Chula Vista City Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
January 15, 2024
RE: Project # CUP22-0052, Public Hearing January 16, 2024 at 5:00 p.m.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We are writing to you today to request your denial of Project # CUP22-0052, denial of the proposed Resolution in your meeting packet, and denial of a conditional use permit for a new 45- foot freestanding wireless telecommunication facility located at 430 Second Avenue within the single-family residence zone.
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a hearing on October 25, 2023, to consider the proposed conditional use permit (CUP) and ultimately approved of the permit. However, the Planning and Zoning Commission’s stated findings to approve the CUP was not supported by the information provided to the commission which led to a decision based on factual error and inaccuracy.
Lack of Information/Documentation
There were no documents in the meeting packet for the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing that showed the applicant’s attempt to not only find a more appropriate site that is not in a residential zone, but also to attempt to co-locate with an existing cell tower site. This is important, because Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.89.060 Development Criteria, states “Wireless telecommunication facilities shall be co-located to the extent practicable.” There is not an existing cell tower at this proposed site, this is not an example of co- locating. More importantly, there is no documentation that shows the applicant’s efforts to co- locate with an existing cell tower site. It is also important to note that the attempt should be made not just at existing AT&T sites but all cell tower sites, including other providers. It is odd that none of the Planning and Zoning Commission members asked the applicant during the hearing what effort was made to co-locate the proposed cell tower site with an existing cell tower site, especially with this stated preference in the Municipal Code. A Commission member did ask the AT&T representative if there was an attempt to consider a site for the new cell tower in a more appropriate zone, to which the applicant answered there was an attempt at putting the cell tower site at the location of a 7-Eleven. Again, there was no documentation provided in the packet or to the Commissioners that supported the applicant making an effort to propose a site that is more appropriately zoned for such a development. Is the City tracking where all the cell tower sites are located within the city that would help decision makers determine the proximity of new proposed sites with existing sites, which would also prompt a question to applicants as to whether they contacted existing sites within the area to co-locate? Sufficient documentation to demonstrate the applicant’s effort to co-locate with an existing site and to find a location in a more suitable zone is lacking.
Written Communications
Item 7.1 - Daley
Received 1/16/24
The staff report provided to City council states that the applicant made an effort to co-locate (again, documentation has not been provided of this), however, if that is the case and other providers are denying AT&T to co-locate at their sites, then why isn’t the City holding those sites accountable to the conditions of those existing sites? One of the conditions as described in this proposed resolution, condition #4, states, “The Applicant shall cooperate with telecommunications companies in co-locating additional antennas on the subject property, provided said co-locators have received a Conditional Use Permit from the City for such use.
Applicant shall exercise good faith in co-locating with other communications companies and sharing the permitted site, provided such shared use does not give rise to a substantial technical level-or quality of service impairment of the permitted use (as opposed to a competitive conflict or financial burden). In the event a dispute arises as to whether Applicant has exercised good faith in accommodating other users, the City may require a third-party technical study at the expense of the Applicant.” Again, if this is a condition required by the City for cell tower sites to follow, is the City following up with those sites to confirm why they are denying AT&T to co- locate with them and having a third-party technical study done? If not, then it is requested that the City do this before granting a cell tower at a new site, especially since the proposed new site is in a residential zone.
Factual Error/Inaccurate Information Provided
City staff provided information as to how the proposed cell tower site is consistent with the CVMC, however, I have provided information below how the proposed cell tower site is not consistent with the CVMC and why it should be denied.
Pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.14.080, Conditional use permit – Prerequisites for Granting, the following findings need to 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.
The fact that the City depends on the applicant to demonstrate there is a gap in coverage is a conflict of interest, since the applicant directly benefits from the City approving the CUP. It is requested that the city have a third-party determine if there is a gap in coverage. Has a survey been provided to residents in the area as to whether they have experienced a gap in coverage? Have there been reports to the City that emergency services have not been able to be contacted due to a gap in coverage? Other than the applicant stating there is a gap in coverage, has there been anything else brought forward to the City that supports that there is a gap in coverage?
