HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-02; City Council; 17525; Denial of CUP - AT&T Wireless Cellular FacilityCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB# 17,525
MTG. 3/2/04
DEPT. CA
1
TITLE: DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
APPLICANT: AT&T WIRELESS
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY.
CASE NO: CUP 03-22 CITY MG 1
Y
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No.
Permit 03-22, AT&T Wireless.
7004 - 066 denying the project as set forth in Conditional Use
ITEM EXPLANATION:
At its meeting of February 17, 2004, the Council voted to direct the City Attorney to return
with documents denying with prejudice the application of AT&T Wireless for cellular facilities
based on the law, evidence and testimony presented at the hearing. The Council directed
the City Attorney to prepare documents implementing this decision. Those documents are
attached. The Council should satisfy itself that the findings and conditions accurately reflect
its intentions.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There will be no fiscal impact resulting from this decision unless it is appealed to court by
AT&T Wireless which will result in additional costs and attorneys fees in an undetermined
amou nt.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for projects that have been denied pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21 080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines section 15270, however, the
Planning Director has determined that the construction and installation of small, new
equipment facilities or structures is a Class 32 Categorical Exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act (Guidelines section 15303). In addition, the FCC requires
compliance with radio frequency power density standards (ANSVIEEE C95.1-1992) for the
general public, therefore, the project will not have a significant adverse environmental impact
on the environment. No additional environmental analysis is required to comply with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. 2004-066
CONTACT PERSON: Ronald R. Ball, 434-2891
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-066
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITH PREJUDICE A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CELLULAR
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED BETWEEN ESFERA STREET AND PIRAGUA
STREET, NORTH OF CAB0 COURT IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 6
CASE NAME: AT&T WIRELESS
CASE NO: CUP 03-22
WHEREAS, AT&T Wireless, “developer” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad on property previously owned by BCE Development
Properties, Inc., and currently owned by Monica Jellinek et ux, hereinafter referred to as
“owner” which property is generally described as:
Lot 401 of Carlsbad Tract No. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit No. 3, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 7950, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3, 1974.
referred herein throughout as “the property”; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a
Conditional Use Permit as shown on Exhibit “A drawing numbers 953-010-102A-TOI,
BO1 and ZO1 through 204 and on file in the Office of the City Clerk entitled “AT&T
Wireless Services, SDG&E Tower No. 173” as provided by Chapters 21.42 and 21 50
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, there is located on the property a 119’ steel lattice tower
owned by San Diego Gas & Electric Company which has signed the verified application
form and given its consent to applicant to locate its cellular antennas on said tower; and
1
WHEREAS, this site was previously considered for a conditional use
permit for wireless facilities for GT&E and that application for a conditional use permit
was denied by the City Council on October 17,2000; and
WHEREAS, AT&T Wireless has obtained a court order in the case AT&T
Wireless Services of California LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitv companv dba AT&T
Wireless v. Citv of Carlsbad, Case No. 01 CV 2045 JM (LAB) that its application for a
Conditional Use Permit No. 00-36, for facilities located at 7512 Cadencia Street be
approved; and
WHEREAS, AT&T Wireless has presented this application (CUP 03-22)
as an alternative to said Conditional Use Permit No. 00-36 and represented to the City
Council that the issuance of this CUP would eliminate the need for CUP No. 00-36 at
the 7512 Cadencia Street location and another unspecified location in the
neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, AT&T Wireless has proposed different facilities than those
that were previously the subject of and denied in the previous application to this site in
an effort to respond to the City Council findings in denying that application (City Council
Resolution No. 2000-323 [copy attached]); and
WHEREAS, the application of AT&T Wireless for cellular facilities at 7512
Cadencia Street was denied without prejudice (City Council Resolution No. 2001 -309
[copy attached]) so that AT&T Wireless could present an alternative location in one of
the preferred alternative sites or some other location and that it would retain jurisdiction
over this appeal in order to expedite that approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing to consider this
application on August 19, 2003 which hearing was continued to September 9, 2003,
2
Resolution No. 2004-066 page 2
and further continued to September 23, 2003, October 14, 2003, October 21, 2003,
December 2, 2003 and February 17, 2004 so that the full Council could consider the
item; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a noticed public hearing to consider
this application on October 14, 2003 which hearing was continued over the objection of
AT&T; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a noticed public hearing to consider
this application on October 21, 2003 which hearing was continued to December 2,
2003; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a noticed public hearing to consider
this application on December 2, 2003 at which the Council concurred with the Mayor to
reconsider this application to a future meeting subject to renoticing all concerned
parties because Council understood that property ownership changed; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2003 the City Council approved Resolution
No. 2003-351 authorizing the expenditure for a telecommunication consult to assist in
the placement of wireless facilities in the public right of way; and
WHEREAS, such report was prepared by Comp Comm, Inc., and
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2004 the City Council held a duly noticed
public hearing at which the Council carefully considered the law, the evidence and
arguments presented at this hearing and denied with prejudice the application for CUP
03-22 for a cellular facility located on property generally located between Esfera Street
and Piragua Street, north of Cab0 Court in Local Facilities Management Zone 6; and
3
tesolution No. 2004-066 page 3
WHEREAS, accessory and quasi-public buildings and facilities are
conditionally permitted within the Planned Community (PC) and Open Space (OS)
zones; and
