CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
D e v e l o p m e n t S e r v i c e s D e p a r t m e n t Planning Division I Development Processing
FECES
iA 1911 -STA CITE' CLERK
Appeal the decision of the: ZOZ3NOV _3 A %- 53
Zoning Administrator
Planning Commission
Application Information
Nameof Appellant WILLIAM D. DALEY
Address
APPEAL APPLICATION FORM
STAFF USE ONLY
Date Received:
Fee:
Receipt #
Case #
Phone
BusinessAddress
ProjectAddress 430 SECOND AVE. CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
ProjectDescription Planning Commission Hearing 10/25/2023 item 5.3-- Project #CUP22--0052 Example: variance, conditional use permit, design review, etc.) Pleaseuse the space below to provide a response to the decision you are appealing. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.
Grounds for an appeal must be based on at least one of the following:
1) Factual Error. The statements or evidence relied upon by the decision maker when approving, conditionally approving, or denying a permit, map, or other matter was inaccurate; 2) New Information. New information is available to the applicant or the interested person that was not available through that person' s reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the decision; or 3) Findings Not Supported. The decision maker' s stated findings to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the permit, map, or other matter are not supported by the information provided to the decision maker.
In order for an appeal to be valid, detailed responses must be included which cite at least one of the above reasons for the appeal along with substantiation of the facts and circumstances on which the claim of theappeal is based. If an appeal is filed within the time limit specified, and determined to be valid, it automaticallystays proceedings in the matter until a determination is made by the City Council.
I was present and spoke in opposition to the CUP- 45' cell tower/ antenna. I am the Trustee of my family residence located at 439 Del Mare Ct. Clhula Vista, CA 91910, which is adjacent to: the subject property and ilnstallation of the proposed cell tower/ antenna, which will be visible from the backyard of clur property. There are factual errors in the Planning Commissions determination and the approval of the conditional use permit was not supported by the facts. The issues and facts are summarized in the the ATTACHEMENT TO THIS APPLICATION WHICH IS INCORPRATED BY REFERENCE Appeal Form Directions
Pursuant to the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance Chapter 19.14, an interested party may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator, or Planning Commission to the City Council. The appellant must be an interested party. An interested party means a person who was present at a public hearing from which an appeal arose and who had filed a speaker slip with the decision maker at that public hearing, or a person who expressed an interest in the project in writing to that decision maker before the close of the public hearing or a decision on an action from which an appeal may be filed. The appellant must file a complete appeal application form within the specified appeal period (10 business days after the decision has been made), complete the Disclosure Statement, and pay the required fee. Once a valid appeal form is filed, the appeal will be scheduled for a hearing by the City Council within 30 days.
Signature of Appellant Date. Il Vw' 3• d-ocR
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the: City Council On Development Services Department City Clerk
1Iof1 APPEAL54276 Fourth Avenue I Chula Vista I California 91910 1 (619) 691. 5101 Rev RE: Project # CUP22- 0052, Public Hearing October 25, 2023 at 6:00 p.m I, William D. Daley, was presentandspokein oppositionto the project.
I amrequestinga denial of Project # CUP22- 0052, a denial of Resolution 2023-20, and denial of a conditional use permit for a new 45 -foot freestanding wireless telecommunicationfacility locatedat 430 SecondAvenuewithin the single-family residence zone.
Contrary to the staff report presented, I would like to indicate how the findings in the Chula Vista Municipal Codehavenot been met and why the project should bedenied.
Pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code ( CVMC) Section 19. 14. 080, Conditional uses permit — Prerequisitesfor Granting, the following findings needto be considered:
1. That the proposed use at the particular location is not necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility and does not contribute to the general well- being of the neighborhood or the community.
We do not have a gap in cell serviceat our "particular location," nor do we have a problem reachingemergencyservicesfor ourwell-being. Our well-beingis goodwithout the cell tower.
The fact that this proposedtower will exceedthe City' s height restriction of 28 feet, by 17 feet, for a total of 45 feet, because as stated in the staff report, " the proposed height is the only technologically feasible option for providing service to the area" proves that this " particular location" is not the location for the tower. It would make more sense for the applicant to find a location closerto the actual arealacking service, if indeedthere is one, which would not require such an intrusive height. There is no doubt that they canfind sucha location. The project site is not desirable. A 45 -foot cell tower, no matter how much you try to disguise it — is a 45 -foot cell tower, plantedin the middle of aresidentially zonedstreet, adjacentto single-family residences on all sidesof the property. It is alsonot desirableto havethis sitebea co -locationsiteto justify additional cell towers at the samelocation. What is desirable is that they find an existing cell tower to co -locate with. I am confident they can find such a tower. Within blocks of this particular location one can find commercial and industrial zoned locations that would be more suitable for a cell tower. In fact, AT& T has several office locations in Chula Vista.
