HomeMy WebLinkAbout1751
.'
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 1751
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO ,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-
16 AND ARClllTECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 06-28
TO PERMIT SIX (6) ANTENNAE PANELS AND A 2'-0"
DIAMETER DISH ON THE EXISTING MONOPOLE FOR A
SECOND WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION CARRIER
AT 10 W. LIVE OAK A VENUE.
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2006, an ArchitecturalDesigrt Review followed
by a Conditional Use Permit on November 2, 2006, were filed by Metro PCS
Communication on behalf of the property owner Jeff Talbot, to permit six (6)
antennae panels and a 2'-0" diameter dish on the existing monopole for a
second wireless telecommunication carrier at 10 W. Live Oak Avenue.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of theCalifomia Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), and the
State's CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arcadia prepared an Initial Study and
determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 91-16 and Architectural Design
Review No. 06-28 would res,ult in a significant adverse effect on the
environment that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant;
1
.
accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of that fact
was given in the rnanner required by law; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
December 12, 2006, at which time all interested persons were given full
opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA RESOL YES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached report is true and correct.
. SECTION 2. This CommissioIl finds:
. 1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit and
Architectural Design Review would not be detrimental to the public health or
welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity
because the Initial Study did not disclose any substantial adverse effects to the
area affected by the proposed project.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper one for
which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized based on specific conditions of
approval relating to use and design.
.
2
.
.
.
3. That the site and existing monopole for the proposed project is
adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use. All yards, spaces,
loading, landscaping, parking, and other features are adequate to accommodate
the proposed project.
4. That the site street is adequate in width and pavement type to carry
the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit and Architectural
Design Review will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan
because the proposed project as conditioned is consistent with the Zoning and
General Plan land use designation of the project site.
6. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on
the environment, and that based upon the record as a whole there is no evidence
that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on
wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants the
Arnendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 91-16 and Architectural Design
Review No. 06-28 to permit six (6) antennae panels and a 2'-0" diameter dish
on the existing monopole for a second wireless telecommunication carrier at 10
W. Live Oak Avenue, upon the following conditions:
3
.
The proposed wireless communication facility including its colors and
materials shall be maintained in a manner that is consistent with the plans and
materials submitted and approved for Amendment to CUP No. 91-16 and ADR
No. 06-28.
Noncompliance with the plans, provisions, and conditions of approval for
Amendment to CUP No.9l-l6 and ADR No. 06-28 shall be grounds for
immediate suspension and/or revocation of any approvals.
Approval to Amendment to CUP No. 91-16 and ADR No. 06-28 shall not
take effect until the property owner(s), and applicants have executed and filed
. an Acceptance Form, available from the Development Services Department,
indicating awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval.
The applicant shall defend, indemnity, and hold harmless the City of
Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or
agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval
of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision,
including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City
Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within
.
4
.
.
.
.
the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other
provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly
notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project
and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the
matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own
attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense
of the matter.
SECTION 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this
Resolution reflect the Commission's action of December 12, 2006, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Baderian, Beranek, Hsu, parrille and Olson
None
None
SECTION 5.
The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the
City of Arcadia.
5
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
I HEREBY CERTIFY thatthe foregoing Resolution was adopted at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the Ith day of December
2006, by the following votes:
AYES:
Baderian, Beranek, Hsu, parrille and Olson
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
U I{ &)----
~
Chairman, Planning Commission
A TrEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~
~P.~
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
6