WHEREAS, the verified application is subject to the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, hereinafter the “Act,” which preserves local zoning authority for the
placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities subject
to the limitations set forth in that Act; and
WHEREAS, both the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the Act require that
any decision by a local government to deny a request to place, construct or modify
personal wireless service facilities be in writing and supported by substantial evidence
contained in the written record; and
WHEREAS, recognizing that a local government may not regulate the
placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the
basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such
facilities comply with the federal communications regulations concerning such
emissions; and
WHEREAS, these facilities comply with radio frequency powered density
standards (ANSVIEEE C 95.1-1992) and that they are small facilities or structures as
contemplated by Class 32 categorical exemption under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines, §I 5303), the project is assumed not to have a significant
adverse environmental effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the modifications to the proposed facilities at Tower 173 are
insufficient to overcome the original findings that the proposed facilities, even as
modified, are not compatible with the neighborhood, represent an additional visual
4
5 Resolution No. 2004-066 page 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
blight and additional noise which are not compatible nor in essential harmony with the
General Plan and zoning ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed facilities and structures are within the open
space easement and proximate to existing residences and residential uses and the
proposed antennas and proposed equipment buildings are clearly visible throughout
portions of the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the proposed antennas, equipment buildings and related
facilities would add to the existing visual obstructions, create further impairment of
views and aesthetically degrade the site; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is aware of its obligation not to unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services and not to prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is mindful that the Act requires it to act on
the request for authorization to place, construct or modify personal wireless service
facilities within a reasonable period of time; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated flexibility in the location of
equipment facilities but was unable to specify the degree of flexibility or the distance
limitations; and
WHEREAS, testimony from neighbors were unanimously in opposition to
the proposed facilities and presented petitions from 146 other residents who were
opposed to this location; and
WHEREAS, a resident testified that another wireless service was able to
provide uninterrupted calls without tower facilities in the neighborhood; and
5
Resolution No. 2004-066 page 5 6
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, the construction of equipment facilities, air conditioning or fan
units, a gate and a concrete driveway would add additional visual blight to the
neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the documents submitted with the application indicate the
noise level generated by the equipment would equal 74 db at its peak; and
WHEREAS, the City noise standards prohibit noise in excess of 60 Cnel
and the noise impact analysis prepared for AT&T Wireless Telecommunications Facility
dated September 9, 2003 and presented at the hearing do not entirely eliminate those
concerns .
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
finds as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That the requested use and structures are not necessary or desirable
for development of the community at this location nor are they in essential harmony
with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan which encourage quiet
neighborhoods and maintenance of a high quality of life by preserving open space, and
to preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas, and
the proposed project does not preserve the neighborhood aesthetics, property values
nor maintain community identity, nor does it achieve a sense of natural spaciousness,
nor provide visual relief and would therefore be detrimental to existing uses specifically
permitted within these zones.
3. That although the proposed site for the intended cellular facilities is
sufficient in size and shape to accommodate that use, the collection of panels on the
existing tower and the proposed equipment building cannot be located on the site
6
7 Resolution No. 2004-066 page 6
without visually obscuring and degrading the views and aesthetics of nearby residents
in the neighborhood.
4. That the location of the proposed equipment facilities, the block wall
and landscaping around the equipment room will not be sufficient to reduce its visibility
from nearby residences or persons using the residential areas, and the location of the
panels on the transmission tower will add to the negative visual effects of the cellular
facility.
5. That the proposed air conditioning units which are shown on the plans
and which applicant represented at the hearing could be changed to fan units will
create additional noise pollution and require periodic monitoring. That the equipment is
exposed to the elements and subject to vandalism and will require additional
monitoring.
6. The Council further finds that it is important to maintain the integrity of
the residential neighborhood surrounding the proposed project and to allow the
construction of wireless communication facilities would create aesthetic and
environmental impacts including the introduction of additional noise into the
neighborhood. Carefully weighing these factors along with the substance of the Act and
the Court’s instruction in the case AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC, a
Delaware limited liabilitv company dba AT&T Wireless v. Citv of Carlsbad, Case No. 01
CV 2045 JM (LAB), the Council finds that the increased visual, aesthetic, noise and
other construction impacts to this area outweigh the need and desirability of the
proposed facilities under traditional planning and zoning considerations. The testimony
and petitions of the residents in the surrounding neighborhood expressed concern that
their formerly peaceful, private and quiet homes will be changed if this proposed facility
7
g Resolution No. 2004-066 page 7
is permitted and the addition of such facilities would degrade their quality of life. The
City Council finds that these concerns of the property owners are legitimate and that the
evidence presented to the City Council, including oral and written testimonials, petitions
and other documentation support this position. The applicant has failed to present
evidence sufficient to convince the City Council to the contrary.
7. That the current property owner, Monica Jellinek, has testified that the
real property which is the subject of this action will be used for open space and that no
wireless telecommunication facilities will be permitted.
