Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1 - Emails & letters recvd in opposition to projectItem 1 E -mails received in opposition to project Pat Laughlin Subject: FW: new cell tower in Eastlake Greens on the Eastlake Country CLub Golf Course. From: Penny [mailto• Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 4:23 PM To: Pat Laughlin Subject: new cell tower in Eastlake Greens on the Eastlake Country CLub Golf Course. Dear Mayor Salas and Council Members: I am the President of the Bristolwood at Eastlake Greens HOA. We are an HOA of 96 homes in Eastlake Greens who were not noticed of the new cell tower that has been proposed on the golf course. There are more than enough cell towers in this area. They are not being maintained properly and are an eyesore. They bring down the property values of our homes. It is totally unfair that the residents of Eastlake Greens were not notified. This loophole was used in total disregard to the residents who are taxpayers. We are hereby asking that you not approve this cell tower. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Sincerely, Penny Daoodi Penny Daoodi President Bristolwood at Eastlake Greens HOA 1 David Hallett May 11, 2015 RECEIVED Development Services Department Project Manager Harold Phelps, AICP MAY 1,2 2015 Public Services Building Chula Vista Civic Center ADVANCE PLANNING 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Trillium Consulting for Verizon Wireless — Wireless Communication Facility Case No.: PCC -14 -042 Consideration: May 13, 2015 Location: 2375 Clubhouse Drive, Chula Vista Dear Planning Commission: As a resident of Eastlake, I write to object to and request that the planning commission deny the application for a 70 ft. high antenna in the form of a monopine WTF with 12 panel antennas and a microwave dish as requested by Case No. PCC -14 -042. First, Chula Vista Ordinance 2895 finds that the City believes that, while it understands the need for wireless infrastructure, that "wireless telecommunication networks should be completed with the fewest possible facilities, in the least visible fashion, and with the least disruptive impact on neighborhoods and communities within the City of Chula Vista ." Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.89.010 sets forth that the regulations on wireless telecommunication facilities are "adopted to serve, protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare, and to preserve and enhance the aesthetic qualities of the city of Chula Vista ..." Safeguarding the public's health, safety or welfare is a basis for denial of an application for a wireless telecommunication facility (WTF). CVMC 19.89.050. Moreover, height is subject to the restrictions in place which should be adhered to unless a specific finding is made that the proposed height is the only technologically feasible option for providing service to an area. CVMC 19.89.060. Any approved WTF must be the smallest most efficient means using "the smallest number of facilities needed to achieve the needs of the network." Moreover design must be visually unobtrusive and blend into the surrounding area in a manner compatible with local Connrnunity character. CVMC 19.89.060. The proposed structure does not blend with the existing landscaping. Ground mounted antenna and monopoles, such as the one proposed, are "discouraged and may be used only when no other alternative is feasible." CVMC 19.89.060 (A)(8). In this case, there are presently 28 to« ers within a 3 mile location of the proposed tower. In fact, despite no notice of the same, there is an existing tower already at the proposed location (it is unclear whether this was ever approved or considered by the planning commission). The network and cellular reception is well served in the Eastlake area and this 70 ft. monopole is not the on] technologically feasible option for providing service to the area. Further, the location is an aesthetically i location Eastlake d at 1 height o f 1 1 ubb ptCaSliig iGCauGii iii i;u�tlalCC a.iiu uli. proposal vv'OUld exceed the ,lerg�7� .., Str11CtU','eS and shrubbery and will be visually obtrusive. Moreover, the WTF requested is in a form that is specifically discouraged by the City of Chula Vista and only for use if no other alternative is feasible. There are clearly better and more suitable locations that are not in the heart of a well landscaped and maintained residential community. For these reasons, the application should be denied. Development Services Department Case No.: PCC -14 -042 Page 2 of 2 In addition, the proposed WTF would be located in a planned community with a PC4RCIS zone classification (alternative locations within the application location are in a PC40S6 zone). As part of a PC zone, all development must be in substantial conformity with the adopted general plan or modifications must be approved. CVMC 19.48.070. Requests for modifications to the plan must be submitted and modified only upon resolution by the city council. See CVMC 19.48.080. The location at issue is governed by Eastlake II Planned Community District Regulations as amended December 18, 2007 by Ordinance No. 3100. (PC Plan). "These regulations set forth the development and use standards for all property within Eastlake II General Development Plan Area ..." Among other things the mandated purpose of the plan is to "protect residential properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors, smoke and other objectionable influences." The proposed facility will be blight, subject residences to unsightliness and other objectionable influences, including but not limited to RF/MW radiation. Moreover, the height restriction for any