telecommunications consulting firm, to provide a third-party review of the Verizon application; and
WHEREAS, CTC performed a technical review and analysis of the project with respect to the applicant’s communications, engineering materials, and justification for the proposed project site; and the City received the final draft of CTC’s analysis on April 5, 2022 outlining the information that CTC examined and documenting their analysis and conclusions related to the application; and
WHEREAS, the final report, Review of Wireless Application, found that the communications equipment as proposed is consistent with the applicant’s goals for applications from a technical standpoint; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action on the Project on April 12, 2022, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing, reviewed written and oral staff reports, took testimony, and received into the record all pertinent documents related to the Conditional Use Permits, Major Design Review, and Major Variance applications for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City contracted with First Carbon Solutions, a qualified California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) consulting firm, to prepare the environmental analysis; and WHEREAS, the analysis concluded, based on the proposed design, location, and standard conditions of approval, that the project would be exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15303(c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, including evaluation of the project in light of CEQA Section 15300.2 Exceptions; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2022, at a duly noticed public hearing the Planning Commission voted 4-3 (Breznikar, Luks, and McKay voting no) to adopt Resolution 2022-05 approving Conditional Use Permit Application CUP 2016-07, Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP 2021-08, Design Review Application DR 2016-06, and Variance Application V 2017-01 based on findings required pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 20.20 and Chapter 20.28, and subject to appropriate conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2022, Camille and David Jones, Brad Drexler and Yen Trac (collectively referred to as “Appellants”) submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission action to approve the project (“Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing on the appeal, consistent with Land Use Code Section 20.28.085 at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference; and
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: City Council Resolution (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Resolution No. -2022
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the points of the Appeal submitted by the Appellants, and finds they are without merit, as detailed in the May 16, 2022 Staff Report to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Healdsburg as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution.
2. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials from both the Planning Commission public hearings and hereby incorporates the evidence and findings stated in Planning Commission Resolution 2022-05 herein as a basis for the adoption of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Healdsburg hereby denies Appeal AP 2022-01 based on the following:
1. CTC Report shows that there are at least 2 alternatives to the current proposed Verizon faux-tree tower.
Finding: The CTC Report does not identify specific alternatives to the proposed tower project other than stating that the equivalent of at least five (5) small cell sites would be required to provide coverage to an area equivalent to the macro site proposed. The study also examined five (5) existing wireless site locations for co-location and found that none of those existing sites were suitable for addressing the identified coverage gap.
This appeal point also goes on to distinguish between technical feasibility and commercial viability. However, in order to locate a telecommunications facility an applicant needs both a technically feasible location to address the coverage needs and a property owner willing to allow the facility on their property. The proposed location meets the technical requirements in terms of providing coverage to an identified area with a gap in coverage as shown by the applicant and verified in the third-party technical review; the site is zoned to allow such a facility subject to a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review; and there is a willing property owner in the form of the City of Healdsburg as evidenced by the approved land lease.
Pursuant to Healdsburg Municipal Code (HMC) section 20.20.080(K), the applicant has indicated that no other location is technically feasible. Contrary to Appellants contention, the CTC Report does not identify any alternative sites that are technically feasible and thus there is no evidence in the record to support that there is another location that is indeed technically feasible.
2. A 40-foot antenna would provide the same cellular coverage as the proposed 76-foot faux-tree tower.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: City Council Resolution (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Resolution No. -2022
Finding: The 76-foot height of the proposed facility is required to accommodate the antenna radiation center at 60 feet which would result in the antenna height extending to approximately 65 feet in height and an additional 10 feet to allow for the faux-tree elements in order to provide for the most natural appearance and to allow the facility to blend into the surrounding environment. The proposed overall height is well below the maximum allowed height of 100 feet provided in the HMC.
The proposed antenna height has three purposes 1) providing coverage; 2) complying with the FCC’s guidelines for RF exposure; and 3) allowing sufficient height for a collocated facility. As noted in the CTC Report there is a difference in coverage between antenna radiation centers of 60, 50, and 40 feet, though in general the difference is relatively small for in-building coverage, resulting in a loss of approximately one-tenth of a square mile for every 10 feet of reduced antenna height. In an area without coverage every increment of improved coverage, regardless of how small, is important. The coverage impacts at successively lower heights are greater for in-vehicle coverage and outdoor coverage. In conclusion CTC found: “Based on the coverage analysis findings and vertical clearances required to address RF exposure guidelines, we recommend that radiation center be installed at an elevation of 60 feet or greater in order to accommodate a second wireless carrier on the structure.” Thus, Appellants contention that a 40- foot antenna would provide “virtually the same” coverage is not accurate based on the recommendations from CTC nor is it consistent with the proposed design of the facility.
Additionally, there is no evidence that a lower height would be “far less noticeable” as there was no analysis of such a height. Moreover, the Healdsburg Municipal Code allows for heights much greater than 40 feet. Thus, the height of the facility is consistent with the HMC and is intended to satisfy coverage needs, complying with the FCC’s guidelines for RF exposure and allowing sufficient height for a collocated facility.
3. We request that the Council consider a water tower design.
Finding: Section 20.20.080(J)(2) of the HMC requires that: “Telecommunication towers taller than 35 feet shall be monopoles or guyed/lattice towers except where satisfactory evidence is submitted to the planning and building director or planning commission, as appropriate, that a self-supporting tower is required to provide the height and/or capacity necessary for the proposed telecommunication use to minimize the need for screening from adjacent properties, or to reduce the potential for bird strikes.” The applicant’s proposed monopole design with faux-tree elements is consistent with this requirement. As outlined further below in this staff report, all the required findings can be made in support of the project as currently designed.
4. Co-location at the proposed Verizon tower is not in the public interest.
Finding: This appeal point has not stated grounds related to the findings or conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission and instead states the opinion that co-location at the proposed telecommunication facility is not in the public interest, as such no response is
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: City Council Resolution (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Resolution No. -2022
possible or considered required. The lease approved by the City Council on May 17, 2021 provides for the ability to collocate a second carrier on the facility as shown in the project plans (Exhibit A of the April 12, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report).
Moreover, HMC 20.20.080(M)(2) requires that all towers and necessary appurtenances shall be shared by site users whenever possible. Co-location is in the public interest in that it limits the number of facilities necessary for multiple providers to provide coverage in areas where there are gaps in coverage. Designing a facility to accommodate co-location in a manner that maintains the necessary vertical clearance to address RF exposure guidelines is in the interest of public safety for those working in close proximity of the cellular facility or passing by the facility. Additionally, although the Appellant states to the contrary, a carrier that intends to co-locate on an approved tower facility would be required to register with the City and would be subject to applicable review pursuant to HMC 20.20.080 (D) and (F) and in accordance with applicable federal and state law.
5. Hearing should be scheduled for the second half of June 2022.
Finding: This appeal point has not stated grounds related to the findings or conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission and instead requests a later hearing date for the appeal, as such no response is possible or considered required. The scheduling of the Appeal hearing was not considered in Staff’s analysis of the project, was not included in the project’s conditions of approval, and was not included in the Planning Commission’s findings in approving the proposed project. Section 2.36.030(B) of the Healdsburg Municipal Code states that: “If an appeal is requested of a body which conducts regularly scheduled meetings, the appeal shall be considered no later than the second regular meeting which follows the request for appeal and which allows sufficient time for the giving of notice as required by HMC 2.36.080, unless such time limits are extended by the mutual consent of the City and affected persons.” In this case May 16, 2022, absent mutual consent, is the latest date at which the appeal could be considered.
Moreover, the City has diligently responded to the requests for public records under the Public Records Act. The City has provided a number of documents to the Appellants, however, due to the voluminous request, the City has been producing the records on a rolling basis. The City provided the full set of non-privileged records responsive to the requests related to this project on May 4 and May 5, 2022.
6. Neither the public nor COH have been responsible for delays in getting this project approved.
Finding: This appeal point has not stated grounds related to the findings or conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission and as such no response is possible or considered required. Delays in approving the proposed project were not considered in Staff’s analysis of the
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: City Council Resolution (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Resolution No. -2022
project, were not included in the project’s conditions of approval, and were not included in the Planning Commission’s findings in approving the proposed project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council upholds the Planning Commission action as reflected in Planning Commission Resolution 2022-05, and finds the project would be exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15303(c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; and approves Conditional Use Permit Application CUP 2016-07, Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP 2021-08, Design Review Application DR 2016-06, and Variance Application V 2017-01 for the construction and operation of a 76-foot-tall cellular tower and supporting facilities, located at 923 South Fitch Mountain Road based on the following findings:
FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Telecommunication Facility)
1. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use is in accord with the Healdsburg General Plan, objectives of the Land Use Code and purposes of the district in which the site is located.
The project is consistent with the following General Plan Goals:
GOAL S-F: Adequate City emergency procedures in the event of natural or man-made disasters.
Policy S-F-1: The City shall ensure that adequate emergency procedures are in place to respond to and recover from man-made and natural disasters.
GOAL NR-C: Preservation and enhancement of Healdsburg’s natural setting.
Policy NR-C-3: Development shall be allowed only in a manner that protects important views and landmarks such as Fitch Mountain, Russian River, and the foothills to the north, west and east of the city.
Policy NR-C-5: Major scenic ridgelines designated on General Plan Figure 8 and highly visible hillsides shall be protected from visually obtrusive development.
Policy NR-C-6: Protection of distinctive natural vegetation such as oak woodlands, riparian corridors, and mixed evergreen forest is encouraged.
Policy NR-C-7: The viewshed along scenic highways, roads and streets shall be protected and enhanced.
The project will provide cellular phone service to a large area around the site where current coverage is lacking. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the project and finds that the project will significantly aid in emergency response during a natural disaster such as a wildfire or earthquake. The project has been designed to minimize visual impacts and blend into the surrounding area and will not impact important views, landmarks, scenic ridgelines, or views from designated scenic roads (South Fitch Mountain Road).
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: City Council Resolution (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Resolution No. -2022
The proposed location and operation of the conditional use is in accordance with the Healdsburg General Plan as it is sited on a parcel that has already been developed for utilities, as evidenced by the existing water tanks in Tayman Park. Verizon’s facility will provide public benefit in the form of enhanced wireless communication coverage to the City and surrounding residences.
The proposed facility is located in the P (Public) zone, which is a district created in the City’s Land Use Code for “orderly establishment of public and quasi‐public facilities…” (§20.08.210). Verizon’s facility will provide great public benefit in the form of enhanced wireless communication coverage. This site will allow current and future Verizon Wireless customers to have access to wireless services in the areas shown on the Coverage Plots included in this application. Additionally, this site will serve as a backup to the existing landline service in the area and will provide improved wireless communication, which is essential to first responders, community safety, local businesses and area residents.
2. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed facility is located in the P (Public) zone, which is a district created in the City’s Land Use Code for “orderly establishment of public and quasi-public facilities…” (§20.08.210). The proposed Verizon tower will provide vital telecommunications services to the general community. Furthermore, all design and aesthetic elements have been incorporated, with the input of Healdsburg Planning staff, so that the facility may blend into the existing treescape in the park. The proposed facility complies with all development standards for telecommunications facilities as well as for the zoning district. The Radio Frequency (RF) Study prepared for the project indicates that the proposed facility would be in compliance with the FCC Radio Frequency rules.
3. The proposed conditional use will comply applicable provisions of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
As discussed above, the proposed conditional use will comply with the applicable provisions of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
The project is consistent with the following General Plan Goals:
GOAL S-F: Adequate City emergency procedures in the event of natural or man-made disasters.
Policy S-F-1: The City shall ensure that adequate emergency procedures are in place to respond to and recover from man-made and natural disasters.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: City Council Resolution (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Resolution No. -2022
GOAL NR-C: Preservation and enhancement of Healdsburg’s natural setting.
Policy NR-C-3: Development shall be allowed only in a manner that protects important views and landmarks such as Fitch Mountain, Russian River, and the foothills to the north, west and east of the city.
Policy NR-C-5: Major scenic ridgelines designated on General Plan Figure 8 and highly visible hillsides shall be protected from visually obtrusive development.
Policy NR-C-6: Protection of distinctive natural vegetation such as oak woodlands, riparian corridors, and mixed evergreen forest is encouraged.
Policy NR-C-7: The viewshed along scenic highways, roads and streets shall be protected and enhanced.
Furthermore, the project substantially complies with the Land Use Code, except for the variance for a reduced setback from 100-feet to approximately 15-feet.
FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Over-Height Fence) Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.165, the Planning Commission made the following findings in approving the conditional use permit application:
1. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use is in accord with the Healdsburg General Plan, objectives of the Land Use Code and purposes of the district in which the site is located.
The General Plan does not include any policies on fence installation. Land Use Code Section
20.16.055 provides a mechanism to allow fences to exceed 6-feet in height. This section provides for the allowance of over-height fences with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
The fence will be consistent with the Citywide Design Guidelines in that the fence will not completely block views to the site as viewed from the street; it does not utilize an exaggerated or fortressing design; does not use chain-link; and the fence will be made of durable materials (redwood) which will be maintained on a regular basis to ensure security of the site. The fence will be similar to other fences used for securing telecommunication facilities in California.
2. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed fencing will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood because the over-height fence would be located on a parcel surrounded by large expanses of the Tayman Park Golf Course and is located approximately 390-feet from the nearest residential uses on
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: City Council Resolution (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Resolution No. -2022
Greens Drive. The gate of the fence will be locked and will only allow entry to authorized maintenance personnel. The fence will not create any line-of-sight issues with pedestrians and vehicles due to its isolated location. The fence will also serve to screen the equipment from view of the golfers playing on the course.
3. The proposed conditional use will comply applicable provisions of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
The proposed fencing does not conflict with any other applicable provisions of the Land Use Code and the proposed fence is consistent with the Citywide Design Guidelines.
FINDINGS FOR DESIGN REVIEW
Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.125, the Planning Commission made the following findings in approving a conditional use permit application:
1. The proposed development or use is consistent with all applicable policies and requirements of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
The proposed facility was designed in consultation with City of Healdsburg staff to meet all criteria detailed in the City’s wireless code, §20.20.080 Telecommunication Facilities.
Setbacks, stealthing, and height limits were considered when designing the facility. The proposed facility will be 76-feet tall with the antennas mounted at a 60-foot centerline on the pole to ensure optimal signal coverage for the intended service area. The additional height of the structure is to provide for a more lifelike “hat” to sit atop the tower, better resembling the top of a broadleaf tree and similar to those of trees surrounding the facility. The proposed facility height complies with the City’s development standards and 100-foot limit for wireless facilities and has been designed at its minimum functional height.
2. The proposed design of the development or use, and all appurtenant structures, is consistent with the policies set forth in the Design Review Manual, as may be amended from time to time.
Verizon Wireless has designed the facility to minimize visual impacts and blend into the surrounding area. The proposed design promotes the City’s goals of preserving natural beauty while promoting attractive development of land. Verizon has carefully chosen a location for a new facility that will result in minimal visual impact to the residents of Healdsburg and greater Sonoma County. The facility includes a stealth design beneath arboreal camouflage to blend with the surrounding natural vegetation. Verizon will install leaf socks on all proposed panel antennas and RRH units. All antennas and pole mounted equipment will be painted flat green, while the monopole itself will be painted flat brown, and all paint will be non‐reflective. The facility has been designed to minimize visibility
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: City Council Resolution (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Resolution No. -2022
from public view and to blend into the surrounding vegetation. Support cables will be installed underground and the equipment will be effectively screened from public view by existing trees nearby.
3. The proposed development or use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning district in which it is located.
The proposed facility is located in the P (Public) zone, which is a district created in the City’s Land Use Code for “orderly establishment of public and quasi‐public facilities…” (§20.08.210). Verizon’s facility will provide great public benefit in the form of enhanced wireless communication coverage. This site will allow current and future Verizon Wireless customers to have access to wireless services in the areas shown on the Coverage Plots included in this application. Additionally, this site will serve as a backup to the existing landline service in the area and will provide improved wireless communication, which is essential to first responders, community safety, local businesses and area residents.
4. The proposed development or use is consistent with any conditions imposed by the Planning Commission or City Council with respect to any matter related to the purpose of designreview.
There are no previous conditions of approval for a similar use on this site. Staff has included in the resolution a list of recommended conditions of approval to be approved or revised by the Planning Commission to ensure the project is consistent with Federal, State, and Local regulations.
5. For proposed developments or uses in the Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan area, the design of the development or use, and all appurtenant structures, is consistent with the policies set forth in Chapter IV, “Building Design Framework,” of the Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan dated November 2013 and adopted by the Healdsburg City Council on January 21, 2014, as may be amended from time to time. (Ord. 1138 § 3, 2014.) Not applicable. The proposed facility is not located within the Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan area.
FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE
Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.230, the Planning Commission made the following findings in approving a variance application:
1. Special circumstances exist with respect to the property in question, including, but not limited to size, shape, topography or surroundings.
Staff finds that there are special circumstances with respect to the property in question. The primary circumstances are that the parcel is uniquely shaped and densely vegetated. The
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: City Council Resolution (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Resolution No. -2022
parcel is round, and varies over 100-feet in elevation across its 3.4 acres. The majority of the parcel is covered by deciduous trees. There are City-owned facilities in the center of the parcel which are surrounded by trees. The southeastern portion of the parcel contains one abandoned water tank and one new water tank, along with an existing dirt access road. The location of the proposed facility will be in this area of the parcel, at the location of the abandoned water tank. Since this area has been developed with City facilities, locating the tower in this location will have the least impact on the site since it will require less grading and allow preservation of existing trees.
2. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Land Use Code.
Staff finds that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the LUC. The proposed facility has been designed to occupy developed areas of the parcel and limit impacts related to ground disturbance and tree removal. Complying with the setback standard would require moving the facility further to the west, uphill into an area containing many mature trees. Strict adherence to the setback would require invasive grading and tree removal to construct the facility, necessitating ground and habitat disturbance. The proposed location would minimize environmental disturbance in the construction of new facilities, and locate the facility in a previously developed area.
3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district.
Staff also finds that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. As noted, the parcel is zoned Public (P) and is one of several similarly zoned parcels in the area. However, the subject parcel contains significantly more vegetation and much steeper topography than similarly zoned parcels nearby. Therefore, staff finds that the special circumstances of the site warrant support of the facility at its proposed location by limiting the amount of environmental disturbance.
4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same zoning district.
Staff finds that the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same zoning district. As noted, the applicant worked in conjunction with City staff to select a location for the facility which minimizes ground and environmental disturbance, but also complies with City
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: City Council Resolution (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Resolution No. -2022
regulations. The proposed location for the facility utilizes a site where development has occurred to the extent possible. The granting of the variance for the facility from the 100-foot setback requirement does not constitute a special privilege as the parcel is unique and the proposed location has already been developed as the site of a City utility. Furthermore, the combination of the zoning of the site, the locational criteria required by the Land Use Code, site constraints, and the cellular signal coverage requirements of the carrier significantly restricts where such a facility could be located. There is no grant of special privilege due to the fact that no other site within the City had eligible zoning, met the locational criteria, allowed for impact mitigation, and did not result in conflicts with adjacent residential uses.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of May 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: ( )
NOES: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSENT: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: ( )
SO ORDERED ATTEST
________________________________ _________________________________ Osvaldo Jimenez, Mayor Raina Allan, City Clerk
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: City Council Resolution (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: Appeal Application AP 2022-01 (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: Appeal Application AP 2022-01 (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: Appeal Application AP 2022-01 (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: Appeal Application AP 2022-01 (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: Appeal Application AP 2022-01 (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: Appeal Application AP 2022-01 (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: Appeal Application AP 2022-01 (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: Appeal Application AP 2022-01 (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: Appeal Application AP 2022-01 (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: Appeal Application AP 2022-01 (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: Appeal Application AP 2022-01 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC RESOLUTION NO. 2022-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HEALDSBURG APPROVING MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CUP 2016-07, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 2021-08,
MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR 2016-06, AND MAJOR VARIANCE V
2017-01 FOR A MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
LOCATED AT 923 SOUTH FITCH MOUNTAIN ROAD
WHEREAS, applications including a Major Conditional Use Permit, Minor Conditional Use Permit, Major Design Review, and a Major Variance have been received from GTE Mobilenet, dba as Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) to allow for the construction and operation of a 76-foot-tall cellular tower and supporting facilities, located at 923 South Fitch Mountain Road (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, at a properly noticed public hearing on December 8, 2020, after reviewing written and oral staff reports, taking testimony, and receiving into the record all pertinent documents related to the Project, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to a future hearing in order for staff to address issues raised by the Commission and to provide additional information on the following:
• The overall height of the tower structure and the potential for reducing the height. • The possibility of providing additional measures to maximize stealthing of the facility.
• A request of the applicant to provide additional photo-simulations of the facility from Greens Drive.
• A request that staff provide clarification on the potential for increasing the height of the tower at the request of the applicant or future carrier; and WHEREAS, staff worked with the applicant to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission and incorporated the additional information requested by the Commission in the written staff report and supporting documents; and
WHEREAS, at a properly noticed public hearing on December 14, 2021, after reviewing written and oral staff reports, taking testimony, and receiving into the record all pertinent documents related to the Project, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to a future hearing to allow for a third-party technical review of the proposed project to be prepared; and WHEREAS, as requested by the Planning Commission, the City retained the engineering services of Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC), a privately held, independent telecommunications consulting firm, to provide a third-party review of the Verizon application; and
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: PC Resolution 2022-05 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 2 of 14
WHEREAS, CTC performed a technical review and analysis of the project with respect to the applicant’s communications, engineering materials, and justification for the proposed project site; and the City received the final draft of CTC’s analysis on April 5, 2022 outlining the information that CTC examined and documenting their analysis and conclusions related to the application; and
WHEREAS, the final report, Review of Wireless Application, found that the communications equipment as proposed is consistent with the applicant’s goals for applications from a technical standpoint; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2022, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing, reviewed written and oral staff reports, took testimony, and received into the record all pertinent documents related to the Conditional Use Permits, Major Design Review, and Major Variance applications for the Project; and
WHEREAS, during the application process for the project, the City contracted with First Carbon Solutions, a qualified California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) consulting firm, to prepare the environmental analysis; and
WHEREAS, the analysis concluded, based on the proposed design, location, and standard conditions of approval, that the project would be exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15303(c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, including evaluation of the project in light of CEQA Section 15300.2 Exceptions; and WHEREAS, the Class 3 Exemption (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) consists of the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made to the exterior of the structure; and
WHEREAS, for a project to qualify under this exemption, any structure must be less than 2,500 square feet in floor area, meet the development standards for the type of structure defined in the local code, and not involve significant amounts of hazardous materials; and WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the installation of nine Andrew Model SBNHH-1D65B directional panel antennas on a new 76-foot-tall faux tree on land that is designated as Public/Quasi Public. The proposed facility height complies with the City’s development standards and 100-foot height limit for wireless facilities. All new project construction would occur within the 30-foot by 50-foot lease area, approximately 1,500 square feet, and would not exceed 2,500 square feet in floor area. The proposed project would not involve the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, as it would consist of standard cell tower communications panels that are regulated by federal and State agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); and
WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission considered all public documents, including the staff report and public comments received regarding the Conditional
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: PC Resolution 2022-05 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 3 of 14
Use Permits, Design Review, and Variance requests before making its decision on the subject applications.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Healdsburg Planning Commission hereby finds that the Project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15303(c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, including evaluation of the project in light of CEQA Section 15300.2 Exceptions as described below.
a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located—a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies.
Analysis
The project site is located in a predominantly urbanized setting and is generally bound by roadways and existing development. The project site does not occur on lists of known hazardous materials contamination or storage and has not been designated, precisely mapped, or officially adopted as an area of critical concern. Therefore, there is no evidence that the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies.
b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
Analysis
The proposed project involves the installation of cellular communication panels that would have no impacts beyond the footprint of the tower itself. No cumulatively considerable effects would occur. Therefore, there is no evidence cumulative impacts of successive projects of the same type in the same place. c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
Analysis
The site is not subject to any unusual circumstances that could lead to a significant effect. The tower would be located on a site that was previously developed with water tanks. The project involves the installation of nine Andrew Model SBNHH-1D65B directional panel antennas on a new 76-foot-tall faux tree on land that is designated as Public/Quasi Public. Thus, there is no evidence of any unusual circumstances.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: PC Resolution 2022-05 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 4 of 14
d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a State Scenic Highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted Negative Declaration or certified EIR.
Analysis
According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System for Sonoma County, the proposed project is not located within the viewshed of a scenic highway. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is State Route 116 (located approximately 19 miles south of the project site). Distance to the project site precludes impacts to scenic resources within a designated State Scenic Highway as such, there is no evidence that the Project will result in damage to scenic resources within a highway officially designated as a State Scenic Highway. e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
Analysis
According to a records search using the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database, the project site is not identified as a hazardous materials site.1 Additionally, no such site is located adjacent to the project site or within the general project area. Therefore, no impacts associated with hazardous materials sites would occur.
f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Analysis
The project site is located in a predominantly developed setting and currently contains sparse vegetation and trees, although it is adjacent to a more heavily wooded portion of the park. There are no known historical resources on-site. Review of the project site shows that the modern ground surface has been previously disturbed because of prior development activity, such as the nearby golf course and the construction of water tanks. Review of the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) files, cultural resources survey at the site, public involvement, and Local Government and OHP consultation as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, conducted by the applicant and reviewed by the City of Healdsburg, determined no impacts would occur to historical resources; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Healdsburg Planning Commission makes the following findings required to approve Conditional Use Permit Application CUP 2016-07, Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP 2021-08, Design Review Application DR 2016-06, and Variance Application V 2017-01 as follows:
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: PC Resolution 2022-05 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 5 of 14
Major Conditional Use Permit Findings – Telecommunication Facility (CUP 2016-07):
Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.165, the Planning Commission is required to make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use permit application; staff has provided suggested findings below each italicized finding:
1. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use is in accord with the Healdsburg General Plan, objectives of the Land Use Code and purposes of the district in which the site is located.
The project is consistent with the following General Plan Goals:
GOAL S-F: Adequate City emergency procedures in the event of natural or man-made disasters.
Policy S-F-1: The City shall ensure that adequate emergency procedures are in place to respond to and recover from man-made and natural disasters.
GOAL NR-C: Preservation and enhancement of Healdsburg’s natural setting.
Policy NR-C-3: Development shall be allowed only in a manner that protects important views and landmarks such as Fitch Mountain, Russian River, and the foothills to the north, west and east of the city.
Policy NR-C-5: Major scenic ridgelines designated on General Plan Figure 8 and highly visible hillsides shall be protected from visually obtrusive development.
Policy NR-C-6: Protection of distinctive natural vegetation such as oak woodlands, riparian corridors, and mixed evergreen forest is encouraged.
Policy NR-C-7: The viewshed along scenic highways, roads and streets shall be protected and enhanced.