8. That there are alternative sites more suitable to a wireless
telecommunication facility as shown on the report entitled “Analysis of Alterate (sic)
Sites for Proposed AT&T Wireless Services Wireless Communications Facilities’’ dated
January 7, 2004, on file in the office of the City Clerk.
9. That appellant’s application for a CUP is denied with prejudice.
10. That the City Clerk is directed to give notice to the applicant of this
action pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code section I .I 6.01 0 specifying time limits for
judicial review which states:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be
sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section
1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of
Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any
petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in
the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following
the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if
within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for
the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required
deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of
preparation of such record, the time within which such petition
may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth
day following the date on which the record is either personally
delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he
8
9 Resolution No. 2004-066 page 8
has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of
the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of
Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California
92008."
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad held on the 2nd day of March , 2004 by
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(SEAL)
9
Resolution No. 2004-066 page 9
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-323
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING THE APPEAL AND
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILIT
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN ESFERA STREET AND PIRAGUA STREET, NORTH OF CAB0 COURT
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6
CASE NAME: GTE WIRELESS LA COSTA CASE NO: CUP 00-13
WHEREAS, GTE Wireless of the Pacific, Inc., "developer" has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad on property owned by BCE Development
Properties, Inc., currently in bankruptcy, hereinafter referred to as 'owner" which
property is generally described as:
Lot 401 of Carlsbad Tract No. 72-20 (La Costa Vale) Unit No. 3, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 7950, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, June 3,1974.
referred herein throughout as "the property"; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a
Conditional Use Permit as shown on Exhibits "A" - "E" dated July 19, 2000 on file in the
Carlsbad Planning Department entitled 'GTE Wireless La Costa, CUP 00-13" as
provided by Chapters 21.42 and 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, there is located on the property a 119' steel lattice tower
owned by San Diego Gas & Electric Company which has signed the verified application
form and given its consent to applicant to locate its cellular antennas on said tower; and
WHEREAS, the bankruptcy trustee for the real property owner and the
owner of said tower have signed the appropriate application and disclosure statement;
and
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold duly noticed public
hearings as prescribed by law on July 19, 2000 and August 2, 2000 to consider said
verified application; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearings, the Planning
Commission conditionally did approve the verified application of GTE Wireless La Costa
for a conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, within ten calendar days of that decision, an appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision was filed by John L. Hopp and Ann Hopp on behalf of
themselves and as a point of contact for the surrounding neighborhood stating their
reasons why the decision of the Planning Commission should be overturned; and
WHEREAS, this application was timely filed pursuant to Carlsbad
Municipal Code section 21.50.100; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing to consider this
appeal on September 26,2000; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the law, evidence
and arguments presented at this hearing and said prior public hearings held before the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, accessory and quasi-public buildings and facilities are
conditionally permitted within the Planned Community (PC) and Open Space (OS)
zones; and
WHEREAS, the verified application is subject to the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 which preserves local zoning authority for the placement, construction and
modification of personal wireless service facilities subject to the limitations set forth in
that Act; and
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, both the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 require that any decision by a local government to
deny a request to place, construct or modify personal wireless service facilities be in
writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record; and
WHEREAS, recognizing that a local government may not regulate the
placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the
basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such
facilities comply with the federal communications regulations concerning such
emissions; and
WHEREAS, the proposed site is located within an open space easement
used primarily by San Diego Gas & Electric for electrical transmission; and
WHEREAS, additional uses and structures within the open space
easement are proximate to existing residences and residential uses and the proposed
antennas and proposed building are clearly visible throughout portions of the
neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the proposed antennas, buildings and related facilities would
add to the existing visual obstructions, create further impairment of views and
aesthetically degrade the site; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is aware of its obligation not to unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services and not to prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is mindful that the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 requires it to act on the request for authorization to place, construct or mod@
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
n h
personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time and a reasonable
period of time has elapsed since the filing of the verified application in March 2000.
WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that it has some flexibility in the
distance limitations between the proposed building and the tower location but has not
specified the degree of flexibility nor the distance limitations; and
WHEREAS, testimony from a resident who is a subscriber to applicant's
service indicates there is adequate coverage without the proposed additional cell site.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
finds as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That the requested use and structures are not necessary or desirable
for the development of the community at this location nor is it essentially in harmony
with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan which encourage quiet
neighborhoods and maintain a high quality of life preserving open space, and to
preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas, nor
does the proposed project preserve the aesthetics, property values nor maintain
community identity, nor achieve a sense of natural spaciousness, nor provide visual
relief and would therefore be detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted within
these zones.
3. That although the proposed site for the intended use is sufficient in
size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, the collection of panel antennas on
the existing tower and the equipment building cannot be located on the site without
visually obscuring and degrading the views and aesthetics of nearby residences in the
neighborhood.
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
-
4. That the location of the proposed equipment room, chain link fencing
and landscaping around the equipment room will not be sufficient to reduce its visibility
from nearby residences or persons using the residential areas, and the location of the
panel antennas on the transmission tower will add to the negative visual effects of the
cellular facility.
5. That the air conditioning requirements in the equipment room will
create noise pollution and require continual monitoring.
