASE NAME AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES
CASE NO: CUP 00-36
WHEREAS, AT&T Wireless Services, “Developer” .has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad on property owned by Patrick and Viona L. Van Hoose,
hereinafter referred to as, “Owner” which property is generally described as:
“Lot 486 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 of La Costa Vale Unit No. 3, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 7950, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County.”
referred herein throughout as ( “the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the real property owner has signed the appropriate application
and disclosure statement giving consent to applicant to locate its cellular facilities on the !
residential property; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit as shown on Exhibits “An - “F”, dated May 16, 2001 on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, entitled “AT&T Wireless Services, CUP OO-36”, as provided by Chapters 21.42
and 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
/I
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law on May 16,2001, to consider said verified application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission carefully considered the law,
evidence and arguments presented at the public hearing held before it; including the fact
that quasi-public buildings and facilities are conditionally permitted within residential
II 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
zones, according to the Carlsbad zone code and subject to the Telecommunications Act of
1996; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is aware of its obligation not to
unreasonably discriminate among providers of fun&mally equivalent services and not to
prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; and
WHEREAS, recognizing that a local government may not regulate the
placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply
with the Federal Communications Regulations concerning such emissions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is mindful that the
Telecommunication Act of 1996 requires it to act on the request for authorization to place,
construct or modify personal wireless facilities within a reasonable period of time and a
reasonable period of time has elapsed since the filing of the application on October 18,
2000; and
WHEREAS, both the Carlsbad Municipal Code and. the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 require that any decision by a local government to deny
requests to place, construct or modify personal wireless service facilities be in writing and
supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing at which 17 residents of
the surrounding neighborhood testified and a petition in opposition to approval of the
Conditional Use Permit signed by 37 residents was presented, the Planning Commission
voted unanimously to deny the verified application of AT&T Wireless Services for a
Conditional Use Permit; and
.WHEREAS, the neighbors have testified that a similar wireless cellular
service facility for another provider also concealed by the construction of an additional.
PC FLESO NO. 5006 -2-
Lf
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
faux chimney was approved by the Planning Commission on April 5, 2000 to be located at
7412 Cadencia Street, two lots and less than 500 feet away from the site under
consideration; and
WHEREAS, the apphcation of AT&T Wireless Services is for a Conditional
Use permit authorizing the addition of a faux chimney and a garage-like structure at 7512
Cadencia Street, which will house the equipment are clearly visible to the neighborhood;
and
WHEREAS, several neighbors testified at the public hearing that their
residences are located adjacent to or in close proximity to both proposed wireless facilities
and, are thus subjected to the additional visual obstructions necessary to conceal the
antennas and ancillary equipment and any additional traffic generation for maintenance of
the installation, however minor in nature; and
WHEREAS, testimony at the hearing by a neighbor was that near the
proposed location at 7512 Cadencia Street is extensive existing ham radio antenna
equipment on the roof of a residence which creates a visual blight and radio interference in
the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, testimony from several residents who are subscribers to
applicant service indicate that there is adequate coverage in the neighborhood without the
proposed additional cell site; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that it has some flexibility in the
placement of the facilities necessary to remedy coverage gaps; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that the proposed location would
provide coverage for a radius of only one mile and that additional sites will also be
necessary to provide coverage outside of that radius; and
PC RESO NO. 5006 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, neighbors, one of whom was a local residential real estate sales
agent, testified that the disclosure that such facilities located in a residence or concentrated
within a residential neighborhood would have a detrimental effect on resale value of the
neighborhood homes, due in part to a perceived potential health hazard; and
WHEREAS, there was no evidence that alternative locations either on
commercially zoned or residentially zoned properties which would not require the
intensification of uses at this location have been exhaustively explored’; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the testimony of
numerous neighbors to the proposed site, voicing objections to the construction of
additional protrusions and buildings in their residential neighborhood to accommodate
quasi-public facilities without adequate guidelines to avoid unnecessary concentration of
such uses and structures which in their opinion are not necessary or desirable or in
harmony with the character of the residential neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad; California, as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That the requested use and structures are not necessary or desirable for
the development of the community at this location, nor are they essentially in harmony
with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, which encourage quiet
neighborhoods and maintain a high quality of life, preserving the neighborhood
atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas in that other subscribers testified that
there is adequate coverage in this location and the additional structures and maintenance
related traffic to the site are undesirable and unnecessary.
3. That the proposed project does not preserve the aesthetics, property
values nor maintain community identity, in that it adds unnecessarily to visual clutter and
PC RESO NO. 5006 -4- I;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
traffic and would therefore be detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted within
these zones.
4. That the proposed site for the intended use is insuffrcient in size and shape
to accommodate the use in that both the antenna and ancillary equipment necessary to
operate the wireless site cannot be located on the residential property without the
construction of a visually obtrusive faux chimney and additional faux garage, which
increases lot coverage in a neighborhood with primarily large homes on large lots and
degrades the aesthetics of nearby residences in the neighborhood.
. 5. That the location of the proposed equipment room will be visibly offensive
to the adjacent neighbor who testified that his lot is on a lower grade and will look up from
his yard to the unattractive garage addition housing the equipment, rather than open space
of the Van Hoose property side yard.
6. That the applicant has indicated that there may be alternative locations in
the neighborhood or nearby on commercial property and that efforts have not been
entirely explored or exhausted to determine if an alternative site may be more appropriate.
7. That the applicant testified that both his company as well as other
wireless providers may make application for an indeterminate number of additional sites
in the same general vicinity as this application, in the future.
a. That there are alternative ways and locations that have not been
exhaustively explored which would not require the use at this location and that under the
circumstances the application is premature without further study, reports and evidence
which would convince the Planning Commission that this use is both necessary and
desirable and in essential harmony with the neighborhood and its surroundings.
.9. That the Planning Commission finds that it is important to maintain the
integrity of the residential neighborhood wherein the project is proposed to be located and
PC RESO NO. 5006 -5- 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that to allow construction of this wireless communication facility, even without considering
other anticipated proposed facilities therein, would create aesthetic impacts in the
neighborhood which could be avoided where alternative sites for such facilities may be
available. The testimony and petition of the residents in the surrounding neighborhood
expressed concern that their formerly peaceful, private and quiet homes would be changed
if this proposed facility is permitted and that the addition of such .facilities would degrade
their quality of life.
10. The Planning Commission finds that the concerns of the property
owners are legitimate, especially in light of the fact that another wireless site was recently
approved two lots away, and that the evidence presented to the Planning Commission,
including oral and written testimonials, petition and written documentation support this
argument. The applicant has failed to present evidence sufilcient to convince the Planning
Commission to the contrary.
finds:
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plkming Commission of the City of Carlsbad further
. 1. That the application is DENIED.
2. That the applicant is hereby notified that this decision may be appealed to
the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk within 10 days of ‘the
adoption of this Resolution, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.50.100.
. . .
. . .
PC RESO NO. 5006 -6- 23
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
I Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of June 2001 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAiN:
JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5006 -7-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4750
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PCS FACILITY
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7412 CADENCIA
STREET I$l LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: SD 369-02 TELECOM FACILITY
CASE NO.: cUP99-11
7 II WHEREAS, Pacific Bell Wireless, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
8
9
10
11
12
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Larry and Jeannette Yglesia,
. “Owners”, described as
Lot 475 of Carlsbad Tract 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.
13
14
(“the Property”); and
15 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
16
17
18
19
20
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “D” dated April 5, 2000, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, SD 369-02 TELECOM FACILITY - CUP 99-11, as provided by Chapter 21.42
and/or 2 1.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of April, 2000, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
21
22
23
24
25
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
26
27
28
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES SD 369-02 TELECOM FACILITY - CUP 99-11, baaed on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions: /D
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
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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 General Plan recognizes that these types of facilities
are necessary and essential to the infrastructural support of urban land uses. Pacific Bell
Wireless indicates that the proposed PCS facility’s calculated worst case radio frequency
power density is well below the FCC standard; therefore, the project would not be
detrimental in that it would not have a significant adverse impact on public health. The
proposed panel antennas and accessory equipment would not be aesthetically detrimental
since they are housed within a faux chimney on the roof of a residential structure and
within .wall mounted cabinets painted to match the exterior of the structure, and are
therefore blended into the existing architecture.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that no alteration of the .residential lot would be required beyond the existing
improvements.
That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses m the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that the PCS antennas will be housed within a faux
chimney on the roof of the structure and within wall mounted cabinets along the
northern exterior of the structure.
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traf&
generated by the proposed use, in that the project would generate only one trip per month
for maintenance.
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.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to building
permit.
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 shah 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.
PC RESO NO. 4750 -2- u
. . ,
.
1 ~
I
2l
3 1
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
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
ordinances 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. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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
g-rant.
PC RESO NO.*4750 -3-
.
’ .
l ‘,
.
j
r
1
d
L
L w
c
I
I
E
s
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 (EMP) 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.
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. 4749 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.
Tbe faux chimney shall be integrated into the architectural design using identical
building materials and colors as the other chimneys existing on the roof of the
structure and shall be no higher than 4’8” from roof line.
9.
10.
11.
Code Reminders:
12. 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 shah be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
13. 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
pennit.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.”
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
PC RESO NO. 4750
13
4
.
i
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
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
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of April, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall,
and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Heineman and Baker
ABSTAIN:
WILLLAM COMPAS, Chairpersah
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J.
Planning Director
PC ‘RESO NO. 4750 -5
The Cio of Carlsbad Planning Depment &w A REPOR’iTO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 9 0
Application complete date: October 18, 2000
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 16,200l Project Planner: Chrkter Westman
Project Engineer: David Rick
SUBJECT: CUP 00-36 - AT&T WIRELESS - 7512 CADENCIA STREET - Request for
approval to install a new 240 square foot radio base station (RBS) within a new
400 square foot garage and install a total of six antennas within two expanded
chimney structures and one new faux chimney on residential property located at
75 12 Cadencia Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4926
ADOPTING a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4927
APPROVING Conditional Use Permit CUP 00-36 based on the findings and subject to the
condition found therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This application is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new 240 square foot
radio base station (RBS) as an extension of an existing garage and install six antennas within two
expanded chimney structures and one new faux chimney at 7512 Cadencia Street in the P-C zone
in the southeast quadrant of the City. Quasi-public utility facilities are permitted in any zone
upon approval of a Conditional Use Pennit. Since the findings necessary for granting a Conditional Use Permit can be made, staff is recommending approval of the telecommunications
facility as proposed
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
AT&T Wireless Services is proposing to install six panel antennas within three chimneys on the
roof of a single-family residence located south of La Costa Avenue on a hillside parcel at 7512
Cadencia Street in the P-C zone. Suppoiting equipment (RBS) will consist of several cabinets
within a new 12x20 structure built adjoining an existing garage. The residence is located on a
1.07 acre hillside lot on Cadencia Street. The lot ranges in elevation from approximately 211’ at
Cadencia Street to 268’ at the rear of the property. The residential structure is three levels as
seen from Cadencia Street and is set back approximately 100’. The proposed faux chimney is
located on the roof and is designed to match the existing two chimneys in height and materials
after their expansion. The existing chimneys are 37 feet in height and the proposed faux
chimney will match that height.
Due to poor variable signal strength resulting from steep topography, the site has been identified
by AT&T Wireless Services as a key site necessary to improve wireless coverage in the eastern
portion of La Costa, extending to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. The proposed Cadencia Street site
. . G
is-
CUP 00-36 - AT&T W’RELESS 7 7512 CADENCIA STREE-
May 16,200l
Page 2 .
location is beneficial due to its natural topography that allows for line of sight to the primary
coverage area, lack of obstructions, and minimal interference from neighboring
telecommunications sites. The’ developer’s goal is to improve signal quality along La Costa
Avenue and to expand coverage into hard-to-cover, secondary, residential streets serving the La
Costa area. There are no alternative commercial or industrial sites in the area of the Cadencia
Street site.
The proposed project is subject to the following regulations:
l Conditional Use Permit Regulations (Chapter 21.42) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
(CMQ
IV. ANALYSIS
Staffs recommendation of approval for this conditional use was developed by analyzing the
project’s consistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. This analysis will
present, in text, the project’s consistency with the applicable regulations listed below:
A, Conditional Uses
Conditional land uses such as telecommunication 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, and industrial). The required
Conditional Use Permit findings are that the use is consistent with the General Plan, necessary
and desirable to the community, not detrimental to permitted uses in the zone, and that the site
and street system are adequate to handle the proposed use.
Although the 1996 U.S. Telecommunications Act prohibits local governments from
unreasonably prohibiting wireless services, it does permit regulations that ensure the placement
of facilities in the least intrusive manner possible. Wireless telecommunication facilities that are
integrated into the design of the structure (stealth) are less intrusive than existing public utility
structures currently located throughout the community. Similar existing public utility facilities,
including electrical and communication transmission lines, poles, and towers (i.e. electric, phone
and cable TV), street and parking lot light standards, traffic signals, teievision and radio
antennas, and satellite dishes, are all commonly found within existing commercial and residential
neighborhoods in the City of Carlsbad. The General Plan recognizes that these types of facihties
are necessary and essential to the infrastructurai support of urban land uses.
The proposed project is located in a low density residential neighborhood which is developed
with very large residential structures as well as an adjacent medium density neighborhood to the
west. AT&T Wireless Services indicates that the proposed facility’s calculated worst case radio
frequency power density is well below the FCC standard; therefore, the project would not be
detrimental in that it would not have a significant adverse impact on public health.
On a project by project basis, the City is requiring that. potential aesthetic visual impacts of
telecommunication facilities be reduced by either: (1) screening the antennas on the roofs of
existing residential, industrial and commercial buildings; (2) blending the antennas into the
architecture of existing buildings; (3) requiring landscaping; or, (4) requiring the facilities to be
CUP 00-36 - AT&T WrQELESS - 75 12 CADENCIA STREET
May 16,200l
Paee 3
camouflaged by use of natural colors or other methods to reduce visual impacts when they are
viewed from the public roadways. The proposed panel antennas and accessory equipment would
not be aesthetically detrimental since they are housed within a faux chimney on the roof of a
residential structure and within a new building designed and treated to match the exterior of the
existing structure.
Since no alteration of the residential lot would be required beyond the existing improvements
and the project would generate only two trips per month for maintenance, the site and street
system are adequate to accommodate the use
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed telecommunications facility has been reviewed for potential environmental
impacts applicable to the use including land use compatibility, aesthetics, and health hazards.
Based on the findings of the environmental impact assessment performed by staff in which no
significant impacts were identified, the Piarming Director issued a Negative Declaration on
March 1,200l. No public comment has been received
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4926 (Neg Dee)
2. PIarming Commission Resolution No. 4927 (CUP)
3. Location Map
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Disclosure Statement
6. Exhibits “A” - “F” dated May 16,200l
cw:cs:mh
/7
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CUP 00-36
CASE NAME: AT&T Wireless - 75 12 Cadencia Street
APPLICANT: AT&T Wireless
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Installation of a new 240 sauare foot Radio Base Station (RBS)
within a new 400 square foot garage and installation of a total of six antennas within two
expanded chimney structures and one new faux chimnev on residential property located at 75 12
Cadencia Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 486 Of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 of La Costa Vale Unit No. 3,
in the Citv of Carlsbad, Countv of San Dieno, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
7950, filed in the Office of the Countv Recorder of San Diego Countv.
APN: 223-260-08-00 Acres: 1.07 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Residential Low Medium (RLM)
Density Allowed: O-4 du/ac Density Proposed: O-4 du/ac
Existing Zone: Planned Comrnunitv (PC) Proposed Zone: Planned Communitv (PC)
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Site PC
North PC
south PC
East PC
West PC
Zoning General Plan Current Land Use
RLM Single-Family
RLM Single-Family
RLM Single-Family
RLM Single-Family
RLM Single-Family
PUBLIC FACIiITIES
School District: Encinitas Union Elementarv/San Dienuito High School Districts
Water District: Olivenhain Municipal Sewer District: Leucadia Countv
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 1 for existing residence
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
w Negative Declaration, issued Februarv 14,200l
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
DISCLOSURESTATEMEm
- Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretiOnXY action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information IHIIST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project CanLot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note: person ‘is defined .as “Aq:~individ~:firm, co-partnez&ip,.~joint -venture, ..a&ciation,. social club, &eternal
0rganizatiOn, c~tpomtion, ~estate,..&t,. .%eiver, :syn~ieate, ~in.:3his andrany. otherrounty, .city and county, city
mu,nicipa.lity, .district .~other.polithLsnbdivisio~ o~iny~~thw.~up.nr combinatio,n~acting as a unit..”
&e&may si~,th~,document;.howevrr,.the legal nam&&l .entiQ~ of theapplicant and property owner must be
provided below. , - .
. . . 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s.agent)
Provide the COlkTPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of && persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the
names, title, addresses of. all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned cornoration, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may’ be attached if
necessary.)
2: . OWNE!R hot the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of a persons having any otinership
interest in the. property invol-ved. Also, provide the nature ,of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
CorDoration or oartnershin, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more.
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE ,BELCW. If a publiclv-
owned corporation, include the names, titles, and ad’dresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
Title 0 bwicbt
Address 7 S 12 CaC/tM Cl’4 9 7.’ &x& bed, O’+ TzOBq
Corp/paiz .
Title
Address ‘
075 Las Palmas Dr. . Ca.rlsbad, CA QZOOQ-;576 - (760) 438-1161. FAX (760) 438-0894 ‘fA
. I Y
.I
.P
/ I 3.’ NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) of (2) above is a nonurofit organization or a trust, list the
namesad addresses of ANY person serving as ai officer. or .director of the non-profit
orghnizhon or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust Non ProfitlTrust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more &an $250 worth of business trknsacted with any member of City staff, ,
‘Boards, Commissions, Ccn-unittees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
cl Yes P o If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attdlch additional sheets ifnecessary.
I cer& that all the above information is true and correct to tl& best of my knowledge. -
/hLhM& scrmisI433m’~fi=rm
Signatlire of ~pplica@d~te
. .
p,Cctt1< I/ppI haa se
Print or type. name of owner
&g$li&2k35&esSficr~
Print or type name of applicbt
/ti. . /zx4ib . ~l!j-oo
Signriture of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date
EBrJ(mw&&,.~fnmw
‘rint or type name of tiwnerlapplicant’s agent
~DMlN\COUMER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT WSS ‘:
20
Paae 9 nf 3
s About AT&T Page 1 of 3
Sat., July 15,200O
EMPLOYMENT
INTERNITIONAL
THE NETWORK
I ABOUT At&T
It’s all within your reach.
Leadership A-Z
AT&T Board of Directors
C. Michael Armstrong, 60
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer of AT&T
since 1997.4,6
Kenneth T. Dew, 62
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Chevron Corporation,
an international oil company. Director since 1995. 1,2
M. Kathryn Eickhoff, 59
President,
Eickhoff Economics Inc., economics consultants Elected to Board in 1987. 1,5
Walter Y. Elisha, 66
Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Springs Industries, Inc.,
a textile manufacturer.
Director since 1987.3,5
George M. C. Fisher, 58
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Eastman Kodak Company, an imaging company.
Elected to Board in 1997.2,5
Donald V. Fites, 64
Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Caterpillar, Inc.,
an equipment manufacturer. Director since 1997. 3,5
Amos B. Hostetter, 62
Non-Executive Chairman, AT&T Broadband and Internet Services.
Elected to the Board in 1999.
Rsllnh S-.T .tlrsm. hll
2.1
7/l 5/00
2 About AT&T Page2of3
-wmr- -. ---w--, “.e
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Johnson & Johnson
a pharmaceutical, medical and consumer products company.
Elected to Board in 1995. 1,5
John C. Malone, 58
Chairman Liberty Media Group,
a cable programming company
Elected to Board in 1999.
Donald F. McHenry, 62
President,
IRC Group,
international relations, consultants and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
Director since 1986. 1,2,3,4
Michael I. Sovern, 67
President Emeritus and
Chancellor Kent Professor of Law, Columbia University. Elected to Board in 1984. 1,2,4,6
Sanford I. Weill Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer
Citigroup
Director since 1998. 1,5
Thomas H. Wyman, 69
Former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
CBS Inc.
Elected to Board in 198 1.2,3,4,6
John D. Zeglis, 51 President of AT&T.
Elected to Board in 1997.3
1. Audit Committee
2. Compensation and Employee Benefits Committee
3. Governance and Nominating Committee
4. Executive Committee 5. Finance Committee
6. Proxy Committee
Ages are as of January 1,1999.
About AT&T 1 AT&T Foundation 1 The Network
Communitv ( EmDlovment 1 m I International Sites
Investor Relations ( Leadership A-Z 1 Technoloerv ( What’s New
22
7/l 5/00
FROM : URN !4OOSE FFIX NO. : 760 7535440 Rug. 24 2000 04:39PM Pl
Si?EMun~r: S.D 157-d :
Prcyeqas: 7512 Cddttii?lha $7 ,’
, A.ss~r’o ‘Parcel Number; 223 -~c;O-0%
CC:’ zoningrile
CF:VrfmCzw * trr.!wrn
23
An,? PC.09 nrn Or.,- r,h..V a.P.--.v
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 13
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Segall asked Planning Director, Michael Holzmiller, to introduce the Item No. 9.
9. CUP 00-36 - AT&T WIRELESS - 7512 CADENCIA STREET - Request for approval to
install a new 240 square foot radio base station (RBS) within a new 400 square foot
garage and install a total of six antennas within two expanded chimney structures and one
new faux chimney on residential property located at 7512 Cadencia Street in Local
Facilities Management Zone 6.
Mr. Holzmiller introduced Christer Westman, Associate Planner, who wilt be assisted by David Rick,
Assistant Engineer.
Chairperson Segall asked the applicant if he wished to proceed with six Commissioners present, to which
the applicant asked to proceed. Chairperson Segall opened the public hearing.
Christer Westman stated the applicant is requesting the City’s approval for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow the installation of a total of six panel antennas and a 240 square foot radio base station at 7512
Cadencia. He went on to say that two antennas were proposed for each of three chimneys; two chimneys
exist and one will be false and in all cases they will be treated with stucco and paint to match the existing
home. Mr. Westman stated that the radio base station will be housed in what will look like a two-car
garage addition and 240 square feet of the 400 square foot space will be used. He said that based on the
information available, staff has determined that there are no health risks associated with these types of
low-power facilities as the FCC allows exposure of up to 1,000 microwatts per centimeter and with this
type of facility, exposure at ground level will be less than two microwatts. He went on to explain that a
finding has also been included in the Resolution which acknowledges wireless communication’s role in
providing telecommunications during emergency and during day to day living by the public at large. Mr.
Westman stated that staff is recommending approval.
Chairperson asked Ms. Mobaldi to enlighten the Commission on what they can and cannot rule on relative
to wireless sittings.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that the Federal Telecommunications Act has preempted certain actions by local
government and it provides that you cannot regulate the placement, construction, modification of personal
wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent
that such facilities comply with the Commissions Regulations concerning such emissions. She pointed out
that if you are looking a site and they comply with the Federal Communications Commissions Standards,
then you are not allowed to prohibit the placement of that site based on radio frequency concerns,
environmental effects, EMFs etc.
Commissioner Compas recalled that sometime ago the Commission had a somewhat similar proposal
before them in a quasi-residential area, which was, as he recalls, a transmission power line between
residential areas. He pointed out that the Commission, after a couple meetings, approved that project and
then the City Council rejected it, as they said it is not acceptable and as a result of that there was going to
be a study to look at it. Commissioner Compas stated that the study, as he understands, has not
happened yet. He asked if it is possible that they could delay this application until they get that study?
Ms. Mobaldi replied that it would not be appropriate to delay based on that request for a study by Council
because Council has not chosen to place a moratorium on the location of the cell sites. She further
explained that had they wanted to forestall any actions on these kinds of applications, they could have
done so and they did not choose to take that action. She explained that it is not appropriate for the
Planning Commission to do that because Council has not prohibited these cell sites by placing a
moratorium on their application.
Commissioner Baker asked if there were any pictures of what the house looks like or drawings of what the
chimney will look like?
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 14
Mr. Westman pointed out the exhibit (a drawing) on the wall, pointing out the two chimneys which exist
and which would be modified to accept the panel antennas and resurfaced to have the same color and
texture of the existing chimney plus the new chimney. He showed the location of the two-car garage
addition where the radio base station would be located. Mr. Westman stated that the lot itself is
approximately one acre and the distances from the structure to property lines is approximately 50 or 60
feet with the new addition, approximately 100 feet from the chimney to the property line, then in the back
of the property it is approximately 100 feet to the property line from the proposed chimney panels and also
on the north side of the property it is approximately 50-60 feet to the property line. He said he also has
some photos (but no copies) which he passed on to the Commission and then to the audience.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Westman to enlighten them on the similar project (located two houses up
from the proposed site) that was approved last year.
Mr. Westman stated there is a similar facility at a home located at 7412 Cadencia that went through a
similar process. He said it is with the same type of installation with a faux chimney, although they did not
add a fake two-car garage for a radio base station because they housed it somewhere else on the
property. Mr. Westman added that it was constructed and it is in operation.
Commissioner Trigas recalled that when the Planning Commission was discussing the facility located at
7412 Cadencia, that there was a great deal of concern as far as future precedent and the Planning
Commission wanting some guidance from the Council. She understands that it has been raised but it has
yet to happen because of the need of a workshop plus the activity of other workshops. Commissioner
Trigas stated that the health problem was an issue as well for this similar facility and asked if the Planning
Commission believes that Item No. 9 is incompatible with the neighborhood, is that legally acceptable or is
the Planning Commission also precluded from ruling because it is a cell site?
Ms. Mobaldi stated no, that the Planning Commission has to make a finding to approve the CUP, that it is
compatible with the residential neighborhood, and if the Planning Commission does not feel they can
make that finding, then they can deny it.
Chairperson Segall asked the applicant to make his presentation to the Planning Commission.
Chris Morrow, Morrow Consulting, 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150, La Mesa, CA 91941, 619-462-1595.
Mr. Morrow stated he is from Darang Tech from AT&T and they are pleased to be there on behalf of AT&T
Wireless. He thanked Mr. Westman and the Planning staff in the help of processing this project and the
preparation of the staff report, which contains unconditional recommendation of approval because the
project has no visual impacts, no neighborhood impacts and has no health and safety impacts per the
FCC requirements. Mr. Morrow stated the CUP request in brief is just to install and operate a new 240
square foot facility within a garage structure which will have six antennas placed on the roof, one new
antenna and the others will go into an existing antennas which will have a slight enlargement, which will
not go up in height, but merely be expanded on the roof with no visual impacts associated with that
minimal expansion. He went onto say they are located on little over one acre lot on Cadencia Street, which
like most of the lots on Cadencia, it slopes up from the street, having approximately a 95 foot elevation
gain from the street to the back of the lot. Mr. Morrow said that this site and the surrounding areas is
developed with large lot, single family residences which are set back approximately 100 feet from the
street which is well in excess of the required set backs and AT&T Wireless is not going to be modifying
that in any way, shape or form. He noted as in the staff report, AT&T identified this site as being deficient,
both in terms of coverage and capacity and AT&T has attempted to locate a site in this particular area. He
pointed out that the previous application was by GTE was denied which was the SDG&E lattice tower
(CUP 00-l 3) which at that time, the discussions of that project indicated that if they were not able to go on
the tower, they would have to find some other sites to cover this area, which is why AT&T Wireless is back
here with today.
He stated that this is one of the two sites necessary to cover the area that would have been covered by
that previous tower. Mr. Morrow went on to say that the design of their project, as described by Planning
staff, completely mitigates any potential aesthetic or visual impact associated with the project and is
completely compatible with the existing neighborhood. Mr. Morrow said that from the street and from the
plans there is simply not an impact from the new construction associated with the facility and he stated he
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 15
believes staff has note of that as well. He stated that the site in and of itself will be invisible, that you will
not be able to tell, much like the site up the street at 7412 Cadencia. He pointed out that if you drive by
that, you have no hint of the facility that is there, which is the purpose behind stealthing these facilities. Mr.
Morrow went on to point out that the FCC has allocated a portion of the radio spectrum to AT&T for the
provision of their wireless communication services, which is what AT&T Wireless is hoping to do here, to
continue to provide that service. He said the proposed facility operates in a frequency range between 869
to 894 megahertz, per the FCC license, which the power required by the facility is very, very low and will
not exceed 25 watts per channel or 125 watts per sector. There are two sectors on this roof; a total of 250
watts, which is extremely minimal and disperses rapidly and will have no impacts from the FCC
perspective. Mr. Morrow explained that the criteria is set arbitrarily very conservatively where AT&T
Wireless fits within that criteria, which is already several orders of magnitude below where a hazard could
begin to exist, is at .038 percent which is less than one percent of the allowable standard. He pointed out
that it is important to note that the FCC limits are set many times higher, so even though AT&T Wireless is
really low, the order of magnitude is incredible because of the conservative nature of the limit. He
reiterated that AT&T Wireless is very, very low and the proposed facility’s max exposure is such a small
fraction of the allowable limit which is part of the reason why AT&T Wireless has a Negative Declaration
on the project from an environmental perspective. Mr. Morrow affirmed that the City has stated there are
no negative impacts associated with this project, which AT&T Wireless fully supports. He stated that in
addition, all AT&T facilities are evaluated by an RF Engineer prior to construction and after construction.
He pointed out that the City of Carlsbad is rather unique in San Diego County in that one of their standard
conditions for wireless facilities is the provision of a Performance Report within six months after
construction and operation of the facility. The wording within that condition today states that the cumulative
impacts of that facility will be evaluated within that report and AT&T Wireless is happy to do that. Mr.
Morrow stated that his report will not only evaluate, but it will read any other impacts that may be coming
from the Pacific Bell Wireless site; that could be coming from the ham radio operators in the
neighborhood; that might be coming up from the La Costa Golf Course; the security force who uses
walkie-talkies; it could be any combination of radio or police transmissions that get into that, which is
simply radio waves, not anything above or beyond that. Mr. Morrow went on to say that once constructed
and operational, the facility will provide 24-hour service to its users and they do not anticipate anymore
than perhaps one to two trips a month to maintain equipment on an as-needed basis, as lots of the
equipment hopefully can be maintained from remote locations, so there will be minimal traffic associated
with the facility. He pointed out that as he had noted per the California Environmental Quality Act and
Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and circulated and there were not comments received
either verbal or written on that Negative Declaration, which is entirely appropriate since there are no
visual, physical or health and safety impacts associated with the project
Mr. Morrow repeated that there are no land use impacts associated with this project, there are no public
health, safety and welfare impacts associated with this project and pointed out that it is not just him saying,
but it is the staff report saying it and the FCC as well. Mr. Morrow pointed out that the City staff fully
supports it because it is in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations and AT&T Wireless feels
that the facility is well sited and appropriately designed and very deserving of the Planning Commissions
support. He stated that AT&T Wireless has worked very diligently to create an invisible and safe site and
again they wholeheartedly recommend any support for this facility.
Commissioner Compas pointed out that the Planning Commission approved, as Mr. Morrow has
mentioned, one other such facility on a residence up in that general area and then it was also mentioned
the one that the Planning Commission approved and the City Council rejected. He asked Mr. Morrow,
from his perspective, that if the Planning Commission approve Item No. 9, if he sees that his competitors
and others will be wanting to rush up there and do the same thing?
Mr. Morrow replied that he thought that within the industry, because of the difficulty in obtaining permits in
some areas of the county, primarily based upon topographic reasons and the development patterns, there
is a lot of residential there, becomes extremely difficult to cover and serve certain areas, this being one of
them. He stated that he knows this is not an easy approach, while it is easy for AT&T Wireless to satisfy
the FCC and to satisfy the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit, it is an entirely different issue
satisfying the needs and wants of the Planning Commission which, obviously the Planning Commission
has the ability to do what they want with this particular project. Mr. Morrow stated that no one else, to his
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 16
knowledge, has gone up into that part of Carlsbad right now and has looked at anything or submitted any
plans for that area as it is limited in terms of its application. He said that part of the problem they had in
that area is that he did not want to go to Cadencia Street, as they know that Pacific Bell Wireless had gone
there and they were successful, but it was a hurdle and AT&T Wireless wanted to go to other places and
that is why they looked at the golf course, the SDG&E towers, the proposed commercial center that is
going to be rebuilt down on the corner, but none of those worked out from a timing perspective. Mr.
Morrow conferred that future providers are probably going to look at it.
Commissioner Compas stated he just wanted Mr. Morrow’s opinion.
Ms. Mobaldi asked to address a point related to Commissioner Compas’ last question. She stated that the
law also provides that you have an obligation as the decision-makers not to unreasonably discriminate
against functionally equivalent providers, so you need to take that into consideration.
Commissioner Baker asked, regarding some coverage areas, if Mr. Morrow could give the Planning
Commission an idea on the lack of coverage that this particular area has from La Costa Avenue north or
what sort of a service-holder is in La Costa? She also asked that if there is a lack of coverage, does that
affect any of the emergency service providers of the City i.e., Fire, Police etc.?
Darang Tech, 7480 Convoy Court, San Diego, CA 92111. replied to Commissioner Baker’s question
concerning the coverage hole, that along La Costa Avenue coming up to the hill from the l-5 near El
Camino Real to the Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and that is mostly the general area. He stated that the
coverage for this particular proposed site is approximately one mile radius, but because of the terrain it
does not cover up on Ranch0 Santa Fe Road going into San Marcos.
Commissioner Baker asked if this site is allowed will this solve the coverage problems in this area or will
AT&T Wireless need another site?
Mr. Tech stated they would need another site on the other side of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road.
Commissioner Baker asked if they know miles wide, how far to the north do they have coverage or is their
hole?
Mr. Tech stated that right now it is all the way across into San Marcos and around Ranch0 Santa Fe it is
dead at this point for AT&T Wireless.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the emissions from the rejected tower site is equal to what is being put up at
7512 Cadencia Street or is it more or less, and if less, how much less?
Mr. Tech replied that it is about the same, but the tower was 55 feet above the ground and this one is 30
plus feet from the ground, but this site is still very, very low.
Mr. Morrow stated further that the emissions are very interesting in that the further you get away from the
source, they dramatically reduce. He further stated that there is a big tower up there that the previous
proposal was for and there were more antennas on it so I just thought yes, they will produce more power
and they will do that at the source, but because the tower is so much higher off the ground, 55 feet vs. 37
feet, much less of that power reaches the ground, so the higher you are, the further away you are from an
antenna, the less power that you receive or less energy you receive from that and in fact the FCC has
another exclusionary category where if you have particular antennas that are located in any way shape or
form except on a building, 30 feet or more above the ground, you don’t even have to deal with them
because through scientific evidence, nothing reaches the ground.
Chairperson Segall stated that at that time the Planning Commission asked GTE if that was the only
location and they said yes it was the only location they could go in the entire area, but it does not sound
like that is the case.
Mr. Tech stated that it was the only location to do the coverage using only one site and now they are
asking for two sites.
27
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 17
Chairperson Segall asked when the other hearing would be for the other site.
Mr. Tech replied that he was not sure.
Chairperson opened public testimony.
Debi Horen, 7512 Brava Street, Carlsbad said she may answer some of the questions regarding the past
project and the current project and some of the relationships because her main concern here is the
relationships with all of these projects. Ms. Horen stated she was concerned because she lives in a safe
and quiet residential neighborhood that, at this point is teaming with radio waves, as Cadencia Street is
turning into what she calls “Antenna Alley”. She said that last year she thought is was Sprint that installed
the three antennas two doors up the street, but she concluded it must be Pat Bell. Ms. Horen thought it
had gone by very quietly as she had just moved in so she did know when or how that had happened. She
stated she was noticed about the AT&T proposed site and as she was going door to door in the
neighborhood talking to people about it, she discovered that across the street from the proposed site at
7535 Cadencia Street there are three antennas on the roof of that person’s home and that is for the
purpose of transmitting ham radio, which is much more dangerous than the cell transmissions in that it is
almost unregulated. She continued that the person at 7535 Cadencia Street can transmit up to 2000 watts
of power and that is pointed directly in the backyards of some of her neighbors on her street. Ms. Horen
pointed out that they all suffer from television interruptions from that and unknown health effects and that it
is because of that and now this new site, radio base station with six more antennas, that she is concerned
that the trajectory for all of these antennas bears down on many of the homes where most of the people in
this room live. Ms. Horen respectfully asked the Commissioners if any of them had gone out to see this
site at all? [Some Commissioners answered affirmatively.] She also asked if any one had taken into
account the accumulative effect of the six existing and six proposed antennas, which is her main concern
here. Ms. Horen confirmed her awareness of the FCC regulations that you cannot discuss potential health
risks if these facilities fall within the FCC specs. She stated that however, she thinks all can concur that
the long-term health effects of radio waves has not been determined since this is a new phenomenon,
even having them and there are no long-term studies and the World Health Organization, which is a very
conservative organization, says that there are big gaps in the studies and the information out there and
does recommend that certain things are done until all of the gaps are filled and the information comes in
and that is to keep them away from children, and there is a whole list of things. Ms. Horen restated that it
is the accumulative effect that she is concerned about and the Emissions Safety Guide does talk about the
accumulative effect and she asked, since it wasn’t taken into account and the Negative Declaration did not
take into account the cumulative effect that needs to be looked at. She stated she is asking for at
minimum an Environmental Report that can add up all of the wattage of these houses that are very close
by and pointing towards their neighborhood and see in fact what are the effects. Ms. Horen stated she has
a lot more to go but that she is delivering a petition that has 37 signatures of people that are concerned in
the neighborhood about property values and a range of things in that. She asked for a show of hands of
how many people are present who are out for this proposed site as not everyone will speak. She finalized
by saying she has a lot more to say if they have more questions, she has researched this fully and
delivered the petition to the Commission.
Chairperson Segall requested to enter for the record about six documents that Commissioner Compas
was handed.
Carl Price, 7521 Brava Street, Carlsbad. Mr. Price stated he is opposed to this project and listening to the
proposal this evening by Mr. Morrow he is puzzled by the implication that yes there might be commercial
sites available for siting the antenna, but they are not available yet and he thinks it would be worthwhile to
take a somewhat longer term view and that if indeed such sites were available within the next 18 months
or two years such a delay should hardly be considered a serious problem in terms of global
communications.
Terence Mills, 7519 Brava Street, Carlsbad. Mr. Mills stated that in the interest of time, many of his
questions were already answered and he thinks the presentation in the building is not really an issue, it
seems appropriate. He said what he has heard tonight that there is some question to how many facilities
will be allowed and they have already said that they need an additional facility to cover this area, so his
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 18
question is how many facilities can we have? He stated that this is AT&T and there is also an existing
facility, how many other competitors are going to want facilities? He asked if they were going to have
every house up there, including some empty lots that will have houses built on them eventually that will all
have these facilities. He stated he does not know how important it is to have the cell phone drop out in that
area as he certainly uses the cell phone and he appreciates when it does not drop out, but a facility of this
nature that has an impact on the neighborhood, an unknown impact and also a commercial facility. He
does not understand how a commercial facility can go into an R-l neighborhood
Tommy Petrovic, 7582 Caloma Circle, Carlsbad. Mr. Petrovic stated his residence is located about .l mile
away from the proposed site or about 300 feet in aerial distance. He shared that he works in the wireless
industry and has some questions that relate to the health issues. He began with the antennas that are
going to be installed on the property and asked if they, as neighbors who live in the vicinity where we are
affected by this, are we going to have the information as to what type of antennas are installed, whether
they are the high-gain antennas or low-gain antennas? Mr. Petrovic pointed out that the antennas are
designed to work in a certain beam pattern and he wanted to know which pattern AT&T is talking about?
He stated that the reason he called here is if the Planning Commission as a Council could stipulate AT&T
to provide and substantiate the evidence of the emissions, first of all, and the RF patterns occurring from
the emissions from these antennas. He asked first of all if that is possible, if the Planning Commission can
do anything about it? Mr. Petrovic pointed out that AT&T and a lot of other companies in the wireless
arena are self-regulated, and he is not sure if the FCC really comes in and inspects the site and if so, how
will the concerned neighbors know that these companies are going to be FCC compliant? He asked if
there would be a third party doing the evaluation every six months? He shared that he is also worried
about the effects of the radiation on the long term cumulative effects of five or seven years from now,
whether the neighborhood is going to call Mr. Morrow because if there are any problems health-wise that
occur in that neighborhood he wondered who is going to work with that as Mr. Morrow is just an employee
of AT&T. Mr. Petrovic asked if the Planning Commission has any documents that AT&T can disseminate
to the neighborhood specifying exactly what is site emit?
Youre Shadian, 3321 Venado, Carlsbad stated, on behalf of his wife and his son, that they live 50 yards or
so to the antenna site. He explained that he was introduced to Mr. Hank [Hank Kleis], the site specialist of
AT&T Wireless, and to another site which is on the corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue which
is more like a commercial site. Mr. Shadian stated that he went as far as to call New York, the
manufacturer, Narada, and talked to the representative, who is out of Long Island, NY. He stated that the
representative told him that they do not allow in New York this kind of device--antennas in the residential
area because of a health hazard. The representative explained to Mr. Shadian that he was coming here to
San Diego at that time to go over these things with the site specialist. Mr. Shadian pointed out that his
neighbor has four kids also and there was also another site that was built not long ago, so he is very much
concerned about the health of this project. He pointed out that the representative of Narada was very
concerned that they are putting the antennas so close to properties in a residential neighborhood. Mr.
Shadian stated that they are very much concerned and we would like to know if these things will go further
and if so, they might have to challenge this in court.
Commissioner Trigas asked Mr. Shadian if Narada represents the manufacturer of the particular device?
Mr. Shadian responded that Narada is the manufacturer of these antennas for AT&T. He mentioned that
he could give the Planning Commission the phone number so they could speak with him.
Ken Hubbard, 3027 Garboso Street, Carlsbad stated his residence is about l/lOth mile from the proposed
site and that he has lived in the neighborhood for about 14 years, and it is a pure residential
neighborhood. He mentioned that he is really appalled that the Council is considering putting a commercial
site in a residential neighborhood like what they live in or any residential neighborhood. He stated there
are commercial sites available for this type of equipment and that is where it should be. Mr. Hubbard said
there is more than just the aesthetic that does bothers him, because it is in a house similar to what they all
live in, but it is the health aspect of the combined microwave, RF radiations. He said from what he has
read that the experts are not in agreement as to the dangers and the safety hazards of micro- wave
radiation from multiple base antennas, which is what they are proposing on this site. He stated he has fine
coverage of his cell phones as he has never had any drop out, but said that there is an awful lot of AM
radio interference in that neighborhood which it is very prevalent at night and could be coming from all the
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 19
combined radiation that is coming through that area. He requested that it be checked by an FCC or a
radiation specialist or whoever does that sort of thing in the government, before anything is sited any
further as it is necessary to see what is there now, which may be too much as it is. He concluded that he
did not think this is the right place for this facility.
Jack Tavelman, 3315 Venado Street stated he lives directly to the northeast of the proposed site and
adjacent to the site that was put in last year, making his property lines to touch on both sites. He shared
that they purchased the house last June, before the installation of the other site, without disclosure from
the seller that that site was going to be installed. He said that they were rather upset when they started
putting the site on the house next door. Mr. Tavelman stated that he has four young children, the youngest
being one year old and he definitely has health concerns and definitely thinks that having these sites in a
residential neighborhood that there is a stigma to it that it affects real estate values within the
neighborhood and he is definitely unhappy about the site going in that he did not know about when he
purchased the property and never had a chance to question or speak out on it. He further stated that he
does not really want commercial going into his residential neighborhood. He explained that the Planning
Commission must know that the real estate values are quite high in that area, so even if it affects his real
estate price by lo%, that you are talking about a lot of money, and as a California real estate broker and
an active broker in the area he stated that he knows that high power lines affect real estate prices and he
believes that these cell sites also affect real estate prices.
Michele Nix-Schmaltz, 7513 Brava Street, Carlsbad stated that her residence is down the hill from the
proposed site. Her question was regarding when she comes out on Cadencia on Ranch0 Santa Fe Road,
there is a big water tower over there; there are other places; there is a big box canyon--is there no other
place that you can site this except in the middle of a residential area? She shared that there are many
young families there and that she knows this is not supposed to be an issue, but, she went on to say, until
the Council finishes its study and the regulations are a little more specific about the long-term effects, she
definitely is not in favor of this project.
Thomas Drake, 7523 Brava Street, Carlsbad. He had his small daughters with him and stated that they
live at the end of the cul-de-sac that can be seen on the left side of the map. He said that they have been
there about three years now and he did not know at the time the site was going to go in as it may have
influenced their decision to purchase in the neighborhood if they had known. He reiterated that he has two
daughters and also a wife that mean more than anything in the world to him and should anything ever
happen to them as a result of the emissions from these sorts of towers, if they contracted brain tumors or
something, not saying it would happen, it probably will not, but should it happen in 20 years, he asked
what he should do, come back to the City and ask for an apology? He said that is sort of an irreparable
harm that we all fear. He said he does not understand why it is encumbent upon the City to fill cell phone
coverage holes. He stated that he understands the home owner of the site stands to gain anywhere
between $1,000 to $1,500 a month, to which he stated it seems like a pittance to force us all to live in fear.
Mr. Drake concluded with asking the Planning Commission if they would want this cell tower in their
backyard or next to their house, of which he was sure their answer would be no.
Diana Klein, 7577 Delgado Place stated that her residence is looking right up on the site. She was
concerned that every other house there is going to be some sort of site and that it has been said over and
over again tonight, why do we have to have it there as it is a nice residential area. She knows it is buyer
beware that all they have to do is a little notice in the paper and if you are not reading it that day or
however long the notice has to be in, that these little things can just get snuck in, but she concluded that is
the way it is. She went on to share her main concern is the health issues and that she does not really care
what the findings are. She stated that she does not think they need to have it and she is very concerned
that every other house is going to have something like this. Ms. Klein shared that we just do not need it,
therefore, she concluded that she is extremely opposed to it.
Patricia Dice, 7412 Brava Street, Carlsbad. She stated her residence is just around the other side from the
site being discussed. She said she is there to add her voice of agreement with the other people that have
spoken. She pointed out that she too has the concerns about health. Ms. Dice mentioned that the word
she has heard a lot is the facility, the facility. She continued that what is behind it or what is in there is
what she is concerned about. She asked that the Commission act responsibly in the interest of the
30
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 20
residents of the community in quantity as they are talking about one homeowner and a large company, but
she stated that she is asking that the concerns be heard and considered and acted upon.
Marian Cartwright, 7412 Brava Street, Carlsbad stated that her residence is directly west of the 7412
Cadencia, Pat Bell antenna site that was approved and will be on the other side of the proposed antenna.
She shared that she is opposed to this for several reasons and apologized if she is redundant. She stated
that the number one important one is the long term health risk, especially the radiation. She stated that
she also carries an AT&T cell phone and she is a pharmaceutical rep and she is in North County all the
time and she has no problem with talking to people up in that area. Ms. Cartwright stated .that if she does,
they are just talking within a mile radius and she can go to a pay phone and talk to somebody if she needs
to talk to them. She confirmed that she does not want a commercial site in a residential area that is why
she is opposed to this.
