HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./2002/06/12
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m
Wednesday, June 12, 2002
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
May 8, 2002
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any
subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda.
Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: ZAV 02-06; Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision of
January 23, 2002 to deny a request to exceed the maximum floor
area ratio and to encroach into the required rear and side yard
setbacks of the R2T Zone. Applicant: Conrado Cabal bag
Project Manager: John Schmitz, Principal Planner
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Continued Public Hearing - PCC 02-13; Conditional Use Permit to
permit an existing second dwelling unit as an accessory second
dwelling unit behind the primary single-family residence, at 736
Church Avenue. Applicant: Daniel Contreras
Project Manager: John Schmitz, Principal Planner
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 02-34; Conditional Use Permit to install two 15-ft. monopines
to support three antenna arrays, two microwave dishes and one
GPS antenna, and related equipment enclosure located in the rear
of the property, at 455 Quail Court.
Project Manager: Caroline Lewis, Planning Technician III
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at
585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
~!ft.
---
"'~
01Y OF
CHULA VISTA
Depart:1IJ.en.t: of Plan.n.in.g an.d Building
Date:
June 12, 2002
To:
Planning Commissioners
From:
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Subject:
Continued Public Hearing on PCC 02-13 (Contreras)
On May 8, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing on the above application by
Mr. Contreras who is attempting to legalize the conversion of an existing garage/workshop to an
accessory dwelling unit at 736 Church Avenue. Mr. Contreras was not at that meeting due to a
misunderstanding about the notification he would receive from the City. Staff typically does not
contact applicants to remind them of continued items.
The Commission on May 8 was not interested in approving the request until the garage was returned
to its original condition as a parking area. The matter was again continued until June 12 to give staff
an opportunity to relay the Commission's concerns to Mr. Contreras.
On May 13 and 15, staff met with Mr. Contreras who said he would like to do the work on the
proposed second unit in three phases, with the garage conversion in the second phase after the
addition is made with the new kitchen. Mr. Contreras wanted to have the opportunity to explain his
plan to the Commission before making any changes to the building. Since the Commission had also
expressed concern with the amount of time it has taken for this issue to be resolved, Mr. Contreras
also wanted to explain the steps he has taken since he was cited last summer for the illegal unit. Mr.
Contreras said that he would provide information at the meeting to better explain his position.
Attached to this memo is the draft resolution previously provided for Planning Commission
consideration, updated to reflect the continuances. Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission take testimony at this continued hearing and approve PCC 02-13 with the conditions
outlined in the draft resolution.
If the Commission determines that this use should not be approved, the matter should be continued
one last time for staff to prepare a resolution with findings for denial.
.I:\Planning\JohnS\Staff Report5\PC\2002\PC - 736 Church 2nd Unit Contin.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 06/12/02
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit PCC 02-34, to install two (2)
15-ft monopines to support three (3) antennas arrays, two (2) microwave
dishes and one (I) GPS antenna, and related equipment enclosure located
in the rear of the property, at 455 Quail Court.
Verizon Wireless requests permission to install, operate, and maintain an unmanned cellular
communication facility at the single family residence, 455 Quail Court. The permit will allow
for two (2) 15-ft monopines to support three (3) antennas arrays, two (2) microwave dishes and
one (I) GPS antenna, and related equipment enclosure located in the rear of the property. The
project site is located in a single-family residential (R-I) Zone, with a General Plan Land Use
Designation of Low Medium Residential (APN 624-200-18-00).
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class 3(c)
categorical exemption from environmental review (CEQA Section 15303, new construction of
small structures).
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use
Permit, PCC-02-34 based on the findings and conditions contained herein to install two (2) 15-ft
monopines to support three (3) antennas arrays, two (2) microwave dishes and one (I) GPS
antenna, and related equipment enclosure located in the rear of the property, at 455 Quail Court,
and deny the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and consists of a single-family home addressed as
455 Quail Court. The property is surrounded by single-family homes to the north, south, and
east. Interstate 1-805 borders the property to the west.
The monopine antennas and associated equipment enclosure would be located in the rear of the
property adjacent to Hwy 805. Currently there are two Pacific Bell/Cingular Wireless eight (8)
foot poles with two (2) antennas mounted to each pole, and associated equipment cabinets
located in the rear yard, on opposite side of the proposed monopines. These antennas were
approved in 1996.