6. That the applicant has indicated that there may be alternative designs
or alternative locations that will reduce or minimize the impacts of this proposal on the
neighborhood and that these efforts have not been entirely explored or exhausted and
that the Council is not satisfied that this proposal should be entertained at this time
without a further showing in this regard.
7. That there are alternative ways and designs or locations that have not
been exhaustively explored which would not require the intensification of uses at this
location and that under the circumstances the application is premature without further
study, reports and evidence which would convince the City Council that this use is both
necessary and desirable and in essential harmony with the neighborhood and its
surroundings.
8. The Council further finds that it is important to maintain the integrity of
the residential neighborhood surrounding the proposed project and to allow the
construction of wireless communication facilities would create aesthetic and
environmental impacts including the introduction of additional noise into the
neighborhood which could be avoided where alternative sites for such facilities could be
available. The City Council realizes that the applicant might incur additional expenses
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
h
in re-engineering its facifities in order to locate them in a different and more suitable
area for such uses. However, the City Council finds that the detriment to the applicant
in such efforts is outweighed by the avoidance of the visual, esthetic and environmental
impacts to this area should the facility be permitted to be located on the subject
property. The testimony and petitions of the residents in the surrounding neighborhood
expressed concern that their formerly peaceful, private and quiet homes will be
changed if this proposed facility is permitted and that the addition of such facilities
would degrade their quality of life. The City Council finds that the concerns of the
property owners are legitimate and that the evidence presented to the City Council,
including oral and written testimonials, petitions and written documentation support this
argument. The applicant has failed to present evidence sufficient to convince the City
Council to the contrary.
9. That granting of this appeal and denial the application without
prejudice will allow the applicant additional time as necessary to conduct additional
studies and explore the feasibility of other locations.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CllY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
further finds:
1. That appellant's appeal is granted.
2. That the verified application is denied without prejudice.
3. In view of the granting of this appeal, the City Clerk is directed to
refund appellant's appeals fees.
4. That the Clerk is directed to give notice to the applicant of this action
pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code section 1.16.010 specifying time limits for judicial
review which states:
6
.I .
-8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
h -
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT
"The time within which judicial review of this decision must be
sought is 'governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section
1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of
Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any. petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in
the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following
the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if
within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for
the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required
deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition
may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he
has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of
the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of
Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California
92008."
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad held on the 17th day of October , 2000 by
the following roli call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, Nygaard and Kulchin
NOES: None A
ABSENT: None
(SEAL)
7
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-309
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE APPEAL OF AT&T WIRELESS FOR A CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILIJ'Y 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
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve
as follows:
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 CarIsbad Planning Department, entitled "AT&T Wireless Services, CUP 00-36", as
provided by Chapters 21.42 and 21.50 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
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12 zg$ 38 13
14
n nB 15
8&&,- 16
‘gz 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
io22
$;$$
$0
ak5K
052
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly notice public
hearing as prescribed by law on June 20,2001 to approve Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5006 denying the Conditional Use Permit; 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
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
Telecommunications 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 this action is within a reasonable period of time since the filing of the application on
October 18,2000; and
WHEREAS, both the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the
Telecommunications Act of 1966 require that any decision by a local government to
2 3
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
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
751 2 Cadencia Street, which will house the equipment, are clearly visible to the
neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, testimony at the hearing by a neighbor was that near the
proposed location at 751 2 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
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, 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
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; and
WHEREAS, the application of AT&T Wireless Services for a Conditional
Use Permit was unanimously denied by the Planning Commission on June 20,2001;
and
WHEREAS, AT&T Wireless Services filed a notice of appeal on July 2,
2001 appealing the Planning Commission’s decision of June 20,2001 ; and
4
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
WHEREAS, the matter was docketed for an appeal hearing in the manner
prescribed by law and that appeal hearing was continued for reasons explained to the
appellant and took place on August 21,2001 in which the Council received the staff
report, evidence, arguments and testimony from all persons interested in the matter;
and
WHEREAS, the Council continued the hearing for the limited purposes of
accepting new evidence on the impacts of an existing cellular facility within two lots of
the proposed facility; and
WHEREAS, the continued public hearing date of September 11,2001 was
cancelled due to the tragedies in New York City and Washington, D.C.; and
WHEREAS, the continued hearing was held on September 18,2001 and
the public hearing was reopened for the limited purpose of admitting the new evidence
requested previously and allowing arguments and testimony on the new evidence by all
persons interested therein and to receive the written arguments filed with the City since
the close of the initial public hearing on August 21,2001; and
WHEREAS, the Council indicated its intent to work with the applicant and
extended its good-faith offer of cooperation to assist it in obtaining one of its preferred
locations in a commercial area and indicated that appellant's previous attempts at
obtaining an alternative location at one of its preferred site was insufficient and further
indicated that this particular site was objectionable to the neighborhood as evidenced
by the uniform community opposition, the potential saturation of locations on this
particular street, the visual monotony and increased density that would result from the
appellant locating what would be a massive six car garage and additional chimney
5
which would be out-of-character with the surrounding neighborhood on a residential
street; and
WHEREAS, the Council indicated its intention to deny the appeal without
prejudice and directed the City Attorney to retum with documents memorializing that
decision,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the appeal is denied without prejudice and appellant is
encouraged to work with the City to find a new and preferred location that would
provide the coverage it requires and avoid this particular location.
