PC R 24-2395RESOLUTION NO. 24-2395
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING WITH PREJUDICE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 23-006; LOCATED AT 789
VALLEY ROAD; APPLICANT — VERIZON WIRELESS
WHEREAS, the project site is approximately 0.93 acres, zoned Office Mixed -Use (OMU),
and located near the corner of Valley Road and Sunrise Terrace; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, Verizon Wireless submitted a conditional use permit application
to install a telecommunication facility consisting of three (3) C -band panel antennas, six (6)
LTE panel antennas, six (6) LTE remote radio units, and related equipment in a fifty-five foot
(55') faux water tower, emergency backup generator within a 540 square foot enclosure at
789 Valley Road in the Office Mixed Use zoning district; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 16.16.050 authorizes the Planning Commission to
approve Conditional Use Permit applications, with recommendations from the Staff Advisory
Committee and Architectural Review Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Advisory Committee considered the project on November 30, 2023,
and recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee considered the project on December 18,
2023, and recommended approval of the project with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo
Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and determined that CEQA
does not apply to projects which a public agency does not approve pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15270; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project
at a duly noticed public hearing on February 6, 2024 and considered all written evidence
and oral testimony; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the proposed project, necessitating staff to
return with appropriate findings for denial; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the following circumstances exist:
Conditional Use Permit Findings:
1. The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the
provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of this
title, the goals, and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the
development policies and standards of the City.
The proposed use is permitted within the subject Office Mixed Use zoning
district with approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission
after receiving a recommendation from the Staff Advisory Committee and
Architectural Review Committee. The proposed project does not comply with
all applicable provisions of the Development Code, the goals and objectives
of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and
standards of the City. In addition, the facility will operate in full compliance with
all state and federal regulations including the Telecommunications Act of
1996.
Specifically, the applicant failed to comply with the following requirements
contained within the City's Telecommunication Facilities Siting and Permit
Submittal Requirements, adopted by City Council Resolution 4799 on April
25, 2017.
a. Section (1)(A)(1) - Telecommunication facilities shall avoid any
unreasonable interference with views from neighboring properties. The
proposed faux water tank does not avoid any unreasonable interference with
views from neighboring properties and its height would unreasonably impair
the view of nearby residents of the Sunrise Terrace Mobile Home Park. Public
comment was received by numerous residents of the Sunrise Terrace Mobile
Home Park that the proposed facility would interfere with their views from their
homes and constitute an eye sore. A couple members of the public provided
comment that they had moved to their property within Sunrise Terrace Mobile
Home Park because of their property's view and that the proposed facility
would block or interfere with such views.
b. Section (1)(A)(4) - Telecommunication facilities shall be painted
color(s) that are most compatible with their surroundings. The proposed
facility does not utilize a design or colors that are compatible with the
surrounding architecture of the nearby Victorian property and the water tower
design as proposed may be more appropriate for farm land locations where
water towers are more typical. Further, the applicant did not provide final color
selections for the Planning Commission's review after multiple requests which
did not allow the Planning Commission to sufficiently review their proposed
colors and visual appearance.
C. Section (/)(A)(6) - Telecommunication facilities are allowed in all
Mixed- Use and Public Facility zoning designations with either an
approved Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit.
Telecommunication facilities are not allowed on any property with a
Residential land use designation. An exception is to place concealed
facilities on non- residential structures that are allowable in residential
districts ( such as within church steeples). The proposed facility is
proposed in a residential designated zone because the MUO Zone allows
multi -family residential buildings.
d. Section (1)(A)(7) - The proposed facility utilizes the least preferred
location option. The Applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate that more
preferred alternative deployment options were unavailable for Verizon's
proposed use and utilize good faith efforts to pursue altemative site options
that are more preferred by the City's guidelines. Planning Commission
determined that the applicant did not sufficiently explore an altemative
location at St. John's Church, which expressed interest to host the facility and
Verizon did not follow-up with St. John's Church by phone or written
correspondence. At the Planning Commission meeting the Applicant noted
they could not locate the phone number for St John's Church. At the meeting,
one Planning Commissioner noted she had located via a brief 9 minute google
search and the phone number was immediately answered by a church
representative when she tried the number.
e. Section (I)(D)(1) - Standalone monopoles and towers may be
considered only when the applicant reasonably demonstrates that the
proposed facility cannot be placed on an existing building or structure.
The applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed facility cannot
be placed on an existing building or -structure to be able to proposed a new
standalone tower. The applicant provided a brief cursory summary of their
inability to locate potential more preferred location on an existing building or
structure in Verizon's search ring.
f. Section (1)(D)(3) - Substantial landscaping or other screening
should be provided to visually buffer any adjoining residential uses from
the potential visual impacts of the facility. Landscape screening should
be designed to achieve its desired appearance in a reasonable period of
time. The proposed facility did not utilize any landscaping to help screen the
facility and its transmission equipment, and the proposed facility did not
incorporate additional screening to visually buffer any adjoining residential
uses from the potential visual impacts of the facility. Applicant stated that no
water service is currently available on the parcel to support landscaping, and
applicant did not propose alternative screening options to visually buffer the
facility.
g. Section (11)(B)(2) - An explanation of site selection (reason the site
was chosen over alternative sites). The applicant did not provide a sufficient
explanation of site selection (reason the site was chosen over altemative
sites) and it failed to pursue to completion in good faith altemative sites where
the property owner expressed interest in permitting the facility on the property.
See also findings in Sub(d) above re failure to follow-up with St. John's Church
who had expressed interest in writing to Verizon and again at the Planning
Commission meeting where a representative from the Church reiterated their
interest in hosting the facility and noted Verizon's failure to follow-up.
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district
in which it is to be established or located.
The application is denied for the reasons outlined in Section 1 above for failing
to meet the required findings.
3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is
proposed.
The application is denied for the reasons outlined in Section 9 above for failing
to meet the required findings.
4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and
services to ensure public health and safety.
The application is denied for the reasons outlined in Section 7 above forfailing
to meet the required findings.
5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare
or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity.
The application is denied for the reasons outlined in Section 9 above for failing
to meet the required findings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby denies with prejudice Conditional Use Permit 23-006.
On motion by Commissioner Buchanan, seconded by Commissioner Sackrison, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Buchanan, Sackrison, Maraviglia
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Berlin, Roof
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of February, 2024.
a
X;mp
AMIE MARAVIGLIA,
CHAIR
ATTEST:
Fq+e
tc4e,fill u b
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
62/1��777-
BRIAN
PEDROTTI
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR