12-07-2010 - Appeal HearingConditional Use Permit No. 10-10Appl - Item No 14 (2).docCity of West Covina
Memorandum
A G E N D A
ITEM NO. 14
DATE: December 7, 2010
TO: City Manager and City Council
FROM: Jeff Anderson
Acting Planning Director
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-10
1030 East Merced Avenue (Bethel Christian Fellowship Church)
Wireless Communication Facility
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Mike Blackwell/Josh Davidson for Clearwire
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision and deny the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10 and adopt the following resolution:
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
DISCUSSION:
On November 8, 2010, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision (Attachment 5). The appellant is requesting that the City Council reinstate Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10
and allow the monocross to be constructed.
The proposal consists of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 60-foot tall wireless telecommunication facility designed as a cross (monocross) in the landscape area
of an existing religious facility (Bethel Christian Fellowship). Three panel antennas and three parabolic antennas are proposed inside the monocross. The proposed monocross will be
located in the landscape area on the northeast side of the church property. A Montessori pre-school is located at the rear of the property. The property is owned by the operators
of the Montessori school.
The monocross is proposed in an area that is currently improved with a concrete slab located to the east of the church building. The cross member of the monocross would be 27 feet in
width and 43 feet in height. The pole of the monocross has a proposed diameter of 3.5 feet. The antennas would be placed inside of the pole and would be located above the cross member.
Although only one carrier is proposed pursuant to this application, the plans indicate that additional antennas could be installed inside the pole below the cross member. A 10 square
foot landscape area is proposed at the base of the monocross. The church site is surrounded by residential properties. The nearest residential property is separated from the monocross
by 113 feet as required by the Municipal Code. The nearest wireless telecommunication tower is located in Walmerado Park, a separation of 2,930 feet. The Code requires a minimum separation
of 2,640 feet. Equipment for the wireless facility would be located in an enclosure at the rear of the property on the easterly side of the parking lot. For more detailed information
on the project, the Planning Commission staff report of August 24, 2010, September 12, 2010, and September 26, 2010 are attached (Attachments 6, 8 and 15).
The proposed monocross is different in design than any previous wireless facility proposal. Staff discussed alternate designs with the applicant, including a monolithic tower with a
cross (such as the one existing at West Covina Methodist Church located at Azusa Avenue and Cameron Avenue) or a bell tower. It was staff’s concern that the proposed 60-foot tall monocross
was not in proportion to the approximately 25-foot tall church building. Staff recommended the monolithic tower design because the design would not be as noticeable as the proposed
monocross and would be more consistent with the design of the building. A monopine design was also discussed as a feasible alternative. The applicant’s preference was to move forward
with the monocross design and a public hearing before the Planning Commission was scheduled. The applicant has stated that Clearwire has an ambitious schedule and they are eager to
obtain
approval as soon as possible. At the Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 2010, the applicant also indicated that they were acceptable to a monopine design.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION:
On August 24, 2010, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 (Commissioner Stewart voting “no”) to approve the conditional use permit (Attachment 14). On September 2, 2010, the owner of the
subject property appealed the Planning Commission decision (Attachment 13). The owner did not speak at the Planning Commission hearing nor did anyone submit written comments to the
Planning Department raising any concerns. On September 15, 2010, staff received a letter from the property owner stating that they had worked out their differences and no longer had
a concern with the proposed monocross (Attachment 12). On September 21, 2010, the City Council referred the item back to the Planning Commission for further study and input by the
residents. On October 12, 2010, the Planning Commission voted (5-0) to continue 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. On October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
rescind approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10, and also to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10 (Attachments 3 and 4). In denying the proposal, the majority of the Commission
expressed the opinion that proposed monocross would not be harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES:
Deny the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10 upholding the Planning Commission decision rescind approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 10-01 and to deny the installation of a
wireless communications tower designed in the shape of a cross (monocross) (A resolution denying the appeal is included as Attachment 1).
Approve the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10 overturning the Planning Commission decision and approving the wireless communication tower (A resolution of approval of the appeal
is included as Attachment 2).
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed wireless facility would require a building permit and business license, both of which would generate fees for City.
______________________________ _______________________________________
Prepared by: Ron Garcia Reviewed/Approved by: Jeff Anderson
Planning Associate Acting Planning Director
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Draft Resolution Denying the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10
Attachment 2 - Draft Resolution for Approving the appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10
Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5391, denying CUP No. 10-10
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5390, rescinding CUP No. 10-10
Attachment 5 - Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, November 8, 2010
Attachment 6 - Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 26, 2010
Attachment 7 - Planning Commission Minutes dated October 26, 2010
Attachment 8 - Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 12, 2010
Attachment 9 - Planning Commission Minutes dated October 12, 2010
Attachment 10 - City Council Minutes dated September 21, 2010
Attachment 11 - City Council Staff Report dated September 21, 2010
Attachment 12 - Withdrawal of Appeal, September 15, 2010
Attachment 13 - Appeal Letter, September 2, 2010
Attachment 14 - Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-5384, approving CUP No. 10-10
Attachment 15 - Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 24, 2010
Attachment 16 - Planning Commission Minutes dated August 24, 2010
Exhibits Available Upon Request:
Exhibit A - Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, November 8, 2010
Exhibit B - Exhibits submitted by applicant, October 20, 2010
Exhibit C - Petitions submitted by speakers, October 12, 2010 Planning Commission meeting
Exhibit D - Information submitted by speakers, October 12, 2010 Planning Commission meeting
Exhibit E - Letters submitted by speakers, October 12, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting
Exhibit F - Letters of Concern, submitted September 14, 2010