Richard Macy, 3306 Venado Street, Carlsbad. He stated that he lives directly behind the site that the
Planning Commission approved about one year ago and he looks down the hill on it. He said they heard
the same things a year ago that it blends in with the house. Mr. Macy stated that when he goes down his
drive way he has the San Diego Gas and Electric box, the cable box, one other box and the new box
which does not show up on any of these plans that comes from the wireless facility. He said that it makes
an eye sore in front of his house and it is not talked. He stated he could guarantee the Planning
Commission that is an eye sore because he can look down his driveway on it. He pointed out that it is not
necessary as he is a cell phone user and has no problem. He stated that he is using the Verizon system
and he has coverage. He again stated that it is not necessary and it is a residential area.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Macy in reference to the eye sore again, if he was referring to just that one
box in the street next to the cable box? He also asked if these boxes, to which Mr. Macy is referring, if
they are on the curb?
Mr. Macy affirmed that is what he is referring to and further stated that he wished they would do something
to dress those things up, but they do not because he guesses they have to get access to them. He stated
that these boxes are on the curb and right now he has about a 14 foot long row of boxes in front of his
house. He said that the thought of five more cell people coming in and all put a box in that same place,
because it seems to be a popular area, is very scary to him.
Bill Bishop, 3139 Del Rey Avenue, Carlsbad. He said he was not going to address those long boxes
because it is a different issue, but he stated he has one outside his house as well. He stated that he lives
right across the street from the proposed site on the corner of Del Rey and Cadencia. He said that he
jokes with Pat Bell because of the box that they are there almost every day as if it is their office. He stated
that he had not realized how elaborate that box is until they started opening it up and he saw that there are
a lot of wires etc. to which he said that is another issue altogether. Mr. Bishop stated he was not aware of
the other antennas just up the road until this issue came up. He stated that there is just a lot of electricity
etc going in that area, a lot of things in the air. He said it just seems like enough is enough. He questioned
how much more of this is going to be there. Mr. Bishop was concerned about the fake chimneys and fake
garages in a residential neighborhood. He said again that enough is enough and he questioned when he
drives down the road that he would not be sure if some one lives there or not.
Jon Nerenberg, 3204 Carvallo Court, Carlsbad pointed out on the map where he is located which is
physically the closest to this god-awful structure that is going in. He said that he represents a number of
families on his block as well as his three and five year old children. Mr. Nerenberg said that when he and
his children are playing the backyard, which they do often, that they do see the existing garage structure
as well as the existing chimney on the property for this item. He explained that the property slopes down
where he is about 45 feet from the proposed edge, where it slopes down pretty steep. He said when he
looks up from his backyard he sees the corner, the awning and eave and everything. He stated that he
would have a twenty-foot wall that he will see. He believed that his property value will be affected just in
the fact that now he will have a structure behind his house that he did not have and did not want to have
when he originally bought the house. He also stated that he would have divulge that to any future buyers.
Mr. Nerenberg mentioned that a couple of people said that it really is not much of a visual eye sore, but he
continued that it is funny that he sees a picture next to it if you squint your eyes they almost look the
same. He stated that his neighbors and he joke that it is the motel on Cadencia and he asked and
challenged the Planning Commission to take a look. He stated that Commissioner Compas has seen it
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 21
and it looks like a hotel according to Mr. Nerenberg and he considers it already an eye sore from the
street. He said having that wall about 40 feet from his property line will do him nothing but harm when he
looks to resell his house.
Chairperson Segall stated that Mr. Nerenberg is referring to a wall and asked if there is a wall going up or
is it the existing structure?
Mr. Nerenberg replied that it is the existing structure and recently the owner has placed some trees that
have started to grow, but Mr. Nerenberg can still see through them and he can see the top three or four
feet from his backyard and living room. He pointed out what he would now see that was pushed about 20
to 25 feet closer to his property line.
Larry Douglas, 7505 Brava Street, Carlsbad commented that AT&T may need some sites, but he is not
sure that they have proved definitively that this particular location needs to be in place for them to stay
viable and competitive. He said financially it may be easier to put one in a residential center than it is a
commercial, so that they may have financial incentives there also. He stated that he would also like to see
definitively that they have looked at all possible alternatives first and he would like to see that documented
before they put one and choose a residential site. He also stated that he hoped the Planning Commission
would act along those lines also in the best interest of the people present and that it is a residential site.
Commissioner Baker confirmed to Mr. Douglas that he mentioned not privy to the last site being approved,
did you not receive the notice or did you not live in the neighborhood.
Mr. Douglas replied that he lived in the neighborhood for the last seven or eight years and he pointed out
that he was not saying it was not mailed out but that maybe he did not see it or maybe it got circular filed,
but he did not know. He said that if you polled most of the people in here, they were not aware that that
had ever taken place. He concluded that he did not know if they were improperly noticed or what, but he
thought something probably was amiss if this many people in the same area are showing up tonight and
they were not even aware that that other site was in.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Douglas how did he find out about tonight’s hearing?
Mr. Douglas responded that from the neighborhood group somebody became aware and he was not even
noticed for he got this information via phone calls and conversations in the neighborhood, not by a notice.
Debi Horen, 7512 Brava Street, Carlsbad (previously spoke and was timed for three minutes rather than
the full five minutes). Ms. Horen stated that it is clear that the health concerns in the room are palpable but
she voiced that she knows that is something they are not suppose to pay attention to, so she said she is
going to focus a little bit on some of the other areas where the Planning Commission can use their
discretion and that is compatibility with the neighborhood. Ms. Horen continued that since Morrow
Consulting did state that this project is a replacement site for the GTE site project, she said she went back
a little bit and found out why was that site kicked out in City Council after it was approved here. She said
the main reason was that they did not dress it up and hide it and paint it in a garage and so they got it
more on aesthetics. She explained that also some of the points that they used as reasons for denial was
the introduction of additional noise into a quiet neighborhood where they talked about air conditioning for
the equipment and she was wondering if this site is the same site, then is there not the same kind of noise
levels or potential for noise levels? She said they also talked about introduction of additional commercial-
related traffic in a residential neighborhood being inappropriate from monitoring equipment, even though it
sounds like it is minimized once a month, twice a month, perhaps more if it needs repair-she stated that
they do not know, but those can turn into public safety issues or questions and also as she stated earlier,
there is a bus stop right at the foot of this one property here.
Ms. Horen then wanted to quote in their resolution where Council overturned the Planning Commission’s
decision they said, “that the restricted 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 a neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential
areas, nor does the proposed project preserve the aesthetics, property values, nor maintain community
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 22
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.” Ms. Horen confirmed that those
were the neighborhood compatibility issues. She stated that people have spoken about a lot of other
things and rather than repeat stuff, she said that cellular service is great in the area and it was good to
hear that AT&T is fine in the area, Verizon, Sprint, Cingular, all of those work perfectly well and so they are
questioning why this location? She shared that there is a tennis club up the street that is a little more
commercial, people do not live there around the clock. She asked if that has been looked into? She
continued that just overall the question remains, is there going to be some plan about the placement of
these cell sites in Carlsbad or is it going to be helter-skelter, wherever the wolf can pounce, they go there
and they all go in the same place, if that is a good spot or will there be some responsibility to actually have
some kind of proactive plan so they do not have to have this kind of thing occur on a regular basis?
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Segall closed Public Testimony and asked staff (and
the applicant when it is appropriate) to respond to the variety of questions that were asked.
Mr. Westman stated that as to the total number of antennas and radio base stations that would be allowed
in the area there does not seem to be any regulations and the City does not have anything in our
Ordinance regarding proliferation of these kind of cell site facilities.
Mr. Westman stated that staff does not have any studies justifying this location and does not have any
information on alternatives. Mr. Westman acknowledged that they did do a Negative Declaration and the
determination was made that there are no cumulative effects. He pointed out this is classified as quasi-
public, therefore can be allowed in a residential area with a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Westman stated
according to AT&T the facility is not going to be generating noise that would be intrusive into the
neighborhood. In regards to traffic he said the addition of one or two trips per month for maintenance is not
significant based on design limitations for residential streets.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Westman to elaborate a little bit more on the quasi-public and asked if it
would be considered a public utility and what exactly does quasi-public mean?
Mr. Westman pointed out that quasi-public serves in the public interest as telecommunications and it is not
a public entity but is private.
Commissioner Baker asked if it in the same category as telephone lines, cable, electrical lines, sewer
etc.?
Mr. Westman agreed.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Westman concerning the noticing requirement, how were these neighbors
noticed and could he speak to the one that was previously approved and how they were noticed?
Mr. Westman stated that he cannot speak specifically to the previous project, but relayed the City’s
noticing procedure is: when staff gets a noticing package from the applicant, it is accompanied with a
signed affidavit which certifies the names and addresses are from the latest equalized assessors rolls of
all property owners within 600 feet of the property. He went on to explain the City does an individual
mailing to each of the property owners within that 600 foot radius.
Commissioner Baker asked if there was a cell site located in a residence, would that necessarily need to
be disclosed on a real estate disclosure form?
Ms. Mobaldi responded that she does not know definitively the answer to that, but she thinks the wise and
conservative approach would be to disclose it because some people do have concerns about radio
frequency emissions.
Commissioner Baker asked if they were talking about the facility residence? She also asked if it was the
property next door, would they be required to disclose that information to the potential buyer that the
neighbors had such a facility?
Ms. Mobaldi stated that she does not know the answer to that question and she does not think it
necessarily bears on the Commissions determination in this case.
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 23
Commissioner Trigas asked Ms. Mobaldi to clarify what Council actually ruled on the other site?
Ms. Mobaldi summarized that Ms. Horen touched on a number of the points that the Council made in their
findings in relation to that other site. She stated that some of them had to do with the visual degradation of
the community. That other site was out in the open on an SDG&E tower, an open space easement. They
discussed the necessity for maintaining and preserving open space; about property values; degradation of
property values; about the fact that it was in a residential neighborhood; and that perhaps not all of the
alternatives had been adequately explored prior to intensification of this type of use in a residential
neighborhood.
Commissioner Trigas asked Ms. Mobaldi to explain the fact that other providers cannot be unreasonably
discriminated against.
Ms. Mobaldi said the law provides that telecommunication facilities have to be available to locate in
communities within reason and you cannot discriminate between different providers and so therefore if
you give one provider a site, then you have to offer alternatives to a provider of the same functionally
equivalent service. She continued that the criteria is that you cannot unreasonably discriminate, so
obviously, if you have a reasonable basis for making a distinction between one provider and another, in
terms of their applications to go into a certain location, you may deny one and allow the other to locate
there; however, you have to make those findings and they have to be reasonable in order to be upheld.
Commissioner Trigas asked if another future telecommunications provider can request a similar site in that
same area, would the Planning Commission have to give very valid reasons that they are not
discriminating?
Ms. Mobaldi replied yes. She stated the reasons have to be reasonable in the sense that there is a factual
foundation or basis for them. She suggested in making a determination in this case, that the Planning
Commission consider there already is one site in the neighborhood. Ms. Mobaldi went on to say that if the
Planning Commission finds that they necessarily need to approve this application, they need to take into
consideration the differences and the similarities. She explained that if the Planning Commission makes a
denial in this case, they need to make a record of why they are making that denial, what their reasons are
and how they feel it may be distinguishable from the previous approval.
Commissioner Trigas asked regarding regulations if an independent party comes in to oversee or check
out emissions or does the Planning Commission take the information from the provider?
Mr. Westman responded that once a facility is in, there is a requirement for follow-up analysis of what the
cumulative effects are of that facility. He stated that staff would require the applicant to do the analysis and
to provide the report to staff.
Commissioner Baker asked if the report is annually or just initially after the first six months etc.?
Mr. Westman stated that he was not fully sure, but he believed it may be the one time after six months.
Commissioner Baker asked if the FCC requires an independent investigation or periodic checks?
Mr. Westman stated that he was not sure what the FCC requires, but he pointed out that the City does
have the one condition that talks about a six-month period. He also pointed out that the City has the
standard Conditional Use Permit for an annual review of the Conditional Use Permit and its operation to
see that it is operating consistent with the conditions for approval.
Chairperson Segall asked if that would be the same for the previous site as well.
Mr. Westman affirmed Chairperson Segall’s question.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Morrow to come up to address some of the comments that were made plus
one of his questions he will ask as well.
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 24
Mr. Morrow said he had previously addressed most of the questions with his initial presentation as he had
knowledge before hand that these types of questions were going to come up. He stated that it is a
testament to the planning process that these types of projects, through the public notice process, brings
every body out here and suggested that, from some respects, the planning process is the only lightning
rod left to bring communities together and that it is unfortunate it is always over an issue that puts people
into different camps. He pointed out Federal Law regulates the health issue and reiterated that the public
health and safety impacts of this facility were so low as to be a fractional element of that. He gave the
scenario that if the Pat Bell Wireless site were one percent of the FCC regulations, the ham radio operator
(unregulated and probable to be a very serious contributor) may bump that total between all three of the
sites up to maybe five percent of the FCC standard. He suggested that it is still going to be below one
percent-worst-case sitting right here. He assured the residents that it would be evaluated through the
Conditional Use Permit approval process. Mr. Morrow stated that the City of Carlsbad’s CUP is very, very
rigorous having the requirement to produce a performance-based report within six months of operation,
the requirement to annually review the CUP, plus the CUP is only good for five years. He continued to
explain that the applicant has to come back to explain and rationalize what they are doing and that the five
years was put there to aid the community and address some of the issues associated with the
technological change. Mr. Morrow stated that AT&T cannot wait for other developments to come on line
with no assurance of negotiating a site with them, but they need to perform their business plan today,
which is why they are at this site.
He also stated that AT&T is not in the business of providing a service that is not necessary and was
pleased to hear that all the AT&T subscribers have great coverage and capability in this site. He stated
that if, in fact, they are actually true across the depth and breadth of their customer base, they would not
be here today, that they would not put this site here if they did not desperately need it and they are
seeking to fulfil1 that need in a way that, as recognized by staff, is compatible with the spirit and intent with
the Conditional Use Permit. He pointed out that from the demand issue and from a planning perspective,
you can follow the path of urbanization through the movement of the fast food folks, for they track things
and know what is happening before the government does because their data is far better. Mr. Morrow said
they have been trying to put a site here for a number of years and it has been contentious throughout as
there has been any number of different planners and providers to try to cover this particular area. He said
that he greatly respects everyone’s comment that was here and believed the site is very sympathetically
sited to the community in that it does not create visual impacts and is well over 100 feet away from the
circulation path, both circulation and automobile. He stated they have done the best that they can do given
the constraints and the regulatory envelope that they work in and he thinks they made that point today. Mr.
Morrow went on to say, in terms of property values, that he has never seen anything in his years of doing
this that has demonstrated to him that a site like this decreases property values. He said he thinks what
they will see here, as in most of San Diego County, is that property values are going to continue to shoot
up. He pointed out that he thought the median home value went up $4,000 last month and did not believe
this site would have any impact on it, which he explained is different from high tension power lines which
do create a significant visual impact as well as an auditory impact. He shared that he was out by the lines
the other day and there was a great deal of movement of electricity that created the popping, among other
noises, which is part of those facilities. Mr. Morrow said the facility they are proposing is quiet, unseen,
healthy, safe, meets the requirements of both the City and the Federal Government. He stated that they
wholeheartedly support the recommendation of approval and hoped the Planning Commission would see
fit to vote that way today.
Chairperson Segall pointed out that someone raised a question on the air conditioning and asked if there
is a need for air conditioning similar to the previous site?
Mr. Morrow explained that typically the equipment itself is air conditioned and what they have done on this
site is locate the radio base station equipment in the extension of the garage, which mimics the
architecture and will contain any of the noise associated with those particular pieces of equipment. He
also felt certain the City of Carlsbad has an existing noise ordinance.that regulates decibel levels on the
property line plus the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit which the City enforces for AT&T, and the
same for Pacific Bell Wireless that is up the street.
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 25
Chairperson Segall added that Mr. Macy commented about some kind of a box in his front yard. He asked
Mr. Morrow if this facility that he is proposing requires some kind of a curb vault or box?
Mr. Morrow stated that his engineer said definitely no.
Chairperson Segall asked if everything is self-contained within the house with no other facilities around?
Mr. Morrow confirmed this and added that usually there are separate meters, but stated they are up at the
house.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Westman if he would support other applicants for this same area that
are similar to this one?
Mr. Westman replied that if the application was submitted and designed to comply with the City’s
regulations then yes, he would have to assume that.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Compas stated he was one of the members of the Commission that approved the facility a
year ago as well as the GTE facility, even though they worked very hard to make a lot of changes in that
application. He acknowledged that he has done a lot of thinking about this situation in the mean time and
acknowledged that AT&T has done a very good-faith job and have done everything expected of them. He
said he was not concerned then and is not concerned now about the health aspect for to him it is not a big
problem, though a lot of people here are very concerned about that. He stated his concern is about the
compatibility problem, as he does not want to see an area that gets inundated with false chimneys and
radio base stations, which he thinks is where the City is headed. Cc Corrected tated for those
reasons, and for many of the reasons that were cited by the Cit. al of the GTE
application--even they are somewhat different, he thinks they still apply to a lot of the conditions)--he is at
this point going to vote against this application.
Commissioner L’Heureux stated she is opposed also.
Commissioner Heineman agreed that he does not think the health problem is an issue and that the
Planning Commission is not qualified to question the FCC assurances. He pointed out that he does share
Commissioner Compas’ concerns regarding one provider after another is going to be coming back to the
same site is probably reason enough to reject this. He stated that he intends to vote against it.
Commissioner Baker thanked everyone who came out to speak about this issue and shared that one of
the things which makes Carlsbad a nice community to live in is that all of us care very much about what
happens in this town. She concurred with her fellow Commissioners regarding the health aspects and they
cannot take that into consideration when talking tonight. She pointed out concerning quasi-public facilities
that we all need to share in some of the pain where they are located if we want to have electricity, cable,
telephones and cell service. She stated she agrees with her fellow Commissioners to consider if we are
locating too many of these in a residential neighborhood. She requested that City Council direct the
Planning Commission, staff or someone to take a look at locating wireless facilities in neighborhoods and
how we are going to deal with this in the future. She pointed out that they are coming up in every Planning
Commission where they are dealing with wireless facilities over and over again. She noted that maybe it is
time that the City take a look at how we are going to do business with these facilities in the future.
Commissioner Baker shared that she would not be supporting the project tonight.
Commissioner Trigas also concurred and further explained that she has a real problem with compatibility.
She stated too that wanting some clear direction from the Council would make it easier as it will come up
again. She did not feel comfortable with establishing a precedent of additional approval as she did not
think that it helps the quality of life and since Carlsbad does want to promote the quality of life among its
residents she felt that they have to develop a sound policy in addressing this issue and not deal with it
every single time on a piecemeal basis and she hopes that is relayed to the Council - of the Planning
Commission’s concern that they direct the Planning Commission on this one, but she definitely agrees
with her fellow Commissioners on this issue.
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 26
Chairperson Segall also agreed with the other Commissioners. He complimented AT&T and Mr. Morrow
for the presentation and the information that they provided tonight and he thought they did a great job. He
stated that the last time this came before the Planning Commission with GTE he voted against the project
because he did not think it was compatible with the neighborhood. He stated he has different issues
relative to compatibility on this project and he would be real concerned about the disclosure of this site and
how W&bat+& it impacts real estate values within the neighborhood. He stated that he is also real
concerned about the facilities that the other Commissioners have talked about and how many of these will
continue to go into residential areas. He stated he does not have the same kind of concerns in commercial
and industrial areas, but when these are put in neighborhoods he does have a concern. He agreed that he
would like to ask the Council to give the Planning Commission direction in the residential neighborhoods
and how we are going to site these in the future. Chairperson Segall shared that he too will not support
this project for those reasons.
Commissioner Compas pointed out one thing that might expedite getting the City Council’s opinion is if
AT&T appeals it to the City Council and then the Planning Commission could find out what they think
about it.
Chairperson Segall stated that they have made a minute motion in the past and it looks like the Planning
Commission has made enough comments again, but he explained that he has the same concerns that all
of the Commissioners have which is how far is the Planning Commission going to go with this, and when
they site one and approve it, then there is another. He stated that he does not blame individuals for not
wanting to live on “Antenna Alley”.
Chairperson Segall asked if there are any other comments and seeing none asked for a motion.
Corrected
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4926 adopting a Negative Declaration and adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4927 approving Conditional Use Permit
CUP 00-36 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions found therein.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
434-O 0-6-O I ‘II- L I Iti !I- I “U I
Rigas none
Net=+e Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Heineman,
Baker, Trigas
None
Ms. Mobaldi stated that the Planning Commission should refer to her office and they will prepare a
Resolution of Denial.
Chairperson Segall said the Planning Commission would vote on that Resolution of Denial at the next
meeting.
Ms. Mobaldi agreed and said her office would put in the Resolution the findings articulated tonight.
Chairperson Segall asked Ms. Mobaldi to explain the Denial With or Without Prejudice.
Ms. Mobaldi explained that Without Prejudice means the applicant can come back with modifications and
reapply. She said With Prejudice means the matter will not be considered again within a year.
Chairperson Segall asked if they should make that part of the motion regarding if it is with or with
prejudice?
Ms. Mobaldi stated that if you do not specify, it is typically without prejudice.
37
Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 27
Mr. Holzmiller pointed out besides the one year waiting period, if the Planning Commission is denying this
on its merits, then you should not say without prejudice because you are making findings that you do not
feel should be approved.
Chairperson Segall asked if this can be appealed to the Council and they can reopen the issue?
Mr. Holzmiller said the motion should be to refer it to the City Attorney’s office to prepare a document
denying the project. He said the only time you would add without prejudice is if you feel that it is being
denied for some sort of lack of information or a more technical thing that you want the applicant to be able
to reapply within a years time period, but it does not sound like that is the situation here.
Chairperson Segall said they need another motion now.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that they just need to direct her to come back next meeting with a Resolution reflecting
what they said here tonight and she will do that.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Compas and duly seconded, to direct Ms. Mobaldi to
come back next meeting with a Resolution reflecting what the Planning
Commission has said here tonight.
VOTE: 6-O-O
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compaq L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker,
Trigas
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Segall closed the Public Hearing.
-r. APPEAL FORM .,’ 7 * I’: i,’ 7 _ ._ i .~ .---.r- ) : ,:
Carlsbad Planning Commission &q& - 2 &Oj
I (We) appeal the decision of the
,;;
to the Carlsbad City Council. ? __ ___ ~... -.~ -.-- 7,
I . rL -_ . . . . . - -;;- _-- ( (_-_ ..:-. - - ..A--“_. . -
Date of Decision you are appealing: June 20, 2001
Subiect of Ameal:
SE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City 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. Adoption by Planning Commission of P.C. Resolution No. 5006 denying Conditional
Use Permit No. CUP 00-36 for placement of cellular antennas by AT&T Wireless
Services at 7512 Cadencia Street in Local Facilities Xanagement Zone No. 6.
Reason(s) for Ameal: l Please Note. Failure 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
Plann!anwgs1e~~5~'s~~~~~rred bv violatinn federal and state laws oovernino personal
wireless services and lenislative and administrative processes, specifically, the
decision discriminates against AT&T Wireless Services in -violation of 47 USC 332(c)(7)
(i)(L); is unlawfully based on health concerns Oi d1 emlsslons ln vloJ.atlon Or +I CSC
332(c)(7)(iv); is not based on substantial evidence in violation of 47 USC 332(c)(T)(iii);
and constitutes a retroactive legislative act in violation of AT&T's due process rights
under state and federal law-. Each of ,these violations is described in detail in the
attached letter which is- nereoy lncorporatea into tnLs explanatron or izne oasis iCTt
AT&T Wireless Services appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of CUP 00-36.
t 319 643-7999
PHONE NO.
2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
ADDRESS: Street Name & Number
xl SPeundo- CA 90245
City, State, Zip Code
1200 earlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808
/&cEhFD
3 -&-c I
my c L-4&
0 l=lxx
JEREMY H. STERN
310.643.7999 Exr. 100 JS,WW@CRBL*W.COH
COLE, RAYWID b BRAVERMAN, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
238 I ROSECRANS AVENUE. SUITE 110
EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA 90245-4290
TELEPHONE (310) 6437999
FAX (310) 643-7997
WWW.CRBlAW COM
WAWIINGTON. D.C. OFFI;
1010 PENNSYLVANIA AVENVE. N W
WASHlNGlDN. 0 C 20006-3458
TcLEr*onr (2021 659-9750
Fu I2021 4S2-0067
June 29,200l
Honorable Claude A. Lewis, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
CITJ’ OF CARLSBAD
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008 *
RE: AT&T Wireless Services - ADDeal of CUP 00-36 (7512 Cadencia Street)
Dear Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers:
Please accept the attached appeal form as supplemented by this letter and exhibits as AT&T Wireless
Services’ (“AWS”) appeal of the City of Carlsbad (“City”) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5006
(“Resolution”) wrongfully denying AWS’s application for a conditional use permit for a cellular
communications facility on residential property located at 75 12 Cadencia Street in Local Facilities
Management Zone 6 (the “Permit”).’ AWS seeks the Permit to place a “stealth” antenna facility that will be
invisible to the neighboring community. For the following reasons, AWS appeals the Planning Commission’s
decision and respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission and grant AWS’s
Application for Conditional Use Permit No. 00-36.
AWS concurrently files a Public Records Act request for the complete record of the case supplied by
the land use planning manager or the equivalent to the City Council in compliance with Carlsbad Municipal
Code $ 21 SO. 110.
I. Summarv of AWS’s Awument
AWS identified the need to place an antenna site within the City in order to address coverage and
capacity issues in the area bordered by El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. After a thorough search for
space for its site and with knowledge of the Planning Commission’s denial of GTE’s application for an
adjacent site on San Diego Gas & Electric’s lattice towers (CUP 00-13) AWS concluded that 7512 Cadencia
was the best available option. The company proposed a plan that was appropriate for the site and in full
compliance with the City’s Zoning Code. AWS worked very closely with City Staff to integrate the project
into the community, to fully screen the facility, to demonstrate compliance with FCC emission’s guidelines, to
ensure that it was in harmony with the General Plan, and to maintain the integrity of the residential
neighborhood.
’ Planning Commission Resolution No. 5006 (“Resolution”) attached as Exhibit 1.
COLE, R*YWlD & &%WERMAN, L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal June 29,200l
Page 2
The City’s Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Permit and the Negative
Declaration because the proposed site was in compliance with the City’s codes. Rather than follow the facts
and the law, the Planning Commission bowed to constituent pressure driven by health-related concerns of RF
emissions and thereby acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the AWS CUP. The denial was based on
the pretext of the absence of a citywide policy on antenna siting and was made in the absence of any
substantial and relevant evidence supportingdenial. By so doing, the Planning Commission abrogated its
quasi-judicial obligations and substituted judgment on a particular application with the desire to effect a
retroactive change in City policy. The Resolution thereby violated AWS’s rights to due process under state
and federal law.
Moreover, the Planning Commission’s Resolution, if upheld, would be discriminatory in that the City
has approved a permit for Pacific Bell Mobile Services at 7412 Cadencia Street. Despite the recommendations
of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission failed to distinguish the services provided by AWS at the
present site in any manner from the services provided by Pacific Bell at 7412 Cadencia.
Given the substantial and compelling justifications AWS provided for this site, and the absence of
compelling support for denial, we respectfully request that the Council reverse the Planning Commission and
grant AWS’s Permit for the site at 7512 Cadencia Street.
II. Factual Background
A. Wireless Telephony Coverage and Capacity Needs of AWS’s Network Necessitate the
Placement of a New Facility in Carlsbad
AWS’s engineer testified to a coverage gap in Carlsbad that will require the installation of one or two
cellular facilities. The coverage gap and capacity problems in the City result in dropped calls and the inability
to access the public telephone network. In addition to the general frustrations associated with common uses,
the gap creates a significant public safety concern. Emergencies are often reported to emergency service
personnel from cell phones.’ Highway patrol and police officers also routinely use cell phones to supplement
overtaxed radio networks. Of course, subscribers routinely conduct business, plan their day’s activities, check
voice mail and email, or listen to business news via their cell phones.
The possible locations for the facility were limited because the facility needed to be able to adequately
“hand off’ calls to existing antenna sites on existing structures to the north and south:“Connectivity” or
“hand-off’ is hampered in the area by uneven terrain. Given the regulatory challenges of obtaining permits for
residential locations, which AWS had experienced on numerous occasions, AWS was hesitant to consider sites
zoned for single-family dwellings and, as the following site search explains, AWS did not immediately seek
out this residential site.
’ The cellular telecommunications industry reports that drivers use cell phones to make an average of 118,000 calls to 911 each day. The estimated annual average of mobile 911 calls is over 43 million. See www.wow-com.com.
COLE. R*YWlD & ~R*VERMAN. L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal June 29,200l Page 3
B. AWS Made a Thorough Search for an Acceptable Site beforeSelecting
7512 Cadencia
The Planning Commission’s Resolution No. 5006 (“Resolution’*) alleges that “efforts have not been
entirely explored or exhausted to determine if an alternative site may be more appropriate.“3 It f&ther states: “ . . . there was no evidence that alternative locations either on commercially zoned or residentially zoned
properties which would not require the intensification of uses at this location have been exhaustively
explored.‘A These findings are unjustifiable and, as described below, cannot constitute a basis for denial of the
Permit.
AWS conducted a site search in which it considered alternatively, placement of antennas on SDG&E
lattice towers, on driving range poles at the La Costa Resort and Spa, on buildings at a proposed commercial
center and on an apartment complex in the neighborhood. AWS’s preferred location from an RF perspective
was the La Costa Resort and Spa. Repeated efforts to contact the owners of the Resort in Japan in early 2000
failed and AWS abandoned those efforts. AWS made contact with SDG&E over a site on their poles and when
negotiations became protracted, AWS made the determination that the utility would indefinitely drag out the
process and terminated negotiations. AWS then investigated a proposed shopping center located on La Costa
and El Camino Real and backed away from that site when it appeared that construction of the complex was too
speculative and uncertain. Next, AWS looked at the Alicante View Apartments at 2385 Caringa Way, but the
landlord refused to enter into a lease. After several months looking into these other sites, AWS contacted the
owners of 75.12 Cadencia, who entered into a lease in late summer 2000.
In the Planning Commission’s Draft Minutes for May 16,200 1, AWS’s representative testified
specifically to having considered these alternate sites.’ This site search lasted several months. It would be
unreasonable and unfair for the Planning Commission or the City to require a more elaborate or extensive site
search and it is unlawful for the City to deny the permit on that basis.
III. Lepal Basis for the Aweal of the Planning Commission’s Decision
The Planning Commission’s decision on May 16,200l to deny the Permit should be reversed because
the Commission erred in its interpretation of the evidence, abused its discretion, acted arbitrarily and
capriciously and violated AWS’s rights under state and federal law.
In enacting the Telecommunications Act, Congress gave due consideration to the potential conflict
between local government regulation of the placement and aesthetic impacts of wireless telecommunications
facilities, and the national need for rapid deployment of economical and effective wireless services.
Accordingly, Section 704 of the Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. $ 332(c)(7), preserves local authority “over
decisions regarding the placement, construction and modification” of wireless facilities, but imposes
significant restraints on such decisions:
3 Resolution, p. 5, lines 16-17.
4 Resolution, p. 4, lines 6-8.
’ Planning Commission, Draft Minutes, May 16, 2001, p. 5 (“Draft Minutes”) attached as Exhibit 2.
COLE, R*YWlD 6, ~RWERMAN. L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal
June 29,200l
Page 4
1. Local governments cannot “unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services” (4 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I)) or “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of
personal wireless services” (5 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)).
2. Local governments also cannot regulate the placement, construction and modification of wireless
service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the
extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions
(9; 33W)(WWW.
3. Finally, local governments must act “within a reasonable period of time” ($ 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)) and
decisions to deny any such requests must be “in writing and supported by substantial evidence
contained in a written record” (4 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)).
The Resolution, despite acknowledging these federal restrictions on local zoning authority in its
recitals, violated each of these provisions in that the decision was discriminatory, based on the effects of RF
emissions and not supported by substantial evidence.
The decision also constituted an abuse of discretion in that it denied the Permit based on an alleged
need for an antenna policy for residentially zoned areas. Thus, denial constituted a retroactive rulemaking in
violation of AWS’s due process rights. In addition to concerns about health risks, the denial is based on
speculative and unsupported concerns regarding property values, opposition to the placement of antennas in
residential areas despite the City Code’s allowance for such uses and despite existing City practices, and
unsupported speculation that approval of the site would open the floodgates of applications and would result in
an “Antenna Alley” that is “inundated with false chimneys and radio base stations.“6 The decision thereby
constituted an abuse of discretion and an arbitrary and capricious act of the Planning Commission.
A. The Decision Unreasonably Discriminated Against AWS
On April 5, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a virtually identical installation at 7412
Cadencia Street. The Planning Commission granted Pacific Bell’s application to place three panel antennas
inside a 4’8” faux chimney (the fourth chimney at that location) and to raise the existing chimney 18 inches. In
granting the Pacific Bell application, the Planning Commission made the following findings:
1.
2.
3.
That the use is necessary and reasonable for the development of the community and
in harmony with the General Plan because the antennas are not aesthetically
detrimental since thev are housed within a faux chimney on the roof of a residential
structure;
That the intended use is adequate in size and shape because no alteration in the lot is
required apart from the proposed improvements;
That existing or permitted uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained
in that the antennas will be housed within a faux chimney; and
6 Draft Minutes, p. 14.
COLE, R*YWlD & 6RAVERMAN, L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal June 29,200l
Page 5
4. That the street system is adeauate to handle all the traffic in that the project would
generate only one trip per month.’
The site proposed for 75 12 Cadencia Street will increase the width of two existing chimneys by only
18 inches to hide 5 panel antennas and will add a third chimney approximately 4’ tall to hide a sixth panel
antenna. The design and uses are virtually identical and yet the Planning Commission’s Resolution makes the
following findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the use is not necessary or desirable for the development of the community and
in harmony with the General Plan because the structures and traffic are undesirable;
That the proposed project does not serve the aesthetics, property values, nor maintain
community identity, in that it adds to visual clutter and traffic;
That the proposed use is insufficient in size and shape to accommodate the use
because the site cannot be located on the proper& without the construction of a
visuallv offensive faux chimnev and a faux garage;’
That further studv is reauired regarding the availability of alternative ways and
locations; and
That to allow the construction of this wireless facility, even without considering other
anticipated proposed facilities therein, would create aesthetic impacts in the
neighborhood.’
Despite the similarity of the proposals for two wireless antenna sites, which are virtually identical and
which completely screen the proposed antenna facilities, the Planning Commission draws contradictory
conclusions. In the first location, a faux chimney is “not aesthetically detrimental” and in the present location,
a faux chimney “adds visual clutter.” AWS testified to the possibility of two maintenance trips per month;
Pacific Bell testified to the need for one maintenance trip per month. Yet the Planning Commission concludes
in Pacific Bell’s case that the street system is adequate; whereas, in AWS’s case, two trips per month does not
“maintain community identity” because it “adds to . . traffic.” The Resolution adopted on June 20 cited
AWS’s testimony that additional sites would be necessary (AWS had testified to the need for a single
additional site). Pacific Bell testified to the need for four additional sites, a fact unnoticed by the Planning
Commission in April 2000 and not considered in the Pacific Bell decision. Finally, neither the City nor the
residents testified that problems caused by the existing faux chimney at 74 12 Cadencia would be intensified as
a result of the addition of the faux chimney at 75 12 Cadencia.” In fact, no problems at all were cited
’ See Planning Commission Resolution No. 4750, attached as Exhibit 3.
’ The Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 16,200l makes a contradictory finding which uses the same
language as the Pacific Bell Resolution stating: “ . . .no alteration of the residential lot would be required beyond existing improvements . . . the site and street are adequate to accommodate the use.” Staff Report, p. 3, attached as Exhibit 4.
9 Resolution, paras. 2-9.
“Compare AirTouch Cellular v. City of El Cajon, 83 F.Supp.Zd 1158, 1164 (S.D. Cal. 2000) where workers were accused of urinating at a preexisting antenna site in El Cajon and playing loud music in a manner that constituted. in the court’s
determination, a change of community character justifying discriminatory treatment. There is no reasonable basis for a similar finding in Carlsbad.
COE, hYWlD i 8RAVERMAN. L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal June 29,200l Page 6
concerning Pacific Bell’s previously constructed faux chimney. In addition, there is no argument that the faux
chimney at 7412 Cadencia changed the community character in a manner that justified discrimination against
AWS’s faux chimney. These opposing conclusions and treatments cannot be reconciled and can only lead to a
determination that the Planning Commission discriminated unreasonably against AWS.’ ’
B. The Decision Was Unlawfully Based on Health Concerns Regarding RF Emissions
The Resolution claims that the Planning Commission’s unanimous decision was supported by the
testimony of 17 residents and a petition signed by 37 residents.‘* The principal concern, in many cases the sole
concern, of 10 of the residents was the perceived impact of RF emissions on health. This concern was
expressed repeatedly throughout the Planning Commission hearing. Fears about RF emissions permeated the
hearing notwithstanding instructions from the City Attorney, acknowledgement by residents that the decision
could not be based on RF:related health concerns, and AWS’s testimony that the site would fully comply with
the FCC’s Guidelines on RF emissions. _
C. The Decision Was Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
Federal courts have declared that “generalized concerns” and “unsubstantiated constituent testimony”
about visual and other impacts do not amount to substantial evidence for an adverse decision against a wireless
carrier.13 The federal court has described the “substantial evidence” standard as requiring “such evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion” and declared that the court need not be
bound by “impossible, incredible. unjhasible, or implausible testimony, even fit is not refuted.“” A court
“must overturn the board’s decision under the substantial evidence test if it ‘cannot conscientiously find that
the evidence supporting that decision is substantial, when viewed in the light that the record in its entirety
furnishes, including the body of evidence opposed to the Board’s view.“‘” Moreover, constituent testimony
based not on experience but on speculation would not satisfy the substantial evidence standard of the
Telecommunications Act.”
” This analysis holds true even if the Council draws a distinction between the sites on account of the garage addition. The Pacific Bell site required the placement of cabinets on the northern side of the building, cabinets that are not screened at all and include some wall-mounted equipment. The AWS site, to the contrary, screens the cabinets with a garage that is designed to match the house and will take up less than 1% of the lot. To oppose the site because of the garage addition would, if taken to its logical extreme require that the City prohibit any small structural additions or similar garage additions in the neighborhood as
“visual blight.”
” The actual number of residents testifying was 1 bone resident was allowed to testify twice.
I3 Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. City of Scranton, 36 F.Supp.2d at 222,229 (M.D. Penn. 1999).
I4 El Cajon, 83 F.Supp.Zd at 1164 (emphasis added).
I5 Sprint SpecWum 11 Town of Formington. 1997 U.S. District LEXIS 15832. *7 (D.C. Conn 1997). See also Butler v. Apfel.
1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 18725 (91h Cir. 1999) (holding that, under the substantial evidence test, a commissioner’s decision
cannot be affirmed simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence; rather, the court must consider the record as
a whole, weighing both evidence that supports and evtdence that detracts from the commissioner’s concluston.)
I6 El Cajon, 83 F.Supp.2d at 1165.
COLE. f%AYWlD & BRAVERMAN, L.L.t’.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal
June 29,200l
Page 7
Although the dominant theme before the Planning Commission was health-related concerns, the
Resolution points out that the Planning Commission raised the impact of “disclosure” of the site on property
values. However, the testimony supporting this finding was purely speculative and should bear no weight in
the Council’s decision. No one presented evidence that the existing faux chimney at 74 12 Cadencia had any
impact on property values. No one provided studies or offered expert testimony. One resident gave voice to
the concern about property values when he said that “he definitely has health concerns and definitely thinks
that having these sites in a residential neighborhood that there is a stigma to it that affects real estate values.“”
The Resolution corroborates his testimony. ” This testimony must be disregarded by the Council because any
attempt by the City to use property values as a proxy for concerns about health violates the Act’s prohibition
against regulating on the basis of RF emissions.”
AWS stated at the hearing that the value of homes in the San Diego area continues to rise, despite the
presence of cell sites in residential neighborhdods. In addition, studies have shown that even the presence of a
large monopole in a residential setting bears no relationship to single-family home sale prices.20 If monopoles
have no impact on propeti values, surely a false chimney hiding an antenna and an extra garage with
supporting equipment would not have any adverse impact on property values.
In addition to health-related concerns and property values, the Resolution cites a petition signed by 37
people who oppose the site for a variety of reasons. Without the petition language, which we do not have, we
do not know what claims upon which the petition bases its opposition. Furthermore, the courts view petitions
with suspicion and often discount their evidentiary value.21
” Draft Minutes at p. 8.
‘* “Whereas, neighbors, one of who was a local residential real estate sales agent, testified that the disclosure of such facilities
located in a residence or concentrated within a residential neighborhood would have a detrimental effect on resale value of the
neighborhood homes. rim in prru to (I p~I-~~~i~.~(iporerlrinl l~er~ltll hrmrd:. _‘* Resolution, p. 4 (mphnsis dded).
I9 Fmmington at 1997 U.S. District LEXIS at *7. rejecting the argument that local government can base its decision on the
eft‘rct on property \ alues that an unfounded fear of ermsslons could have and findmg that “by considering the effect on
property values, the Commission violates the Act.”
*‘See Affidavit of OAKLEIGH. J. THORNE, attached as Exhibit 5
” See Omnipoint v. Zoning Hearing Board of Pine Grove, 181 F.3d 403, 409 (3’d Cir. 1999)(petitions with almost 800 signatures and generalized allegations of damage to property value are insufficient); OPM-USA-Inc. v. County of Marion, 1999
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19348, *42-43 (M.D. Pla. 1999)(evidence from numerous residents was weak, but evidentiary burden was met on other grounds); Western PCS BTA Corp. Y. Town of Steifacoom, 1999 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 9068, * 18 (W.D. Wash.
1999)(noting that a “petition with many names on it . . . does not add support to the findings reached by the council”). In
Illinois RSA No. 3, Inc. v. Counry of Peoria, 963 F.Supp. 732, 745 (C.D. Ill. 1997), the court reviewed the record, which
included a petition with 200 signatures, and found that it amounted to little more than that numerous people opposed the
facility: “the mere existence of opposition is insufficient to support an agency decision against a request.” There is no Ninth
Circuit authority on whether a telecommunications zoning decision can be based solely on community opposition, El Cahon, 83 F.Supp.2d at 1165. However, the court states that where a petition signed by 212 residents was submitted in opposition to
the project, “a decision must be based on more that just residents’ concerns about neighborhood aesthetics.”
COLE. f&WlD i &tAVLRMAN, L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal June 29,200l Page 8
Finally, suggestions that an additional chimney and a small garage constitute “visual biight” or that
two traffic visits per month for maintenance are not only discriminatory, but they also cannot be taken
seriously as evidence of aesthetic impact, neighborhood incompatibility or a lack of harmony with the General
Plan.”
D. The Decision Was Arbitrary and Capricious and Constituted an Abuse of Discretion
Under California law, permit applications are subject to the laws that are in force at the time the
application is deemed complete. Retroactive application of new ordinances and policies constitutes an abuse of
discretion.‘3 Additionally, the City must follow the required processes for adoption or amendment of a zoning
ordinance affecting the type and intensity of land use. California Gov. Code $5 65800 et seal. defines the
“minimal procedural standards” that a City must go through in order to amend its zoning codes.‘J The state
Code requires all local entities to publish procedural rules for conduct of their hearings, and to hold and notice
public hearings in the manners prescribed therein2’ These Codes are violated when the City attempts to use
an administrative proceeding to substitute for the proper legislative process.26 Such a use of a quasi-judicial
hearing to impose a land use change violates the requirements of the Government Code and the due process
rights of the applicant and the public under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
and Article 1 4 7 of the Constitution of the State of California.
The principal reason stated by the Planning Commission for denying the site was a need for “sound
policy in addressing the issue” and opposition to addressing the issue on a “piecemeal basis.“27 The Planning
Commission has confused its obligation to reach a decision on a specific application with the desire to raise
the debate about the City’s siting policies. The standards for review of this application are in place and the
Commission should be guided by those standards. Efforts to revise those standards cannot be made in an ad
hoc manner in an adjudicative proceeding, but require the full notice and opportunity to be heard as generally
required by federal and state law and specifically in the manner laid out under Cal. Gov. Code $0 65800 et
seq. In the absence of those conditions, the Planning Commission’s decision should not stand.
. ‘r SW photographic simulations attached as Exhibit 6
23 See Bright Development v. City qf Tracv. 20 Cal. App.4* 783. 794 ( 1993): “If City had an off-site undergrounding ordinance,
policy or standard in effect at the time plaintiffs vesting tentative map was deemed complete. then, in the exercise of its administrative power, City could properly impose that requirement as a condition for final approval of the project. (See [ ] Gov.
Code 6 66474.2, subd. (a).) If, however, defendant had no off-site undergrounding ordinance, policy or standard in effect at
that time.. .its imposition of the off-site undergrounding requirement as a condition for approval of plaintiffs project constitutes
an unlawful exercise of its administrative power, i.e., an abuse of discretion.”
24 Cal. Gov. Code Q 65804.
” Cal. Gov. Code $6 65854 -65857.
26 A zoning change governed by Cal. Gov. Code $5 65800 et seq. cannot be made by resolution but must follow the prescribed
procedures. City oj‘Suusoliro 1’. Cuunf?: qfMrwia. 12 Cal.App.3d 550, 564 ( 1970).
x Draft Minutes, p. 15.
COLE. F~AYWID & BRAVERMAN. .L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal June 29.2001 Page 9
IV. Conclusion: The Permit Meets All Citv Requirements and Should Therefore Be Granted
Carlsbad Municipal Code requires the City to find before granting a conditional use permit that the
requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community and is essentially in harmony
with the various elements and objectives of the general plan; that the site for the intended use is adequate in
size and shape to accommodate the use; that all of the requirements necessary to adjust the requested use to
existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained; and that the street .
system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use.28
Given the approval of a virtually identical site in the same zone and under the same conditions and the absence
of sufficient and relevant evidence opposing these findings, the City should come to the conclusion that, like
the Pacific Bell site, this site should be approved.
‘Accordingly, AWS respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission’s
decision of May 16,200l as expressed in the Resolution adopted on June 20,2001, and petitions the Council
to grant CUP No. 00-36.
Respectfully submitted,
COLE, RAYWID & BRAVERMAN, LLP
47
Jeremy H. Ste
Attorneys for AT&T Wireled Services
Attachments
c: Mr. Joseph Morales
Daniel E. Smith, Esq.
Leslie J. Daigle
28 Carlsbad Mun. Code Q 2 1.42.020.
COLE, RAYWID & BRAVERMAN
AT&T Wireless Services
Appeal of CUP 00-36 (7512 Cadencia Street) .
List of Exhibits
1. Planning Commission Resolution No.5006.
2. Planning Commission, Draft Minutes, May 16,200l.
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4750.
4. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, May 16,200l.