3. That the Council is willing to remand this matter to staff to work with
the appellant at obtaining an alternative location in one of its preferred alternative sites
or some other locations and that it would retain jurisdiction over this appeal in order to
expedite that approval.
4. That for guidance in selecting an alternative location the appellant is
directed to Council Policy No. 64, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5. The applicant is further notified that this action is final the date this
resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provision of Chapter 1 .I6 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, 'Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply:
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
'The time within which judicial review of this decision must be
sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section
1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of
Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in
6 7
the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following
the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if
within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for
the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required
deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth
day following the date on which the record is either personally
delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he
has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carisbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California
92008."
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad held on the 16th day of OCTOBER ,2001 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES: Council Members Finnila, Nygaard
Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall
y&&&M&fi#&*
<ORRAI#lE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEA d
7
8
- I CITY OF CARLSBAD
COlJ&JClL POLICY STATEMENT
DATED: September 21, 2001 I Page lof3
Policy No. 64
Date Issued October 3, 2001
Effective Date October 3, 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
S General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FAClLlT
Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, file
PURPOSE AND GOAL:
Wireless communication facilities, or WCFs, refer to the many facilities with antennas and supporting
equipment that receive and transmit signals and together enable mobile or other "wire-free"
communication and information services. Unlike ground-wired telecommunications, such as the land-
based telephone system, wireless communication technologies, by their operatianal nature, require a
network of antennas mounted at various heights and attached typically to buildings, structures and poles.
A common name for a WCF is "cell site."
WCF proposals to the city became commonplace in the mid-1990s. Since then, Carlsbad has processed
dozens of new WCF applications and numerous permit renewals for existing facilities, all without benefit of
specific review criteria. As the City's population and the popularity and variety of wireless services grow,
woviders are expected to install more facilities to improve coverage and gain user capacity.
This policy's purpose is to guide the public, applicants, boards and commissions, and staff in reviewing
the placement, construction, and modification of WCFs. The goal is to assure WCFs in Carlsbad:
0 Are reviewed and provided within the parameters of law.
Are encouraged to locate away from residential and other sensitive areas, except in limited
0 Represent the fewest possible facilities necessary to complete a network without
circumstances.
discriminating against providers of functionally equivalent services or prohibiting the
provision of wireless services.
Use, as much as possible, "stealth" techniques so they are not seen or easily noticed.
0 Operate consistent with Carlsbad's quality of life.
This policy applies to all commercial providers of wireless communication services. It does not apply to
amateur (HAM) radio antennas and dish and other antennas installed on a residence for an individual's
private use.
BACKGROUND:
To secure the right to provide wireless services to a region, companies obtain airwave licenses that are
auctioned by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the federal agency that regulates the
telecommunications industry. The FCC mandates the licensees establish their service networks as
quickly as possible.
In Carlsbad, there are three common types of wireless communication systems: Cellular, PCS (Personal
;ommunications Services), and ESMR (Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio). The table below provides the relevant similarities and differences between the three.
4
- CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
DATED: September 21,2001
Page 2 of 9
Policy No. 64
Date Issued October 3.2001
Effective Date October 3, 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
Frequency
Features
ATTRIBUTES
Tech nology
Network 'Overage
Transmission
SYSTEM
Cellular ES.M R PCS
Analog, converting to digital Digital
Analog: Established Digital: Developing Developing
800 MHz I 1900 MHz
Telephone, call waiting, voice mail, caller ID, paging, e-mail, and Internet access (Notes: Analog cellular does not provide all of these features. ESMR also offers dispatching and two-way radio. PCS also has video transmission ability.)
A network of interconnected WCFs carries signals across a city and beyond. Each
WCF contains antennas tbst transmit and receive signals over a small geographic area known as a "cell." As the user travels from one cell to another, the signal is passed from one WCF to another in the next cell.
Cell Size Radius
Antenna Types
Antenna Sup~ort
Average 5 miles 0 - 1 mile
Dish, Panel (or sector), and Whip
Lattice towers. Monopoles, Building or Structure-Attached
In buildings generally under 500 square feet Supporting Equipment I Nextel I SprintPCS Verizon, ATLT. Cingular Wireless 1 Provider I
In cabinets about the size of vending machines
Table Notes
More facilities may be needed to complete a PCS network since its higher operating frequency limits
The antennas for all three systems function on a line of sight transmission. Antennas need to be
the range of its antennas and consequently the size of its cells.
placed at specific heights in relation to one another in order to transmit and receive signals. As a
result, height is a determining factor in the design and location of WCFs.
different types. A facility may also include the antennas and supporting equipment of more than one
provider. This is known as "collocation." Collocation also refers to a WCF placed together with utility structures such as water tanks, light standards, and transmission towers.
Monopole antenna supports may be installed on buildings or on the ground.
A single wireless communication facility may consist of two or more antennas and antennas of
WCFs are usually unmanned and require maintenance visits once or twice each month.
