Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout093-2015RESOLUTION NO. 93-2015 GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF LAND USE PERMIT REQUEST DEV15-0003 AND DENYING WITH PREJUDICE THE APPLICATION BY VERIZON WIRELESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW UNMANNED VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY, INCLUDING A 60 FOOT TALL FAUX MONOPINE TREE AND ASSOCIATED GROUND EQUIPMENT (APN: 206-160-020) WHEREAS, VERIZON WIRELESS (Applicant) and ANNA J. BRETON (Owner) have requested approval of a Land Use Permit application to allow for an unmanned wireless communication facility. The facility includes a 60 foot tall faux tree design for the antenna tower and associated ground mounted equipment cabinets housed within a barn structure; and WHEREAS, the subject 1.83 +/- acre site is located at 1455 Lawrence Road and is further identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 206-160-020; and WHEREAS, the Town of Danville Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance requires approval of a Land Use Permit prior to the establishment or operation of a wireless telecommunication facility; and WHEREAS, the project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Class 3, Section 15303 as the project consists of construction of limited numbers of new, small facilities and small structures; and WHEREAS, the Danville Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the project on July 28, 2015. At that meeting the Planning Commission voted to continue the item and requested the project be scheduled for review by the Design Review Board to consider alternative design options for the proposed facility; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the project during their meeting on September 22, 2015, and approved, with conditions, the Land Use Permit on a 5-2 vote; and WHEREAS, the Town received a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's approval from Bryan W. Wenter of Miller, Star, and Regalia on October 2, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Town Council reviewed the appeal and the application during a noticed public hearing on November 17, 2015; and WHEREAS, the public notice of this action was given in all respects as required by law; and PAGE 1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 93-2015 WHEREAS, the Town Council did hear and consider all reports, recommendations, letters, powerpoint presentations, photographs and testimony submitted in writing and presented at the hearing; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Council grants the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Land Use Permit DEV15-0003 and denies with prejudice the application submitted by Verizon Wireless based on the following findings: 1. The land use would be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the Town. As described in the Town's 2030 General Plan and the Lawrence/ Leema Road Specific Plan, which is incorporated by reference into the 2030 General Plan (see page 3-11 of the General Plan), the Lawrence Road area is a rural neighborhood, particularly the southern end of Lawrence Road where the property in question is located. Introduction of a 60' tall faux monopine tree into the neighborhood would harm the neighborhood. The tallest structure otherwise permitted under the applicable zoning ordinance in the Lawrence Road area is 35' and this proposal would represent the tallest structure in the neighborhood by a significant amount. Photos provided by Town staff, the applicant and members of the public, in particular, aerial photos showing the view looking up the Lawrence Valley towards Camino Tassajara show the height of other structures in the area. In addition, the applicant did not adequately demonstrate that there are no other feasible, less intrusive, options to provide service within the Lawrence Road area. The applicants' alternative sites analysis states that some potential alternate sites (particularly the Libby and Ryan sites) were not pursued after some initial contact with the property owner, but there is no explanation of how detailed those contacts were. The applicants' analysis of the "small cell network" alternative (alternative 13) was also inadequate. As described in applicants' materials, this option looked at a total of only three small cells to cover the entire Lawrence Road area when the record showed (see powerpoint submitted by speaker John Kim) that there are dozens of existing utility poles both on Lawrence Road and side streets. Applicant made no effort to quantify how many micro cells, which based on photographic evidence are less visually intrusive, would provide the same level of coverage as the proposed 60' tall faux monopine tree. Finally, applicant presented information that one purpose of the proposed installation was to provide an alternative to traffic on an existing tower on Camino Tassajara but presented no alternatives to accomplish this goal on or near Camino Tassajara itself. 2. The land use would adversely affect the orderly development of property within the Town. The proposed 60' tall tower would be significantly taller than any other structure in the Lawrence Valley/Lawrence Road area. The maximum building height under the applicable zoning ordinance for other structures in the area is 35. PAGE 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 93-2015 3. The land use would adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the Town given the height and visibility of the proposed tower to immediately adjoining neighbors. 