5. Affidavit of Oakleigh J. Thome.
6. Photographic Simulations
Exhibit 1
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITH
PREJUDICE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7512 CADENCIA
STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES
CASE NO: CUP 00-36
WHEREAS, AT&T Wireless Services, “Developer” .has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad on property owned by Patrick and Viona L. Van Hoose,
hereinafter referred to as, “me? which property is generally described as:
“Lot 486 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 of La Costa Vale Unit No. 3, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 7950, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County.”
referred herein throughout as ( “the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the real property owner has signed the appropriate application
and disclosure statement giving consent to applicant to locate its cellular facilities on the
residential property; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “F”, dated May 16, 2001 on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, entitled “AT&T Wireless Services, CUP 00-36”, as provided by Chapters 21.42
and 21 SO of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law on May 16,2001, to consider said verified application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission carefully considered the law,
evidence and arguments presented at the public hearing held before it; including the fact
that quasi-public buildings and facilities are conditionally permitted within residential
1
2
- 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
zones, according to the Carlsbad zone code and subject to the Telecommunications Act of
1996; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is aware of its obligation not to
unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services and not to
prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; and
WHEREAS, recognizing that a local government may not regulate the
placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply
with the Federal Communications Regulations concerning such emissions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is mindful that the
Telecommunication Act of 1996 requires it to act on the request for authorixation to place,
construct or modify personal wireless facilities within a reasonable period of time and a
reasonable period of time has elapsed since the filing of the application on October 18,
2000; and
WHEREAS, both the Carlsbad Municipal Code and. the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 require that any decision by a local government to deny
requests to place, construct or modify personal wireless service facilities be in writing and
supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing at which 17 residents of
the surrounding neighborhood testified and a petition in opposition to approval of the
Conditional Use Permit signed by 37 residents was presented, the Planning Commission
voted unanimously to deny the verified application of AT&T Wireless Services for a
Conditional Use Permit; and
.WHEREAS, the neighbors have testified that a similar wireless cellular
service facility for another provider also concealed by the construction of an additional.
PC RESO NO. 5006 -2- 3.2
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
faux chimney was approved by the Planning Commission on April 5, 2000 to be located at
7412 Cadencia Street, two lots and less than 500 feet away from the site under
consideration; and
WHEREAS, the application of AT&T Wireless Services is for a Conditional
Use permit authorizing the addition of a faux chimney and a garage-like structure at 7512
Cadencia Street, which will house the equipment are clearly visible to the neighborhood;
and
WHEREAS, several neighbors testified at the public hearing that their
residences are located adjacent to or in close proximity to both proposed wireless facihties
and, are thus subjected to the additional visual’ obstructions necessary to conceal the
antennas and anci1lax-y equipment and any additional traffic generation for maintenance of
the installation, however minor in nature; and
WHEREAS, testimony at the hearing by a neighbor was that near the
proposed location at 7512 Cadencia Street is extensive existing ham radio antenna
equipment on the roof of a residence which creates a visual blight and radio interference in
the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, testimony from several residents who are subscribers to
applicant service indicate that there is adequate coverage in the neighborhood without the
proposed additional cell site; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that it has some flexibility in the
placement of the facilities necessary to remedy coverage gaps; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that the proposed location would
provide coverage for a radius of only one mile and that additional sites will also be
necessary to provide coverage outside of that radius; and
PC RESO NO. 5006 -3-
1
2
- 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, neighbors, one of whom was a local residential real estate sales
agent, testified that the disclosure that such facilities located in a residence or concentrated
within a residential neighborhood would have a detrimenta effect on resale value of the
neighborhood homes, due in part to a perceived potential health hazard; and
WHEREAS, there was no evidence that alternative locations either on
commercially zoned or residentially zoned properties which would not require. the
intensification of uses at this location have been exhaustively explored’; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the testimony of
numerous neighbors to the proposed site, voicing objections to the construction of
additional protrusions and buildings in their residential neighborhood to accommodate
quasi-public facilities without adequate guidelines to avoid unnecessary concentration of
such uses and structures which in their opinion are not necessary or desirable or in
harmony with the character of the residential neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That the requested use and structures are not necessary or desirable for
the development of the community at this location, nor are they essentially in harmony
with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, which encourage quiet
neighborhoods and maintain a high quality of life, preserving the neighborhood
atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas in that other subscribers testified that
there is adequate coverage in this location and the additional structures and maintenance
related traffic to the site are undesirable and unnecessary.
3. That the proposed project does not preserve the aesthetics, property
values nor maintain community identity, in that it adds unnecessarily to visual clutter and
PC RESO NO. 5006 4
fi y’
1
2
- 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
traffic and would therefore be detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted within
these zones.
4. That the proposed site for the intended use is insufficient in size and shape
to accommodate the use in that both the antenna and ancillary equipment necessary to
operate the wireless site cannot be located on the residential property without the
construction of a visually obtrusive faux chimney and additional faux garage, which
increases lot coverage in a neighborhood with primarily large homes on large lots and
degrades the aesthetics of nearby residences in the neighborhood.
5. That the location of the proposed equipment room will be visibly offensive
to the adjacent neighbor who testified that his lot is on a lower grade and will look up from
his yard to the unattractive garage addition housing the equipment, rather than open space
of the Van Hoose property side yard.
6. That the applicant has indicated that there may be alternative locations in
the neighborhood or nearby on commercial property and that efforts have not been
entirely explored or exhausted to determine if an alternative site may be more appropriate.
7. That the applicant testified that both his company as well as other
wireless providers may make application for an indeterminate number of additional sites
in the same: general vicinity as this application, in the future.
8. That there are alternative ways and locations that have not been
exhaustively explored which would not require the use at this location and that under the
circumstances the application is premature without further study, reports and evidence
which would convince the Planning Commission that this use is both necessary and
desirable and in essential harmony with the neighborhood and its surroundings.
.9. That the Planning Commission finds that it is important to maintain the
integrity of the residential neighborhood wherein the project is proposed to be located and
PC R.&O NO. 5006 -5
1
2
- 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that to allow construction of this wireless communication facility, even without considering
other anticipated proposed facilities therein, would create aesthetic impacts in the
neighborhood which could be avoided where alternative sites for such facilities may be
available. The testimony and petition of the residents in the surrounding neighborhood
expressed concern that their formerly peaceful, private and quiet homes would be changed
if this proposed facility is permitted and that the addition of such .facilities would degrade
their quality of life.
10. The Planning Commission finds that the concerns of the property
owners are legitimate, especially in light of the fact that another wireless site was recently
approved two lots away, and that the evidence presented to the Planning Commission,
including oral and written testimonials, petition and written documentation support this
argument. The applicant has failed to present evidence sufficient to convince the Planning
Commission to the contrary.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Pkning Commission of the City of Carlsbad further
1. That the application is DENIED.
II 2. That the applicant is hereby notified that this decision may be appealed to
the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk within 10 days of the
adoption of this Resolution, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.50.100.
. . . .
. . .
PC RESO NO. 5006 -6- II
1
2
- 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 I
21 ’
22 i
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of June 2001 by the I
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTm:
JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson
C&SBA.D PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5006 -7-
Exhibit 2
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page I
Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION
Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M.
Date of Meeting: May 16,200l
Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
Planning Commission Chairperson &gall called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was led by Commissioner Heineman.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker, Trigas
Absent: Nielsen
Staff Present: Michael Holzmiller. Planning Director
Jane Mobaldi, City Attorney
Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst
Adrienne Landers, Principal Planner
Elaine Blackburn. Senior Planner
Chris DeCerbo. Principal Planner
Skip Hammann, Senior Civil Engineer
Christer Westman. Associate Planner
David Rick, Assistant Engineer
Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner
Frank Jimeno, Associate Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were two sets of minutes for approval-April 18th and May 2nd
DISCUSSION
None
MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
DISCUSSION
None
MOTION
Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of
the Regular Meeting of April 18th.
6-O-O
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux. Baker, Tngas
None
Heineman
,
*. 59
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16.2001 Page 2
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of
the Regular Meeting of May 2nd.
VOTE:
AYES:
6-O-O
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker,
Trigas
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Segall directed everybody’s attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the
Commission would be following for tonight’s public hearing.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
None. .
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public hearing items prior to CUP 00-36 are heard . . . .
Chairperson Segall closed the Public Hearing.
RECESS
Chairperson Segall called a Recess at 769 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson called the Meeting back to order at 6:04 p.m. with six Commissioners present, Commissioner
Nielsen, absent.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Segall asked Planning Director, Michael Holzmiller, to introduce the Item No. 9
9. CUP 00-36 - AT&T WIRELESS - 7512 CADENCIA STREET - Request for approval to
install a new 240 square foot radio base station (RSS) within a new 400 square foot
garage and install a total of six antennas within two expanded chimney structures and one
new faux chimney on residential property located at 7512 Cadencia Street in Local
Facilities Management Zone 6.
Mr. Holzmiller introduced Christer Westman. Associate Planner, who will be assisted by David Rick,
Assistant Engineer.
Chairperson Segall asked the applicant if he wished to proceed with six Commissioners present, to which
the applicant asked to proceed. Chairperson Segall opened the public hearing.
Christer Westman stated the applicant is requesting the City’s approval for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow the installation of a total of six panel antennas and a 240 square foot radio base station at 7512
Cadencia. He went on to say that two antennas were proposed for each of three chimneys; two chimneys
exist and one will be false and in all cases they will be treated with stucco and paint to match the existing
home. Mr. Westman stated that the radio base station will be housed in what will look like a two-car
garage addition and 240 square feet of the 400 square foot space will be used. He said that based on the
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16.2001 Page 3
information available, staff has determined that there are no health risks associated with these types of low-power facilibes as the
FCC allows exposure of up to 1,000 microwatts per centimeter and with this type of facility, exposure at
ground level will be less than two microwatts. He went on to explain that a finding has also been included
in the Resolution which acknowledges wireless communication’s role in providing telecommunications
during emergency and during day to day living by the public at large. Mr. Westman stated that staff is
recommending approval.
Chairperson asked Ms. Mobaldi to enlighten the Commission on what they can and cannot rule on relative
to wireless sittings.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that tlie Federal Telecommunications Act has preempted certain actions by local
government and it provides that you cannot regulate !he placement, construction, modification of personal
wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent
that such facilities comply with the Commissions Regulations concerning such emissions. She pointed out
that if you are looking a site and they comply with the Federal Communications Commissions Standards,
then you are not allowed to prohibit the placement of that site based on radio frequency concerns,
environmental effects, EMFs etc.
Commissioner Compas recalled that sometime ago the Commission had a somewhat similar proposal
before them in a quasi-residential area, which was, as he recalls, a transmission power line between
residential areas. He pointed out that the Commission, after a couple meetings, approved that project and
then the City Council rejected it, as they said it is not acceptable and as a result of that there was going to
be a study to look at it. Commissioner Compas stated that the study, as he understands, has not
happened yet. He asked if it is possible that they could delay this application until they get that study?
Ms. Mobaldi replied that it would not be appropriate to delay based on that request for a study by Council
because Council has not chosen to place a moratorium on the location of the cell sites. She further
explained that had they wanted to forestall any actions on these kinds of applications, they could have
done so and they did not choose to take that action. She explained that it is not appropriate for the
Planning Commission to do that because Council has not prohibited these cell sites by placing a
moratorium on their application.
Commissioner Baker asked if there were any pictures of what the house looks like or drawings of what the
chimney will look like?
Mr. Westman pointed out the exhibit (a drawing) on the wall. pointing out the two chimneys which exist
and which would be modified to accept the panel antennas and resurfaced to have the same color and
texture of the existing chimney plus the new chimney. He showed the location of the two-car garage
addition where the radio base station would be located. Mr. Westman stated that the lot itself is
approximately one acre and the distances from the structure to property lines is approximately 50 or 60
feet with the new addition, approximately 100 feet from the chimney to the property line, then in the back
of the property it is approximately 100 feet to the property line from the proposed chimney panels and also
on the north side of the property it is approximately 50-60 feet to the property line. He said he also has
some photos (but no copies) which he passed on to the Commission and then to the audience.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Westman to enlighten them on the similar project (located two houses up
from the proposed site) that was approved last year.
Mr. Westman stated there is a similar facility at a home located at 7412 Cadencia that went through a
similar process. He said it is with the same type of installation with a faux chimney, although they did not
add a fake two-car garage for a radio base station because they housed it somewhere else on the
property. Mr. Westman added that it was constructed and it is in operation.
Commissioner Trigas recalled that when the Planning Commission was discussing the facility located at
7412 Cadencia. that there was a great deal of concern as far as future precedent and the Planning
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 4
Commission wanting some guidance from the Council. She understands that it has been raised but it has yet to happen because
of the need of a workshop plus the activity of other workshops. Commissioner Trigas stated that the health problem was an
issue as well for this similar facility and asked if the Planning Commission believes that Item No. 9 is
incompatible with the neighborhood, is that legally acceptable or is the Planning Commission also
precluded from ruling because it is a cell site?
Ms. Mobaldi stated no. that the Planning Commission has to make a finding to approve the CUP, that it is
compatible with the residential neighborhood. and if the Planning Commission does not feel they can
make that finding, then they can deny it.
Chairperson Segall asked the applicant to make his presentation to the Planning Commission.
Chris Morrow, Morrow Consulting, 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150, La Mesa, CA 91941, 619-462-1595.
Mr. Morrow stated he is from Darang Tech from AT&T and they are pleased to be there on behalf of AT&T
Wireless. He thanked Mr. Westman and the Planning staff in the help of processing this project and the
preparation of the staff report, which contains unconditional recommendation of approval because the
project has no visual impacts, no neighborhood impacts and has no health and safety impacts per the
FCC requirements. Mr. Morrow stated the CUP request in brief is just to install and operate a new 240
square foot facility within a garage structure which will have six antennas placed on the roof, one new
antenna and the others will go into an existing antennas which will have a slight enlargement, which will
not go up in height, but merely be expanded on the roof with no visual impacts associated with that
minimal expansion. He Went onto say they are located on little over one acre lot on Cadencia Street, which
like most of the lots on Cadencia, it slopes up from the street, having approximately a 95 foot elevation
gain from the street to the back of the lot. Mr. Morrow said that this site and the surrounding areas is
developed with large lot, single family residences which are set back approximately 100 feet from the
street which is well in excess of the required set backs and AT&T Wireless is not going to be modifying
that in any way, shape or form. He noted as in the staff report, AT&T identified this site as being deficient,
both in terms of coverage and capacity and AT&T has attempted to locate a site in this particular area. He
pointed out that the previous application was by GTE was denied which was the SDG&E lattice tower
(CUP 00-13) which at that time, the discussions of that project indicated that if they were not able to go on
the tower, they would have to find some other sites to cover this area, which is why AT&T Wireless is back
here with today.
He stated that this is one of the two sites necessary to cover the area that would have been covered by
that previous tower. Mr. Morrow went on to say that the design of their project, as described by Planning
staff, completely mitigates any potential aesthetic or visual impact associated with the project and is
completely compatible with the existing neighborhood. Mr. Morrow said that from the street and from the
plans there is simply not an impact from the new construction associated with the facility and he stated he
believes staff has note of that as well. He stated that the site in and of itself will be invisible, that you will
not be able to tell, much like the site up the street at 7412 Cadencia. He pointed out that if you drive by
that, you have no hint of the facility that is there, which is the purpose behind stealthing these facilities. Mr.
Morrow went on to point out that the FCC has allocated a portion of the radio spectrum to AT&T for the
provision of their wireless communication services. which is what AT&T Wireless is hoping to do here, to
continue to provide that service. He said the proposed facility operates in a frequency range between 869
to 894 megahertz, per the FCC license, which the power required by the facility is very, very low and will
not exceed 25 watts per channel or 125 watts per sector. There are two sectors on this roof; a total of 250
watts, which is extremely minimal and disperses rapidly and will have no impacts from the FCC
perspective. Mr. Morrow explained that the criteria is set arbitrarily very conservatively where AT&T
Wireless tits within that criteria, which is already several orders of magnitude below where a hazard could
begin to exist, is at .038 percent which is less than one percent of the allowable standard. He pointed out
that it is important to note that the FCC limits are set many times higher, so even though AT&T Wireless is
really low, the order of magnitude is incredible because of the conservative nature of the limit. He
reiterated that AT&T Wireless is very. very low and the proposed facility’s max exposure is such a small
fraction of the allowable limit which is part of the reason why AT&T Wireless has a Negative Declaration
on the project from an environmental perspective. Mr. Morrow affirmed that the City has stated there are
[Ciiristopher Morrow - 05-16-01 .min.doc _ Page51
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 5
no negative impacts associated with this project, which AT&T Wireless fully supports. He stated that in addition, all AT&T facilities
are evaluated by an RF Engineer prior to construction and after construction.
He pointed out that the City of Carlsbad is rather unique in San Diego County in that one of their standard
conditions for wireless facilities is the provision of a Performance Report within six months after
construction and operation of the facility. The wording within that condition today states that the cumulative
impacts of that facility will be evaluated within that report and AT&T Wireless is happy to do that. Mr.
Morrow stated that his report will not only evaluate, but it will read any other impacts that may be coming
from the Pacific Bell Wireless site; that could be coming from the ham radio operators in the
neighborhood; that might be coming up from the La Costa Golf Course; the security force who uses
walkie-talkies; it could be any combination of radio or police transmissions that get into that, which is
simply radio waves, not anything above or beyond that. Mr. Morrow went on to say that once constructed
and operational, the facility will provide 24-hour service to its users and they do not anticipate anymore
than perhaps one to two trips a month to maintain equipment on an as-needed basis, as lots of the .
equipment hopefully can be maintained from remote locations, so there will be minimal traffic associated
with the facility. He pointed out that as he had noted per the California Environmental Quality Act and
Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and circulated and there were not comments received
either verbal or written on that Negative Declaration, which is entirely appropriate since there are no
visual, physical or health and safety impacts associated with the project
Mr. Morrow repeated that there are no land use impacts associated with this project, there are no public
health, safety and welfare impacts associated with this project and pointed out that it is not just him saying,
but it is the staff report saying it and the FCC as well. Mr. Morrow pointed out that the City staff fully
supports it because it is in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations and AT&T Wireless feels
that the facility is well sited and appropriately designed and very deserving of the Planning Commissions
.support. He-stated that AT&T Wireless has worked very diligently to create an invisible and safe site and
again they wholeheartedly recommend any support for this facility.
Commissioner Compas pointed out that the Planning Commission approved, as Mr. Morrow has
mentioned, one other such facility on a residence up in that general area and then it was also mentioned
the one that the Planning Commission approved and the City Council rejected. He asked Mr. Morrow,
from his perspective, that if the Planning Commission approve Item No. 9, if he sees that his competitors
and others will be wanting to rush up there and do the same thing?
Mr. Morrow replied that he thought that within the industry, because of the difficulty in obtaining permits in
some areas of the county, primarily based upon topographic reasons and the development patterns, there
is a lot of residential there, becomes extremely difficult to cover and serve certain areas, this being one of
them. He stated that he knows this is not an easy approach, while it is easy for AT&T Wireless to satisfy
the FCC and to satisfy the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit, it is an entirely different issue
satisfying the needs and wants of the Planning Commission which, obviously the Planning Commission
has the ability to do what they want with this particular project. Mr. Morrow stated that no one else, to his
knowledge, has gone up into that part of Carlsbad right now and has looked at anything or submitted any
plans for that area as it is limited in terms of its application. He said that part of the problem they had in
that area is that he did not want to go to Cadencia Street, as they know that Pacific Bell Wireless had gone
there and they were successful, but it was a hurdle and AT&T Wireless wanted to go to other places and
that is why they looked at the golf course, the SDG&E towers, the proposed commercial center that is
going to be rebuilt down on the comer, but none of those worked out from a timing perspective. Mr.
Morrow conferred that future providers are probably going to look at it.
Commissioner Compas stated he just wanted Mr. Morrow’s opinion.
Ms. Mobaldi asked to address a point related to Commissioner Compas’ last question. She stated that the
law also provides that you have an obligation as the decision-makers not to unreasonably discriminate
against functionally equivalent providers, so you need to take that into consideration.
ys I Christopher Morrow - 05-16-01 .min.doo
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 6
Commissioner Baker asked. regarding some coverage areas, if Mr. Morrow could give the Planning Commission an idea on the
lack of coverage that this particular area has from La Costa Avenue north or what sort of a service-holder is in
La Costa? She also asked that if there is a lack of coverage, does that affect any of the emergency
service providers of the City i.e., Fire, Police etc.?
Darang Tech, 7480 Convoy Court, San Diego. CA 92111. replied to Commissioner Baker’s question
concerning the coverage hole, that along La Costa Avenue coming up to the hill from the l-5 near El
Camino Real to the Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and that is mostly me general area., He stated that the
coverage for this particular proposed site is approximately one mile radius, but because of the terrain it
does not cover up on Ranch0 Santa Fe Road going into San Marcos.
Commissioner Baker asked if this site is allowed will this solve the coverage problems in this area or will
AT&T Wireless need another site?
Mr. Tech stated they would need another site on the other side of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road.
Commissioner Baker asked if they know miles wide, how far to the north do they have coverage or is their
hole?
Mr. Tech stated that right now it is all the way across into San Marcos and around Ranch0 Santa Fe it is
dead at this point for AT&T Wireless.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the emissions from the rejected tower site is equal to what is being put up at
7512 Cadencia Street or is it more or less, and if less, how much less?
Mr. Tech replied that it is about the same, but the tower was 55 feet above the ground and this one is 30
plus feet from the ground, but this site is still very. very low.
Mr. Morrow stated further that the emissions are very interesting in that the further you get away from the
source, they dramatically reduce. He further stated that there is a big tower up there that the previous
proposal was for and there were more antennas on it so I just thought yes, they will produce more power
and they will do that at the source, but because the tower is so much higher off the ground, 55 feet vs. 37
feet, much less of that power reaches the ground, so the higher you are, the further away you are from an
antenna, the less power that you receive or less energy you receive from that and in fact the FCC has
another exclusionary category where if you have particular antennas that are located in any way shape or
form except on a building, 30 feet or more above the ground, you don’t even have to deal with them
because through scientific evidence, nothing reaches the ground.
Chairperson Segall stated that at that time the Planning Commission asked GTE if that was the only
location and they said yes it was the only location they could go in the entire area, but it does not sound
like that is the case.
Mr. Tech stated that it was the only location to do the coverage using only one site and now they are
asking for two sites.
Chairperson Segall asked when the other hearing would be for the other site.
Mr. Tech replied that he was not sure.
Chairperson opened public testimony.
Debi Horen. 7512 Brava Street, Carlsbad said she may answer some of the questions regarding the past
project and the current project and some of the relationships because her main concern here is the
relationships with all of these projects. Ms. Horen stated she was concerned because she lives in a safe
and quiet residential neighborhood that, at this point is teaming with radio waves, as Cadencia Street is
5. 14 c
( Ctyistopher Morrow - 05-16-01 .min.doc Page 7 i
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 7
turning into what she calls “Antenna Alley”. She said that last year she thought is was Sprint that installed the three antennas twc
doors up the street, but she concluded it must be Pat Bell. Ms. Horen thought it had gone by very quietly as she had just
moved in so she did know when or how that had happened. She stated she was noticed about the AT&T
proposed site and as she was going door to door in the neighborhood talking to people about it, she
discovered that across the street from the proposed site at 7535 Cadencia Street there are three antennas
on the roof of that person’s home and that is for the purpose of transmitting ham radio, which is much
more dangerous than the cell transmissions in that it is almost unregulated. She continued that the person
at 7535 Cadencia Street can transmit up to 2000 watts of power and that is pointed directly in the
backyards of some of her neighbors on her street. Ms. Horen pointed out that they all suffer from
television interruptions from that and unknown health effects and that it is because of that and now this
new site, radio base station with six more antennas, that she is concerned that the trajectory for all of
these antennas bears down on many of the homes where most of the people in this room live. Ms. Horen
respectfully asked the Commissioners if any of them had gone out to see this site at all? [Some
Commissioners answered affirmatively.] She also asked if any one had taken into account the
accumulative effect of the six existing and six proposed antennas, which is her main concern here. Ms.
Horen confirmed her awareness of the FCC regulations that you cannot discuss potential health risks if
these facilities fail within the FCC specs. She stated that however, she thinks all can concur that the long-
term health effects of radio waves has not been determined since this is a new phenomenon, even having
them and there are no long-term studies and the World Health Organization, which is a very conservative
organization, says that there are big gaps in the studies and the jnformation out there and does
recommend that certain things are done until all of the gaps are filled and the information comes in and
that is to keep them away from children, and there is a whole list of things. Ms. Horen restated that it is the
accumulative effect that she is concerned about and the Emissions Safety Guide does talk about the
accumulative effect and she asked, since it wasn’t taken into account and the Negative Declaration did not
take into account the cumulative effect that needs to be looked at. She stated she is asking for at
minimum an Environmental Report that can add up all of the wattage of these houses that are very close
by and pointing towards their neighborhood and see in fact what are the effects. Ms. Horen stated she has
a lot more to go but that she is delivering a petition that has 37 signatures of people that are concerned in
the neighborhood about property values and a range of things in that. She asked for a show of hands of
how many people are present who are out for this proposed site as not everyone will speak. She finalized
by saying she has a lot more to say if they have more questions, she has researched this fully and
delivered the petition to the Commission.
Chairperson Segall requested to enter for the record about six documents that Commissioner Compas
was handed.
Carl Price. 7521 Brava Street, Carlsbad. Mr. Price stated he is opposed to this project and listening to the
proposal this evening by Mr. Morrow he is puzzled by the implication that yes there might be commercial
sites available for siting the antenna, but they are not available yet and he thinks it would be worthwhile to
take a somewhat longer term view and that if indeed such sites were available within the next 18 months
or two years such a delay should hardly be considered a serious problem in terms of global
communications.
Terence Mills, 7519 Brava Street, Carlsbad. Mr. fv?lls stated that in the interest of time, many of his
questions were already answered and he thinks the presentation in the building is not really an issue, it
seems appropriate. He said what he has heard tonight that there is some question to how many facilities
will be allowed and they have already said that they need an additional facility to cover this area, so his
question is how many facilities can we have? He stated that this is AT&T and there is also an existing
facility, how many other competitors are going to want facilities? He asked if they were going to have
every house up there, including some empty lots that will have houses built on them eventually that will all
have these facilities. He stated he does not know how important it is to have the cell phone drop out in that
area as he certainly uses the cell phone and he appreciates when it does not drop out, but a facility of this
nature that has an impact on the neighborhood, an unknown impact and also a commercial facility. He
does not understand how a commercial facility can go into an R-l neighborhood
Page 8 i
I
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16.2001 Page 8
Tommy Petrovic. 7582 Caloma Circle, Cansbad. Mr. Petrovic stated his residence is located about .1 mile
away from the proposed site or about 300 feet in aerial distance. He shared that he works in the wireless
industry and has some questions that relate to the health issues. He began with the antennas that are
going to be installed on the property and asked if they, as neighbors who live in the vicinity where we are
affected by this, are we going to have the information as to what type of antennas are installed, whether
they are the high-gain antennas or low-gain antennas? Mr. Petrovic pointed out that the antennas are
designed to work in a certain beam pattern and he wanted to know which pattern AT&T is talking about?
He stated that the reason he called here is if the Planning Commission as a Council could stipulate AT&T
to provide and substantiate the evidence of the emissions, first of all, and the RF patterns occurring from
the emissions from these antennas. He asked first of all if that is possible, if the Planning Commission can
do anything about it? Mr. ‘Petmvic pointed out that AT&T and a lot of other companies in the wireless
arena are self-regulated, and he is not sure if the FCC really comes in and inspects the site and if so, how
will the concerned neighbors know that these companies are going to be FCC comptiant? He asked if
there would be a third party doing the evaluation every six months? He shared that he is also worried
about the effects of the radiation on the long term cumulative effects of five or seven years from now,
whether the neighborhood is going to call Mr. Morrow because if there are any problems health-wise that
occur in that neighborhood he wondered who is going to work with that as Mr. Morrow is just an employee
of AT&T. Mr. Petrovic asked if the Planning Commission has any documents that AT&T can disseminate
to the neighborhood specifying exactly what is site emit?
Youre Shadian, 3321 Venado, Car&bad stated, on behalf of his wife and his son, that they live 50 yards or
so to the antenna site. He explained that he was introduced to Mr. Hank [Hank Kleis], the site specialist of
AT&T Wireless, and to another site which is on the comer of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue which
is more like a commercial site. Mr. Shadian stated that he went as far as to call New York, the
manufacturer, Narada. and talked to the representative, who is out of Long Island, NY. He stated that the
representative told him that they do not allow in New York this kind of deviceantennas in the residential
area because of a health hazard. The representative explained to Mr. Shadian that he was coming here to
San Diego at that time to go over these things with the site specialist. Mr. Shadian pointed out that his
neighbor has four kids also and there was also another site that was built not long ago, so he is very much
concerned about the health of this project. He pointed out that the representative of Narada was very
concerned that they are putting the antennas so close to properties in a residential neighborhood. Mr.
Shadian stated that they are very much concerned and we would like to know if these things will go further
and if so, they might have to challenge this in court.
Commissioner Trigas asked Mr. Shadian if Narada represents the manufacturer of the particular device?
Mr. Shadian responded that Narada is the manufacturer of these antennas for AT&T. He mentioned that
he could give the Planning Commission the phone number so they could speak with him.
Ken Hubbard, 3027 Garboso Street, Carlsbad stated his residence is about l/lOth mile from the proposed
site and that he has lived in the neighborhood for about 14 years, and it is a pure residential
neighborhood. He mentioned that he is really appalled that the Council is considering putting a commercial
site in a residential neighborhood like what they live in or any residential neighborhood. He stated there
are commercial sites available for this type of equipment and that is where it should be. Mr. Hubbard said
there is more than just the aesthetic that does bothers him, because it is in a house similar to what they all
live in, but it is the health aspect of the combined microwave, RF radiations. He said from what he has
read that the experts are not ,in agreement as to the dangers and the safety hazards of micro- wave
radiation from multiple base antennas, which is what they are proposing on this site. He stated he has fine
coverage of his cell phones as he has never had any drop out, but said that there is an awful lot of AM
radio interference in that neighborhood which it is very prevalent at night and could be coming from all the
combined radiation that is coming through that area. He requested that it be checked by an FCC or a
radiation specialist or whoever does that sort of thing in the government, before anything is sited any
further as it is necessary to see what is there now, which may be too much as it is. He concluded that he
did not think this is the right place for this facility.
- - 1 Chrktopher Morrow - 05-16-01 .min.doc Page 9 i
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,ZOOl Page 9
Jack Tavelman, 33 15 Venado Street stated he lives directly to the northeast of the proposed site and adjacent fo the
site that was put in last year, making his property lines to touch on both sites. He shared thar they purchased the
house last June, before the installation of the other site, without disclosure from the seller that that site
was going to be installed. He said that they were rather upset when they started putting the site on the
house next door. Mr. Tavelman stated that he has four young children, the youngest being one year old
and he definitely has health concerns and definitely thinks that having these sites in a residential
neighborhood that there is a stigma to it that it affects real estate values within the neighborhood and he is
definitely unhappy about the site going in that he did not know about when he purchased the property and
never had a chance to question or speak out on it. He further stated that he does not really want
commercial going into his residential neighborhood. He explained that the Planning Commission must
know that the real estate values are quite high in that area, so even if it affects his real estate price by
lo%, that you are talking about a lot of money, and as a California real estate broker and an active broker
in the area he stated that he knows that high power lines affect real estate prices and he believes that
these cell sites also affect real estate prices.
Michele Nix-Schmaltz, 7513 Brava Street, Cartsbad stated that her residence is down the hill from the
proposed site. Her question was regarding when she comes out on Cadencia on Ranch0 Santa Fe Road,
there is a big water tower over there; there are other places; there is a big box canyon-is there no other
place that you can site this except in the middle of a residential area? She shared that there are many
young families there and that she knows this is not supposed to be an issue, but, she went on to say, until
the Council finishes its study and the regulations are a little more specific about the long-term effects, she
definitely is not in favor of this project.
Thomas Drake, 7523 Brava Street, Carlsbad. He had his small daughters with him and stated that they
live at the end of the cul-de-sac that can be seen on the left side of the map. He said that they have been
there about three years now and he did not know at the time the site was going to go in as it may have
influenced their decision to purchase in the neighborhood if they had known. He reiterated that he has hAlo
daughters and also a wife that mean more than anything in the world to him and should anything ever
happen to them as a result of the emissions from these sorts of towers, if they contracted brain tumors or
something, not saying it would happen, it probably will not, but should it happen in 20 years, he asked
what he should do, come back to the City and ask for an apology? He said that is sort of an irreparable
harm that we all fear. He said he does not understand why it is encumbent upon the City to fill cell phone
coverage holes. He stated that he understands the home owner of the site stands to gain anywhere
between $1,000 to $1,500 a month, to which he stated it seems like a pittance to force us all to live in fear.
Mr. Drake concluded with asking the Planning Commission if they would want this cell tower in their
backyard or next to their house, of which he was sure their answer would be no.
Diana Klein, 7577 Delgado Place stated that her residence is looking right up on the site. She was
concerned that every other house there is going to be some sort of site and that it has been said over and
over again tonight, why do we have to have it there as it is a nice residential area. She knows it is buyer
beware that all they have to do is a little notice in the paper and if you are not reading it that day or
however long the notice has to be in, that these little things can just get snuck in, but she concluded that is
the way it is. She went on to share her main concern is the health issues and that she does not really care
what the findings are. She stated that she ‘does not think they need to have it and she is very concerned
that every other house is going to have something like this. Ms. Klein shared that we just do not need it,
therefore, she concluded that she is extremely opposed to it.
Patricia Dice, 7412 Brava Street, Carlsbad. She stated her residence is just around the other side from the
site being discussed. She said she is there to add her voice of agreement with the other people that have
spoken. She pointed out that she too has the concerns about health. Ms. Dice mentioned that the word
she has heard a lot is the facility, the facility. She continued that what is behind it or what is in there is
what she is concerned about. She asked that the Commission act responsibly in the interest of the
residents of the community in quantity as they are talking about one homeowner and a large company, but
she stated that she is asking that the concerns be heard and considered and acted upon.
j Ch&topher Morrow - 05-16-Ol.min.doc k- Page IT
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16.2001 Page 10
Marian Cartwright, 7412 Brava Street, Carlsbad stated that her residence is directly west of the 7412 Cadmcia, Pat
Bell antenna site that was approved and will be on the other side of the proposed antenna. She shared that
she is opposed to this for several reasons and apologized if she is redundant. She stated that the number
one important one is the long term health risk, especially the radiation. She stated that she also carries an
AT&T cell phone and she is a pharmaceutical rep and she is in North County all the time and she has no
problem with talking to people up in that area. Ms. Cartwright stated that if she does, they are just talking
within a mile radius and she can go to a pay phone and talk to somebody if she needs to talk to them. She
confirmed that she does not want a commercial site in a residential area that is why she is opposed to this.
Richard Macy, 3306 Venado Street, Carlsbad. He stated that he lives directly behind the site that the
Planning Commission approved about one year ago and he looks down the hill on it. He said they heard
the same things a year ago that it blends in with the house. Mr. Macy stated that when he goes down his
drive way he has the San Diego Gas and Electric box, the cable box, one other box and the new box
which does not show up on any of these plans that comes from the wireless facility. He said that it makes
an eye sore in front of his house and it is not talked. He stated he could guarantee the Planning
Commission that is an eye sore because he can look down his driveway on it. He pointed out that it is not
necessary as he is a cell phone user and has no problem. He stated that he is using the Verizon system
and he has coverage. He again stated that it is not necessary and it is a residential area.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Macy in reference to the eye sore again, if he was referring to just that one
box in the street next to the cable box? He also asked if these boxes, to which Mr. Macy is referring, if
they are on the curb?
Mr. Macy affirmed that is what he is referring to and further stated that he wished they would do something
to dress those things up, but they do not because he guesses they have to get access to them. He stated
that these boxes are on the curb and right now he has about a 14 foot long row of boxes in front of his
house. He said that the thought of five more cell people coming in and all put a box in that same place,
because it seems to be a popular area, is very scary to him.
Bill Bishop, 3139 Del Rey Avenue, Carlsbad. He said he was not going to address those long boxes
because it is a different issue, but he stated he has one outside his house as well. He stated that he lives
right across the street from the proposed site on the corner of Del Rey and Cadencia. He said that he
jokes with Pat Bell because of the box that they are there almost every day as if it is their office. He stated
that he had not realized how elaborate that box is until they started opening it up and he saw that there are
a lot of wires etc. to which he said that is another issue altogether. Mr. Bishop stated he was not aware of
the other antennas just up the road until this issue came up. He stated that there is just a lot of electricity
etc going in that area, a lot of things in the air. He said it just seems like enough is enough. He qljestioned
how much more of this is going to be there. Mr. Bishop was concerned about the fake chimneys and fake
garages in a residential neighborhood. He said again that enough is enough and he questioned when he
drives down the road that he would not be sure if some one lives there or not.
Jon Nerenberg. 3204 Carvallo Court, Carlsbad pointed out on the map where he is located which is
physically the closest to this god-awful structure that is going in. He said that he represents a number of
families on his block as well as his three and five year old children. Mr. Nerenberg said that when he and
his children are playing the backyard, which they do often, that they do see the existing garage structure
as well as the existing chimney on the property for this item. He explained that the property slopes down
where he is about 45 feet from the proposed edge, where it slopes down pretty steep. He said when he
looks up from his backyard he sees the corner, the awning and eave and everything. He stated that he
would have a twenty-foot wall that he will see. He believed that his property value will be affected just in
the fact that now he will have a structure behind his house that he did not have and did not want to have
when he originally bought the house. He also stated that he would have divulge that to any future buyers.
Mr. Nerenberg mentioned that a couple of people said that it really is not much of a visual eye sore, but he
continued that it is funny that he sees a picture next to it if you squint your eyes they almost look the
same. He stated that his neighbors and he joke that it is the motel on Cadencia and he asked and
challenged the Planning Commission to take a look. He stated that Commissioner Compas has seen it
and it looks like a hotel according to Mr. Nerenberg and he considers it already an eye sore from the
; Christopher‘Morrow - 05-16-01 .min.doc L) --
, P&je 11 j
/ DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 11
street. He said having that wall about 40 feet from his property line will do him nothing but harm when he looks to
resell his house.
Chairperson Segall stated that Mr. Nerenberg is referring to a wall and asked if there is a wall going up or
is it the existing structure?
Mr. Nerenberg replied that it is the existing structure and recently the owner has placed some trees that
have started to grow, but Mr. Nerenberg can still see through them and he can see the top three or four
feet from his backyard and living room. He pointed out what he would now see that was pushed about 20
to 25 feet closer to his property line.
Larry Douglas, 7505 Brava Street, Carlsbad commented that AT&T may need some sites, but he is not
sure that they have proved definitively that this particular location needs to be in place for them to stay
viable and competitive. He said financially it may be easier to put one in a residential center than it is a
commercial, so that they may have financial incentives there also. He stated that he would also like to see
definitively that they have looked at all possible alternatives first and he would like to see that documented
before they put one and choose a residential site. He also stated that he hoped the Planning Commission
would act along those lines also in the best interest of the people present and that it is a residential site.
Commissioner Baker confirmed to Mr. Douglas that he mentioned not privy to the last site being approved,
did you not receive the notice or did you not live in the neighborhood.
Mr. Douglas replied that he lived in the neighborhood for the last seven or eight years and he pointed out
that he was not saying it was not mailed out but that maybe he did not see it or maybe it got circular filed,
but he did not know. He said that if you polled most of the people in here, they were not aware that that
had ever taken place. He concluded that he did not know if they were improperly noticed or what, but he
thought something probably was amiss if this many people in the same area are showing up tonight and
they were not even aware that that other site was in.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Douglas how did he find out about tonight’s hearing?
Mr. Douglas responded that from the neighborhood group somebody became aware and he was not even
noticed for he got this information via phone calls and conversations in the neighborhood. not by a notice.
Debi Horen, 7512 Brava Street, Cartsbad (previously spoke and was timed for three minutes rather than
the full five minutes). Ms. Horen stated that it is clear that the health concerns in the room are palpable but
she voiced that she knows that is something they are not suppose to pay attention to, so she said she is
going to focus a little bit on some of the other areas where the Planning Commission can use their
discretion and that is compatibility with the neighborhood. Ms. Horen continued that since Morrow
Consulting did state that this project is a replacement site for the GTE site project, she said she went back
a little bit and found out why was that site kicked out in City Council after it was approved here. She said
the main reason was that they did not dress it up and hide it and.paint it in a garage and so they got it
more on aesthetics. She explained that also some of the points that they used as reasons for denial was
the introduction of additional noise into a quiet neighborhood where they talked about air conditioning for
the equipment and she was wondering if this site is the same site, then is there not the same kind of noise
levels or potential for noise levels? She said they also talked about introduction of additional commercial-
related traffic in a residential neighborhood being inappropriate from monitoring equipment, even though it
sounds like it is minimized once a month, twice a month, perhaps more if it needs repair-she stated that
they do not know, but those can turn into public safety issues or questions and also as she stated earlier,
there is a bus stop right at the foot of this one property here.
Ms. Horen then wanted to quote in their resolution where Council overturned the Planning Commission’s
decision they said, “that the restrtcted 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
,. 64
F - - . -‘. ‘- - : Christopher Morrow - 05-16-01 .min.doc 1 Page li :
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 12
life, preserving open space and to preserve a 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.” Ms. Horen confirmed that those were the
neighborhood compatibility issues. She stated that people have spoken about a lot of other things and
rather than repeat stuff, she said that cellular service is great in the area and it was good to hear that
AT&T is fine in the area, Verizon, Sprint, Cingular, all of those work perfectly well and so they are
questioning why this location? She shared that there is a tennis club up the street that is a little more
commercial, people do not live there around the clock. She asked if that has been looked into? She
continued that just overall the question remains, is there going to be some plan about the placement of
these cell sites in Catlsbad or is it going to be helter-skelter, wherever the wolf can pounce, they go there
and they all go in the same place, if that is a good spot or will there be some responsibility to actually have
some kind of proactive plan so they do not have to have this kind of thing occur on a regular basis?
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Segall closed Public Testimony and asked staff (and
the applicant when it is appropriate) to respond to the variety of questions that were asked.
Mr. Westman stated that as to the total number of antennas and radio base stations that would be allowed
in the area there does not seem to be any regulations and the City does not have anything in our
Ordinance regarding proliferation of these kind of cell site facilities. .
Mr. Westman stated that staff does not have any studies justifying this location and does not have any
information on alternatives. Mr. Westman acknowledged that they did do a Negative Declaration and the
determination was made that there are no cumulative effects. He pointed out this is classified as quasi-
public, therefore can be allowed in a residential area with a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Westman stated
according to AT&T the facility is not going to be generating noise that would be intrusive into the
neighborhood. In regards to traffic he said the additior. of one or two trips per month for maintenance is not
significant based on design limitations for residential streets.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Westman to elaborate a little bit more on the quasi-public and asked if it
would be considered a public utility and what exactly does quasi-public mean?
Mr. Westman pointed out that quasi-public serves in the public interest as telecommunications and it is not
a public entity but is private.
Commissioner Baker asked if it in the same category as telephone lines, cable, electrical lines, sewer
etc.?
Mr. Westman agreed.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Westman concerning the noticing requirement, how were these neighbors
noticed and could he speak to the one that was previously approved and how they were noticed?
Mr. Westman stated that he cannot speak specifically to the previous project. but relayed the City’s
noticing procedure is: when staff gets a noticing package from the applicant, it is accompanied with a
signed affidavit which certifies the names and addresses are from the latest equalized assessors rolls of
all property owners within 600 feet of the property. He went on to explain the City does an individual
mailing to each of the property owners within that 600 foot radius.
Commissioner Baker asked if there was a cell site located in a residence, would that necessarily need to
be disclosed on a real estate disclosure form?
Ms. Mobaldi responded that she does not know definitively the answer to that, but she thinks the wise and
conservative approach would be to disclose it because some people do have concerns about radio
frequency emissions.
Commissioner Baker asked if they were talking about the facility residence? She also asked if it was the
I--- . I---_’ *- _1 : ~Clyistopher Morrow - 05-16-01 .min.doc
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16.2001 Page 13
property next door, would they be required to disclose that information to the potential buyer that the
neighbors had such a facility?
Ms. Mobaldi stated that she does not know the answer to that question and she does not think it
necessarily bears on the Commissions determination in this case.
Commissioner Trigas asked Ms. Mobaldi to clarify what Council actually ruled on the other site?
Ms. Mobaldi summarized that Ms. Horen touched on a number of the points that the Council made in their
findings in relation to that other site. She stated that some of them had to do with the visual degradation of
the community. That other site was out in the open on an SDG&E tower, an open space easement. They
discussed the necessity for maintaining and preserving open space; about property values; degradation of
property values; about the fact that it was in a residential neighborhood; and that perhaps not all of the
alternatives had been adequately explored prior to intensification of this type of use in a residential
neighborhood.
Commissioner Trigas asked Ms. Mobaldi to explain the fact that other providers cannot be unreasonably
discriminated against.
Ms. Mobaldi said the law provides that telecommunication facilities have to be available to locate in
communities within reason and you cannot discriminate between different providers and so therefore if
you give one provider a site, then you have to offer alternatives to a provider of the same functionally
equivalent service. She continued that the criteria is that you cannot unreasonably discriminate, so
obviously, if you have a reasonable basis for making a distinction between one provider and another, in
terms of their applications to go into a certain location, you may deny one and allow the other to locate
there; however, you have to make those findings and they have to be reasonable in order to be upheld.
Commissioner Tngas asked if another future telecommunications provider can request a similar site in that
same area, would the Planning Commission have to give very valid reasons that they are not
discriminating?
Ms. Mobaldi replied yes. She stated the reasons have to be reasonable in the sense that there is a factual
foundation or basis for them. She suggested in making a determination in this case, that the Planning
Commission consider there already is one site in the neighborhood. Ms. Mobaldi went on to say that if the
Planning Commission finds that they necessarily need to approve this application, they need to take into
consideration the differences and the similarities. She explained that if the Planning Commission makes a
denial in this case, they need to make a record of why they are making that denial, what their reasons are
and how they feel it may be distinguishable from the previous approval.
Commissioner Trigas asked regarding regulations if an independent party comes in to oversee or check
out emissions or does the Planning Commission take the information from the provider?
Mr. Westman responded that once a facility is in, there is a requirement for follow-up analysis of what the
cumulative effects are of that facility. He stated that staff would require the applicant to do the analysis and
to provide the report to staff.
Commissioner Baker asked if the report is annually or just initially after the first six months etc.?
Mr. Westman stated that he was not fully sure, but he believed it may be the one time after six months.
Commissioner Baker asked if the FCC requires an independent investigation or periodic checks?
Mr. Westman stated that he was not sure what the FCC requires, but he pointed out that the City does
have the one condition that talks about a six-month period. He also pointed out that the City has the
standard Conditional Use Permit for an annual review of the Conditional Use Permit and its operation to
Christopher Morrow - 05l&Ol.min.doc 1 Page 14 !
/ DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16.2001 Page 14
see that it is operating consistent with the conditions for approval.
Chairperson Segall asked if that would be the same for the previous site as well.
Mr. Westman affirmed Chairperson Segall’s question.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Morrow to come up to address some of the comments that were made plus
one of his questions he will ask as well.
