12-07-2010 - Appeal HearingConditional Use Permit No. 10-10Appl - Item No 14 Attach 4 (2).docP L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N
R E S O L U T I O N N O. 10-5390
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING THE APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-10
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-10
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
APPLICANT: Mike Blackwell for Clearwire
LOCATION: 1030 E. Merced Avenue, Bethel Christian Fellowship Church
WHEREAS, there was filed with this 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 September 2nd, 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10 to the Planning Commission for further review of the location of the equipment
enclosure and design of the wireless facility due to written statements from neighboring residents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 14th day of October, 2010, review the proposed facility and determined to schedule a public hearing to
consider rescinding the approval; and
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of October, 2010 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider rescinding the approval of the wireless telecommunications facility
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows:
1. On the basis of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:
a. The applicant's representative was present at the Planning Commission meeting of October 14, 2010, and was given oral notice of the intent of the Planning Commission to rescind the
approval of Conditional Use Permit 10-10 and of the applicant's right to present any evidence in opposition to the rescission, including any evidence of detrimental reliance on the
approval of CUP 10-10.
b. On October 15, 2010 the applicant's legal counsel was given oral and written notice of the intent of the Planning Commission to rescind the approval of Conditional Use Permit 10-10
and of the applicant's right to present any evidence in opposition to the rescission, including any evidence of detrimental reliance on the approval of CUP 10-10.
The original approval of the Planning Commission should be rescinded based on the concerns regarding the aesthetics of the wireless telecommunication facilities designed as a 60-foot
tall cross. 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.
d. 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.
e. 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.
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.
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.
2. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10 is rescinded.
I, HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of October, 2010 by the
following votes:
AYES: Redholtz, Carrico, Stewart, Holtz, Sotelo
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
DATE: October 26, 2010
Robert A. Sotelo, Chairman
Planning Commission
Jeff Anderson, AICP, Secretary
Planning Commission