SU0006064 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

also discussed giving consideration to the Manteca's General Plan. On a unanimous vote the board of supervisors determined that it could not make finding No. 4 that"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." Law: 47 U.S.C. 332 (c)(7) (A)provides that except as contained in the act, there is no limit on the authority of a local government over decisions on the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. Congress intended that the traditional substantive prerogatives of local zoning authorities not be disturbed. MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County Of San Francisco and the Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 724. (9'h Cir. 2005) Ordinance Code of San Joaquin County("OCSJC") 9-105.3 states that the purpose of the development code is, in part,to encourage the most appropriate use of land and the harmonious relationship among land uses and to conserve the County's natural beauty, to improve its appearance, and to enhance its physical characteristics. Accordingly, aesthetics is a proper factor to consider when implementing the Development Title. OCSJC 9-821.6 requires a finding that issuance of a Site Approval will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to the property or improvements of adjacent properties. OCSJC 9-1065.4 sets standards for construction of new wireless communications facilities. They include a requirement that antennas and supporting equipment be sited, to the extent feasible (and permitted by State and Federal law), to minimize visual impacts. OCSJC 9-1065.5 provides that unless the applicant shows that it is not feasible, the facility shall be collocated on an existing wireless communication facility, structure, building, or publicly owned or controlled property. Analysis: Approval of a Site Approval requires a series of findings, including a finding that the requested use will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or be injurious to the property or improvements of adjacent properties. OCSJC 9-821.6(d). The minutes of the Planning Commission hearing reflect that the majority of the Planning Commission determined that the use would be detrimental to the public health, safety,welfare, or be injurious to the improvements of adjacent property. Sufficient evidence was presented to support a conclusion that the tower would have a negative impact on the adjoining property and aesthetically constitute an eyesore, that the antenna was not sited to minimize the visual impact, and that the building of the 4