4. The land use would adversely affect the policies and goals as set forth in the 2030 General Plan and the Lawrence/Leema Road Specific Plan, which is incorporated by reference into the 2030 General Plan (see page 3-11 of the General Plan). Specifically: a) The General Plan (page 3-10) and Specific Plan (page 1) identify the Lawrence Road area as having a rural residential character that is to be retained. The installation of the 60' tall faux monopine tree in this area would not be in keeping with the rural character of the neighborhood. As explained above, applicant did not adequately explain the lack of other suitable sites or options. b) General Plan Goal 1 is to "Assure that future development complements Danville's existing small town character and established quality of life." Supporting that Goal are Policies 1.02 ("Require that new development be generally consistent with the scale, appearance and small town character of Danville") and Policy 1.08 ("Protect existing residential neighborhoods from intrusion of incompatible land uses and excessive traffic to the extent reasonably possible."). The installation of the 60' tall faux monopine tree in this rural residential area where the otherwise applicable maximum height limit under the zoning ordinance is 35' would be inconsistent with this Goal and Policies. Visual evidence presented by the staff, the applicant and members of the public support this. c) General Plan Goal 2 is to "Integrate new development in a manner that is visually and functionally compatible with the physical character of the surrounding community." Supporting that Goal is Policy 2.07 ("Improve the appearance of the community by encouraging aesthetically designed ,buildings, screening, adequate setbacks, and landscaping."). Installation of the 60' tall faux monopine tree would not be visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood nor in keeping with the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood. Evidence presented demonstrated that the 60' tall structure, even with the existing trees and the nine proposed pepper trees would not fit the character of the neighborhood nor would it be sufficiently screened. d) Design Guideline Policy 5.1 of the Lawrence/Leema Road Specific Plan provides that "The design of new development shall serve to create a Lawrence/Leema Road community which honors and compliments the rural characteristics of the Plan Area." The installation of the 60' tall faux monopine tree in this location is inconsistent with this policy. There is no other structure in the Plan Area that is close to this height. PAGE 3 OF RESOLUTION NO. 93-2015 5. The land use would create a nuisance within the neighborhood or community due to the visual impacts on surrounding properties. 6. The land use would encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. Existing wireless installations within the Lawrence Road area are currently limited to a ground mounted installation at 51 Hidden Hills Place and a microcell installation on an existing utility pole on Lawrence Road. Approval of this installation would establish a precedent for similar applications of similar size and height at properties on the southern end of Lawrence Road. In addition, approval of this installation at the Breton property which already houses a legal, non- conforming commercial use (the dog and cat boarding facility) would further exacerbate the non-residential use of the property. 7. The proposed installation is inconsistent with provisions of the Town's Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance (Danville Municipal Code Chapter 32-70). Specifically, the applicant failed to establish that the 60' tall faux monopine tree is the minimum functional height (Municipal Code Section 32-70.6b) or that it will not create substantial additional visual impacts (Municipal Code Section 32-70.9a) based on existing tree heights, topography and the limit of other structures to 35. Photographs and the arborist report presented by the applicant support this finding. S. The applicant failed to adequately demonstrate that there is an existing significant gap in their coverage. While the October 13, 2015 letter from Preet Singh to the Town (Attachment C to the packet of information submitted by Mackenzie & Albritton LLP) describes the need for additional LTE 4G coverage in East Danville, this was contradicted by testimony and evidence provided at the public hearing. This evidence includes: • Statements from the applicant that the need is for an anticipated future gap in coverage, that one goal of the installation is to decrease or offload traffic from an existing Verizon tower on Camino Tassajara and that current service is available to their customers • Verizon's website currently indicates that the entire East Danville area receives 4g LTE coverage. This same website (as illustrated in the powerpoint presentation from resident John Kim) shows that the same website shows other areas within Danville currently without Verizon coverage • Evidence presented by the applicant that only six Danville Verizon customers in the "search ring" require in-house boosters, contradicting prior statements that providing in-house service is a part of the service gap • Testimony from current Verizon customers in the neighborhood that they currently receive coverage including phone and data within the neighborhood. This included a presentation by resident John Kim showing "good or excellent "coverage as he walked the neighborhood. PAGE 4 OF RESOLUTION NO. 93-2015 APPROVED by the Danville Town Council at a regular meeting on November 17, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: Doyle, Arnerich, Morgan, Stepper, Storer None None None FAW9t GMAN11 i�7_r.'����1�i► 1� CITY ATTORNEY VAYOA Z) R s' ATTFgT- PAGE 5 OF RESOLUTION NO. 93-2015