0 This table is based on current information that is subject to change.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
DATED: September 21, 2001
General Subject: WIRE LESS CO M MU NlCATlO N FACl LIT1
Page 3 of 9
Policy No. 64
Date Issued October 3,2001
Effective Date October 3.2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
S
Specific Subject:
Copies to:
Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
REVIEW RESTRICTIONS:
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) preserves the City's ability to regulate the placement,
construction, and modificaiion of wireless communication facilities subject to the following restrictions, as
contained in TCA Section 704.
0 The City may not favor any carrier.
Regulations may not unreasonably discriminate among competitive providers.
The City may not prevent completion of a network.
Regulations may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless
communication services.
Applications are to be processed in a reasonable time.
A city must act on an application for JVCFs within a "reasonable" amount of time, roughly
the same time as for any similar application.
hazards.
If federal standards are met, cities may not deny permits or leases on the grounds that
radio frequency emissions are harmful to the environment or to the health of residents.
However, local governments may require wireless carriers to prove compliance with the
standards. The F CC has established procedures to enforce compliance with its rules.
A decision to deny a WCF application must be in writing and supported by substantial
evidence contained in a written record.
In Airtouch Cellular v. Citv of El Caion (gth Cir. 2000) 83 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1166, the court ruled that a city
may consider factors such as community aesthetics and noise in regulating the placement, construction,
or modification of WCFs.
HEALTH CONCERNS 8 SAFEGUARDS:
Possible health risks from exposure to the radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields generated by
WCFs are a significant community concern. Accordingly, the FCC requires facilities to comply with RF
exposure guidelines published in the Code of Federal Regulations (see 47 CFR tjl.1307 and 47 CFR
§1.1310). The limits of exposure established by the guidelines are designed to protect the public health
with a very large margin of safety as they are many times below the levels that generally are accepted as
having the potential to cause adverse health effects. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and Food
7nd Drug Administration have endorsed the FCC's exposure limits, and courts have upheld the FCC rules
.equiring compliance with the limits.
0 The City cannot deny an application because of perceived radio frequency health
A decision to deny an application must be supported by substantial evidence.
I
- CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
DATED: September 21,2001
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Oivision Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
Page 4 of 9
Policy No. 64
Date Issued October 3,2001
Effective Date October 3,2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
Most WCFs create maximum exposures that are only a small fraction of the limits. Furthermore, because
the antennas in a PCS, cellular, or other wireless network must be in a line of sight arrangement to
effectively transmit, their power is focused on the horizon instead of toward the sky or ground. Generally,
unless a person is physically next to and at the same height as an antenna, it is not possible to be
exposed to the established limits for RF exposure.
The FCC requires providers, upon license application, renewal, or modification, to demonstrate
compliance with RF exposure guidelines. Where two or more wireless operators have located their
antennas at a common location (called 'collocation"), the total exposure from all antennas taken together
must be within FCC guidelines. Many facilities are exempt from having to demonstrate compliance with
FCC guidelines, however, because their low power generation or height above ground level is highly
unlikely to cause exposures that exceed the guidelines.
3EVIEW AND APPROVAL GUIDELINES:
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.42.01 0(2)(J) allows accessory public and quasi-public buildings and
facilities, which include WCFs, in all zones with the approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). These
guidelines should be followed in the review of conditional use permits for new wireless facilities as well as
extensions and amendments to CUPS for existing installations.
A. Location Guidelines
1. Prefened Locations - WCFs should locate on buildings and structures, not on vacant land.
In addition, WCFs should locate in the following zones and areas, which are listed in order
of descending preference:
a.
b. Commercial zones.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Industrial and public utility zones.
Public property (e.g., city facilities) not in residential areas.
Other non-residential zones, except open space.
Public utility installations (not publicly accessible) in residential and open space
zones (e.g., water tanks, existing lattice towers, reservoirs).
Parks and community facilities (e.g., places of worship, community centers) in
residential zones.
2. Discouraged Locations - WCFs should not locate in any of the following zones or areas
unless the applicant demonstrates no feasible alternative exists as required by Application
and Review Guideline 0.2.
a.
b. Residential zones.
C.
Open space zones and lots (except as noted in Location Guideline A. 1 .).
Major power transmission corridors next to a residential zone.
- I CITY OF CARLSBAD I Page 5 of 9
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
DATED: September 21,2001
Policy No. 64
Date Issued October 3,2001
Effective Date October 3,2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATJON FACILITIES
Specific Subject: Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
d. Environmentally sensitive habitat.
e. On vacant land in any zone.
3. Visibility to the Public - In all areas, WCFs should locate where least visible to the public
and where least disruptive to the appearance of the host property. Furthermore, no WCF
should be installed on an exposed ridgeline or in a location readily visible from a public
place, recreation area, scenic area or corridor, or residential area unless it is satisfactorily
located and/or screened so it is hidden or disguised.
4. Collocation - Collocating with existing or other planned wireless communication facilities is
recommended whenever feasible. Service providers are also encouraged to collocate with
water tanks, major power transmission and distribution towers, and other utility structures
when in compliance with these guidelines.
