Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-105 CC Resolution I I I RESOLUTION NO. 04-105 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0717 - A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF 45 FOOT TALL MONO- PALM WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITH FOUR OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS PROPOSED AT 31575 ENFIELD LANE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENFIELD LANE, APPROXIMATELY 3,200 FEET EAST OF RIVERTON LANE (APN 957-170-012), AND DENYING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0717. WHEREAS, Doug Kearney, representing Cingular Wireless (collectively the "Applicant"), filed Planning Application No. PA02-0717, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; and WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA02-0717, seeking both a Conditional Use Permit and a Development Plan approval (hereafter, the "Proposed Project"), was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by Federal, State and local law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 7, 2004 and April 21, 2004 to consider the Proposed Project, at which time the interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support of or in opposition to this matter; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after consideration of the staff report, conditions of approval, and public testimony, the Planning Commission adopted PC-Resolution No. 2004-018 on April 21, 2004 thereby approving Planning Application No. PA02-0717 subject to certain conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on May 5, 2004, Ms. Valestra Ayer (the "Appellant") filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Planning Application No. PA02-0717 based on 1) alleged insufficiency of the documentation prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and specifically in the areas of land use, aesthetics, noise, air, cumulative impacts, and alternatives analysis; 2) a lack of master planning for location of wireless telecommunications facilities in the City of Temecula; 3) the Proposed Project's failure to adhere to the City's Development Code requirements; and 4) facility impacts on hearing aids and pacemakers; and, WHEREAS, on October 12, 2004, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal, and during that public hearing and during the deliberations that ensued, the City Council considered the staff report, conditions of approval, Planning Commission minutes, testimony and correspondence from the Appellant, the Applicant and the public, and the complete public record. R:/Resos 2004/Resos 04-105 I I I NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinas Conditional Use Permit. The City Council, in accordance with Section 17.04.010.E of the Temecula Municipal Code ("TMC"), hereby finds as follows: A. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code because the proposal is located in an area of residential development, is within approximately 325 feet of residential subdivision development and will have a significant impact on the neighboring residences because of the proximity and the highly visible location of the proposed wireless facility. The proposed facility does not advance, and is inconsistent with, the City of Temecula's Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance in that: 1) The facility does not protect the health, safety or welfare of the citizens of Temecula because of the significant aesthetic impacts the proposed facility would have on the residences that are as close as 325 feet from the proposed facility. TMC Sec. 17.40.010(A). The potential for significant aesthetic impacts has been documented with substantial evidence in the form of photographs and photo-simulations of the Proposed Project, as well as environmental analyses submitted on behalf of the Appellant at both the Planning Commission and the City Council hearings. 2) The facility does not protect the visual character of the city from potential adverse effects of telecommunication facility development and installation by maintaining architectural and structural integrity and preventing unsightly facilities because the proposed facility is not properly integrated into the site and neighborhood in which it is proposed. TMC Sec. 17.40.010(8). The lack of integration is demonstrated by the photographs and photo- simulations of the Proposed Project, as well as environmental analyses submitted on behalf of the Appellant at both the Planning Commission and the City Council hearings. 3) The proposed facility does not promote the planned and managed development of telecommunications infrastructure due to the inadequate study of alternative "technically feasible" locations. TMC Sec. 17.40.010(G). The Applicant has not demonstrated comprehensive planning of facilities within the City, and piecemeal proposals that are not related to future facility needs to achieve the services desired by the provider prevent the City from planning and managing the locations of such facilities to minimize the visual and other impacts generated by such wireless facilities. The absence of a Citywide master plan undermines TMC Sec. 17.40.010(G), and renders the application inconsistent with the TMC. 4) The proposed facility does not encourage co-location because the Applicant failed to demonstrate adequate consideration of co-location options that are technically feasible. TMC Sec. 17.40.010(L). Instead, the Applicant considered only three other sites that it found to be technically infeasible, thereby failing to provide other fèasible options for the City's consideration. The Applicant identified one technically feasible location, but that location was in R:/Resos 20O4/Resos 04-105 I I I a residential subdivision, and the Applicant could not identify a property owner willing to permit construction of the facility on their land. 5) The alternatives analysis completed by the Applicant identified three technically