Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-26 - RESOLUTIONS - TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (2)RESOLUTION NO 02-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF DENIAL FOR MASTER CASE 01-046, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-002 TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council of the City of Santa Clarita (hereafter "City"), hereby makes the following findings of fact: A. An application for a variance was filed on February 9, 2001, by Nextel Communications, Inc. (the "applicant") with the Planning and Building Services Department which includes Conditional Use Permit 01-002. This project was deemed complete on March 11, 2001, which included the following requests: a conditional use permit for the construction of a telecommunications facility that exceeds the City's 35'-0" height requirement. B. The site is located at 25333 San Fernando Road (the Keep It Self -Storage). The Assessor's Parcel Numbers for the 3.54 -acre project site are 2859-001-036 and 2859-001-037. C. The project site is the existing Keep It Self -Storage facility and is located in the Industrial (I) zone. D. The surrounding land uses include open space to the north, east and south of the project site with single and multi -family residences locate to the west (across San Fernando Road). E. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this issue on October 2, 2001. The public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. F. Public participation and notification requirements pursuant to Sections 65090, 65391, and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California were duly followed. G. At the hearing on October 2, 2001, the Planning Commission considered staff presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and public testimony on the proposal. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to support staff's recommendation and deny the project without prejudice. H. On October 9, 2001, the applicant submitted a letter of appeal for Master Case 01-046, Conditional Use Permit 01-002. Resolution 02-28 Page 2 I. A public hearing was duly noticed for the City Council meeting of January 8, 2002, which was held at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA. During this meeting, the City Council received the staff report and public testimony on the project. J. At the January 8, 2002, hearing, the City Council directed staff to work with the applicant to redesign the , proposed facility and return to the City Council on February 26, 2002. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon the above findings of fact, and upon studies and investigations made on behalf of the City Council, the City Council further finds the following California Environmental Quality Act findings: a. An Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project have been prepared and circulated in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopted as certified as required by that Act. b. Said study found that no adverse impact to the existing and future environmental resources of the area would result from the proposal. C. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, and all comments received, if any, have been considered. The public review period was from August 14, 2001 to September 4, 2001. d. The proposed project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on August 14, 2001, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). e. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City of Santa Clarita. The City Council, based upon the finding set forth above, hereby finds the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in with CEQA. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS. In making its determination regarding the conditional use permit application, the City Council has considered certain principles and standards, and finds and determines as follows: A. That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use is in accordance with the purpose of this Development Code, the purpose of the zone in which the site is located, the Santa Clarita General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City; and The operation of a wireless communications facility that is 35 feet in height or taller is permitted to be located in the Industrial (I) zone with an approved conditional use permit. Resolution 02-28 Page 3 B. That the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use will not be compatible with and will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, residents, --buildings, structures, or natural resources, with consideration given to: 1. Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density; There are existing 20 -foot high self -storage buildings located on the project site and mature vegetation to the west along the Santa Clara River. Although the proposed mono -pole and antennas will be screened from public view, the proposed tower element designed to screen them will be highly visible from the public view and neighboring residences. The proposed facilities will be constructed at a height of 50'-0", approximately 25 feet above the existing structures on the project site. The proposed tower does not exist anywhere else on the project site and would therefore be inconsistent with the existing architecture on the project site. Therefore, the proposed 50 -foot high wireless communications facility would not be in harmony with the proposed project site and the surrounding land uses. 2. The availability of public facilities, services and utilities; The proposal includes extending existing utilities in the immediate area, therefore, the availability of utilities and facilities, services, and utilities would not be impacted. 3. The harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character; The proposed 50 -foot high wireless communications facility disguised with a tower element would add new unnatural landmarks to the existing skyline that would negatively affect the aesthetics to surrounding residential neighborhoods. Although the mono -pole and antennas will be screened, the proposed tower element will be constructed approximately 25 feet in height above any of the surrounding structures and would be highly visible from residential neighborhoods and motorists on San Fernando Road. 4. The generation of traffic and the capacity and physical character of surrounding streets; The construction and operation of a wireless communications facility would not generate traffic that will exceed the capacity and physical character of the surrounding streets. 5. The suitability of the site for the type and the intensity of use or development which is proposed; The site is located to the west of San Fernando Road on the existing Keep Resolution 02-28 Page 4 It Self -Storage property, adjacent to the South Fork of the Santa Clara River. The project site has no landforms that could provide a visual buffer for the proposed wireless communications facility. Some natural vegetation exists to the west of the project site, however, many of these trees are deciduous in variety. When these trees loose their leaves, the proposed facility will be even more visible than it is when the trees have full canopies. The applicant is proposing to disguise the proposed facility with a tower element that will be painted to match the existing buildings on the project site. However, the proposed tower element will not adequately address the issues discussed at the Planning Commission or the City Council and will be highly visible. Additionally, the applicant is proposing the wireless communications facility to be 50'-0" in height, placing it high above the existing skyline and surrounding land uses. Considering the skyline, the addition of the proposed wireless communications facility site is not suitable for the type and intensity of the use proposed. 6. The harmful effect, if any, upon environmental quality and natural resources; and A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project to reduce the potential harmful effects of this project to a level of less than significant. C. That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed 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 wireless communication facility is not anticipated to create significant health or environmental effects as determined by the Federal Communications Commission. Local jurisdictions are prevented from evaluating these health and environmental impacts under the federal law. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to prescribe and make effective regulations governing the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions for telecommunications facilities. Operation in compliance with these regulations compels the conclusion that no potential public health and safety hazards will result from the proposed project. D. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Code, except for an approved variance or adjustment. The wireless communications facility is required to meet all development standards, setbacks, and screening that would be in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows: Resolution 02-28 Page b SECTION 1. The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission decision to deny Master Case 01-046, Conditional Use Permit 01-002 without prejudice. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2e day of February, 2002. MAYOR ATTEST: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 26' day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Darcy, Kellar, Weste NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Smyth, Ferry ABSENT: COLTNCII24EMBERS: None CITY CLERK S:\PBS\Council\01-046\councilrewlution0l-046 2.26.02.doc