12-07-2010 - Appeal HearingConditional Use Permit No. 10-10Appl - Item No 14 Attach 12 (2).pdfSeptember 15, 2010 City of West Covina ATTN: Jeff Anderson, Principal Planner 1444 West Garvey Avenue West Covina, CA 91790 7-ATTACHMENT 9 • Re: Approved Conditional Permit # 10-10 Applicant Mike Blackwell for Clearwire 1030 E. Merced Ave. West Covina, CA 91790 Mr. Anderson: As the property owner and operator of children's school at the above referenced address, we have reached an understanding with Clearwire as to the location of the equipment enclosure. In order to accommodate the necessary clearance of the existing fire hydrant and service gate, we have agreed that the enclosure should be moved to a location opposite of said hydrant. This will allow for greater access to the fire department should the need arise and not affect the licensing of our school We also understand and agree with the design of a cross for the tower to be located in the front of the property. Thank you for your understanding, Sayeed H. Arastu — Partner On behalf of the Firdosy Arastu Partnership, Property Owner RECEPIED SEP 1 5 2010 PLANNING DEPT.
September 2, 2010 City of West Covina ATTN: Jeff Anderson, Principal Planner 1444 West Garvey Avenue West Covina, CA 91790 ATTACHMENT 6 RECEIVED SEP -22010 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF WEST COVINA Re: Approved Conditional Permit # 10-10 Applicant Mike Blackwell for Clearvvire 1030 E. Merced Ave. West Covina, CA 91790 Mr. Anderson: As the property owner and operator of children's school at the above referenced address, we would like to formally appeal the conditions of approval pertaining to the 60-foot tall wireless communications tower. Although we are not opposed to the placement of such a tower on the property, we are opposed to both the approved design of the tower itself and the approved location of the equipment enclosure. We feel an alternative design such as a pine tree would be better suited for the area and would blend in better along Merced Avenue due to the presence of mature pine trees directly in front of the property. The approved enclosure placement in the rear of the property presents our business with a hardship as the placement of such would interfere with our play yard and ultimately effect our licensing with the State of California as well as possible interference with fire personal gaining access to the classrooms as a fire hydrant is located adjacent to the proposed enclosure. Furthermore, we feel that relocating the equipment enclosure to the front of the property at the base of the proposed tower would enhance the outward appearance of the property and have little impact on our children both during construction and after. T • f. you for yi understanding, Sayeed " 1— a - Partner On behalf of the Firdosy Arastu Partnership, Property Owner