SU0006064 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

any other property owner willing to lease land for the monopole. He also stated that Ubiquitel attempted to collocate on a Metro PCS tower,but that the property owner did not want to give up additional space for the ground equipment. Ms. Faria further represented that when Ubiquitel was advised that there was opposition to the proposed site a meeting was held with the neighbors of the selected site and where they discussed lightening strikes, safety, and landscaping. Sean Colt, Gary Brown, Art Nichols,Bill Filios and Mike Atherton spoke against the application. Sean Colt and Gary Brown spoke on behalf of the Manteca School District stating that they are concerned that Ubiquitel could lease space on the tower to an entity that would interfere with the School District use of unlicensed frequencies. Art Nichols owns property adjacent to the site and stated that he is concerned about the impact on property values and the impact on future development in the immediate area. He also stated that the tower would be an eyesore, and it was better suited for an industrial site. Bill Filios and Mike Atherton also spoke against the application. Both are involved in the development of the adjacent properties and suggested that industrial/commercial property is available for the tower site. Commissioner Morn questioned whether the location was the least intrusive site or best site because of the planned development in the area. The Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote denied the application and determined that it could not make Finding No. 4, that the "issuance of the permit would not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to the property or improvements of adjacent properties." Appeal before the Board of Supervisors: Ubiquitel appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors. Ubiquitel contends on appeal that the Planning Commission erred in its denial of the Site Approval, in not supporting staff's recommendation and findings, including but not limited to, the Planning Commissions ability to make Finding No. 4. Appellant also stated that the Planning Commission's decision may have violated State and Federal laws including the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Appellants failed to specify, in its notice of appeal,which portions of the Act, if any,were violated. Steven Smith appeared on behalf of appellant Ubiquitel before the Board of Supervisors. He testified that the area surrounding the proposed site is underserved and that the tower would result in improvement in cell service in the area and along Hwy 120. Smith stated that after the Planning Commissions denial of the application he spoke with representatives of Manteca School District and confirmed that the school district was not concerned with the Sprint/Nextel frequencies which would be used on the tower,but was only concerned with future collocating users who might interfere with the school district's use of unlicensed frequencies. 2