facility is 45 feet. PC Plan, p. II -4. Specifically, any equipment, including antennas, are not to exceed the height for the zone they are located, i.e., 45 feet. PC Plan, p. II -5. The proposed WTF will be 70 feet in height — well in excess of the height maximum. For these reasons, the WTF should be denied by the planning commission. In addition, the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS has determined that cellular towers pose an unwarranted health risk and do not allow them at fire stations where they expose adult firefighters. See iittp•// www. iaff. org /lis /resi /celltowerfinal.litni. Moreover, the Los Angeles Unified School district, as well as numerous districts across the country and the world, has determined cellular antennas should not be placed in close proximity to schools, particularly elementary schools as young children are more susceptible to the harmful effects of RF /MW radiation that close proximity to these towers may cause. The proposed WTF is just diagonally across the street from Arroyo Vista elementary school where young children from the community attend, including my own. For the benefit of the health and community, the WTF should be denied by the planning commission. There is also associated noises and visual blight from WTF facilities. The location chosen is a well maintained and beautifully landscaped area in Chula Vista. The blight and perception of these towers will decrease property values in close proximity to the tower. Once again, the detriment to the community outweighs the benefit and the city ordinances support that this type of WTF should only be allowed when there are no feasible alternatives. In addition, allowing this tower in this location and /or failure to conduct an environmental impact study may be in violation of state, federal, local laws, ordinances, statutes or regulations. There are also significant questions or whether the notice provided was timely, sufficient, or proper under the law or pertinent regulations. In the event the planning commission does not deny the application based on the ample authority set forth herein, please allow this to serve as a reservation of all rights to assert such other applicable violations or additional support for the positions asserted. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to the planning eomn;ission promptly and definitely denying the proposed WTF at the present location. Sincerely, David Hallett Jaime Hallett May 11, 2015 Development Services Department Project Manager Harold Phelps, AICP Public Services Building Chula Vista Civic Center 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RECEIVED MAY 1,2 2015 ADVANCE PLANNING RE: Trillium Consulting for Verizon Wireless — Wireless Communication Facility Case No.: PCC -14 -042 Consideration: May 13, 2015 Location: 2375 Clubhouse Drive, Chula Vista Dear Planning Commission: As a resident of Eastlake, I write to object to and request that the planning commission deny the application for a 70 ft. high antenna in the form of a monopine WTF with 12 panel antennas and a microwave dish as requested by Case No. PCC -14 -042. First, Chula Vista Ordnance 2895 finds that the City believes that, while it understands the need for wireless infrastructure, that "wireless telecommunication networks should be completed with the fewest possible facilities, in the least visible fashion, and with the least disruptive impact on neighborhoods and communities within the City of Chula Vista . . ." Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.89.010 sets forth that the regulations on wireless telecommunication facilities are "adopted to serve, protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare, and to preserve and enhance the aesthetic qualities of the city of Chula Vista ..." Safeguarding the public's health, safety or welfare is a basis for denial of an application for a wireless telecommunication facility (WTF). CVMC 19.89.050. Moreover, height is subject to the restrictions in place which should be adhered to unless a specific finding is made that the proposed height is the only technologically feasible option for providing service to an area. CVMC 19.89.060. Any approved WTF must be the smallest most efficient means using "the smallest number of facilities needed to achieve the needs of the network." Moreover design must be visually unobtrusive and blend into the surrounding area in a manner compatible with local community character. CVMC 19.89.060. The proposed structure does not blend with the existing landscaping. Ground moulted antenna and monopoles, such as the one proposed, are "discouraged and may be used only when no other alternative is feasible." CVMC 19.89.060 (A)(8). In this case, there are presently 28 towers within a 3 mile location of the proposed tower. In fact, despite no notice of the same, there is an existing tower already at the proposed location (it is unclear whether this was ever approved or considered by the planning commission). The network and cellular reception is well served in the Eastlake area and this 70 ft. monopole is not the on technologically feasible option for providing service to the area. Further, the location is an aesthetically t t. _ t the t t height F ..