Mr. Morrow said he had previously addressed most of the questions with his initial presentation as he had
knowledge before hand that these types of questions were going to come up. He stated that it is a
testament to the planning process that these types of projects, through the public notice process, brings
every body out here and suggested that, from some respects, the planning process is the only lightning
rod left to bring communities together and that it is unfortunate it is always over an issue that puts people
into different camps. He pointed out Federal Law regulates the health issue and reiterated that the public
health and safety impacts of this facility were so low as to be a fractional element of that. He gave the
scenario that if the Pat Bell Wireless site were one percent of the FCC regulations, the ham radio operator
(unregulated and probable to be a very serious contributor) may bump that total between all three of the
sites up to maybe five percent of the FCC standard. He suggested that it is still going to be below one
percent-worst-case sitting right here. He assured the residents that it, would be evaluated through the
Conditional Use Permit approval process. Mr. Morrow stated that the City of Cartsbad’s CUP is very, very
rigorous having the requirement to produce a performance-based report within six months of operation,
the requirement to annually review the CUP, plus the CUP is only good for five years. He continued to
explain that the applicant has to come back to explain and rationalize what they are doing and that the five
years was put there to aid the community and address some of the issues associated with the
technological change. Mr. Morrow stated that AT&T cannot wait for other developments to come on line
with no assurance of negotiating a site with them, but they need to perform their business plan today,
which is why they are at this site.
He also stated that AT&T is not in the business of providing a service that is not necessary and was
pleased to hear that all the AT&T subscribers have great coverage and capability in this site. He stated
that if, in fact, they are actually true across the depth and breadth of their customer base, they would not
be here today, that they would not put this site here if they did not desperately need it and they are
seeking to fulfil1 that need in a way that, as recognized by staff, is compatible with the spirit and intent with
the Conditional Use Permit. He pointed out that from the demand issue and from a planning perspective,
you can follow the path of urbanization through the movement of the fast food folks, for they track things
and know what is happening before the government does because their data is far better. Mr. Morrow said
they have been trying to put a site here for a number of years and it has been contentious throughout as
there has been any number of different planners and providers to try to cover this particular area. He said
that he greatly respects everyone’s comment that was here and believed the site is very sympathetically
sited to the community in. that it does not create visual impacts and is well over 100 feet away from the
circulation path, both circulation and automobile. He stated they have done the best that they can do given
the constraints and the regulatory envelope that they work in and he thinks they made that point today. Mr.
Morrow went on to say, in terms of property values, that he has never seen anything in his years of doing
this that has demonstrated to him that a site like this decreases property values. He said he thinks what
they will see here, as in most of San Diego County, is that property values are going to continue to shoot
up. He pointed out that he thought the median home value went up $4,000 last month and did not believe
this site would have any impact on it, which he explained is different from high tension power lines which
do create a significant visual impact as well as an auditory impact. He shared that he was out by the lines
the other day and there was a great deal of movement of electricity that created the popping, among other
noises, which is part of those facilities. Mr. Morrow said the facility they are proposing is quiet, unseen,
healthy, safe, meets the requirements of both the City and the Federal Government. He stated that they
wholeheartedly support the recommendation of approval and hoped the Planning Commission would see
fit to vote that way today.
. . -, ,e-..- - - - I Christopher M&row - 0516-Ollmin.doc I.I _ - -.,-
1 Page151
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16.2001 Page 15
Chairperson Segall pointed out that someone raised a question on the air conditioning and asked if there is a need
for air conditioning similar to the previous site?
Mr. Morrow explained that typically the quipment itself is air conditioned and what they have done on this site
is locate the radio base station equipment in the extension of the garage, which mimics the architecture
and will contain any of the noise associated with those particular pieces of equipment. He also felt certain
the City of Carlsbad has an existing noise ordinance that regulates decibel levels on the property line plus
the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit which the City enforces for AT&T, and the same for Pacific
Bell Wireless that is up the street.
Chairperson Segall added that Mr. Macy commented about some kind of a box in his front yard. He asked
Mr. Morrow if this facility that he is proposing requires some kind of a curb vault or box?
Mr. Morrow stated that his engineer said definitely no.
Chairperson Segall asked if everything is self-contained within the house with no other facilities around?
Mr. Morrow confirmed this and added that usually there are separate meters, but stated they are up at the
house.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Westman if he would support other applicants for this same area that
are similar to this one?
Mr. Westman replied that if the application was submitted and designed to comply with the City’s
regulations then yes, he would have to assume that.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Compas stated he was one of the members of the Commission that approved the facility a
year ago as well as the GTE facility, even though they worked very hard to make a lot of changes in that
application. He acknowledged that he has done a lot of thinking about this situation in the mean time and
acknowledged that AT&T has done a very good-faith job and have done everything expected of them. He
said he was not concerned then and is not concerned now about the health aspect for to him it is not a big
problem, though a lot of people here are very concerned about that. He stated his concern is about the
compatibility problem, as he does not want to see an area that gets inundated with false chimneys and
radio base stations, which he thinks is where the City is headed. Commissioner Compas stated for those
reasons, and for many of the reasons that were cited by the City Council in their denial of the GTE
application--even they are somewhat different, he thinks they still apply to a lot of the conditions)-he is at
this point going to vote against this application.
Commissioner L’Heureux stated she is opposed also.
Commissioner Heineman agreed that he does not think the health problem is an issue and that the
Planning Commission is not qualified to question the FCC assurances. He pointed out that he does share
Commissioner Compas’ concerns regarding one provider after another is going to be coming back to the
same site is probably reason enough to reject this. He stated that he intends to vote against it.
Commissioner Baker thanked everyone who came out to speak about this issue and shared that one of
the things which makes Cartsbad a nice community to live in is that all of us care very much about what
happens in this town. She concurred with her fellow Commissioners regarding the health aspects and they
cannot take that into consideration when talking tonight. She pointed out concerning quasi-public facilities
that we all need to share in some of the pain where they are located if we want to have electricity, cable,
telephones and cell service. She stated she agrees with her fellow Commissioners to consider if we are
locating too many of these in a residential neighborhood. She requested that City Council direct the
Planning Commission, staff or someone to take a look at locating wireless facilities in neighborhoods and
73
Page 16 j
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16.2001 Page 16
how we are going to deal with this in the future. She pointed out that they are coming up in every Planning
Commission where they are dealing with wireless facilities over and over again. She noted that maybe it is ttme that
the City take a look at how we are going to do business with these facilities in the future. Commissioner
Baker shared that she would not be supporting the project tonight.
Commissioner Trigas also concurred and further explained that she has a real problem with compatibility.
She stated too that wanting some clear direction from the Council would make it easier as it will come up
again. She did not feel comfortable with establishing a precedent of additional approval as she did not
think that it helps the quality of life and since Carlsbad does want to promote the quality of life among its
residents she felt that they have to develop a sound policy in addressing this issue and not deal with it
every singl,e time on a piecemeal basis and she hopes that is relayed to the Council - of the Planning
Commission’s concern that they direct the Planning Commission on this one, but she definitely agrees
with her fellow Commissioners on this issue.
Chairperson Segall also agreed with the other Commissioners. He complimented AT&T and Mr. Morrow
for the presentation and the information that they provided tonight and he thought they did a great job. He
stated that the last time this came before the Planning Commission with GTE he voted against the project
because he did not think it was compatible with the neighborhood. He stated he has different issues
relative to compatibility on this project and he would be real concerned about the disclosure of this site and
how that handles real estate values within the neighborhood. He stated that he is also real concerned
about the facilities that the other Commissioners have talked about and how many of these will continue to
go into residential areas. He stated he does not have the same kind of concerns in commercial and
industrial areas, but when these are put in neighborhoods he does have a concern. He agreed that he
would like to ask the Council to give the Planning Commission direction in the residential neighborhoods
and how we are going to site these in the future. Chairperson Segall shared that he too will not support
this project for those reasons.
Commissioner Compas pointed out one thing that might expedite getting the City Council’s opinion is if
AT&T appeals it to the City Council and then the Planning Commission could find out what they think
about it.
Chairperson Segall stated that they have made a minute motion in the past and it looks like the Planning
Commission has made enough comments again, but he explained that he has the same concerns that all
of the Commissioners have which is how far is the Planning Commission going to go with this, and when
they site one and approve it, then there is another. He stated that he does not blame individuals for not
wanting to live on “Antenna Alley”.
Chairperson Segall asked if there are any other comments and seeing none asked for a motion.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution’ No. 4926 adopting a Negative Declaration and adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4927 approving Conditional Use Permit
CUP 00-36 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions found therein.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
6-o-o
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux. Heineman, Baker,
Trigas
None
None
MS. Mobaldi stated that the Planning Commission should refer to her office and they will prepare a
Resolution of Denial.
1 Christopher Morrow - 05-16-01. 1 Page17:
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16.2001 Page 17
Chairperson Segall said the Planning Commission would vote on that Resolution of Denial at the next meeting.
Ms. Mobaldi agreed and said her office would put in the Resolution the findings articulated tonight.
Chairperson Segall asked Ms. Mobaldi to explain the Denial With or Without Prejudice.
Ms. Mobaldi explained that Without Prejudice means the applicant can come back with modifications and
reapply. She said With Prejudice means the matter will not be considered again within a year.
Chairperson Segall asked if they should make that part of the motion regarding if it is with or with
prejudice?
Ms. Mobaldi stated that if you do not specify, it is typically without prejudice.
Mr. Holzmiller pointed out besides the one year waiting period, if the Planning Commission is denying this
on its merits, then you should not say without prejudice because you are making findings that you do not
feel should be approved.
Chairperson Segall asked if this can be appealed to the Council and they can reopen the issue?
Mr. Holzmiller said the motion should be to refer it to the City Attorney’s office to prepare a document
denying the project. He said the only time you would add without prejudice is if you feel that it is being
denied for some sort of lack of information or a more technical thing that you want the applicant to be able
to reapply within a years time period, but it does not sound like that is the situation here.
Chairperson Segall said they need another motion now.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that they just need to direct her to come back next meeting with a Resolution reflecting
what they said here tonight and she will do that.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Compas and duly seconded, to direct Ms. Mobaldi to
come back next meeting with a Resolution reflecting what the Planning
Commission has said here tonight.
VOTE: 6-O-O
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker,
Trigas
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Segall closed the Public Hearing.
RECESS
Chairperson Segall called a recess at 858 p.m.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
75
I Page181
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16.2001 Page 18
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of May 2. 2001 was adjourned at lo:42
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
GARY WAYNE
Assistant Planning Director
Judy Kirsch
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRllTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
76
Exhibit 3
i
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION F2ESOLUTJON NO. 4750
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PCS FACILITY
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7412 CADENCIA
STREET @I LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: SD 369-02 TELECOM FACILITY
CASE NO.: cUP99-11
WHEREAS, Pacific Bell Wireless, uDeveloper”, has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Larry and Jeannetie Yglesia,
“Owners”, described as .
Lot 475 of Carlsbad Tract 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” - “D* dated April 5, 2000, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, SD 369-02 TELECOM FACILITY - CUP 99-11, as provided by Chapter 21.42
and/or 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of April, 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:
II A)
W
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES SD 369-02 TELECOM FACILITY - CUP 99-11, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions: 723
.
I 0
.
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
FindinPs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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 General Plan recognizes that these types of facilities
are necessary and essential to the infiastructural support of urban land uses. Pacific Bell
Wireless indicates that the proposed PCS facility’s calculated worst case radio frequency
power density is well below the FCC standard; therefore, the project would not be
detrimental in that it would not have a significant adverse impact on public health. The
proposed panel antennas and accessory equipment would not be aesthetically detrimental
since they are housed within a faux chimney on the roof of a residential structure and
within .wall mounted cabinets painted to match the exterior of the structure, and are
therefore blended into the existing architecture.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that no alteration of the ,residential lot would be required beyond the existing
improvements.
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 PCS antennas will be housed within a faux
chimney on tbe roof of tbe structure and within wall mounted cabinets along the
northern exterior of the structure.
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the project would generate only one trip per month
for maintenance.
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.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to building
permit.
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.
” PC RESO NO. 4750 -2- 77
.
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
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.
/I 3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances 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. 1
5. 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, f?om 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, f?om (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 Tom the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
6. The Developer. shall submit to the Planning Departxnent a reproducible 24” x 36”,
mylar copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the fmal decision
making body.
7. 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.
8. 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-
PC RESO NO: 4750 -3-
l
l ‘,
.
i
;
s
-
L
4
-
t
I
I
E
s
1C
11
J2
17 u
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9.
10.
11.
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.
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. 4749 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.
The faux chimney shall be integrated into the architectural design using identical
building materials and colors as the other chimneys existing on the roof of the
structure and shall be no higher than 4’8” from roof line.
Code Reminders:
12. 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 are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
13. 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.”
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
8,
-4 PC RESO NO. 4750
l
i
2
3
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of April, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall,
and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Heineman and Baker
ABSTAIN:
/ L&L+ /G k!i774 k-d
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairper&
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4750 -5
Exhibit 4
-. The City of Carlsbad Planning DepaFhent /- zs A REPORb- TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 9 0
Application complete date: October IS. 2000
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 16,200l Project Pianner: Christer Westman
Project Engineer: David Rick
SUBJECT: CUP 00-36 - AT&T WIRELESS - 7512 CADENCIA STREET - Request for
approval to install a new 240 square foot radio base station (RBS) within a new
400 square foot garage and install a total of six antennas within two expanded
chimney structures and one new faux chimney on residential property located at
7512 Cadencia Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4926
ADOPTING a Negative Declaration and ADOPT PIanning Commission Resolution No. 4927
APPROVING Conditional Use Permit CUP 00-36 based on the findings and subject to the
condition found therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This application is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new 240 square foot
radio base station (RBS) as an extension of an existing garage and install six antennas within two
expanded chimney structures and one new faux chimney at 75 12 Cadencia Street in the P-C zone
in the southeast quadrant of the City. Quasi-public utility facilities are permitted in any zone upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Since the findings necessary for granting a
Conditional Use Permit can be made, staff is recommending approval of the telecommunications
facility as proposed
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
AT&T Wireless Services is proposing to install six panel antennas within three chimneys on the
roof of a single-family residence located south of La Costa Avenue on a hillside parcel at 7512
Cadencia Street in the P-C zone. Supporting equipment (RBS) will consist of several cabinets
within a new 12x20 structure built adjoining an existing garage. The residence is located on a
1.07 acre hillside lot on Cadencia Street. The lot ranges in elevation from approximately 211’ at
Cadencia Street to 268’ at the rear of the property. The residential structure is three levels as
seen from Cadencia Street and is set back approximately 100’. The proposed .faux chimney is
located on the roof and is designed to match the existing two chimneys in height and materials
after their expansion. The existing chimneys are 37 feet in height and the proposed faux
chimney will match that height.
Due to poor variable signal strength resulting from steep topography, the site has been identified
by AT&T Wireless Services as a key site necessary to improve wireless coverage in the eastern
portion of La Costa, extending to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. The proposed Cadencia Street site
.
CUP 00-36 - AT&T VWLESS : 7512 CADENCIA S-TREE”
May 16,200l
Page 2 .
location is beneficial due to its natural topography that allows for line of sight to the prima?
coverage area, lack of obstructions, and minimal interference from neighboring telecommunications sites. The developer’s goal is to improve signal quality along La Costa
Avenue and to expand coverage into hard-to-cover, secondary, residential streets serving the La
Costa area. There are no alternative commercial or industrial sites in the area of the Cadencia
Street site.
The proposed project is subject to the following regulations:
l Conditional Use Permit Regulations (Chapter 21.42) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
(CMQ
IV. ANALYSIS
Staffs recommendation of approval for this conditional use was developed by analyzing the
project’s consistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. This analysis will
present, in text, the project’s consistency with the applicable regulations listed below:
A. Conditional Uses
Conditional land uses such as telecommunication 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, and industrial). The required
Conditional Use Permit findings are that the use is consistent with the General Plan, necessary
and desirable to the community, not detrimental to permitted uses in the zone, and that the site and street system are adequate to handle the proposed use.
Although the 1996 U.S. Telecommunications Act prohibits local governments f?om
unreasonably prohibiting wireless services, it does permit regulations that ensure the placement
of facilities in the least intrusive manner possible. Wireless telecommunication facilities that are
integrated into the design of the structure (stealth) are less intrusive than existing public utility
structures currently located throughout the community. Similar existing pubhc utility facilities,
including electrical and communication transmission lines, poles, and towers (i.e. electric, phone
and cable TV), street and parking lot light standards, traffic signals, television and radio
antennas, and satellite dishes, are all commonly found within existing commercial and residential
neighborhoods in the City of Carlsbad. The General Plan recognizes that these types of facilities
are necessary and essential to the infrastructural support of urban land uses.
The proposed project is located in a low density residential neighborhood which is developed
with very large residential structures as well as an adjacent medium density neighborhood to the
west. AT&T Wireless’ Services indicates that the proposed facility’s calculated worst case radio
frequency power density is well below the FCC standard; therefore, the project would not be
detrimental in that it would not have a significant adv:rse impact on public health.
On a project by project basis, the City is requiring that. potential aesthetic visual impacts of
telecommunication facilities be reduced by either: (1) screening the antennas on the roofs of
existing residential, industrial and commercial buildings; (2) blending the antennas into the
architecture of existing buildings; (3) requiring landscaping; or, (4) requiring the facilities to be
CUP 00-36 - AT&T WrRBLESS - 7512 CADENCLA STREET
May 16,200l
Page 3
camouflaged by use of natural colors or other methods to reduce visua1 impacts when they are
viewed from the public roadways. The proposed panel antennas and accessory equipment would
not be aesthetically detrimental since they are housed within a faux chimney on the roof of a
residential structure and within a new building designed and treated to match the exterior of the
existing structure.
Since no alteration of the residential lot would be required beyond the existing improvements
and the project would generate only two trips per month for maintenance, the site and street
system are adequate to accommodate the use
V. ENVIRONMEi’iTALREVIEW
The proposed telecommunications facility has been reviewed for potential environmental
impacts applicable to the use including land use compatibility, aesthetics, and health hazards. Based on the findings of the environmental impact assessment performed by staff in which no
significant impacts were identified, the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration on
March 1,200l. No public comment has been received
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4926 (Neg Dee)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4927 (CUP)
3. Location Map
4. Background Data Sheet 5. Disclosure Statement
6. Exhibits “A” - “F” dated May 16,200l
cw:cs:mh
Exhibit 5
IN THE MATTER OF
AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES
APPEAL OF CUP 00-36 (7512 CADENCIA STREET)
AFFIDAVIT OF OAKLEIGH J. THORNE
I, Oakleigh J. Thome, state as follows:
1. I am a Principal of Thome Consultants, Inc., a firm that specializes in real estate
valuation.
. 2. I have been retained by AT&T Wireless to evaluate the potential impact on
surrounding real estate prices of a proposed facility at 7512 Cadencia Street, Carlsbad,
California.
3. The site proposed for 7512 Cadencia Street will consist of an antenna inside a
faux chimney with the equipment located inside an extended garage designed to match the
existing garage. Specifically, this facility will increase the width of two existing chimneys by
only 18 inches to hide 5 panel antennas and will add a third chimney approximately 4’ tall to
hide a sixth panel antenna.
4. One of the services I provide to clients such as Verizon, Nextel, Sprint and AT&T
Wireless is to analyze the impact of wireless towers (monopoles and lattice towers) and related
facilities on surrounding property values in residential communities.
5. Over the past several years, I have reviewed and analyzed six sites for the
placement of monopoles and lattice towers in or near residential areas, and prepared reports on
the findings.
Affidavit of Oakleigh J. Thome - Page 1
Thome Affidavit - Carlsbad CA.DOC
6. The methodology for analyzing the impact of a monopole on residential property
values involves retrieving real property sales data from computerized listings in the surrounding
area. This data is verified by random sampling, and each sale in the immediately tiected area is
inspected in person. The data is then analyzed to determine whether there is a correlation
between the installation of the monopole and residential property sales prices in the affected area
compared to the rest of the surrounding community.
7. In no instance have I found the installation of a monopole or lattice tower, which
typically ranges from 125 to 225 feet in height, to have a negative impact on property values.
8. The conclusions obtained in the prior studies suggest that the proposed facility at
75 12 Cadencia Street will have no impact on surrounding property values.
I affirm under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Executed J
Oakleigh J. Thome, having been duly sworn, testified under oath that the foregoing is
true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Sworn before me in Montgomery County , Maryland, this29th day of June, 2001.
My Commission Expires: 12/o1/2oo1.
I Notary Public, S
Affidavit of Oakleigh J. Thome - Page 2 ,
Thome Affkwit - Carl&ad CA.DOC
Exhibit 6
OSO- F7P
.d
‘3 ?c . .i J,
‘. .Tf
q
c I
,
03
Qz
\g
I1
$
tLk:
g ’
;, 2 5111 ,;.a !jB m et 3ir I
i4
% ‘IS yngvtj\d 9. -.r‘- -’
--.-- ____ r?L‘ 79 0
L ’ I
E b
p ‘. ‘k,, .’
I- : x\ f .,: : I ,
02 . @m’ :, . QluF -’ ‘1-l
; ’ %’ :
. ‘_
(_+w _ r r I I
I
I. ! r.
. . . ..
,-- ( ’
“ *-. c, I
I
‘. ‘.I
I
: , :
,Y.‘.
. j..:, .) :
,’ ._ ;.; “ . ., : a:,:,. ~ 5’ ;=+
r.-.’ rj : I i ._ J ; .I_ _,’ . ,
,
“. :, .: :f
;>: I! .:. :: ‘.
i
:a*.
t * . .;J-’
f .’ :t.
: .
; I
3 z
- b
z RJ ‘3or ’ IP-m WI0 JJ) 3 <,?“G >-JCJ .f--l 0 Qfi - I-;: Inno
0 In: 4 *I- 40 JJ I r-- If-l -t I-.
a 4 2
-re-FZt .
-. 4 ‘,,‘I. .;‘. I
3 :; 0:
.‘:i
/I I ., .. .
- I
1;
.: i’ 1 ! t
.i
F-. : I@# . 33=aKl .pw7.on .I _..., :
-
ET: Is]% i : [HI< q hi!?. C7: ; 1 CL-J
. GZ: E? @Q : _ rii;lg ,.-. CL: ; ,,‘zT;I . @Jq i : i ; . . . . . . . . . . ..: cl a” -
. . . .
m0-w ,sv NMONx
;ilA.,.bld
. . . . . . A717 ywo> . . . . .
r--h-b
. . .
J-7
W-C.8 / ^_’
. .- .
2 &< ,m3-: . . Iv)
. l--v) CD4
z XP o-
\
: ?a
cnowd UJO..Z WYWD.
\
m”nk WI,02 tcuz<
L ‘?
’ f
rz t
c
-
: *
i
.: *.
:i’ . ;-
l f lb
t
i “ar-*rr ’ , ‘.
.
.’ : : :.
i
,
“‘!
q ;
@’
“.. 7.
COLE, RAYWID & BRAVERMAN, L.L.P.
JEREMY H. STERN
310 643 7999 Ex-r 100 JSTERN@CRBUW cot-3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
238 I ROSECRANS AVENUE, SUITE HO
EL SEGUNDO. CALIFORNIA 90245-4290
TELEPHONE (310) 6437999
FAX (310) 643-7997
WWW.CRBlAW.COM
WASHINOTON. D.C. OFFICF
ISIS PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGX)N. D.C. 20006-3458
TE~PHONL (2021 6599750
FAX (PO.3 452-0067
September 14,200l
AGENDA ITEM #
VIA FACSIMILE & OVERNIGHT MAIL
Honorable Claude A. Lewis, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
u Mayill
city counci9
ctry Manq$er
City Atiomy
caty cffm
FtE: AT&T Wireless - ADDed of CUP 00-36 (7512 Cadencia Street)
Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members:
On August 28, 200 1, Carlsbad resident Debra Horen submitted a lengthy letter to the City of Carlsbad
(“Horen Letter”) concerning the above-mentioned AT&T Wireless (“ATT,“) permit. The Horen Letter appealed
to the City Council to reconsider the vote on August 2 1,200 1 at which two City Council members voted to uphold
ATI’W’s appeal and grant the permit, and one member voted to deny the appeal. However, the Horen Letter’s basis
for reconsideration was no different than any arguments previously made by her or by other opponents of the site.
Because the record clearly supports the grant of ATTW’s CUP, ATTW respectfully requests that the City Council
deny Ms. Horen’s request and grant the CUP.
The primary concern of the Horen Letter was the public health effects of radio frequency (“RF”) emissions
and the impact that the public’s concern about RF emissions has on property values. As the City is well aware, and
as ATTW has described in previous correspondence to the City and in testimony before the City Council, the
Telecommunications Act prohibits local governments from denying permits for wireless services facilities on the
basis of RF emissions to the extent that the facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning RF emissions.’
Nevertheless, we wanted to assure the City that ATTW’s proposed facility will be in full compliance with FCC
regulations. The highest accessible RF emitted from ATTW’s facilities at 75 12 Cadencia will be approximately 9
PWcm’ - a level that equates to approximately 1% of the FCC’s Maximum Permitted Exposure limits. This peak
exposure would exist at about 3-4 yards from the antenna facilities and drops off dramatically within the next few
yards. According to the recently released Cingular RF report for 7412 Cadencia, Cingular’s emissions are roughly
equivalent to ATTW’s proposed emissions and thus are in full compliance with FCC RF Exposure Guidelines.
The Horen Letter also raises concerns about commercial uses in residential neighborhoods. If the
commercial use at issue is the lease to A’ITW, then home and room rentals should also raise these concerns..
Furthermore, our society is increasingly relying on the mobility and flexibility that personal wireless services
provide. Indeed, in critical situations around the country, wireless telephones are demonstrating that they are
’ Sprint Spectrum v. Town of Farmington, 1997 U.S. District LEXIS 15832. *7 (D.C. Corm 1997) (local government cannot
use property values as a pretext for concerns about RF emissions).
COLE, RAYWID & BRAVERMAN, L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal
September 14, 2001
Page 2
rightly deemed an essential communication tool for public safety and welfare. Accordingly, wireless telephone
services are the operational equivalent of wireline telephone services. Prohibition of ATTW’s facilities as a
commercial use in residential areas makes as much sense as the prohibition of telephone lines, power lines, gas
pipes and other public utility facilities in these same areas.
The Horen Letter alleges that AT&T testified that no gap in coverage exists. That statement is simply
wrong. AT&T testified to a gap in coverage along El Camino Real and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. The Mayor and one
City Council member noted the need to fill this and other coverage gaps throughout the City. ATTW’s coverage in
Carlsbad must be improved and the site at 7.5 12 Cadencia is an essential component of that coverage.
Fundamentally, the proposed site raises no viable traffic concerns, no security issues, no noise problems
and the visual impact of the site is reduced to an extra chimney and extra garage space. There is simply no
legitimate basis for a finding that the site fails to preserve the neighborhood’s quality of life or community identity.
In short, the record in this CUP proceeding is devoid of any substantial evidence supporting denial of the CUP.*
Accordingly, ATTW respectfully requests that the Mayor and City Council grant this permit and allow
ATTW to improve personal wireless telephone coverage and service in the City of Carlsbad.
Respectfully submitted,
, RAYWID & BRAVERMAN, LLP
for A T&T Wireless
C: Mr. Joseph Morales
Daniel E. Smith, Esq.
Ms. Leslie J. Daigle
Ms. Ranee Pregler
Ronald R. Ball, Esq.
Mr. Christer Westman
’ AirTouch Cellular v. City of El Cajon, 83 F.Supp.2d 1158, 1164 (S.D. Cal. 2000) (holding that the substantial evidence test must be applied using common sense standards of reasonableness).
To: ci.carlsbad.ca.us/contact/ Subject: AT&T Wireless Tower
Dear Mayor/City Council,
I am very concerned that the AT&T tower site decision, located at the private residence (7512 Cadencia), first denied by the Planning Commission is now being reconsidered. I find that the very idea of siting transmission towers so very close to all the residences appalling. When we purchased our
house at 3209 Carvallo Ct. in 1984 we knew full well of the location high-voltage transmitting lines. The house we purchased was well away from those lines. Now, if
the mayor/city counsel allows the towers to be built, we will be very close to the microwave towers and we have had NO
CHOICE in the matter. Once again is the mayor/city counsel more concerned about economics than the welfare of their citizens ? Other cities throughout the USA have had similar situations, and what I have heard is that the siting of these
towers is kept out of residential locations and put atop church steeples, mountain tops, water towers/tanks, etc. I strongly
suggest to the mayor/city counsel to deny AT&T’s appeal and stand by the original planning commissions decision. Mark and Lorine DeHuff
AGENDA ITEM # d> 0
c: Mayor
City Council
C&y Manager
City Attorney
city Clerk
MarkD&uff /
lQ36CUerasDr /
sanDiago,GA 92107-4126
AGENDA ITEM #
Robert and Maryann Ricci
7522 Brava Street Carlsbad, CA 92009
760-634-1288
cz Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
September 7,200l
Dear Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council Members:
I am writing to echo the thoughts of my neighbor Debra Horen. We live just below the
HAM Operator Radio Station on Brava Street. We recognize people’s rights and choice
to use that type of equipment and communication devices, but this proposed AT&T
wireless installation at 75 12 Cadencia in La Costa is inappropriate.
At this time in my life, with a young family and many years ahead of us to live here in
beautiful La Costa, health and safety issues are more important than AT&T being able
to increase their range and capacity. We choose to live here because it possesses a
quality of life like nowhere else.
They slipped the Cingular antenna into our neighborhood without notifying any of us.
That may have been legally okay, but unfair to us within the vicinity of that site. My
main concern is for my family and our quality of life. I wanted you to know, that as
you have experienced many quality years in this wonderful city, I too would like to
have the same opportunity with my family here in La Costa.
In closing, I hope you make the right decision for our neighborhood and the community.
Because you are the swing vote I am asking you to deny this site to AT&T and let them
continue to search for a more suitable site elsewhere. For our health, safety, quality of
life and most of all peace of mind that our Mayor made the right decision and with the
residents of La Costa and Carlsbad in mind.
Sincerely,
Eid?Mte. ia&
Concerned Resident
AGENDAITEM # 2 0
September 7, 2001
1
Claude A. Lewis, Mayor
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
a Mayor
city Council
City Manager
City Attorney
Carlsbad, CA 92008 City Clef%
In re: CUP 00-36 Appeal AT&T-- Wireless -- 7512 Cadencia St.
Dear Mayor Lewis:
For the past 22 years I have resided on Delgado Place, a little cul-de-sac
of eight homes -- just off of Carvella Court and Cadencia -- approximately
150 yards to the South of the proposed installation, which would be on
the bluff above our homes.
The fact that the antennas would be hidden in a garage or chimney, and not
"visable" does not lessen the nature of the installation and potential
for noise and radiation polution to children and elderly persons in the
area, not to mention our possible loss of property values and quality of
life for all of the residents.
We are unable to understand why the Council would feel justified in this
additional installation in view of the fact that two other installations
already exist -- facts presented at the former hearing -- neither of which
we were advised prior to their installation. Has anyone thought of
possible cancer deaths in the area which might be attributed to these
earlier installations?
The City of Encinitas, in the interest of its citizens? has just enacted
an ordinance prohibiting the installation of such cell sites within its
residential areas. I would hope the City of Carlsbad would be as
considerate. Because our area Councilperson had to excuse herself from
voting on this matter, the burden has shifted to you as the "swing vote"
on this appeal.
How can an outside Company be allowed to encroach on the welfare of the
citizens of Carlsbad by placing a commercial enterprise in a residential
area . . . this is out of place. Why can't a more appropriate site
be found within the parking areas along El Camino Real. How about the
area around the Library on Dove Street -- is that net City property?
Because this is a comparatively new procedure there is inadequate history
as to possible malfunctions or hazards resulting from such operatons.
I sincerely trust you will give careful and serious consideration to all
of the factors involving this appeal, and uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission by voting to deny this installation.
Respectfully submitted,
Encl. 1 Map Carlsbad, CA 92009
AT&T WIRELESS -
7512 CADENCIA ST
CUP 00136
513 POPPY HILL ROAD
Sept. 62001
Mr. Claude A. Lewis
Mayor of Carlsbad
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Lewis:
As a California native I have long observed the development of desirable residential areas
in the state. We were sad when your daughter decided to locate and buy a home in
Carlsbad because it was so far from where we live in northern California. We were
happy, however, to discover what a wonderful community Carlsbad has become over the
years with great parks, schools, and neighborhoods. I am a graduate of San Diego State
(‘65) so I do know the area. Also, having bought and sold several residences and
investment properties over the years my husband and I felt our daughter and her family
were making an excellent investment in their future and their children’s future by
purchasing a home in Carlsbad.
You cannot imagine how horrified we are to learn that you may consider allowing an
AT&T wireless cell site in a residential neighborhood-and in just a few blocks from our
daughter’s home. Not only would this decrease their home value and require disclosure
in a real estate transaction, but the future economic, health, and well-being of my 2
granddaughters is at stake.
My husband, a physician, will be writing to you as well but let me say that as an observer
of medical/disease/environmental health over the years I know that health risks are
commonly not completely known early on when using new technologies e.g. I remember
as a child, routinely having my feet x-rayed when buying new shoes and a more recent
example would be the limitation of ultra-sound use in pregnant women since long-term
affects can’t be known. There are many other examples in health and technology.
When I visit my daughter and her family and note the acres of undeveloped land outside
of residential areas I cannot believe there aren’t other sites for these cells. I urge you to
vote against AT&T’s proposal for the good of all the Carlsbad community not just the
financial gain of a few. Thank you.
Sincerely,
September 10,200 1 .
Mr. Claude A “Bud” Lewis
Mayor of Carlsbad
City of Carlrbsd
1200 Carlsbad, CA 92008
AGkNDA INEM ),c_ ta
c: Mayor
city council
City Manager
City Attorney
City CIerk
Melissa Landsy
3 135 De1 Rcy Avcnuc
Catlsbad, CA 92009
(760) 944-0685
Re: Proposed Cell Tower on Cadencia Avcnuc
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I am very concerned regarding the pending decision of tic mayor and council to ovcrtum the original
denial of the cell site application on Cadcncia Street. My husband & I moved to Dcl Rey 2 years ago and
have cnjoycd the growlh ofthc city and of our young family (WC &WC a 2-year old daughter).
I bclicvo my right to happiness as a citizen and homcowncr is being “brushed asidc” because the cell site
operator has found a more economical altcmative to provide enhanced ccllulirr coverage to the La Costa
area in locating the cell site in a private residence. I am concerned as our home is only 3 houses from
Cadencia and the location of the proposed site.
Thcrc must be some alternative to this location that would meet everyone’s needs -- provide increased
cellular coverage without disrupting a residential neighborhood.
I understand that business decisions tend to bc driven by fmancial implications but I also hope and want
to believe that the Carlsbad govcmment is comprised of pcoplc -- human beings - with families and not
just busincsspcoplc. There are severe health conccms to me and my family relating to the proposed tower
and we would not feel comfortable living next to it -- it would, in fact, m&c us think of selling our home.
If that happened, it would also make us look outside of Carlsbad as WC would feel that Carlsbad had
sorely let us down and was not looking out for the best intcrcsls of its residents.
I would bc happy to have the mayor and council mcmbcrs to our neighborhood to see exactly the close
proximity this tower is to scvcral homes with young children. SurcIy these children’s lifelong health is not
worth saving a large company a few dollars. Plcasc do not sacrifice our cbildrcn Ior money.
I strongly urge each ofthc council members to vote against the \owcr and for the mayor to reinforce this.
-1 would bc happy to speak with anyone regardjng this - my home phone number is 760-944-0685 - feel
free to call me at any time.
Thank you for listening and I look forward to the vote.
Sinccrcly,
!
WY-
te?
izlissa Landry
T00’d WLE:TT T0/0t/60 TEBSZE909L fidpuel ess! raw
Holly Stipe
1625 Filaree Ct. G&bad, CA 92009
Mayor Claude A. “Bud” Lewis
City of Carl&ad
1200 Carl&ad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Lewis,
I would like to voice my opposition to the in&al&ion of a cell site application on
Cadencia Street. As a new resident to the area with friends who will be directly impacted
by it’s location, I am deeply troubled by the possibility of it’s installation. Please vote NO
on this!!!
My concerns stem primarily for the potential health implications and the loss of value to
real estate directly surrounding this tower. My husband and I chose to move to Carlsbad
because we know that the City of Carlsbad is committed to the welfare of families and
betterment of community. I urge you to remember families, and not the business interests
of a cellular provider, when you vote on this issue.
HOLY gtfpe Carl&ad city resident
AGENDA tTEM # ~70
c: Mity0r
city counci1
City Mana@r
City Attorney
City Clerk
- -- .I ‘i” .-
September 6,200l
Mayor Bud Lewis
Ann Kulchin, City Council
Ramona Finnila, City Council
Julianne Nygaard, City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
AGENDA ITEM #
a Mayor
city council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I am writing to you to voice my concerns over the recent decision by our
City Council to overturn the Planning Commissions unanimous vote
regarding the AT&T wireless installation at 75 12 Cadencia, in La Costa.
As you are aware, the use of a single cell site base station may not
produce harmful effects, but multiple transmitting antennas located in
close proximity may very well create a health hazard. As a result, strict
guidelines should be administered in allowing this site to be realized.
According to the World Health Organization “siting decisions should take
into account aesthetics and public sensibilities. Siting base stations near
kindergartens, schools and playgrounds may need special consideration.”
As a homeowner and the mother of two children who play in the nearby
park and attend La Costa Heights Elementary, I am certain that my City
Council members will err on the side of caution and reconsider their
recent vote and allow for a master plan and policy on cell sites to be
adopted in Carlsbad before any further sites in neighborhoods be
granted.
Thank you for considering the Communities request.
Sincerely,
Kimberly R. Harvey
BRUIN PROPERTIES, INC.
PO BOX 844 1, il.4’YCl !( ! c;V~ 1,2 FE, C.4 920b i
AGENDAITEM # $ HD
c: Mayor
City Council
City Mana&r City Attorney City Clerk
Date (mail before 9/S/01) c
-313 1 Carlsbad, CA 92.0 0 7
AGENDA ITEM # &)
Dear Mayor Lewis “ Councilwoman AM Kukhin C: Mayor “ “ Ramona Finnila City COUncil “ Julianne Nygaard City Manager
ouncilman Matt Hall has already voted to deny the project) City Attorney
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive City Clerk
Carlsbad, CA 92008
TL I oppose AT & T’s proposed cell antenna installation on Cadencia Street in Carlsbad.
(Feel free to add any
Sign your name
/al’2 tcH~‘JA 5T
CARLSBAD CA 92ctu9
MERIDITH A KGENEKE
7518 E(KC?IVA ST
CAF?LSE(AD CA 92!:)(y.>‘3
THOMAS D &. L-OR1 DRAKE
7523 BRQVA ‘ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MGNEERAT HEGR
751.7 bRAVA ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PERKINS MARY F H
751.1 BRAVA ST
CFIRLSBAD CA 92(~li:G?
,JEFFREY F’LEM I NC;
7503 BR&VA ST
CARL-SEAD Ck 92ot:19
82h MAR VISTA DR
VISTA CA 92085
kLFH&D T MORET
19848 FORTlJNFS DEL.. ESTE
ESCOND I DO CA 92029
CARL A FRICE
7521 HHAVG ST
ChRLSBAD CA 92(X)9
RCJSE M & L.OHINDA PATE
7515 BRAVA ST
CARLSBAD CA 9 2 (:I 0 9
CHhRLES R & LAUREL.. LCICC:MRN
7509 BFlA’dG ST
CARtSBAD CA 9 2 r:! 6 9
MARITAL T RUSSAK
7501 BRAVA ST
CURLSBRD CA 92(209
LESLIE DAIGLE
AT&T WIRELESS
308 HARBOR WOODS PLACE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
ATTN: SARA BURBIDGE, ESQ.
MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON
ONE POST STREET, SUITE 500
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 91404
7516 1
CXRLSI
ROBER- 7r133 1 CL&
CARL%
TERENC
75l.9 E
CARLSE
VIRGIL
7513 E
CARLSE
RclBER-r
7 507 E
CARL-SE
CHRIS
MORRC
SUITE
8100 L,
LA ME!