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 06/12/02
2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
GENERAL PLAN:
Low Medium Residential
Low Medium Residential
Low Medium Residential
Low Medium Residential
Low Medium Residential
ZONING:
R-I
R-l
R-l
R-I
R-l
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Freeway
3. Proposal
Verizon Wireless proposes to construct an unmanned cellular communication facility located in
the rear yard of a single-family residence at 455 Quail Court.
The two monopines will be 15-ft high simulated "sugar pines" with round, brown rubber trunks,
to support three (3) antenna arrays (3) directional cellular antennas total, two (2) microwave
dishes and one (1) GPS antenna. The antennas on the monopines will be painted to match the
pine branches. The base ofthe monopines is located 7- ft ITom the rear property line.
The related equipment enclosure will be 17-ft long by 2'6" wide (45 square feet). The equipment
enclosure is located 6'6" from the main house and 4-ft ITom the rear property line.
4. Analysis
Verizon Wireless, as a licensee authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to
provide wireless services in this region, must establish a network of wireless communication
facilities in the metropolitan area and beyond.
The proposed facility is located in an R-l zone, east of the 805 Freeway on the north side of
Orange Avenue located on a residential hillside. Although such facilities are typically not
encouraged near residential uses, this location is ideally suited to provide the added capacity and
coverage required by the applicants ever-increasing customer base.
Without this cell site in operation, customers may find that their calls are "blocked" (they are
unable to place or receive calls in the area due to heavy cellular traffic). This cell site will also
"fill-in" or strengthen areas of weak coverage which will prevent "dropped" calls.
The wireless communications facility is a passive use and will have no direct impact on other
properties in the surrounding area. The facility is unmanned. After an initial construction period
of 30 to 45 days, the only traffic generated will be for routine maintenance visits, typically once
or twice a month. There are no activities that will produce airborne emissions, odor, vibration,
heat, glare, or noxious and toxic materials. All equipment and materials needed to operate the
site are located in the equipment shelter. The wireless communications facility does not require
water or sanitary facilities and therefore will generate no wastewater.
Page3, Item:
Meeting Date: 06/12/02
The application was submitted as an administrative conditional use permit to be reviewed by the
Zoning Administrator and was routed to the appropriate departments. After the project was
deemed complete, a public notice was sent out to all residences within a 500 square foot radius
of the proposed site. Six written comments have been received by neighborhood residences
opposing the project. All of the attached letters state that the appellants are protesting the
location of the facility due to the proximity to their homes and the perceived radio ITequency
emissions or radiation levels from the antennas. Due to the number of complaints about this
application, pursuant to Section 19.14.050 A of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator
has referred the matter to the Planning Commission for a public hearing
Staff believes that health and safety concerns raised by the neighbors related to emissions is
addressed by Condition No.3, which requires all telecommunication facilities be in compliance
with ANSI standards for EMF emissions. The FCC enforces the ANSI standards; however, if on
review, the City is provided with sufficient evidence that the project does not comply with ANSI
standards, the City may revoke or modify this conditional use permit. To date, there has been no
information provided to the City to substantiate any concerns that this facility cannot meet the
ANSI standards.
Pursuant to Section 19.14.090, the Planning Commission or the Zoning Administrator must
make a written finding, including facts relied upon in rendering a decision. For this application
the findings of fact are as follows:
1. That the proposed use at this location is necessary or desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the
community.
The proposed project will be desirable to the public convenience and welfare by
providing essential communication services in the area. The subject site possesses unique
geographical characteristics that make it an ideal location for the proposed facility, which
allows the facility to meet its objectives.
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental
to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
These improvements will provide clear and reliable communications which can continue
to function in the event that telephone (wire) service is interrupted during an emergency
situation or natural disaster. The faux pine trees will obscure the panel antennas from
public view. The equipment will be located in the rear of the existing house and will not
be visible from the street level. Access to the site will require approximately one visit to
the site per month. Therefore the proposed use will not interfere with any existing
activities or conveniences of the general public and will provide a desirable service to the
public without adding significant visual clutter. In addition, there has been no information
provided to the City to substantiate any concerns about this facility not meeting the ANSI
standards.
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 06/12/02
3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in
the code for such use.
This Conditional Use Permit is conditioned to require the permittee and property owner
to fulfill conditions and to comply with all applicable regulations and standards specified
in the Municipal Code for such use. The conditions of this permit are in approximate
proportion to the nature and extent of the impact created by the proposed development in
that the conditions imposed are directly related to and are in an area within the nature and
scope related to the size and impact of the project to this environment.
4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The granting of this permit will not adversely affect the Chula Vista General Plan in that
said project is proposed to be built in a location with minimal impact on the already
existing land use and virtually no visual impact on the existing area.
