12-07-2010 - Appeal HearingConditional Use Permit No. 10-10Appl - Item No 14 Attach 1 (2).doc
R E S O L U T I O N N O.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10-5390 RESCINDING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 10-10 AND DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10-5391 DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-10.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-10
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
APPLICANT: Josh Davidson for Clearwire
LOCATION: 1030 E. Merced Avenue, Bethel Christian Fellowship Church
WHEREAS, there was filed with Planning Commission, a verified application on the forms prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, requesting approval of
a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 60-foot wireless telecommunications facility designed to resemble a cross on that certain property described as:
Assessor's Parcel No. 8490-003-083, as listed in the records of the office of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 24th day of August, 2010, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution No.10-5384 approving the application; and
WHEREAS, on the 2nd day of September, 2010, an appeal of the Planning Commission action was filed by Sayeed H. Arastu; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 21st day of September, 2010, refer the item to the Planning Commission for further study and input by the residents, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 12th day of October, 2010, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law, the Planning Commission
continued the hearing to consider rescinding the previous approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10, and to allow the applicant or any other persons to present evidence on whether
the previous approval should be rescinded; and
WHEREAS, on the 20th day of October, 2010, evidence was submitted by Josh Davidson for Clearwire requesting the Planning Commission reinstate Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, did on the 26th day of October, 2010, adopt Resolution No.10-5390 rescinding approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, did on the 26th day of October, 2010, adopt Resolution No.10-5391 denying Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10; and
WHEREAS, on the 8th day of November, 2010, an appeal of the Planning Commission action was filed by Josh Davidson for Clearwire; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 7th day of December, 2010, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law, and considered evidence presented by the Planning Commission,
Planning Department, Applicant, and other interested parties.
WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Council and in its behalf reveal the following facts:
The applicant is requesting the approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 60-foot tall wireless telecommunications facility designed to resemble a cross at
1030 E. Merced Avenue in the “Single-Family Residential” (R-1) Zone.
2. On the basis of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary at the Planning Commission hearings held October 12, 2010 and October 26, 2010, and at the City Council hearing of
December 7, 2010, the City Council makes the following findings:
a. The proposed monocross is out of proportion in height and scale to the Christian church buildings and is not designed to blend with the existing built surroundings. The proposed
monocross is 60 feet in height with a cross member that is 27 feet in width. The existing church building is 25 feet in height and 28 feet in width. The proposed monocross is therefore
not compatible with the existing building and the character of the community.
b. The diameter of the tower is three feet, nine inches at the base and the diameter of the crossbar is three feet. The mass and height of the tower couple to result in a structure,
which is obtrusive in relation to its surroundings. Testimony of several surrounding neighbors described the height and size of the proposed tower as an eyesore.
c. Although the tower is intended to appear as a church cross, its size, height and mass overwhelm the adjacent church building, and it does not appear as a normal adjunct to the church
building. The effort to disguise the cell tower as a part of the church setting is not successful. As currently designed the cell tower is obtrusive, aesthetically displeasing, and
inconsistent with surrounding buildings and uses.
d. Due to the inadequate effort to disguise or "stealth" the cell tower, it is reasonable to expect a devaluation of residential property values in the immediate vicinity of from two
to twenty percent.
e. The height, size and mass of the monocross create an adverse visual impact for persons and properties in the immediate neighborhood.
The height, size and mass of the monocross create a risk of injury to surrounding properties and persons during seismic activity. Although the risk may not be great, the risk without
the monocross or a smaller structure would be lessened.
The applicant or its representatives have not presented evidence of substantial and detrimental reliance on the approval of CUP 10-10. Applicant’s desire to launch the statewide network
by January 2011 does not constitute a vested right or detrimental reliance. The fact that the applicant “locked-in” this site in relation to other cell tower sites does not preclude
the applicant from making alternate alignments of its cell towers. While this may cause delay in the network opening, this is a mere inconvenience to the applicant and does not constitute
a vested right or detrimental reliance.
There is insufficient evidence that rescission of CUP 10-10 will result in a significant gap in coverage. The propagation maps submitted by the applicant show several areas of gaps
in coverage in the immediate vicinity. The maps show that there are numerous gaps in coverage, both large and small in the immediate area of this application. There is no casual relation
in the rescission of CUP 10-10 and the gaps in coverage which exist with or without approval of CUP 10-10. Therefore, the rescission of CUP 10-10 is not the cause of any alleged significant
gap in coverage.
There is insufficient evidence that alternative locations, alternative technology, or relocation of other alternative cell sites may mitigate any lack of coverage or provide a less intrusive
means of providing coverage.
3. The City Council further determines that based on the above findings, the proposed monocross does not contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community.
4. The City Council further determines that based on the above findings, the proposed monocross will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of persons residing
or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
5. The City Council further determines that based on the above findings, the proposed monocross will adversely affect the City General Plan policy to preserve the essential residential
character of West Covina as a City of Beautiful Homes.
6. The City Council further determines that based on the above findings, the proposed monocross will adversely affect the City General Plan policy to arrange land uses with regard to
the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the residents of the City.
7. The City Council further determines that based on the above findings, the proposed monocross will adversely affect the City General Plan policy to provide and maintain, in conjunction
with the open space element, an aesthetically pleasant environment for those who live, work, play and visit in West Covina.
8. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, the City Council denies the appeal of Planning Commission approval
of Resolution No. 10-5390 rescinding approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10 and denies the appeal of Planning Commission approval of Resolution No. 10-5391 denying Conditional
Use Permit No. 10-10.
PASSED AND APPROVED on this 7th day December, 2010.
ATTEST: Mayor
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF WEST COVINA )
I, Laurie Carrico, City Clerk of the City of West Covina, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California,
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of December, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DATE: December 7, 2010
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk
City Attorney