The project will provide cellular phone service to a large area around the site where current coverage is lacking. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the project and finds that the project will significantly aid in emergency response during a natural disaster such as a wildfire or earthquake. The project has been designed to minimize visual impacts and blend into the surrounding area and will not impact important views, landmarks, scenic ridgelines, or views from designated scenic roads (South Fitch Mountain Road).
The proposed location and operation of the conditional use is in accordance with the Healdsburg General Plan as it is sited on a parcel that has already been developed for utilities, as shown by the existing water tanks in Tayman Park. Verizon’s facility will provide public benefit in the form of enhanced wireless communication coverage to the City and surrounding residences.
The proposed facility is located in the P (Public) zone, which is a district created in the City’s Land Use Code for “orderly establishment of public and quasi‐public facilities…” (§20.08.210).
Verizon’s facility will provide great public benefit in the form of enhanced wireless communication coverage. This site will allow current and future Verizon Wireless customers to have access to wireless services in the areas shown on the Coverage Plots included in this application. Additionally, this site will serve as a backup to the existing landline service in the
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: PC Resolution 2022-05 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 6 of 14
area and will provide improved wireless communication, which is essential to first responders, community safety, local businesses and area residents.
2. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed facility is located in the P (Public) zone, which is a district created in the City’s Land Use Code for “orderly establishment of public and quasi-public facilities…” (§20.08.210). The proposed Verizon tower will provide vital telecommunications services to the general community. Furthermore, all design and aesthetic elements have been incorporated, with the input of Healdsburg Planning staff, so that the facility may blend into the existing treescape in the park. The proposed facility complies with all development standards for telecommunications facilities as well as for the zoning district. The Radio Frequency (RF) Study prepared for the project indicates that the proposed facility would be in compliance with the FCC Radio Frequency rules.
3. The proposed conditional use will comply applicable provisions of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
As discussed above, the proposed conditional use will comply with the applicable provisions of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
The project is consistent with the following General Plan Goals:
GOAL S-F: Adequate City emergency procedures in the event of natural or man-made disasters.
Policy S-F-1: The City shall ensure that adequate emergency procedures are in place to respond to and recover from man-made and natural disasters.
GOAL NR-C: Preservation and enhancement of Healdsburg’s natural setting.
Policy NR-C-3: Development shall be allowed only in a manner that protects important views and landmarks such as Fitch Mountain, Russian River, and the foothills to the north, west and east of the city.
Policy NR-C-5: Major scenic ridgelines designated on General Plan Figure 8 and highly visible hillsides shall be protected from visually obtrusive development.
Policy NR-C-6: Protection of distinctive natural vegetation such as oak woodlands, riparian corridors, and mixed evergreen forest is encouraged.
Policy NR-C-7: The viewshed along scenic highways, roads and streets shall be protected and enhanced.
Furthermore, the project substantially complies with the Land Use Code, except for the variance for a reduced setback from 100-feet to approximately 15-feet.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: PC Resolution 2022-05 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 7 of 14
Minor Conditional Use Permit Findings – Over-height Fence (CUP 2021-08):
Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.165, the Planning Commission is required to make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use permit application; staff has provided suggested findings below each italicized finding:
1. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use is in accord with the Healdsburg General Plan, objectives of the Land Use Code and purposes of the district in which the site is located.
The General Plan does not include any policies on fence installation. Land Use Code Section
20.16.055 provides a mechanism to allow fences to exceed 6-feet in height. This section provides for the allowance of over-height fences with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
The fence will be consistent with the Citywide Design Guidelines in that the fence will not completely block views to the site as viewed from the street; it does not utilize an exaggerated or fortressing design; does not use chain-link; and the fence will be made of durable materials (redwood) which will be maintained on a regular basis to ensure security of the site. The fence will be similar to other fences used for securing telecommunication facilities in California.
2. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed fencing will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood because the over-height fence would be located on a parcel surrounded by large expanses of the Tayman Park Golf Course and is located approximately 390-feet from the nearest residential uses on Greens Drive. The gate of the fence will be locked and will only allow entry to authorized maintenance personnel. The fence will not create any line-of-sight issues with pedestrians and vehicles due to its isolated location. The fence will also serve to screen the equipment from view of the golfers playing on the course.
3. The proposed conditional use will comply applicable provisions of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
The proposed fencing does not conflict with any other applicable provisions of the Land Use Code and the proposed fence is consistent with the Citywide Design Guidelines.
Major Design Review Findings (DR 2016-06):
Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.125, the Planning Commission is required to make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use permit application; staff has provided suggested findings below each italicized finding:
1. The proposed development or use is consistent with all applicable policies and requirements of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: PC Resolution 2022-05 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 8 of 14
The proposed facility was designed in consultation with City of Healdsburg staff to meet all criteria detailed in the City’s wireless code, §20.20.080 Telecommunication Facilities. Setbacks, stealthing, and height limits were considered when designing the facility. The proposed facility will be 76-feet tall with the antennas mounted at a 60-foot centerline on the pole to ensure optimal signal coverage for the intended service area. The additional height of the structure is to provide for a more lifelike “hat” to sit atop the tower, better resembling the top of a broadleaf tree and similar to those of trees surrounding the facility. The proposed facility height complies with the City’s development standards and 100-foot limit for wireless facilities and has been designed at its minimum functional height.
2. The proposed design of the development or use, and all appurtenant structures, is consistent with the policies set forth in the Design Review Manual, as may be amended from time to time.
Verizon Wireless has designed the facility to minimize visual impacts and blend into the surrounding area. The proposed design promotes the City’s goals of preserving natural beauty while promoting attractive development of land. Verizon has carefully chosen a location for a new facility that will result in minimal visual impact to the residents of Healdsburg and greater Sonoma County. The facility includes a stealth design beneath arboreal camouflage to blend with the surrounding natural vegetation. Verizon will install leaf socks on all proposed panel antennas and RRH units. All antennas and pole mounted equipment will be painted flat green, while the monopole itself will be painted flat brown, and all paint will be non‐reflective. The facility has been designed to minimize visibility from public view and to blend into the surrounding vegetation. Support cables will be installed underground and the equipment will be effectively screened from public view by existing trees nearby.
3. The proposed development or use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning district in which it is located.
The proposed facility is located in the P (Public) zone, which is a district created in the City’s Land Use Code for “orderly establishment of public and quasi‐public facilities…” (§20.08.210).
Verizon’s facility will provide great public benefit in the form of enhanced wireless communication coverage. This site will allow current and future Verizon Wireless customers to have access to wireless services in the areas shown on the Coverage Plots included in this application. Additionally, this site will serve as a backup to the existing landline service in the area and will provide improved wireless communication, which is essential to first responders, community safety, local businesses and area residents.
4. The proposed development or use is consistent with any conditions imposed by the Planning Commission or City Council with respect to any matter related to the purpose of designreview.
There are no previous conditions of approval for a similar use on this site. Staff has included in the resolution a list of recommended conditions of approval to be approved or revised by the Planning Commission to ensure the project is consistent with Federal, State, and Local regulations.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: PC Resolution 2022-05 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 9 of 14
5. For proposed developments or uses in the Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan area, the design of the development or use, and all appurtenant structures, is consistent with the policies set forth in Chapter IV, “Building Design Framework,” of the Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan dated November 2013 and adopted by the Healdsburg City Council on January 21, 2014, as may be amended from time to time. (Ord. 1138 § 3, 2014.) Not applicable. The proposed facility is not located within the Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan area.
Major Variance Findings (V 2017-01):
Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.230, the Planning Commission is required to make the following findings in order to approve a variance application. Staff has provided suggested findings below each of the four required findings for this request for a reduced setback from 100- feet to approximately 15-feet:
1. Special circumstances exist with respect to the property in question, including, but not limited to size, shape, topography or surroundings.
Staff finds that there are special circumstances with respect to the property in question. The primary circumstances are that the parcel is uniquely shaped and densely vegetated. The parcel is round, and varies over 100-feet in elevation across its 3.4 acres. The majority of the parcel is covered by deciduous trees. There are City-owned facilities in the center of the parcel which are surrounded by trees. The southeastern portion of the parcel contains one abandoned water tank and one new water tank, along with an existing dirt access road. The location of the proposed facility will be in this area of the parcel, at the location of the abandoned water tank. Since this area has been developed with City facilities, locating the tower in this location will have the least impact on the site since it will require less grading and allow preservation of existing trees.
2. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Land Use Code.
Staff finds that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the LUC.
The proposed facility has been designed to occupy developed areas of the parcel and limit impacts related to ground disturbance and tree removal. Complying with the setback standard would require moving the facility further to the west, uphill into an area containing many mature trees. Strict adherence to the setback would require invasive grading and tree removal to construct the facility, necessitating ground and habitat disturbance. The proposed location would minimize environmental disturbance in the construction of new facilities, and locate the facility in a previously developed area.
3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: PC Resolution 2022-05 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 10 of 14
Staff also finds that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. As noted, the parcel is zoned Public (P) and is one of several similarly zoned parcels in the area. However, the subject parcel contains significantly more vegetation and much steeper topography than similarly zoned parcels nearby. Therefore, staff finds that the special circumstances of the site warrant support of the facility at its proposed location by limiting the amount of environmental disturbance.
4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same zoning district.
Staff finds that the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same zoning district. As noted, the applicant worked in conjunction with City staff to select a location for the facility which minimizes ground and environmental disturbance, but also complies with City regulations.
The proposed location for the facility utilizes a site where development has occurred to the extent possible. The granting of the variance for the facility from the 100-foot setback requirement does not constitute a special privilege as the parcel is unique and the proposed location has already been developed as the site of a City utility. Furthermore, the combination of the zoning of the site, the locational criteria required by the Land Use Code, site constraints, and the cellular signal coverage requirements of the carrier significantly restricts where such a facility could be located. There is no grant of special privilege due to the fact that no other site within the City had eligible zoning, met the locational criteria, allowed for impact mitigation, and did not result in conflicts with adjacent residential uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Healdsburg Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit Application CUP 2016-07, Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP 2021-08, Design Review Application DR 2016-06, and Variance Application V 2017-01 based upon the facts and findings above and subject to the Conditions of Approval, as shown in Exhibit A:
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED by the Healdsburg Planning Commission on the 12th day of April 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Approved: Attest:
____________________________ ____________________________ Jerry Eddinger, Chair Scott M. Duiven, Secretary
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: PC Resolution 2022-05 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 11 of 14
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval
Major Conditional Use Permit Application CUP 2016-07
Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP 2021-08
Major Design Review Application DR 2016-06
Major Variance Application V 2017-01
923 South Fitch Mountain Road
April 12, 2022
Planning and Building Department
1. Approval is granted for the construction and operation of a 76-foot-high cellular tower and supporting facilities. The project shall occur substantially in accordance with the Exhibit A - Plan Set dated August 13, 2021 except as conditioned or modified herein. As detailed in the project description and Exhibit A, the project shall include the following elements for concealment of the facility and to minimize visual impacts. These elements shall also be included for any repairs or future modifications to the facility:
• An 8-foot high redwood plank fence completely surrounding the tower and associated equipment;
• The 8-foot high antennas shall be concealed within “stealth socks” intended to blend in with the faux tree branches;
• The faux tree branches shall extend no less than 6-feet from the tower pole, just past the antenna support arms. The lower branches shall be 10-feet in length to give the structure a more “tree-like” configuration;
• The faux tree shall include 2.8 branches per foot to provide the most natural looking tree and the most stealthing capabilities
2. Any modifications to the approved plans must receive prior approval of the City of Healdsburg. Minor modifications may be approved by the Community Development Director; major modifications require Planning Commission approval.
3. Major Design Review Permit No. DR 2016-06 shall lapse and become void one year following the date on which the Design Review became effective, unless prior to the expiration of one year a building permit is issued for the project.
4. Variance Application V 2017-01 shall lapse and become null and void when the building permit issued authorizing occupancy of the site or structure which was the subject of the variance application lapses or expires.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: PC Resolution 2022-05 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 12 of 14
5. The plans submitted for building permits shall include details on the location, type, and specifications of the back-up power generator required by the California Public Utilities Commission. The generator is required to be installed within 12 months from the date of building permit issuance for the tower.
6. The use permit issued for the telecommunications facility must be renewed every 10-years through the approval process as specified at HMC 20.28.105.
7. The project shall be constructed, operated, and maintained pursuant the standards of HMC Section 20.20.080.
8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, all identified Tree Protection Plan measures shall be noted on the grading plan and adhered to in order to protect the large Heritage trees to be retained as shown on the site plan (Exhibit A). If any Heritage tree is proposed for removal during the development of the site, a Heritage tree removal permit application shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the removal of tree.
9. All City Department comments on the project are required to be met to the Department’s satisfaction.
10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, submit a construction management plan to the satisfaction of the Building Official.
Fire Department
1. Hazard Identification Signs: Visible hazard identification signs as specified in NFPA 704 for the specific material contained shall be placed on stationary containers and above-ground tanks an at entrances to locations where hazardous materials are store, dispensed, used or handled in quantities requiring a permit and at specific entrances and locations designated by the Fire Code Official. Install NFPA Diamond for diesel fuel on the outside gate.
2. Key Box: A department approved key box shall be installed at a location agreeable to the Fire Department. Box shall contain those keys necessary to gain access and control any fire protection systems or hazardous materials. Applicant shall pay for the purchase price of said box. CFC Section 506, City Ordinance 1157 Section 506.1. Required at gate at facility site.
3. Hazardous Materials Permit: Prior to final inspections, a hazardous material business plan permit shall be obtained from the Fire Department. Access the following link to create a California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) account: http://cers.calepa.ca.gov/ and complete a hazardous materials business plan, per City of Healdsburg City Code sec. 7-16.
4. Defensible Space: Buildings and structures located within a Moderate or High Fire Severity Zone as identified by the Healdsburg General Plan shall maintain a defensible space as outlined in Government Code 51175-51189, the Fire Department’s “Construction and
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: PC Resolution 2022-05 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 13 of 14
Defensible Space Standard within Designated Fire Severity Zones” (http://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/278/Wildland-Urban-Interface) document. CFC 4907.1 Public Works Department
Public Works Engineering has reviewed the above entitlement applications and plan set and requires the following conditions of approval to be addressed at submittal of the subsequent building permit:
1. The Applicant is required to provide construction plans prepared by a civil engineer licensed in the State of California, that meet the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. The Applicant is required to provide internally consistent pad grades with appropriate grading and railing. There are different pad elevations on different elevation drawings, with the potential for a 42” drop off at the edge of the pad.
3. The Applicant is required to locate the existing City and golf course related water mains in the vicinity of the proposed access road as part of the final design. Construction shall include locating, protecting, and/or relocating existing water and other City facilities.
4. The Applicant is required to enter into a lease agreement with the golf course leasing operator/City of Healdsburg regarding use of the property where the access road and facilities are proposed on the property. Verizon is requesting that the City allow dedication of wireless utility easements on City property. City Council approval is required to allow easements over City property. This process shall be completed in conjunction with the lease agreement, under the direction of the City Manager’s Office. Public Works shall review and approve the legal descriptions, deeds, and mapping documents for the proposed easements.
5. If the project is creating or replacing 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area, the project is required to comply with Low Impact Development (LID) requirements.
6. Under the provisions of Section 1701.5, Item No. 13 of the 1998 California Building Code, the Applicant is required to provide inspection of the private drainage improvements by the project engineer to verify that all work is in compliance with site plan of the approved project plans. The project engineer shall provide a letter of review evidencing these inspections.
7. In order to document any modification of public facilities (e.g., extension of the water main, revised utilities, reconstructed frontage improvements, etc.), the Applicant is required to provide the City with mylar “Record Drawings”, ACAD files, and pdf’s of the pertinent sheets of the project plans.
8. The Applicant is advised that City Ordinance prohibits grading between October 1st and April 30th for construction projects on hillsides with slopes 10% or steeper unless the project is granted an exception by the City Engineer in accordance with Section 17.36.030. An exception requires the preparation, review, approval, and implementation of a Monitoring Plan. The site has unknown grades.
9. The Applicant is advised that City Ordinance requires an erosion control plan prepared by a QSD and approved by the City Engineer for all soil disturbing activities that do not have ground cover restored prior to October 1st.
10. The applicant is responsible for repairing, and/or removing and replacing to City or golf
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: PC Resolution 2022-05 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 14 of 14
facility standards, all driveways, parking areas, golf facilities and related infrastructure, and anything else on the project sites damaged by the contractor as a result of the construction of this project. City inspectors will perform pre and post project site reviews, including photo documentation, and will determine the required repairs in conjunction with the facility operator.
11. The Applicant is advised that prior to working within the Public Right of Way, City owned property, or public easement area, the project contractor is required to secure a City Encroachment Permit. Applications may be obtained at
www.cityofhealdsburg.org/index.aspx?page=188 or at this office. This project will construct work on City owned property.
Electric Department
1. The City of Healdsburg will be the electric service provider for this site. The electric service will originate near the Golf Course’s existing well enclosure with all new electric facilities to be underground.
2. The proposed service point must provide twenty-four (24) hour access to City personnel.
This will require locating the electric service point and switch gear outside of the fenced area.
3. All work must be done in accordance with the City's Electric Department requirements. The City Electric Department will work with the contractor throughout the project to determine locations of electrical equipment. The final design of the service and estimation of service fees will be developed during the building permit process.
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: PC Resolution 2022-05 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2022 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers
This meeting was held in a hybrid format.
1. ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Brunner, Breznikar, Eddinger, Gerlach, Hunt, Luks, McKay Commissioners absent: None
City Staff present: Community Development Director Scott Duiven, Assistant Planner Jeff Fisher, City Attorney’s Office Denise Bazzano
2. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
A. On a motion by Commissioner Luks, seconded by Commissioner Brunner, the Commission voted 7-0 to approve the April 12, 2022 agenda.
B. On a motion by Commissioner Brunner, seconded by Commissioner Breznikar, the Commission voted 7-0 to approve the February 23, 2022 minutes.
C. Acceptance of Communications and Correspondence
• Growth Management Allocation Annual Report
• General Plan Annual Report
• Housing Element Annual Progress Report
• Communications from Trac, Wilson, and Drexler regarding item 4A.
D. Declarations of Conflicts of Interest: None
E. Disclosures of Ex Parte Communications: None
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Item
Description: CUP 2016-07; CUP 2021-08; DR 2016-06; V 2017-01 - Verizon Telecommunications Facility
Project
Description: Major Conditional Use Permit, Minor Conditional Use Permit; Major Design Review and Major Variance applications for a new unmanned telecommunications facility on a city-owned parcel, adjacent to Tayman Park and the Healdsburg Golf Club. The project consists of a 76-foot-tall monopole tower supporting 9 wireless antenna panels, one microwave dish, and related equipment. The monopole would be designed to resemble a faux broadleaf tree, with 8-foot to 14-foot-long faux branches and leaf socks covering the antenna panels and dish. The pole would be painted brown.
Location: 923 S. Fitch Mountain Road, Healdsburg, CA APN: 002-361-003 Applicant: GTE Mobilnet dba as Verizon Wireless c/o Complete Wireless Consulting Environmental
Determination: The project is categorically exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15303(c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; and Section 15300.2 Exceptions. The Notice of Exemption can be viewed upon request of the City Planning Department at 431-3346.
Assistant Planner Jeff Fisher presented the staff report followed by an applicant presentation provided by Maria Kim.
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: PC Meeting Minutes 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Minutes 4/12/2022 2 of 4
Director Duiven confirmed for Commissioner Luks that CTC the third party reviewer was available via Zoom to answer questions.
Commissioner Luks asked about the differences in radiation levels between the 50- and 60-foot heights.
The consultant clarified that the lower the antenna is the greater the exposure. He did not provide analysis for the 50-foot height because the application is for the 60 foot height with the possibility of an as yet to be proposed co-location at 50 feet. He further clarified that in order to provide for a second carrier the 60-foot primary location was recommended to allow a safe co-location at 50 feet.
Commissioner McKay asked how the provision of 5 wireless bands would affect the quality of service throughout the City since it was noted in the report that the inability to provide 5 bands precluded using small cell sites.
Pablo Sanchez the applicant’s RF consultant explained that it would actually take 17 small cell sites to provide the same coverage as the proposed macro site. He further explained that existing small cell sites were not adequate for Verizon co-location.
Paul Albritton outside council for Verizon, explained the progression of Verizon’s frequency technology. He stated that the amount of equipment required would not be supported on a telephone or light pole.
Chair Eddinger opened the public input portion of the hearing.
Maryanne Berry spoke in favor of the tower stating that when the Verizon tower in Santa Rosa was inoperable during the fires she and her family did not have coverage in Healdsburg. She stated that the additional tower is vital to her family and work.
David Jones asked to have cooperation in protecting the beauty of Healdsburg. He opined that due diligence was not given in investigating alternatives. He asked for more due diligence regarding the safety of the installation.
Brad Drexler expressed his appreciation for the process. He presented pictures of a tower and stated that they are a sore thumb. He opined that the report was not a 3rd party independent review, but rather a peer review. He stated that this should be a shorter installation opining that that is supported by the review and that a water tower would be more pleasing.
Camille Jones opined that there are other options. She gave AT&T coverage as an example. She decried the process saying that it wasn’t fair or transparent.
Michiko Conklin stated that she has Verizon service. She opined that the applicant and staff has done a good job. She described poor communication during emergency conditions. She described the coverage issues as critical and asked that the Commission approve the installation.
Renu Agerwal stated that this process has gone on for a long time and described issues with poor Verizon service in Healdsburg. She stated that residents and visitors need to be provided a safe environment in Healdsburg. She encouraged approval.
Yen Trac stated that she understands the need for good cell service. She stated that that is not the issue. The issue is that the visual impacts are not being addressed. She expressed confusion with the discussion of the different heights reviewed. She stated that if there is a technically feasible alternative that has nothing to do with whether or not the property owner is willing to provide the location.
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: PC Meeting Minutes 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Minutes 4/12/2022 3 of 4
David Jones asked how is it that Verizon has the most towers in Healdsburg. Where are they and is this just a move to acquire the most lease spaces in town.
Chair Eddinger asked the applicant if they wished to respond to any of the statements and questions that were asked.
Paul Albritton Verizon counsel expressed appreciation for the Commission’s time and the three meetings that have occurred so far. He stated that while it seems simple to say go find another location, Verizon has been working on this for 8 years and this is the result. He pointed out that the property line is between the water tank property and the golf course. He stated that in regards to the variance required, to move the site farther away from the property line would result in a greater environmental impact requiring extensive grading and tree removal. He noted that the tower would be most visible from the Greens drive location shown in the photo simulations. He stated that it is impossible to make the installation invisible but by using a faux tree the impact is mitigated. With respect to small cells as alternatives, they also create conflicts. He noted that the Brandt location presents structural issues and power supply issues.
Commissioner Breznikar asked if it is true that the 76-foot height is not really necessary except for providing co-location.
Paul Albritton stated that each carrier has a different requirement. He noted that colocation would be a separate application that would come before the Commission. Their designer has determined the need for a 60-foot centered location. The top of the pole is the result of the aesthetics provided by a more conical treetop.
Commissioner Breznikar noted that Verizon would make money from any co-location and that was the reason that they wanted a higher tower.
Chair Eddinger closed the public input portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Brunner recognized the work that has been done and verified. He stated that his main concern is for public safety. He stated that he sees this as a benefit to the community.
Commissioner Gerlach expressed his appreciation for the work done on this application.
He stated that as an new commissioner he did review the previous meetings for background. He stated that he feels the standards have been met.
Commissioner Luks noted that this is the 3rd hearing on this item and it is the first time that the necessity of the height has been discussed. This the first time that the issue of whether 60 feet is necessary. He stated that the independent report says that 50 feet would be adequate. He stated that he does feel that it is necessary for Verizon to provide coverage in town but feels that it could be done at 50 feet.
Commissioner Breznikar stated that there is no question that we need coverage for safety. Her problem is with the height of the tower, and she agrees that 50 feet would work. She does not feel that the project makes the findings of visibility and distance from a public facility. She stated that she feels a 40 to 50-foot tower would be an acceptable compromise.
Commissioner Hunt expressed her appreciation for the additional review and information that has been given. She opined that safety and time is of the essence. She stated that the application has been reviewed and discussed in great detail and it meets the requirements of the City and the Design Guidelines. She stated that she does not think that the visual impact is negative or concerning enough to delay or put our community at
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: PC Meeting Minutes 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Minutes 4/12/2022 4 of 4
risk. The tower needs to be installed and functioning as soon as possible for everyone’s benefit in this area.
Commissioner McKay stated that he agrees with a lot of things that have been said. Yet looking at the CTC maps he does not see a significant difference in quality and scope between 40 and 60 feet. He does not necessarily see the need to provide height for colocation and therefore it should be a 40-50 foot tower.
Chair Eddinger stated that he does not have an issue with the height and in fact feels that the Commission would be remiss in not approving the full height. He is fully in favor of approving the 76-foot height. He asked for a motion.
With no motion being offered from the floor, Chair Eddinger made the motion.
On a motion by Chair Eddinger, seconded by Commissioner Hunt, the Commission voted 4-3 (Luks, McKay, Breznikar against) to approve CUP 2016-07; CUP 2021-08; DR 2016-06; V 2017-01 - Verizon Telecommunications Facility at 923 S. Fitch Mountain Road.
5. COMMISSIONER AND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: Commissioner McKay reported that he attended a Planning Commissioner’s academy in San Ramon and recommended that all commissioners consider attending one.
6. DIRECTOR’S REPORT: Director Duiven provided information regarding the upcoming April 26th Planning Commission meeting which is anticipated to include amendments to the Mill District Master Conditional Use Permit, and a discussion on the progress of the Housing Element Update.
The meeting adjourned at 7:26 PM.
______________________________ __________________________ Scott M. Duiven, Secretary Jerry Eddinger, Chair
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: PC Meeting Minutes 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 1 of 24
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
STAFF REPORT
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 923 South Fitch Mountain Road
APPLICANT: GTE Mobilenet dba as Verizon Wireless c/o Complete Wireless Consulting SUBJECT: Verizon Telecommunications Facility
RECOMMENDED ACTION
By motion, it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 2021-14, granting approval of Major Conditional Use Permit Application CUP 2016-07; Major Design Review Application DR 2016-06; Major Variance Application V 2017-01; and Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP 2021-08, based on the suggested findings and subject to the recommended conditions of approval identified in the resolution.
BACKGROUND
The proposed project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on December 8, 2020. At that hearing, the Commission received the staff report and took public testimony on the proposed project. After the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed, the Commission deliberated on the specifics of the proposed project. The minutes from the hearing are included as Attachment 3. The Commission raised four primary concerns about the project during deliberation. Issues raised by the Commission were as follows:
• The overall height of the tower structure and the potential for reducing the height (See “Project Description” and “Design Review” sections below).