Two examples are: 744 F St. Chula Vista, where AT& T has a substantial tower and multiple antennas, on a commercial property (Prudential Overall Supply); or their location at 1642 Silvas St where AT& T has, in a commercial areaat United Rental building and next to an auto repair facility, a cluster of antennas; thesearetwo examplesof severalsitesoperatedby AT& T in Chula Vista This is what is indicated by the FCC asregisteredCell phone andAntenna towers in Chula Vista, along with the other 76 towers and 362 antenna locations listed. Has AT& T attempted to co -locate at these sites? I would encouragethe City to have a third -party expert prove the existence of a coveragegap, rather than rely on the applicant. In fact the map provided by AT& T did not demonstratea gap in coverage, and when questionedthey did not know whether anotherCUP grantedat a location approximately one month ago, on Hilltop Dr., lessthan a mile away, would now add additional coverageto the areaat 430 Second Ave.
To usethe standardof; " AT& T wouldn' t be asking for this if they didn' t needit", or " we recently approved two other antennasfor AT& T, including at a Church location on Hilltop Dr.", " so why shouldn' t we approve this one", which was voiced at the Planning Commission meeting, should not be the criteria of due diligence by the City in safeguardingthe residentsin the area.
The location of an antennashould not be left the least costly location for the applicant. AT& T indicated that they contactedtwo other possiblelocations in the areaincluding a 7/11 store. Again, was the Church location at 240 Second Ave. the least expensive location? Are the same alternative locations being usedfor multiple CUP applications in the area? It seemsthat the City isn't ableto truly weigh the alternatives, but leaves it to the applicant, AT& T, to make a business decision as to need and cost of the location.
2-
2. Such use, under the circumstance of this particular case, will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity, and is injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity.
The current general plan, under residential location, of homes built in the 1950s, stand in back yard, look out our bedroomwindow, drive by it everydayto work andon your way homefrom work. It will give you a better understandingof why this intrusive cell tower is not desirableand how it will have a detrimental effect on our general welfare and quality of life.. We live in a residential zone for a reason. Homeownershipis expensive. The currentCity GeneraPlanregardinghousing, includesthe following
Goal 1: Promote Housing that Helps to Create Safe, Livable, and Sustainable Neighborhoods The City' sexistinghousingstockplaysanimportantrole in providing a decent, safeandsanitary living environmentfor lower incomehouseholdsandin maintainingthe quality and sustainability of residentialneighborhoods. With almosthalf (48 percent) of existing housing citywide being 40 years or older — built prior to 1979, there is a potential loss in value and quality asa resultof deterioration. A significant portion (20 percent) of the City' shousingstock is 50 yearsold or older and is likely to require major repairs, with this housing locatedentirely within the area west of 1805 ( Western Chula Vista and also known as the Northwest and Southwestplanningareas). Theseareasarealso consideredvulnerableareaswherehousing costsare lower, housing stock is more diverse and consequentlya higher concentrationof lower income residents than the area east of I- 805. To create safe, livable and sustainable neighborhoods, housing policies and programswill focus on the following objectives:
Enforce maintenanceof safeand decenthousing, enhancethe quality of existing housing to maintain the integrity of residential neighborhoods..........
Programsto enforce building, health, andhousing codesand the funding of minor repairs, rehabilitationof housingwill encouragethe provision of decent, safeandsanitaryhousingand 3-
preserve neighborhood quality. Of particular focus is repair, rehabilitation and improvement of housing andneighborhoodsin the City' sNorthwest andSouthwestPlanning Areas..........." If this CUP is approved, it will change the landscape of the neighborhood and character of our community. The location of the tower is visually unappealing and too close to residential properties. The more we let commercial and industrial activities encroach into our residential areas, the more unrecognizable the community becomesand the more we get away from preserving the community character. The zoning ordinanceexistsfor a reason. It is to encouragesmartgrowth andsmart development. It offers somesecurity in knowing what we areobtaining andretaining a residencein an area that will maintain its' character. This assurance is eroded when we start to disregard those specified zoning areasand city plans and the impacts becomedetrimental.
Havinga45 -foot cell tower adjacentto our homeswill affectthe propertyvaluesof our homes.
