12-07-2010 - Appeal HearingConditional Use Permit No. 10-10Appl - Item No 14 Attach 6 (2).doc
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-10
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
APPLICANT: Mike Blackwell for Clearwire
LOCATION: 1030 E. Merced Avenue, Bethel Christian Fellowship Church
I. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION
The Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 60-foot tall wireless communications tower that is designed in the shape of a cross (monocross).
Three panel antennas and three parabolic antennas are proposed inside the monocross. The proposed tower and shelter will be located in a landscaped area in front of a religious facility
(Bethel Christian Fellowship). The project is located in the “Single-Family Residential” (R-1) Zone.
This item was continued from the October 12, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10 on August 24, 2010. Subsequently, on September 2, 2010, an appeal letter was submitted requesting a hearing before the
City Council. A public hearing was scheduled before the City Council on September 21, 2010. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn as the appellant indicated that they had worked out
an arrangement with the applicant to relocate the equipment enclosure. On September 21, 2010, the City Council determined to refer the matter to the Planning Commission.
On October 12, 2010, the Planning Commission continued the item to the October 26, 2010 to consider rescinding the previous approval of Conditional Use Permit No 10-10, and allow the
applicant or any other persons to present evidence on whether the previous approval should be rescinded.
During public testimony at the October 12, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, some of the concerns that were cited included, loss of property value, privacy, adverse visual impacts (“eyesore”),
health concerns due to the radio frequency emissions, quality of life, close proximity to a local school, incompatibility of the monocross with the church building, possible noise,
loss of tranquility in the neighborhood, the size of the monocross and possible damage to surrounding homes.
The applicant has indicated that they are open to redesigning the wireless facility to a monopine. The monopine would be designed at 60 feet in height as Clearwire has expressed that
the technology will not function at a lower height. The equipment enclosure would continue to be located at the rear of the property. The monopine design is the most common option
for freestanding wireless facilities in the City. Clearwire is endeavoring to launch their system by the end of the year and believe that without this location, their technology will
not be available to customers in the area. They are therefore very interested in finding a solution that reacts to neighborhood concerns on design and visibility. If the Planning
Commission would like to consider an alternative design, staff would recommend that the Commission continue the public hearing to November 9, 2010.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission must determine whether they would like to rescind the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10, by choosing one of the following options:
Adopt a resolution rescinding the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10.
Determine that a rescission is not necessary. (If this choice is made, the original decision of August 24, 2010 will stand.)
If the Planning Commission determines to rescind the approval, the following options are available to the Commission:
Adopt a resolution to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10.
Continue this item with direction to the applicant to modify the design of the wireless facility.
Approve Conditional Use Permit No.10-10 with revisions.
Ron Garcia
Planning Associate
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
Jeff Anderson, AICP
Acting City Planner
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Resolution Rescinding Conditional Use Permit
Attachment 2 - Conditional Use Permit Resolution for Denial
Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 24, 2010
Attachment 4 – Planning Commission Minutes dated August 24, 2010
Attachment 5 – Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5384
Attachment 6 – Withdrawal of Appeal, September 15, 2010
Attachment 7 – Appeal Letter, September 2, 2010
Attachment 8 – Letter of Concern, Mr. And Mrs. Lungstrum, September 14, 2010
Attachment 9 - Letter of Concern, Mr. And Mrs. Venzor, September 14, 2010
Attachment 10 - Letters of Concern (Four Letters)
Exhibits Available Upon Request:
Exhibit A - Letters submitted by speakers, October 12,2010 Planning Commission Meeting
Exhibit B – Information submitted by speakers, October 12,2010 Planning Commission meeting
Exhibit C – Petitions submitted by speakers, October 12,2010 Planning Commission meeting
Exhibit D - Exhibits submitted by applicant, October 20, 2010