CONCLUSION:
The concerns raised by the appellants have to do with emissions, rather than the aesthetics of this
wireless communication facility. The review and approval of such facilities by local jurisdictions
is limited to aesthetic considerations, and emission standards for such facilities are governed by
federal regulations. The appellant should pursue receipt of such information as needed regarding
the emissions of this facility from the applicant and the FCC. Therefore, staff recommends that
the Planning Commission approve this application with the conditions listed in the attached draft
resolution.
Attachments
I. Planning Commission Resolution of Approval, PCC-02-34
2. Locator Map
3. Plans and Photo-simulations
4. Letters from Appellants
JIPLANNING/CAROLINE/PCC-02-34 PC STAFF REPORT
~
()
6
z
~
m
z
C
m
-
.
CI)
o
'"
"
;0
m
~
~
f
o
()
)>
S;
PROJECT
LOCATION
!:. A~~uE.
~f>-~G
510
V'
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR ~~~'&k JOHN BEKE / TETRA TECH WIRELESS PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
~~: 455 QUAIL COURT Request: Proposal for the construction and operation of a
wireless telecommunication facility to include: two 15 feet tall
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: faux pine trees, one GPS antenna and equipment cabinets.
L NORTH No Scale PCC-02-34
h:\home\planning\DAl\locators\PCC0234.cdr 01/18/02
Photo simulations
~./
WI 'zRDwireless
BEFORE
AFTER
Project: Orange Hills Address: 455 Quail Court
357 Van Ness Avenue Suite G]l
150 T<:,rrance, CA 90501 "''' T-wE:~~ ~~Cs~
Tel:. 310-783-6444
Fax: 310-783-7477
Site Name: I
Orange Hills
View from Candidate facing SOUTH
View from Candidate facing WEST
~.
1IE...~'Nireless
- _..... ._-_..__.~_.,_.__._-,-,~--~-,._--_... --_.~...._.-
357 Van Ness Avenue Suite ~'
150 Tommce, CA 90501 co. ,I" !S:~~ ~~Cs~
Tt.., 310-783-6444 "
Fax: 310-783-7477
Site Name: I
Orange Hills
View from Candidate facing EAST
\...---::"'/
1f_;~wireless
Photosimulations
Proposed Location of Two
Verizon Wireless Monopines and
F4illpm; in R,~ of oJ" _,
,
BEFORE
Two Proposed l5-ft Verizon
Wireless Monopines
Proposed 6'x 18' Verizon
Wireless Equipment Enclosure
~/'/
WI iiJl!)wireless
AFTER - Existing Tree Removed for Clarity
Project: Orange Hills Address: 455 Quait Court
. u_ _._..._~.__.__._.
Site Photos
Proposed Location of Two
Verizon Wireless Monopines and
BQW2in R_ .fth. """"'"
Overall View of Equipment Location
Existing Pac Bell/Cingular Wireless Site
/'
/
460 Quail Court
Chula Vista, CA 91911
April 18, 2002 Y
A: Ce.re -#= pc c - 0 z.-3
--- --~-'-1
rr=--\ r::r,:: rr" ~~ ~ ',\7 ~[:"O r'n"'~~1
1I1r-\ J",," <_1 :~ \,' ,_-:"I I'
Ii I~~: ,- - -~ -~----~.- -: ~; . \
I,: I' APR 1 8 2002 i LJ J I
1,:.1 I . I
L-~_._--~,_..,- 1
.----.
;
I
-,
P~p~~f'~j~iG
City of Chula Vista,
We recently found out that there would be a second set of cellular antennas put on
the property at 455 Quail Court, which is a house next door to our own. This new
antenna is to be put in less than 30 feet from our second story bedroom doors and balcony
and we feel that the health hazard caused by the radiation could be dangerous to our
health as well as our daughter, son-in-law and grandchild who live with us.
There is already one unsightly antenna on that property and we feel that the
installation of another antenna would devalue our property value and the future sale of
our home especially since it will stand out above the single story house where it will be
installed. The reason we bought our home was that we had a nice view and we do not
feel that some fake looking palm tree would be pleasing to look at.
We have decided that our future health and the fact that we feel that the antenna
will devalue our property has made it worth our time and energy to fight through what
ever obstacles maybe involved. We have contacted a group of people who will help us
secure information against harmful effects caused by cellular devices and will present
more information at a later date.
We sincerely hope that you will reconsider the placement of this antenna and look
at more practical places where it is not right at the back door of residences. We do not
feel that enough inconclusive evidence is available to make us feel safe with such a
device so close to where we spend 35% of our time.