5. Monopoles - No new ground-mounted monopoles should be permitted unless the applicant
demonstrates no existing monopole, building, or structure can accommodate the
applicant’s proposed antenna as required by Application and Review Guideline D.3.
6. Design Guidelines
1. Stealth Design - AH aspects of a WCF, including the supports, antennas, screening
methods, and equipment should exhibit “stealth” design techniques so they visually blend
into the background or the surface on which they are mounted. Subject to City approval,
developers should use false architectural elements (e.g., cupolas, bell towers, dormers,
and chimneys), architectural treatments (e.g., colors and materials), elements replicating
natural features (e.g., trees and rocks), landscaping, and .other creative means to hide or
disguise WCFs. Stealth can also refer to facilities completely hidden by existing
improvements, such as parapet walls.
2. Equipment - Equipment should be located within existing buildings to the extent feasible.
If equipment must be located outside, it should be screened with walls and plants. If small
outbuildings are constructed specifically to house equipment, they should be designed and
treated to match nearby architecture or the surrounding landscape.
3. Collocation - Whenever feasible and appropriate, WCF design and placement should
promote and enable collocation.
4. Height - WCFs should adhere to the existing height limitations of the zone in which they
are located.
- CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
DATED: September 21,2001
General Subject: WIRELESS COM MUNlCATlON FAClLlTl
Page 6 of 9
Policy No. 64
Date Issued . October 3, 2001
Effective Date October 3. 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No. s
Specific Subject:
Copies to:
Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
5. . Setbacks - WCFs, including all equipment, should adhere to the building setback
requirements of the zone in which they are located, with the following clarifications: .
a. If on a site next to a residential zone, the WCF should be set back from the
residential zone boundary a minimum distance equal to the above-ground height of
the antenna.
If in a residential zone and in a public utility installation, park, or community facility,
the WCF should be set back from the property boundaries of the utility installation,
park, or community facility a minimum distance equal to the above-ground height of
the antenna.
The Planning Commission may decrease or increase these setbacks if it finds such
changes would improve the overall compatibility of the WCF based on the factors
codtained in Application and Review Guideline D.4.
b.
c.
6. Building or Structure-Mounted WCfs:
a.
b.
c.
Antennas and their associated mountings should generally not project outward
more than 18 inches from the face of the building.
Roof-mounted antennas should be located as far away as possible from the outer
edge of a building or structure and should not be placed on roof peaks.
If permitted, WCFs on residential buildings should only be allowed if disguised as a
typical residential feature (e.g., a chimney, a dormer) and if all equipment is located
inside, not outside, the building.
7. Groundmounted Monopoles:
a. All antennas should be mounted as close as possible to the monopole to improve
facility appearance.
b. The placement, screening, and disguise of the monopole should fit with the
surrounding site design, architecture, and landscaping. Tree disguises, such as a
"mono-palm,'' may be acceptable depending on their quality and compatibility with
landscaping nearby.
Landscaping should be provided as necessary to screen, complement, or add
realism to a monopole. Landscaping should include mature shrubs and trees.
Some of the trees should be tall enough to screen at least three-quarters of the
height of the monopole at the time of planting. Sometimes, landscaping may not be
needed because of the monopole's location or vegetation already nearby.
When possible and in compliance with these guidelines, monopoles should be
placed next to tall buildings, structures, or tall trees.
c.
d.
8. Lattice Towers
a. New lattice towers should not be permitted in the City.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
I DATED: September 21 , 2001
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
Page 7 of 9
Policy No. 64
Date Issued October 3, 2001
Effective Date October 3.2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
C.
b. On existing lattice towers, all antennas should be mounted as close as possible to
the tower so they are less noticeable.
9.
10.
Undergrounding - All utilities should be placed underground.
Regulatory Compliance - WCFs should comply with all FCC, FAA (Federal Aviation
Administration), and local zoning and building code requirements.
Performance Guidelines
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Noise - All equipment, such as emergency generators and air conditioners, should be
designed and operated consistent with the City noise standards.
Maintenance - All facilities, related equipment, and landscaping should be maintained in
good condition and free from trash, debris, graffiti, and any form of vandalism. All required
landscaping should be automatically irrigated. Damaged equipment and damaged, dead,
or decaying landscaping should be replaced promptly. Replacement of landscaping that
provides facility screening should be, as much as possible, of similar size (including
height), type, and screening capability at the time of planting as the plant@) being replaced.
Maintenance Hours - Except in an emergency posing an immediate public health and
safety threat, maintenance activities in or within 100 feet of a residential zone should only
occur between 7 AM (8 AM on Saturdays) and sunset. Maintenance should not take place
on Sundays or holidays.
Lighting - Security lighting should be kept to a minimum and should only be triggered by a
motion detector where practical.