The proposed tower will exceed the 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.” This statement proves that this particular location is not the location for this tower. It would make more sense for the applicant to find a location closer to the actual area lacking service, which would not require such an intrusive height. The project site is not desirable. A 45-foot cell tower in the middle of a residential zone and adjacent to single-family residences on all sides is out of place no matter how much there is Written Communications
Item 7.1 - Daley
Received 1/16/24
an attempt to disguise it. What is desired is that the applicant finds an existing cell tower to co- locate with. Within blocks of this particular location the applicant can find commercial and industrial zoned locations that would be more suitable for a cell tower.
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 intrusive cell tower will have a detrimental effect on the surrounding residents’ general welfare and quality of life. We live in a residential zone for a reason, and we hope that the City Council understands our need to protect the single-family residential zone and preserve our welfare and quality of life. If approved, the cell tower site will change the landscape of the neighborhood and character of our community. The location of the tower is visually unappealing and is an encroachment on residential properties. It is requested that City Council maintain the existing zoning by not allowing this encroachment.
The City Council cannot consider concerns about radio frequency emissions and the impact on health; however, the Council should question if the proposed cell tower complies with the Federal Communications Commission’s radio frequency emission. Since the impact to the physical health of residents surrounding the proposed cell tower will not be considered, the impact to mental health should be considered. Environment has an impact on mental health.
Diagnosis exists for electromagnetic hypersensitivity that is caused by these cell phone towers, which can cause difficulty in sleeping, headaches, vomiting and diarrhea. With this proposed site being adjacent to homes, there will be an impact of constant noise from a generator or emergency generator, that will disturb the quiet of the neighborhood and impact mental health and quality of life.
Quality of life can also be impacted by what is done to our property values as a result of a 45- foot cell tower going in adjacent to 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 take the presence of nearby cell towers into consideration when determining the value of a single-family residential property. HUD prohibits the Federal Housing Authority underwriting of mortgages for homes that are within the engineered fall zone of a cell tower. (https://archives.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/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 interested in properties close to cell towers and antennas. ‘Ninety-four percent of homebuyers and renters said a nearby cell tower or group of antennas would negatively impact interest in a property or the price they would be willing to pay for it. Documentation of a price drop of up to 20% is found in multiple surveys and published articles.’ (https://www.nationalbusinesspost.com/cell- towers-impact-home-values/)
A negative impact to property values, material injury, will have a direct impact to the quality of life for those residents surrounding the proposed site.
Written Communications
Item 7.1 - Daley
Received 1/16/24
A structure like this invites crime with it and jeopardizes safety. It becomes an easy target for climbing, vandalizing, graffiti, and alternative housing sites for the unhoused. A structure like this invites crime with it and jeopardizes safety. It becomes an easy target for climbing, vandalizing, graffiti, and housing sites for the unhoused. The City is well aware of the consequence for this, since it is noted in the City’s Wireless Telecommunications Facilities section of the CVMC on how to avoid such things. There is no guarantee that the 45-foot structure will not collapse on residents who live next to it and who are in the fall zone of the tower. There is potential that a gust of wind can blow off the fake branches of the structure and cause injury to people and properties. The intrusive structure is a threat to our safety.
The proposed cell tower would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, and materially injurious to properties in the area because it is adjacent to residential homes on all sides.
3. The proposed use does not comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 19 of the CVMC for such use, specifically regarding wireless telecommunications facilities.
The information below describes exactly how the proposed use does not comply with CVMC and is in direct conflict with it.
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 17 feet above the City’s height restriction, is the only technologically feasible option for providing service.
The proposal is in conflict with 19.89.060 Development Criteria, “The facility shall use and 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 achieve the needs of the wireless telecommunications network. In this context, ‘most efficient’ means using the smallest number of facilities needed to achieve the needs of 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 residences adjacent to it. Not only is it not compatible with the local community character of the 1950s homes but it will also change the landscape of the single-family residential area with 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 is not an existing cell tower at this site, this is not an example of co-locating. Sufficient proof has not been demonstrated that the applicant has had communications with several existing cell site locations in an attempt to co- locate.
Written Communications
Item 7.1 - Daley
Received 1/16/24
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.” The fact that City staff is now making it a condition in the proposed Resolution that this proposed site turn into a co-location site is a complete contradiction to the content above in the CVMC, since the proposed site is a residential lot. Instead of discouraging it, staff is using it as a selling point.