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines categorize cell towers with hazards and nuisances. HUD ( the government) requires its certified appraisers to takethe presenceof nearbycell towers into considerationwhen determiningthe valueof a single-family residential property. HUD prohibits the FederalHousing Authority underwriting of mortgages for homes that are within the engineered fall zone of a cell tower. https:Harchives.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfli/ ref/sfh1-18f.cfm) The National Business Post writes that " In 2014, the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy (NISLAPP) wrote a report called, `Neighborhood Cell Tower' s and Antennas — Do They Impact a Property' s Desirability?' In it, it concluded that homebuyers and renters are less interestedin propertiescloseto cell towers andantennas. `Ninety-four percentof homebuyersand renters saida nearbycell tower or group of antennaswould negatively impact interest in a property or the pricethey would bewilling to payfor it. Documentationof a price drop of up to 20% is found in multiple surveys and published articles.' ( https:// www. nationalbusinesspost. com/ celltowers impact- home- values/) There is no denyingthis affects the propertyvaluesof our homes SI
and createsmaterial injury. What elsewill they put on the tower besideswireless antennas? Once you allow this, the floodgates open.
A structure like this invites crime with it andjeopardizes safety. It becomesan easytarget for climbing, vandalizing, graffiti, andthesedays, I wouldn't besurprisedif somehavebecome alternativehousingsitesfor our homelesspopulation. TheCity is well awareof the potentialfor this, especiallyif there is a needto note in the City' s WirelessTelecommunicationsFacilities section of the CVMC how to avoid such things. There is potential for this 45 -foot structure to collapse upon those of us who live next to it and who are in the fall zone of the tower. There is potential for a gust of wind to blow off the fake branchesof the structure and causeinjury to our properties. In the event of a collapse, it would not be contained on the subject property. This intrusive structure will become a new threat to our safety.
Again, the proposed cell tower would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, and materially injurious to propertiesandimprovementsin thevicinity becauseit would be located adjacent to, and completely surrounded by, residential homes.
3. That the proposed usedoesnot comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 19 of the CVMC for such use, specifically regarding wireless telecommunications facilities.
The proposal is in conflict with 19. 89. 060 Development Criteria, " Wireless telecommunications facilities are subject to the height limitation stipulated in this title and shall be as short as technologically feasible." I do not believe the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed height, which is 17feet abovethe City' s height restriction, is the only technologicallyfeasible option for providing service.
The proposal is in conflict with 19. 89. 060 Development Criteria, " The facility shall useand maintain the physically smallest practical devices to achieve the needs of the wireless telecommunications network. The facility shall use and maintain the most efficient devices to 5-
achieve the needs of the wireless telecommunications network." In this context, ` most efficient' meansusing the smallest numberof facilities neededto achievethe needsof the network." The applicant has not demonstrated that this is the smallest practical device.
The proposal is in conflict with 19. 89. 060 Development Criteria, " The facility shall be designed to be visually unobtrusive and blend into the surrounding area in a manner compatible with the local community character." It is a 45 -foot cell tower with all single-family residencesadjacent to it. Not only is it not compatiblewith the local communitycharacterof the 1950shomesbut it will also changethe landscapeof the single-family residential areawith a negative impact on the community character.
The proposal is in conflict with 19. 89. 060 Development Criteria, " Wireless telecommunication facilities shall be co -located to the extent practicable." There isn' t an existing cell tower at this site, this is not an example of co -locating. Sufficient proof hasnot beendemonstratedthat the applicanthashadcommunicationswith severalexisting cell site locationsin anattemptto co -locate.
As statedabove, they have a site on F St. which hasmultiple antennason a commercial site.
The proposal is in conflict with 19. 89. 060 Development Criteria, " Co - location is discouraged, but not prohibited, for sites located on a residential lot in a single- family or two- family residential zone." In looking at the staff report in the meeting packeton page3 it states, "The additional height and space on the tower will also provide sufficient space for future co -location by other carriers." That doesnot soundlike discouragementof co -location in a single-family residential zone. Instead, it soundslike staff is using it asa selling point, a benefit. In fact, most, if not all of AT& T antenna sites in Chula Vista, are on commercial industrial locations with multiple antennas.
The proposal is in conflict with 19. 89. 060 Development Criteria, " All components of all wireless telecommunicationsfacilities shall meetthe setbackrequirementsof the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located." The setbacksare basedon the City' s 28 -foot height limit. Setbacks
1.1 should be adjusted to accommodate the additional 17 feet in height above the 28 -foot height limit.
The proposal is in conflict with 19. 89. 060 Development Criteria, " Freestandingfacilities, including ground -mountedantennasandmonopoles, arediscouragedandmay beusedonly when no other alternatives is feasible. When allowed, freestanding facilities shall be designed to the minimum functional height and width. Lattice towers are prohibited." The proposed cell tower is a freestandingfacility. It is also 45 feet in height. They havenot proventhat no other alternatives are feasible. Commercial zoned areasare in very close proximity, which would be better suited for this project. Have they showntheir attemptto locateon existing structures? A newtower is not preferred in a single-family residential zone.