• The possibility of providing additional measures to maximize stealthing of the facility (See “Project Description” and “Design Review sections below).
• A request of the applicant to provide additional photo-simulations of the facility from Greens Drive (See Exhibit B).
• A request that staff provide clarification on the potential for increasing the height of the tower at the request of the applicant or future carrier (See “Potential Facility Modifications” section below).
As a result of these concerns, the Commission voted to continue the item to a Planning Commission hearing in the future. Staff worked with the applicant to compile all the information requested by the Commission.
Issues raised by the Commission are addressed in detail in this staff report.
At the meeting of May 17, 2021, the City Council adopted a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Land Lease Agreement (the “Lease”) between the City of Healdsburg (the “Lessor”), and GTE Mobilnet, dba Verizon Wireless (“Verizon” or “Lessee”) for a portion of a municipally owned property at 923 South Fitch Mountain Road. In addition to the Lease, the Council approved a Grant of Easement and a Agenda Item No: 4.A.
Meeting Date: April 12, 2022
Prepared By: Jeff Fisher, Assistant Planner
Reviewed By:________________________
Scott M. Duiven
Community Development Director
Approved By: ______________________
Marjie Pettus, City Manager
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 2 of 24
Memorandum of a Grant of Easement providing access to the subject site across and through the adjoining Tayman Park Golf Course property at 931 South Fitch Mountain Road, to the public right-of-way at South Fitch Mountain Road. These approvals were the first of two actions by the City necessary to approve the proposed Verizon Telecommunications Facility (the “Facility”). In authorizing the Lease, the City Council acted in its proprietary capacity as the landowner of the property. The term of the Lease is for up to 25 years; a five-year initial term and four five-year extensions. Upon termination or expiration all improvements shall be removed, including the foundation to a depth of five feet.
The second action of the City is the granting of the required land use permits for the Facility as specified in the Land Use Code. Approval of these permits is a regulatory action acted upon by the Planning Commission, and ultimately subject to appeal to the City Council. The required permits are the subject of this agenda item.
The project was brought before the Planning Commission again on December 14, 2021. Staff provided the staff report and the applicant also provided a presentation and fielded questions from the Commission. After the presentations, the hearing was then opened for public comment. Seven members of the public provided comments to the Commission during this period. After the public comment period was closed, the Commission deliberated on various elements of the project. Upon the conclusion of the deliberation, the Commission voted 6-0 to continue the hearing to a future date to allow time for a third-party independent review of the project. The hearing comments from the Commission and the public are included in the minutes from the meeting as Attachment 3 of this report.
Independent Review
As requested by the Planning Commission, the City retained the engineering services of Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC), a privately held, independent telecommunications consulting firm, to provide a third-party review of the Verizon application. CTC performed a technical review and analysis of the project with respect to the applicant’s communications engineering materials and justification for the proposed project site. The City received the final draft of CTC’s analysis on April 5, 2022. The final draft of the report is included as Exhibit J. The report describes the information that CTC examined and documents their analysis process and conclusions related to the application. The analysis was confined to the technical aspects of the application and includes the following:
1. A review of the technical equipment that is being proposed in the application and the suitability of such equipment to meet the purposes set forth by the applicant, and whether the facilities proposed are consistent current commercial wireless industry deployment standards.
2. An independent examination of existing Verizon coverage provided in the City of Healdsburg, surrounding areas, and the projected coverage enhancements that are provided within the City by the proposed facility.
3. The potential for co-location at another existing telecommunication facility.
4. Evaluation of the proposed height to provide the needed coverage or if similar coverage could be provided at a lower height at the proposed location.
5. Independent recommendations, if warranted, to modify the applicant’s proposal with regard to facility siting location or design modifications.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 3 of 24
6. A review of the Radio Frequency (RF) emissions exposure studies submitted by the applicant to confirm that the site would not exceed the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) RF emissions guidelines.
The report documents CTC’s findings relative to the application filed for the proposed site. CTC’s engineers reviewed all application materials submitted by the applicant, including the following:
1. Engineering design documents
2. Radio equipment specifications
3. Antenna, coaxial cabling, and coupling/interface devices
4. RF emission exposure calculations
CTS’s report provided findings that the communications equipment proposed is consistent with the applicant’s goals for applications from a technical standpoint:
• All radio transmission equipment proposed by the applicant are of a type accepted by the FCC. • There is a gap of reliable in-building coverage of more than a square mile area, bounded by Grant Street on the north to Healdsburg Avenue in the south. The proposed additional site will provide inbuilding service to approximately 0.9 square miles. • The proposed facility as designed, provides adequate mounting to accommodate at least one additional carrier.
• Radio Frequency energy exposure for this site for two wireless carriers will be fully compliant with guidelines established by the FCC.
• Existing telecommunication facility sites were examined, and the report found that none of the existing sites are suitable for addressing the in-building coverage gap. An examination of the area did not uncover another viable option to the proposed site due to either an inability to provide adequate coverage or due to a lack of interest on the part of property owners. • Based on the coverage analysis findings and vertical clearances required to address RF exposure guidelines, the report recommended that the radiation center be installed at an elevation of 60-feet or greater to accommodate a second wireless carrier on the structure.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project includes the installation of a 76-foot-tall telecommunication tower with nine “Andrew Model SBNHH-1D65B” directional panel antennas and one microwave dish with associated tower mounted equipment. The tower will be configured to resemble a faux broadleaf tree. The facility would substantially improve service coverage to the Healdsburg neighborhood areas surrounding the site, which are in very hilly terrain. This will be a “5G” capable facility.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 4 of 24
Tower placement would be within a 30-foot by 50-foot lease area, secured by an 8-foot-tall redwood plank fence. A small facility informational sign would be installed at the access gate. The lease area would include equipment cabinets mounted on a concrete pad; power and telephone communication connections would be brought to the facility from nearby lines running along the east boundary line of the property. The facility will be accessed via the road to the Tayman Park golf course off of South Fitch Mountain Road and on the existing golf cart path with a 12-foot-wide, all-weather gravel driveway and turnaround to lease area on the property. With the addition of the new gravel road, maintenance and Fire Department vehicles will be able to drive from the parking lot area to the facility location without any barriers. The access plans were reviewed by the Fire Marshal and were found to be adequate to serve the facility. A utility easement is proposed along the access road. The disturbed area due to the implementation of the access improvements would be approximately 0.58 acre.
The antennas would measure 8 feet in height and would be concealed within stealth “socks” intended to blend with the faux tree branches. The antennas would employ no downtilt (meaning that the antenna signal is not focused downward), mounted at an effective height of about 60 feet above ground, and would be oriented in groups of three, to provide services in all directions. The faux tree “branches” would extend at least 6 feet from the pole, just past the antenna support arms; the lower branches would be 10 feet in length to give the structure a more tree-like configuration.
The applicant has informed staff that in order to provide the necessary cellular coverage, the minimum height of the tower would need to be 70 feet. The applicant has provided three sets of photo-simulations which identify three different variations of the tower design based on different heights (See Page 8 of Attachment 2). The exhibit shows heights of 76-feet, 70-feet, and 64-feet. Similar to the originally proposed height of 76-feet, in each simulation, the tower is visible from each viewshed perspective, with the exception of the view from Oak Mound Cemetery. The primary difference between the three simulations is the reduction in the natural tapered shape of the tree due to the removal of the crown of the tree.
The applicant has also informed staff that the proposed design utilizes the most state-of-the-art stealthing available. To illustrate this point, the applicant has provided an exhibit which identifies three different levels of stealthing techniques, specifically, the number of tree branches attached to the tower (See Page 8 of Attachment 2). As shown on the attachment, the tree with 2.8 branches per foot provides the most natural looking tree and the most stealthing capabilities. The proposed design will utilize the maximum number branches to achieve the most natural looking result.
The applicant has also provided eight photo-simulations included in Exhibit B. The simulations include views of the site from various locations, including Greens Drive. In each scenario, the tree would be visible with the exception of the view from Oak Mound Cemetery. However, due to the stealthing techniques discussed above, the tree will maintain a natural look and blend into the existing vegetation to the extent feasible.
Visitation to the site by a service technician for routine maintenance would occur on average once a month.
The proposed site is remotely monitored and connected directly to a central office where system computers alert personnel to any equipment service needs. Because the wireless facility is unmanned, there are no regular hours of operation for personnel and no impacts to existing local traffic patterns. No water or sanitation services will be required.
The site will also include a standby generator in the event of a power failure. Verizon installs a standby generator and batteries at all of its cellular sites. The generator and batteries serve a vital role in emergency and disaster preparedness plans. In the event of a power outage, the communications equipment will transfer over to the battery backup. The batteries can run for up to 8 hours. Should the power outage extend beyond
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 5 of 24
the capacity of the batteries, the backup generator will automatically start and recharge the batteries. With regard to the generator, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) provides cellular carriers with 12 months to comply with their backup generator requirement. The CPUC does not specify if the 12-month period for installation begins on the date of project approval, building permit issuance, or any other milestone. Since the generator will require a separate building permit, staff finds that the most appropriate time frame for installation of the generator would be 12 months from the date of building permit issuance.
Therefore, the project includes a condition of approval requiring that the generator be installed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit for the tower.
An Environmental Noise Analysis has been conducted for the project to determine if the project would be in compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. The study is included as Exhibit G. The study concluded that the project equipment noise exposure is expected to satisfy the applicable City of Healdsburg noise exposure limits at the nearest residential land uses. As a result, no additional noise mitigation measures would be warranted for the project.
PROJECT LOCATION
In an effort to improve wireless communications in the City of Healdsburg, Verizon and Complete Wireless Consulting have been working with City staff since late 2014 to determine the best locations for new facilities. A new facility in Tayman Park would provide the necessary coverage to close a gap in service that currently exists in the area.
The proposed facility lease area is located within a 3.4-acre parcel owned by the City of Healdsburg. It is a distinct parcel from the larger Tayman Park parcel and is part of the golf course and recreation area. The specific location of the lease area is at the top of a hill above the tee box of the 3rd hole of the golf course, northwest of the golf course clubhouse and parking area. The precise site location is included in the plan set (Exhibit A). Surrounding land uses include the Oak Mound Cemetery to the west; single-family residences to the southwest; single-family residences to the east; all other directions are part of the golf course. The nearest residential use is approximately 390-feet to the southwest on Greens Drive.
The site is vegetated with scattered mature oak, madrone, and redwood trees and also contains former and new water storage tanks. The location was chosen to be located near a large grove of mature trees in order to help camouflage the cellular tower. The area proposed for the communication tower has been previously graded and developed with the existing (abandoned) and new water storage tank facilities.
The specific site for the lease area was considered in the initial discussions between Verizon and the City back in 2015-2016. Part of the project requires that Verizon remove an unused concrete water tank owned by the City. This area was chosen so that Verizon could repurpose an area that was already being used for utilities and remove an existing structure that the City finds obsolete. This location would also require the least disturbance of ground and natural vegetation. Furthermore, due to the design of the fire access road and turnaround, relocating the site further to the west would result in impacts to the tall mature trees which provide significant screening and camouflaging of the tower and the associated equipment area. The proposed location would require the removal of the least number of trees while still providing a site large enough for Verizon and a future co-locator’s ground equipment, which was a request made by the City.
COVERAGE AREA
The applicant has provided staff with color visual depictions identifying Verizon’s pre- and post-project cellular coverage in and around the City of Healdsburg (Pages 2-3 on Attachment 2). The pre-project map clearly identifies a lack of coverage in the area of Tayman Park and Fitch Mountain. As shown on the post7.A.e Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 6 of 24
project map, coverage will be significantly increased with the operation of the proposed facility. This additional coverage will provide Verizon customers with a much more reliable cellular signal, especially for indoor and in-vehicle use as denoted by the green and yellow colors on the maps. According to the applicant, Verizon customers living in this area of Healdsburg have had concerns about a lack of or very inconsistent coverage in this area for many years. Furthermore, the City’s Fire Marshal has had similar concerns about the lack of coverage with regard to residents in this highly fire-prone area not receiving emergency alerts on their phones. According to the Fire Marshal, the additional cellular coverage in this area of the City would enable more residents to be warned of a pending emergency and allow additional time to evacuate or prepare for potential evacuation. As such, the Fire Marshal is in support of the proposed project.
ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS
Prior to choosing the golf course site, the applicant investigated other sites for which to locate the facility.
These included Healdsburg High School, Fitch Mountain Elementary School, and Healdsburg Jr. High School. The school district Superintendent stated that the district would not support any cellular facilities at any of the district’s schools.
The applicant also investigated placing the facility at Healdsburg Recreation Park. However, the City made the determination that a facility at the park would not be compatible with the immediately surrounding residential neighborhoods, and ultimately did not support this location.
A final alternative was a privately-owned institutional property on Piper Street. Negotiations were unsuccessful and that site proved to not be feasible in any case as the zoning of the site did not permit such facilities. Therefore, the City and Verizon agreed that the golf course site was the most feasible and posed the least impacts and provided the highest benefit in improved coverage, and the project began to move forward in 2016.
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 20.20.080, there are very strict locational criteria for the siting of cellular facilities which include a new tower. Such criteria, in addition to the zoning of the site, significantly restricts where a new tower could be located. City staff made the determination that the golf course site is one that could meet all the criteria upon implementation of numerous mitigation measures. A detailed discussion of the locational criteria is included in a subsequent section of this report below.
FEDERAL LAW
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “Act”) established much of the federal framework for processing wireless communications facilities, such as towers. In the Act’s preamble, Congress stated that one of its purposes was to “encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.” Accordingly, the Act governs the manner in which local governments consider all applications for wireless facilities. The Act and other laws enacted by Congress, and the implementing regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Committee (“FCC”) have a significant effect on the City of Healdsburg’s ability to regulate. The FCC’s statutory authority for limiting local regulation on the deployment of this technology is contained primarily in Sections 253(a) and 332(c)(7) of the Act and reflects congressional intent to expand deployment of wireless services. More specifically, the Act’s provisions, codified in 47 U.S. Code § 332(c)(7) and clarified by adopted FCC regulations, outline restrictions on local government zoning authority over WCF applications, including without limitation the following:
▪ Radio frequency (“RF”) emissions: The City of Healdsburg cannot regulate on the basis of environmental impacts from RF emissions. Environmental impacts from RF emissions include
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 7 of 24
any potential or perceived health effects of the RF emissions. The City may only seek confirmation that the facility will comply with Federal Regulations establishing permissible limits on RF emissions.
▪ Effective Prohibition: The City cannot regulate in a manner that has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
▪ No discrimination: The City may not regulate in a manner that unreasonably discriminates among providers of functionally equivalent services.
▪ Limited Time for Review: The FCC has established “shot clocks” which determine a presumed reasonable timeframe for local government action on a wireless facility application depending on the type of proposed facility.
With regard to the review and approval of cellular facilities, Federal Law prohibits any local authority from denying a viable cellular site based on environmental/health effects. Below is an excerpt from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) website. The full document is included in this report as Exhibit I.
Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act preserves state and local authority over zoning and land use decisions for personal wireless service facilities, but sets forth specific limitations on that authority. Specifically, a state or local government may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, may not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, must act on applications within a reasonable period of time, and must make any denial of an application in writing supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The statute also preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, assuming that the provider is in compliance with the Commission's RF rules.
On September 27, 2018, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (FCC 18-133) in the rulemaking proceeding entitled Accelerating Wireless Broadband by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WT Docket No. 17-79 (the "Order"). The Order interprets various provisions in the Act and implements industry demands to remove barriers and accelerate 5G deployment for small cell facilities. Although the Order primarily pertains to small wireless facilities, there are some provisions that address wireless regulation generally. Specifically, the Order clarifies the FCC’s interpretation on various provisions of the Act and reaffirms the FCC’s interpretation as the definitive interpretation of the “effective prohibition” standard found in the Act1, rather than the previously utilized “gap in coverage” standard. The FCC confirmed that a state or local legal requirement constitutes an effective prohibition if it “materially limits or inhibits the ability of any competitor or potential competitor to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment.”2 The Order also provides that a wireless provider need not show a complete or insurmountable barrier to service to prove a prohibition of service, only that the legal requirement materially inhibits the provision of services.3 A state or local legal requirement could materially inhibit service in numerous ways – not only by rendering a service provider unable to provide an existing service in a new geographic area or by restricting the entry of a new provider in providing service in a particular area, but also by materially inhibiting the introduction of new services or the improvement of existing services.
Although the Order was challenged by a number of cities and other public agencies, including the City and County of San Francisco, San Jose and Burlingame the Ninth Circuit upheld most of the provisions of the Order, including the FCC’s interpretation of “effective prohibition” and found that generally the FCC’s 1 47 U.S. Code § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).
2 Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order adopted September 26, 2018 (WT Docket No. 17-79; WC Docket No. 17-84) ¶ 34-42.
3 Id. at ¶ 34.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 8 of 24
interpretation is reasonable for small cell facilities in light of how 5G technology works.4 The Ninth Circuit did, however, vacate and remand certain portions of the Order relating to the requirement that aesthetic regulations be objective and no more burdensome than those applied to other infrastructure deployments stating that the FCC lacked a reasoned explanation.5 The Petition for rehearing was denied on October 22, 2020.
Accordingly, when the City of Healdsburg is reviewing any application for wireless facility, including the application for this project, the City must review it and make a determination in a manner that is consistent with the applicable Federal law.
APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN AND LAND USE CODE INFORMATION
General Plan
The subject property is designated Public/Quasi-Public by the Healdsburg General Plan. This designation provides for government-owned facilities, public and private schools, parks and quasi-public uses. The proposed telecommunications facility would be considered consistent with the intent of this designation. It also furthers the following General Plan goals and policies:
GOAL S-F: Adequate City emergency procedures in the event of natural or man-made disasters.
Policy S-F-1: The City shall ensure that adequate emergency procedures are in place to respond to and recover from man-made and natural disasters.
GOAL NR-C: Preservation and enhancement of Healdsburg’s natural setting.
Policy NR-C-3: Development shall be allowed only in a manner that protects important views and landmarks such as Fitch Mountain, Russian River, and the foothills to the north, west and east of the city.
Policy NR-C-5: Major scenic ridgelines designated on General Plan Figure 8 and highly visible hillsides shall be protected from visually obtrusive development.
Policy NR-C-6: Protection of distinctive natural vegetation such as oak woodlands, riparian corridors, and mixed evergreen forest is encouraged.
Policy NR-C-7: The viewshed along scenic highways, roads and streets shall be protected and enhanced.
The project will provide cellular phone service to a large area around the site where current coverage is lacking. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the project and finds that the project will significantly aid in emergency response during a natural disaster such as a wildfire or earthquake. The project has been designed to minimize visual impacts and blend into the surrounding area and will not impact important views, landmarks, scenic ridgelines, or views from designated scenic roads (South Fitch Mountain Road).
Land Use Code
The property has a zoning designation of Public (P). Pursuant to Land Use Code (LUC) Section 20.08.210, this zoning designation allows for the “orderly establishment of public and quasi-public facilities.” The proposed telecommunications project would be considered a quasi-public facility consistent with the purpose of the Public zoning designation.
4 City of Portland et al. v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020). 5 Id. at pp. 1041-1042.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 9 of 24
LUC Section 20.20.080 contains the standards and regulations for new telecommunications facilities. The purpose and intent of this section is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards for the development of telecommunication facilities and installation of antennas. The regulations contained are designed to protect and promote public health, safety, and community welfare while at the same time not unduly restricting the development of needed telecommunication facilities. They have also been developed to further the policies of the Healdsburg General Plan.
The regulations are intended to accomplish the following:
1. Provide requirements to ensure that new telecommunication facilities are installed in a manner to minimize their visual impact to the community.
2. Protect the inhabitants of the City from the possible adverse health effects associated with exposure to high levels of NIER (non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation).
3. Protect the environmental resources of the City.
4. Create telecommunication facilities that will serve as an important and effective part of the City’s emergency response network.
5. Simplify and shorten the process for obtaining necessary permits for telecommunication facilities while at the same time protecting the legitimate interests of the City’s citizens.
6. Ensure that telecommunications facilities are consistent with the Citywide Design Guidelines.
As proposed, the project is consistent with these goals as detailed in the following sections of this staff report.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit (Telecommunication Facility):
The City’s standards for telecommunication regulations are located at 20.20.080. The purpose and intent of this section is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards for the development of telecommunication facilities.
In order to give the zoning district use regulations the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of the land use code, in certain districts specified uses are allowed, subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual characteristics, “conditional uses” require special consideration so that they may be located properly with respect to the objectives of the Land Use Code and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. In order to achieve these purposes, the Planning Commission is empowered to grant or deny applications for use permits for conditional uses in districts as are prescribed in the district regulations in the LUC and to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of use permits, subject to the right of appeal to the City Council or review by the Council.
As noted above, a conditional use permit is required to locate a telecommunication facility on properties which have a Public (P) zoning designation. It is incumbent on the Planning Commission to make the findings for approval of the conditional use permit. Upon review of the application, staff believes there is sufficient evidence to make the necessary findings for approval. The findings are included in the “Findings” section of this report below.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 10 of 24
Conditional Use Permit (Over-height Fence):
The project includes an application for a Conditional Use Permit to install a fence that exceeds 6-feet in height. The fence will surround the entire lease area in order to maintain the security of the facility and to screen the equipment from public view and provide for a more attractive integration into the adjacent golf course property. The fence will be constructed of redwood planks and contain a gate to allow access for maintenance workers. It is incumbent on the Planning Commission to make the findings for approval of the conditional use permit to allow the additional height. Upon review of the application, staff believes there is sufficient evidence to make the necessary findings for approval and does not anticipate any impacts to the site or to neighboring properties due to the additional 2-feet in height. The findings are included in the “Findings” section of this report below.
Design Review:
Pursuant to LUC Section 20.28.100, the purpose of design review is to:
A. Preserve the natural beauty and attractiveness of new development where it occurs; B. Promote and, wherever possible, improve the appearance of the community; C. Ensure that indiscriminate clearing of property is minimized and the destruction of trees and shrubs is also minimized;
D. Obtain the best possible traffic circulation within the community; E. Ensure that the design and layout of new development projects are compatible with the Healdsburg General Plan, applicable sections of the Land Use Code and are in scale and character with surrounding land uses. (Ord. 950 § 2 (Exh. A § 2600), 1998.) The proposed project, like all new development projects in the City, is subject to the Citywide Design Guidelines, specifically those guidelines contained in Chapter 7 (Telecommunication Facilities) and Chapter 9 (Scenic Highways, Roads, and Streets). In addition to the Citywide Design Guidelines, the project is also subject to the locational and design criteria for telecommunication facilities detailed in LUC Section
20.20.080.
Locational Criteria (LUC Section 20.20.080(K)
All telecommunication facilities shall be located so as to minimize their visibility and the number of distinct facilities present. To this end all of the following measures shall be implemented:
1. Telecommunication facilities cannot be located in any required yard setback area of the zoning district in which it is located.
The Public zoning district does not have any standard setback requirements.
2. All setbacks shall be measured from the base of the tower or structure closest to the applicable line or structure.
The Public zoning district does not have any standard setback requirements.
3. Telecommunication towers shall be set back at least 100 feet from any public trail, park, riparian corridor buffer setback area, or outdoor recreation area. Guy wire anchors shall be set back at least 20 feet from any property line.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 11 of 24
The project includes a request for a variance to this setback requirement. A detailed discussion of the variance request is included in the “Variance” section of this report below.
4. No telecommunication facility shall be installed within the safety zone of any airport or helipad unless the operator indicates that it will not adversely affect the operation of the airport.
The project site is not located within the safety zone of any airport or helipad.
5. No telecommunication facility shall be installed at a location where special painting or lighting will be required by FAA regulations unless technical evidence acceptable to the planning and building director or planning commission, as appropriate, is submitted showing that this is the only technically feasible location for this facility.
The project does not require any special painting or lighting required by the FAA.
6. No telecommunication facility shall be installed on an exposed ridgeline, in or at a location readily visible from a public trail, public park or other outdoor recreation area, or on property in any residential district (except R-1-40,000), Open Space District, or Plaza Retail District, or with a Hillside or Historic District Overlay, unless the planning commission makes a finding upon issuance of the use permit that it blends with the surrounding existing natural and manmade environment in such a manner as to be effectively unnoticeable and that no other location is technically feasible.
The project is located on a General Plan designated scenic ridgeline and an outdoor recreation area (golf course). However, the project has been designed to minimize visual impacts and blend into the surrounding area and will not impact important views, landmarks, scenic ridgelines, or views from designated scenic roads (South Fitch Mountain Road).The Commission must specifically find that the project is designed to blend with the surrounding existing natural and manmade environment so as to be “effectively unnoticeable and that no other location is feasible”.
7. No telecommunication facility that is readily visible from off-site shall be installed closer than onequarter mile from another readily visible uncamouflaged or unscreened telecommunication facility unless it is a co-located facility, situated on a multiple-user site, or blends with the surrounding existing natural and manmade environment in such a manner as to be effectively unnoticeable.
As shown in the project statement from the applicant (Attachment 2), there are no other such facilities within ¼ mile of the project site.
8. No telecommunication facility that is readily visible from off-site shall be installed on a site that is not already developed with telecommunication facilities or other public or quasi-public uses unless it blends with the surrounding existing natural and manmade environment in such a manner so as to be effectively unnoticeable; or technical evidence acceptable to the planning and building director or planning commission, as appropriate, is submitted showing a clear need for this facility and the infeasibility of co-locating it on one of these already developed sites.
The project has been designed to minimize visual impacts and blend into the surrounding area and will notsignificantly impact important views, landmarks, scenic ridgelines, or views from designated scenic roads (South Fitch Mountain Road). As shown on the project statement by the applicant, the project will provide cellular phone service to a large area around the site where current coverage is lacking.
There are no existing facilities where the proposed project can be co-located and address the gap in coverage. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the project and finds that the project will significantly aid in emergency response during a natural disaster such as a wildfire or earthquake.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 12 of 24
Basic Tower and Building Design (LUC Section 20.20.080(J) All telecommunication facilities shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment to the greatest extent feasible. To this end all the following measures shall be implemented.
1. Telecommunication towers shall be constructed out of metal or other non-flammable material, unless specifically conditioned by the city to be otherwise.
The proposed tower will be constructed of metal.
2. Telecommunication towers taller than 35 feet shall be monopoles or guyed/lattice towers except where satisfactory evidence is submitted to the planning and building director or planning commission, as appropriate, that a self-supporting tower is required to provide the height and/or capacity necessary for the proposed telecommunication use to minimize the need for screening from adjacent properties, or to reduce the potential for bird strikes.
The tower is designed as a “monopole” faux tree.
3. Telecommunication towers shall not exceed 100 feet in height unless the following findings are made by the planning commission:
a. It is not technically feasible to have a tower below this height at the requested location; b. Alternative locations that would not require a tower height in excess of the standard given above are not available or feasible;
c. The facility blends with the surrounding existing natural and manmade environment in such a manner as to be effectively unnoticeable.
