SU0006064 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To counter the claim that the tower would have a negative effect on property values,Mr. Smith presented anecdotal information about the value of properties in other areas where cell towers have been constructed. Smith explained that Ubiquitel did not look for property closer to Hwy 120 because such land was not developed and therefore not suitable for hosting the cell tower. After the Planning Commission's denial he sent letters to property owners along Hwy 120 and represented that he had not received any response from the land owners. He stated that discussions were held with Manteca Unified School District about construction of the tower on the proposed school site, immediately across the street from the proposed site. He stated that Ubiquitel concluded that the district's timeline for acquisition and development of the property take to long and therefore was also unacceptable. The Board of Supervisors discussed its responsibility to consider how current uses will fit with the future of the community and the impact the monopole would have on the City of Manteca's development plan and activities as Manteca grows toward the proposed site. The Board concluded that the project would impede and impact development. The Board also discussed that the stated goal of Ubiquitel was to increase its capacity so as to accommodate growth. The Board took note of the representation by Mr. Smith that Mr. Bill Filios had offered the use of industrial property under his control near Hwy 120,but that Mr. Smith had not been able to contact Mr. Filios. Opposition. Mr. Mike Atherton, Mr. Sandy Glouchester and Mr. Gary Brown spoke in opposition to the appeal. Mr. Atherton asserted that cells towers don't mix well with residential developments because of the aesthetics. Mr. Glouchester stated that he purchased his property as a long term investment and that when he met with the representatives from Ubiquitel they could not guarantee that the monopole would not have a negative impact on the value of his property. Gary Brown spoke for the Manteca Unified School District. He expressed his concern about interference with the school districts use of the unlicensed frequencies by future users. He also stated that many of the representations of Ubiquitel were inaccurate. He stated that the cell tower could be built on the school district property as soon as the district controls the property, which he expected to occur within six months. He also argued that the tower as proposed would impact the surrounding property owners and would constitute a visual blight. Mr. Smith indicated in rebuttal that the matter could be sent back to the Planning Commission to address aesthetic concerns. The Board discussed the fact that stealthing technologies, such as a flag pole or windmill, had not been considered for the pole. They 3