,S'.
Sincerely yours,
. ~#f;;k
Dave Helton and Ju~lton \\:);/' /\/ t
/ !" /
;;: Gi/;r 0/kM-- Y-Zf' T~
C//Jr#
n~M.' ;&/CE L. ~C(/V,v . \@~(C,j.J ~ ~l~
"111;2 (.) Cl4IC C'au"" T II.,\. ~PR \ 8 ZJ02 11!:V
\\.1 "
Ch"/(L/7 UJm;,- (l/l. 9/9// \ ,.\ PL~:NW;G -'
/I. 619-~->~~8/J9
6:rL?d: 7/-/r .2A/,.5T~7?A--726N aF ;WE AJA"7BV,A/~
/l T :I ~cJ 4f4'4...L ~ L't:14",.e T
//7'E ~E/95dA/S ~/E 2)0 /v'd'T #,,4/1,,// U-TJ'
/tar a-/VA/ A 7$:
- ME /T'c~L7# //~;?Z/JkP &E QP..uo-~
&c:>av p ~ /ILL ~...:TPc'?VTS.
~ /WE 2JAfrf#~G'E --L 7 /t/J?/ :2)6 ;&; ~/~77
j/AL~E
- a?' $~~.5 (/oAl'Q0('/1/ ~5 mE KE~avD
m//T- LIve=- /VL"7J~L:-.5T NF "41,,vn=;vA/d ,7J/A T
Ot/ r ..7/1/ mE C::ZA/J) - S #-R 7.. ,0tE 7' tV,2ZL ,6?c:- /W~f 7
~r';-ECr~7? $)" ~f /!AP.-m0ZlA/ /IA22;f~,,4->' ~ 7
_~ ttlkLy :Per "~ttJM aa-,f H/.f7?f..PeE;5 REP"RgpA1.
- ~E /77,er /ZA/E 12Lr Mfd L~/L 4',A/~L?JL.
/f #.2 -
--,C;;(GG E.$ T..roA/ -:
~E.5.5 /WEN ~ /&1,IL~ R~M cPt//l-,ZZ.. (7c:lt:/~T
4-0'0 /) !II.?? 7/./A/ d?1<<.J'G (1/1-1/ 'T #c-
.tP#..zz.T~. 7#.r 1//0'/7 /I.JLC ~,f7 c/~ c?~#.-LL
ttJli/2T /Y.c-7T;o o?-7'~~R ?A;e',l:::w/J7 &/JT
#EZt7w T#F #,.2(;; h/97c'X ;0t:'</~ ~,vp
",(bg ...2/1/:'->CJN ,l/c:1k'S,.T/([~_ -z;s AN fPE19L hAC F 1'9'4-
/
m'.e- ANTi!F7VN/) \
///r CTr7 or 6../~~A- j/fl7?9 ~#N ,dyZ:l.2P
4JJ..T#.u:- UtV ~4'77S ~,?1'/Y1 tP/t'A...TL &a~T
/? 6";1:P c7V D, t"d..2P# ..I /!-YJ'afiJr ,Y:? ~ ?b'-YLL-
ij~#8V> ..5',cfdN c7A2. L,4)7~7<:..~
'J
. 4~v?%4~~
/
'-~
19 April 2002
City of Chula of Chula
ATTN: Caroline Lewis
RE: Case number PCC-02-34
Wireless Communication Facility permit request
455 Quail Court
Chula Vista, CA 91911
..--...~.,...__~_n_._'_____-'
i i -- ~'.:' ~~. r.:~ ~ ~ r, ~ r::-\ I
\1' r" . '.r; :,IJ ,; :] \'i ~[~ In It.
"'--- "'-._.-~---'.I !~,
II.. ,', 1ft ':i
1':1 '; ! I
Iii APR 1 8 2002: ~
,~
\
I
......_..._._._.J
....--..
P:"A~~;',:;~'~CJ
.--..-------...----...---j
I am the next door neighbor to the subject address. I went through this process when the
first wireless communication facility was proposed, approved and installed. The facility sits
next to my property line. My concerns then as they are today, the health hazard of the
electro-magnetic field, the obnoxious appearance in a residential community and the effect
the facility will have on our property values.