CHRIS’
PLANN
CITY (
1635 FI
CARLS
Page 1 _____------------___-~---------------~-~-----------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 ) Prcl:223-130-09 Site:3107 LA COSTA AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SULTANYAN,GEORGE G & Mail:3107 LA COSTA AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)632-1684 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:12/07/88 Lns: DOC: Xmpt:Y Yb: Sqft:2,556 Asd:$308,521 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:40 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:71% Un:l ------------------__----------------------------------------------------------
2 ) Prcl:223-130-10 Site:3109 LA COSTA AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:BAKER,ROBERT H & SHER Mail:PO BOX 2129*RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)568-1053 Zn:Rl Sale:$290,000F Date:07/23/92 Lns:$210,000 Doe:458665 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:2,701 Asd:$207,603 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:41 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:75% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 ) Prcl:223-130-11 Site:3111 LA COSTA AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 0wnr:TR Mail:3111 LA COSTA AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:05/27/98 Lns: DOC: Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:2,630 Asd:$215,302 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:42 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:67% Un:l -------------------------------------~-------------------~-------------------~
4 ) Prcl:223-130-12 Site:3115 LA COSTA AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:PEREZ,SIMON & SYLVIA Mail:3115 LA COSTA AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)942-9396 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:05/19/97 Lns: DOC: Xmpt:Y Yb:1981 Sqft:3,191 Asd:$301,604 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:43 Bd/Bth:4/3.5 Ltsz: Imp:62% Un:l --------------------------------------~---------------------------------------
5 ) Prcl:223-130-13 Site:3112 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:AKHAVAN,SEYED M Mail:7701 GARBOSO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$168,000F Date:01/17/86
Lns:$151,200 Doc:20985 Xmpt: Yb: Sqft:2,200 Asd:$213,399
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:44 Bd/Bth:4/2.0 Ltsz: Imp:55% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 ) Prcl:223-130-14 Site:3110 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:PEARCY,STEPHEN E ETAL Mail:1818 ILLION ST*SAN DIEGO CA 92110 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$420,000F Date:12/01/88 Lns:$335,000 Doc:614092 Xmpt: Yb:1989 Sqft:3,578 Asd:$518,280 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:45 Bd/Bth:3/3.5 Ltsz: Imp:68% Un:l -----------------_______ -------------______-----------------------------------
7 ) Prcl:223-130-15 kite:3108 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:DOBRUSKY,WILLIAM B & Mail:18125 MAPLEGROVE CIR*HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$235,000F Date:02/10/87 Lns: Doc:72955 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:2,701 Asd:$301,331 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:46 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:58% Un:l -----------------___----------------------------------------------------------
8 ) Prcl:223-130-16 Site:3106 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:MILNER,MARTIN S & JUD Mail:3106 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$391,500F Date:03/29/96 Lns:$285,500 Doc:158534 Xmpt:Y Yb:1981 Sqft:3,376 Asd:$414,863 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:47 Bd/Bth:3/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:56% Un:l -----------------_______________________--------------------------------------
9 ) Prcl:223-130-17 Site:3104 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SANDE,JOHN D & JANET Mail:47 COOLWATER RD*WEST HILLS CA 91307 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:07/28/78 Lns: Doc:317414 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:2,686 Asd:$176,975 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:48 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:67% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 2 ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------~
10 ) Prcl:223-130-18 Site:3102 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:HABER,KATHRYN L Mail:3102 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date: Lns: DOC: Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:2,701 Asd:$284,680 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:49 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:66% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 ) Prcl:223-130-19 Site:3016 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:STRAUSS,JERALD A Mail:3016 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$310,400F Date:12/29/93 Lns:$302,299 Doc:879301 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:2,701 Asd:$450,362 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:50 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:41% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 ) Prcl:223-130-20 Site:3014 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 0wnr:CAYWOOD ANNE D SEPARA Mail:3014 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)942-2257 Zn:Rl Sale:$280,000F Date:12/02/83 Lns:$190,000 Doc:437339 Xmpt:Y Yb:1982 Sqft:3,946 Asd:$370,040 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:51 Bd/Bth:4/3.5 Ltsz: Imp:78% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 ) Prcl:223-130-21 Site:3012 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:CAMPBELL,JULIA D & CH Mail:3012 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)943-1127 Zn:Rl Sale:$304,000F Date:06/18/92 Lns:$140,000 Doc:377603 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:2,701 Asd:$348,203
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:52 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:50% Un:l -------------------------------------~~~~~~~------------------------------~-~-
14 ) Prcl:223-130-22 Site:3010 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:BORTOLIN,ADRIANO & JA Mail:3010 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)632-1637 Zn:Rl Sale:$315,000F Date:08/24/95
Lns:$252,000 Doc:374139 Xmpt: Yb:1987 Sqft:2,744 Asd:$333,795
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:53 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:58% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 ) Prcl:223-130-23 Site:3011 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:THOMASON,DAVID H & RO Mail:PO BOX 1478*RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$330,000F Date:08/24/94 Lns:$247,500 Doc:508419 Xmpt:Y Yb:1983 Sqft:2,783 Asd:$351,964 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:65 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:54% Un:l ----__-_-----------------------------~~----------------------------- ----------
16 ) Prcl:223-130-24 Site:3013 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:DEGNAN,THOM F ETAL Mail:3013 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)632-0168 Zn:Rl Sale:$239,000F Date:04/29/88 Lns:$191,200 Doc:197659 Xmpt: Yb:1985 Sqft:2,907 Asd:$379,070 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:66 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:71% Un:l _____________-_---------------------------------------------------------------
17 ) Prcl:223-130-25 Site:3015 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:ALBERTAZZI,LOREN & KI Mail:3015 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$358,000 Date:06/22/93 Lns:$179,000 Doc:391117 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:2,990 Asd:$425,531 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:67 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:48% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 ) Prcl:223-130-26 Site:3017 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:DUIGNAN,LAWRENCE D & Mail:3017 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$439,000F Date:06/27/97
Lns:$395,100 Doc:304819 Xmpt: Yb:1985 Sqft:3,156 Asd:$456,075
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:68 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:70% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C!) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 3 __--_--------------------------- -----_----------------------------------------
19 ) Prcl:223-130-27 Site:3101 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:DAWSON,RALPH & ROSELL Mail:3101 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:02/03/99 Lns: DOC: Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:2,499 Asd:$198,701 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:69 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:67% Un:l _--_---------------_--------------------------------------------------- -------
20 ) Prcl:223-130-28 Site:3103 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:STONE,DAVID L Mail:3103 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)942-5251 Zn:Rl Sale:$350,000F Date:12/30/93 Lns:$315,000 Doc:887517 Xmpt: Yb:1987 Sqft:2,498 Asd:$379,462 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:70 Bd/Bth:3/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:54% Un:l __--__-------------------------------~~~~-------------------------------------
21 ) Prcl:223-130-29 Site:3105 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:TOMASSETTI,VICTOR J Mail:3105 AZAHAR ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$495,000F Date:07/21/93 Lns:$396,000 Doc:465391 Xmpt:Y Yb:1988 Sqft:2,962 Asd:$450,000 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:71 Bd/Bth:4/3.5 Ltsz: Imp:56% Un:l --------------------------------------~---------------------------~-~--------~
22 ) Prcl:223-130-30 Site:3026 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SPITZBARTH,ERIK Mail:3026 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)942-3692 Zn:Rl Sale:$Q Date:06/03/94 Lns: Dot: Xmpt:Y Yb: Sqft:2,769 Asd:$322,619 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:72 Bd/Bth: Ltsz: Imp:61% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 ) Prcl:223-130-31 Site:3024 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:COLLING,KENNETH F & J Mail:3024 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-0108 Zn:Rl Sale:$Q Date:08/12/93 Lns: Dot: Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:2,690 Asd:$217,831
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:73 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:56% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 ) Prcl:223-130-32 Site:3022 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:GRAY,PATRICK & VICKIE Mail:3022 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)633-4229 Zn:Rl Sale:$240,500F Date:05/06/96
Lns:$192,200 Doc:229836 Xmpt:Y Yb:1981 Sqft:2,489 Asd:$254,639
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:74 Bd/Bth:2/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:58% Un:l ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
25 ) Prcl:223-130-33
----
Site:3020 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:LEE,BRIAN P & JEAN Y Mail:3020 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$278,000F Date:01/18/85 Lns:$178,000 Doc:18911 Xmpt:Y Yb:1985 Sqft:3,335 Asd:$360,191 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:75 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:66% Un:l ------_------------------------------~~~~----------------------------~-----~-~
26 ) Prcl:223-130-34 Site:3018 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:PETERS,MARSHALL A & L Mail:3018 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$307,500F Date:10/16/86
Lns:$246,000 Doc:467152 Xmpt:Y Yb:1984 Sqft:2,567 Asd:$382,949 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:76 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:64% Un:l -------------------------------------~~~~------------------------------------~
27 ) Prcl:223-130-35 Site:3016 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SIBUG&PUNSALAN FAMILY Mail:3016 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$Q Date:05/27/98 Lns: Dot: Xmpt: Yb:1982 Sqft:3,327 Asd:$313,759 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:77 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:70% Un:l --------------------------------------~--------------------------------------~
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 4 ______----__------------------------------------ --~--------------------------~
28 ) Prcl:223-130-36 Site:3014 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:BRUCKS,GERALD R & ELI Mail:3014 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)944-9440 Zn:Rl Sale:$350,000F Date:09/10/93 Lns:$200,000 Doc:597611 Xmpt:Y Yb:1986 Sqft:2,928 Asd:$379,462 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:78 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:63% Un:l __--------_____------------ ---------------------------------------------------
29 ) Prcl:223-130-37 Site:3012 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:CORTEZ,CHRISTOPHER & Mail:3012 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)943-9775 Zn:Rl Sale:$365,000F Date:10/13/88 Lns:$200,000 Doc:522493 Xmpt:Y Yb:1982 Sqft:3,078 Asd:$436,905 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:79 Bd/Bth:4/3.5 Ltsz: Imp:69% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 ) Prcl:223-130-38 Site:3017 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SCHUBERT,CHARLES & MA Mail:3017 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)634-1460 Zn:Rl Sale:$318,000F Date:06/30/89 Lns:$254,400 Doc:346761 Xmpt:Y Yb:1981 Sqft:2,703 Asd:$380,648 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:101 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:71% Un:l ----------_____---------------------------------------------------------------
31 ) Prcl:223-130-39 Site:3019 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:RANCK,PHILIP W & LIND Mail:35 APACHE CT*SOUTH HAVEN MI 49090 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(616)637-4143 Zn:Rl Sale:$222,000F Date:01/14/85 Lns:$158,000 Doc:10271 Xmpt: Yb:1981 Sqft:2,705 Asd:$287,631 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:102 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:65% Un:l ----------_-------------------------------------------------------------------
32 ) Prcl:223-130-40 Site:3021 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:TIFFANY,JAMES B & JOA Mail:3021 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:08/06/86 Lns: Doc:332580 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:2,701 Asd:$183,829 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:103 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:76% Un:l ------------------------------------- --------------_--------------------------
33 ) Prcl:223-130-41 Site:3023 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:MOZLIN,BARRY R TR Mail:3023 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:12/30/98 Lns: Dot: Xmpt:Y Yb:1984 Sqft:2,744 Asd:$334,373 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:104 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:68% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34 ) Prcl:223-130-42 Site:3025 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:KIPPER,BOB & HARRIET Mail:3025 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date: Lns: DOC: Xmpt:Y Yb:1981 Sqft:3,166 Asd:$240,579 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:105 Bd/Bth:3/4.5 Ltsz: Imp:81% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35 ) Prcl:223-130-43 Site:3201 AZAHAR PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:MANARD,JOHN F & KATHL Mail:3201 AZAHAR PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$260,000F Date:02/12/93 Lns:$245,800 Doc:92314 Xmpt:Y Yb:1981 Sqft:2,141 Asd:$287,522 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:106 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:57% Un:l ----------_------------~~~~----------~----------------------------------------
36 1 Prcl:223-130-44 Site:3203 AZAHAR PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:DEFILIPPIS,JOSEPH & F Mail:3203 AZAHAR PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:05/22/79 Lns: Doc:210266 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:2,326 Asd:$158,622 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:107 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:71% Un:l ----------------------- --------------------------------------- ----------------
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED
Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 5 ---------------------------------------------------~~~~~~-----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
37 ) Prcl:223-130-45 Site:3205 AZAHAR PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:CHERNOFF,LITA Mail:3205 AZAHAR PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$66,000 Date:07/21/89 Lns: Doc:386075 Xmpt:Y Yb:1976 Sqft:2,236 Asd:$89,141 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:108 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:75% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38 ) Prcl:223-130-46 Site:3208 AZAHAR PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:GREGORY,WILLIAM G & D Mail:744 COLE RANCH RD*ENCINITAS CA 92024 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-2760 Zn:Rl Sale:$265,000F Date:12/13/90 Lns:$212,000 Doc:663360 Xmpt: Yb:1975 Sqft:1,976 Asd:$304,774 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:209 Bd/Bth:4/2.0 Ltsz: Imp:32% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39 1 Prcl:223-130-47 Site:3206 AZAHAR PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:ARLAUSKAS,JOSEPH & RE Mail:3206 AZAHAR PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)944-8458 Zn:Rl Sale:$300,000F Date:02/24/89 Lns:$240,000 Doc:94018 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:2,630 Asd:$359,101 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:210 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:72% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 ) Prcl:223-130-48 Site:3204 AZAHAR PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:OPALSKI,JON Mail:3204 AZAHAR PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)942-8562 Zn:Rl Sale:$345,000F Date:05/02/91 Lns:$240,000 Doc:203857 Xmpt:Y Yb:1984 Sqft:2,530 Asd:$395,204 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:211 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:56% Un:l ------~---------------------------~-------------------~~~------------~~~~~~~~~
41 1 Prcl:223-130-49 Site:3103 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:REISINGER,BRENT A & S Mail:3103 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-4390 Zn:Rl Sale:$273,000F Date:10/30/89 Lns:$245,700 Doc:588493 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:2,178 Asd:$320,372 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:212 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:66% Un:l ----------------------------------~-~-----------------~~~-------------~~~~~~~~
42 ) Prcl:223-130-50 Site:LA COSTA AVE*CARLSBAD CA Ownr:NOVELLO,GENE N & SHEI Mail:7901 E DAVENPORT DR*SCOTTSDALE AZ 85260 Use:VACANT LAND-RES Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:04/15/77
Lns: Doc:137953 Xmpt: Yb: Sqft: Asd:$38,306 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:213 Bd/Bth: Ltsz: Imp:O% Un: ------------_____----------~~~~~~~~~~-----------~~~~~~~~~----------~~~~~~~~~~~
43 ) Prcl:223-130-51 Site:3203 LA COSTA AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:STUCHELL,DAVID E & YV Mail:3203 LA COSTA AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)632-2290 Zn:Rl Sale:$265,000F Date:11/03/95 Lns:$202,000 Doc:500461 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:3,140 Asd:$280,813 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:214 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:81% Un:l ------------------------------------~-------------- ---------------------------
44 ) Prcl:223-130-52 Site:3205 LA COSTA AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:MURPHY,MICHAEL A ETAL Mail:3205 LA COSTA AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$325,000F Date:11/02/98 Lns:$227,150 Doc:714043 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:2,950 Asd:$324,700 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:215 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:53% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45 1 Prcl:223-130-53 Site:3207 LA COSTA AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:CUTHBERT,EMILIE K Mail:3207 LA COSTA AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$317,000F Date:03/06/00 Lns:$253,600 Doc:112615 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:2,630 Asd:$246,174 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:216 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:65% Un:l ----------------_-------------~~~~~~~----------------~~~~------------------~-~
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 21 ----------------------~--------------------------------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
181 ) Prcl:223-170-02 Site:7712 FAROL PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 0wnr:BRIGGS TR Mail:7712 FAROL PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)753-5504 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:09/14/76 Lns: Doc:299216 Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:2,236 Asd:$115,151 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:175 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz:9,800 Imp:78% Un:l -------------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------
182 ) Prcl:223-170-03 Site:7714 FAROL PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SHEA,MICHAEL G & LAIN Mail:7714 FAROL PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$258,000F Date:04/08/93 Lns:$231,700 Doc:216691 Xmpt: Yb:1975 Sqft:1,916 Asd:$283,098 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:174 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:11,100 Imp:50% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
183 ) Prcl:223-170-04 Site:7716 FAROL PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:RUTLAND,GEORGE P & DA Mail:2625 ACUNA CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$297,000F Date:04/01/96
Lns:$200,000 Doc:159682 Xmpt: Yb:1975 Sqft:2,484 Asd:$314,722
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:173 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz:9,500 Imp:62% Un:l -------------_--____-------------------------- --------------------------------
184 ) Prcl:223-170-05 Site:7718 FAROL PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:ARMSTRONG,STEVEN & LI Mail:7718 FAROL PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-4046 Zn:Rl Sale:$205,000F Date:12/13/85
Lns: Doc:471911 Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:2,928 Asd:$298,131
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:172 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz:17,200 Imp:75% Un:l ------------------------~---~~-~~~~~~----------------------------------------~
185 ) Prcl:223-170-06 Site:7720 FAROL PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:TRIMBLE,LLOYD S & DEB Mail:7720 FAROL PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$191,000F Date:05/05/87 Lns:$152,800 Doc:247526 Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:2,236 Asd:$237,857 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:171 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz:14,700 Imp:54% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
186 ) Prcl:223-170-07 Site:7722 FAROL PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:CARTER,JAMES B & MARL Mail:7722 FAROL PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$lOO,OOOF Date:04/28/99
Lns:$75,000 Doc:282160 Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:1,976 Asd:$183,319 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:170 Bd/Bth:4/2.0 Ltsz:11,300 Imp:63% Un:l --------------_-____----------------------------------------------------------
187 ) Prcl:223-170-08 Site:7705 GARBOSO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SCHMITT,CHRISTOPHER G Mail:7705 GARBOSO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$332,000F Date:07/08/99 Lns:$298,800 Doc:474451 Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:1,976 Asd:$78,086 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:186 Bd/Bth:4/2.0 Ltsz:9,900 Imp:70% Un:l ----------------------------------~-------------------------------------------
188 ) Prcl:223-170-09 Site:7707 GARBOSO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 0wnr:ROTHERHAM FAMILY TRUS Mail:200 HARBOR DR 3502*SAN DIEGO CA 92101 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)753-1368 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:09/10/91 Lns: DOC: Xmpt: Yb:1975 Sqft:1,916 Asd:$83,981 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:187 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:16,700 Imp:68% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
189 ) Prcl:223-170-10 Site:7709 GARBOSO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SIRIO,FERNANDO A Mail:7709 GARBOSO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)753-3054 Zn:Rl Sale:$295,000F Date:09/19/97
Lns: Doc:462023 Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:2,484 Asd:$300,465 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:188 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz:22,300 Imp:75% Un:l --------------------____________________---------------- -------~____---------~
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 22 -------------------------~-~~~~~~~~~~------------------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
190 ) Prcl:223-170-11 Site:7710 GARBOSO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:GOTSCHALL,HAROLD L Mail:7710 GARBOSO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-1259 Zn:Rl Sale:$Q Date:10/05/92 Lns: DOC: Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:1,976 Asd:$81,181 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:189 Bd/Bth:4/2.0 Ltsz:22,200 Imp:67% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
191 ) Prcl:223-170-12 Site:7708 GARBOSO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:FAURE-GAULT,LIVIA E Mail:7708 GARBOSO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)943-9042 Zn:Rl Sale:$239,000F Date:08/26/87
Lns:$215,100 Doc:485712 Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:2,484 Asd:$295,120 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:190 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz:16,500 Imp:78% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
192 ) Prcl:223-170-13 Site:7706 GARBOSO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:ERWIN,CAROLYN & THOMA Mail:7706 GARBOSO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:09/10/92 Lns: Dot: Xmpt: Yb:1975 Sqft:1,916 Asd:$173,158 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:191 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:10,400 Imp:56% Un:l ----------------------------------------- -------_-_---_-_--_
193 ) Prcl:223-170-14 Site:3106 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA Ownr:BAUMANN,CRAIG P & PEN Mail:3106 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)632-0224 Zn:Rl Sale:$210,000F
Lns:$89,000 Doc:330159 Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:2,236
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:235 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz:9,300 ------------------------------------------------------------
194 ) Prcl:223-170-15 Site:3108 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA
Ownr:RICHEY,CLAIRE TR Mail:3108 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Lns: Doc:107889 Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:1,976 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:234 Bd/Bth:4/2.0 Ltsz:9,300 ------------------------------------------------------------
195 ) Prcl:223-170-16 Site:3110 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA Ownr:WILSON,DONALD G TR Mail:3110 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$105,000 Lns: Doc:678929 Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:1,916 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:233 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:9,300 ------------------------------------------------------------
196 ) Prcl:223-170-17 Site:3112 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA Ownr:DARABI,VICTOR & JULIE Mail:3112 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$217,500F Lns:$135,500 Doc:775278 Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:2,236 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:232 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz:9,300
------------------
92009 92009 Date:07/07/88 Asd:$281,281 Imp:72% Un:l ------------------
92009
92009 Date:04/29/74 Asd:$81,772 Imp:67% Un:l ------------------
92009 92009 Date:10/23/92 Asd:$208,544 Imp:53% Un:l ------------------
92009 92009 Date:11/18/93 Asd:$236,349 Imp:58% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
197 ) Prcl:223-170-18 Site:LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA Ownr:LIN,PAUL C & SHIN-CHU Mail:10351 SAINT CHARLES WAY*SANTA ANA CA 92705
Use:VACANT LAND-RES Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$285,000F Date:02/22/89 Lns: Doc:91278 Xmpt: Yb: Sqft: Asd:$341,150 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:231 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:33,105 Imp:O% Un: ------------------------~-~~~~~~~~~~~----------------------------------------~
198 ) Prcl:223-170-19 Site:LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA Ownr:LIN,PAUL C & SHIN-CHU Mail:10351 SAINT CHARLES WAY*SANTA ANA CA 92705 Use:VACANT LAND-RES Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$285,000F Date:02/23/89 Lns: Doc:92167 Xmpt: Yb: Sqft: Asd:$344,788 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:230 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:32,670 Imp:O% Un: -----------------------------~~~~~~~~----------------------------------------~
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 23 _________-----------------------------~--~-~-------------------------~~~-~~~~~
199 ) Prcl:223-170-21 Site:LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA Ownr:TSAI,WAN-TEH & LIEN-C Mail:1315 FAIR OAKS AVE 201*SOUTH PASADENA CA 91030 Use:VACANT LAND-RES Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$500,000F Date:04/22/88+ Lns: Doc:188226 Xmpt: Yb: Sqft: Asd:$293,029 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:228 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:32,234 Imp:O% Un: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
200 ) Prcl:223-170-22 Site:LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA Ownr:TSAI,WAN-TEH & LIEN-C Mail:1315 FAIR OAKS AVE 201*SOUTH PASADENA CA 91030
Use:VACANT LAND-RES Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$500,000F Date:04/22/88+
Lns: Doc:188226 Xmpt: Yb: Sqft: Asd:$317,450
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:227 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:35,283 Imp:O% Un: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
201 ) Prcl:223-170-24 Site:7803 CENTELLA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
0wnr:HELMUTH ROBERT FAMILY Mail:7167 CAMINITO PANTOJA*SAN DIEGO CA 92122
Use:MULT 5-15 UNITS Ph:(858)459-4347 Zn:R3 Sale: Date:02/14/86
Lns: Doc:61391 Xmpt: Yb: Sqft: Asd:$425,568
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:247 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:6.08 A Imp:79% Un:9 ____________________----------------------------------------------------------
202 ) Prcl:223-170-25-01 Site:7801 CENTELLA ST l*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:BOGART,JUDITH P Mail:7801 CENTELLA ST l*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)632-9081 Zn:Rl Sale:$139,000F Date:08/19/88 Lns:$72,000 Doc:411319 Xmpt:Y Yb:1982 Sqft:1,914 Asd:$166,376 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:248 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:73% Un:l ____________________----------------------------------------------------------
203 ) Prcl:223-170-25-02 Site:7801 CENTELLA ST 2*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:CABRAL,SHARON C Mail:PO BOX 3012*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$141,500 Date:05/22/97 Lns:$112,800 Doc:236726 Xmpt:Y Yb:1982 Sqft:1,914 Asd:$146,587
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:248 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:65% Un:l ------------------ -------------------_----------------------------------------
204 ) Prcl:223-170-25-03 Site:7801 CENTELLA ST 3*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:SOLOMON,DAVID T Mail:7801 CENTELLA ST 3*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$115,000F Date:09/29/94 Lns:$109,250 Doc:578736 Xmpt:Y Yb:1982 Sqft:1,734 Asd:$123,211
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:248 Bd/Bth:2/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:65% Un:l ----------------------------------------------------------------------------~~
205 ) Prcl:223-170-25-04 Site:7801 CENTELLA ST 4*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:COWING,VIRGIL & MAVIS Mail:PO BOX 1081*TORRANCE CA 90505 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$115,000F Date:06/19/87 Lns:$92,000 Doc:343089 Xmpt: Yb:1982 Sqft:1,734 Asd:$143,209 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:248 Bd/Bth:2/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:77% Un:l ______________----__----------------------------------------------------------
206 ) Prcl:223-170-25-05 Site:7801 CENTELLA ST 5*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:NELSON,CYNTHIA S Mail:7801 CENTELLA ST 5fCARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$210,000F Date:07/02/99 Lns:$378,000 Doc:463473 Xmpt: Yb:1982 Sqft:1,914 Asd:$185,349 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:248 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:76% Un:l ---------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
207 ) Prcl:223-170-25-06 Site:7801 CENTELLA ST 6*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:REYNAGA,SHELLY L Mail:7804 CENTELLA ST 6*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$215,000F Date:04/07/00 Lns:$193,500 Doc:179390 Xmpt: Yb:1982 Sqft:1,914 Asd:$139,106
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:248 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:83% Un:l ------------------------------------------ --------------------------- ---------
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED
Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 24 __________________------------------------------------------------ -----------_
208 ) Prcl:223-170-25-07 Site:7801 CENTELLA ST 7*CARLSBAD CA 92009
0wnr:FLASTEN TRUST Mail:23781 VIA MADRID*MORENO VALLEY CA 92552
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$205,000F Date:05/26/00
Lns:$143,500 Doc:278323 Xmpt: Yb:1982 Sqft:1,734 Asd:$141,621
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:248 Bd/Bth:2/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:82% Un:l __________________------------------------------------------------------------
209 ) Prcl:223-170-25-08 Site:7801 CENTELLA ST 8*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:THIEMAN,C Mail:5004 RANCH0 BERNARD0 WAY*LAS VEGAS NV 89130 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(702)658-8179 Zn:Rl Sale:$123,000F Date:07/06/84 Lns: Doc:254110 Xmpt: Yb:1982 Sqft:1,734 Asd:$159,354
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:248 Bd/Bth:2/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:77% Un:l ____________________----------------------------------------------------------
210 ) Prcl:223-170-25-09 Site:7801 CENTELLA ST 9*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:MANN,ALEXANDER B & LI Mail:7801 CENTELLA ST 9*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$197,000F Date:09/15/99
Lns:$187,150 Doc:633032 Xmpt: Yb:1982 Sqft:1,734 Asd:$138,519
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:248 Bd/Bth:2/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:70% Un:l _-___-_____-------------------------------------------------------------------
211 ) Prcl:223-170-25-10 Site:7801 CENTELLA ST lO*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:BARE,LAWRENCE E ETAL Mail:7801 CENTELLA ST lO*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$193,500F Date:03/31/00
Lns:$154,800 Doc:165833 Xmpt: Yb:1982 Sqft:1,734 Asd:$136,983
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:248 Bd/Bth:2/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:77% Un:l -------------------------------------------------------------
212 ) Prcl:223-170-26 Site:7802 ESTANCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA
Ownr:PRIOR,WILLIAM D & NAN Mail:7802 ESTANCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$220,000F
Lns:$209,000 Doc:419497 Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:1,976
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:245 Bd/Bth:4/2.0 Ltsz:6.08 A --- ----_----------_------------------------------------------
213 ) Prcl:223-170-28 Site:3115 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA
0wnr:ISENBERG FAMILY TRUST Mail:3115 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:
Lns: DOC: Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:1,916
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:244 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:6.08 A
,-----------------
92009
92009
Date:07/07/98
Asd:$220,000
Imp:73% Un:l .----------------_
92009
92009
Date:03/24/92
Asd:$78,234
Imp:67% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
214 ) Prcl:223-170-29 Site:3111 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:BOZIR,MICHAEL R & IRE Mail:3111 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$212,000F Date:09/24/96 Lns:$201,400 Doc:485288 Xmpt:Y Yb:1977 Sqft:1,976 Asd:$220,246 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:243 Bd/Bth:4/2.0 Ltsz:6.08 A Imp:48% Un:l -----------------------------------------------------------------------------~
215 ) Prcl:223-170-30 Site:3109 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:FARACE,ANTHONY J JR Mail:1468 INGRAM ST*NORFOLK VA 23551
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$170,000F Date:04/23/86
Lns:$135,000 Doc:157872 Xmpt: Yb:1975 Sqft:2,236 Asd:$215,812
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:242 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz:6.08 A Imp:71% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
216 ) Prcl:223-170-31 Site:3107 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
0wnr:MILLER FAMILY TRUST 0 Mail:3107 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-1362 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:05/30/74 Lns: Doc:141132 Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:2,484 Asd:$85,896 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:241 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz:6.08 A Imp:72% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C!) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 25 ---------------------------------------------------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
217 ) Prcl:223-170-32 Site:7804 ESTANCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:MITCHELL,STEVE T & KA Mail:7804 ESTANCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$289,000F Date:10/22/97 Lns:$231,200 Doc:526689 Xmpt:Y Yb:1975 Sqft:2,484 Asd:$294,354 Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:246 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz:11,800 Imp:48% Un:l _____------------_______________________-----------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
218 ) Prcl:223-170-33 Site:LA COSTA AVE*CARLSBAD CA
Ownr:LIEW,FAH S & POLLY Mail:9889 BLACKGOLD RD*LA JOLLA CA 92037
Use:VACANT LAND-RES Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$600,000 Date:03/02/98
Lns: Doc:109899 Xmpt: Yb: Sqft: Asd:$1,222,236
Map:0007457 Blk: Lot:249 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:4.56 A Imp:O% Un: -----------------------------------------------------------~-----------------~
219 ) Prcl:223-170-35 Site:3160 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:KINDER,KIRK Mail:3160 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)942-8566 Zn:Rl Sale:$244,500F Date:07/30/99
Lns: Doc:528438 Xmpt: Yb:1992 Sqft:2,073 Asd:$220,383
Map:0012674 Blk: Lot:1 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:66% Un:l ______-----------___~------------------------------------~~~~~~~~-~~---------~
220 ) Prcl:223-170-36 Site:3158 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:SIGLER,SHARLENE J Mail:3158 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)634-1342 Zn:Rl Sale:$204,000F Date:01/22/92
Lns:$140,000 Doc:32544 Xmpt:Y Yb:1992 Sqft:2,073 Asd:$230,105
Map:0012674 Blk: Lot:2 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:65% Un:l __---------------__----------------------------------------------------------~
221 ) Prcl:223-170-37 Site:3156 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:ROMERO-MILLER,RUBY TR Mail:3156 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(562)861-9693 Zn:Rl Sale:$226,000F Date:06/23/97
Lns:$136,000 Doc:292593 Xmpt: Yb:1992 Sqft:2,073 Asd:$234,790
Map:0012674 Blk: Lot:3 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:63% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
222 ) Prcl:223-170-38 Site:3154 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:FERENTINOS,ANDREA TR Mail:3154 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:02/14/96
Lns: DOC: Xmpt:Y Yb:1992 Sqft:2,075 Asd:$275,223
Map:0012674 Blk: Lot:4 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:54% Un:l -----------------_------------------------------------------------------------
223 ) Prcl:223-170-39 Site:3152 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:PEACOCK,RICHARD Mail:3152 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$240,000F Date:01/09/92
Lns:$192,000 Doc:13459 Xmpt:Y Yb:1992 Sqft:2,073 Asd:$270,712
Map:0012674 Blk: Lot:5 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:55% Un:l ________-_-------___----------------------------------------------------------
224 ) Prcl:223-170-40 Site:3150 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:JONES,JULIE V Mail:3150 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$275,000F Date:07/30/98 Lns:$220,000 Doc:474268 Xmpt:Y Yb:1992 Sqft:2,075 Asd:$275,000
Map:0012674 Blk: Lot:6 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:60% Un:l ----------- ------________-----------------------------------------------------
225 ) Prcl:223-170-41 Site:3148 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:HAMMER,CASEY L Mail:3148 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)634-0697 Zn:Rl Sale:$224,000F Date:01/17/92 Lns: Doc:27051 Xmpt: Yb:1992 Sqft:2,075 Asd:$252,666 Map:0012674 Blk: Lot:7 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:59% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 26 ---------------------------------------~----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
226 ) Prcl:223-170-42 Site:3146 LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:HERNDON,WILMA JOY ETA Mail:3769 SKYLINE RD*CARLSBAD CA 92008 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(301)856-0129 Zn:Rl Sale:$204,000F Date:12/30/91 Lns:$160,000 Doc:681748 Xmpt: Yb:1992 Sqft:2,073 Asd:$230,105 Map:0012674 Blk: Lot:8 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:65% Un:l ----------------------------------------------------~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
227 ) Prcl:223-170-43 Site:LEVANTE ST*CARLSBAD CA
0wnr:LA COSTA COURT HOMEOW Mail:950 SANTA HELENA*SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 Use: Ph: Zn:S Sale: Date:11/12/91 Lns: DOC: Xmpt: Yb: Sqft: Asd: Map:0012674 Blk: Lot:9 Bd/Bth: Ltsz: Imp:O% Un: -------------------------------------~~--~-----------~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~
228 ) Prcl:223-180-08 Site:*CARLSBAD CA 0wnr:CITY OF CARLSBAD Mail:PUBLIC AGENCY Use: Ph: Zn:OO Sale: Date:10/26/73 Lns: Doc:300965 Xmpt: Yb: Sqft: Asd: Map:0007779 Blk: Lot:272 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:12.34 A Imp:O% Un: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------~
229 ) Prcl:223-180-25 Site:*CARLSBAD CA 0wnr:CITY OF CARLSBAD Mail:PUBLIC AGENCY
Use: Ph: Zn:OO Sale: Date:11/21/74
Lns: Doc:307219 Xmpt: Yb: Sqft: Asd:
Map:0007779 Blk: Lot:271 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:2.51 A Imp:O% Un: ---------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
230 ) Prcl:223-180-26 Site:CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 0wnr:BCE DEVELOPMENT PROPE Mail:33 S 6TH ST*MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 Use:OPEN SPACE ESMN Ph: Zn:S Sale: Date:11/17/88 Lns: Doc:592626 Xmpt: Yb: Sqft: Asd: Map:0007779 Blk: Lot:273 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:2.70 A Imp:O% Un: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------~
231 ) Prcl:223-190-01 Site:CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 0wnr:BCE DEVELOPMENT PROPE Mail:33 S 6TH ST*MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 Use:OPEN SPACE ESMN Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:11/17/88 Lns: Dot: Xmpt: Yb: Sqft: Asd: Map:0007779 Blk: Lot:290 Bd/Bth: Ltsz: Imp:O% Un: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------~
232 ) Prcl:223-200-31-01 Site:3202 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SELIGMAN,SCOTT Mail:3202 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)632-5073 Zn:R2 Sale:$205,000F Date:05/26/89 Lns:$164,000 Doc:279383 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,329 Asd:$197,394 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:2/2.0 Ltszz8.33 A Imp:42% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
233 ) Prcl:223-200-31-02 Site:3204 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:NERENBERG,JONATHAN & Mail:3204 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)436-0634 Zn:R2 Sale:$178,500F Date:07/31/95 Lns:$169,550 Doc:328133 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,572 Asd:$189,149 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:60% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
234 ) Prcl:223-200-31-03 Site:3206 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 0wnr:MCGREGOR FAMILY TRUST Mail:3206 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$185,000F Date:08/06/96 Lns: Doc:397704 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,474 Asd:$56,156 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:69% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED
Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 27 ___________-__-_--------------- ----------------------------------~-~~~~~~~~~~~
235 ) Prcl:223-200-31-04 Site:3208 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SOULLIERE,THOMAS M & Mail:3208 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)634-4823 Zn:R2 Sale:$185,000F Date:10/31/96
Lns:$166,500 Doc:551032 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,572 Asd:$192,196 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:40% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236 ) Prcl:223-200-31-05 Site:3210 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SCHMIDT,BILL L & ANNE Mail:3210 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$170,000F Date:03/02/98
Lns:$161,500 Doc:109699 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,474 Asd:$173,149
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:62% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
237 ) Prcl:223-200-31-06 Site:3212 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:HAINES,H JASON & ELLE Mail:3212 CARVALLO CTfCARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)436-7455 Zn:RZ Sale:$219,000F Date:06/26/92
Lns: Doc:402332 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,821 Asd:$247,023
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltszz8.33 A Imp:49% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
238 ) Prcl:223-200-31-07 Site:3217 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:HOULGATE,GREGORY E & Mail:3217 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$205,000F Date:02/09/96
Lns:$164,000 Doc:66126 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,821 Asd:$217,233
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:60% Un:l ___________________-----------------------------------------------------------
239 ) Prcl:223-200-31-08 Site:3215 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:GEIGER,JOSEPH V & PAU Mail:5041 NIGHTHAWK WAY*OCEANSIDE CA 92056 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)631-2216 Zn:R2 Sale: Date:10/17/80 Lns: Doc:344201 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,572 Asd:$172,186
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:74% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
240 ) Prcl:223-200-31-09 Site:3213 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:DINGLEY,GILBERT M & S Mail:3213 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$176,000F Date:08/23/96
Lns:$158,300 Doc:428396 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,474 Asd:$182,740
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:65% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
241 ) Prcl:223-200-31-10 Site:3211 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 0wnr:KERNS FAMILY TRUST 11 Mail:1844 HAYMARKET RD*ENCINITAS CA 92024 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)943-7042 Zn:R2 Sale:$128,000F Date:08/01/84 Lns: Doc:291743 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,572 Asd:$165,836
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:75% Un:l ___________--------------------------~~~~~~--------------------------------~-~
242 ) Prcl:223-200-31-11 Site:3209 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:DEHUFF,MARK B & LORIN Mail:10101 BIRCHWOOD DR*HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$128,500F Date:05/14/84
Lns: Doc:177647 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,474 Asd:$169,811
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:65% Un:l -------------------------------- -----______________---------------------------
243 ) Prcl:223-200-31-12 Site:3207 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:ANDERSON,ANDREW C & C Mail:3207 CARVALLO CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)436-4585 Zn:R2 Sale:$162,000F Date:12/01/93 Lns:$153,900 Doc:806006 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,329 Asd:$175,634 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:2/2.0 Ltszz8.33 A Imp:63% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED
Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 28 --------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
244 ) Prcl:223-200-31-13 Site:7585 DELGADO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:NIMAN,BARRY J Mail:7585 DELGADO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:12/29/82 Lns: Doc:397348 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,572 Asd:$161,752 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:62% Un:l ------------------_-----------------------------------------------------------
245 ) Prcl:223-200-31-14 Site:7583 DELGADO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:PAQUIN,LOUIS N & MARY Mail:7583 DELGADO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale: Date:04/11/83 Lns: Doc:114972 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,474 Asd:$123,492 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:69% Un:l ------------------_-----------------------------------------------------------
246 ) Prcl:223-200-31-15 Site:7581 DELGADO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:MORAN,VIRGINIA L TR Mail:7581 DELGADO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$192,000F Date:10/24/97 Lns:$144,000 Doc:535211 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,572 Asd:$195,557 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:42% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
247 ) Prcl:223-200-31-16 Site:7579 DELGADO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:ACQUISTAPACE,MARJORIE Mail:7579 DELGADO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)436-8663 Zn:R2 Sale: Date:11/15/78 Lns: Doc:494605 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,329 Asd:$112,936
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:2/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:65% Un:l ----_--_____________----------------------------------------------------------
248 ) Prcl:223-200-31-17 Site:7577 DELGADO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:HUNTER,ALONZO E & LOL Mail:7577 DELGADO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)943-1584 Zn:R2 Sale:$178,000F Date:01/28/93 Lns:$160,200 Doc:56756 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,474 Asd:$196,841 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:55% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
249 ) Prcl:223-200-31-18 Site:7575 DELGADO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:KEPPLER,GREGORY S Mail:781 S NARDO AVE 0-G*SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$248,000F Date:04/03/00 Lns:$198,400 Doc:168463 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,572 Asd:$156,233 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:77% Un:l ------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
250 ) Prcl:223-200-31-19 Site:7573 DELGADO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:KACSIR,PHILIP & PAULA Mail:7573 DELGADO PLfCARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$234,500F Date:11/19/98 Lns:$222,440 Doc:754541 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,821 Asd:$234,150 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:47% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
251 ) Prcl:223-200-31-20 Site:7571 DELGADO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:HORNER,MARY E Mail:7571 DELGADO PL*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)436-5340 Zn:R2 Sale: Date:01/30/85 Lns: Doc:31276 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,329 Asd:$111,958 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:2/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:64% Un:l --------------------------- __________-----------------------------------------
252 ) Prcl:223-200-31-21 Site:7599 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:LUPO,SHELLY Mail:7599 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$170,000F Date:09/19/97 Lns:$59,300 Doc:461905 Xmpt:Y Yb:1980 Sqft:1,329 Asd:$172,640 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:2/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:60% Un:l -----------------___----------------------------------------------------------
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED
Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 29 __----------------------------------------------------------------------------
253 ) Prcl:223-200-31-22 Site:7597 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:WEIDA,JAMES H Mail:7597 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)942-3615 Zn:R2 Sale:$197,000F Date:03/31/93 Lns:$184,000 Doc:198311 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,821 Asd:$217,408 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:45% Un:l ______-_----_-----------------------------------------------------------------
254 ) Prcl:223-200-31-23 Site:7595 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:EADY,FRED L JR & ANNE Mail:7595 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale: Date:06/19/86
Lns: Doc:248776 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,438 Asd:$169,965
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:65% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
255 ) Prcl:223-200-31-24 Site:7593 CALOMA CIRfCARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:GILL,HAZEL J Mail:7593 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$232,000F Date:03/11/99
Lns: Doc:156610 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,329 Asd:$151,537
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:2/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:65% Un:l _-____---_---_---_------------------------------------------------------------
256 ) Prcl:223-200-31-25 Site:7591 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:BUTLER,DORIS J TR Mail:7591 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale: Date:
Lns: DOC: Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,438 Asd:$170,669
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:75% Un:l ---------------------------- -----------_--_-----____________________----------
257 ) Prcl:223-200-31-26 Site:7589 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:GREGORY,RONALD & MICH Mail:7589 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)632-0615 Zn:Rl Sale:$201,000F Date:03/25/94
Lns:$190,950 Doc:197808 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,329 Asd:$217,918
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:2/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:65% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
258 ) Prcl:223-200-31-27 Site:7587 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:UCHIMURA,MITSUHIRO & Mail:7587 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)943-9615 Zn:R2 Sale:$236,000F Date:07/31/90
Lns: Doc:417246 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,572 Asd:$220,000
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:43% Un:l ---_----_--------_------------------------------------------------------------
259 ) Prcl:223-200-31-28 Site:7585 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:COHEN,JEFFREY Mail:7585 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)943-1738 Zn:R2 Sale:$150,000F Date:09/10/87
Lns:$112,500 Doc:512170 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,821 Asd:$183,136
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:71% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
260 ) Prcl:223-200-31-29 Site:7583 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:SAUNDERS,GARY K & KAR Mail:7583 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$175,000F Date:04/17/97
Lns:$166,250 Doc:177327 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,329 Asd:$181,807
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:2/2.0 LtszI8.33 A Imp:37% Un:l ------- -------------------- ---------- -----------------------------------------
261 ) Prcl:223-200-31-30 Site:7581 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:FELL,ROBERT L & CHERY Mail:7581 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$190,000F Date:10/29/93 Lns:$180,500 Doc:729938 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,572 Asd:$205,991 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:44% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED
Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
262 ) Prcl:223-200-31-31 Site:7579 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:HOM,JUDY Mail:7579 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$195,000F Date:10/23/89 Lns:$145,000 Doc:573174 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,572 Asd:$195,000 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:48% Un:l --------___-_____------------------------------------------- ------------------
263 ) Prcl:223-200-31-32 Site:7577 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:WEISSER,DAMON R & MEL Mail:7577 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$187,000F Date:04/27/98 Lns:$177,650 Doc:240045 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,329 Asd:$190,464
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:2/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:62% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------
264 ) Prcl:223-200-31-33 Site:7575 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:MARTINEAU,MARILYN Mail:3542 FRONT ST*SAN DIEGO CA 92103
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$126,000F Date:06/02/86
Lns:$94,500 Doc:218186 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,474 Asd:$160,043
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:63% Un:l --------------_-_----------------~--~----------------------------------------~
265 ) Prcl:223-200-31-34 Site:7573 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:CARROLL,GREGORY J & R Mail:7573 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$265,000F Date:12/02/99
Lns:$212,000 Doc:790657 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,821 Asd:$213,524
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:69% Un:l ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
266 ) Prcl:223-200-31-35 Site:7571 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
0wnr:VAUGHN FAMILY REVOCAB Mail:7571 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale: Date: Lns: DOC: Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,821 Asd:$161,313 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:62% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
267 ) Prcl:223-200-31-36 Site:7569 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:CRENSHAW,MARVIN L & C Mail:823 MORNING SUN DR*ENCINITAS CA 92024 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)753-7641 Zn:R2 Sale:$167,000F Date:11/16/88 Lns:$133,600 Doc:588108 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,329 Asd:$199,894 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:2/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:67% Un:l --------------_-_------------------------------------------------------------~
268 ) Prcl:223-200-31-37 Site:7567 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 0wnr:SCHMIDT TR Mail:7336 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale: Date:01/24/86 Lns: DOC: Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,821 Asd:$127,383 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:80% Un:l -----------______-------------------------------------------------------------
269 ) Prcl:223-200-31-38 Site:7565 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:PORTNOY,JERRY EC SHERY Mail:7565 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$224,500F Date:06/04/98 Lns:$179,400 Doc:336419 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,329 Asd:$228,150 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:2/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:33% Un:l ---------________-------------------------------------------------------------
270 ) Prcl:223-200-31-39 Site:7563 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:NAYLOR,WILLIAM W III Mail:7563 CALOMA CIRfCARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$250,000F Date:08/02/99 Lns:$200,000 Doc:533000 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,572 Asd:$199,486 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:70% Un:l ---------------_---------------~~~~~~----------------------------------------~
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 31 --------~~~---------------~--------~~----------------------------~~~--~-~~~~~~
271 ) Prcl:223-200-31-40 Site:7561 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:ARAUJO,GRACE Mail:2436 SACADA CIR A*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$182,000F Date:05/14/93 Lns:$127,400 Doc:307363 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,474 Asd:$190,000 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:42% Un:l ----------------_--------~~-----~~~~~-----------------------------~~-----~~~~~
272 ) Prcl:223-200-31-41 Site:7559 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:MORISHIMA,SAM & MAY Mail:2540 DONNER WAY*SACRAMENTO CA 95818 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(916)736-0432 Zn:RZ Sale:$124,750F Date:03/29/85 Lns:$99,800 Doc:105615 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,572 Asd:$161,623 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:60% Un:l ---------~----------------~--------~~--------------------~---------~----------
273 ) Prcl:223-200-31-42 Site:7557 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 0wnr:TAGGE T TR Mail:7557 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale: Date:04/04/90 Lns: DOC: Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,474 Asd:$170,472 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:67% Un:l ------_~--------_--------~~------~~~~----------~---------~---------~----------
274 ) Prcl:223-200-31-43 Site:7555 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:BRIERLY,MILDRED R TR Mail:7555 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)436-6310 Zn:R2 Sale:$127,000F Date:06/20/84 Lns:$28,300 Doc:230351 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,821 Asd:$167,829 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltszz8.33 A Imp:79% Un:l ---____-----_____---____________________--------------------------------------
275 ) Prcl:223-200-31-44 Site:7578 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:NANGIA,SUBHASH & SURB Mail:7578 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)942-0439 Zn:R2 Sale:$232,000F Date:11/13/89 Lns:$185,000 Doc:615351 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,821 Asd:$252,309 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:53% Un:l ----___------____-------------------------------------------------------------
276 ) Prcl:223-200-31-45 Site:7580 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SARATI,WILLIAM L Mail:7580 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph:(760)436-5911 Zn:R2 Sale:$123,000F Date:02/16/84
Lns: Doc:58879 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,572 Asd:$162,542
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:65% Un:l ----___------____-------------------------------------------------------------
277 ) Prcl:223-200-31-46 Site:7582 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:PETROVIC,TOMISLAV Mail:7582 CALOMA CIR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RES-COND Ph: Zn:R2 Sale:$246,000F Date:10/28/99 Lns:$233,700 Doc:723138 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,572 Asd:$169,150 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:488 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:8.33 A Imp:67% Un:l -----__-----_____-------------------------------------------------------------
278 ) Prcl:223-240-01 Site:3309 PIRAGUA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:WOODCOX,P S Mail:3309 PIRAGUA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$383,000F Date:09/17/93 Lns:$306,400 Doc:613260 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:2,904 Asd:$415,840
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:445 Bd/Bth:5/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:66% Un:l ---------------__-------------------------------------------------------------
279 ) Prcl:223-240-02 Site:3307 PIRAGUA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:ARBUCKLE,FREDERICK M Mail:3307 PIRAGUA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-7835 Zn:Rl Sale:$380,000F Date:12/24/97 Lns:$304,000 Doc:656869 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:2,635 Asd:$387,040 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:444 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:64% Un:l ----------------__------~~~~----~~~~~~---------~---------~--------------------