+...,,, h .t pleasing location In EasdaKe and the proposal would exceed the height of structures and shrubbcry and will be visually obtrusive. Moreover, the WTF requested is in a form that is specifically discouraged by the City of Chula. Vista and only for use if no other alternative is feasible. There are clearly better and more suitable locations that are not in the heart of a well landscaped and maintained residential community. For these reasons, the application should be denied. Development Services Department Case No.: PCC -14 -042 Page 2 of 2 In addition, the proposed WTF would be located in a planned community with a PC4RC15 zone classification (alternative locations within the application location are in a PC4OS6 zone). As part of a PC zone, all development must be in substantial conformity with the adopted general plan or modifications must be approved. CVMC 19.48.070. Requests for modifications to the plan must be submitted and modified only upon resolution by the city council. See CVMC 19.48.080. The location at issue is governed by Eastlake II Planned Community District Regulations as amended December 18, 2007 by Ordinance No. 3100. (PC Plan). "These regulations set forth the development and use standards for all property within Eastlake II General Development Plan Area ..." Among other things the mandated purpose of the plan is to "protect residential properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors, smoke and other objectionable influences." The proposed facility will be blight, subject residences to unsightliness and other objectionable influences, including but not limited to RF /MW radiation. Moreover, the height restriction for any facility is 45 feet. PC Plan, p. II -4. Specifically, any equipment, including antennas, are not to exceed the height for the zone they are located, i.e., 45 feet. PC Plan, p. II -5. The proposed WTF will be 70 feet in height — well in excess of the height maximum. For these reasons, the WTF should be denied by the planning commission. In addition, the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS has determined that cellular towers pose an unwarranted health risk and do not allow them at fire stations where they expose adult firefighters. See littp• / /NA,ww iaff. org /lis /resi /celltowerfinal.litm. Moreover, the Los Angeles Unified School district, as well as numerous districts across the country and the world, has determined cellular antennas should not be placed in close proximity to schools, particularly elementary schools as young children are more susceptible to the harmful effects of RF /MW radiation that close proximity to these towers may cause. The proposed WTF is just diagonally across the street from Arroyo Vista elementary school where young children from the community attend, including my own. For the benefit of the health and community, the WTF should be denied by the planning commission. There is also associated noises and visual blight from WTF facilities. The location chosen is a well maintained and beautifully landscaped area in Chula Vista. The blight and perception of these towers will decrease property values in close proximity to the tower. Once again, the detriment to the community outweighs the benefit and the city ordinances support that this type of WTF should only be allowed when there are no feasible alternatives. In addition, allowing this tower in this location and /or failure to conduct an environmental impact study may be in violation of state, federal, local laws, ordinances, statutes or regulations. There are also significant questions or whether the notice provided was timely, sufficient, or proper under the law or pertinent regulations. In the event the planning commission does not deny the application based on the ample authority set forth herein, please allow this to serve as a reservation of all rights to assert such other applicable violations or additional support for the positions asserted. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to the planning commission promptly and definitely denying the proposed WTF at the present location. Sincerely, Jaime Hallett REQUEST TO SPEAK CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 13 May 2015 Wish to speak: Staff Recommendation: Public Comments I I Yes 0 Support OR X 0 No l Oppose Agenda Item # 1 nX Unable to attend the hearing. Written statement in the space below. CITY ( F RFSIDFNCE: Chula Vista Dou las Kelchner REPR ESF1'GING: Self ADDRESS (Optional; to be used for staff contact purposes only): TELEPHONE (Optional; to be used for staff contact purposes only): ( A.DDITIONALCOMIMENTS., I stand opposed to the installation of the cell tower as proposed in PCC -14 -042 by Trillium Consulting. Please give this request to the Board Secretary. # *The Chair will indicate the amount of time allotted for speaking.� Dear Commissioners of the City of Chula Vista's Planning Commission, I am providing this written comment to urge AGAINST approving the applicant's request to install a 70 -foot wireless telecommunications facility at 2375 Clubhouse Drive. The proposed site is centered in the residential, master planned community of Eastlake Greens and in proximity to Arroyo Vista Charter School. Even more concerning is the fact the proposed location not only borders, but is within a stone's throw of our Association's primary recreation complex located at 2405 Clubhouse Drive. Our residents have observed construction of two smaller scale cell towers on the adjoining property and proposed construction site. I have included photos of these towers below. You may note in the close -up photo, the tower that was supposed to resemble a pine tree has lost some of the camouflage leaving the panels exposed. Towers are quick to go up but there is little or no regard to maintain the disguise once in operation. These "communication towers" are without a doubt a blemish on our neighborhood. If construction of the third tower is permitted the focal point of our community will continue to take on the appearance of Mount Miguel. I contend a more thoughtful and deliberate search by the