The proposed tower will be 76-feet in height.
3. Satellite dishes other than microwave dishes shall be of mesh construction, except where technical evidence acceptable to the planning and building director or planning commission, as appropriate, is submitted showing that this is infeasible.
The project only contains a single microwave dish and no other dish types.
4. Telecommunication support facilities (i.e., vaults, equipment rooms, utilities, and equipment enclosures) shall be constructed out of nonreflective materials (visible exterior surfaces only).
All proposed supporting facilities will be constructed out of nonreflective materials. The tower will be painted a nonreflective matte brown color.
5. Telecommunication support facilities shall be no taller than 15 feet in height and shall be treated to look like a building or facility typically found in the area.
All proposed support facilities will be no taller than 10-feet and screened behind an 8-foot fence.
6. Telecommunication support facilities in areas of high visibility shall where possible be sited below the ridgeline or designed (i.e., placed underground, depressed, or located behind earth berms) to minimize their profile or provide other mitigation measures.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 13 of 24
All proposed support facilities will be located at ground level in a low-visibility area. The fencing will consist of redwood planks to help the facility blend in with the surrounding natural area.
8. All buildings, poles, towers, antenna supports, antennas, and other components of each telecommunication site shall be initially painted and thereafter repainted as necessary with a “flat” paint, if it is determined by the decision-making body that the native coloring of the facility does not provide adequate blending with the surrounding environment. The color selected shall be one that in the opinion of the planning and building director or planning commission, as appropriate, will minimize their visibility to the greatest extent feasible. To this end, improvements which will be primarily viewed against soils, trees or grasslands and adjacent structures, when present, shall be painted colors matching these landscapes and structures, while elements which rise above the horizon shall be painted a blue-gray that matches the typical sky color at that location.
All proposed facilities will be constructed out of nonreflective materials. The tower will be painted a nonreflective matte brown color and is designed to resemble a broad-leafed tree including dark green faux leaves and branches. The tower will be located in a wooded area to blend in with the surrounding mature trees.
Citywide Design Guidelines (Chapter 7 – Telecommunications Facilities) Pursuant to this chapter of the guidelines, the use and installation of telecommunication facilities is essential to everyday life. Telecommunications facilities should be located and designed to minimize their impact on the scenic qualities of Healdsburg. The applicable guidelines are as follows:
7.21 – Locate and construct a wireless telecommunications facility so that it does not endanger people living, working, or moving around the structure.
7.22 – Minimize the visibility of wireless telecommunication facility.
7.23 – Design a telecommunication facility to blend into the surrounding environment.
7.24 – Screen a wireless telecommunication facility.
The location of the facility is not located in a populated area. It is located in a relatively isolated area of a golf course approximately 80-feet from the nearest tee box. The facility has been designed to minimize visual impacts and blend into the surrounding area. The proposed design promotes the City’s goals of preserving natural beauty while promoting attractive development of land. In consultation with City staff and golf course staff, Verizon has carefully chosen a location for the facility that will result in minimal visual impact to the residents of Healdsburg and surrounding unincorporated lands. The facility will be designed with arboreal camouflage to blend with the surrounding natural vegetation. Verizon will install leaf socks on all proposed panel antennas and RRH units. All antennas and pole mounted equipment will be painted flat green, while the monopole itself will be painted a flat brown, and all paint will be nonreflective. The facility has been designed to minimize visual impacts. Support cables will be installed underground and the equipment will be effectively screened from public view by existing trees in the vicinity and 8-foot redwood fencing.
The technology involved with stealthing has become more advanced in recent years with newer tree-pole installations resembling natural trees more effectively blending into the surrounding locale and not drawing the eye. The branch layout, the shape and length of the branches, and the foliage colors are the major factors that provide the desired appearance. To ensure that the tree foliage is dense and fully conceals the antennas
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 14 of 24
and equipment, Verizon has proposed the highest standard faux-tree design with regard to foliage color (dark green) and type (broadleaf). This design offers the most realistic tree possible with current technology.
The broadleaf tree was chosen over a faux-pine tree to blend better into the existing treescape. Additionally, the tree will have three branches of foliage per foot to ensure the cover is thick and full to completely screen the antennas. Lastly, the antennas themselves will be covered in radio frequency (RF) transparent “socks” that will further wrap around the antennas with additional foliage for extra camouflage. The proposed design is the most sophisticated available today and there are no additional design elements that could be added.
All possible design upgrades were added at the recommendation of the City Planning Department. As such, staff finds that the project is consistent with the design guidelines for telecommunication facilities contained in Chapter 7 of the Citywide Design Guidelines.
Citywide Design Guidelines (Chapter 9 – Scenic Highways, Roads and Streets) The following design guidelines support the goals and policies outlined in the Healdsburg General Plan and should be considered when new development is proposed along any of the highways, roads and streets noted in the General Plan.
9.1 – Protect and enhance the viewshed along scenic highways, roads and streets, as noted in the Healdsburg General Plan.
9.2 – Utilize appropriate landscaping materials along the specified corridors.
As shown on the photo-simulations provided by the applicant (Exhibit B), the facility will be designed with arboreal camouflage to blend with the surrounding natural vegetation. Verizon will install leaf socks on all proposed panel antennas and RRH units. All antennas and pole mounted equipment will be painted flat green, while the monopole itself will be painted a flat brown, and all paint will be nonreflective. The facility has been designed to minimize visual impacts. Support cables will be installed underground and the equipment will be effectively screened from public view by the fencing and the existing trees in the vicinity.
As such, staff finds that the project is consistent with the design guidelines for telecommunication facilities contained in Chapter 9 of the Citywide Design Guidelines.
VARIANCE
The project includes a request for a variance from LUC Section 20.20.080(K)(3) which requires telecommunication towers to be setback at least 100-feet from any public trail, park, riparian corridor buffer setback area or outdoor recreation area. As noted, staff finds that the golf course would be considered an outdoor recreation area.
The proposed facility is located on a City-owned parcel adjacent to the property belonging to the Healdsburg Golf Club at Tayman Park. The proposed tower will be located approximately 15-feet from the property line and 145-feet from the nearest developed area of the golf course. Strict adherence to this setback standard would require significant ground disturbance and tree removal. In order to avoid such impacts, staff supports the requested variance. In order to approve the variance request, four separate findings must be made in the affirmative. The findings are included in the “Findings” section of this report below.
Staff finds that there are special circumstances with respect to the property in question. The primary circumstances are that the parcel is uniquely shaped and densely vegetated. The parcel is basically round and varies over 100-feet in elevation across its 3.4 acres. The majority of the parcel is covered by deciduous and conifer trees. There are City-owned facilities in the center of the parcel which are surrounded by trees.
The southeastern portion of the parcel contains one abandoned water tank and one new water tank, along
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 15 of 24
with an existing dirt access road. The location of the proposed facility will be in this area of the parcel, at the location of the abandoned water tank. Since this area has been developed with City facilities, locating the tower in this location will have the least impact on the site since it will require less grading and allow preservation of all the existing trees.
In addition, staff finds that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the LUC. The proposed facility has been designed to occupy developed areas of the parcel and limit impacts related to ground disturbance and tree removal. Complying with the setback standard would require moving the facility further to the west, uphill into an area containing many mature trees. Strict adherence to the setback would require invasive grading and tree removal to construct the facility, necessitating ground and habitat disturbance. The proposed location would minimize environmental disturbance in the construction of new facilities and locate the facility in a previously developed area.
Staff also finds that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. As noted, the parcel is zoned Public (P) and is one of several similarly zoned parcels in the area.
However, the subject parcel contains significantly more natural growth and much steeper topography than similarly zoned parcels nearby. Therefore, staff finds that the special circumstances of the site warrant support of the facility at its proposed location by limiting the amount of environmental disturbance.
Lastly, staff finds that the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same zoning district. As noted, the applicant worked in conjunction with City staff to select a location for the facility which minimizes ground and environmental disturbance, but also complies with City regulations. The proposed location for the facility utilizes a site where development has occurred to the extent possible. The granting of the variance exempting the facility from the 100-foot setback requirement does not constitute a special privilege as the parcel is unique and the proposed location has already been developed as the site of a City utility. Furthermore, the combination of the zoning of the site, the locational criteria required by the Land Use Code, site constraints, and the cellular signal coverage requirements of the carrier significantly restricts where such a facility could be located.
There is no grant of special privilege due to the fact that no other site within the City had eligible zoning, met the locational criteria, allowed for impact mitigation, and did not result in conflicts with adjacent residential uses.
FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS AND TREE PROTECTION
An integral component of the project is the provision of creating and maintaining Fire Department vehicle access to the proposed lease area. Over the years, the project included numerous variations of an access drive and turnaround for large Fire Department vehicles. The final version of the plan is included in the attached plan set. Fire Department access to the site will be via a paved road veering west from the northern end of the golf course parking area. The short access road was designed to accommodate large ladder trucks and will allow said trucks to be able to turn around without having to back up into the parking lot. The area of the proposed access drive includes numerous trees, two of which are City protected Heritage trees.
Heritage sized trees have a diameter of 30-inches or greater. The design of the road and turnaround will allow these trees to remain on the site and not be impacted by road construction. The project was designed in conjunction with biological consultants, including the City Arborist, and found to be the most desirable plan which would provide adequate access and not require any removal of the Heritage trees. Two much smaller non-Heritage sized trees will be removed, however these trees are not protected by City’s Tree Ordinance, and thus do not require a special permit for their removal. An additional non-Heritage tree may suffer significant impacts but is not a protected tree. While the optimal outcome would be to save all the
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 16 of 24
trees in the area, doing so proved to not be feasible. During project and road construction, mitigation measures for tree protection and preservation consistent with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance will be implemented. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposed plan and finds it to be acceptable for fire access and protection of the site. The Arborist Report and Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan (Helix Environmental, dated November 5, 2021) is enclosed as Exhibit H. This exhibit also includes correspondence from the City Arborist, James MacNair, which concurs with the conclusions and recommendations of the tree reports.
POTENTIAL FACILITY MODIFICATION
Telecommunication facility projects in California may have the potential for modification subsequent to approval and construction. The FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Order and NPR”) (WT Docket No. 19-250) on June 9, 2020. This Order makes significant amendments to section 6409 of the Spectrum Act of 2012, which relates to modification requests for eligible facilities.
Specifically, the FCC has clarified that the 60-day time frame for State or local government review of modifications of existing structures commences, what constitutes a “substantial change” in the physical dimensions of wireless infrastructure, and the extent to which certain elements of a proposed modification to existing infrastructure affect the eligibility of that proposed modification for streamlined State or local government review under section 6409(a). The City "may not deny, and shall approve" any request for collocation, removal, or replacement of transmission equipment on an existing wireless tower or base station, so long as it does not "substantially change" the physical dimensions of the tower or base station (47 USC §1455(a)). As such, the Planning Commission would have little discretion in reviewing a request for modification under section 6409.
For towers outside the City right-of-way, the FCC clarified that a “substantial change” in existing facilities is defined as something that “increases the height of the tower by more than 10% or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater.” The Order and NPR specifies that the phrase “with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet” in section 1.6100(b)(7)(i) allows an increase in the height of the tower of up to twenty (20) feet between antennas, as measured from the top of an existing antenna to the bottom of a proposed new antenna on the top of a tower - the antenna height does not count in determining a substantial change. For example, if a 150-foot tower already has an antenna at the top of the tower, the tower height could potentially increase by up to 20 feet [i.e., the “separation” distance] plus the height of a new antenna to be located at the top of the tower under an eligible facilities request for modification (“6409 request”). The height of the new antenna is not limited.
If a subsequent carrier intends to modify the approved facility in any significant manner, they would be required to submit an application to the City so that the City may review it to determine whether it is covered by Section 6409(a). This may include a revision to the design review or conditional use permit approvals.
Depending on the scope of the modification, the application may be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with the findings for approval, similar to those included in the original approvals as there are some conditions of the original permit relating to aesthetics and concealment that could apply to the modifications. For example, a condition of approval that requires a specifically sized shroud around an antenna could limit an increase in antenna size that is otherwise permissible under section 1.6100(b)(7)(i).
Under section 1.6100(b)(7)(vi), however, the size limit of the shroud would not be enforceable if it purported to prevent a modification to add a larger antenna, but a city could enforce its shrouding condition if the provider reasonably could install a larger shroud to cover the larger antenna and thus meet the purpose of the condition if there was express evidence that the shroud was a condition of approval.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 17 of 24
However, with regard to the height of the current project, the lease between the City and Verizon limits the height so the height could not exceed 76 feet and because this facility is outside the right-of-way, the City can restrict the height based on the City’s proprietary interests through the lease. Thus, even if the City were to receive a request for modification, the lease would still apply to limit the height of the tower.6If the applicant wanted to increase the height above the 76 feet limit, there would first need to be an amendment to the lease to allow such a modification.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSIDERATIONS
Planning Department staff received correspondence from property owners whose homes are adjacent to the golf course. The property owners note concerns regarding the proposed cellular facility. The concerns raised include those related to personal health and safety, and impacts to property values. As discussed above, the Act prohibits denial of an application based on perceived environmental effects. However, the applicant has provided a Radio Frequency (RF) Study prepared by Hammet & Edison, Inc., a firm of qualified professional consulting engineers, to confirm compliance with FCC standards relating to RF emissions. The study was prepared specifically for the proposed project. The conclusion of the study was that the project will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to RF energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact to the environment or persons living or recreating near the facility.
The RF study is included in the report as Exhibit F. With regard to property values, staff has not found any evidence that locating a cellular facility approximately 390-feet away from a residential area would impact neighboring property values.
FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Telecommunication Facility) Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.165, the Planning Commission is required to make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use permit application; staff has provided suggested findings below each italicized finding:
1. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use is in accord with the Healdsburg General Plan, objectives of the Land Use Code and purposes of the district in which the site is located.
The project is consistent with the following General Plan Goals:
GOAL S-F: Adequate City emergency procedures in the event of natural or man-made disasters.
Policy S-F-1: The City shall ensure that adequate emergency procedures are in place to respond to and recover from man-made and natural disasters.
GOAL NR-C: Preservation and enhancement of Healdsburg’s natural setting.
Policy NR-C-3: Development shall be allowed only in a manner that protects important views and landmarks such as Fitch Mountain, Russian River, and the foothills to the north, west and east of the city.
Policy NR-C-5: Major scenic ridgelines designated on General Plan Figure 8 and highly visible hillsides shall be protected from visually obtrusive development. 6 The FCC has stated that the Act does not preempt the City from applying its lease terms to prohibit such expansions (See FCC Order 14-153, at p. 100).
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 18 of 24
Policy NR-C-6: Protection of distinctive natural vegetation such as oak woodlands, riparian corridors, and mixed evergreen forest is encouraged.
Policy NR-C-7: The viewshed along scenic highways, roads and streets shall be protected and enhanced.
The project will provide cellular phone service to a large area around the site where current coverage is lacking. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the project and finds that the project will significantly aid in emergency response during a natural disaster such as a wildfire or earthquake. The project has been designed to minimize visual impacts and blend into the surrounding area and will not impact important views, landmarks, scenic ridgelines, or views from designated scenic roads (South Fitch Mountain Road).
The proposed location and operation of the conditional use is in accordance with the Healdsburg General Plan as it is sited on a parcel that has already been developed for utilities, as evidenced by the existing water tanks in Tayman Park. Verizon’s facility will provide public benefit in the form of enhanced wireless communication coverage to the City and surrounding residences.
The proposed facility is located in the P (Public) zone, which is a district created in the City’s Land Use Code for “orderly establishment of public and quasi‐public facilities…” (§20.08.210). Verizon’s facility will provide great public benefit in the form of enhanced wireless communication coverage. This site will allow current and future Verizon Wireless customers to have access to wireless services in the areas shown on the Coverage Plots included in this application. Additionally, this site will serve as a backup to the existing landline service in the area and will provide improved wireless communication, which is essential to first responders, community safety, local businesses and area residents.
2. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed facility is located in the P (Public) zone, which is a district created in the City’s Land Use Code for “orderly establishment of public and quasi-public facilities…” (§20.08.210). The proposed Verizon tower will provide vital telecommunications services to the general community. Furthermore, all design and aesthetic elements have been incorporated, with the input of Healdsburg Planning staff, so that the facility may blend into the existing treescape in the park. The proposed facility complies with all development standards for telecommunications facilities as well as for the zoning district. The Radio Frequency (RF) Study prepared for the project indicates that the proposed facility would be in compliance with the FCC Radio Frequency rules.
3. The proposed conditional use will comply applicable provisions of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
As discussed above, the proposed conditional use will comply with the applicable provisions of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
The project is consistent with the following General Plan Goals:
GOAL S-F: Adequate City emergency procedures in the event of natural or man-made disasters.
Policy S-F-1: The City shall ensure that adequate emergency procedures are in place to respond to and recover from man-made and natural disasters.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 19 of 24
GOAL NR-C: Preservation and enhancement of Healdsburg’s natural setting.
Policy NR-C-3: Development shall be allowed only in a manner that protects important views and landmarks such as Fitch Mountain, Russian River, and the foothills to the north, west and east of the city.
Policy NR-C-5: Major scenic ridgelines designated on General Plan Figure 8 and highly visible hillsides shall be protected from visually obtrusive development.
Policy NR-C-6: Protection of distinctive natural vegetation such as oak woodlands, riparian corridors, and mixed evergreen forest is encouraged.
Policy NR-C-7: The viewshed along scenic highways, roads and streets shall be protected and enhanced.
Furthermore, the project substantially complies with the Land Use Code, except for the variance for a reduced setback from 100-feet to approximately 15-feet.
FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Over-Height Fence) Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.165, the Planning Commission is required to make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use permit application; staff has provided suggested findings below each italicized finding:
1. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use is in accord with the Healdsburg General Plan, objectives of the Land Use Code and purposes of the district in which the site is located.
The General Plan does not include any policies on fence installation. Land Use Code Section 20.16.055 provides a mechanism to allow fences to exceed 6-feet in height. This section provides for the allowance of over-height fences with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The fence will be consistent with the Citywide Design Guidelines in that the fence will not completely block views to the site as viewed from the street; it does not utilize an exaggerated or fortressing design; does not use chain-link; and the fence will be made of durable materials (redwood) which will be maintained on a regular basis to ensure security of the site. The fence will be similar to other fences used for securing telecommunication facilities in California.
2. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed fencing will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood because the over-height fence would be located on a parcel surrounded by large expanses of the Tayman Park Golf Course and is located approximately 390-feet from the nearest residential uses on Greens Drive. The gate of the fence will be locked and will only allow entry to authorized maintenance personnel. The fence will not create any line-of-sight issues with pedestrians and vehicles due to its isolated location. The fence will also serve to screen the equipment from view of the golfers playing on the course.
3. The proposed conditional use will comply applicable provisions of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
The proposed fencing does not conflict with any other applicable provisions of the Land Use Code and the proposed fence is consistent with the Citywide Design Guidelines.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 20 of 24
FINDINGS FOR DESIGN REVIEW
Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.125, the Planning Commission is required to make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use permit application; staff has provided suggested findings below each italicized finding:
1. The proposed development or use is consistent with all applicable policies and requirements of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
The proposed facility was designed in consultation with City of Healdsburg staff to meet all criteria detailed in the City’s wireless code, §20.20.080 Telecommunication Facilities. Setbacks, stealthing, and height limits were considered when designing the facility. The proposed facility will be 76-feet tall with the antennas mounted at a 60-foot centerline on the pole to ensure optimal signal coverage for the intended service area. The additional height of the structure is to provide for a more lifelike “hat” to sit atop the tower, better resembling the top of a broadleaf tree and similar to those of trees surrounding the facility. The proposed facility height complies with the City’s development standards and 100-foot limit for wireless facilities and has been designed at its minimum functional height.
2. The proposed design of the development or use, and all appurtenant structures, is consistent with the policies set forth in the Design Review Manual, as may be amended from time to time.
Verizon Wireless has designed the facility to minimize visual impacts and blend into the surrounding area. The proposed design promotes the City’s goals of preserving natural beauty while promoting attractive development of land. Verizon has carefully chosen a location for a new facility that will result in minimal visual impact to the residents of Healdsburg and greater Sonoma County. The facility includes a stealth design beneath arboreal camouflage to blend with the surrounding natural vegetation.
Verizon will install leaf socks on all proposed panel antennas and RRH units. All antennas and pole mounted equipment will be painted flat green, while the monopole itself will be painted flat brown, and all paint will be non‐reflective. The facility has been designed to minimize visibility from public view and to blend into the surrounding vegetation. Support cables will be installed underground and the equipment will be effectively screened from public view by existing trees nearby.
3. The proposed development or use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning district in which it is located.
The proposed facility is located in the P (Public) zone, which is a district created in the City’s Land Use Code for “orderly establishment of public and quasi‐public facilities…” (§20.08.210). Verizon’s facility will provide great public benefit in the form of enhanced wireless communication coverage. This site will allow current and future Verizon Wireless customers to have access to wireless services in the areas shown on the Coverage Plots included in this application. Additionally, this site will serve as a backup to the existing landline service in the area and will provide improved wireless communication, which is essential to first responders, community safety, local businesses and area residents.
4. The proposed development or use is consistent with any conditions imposed by the Planning Commission or City Council with respect to any matter related to the purpose of designreview.
There are no previous conditions of approval for a similar use on this site. Staff has included in the resolution a list of recommended conditions of approval to be approved or revised by the Planning Commission to ensure the project is consistent with Federal, State, and Local regulations.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 21 of 24
5. For proposed developments or uses in the Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan area, the design of the development or use, and all appurtenant structures, is consistent with the policies set forth in Chapter IV, “Building Design Framework,” of the Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan dated November 2013 and adopted by the Healdsburg City Council on January 21, 2014, as may be amended from time to time. (Ord. 1138 § 3, 2014.)
Not applicable. The proposed facility is not located within the Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan area.
FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE
Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.230, the Planning Commission is required to make the following findings in order to approve a variance application. Staff has provided suggested findings below each of the four required findings for this request for a reduced setback from 100-feet to approximately 15-feet:
1. Special circumstances exist with respect to the property in question, including, but not limited to size, shape, topography or surroundings.
Staff finds that there are special circumstances with respect to the property in question. The primary circumstances are that the parcel is uniquely shaped and densely vegetated. The parcel is round, and varies over 100-feet in elevation across its 3.4 acres. The majority of the parcel is covered by deciduous trees.
There are City-owned facilities in the center of the parcel which are surrounded by trees. The southeastern portion of the parcel contains one abandoned water tank and one new water tank, along with an existing dirt access road. The location of the proposed facility will be in this area of the parcel, at the location of the abandoned water tank. Since this area has been developed with City facilities, locating the tower in this location will have the least impact on the site since it will require less grading and allow preservation of existing trees.
2. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Land Use Code.
Staff finds that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the LUC. The proposed facility has been designed to occupy developed areas of the parcel and limit impacts related to ground disturbance and tree removal. Complying with the setback standard would require moving the facility further to the west, uphill into an area containing many mature trees. Strict adherence to the setback would require invasive grading and tree removal to construct the facility, necessitating ground and habitat disturbance. The proposed location would minimize environmental disturbance in the construction of new facilities, and locate the facility in a previously developed area.
3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district.
Staff also finds that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. As noted, the parcel is zoned Public (P) and is one of several similarly zoned parcels in the area.
However, the subject parcel contains significantly more vegetation and much steeper topography than similarly zoned parcels nearby. Therefore, staff finds that the special circumstances of the site warrant support of the facility at its proposed location by limiting the amount of environmental disturbance.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 22 of 24
4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same zoning district.
Staff finds that the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same zoning district. As noted, the applicant worked in conjunction with City staff to select a location for the facility which minimizes ground and environmental disturbance, but also complies with City regulations. The proposed location for the facility utilizes a site where development has occurred to the extent possible. The granting of the variance for the facility from the 100-foot setback requirement does not constitute a special privilege as the parcel is unique and the proposed location has already been developed as the site of a City utility. Furthermore, the combination of the zoning of the site, the locational criteria required by the Land Use Code, site constraints, and the cellular signal coverage requirements of the carrier significantly restricts where such a facility could be located.
There is no grant of special privilege due to the fact that no other site within the City had eligible zoning, met the locational criteria, allowed for impact mitigation, and did not result in conflicts with adjacent residential uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines identify classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment and as a result are exempt from review. The City contracted with First Carbon Solutions, a qualified CEQA consulting firm, to prepare the environmental analysis. The analysis concluded, based on the proposed design, location, and standard conditions of approval, that the project would be exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15303(c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, including evaluation of the project in light of CEQA Section 15300.2 Exceptions as described below. The Notice of Exemption analysis prepared by First Carbon Solutions is included as Exhibit E.
CEQA Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 consists of construction and locations of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. c) A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar commercial or institutional structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2,500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use, if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.
Analysis
The proposed project involves the installation of nine Andrew Model SBNHH-1D65B directional panel antennas on a new 76-foot-tall faux tree on land that is designated as Public/Quasi Public. The proposed facility height complies with the City’s development standards and 100-foot height limit for wireless facilities. All new project construction would occur within the 30-foot by 50-foot lease area, approximately 1,500 square feet, and would not exceed 2,500 square feet in floor area. The proposed project would not involve the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, as it would consist of standard cell tower communications panels that are regulated by federal and State agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 23 of 24
CEQA Section 15300.2 – Exceptions
a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located— a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies.
Analysis
The project site is located in a predominantly urbanized setting and is generally bound by roadways and existing development. The project site does not occur on lists of known hazardous materials contamination or storage and has not been designated, precisely mapped, or officially adopted as an area of critical concern. Therefore, there is no evidence that the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies.
b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
Analysis
The proposed project involves the installation of cellular communication panels that would have no impacts beyond the footprint of the tower itself. No cumulatively considerable effects would occur.
Therefore, there is no evidence cumulative impacts of successive projects of the same type in the same place.
c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
Analysis
The site is not subject to any unusual circumstances that could lead to a significant effect. The tower would be located on a site that was previously developed with water tanks. The project involves the installation of nine Andrew Model SBNHH-1D65B directional panel antennas on a new 76-foottall faux tree on land that is designated as Public/Quasi Public. Thus, there is no evidence of any unusual circumstances.
d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a State Scenic Highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted Negative Declaration or certified EIR.
Analysis
According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System for Sonoma County, the proposed project is not located within the viewshed of a scenic highway. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is State Route 116 (located approximately 19 miles south of the project site).