infeasible alternatives, and one technically feasible alternative but which was not practically feasible because of its location in a single family residential neighborhood. Therefore, the Applicant's alternative site analysis failed to meet the requirement that "[t]he analysis shall identify all reasonable, technically feasible, alternative locations and/or facilities which could provide the proposed telecommunication service." TMC Sec. 17.40.030(A)(2). Further, the Applicant failed to "explain the rationale for selection of the proposed site in view of the relative merits of any of the feasible alternatives," and this failure undermines the intent of the City's ordinance "to present alternative strategies which would minimize the number, size and adverse environmental impacts" of wireless facilities. lQ. The analysis provided by the Applicant is insufficient. Although the analysis asserts that the alternative sites are inadequate because of coverage objectives, that conclusion is not supported by technical information and analyses sufficient to support selection of the proposed site "in view of the relative merits of any of the feasible alternatives" as required by the TMC. Additionally, the Applicant provided inconsistent information during the proceedings on the proposed wireless facility. First, the Applicant stated that a 56-foot facility was the minimum necessary "to achieve the technical coverage necessary to send and receive signals...." (April 7, 2004 Planning Commission Staff Report at p. 3.) The Applicant also stated in its February 25, 2004 submittal to the City that "the site was tested at 45 feet and failed the requirements needed by [the Cingular Wireless] Radio Frequency Engineer." (SBA Network Services "Proposed Cell Site" information submitted February 25, 2004, at p. 3.) At the Planning Commission hearing on April 7, 2004, the Applicant stated that if the proposed 50 foot tower were lowered, "Cingular's coverage in the area would shrink and would, in effect, raise the need for another facility." (April 7, 2004 Planning Commission minutes at p. 12.) However, the Applicant never considered alternatives consisting of multiple less obtrusive facilities to attain its coverage goals rather than trying to resolve all of its deficiencies with one facility. At the appeal hearing before the City Council, the representative for Cingular stated that a height of 39 feet to the antenna panels would improve reception in the area, but did not meet Cingular's "goal." Based on inconsistent information provided by the Applicant, it is unclear what other alternatives, including alternatives with multiple smaller facilities, may be available that would result in less environmental impacts. 6) Section 17.40.110 of the Development Code requires all wireless telecommunication facilities to be located so as to minimize their visibility and the number of separate and distinct facilities. As the photo simulations provided by the Applicant and by the Appellant demonstrate, and according to testimony provided at both the Planning Commission and the City Council hearing, the Proposed Project does not minimize its visibility to the surrounding residential areas. Further, the facility is proposed on a site that is not already developed with telecommunication facilities, and therefore, the proposed facility falls within the TMC prohibition that states "[n]o telecommunication facility or antenna that is readily visible from off-site shall be installed on a site that is not already developed with telecommunication facilities... unless it blends with the surrounding existing natural and man-made environment in such a manner so as to be effectively unnoticeable...." TMC Section 17.40.110(A). The photographs, photo-simulations, and public testimony provide substantial evidence that the proposed facility will be quite noticeable in the neighborhood. Therefore the Proposed Project is inconsistent with this code requirement. Additionally, the Applicant has made no showing that there is a clear need for this facility in this location, and that co-location is an infeasible alternative. (!fl.) R:/Resos 2004/Resos 04-105 I I I 7) The facility interrupts the appearance of a natural ridge area based on the photo simulations presented by the Applicant and the Appellant. Although the site elevation does not exceed 1350 feet above mean sea level and therefore is not subject to the provisions of TMC Section 17340.11 O(E), the proposed facility has a significant visual impact based on the site topography, the prominence of the facility in the area in which it is proposed, and the projection over the readily visible ridgeline. 8) Section 17.40.120 of the TMC requires all wireless telecommunication facilities to be designed and blended into the surrounding environment to the greatest extent feasible. The Proposed Project will not be substantially blended into the surrounding environment, because of the prominent visibility of the location in which it is proposed, the residential neighborhoods surrounding the site, and the design of the facility. 9) Section 17.40.200 of the TMC requires visual compatibility between a proposed wireless telecommunication facility and the surroundings. The proposed facility is not located, designed or screened sufficiently to blend with the existing surroundings, and as such, fails to reduce visual impacts. Photo documentation and photo-simulations provide evidence to support this conclusion. 10) Section 17.40.140.B of the Development Code requires facilities that are not proposed to be co-located with another telecommunication facility or antenna to provide a written explanation why the subject facility is not a candidate for co-location. The Applicant has asserted that co-location is not feasible in this situation, but has failed to present any technical evidence in support of its assertion. B. