Loading...
12-07-2010 - Appeal HearingConditional Use Permit No. 10-10Appl - Item No 14 Attach 7 (2).docMINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF WEST COVINA Tuesday, October 26, 2010 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Sotelo in the West Covina Council Chambers. Commissioner Carrico led the Pledge of Allegiance and the Commission observed a moment of silence. ROLL CALL Present: Sotelo, Carrico, Redholtz, Stewart, Holtz Absent: None City Staff Present: Nichols, Anderson, Garcia, de Zara APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting, October 12, 2010 - The minutes were approved as submitted. A. OTHER MATTERS OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None B. CONSENT CALENDAR FORTHCOMING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE Receive and file. Acting Planning Director Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Stewart, to approve the items listed. Motion carried 5-0. C. PUBLIC HEARING (1) CONSIDERATION OF RESCISSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-10 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Mike Blackwell for Clearwire LOCATION: 1030 East Merced Avenue (Bethel Christian Fellowship) REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility. Three panel antennas and three parabolic antennas are proposed inside a monocross. Chairman Sotelo opened the public hearing. City Attorney Scott Nichols made a statement regarding the Federal Communications Act, which prohibits cities from denying wireless telecommunications facilities due to health concerns. Planning Associate Ron Garcia presented the staff report. During his presention, Mr. Garcia reviewed the matters discussed at the October 12, 2010 meeting. In addition, he told the Commission that the applicant had indicated that he was willing to redesign the facility to something that would be more harmonious with the neighborhood. PROPONENTS: Josh Davidson and Omar Nushaiwat, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Davidson said that Clearwire had spent a considerable sum of money for this project based on the approval granted on August 24, 2010. He also expressed his concern that Clearwire will not be able to fulfill their contractual obligations to provide service to residents in January 2011. Mr. Nushaiwat said that this site was an important part of their network and was necessary in order to provide consistent coverage in the area. He also said that without this site, the coverages would not be consistent or reliable. Mr. Nushaiwat also said that Clearwire would be willing to install a monopine, rather than the proposed monocross. Mr. Davidson and Mr. Nushaiwat also answered questions by the Commission regarding building this facility at another site, the strength of the signal from the facility, the height of the proposed monopine, the cost of the facility and the seismic safety of the tower. OPPONENTS: Kathy Andrews, Dana Sykes, Jiong Zhang, Fredrick Sykes, Ryan Grazer, Michele Cosner, Li Yun Xing, Saul Duarte, Adino Flores, Monica Herrera, Lloyd Johnson, Raul Lopez, Elva Almaro, Jesus Almaro, Benitez Family, Fernando Torres, Maria Alonzo, Blanca Venzor, Rosemary Torres, Albert Venzor, Catalina Ramos and Bess Fung spoke in opposition. During their testimony many of the opponents expressed their concern for the loss of property value, health and safety of residents and children attending the school on the subject site, size and height of the proposed monocross, loss of view, possible mental health issues because of the presence of the monocross in the neighborhood, inappropriatness of the facility in a residential neighborhood, inappropriateness of using the shape of a cross and loss of quality of life. Several of the opponents also said they were opposed to any type of cell tower in the area and urged the Commission to deny the project in any form. They expressed their agreement with the other opponents and added that Clearwire’s services were not needed in the area because they were satisfied with their internet service providers and cell phone service providers. In addition, some opponents urged the Commission to require a master plan for wireless facilities in the area and require new providers to collocate whenever possible, rather than building another cell tower site. Several of the opponents also said they would not subscribe to Clearwire service because Clearwire wasn’t concerned with their quality of life, they only wanted to make money at the residents’ expense. REBUTTAL: Mr. Davidson said that, after the project had been approved by the Planning Commission, an appeal to the City Council had been filed. Prior to the hearing before the City Council, the appeal had been withdrawn. He also said that the facility complies with all regulations. Commissioner Carrico asked if a collocation study had been done on this site. Mr. Davidson said that the collocation study had been submitted with the application. Commissioner Holtz asked the City Attorney for clarification on what concerns can be addressed under the Federal Communications Act. Mr. Davidson added that the facility would be locked and the school notified before they did any maintenace of the facility to help keep children safe. Chairman Sotelo closed the public hearing. City Attorney Scott Nichols said the Planning Commission would recess to closed session to consult with the City Attorney regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) (1). Motion by Carrico, seconded by Redholtz, to adjourn to a closed section. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned to closed session at 8:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. City Attorney Scott Nichols reported that potential litigation regarding the matter under consideration had been discussed with the Planning Commission, and no decision was made regarding this matter. The Planning Commission received and filed the report. There was a short discussion by the Commission regarding the testimony heard during the public hearing. During the discussion, the Commission considered the compatibility of the proposed facility with the surrounding neighborhood. There was also a dicussion by the Commission regarding the locations of other cell towers in the City and whether they should give consideration to the alternative monopine design. It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed wireless communication facility would not be harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Holtz, to adopt Resolution No. 10-5390, rescinding approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Holtz, to adopt Resolution No. 10-5391, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10. Motion carried 5-0. City Attorney Scott Nichols said that this action was final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days. D. NON HEARING ITEMS None E. CONTINUATION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Continuation of Item A, Oral Communications None F. COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Commissioner Holtz if the Commission could receive copies of all public hearing notices. Staff said this would be discussed in a study session scheduled for a future date. Commissioner Holtz asked for a status report on the development of the corner of Garvey Avenue and Hollenbeck Street. Staff said they will provide a memorandum regarding this matter. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: October 19, 2010 meeting: Code Amendment No. 09-04, Wireless Telecommuniations Ordinance, was introduced. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT: a. Subcommittee Minutes September 28, 2010 October 12, 2010 G. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Carrico, seconded by Redholtz, to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.