Distance to the project site precludes impacts to scenic resources within a designated State Scenic Highway. As such, there is no evidence that the Project will result in damage to scenic resources within a highway officially designated as a State Scenic Highway. e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 24 of 24
Analysis
According to a records search using the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database, the project site is not identified as a hazardous materials site.1 Additionally, no such site is located adjacent to the project site or within the general project area. Therefore, no impacts associated with hazardous materials sites would occur. f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Analysis
The project site is located in a predominantly developed setting and currently contains sparse vegetation and trees, although it is adjacent to a more heavily wooded portion of the park. There are no known historical resources on-site. Review of the project site shows that the modern ground surface has been previously disturbed because of prior development activity, such as the nearby golf course and the construction of water tanks. Review of the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) files, cultural resources survey at the site, public involvement, and Local Government and OHP consultation as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, conducted by the applicant and reviewed by the City of Healdsburg, determined no impacts would occur to historical resources.
The City will prepare a Notice of Exemption which is filed with the approval documents after the discretionary action is taken.
CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The project was reviewed by the City’s Building, Public Works, Fire, Utilities, Community Services, and Police Departments. Comments are included as conditions of approval in Attachment 1.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
As of the date of this report, staff has received correspondence from neighboring property owners and the owner of the golf course. The correspondence is included in the report as Attachment 4.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 2022-05 and Conditions of Approval
2. Applicant Statement
3. Minutes from Planning Commission hearing on December 8, 2020, and December 14, 2021
4. Public Correspondence
EXHIBITS
A. Plan Set, dated August 13, 2021
B. Photo-simulations
C. Examples of Verizon Broadleaf Trees
D. Examples of Verizon Wood Fences
E. Notice of Exemption Analysis, prepared by First Carbon Solutions, dated November 19, 2021 F. Radio Frequency Energy Analysis, prepared by Hammet & Edison, Inc., 2021 G. Environmental Noise Analysis, Bollard Acoustical Consultants, January 17, 2017 H. Arborist Report and Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan (Helix Environmental Planning) dated November 5, 2021; and correspondence from the City Arborist, James MacNair, dated November 8, 2021 I. Tower and Antenna Siting, FCC website documentation
J. Independent Review of Wireless Application (CTC Technology & Energy, March 2022)
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Verizon PC Staff Report 04/12/2022 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) ATTACHMENT 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2022-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HEALDSBURG APPROVING MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CUP 2016-07, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 2021-08,
MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR 2016-06, AND MAJOR VARIANCE V
2017-01 FOR A MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
LOCATED AT 923 SOUTH FITCH MOUNTAIN ROAD
WHEREAS, applications including a Major Conditional Use Permit, Minor Conditional Use Permit, Major Design Review, and a Major Variance have been received from GTE Mobilenet, dba as Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) to allow for the construction and operation of a 76-foot-tall cellular tower and supporting facilities, located at 923 South Fitch Mountain Road (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, at a properly noticed public hearing on December 8, 2020, after reviewing written and oral staff reports, taking testimony, and receiving into the record all pertinent documents related to the Project, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to a future hearing in order for staff to address issues raised by the Commission and to provide additional information on the following:
• The overall height of the tower structure and the potential for reducing the height. • The possibility of providing additional measures to maximize stealthing of the facility.
• A request of the applicant to provide additional photo-simulations of the facility from Greens Drive.
• A request that staff provide clarification on the potential for increasing the height of the tower at the request of the applicant or future carrier; and WHEREAS, staff worked with the applicant to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission and incorporated the additional information requested by the Commission in the written staff report and supporting documents; and
WHEREAS, at a properly noticed public hearing on December 14, 2021, after reviewing written and oral staff reports, taking testimony, and receiving into the record all pertinent documents related to the Project, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to a future hearing to allow for a third-party technical review of the proposed project to be prepared; and WHEREAS, as requested by the Planning Commission, the City retained the engineering services of Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC), a privately held, independent telecommunications consulting firm, to provide a third-party review of the Verizon application; and
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Att. 1 Resolution No. 2022-05 and Conditions of Approval (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 2 of 14
WHEREAS, CTC performed a technical review and analysis of the project with respect to the applicant’s communications, engineering materials, and justification for the proposed project site; and the City received the final draft of CTC’s analysis on April 5, 2022 outlining the information that CTC examined and documenting their analysis and conclusions related to the application; and
WHEREAS, the final report, Review of Wireless Application, found that the communications equipment as proposed is consistent with the applicant’s goals for applications from a technical standpoint; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2022, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing, reviewed written and oral staff reports, took testimony, and received into the record all pertinent documents related to the Conditional Use Permits, Major Design Review, and Major Variance applications for the Project; and
WHEREAS, during the application process for the project, the City contracted with First Carbon Solutions, a qualified California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) consulting firm, to prepare the environmental analysis; and
WHEREAS, the analysis concluded, based on the proposed design, location, and standard conditions of approval, that the project would be exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15303(c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, including evaluation of the project in light of CEQA Section 15300.2 Exceptions; and WHEREAS, the Class 3 Exemption (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) consists of the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made to the exterior of the structure; and
WHEREAS, for a project to qualify under this exemption, any structure must be less than 2,500 square feet in floor area, meet the development standards for the type of structure defined in the local code, and not involve significant amounts of hazardous materials; and WHEREAS, the proposed project involves the installation of nine Andrew Model SBNHH-1D65B directional panel antennas on a new 76-foot-tall faux tree on land that is designated as Public/Quasi Public. The proposed facility height complies with the City’s development standards and 100-foot height limit for wireless facilities. All new project construction would occur within the 30-foot by 50-foot lease area, approximately 1,500 square feet, and would not exceed 2,500 square feet in floor area. The proposed project would not involve the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, as it would consist of standard cell tower communications panels that are regulated by federal and State agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); and
WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission considered all public documents, including the staff report and public comments received regarding the Conditional
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Att. 1 Resolution No. 2022-05 and Conditions of Approval (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 3 of 14
Use Permits, Design Review, and Variance requests before making its decision on the subject applications.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Healdsburg Planning Commission hereby finds that the Project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15303(c) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, including evaluation of the project in light of CEQA Section 15300.2 Exceptions as described below.
a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located—a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies.
Analysis
The project site is located in a predominantly urbanized setting and is generally bound by roadways and existing development. The project site does not occur on lists of known hazardous materials contamination or storage and has not been designated, precisely mapped, or officially adopted as an area of critical concern. Therefore, there is no evidence that the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies.
b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
Analysis
The proposed project involves the installation of cellular communication panels that would have no impacts beyond the footprint of the tower itself. No cumulatively considerable effects would occur. Therefore, there is no evidence cumulative impacts of successive projects of the same type in the same place. c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
Analysis
The site is not subject to any unusual circumstances that could lead to a significant effect. The tower would be located on a site that was previously developed with water tanks. The project involves the installation of nine Andrew Model SBNHH-1D65B directional panel antennas on a new 76-foot-tall faux tree on land that is designated as Public/Quasi Public. Thus, there is no evidence of any unusual circumstances.
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Att. 1 Resolution No. 2022-05 and Conditions of Approval (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 4 of 14
d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a State Scenic Highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted Negative Declaration or certified EIR.
Analysis
According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System for Sonoma County, the proposed project is not located within the viewshed of a scenic highway. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is State Route 116 (located approximately 19 miles south of the project site). Distance to the project site precludes impacts to scenic resources within a designated State Scenic Highway as such, there is no evidence that the Project will result in damage to scenic resources within a highway officially designated as a State Scenic Highway. e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
Analysis
According to a records search using the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database, the project site is not identified as a hazardous materials site.1 Additionally, no such site is located adjacent to the project site or within the general project area. Therefore, no impacts associated with hazardous materials sites would occur.
f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Analysis
The project site is located in a predominantly developed setting and currently contains sparse vegetation and trees, although it is adjacent to a more heavily wooded portion of the park. There are no known historical resources on-site. Review of the project site shows that the modern ground surface has been previously disturbed because of prior development activity, such as the nearby golf course and the construction of water tanks. Review of the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) files, cultural resources survey at the site, public involvement, and Local Government and OHP consultation as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, conducted by the applicant and reviewed by the City of Healdsburg, determined no impacts would occur to historical resources; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Healdsburg Planning Commission makes the following findings required to approve Conditional Use Permit Application CUP 2016-07, Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP 2021-08, Design Review Application DR 2016-06, and Variance Application V 2017-01 as follows:
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Att. 1 Resolution No. 2022-05 and Conditions of Approval (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 5 of 14
Major Conditional Use Permit Findings – Telecommunication Facility (CUP 2016-07):
Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.165, the Planning Commission is required to make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use permit application; staff has provided suggested findings below each italicized finding:
1. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use is in accord with the Healdsburg General Plan, objectives of the Land Use Code and purposes of the district in which the site is located.
The project is consistent with the following General Plan Goals:
GOAL S-F: Adequate City emergency procedures in the event of natural or man-made disasters.
Policy S-F-1: The City shall ensure that adequate emergency procedures are in place to respond to and recover from man-made and natural disasters.
GOAL NR-C: Preservation and enhancement of Healdsburg’s natural setting.
Policy NR-C-3: Development shall be allowed only in a manner that protects important views and landmarks such as Fitch Mountain, Russian River, and the foothills to the north, west and east of the city.
Policy NR-C-5: Major scenic ridgelines designated on General Plan Figure 8 and highly visible hillsides shall be protected from visually obtrusive development.
Policy NR-C-6: Protection of distinctive natural vegetation such as oak woodlands, riparian corridors, and mixed evergreen forest is encouraged.
Policy NR-C-7: The viewshed along scenic highways, roads and streets shall be protected and enhanced.
The project will provide cellular phone service to a large area around the site where current coverage is lacking. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the project and finds that the project will significantly aid in emergency response during a natural disaster such as a wildfire or earthquake. The project has been designed to minimize visual impacts and blend into the surrounding area and will not impact important views, landmarks, scenic ridgelines, or views from designated scenic roads (South Fitch Mountain Road).
The proposed location and operation of the conditional use is in accordance with the Healdsburg General Plan as it is sited on a parcel that has already been developed for utilities, as shown by the existing water tanks in Tayman Park. Verizon’s facility will provide public benefit in the form of enhanced wireless communication coverage to the City and surrounding residences.
The proposed facility is located in the P (Public) zone, which is a district created in the City’s Land Use Code for “orderly establishment of public and quasi‐public facilities…” (§20.08.210).
Verizon’s facility will provide great public benefit in the form of enhanced wireless communication coverage. This site will allow current and future Verizon Wireless customers to have access to wireless services in the areas shown on the Coverage Plots included in this application. Additionally, this site will serve as a backup to the existing landline service in the
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Att. 1 Resolution No. 2022-05 and Conditions of Approval (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 6 of 14
area and will provide improved wireless communication, which is essential to first responders, community safety, local businesses and area residents.
2. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed facility is located in the P (Public) zone, which is a district created in the City’s Land Use Code for “orderly establishment of public and quasi-public facilities…” (§20.08.210). The proposed Verizon tower will provide vital telecommunications services to the general community. Furthermore, all design and aesthetic elements have been incorporated, with the input of Healdsburg Planning staff, so that the facility may blend into the existing treescape in the park. The proposed facility complies with all development standards for telecommunications facilities as well as for the zoning district. The Radio Frequency (RF) Study prepared for the project indicates that the proposed facility would be in compliance with the FCC Radio Frequency rules.
3. The proposed conditional use will comply applicable provisions of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
As discussed above, the proposed conditional use will comply with the applicable provisions of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
The project is consistent with the following General Plan Goals:
GOAL S-F: Adequate City emergency procedures in the event of natural or man-made disasters.
Policy S-F-1: The City shall ensure that adequate emergency procedures are in place to respond to and recover from man-made and natural disasters.
GOAL NR-C: Preservation and enhancement of Healdsburg’s natural setting.
Policy NR-C-3: Development shall be allowed only in a manner that protects important views and landmarks such as Fitch Mountain, Russian River, and the foothills to the north, west and east of the city.
Policy NR-C-5: Major scenic ridgelines designated on General Plan Figure 8 and highly visible hillsides shall be protected from visually obtrusive development.
Policy NR-C-6: Protection of distinctive natural vegetation such as oak woodlands, riparian corridors, and mixed evergreen forest is encouraged.
Policy NR-C-7: The viewshed along scenic highways, roads and streets shall be protected and enhanced.
Furthermore, the project substantially complies with the Land Use Code, except for the variance for a reduced setback from 100-feet to approximately 15-feet.
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Att. 1 Resolution No. 2022-05 and Conditions of Approval (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 7 of 14
Minor Conditional Use Permit Findings – Over-height Fence (CUP 2021-08):
Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.165, the Planning Commission is required to make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use permit application; staff has provided suggested findings below each italicized finding:
1. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use is in accord with the Healdsburg General Plan, objectives of the Land Use Code and purposes of the district in which the site is located.
The General Plan does not include any policies on fence installation. Land Use Code Section
20.16.055 provides a mechanism to allow fences to exceed 6-feet in height. This section provides for the allowance of over-height fences with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
The fence will be consistent with the Citywide Design Guidelines in that the fence will not completely block views to the site as viewed from the street; it does not utilize an exaggerated or fortressing design; does not use chain-link; and the fence will be made of durable materials (redwood) which will be maintained on a regular basis to ensure security of the site. The fence will be similar to other fences used for securing telecommunication facilities in California.
2. The proposed location and operation of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed fencing will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood because the over-height fence would be located on a parcel surrounded by large expanses of the Tayman Park Golf Course and is located approximately 390-feet from the nearest residential uses on Greens Drive. The gate of the fence will be locked and will only allow entry to authorized maintenance personnel. The fence will not create any line-of-sight issues with pedestrians and vehicles due to its isolated location. The fence will also serve to screen the equipment from view of the golfers playing on the course.
3. The proposed conditional use will comply applicable provisions of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
The proposed fencing does not conflict with any other applicable provisions of the Land Use Code and the proposed fence is consistent with the Citywide Design Guidelines.
Major Design Review Findings (DR 2016-06):
Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.125, the Planning Commission is required to make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use permit application; staff has provided suggested findings below each italicized finding:
1. The proposed development or use is consistent with all applicable policies and requirements of the General Plan and Land Use Code.
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Att. 1 Resolution No. 2022-05 and Conditions of Approval (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 8 of 14
The proposed facility was designed in consultation with City of Healdsburg staff to meet all criteria detailed in the City’s wireless code, §20.20.080 Telecommunication Facilities. Setbacks, stealthing, and height limits were considered when designing the facility. The proposed facility will be 76-feet tall with the antennas mounted at a 60-foot centerline on the pole to ensure optimal signal coverage for the intended service area. The additional height of the structure is to provide for a more lifelike “hat” to sit atop the tower, better resembling the top of a broadleaf tree and similar to those of trees surrounding the facility. The proposed facility height complies with the City’s development standards and 100-foot limit for wireless facilities and has been designed at its minimum functional height.
2. The proposed design of the development or use, and all appurtenant structures, is consistent with the policies set forth in the Design Review Manual, as may be amended from time to time.
Verizon Wireless has designed the facility to minimize visual impacts and blend into the surrounding area. The proposed design promotes the City’s goals of preserving natural beauty while promoting attractive development of land. Verizon has carefully chosen a location for a new facility that will result in minimal visual impact to the residents of Healdsburg and greater Sonoma County. The facility includes a stealth design beneath arboreal camouflage to blend with the surrounding natural vegetation. Verizon will install leaf socks on all proposed panel antennas and RRH units. All antennas and pole mounted equipment will be painted flat green, while the monopole itself will be painted flat brown, and all paint will be non‐reflective. The facility has been designed to minimize visibility from public view and to blend into the surrounding vegetation. Support cables will be installed underground and the equipment will be effectively screened from public view by existing trees nearby.
3. The proposed development or use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning district in which it is located.
The proposed facility is located in the P (Public) zone, which is a district created in the City’s Land Use Code for “orderly establishment of public and quasi‐public facilities…” (§20.08.210).
Verizon’s facility will provide great public benefit in the form of enhanced wireless communication coverage. This site will allow current and future Verizon Wireless customers to have access to wireless services in the areas shown on the Coverage Plots included in this application. Additionally, this site will serve as a backup to the existing landline service in the area and will provide improved wireless communication, which is essential to first responders, community safety, local businesses and area residents.
4. The proposed development or use is consistent with any conditions imposed by the Planning Commission or City Council with respect to any matter related to the purpose of designreview.
There are no previous conditions of approval for a similar use on this site. Staff has included in the resolution a list of recommended conditions of approval to be approved or revised by the Planning Commission to ensure the project is consistent with Federal, State, and Local regulations.
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Att. 1 Resolution No. 2022-05 and Conditions of Approval (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 9 of 14
5. For proposed developments or uses in the Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan area, the design of the development or use, and all appurtenant structures, is consistent with the policies set forth in Chapter IV, “Building Design Framework,” of the Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan dated November 2013 and adopted by the Healdsburg City Council on January 21, 2014, as may be amended from time to time. (Ord. 1138 § 3, 2014.) Not applicable. The proposed facility is not located within the Central Healdsburg Avenue Plan area.
Major Variance Findings (V 2017-01):
Pursuant to Land Use Code section 20.28.230, the Planning Commission is required to make the following findings in order to approve a variance application. Staff has provided suggested findings below each of the four required findings for this request for a reduced setback from 100- feet to approximately 15-feet:
1. Special circumstances exist with respect to the property in question, including, but not limited to size, shape, topography or surroundings.
Staff finds that there are special circumstances with respect to the property in question. The primary circumstances are that the parcel is uniquely shaped and densely vegetated. The parcel is round, and varies over 100-feet in elevation across its 3.4 acres. The majority of the parcel is covered by deciduous trees. There are City-owned facilities in the center of the parcel which are surrounded by trees. The southeastern portion of the parcel contains one abandoned water tank and one new water tank, along with an existing dirt access road. The location of the proposed facility will be in this area of the parcel, at the location of the abandoned water tank. Since this area has been developed with City facilities, locating the tower in this location will have the least impact on the site since it will require less grading and allow preservation of existing trees.
2. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Land Use Code.
Staff finds that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the LUC.
The proposed facility has been designed to occupy developed areas of the parcel and limit impacts related to ground disturbance and tree removal. Complying with the setback standard would require moving the facility further to the west, uphill into an area containing many mature trees. Strict adherence to the setback would require invasive grading and tree removal to construct the facility, necessitating ground and habitat disturbance. The proposed location would minimize environmental disturbance in the construction of new facilities, and locate the facility in a previously developed area.
3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district.
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Att. 1 Resolution No. 2022-05 and Conditions of Approval (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 10 of 14
Staff also finds that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. As noted, the parcel is zoned Public (P) and is one of several similarly zoned parcels in the area. However, the subject parcel contains significantly more vegetation and much steeper topography than similarly zoned parcels nearby. Therefore, staff finds that the special circumstances of the site warrant support of the facility at its proposed location by limiting the amount of environmental disturbance.
4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same zoning district.
Staff finds that the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same zoning district. As noted, the applicant worked in conjunction with City staff to select a location for the facility which minimizes ground and environmental disturbance, but also complies with City regulations.
The proposed location for the facility utilizes a site where development has occurred to the extent possible. The granting of the variance for the facility from the 100-foot setback requirement does not constitute a special privilege as the parcel is unique and the proposed location has already been developed as the site of a City utility. Furthermore, the combination of the zoning of the site, the locational criteria required by the Land Use Code, site constraints, and the cellular signal coverage requirements of the carrier significantly restricts where such a facility could be located. There is no grant of special privilege due to the fact that no other site within the City had eligible zoning, met the locational criteria, allowed for impact mitigation, and did not result in conflicts with adjacent residential uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Healdsburg Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit Application CUP 2016-07, Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP 2021-08, Design Review Application DR 2016-06, and Variance Application V 2017-01 based upon the facts and findings above and subject to the Conditions of Approval, as shown in Exhibit A:
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED by the Healdsburg Planning Commission on the 12th day of April 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Approved: Attest:
____________________________ ____________________________ Jerry Eddinger, Chair Scott M. Duiven, Secretary
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Att. 1 Resolution No. 2022-05 and Conditions of Approval (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 11 of 14
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval
Major Conditional Use Permit Application CUP 2016-07
Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP 2021-08
Major Design Review Application DR 2016-06
Major Variance Application V 2017-01
923 South Fitch Mountain Road
April 12, 2022
Planning and Building Department
1. Approval is granted for the construction and operation of a 76-foot-high cellular tower and supporting facilities. The project shall occur substantially in accordance with the Exhibit A - Plan Set dated August 13, 2021 except as conditioned or modified herein. As detailed in the project description and Exhibit A, the project shall include the following elements for concealment of the facility and to minimize visual impacts. These elements shall also be included for any repairs or future modifications to the facility:
• An 8-foot high redwood plank fence completely surrounding the tower and associated equipment;
• The 8-foot high antennas shall be concealed within “stealth socks” intended to blend in with the faux tree branches;
• The faux tree branches shall extend no less than 6-feet from the tower pole, just past the antenna support arms. The lower branches shall be 10-feet in length to give the structure a more “tree-like” configuration;
• The faux tree shall include 2.8 branches per foot to provide the most natural looking tree and the most stealthing capabilities
2. Any modifications to the approved plans must receive prior approval of the City of Healdsburg. Minor modifications may be approved by the Community Development Director; major modifications require Planning Commission approval.
3. Major Design Review Permit No. DR 2016-06 shall lapse and become void one year following the date on which the Design Review became effective, unless prior to the expiration of one year a building permit is issued for the project.
4. Variance Application V 2017-01 shall lapse and become null and void when the building permit issued authorizing occupancy of the site or structure which was the subject of the variance application lapses or expires.
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Att. 1 Resolution No. 2022-05 and Conditions of Approval (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 12 of 14
5. The plans submitted for building permits shall include details on the location, type, and specifications of the back-up power generator required by the California Public Utilities Commission. The generator is required to be installed within 12 months from the date of building permit issuance for the tower.
6. The use permit issued for the telecommunications facility must be renewed every 10-years through the approval process as specified at HMC 20.28.105.
7. The project shall be constructed, operated, and maintained pursuant the standards of HMC Section 20.20.080.
8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, all identified Tree Protection Plan measures shall be noted on the grading plan and adhered to in order to protect the large Heritage trees to be retained as shown on the site plan (Exhibit A). If any Heritage tree is proposed for removal during the development of the site, a Heritage tree removal permit application shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the removal of tree.
9. All City Department comments on the project are required to be met to the Department’s satisfaction.
10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, submit a construction management plan to the satisfaction of the Building Official.
Fire Department
1. Hazard Identification Signs: Visible hazard identification signs as specified in NFPA 704 for the specific material contained shall be placed on stationary containers and above-ground tanks an at entrances to locations where hazardous materials are store, dispensed, used or handled in quantities requiring a permit and at specific entrances and locations designated by the Fire Code Official. Install NFPA Diamond for diesel fuel on the outside gate.
2. Key Box: A department approved key box shall be installed at a location agreeable to the Fire Department. Box shall contain those keys necessary to gain access and control any fire protection systems or hazardous materials. Applicant shall pay for the purchase price of said box. CFC Section 506, City Ordinance 1157 Section 506.1. Required at gate at facility site.
3. Hazardous Materials Permit: Prior to final inspections, a hazardous material business plan permit shall be obtained from the Fire Department. Access the following link to create a California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) account: http://cers.calepa.ca.gov/ and complete a hazardous materials business plan, per City of Healdsburg City Code sec. 7-16.
4. Defensible Space: Buildings and structures located within a Moderate or High Fire Severity Zone as identified by the Healdsburg General Plan shall maintain a defensible space as outlined in Government Code 51175-51189, the Fire Department’s “Construction and
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Att. 1 Resolution No. 2022-05 and Conditions of Approval (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 13 of 14
Defensible Space Standard within Designated Fire Severity Zones” (http://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/278/Wildland-Urban-Interface) document. CFC 4907.1 Public Works Department
Public Works Engineering has reviewed the above entitlement applications and plan set and requires the following conditions of approval to be addressed at submittal of the subsequent building permit:
1. The Applicant is required to provide construction plans prepared by a civil engineer licensed in the State of California, that meet the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. The Applicant is required to provide internally consistent pad grades with appropriate grading and railing. There are different pad elevations on different elevation drawings, with the potential for a 42” drop off at the edge of the pad.
3. The Applicant is required to locate the existing City and golf course related water mains in the vicinity of the proposed access road as part of the final design. Construction shall include locating, protecting, and/or relocating existing water and other City facilities.
4. The Applicant is required to enter into a lease agreement with the golf course leasing operator/City of Healdsburg regarding use of the property where the access road and facilities are proposed on the property. Verizon is requesting that the City allow dedication of wireless utility easements on City property. City Council approval is required to allow easements over City property. This process shall be completed in conjunction with the lease agreement, under the direction of the City Manager’s Office. Public Works shall review and approve the legal descriptions, deeds, and mapping documents for the proposed easements.
5. If the project is creating or replacing 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area, the project is required to comply with Low Impact Development (LID) requirements.
6. Under the provisions of Section 1701.5, Item No. 13 of the 1998 California Building Code, the Applicant is required to provide inspection of the private drainage improvements by the project engineer to verify that all work is in compliance with site plan of the approved project plans. The project engineer shall provide a letter of review evidencing these inspections.
7. In order to document any modification of public facilities (e.g., extension of the water main, revised utilities, reconstructed frontage improvements, etc.), the Applicant is required to provide the City with mylar “Record Drawings”, ACAD files, and pdf’s of the pertinent sheets of the project plans.
8. The Applicant is advised that City Ordinance prohibits grading between October 1st and April 30th for construction projects on hillsides with slopes 10% or steeper unless the project is granted an exception by the City Engineer in accordance with Section 17.36.030. An exception requires the preparation, review, approval, and implementation of a Monitoring Plan. The site has unknown grades.
9. The Applicant is advised that City Ordinance requires an erosion control plan prepared by a QSD and approved by the City Engineer for all soil disturbing activities that do not have ground cover restored prior to October 1st.
10. The applicant is responsible for repairing, and/or removing and replacing to City or golf
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Att. 1 Resolution No. 2022-05 and Conditions of Approval (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Reso. 2022-05 14 of 14
facility standards, all driveways, parking areas, golf facilities and related infrastructure, and anything else on the project sites damaged by the contractor as a result of the construction of this project. City inspectors will perform pre and post project site reviews, including photo documentation, and will determine the required repairs in conjunction with the facility operator.
11. The Applicant is advised that prior to working within the Public Right of Way, City owned property, or public easement area, the project contractor is required to secure a City Encroachment Permit. Applications may be obtained at
www.cityofhealdsburg.org/index.aspx?page=188 or at this office. This project will construct work on City owned property.
Electric Department
1. The City of Healdsburg will be the electric service provider for this site. The electric service will originate near the Golf Course’s existing well enclosure with all new electric facilities to be underground.
2. The proposed service point must provide twenty-four (24) hour access to City personnel.
This will require locating the electric service point and switch gear outside of the fenced area.