applicant, will result in identification of a more suitable construction site outside the confines of the residential hub, central meeting point, and recreation center of EastLake Greens. The premise that there are already two towers there should not serve as justification for yet another. Do any of you remember when there were only a few towers at the summit of Mount Miguel? At what point is enough enough? Please no more cell towers in EastLake Greens. Thank you. Sincerely, Doug Kelchner Pat Laughlin Subject: FW: Proposed Cell Tower From: Debora Adam Stacker [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:16 AM To: Pat Laughlin Subject: Proposed Cell Tower Dear Ms. Laughlin, I live in the Eastlake Greens II neighborhood fairly close to the Eastlake Greens HOA office and Country Club on Clubhouse Dr. I would like to voice my opinion against another proposed cell tower to be placed on the golf course property in this area. Cell towers can have a negative impact on residents and in my opinion have no business being so close to homes where people live, including children. I'm hoping the council will consider denying this request, and take a stand against putting additional cell towers on this property. There are already two installed and this is already two too many. Thanks for the council's consideration. Debora Stacker Resident - Eastlake Greens II Pat Laughlin From: T. DeMarco [ Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 9:30 PM To: Pat Laughlin Subject: Case Number PCC -14 -042 I am a resident of the Eastlake II Community and reside at 1 am opposed to the proposal by Trillium Consulting for Verizon Wireless to install a Wireless Communication Facility at 2375 Clubhouse Drive. This is a much negative benefit to my community and myself as a homeowner for this location. My home has the potential to decrease in value. There are already two cell antennas in existence within 150 feet of each other. The potential hazards to health and the value degradation of my Home Owner Association. Regards, -Tim DeMarco 11 Pat Laughlin Subject: FW: CELL PHONE TOWER INSTALLATION- Attention Planning Commission From: Rodney Caudillo [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:38 PM To: Pat Laughlin Subject: CELL PHONE TOWER INSTALLATION- Attention Planning Commission Commissioners of City of Chula Vista's Planning Commission: My name is Rodney Caudillo, President and Vice President of Eastlake 2 HOA and current Chairman of the Safety commission of our great city Chula Vista. I am writing to you today AGAINST the proposed 70 foot Cell Tower installation by Verizon Telecommunications at 2375 Clubhouse Drive at the Golf Course in the Eastlake Greens community. First I have to inform the commission that we don't believe we were properly notified. The HOA office never received any notice and we are within the distance for notification. I believe the installation of a third Cell Tower is very bad for our community. Eastlake Greens is a Marquee community on the East side of Chula Vista. We do not need another tower constructed in our community as the aesthetics are terrible (photos have been submitted). Not only do the towers look bad but they are proven to reduce property values as people just do not want to live by them. Cell towers are controversial health concerns and depending on who you listen to are none the less potentially harmful from increased RF levels. Cell towers are designed for commercial areas and not for residential areas such as ours. We currently have two towers that are just feet away from each other in that same location. This proposed 3 rd tower will be built just 100 ft away from the other two towers? In all, we would then (if approved) have three towers that would be 150 ft away from our main social Family recreation facility in our community. As it is now the two towers are an eyesore aesthetically when you are at this beautiful Family facility that we have. This is not what the Eastlake Community is about or intended to be. Our community has two elementary schools and a high school that are less that 1/4 mile away from the proposed site that will be affected. Some of my concerns and questions that should be addressed are: 1. Has a detailed alternative site analysis to include at least two other locations with less intrusive sites been done? and has the city validated this and what method did they? 2. Has an environmental impact report been done to include the total of three cell towers (if approved). Not a report on just the one tower but a full report on three towers constructed very close together. Has RF levels been recorded with three towers in close proximity to each other? If so I would like to see the report. 3. Has a significant gap in service coverage study been done? Has a significant gap in service coverage been identified? Who conducted this study? Is there an independent study? Verizon claims to customers that they do not have a gap in service problem in our area so how can they justify the need for an additional cell tower now? 4. Has any Co- Location agreements been discussed with the other existing cell tower carriers? _r, 5. Has the Zoning and overall General Plan of our community and city been considered? if so what section in both indicates this will be good for a residential community? I can not imagine that our planners had this in mind for our community. In closing there are just too many unanswered questions and just too much risk to our community to allow a third tower to be constructed in the Eastlake Greens community. In my opinion there will be a substantial deterioration in the quality of life for our residents. Please deny this application.