Compliance with FCC RF Exposure Guidelines - Within six (6) months after the issuance
of occupancy, and with each time extension or amendment request, the developer/operator
should submit to the Planning Director either verification that the WCF is categorically
excluded from having to determine compliance with the guidelines per 47 CFR
§1.1307(b)(l) or a project implementation report that provides . cumulative field
measurements of radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields of all antennas installed at
the subject site. The report should quantify the RF emissions and compare the results with
currently accepted ANSVIEEE standards as specified by the FCC. The Planning Director
should review the report for consistency with the project's preliminary proposal report
submitted with the initial project application and the accepted ANWIEEE standards. If, on
review, the Planning Director finds the project does not meet ANSIAEEE standards, the
City may revoke or modify the conditional use permit.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
DATED: September 21,2001
General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FAClLlTl
Page 8 of 9
Policy No. 64
Date Issued October 3, 2001
Effective Date October 3. 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
S
Specific Subject:
Copies to:
Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
6. Abandonment - Any WCF that is not operated for a continuous period of 180 days will be
considered abandoned. Within 90 days of receipt of notice from the City notifying the
owner of such abandonment, the WCF owner must remove the facility and restore the site,
as much as.is reasonable and practical, to its prior condition. If such WCF is not removed
within the 90 days, the WCF will be considered a nuisance and in addition to any other
available remedy, will be subject to abatement under Chapter 6.16 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. If there are two or more users of a single WCF, then this provision will not
become effective until all users stop using the WCF. The provider or owner must give
notice to the City of the intent to discontinue use of any facility before discontinuing the
use.
D. Application and Review Guidelines
1. Besides the typical submittal requirements for a conditional use permit (including plans,
landscape details, and color and material samples, as appropriate), all WCF applications
should include the following items:
a. A description of the site selection process undertaken for the WCF proposed.
Coverage objectives and the reasons for selecting the proposed site and rejecting
other sites should be provided.
A description or map of the applicant’s existing and other proposed sites.
A description of the wireless system proposed (e.g., cellular, PCS, etc.) and its consumer features (e.g., voice, video, and data transmissions).
Verification that the proposed WCF will either comply with the FCC’s guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields or will be
categorically excluded from having to determine compliance with the guidelines per
47 CFR §l.l307(b)(l). If WCFs are proposed for collocation, the verification must
show the total exposure from all facilities taken together meets the FCC guidelines
Color photo-simulation exhibits, prepared to scale, of the proposed WCF to show what the project would look like at its proposed location and from surrounding
viewpoints. The Planning Director may waive the requirement to provide the exhibits if he determines they are unnecessary.
b.
c.
d.
e.
2. For WCFs proposed in a zone or area that is a discouraged WCF location as listed in
Location Guideline A.2., the applicant should provide evidence that no location in a
preferred zone or area as listed in Location Guideline A.1. can accommodate the
applicant’s proposed facility. Evidence should document that preferred zone or area locations do not meet engineering, coverage, location, or height requirements, or have
other unsuitable limitations.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
. DATED: September 21, 2001
General Subject: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FAClLlT
Page 9 of 9
Policy No. 64
Date Issued October 3. 2001
Effective Date October 3. 2001
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
S
Specific Subject:
Copies to:
Review and operation guidelines for wireless communication facilities
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
3. For proposed new ground-mounted monopoles, the applicant should also provide evidence
to the City's satisfaction that no existing monopole, building, structure, or WCF ' site
("existing facility") could accommodate the proposal. Evidence should demonstrate any of
the following:
a. No existing facility is located within the geographic area or provides the height or structural strength needed to meet the applicant's engineering requirements.
b. The applicant's proposed WCF would cause electromagnetic interference with the
existing antennae array or vice versa.
c. The fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner to locate on an
existing facility or to modify the same to enable location are unreasonable. Costs
exceeding new monopole development are presumed to be unreasonable.
The applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission's satisfaction that there
are other limiting factors that render an existing facility unsuitable.
d.
4. In considering a Conditional Use Permit for a WCF, the Planning Commission should
consider the following factors:
a. Compliance with these guidelines.
b. Height and setbacks.
C. Proximity to residential uses.
d.
e. Surrounding topography and landscaping.
f.
g. h.
The nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties.
Quality and compatibility of design and screening.
Impacts on public views and the visual quality of the surrounding area.
Availability of other facilities and buildings for collocation.
5. Conditional Use Permits for WCFs should be granted for a period not to exceed five years.
. Upon a request for either an extension or an amendment of a CUP, the WCF should be
reevaluated to assess the impact of the facility on adjacent properties, the record of
maintenance and performance with reference to the conditions of approval, and
consistency with these guidelines. Additionally, the City should review the appropriateness
of the existing facility's technology, and the applicant should be required to document that
the WCF maintains the technology that is the smallest, most efficient, and least visible and
that there are not now more appropriate and available locations for the facility, such as the
opportunity to collocate or relocate to an existing building.
April 2,2004
AT&T Wireless
100 1 16* Street, Suite C- 1
Denver, CO 80265
Re: AT&T Wireless - CUP 03-22
To Whom It May Concern:
The Carlsbad City Council at the March 2,2004, Council Meeting, denied with prejudice
a Conditional Use Permit for a cellular communications facility on property generally
located between Esfera Street and Piragua Street, north of Cab0 Court .
Please find enclosed a copy of Resolution No. 2004-066 denying the project.
If you have any questions, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (760) 434-2808.
Sincerely,
.--
Marcia Long
Senior Ofice Specialist
Enclosure (1)
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 0 Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 (760) 434-2808 @