The proposal is in conflict with 19. 89. 060 Development Criteria, " All equipment shall be placed completely undergroundwhen feasible or located inside an existing building_" It has not been demonstrated that it is not feasible to put the equipment underground.
The proposal is in conflict with 19. 89. 060 Development Criteria, " All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be accessed from nonresidential streets or rights- of- way to the maximum extent practical." It is a single-family residential area, therefore in conflict. Again, they can find moresuitablelocationswithin a few blocksthat arezonedcommercial.
4. The granting of this conditional usewill adversely affect the General Plan of the City.
This proposed project area, Council District 2, certainly is not a "new" part of ever-growing Chula Vista. This is the streetthat my parent's purchasedin 1958, the neighborhoodwhereI grew up and wheremy family usesthe residencetoday.. It is not thatI amopposedto growthanddevelopment. I am supportive of smart growth and smart development, development that is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of our citizens.
Chapter4 of the City' s General Plan, Theme 3, Strong and Safe Neighborhoods conflicts with approval of this cell tower. As stated in the General Plan, " Chula Vista is a diverse, yet Ire
integrated, communitythat celebratesits neighborhoodsasthe building blocksthat makeit a great place to live." Theme 5, Health and Sustainable Community, states, "Chula Vista is committed to the health and well being of all of its residents... The adoption of policies and programsthat promotethe health andwell-being of all citizens is a high priority." Land Use and Transportation Element, Chapter 5, Community Image and Character, states, "... the issue of community characterwill be of key importanceaswe work to strikeanacceptablebalance between the new projects and activities... it meansbeing in touch with how physical changes will affect the buildings next door or acrossthe street; and it meansprotecting the City' s cultural and historical ` personality."' Land Use and Transportation Element, Chapter 5, states " the quiet single-family neighborhood, with tree -lined streetshasbeenrecognizedthrough surveysand public input asan important characteristic of the City." Environmental, Chapter 9 states, Provide ahealthy andsustainablecommunity throughthe improvehealth of all citizens, environmental justice, the responsible stewardship of Chula Vista' natural and cultural resources, promotion of environmental health and protection of personsand property from environmental hazards and the undesirable consequences of noise." Growth Management, Chapter 10 states that a goal is to, " direct and coordinate growth and development in ways that maintain and consistentlyendeavorsto improvethe quality of life for currentandfuture residentsof Chula Vista." My intent isto just showfrom thesestatementswithin the City' sGeneralPlanthat an approval of sucha project would conflict with the goalsandthemesof the Plan, especially for a single-family residential neighborhood.
5. That the property owner is not trustworthy in following conditions outlined by the City as they have recently had an ongoing zoning violation for the last two years at this specific property.
The propertyowner cannotbetrustedto follow anyconditionsthe City requires. They have recently violated the City' sZoning Ordinance, which wasongoingfor two yearsoperatinga 8-
commercial/industrial storageyard.. Even when the City brought it to the property owner's attention that the City was investigating it, they continued to violate the zoning ordinance. They were making income from the zoning violation at the sametime that this application for a cell tower on their property was pending.
Lastly, in addition to the Findings of Fact, there are some additional considerationsfor the City to consider based on Federal Statutes of the Telecommunications Act:
Hasthe Applicant demonstratedthere is a significant gap in coverage? Again, I believe it would be beneficial for an expert that is not paid by the applicant to be consulted on that. Up to this point hasthe City received phone calls from residentsabout concerns with a lack of cell phone coverage in this area? Did AT& T approachthe property owner the proposal of a cell tower at this site or did the property owner approach elicit by it' s advertising the space, AT& T and propose this site? The residential areain which the applicant claims cell servicewould be improved is already adequately 99 served. Have they attempted to co -locate at existing sites? Are they using the samealternative locations on their past applications?
Is the proposedtower the LeastIntrusive Means of addressingthe coveragegap, if a coverage gap even exists? Has the applicant shown a lack of available and technologically feasible alternatives to the proposed cell tower? Considering this is a single-family residential zone, it is appropriateto ask the applicant to study alternative sites, alternative designsandalternative technologies. The applicant should show a meaningful comparison of various sites. This has not been accomplished, and the applicant hasfailed to provide evidence supporting a finding that a tower at the proposed site would be the least intrusive means of bringing further coverage to the area.
I hope you will consider our objections to the location of this proposed cell tower. I strongly believethe proposedlocationof this tower will haveanadverseeffect on thedaily lives of M
everyone subjectedto its existence if allowed to be constructed at this location. It is respectfully requestedthat the City of Chula Vista deny Project # CUP22-0052, deny Resolution 2023-20, anddenythe conditional usepermit for a new 45 -foot freestandingwirelesstelecommunication facility locatedat 430 SecondAvenuewithin the single-family residencezone.
Trustee of the Residence
Chula Vista, CA 91910
10-