3. All work must be done in accordance with the City's Electric Department requirements. The City Electric Department will work with the contractor throughout the project to determine locations of electrical equipment. The final design of the service and estimation of service fees will be developed during the building permit process.
7.A.f
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Att. 1 Resolution No. 2022-05 and Conditions of Approval (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Att. 2 Applicant Statement (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Att. 2 Applicant Statement (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Att. 2 Applicant Statement (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Att. 2 Applicant Statement (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Att. 2 Applicant Statement (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Att. 2 Applicant Statement (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Att. 2 Applicant Statement (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Att. 2 Applicant Statement (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.g
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Att. 2 Applicant Statement (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.h
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Att. 3 Minutes from PC hearings on 12/08/2020 and 12/14/2021 (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.h
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Att. 3 Minutes from PC hearings on 12/08/2020 and 12/14/2021 (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.h
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Att. 3 Minutes from PC hearings on 12/08/2020 and 12/14/2021 (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.h
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Att. 3 Minutes from PC hearings on 12/08/2020 and 12/14/2021 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
December 14, 2021 6:00 PM
City Council Chamber/Zoom (hybrid format)
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Actions December 14, 2021
1. ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Breznikar, Brunner, Eddinger, Hunt, Luks, McKay Commissioners absent: None
City Staff present: Community Development Director Scott Duiven, City Attorney’s Office Denise Bazzano, Assistant Planner Jeff Fisher, Administrative Specialist Shawn Sumpter
2. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
A. On a motion by Commissioner Luks, seconded by Commissioner Brunner, the Commission voted 6-0 to approve the December 14, 2021 agenda.
B. On a motion by Vice Chair Breznikar, seconded by Commissioner Brunner, the Commission voted 6-0 to approve the November 9, 2021 minutes.
C. Acceptance of Communications and CorrespondenceRegarding item 4A:
Weisberg
Drexler
Zoia
Jones
D. Declarations of Conflicts of Interest: None
E. Disclosures of Ex Parte Communications: None
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Item
Description: CUP 2016-07; CUP 2021-08; DR 2016-06; V 2017-01 Project
Description: Verizon Telecommunications Facility
Location: 923 S. Fitch Mountain Road, Healdsburg – APN: 002-361-003 Applicant: GTE Mobilenet dba as Verizon Wireless c/o Complete Wireless Consulting Environmental
Determination: The project is categorically exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; and Section 15300.2 Exceptions. The Notice of Exemption can be viewed upon request of the City Planning Department at 431-3346.
Assistant Planner Jeff Fisher presented the staff report which was followed by a presentation by the project applicant Maria Kim, Complete Wireless Consulting.
Commissioner Luks asked if other companies would be able to co-locate on the tower.
Kim confirmed that the tower and the lease agreement allow for co-location below Verizon’s equipment.
7.A.h
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Att. 3 Minutes from PC hearings on 12/08/2020 and 12/14/2021 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Summary 12/14/2021 2 of 6
Commissioner Hunt commented that crown of the faux tree in the photo-sims appears to be shorter than shown on the dimensioned drawing.
Kim explained that perception is altered when viewed from a lower elevation making the crown appear to be shorter.
Commissioner Breznikar commented that the existing trees are only in fair condition and asked if anyone was taking care of them. If they are not maintained, then how will the “stealth” of the tower be maintained?
Director Duiven stated that the trees are growing in a natural state and are not irrigated.
Commissioner Breznikar noted that when the trees die, we will be left with just a faux tower.
Director Duiven observed that the tower would have a more prevalent appearance without the trees and noted that the trees are outside of the lease area.
Commissioner Breznikar asked if the addition of co-located equipment would increase the noise and electronic field.
Kim reminded the Commission that any co-location would have to go through the same process as the original installation.
Commissioner McKay stated that he shares the concern about the trees. If the trees are gone the pole is taller than it needs to be. He stated that he visited the site and could see how in a perfect situation, the proposed pole would blend in.
Commissioner Luks asked if the City Attorney was available.
Director Duiven confirmed that Denise Bazzano of the City Attorney’s office was available remotely.
Bazzano confirmed for Commissioner Luks that because the City is the property owner, we have control over the maximum height through the lease beyond what the regulations allow. She also confirmed that the Code does not give the Commission the authority to require a third-party analysis.
Chair Eddinger opened the hearing for public comment.
Brad Drexler, Greens Drive, opined that with a 76’ fake redwood amid scrub oaks, adjacent to dying redwoods, this is a bad project. He shared a photo that he took of a recent Verizon installation using a faux tree and referred to it as ugly. He stated that the Council approved the lease because of public safety concerns but said that the safest thing would be to do this right rather than to do it quick. He noted that the City hired a CEQA consultant and a sound consultant but not a telecommunications consultant. He suggested that the city should hire an independent consultant as is allowed in the code.
He opined that the representation of poor cell coverage is not true, it is a matter of poor Verizon coverage. He also contested the reference to 5G service. He questioned relying on Verizon to represent the coverage and configuration needs because they are representing their commercial interest not necessarily the possible solutions. He stated that this is a bad project, but it does not have to be.
David Jones, Greens Drive, noted that the County Assessor’s office lists the address for the property as 800 Powell Avenue. He stated that the use of panoramic photos for the photo-sims alters the perspective of the view. He referenced a coverage map from Verizon’s website as proof that they do have coverage in Healdsburg. He described
7.A.h
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Att. 3 Minutes from PC hearings on 12/08/2020 and 12/14/2021 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Summary 12/14/2021 3 of 6
Verizon as not being a good partner and expressed concerns that this tower would set the standard and expectation for other carriers to install more of the same.
Resident adjacent to the golf course, described the area as being very dry arid and asked about the use of generators; will they provide a greater fire hazard? She also asked if there is an RF report done, would they also be looking at electric transmission lines.
Camille Jones, Greens Drive, shared pictures and discussed the condition of the existing trees. She described Tayman Park and Oakmound Cemetery as historic resources and stated that while she has evidence of over 50 people who are not in favor of the project, she has seen evidence of only 3 people who are in favor. She stated that she would like to see an arborist report done. The existing report does not include the trees in question because they are not on the property. She expressed concerns about the noise from the facility, describing the area as peaceful. She advocated for a third-party technical study giving examples of other communities who have utilized such services. She opined that the cost is not unreasonable. She expressed concerns that approval of this facility would lead to more towers in the area.
Michiko Conklin, S. Fitch Mountain Road, stated that she has Verizon cell phone service and stated Verizon has many more users than AT&T so this is a very important consideration. She opined that the applicant has done a good job addressing community concerns. She described failure to receive evacuation notifications sent using Nixel during the Walbridge fire. She described this as a very urgent public safety matter and urged the Commission to approve the project.
Yen Trac, Greens Drive, opined that we only have Verizon’s version of what is needed and advocated for a third-party review. What will ensure the availability of service during an emergency? A third-party review should provide that information.
Jerry and Mary, stated that they are against the tower. He proposed the use of directional antenna systems which can be attached to the existing utility poles as a less obtrusive alternative that has not been considered. He stated that as a for-profit company their job is to make money, not to be concerned about the community of Healdsburg.
Seeing no further speakers either in-person or remote, Chair Luks closed the public input portion of the hearing.
Attorney Bazzano clarified that the City has executed the lease and it has been passed to Verizon for signature.
Commissioner McKay noted that the whole process with the timing of the signing of the lease and the entitlement process makes things unclear. He stated that while he appreciates the analysis that has been done so far, he shares the concerns expressed about lack of a third-party expert review.
Commissioner Breznikar stated that she is torn between the residents’ concerns and the fact that we do need good cell coverage. She related that she has had Verizon service for many years and has not suffered from a lack of service. She stated her confusion with the fact that the lease has already been signed. She expressed concerns that more companies may want to install these faux trees. She recommended that the Planning Director get a third-party opinion to address whether this is the best technology to use.
She felt that the consultants did not give enough local value to South Fitch Mountain Road and the golf course as scenic or significant sites.
7.A.h
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Att. 3 Minutes from PC hearings on 12/08/2020 and 12/14/2021 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Summary 12/14/2021 4 of 6
Commissioner Hunt stated that this is a difficult decision, and she would have preferred that a third-party review had been provided. If it did not present an overly significant delay to the process a third-party review would be preferred. If that is not possible, she would rely on staff’s research and report and continue to support their recommendation.
She stated that her primary concern is for the safety of the community as a whole. She stated she would not have a lot of peace of mind in the next emergency situation involving evacuations, knowing that she perhaps was a part of not solving a really critical safety concern of many of our residents.
Commissioner Brunner said that he concurred with Commissioner Hunt. He stated that he also first and foremost looks at the health and safety of our residents. He personally had Verizon and experienced poor coverage in Healdsburg. He stated that more coverage is better for the community than less coverage especially in emergency situations. He expressed his respect for the work staff has done and appreciate their thoroughness. He stated his appreciation for the work the City Attorney’s office has done. While we may want a second report the council is where that may need to happen. The Commission’s job is to support the rules and regulations in the code which he feels they can do.
Commissioner Luks stated he also thinks that because of the emergency situations we have had we need good coverage. Emergency workers can’t just pick and choose which service to use based on where they happen to be. We do not know whether the goal of good coverage has to be provided in this configuration. The critical element in the code is the provision that they must find that the tower is effectively invisible, or they have to find that there is a need for this tower in this location and there is a lack of alternatives. Some members of the Commission think that they got that evidence. He doesn’t. He feels that the staff is expert in many areas, but telecommunications is not one. He feels that an independent consultant needs to provide a review. If co-location can happen on the pole at a lower elevation, then maybe the pole does not need to be that high for the main location. He said that he visited the site and observed that the city owns lots of land in the area of the site. There are old reservoirs and other things that would need to be delt with but there may be other alternatives. He is not convinced that they have evidence that there is no other alternative. He suggested a continuance to provide the third-party review.
Chair Eddinger, noted that when the project was before them previously, they asked the applicant to come back with a list of things. The third-party review was not one of them.
Staff has provided a project program that they believe in. He said we have heard from the City Attorney, who says that it meets legal requirements. Our only job is to agree that it meets the findings or not. If it doesn’t meet the findings, then it dies. If it does, it doesn’t matter whether or not we like Verizon or AT&T or whom ever it may be, it passes. He observed that it looks like this will be a 3-3 vote. He asked for a motion to approve the resolution.
Attorney Bazzano opined that if there is a split vote staff will have to come back to the Commission with a resolution supporting denial of the project. She asked the Commission to go through the findings to discuss each finding to see if they can come to a resolution.
Commissioner Luks said that he can make all of the findings except that the project is effectively invisible or there is evidence that there is a need for this facility and the alternatives are unavailable.
Chair Eddinger observed that you are never going to be 100%.
7.A.h
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Att. 3 Minutes from PC hearings on 12/08/2020 and 12/14/2021 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Summary 12/14/2021 5 of 6
Commissioner Luks insisted that the alternatives need to be looked at.
Commissioner Brunner stated that he can make all of the findings.
Commissioner Hunt said that it was never in her mind that it was possible for the tower to be invisible but that it would be done tastefully. She stated that she could make the findings based on the information that staff has provided.
Commissioner Breznikar stated that she has a problem with the lack of alternatives that it is so close to a neighborhood and in an area that should be protected. She does not feel it meets the criteria for being invisible. She can’t support the findings.
Commissioner McKay stated that he can’t make the same findings.
Attorney Bazzano asked the Commission to identify specifically which finding they can’t make.
Commissioner McKay said that he can’t make the finding that it is invisible and there are no alternatives. He feels that anecdotal evidence is being used to support the need and is insufficient. He clarified it as design review finding #1.
Commissioner Breznikar stated that she can’t make design review finding #2.
Commissioner Luks concurred with Commissioner McKay.
Attorney Bazzano recommended a continuation to allow staff to come back with a resolution for denial based on these findings.
There was a general discussion about the process questioning why they would continue if the vote will again be tied 3-3.
Director Duiven expressed concern about a resolution for denial also resulting in a 3-3 vote.
Attorney Bazzano asked for a recess to consult with staff.
Chair Eddinger granted a 5-minute recess.
Upon returning to the meeting, Director Duiven asked the Commission to consider continuing the hearing to allow a third-party technical report to be done.
Chair Eddinger stated that he thinks there are more issues than the technical report will resolve, and he would prefer that the Commission vote so that the process can move forward.
Commissioner Breznikar disagreed saying that if the report provides alternatives, she could agree to other options, or if they show that the tower is the best alternative she could agree.
On a motion by Commissioner Luks, seconded by Commissioner McKay, the Commission voted 6-0 to continue the hearing for CUP 2016-07; CUP 2021-08; DR 2016-06; V 2017-01, Verizon Telecommunications Facility at 923 S. Fitch Mountain Road to a date uncertain. The continuance was granted to allow time for a 3rd party review of coverage and siting options.
5. COMMISSIONER AND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: None
6. DIRECTOR’S REPORT: Director Duiven provided a progress update on the Housing Element and a forecast for January Planning Commission meetings.
7.A.h
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Att. 3 Minutes from PC hearings on 12/08/2020 and 12/14/2021 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) PC Summary 12/14/2021 6 of 6
Chair Eddinger asked the Director to look into the possibility of a joint meeting with the City Council to review goals and expectations.
The meeting adjourned at 7:58 PM.
______________________________ __________________________ Scott M. Duiven, Secretary Jerry Eddinger, Chair
7.A.h
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Att. 3 Minutes from PC hearings on 12/08/2020 and 12/14/2021 (3626 : Verizon Appeal) CUP2016-07 Correspondence Included in 12/14/2021 Planning Commission Packet Date Author
02/08/2020 Citizen Opposition report - unsigned
11/21/2020 Joann Rivera
12/7/2020 Brad and Pam Drexler
12/7/2020 Camile Jones
12/08/2020 Jed Weismann
12/8/2020 Maria Kim – Response to Drexler
12/8/2020 Maria Kim – Response to Jones
12/13/2020 Clare Harper
12/14/2020 Carl Milfeit
12/14/2020 Laurence D. Landa
12/14/2020 Mary and Gerald Milkowski
CUP2016-07 Correspondence Received After Production of the 12/14/2021 Planning Commission Packet Production and forwarded to PC
Date Author
12/8/2021 Jed Weisberg, Hidden Acres Road, Healdsburg CA 12/8/2021 Brad and Pam Drexler, Healdsburg CA
12/10/2021 Rose Zoia, Anderson Zeigler
12/13/2021 Camille and David Jones, 440 Greens Drive, Healdsburg CA
CUP2016-07 Correspondence Received After Production of the 4/12/2022 Planning Commission Packet Production and forwarded to PC
Date Author
4/11/2022 Yen Trac, Eric Rakowski, Camille Jones, David Jones 4/12/2022 Brad and Pam Drexler, Healdsburg CA
4/12/2022 Locke Wilson, MD
4/12/2022 Yen Trac, Eric Rakowski, Camille Jones, David Jones 4/12/2022 Camille Jones – handed to Commission at the dais
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) From: Silva Rivera, Joann
To: Jeff Fisher; David Woltering; Dave Kiff
Cc: Michael Rivera
Subject: URGENT ACTION REQUESTED - Verizon Telco Facility - 923 S Fitch Mountain Road, Healdsburg Date: Saturday, November 21, 2020 8:44:53 PM
Mr. Fisher, Mr. Woltering and Mr. Kiff –
We received your notification on 11/21/20 (Saturday). I have left a message on your office phone number of (707) 431-3346 on 11/21/20. I am also following up with this e-mail for further documentation.
I am the property owner at 935 S Fitch Mountain Healdsburg, My home is a documented historical home of Healdsburg. We restored the home in 2000 opposed to tearing down the home.
My husband and I are very concerned about the proposed Verizon Telco Facility/Tower to be installed next to our home (935 S Fitch Mountain Road, Healdsburg).
The letter we received over the weekend (11/20/20) provided no location and or map showing the location of the proposed tower.
Our concerns are:
Where exactly is this tower/telco facility being located? What is the distance from our primary residence?
What are the Health impacts to our family. Especially to my husband who has a compromised immune disability.
How does this City propose to cover any new medical issues that are developed due to the increase exposure of excessive electronic magnetic fields? Decrease of property value. How does the City propose to compensate us for this loss?
What will be the additional legal disclosures we would be now required to provide to any future prospective buyers.
I have additional concerns of the short time line notification. Many neighbors have already left for the Thanksgiving week. Leaving them little to no time to respond to the City with their concerns.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Time line.
Notice received Saturday 11/20/20
11/23 to 11/25 is Thanksgiving Week
Only one work (first week of December)
I look forward to hearing from you on Monday, November 23, 2020. My home phone number is (707) 431-8393.
Joann
Joann Rivera
Phone: 707-431-8393
Email: [email protected]
We respect your privacy. Please review our privacy policy for more information. http://www.pge.com/en/about/company/privacy/customer/index.page
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Drexler 1 of 6
12/07/2020
Community Response to request for 80 ft cell Tower near Water Tower/Healdsburg Golf Course.
We have lived at 509 Greens Drive since 1992, and are concerned about this structure.
1. The staff report is incorrect regarding visibility of this tower.
Most trees to the west on the hill, appropriately named “Oak Mound” are a range of native California Oaks, and native Madrone, and most range between 35‐40 feet based on personal survey (which is similar to height of California Oaks in University of California Survey:
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ecs2.2446).
Interestingly, the area below the hill to the South/Southwest (in the direction of housing) has mostly deciduous oaks that lose their foliage in the Fall until Spring, making the tower more visible during this time.
Although there are a number of taller evergreen trees on the East side of the slope, they would not provide coverage to prevent viewscape deterioration for houses to the South/Southwest. In addition, many of these trees appear to be in various states of poor or altered health (and 2 are likely not viable).
None appear to be redwoods, but I did not approach them closely.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Drexler 2 of 6
The City of Healdsburg has been moving towards a “Fire Free Healdsburg.” As noted in the University of California report, California has allowed unnatural conifer progression of Oak woodlands which has increased fire danger risk from Evergreens: “The process also creates a more hazardous fire condition because of the difference on flammability and structure of the Douglas-fir forest compared with the oak woodland.”(conifers cause hotter fires higher in the tree). https://ucanr.edu/sites/Igor/Mature_‐
_Historic_Tree_Stands/Collaborators/The_History_of_Management_of_Mature_Oak_Woodland_Stands _in_the_Bay_Area/
It is likely that these evergreens should and will be removed in the future to allow a healthier oak woodland, and better fire protection for Healdsburg, and would not continue to provide a screen for a 76 foot tower.
The area to the east of the proposed tower does not seem to have any significant treescape according to the supplied map.
2. The staff report is incorrect in regards to property value declines near cell towers.
Although staff did not seem to be able to find evidence that a cell tower in the neighbourhood decreased housing prices, there are 3 very well done peer reviewed articles by university researchers that show a consistent drop in property value, though this seems to vary by location: 2‐25 % of property value. The 2 older studies are also supported by a 2018 study, with the same findings (although I have as yet been unable to access the full report, the abstract is included). It is likely that these evergreens should and will be removed in the future to allow a healthier oak woodland, and would not continue to provide a screen for a 76 foot tower.
It is likely that the effect in Healdsburg is closer to the 9‐25 % drop noted in New Zealand, rather than the 2 % drop noted in Florida, but certainly even a 2 % drop is significant in view of Healdsburg home prices.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Drexler 3 of 6
These studies suggest compensation for those within 1000 meters of the tower depending on distance for this drop in property value.
http://www.prres.net/papers/Bond_Squires_Using_GIS_to_Measure.pdf https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10018‐017‐0190‐9 https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrefec/v56y2018i4d10.1007_s11146‐017‐9600‐9.html
3. Current FCC guidelines allow a future increase in height of 20 feet without community approval, so a 76 ft tower could be increased to 96 feet without taking this back to the city.
Thus if there were some legal way to ensure that the tower could not be elevated 20 more feet without coming back to the city, this should be included in the contract. And if there is no way to do this, then the approval should be for a tower 20 feet shorter.
Per fcc filing:
The rules improperly define “substantially change” in absolute terms that do not vary based on the location or nature of the tower or base station. For example, vertically, the “support structure” could increase by 10%, or if greater, up to 20 feet or the distance required to avoid interference among antennas. Horizontally, an appurtenance can extend the greater of (a) the width of the support structure; (b) 20 feet from the support structure; or the distance required to shield facilities from the elements. The provider could place up to four equipment cabinets at the site (with no limits placed on the size); and one equipment shelter. And as long as excavation does not occur outside the “current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the structure and any access or utility easements currently related to the site,” the proposed modification is deemed insubstantial, and must be approved.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521070994.pdf
4. This 103 page staff report only became available last Thursday, and there is significant neighborhood opposition.
5. The requested heights are misleading: Although the report states without citation that “cell towers must be 50 feet high,” the report does not note that the height of the tower site (according to Google Earth) in 73 meters high, while the height of Rec Park, and most of the surrounding area is only 36 meters high, so the tower is already starting at a relative height of 37 meters (121 feet, 5 inches).
So We would ask the planning commission to:
1. Delay approving this report and bring it back in 3‐4 weeks so the surrounding neighborhood will have time to fully digest the staff report and siting.
2. We would ask for a maximum height of this tower to be 40 feet so that it will be screened by the oak trees, and ask that no mature oaks be removed, as well as that Verizon plant a border of oak trees to the
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Drexler 4 of 6
East and agree to maintain all of the oaks on their fenced property. Also that the tower height cannot be increased in the future without a change in zoning even if FCC guidelines suggest that they can (and if this is not legally possible then the maximum height should be decreased to 20 feet).
3. If the tower is visible to any homeowners, Verizon will be required to subsidize all houses that have a view of the tower by an appropriate decrease of their property value.
4. Lastly, the lease arrangements with the city don’t seem to be listed – has the city negotiated a favorable lease rate – according to the staff report this tower should be very well valued as there are not a lot of alternate sites, and lots of poor coverage, suggesting yearly lease may be as high as $45‐ 60K/year (for a single carrier tower), with a built in increase of 3 % per year.
Brad and Pam Drexler
509 Greens Drive
Healdsburg, CA
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Drexler 5 of 6
Supporting materials are cited, but cited conclusions follow:
The impact of cell phone towers on house
prices: evidence from Brisbane, Australia
Darshana Rajapaksa,
Wasantha Athukorala,
Shunsuke Managi,
Prasad Neelawala,
Boon Lee,
Viet-Ngu Hoang &
Clevo Wilson
Environmental Economics and Policy Studies volume 20, pages211–224(2018)Cite this article The growing public pressure against the spread of cell phone towers in urban areas has created a need to understand their impact on adjacent house prices. A few existing studies are, however, controversial in their methodology and inconclusive in their results. Therefore, our study on the effect of cell phone towers on house prices is designed to avoid these deficiencies. Property transaction data collected from two suburbs within the Brisbane City Council were analysed adopting the spatial hedonic property valuation model. The estimated models were statistically significant and were largely in line with theoretical expectations. The results revealed that proximity to cell phone towers negatively affects house values, decreasing as the distance from the tower increases. A suitable compensation programme for nearby property owners is, therefore, suggested as being an appropriate policy response.
Using GIS to Measure the Impact of Distance to Cell Phone .
2.4 Proximity Impact Study Bond and Xue study conducted in 2004 involved analysis of the residential transaction data using the same hedonic framework as the previous study as well as including the same data but added a further six suburbs to give a total of ten suburbs: five suburbs with CPBSs located in them and five control suburbs without CPBSs. In addition, the geographical {x, y} coordinates that relate to each property’s absolute location were included. A total of 9,514 geo-coded property sales were used (approximately 1000 sales per suburb). In terms of the effect that proximity to a CPBS has on price the overall results indicate that this is significant and negative. Generally, the closer to the CPBS a property is the greater the decrease in price. The effect of proximity to a CPBS reduces price by 15%, on average. This effect reduces with distance from the CPBS and is negligible after 1000 feet.
Conclusion: This paper presents the results of a study carried out in Florida in 2004. The study involved the analysis of market transaction data of single-family homes that sold in Orange County between 1990 and 2000 to investigate the affect on the price of property in close proximity to a tower. The results showed that while a tower has a statistically significant effect on prices of property located near a tower, this effect is minimal. The price of properties within 200 meters (656 feet) decreased, on average, by just over 2%.
Wireless Towers and Home Values: An Alternative
Valuation Approach Using a Spatial Econometric
Analysis
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Drexler 6 of 6
This is the first study to use an hedonic spatial autoregressive model to assess the impact of wireless communication towers on the value of residential properties.
Using quantile analyses based on minimum distances between sold properties and visible and non-visible towers, we examine the relationship between property values and wireless tower proximity and visibility within various specified radii for homes sold after tower construction. For properties located within 0.72 kilometers of the closest tower, results reveal significant social welfare costs with values declining 2.46% on average, and up to 9.78% for homes within tower visibility range compared to homes outside tower visibility range; in aggregate, properties within the 0.72-kilometer band lose over $24 million dollars.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) From: Maria Kim [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2020 3:23 PM
To: Jeff Fisher
Subject: FW: Comments from the Drexlers - Healdsburg HS Dear Jeff,
Please see response to the Drexlers below:
1. Visibility of this Tower
Verizon’s photo simulation vendor has provided a number of views from public points around the facility. Additionally, the tree will be a “broadleaf” tree and not a pine and will blend in better with the surrounding trees. Based on the previous tree studies that have been done by Helix, none of the trees were considered to be failing or in poor condition that would require removal. In addition, Verizon will not remove any trees that provide shade to Tee Box #3 at the request of the golf course owner.
Verizon has no comment on any tree removal that Healdsburg may choose to undertake in the future. However, we note that the area to the east does have quite a bit of treescape coverage. Please see View #3 from Hidden Acres Rd. Lastly, Verizon did prepare a view from S. Fitch Mountain Road (View #1) in the attached photo simulations from the entrance of the golf course.
2. Property Values
I cannot verify the sources that were used to produce the percentages quoted in the Letter from the Drexlers. The landscape and topography may be vastly different as well.
About 75% home buyers value good cell connection as very important when purchasing a home according to RootMetrics.
Furthermore, 90% of households use wireless service and need access to 911 and reverse 911 services. Many people no longer have landlines and exclusively use their smartphones in the home. Lastly, as more people work/learn remotely and demand use within their homes, the need for wireless coverage has increased dramatically in residential areas. Here, the facility is able to provide that service and be located about 400’ away from the nearest residence, screened by existing trees in the park and golf course. It’s the least intrusive means to fill a significant gap in coverage.
3. Verizon is seeking approval of a 76’ tall fauxͲbroadleaf tree and can’t speak to future plans by different wireless carriers.
4. Verizon also received the staff report when it was published online on Thursday and has diligently responded to questions from the public that have come in.