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 32 -____-----___------_____________________----~-------~------~~----~~~~~-~~~~~~~
280 ) Prcl:223-240-03 Site:3305 PIRAGUA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 0wnr:BARTL TR Mail:3305 PIRAGUA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)431-0803 Zn:Rl Sale:$310,000F Date:04/20/88 Lns:$99,000 Doc:183299 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:2,038 Asd:$378,490 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:443 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:55% Un:l ____----_____---____----------------------------------------------------------
281 ) Prcl:223-240-04 Site:3303 PIRAGUA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SHAKHSHIR,LUTFI & DIA Mail:3303 PIRAGUA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$400,000F Date:08/06/96 Lns:$200,000 Doc:397907 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:2,904 Asd:$419,714 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:442 Bd/Bth:5/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:43% Un:l ----~---------------~------------------------------------------------~-------~
282 ) Prcl:223-250-01 Site:7551 ESFERA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:MIRINGOFF,JAMES A & J Mail:7551 ESFERA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-2828 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:03/04/88
Lns: DOC: Xmpt:Y Yb:1984 Sqft:3,534 Asd:$403,688
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:482 Bd/Bth:5/3.5 Ltsz:30,492 Imp:63% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
283 ) Prcl:223-250-04 Site:3341 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:MAXWELL,GENE Mail:3341 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$790,000F Date:03/18/99
Lns:$692,200 Doc:174734 Xmpt:Y Yb:1986 Sqft:4,156 Asd:$499,444
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:481 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz:30,927 Imp:65% Un:l -____---_____---________________________--------------------------------------
284 ) Prcl:223-250-05 Site:3335 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:CANCELLIER,PETER D & Mail:3335 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$615,000F Date:08/07/89
Lns:$492,000 Doc:417934 Xmpt:Y Yb:1986 Sqft:3,111 Asd:$721,735 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:480 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz:37,461 Imp:51% Un:l -____---_____---____----------------------------------------------------------
285 ) Prcl:223-250-06 Site:3331 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:OLMSTED,JEAN PAUL ETA Mail:3331 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$260,000F Date:05/01/89 Lns: Doc:228214 Xmpt: Yb:1992 Sqft:4,958 Asd:$983,024 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:479 Bd/Bth:5/5.5 Ltsz:38,332 Imp:68% Un:l ------------_~---------------------------------------~---------------~-------~
286 ) Prcl:223-250-07 Site:VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA Ownr:LO,PETER & SUNNY Mail:6116 LONDONBERRIE CT*MIDLAND MI 48640 Use:VACANT LAND-RES Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$235,000F Date:04/03/98 Lns: Doc:189379 Xmpt: Yb: Sqft: Asd:$239,354 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:478 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:38,768 Imp:O% Un: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
287 ) Prcl:223-250-08 Site:3322 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:CAPR,DAVID & DEB1 Mail:3322 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$145,000F Date:01/08/85 Lns: Doc:4709 Xmpt:Y Yb:1988 Sqft:5,411 Asd:$570,348 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:462 Bd/Bth:3/3.5 Ltsz:38,332 Imp:65% Un:l --------------------____________________---------------------~-------~-------~
288 ) Prcl:223-250-09 Site:3332 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 0wnr:DANIEL FAMILY TRUST 0 Mail:3332 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$650,000F Date:04/10/92 Lns:$487,500 Doc:210225 Xmpt:Y Yb:1989 Sqft:4,651 Asd:$736,739 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:461 Bd/Bth:5/4.0 Ltsz:39,204 Imp:62% Un:l ---------____----___----------------------------------------------------------
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 33 ---------__-_____-------------------------------------------------------------
289 ) Prcl:223-250-10 Site:3336 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:WOOD,LEE A & DIANE M Mail:3336 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date: Lns: Dot: Xmpt:Y Yb:1989 Sqft:4,366 Asd:$615,200 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:460 Bd/Bth:5/7.0 Ltsz:36,154 Imp:67% Un:l ----------------_-------------------------------------------------------------
290 ) Prcl:223-250-11 Site:3342 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:KAUR,JASMIT Mail:3342 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$1,100,000F Date:06/26/89 Lns:$500,000 Doc:335946 Xmpt: Yb:1986 Sqft:5,268 Asd:$967,603 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:459 Bd/Bth:4/6.0 Ltsz:l.Ol A Imp:52% Un:l ~---------------_------------------------------------------------------------~
291 ) Prcl:223-250-22 Site:3315 PIRAGUA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:HILDEBRANDT,GEOFFREY Mail:3315 PIRAGUA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-3177 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:11/23/77 Lns: Doc:484377 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:2,904 Asd:$176,255
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:448 Bd/Bth:5/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:75% Un:l -----------______--------------~~--------------------------------------------~
292 ) Prcl:223-250-23 Site:3313 PIRAGUA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:KIMBALL,DALE W & CHA Mail:3313 PIRAGUA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$349,000F Date:09/18/87 Lns:$226,850 Doc:530308 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:2,904 Asd:$426,108 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:447 Bd/Bth:5/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:61% Un:l ------___________----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------------------~~--------------------~
293 ) Prcl:223-250-24 Site:3311 PIRAGUA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:BARBOUR,RICHARD L & C Mail:3311 PIRAGUA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$425,000F Date:05/17/91 Lns:$340,000 Doc:233715 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:2,635 Asd:$488,977 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:446 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:70% Un:l ----------------------------------------- -----_---_______---------------------
294 ) Prcl:223-260-01 Site:3302 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:MITCHELL,JOHN J & STE Mail:3302 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$1,100,000F Date:04/13/90
Lns:$825,000 Doc:199514 Xmpt:Y Yb:1990 Sqft:4,535 Asd:$1,290,913
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:467 Bd/Bth:5/4.5 Ltsz:33,976 Imp:45% Un:l ----_-___________-------------------------------------------------------------
295 ) Prcl:223-260-02 Site:3306 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:MACY,RICHARD L JR & T Mail:3306 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-4918 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:06/09/98
Lns: Dot: Xmpt:Y Yb:1985 Sqft:4,143 Asd:$510,649
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:466 Bd/Bth:3/3.5 Ltsz:37,026 Imp:64% Un:l ---------________-------------------------------------------------------------
296 ) Prcl:223-260-03 Site:3312 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:KAO,WARD & JANE Mail:3312 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)942-0996 Zn:Rl Sale:$800,000F Date:07/15/99
Lns:$600,000 Doc:492738 Xmpt: Yb:1984 Sqft:4,478 Asd:$1,035,491
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:465 Bd/Bth:4/3.5 Ltsz:35,719 Imp:55% Un:l ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----__-
297 ) Prcl:223-260-04 Site:3314 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:ANDERSON,CHRISTOPHER Mail:3314 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)942-1299 Zn:Rl Sale:$234,000F Date:08/17/88 Lns:$134,000 Doc:405800 Xmpt:Y Yb:1991 Sqft:5,485 Asd:$795,265 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:464 Bd/Bth:4/4.0 Ltsz:36,154 Imp:63% Un:l -----------______----------~~~~~~~~~~----------------------------------------~
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 34 ----------------------------------------------------------------------~~~~~~~-
298 ) Prcl:223-260-05 Site:3316 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:FAN,CHU S Mail:3316 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-1888 Zn:Rl Sale:$625,000F Date:05/19/88 Lns:$468,750 Doc:236946 Xmpt:Y Yb:1986 Sqft:4,457 Asd:$820,909 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:463 Bd/Bth:4/4.0 Ltsz:36,590 Imp:59% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
299 ) Prcl:223-260-06 Site:3315 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:TAVELMAN,DANA A Mail:7816 CALLE LOMAS*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$775,000F Date:05/26/00 Lns:$620,000 Doc:278501 Xmpt: Yb:1986 Sqft:3,259 Asd:$377,757 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:476 Bd/Bth:3/3.0 Ltsz:37,461 Imp:54% Un:l --------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
300 ) Prcl:223-260-07 Site:3321 VENADO ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SHADIAN,YOURE & LINDA Mail:3321 VENADO STfCARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$545,000F Date:04/14/95
Lns:$400,000 Doc:156530 Xmpt:Y Yb:1985 Sqft:3,643 Asd:$582,861
Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:477 Bd/Bth:3/3.5 Ltsz:41,817 Imp:63% Un:l ---------_---_______----------------------------------------- -----------------
301 ) Prcl:223-260-08 Site:7512 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:VANHOOSE,PATRICK C & Mail:7512 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)753-5440 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:12/09/87 Lns: Dot: Xmpt:Y Yb:1988 Sqft:3,670 Asd:$413,491 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:486 Bd/Bth:3/3.0 Ltsz:l.O7 A Imp:61% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
302 ) Prcl:223-260-09 Site:7500 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:PETERSON,HENRY T & CA Mail:7500 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-9165 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:10/30/98 Lns: Dot: Xmpt:Y Yb:1986 Sqft:3,283 Asd:$421,961 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:485 Bd/Bth:5/3.5 Ltsz:33,976 Imp:59% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
303 ) Prcl:223-260-10 Site:7412 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:YGLESIA,LARRY G & JEA Mail:7412 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$850,000F Date:09/12/97 Lns:$550,000 Doc:442947 Xmpt:Y Yb:1987 Sqft:5,393 Asd:$915,750 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:475 Bd/Bth:3/4.0 Ltsz:41,382 Imp:66% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
304 ) Prcl:223-260-11 Site:CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 0wnr:MIHOLICH FAMILY TRUST Mail:2735 CAZADERO DR*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:VACANT LAND-RES Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$125,000F Date:01/19/84 Lns:$87,500 Doc:22799 Xmpt: Yb: Sqft: Asd:$165,198 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:474 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:1.18 A Imp:O% Un: ----------------____----------------------------------------------------------
305 ) Prcl:223-260-12 Site:7402 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:MARANGOS,PAUL J & MAI Mail:7402 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)944-0566 Zn:Rl Sale:$1,045,000F Date:05/08/97 Lns:$570,000 Doc:212887 Xmpt:Y Yb:1993 Sqft:6,359 Asd:$1,028,205 Map:0007950 Blk: Lot:473 Bd/Bth:6/6.0 Ltsz:43,124 Imp:69% Un:l --------------- ----____________________________________-----------------------
306 ) Prcl:223-290-10 Site:3116 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:LAGEDER,JOSEF & CAROL Mail:3116 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$240,000F Date:02/24/98 Lns:$191,900 Doc:96806 Xmpt: Yb:1981 Sqft:2,200 Asd:$244,344 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:69 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:62% Un:l ------------__-_________________________-------------------------------~~~~~~-
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 35 _________________-------------------------------------------- .-----------------
307 ) Prcl:223-291-37 Site:7404 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:LOWRY,BONNIE R Mail:7404 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)753-6434 Zn:Rl Sale:$51,500P Date:04/28/86 Lns: Doc:164436 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:1,833 Asd:$195,106 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:112 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:14,400 Imp:68% Un:l -------------_-__-------------------------------------------- .-----------------
308 ) Prcl:223-291-38 Site:7406 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:TORAASON,JEFFREY W & Mail:7406 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)753-0483 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:01/31/79
Lns: Doc:47289 Xmpt:Y Yb:1985 Sqft:2,704 Asd:$165,403 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:113 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz:8,500 Imp:72% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
309 ) Prcl:223-291-39 Site:7408 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:SHEPHARD,GLEN W & AND Mail:7408 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:10/13/78
Lns: Doc:436329 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,820 Asd:$135,172
Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:114 Bd/Bth:4/2.0 Ltsz:7,200 Imp:66% Un:l --_--____________------------------------------------------------------------~
310 ) Prcl:223-291-40 Site:7410 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:ROCK,JOHN S & HEIDI F Mail:7410 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)942-3101 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:11/20/78
Lns: Doc:499902 Xmpt:Y Yb: Sqft: Asd:$134,353
Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:115 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:7,200 Imp:69% Un:l ---______________-------------------------------------------------------------
311 1 Prcl:223-291-41 Site:7412 CARLINA STfCARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:WEATHERFORD,LAURA A Mail:7412 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$185,000F Date:09/17/92 Lns:$166,500 Doc:589344 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,425 Asd:$204,581 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:116 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:7,200 Imp:61% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
312 ) Prcl:223-291-42 Site:7414 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 0wnr:FAIRGATE FINANCIAL L Mail:1738 SIENNA CANYON DR*ENCINITAS CA 92024 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$ll,OOO Date:07/16/97 Lns: Doc:334516 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:2,172 Asd:$212,872 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:117 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz:7,200 Imp:74% Un:l -------__________-------------------------------------------------------------
313 ) Prcl:223-291-43 Site:7416 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:WEBER,MARK & BEVERLY Mail:7416 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)753-1572 Zn:Rl Sale:$220,000F Date:08/27/93 Lns:$189,711 Doc:564565 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:2,072 Asd:$238,517 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:118 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz:9,200 Imp:54% Un:l -------------____------------------------------------------------------------~
314 ) Prcl:223-291-44 Site:7418 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:TRYGSTAD,JEAN W TR Mail:2821 CACATUA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$220,000F Date:04/14/89 Lns: Doc:197201 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,827 Asd:$263,339 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:119 Bd/Bth:2/2.5 Ltsz:12,900 Imp:54% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
315 ) Prcl:223-291-45 Site:7420 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:FLYNN,THOMAS M Mail:2808 REBEIRO AVE*SANTA CLARA CA 95051 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(408)243-2344 Zn:Rl Sale:$199,000F Date:10/27/89 Lns:$179,100 Doc:587371 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,284 Asd:$233,529 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:120 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:10,200 Imp:52% Un:l --------------_-_------------------------------------------------------------~
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED
Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 36 ------~--~------~-----------------------------------------------~~~----~~~~~~-
316 ) Prcl:223-291-46 Site:7422 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:JONES,JUDITH R Mail:7422 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$215,000F Date:11/14/88 Lns:$150,000 Doc:584278 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft: Asd:$257,358 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:121 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:5,800 Imp:60% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
317 ) Prcl:223-291-47 Site:3133 HATACA RD*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:LO,PRISCILLA Mail:3133 HATACA RD*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:07/16/80 Lns: Doc:223798 Xmpt:Y Yb: Sqft: Asd:$132,903 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:122 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:4,800 Imp:65% Un:l ~-----~---------------------------------------~-------------------------------
318 ) Prcl:223-291-48 Site:3131 HATACA RD*CARLSBAD CA 92009
0wnr:KRULCE FAMILY TRUST 0 Mail:3131 HATACA RD*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$205,000 Date:02/21/97
Lns:$184,500 Doc:79018 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:2,818 Asd:$218,169 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:123 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz:4,700 Imp:71% Un:l ------~-------------------~---------------------------------------------------
319 ) Prcl:223-291-49 Site:3129 HATACA RD*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:KIRSTEIN,BRUCE E & BA Mail:3129 HATACA RD*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:11/14/78 Lns: Doc:492430 Xmpt:Y Yb: Sqft: Asd:$130,017 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:124 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:5,000 Imp:66% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
320 ) Prcl:223-291-50 Site:3127 HATACA RD*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:MORI,SHINICHI & ROSE Mail:3127 HATACA RD*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$207,500F Date:03/02/98 Lns:$186,350 Doc:106981 Xmpt:Y Yb:1985 Sqft:1,827 Asd:$218,983 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:125 Bd/Bth:2/2.5 Ltsz:7,200 Imp:44% Un:l --------------------------~---------~--------~~---------~--------~~~-----~~~~~
321 ) Prcl:223-291-51 Site:3126 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:MAGANA,CHARLES L & EL Mail:2364 ROMNEY RD*SAN DIEGO CA 92109 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(858)273-0139 Zn:Rl Sale:$130,000F Date:07/22/87 Lns:$104,000 Doc:409596 Xmpt:Y Yb:1979 Sqft:1,284 Asd:$158,713 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:126 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:6,900 Imp:59% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
322 ) Prcl:223-291-52 Site:3128 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:KECHTER,HAROLD C & CH Mail:3128 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:VACANT LAND-RES Ph:(760)436-3346 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:11/30/78 Lns: Doc:513584 Xmpt: Yb: Sqft: Asd:$137,243 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:127 Bd/Bth: Ltsz: Imp:68% Un: ---~--------------------------------------------------------------~~-------~~~
323 ) Prcl:223-291-53 Site:3130 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:COPELAND,GERALD H & H Mail:3130 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$375,000F Date:05/17/00 Lns:$60,000 Doc:257380 Xmpt: Yb:1985 Sqft:2,042 Asd:$220,444
Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:128 Bd/Bth:3/3.0 Ltsz:5,800 Imp:71% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
324 ) Prcl:223-291-54 Site:3132 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:GIL,CARMEN C Mail:3132 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-9262 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:09/28/78
Lns: Doc:412713 Xmpt:Y Yb: Sqft: Asd:$114,842 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:129 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:5,800 Imp:61% Un:l -------------------------~~------~~~~-----~~~~~--------~~~-----~~~~~-----~~~~~
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 37 ------------------------------------------------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
325 ) Prcl:223-291-55 Site:3134 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:ABBOTT,SUSAN I & LEE Mail:3134 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-7839 Zn:Rl Sale:$317,000F Date:09/10/98 Lns:$285,300 Doc:576057 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:2,024 Asd:$317,000 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:130 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz:5,800 Imp:61% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
326 ) Prcl:223-291-56 Site:3136 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:MOORE,TERRY W Mail:3136 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$170,000F Date:09/16/87 Lns:$136,000 Doc:524068 Xmpt: Yb: Sqft:1,988 Asd:$207,556 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:131 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:4,700 Imp:47% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
327 ) Prcl:223-291-57 Site:3138 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:FAIRLIE,GRAEME J & VE Mail:4075 HARRISON ST 2*CARLSBAD CA 92008 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)729-4334 Zn:Rl Sale:$175,000F Date:10/13/95 Lns:$157,500 Doc:464979 Xmpt: Yb:1979 Sqft:1,425 Asd:$185,441 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:132 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:5,400 Imp:52% Un:l --------------------------- -------__------------------------------------------
328 ) Prcl:223-292-04 Site:7412 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:CARTWRIGHT,MARIAN Mail:7412 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$324,000F Date:07/28/98 Lns:$227,000 Doc:470502 Xmpt:Y Yb:1981 Sqft:2,543 Asd:$324,000 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:135 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:70% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
329 ) Prcl:223-292-05 Site:7410 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:MAHMOUDI,HOMAYOUN Mail:7410 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$225,000F Date:02/06/92 Lns:$160,000 Doc:64125 Xmpt:Y Yb:1981 Sqft:2,200 Asd:$105,161 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:134 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:81% Un:l -------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
330 1 Prcl:223-292-07 Site:7407 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:GODFREY,MICHAEL J & C Mail:7407 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$200,000F Date:08/29/97 Lns:$189,900 Doc:422096 Xmpt:Y Yb:1981 Sqft:1,827 Asd:$203,603 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:143 Bd/Bth:2/2.5 Ltsz:4,500 Imp:65% Un:l --------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
331 ) Prcl:223-292-08 Site:7409 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:STANTON,MARK A & DANA Mail:7409 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$240,000F Date:02/10/99 Lns:$215,900 Doc:84062 Xmpt:Y Yb:1981 Sqft:1,558 Asd:$169,361 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:142 Bd/Bth:2/2.0 Ltsz:4,200 Imp:63% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
332 ) Prcl:223-292-09 Site:7411 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SILLS,JUDD M & CHERYL Mail:7411 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$317,590F Date:04/27/99 Lns:$301,600 Doc:278870 Xmpt:Y Yb:1985 Sqft:2,543 Asd:$200,131 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:141 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz:4,200 Imp:70% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
333 ) Prcl:223-292-10 Site:7413 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SCHONEMAN,FRED W & LI Mail:7413 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-5721 Zn:Rl Sale:$169,000F Date:07/10/87 Lns:$99,000 Doc:386832 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:1,921 Asd:$206,335 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:140 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:4,200 Imp:46% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED
Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 38 _____-------------------------------------------------------------------------
334 ) Prcl:223-292-11 Site:7415 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SNYDER,KEITH & SHARI Mail:7415 CARLINA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$185,000F Date:05/20/94 Lns:$166,500 Doc:336461 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:1,425 Asd:$200,572 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:139 Bd/Bth: Ltsz:6,900 Imp:57% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
335 ) Prcl:223-292-12 Site:7418 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:GUTIERREZ,RANDALL D & Mail:7418 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)634-2652 Zn:Rl Sale:$245,000F Date:09/29/94 Lns: Doc:579002 Xmpt:Y Yb:1981 Sqft:2,543 Asd:$262,500 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:138 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:67% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
336 ) Prcl:223-292-13 Site:7416 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
0wnr:RENDLEMAN FAMILY TRUS Mail:7416 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)942-6153 Zn:Rl Sale:$52,500F Date:01/03/83
Lns: Doc:1263 Xmpt:Y Yb:1981 Sqft:2,200 Asd:$198,572
Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:138 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:68% Un:l ------------------------------------------------- ------_--____-_--------------
337 ) Prcl:223-292-14 Site:7414 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SECHLER,ROBERT T & JE Mail:7414 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$202,000F Date:11/27/96 Lns:$102,000 Doc:599161 Xmpt:Y Yb:1981 Sqft:1,635 Asd:$209,857 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:137 Bd/Bth:2/2.0 Ltsz: Imp:$O% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
338 ) Prcl:223-293-01 Site:7595 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:CONTRERAS,HORTENSIA & Mail:7595 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:06/18/93 Lns: DOC: Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:1,365 Asd:$164,819 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:1 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz: Imp:47% Un:l --------------------------------------------- ------ ---------------------------
339 ) Prcl:223-293-02 Site:7585 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:EICHENFIELD,ROSEMARY Mail:6936 W MUMMY MT RD*PARADISE VALLEY AZ 85253 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(602)840-5121 Zn:Rl Sale:$170,000F Date:04/27/84 Lns:$140,000 Doc:154592 Xmpt: Yb:1978 Sqft:1,988 Asd:$208,403 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:2 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:61% Un:l ----_---_--_--------------------- ---------------------------------------------
340 ) Prcl:223-293-03 Site:7575 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:BESL,JOHANN H & RURIK Mail:7575 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$160,000F Date:10/22/87 Lns:$120,000 Doc:593731 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:1,761 Asd:$195,344 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:3 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:50% Un:l ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------
341 ) Prcl:223-293-04 Site:7555 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SAMPSON,MIREILLE Mail:7555 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)753-0354 Zn:Rl Sale:$193,000 Date:11/03/89 Lns:$154,400 Doc:601286 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:1,262 Asd:$226,490 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:4 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz: Imp:65% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
342 ) Prcl:223-293-05 Site:7535 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:GOODMAN,PHILIP R & JO Mail:7535 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)944-7741 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:01/22/92
Lns: DOC: Xmpt:Y Yb:1986 Sqft:2,543 Asd:$239,691
Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:5 Bd/Bth:4/3.0 Ltsz: Imp:73% Un:l -------------------_____________________-------------- ------------------------
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 39 _______-----------------------------------------------------------------------
343 ) Prcl:223-293-06 Site:7515 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:SELIGMAN,HAROLD & DOR Mail:7515 CADENCIA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)943-9226 Zn:Rl Sale:$315,000F Date:10/26/90 Lns:$70,000 Doc:582902 Xmpt:Y Yb:1986 Sqft:2,200 Asd:$300,000 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:6 Bd/Bth:3/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:58% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
344 ) Prcl:223-293-07 Site:3139 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:BISHOP,WILLIAM B Mail:3139 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$227,000F Date:05/13/99 Lns: Doc:328217 Xmpt: Yb:1978 Sqft:1,262 Asd:$199,904 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:7 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz:5,000 Imp:53% Un:l ________----------------------------------------------------------------------
345 ) Prcl:223-293-08 Site:3137 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:KANE,IRWIN J & SYLVIA Mail:7330 LAS BRISAS CT*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$77,001T Date:06/12/96 Lns: Doc:295438 Xmpt: Yb:1978 Sqft:1,761 Asd:$201,338 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:8 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:36% Un:l ----___-----------------------------------------------------------------------
346 ) Prcl:223-293-09 Site:3135 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA Ownr:LANDRY,KEVIN W Mail:3135 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$297,000F Lns:$282,150 Doc:773086 Xmpt: Yb:1978 Sqft:1,988 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:9 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: -------------------------------------------------------------
347 ) Prcl:223-293-10 Site:3133 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 0wnr:ABBEY FAMILY TRUST 12 Mail:1881 HIGH RIDGE AVE*CARLSBAD Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Lns: Doc:163716 Xmpt: Yb:1978 Sqft:1,365 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:10 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz: -------------------------------------------------------------
348 ) Prcl:223-293-11 Site:3131 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA Ownr:BUCKINGHAM,ROBERT T Mail:3131 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$203,000F Lns:$203,000 Doc:405437 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:1,761
Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:11 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: -----_--------------____________________---------------------
349 ) Prcl:223-293-12 Site:3129 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA Ownr:MCLOUGHLIN,ROBERT & L Mail:3129 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Lns: Doc:349532 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:1,988
Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:12 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz:
92009 92009 Date:11/23/99 Asd:$200,807 Imp:69% Un:l ,-----------------
92009 CA 92008 Date:04/25/78 Asd:$95,259 Imp:53% Un:l .------__-_-_-----
92009 92009 Date:08/09/96 Asd:$210,895
Imp:51% Un:l -----------------
92009 92009 Date:08/21/79 Asd:$161,461 Imp:65% Un:l -----_------------------------------------------------------------------------
350 ) Prcl:223-293-13 Site:3127 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:PITTS,WILLIAM R Mail:3127 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$212,500F Date:02/18/93
Lns:$191,250 Doc:101230 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:1,761 Asd:$234,991 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:13 Bd/Bth:4/2.0 Ltsz:5,100 Imp:71% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
351 ) Prcl:223-293-14 Site:3125 DEL REY AVE*CARLSBAD CA 92009 0wnr:FARLEY GROUP TRUST 06 Mail:6489 FARLEY DR*SAN DIEGO CA 92122 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(858)457-0754 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:10/05/98 Lns: DOC: Xmpt: Yb:1978 Sqft:1,365 Asd:$213,304 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:14 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz: Imp:57% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
Page 40 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
352 ) Prcl:223-293-15 Site:7510 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:LOTECKA-SCHWARTZ,ISAB Mail:7510 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-9248 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:03/01/85 Lns: Doc:69274 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:1,262 Asd:$159,685 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:15 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz: Imp:59% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
353 ) Prcl:223-293-16 Site:7512 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:HOREN,DEBRA J Mail:7512 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$320,000F Date:06/19/00
Lns:$220,000 Doc:320344 Xmpt: Yb:1978 Sqft:1,761 Asd:$174,004
Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:16 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:70% Un:l -~--~-~----~----~-------------------------------------------------------~----~
354 ) Prcl:223-293-17 Site:7514 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:FAIRCHILD,KENNETH J & Mail:826 MAR VISTA DR*VISTA CA 92083
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale: Date:09/13/83
Lns: Doc:325512 Xmpt: Yb:1978 Sqft:1,988 Asd:$128,569
Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:17 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:67% Un:l --~---_----_----_---____________________~~----~---~~----~---------~~--~~~---~~
355 ) Prcl:223-293-18 Site:7516 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:ZACK,BETTY A Mail:7516 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)436-1597 Zn:Rl Sale: Date:02/04/86
Lns: Doc:45461 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:2,339 Asd:$155,647
Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:18 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:76% Un:l ----------------_~---~----~---------~------------------------------~----~~---~
356 ) Prcl:223-293-19 Site:7518 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:KOENEKE,MERIDITH A Mail:7518 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)943-7151 Zn:Rl Sale:$159,000F Date:05/07/87 Lns:$135,100 Doc:250469 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:1,988 Asd:$198,003 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:19 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:68% Un:l ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
357 ) Prcl:223-293-20 Site:7520 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:MORET,ALFRED T JR TR Mail:19848 FORTUNA DEL ESTE*ESCONDIDO CA 92029 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)744-5426 Zn:Rl Sale:$109,000F Date:03/26/80 Lns: Doc:103254 Xmpt: Yb:1978 Sqft:1,365 Asd:$151,356 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:20 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz: Imp:63% Un:l ----------------_----~----~----~----~-------------------------~----~----~----~
358 ) Prcl:223-293-21 Site:7522 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:RICCI,ROBERT A II & M Mail:7522 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph:(760)634-1288 Zn:Rl Sale:$229,000F Date:12/06/95 Lns:$217,500 Doc:554718 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:1,988 Asd:$242,664 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:21 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:68% Un:l -------~-----------------------~-------------------------~----~----~----~----~
359 ) Prcl:223-293-22 Site:7523 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Ownr:DRAKE,THOMAS D & LORI Mail:7523 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$305,000F Date:08/03/98
Lns:$274,500 Doc:485394 Xmpt:Y Yb:1978 Sqft:2,085 Asd:$305,000
Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:22 Bd/Bth:4/2.5 Ltsz: Imp:55% Un:l ------_----_---__-------------------------------------------------------------
360 ) Prcl:223-293-23 Site:7521 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009 Ownr:PRICE,CARL A Mail:7521 BRAVA ST*CARLSBAD CA 92009
Use:SINGLE RESIDENC Ph: Zn:Rl Sale:$299,000F Date:01/20/00 Lns: Doc:31097 Xmpt: Yb:1978 Sqft:1,752 Asd:$229,169 Map:0008619 Blk: Lot:23 Bd/Bth:3/2.0 Ltsz: Imp:44% Un:l ----~--~------------------------~----~----~-----------------------------------
THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS SOURCED FROM PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND IS NOT GUARANTEED Copyright (C) 1998 Acxiom Corporation
City of Carlsbad
Records Management Department
July 2, 2001
Jeremy H. Stern
2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 1 IO
El Segundo, CA 90245
Re: A T & T Wireless Appeal - 7512 Cadencia Street, Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Stern:
The City Clerk’s Office of the City of Carlsbad received the above reference
appeal on Monday, July 2, 2001 and your receipt for the appeal fees of $660 is
enclosed.
A copy of your appeal has been sent to Christer Westman in the Planning
Department. You will be notified as to when the appeal will be scheduled for a
public hearing before the Carlsbad City Council.
Sincerely,
i &A* e-4
Janice Breitenfeld
Deputy City Clerk
Cc: Christer Westman, Associate Planner
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, CA 92008-l 989 0 (760) 434-2808 @
I I, I ! I 1. ? “5 . . r ‘. 1.. I j F I I. I i F 1. i
F j,
1, I I
i [ / I
p
5
8
Y n
L..- ._--_ . . . . . -_~--.-L-- .._I. - .__.^._ - .__.-.--.. .._._ _.- ..--. ------ ..-. - _.- -.I- --. .- . . _.-_-
.- -vs.. *__-.z
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the decision of the
to the Carlsbad City Council.
Carlsbad Planning Commission
Date of Decision you are appealing: June 20, 2001
Subiect of Ameal:
BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineefs 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. Adoption by Planning Commission of P.C. Resolution No. 5006 denying Conditional
Use Permit No. CUP 00-36 for placement of cellular antennas by AT&T Wireless
Services at 7512 Cadencia Street in Local Facilities Management Zone No. 6.
Reason(s) for Ameal: l Please Note l Failure 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.
8E SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local
Plan~~~~le~~m',~~~y~rred bv violating federal and state laws Etoverninn personal
wireless services and legislative and administrative processes, specifically, the
decision discriminates against AT&T Wireless Services in violation of 47 USC 332(c)(7)
(i)(I); is; unlawfully based on health concerns or Kk emissions In vlolatlon or 41 t'SC
332(c)(7)(iv); is not based on substantial evidence in violation of 47 USC 332(c)(7)(iii);
and constitutes a retroactive legislative act in violation of AT&T's due process rights
under st'ate and federal law-. Each of these violations is described in detail in the
attached letter which is- nereby incorporated into tnls explanaclon or cne oasis r6r
AT&T Wireless- Services appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of CUP 00-36.
( 31Q 643-7999
PHONE NO.
2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
ADDRESS: Street Name & Number
July 2, 2001
DATE 31 %Ligmdo. CA
City, State,
90245
Zip Code
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Cartsbad, California 92008-l 989 - (619) 434-2808 @
JEREMY H. STERN
310.643.7999 Exr. 100 JSTERN@CRELAW.COM
/&aWE D
7 -g=Ol
COLE, RAYWID & BRAVERMAN, L.L.P. 0 l=FKg
ATTORNflS AT LAW
238 I ROSECRANS AVENUE, SUITE 110 WASHINOTON. D.C. OFFICE
EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA 90245-4290 1919 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N.W.
TELEPHONE (310) 643-7999 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006-3456
FAX (310) 6437997 T~LEPHONC 1202) 659-9750
FAX (2021 452-0067
WWW.CRBLAW.COM
June 29,200l
Honorable Claude A. Lewis, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
FtE: AT&T Wireless Services - Appeal of CUP 00-36 (7512 Cadencia Street1
Dear Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers:
Please accept the attached appeal form as supplemented by this letter and exhibits as AT&T Wireless
Services’ (“AWS”) appeal of the City of Carlsbad (“City”) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5006
(“Resolution”) wrongfUlly denying AWS’s application for a conditional use permit for a cellular
communications facility on residential property located at 75 12 Cadencia Street in Local Facilities
Management Zone 6 (the “Permit”).’ AWS seeks the Permit to place a “stealth” antenna facility that will be
invisible to the neighboring community. For the following reasons, AWS appeals the Planning Commission’s
decision and respectfUlly requests that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission and grant AWS’s
Application for Conditional Use Permit No. 00-36.
AWS concurrently files a Public Records Act request for the complete record of the case supplied by
the land use planning manager or the equivalent to the City Council in compliance with Carlsbad Municipal
Code 9 21.50.110.
I. Summary of AWS’s Argument
AWS identified the need to place an antenna site within the City in order to address coverage and
capacity issues in the area bordered by El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. After a thorough search for
space for its site and with knowledge of the Planning Commission’s denial of GTE’s application for an
adjacent site on San Diego Gas & Electric’s lattice towers (CUP 00-13), AWS concluded that 7512 Cadencia
was the best available option. The company proposed a plan that was appropriate for the site and in full
compliance with the City’s Zoning Code. AWS worked very closely with City Staff to integrate the project
into the community, to tilly screen the facility, to demonstrate compliance with FCC emission’s guidelines, to
ensure that it was in harmony with the Genera1 Plan, and to maintain the integrity of the residential
neighborhood.
’ Planning Commission Resolution No. 5006 (“Resolution”) attached as Exhibit 1.
COLE, RAYWID & BFUVERMAN, L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal
June 29,200l
Page 2
The City’s Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Permit and the Negative
Declaration because the proposed site was in compliance with the City’s codes. Rather than follow the facts
and the law, the Planning Commission bowed to constituent pressure driven by health-related concerns of RF
emissions and thereby acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the AWS CUP. The denial was based on
the pretext of the absence of a citywide policy on antenna siting and was made in the absence of any
substantial and relevant evidence supportingdenial. By so doing, the Planning Commission abrogated its
quasi-judicial obligations and substituted judgment on a particular application with the desire to effect a
retroactive change in City policy. The Resolution thereby violated AWS’s rights to due process under state
and federal law.
Moreover, the Planning Commission’s Resolution, if upheld, would be discriminatory in that the City
has approved a permit for Pacific Bell Mobile Services at 7412 Cadencia Street. Despite the recommendations
of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission failed to distinguish the services provided by AWS at the
present site in any manner from the services provided by Pacific Bell at 74 12 Cadencia.
Given the substantial and compelling justifications AWS provided for this site, and the absence of
compelling support for denial, we respectfully request that the Council reverse the Planning Commission and
grant AWS’s Permit for the site at 75 12 Cadencia Street.
II. Factual Background
A. Wireless Telephony Coverage and Capacity Needs of AWS’s Network Necessitate the
Placement of a New Facility in Carlsbad
AWS’s engineer testified to a coverage gap in Carlsbad that will require the installation of one or two
cellular facilities. The coverage gap and capacity problems in the City result in dropped calls and the inability
to access the public telephone network. In addition to the general frustrations associated with common uses,
the gap creates a significant public safety concern. Emergencies are often reported to emergency service
personnel from cell phones.’ Highway patrol and police officers also routinely use cell phones to supplement
overtaxed radio networks. Of course, subscribers routinely conduct business, plan their day’s activities, check
voice mail and email, or listen to business news via their cell phones.
The possible locations for the facility were limited because the facility needed to be able to adequately
“hand off’ calls to existing antenna sites on existing structures to the north and south. “Connectivity” or
“hand-off’ is hampered in the area by uneven terrain. Given the regulatory challenges of obtaining permits for
residential locations, which AWS had experienced on numerous occasions, AWS was hesitant to consider sites
zoned for single-family dwellings and, as the following site search explains, AWS did not immediately seek
out this residential site.
’ The cellular telecommunications industry reports that drivers use cell phones to make an average of 118,000 calls to 911 each
day. The estimated annual average of mobile 9 11 calls is over 43 million. See www.wow-com.com.
COLE, RAYWID & BRAVERMAN, L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal June 29,200l Page 3
B. AWS Made a Thorough Search for an Acceptable Site before Selecting
7512 Cadencia
The Planning Commission’s Resolution No. 5006 (“Resolution”) alleges that “efforts have not been
entirely explored or exhausted to determine if an alternative site may be more appropriate.“3 It fi.n-ther states: “ . . . there was no evidence that alternative locations either on commercially zoned or residentially zoned
properties which would not require the intensification of uses at this location have been exhaustively
explored.“4 These findings are unjustifiable and, as described below, cannot constitute a basis for denial of the
Permit.
AWS conducted a site search in which it considered alternatively, placement of antennas on SDG&E
lattice towers, on driving range poles at the La Costa Resort and Spa, on buildings at a proposed commercial
center and on an apartment complex in the neighborhood. AWS’s preferred location from an RF perspective
was the La Costa Resort and Spa. Repeated efforts to contact the owners of the Resort in Japan in early 2000
failed and AWS abandoned those efforts. AWS made contact with SDG&E over a site on their poles and when
negotiations became protracted, AWS made the determination that the utility would indefinitely drag out the
process and terminated negotiations. AWS then investigated a proposed shopping center located on La Costa
and El Camino Real and backed away from that site when it appeared that construction of the complex was too
speculative and uncertain. Next, AWS looked at the Alicante View Apartments at 2385 Caringa Way, but the
landlord refused to enter into a lease. After several months looking into these other sites, AWS contacted the
owners of 75 12 Cadencia. who entered into a lease in late summer 2000.
In the Planning Commission’s Draft Minutes for May 16,200 1, AWS’s representative testified
specifically to having considered these alternate sites.’ This site search lasted several months. It would be
unreasonable and unfair for the Planning Commission or the City to require a more elaborate or extensive site
search and it is unlawful for the City to deny the permit on that basis.
III. Legal Basis for the Appeal of the Planniw Commission’s Decision
The Planning Commission’s decision on May 16,200 1 to deny the Permit should be reversed because
the Commission erred in its interpretation of the evidence, abused its discretion, acted arbitrarily and
capriciously and violated AWS’s rights under state and federal law.
In enacting the Telecommunications Act, Congress gave due consideration to the potential conflict
between local government regulation of the placement and aesthetic impacts of wireless telecommunications
facilities, and the national need for rapid deployment of economical and effective wireless services.
Accordingly, Section 704 of the Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. $ 332(c)(7), preserves local authority “over
decisions regarding the placement, construction and modification” of wireless facilities, but imposes
significant restraints on such decisions:
3 Resolution, p. 5, lines 16-17.
4 Resolution, p. 4, lines 6-8.
5 Planning Commission, Draft Minutes, May 16,2001, p. 5 (“Draft Minutes”) attached as Exhibit 2.
COLE, RAYWID & BRAVERMAN, L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal
June 29,200l
Page 4
1. Local governments cannot “unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services” (3 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I)) or “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of
personal wireless services” (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)).
2. Local governments also cannot regulate the placement, construction and modification of wireless
service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the
extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions
(9 3WcXWWW.
3. Finally, local governments must act “within a reasonable period of time” (§ 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)) and
decisions to deny any such requests must be “in writing and supported by substantial evidence
contained in a written record” (5 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)).
The Resolution, despite acknowledging these federal restrictions on local zoning authority in its
recitals, violated each of these provisions in that the decision was discriminatory, based on the effects of RF
emissions and not supported by substantial evidence.
The decision also constituted an abuse of discretion in that it denied the Permit based on an alleged
need for an antenna policy for residentially zoned areas. Thus, denial constituted a retroactive rulemaking in
violation of AWS’s due process rights. In addition to concerns about health risks, the denial is based on
speculative and unsupported concerns regarding property values, opposition to the placement of antennas in
residential areas despite the City Code’s allowance for such uses and despite existing City practices, and
unsupported speculation that approval of the site would open the floodgates of applications and would result in
an “Antenna Alley” that is “inundated with false chimneys and radio base stations.“6 The decision thereby
constituted an abuse of discretion and an arbitrary and capricious act of the Planning Commission.
A. The Decision Unreasonably Discriminated Against AWS
On April 5, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a virtually identical installation at 7412
Cadencia Street. The Planning Commission granted Pacific Bell’s application to place three panel antennas
inside a 4’8” faux chimney (the fourth chimney at that location) and to raise the existing chimney 18 inches. In
granting the Pacific Bell application, the Planning Commission made the following findings:
1.
2.
3.
That the use is necessary and reasonable for the development of the community and
in harmony with the General Plan because the antennas are not aesthetically
detrimental since they are housed within a faux chimnev on the roof of a residential
structure;
That the intended use is adequate in size and shape because no alteration in the lot is
required apart from the proposed improvements;
That existing or permitted uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained
in that the antennas will be housed within a faux chimney; and
6 Draft Minutes, p. 14.
COLE, RAYWID & BRAVERMAN, L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal June 29,200l Page 5
4. That the street system is adeauate to handle all the traffic in that the project would
generate only one trip per month.’
The site proposed for 75 12 Cadencia Street will increase the width of two existing chimneys by only
18 inches to hide 5 panel antennas and will add a third chimney approximately 4’ tall to hide a sixth panel
antenna. The design and uses are virtually identical and yet the Planning Commission’s Resolution makes the
following findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the use is not necessary or desirable for the development of the community and
in harmony with the General Plan because the structures and traffic are undesirable;
That the proposed project does not serve the aesthetics, property values, nor maintain
community identity, in that it adds to visual clutter and traffic;
That the proposed use is insufficient in size and shape to accommodate the use
because the site cannot be located on the proper-t-v without the construction of a
visually offensive faux chimney and a faux garage;*
That further study is reouired regarding the availability of alternative ways and
locations; and
That to allow the construction of this wireless facility, even without considering other
anticipated proposed facilities therein, would create aesthetic impacts in the
neighborhood.’
Despite the similarity of the proposals for two wireless antenna sites, which are virtually identical and
which completely screen the proposed antenna facilities, the Planning Commission draws contradictory
conclusions. In the first location, a faux chimney is “not aesthetically detrimental” and in the present location,
a faux chimney “adds visual clutter.” AWS testified to the possibility of two maintenance trips per month;
Pacific Bell testified to the need for one maintenance trip per month. Yet the Planning Commission concludes
in Pacific Bell’s case that the street system is adequate; whereas, in AWS’s case, two trips per month does not
“maintain community identity” because it “adds to . . . traffic.” The Resolution adopted on June 20 cited
AWS’s testimony that additional sites would be necessary (AWS had testified to the need for a single
additional site). Pacific Bell testified to the need for four additional sites, a fact unnoticed by the Planning
Commission in April 2000 and not considered in the Pacific Bell decision. Finally, neither the City nor the
residents testified that problems caused by the existing faux chimney at 7412 Cadencia would be intensified as
a result of the addition of the faux chimney at 75 12 Cadencia. lo In fact, no problems at all were cited
‘See Planning Commission Resolution No. 4750, attached as Exhibit 3.
* The Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 16,200l makes a contradictory fmding which uses the same
language as the Pacific Bell Resolution stating: “ . . .no alteration of the residential lot would be required beyond existing
improvements . . . the site and street are adequate to accommodate the use.” Staff Report, p. 3, attached as Exhibit 4.
9 Resolution, paras. 2-9.
“Compare AirTouch Cellular v. C&Y of El Cajon, 83 F.Supp.Zd 1158, 1164 (S.D. Cal. 2000) where workers were accused of
urinating at a preexisting antenna site in El Cajon and playing loud music in a manner that constituted, in the court’s
determination, a change of community character justifying discriminatory treatment. There is no reasonable basis for a similar
finding in Carlsbad.
COLE, RAYWID iS BRAVERMAN, L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal June 29,200l Page 6
concerning Pacific Bell’s previously constructed faux chimney. In addition, there is no argument that the faux
chimney at 7412 Cadencia changed the community character in a manner that justified discrimination against
AWS’s faux chimney. These opposing conclusions and treatments cannot be reconciled and can only lead to a
determination that the Planning Commission discriminated unreasonably against AWS.”
B. The Decision Was Unlawfully Based on Health Concerns Regarding RF Emissions
The Resolution claims that the Planning Commission’s unanimous decision was supported by the
testimony of 17 residents and a petition signed by 37 residents.12 The principal concern, in many cases the sole
concern, of 10 of the residents was the perceived impact of RF emissions on health. This concern was
expressed repeatedly throughout the Planning Commission hearing. Fears about RF emissions permeated the
hearing notwithstanding instructions from the City Attorney, acknowledgement by residents that the decision
could not be based on RF-related health concerns, and AWS’s testimony that the site would fully comply with
the FCC’s Guidelines on RF emissions.
C. The Decision Was Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
Federal courts have declared that “generalized concerns” and “unsubstantiated constituent testimony”
about visual and other impacts do not amount to substantial evidence for an adverse decision against a wireless
carrier.13 The federal court has described the “substantial evidence” standard as requiring “such evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion” and declared that the court need not be
bound by “impossible, incredible, unfeasible, or implausible testimony, even ifit is not refuted.“‘4 A court
“must overturn the board’s decision under the substantial evidence test if it ‘cannot conscientiously find that
the evidence supporting that decision is substantial, when viewed in the light that the record in its entirety
fimishes, -including the body of evidence opposed to the Board’s view.““5 Moreover, constituent testimony
based not on experience but on speculation would not satisfy the substantial evidence standard of the
Telecommunications Act.”
” This analysis holds !me even if the Council draws a distinction between the sites on account of the garage addition. The Pacific Bell site required the placement of cabinets on the northern side of the building, cabinets that are not screened at all and
include some wall-mounted equipment. The AWS site, to the contrary, screens the cabinets with a garage that is designed to
match the house and will take up less than 1% of the lot. To oppose the site because of the garage addition would, if taken to its
logical extreme require that the City prohibit any small structural additions or similar garage additions in the neighborhood as “visual blight.”
I2 The actual number of residents testifying was 16-one resident was allowed to testify twice.
I3 Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. CiQ of Scranton, 36 F.Supp.2d at 222,229 (M.D. Penn. 1999).
I4 El Cajon, 83 F.Supp.Zd at 1164 (emphasis added).
I5 Sprint Spectrum v. Town of Farmington. 1997 U.S. District LEXIS 15832, *7 (D.C. Conn 1997). See also Butler v. Apfel,
1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 18725 (gth Cir. 1999) (holding that, under the substantial evidence test, a commissioner’s decision
cannot be affirmed simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence; rather, the court must consider the record as
a whole, weighing both evidence that supports and evidence that detracts from the commissioner’s conclusion.)
I6 El Cajon. 83 F.Supp.2d at 1165.
COLE, RAYWD & BRAVERMAN, L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal
June 29,200l
Page 7
Although the dominant theme before the Planning Commission was health-related concerns, the
Resolution points out that the Planning Commission raised the impact of “disclosure” of the site on property
values. However, the testimony supporting this finding was purely speculative and should bear no weight in
the Council’s decision. No one presented evidence that the existing faux chimney at 7412 Cadencia had any
impact on property values. No one provided studies or offered expert testimony. One resident gave voice to
the concern about property values when he said that “he definitely has health concerns and definitely thinks
that having these sites in a residential neighborhood that there is a stigma to it that affects real estate values.“”
The Resolution corroborates his testimony.18 This testimony must be disregarded by the Council because any
attempt by the City to use property values as a proxy for concerns about health violates the Act’s prohibition
against regulating on the basis of RF emissions. l9
AWS stated at the hearing that the value of homes in the San Diego area continues to rise, despite the
presence of cell sites in residential neighborhoods. In addition, studies have shown that even the presence of a
large monopole in a residential setting bears no relationship to single-family home sale prices.20 If monopoles
have no impact on property values, surely a false chimney hiding an antenna and an extra garage with
supporting equipment would not have any adverse impact on property values.
In addition to health-related concerns and property values, the Resolution cites a petition signed by 37
people who oppose the site for a variety of reasons. Without the petition language, which we do not have, we
do not know what claims upon which the petition bases its opposition. Furthermore, the courts view petitions
with suspicion and often discount their evidentiary value.21
” Draft Minutes at p. 8.
I8 “Whereas, neighbors, one of who was a local residential real estate sales agent, testified that the disclosure of such facilities
located in a residence or concentrated within a residential neighborhood would have a detrimental effect on resale value of the
neighborhood homes, due in part IO (1 perceived potential health hazard:. .” Resolution, p. 4 (emphasis added).
I9 Formington at 1997 1J.S. District LEXIS at *7. rejecting the argument that local government can base its decision on the
effect on property values that an unfounded fear of emissions could have and finding that “by considering the effect on property values, the Commission violates the Act.”
*‘See Affidavit of OAKLEIGH. J. THORNE, attached as Exhibit 5.
*’ See Omnipoint v. Zoning Hearing Board of Pine Grove, 181 F.3d 403,409 (3rd Cir. 1999)(petitions with almost 800
signatures and generalized allegations of damage to property value are insufficient); OPM-USA-kc. v. County of Marion, 1999
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19348, *42-43 (M.D. Fla. 1999)(evidence from numerous residents was weak, but evidentiary burden was
met on other grounds); Western PCS BTA Corp. v. Town of Steilucoom, 1999 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 9068, * 18 (W.D. Wash.
1999)(noting that a “petition with many names on it . . . does not add support to the findings reached by the council”). In
Illinois RSA No. 3, Inc. v. County ofPeoria, 963 F.Supp. 732, 745 (C.D. 111. 1997), the court reviewed the record, which
included a petition with 200 signatures, and found that it amounted to little more than that numerous people opposed the
facility: “the mere existence of opposition is insufficient to support an agency decision against a request.” There is no Ninth
Circuit authority on whether a telecommunications zoning decision can be based solely on community opposition, El Cuhon,
83 F.Supp.2d at 1165. However, the court states that where a petition signed by 212 residents was submitted in opposition to
the project, “a decision must be based on more that just residents’ concerns about neighborhood aesthetics.”
COLE, F~AYWNI & BRAVERMAN, L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 75 12 Cadencia Appeal June 29,200l
Page 8
Finally, suggestions that an additional chimney and a small garage constitute “visual blight” or that
two traffic visits per month for maintenance are not only discriminatory, but they also cannot be taken
seriously as evidence of aesthetic impact, neighborhood incompatibility or a lack of harmony with the General
Plan.22
D. The Decision Was Arbitrary and Capricious and Constituted an Abuse of Discretion
Under California law, permit applications are subject to the laws that are in force at the time the
application is deemed complete. Retroactive application of new ordinances and policies constitutes an abuse of
discretion.23 Additionally, the City must follow the required processes for adoption or amendment of a zoning
ordinance affecting the type and intensity of land use. California Gov. Code $8 65800 et seq. defines the
“minimal procedural standards” that a City must go through in order to amend its zoning codes.24 The state
Code requires all local entities to publish procedural rules for conduct of their hearings, and to hold and notice
public hearings in the manners prescribed therein.25 These Codes are violated when the City attempts to use
an administrative proceeding to substitute for the proper legislative process.26 Such a use of a quasi-judicial
hearing to impose a land use change violates the requirements of the Government Code and the due process
rights of the applicant and the public under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
and Article 1 9 7 of the Constitution of the State of California.
The principal reason stated by the Planning Commission for denying the site was a need for “sound
policy in addressing the issue” and opposition to addressing the issue on a “piecemeal basisYY2’ The Planning
Commission has confused its obligation to reach a decision on a specific application with the desire to raise
the debate about the City’s siting policies. The standards for review of this application are in place and the
Commission should be guided by those standards. Efforts to revise those standards cannot be made in an ad
hoc manner in an adjudicative proceeding, but require the full notice and opportunity to be heard as generally
required by federal and state law and specifically in the manner laid out under Cal. G’ov. Code $4 65800 et
seq. In the absence of those conditions, the Planning Commission’s decision should not stand.