The proposal is in conflict with 19.89.060 Development Criteria, “All components of all wireless telecommunications facilities shall meet the setback requirements of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located.” The setbacks are based on the City’s 28-foot height limit. Setbacks 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, “Freestanding facilities, including ground-mounted antennas and monopoles, are discouraged and may be used only 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 freestanding facility. It is also 45 feet in height. They have not proven that no other alternatives are feasible. Ther are commercially zoned areas in very close proximity, which would be better suited for this project. No documentation has been provided showing the applicant’s communication with other locations that would be more suitable.
The proposal is in conflict with 19.89.060 Development Criteria, “All equipment shall be placed completely underground when feasible or located inside an existing building.” It has not been demonstrated that it is not feasible to put the equipment underground, or within the current building existing on the site.
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, as it will be accessed from a residential street.
4. The granting of this conditional use will adversely affect the General Plan of the City.
The proposed cell tower site is in Council District 2 and is not a “new” part of Chula Vista.
Homes in this location were built in the 1950s. Chapter 4 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 integrated, community that celebrates its neighborhoods as the building blocks that make it 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 programs that promote the health and well-being of all citizens is a high priority.” Land Use and Transportation Element, Chapter 5, Community Image and Character, states, “…the issue of community character will be of key importance as we work to strike an acceptable balance between the new projects and activities… it means being in touch with how physical changes will affect the buildings next door or across the street; and it Written Communications
Item 7.1 - Daley
Received 1/16/24
means protecting the City’s cultural and historical ‘personality.’” Land Use and Transportation Element, Chapter 5, states “the quiet single-family neighborhood, with tree-lined streets has been recognized through surveys and public input as an important characteristic of the City.” Environmental, Chapter 9 goal states, “Provide a healthy and sustainable community through the improved health of all citizens, environmental justice, the responsible stewardship of Chula Vista’s natural and cultural resources, promotion of environmental health and protection of persons and 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 consistently endeavors to improve the quality of life for current and future residents of Chula Vista.” The proposed project for the new cell tower site directly conflicts with these statements listed above that are within the City’s General Plan, and directly conflicts with the goals and themes of the Plan, especially for a single-family residential neighborhood.
5. 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.
Although City staff states that City Council cannot consider this in their decision making, it is important that the information be provided to you so there is an understanding of the damage done by this property owner. The property owner has recently been in violation of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which was an ongoing violation for two years. 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 refused to address their zoning violation, which was making them a lot of money, until they realized that it jeopardized their ability to move forward with this CUP application, which will make them more money. They should not be rewarded for their unethical behavior and blatant disregard for the City’s Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, especially at the expense of all their neighbors who have already endured such un-neighborly behavior. The property is currently classified as a “religious facility” with property tax exemptions. The property owner’s commercial business ventures have and will always be at the expense of the neighbors, while at the same time benefiting from property tax exemptions.
Lastly, in addition to the Findings of Fact, there are two additional considerations for the Council to consider based on Federal Statutes of the Telecommunications Act:
• Has the Applicant demonstrated there is a significant gap in coverage? Again, it would be beneficial and requested that an expert that is not paid by the applicant be consulted on this, especially since it is in a residential zone. Community members have not come forward expressing a gap in coverage and need to do something. • Is the proposed tower the Least Intrusive Means of addressing the coverage gap, if a coverage gap even exists?
Considering this is a single-family residential zone, it is appropriate to ask the applicant to study alternative sites, alternative designs, and alternative technologies. The applicant should show a meaningful comparison of various sites. This has not been accomplished, and the applicant has failed 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. Having to construct the structure 17 feet over the City’s heigh restriction for cell towers, proves it is not the proper location to Written Communications
Item 7.1 - Daley
Received 1/16/24
address a gap coverage as it should move closer to the location of the gap so that it will not require going over the heigh restriction.
We hope you will consider our objections to this proposed cell tower. We strongly believe the proposed location of this tower will have an adverse effect on the daily lives of everyone surrounding it if allowed to be constructed at this location. It is respectfully requested that the City Council deny Project # CUP22-0052, deny the proposed Resolution, and deny the conditional use permit for a new 45-foot freestanding wireless telecommunication facility located at 430 Second Avenue within the single-family residence zone.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lindsay Daley and several Daley family members, Del Mar Ct., Chula Vista
Written Communications
Item 7.1 - Daley
Received 1/16/24