5. Height of a structure is measured from the base of the tower and the natural elevation was needed by the structure in order to provide coverage to the surrounding areas without the need for additional structures. Sincerely,
Maria
Maria Kim, Director of Land Use Planning
Complete Wireless Consulting
(916) 247-6087
(916) 313-3730 fax
[email protected]
2009 V Street
Sacramento, CA 95818
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) From: Camille Jones
To: Jeff Fisher
Subject: Fw: Verizon Tower
Date: Monday, December 07, 2020 3:17:28 PM
Jeff,
Thank you for your time this morning on the phone this email is to follow up from our conversation. I would like to request additional information from the city on these four topics relating to the Verizon tower project to be located at 923 S. Fitch Mountain Road:
1) Visual presentation of the height of the antenna structure by erecting a pole for us to be able to see at our
neighborhood level Greens Drive and Hidden Acres Road.
2) Noise level that will be emitted from the diesel generator in decibels and times of weekly operation.
3) When proposed location was to have been at the high school why our superintendent of schools declined.
4) How much revenue is projected to be paid from Verizon to city of Healdsburg for this plan project on a monthly basis
going forward and would that revenue go to the general fund.
Thank you,
David Jones
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) From: Maria Kim [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2020 2:15 PM
To: Jeff Fisher
Subject: FW: Comments (Camile Jones) - Healdsburg HS
Dear Jeff,
Regarding responses to the Joneses, please see below:
1. The visual presentation can be best shown by the photo simulations provided to the City. Not only do the simulations show the actual stealth design of the tree (which wouldn’t be shown by a story pole), but there is no ground disturbance and no need to take into account wind conditions and other factors.
Verizon has provided views from Hidden Acres Road at the clearest view of the site and it was provided as View #3 in the attached simulations.
Verizon has also provided photo simulations from Oak Mount Cemetery (View #4), which is near Greens Drive, and it cannot be seen as the facility is just behind the existing hillside and trees.
2. The generator would only run during emergencies and for maintenance purposes, approximately 1x a month for 30 minutes. There is no set schedule for when the maintenance occurs, but it would occur during business days (Monday through Friday) between business hours (typically 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) or whatever timeframe Healdsburg requests.
The decibel level for a 30 KW generator with a Level 2 enclosure would be 68 db from 7 meters (or 23 feet) away. Here the nearest residence is over 400’ away and Verizon will comply with all municipal noise standards.
If the City prefers, Verizon is happy to provide a noise study as a Condition of Approval on this project.
3. The school, Healdsburg HS, did not want to move forward with an agreement with Verizon.
4. The lease here will be discussed publicly before the City Council. Verizon would not be able comment on how the funds are used.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Maria
Maria Kim, Director of Land Use Planning
Complete Wireless Consulting
(916) 247-6087
(916) 313-3730 fax
[email protected]
2009 V Street
Sacramento, CA 95818
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) From: Jed Weissberg
To: Shawn Sumpter
Subject: Verizon tower
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 3:27:23 PM
I strongly support a new Verizon tower on Fitch Mountain. Coverage is currently very poor and cellular connectivity is increasingly important. I play golf at Tayman weekly and support the proposed location near the third tee.
Jed Weissberg MD
502 Hidden Acres Rd
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) From: M Clare Harper
To: Shawn Sumpter
Cc: [email protected]; Lar Landa; George Seeber
Subject: Proposed cell tower for Fitch Mountain
Date: Sunday, December 13, 2020 7:58:56 PM
Only this evening I learned about the proposed cell tower for Fitch Mountain which will be the topic of discussion/action this coming Tuesday night at a city of Healdsburg meeting.
Obviously I will not have time to learn the most important facts of such a serious (and, I think, perhaps dangerous) move.
I urge the commission to delay precocious action on this extremely serious subject at least until after the first of the year when Covid and the holidays will, hopefully, not be causing so much distraction.
One of my primary concerns as a homeowner (in a path between Fitch Mountain and downtown Healdburg) is that of surviving a fire. However there are other considerations—is there not a better (though maybe more expensive) way for Verizon to accomplish their goals? I am also worried about the HEALTH EFFECTS of the proposed tower project. Etc, etc. We need more time and, surely, a study done by an independent broadcast technology professional firm before committing Healdsburg to such an important, expensive (visually, health-related, financial ) undertaking.
Please consider the effect of making the proposed commitment on your family and the families of others.
Thank you for giving this your attention.
Clare Harper, 412 Greens Drive, Healdsburg
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) From: Lar Landa
To: Shawn Sumpter
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Horizon cell tower
Date: Monday, December 14, 2020 11:55:38 AM
I strongly object to the Horizon cell tower proposed for Healdsburg. It would be very ugly for Healdsburg. It would be a fire hazard for Healdsburg and the surrounding area. This wholearea is a HIGH FIRE AREA.
Laurence D. Landa
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) From: Carl Milfeit <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 9:18 AM
To: Raina Allan <[email protected]>
Subject: Tayman Golf course cell phone tower
Please approve project. I know there are some who think they are dangerous. Some people believe the earth is flat and Trump won the election. Let's move forward with the future and hopefully better cell phone reception.
thank you
‐‐
Carl Milfeit
[email protected]
650‐888‐1309
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) A Letter to Our Community and to Our City
What initially set off as a race to gather information to bring forth in front of our City Planning Department, has morphed into a journey; a quest to find the knowledge to protect our City from the voids in our General Plan, left behind due to constraints in finance and time. We are conscious that today, with fewer resources available than ever before, it is of the utmost importance that we as a community fight to preserve our scenic vistas from foreign persuasion.
We have compiled a summarization of city documents, historical records, and community observations which we believe bring to light the mistake we would be making with the approval of a permit for the construction of the proposed Verizon LTE Tower on scenic and historic Oak Mound.
The foundation of our report stands on three main pillars of support. The first; our General Plan, the second; Towers, - how they are identified and the general perception of them by our public, and third; Oak Mound - one of our many natural resources and historical sites that make Healdsburg unique.
We began by analyzing the City Staff Report, where we discovered that the data Verizon provided was seriously lacking in its background and diagnostics. The information dates back to 2016, and since that year, many towers have been built or modified throughout our town. We learned that the APN recorded to identify the project was not entirely accurate, that the sign posted was in the smallest reasonable size, potentially affecting public perception, and perhaps most critically, we learned that we are not adhering to our own Telecommunications Code or honoring the intention of our General Plan. Most notably, we are in this situation today because the City of Healdsburg does not have a Master Plan for Cellular and Wireless Communications.
We were able to locate and identify twelve towers in Healdsburg that are not specified in the data provided by Verizon, because they were all modified or constructed after the date of the report. To the best of our knowledge, there is not a database of registered towers on record with the city, as directed by our Telecommunications Code, and we have submitted a “Public Records Request” to confirm or deny this assumption. The Verizon Tower being proposed for Oak Mound will be sited within 1/3 mile of an existing tower located at Recreation Park, and while Healdsburg City code dictates it not be within ¼ mile, these two locations are very close, especially when combined with a third downtown location at 55 Adeline Way. Based upon our reading of the City Staff Report, we do not see a “good faith effort” made to co-locate at the site of any of the registered or unregistered towers, as is also required by our
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Telecommunications Code. Of equal concern in our interpretation of the code, is the requirement that any new location developed, or tower placed, must be done so with the future capability to allow co-location by another carrier. In our opinion one tower is too many, and more than one would be a travesty. At a minimum, our code mandates that we shall be provided, and afforded by Verizon, an independent consultant to review this project, and we should demand this of them before we make such a momentous decision.
The most important part, and our reason to create this “Verizon Citizen Opposition” report, is our passion and determination to save Oak Mound. It is a part of our view shed; South Fitch Mountain Road, where you drive by and look up at our natural mountainous hillsides including Oak Mound, and as you look down from nearly all of our most scenic mountain vistas, you see Oak Mound. Oak Mound is a critical piece of our past history; in the “1983 Healdsburg Cultural Resource Survey,” Oak Mound - as a unique and distinct piece of “Tayman Park” - “is listed, or is eligible for listing under a local preservation or landmark ordinance; and “The Healdsburg Country Club”, is eligible for listing as a contributor to a locally designated historic district or preservation area.” In its earliest years “Tayman Park”(first known as “Matheson Park”) was a playground to Nina Matheson Luce and the entire town. In the 1880s, “Matheson Park” was the training ground to a world famous trotter horse who raced on a track that is now a fairway. “Tayman Park” was a special place for the community, where garden tours of the 1930s were hosted, and a watch tower stood sentry during the World War II era, and for some who may still recall, home of the third hole, famously referred to as the “punch bowl.”
When Colonel C.E. Tayman and The Salvation Army collaborated to bring “The Healdsburg Country Club” located on the “Luce Tract” into the stewardship of the City of Healdsburg, they did so with the “Only provision set down by the club members and the Salvation Army, holder of the mortgage, that the course should be operated as a municipal golf course, public park and playground for the benefit of the people.”
We sincerely hope that what we have laid out encourages you to continue reading and observing the stories and pictures that we collected, and that you will consider it in its entirety. For us, this journey of discovery has reinforced our determination to preserve Oak Mound from the construction of a new and unneeded man-made monolith. A “faux tree” tower that will surely be a blemish to be seen from many vantages of town for decades to come.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Public Notice
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Areas of Concern
1. There are three public notice signs posted for the "major" projects that are currently/recently under review by the planning department. Unfortunately, there is a major discrepancy between the three signs, with respect to the size and placement selection at the site, to ensure optimal noticing and public awareness.
2. The APN/Parcel number that has been identified for the project site, according to the County Assessor's office, belongs to 800 Powell Avenue.
This brings up an alternate google search result and could possibly give the community a different impression of where the "faux tree" will be placed.
3. While it appears that the intention when the notices were sent out to the public, was to reach more neighbors than was required by code, regrettably, many of the people living with a direct view from street, backyard or home, were not noticed.
4. The notices mailed out for the December 8 Planning Commission meeting were received on Sat November 21, right before a holiday weekend, in the middle of a pandemic shutdown. The meeting had to be accessed through Webex, which the City of Healdsburg has discovered to be a meeting tool that does not encourage participation by the community, and will no longer be utilized. Many of the people identified by the noticing map, have shared that they did not recall receiving the letter. While the City of Healdsburg did not intend this consequence, it was an unfortunate outcome.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 1 The following three pictures represent the perceptible differences in the manner of site location notification 13534 Healdsburg Avenue, Healdsburg Lumber Company
4’x8’ Size Sign
“Major Design Review DR 2020-04”
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 111 Saw Mill Circle, Mill District
4’x8’ Size Sign
“Design Review Revision”
“One-year extension to Design Review Permit…”
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 923 S. Fitch Mountain Road, Verizon Wireless
2’x3’ Size Sign
“Major Conditional Use Permit, Major Design Review and
Major Variance applications…”
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 2 ***APN/Parcel: 002-361-003 from the public notice sign belongs to 800 Powell Avenue, where the project is to be located.
923 S. Fitch Mountain is the Address of the Easement.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) An Address is not Just an Address
923 S. Fitch Mountain
***Red dot placed by Google is at the very Eastern side of the Golf Course property.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Versus
800 Powell Avenue
923 S Fitch Mountain is not searchable by an APN on Sonoma County Assessor’s Website. To “google” that address, you will be looking straight up at a tree covered hill, where one might believe the Tower would not be visible from our historically registered scenic roadway.
The red dots from the two different pictures(google searches) imply very different sites on the property.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 3 Verizon SFitchMt_923_300ftNoticeMap
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) The preceding map represents the residents within 300 ft of the property where the project is located, which according to the City of Healdsburg meets the requirements for public notice. The City staff also noted that this map went even further to notice the residents within 300 ft of the golf course. Many of the community who will have the largest visual impact from the placement of the tower are not included in this map. As we made our own observations, we discovered that this tower can either be easily viewed or possibly viewed from all of the following streets:
Greens Dr.(½ block only), Fairway Ct., Tee Dr., Tee Ct(½ Court only), North St., S. Fitch Mtn Road, Hidden Acres, Piper St., University St., Grant St., Pordon Lane, Florence Lane(one side only), Josephine Lane, Rose Lane, Sunnyside Dr.(1 home only), Ridgeview Dr.(6 homes only), Vista Via Dr.(4 homes only), Revel Rd. ***Highlighted indicates the streets/parts of streets that are included in the coverage
While it is clear that the City of Healdsburg was working to follow the code, the end result was that many people were not noticed who would be directly impacted.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) What Are Our Neighbors Doing?
Cotati, CA
“Affected Owners. All owners of real property as shown on the latest county equalized assessment roll, within a radius of five hundred feet from the exterior boundaries of the parcel that is the subject of the hearing;”
Cloverdale, CA
“Property owners within three hundred feet of the parcel to be subdivided as listed on the city’s most current ownership rolls, shall be noticed at least ten days prior to the hearing.” Novato, CA
“For applications involving an amendment of the general plan or urban growth boundary, amendment of the zoning map or text. Master plans and amendments, precise development plans and major amendments, development agreements, a tentative map, use permit, variance, zoning code interpretation or major design review mailed notice shall be provided to property owners within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject parcel(s);” Petaluma, CA
“Notice of the approval of a minor use permit by the planning director authorizing the establishment or modification of, or the renewal of a permit for, a telecommunication facility or minor antenna needing site plan review, shall be mailed to all adjacent property owners within three hundred feet. Mailing of said notice shall start a fourteen calendar day appeal period. (Ord. 2029 NCS (part), 1996.)”
Rohnert Park, CA
“To all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within three hundred feet of the real property that is the subject of the hearing.” Santa Rosa, CA
“When a neighborhood meeting may be required. A neighborhood meeting may be required for a development proposal that otherwise would not require a meeting, if there is significant controversy or if interest has been expressed by the neighborhood regarding the proposal. In these cases, the Director shall determine whether to hold a meeting.” “Notification required.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) a. A neighborhood meeting shall be noticed by mail to real property owners and occupants located in whole or in part within a radius of 600 feet from the exterior boundaries of the Assessor’s parcels that are the subject of the development proposal. f. Additional notice may be required at the discretion of the Director, including alternate methods and/or the use of a greater radius for notice for projects of particular interest, scale or size.”
Sebastopol, CA
“The applicant should provide notice in accordance with SMC 17.460.020, Procedure, except as modified in this subsection, to all property owners of parcels within 600 feet of the boundaries of the subject parcel on which the applicant intends to propose the facility or modification. “ “Procedures for a Community Meeting. The applicant shall schedule and hold a community meeting at least two weeks before the date of the Planning Commission meeting at which the application will be heard to provide residents information about the application for a wireless facility and streamline the review process by providing applicants an opportunity to consider residents’ suggestions prior to a public hearing before the Planning Commission.” Sonoma, CA
Affected Owners. All owners of real property as shown on the latest Sonoma County equalized assessment roll, within a radius of 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the parcel that is the subject of the hearing;
Windsor
All persons shown on the last equalized assessment roll as owning real property within three hundred (300′) feet of the property which is the subject of the proposed development agreement
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Cotati, CA
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/#!/Cotati17/Cotati1744.html#17.44 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/#!/Cotati17/Cotati1788.html#17.88 Cloverdale, CA
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cloverdale/#!/Cloverdale15/Cloverdale1537.html#15.37.020 Santa Rosa
http://qcode.us/codes/santarosa/?view=desktop
Sonoma, CA
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Sonoma/#!/Sonoma05/Sonoma0532.html#5.32 Petaluma, CA
https://petaluma.municipal.codes/Code/14.44.290
Sebastopol, CA
https://sebastopol.municipal.codes/SMC/17.130.090
Rohnert Park, CA
https://library.municode.com/search?stateId=5&clientId=4128&searchText=wireless&contentTypeId=CODES file:///Users/newuser/Downloads/947.pdf
Windsor, CA
https://www.townofwindsor.com/DocumentCenter/View/21611/Zoning-Ordinance-Rev-2018-08-20 Novato, CA
https://library.municode.com/ca/novato/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CHXIXZO_ART3SIPLGEDEST_DIV19.38WIC OFA
Sonoma County
https://library.municode.com/ca/sonoma_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH26SOCOZORE_ART88GEEXSPUS ST_S26-88-130TEFA
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Existing Cellular Towers
Modified or Approved
Since 2017
(One Noted Tower Modified in 2015)
A Layperson’s Analysis
The Report as presented by Verizon Wireless, portrays a different picture than the following 20+ photos. This section seeks to demonstrate that there is far too much information that has not been “officially” gathered, for our City Council nor our Planning Commission to make an informed decision.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Co-Location
We are waiting for the City of Healdsburg to provide public documents to clarify whether or not there is one site that has co-located any other carriers/providers, per City of Healdsburg Telecommunications code: “The intention of the alternatives analysis is to present alternative strategies that would minimize the number, size, and adverse environmental impacts of facilities necessary to provide the needed services to the subject area. The analysis shall address the potential for co-location at an existing or a new site and the potential to locate facilities as close as possible to the intended service area. It shall also explain the rationale for selection of the proposed site in view of the relative merits of any of the feasible alternatives. Approval of the project is subject to the decision-making body making a finding that the proposed site results in fewer or less severe environmental impacts than any feasible alternative site.” We were not able to identify an example of “co-location” in Healdsburg.
Requirement of Facility and Site Sharing
City of Healdsburg Telecommunications code dictates that the City will require of the applicant that: “All co-located and multiple-user telecommunication facilities shall be designed to promote facility and site sharing. To this end telecommunication towers and necessary appurtenances, including but not limited to parking areas, access roads, utilities and equipment buildings, shall be shared by site users whenever possible.” Will the community be glad to have multiple carriers located at the highest, most scenic point in town, aside from Fitch Mountain?
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) City Requirement for Registration
Waiting for a response to our City of Healdsburg Records Request to confirm that the city does not have it’s own comprehensive analysis of the carriers that are located within the city as is required per our code section:
“D. Registration required
1. All telecommunication carriers and providers that offer or provide any telecommunication services for a fee directly to the public, either within the city of Healdsburg, or outside the corporate limits from telecommunication facilities within the City, shall register with the City pursuant to this section on forms to be provided by the planning and building director. The purpose of this registration under this section is to:
a. Provide the City with accurate and current information concerning the telecommunication carriers and providers that offer or provide telecommunication services within the City, or that own or operate telecommunication facilities within the City;
b. Assist the City in enforcement of this section;...”
No Proposed Tower Located Within ¼ Mile of Existing Tower The Verizon Tower being proposed for Oak Mound will be sited within 1/3 mile of an existing tower located at Recreation Park, and while Healdsburg City code dictates it not be within ¼ mile, these two locations are very close especially when combined with a third downtown location at 55 Adeline Way.
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Healdsburg/#!/Healdsburg20/Healdsburg2020.html#20.20.080
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Existing Cellular Towers
Modified or Approved Since 2017
(One Noted Tower Modified in 2015)
Site Location City/
County
Tower/
Panels
New/
Modified
Year of Build/
Permit
Carrier
13100 Healdsburg Ave
Russian River Covered
RV Storage
City Water
Tower
New 2017 - Conditional
Use Permit
Verizon
#2. 55 Adeline Way
Mill District
City Tower Modified 2017 - Permit issued
by Work Class Sprint
25 Matheson Street
Hotel Healdsburg
City Rooftop
Panels
Modified 2020 - Permit issued
by Work Class AT&T
515 Piper Street
Recreation Park
City Tower New 2020 - Permit Info
Located Only for
Support Structure
MetroPCS
14944 McDonough Hts
Fitch Mountain
Ridgeline
County Tower Modified 2018 - Building Permit
With Plan Check
AT&T
1100 March Avenue
Ridgeline
City Tower Modified 2015 - Conditional
Use Permit. Not
Modified
Verizon
1396 University Ave
Good Shepherd
Lutheran Church
County Tower New 2021 - Building Permit
With Plan Check
Verizon
1431A Grove Street City Rooftop
Panels
Modified 2018 - Permit issued
by Work Class
Not able to
Identify
150 Alexander Valley
Rd
Transfer Station
County Tower New 2017 - Building Permit
With Plan Check
Verizon
317 Alexander Valley
Rd
Farmstead
County Tower/
Pole
Modified 2021 - Building Permit
With Plan
Check
MetroPCS
6699 Mill Creek Road
Ridgeline
County Tower New 2021 - Building Permit
With Plan Check
AT&T
3200 Rio Lindo Avenue
Rio Lindo Academy
County Tower New 2021 - Building Permit
With Plan Check
Verizon
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #1
Verizon April 2017
“Disguised” As a Water Tower
13100 Healdsburg Avenue, Wine Country RV Storage
Not Readily Seen from South Entrance to Town
***In 2016 Applicant requested a 55’ “faux” Water Tower and in 2017 applicant resubmitted for approval of a 35’ “faux” Water Tower.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #1
Verizon April 2017
At Verizon’s Discretion - “Revised from 55’ to 35’ in an effort to “significantly reduce the visual impacts of the facility which is in a highly visible location near a scenic road”
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #1
Verizon April 2017
As Viewed from Grant Avenue.
In the words of Verizon - “Highly Visible Location Near A Scenic Road” https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/2757?fileID=3799
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #2
Sprint 2015 (3 Antennas)
Modified 2017(6 Antennas)
Not Disguised, Visible from Residential
55 Adeline Way, South Healdsburg, Downtown
Visible from Old Railway Station
Foss Creek Pathway Plan final
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #2
View from Foss Creek Trail
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #2
View from Healdsburg Avenue
https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/6138/201505_Permits_Finaled?bidId= https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/7781/201707-Permit-Applications-By-Status?bidId= https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/236
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #3
AT&T Tower 2020
Strategic Placement
25 Matheson Street, Top of Hotel Building,
Not Visible from Healdsburg Avenue
***No further review required by Healdsburg to add antennas to the existing location.
https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/12058/202003-Permit-Issued-by-Class?bidId=
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #4
MetroPCS/T-Mobile 2020
Recreation Park
https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/12570/202008_Permit-Applications-By-Status?bidId=
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #5
AT&T Tower Upgraded 2018
McDonough Heights, Fitch Mountain
https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/PRMD/Services/Zoning-and-Parcel-Report/?APN=087-220-037&rp=MapSearch
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #5
AT&T Tower Upgraded 2018
Viewed from Riverfront Park, Front Street
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #6
Verizon Tower NOT Approved to Upgrade Nov 2015
1100 March Avenue
Deeded to COH with Approval ONLY for Water Tower
Highly Visible Ridgeline - “Proposed” was NOT Upgraded
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #6
As Viewed Today From the Top of Sunnyvale Drive
https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_11102015-553 https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/2632?fileID=2989
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #7
Verizon Tower Nov 2019
1396 University Ave, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church
View from Top of Sunnyvale Drive
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #7
Verizon Tower Nov 2019
View from Sunnyvale Ave before 1396 University Tower Installed https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/PRMD/Services/Zoning-and-Parcel-Report/?APN=091-040-034&rp=Per mitSearch&P=permits&PN=BLD19-6935
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #8
Carrier Unknown Modified 2018(6 Antennas)
1431A Grove Street
https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/7996/201709-Permit-Applications-By-Status?bidId= https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8586/201804-Permits-Issued-By-Class?bidId= https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/325
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #9
Verizon April 2017
150 Alexander Valley Road
View from Transfer Station
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #9
Verizon April 2017
150 Alexander Valley Road
View from Healdsburg Avenue
https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/PRMD/Services/Zoning-and-Parcel-Report/?APN=091-070-039&rp=PermitSearch &P=permits&PN=BLD17-1478
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #10
T-Mobile Tower Installed 2005 Updated 2021
317 Alexander Valley Road
Viewed from Alexander Valley Road
https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/PRMD/Services/Zoning-and-Parcel-Report/?APN=091-070-004&rp=PermitSearch
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #11
Verizon 70’ Monopole 2021
3200 Rio Lindo Avenue Healdsburg
https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/PRMD/Services/Zoning-and-Parcel-Report/?APN=088-020-003&rp=PermitSearch
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #12
AT&T 150’ Lattice Tower 2020
6699 Mill Creek Rd
https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/PRMD/Services/Zoning-and-Parcel-Report/?APN=111-160-008&rp=MapSearch
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Verizon Data Provided to The City of Healdsburg
Map View
List View
There are several impressions/statements made in the above “Map View” and “List View” that are inaccurate or incorrect.
1. In the “Map View”, Verizon identifies 7 towers in the geographic area that is South of Lytton, East of Hwy 101 and North of Grant Street. If you look at the map of the towers
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) below, that are identified in the page titled “Existing Cellular Towers” and then mapped in Google Earth, you will note that there are at least 11 towers.
2. Verizon also states that there are “15 Towers(2 Registered, 13 Not Registered) within
4.00 miles of 923 S. Fitch Mountain Road. Looking again at the Google earth map below, we were able to identify 11 Towers all within 2.6 miles and most within 1.1 miles.
3. Verizon tells us that the big green check and an “Ok!” means that there are “No Applications for Future Towers detected as of 09/02/16. Once again, this information is either intentionally incorrect or misleading. On Feb. 16, 2016, Verizon had applied for approval of the “Faux Water Tower” located and eventually built at 13100 Healdsburg Avenue.
4. Verizon states with an emphatic “Info! The NEAREST Tower is .71 miles away and is owned by Blank.” Again, this is NOT correct. The nearest Tower is .34 miles away and is a MetroPCS Tower that leases the space from The City of Healdsburg. While Verizon may argue that this Tower was not in existence when their data was presented, we contend that the information provided by Verizon is without question too outdated to provide the accurate information absolutely required to make an informed decision, and for the Planning Commission to render an approval of the “Major Use Permit”. https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_12152020-1179?packet=true
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Windsor - Two Ways
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #1
Famously
Highway 101 S North Windsor
Viewed from Hwy 101 Southbound
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #1
Same Tower Viewed from Old Redwood Highway
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #2
Discreetly
Arata Northbound On-Ramp
Viewed from Hwy 101 South
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tower #2
Viewed from back of parking lot, Brooks Road
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Another Point Of View
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) The following pictures remind us that perspective varies depending on your vantage, and the time of the year.
During wintertime, we delight in the new view presented by so many of our heritage trees losing their leaves. The lighting can be the most beautiful during this time of the year, when it is also the most pleasant weather for
walking or taking a drive. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the City of Healdsburg has as many walkers, and walkers with dogs, as any other city in California.
We are a geographically small city, but we take immense pride in our beautiful history that has many stories
involving our neighborhoods, our hills and mountains,
and our rivers and parks.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Healdsburg Elementary School
Playing Fields
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Oak Mound Cemetery
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Top of Revel Road Wintertime
711 Hidden Acres Road
Viewed from the top of Revel Road where it touches the backs of the homes on Hidden Acres. There are deciduous trees in the foreground and redwood trees that are not healthy. Maybe as many as half of them are dead.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) South Fitch Mountain Road
Scenic S. Fitch Mountain Road - the Eastern Gateway to town for many pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists..