‘* See photographic simulations attached as Exhibit 6.
23 See Bright Development v. City of Tracy, 20 Cal. App.4” 783, 794 (1993): “If City had an off-site undergrounding ordinance,
policy or standard in effect at the time plaintiffs vesting tentative map was deemed complete, then, in the exercise of its
administrative power, City could properly impose that requirement as a condition for final approval of the project. (See [ ] Gov.
Code 9 66474.2, subd. (a).) If, however, defendant had no off-site undergrounding ordinance, policy or standard in effect at
that time.. .its imposition of the off-site undergrounding requirement as a condition for approval of plaintiffs project constitutes
an unlawful exercise of its administrative power, i.e., an abuse of discretion.”
24 Cal. Gov. Code 5 65804.
25 Cal. Gov. Code $5 65854 -65857.
26 A zoning change governed by Cal. Gov. Code $9 65800 et seq. cannot be made by resolution but must follow the prescribed
procedures. Ciry of Suusalito v. County of Marin, 12 Cal.App.3d 550, 564 (1970).
27 Draft Minutes, p. 15.
COLE, RAYWID & BRAVERMAN, .L.L.P.
Letter re: AT&T Wireless Services - 7512 Cadencia Appeal
June 29,200l Page 9
IV. Conclusion: The Permit Meets All City Requirements and Should Therefore Be Granted
Carlsbad Municipal Code requires the City to find before granting a conditional use permit that the
requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community and is essentially in harmony
with the various elements and objectives of the general plan; that the site for the intended use is adequate in
size and shape to accommodate the use; that all of the requirements necessary to adjust the requested use to
existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained; and that the street
system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use.28
Given the approval of a virtually identical site in the same zone and under the same conditions and the absence
of sufficient and relevant evidence opposing these findings, the City should come to the conclusion that, like
the Pacific Bell site, this site should be approved.
Accordingly, AWS respectfUlly requests that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission’s
decision of May 16,200l as expressed in the Resolution adopted on June 20,2001, and petitions the Council
to grant CUP No. 00-36.
RespectfUlly submitted,
COLE. RAYWID & BRAVERMAN. LLP
Attorneys for AT&T Wireled Services
Attachments
c: Mr. Joseph Morales
Daniel E. Smith, Esq.
Leslie J. Daigle
** Carlsbad Mm. Code 6 21.42.020.
COLE, RAYWID & BRAVERMAN
1. Planning Commission Resolution No.5006.
2. Planning Commission, Draft Minutes, May 16,200l.
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4750.
4. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, May 16, 200 1.
5. Affidavit of Oakleigh J. Thome.
6. Photographic Simulations
AT&T Wireless Services
Appeal of CUP 00-36 (7512 Cadencia Street)
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITH
PREJUDICE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7512 CADENCIA
STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES
CASE NO: CUP 00-36
WHEREAS, AT&T Wireless Services, “Developer” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad on property owned by Patrick and Viona L. Van Hoose,
hereinafter referred to as, “Owner” which property is generally described as:
“Lot 486 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 of La Costa Vale Unit No. 3, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 7950, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County.”
referred herein throughout as ( “the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the real property owner has signed the appropriate application
and disclosure statement giving consent to applicant to locate its cellular facilities on the
residential property; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “F”, dated May 16, 2001 on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, entitled “AT&T Wireless Services, CUP 00-36”, as provided by Chapters 21.42
and 2 1.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law on May 16,2001, to consider said verified application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission carefully considered the law,
evidence and arguments presented at the public hearing held before it; including the fact
that quasi-public buildings and facilities are conditionally permitted within residential
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
zones, according to the Carlsbad zone code and subject to the Telecommunications Act of
1996; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is aware of its obligation not to
unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services and not to
prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; and
WHEREAS, recognizing that a local government may not regulate the
placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply
with the Federal Communications Regulations concerning such emissions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is mindful that the
Telecommunication Act of 1996 requires it to act on the request for authorization to place,
construct or modify personal wireless facilities within a reasonable period of time and a
reasonable period of time has elapsed since the filing of the application on October 18,
2000; and
WHEREAS, both the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 require that any decision by a local government to deny
requests to place, construct or modify personal wireless service facilities be in writing and
supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing at which 17 residents of
the surrounding neighborhood testified and a petition in opposition to approval of the
Conditional Use Permit signed by 37 residents was presented, the Planning Commission
voted unanimously to deny the verified application of AT&T Wireless Services for a
Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the neighbors have testified that a similar wireless cellular
service facility for another provider also concealed by the construction of an additional
PC RESO NO. 5006 -2-
faux chimney was approved by the Planning Commission on April 5,200O to be located at
7412 Cadencia Street, two lots and less than 500 feet away from the site under
consideration; and
WHEREAS, the application of AT&T Wireless Services is for a Conditional
Use permit authorizing the addition of a faux chimney and a garage-like structure at 7512
Cadencia Street, which will house the equipment are clearly visible to the neighborhood;
and
WHEREAS, several neighbors testified at the public hearing that their
residences are located adjacent to or in close proximity to both proposed wireless facilities
and, are thus subjected to the additional visual obstructions necessary to conceal the
antennas and ancillary equipment and any additional traffic generation for maintenance of
the installation, however minor in nature; and
WHEREAS, testimony at the hearing by a neighbor was that near the
proposed location at 7512 Cadencia Street is extensive existing ham radio antenna
equipment on the roof of a residence which creates a visual blight and radio interference in
the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, testimony from several residents who are subscribers to
applicant service indicate that there is adequate coverage in the neighborhood without the
proposed additional cell site; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that it has some flexibility in the
placement of the facilities necessary to remedy coverage gaps; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that the proposed location would
provide coverage for a radius of only one mile and that additional sites will also be
necessary to provide coverage outside of that radius; and
II PC RESO NO. 5006 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, neighbors, one of whom was a local residential real estate sales
agent, testified that the disclosure that such facilities located in a residence or concentrated
within a residential neighborhood would have a detrimental effect on resale value of the
neighborhood homes, due in part to a perceived potential health hazard; and
WHEREAS, there was no evidence that alternative locations either on
commercially zoned or residentially zoned properties which would not require the
intensification of uses at this location have been exhaustively explored ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the testimony of
numerous neighbors to the proposed site, voicing objections to the construction of
additional protrusions and buildings in their residential neighborhood to accommodate
quasi-public facilities without adequate guidelines to avoid unnecessary concentration of
such uses and structures which in their opinion are not necessary or desirable or in
harmony with the character of the residential neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That the requested use and structures are not necessary or desirable for
the development of the community at this location, nor are they essentially in harmony
with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, which encourage quiet
neighborhoods and maintain a high quality of life, preserving the neighborhood
atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas in that other subscribers testified that
there is adequate coverage in this location and the additional structures and maintenance
related traffic to the site are undesirable and unnecessary.
3. That the proposed project does not preserve the aesthetics, property
values nor maintain community identity, in that it adds unnecessarily to visual clutter and
PC RESO NO. 5006 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
traffic and would therefore be detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted within
these zones.
4. That the proposed site for the intended use is insufficient in size and shape
to accommodate the use in that both the antenna and ancillary equipment necessary to
operate the wireless site cannot be located on the residential property without the
construction of a visually obtrusive faux chimney and additional faux garage, which
increases lot coverage in a neighborhood with primarily large homes on large lots and
degrades the aesthetics of nearby residences in the neighborhood.
5. That the location of the proposed equipment room will be visibly offensive
to the adjacent neighbor who testified that his lot is on a lower grade and will look up from
his yard to the unattractive garage addition housing the equipment, rather than open space
of the Van Hoose property side yard.
6. That the applicant has indicated that there may be alternative locations in
the neighborhood or nearby on commercial property and that efforts have not been
entirely explored or exhausted to determine if an alternative site may be more appropriate.
7. That the applicant testified that both his company as well as other
wireless providers may make application for an indeterminate number of additional sites
in the same general vicinity as this application, in the future.
8. That there are alternative ways and locations that have not been
exhaustively explored which would not require the use at this location and that under the
circumstances the application is premature without further study, reports and evidence
which would convince the Planning Commission that this use is both necessary and
desirable and in essential harmony with the neighborhood and its surroundings.
9. That the Planning Commission finds that it is important to maintain the
integrity of the residential neighborhood wherein the project is proposed to be located and
PC RESO NO. 5006 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that to allow construction of this wireless communication facility, even without considering
other anticipated proposed facilities therein, would create aesthetic impacts in the
neighborhood which could be avoided where alternative sites for such facilities may be
available. The testimony and petition of the residents in the surrounding neighborhood
expressed concern that their formerly peaceful, private and quiet homes would be changed
if this proposed facility is permitted and that the addition of such facilities would degrade
their quality of life.
10. The Planning Commission finds that the concerns of the property
owners are legitimate, especially in light of the fact that another wireless site was recently
approved two lots away, and that the evidence presented to the Planning Commission,
including oral and written testimonials, petition and written documentation support this
argument. The applicant has failed to present evidence sufficient to convince the Planning
Commission to the contrary.
finds:
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad further
1. That the application is DENIED.
2. That the applicant is hereby notified that this decision may be appealed to
the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk within 10 days of the
adoption of this Resolution, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.50.100.
. . .
PC RESO NO. 5006 -6-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of June 2001 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Heineman, Nielsen,
and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Compas and L’Heureux
ABSTAIN:
I / /-/
JEFF=. SEGALL, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H%Z&LER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5006 -7-
Exhibit 2
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 1
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:00 P.M.
May 16,200l
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
Planning Commission Chairperson Segall called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was led by Commissioner Heineman.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compaq L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker, Trigas
Absent: Nielsen
Staff Present: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Jane Mobaldi, City’Attorney
Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst
Adrienne Landers, Principal Planner
Elaine Blackburn, Senior Planner
Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner
Skip Hammann, Senior Civil Engineer
Christer Westman, Associate Planner
David Rick, Assistant Engineer
Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner
Frank Jimeno, Associate Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were two sets of minutes for approval-April 18th and May 2nd
DISCUSSION
None
MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
DISCUSSION
None
MOTION
Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of
the Regular Meeting of April 18th.
6-O-O
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Baker, Trigas
None
Heineman
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16.2001 Page 2
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of
the Regular Meeting of May 2nd.
VOTE:
AYES:
6-O-O
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker,
Trigas
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Segall directed everybody’s attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the
Commission would be following for tonight’s public hearing.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public hearing items prior to CUP 00-36 are heard . . . .
Chairperson Segall closed the Public Hearing.
RECESS
Chairperson Segall called a Recess at 759 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson called the Meeting back to order at 8:04 p.m. with six Commissioners present, Commissioner
Nielsen, absent.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Segall asked Planning Director, Michael Holzmiller, to introduce the Item No. 9.
9. CUP 00-36 - AT&T WIRELESS - 7512 CADENCIA STREET - Request for approval to
install a new 240 square foot radio base station (RBS) within a new 400 square foot
garage and install a total of six antennas within two expanded chimney structures and one
new faux chimney on residential property located at 7512 Cadencia Street in Local
Facilities Management Zone 6.
Mr. Holzmiller introduced Christer Westman, Associate Planner, who will be assisted by David Rick,
Assistant Engineer.
Chairperson Segall asked the applicant if he wished to proceed with six Commissioners present, to which
the applicant asked to proceed. Chairperson Segall opened the public hearing.
Christer Westman stated the applicant is requesting the City’s approval for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow the installation of a total of six panel antennas and a 240 square foot radio base station at 7512
Cadencia. He went an to say that two antennas were proposed for each of three chimneys; two chimneys
exist and one will be false and in all cases they will be treated with stucco and paint to match the existing
home. Mr. Westman stated that the radio base station will be housed in what will look like a two-car
garage addition and 240 square feet of the 400 square foot space will be used. He said that based on the
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 3
information available, staff has determined that there are no health risks associated with these types of low-power facilities as the
FCC allows exposure of up to 1,000 microwatts per centimeter and with this type of facility, exposure at
ground level will be less than two microwatts. He went on to explain that a finding has also been included
in the Resolution which acknowledges wireless communication’s role in providing telecommunications
during emergency and during day to day living by the public at large. Mr. Westman stated that staff is
recommending approval.
Chairperson asked Ms. Mobaldi to enlighten the Commission on what they can and cannot rule on relative
to wireless sittings.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that the Federal Telecommunications Act has preempted certain actions by local
government and it provides that you cannot regulate the placement. construction, modification of personal
wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent
that such facilities comply with the Commissions Regulations concerning such emissions. She pointed out
that if you are looking a site and they comply with the Federal Communications Commissions Standards,
then you are not allowed to prohibit the placement of that site based on radio frequency concerns,
environmental effects, EMFs etc.
Commissioner Compas recalled that sometime ago the Commission had a somewhat similar proposal
before them in a quasi-residential area, which was, as he recalls, a transmission power line between
residential areas. He pointed out that the Commission, after a couple meetings, approved that project and
then the City Council rejected it, as they said it is not acceptable and as a result of that there was going to
be a study to look at it. Commissioner Compas stated that the study, as he understands, has not
happened yet. He asked if it is possible that they could delay this application until they get that study?
Ms. Mobaldi replied that it would not be appropriate to delay based on that request for a study by Council
because Council has not chosen to place a moratorium on the location of the cell sites. She further
explained that had they wanted to forestall any actions on these kinds of applications, they could have
done so and they did not choose to take that action. She explained that it is not appropriate for the
Planning Commission to do that because Council has not prohibited these cell sites by placing a
moratorium on their application.
Commissioner Baker asked if there were any pictures of what the house looks like or drawings of what the
chimney will look like?
Mr. Westman pointed out the exhibit (a drawing) on the wall, pointing out the two chimneys which exist
and which would be modified to accept the panel antennas and resurfaced to have the same color and
texture of the existing chimney plus the new chimney. He showed the location of the two-car garage
addition where the radio base station would be located. Mr. Westman stated that the lot itself is
approximately one acre and the distances from the structure to property lines is approximately 50 or 60
feet with the new addition, approximately 100 feet from the chimney to the property line, then in the back
of the property it is approximately 100 feet to the property line from the proposed chimney panels and also
on the north side of the property it is approximately 50-60 feet to the property line. He said he also has
some photos (but no copies) which he passed on to the Commission and then to the audience.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Westman to enlighten them on the similar project (located two houses up
from the proposed site) that was approved last year.
Mr. Westman stated there is a similar facility at a home located at 7412 Cadencia that went through a
similar process. He said it is with the same type of installation with a faux chimney, although they did not
add a fake two-car garage for a radio base station because they housed it somewhere else on the
property. Mr. Westman added that it was constructed and it is in operation.
Commissioner Trigas recalled that when the Planning Commission was discussing the facility located at
7412 Cadencia, that there was a great deal of concern as far as future precedent and the Planning
’ DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 4
Commission wanting some guidance from the Council. She understands that it has been raised but it has yet to happen because
of the need of a workshop plus the activity of other workshops. Commissioner Trigas stated that the health problem was an
issue as well for this similar facility and asked if the Planning Commission believes that Item No. 9 is
incompatible with the neighborhood, is that legally acceptable or is the Planning Commission also
precluded from ruling because it is a cell site?
Ms. Mobaldi stated no, that the Planning Commission has to make a finding to approve the CUP, that it is
compatible with the residential neighborhood, and if the Planning Commission does not feel they can
make that finding, then they can deny it.
Chairperson Segall asked the applicant to make his presentation to the Planning Commission
Chris Morrow, Morrow Consulting, 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150, La Mesa, CA 91941, 619-462-1595.
Mr. Morrow stated he is from Darang Tech from AT&T and they are pleased to be there on behalf of AT&T
Wireless. He thanked Mr. Westman and the Planning staff in the help of processing this project and the
preparation of the staff report, which contains unconditional recommendation of approval because the
project has no visual impacts, no neighborhood impacts and has no health and safety impacts per the
FCC requirements. Mr. Morrow stated the CUP request in brief is just to install and operate a new 240
square foot facility within a garage structure which will have six antennas placed on the roof, one new
antenna and the others will go into an existing antennas which will have a slight enlargement, which will
not go up in height, but merely be expanded on the roof with no visual impacts associated with that
minimal expansion. He went onto say they are located on little over one acre lot on Cadencia Street, which
like most of the lots on Cadencia, it slopes up from the street, having approximately a 95 foot elevation
gain from the street to the back of the lot. Mr. Morrow said that this site and the surrounding areas is
developed with large lot, single family residences which are set back approximately 100 feet from the
street which is well in excess of the required set backs and AT&T Wireless is not going to be modifying
that in any way, shape or form. He noted as in the staff report, AT&T identified this site as being deficient,
both in terms of coverage and capacity and AT&T has attempted to locate a site in this particular area. He
pointed out that the previous application was by GTE was denied which was the SDG&E lattice tower
(CUP 00-13) which at that time, the discussions of that project indicated that if they were not able to go on
the tower, they would have to find some other sites to cover this area, which is why AT&T Wireless is back
here with today.
He stated that this is one of the two sites necessary to cover the area that would have been covered by
that previous tower. Mr. Morrow went on to say that the design of their project, as described by Planning
staff, completely mitigates any potential aesthetic or visual impact associated with the project and is
completely compatible with the existing neighborhood. Mr. Morrow said that from the street and from the
plans there is simply not an impact from the new construction associated with the facility and he stated he
believes staff has note of that as well. He stated that the site in and of itself will be invisible, that you will
not be able to tell, much like the site up the street at 7412 Cadencia. He pointed out that if you drive by
that, you have no hint of the facility that is there, which is the purpose behind stealthing these facilities. Mr.
Morrow went on to point out that the FCC has allocated a portion of the radio spectrum to AT&T for the
provision of their wireless communication services, which is what AT&T Wireless is hoping to do here, to
continue to provide that service. He said the proposed facility operates in a frequency range between 869
to 894 megahertz, per the FCC license, which the power required by the facility is very, very low and will
not exceed 25 watts per channel or 125 watts per sector. There are two sectors on this roof; a total of 250
watts, which is extremely minimal and disperses rapidly and will have no impacts from the FCC
perspective. Mr. Morrow explained that the criteria is set arbitrarily very conservatively where AT&T
Wireless fits within that criteria, which is already several orders of magnitude below where a hazard could
begin to exist, is at .038 percent which is less than one percent of the allowable standard. He pointed out
that it is important to note that the FCC limits are set many times higher, so even though AT&T Wireless is
really low, the order of magnitude is incredible because of the conservative nature of the limit. He
reiterated that AT&T Wireless is very, very low and the proposed facility’s max exposure is such a small
fraction of the allowable limit which is part of the reason why AT&T Wireless has a Negative Declaration
on the project from an environmental perspective, Mr. Morrow affirmed that the City has stated there are
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 5
no negative impacts associated with this project, which AT&T Wireless fully supports. He stated that in addition, all AT&T facilities
are evaluated by an RF Engineer prior to construction and after construction.
He pointed out that the City of Carlsbad is rather unique in San Diego County in that one of their standard
conditions for wireless facilities is the provision of a Performance Report within six months after
construction and operation of the facility. The wording within that condition today states that the cumulative
impacts of that facility will be evaluated within that report and AT&T Wireless is happy to do that. Mr.
Morrow stated that his report will not only evaluate, but it will read any other impacts that may be coming
from the Pacific Bell Wireless site; that could be coming from the ham radio operators in the
neighborhood; that might be coming up from the La Costa Golf Course; the security force who uses
walkie-talkies; it could be any combination of radio or police transmissions that get into that, which is
simply radio waves, not anything above or beyond that. Mr. Morrow went on to say that once constructed
and operational, the facility will provide 24-hour service to its users and they do not anticipate anymore
than perhaps one to two trips a month to maintain equipment on an as-needed basis, as lots of the
equipment hopefully can be maintained from remote locations, so there will be minimal traffic associated
with the facility. He pointed out that as he had noted per the California Environmental Quality Act and
Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and circulated and there were not comments received
either verbal or written on that Negative Declaration, which is entirely appropriate since there are no
visual, physical or health and safety impacts associated with the project
Mr. Morrow repeated that there are no land use impacts associated with this project, there are no public
health, safety and welfare impacts associated with this project and pointed out that it is not just him saying,
but it is the staff report saying it and the FCC as well. Mr. Morrow pointed out that the City staff fully
supports it because it is in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations and AT&T Wireless feels
that the facility is well sited and appropriately designed and very deserving of the Planning Commissions
support. He stated that AT&T Wireless has worked very diligently to create an invisible and safe site and
again they wholeheartedly recommend any support for this facility.
Commissioner Compas pointed out that the Planning Commission approved, as Mr. Morrow has
mentioned, one other such facility on a residence up in that general area and then it was also mentioned
the one that the Planning Commission approved and the City Council rejected. He asked Mr. Morrow,
from his perspective, that if the Planning Commission approve Item No. 9, if he sees that his competitors
and others will be wanting to rush up there and do the same thing?
Mr. Morrow replied that he thought that within the industry, because of the difficulty in obtaining permits in
some areas of the county, primarily based upon topographic reasons and the development patterns, there
is a lot of residential there, becomes extremely difficult to cover and serve certain areas, this being one of
them. He stated that he knows this is not an easy approach, while it is easy for AT&T Wireless to satisfy
the FCC and to satisfy the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit, it is an entirely different issue
satisfying the needs and wants of the Planning Commission which, obviously the Planning Commission
has the ability to do what they want with this particular project. Mr. Morrow stated that no one else, to his
knowledge, has gone up into that part of Carlsbad right now and has looked at anything or submitted any
plans for that area as it is limited in terms of its application. He said that part of the problem they had in
that area is that he did not want to go to Cadencia Street, as they know that Pacific Bell Wireless had gone
there and they were successful, but it was a hurdle and AT&T Wireless wanted to go to other places and
that is why they looked at the golf course, the SDG&E towers, the proposed commercial center that is
going to be rebuilt down on the comer, but none of those worked out from a timing perspective. Mr.
Morrow conferred that future providers are probably going to look at it.
Commissioner Compas stated he just wanted Mr. Morrow’s opinion.
Ms. Mobaldi asked to address a point related to Commissioner Compas’ last question. She stated that the
law also provides that you have an obligation as the decision-makers not to unreasonably discriminate
against functionally equivalent providers, so you need to take that into consideration.
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 2001 Page 6
Commissioner Baker asked, regarding some coverage areas, if Mr. Morrow could give the Planning Commission an idea on the
lack of coverage that this particular area has from La Costa Avenue north or what sort of a service-holder is in
La Costa? She also asked that if there is a lack of coverage, does that affect any of the emergency
service providers of the City i.e., Fire, Police etc.?
Darang Tech, 7480 Convoy Court, San Diego, CA 92111. replied to Commissioner Baker’s question
concerning the coverage hole, that along La Costa Avenue coming up to the hill from the l-5 near El
Camino Real to the Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and that is mostly the general area. He stated that the
coverage for this particular proposed site is approximately one mile radius, but because of the terrain it
does not cover up on Ranch0 Santa Fe Road going into San Marcos.
Commissioner Baker asked if this site is allowed will this solve the coverage problems in this area or will
AT&T Wireless need another site?
Mr. Tech stated they would need another site on the other side of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road.
Commissioner Baker asked if they know miles wide, how far to the north do they have coverage or is their
hole?
Mr. Tech stated that right now it is all the way across into San Marcos and around Ranch0 Santa Fe it is
dead at this point for AT&T Wireless.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the emissions from the rejected tower site is equal to what is being put up at
7512 Cadencia Street or is it more or less, and if less, how much less?
Mr. Tech replied that it is about the same, but the tower was 55 feet above the ground and this one is 30
plus feet from the ground, but this site is still very, very low.
Mr. Morrow stated further that the emissions are very interesting in that the further you get away from the
source, they dramatically reduce. He further stated that there is a big tower up there that the previous
proposal was for and there were more antennas on it so I just thought yes, they will produce more power
and they will do that at the source, but because the tower is so much higher off the ground, 55 feet vs. 37
feet, much less of that power reaches the ground, so the higher you are, the further away you are from an
antenna, the less power that you receive or less energy you receive from that and in fact the FCC has
another exclusionary category where if you have particular antennas that are located in any way shape or
form except on a building, 30 feet or more above the ground, you don’t even have to deal with them
because through scientific evidence, nothing reaches the ground.
Chairperson Segall stated that at that time the Planning Commission asked GTE if that was the only
location and they said yes it was the only location they could go in the entire area, but it does not sound
like that is the case.
Mr. Tech stated that it was the only location to do the coverage using only one site and now they are
asking for two sites.
Chairperson Segall asked when the other hearing would be for the other site.
Mr. Tech replied that he was not sure.
Chairperson opened public testimony.
Debi Horen, 7512 Brava Street, Carlsbad said she may answer some of the questions regarding the past
project and the current project and some of the relationships because her main concern here is the
relationships with all of these projects. Ms. Horen stated she was concerned because she lives in a safe
and quiet residential neighborhood that, at this point is teaming with radio waves, as Cadencia Street is
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 7
turning into what she calls “Antenna Alley”. She said that last year she thought is was Sprint that installed the three antennas two
doors up the street, but she concluded it must be Pat Bell. Ms. Horen thought it had gone by very quietly as she had just
moved in so she did know when or how that had happened. She stated she was noticed about the AT&T
proposed site and as she was going door to door in the neighborhood talking to people about it, she
discovered that across the street from the proposed site at 7535 Cadencia Street there are three antennas
on the roof of that person’s home and that is for the purpose of transmitting ham radio, which is much
more dangerous than the cell transmissions in that it is almost unregulated. She continued that the person
at 7535 Cadencia Street can transmit up to 2000 watts of power and that is pointed directly in the
backyards of some of her neighbors on her street. Ms. Horen pointed out that they all suffer from
television interruptions from that and unknown health effects and that it is because of that and now this
new site, radio base station with six more antennas, that she is concerned that the trajectory for all of
these antennas bears down on many of the homes where most of the people in this room live. Ms. Horen
respectfully asked the Commissioners if any of them had gone out to see this site at all? [Some
Commissioners answered affirmatively.] She also asked if any one had taken into account the
accumulative effect of the six existing and six proposed antennas, which is her main concern here. Ms.
Horen confirmed her awareness of the FCC regulations that you cannot discuss potential health risks if
these facilities fall within the FCC specs. She stated that however, she thinks all can concur that the long-
term health effects of radio waves has not been determined since this is a new phenomenon, even having
them and there are no long-term studies and the World Health Organization, which is a very conservative
organization, says that there are big gaps in the studies and the information out there and does
recommend that certain things are done until all of the gaps are filled and the information comes in and
that is to keep them away from children, and there is a whole list of things. Ms. Horen restated that it is the
accumulative effect that she is concerned about and the Emissions Safety Guide does talk about the
accumulative effect and she asked, since it wasn’t taken into account and the Negative Declaration did not
take into account the cumulative effect that needs to be looked at. She stated she is asking for at
minimum an Environmental Report that can add up all of the wattage of these houses that are very close
by and pointing towards their neighborhood and see in fact what are the effects. Ms. Horen stated she has
a lot more to go but that she is delivering a petition that has 37 signatures of people that are concerned in
the neighborhood about property values and a range of things in that. She asked for a show of hands of
how many people are present who are out for this proposed site as not everyone will speak. She finalized
by saying she has a lot more to say if they have more questions, she has researched this fully and
delivered the petition to the Commission.
Chairperson Segall requested to enter for the record about six documents that Commissioner Compas
was handed.
Carl Price, 7521 Brava Street, Carlsbad. Mr. Price stated he is opposed to this project and listening to the
proposal this evening by Mr. Morrow he is puzzled by the implication that yes there might be commercial
sites available for siting the antenna, but they are not available yet and he thinks it would be worthwhile to
take a somewhat longer term view and that if indeed such sites were available within the next 18 months
or two years such a delay should hardly be considered a serious problem in terms of global
communications.
Terence Mills, 7519 Brava Street, Carlsbad. Mr. Mills stated that in the interest of time, many of his
questions were already answered and he thinks the presentation in the building is not really an issue, it
seems appropriate. He said what he has heard tonight that there is some question to how many facilities
will be allowed and they have already said that they need an additional facility to cover this area, so his
question is how many facilities can we have? He stated that this is AT&T and there is also an existing
facility, how many other competitors are going to want facilities? He asked if they were going to have
every house up there, including some empty lots that will have houses built on them eventually that will all
have these facilities. He stated he does not know how important it is to have the cell phone drop out in that
area as he certainly uses the cell phone and he appreciates when it does not drop out, but a facility of this
nature that has an impact on the neighborhood, an unknown impact and also a commercial facility. He
does not understand how a commercial facility can go into an R-l neighborhood
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 8
Tommy Petrovic, 7582 Caloma Circle, Carlsbad. Mr. Petrovic stated his residence is located about .l mile
away from the proposed site or about 300 feet in aerial distance. He shared that he works in the wireless
industry and has some questions that relate to the health issues. He began with the antennas that are
going to be installed on the property and asked if they, as neighbors who live in the vicinity where we are
affected by this, are we going to have the information as to what type of antennas are installed, whether
they are the high-gain antennas or low-gain antennas? Mr. Petrovic pointed out that the antennas are
designed to work in a certain beam pattern and he wanted to know which pattern AT&T is talking about?
He stated that the reason he called here is if the Planning Commission as a Council could stipulate AT&T
to provide and substantiate the evidence of the emissions, first of all, and the RF patterns occurring from
the emissions from these antennas. He asked first of all if that is possible, if the Planning Commission can
do anything about it? Mr. Petrovic pointed out that AT&T and a lot of other companies in the wireless
arena are self-regulated, and he is not sure if the FCC really comes in and inspects the site and if so, how
will the concerned neighbors know that these companies are going to be FCC compliant? He asked if
there would be a third party doing the evaluation every six months ? He shared that he is also worried
about the effects of the radiation on the long term cumulative effects of five or seven years from now,
whether the neighborhood is going to call Mr. Morrow because if there are any problems health-wise that
occur in that neighborhood he wondered who is going to work with that as Mr. Morrow is just an employee
of AT&T. Mr. Petrovic asked if the Planning Commission has any documents that AT&T can disseminate
to the neighborhood specifying exactly what is site emit?
Youre Shadian, 3321 Venado, Carlsbad stated, on behalf of his wife and his son, that they live 50 yards or
so to the antenna site. He explained that he was introduced to Mr. Hank [Hank Kleis], the site specialist of
AT&T Wireless, and to another site which is on the corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue which
is more like a commercial site. Mr. Shadian stated that he went as far as to call New York, the
manufacturer, Narada. and talked to the representative, who is out of Long Island, NY. He stated that the
representative told him that they do not allow in New York this kind of device--antennas in the residential
area because of a health hazard. The representative explained to Mr. Shadian that he was coming here to
San Diego at that time to go over these things with the site specialist. Mr. Shadian pointed out that his
neighbor has four kids also and there was also another site that was built not long ago, so he is very much
concerned about the health of this project. He pointed out that the representative of Narada was very
concerned that they are putting the antennas so close to properties in a residential neighborhood. Mr.
Shadian stated that they are very much concerned and we would like to know if these things will go further
and if so, they might have to challenge this in court.
Commissioner Trigas asked Mr. Shadian if Narada represents the manufacturer of the particular device?
Mr. Shadian responded that Narada is the manufacturer of these antennas for AT&T. He mentioned that
he could give the Planning Commission the phone number so they could speak with him.
Ken Hubbard, 3027 Garboso Street, Carlsbad stated his residence is about l/lOth mile from the proposed
site and that he has lived in the neighborhood for about 14 years, and it is a pure residential
neighborhood. He mentioned that he is really appalled that the Council is considering putting a commercial
site in a residential neighborhood like what they live in or any residential neighborhood. He stated there
are commercial sites available for this type of equipment and that is where it should be. Mr. Hubbard said
there is more than just the aesthetic that does bothers him, because it is in a house similar to what they all
live in, but it is the health aspect of the combined microwave, RF radiations. He said from what he has
read that the experts are not in agreement as to the dangers and the safety hazards of micro- wave
radiation from multiple base antennas, which is what they are proposing on this site. He stated he has fine
coverage of his cell phones as he has never had any drop out, but said that there is an awful lot of AM
radio interference in that neighborhood which it is very prevalent at night and could be coming from all the
combined radiation that is coming through that area. He requested that it be checked by an FCC or a
radiation specialist or whoever does that sort of thing in the government, before anything is sited any
further as it is necessary to see what is there now, which may be too much as it is. He concluded that he
did not think this is the right place for this facility.
’ DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 9
Jack Tavelman, 33 IS Venado Street stated he lives directly to the northeast of the proposed site and adjacent to the
site that was put in last year, making his property lines to touch on both sites. He shared that they purchased the
house last June, before the installation of the other site, without disclosure from the seller that that site
was going to be installed. He said that they were rather upset when they started putting the site on the
house next door. Mr. Tavelman stated that he has four young children, the youngest being one year old
and he definitely has health concerns and definitely thinks that having these sites in a residential
neighborhood that there is a stigma to it that it affects real estate values within the neighborhood and he is
definitely unhappy about the site going in that he did not know about when he purchased the property and
never had a chance to question or speak out on it. He further stated that he does not really want
commercial going into his residential neighborhood. He explained that the Planning Commission must
know that the real estate values are quite high in that area, so even if it affects his real estate price by
IO%, that you are talking about a lot of money, and as a California real estate broker and an active broker
in the area he stated that he knows that high power lines affect real estate prices and he believes that
these cell sites also affect real estate prices.
Michele Nix-Schmaltz, 7513 Brava Street, Carlsbad stated that her residence is down the hill from the
proposed site. Her question was regarding when she comes out on Cadencia on Ranch0 Santa Fe Road,
there is a big water tower over there; there are other places; there is a big box canyon--is there no other
place that you can site this except in the middle of a residential area? She shared that there are many
young families there and that she knows this is not supposed to be an issue, but, she went on to say, until
the Council finishes its study and the regulations are a little more specific about the long-term effects, she
definitely is not in favor of this project.
Thomas Drake, 7523 Brava Street, Cartsbad. He had his small daughters with him and stated that they
live at the end of the cul-de-sac that can be seen on the left side of the map. He said that they have been
there about three years now and he did not know at the time the site was going to go in as it may have
influenced their decision to purchase in the neighborhood if they had known. He reiterated that he has two
daughters and also a wife that mean more than anything in the world to him and should anything ever
happen to them as a result of the emissions from these sorts of towers, if they contracted brain tumors or
something, not saying it would happen, it probably will not, but should it happen in 20 years, he asked
what he should do, come back to the City and ask for an apology? He said that is sort of an irreparable
harm that we all fear. He said he does not understand why it is encumbent upon the City to fill cell phone
coverage holes. He stated that he understands the home owner of the site stands to gain anywhere
between $1,000 to $1,500 a month, to which he stated it seems like a pittance to force us all to live in fear.
Mr. Drake concluded with asking the Planning Commission if they would want this cell tower in their
backyard or next to their house, of which he was sure their answer would be no.
Diana Klein, 7577 Delgado Place stated that her residence is looking right up on the site. She was
concerned that every other house there is going to be some sort of site and that it has been said over and
over again tonight, why do we have to have it there as it is a nice residential area. She knows it is buyer
beware that all they have to do is a little notice in the paper and if you are not reading it that day or
however long the notice has to be in, that these little things can just get snuck in, but she concluded that is
the way it is. She went on to share her main concern is the health issues and that she does not really care
what the findings are. She stated that she does not think they need to have it and she is very concerned
that every other house is going to have something like this. Ms. Klein shared that we just do not need it,
therefore, she concluded that she is extremely opposed to it.
Patricia Dice, 7412 Brava Street, Carlsbad. She stated her residence is just around the other side from the
site being discussed. She said she is there to add her voice of agreement with the other people that have
spoken. She pointed out that she too has the concerns about health. Ms. Dice mentioned that the word
she has heard a lot is the facility, the facility. She continued that what is behind it or what is in there is
what she is concerned about. She asked that the Commission act responsibly in the interest of the
residents of the community in quantity as they are talking about one homeowner and a large company, but
she stated that she is asking that the concerns be heard and considered and acted upon.
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 10
Marian Cartwright, 74 12 Brava Street, Carlsbad stated that her residence is directly west of the 74 12 Cadencia, Pat
Bell antenna site that was approved and will be on the other side of the proposed antenna. She shared that
she is opposed to this for several reasons and apologized if she is redundant. She stated that the number
one important one is the long term health risk, especially the radiation. She stated that she also carries an
AT&T cell phone and she is a pharmaceutical rep and she is in North County all the time and she has no
problem with talking to people up in that area. Ms. Cartwright stated that if she does, they are just talking
within a mile radius and she can go to a pay phone and talk to somebody if she needs to talk to them. She
confirmed that she does not want a commercial site in a residential area that is why she is opposed to this.
Richard Macy, 3306 Venado Street, Cartsbad. He stated that he lives directly behind the site that the
Planning Commission approved about one year ago and he looks down the hill on it. He said they heard
the same things a year ago that it blends in with the house. Mr. Macy stated that when he goes down his
drive way he has the San Diego Gas and Electric box, the cable box, one other box and the new box
which does not show up on any of these plans that comes from the wireless facility. He said that it makes
an eye sore in front of his house and it is not talked. He stated he could guarantee the Planning
Commission that is an eye sore because he can look down his driveway on it. He pointed out that it is not
necessary as he is a cell phone user and has no problem. He stated that he is using the Verizon system
and he has coverage. He again stated that it is not necessary and it is a residential area.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Macy in reference to the eye sore again, if he was referring to just that one
box in the street next to the cable box? He also asked if these boxes, to which Mr. Macy is referring, if
they are on the curb?
Mr. Macy affirmed that is what he is referring to and further stated that he wished they would do something
to dress those things up, but they do not because he guesses they have to get access to them. He stated
that these boxes are on the curb and right now he has about a 14 foot long row of boxes in front of his
house. He said that the thought of five more cell people coming in and all put a box in that same place,
because it seems to be a popular area, is very scary to him.
Bill Bishop, 3139 Del Rey Avenue, Carlsbad. He said he was not going to address those long boxes
because it is a different issue, but he stated he has one outside his house as well. He stated that he lives
right across the street from the proposed site on the corner of Del Rey and Cadencia. He said that he
jokes with Pat Bell because of the box that they are there almost every day as if it is their office. He stated
that he had not realized how elaborate that box is until they started opening it up and he saw that there are
a lot of wires etc. to which he said that is another issue altogether. Mr. Bishop stated he was not aware of
the other antennas just up the road until this issue came up. He stated that there is just a lot of electricity
etc going in that area, a lot of things in the air. He said it just seems like enough is enough. He questioned
how much more of this is going to be there. Mr. Bishop was concerned about the fake chimneys and fake
garages in a residential neighborhood. He said again that enough is enough and he questioned when he
drives down the road that he would not be sure if some one lives there or not.
Jon Nerenberg, 3204 Carvallo Court, Carlsbad pointed out on the map where he is located which is
physically the closest to this god-awful structure that is going in. He said that he represents a number of
families on his block as well as his three and five year old children. Mr. Nerenberg said that when he and
his children are playing the backyard, which they do often, that they do see the existing garage structure
as well as the existing chimney on the property for this item. He explained that the property slopes down
where he is about 45 feet from the proposed edge, where it slopes down pretty steep. He said when he looks up from his backyard he sees the corner, the awning and eave and everything. He stated that he
would have a twenty-foot wall that he will see. He believed that his property value will be affected just in
the fact that now he will have a structure behind his house that he did not have and did not want to have
when he originally bought the house. He also stated that he would have divulge that to any future buyers.
Mr. Nerenberg mentioned that a couple of people said that it really is not much of a visual eye sore, but he
continued that it is funny that he sees a picture next to it if you squint your eyes they almost look the
same, He stated that his neighbors and he joke that it is the motel on Cadencia and he asked and
challenged the Planning Commission to take a look. He stated that Commissioner Compas has seen it
and it looks like a hotel according to Mr. Nerenberg and he considers it already an eye sore from the
DFCAF T Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 11
street. He said having that wall about 40 feet from his property line will do him nothing but harm when he looks to
resell his house.
Chairperson Segall stated that Mr. Nerenberg is referring to a wall and asked if there is a wall going up or
is it the existing structure?
Mr. Nerenberg replied that it is the existing structure and recently the owner has placed some trees that
have started to grow, but Mr. Nerenberg can still see through them and he can see the top three or four
feet from his backyard and living room. He pointed out what he would now see that was pushed about 20
to 25 feet closer to his property line.
Larry Douglas, 7505 Brava Street, Carlsbad commented that AT&T may need some sites, but he is not
sure that they have proved definitively that this particular location needs to be in place for them to stay
viable and competitive. He said financially it may be easier to put one in a residential center than it is a
commercial, so that they may have financial incentives there also. He stated that he would also like to see
definitively that they have looked at all possible alternatives first and he would like to see that documented
before they put one and choose a residential site. He also stated that he hoped the Planning Commission
would act along those lines also in the best interest of the people present and that it is a residential site.
Commissioner Baker confirmed to Mr. Douglas that he mentioned not privy to the last site being approved,
did you not receive the notice or did you not live in the neighborhood.
Mr. Douglas replied that he lived in the neighborhood for the last seven or eight years and he pointed out
that he was not saying it was not mailed out but that maybe he did not see it or maybe it got circular filed,
but he did not know. He said that if you polled most of the people in here, they were not aware that that
had ever taken place. He concluded that he did not know if they were improperly noticed or what, but he
thought something probably was amiss if this many people in the same area are showing up tonight and
they were not even aware that that other site was in.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Douglas how did he find out about tonight’s hearing?
Mr. Douglas responded that from the neighborhood group somebody became aware and he was not even
noticed for he got this information via phone calls and conversations in the neighborhood, not by a notice.
Debi Horen, 7512 Brava Street, Carlsbad (previously spoke and was timed for three minutes rather than
the full five minutes). Ms. Horen stated that it is clear that the health concerns in the room are palpable but
she voiced that she knows that is something they are not suppose to pay attention to, so she said she is
going to focus a little bit on some of the other areas where the Planning Commission can use their
discretion and that is compatibility with the neighborhood. Ms. Horen continued that since Morrow
Consulting did state that this project is a replacement site for the GTE site project, she said she went back
a little bit and found out why was that site kicked out in City Council after it was approved here. She said
the main reason was that they did not dress it up and hide it and paint it in a garage and so they got it
more on aesthetics. She explained that also some of the points that they used as reasons for denial was
the introduction of additional noise into a quiet neighborhood where they talked about air conditioning for
the equipment and she was wondering if this site is the same site, then is there not the same kind of noise
levels or potential for noise levels? She said they also talked about introduction of additional commercial-
related traffic in a residential neighborhood being inappropriate from monitoring equipment, even though it
sounds like it is minimized once a month, twice a month, perhaps more if it needs repair-she stated that
they do not know, but those can turn into public safety issues or questions and also as she stated earlier,
there is a bus stop right at the foot of this one property here.
Ms. Horen then wanted to quote in their resolution where Council overturned the Planning Commission’s
decision they said, “that the restricted 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
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 12
life, preserving open space and to preserve a 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.” Ms. Horen confirmed that those were the
neighborhood compatibility issues. She stated that people have spoken about a lot of other things and
rather than repeat stuff, she said that cellular service is great in the area and it was good to hear that
AT&T is fine in the area, Verizon, Sprint, Cingular, all of those work perfectly well and so they are
questioning why this location? She shared that there is a tennis club up the street that is a little more
commercial, people do not live there around the clock. She asked if that has been looked into? She
continued that just overall the question remains, is there going to be some plan about the placement of
these cell sites in Carlsbad or is it going to be helter-skelter, wherever the wolf can pounce, they go there
and they all go in the same place, if that is a good spot or will there be some responsibility to actually have
some kind of proactive plan so they do not have to have this kind of thing occur on a regular basis?
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Segall closed Public Testimony and asked staff (and
the applicant when it is appropriate) to respond to the variety of questions that were asked.
Mr. Westman stated that as to the total number of antennas and radio base stations that would be allowed
in the area there does not seem to be any regulations and the City does not have anything in our
Ordinance regarding proliferation of these kind of cell site facilities.
Mr. Westman stated that staff does not have any studies justifying this location and does not have any
information on alternatives. Mr. Westman acknowledged that they did do a Negative Declaration and the
determination was made that there are no cumulative effects. He pointed out this is classified as quasi-
public, therefore can be allowed in a residential area with a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Westman stated
according to AT&T the facility is not going to be generating noise that would be intrusive into the
neighborhood. In regards to traffic he said the addition of one or two trips per month for maintenance is not
significant based on design limitations for residential streets.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Westman to elaborate a little bit more on the quasi-public and asked if it
would be considered a public utility and what exactly does quasi-public mean?
Mr. Westman pointed out that quasi-public serves in the public interest as telecommunications and it is not
a public entity but is private.
Commissioner Baker asked if it in the same category as telephone lines, cable, electrical lines, sewer
etc.?
Mr. Westman agreed.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Westman concerning the noticing requirement, how were these neighbors
noticed and could he speak to the one that was previously approved and how they were noticed?
Mr. Westman stated that he cannot speak specifically to the previous project, but relayed the City’s
noticing procedure is: when staff gets a noticing package from the applicant, it is accompanied with a
signed affidavit which certifies the names and addresses are from the latest equalized assessors rolls of
all property owners within 600 feet of the property. He went on to explain the City does an individual
mailing to each of the property owners within that 600 foot radius.
Commissioner Baker asked if there was a cell site located in a residence, would that necessarily need to
be disclosed on a real estate disclosure form?
Ms. Mobaldi responded that she does not know definitively the answer to that, but she thinks the wise and
conservative approach would be to disclose it because some people do have concerns about radio
frequency emissions.
Commissioner Baker asked if they were talking about the facility residence? She also asked if it was the
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 13
property next door, would they be required to disclose that information to the potential buyer that the
neighbors had such a facility?
Ms. Mobaldi stated that she does not know the answer to that question and she does not think it
necessarily bears on the Commissions determination in this case.
Commissioner Trigas asked Ms. Mobaldi to clarify what Council actually ruled on the other site?
Ms. Mobaldi summarized that Ms. Horen touched on a number of the points that the Council made in their
findings in relation to that other site. She stated that some of them had to do with the visual degradation of
the community. That other site was out in the open on an SDG&E tower, an open space easement. They
discussed the necessity for maintaining and preserving open space; about property values; degradation of
property values; about the fact that it was in a residential neighborhood; and that perhaps not all of the
alternatives had been adequately explored prior to intensification of this type of use in a residential
neighborhood.
Commissioner Trigas asked Ms. Mobaldi to explain the fact that other providers cannot be unreasonably
discriminated against.
Ms. Mobaldi said the law provides that telecommunication facilities have to be available to locate in
communities within reason and you cannot discriminate between different providers and so therefore if
you give one provider a site, then you have to offer alternatives to a provider of the same functionally
equivalent service. She continued that the criteria is that you cannot unreasonably discriminate, so
obviously, if you have a reasonable basis for making a distinction between one provider and another, in
terms of their applications to go into a certain location, you may deny one and allow the other to locate
there; however, you have to make those findings and they have to be reasonable in order to be upheld.
Commissioner Trlgas asked if another future telecommunications provider can request a similar site in that
same area, would the Planning Commission have to give very valid reasons that they are not
discriminating?