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, building, and structures and the proposed conditional use has the potential to adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. 1) The proposed conditional use is not compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures because the Proposed Project is in close proximity to existing single-family dwellings. 2) The Proposed Project is not compatible with the neighboring residences and substantially alters the character of the residential area. The photo simulations provided by the Applicant and the Appellant demonstrate that the proposed facility does not minimize its visibility to the surrounding residential areas. The Proposed Project will have detrimental aesthetic impacts on the neighborhood, and the proposed monopole does not blend into the site aesthetics. C. The site for the proposed wireless telecommunications facility is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. 1) The Proposed Project meets the specific standards of the Very Low Residential zoning district, and the site is of adequate size to theoretically accommodate the development features required by the TMC, however, for the reasons stated in the previous sections of this Resolution, the City Council finds that the Proposed Project is not adequately integrated with the R:/Resos 2004/Resos 04-105 4 I I I uses in the neighborhood. 2) The private yard areas of adjacent and nearby residences are also sensitive viewsheds in assessing land use compatibility, and the Proposed Project is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding existing residential units. The Applicant has failed to provide acceptable technical evidence showing that the proposed site is the only technically feasible location for this facility. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use would be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The nature of the proposed conditional use is detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the proposed site is immediately adjacent to existing single-family dwellings. The Proposed Project will create a visual blight and will detract from the neighborhood character of the area because of the visibility of the structure from both public rights-of-way and private property. E. The decision to deny the conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council. As set forth in the above findings, the decision to uphold the Appellant's appeal of the Planning Commission decision and the decision to deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit' is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the City Council, Planning Commission and as presented in the staff reports, documentation submitted by and on behalf of the Appellant, and testimony provided at the public hearings held on this matter. Section 3. Findinas - Development Plan. The City Council, in accordance with Section 17.05.010.F of the TMC, hereby finds as follows: A. The proposed use is not in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city, since the Proposed Project is not consistent with the sections of the Development Code. The specific inconsistencies with the TMC are set forth in paragraph A of Section 2 of this Resolution, and those inconsistencies apply equally to the Development Plan finding requirements as they do to the Conditional Use Permit findings. B. The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, since the proposed site is immediately adjacent to existing single-family dwellings in the area. The Proposed Project will create a visual blight and will detract from the neighborhood character of the area because of the proposed design, when other alternatives to address these concerns are available. Section 4. Environmental Compliance. The wireless facility, as proposed, has the potential to result in significant adverse impacts in the areas of land use and aesthetics that have not been adequately mitigated. These potential impacts result from the proximity of the facility to residential areas, the failure to adequately analyze other less impactful alternative locations, designs and multi-facility options to provide service to the areas, and the Applicant has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that there is no potential for such impacts to occur. Further, impacts to views from private residences, based on the photo simulations, photographic evidence provided by the Appellant, environmental documentation submitted by R:/Resos 20O4/Resos 04-105 5 I the Appellant to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and testimony at public hearings, constitute substantial evidence of potential aesthetic and land use impacts resulting from the Proposed Project. Regardless of the potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project, no CEQA determination must be made because of denial of the Proposed Project. Section 5. Denial Does Not Prohibit Provision of Personal Wireless Services. The City Council finds that, based on the substantial coverage existing in the area to be served by the Proposed Project, and due to the presence of other service providers in the area and the region, denial of the Proposed Project would neither prohibit nor have the effect of prohibiting provision of personal wireless service. Section 6. Grant of Appeal and Denial of Application. Based upon the findings set forth in this Resolution, the City Council hereby grants the appeal of Valesta Ayer and denies Planning Application No. PA02-0717. Section 7. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AN D ADOPTED by the City of T emecula City Council this 26th day of October, 2004. I ATTEST: þ ~oh~~~Y" [SEAL] I R:/Resos 2004/Resos 04-105 6 I I I STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 04-105 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 26th day of October, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Roberts, Stone, Washington, Naggar COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None R:/Resos 2004/Resos 04-105