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) History
Does
Matter
Cultural Preservation
An Important Family and
The National Historic Preservation Act
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) “City of Healdsburg
1983 Cultural Resources Survey”
“MASTER LIST OF INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES”
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) “1983 MASTER LIST OF INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES
BY STREET ADDRESS”
5- is listed or is eligible for listing under a local preservation or landmark ordinance
5D - is listed or is eligible for listing as a contributor to a locally designated historic district or preservation area
Healdsburg Cultural Resource Survey FINAL REPORT
Historic Preservation | Healdsburg, CA - Official Website
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) The Characters
The Stories
The History
“The municipal golf course traces its history back to June, 1922, when the Healdsburg Country Club, a private club, was formed. Colonel C. E. Tayman of the Salvation Army was the instigator of the club and later became the club’s first president. Seventy acres of the Luce tract, including the portion with the old Luce half-mile track where Lou Dillon, one of the most famous trotters the world has known, was trained, were purchased after 106 members paid an entrance fee of. $lOO each. _ Volunteer labor laid out nine short holes the first year. The next year permanent greens were laid out for a more than 2922vard, nine-hole course. Par was 35. • The city of Healdsburg purchased the course in January, 1935, after the depression had curtailed the club income and it was $lO,OOO in debt. Since the city took over the property as a municipal project fairways and greens have been put in turf, foot bridge built over ditches and the old clubhouse modernized and a kitchen installed. A caretaker’s house and starting house were built and tennis courts laid out.”
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HTES19550623.2.110&srpos=5&e=------195-en--20-HTES-1-byDA-txt-txIN-luce+tract-------1 http://www.survivorlibrary.com/library/the_two-minute_horse_1922.pdf
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) A Fascinating Timeline for Healdsburg
1880s - Then known as “Matheson Park”, home of a well known ½ mile dirt horse racing track where Lou Dillon of “The Two Minute Trotters” was trained. Now a golf course fairway. “Way back in the 1880s, Healdsburg had a first class half-mile dirt race track, located at Matheson’s park, now the Luce Tract, part of which is now a fairway of the Healdsburg Country Club. The outline of the eastern end of the track, banked, can still be traced. There was a racing association formed, and in 1888 buildings were constructed for the convenience of horsemen and spectators.”
1885 - Nina Matheson marries Jirah Luce
1889 - Nina Luce is a Delegate of the Ladies of the G.A.R.(Grand Army of the Republic) “The oldest Women’s hereditary
organization in the United States.”
1899 - Gift of land to City of Healdsburg - “Nina Luce & Jirah Luce to City of Healdsburg, Aug 12, 99, 1-8 of acre of laud for right of way and water purposes near Healdsburg”
Luce Family - Proprietor of the Healdsburg Cemetery
Nina Luce -“Queen of the Healdsburg Water Carnival Festival” 1920 - “Nina Mathesen Luce was a pioneer resident of Healdsburg. born here August 12, 1855. She was the last of the historical family of Col. Roderick N. Matheson, who gave his life for his country in one of the great Civil War battles. He was given military honors by the nation.
His body was taken from the hospital tent of the battlefield to the governors room of New York, where an imposing military funeral was held. From there his body was sent under military escort to his home in Healdsburg.”
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 1922 - The “Healdsburg Country Club” under the leadership of Colonel C.E. Tayman of The Salvation Army, purchases the “Luce Tract.”
1923 - Jirah and Nina Luce Give/donate land to public benefit. “Guy Rose on behalf of Jirah Luce and Nina Luce Rose presented a map showing two streets in a new tract being opened up in the Luce property east of First Street which are to be dedicated to public use. They are extensions of Second street northward from Matheson and North street east from First. The trustees adopted a resolution commending their dedication and which will be presented to the county supervisors for their ratification.”
1920s thru ?? - “The Punchbowl Hole” -“Then he teed off on the third, at the brink of a hill looking down on the “Punchbowl,” drove off and holed the ball on the one shot.” The thrill that comes “once in a lifetime” excited Ernie Grande of Windsor Sunday when, from the No. 3 tee at Tayman Park he watched his ball soar into the Punchbowl and sink into the hole. Grande and his partner were so thrilled that they howled and shouted and then dropped their clubs and rushed down town to “celebrate” the occasion. When they returned to their game, the first thing Grande did was to get into the ditch and pick up his first ball, a “dub” shot. Then he went to the green and picked up the hole-in-one ball. Then he chalked up “ 3” on his scorecard for the hole. (Healdsburg Tribune, 1952)
1927 - “Mr. Scoble has also Issued an attractive folder which includes a road map from San Francisco and other bay cities direct to tbe Fitch Mountain tract. Pictures of some of the river and mountain scenes as well as the Healdsburg Country Club add to the folders’ power to draw city dwellers to a real country paradise.”
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 1935 - The Town of Healdsburg acquires “Healdsburg Country Club” property and renames it “Tayman Park” after Colonel C.E. Tayman of the Salvation Army.
1935 - As reported by “The Healdsburg Tribune” on Jan 24, 1935, of the new city ordinance declaring the purchase of the property and that it was to remain a public park, and that it was "passed and adopted on January 21, 1935." “Only provision set down by the club members and the Salvation Army, holder of the mortgage, was that the course should be operated as a municipal golf course, public park and playground for the benefit of the people.”
1935 - Garden Club Tours - “At least 16 gardens and Tayman Park were viewed Monday by members of the garden section of the Santa Rosa Saturday Afternoon Club as guests of the Healdsburg Garden Club.”
1950s - World War II - “Observation Tower” “A “32-hour, 'round the clock” observation post was maintained here on June 23 and 24 by members of the local aircraft observation corps, Civil Defense unit.
According to H. O Williams, aircraft observation supervisor, during the period of observation approximately 20 planes flew over the aiea, coming from all directions.”
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) The “Luce” Tract
1898 Atlas
(Provided from the Archives of the Healdsburg Museum)
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Punchbowl Hole - Hole Number 3
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) The National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 is implemented through the FCC's environmental rules. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of federal undertakings on historic properties. The FCC considers the construction of communications towers or certain collocation of communications equipment using FCC-licensed spectrum a federal undertaking. See Wireless Infrastructure Report and Order. While Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) is required for some communications towers, Section 106 process may be required even if ASR Registration is not required.
Commission licensees and applicants are delegated the responsibility for initiating the Section 106 review process for proposed facilities, identifying and evaluating historic properties, and assessing effects. This process includes consultation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Tribal Nations that have expressed an interest in the proposed project. The Commission maintains two databases, the Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) and the E-106 system, to facilitate communications with these parties.
For the Tribal Nations, either a Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) or a cultural preservation office have been established at each Tribal Nation and designated the point-of-contact for the Section 106 process.
Filing coordinates in TCNS and uploading documentation to E-106 initiates statutorily mandated review periods and supports efficient processing.
Historic properties are sites, structures, buildings, and objects that are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. SHPO’s maintain the lists of these historic properties. For Tribal Nations, historic properties include sites and places of cultural and religious significance. Due to the sensitive nature of these historic properties, these places are often not publicly identified. Tribal Nations have the option to provide this information to the FCC through its Federal Preservation Officer who will ensure that the information is protected throughout the Section 106 process.
FCC Tower and Antenna Siting
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) California Environmental Quality Act
15064.5. DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS TO
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES
(a) For purposes of this section, the term “historical resources” shall include the following:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res.
Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
(2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
(3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following: (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
CEQA
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) http://www.survivorlibrary.com/library/the_two-minute_horse_1922.pdf https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HTES19340426.2.46&srpos=3&e=------193-en--20-HTES-1-byDA-txt-txIN-luce+tract-------1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HTES19350110.2.21&srpos=214&e=------193-en--20-HTES-201-byDA-txt-txIN-golf+club-------1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HTES19350110.2.18&srpos=213&e=------193-en--20-HTES-201-byDA-txt-txIN-golf+club-------1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HTES19350718.2.53&srpos=51&e=-------en--20-HTES-41-byDA-txt-txIN-tayman+stevens-------1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HTES19241120.2.31&srpos=2&e=-------en--20-HTES-1-byDA-txt-txIN-punchbowl-------1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HTES19560823.2.10&srpos=94&e=------195-en--20-HTES-81-byDA-txt-txIN-tayman+hole-ARTICL E------1
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HTES19350307.2.2&srpos=16&e=-------en--20-HTES-1--txt-txIN-tayman+-ARTICLE------1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HTES19350124.2.96.4&srpos=5&e=------193-en--20-HTES-1-byDA-txt-txIN-tayman+park-------1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HTES19520529.2.92&srpos=3&e=-------en--20-HTES-1-byDA-txt-txIN-tayman+park+map-------1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HTES19550623.2.110&srpos=5&e=------195-en--20-HTES-1-byDA-txt-txIN-luce+tract------- 1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HT19220608.2.2&srpos=20&e=------192-en--20-HT-1-byDA-txt-txIN-healdsburg +country+club----1922---1
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HT19350108.2.12&srpos=5&e=------193-en--20-HT-1-byDA-txt-txIN-healdsburg +country+club----1935---1
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HT19350108.2.5&srpos=4&e=------193-en--20-HT-1-byDA-txt-txIN-healdsburg+ country+club----1935---1
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HE19270428.2.4&srpos=2&e=------192-en--20-HE-1--txt-txIN-healdsburg+country+club----- --1
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HTES19521016.2.105&srpos=288&e=------195-en--20-HTES-281-byDA-txt-txIN-tayman---- ---1
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SRPD19080719.2.51&srpos=22&e=------190-en--20--21--txt-txIN-nina+luce-------1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SRPD19211117.2.64&srpos=1&e=------192-en--20--1--txt-txIN-nina+luce-------1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SRPD19201009.2.38&srpos=2&e=------192-en--20--1--txt-txIN-nina+luce-------1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HTES19500224.2.78&srpos=3&e=------195-en--20-HTES-1-byDA-txt-txIN-tayman+hole-AR TICLE------1
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HTES19510628.2.5&srpos=1&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-tayman+park+observation-------1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HE19230308.2.7&srpos=35&e=-------en--20-HE-21--txt-txIN-nina+luce-------1 https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=HTES18890105.2.47&srpos=1&e=------188-en--20-HTES-1--txt-txIN-nina+luce-------1 https://palgar.org/
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SRPD18990823.2.78&srpos=25&e=------189-en--20--21--txt-txIN-nina+luce-------1
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Cities Have Rights
Why This Project is Not Exempt
From
The California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA)
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) City of Healdsburg
2021-2022 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
States the following:
“Community Services
Support proposals for the acquisition, development, and rehabilitation of parks, recreation facilities, open space, and trails, and that facilitate the establishment of new urban parks.” “PLANNING & BUILDING
Support proposals to fund the protection, preservation, restoration, and enhancement of historical areas, civic artworks, or monuments under City ownership or control and State-owned sites or artworks within the City, including sites or artworks that are being managed on behalf of the City.”
https://healdsburgca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2044&Inline=True
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Guiding Principles
for
The City of Healdsburg
From the first pages of our carefully thought out and written, General Plan Document…
“GUIDING PRINCIPLES
At the heart of the General Plan are “Guiding Principles” that express the key values and aspirations for Healdsburg’s future and act as guideposts for the goals, policies and implementation measures contained within the General Plan. The Guiding Principles are intended to promote future land uses and development that are properly planned to preserve, protect and enhance Healdsburg’s small-town character and unique quality of life, while providing for economic development and for community services and facilities that capitalize on Healdsburg’s location and natural resource assets.” “Guiding Principles
1 Identity A Maintain Healdsburg’s role within the region. Healdsburg, one of the oldest cities in Sonoma County, has long been the residential and commercial center of a productive agricultural area. The City will continue to fulfill this role by providing housing, jobs and commercial services to its residents and the surrounding region as well as supporting diverse local agriculture. B Promote city-centered growth. Long before the citizens of Healdsburg voted for a 20-year Urban Growth Boundary in 1996, Healdsburg was defined by physical boundaries. The City will continue to focus inward - beyond 2016 - with infill development and redevelopment of underutilized sites. New development will be compact and efficient to make the best use of remaining lands. The City will identify areas that need special attention and develop strategies for them. The City will continue to work with Sonoma County to ensure that designated community separators surrounding the City remain in agricultural use and open space. C Protect the city’s scenic hillsides and ridgelines. Densely-wooded Fitch Mountain and the hillsides and ridgelines surrounding Healdsburg are visible from nearly everywhere in the community, making the natural environment omnipresent. The ridgelines were important living and tactical areas of local Native American tribes. The visual qualities of these scenic resources will be preserved. D Respect the City’s past and its roots. The area that now comprises Healdsburg and its Urban Service Area was originally inhabited by Native Americans. Healdsburg is one of the oldest cities in Sonoma County with buildings of many different ages and styles mixed in an unusually fine-grained pattern across all but the newest areas of our community. Healdsburg’s cultural and historic heritage provides an important aspect of its identity. New development will protect this diverse heritage by respecting Native American archaeological and cultural resources, historic neighborhoods and districts, and historically-significant structures and features. The City will promote public awareness of and support for historic preservation. E Protect neighborhood character. Healdsburg is a community of established neighborhoods with individual patterns of land use, landscape, circulation and built form that have evolved over time. New development shall respect neighborhood character, patterns, and forms.” General Plan Policy Document (PDF)
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) In the case for protecting our historic properties and our scenic roadways, the City of Healdsburg has the absolute right and responsibility to cherish it’s aesthetic character, and the courts have agreed! A person can, and will
respectfully disagree with the following statement from Planning Commission Agenda dated 12/15/2020:
AGENDA Healdsburg Planning Commission Special Meeting December 15, 2020 6:00 PM
“A. Item Description: CUP 2016-07; DR 2016-06; V 2017-01 – Verizon Telco Facility
Project Description: Major Conditional Use Permit, Major Design Review and Major Variance applications for a new unmanned telecommunications facility on a city-owned parcel, adjacent to Tayman Park and golf club. The project consists of a 76 foot tall monopole tower supporting 9 wireless antenna panels and related equipment. The monopole would be designed to resemble a faux broadleaf tree, with 8 foot to 14 foot long faux branches and leaf socks covering the antenna and dish. The pole would be painted brown.
Location: 923 S. Fitch Mountain Road, Healdsburg APN: 002-361-003 Applicant: GTE Mobilenet dba as Verizon Wireless c/o Complete Wireless Consulting
Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; and Section 15300.2 Exceptions. “
https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_12152020-1179?packet=true CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) “Design Healdsburg Citywide Design
Guidelines”
and
“Healdsburg 2030 General Plan Policy
Document”
The following pictures and descriptions are excerpts from two of the key tools that the City of Healdsburg utilizes to maintain the goals, design direction, and transparency, of the City’s Planning and Design Strategy.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) “Design Healdsburg, Citywide Design Guidelines”
Adopted and Finaled by the Healdsburg City Council, February 20,2018 https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8565/Design-Guidelines---Final-Document---PDF
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) South Fitch Mountain Road
A
Scenic
and
Historic Viewshed
“The viewshed along scenic highways, roads and
streets shall be protected and enhanced.”
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Perspective From Citizen Cell Phone
“South Fitch Mountain Road - East of Heron Drive”
From the “Healdsburg Plan Policy Document”
NR-C-7 The viewshed along scenic highways, roads and streets shall be protected and enhanced.
The following road segments are declared scenic roads for the purposes of the Healdsburg General Plan and City land use regulations as depicted on General Plan Figure 9: a. Highway 101 - Entire length within the Planning Area
b. Healdsburg Avenue - North of Grove Street
c. North Fitch Mountain Road - East of Benjamin Way
d. South Fitch Mountain Road - East of Heron Drive
e. Healdsburg Avenue - South of the Russian River bridge https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/634/General-Plan-Policy-Document-PDF?bidId=
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Verizon Perspective
“South Fitch Mountain Road - East of Heron Drive”
From: Planning Department Agenda Dated 12/20/2021
Verizon Wireless “Statement on Visual Impact”
https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_12152020-1179?packet=true
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Oak Mound Identified as a “Major Scenic Ridgeline”
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) S. Fitch Mountain Identified as a “Scenic Road”
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Past Planning Commission/Verizon
Actions
“Disguised” As a Water Tower
13100 Healdsburg Avenue
Verizon
April 2017
“No Thank You” to the Antenna
Verizon
November 2015
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) The following two illustrations each make a compelling
argument to send the City of Healdsburg and Verizon
back to the drawing table:
1. The Tower installed at Russion River RV Storage at
13100 Healdsburg Avenue was drastically modified
from its original intended height. This revision was
initiated by Verizon, “in an effort to significantly
reduce the visual impacts of the facility which is in a highly visible location near a scenic road…”
2. The Tower at 1100 March Avenue was not modified,
likely due to a deed restriction that only allowed for
water tower utility at the site. This is a highly visible ridgeline from a variety of neighborhoods.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 13100 Healdsburg Avenue, Wine Country RV Storage
Not Readily Seen from South Entrance to Town
***In 2016 Applicant requested a 55’ “faux” Water Tower and in 2017 applicant resubmitted for approval of a 35’ “faux” Tower. “in an effort to significantly reduce the visual impacts of the facility which is in a highly visible location near a scenic road…” https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04112017-735?packet=true
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) 1100 March Avenue
Easement Deeded to COH with Approval ONLY for Water Tower Highly Visible Ridgeline. The “Proposed” new “Lattice Tower with Verizon Antennas” was never built.
https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/2632?fileID=2989
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) “A Prominent Hill Overlooking the Tayman Park Golf
Course and Oak Mound Cemetery” -City of Healdsburg
“Tayman Recycled Water Tank. In the 2005 EIR project description, the recycled water pipeline was to connect to two existing Tayman Park tanks located at the top of a prominent hill overlooking the Tayman Park Golf Course and Oak Mound Cemetery. The existing tanks are partially below grade and covered by two wooden “barn” roofs with a combined footprint of approximately 180 feet x 70 feet and a height of about 15 feet. This site is accessed through the golf course via South Fitch Mountain Road or through the cemetery via the entrance on Piper Street. The tanks are surrounded and well-screened by mature live oak, redwood, deodar cedar, bay and madrone trees. These in-ground tanks were originally constructed in 1898 and were part of the city’s potable water system until April 2001, when two new steel tanks at the golf course were completed and put into service. The old water tanks were drained and disconnected from the water system at the time, but were considered to be functional for recycled water storage. In the 2005 EIR, these tanks were to be converted to recycled water storage, serving as terminal storage for water pumped through the recycled water line, keeping the line pressurized to serve agricultural users and public areas connected to the system. Although the existing tanks are functional, the wood roof structures covering the two in-ground tanks are dilapidated and structurally questionable, and would need to be replaced if the tanks are to be used again. In the course of detailed design, the least costly alternative was initially determined to be a single metal roof structure over both tanks, supported by a new 9-foot high masonry block wall on a new perimeter foundation. The footprint of the new foundation and supporting wall, which would be set back approximately 10 feet from the existing tank perimeter, would leave little or no room at the hilltop site for construction access. Providing adequate construction access would require removing approximately 28 mature trees, whereas constructing a new tank on the same site will only require limited and minor tree removal. In addition, the estimated cost of the roof structure approached or exceeded the cost of constructing a new above-grade tank on the site. Therefore, instead of using and upgrading the existing water storage tanks, the proposed modification to the project will demolish and remove the old tanks, including the wood roof structures, walls and any above-grade concrete and construct a single new above-ground tank with approximately the same capacity (0.7 MG), as shown in MND Figures 4 and 5. The area affected by the demolition of the existing 0.40 and 0.32 MG tanks is approximately 0.5 acres. The below-grade portions of the tanks will be backfilled with crushed concrete and engineered fill material. Engineered fill material may originate from trench excavation from the recycled water pipeline construction, provided the material meets engineered fill specifications. The total volume of fill material will be approximately 3,500 cubic yards.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Tayman Park Recycled Water Tank. The proposed tank will be located on a hilltop which is identified as a scenic ridgeline in the Healdsburg General Plan (Policy Document Figure 8).
Policy NR-C-5 of the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan states the following:
Major scenic ridgelines designated on General Plan Figure 8 and highly visible hillsides shall be protected from visually obtrusive development.
The following implementation measure (NR-10) is also included in the General Plan:
Require a visibility analysis for the creation of new lots, new structures or significant additions and other projects over which the City exercises discretionary authority located within 200 feet on either side (based on a horizontal projection) of the center line of major scenic ridgelines as shown on General Plan Figure 8, Major Scenic Ridgelines. Only developments that are shown to
be unobtrusive based on this analysis may be approved. Structural projections above the ridgeline shall not be allowed unless it can be demonstrated that existing natural features will screen the projection.
The hilltop site is visible to the south from a section of South Fitch Mountain Road, a street designated as a scenic road in the General Plan (Policy Document Figure 9). Due to distance and the relative low elevation of this hilltop, however, the site is not readily visible from any other designated scenic highways, roads or streets, including Highway 101. The existing tree cover surrounding the project site includes many large native oaks and bay trees as well as planted redwood and deodar cedar trees, the latter particularly on the south side. The existing trees on this hilltop provide a scenic background to residential neighborhoods, the cemetery and the golf course. These trees currently hide the above-ground portions of the existing tanks that will be demolished and removed. The new tank will be smaller but otherwise identical in design to the new tanks constructed at the ninth tee area of the golf course in 2001. The new tank will have a diameter of 67 feet, and an overall height of 34 feet 2¼ inches.
Both the sidewalls and dome roof will be painted “forest green” to blend in with the surrounding trees. The height of the new tank will remain well below the screening provided by the existing trees that surround the site. The project has been planned to minimize the need to remove existing, mature trees. Only three small trees are proposed to be removed. None of these trees are needed to screen the proposed tank, and none of these trees meet heritage tree status (as defined in the Healdsburg Zoning Ordinance). Planning Commission Staff Report Recycled Water System Modifications MND (CEQA 10-1) August 24, 2010 Page 6 of 6 As required by Implementation Measure NR-10 (see above), City staff has conducted a visibility analysis for the tank replacement project by providing the exhibits shown in MND Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9. MND Figure 2 indicates the location of viewpoints for views of the tank site as shown in MND Figures 3, 4 and 5. This visibility analysis indicates that the location and height of the proposed tank, together with the preservation of existing trees, will provide adequate screening and prevent visually-obtrusive development on a General Plan-designated scenic ridgeline. Therefore, the project will be consistent with Policy NR
https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/3004/MND-PDF?bidId=
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Sonoma Fights Back and Wins!
Verizon withdraws Sonoma residential cell-tower plan
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Cities Have Rights/A Supreme Court Decision
“California Supreme Court Upholds Local Ordinance Regulating Wireless Telecommunication Facilities’ Aesthetics
On April 4, 2019, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision upholding the First District Court of Appeal’s ruling that telecommunications facilities must comply with a municipal ordinance that enforces aesthetic guidelines. The case, T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, was brought by T-Mobile, Crown Castle, and ExteNet Systems against the City and County of San Francisco, seeking to invalidate San Francisco’s Wireless Ordinance.
This case supports local control over telecommunications providers’ use of the public right-of-way, but, as noted below, recent developments in federal law may impose other limits on the application of land use, aesthetics, and other regulations on telecommunications providers.”
Plaintiffs’ Position
In their lawsuit, plaintiffs argued that the local statute was preempted by, and in violation of, provisions of the California Public Utilities Code. The San Francisco ordinance at issue requires any entity seeking to install or modify wireless equipment in the public right-of-way to obtain a permit, and requires additional aesthetic review for specific areas within the city. For example, wireless facility installations proposed in historic districts or “excellent view” designated areas may only be approved if the planning department determines the proposed facility would not “significantly degrade” the district’s aesthetic attributes or “significantly impair” an area’s protected views.
Plaintiffs based their claims on Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1. Section 7901 provides that telephone companies (which includes wireless carriers) may construct lines, poles and equipment in the public right-of-way if they do not “incommode” the public use of the right-of-way or interrupt the navigation of waters. Section 7901.1, on the other hand, permits local governments to exercise “reasonable control as to the time, place and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed” but requires such control be applied equally to every entity. Plaintiffs argued that the city’s ordinance is preempted by section 7901 because it does not allow conditioning approval on aesthetic grounds. Specifically, plaintiffs argued that the term “incommode” should be read narrowly to mean obstructing the public’s path of travel and thus, aesthetic regulations are outside the scope of local authority. Likewise, the plaintiffs asserted that the city violated section 7901.1 by only targeting wireless providers with aesthetic requirements. Both the trial court and the appellate court had previously rejected the plaintiffs’ position.
https://www.meyersnave.com/california-supreme-court-upholds-local-ordinance-regulating-wireless-telecommuni cation-facilities-aesthetics/https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Member-Engagement/Professional-De partments/City-Attorneys/Request-Amicus-Support/Recent-Filings/Briefs-(1)/T-Mobile-v-City-and-County-of-Sa n-Francisco_Supre
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) “RENO, Nev. — A federal lawsuit seeking a moratorium on construction of new cellphone towers at Lake Tahoe claims Verizon Wireless and regional regulators are failing to adequately consider potential harm to public health and the environment under antiquated rules that turn a blind eye to modern technology.”
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/suit-seeks-moratorium-on-new-cellphone-towers-at-lake-tahoe/?artslide=0
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) A Conversation on Facebook That Says So Much
Healdsburg 1/22/2021
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal)
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) Christopher M. Mazzia Donald J. Black Laney C. Rooks
Daniel E. Post Lisa Yoshida Rose M. Zoia
Catherine J. Banti Robert S. Rutherfurd Zachary A. Carroll Kenneth R. Cyphers Michael Shklovsky
December 10, 2021
[Via email only]
Jerry Eddinger, Chair, and Commissioners
Planning Commission
City of Healdsburg
401 Grove Street
Healdsburg, CA 95448
Re: Proposed Verizon Wireless Cell Tower
Tayman Park Golf Course
Hearing Date: December 14, 2021
Dear Chair Eddinger and Commissioners:
This firm represents City of Healdsburg residents David and Camille Jones (referred to herein as the “Residents”) with respect to the proposed Verizon Wireless Cell Tower at Tayman Park Golf Course (“the Proposed Project”). We appreciate your consideration of the comments in this letter.
The Proposed Project should not be approved unless and until it has been found in compliance with all requirements under the City of Healdsburg Telecommunications Facilities Code (the “Code”), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the City’s General Plan and Design Guidelines. We explain the requirements and the Proposed Project’s lack of compliance in detail below, and request the application be denied for failure to meet the City’s Code requirements, as subject to CEQA, and as inconsistent with the General Plan and Design Guidelines.
On May 17, 2021, the City Council considered and approved the lease between the City and Verizon for the site of the Proposed Project (the “Lease”). The approval of the Lease was separate and distinct from the approval of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project is now before this Planning Commission, which is charged with the review of the Proposed Project in conformity with the Code, CEQA, and the General Plan and Design Guidelines.
7.A.i
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Att. 4 Public Correspondence (3626 : Verizon Appeal) December 10, 2021