Ms. Mobaldi replied yes. She stated the reasons have to be reasonable in the sense that there is a factual
foundation or basis for them. She suggested in making a determination in this case, that the Planning
Commission consider there already is one site in the neighborhood. Ms. Mobaldi went on to say that if the
Planning Commission finds that they necessarily need to approve this application, they need to take into
consideration the differences and the similarities. She explained that if the Planning Commission makes a
denial in this case, they need to make a record of why they are making that denial, what their reasons are
and how they feel it may be distinguishable from the previous approval.
Commissioner Trigas asked regarding regulations if an independent party comes in to oversee or check
out emissions or does the Planning Commission take the information from the provider?
Mr. Westman responded that once a facility is in, there is a requirement for follow-up analysis of what the
cumulative effects are of that facility. He stated that staff would require the applicant to do the analysis and
to provide the report to staff.
Commissioner Baker asked if the report is annually or just initially after the first six months etc.?
Mr. Westman stated that he was not fully sure, but he believed it may be the one time after six months.
Commissioner Baker asked if the FCC requires an independent investigation or periodic checks?
Mr. Westman stated that he was not sure what the FCC requires, but he pointed out that the City does
have the one condition that talks about a six-month period. He also pointed out that the City has the
standard Conditional Use Permit for an annual review of the Conditional Use Permit and its operation to
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 14
see that it is operating consistent with the conditions for approval.
Chairperson Segall asked if that would be the same for the previous site as well.
Mr. Westman affirmed Chairperson Segall’s question.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Morrow to come up to address some of the comments that were made plus
one of his questions he will ask as well.
Mr. Morrow said he had previously addressed most of the questions with his initial presentation as he had
knowledge before hand that these types of questions were going to come up. He stated that it is a
testament to the planning process that these types of projects, through the public notice process, brings
every body out here and suggested that, from some respects, the planning process is the only lightning
rod left to bring communities together and that it is unfortunate it is always over an issue that puts people
into different camps. He pointed out Federal Law regulates the health issue and reiterated that the public
health and safety impacts of this facility were so low as to be a fractional element of that. He gave the
scenario that if the Pat Bell Wireless site were one percent of the FCC regulations, the ham radio operator
(unregulated and probable to be a very serious contributor) may bump that total between all three of the
sites up to maybe five percent of the FCC standard. He suggested that it is still going to be below one
percent-worst-case sitting right here. He assured the residents that it would be evaluated through the
Conditional Use Permit approval process. Mr. Morrow stated that the City of Carlsbad’s CUP is very, very
rigorous having the requirement to produce a performance-based report within six months of operation,
the requirement to annually review the CUP, plus the CUP is only good for five years. He continued to
explain that the applicant has to come back to explain and rationalize what they are doing and that the five
years was put there to aid the community and address some of the issues associated with the
technological change. Mr. Morrow stated that AT&T cannot wait for other developments to come on line
with no assurance of negotiating a site with them, but they need to perform their business plan today,
which is why they are at this site.
He also stated that AT&T is not in the business of providing a service that is not necessary and was
pleased to hear that all the AT&T subscribers have great coverage and capability in this site. He stated
that if, in fact, they are actually true across the depth and breadth of their customer base, they would not
be here today, that they would not put this site here if they did not desperately need it and they are
seeking to fulfil1 that need in a way that, as recognized by staff, is compatible with the spirit and intent with
the Conditional Use Permit. He pointed out that from the demand issue and from a planning perspective,
you can follow the path of urbanization through the movement of the fast food folks, for they track things
and know what is happening before the government does because their data is far better. Mr. Morrow said
they have been trying to put a site here for a number of years and it has been contentious throughout as
there has been any number of different planners and providers to try to cover this particular area. He said
that he greatly respects everyone’s comment that was here and believed the site is very sympathetically
sited to the community in that it does not create visual impacts and is well over 100 feet away from the
circulation path, both circulation and automobile. He stated they have done the best that they can do given
the constraints and the regulatory envelope that they work in and he thinks they made that point today. Mr.
Morrow went on to say, in terms of property values, that he has never seen anything in his years of doing
this that has demonstrated to him that a site like this decreases property values. He said he thinks what
they will see here, as in most of San Diego County, is that property values are going to continue to shoot
up. He pointed out that he thought the median home value went up $4,000 last month and did not believe
this site would have any impact on it, which he explained is different from high tension power lines which
do create a significant visual impact as well as an auditory impact. He shared that he was out by the lines
the other day and there was a great deal of movement of electricity that created the popping, among other
noises, which is part of those facilities. Mr. Morrow said the facility they are proposing is quiet, unseen,
healthy, safe, meets the requirements of both the City and the Federal Government. He stated that they
wholeheartedly support the recommendation of approval and hoped the Planning Commission would see
fit to vote that way today.
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 15
Chairperson Segall pointed out that someone raised a question on the air conditioning and asked if there is a need
for air conditioning similar to the previous site?
Mr. Morrow explained that typically the equipment itself is air conditioned and what they have done on this site
is locate the radio base station equipment in the extension of the garage, which mimics the architecture
and will contain any of the noise associated with those particular pieces of equipment. He also felt certain
the City of Carlsbad has an existing noise ordinance that regulates decibel levels on the property line plus
the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit which the City enforces for AT&T, and the same for Pacific
Bell Wireless that is up the street.
Chairperson Segall added that Mr. Macy commented about some kind of a box in his front yard. He asked
Mr. Morrow if this facility that he is proposing requires some kind of a curb vault or box?
Mr. Morrow stated that his engineer said definitely no.
Chairperson Segall asked if everything is self-contained within the house with no other facilities around?
Mr. Morrow confirmed this and added that usually there are separate meters, but stated they are up at the
house.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Westman if he would support other applicants for this same area that
are similar to this one?
Mr. Westman replied that if the application was submitted and designed to comply with the City’s
regulations then yes, he would have to assume that.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Compas stated he was one of the members of the Commission that approved the facility a
year ago as well as the GTE facility, even though they worked very hard to make a lot of changes in that
application. He acknowledged that he has done a lot of thinking about this situation in the mean time and
acknowledged that AT&T has done a very good-faith job and have done everything expected of them. He
said he was not concerned then and is not concerned now about the health aspect for to him it is not a big
problem, though a lot of people here are very concerned about that. He stated his concern is about the
compatibility problem, as he does not want to see an area that gets inundated with false chimneys and
radio base stations, which he thinks is where the City is headed. Commissioner Compas stated for those
reasons, and for many of the reasons that were cited by the City Council in their denial of the GTE
application--even they are somewhat different, he thinks they still apply to a lot of the conditions)--he is at
this point going to vote against this application.
Commissioner L’Heureux stated she is opposed also.
Commissioner Heineman agreed that he does not think the health problem is an issue and that the
Planning Commission is not qualified to question the FCC assurances. He pointed out that he does share
Commissioner Compas’ concerns regarding one provider after another is going to be coming back to the
same site is probably reason enough to reject this. He stated that he intends to vote against it.
Commissioner Baker thanked everyone who came out to speak about this issue and shared that one of
the things which makes Carlsbad a nice community to live in is that all of us care very much about what
happens in this town. She concurred with her fellow Commissioners regarding the health aspects and they
cannot take that into consideration when talking tonight. She pointed out concerning quasi-public facilities
that we all need to share in some of the pain where they are located if we want to have electricity, cable,
telephones and cell service. She stated she agrees with her fellow Commissioners to consider if we are
locating too many of these in a residential neighborhood. She requested that City Council direct the
Planning Commission, staff or someone to take a look at locating wireless facilities in neighborhoods and
’ DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l Page 16
how we are going to deal with this in the future. She pointed out that they are coming up in every Planning
Commission where they are dealing with wireless facilities over and over again. She noted that maybe it is time that
the City take a look at how we are going to do business with these facilities in the future. Commissioner
Baker shared that she would not be supporting the project tonight.
Commissioner Trigas also concurred and further explained that she has a real problem with compatibility.
She stated too that wanting some clear direction from the Council would make it easier as it will come up
again. She did not feel comfortable with establishing a precedent of additional approval as she did not
think that it helps the quality of life and since Carlsbad does want to promote the quality of life among its
residents she felt that they have to develop a sound policy in addressing this issue and not deal with it
every single time on a piecemeal basis and she hopes that is relayed to the Council - of the Planning
Commission’s concern that they direct the Planning Commission on this one, but she definitely agrees
with her fellow Commissioners on this issue.
Chairperson Segall also agreed with the other Commissioners. He complimented AT&T and Mr. Morrow
for the presentation and the information that they provided tonight and he thought they did a great job. He
stated that the last time this came before the Planning Commission with GTE he voted against the project
because he did not think it was compatible with the neighborhood. He stated he has different issues
relative to compatibility on this project and he would be real concerned about the disclosure of this site and
how that handles real estate values within the neighborhood. He stated that he is also real concerned
about the facilities that the other Commissioners have talked about and how many of these will continue to
go into residential areas. He stated he does not have the same kind of concerns in commercial and
industrial areas, but when these are put in neighborhoods he does have a concern. He agreed that he
would like to ask the Council to give the Planning Commission direction in the residential neighborhoods
and how we are going to site these in the future. Chairperson Segall shared that he too will not support
this project for those reasons.
Commissioner Compas pointed out one thing that might expedite getting the City Council’s opinion is if
AT&T appeals it to the City Council and then the Planning Commission could find out what they think
about it.
Chairperson Segall stated that they have made a minute motion in the past and it looks like the Planning
Commission has made enough comments again, but he explained that he has the same concerns that all
of the Commissioners have which is how far is the Planning Commission going to go with this, and when
they site one and approve it, then there is another. He stated that he does not blame individuals for not
wanting to live on “Antenna Alley”.
Chairperson Segall asked if there are any other comments and seeing none asked for a motion.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4926 adopting a Negative Declaration and adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4927 approving Conditional Use Permit
CUP 00-36 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions found therein.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
6-O-O
Chairperson Segall. Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker,
Trigas
None
None
Ms. Mobaldi stated that the Planning Commission should refer to her office and they will prepare a
Resolution of Denial.
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16,200l
Chairperson Segall said the Planning Commission would vote on that Resolution of Denial at the next meeting.
Ms. Mobaldi agreed and said her office would put in the Resolution the findings articulated tonight.
Chairperson Segall asked Ms. Mobaldi to explain the Denial With or Without Prejudice.
Ms. Mobaldi explained that Without Prejudice means the applicant can come back with modifications and
reapply. She said With Prejudice means the matter will not be considered again within a year.
Chairperson Segall asked if they should make that part of the motion regarding if it is with or with
prejudice?
Ms. Mobaldi stated that if you do not specify, it is typically without prejudice.
Mr. Holzmiller pointed out besides the one year waiting period, if the Planning Commission is denying this
on its merits, then you should not say without prejudice because you are making findings that you do not
feel should be approved.
Chairperson Segall asked if this can be appealed to the Council and they can reopen the issue?
Mr. Holzmiller said the motion should be to refer it to the City Attorney’s office to prepare a document
denying the project. He said the only time you would add without prejudice is if you feel that it is being
denied for some sort of lack of information or a more technical thing that you want the applicant to be able
to reapply within a years time period, but it does not sound like that is the situation here.
Chairperson Segall said they need another motion now.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that they just need to direct her to come back next meeting with a Resolution reflecting
what they said here tonight and she will do that.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Compas and duly seconded, to direct Ms. Mobaldi to
come back next meeting with a Resolution reflecting what the Planning
Commission has said here tonight.
VOTE: 6-O-O
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux, Heineman, Baker,
Trigas
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Segall closed the Public Hearing.
RECESS
Chairperson Segall called a recess at 858 p.m.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
,
I
I
I
/
I
I
/
I
I
/
I
1
~
I
I
1 1
I
I
I
!
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes May 16.2001 Page 18
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of May 2, 2001 was adjourned at IO:42
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
GARY WAYNE
Assistant Planning Director
Judy Kirsch
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
Exhibit 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4750
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PCS FACILITY
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7412 CADENCIA
STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: SD 369-02 TELECOM FACILITY
CASE NO.: CUP 99-l 1
WHEREAS, Pacific Bell Wireless, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Larry and Jeannette Yglesia,
“Owners”, described as
Lot 475 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 La Costa Vale Unit No. 3, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according io 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 “An - “D” dated April 5, 2000, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, SD 369-02 TELECOM FACILITY - CUP 99-11, as provided by Chapter 21.42
and/or 2 1.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of April, 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:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES SD 369-02 TELECOM FACILITY - CUP 99-11, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
1
;
L -
I!
1 -
c
P I
5
s
1c
11
12
17 d
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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 General Plan recognizes that these types of facilities
are necessary and essential to the infiastructural support of urban land uses. Pacific Bell
Wireless indicates that the proposed PCS facility’s calculated worst case radio frequency
power density is well below the FCC standard; therefore, the project would not be
detrimental in that it would not have a significant adverse impact on public health. The
proposed panel antennas and accessory equipment would not be aesthetically detrimental
since they are housed within a faux chimney on the roof of a residential structure and
within .wall mounted cabinets painted to match the exterior of the structure, and are
therefore blended into the existing architecture.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that no alteration of the residential lot would be required beyond the existing
improvements.
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 PCS antennas will be housed within a faux
chimney on the roof of the structure and within wall mounted cabinets along the
northern exterior of the structure.
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the project would generate only one trip per month
for maintenance.
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.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to building
permit.
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.
PC RESO NO. 4750 -2-
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
ordinances 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. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
PC RESO NO: 4750 -3-
l .
- ’ ,,
j
r
L
L
c -
t
m
I
E
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9.
10.
11.
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 ANSYIEEE standards, the City may revoke or modify this conditional use permit.
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. 4749 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.
The faux chimney shall be integrated into the architectural design using identical
building materials and colors as the other chimneys existing on the roof of the
structure and shall be no higher than 4’8” from roof line.
Code Reminders:
12. 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 are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
13. 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,jssuance, 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.”
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
PC RESO NO. 4750 -4-
”
4 ‘I
.
i
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
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3i32.030. 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
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of April, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
Chairperson Compas, Commissioners L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall,
and Trigas
Commissioners Heineman and Baker
WILLLAM COMPAS, Chairpers
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4750 -5-
Exhibit 4
-. The City of Carlsbad Planning Deparment /* & A REPORb- TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 0 9
Application complete date: October 18, 2000
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 16,200l
SUBJECT: CUP 00-36 - AT&T WIRELESS - 7512 CADENCIA STREET - Request for
approval to install a new 240 square foot radio base station (RBS) within a new
400 square foot garage and install a total of six antennas within two expanded
chimney structures and one new faux chimney on residential property located at
7512 Cadencia Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
1. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4926
ADOPTING a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4927
APPROVING Conditional Use Permit CUP 00-36 based on the findings and subject to the
condition found therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This application is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new 240 square foot
radio base station (RBS) as an extension of an existing garage and install six antennas within two
expanded chimney structures and one new faux chimney at 75 12 Cadencia Street in the P-C zone in the southeast quadrant of the City. Quasi-public utility facilities are permitted in any zone
upon approval of a Conditional Use Pennit. Since the findings necessary for granting a
Conditional Use Permit can be made, staff is recommending approval of the telecommunications facility as proposed
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
AT&T Wireless Services is proposing to install six panel antennas within three chimneys on the
roof of a single-family residence located south of La Costa Avenue on a hillside parcel at 7512
Cadencia Street in the P-C zone. Supporting equipment (RBS) will consist of several cabinets
within a new 12x20 structure built adjoining an existing garage. The residence is located on a
1.07 acre hillside lot on Cadencia Street. The lot ranges in elevation from approximately 2 11’ at
Cadencia Street to 268’ at the rear of the property. The residential structure is three levels as
seen from Cadencia Street and is set back approximately 100’. The proposed ,faux chimney is
located on the roof and is designed to match the existing two chimneys in height and materials
after their expansion. The existing chimneys are 37 feet in height and the proposed faux
chimney will match that height.
Due to poor variable signal strength resulting from steep topography, the site has been identified
by AT&T Wireless Services as a key site necessary to improve wireless coverage in the eastern
portion of La Costa, extending to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. The proposed Cadencia Street site
. b q ,
CUP 00-36 - AT&T WXXELESS 7 7512 CADENCIA STREE’
May 16,200l
Page 2
location is beneficial due to its natural topography that allows for line of sight to the primary
coverage area, lack of obstructions, and minimal interference from neighboring
telecommunications sites. The ’ developer’s goal is to improve signal quality along La Costa
Avenue and to expand coverage into hard-to-cover, secondary, residential streets serving the La Costa area. There are no alternative commercial or industrial sites in the area of the Cadencia
Street site.
The proposed project is subject to the following regulations:
l Conditional Use Permit Regulations (Chapter 21.42) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
(CM’3
IV. ANALYSIS
Staffs recommendation of approval for this conditional use was developed by analyzing the
project’s consistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. This analysis will
present, in text, the project’s consistency with the applicable regulations listed below:
A. Conditional Uses
Conditional land uses such as telecommunication 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, and industrial). The required
Conditional Use Permit findings are that the use is consistent with the General Plan, necessary
and desirable to the community, not detrimental to permitted uses in the zone, and that the site and street system are adequate to handle the proposed use.
Although the 1996 U.S. Telecommunications Act prohibits local governments from unreasonably prohibiting wireless services, it does permit regulations that ensure the placement
of facilities in the least intrusive manner possible. Wireless telecommunication facilities that are
integrated into the design of the structure (stealth) are less intrusive than existing public utility
structures currently located throughout the community. Similar existing public utility facilities, including electrical and communication transmission lines, poles, and towers (i.e. electric, phone
and cable TV), street and parking lot light standards, traffic signals, television and radio
antennas, and satellite dishes, are all commonly found within existing commercial and residential
neighborhoods in the City of Carlsbad. The General Plan recognizes that these types of facilities
are necessary and essential to the infrastructural support of urban land uses.
The proposed project is located in a low density residential neighborhood which is developed
with very large residential structures as well as an adjacent medium density neighborhood to the west. AT&T Wireless Services indicates that the proposed facility’s calculated worst case radio
frequency power density is well below the FCC standard; therefore, the project would not be
detrimental in that it would not have a significant adverse impact on public health.
On a project by project basis, the City is requiring that. potential aesthetic visual impacts of
telecommunication facilities be reduced by either: (1) screening the antennas on the roofs of
existing residential, industrial and commercial buildings; (2) blending the antennas into the
architecture of existing buildings; (3) requiring landscaping; or, (4) requiring the facilities to be
CUP 00-36 - AT&T WYELESS - 75 12 CADENCIA STREET
May 16,200l
camouflaged by use of natural colors or other methods to reduce visuaI impacts when they are
viewed from the public roadways. The proposed panel antennas and accessory equipment would
not be aesthetically detrimental since they are housed within a faux chimney on the roof of a
residential structure and within a new building designed and treated to match the exterior of the
existing structure.
Since no alteration of the residential lot would be required beyond the existing improvements
and the project would generate only two trips per month for maintenance, the site and street
system are adequate to accommodate the use
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed telecommunications facility has been reviewed for potential environmental impacts applicable to the use including land use compatibility, aesthetics, and health hazards.
Based on the findings of the environmental impact assessment performed by staff in which no
significant impacts were identified, the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration on
March 1,200l. No public comment has been received
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4926 (Neg Dee)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4927 (CUP)
3. Location Map
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Disclosure Statement
6. Exhibits “A” - “F” dated May 16,200l
cw:cs:mh
IN THE MATTER OF
AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES
APPEAL OF CUP 00-36 (7512 CADENCIA STREET)
AFFIDAVIT OF OAKLEIGH J. THORNE
I, Oakleigh J. Thome, state as follows:
1. I am a Principal of Thome Consultants, Inc., a firm that specializes in real estate
valuation.
2. I have been retained by AT&T Wireless to evaluate the potential impact on
surrounding real estate prices of a proposed facility at 7512 Cadencia Street, Carlsbad,
California.
3. The site proposed for 7512 Cadencia Street will consist of an antenna inside a
faux chimney with the equipment located inside an extended garage designed to match the
existing garage. Specifically, this facility will increase the width of two existing chimneys by
only 18 inches to hide 5 panel antennas and will add a third chimney approximately 4’ tall to
hide a sixth panel antenna.
4. One of the services I provide to clients such as Verizon, Nextel, Sprint and AT&T
Wireless is to analyze the impact of wireless towers (monopoles and lattice towers) and related
facilities on surrounding property values in residential communities.
5. Over the past several years, I have reviewed and analyzed six sites for the
placement of monopoles and lattice towers in or near residential areas, and prepared reports on
the findings.
Affidavit of Oakleigh J. Thome - Page 1
Thome Affhlavit - Carlsbad CA.DOC
6. The methodology for analyzing the impact of a monopole on residential property
values involves retrieving real property sales data from computerized listings in the surrounding
area. This data is verified by random sampling, and each sale in the immediately affected area is
inspected in person. The data is then analyzed to determine whether there is a correlation
between the installation of the monopole and residential property sales prices in the affected area
compared to the rest of the surrounding community.
7. In no instance have I found the installation of a monopole or lattice tower, which
typically ranges from 125 to 225 feet in height, to have a negative impact on property values.
8. The conclusions obtained in the prior studies suggest that the proposed facility at
75 12 Cadencia Street will have no impact on surrounding property values.
I affkm under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Executed J
Oakleigh J. Thome, having been duly sworn, testified under oath that the foregoing is
true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Swombeforemein Montgomery County , Maryland, this 2 9th day of June, 2001.
My Commission Expires: 12/01/2001.
Y Notary Public, Sandra F. McGaw
Affidavit of Oakleigh J. Thome - Page 2
Thome Affidavit - Carlsbad CA.DOC
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 21, 2001, to consider an
APPEAL of a Planning Commission decision to DENY the installation of a
new 240 square foot radio base station (RBS) within a new 400 square foot
garage and install a total of six antennas within two expanded chimney structures
and one new faux chimney on residential property located at 7512 Cadencia
Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 6 and more particularly described as:
Lot 486 of Carlsbad Tract 72-20 of La Costa Vale Unit
No. 3 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to Map thereof No.
7950, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
the public hearing. Copies of the Agenda Bill will be available on and after
August 17,200l. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in
the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614.
If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, City
Clerk’s Office, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CUP 00-36
CASE NAME: APPEAL AT&T WIRELESS - 7512 CADENCIA STREET
PUBLISH: SATURDAY, AUGUST II,2001
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, CA 92008-l 989 * (760) 434-2808 @
AT&T WIRELESS -
7512 CADENCIA ST
CUP 00-36
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
adjudicated newapapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the County of San Diego,
that the notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has
been published in each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to-wit:
August 11, 2001
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San Marcos , California
this 13th day
of August, 2001
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
____I_. -..?.1-c- .___..,__. .-.-
i J /--i g i; ii ‘i$; 1-2 j r; ‘I II i’i -‘::r-. -. 8,
yy;,’ t r; t’ ‘C 1 5 :I 4
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearin q
.HOTICE OF PUBLlC HEARINQ
- r NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the Citv of C&bad will hold a public hearkm at the Council Chambers, 12OO’Carkbad Village Drive, C&bad, Calii& at 6.90 p.m. on Tuesday, August 21, 2001, to consider an APPEAL of a Planning Commission de&ion to DENY the installation of a new 240 square foot radio base station (RBS) within a new 400 square foot garage and install a total of six antennas within two expanded chimney structures and one new faux chimney on residential property located at 7512 Cadencia Street in Local Fscilities Management Zone 6 and more partiaulafly described as:
Lot 466 of Carl&ad Tract 72-20 of La CoeJ& ble Unit No. 3 in the City of Car&ad, County of San Olego, State of Callkxnia, accordfng to Map theraof No. 7960, flied in the Office of the County Recorder of San Otago County.
Thosepersonswishingtospeakonthlaprqosalarecordlallyim&dtoattend chepublicmng. CopfesofthaAgertdaBfffwlllbea~ffableonand&arAugust 17, 2001. H you m spy que&one. olease call Christer We&tan tn the Planning Depmtment -at (760) 602-4614.
If you challenge the Conditional use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this noUce or In written correspondence delivered to the City ol Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CUP 0+3
CASE NAME: APPEAL AT&T WIRELESS - 7512 CADENCIA STREET
CITY bF CARLSi3AQ CITY COUNCIL I
A% WiREtESS -
7512 CADENCIA ST ”
LEGAL 70746. AUG. 11,200l CUP w-36
’ NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
We are opposed to the AT&T proposed site to install a new 240 square foot
radio base station within a new 400 square foot garage and install six
antennas. We believe that the site would disturb our quality of life and that
a quiet safe neighborhood is an inappropriate location for a cell site. In
addition, three antennas were installed two homes down from this site last
s
- year,.at 7412 Cadencia, and we are concerned about the cumulative affect
9
3 so
of such installations. Our concerns include environmental impact, land us
L/n compatibility, aesthetics, public services (there is a school bus stop at the
e foot of this site), and public health and safety. Please locate the site in
another area, such as a commercial development
n- L * f&m? J.4
PRINT FULL NAME
?J4 /q/h l//ids c 63 /
z) =gr&s3l l.!zfLmJ 9-a/ T;;577P?x;&ek
PRINT FULL NAME SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS .
3/d/ (r)/KJW Di&C~ c
PRINT FULL NAME / 1 SIGNATURE ADDRESS /” 4 JlLA++c~ V Lb?+ 7m A- f--c9
\ PRINT FULL *ME I/ SlGNATU# BAKE ADDRESS /)
PRIM FULL NAM-E $jGWfL)RS, 1. DATE, /
. -/r/7 /u --- -
We are opposed to the AT&T proposed site to install a new 240 square foot
radio base station within a new 400 square foot garage and install six
antennas. We believe that the site would disturb our quality of life and that
a quiet safe neighborhood is an inappropriate location for a cell site. In
addition, three antennas were installed two homes down from this site last
year, at 7412 Cadencia, and we are concerned about the cumulative affect
of such installations. Our concerns include environmental impact, land use
compatibility, aesthetics, public services (there is a school bus stop at the
foot of this site), and public health and safety. Please locate the site in
another area, such as a commercial development
PRINT FULL NAME SIGNATURE bA1’E . ADDRESS - - 20) Jewt heet &~&WA- 4 /%!I (01 3lsuc&Lv~ cf3
PRINT l%JLL NAME SIGMTURE OATE ADDRESS
ADDRESS .
We are opposed to the AT&T proposed site to install a new 240 square foot
radio base station within a new 400 square foot garage and install six
.antennas. We believe that the site would disturb our quality of life and that
a quiet safe neighborhood is an inappropriate location for a cell site. In
addition, three antennas were installed two homes down from this site last
ye{r, at 7412 Cadencia, and we are concerned about the cumulative affect
‘of such installations. Our concerns include environmental impact, land use
compatibility, aesthetics, public services (there is a school bus stop at the
foot of this site), and public health and safety. Please locate the site in
another area, such as a commercial development
6 I ff,&Ym -ti $ 1 I .30 01
SIGNATURE0
,?/b6 lLk!&& pd,
DATE
k@&
ADDRESS
GG SAMMIYW i&lo / Yfp E&w!! s5!lwmqcQ
PRINT FULL NAME SIGNATURE
Ej(A+%zJ&q kE/S _MCUYWA~&/q A;7F.j$= *
%q
/24ih v cwCW.&3
PRINT FULL NAME SIGNATURE
PRlNT FULL NAME SIGNhTURE . DATE ADDRESS
q&g/t mlY-lld/l? I)!&!&@ &QLl+q 7523 w+
PRINT FULL NAME &NATURE DATE ADDRESS
We are opposed to the AT&T proposed site to install a new 240 square foot
radio base station within a new 400 square foot garage and install six
antennas. We believe that the site would disturb our quality of life and that
a quiet safe neighborhood is an inappropriate location for a cell site. In
addition, three antennas were installed two homes down from this site last
year, at 7412 Cadencia, and we are concerned about the cumulative affect
of such installations. Our concerns include environmental impact, land use
compatibility, aesthetics, public services (there is a school bus stop at the
foot of this site), and public health and safety. Please locate the site in
another area, such as a commercial development
A/Ada 4
PR)y FULL @JAMf: .
I bed&~ Y/?/o/ z3//3 k!Jfirac
STATURE DAtE ADDRESS
We are opposed to the AT&T proposed site to install a new 240 square foot
radio base station within a new 400 square foot garage and install six
antennas. We believe that the site would disturb our quality of life and that
a quiet safe neighborhood is an inappropriate location for a cell site. In
addition, three antennas were installed two homes down from this site last
year, at 7412 Cadencia, and we are concerned about the cumulative affect
of such installations. Our concerns include environmental impact, land use
compatibility, aesthetics, public services (there is a school bus stop at the
foot of this site), and public health and safety. Please locate the site in
another area, such as a commercial development
PRINT FULL NAME ~NATURE DATE ADDRESS
PRINT FULL NAMk
PRINT FULL NAME SIVNATURE ,y DATE ADDRESS
3605 cJ& P
PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS 2
3701 -iwd.Q c;f*
PRINT FULL NAME ADDRESS
PRlNT FULL NAME ADDRESS
. -.
We are opposed to the AT&T proposed site to install a new 240 squars foot
radio base station within a new 4OU square foot garage and install six
antennas. We believe that the site would disturb uur quality of life and that
a quiet safe neighborhood is an inappropriate &cation for a ceH site. In
addkion, three antennas wers installed two homes down from tfGs site fast
year, at 74t2 Cadencia, and we are concerned about the cumulatfve affect of such installations. Out conc@ms inctude environmental Tmpact, land use
compatibility, aesthetics, public services [there is a school bus stop at the
foot of this s&e), and pub& health and sabty. Please kate ttte site in
another area, such as a commercial development
PRINT
FUU NAME A . l-
FULL NAME ADDRESS
-Lfle-Gky?-=J&- ADDRESS
\(pawid tsQ a=%
ADDRESS
I I
SK;NATURE &TE ( ’ ADURESi
PRINT FULL NAME
D aNAL9 L- z~bdh<
PRiNT FULL NAME
skzru r, &qLdpd
PRINT FULL NAME
- p&m a 141 c---.&q2
SIGNATURM _ DATE
AYzt &?Fw,; /=;&o - ._ - cf+ OZOb
i &LL& LLQfo y
9%Otq
pitqfz 4 3 ?AA/ 75.jL3 .49-J+ Q &A -92-p
PRINT FULL NAME W@ATURE DATE ADDRESS
. .
We are opposed to the AT&T proposed site to install a new 240 square foot
radio base station within a new 400 square foot garage and install six
antennas. We believe that the site would disturb our quality of life and that
a quiet safe neighborhood is an inappropriate location for a cell site. In
addition, three antennas were installed two homes down from this site last
year, at 7412 Cadencia, and we are concerned about the cumulative affect
of such installations. Our concerns include environmental impact, land use
compatibility, aesthetics, public services (there is a school bus stop at the
foot of this site), and public health and safety. Please locate the site in
another area, such as a commercial development
PRINT FULL NAME DATE ADDRESS
&@p\ na aAh-&
PRINT FULL NAME / SIGNATURE, DATE ADDRESS
PRJJT FULL NA#E ’ SIGNATURJJ DATE ADDRESS *
. .
We at-e opposed to the AT&T proposed site.to install a new-240 square foot “. ’
radio base station withln a new 400. square foot garage and instat six“
‘antennas. We believe that the site would disturb our quality of life and that
a quiet safe neighborhood is~an inapproprkate location for a cell site. In
‘addition, three antennas were installed two homes down from,this site last
year, at 7412 Cadencia, and we are concerned about the cuniulatiye affqct
of such installations; Our concerns include environmental impact, land use
compatibility, aesthetics, public services (there is a school b.us stop at the
:foot of this,site), and public heaJth and safety. Please locate the site in : I
another area; such as a commercial development ‘.
,. b __ . ~
DfiTE ; / ADFRESS
RINT FULL NAME,
I 18,
TM? &c-L Ii!@/ /4& I ;rr/i?/ &I/ #Ye
ADDRESS I
ADDRESS 3c/z k b6-i wlf P et-
PRlNT FULL NAME DiiTli ADDRESS I
/@a,@,~ fjQ9Ut4 q( + 303Aba fqqq
PRINT FULL NAME SlGNATUfiE DATE ADDRESS I
We are opposed to the AT&T proposed site to install a new 240 square foot
radio base station within a new 400 square foot garage and install six
antennas. We believe that the site would disturb our quality of life and that
a quiet safe neighborhood is an inappropriate location for a cell site. In
addition, three antennas were installed two homes down from this site last
year, at 7412 Cadencia, and we are concerned about the cumulative affect
of such installations. Our concerns include environmental impact, land use
compatibility, aesthetics, public services (there is a school bus stop at the
foot of this site), and public health and safety. Please locate the site in
another area, such as a commercial development
lls-.
/lb.
i/7.
Jl+- s/-spop 3139 &?@&kvP LL.#%/
PRINT FULL NAME v SlGNATURk ’ IRATE ADDRESS’ I 9 7oop
.
: e
:: 4 7 : u
: c
, 1
;
1
1
_; C
t
I
;
i -9
G
.
We are opposed to the AT&T proposed site to install a new 240 square foot
radio base station within a new 400 square foot garage and install six
antennas. We believe that the site would disturb our quality of life and that
a quiet safe neighborhood is an inappropriate location for a cell site. In
addition, three antennas were installed two homes down from this site last
year, at 7412 Cadencia, and we are concerned about the cumulative affect
of such installations. Our concerns include environmental impact, land use
compatibility, aesthetics, public services (there is a school bus stop at the
foot of this site), and public health and safety. Please locate the site in
another area, such as a commercial development
PRINT FULL NAME SIGNATURT DATE ADDRESS
T FULL NAME
ADDRESS
DATE ADDRESS
5x5&’ Jiy 2
PRINT FULL NAME , SIGMTURE DATE ADDRESS
7 &J-C
/
pf%dwLtuoln’~ w 9-g 36Lw dofluo&Jd~
PRINT FULL NAME SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS “CM
PRINT FULL NAME SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS
PRINT FULL NAME SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS
PRINT FULL NAME SIGNATURE DATE ADDRESS
Sap-03-01 05:52P Jerrold T. Bushberg Ph.D. 916 734-3956 p-02
-
JEIIROLD T. BUSHBERG Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM
#HEALTH AND MUCAL PHWCS CONSULTING‘ Ata ld,3w-
Y-r $QOI
R64 Oak Bay Cimk %cmmurta, CA 959314800 (916) 383-6168
Darrell Daugherty
PLANcorn Inc.
302 Stare Place Escondido, California 92029- 1362
September 3. 2001
Dear Mr. Daugheny:
Introduction
At your request, I have reviewed the tcchoical specifications and measured the current cumulalivc maximum
radiofrequency, (RF), power density from the Cingular Wire)ess (CW) wireless telecommunications facility
(teferonced as SD-369-02). located at and around the subject property located at 7412 Cadencia Street Carlsbad, California as depicted in attachment one.
Site measurements were made to included all ambient sources of RF exposures including the contribution
from other wireless facilities. This information was used to determine compliance with Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) requirements for RF public exposure safety.
Wireless Facility Description
This telecommunication site consists of a Personal Communications Services (PCS) wireless facility. The
facility utifize diracrional transmit panel antennaeconfigured in three (3) sectors. The antennae are mounted
inside a false chimney with their radiation cenfer 32.7 feet above grade directed at 3 15 (sector A), 185 (sector B) and 245 (sector C) degrees true north. The antenna for all sectors are EMS Wireless model #
RR65I 8-WDP. Technical specifications of these antmnac are provided in attachment two. The sectorized
antennas are designed to transmit wit5 an effective radiated power (ERP) of up IO 200 watts per sector within a bandwidth between approximately 1.850 and 1,990 MHZ.
RF Exposure Measurement Methods
The measurements at the subject property were made on the morning of September I, 2001 utilizing a
H&lay Industries model HI-3001 broadband exposure meter with an associated GRE- 1 probe, The probe
and meter were recently calibrated by the manufacturer with standards traceable to the U.S. National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NISI) through report number RF 812111. The Holaday meter senses fields within the frequency range from 0.5 MHz to 6,000 MHz and indicates field strengths in units of V2/m2. This field strength reading can be converted to an equivalent far field power density in units of pW/cm* by using an appropriate multiplier. The dynamic range of the instrument is between 1 and 2,703 pW/cm*. The data
supplied by the manufacturer sets the frequency response of the probes as f 1 dB and calibration accuracy and isotropicity as f 0.5 dl3 each. The probe is isotropic. meanirtg that it can directly measure cbe strength of
complicated fields independent of the orienmtion, polarisation, or anival angle.
1
Sep-03-01 05:52P Jarrold T. Bushborg Ph.D. 916 734-3956
-- -_
P.03
Measurements were made from ground level to head height (approx. 6 feet) above the ground ar va.nous
locations surrounding the transmitter locations on the subject propem as well as the surrounding area. The probe was swept over approximately ~3 feet to avoid destructive interference thus assuring the hqhest power density was being measured at a given location. A continuous observation of the power density allowed the
location of the maximum power densities to be determined.
RF Exposure Standards
The two most widely recognized smdards for protection against RF field exposure are those published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSIJ C95.1 and the National Council on Radiation Protection and measurement (NCRP) mport #86.
The NCRP is a private, congressionally chartered institution with the charge to provide cxprrt analysis of a
variety of issues (especially health and safety recommendations) on radiations of all forms. The scientific analyses of the NCRP are held in high esteem in the scientific and regulatory community both nationally and intemationally. In fact, the vast majority of the radiological health regulations currently in existencecan trace
their origin, in some way, to the recommendations of the NCRP.
All RF exposure standards are frequency-specific, in recognition of the differential absorption of RF energy
as a function of frequency. The most restrictive exposure levels in the standards are associated with those
frequencies that aremost readily absorbed in humans. Maximum absorption occurs at approximately 80 MHz in adults. The NCRP maximum allowable continuous occupational exposure at this frequency is l&100
pW/cm2. This compass to 5,000 pW/cm’ at the most restrictive of the PCS frequcncics (- 1,800 MHz) that
arc absorbed much less efficiently than exposures in the VHF TV band.
The traditional NCRP philosqhy of providing a higher standard of protection for members of the general
population compared to occupationally exposed individuals, prompted a two-tiered safety standard by which levels of allowable exposure were substantially reduced for “uncontrolled ” (e.g., public) and continuous
exposu~s. This measure was taken to. account for the fact that workers in an industrial environment m
typically exposed no morz than eight hours a day while members of the general Population in proximity to a source of RF radiation may be exposed continuously. This additional protection factor also provides a greater margin of safety for children. the infitmed, aged, or others who might be more sensitive to RF
exposure. /Uler several years of evaluating the national and international scientific and biomedical literatun, the members of the NCRP scientific comrnittcc selected 93 1 publications in the peer-nvicwed scientific
literature on which to base their recommendations. The current NCRP recommendations limit continuous
public exposure at PCS frequencies to 1.000 ~W/cm7, and to 2OOv W/cm’ for the most restrictive frequencies
(e.g., VHF TV band).
The current ANSI standard was developed by Scientific Coordinating Commitret 28 (SCC 28) under the
auspices of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). This standard, entitled “a
Standards for Safety bvcls with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields,
3 kHz to 300’GHz” (IEEE C9S.l-1991), was issued in,April 1992 and subsequently adopted by ANSI in
November 1992. The current ANSVTEZEE standard is similar to the current NCRP recommendation for
public exposure at PCS fnquencies (1,200 p W/cm’) for continuous exposure and incorporates the convention
of providing for a greater margin of safety for public as compared with occupational exposure. Highcr whole
2
Sep-03-01 05:53P 3czrrold T. sushberg Ph.D. 916 734-3956
-.w _-
P.04
body exposures are allowed for brief periods provided that no 30 minute time-weighted average exposure exceeds these aforementioned limits.
On August 9,1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cstablishcd a Wexposurc standard thax
js a hybrid of the current @ISI and NCRP standards. The maximum permissible exposure values used to
assess envkmmeatal exposures are rhose of the NCRP (i.e.. maximum public contmuous exposure at PCS
frequencies of 1$00 pW/cm’ ). The FCC issued these standards in order to address its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to consider whether its actions will “significantly affect the
quality of the human environment. ” In as far as there was no other standard issued by a federal agency such
as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the FCC utilizcd their rulemaking procedure to cons&r
which standards should be adopted. The FCC received thousands of pages of comments over a three-year review period from a variety of sources including the public. academia, federal health and safety agencies (e.g.. EPA & FDA) and the telecommunications industry. The FCC gave special consideration to the
recommendations by the federal health agencies because of their special rcsponsibiiiry for protecting the public health and safety. III fact, the maximum permissible exposure (MPE) values in the FCC standard XC those recommended by EPA and FDA. The FCC standard incorporates vaflous elerncnts of the 1992 ANSI
and NCRP standards which were chosen because they are widciy accepted and technically supportable,
There are a variety of other exposure guidelines and standards set by orher national and international
organisations and governments, most of which ” similar to the current ANSI/IEEE or NCRP standard.
figure one.
The FCC standards “Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radietion”
(Repon and Order FCC 96-326) adopted the ANSYIEEE definitions for controlled end uncontrolled
environments. In order to use the higher exposure levels associated with a controlled environment, RF exposures must be occupationally related (e.g.. PCS company RF technicians) and they must be aware of and
have sufficient knowledge to control their exposure. All other environmental areas arc considered uncontrolled (e.g.. public) for which the stricter (i.e., lower) environmental exposure limits apply. All
carriers were required to be in compliance with the new FCC RF exposure standards for new
telecommunications facilities by October 15, ,1997. These standards applied retroactively for existing
telecommunications facilities on September 1,200O.
Cumulative RF Exposure Results
The maximum cumulative environmental RF power density measurement re+sults, at all outdoor locations on
and around the subject property, was less than 2.0’ pW/cm’. A conservative assumption that only one of the four carrier channels WBS active makes the maximum exposure from this site less than 8.0 pW/cm’, (i.e., less than 4.0 % of the most restrictive FCC public safety standards for continuous exposure). My report of March 27. 2000 calcutated the maximum power density from the facility to be 11.3 p W/cm’. As expected the actual measurements revealed lower environmental exposures than predicted by the computational model.
It is important to realize that the FCC maximum allowable public exposures are not ser at a threshold between
safety and known hazard but rather at 50 times below a level that the majority of the scientific community
believes may pose a health risk to human populations. Thus the previously mentioned maximum cumulative
exposure from the site represents a “safety margin” from rhis threshold of potentially adverse health effects of approximately 1,250 times.
3
-2; -_ Sep-03-01 05;53P Jcrrold T. Bushberg Ph-D. 916 734-3956 P.05
A chart Of the ckctromagnetic specrmm and a comparison of m power densities irom vaf~ous common sources is presented m figures two and three respectively In order to place exposures from PCS
telecommunications systems in perspective. Conclusion
PCS radio transmitters, by design and operation, 6re low-power devices. Tbc maximum RF power density
mwured at and around this facility, (i.e., less than 8 pW/cm’) is approximately 25,timcs lower than the FCC
public exposure standard for &he most restrictive RF frequencies.
Thus the CW wireless facility. as described above is full compliance with the FCC standards for public RF
exposure safety. Given the low levels of radiofrequency field exposure and given the evidence on biological
effects in a large data base, there is no scientific basis to conclude that harmful effects will attend the
utilisation of this telecommunication facility. This conclusion is supported by a large numbers of scientists
that have participated in standard-setting activities in the United States who are overwhelmingly agreed that
RF radiation exposure below the FCC exposure limits has no demonstrably harmful effects on humans. -
These findings a based on my professional evaluation of the scientific issues related to the health and safety
of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, measurements Of e+sting RF exposures, and my analysis of the technical specification as provided by Cingular Wireless. The opinions expressed herein are based on my
professional judgcment and are not intended to necessarily represent the views of the University of California.
Please contact me if you require any additional information.
Sincerely,
Jenold T. Bushberg Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM Diplomate, American Board of Medical Physics (DABMP)
Diploma& American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine (DABSNM)
Enclosum: Figures I-3; Attachments 1-2, and Statement of Experience..
Christer Westman - Cadencia Street RF Issue Page 1 ,’
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
“Jatlow, David” cdavid.jatlow@attws.com>
“‘Mike Crowe”’ <mcroweQfcc.gov>
g/14/01 1:13PM
Cadencia Street RF Issue
Mike:
I’m sorry to have taken so long to get back to you, but a number of events (especially the terrorist attacks earlier this week which caused me to spend
a couple of unplanned days in a hotel in Indianapolis) created a delay in
getting the information sufficient to provide you with a response.
We do plan on locating a facility at 7512 Cadencia Street and Cingular does operate a facility at 7412 Cadencia Street. This is not a co-location. In
fact, the distance between the two sites is approximately 350 feet.
Our team did a study for our proposed site back in June. The study shows
that the site as planned would not exceed the MPE for a controlled or uncontrolled environment. I’m attaching a copy of the study we did as an
attachment (Cadencial .xls).
After receiving your original correspondence we did a second study for the
site which differs from the first in two respects. First, while we do not
intend on building the site to the technical parameters in the second study, we assumed maximum power for our facilities to provide a worst case
scenario. Second, though the Cingular site is 350 feet away from our site and is not a co-location, we did a study on the cumulative impact of the
facilities at both sites. For the second study we assumed that Cingular’s facilities were co-located with ours rather than being 350 feet away. This
also provides a worst case scenario. The second study shows that the we are
below maximum MPE for controlled and uncontrolled environments taking into consideration both the AT&T Wireless proposed site and an assumed co-located Cingular site. I’m attaching a copy of that study. (Cadencia2.xls).
Based on the foregoing, it is our view that we are fully compliant with the
Commission’s rules on MPE. In fact, we believe that the values expressed in
the studies actually overstate the possible RF exposure.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
david <cCadenical .xls>> c<Cadencia2.xls>>
I I
I I
LLU zza .iT?I
p-----r.--~
a II,11 t
2 i z j
- / g j
T
g I c s ;
: /
-
3dW P~ll~JW~~W-l %
i j, ! !,,, ! ,,,,
8 g g a - 2 2
,un/mW!suaa JaMOd
g g g 0 - 2 go
,unpd’Awuaa JaMOd
I I I I - E- ‘2’5 _ *o .c I I -Z”o i$u e '
I ,I
?JEZ s
gsg,g I /:!
$Fj$I I
.i58310,i
gpz1
I . i
-,a
i ; i
'I II
I ':,
-1: !I
/ I
Lu
! I fZ% $ II ,
/
/ r.gF! / I F I O”,i e* ’ I zlog-.. I / ~ L--. .- __--. ;&gig I
I ’
I II
i : = I 3 I: 8
~ 42
g i 1 ’ I z i I si j I Z + : I 5 / I 2 I 1 I k
8 r *
E P .E
L;;:: j ::::: ::: b::; : [ _ 8 g s Ls - L so
3dw wliomo3un 72
c 8 I 1 0 .- 3 .?g '1 1 I I I / 1
/ / i “’ $““” S”‘,’ b L”“’ A.,,- d z
,w3p4~‘A~!suaa JaMOd
, 1 \ - E I? / t i I ,u3 - I
:: f ;; p I’ I I :&En 2 1 1 ’ ;g g?-G 1
,,s:!s;:gi p+ L ! /
I!
..a1 : I :
I
8 al $joF? l-a-4 a a d . . . . . . BEf stz 02:q
r 0
$ t a. z
2