I was promised by the Planning Commission, the City representative and Pacific Bell, that
the electro-magnetic field (EMF) would be tested within weeks of the first operation and
that I would receive word of the results. In addition, subsequent tests would be conducted
with word of the results being sent to me. I received a phone call informing me of the
initial EMF test results, but no hard copy of the results. I have received nothing since that
time. As far as I know, no subsequent tests have been conducted. With this history to
draw from, I cannot believe Tetra Tech Wireless or the City will do any better following up
with EMF tests on this newly proposed facility. EMF is real and is a hazard, as we are now
finding out. These antennas are just too close to the peaple that live in this community.
My next concern was and is the awful appearance of these huge electric boxes and the mast
the antennas are attached to. Without exception, people that have visited my home that
were unaware of the placement of the antennas next door to me, had terrible negative
comments about them. This new proposal will be no different. These antennas are an eye
sore and should not be located in a residential community.
My last, but not least concern, was and still is the effect these antennas will have on my
property valve. I already know the answer to that. Having these installations next to my
home lowers my property value! Just before the end of the year, I refinanced my home
which, of course, requires an appraisal. As the person doing the approisal was walking
around my home, he noticed the antennas. He finished his work and as he was about to
leave, I asked him if he had any comments. He said all was positive but he would be lowering
the final results by 3 to 4 thousand dollars because of the negative appearance of the
antennas.
.., It is unfair for me to be penalized just because Pacific Bell, Tetra Tech and the City of
Chula Vista and my neighbors decide its a good idea to create a yard full of antennas next
door.
,
/
,
\......I
You, the City of Chula Vista, are supposed to be the watch dog, the police force for the
people. You are to be concerned for our health and protect our communities from
devaluation and degradation. The approval by the property owner of the proposed location
and company installing the units should not come with a forgone conclusion from you that his
permit request will be approved. Me, the individual property owner should receive equal
consideration and protection.
Very respectfully
~fi~
461 Quail Court
Chula Vista, CA 91911
do.
--------.-
~~~ Z:;.~..
~~th. ' if~, ~~
~a 9~4-<t'1:: C!.(
~~74~
~ ~ -
~.A?~ f; JI~
;;71~a-,
~,~-
WD If ~ IE n \'l ~",' .
\ I) r:~-::' 'II" '
,: \!
11\.\ APR 1 S ZJO'L \~
~ ~ !
i .J
\ L PLANN\~~G ~_
./'
April 18, 2002
466 Quail Court
Chula Vista, CA 9 t 911
- ____.. I
\n~\ [~ ~r~ ~~ II VI ~ rru~ (
1.1 r- --- - .- ! \ I i \
,..\. \ ,I
\' \', APR 18 2002 !u
""1 ~
~--_._-- \
p1f',rdr,,;I\.:G i
. ',-r,'\ il\. -"
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
In reference to the antenna being installed at 455 Quail Court, we are against it because
of the radiation being too close to the homes. We will have a grand child staying here
ITom time to time and do not want this thing to be installed. We are concerned with the
various health problems that this could cause and would not want it to be installed.
James & Shirley Williams
,/
,/
L dt/
-.
a.)f~
",
...
(/1?~ #- rc. c -0 2 - 3L./
'1- /7- 0 '2-
.I tv""fe! 4/CA. '{c> oLJ';'c..I!o 70z. /....~):.//..,X...:..,
6Jh ti.r C"I'>I#1'N.d~'1,.:>~ ~...~.i,it /17- 'T~~ Qt..J~;'/ c7.
rte Ioc,.,-r/CJ',... I> pev/ /b ,,1?1 7 fu..dr't:>"'n? , .z: r:'<..,../
rt" 7 'Tk &!.ec,//tJ #"'5 "",,:.,,<..:.I7c} h-4fYJ .4"-'./ ;<::,.,.,/ D Wrl' ?--e.l"
k/tJl/'l/ h< /.e~rl;"e"")S"/ ,'p'-t:; my ~/H/ vIJ."?1'4/>",,,.,.,:V./-,,,,
;40,// 7/4,vcl.o'fIM /1"'-"/ ,1<,1 f..~ hR,,/ff ,
I/,/1V-<- A/I.."",
1.../60 <Qu,.,/I c(
C~,I'I Ur74 7?/ '7//
&,/'1 Y-2./ '7// 2..s
-.." - ' '1
L,.~~ tc:, b---~';;:"',' [',';: 0,',\\
,> r" ,. '. . I'
'-0 ,\ "." ,-\
, . ....,U,
'~ ,'I
1'\ 11
L APR 1..~.~~O~ L:.i
P. ,,~,11..':1\:......
Lr,:"I~i''''U
c9 1/ > 2. 7 c? &~I 3(. I '7