HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Kim Elam - Appeal of UP17-0002 Good Afternoon Supervisor ,
My name is Kim Elam, I have lived and worked in Butte County, Oroville most of
my life. Butte County is my home and I love this community.
In my work as a business consultant, I analyze various aspects of business;
accounting, production, management, structure, process and policies for gaps or
weaknesses and recommend solutions and improvements. Having said that, I
have attended and participated in the Planning Commission meetings where
AT&T has presented regarding use permits under the "Connect America" grant. I
have been greatly troubled by the outcomes of these meetings. The decisions
that have been made are not aligned with our county's vision, guidelines and
regulations and demonstrate serious weakness in the strategic planning of our
county.
As you are aware, AT&T, under this grant, has begun the process of locating
properties and applying for use permits for cell/internet towers all throughout
Butte County. AT&T's purpose for the towers is primarily to provide "point to point
line of site" internet coverage to rural areas in accordance with the "Connect
America" grant thus requiring tower location on residential properties. Where as
the primary need of our County is to close the many cell phone coverage gaps in
our communities thus tower location is more flexible. Because our need is
immediate our Planning Department and Commissioners have strayed from our
County's vision as spelled out in the 2030 plan and the Supplemental Use
Regulations which state that we "encourage the location of new monopoles,
towers and antennas in non-residential areas, thereby discouraging the need for
such facilities in residential areas". Due to AT&T's "point of site" requirement
these use permits have been approved for construction on properties zoned
residential. But long term mitigation requirements that would make these towers
less intrusive to the neighborhoods where they are to be constructed were not
established. Just because we have an immediate need does not equate to
accepting whatever is offered.
When circumstances present that require going against our established vision,
guidelines and regulations then it is the responsibility and duty of the Planning
Department to implement rigorous vetting of the available choices and to
establish long-term mitigation requirements (see attached "Suggested Minimum
Mitigation") thus making these tough decisions more consistent, predictable and
balanced.
One of these use permit decisions UPI 7-0002 has been appealed and is on your
agenda January 23, 2018. 1 urge you to uphold the appeal so that this use
permit may be more rigorously vetted for location and so that appropriate long-
term mitigation requirements may be added.
Use permit#UP17-0002 (46 Manzanella Court) was first heard by the planning
commission on September 28, 2017, with the majority of property owners being
opposed to the proposed location, but not opposed to a more suitable location in
the area. In keeping with the regulations and guidelines, the Commissioners
voted to have AT&T and the Planning Department review a few of the agriculture
lands in the vicinity for possible tower placement and to revisit the use permit at
the next meeting, October 26, 2017. At the October meeting AT&T stated that
none of the three agriculture locations would meet their needs for internet
coverage due to the need for"point to point line of site". Based on this
information the Commissioners voted 3-2 in favor of granting the use permit.
I believe that had your Commissioners known that there were other residential
sites that would provide comparable coverage and would have less negative
impact to this neighborhood (alternate site #1, 901 Mission Olive) that they would
have voted differently, but AT&T did not provide that information. The
information that AT&T did provide (see Attached "Original AT&T Documentation")
indicated that alternate site#1, tower location just 500 feet to the west of the
proposed tower, "was not as close to the search ring center as the primary site;
and thus, would provide inferior coverage to the region desired." However, no
actual coverage data was provided. The proposed site is opposed by 80% of the
property owners nearest the site (see Attached "UP17-0002 Plot Map") whereas
alternate site#1 (901 Mission Olive) is only opposed by a single property owner,
the one listed on use permit#UP17-0002.
AT&T is leveraging Butte County's need to cover gaps in cell phone coverage to
its own business interest, and is doing the least amount of research, providing
the Planning Commission with minimal or partial facts and has "put a lot of
pressure" on your planning department (Planning Commission meeting
September 28, 2017 tape, UP17-0002 Part 1, location 1:02:10) to push these
tower locations through.
As representatives of this wonderful County you have the duty to deny the
approval of use permit#UP17-0002 and return it to the Planning Commission for
further vetting and to allow for long-term mitigation to be incorporated.
I am available to answer any questions via email, phone or in person.
Thank you for your time,
Add FIRW
5420 Old Olive Hwy.
Oroville, CA 95965
530-370-1317
kimelam7@gmaii.com
Suggested Minimum Mitigation - Cell/Internet Towers on Residential Land
1. That applicant to have discussions with residents to hear input for
identified locations.
2. Tower to be a Mono-Tree if not able to disguise with other landscape
features (see pictures below).
3. Enclosure to be visually screened with vegetation similar to the
neighborhood.
4. That access roads be returned to an equal or better condition post
construction and if these are private drives maintained by property owners
that there be shared up keep costs.
Mono-Tree Examples
✓
Side by Side Mono-Tree Towers-Ag land in Dixon, CA Mono-Tree-Oroville Hospital)
............
Mono-Tree Tower vs. Mono-Pole-Grapevine CA
f;
kd
CO
FN
Its '
R ;
p3 9
� y
" 4mi
C6 rna
" .
[ m , ,
Of locks
a(�
"M-910. One "
CKb rim. "� ''d7 � •x 'wC'.Y »�.: ,�,. l�r �i �� � � wN � ,ar, ,y, �^;
06
Ole
' TOM
AL
qy „�..,,
��1
r
iv
80
�— nis pow :f lqh
M
Cal
AXE, 77
fop I
r
I4 i�
W